Trump Election Rigging Situation is Worse Than You Think...
PDS Published 07/31/2025
-
Epstein updates script
So many of the details in the Epstein story are just not adding up, and now, the Democrats are hatching a plan to blow it wide open.
So let’s start with a few of those pesky details, first of all the apparent breakup between Trump and Epstein in 2004. [B roll, 01:45]
Because the exact reason for their split has been and still is a bit of a mystery. [Same B roll]
With some reports suggesting it had to do with a bitter real estate deal, others claiming it was because Epstein acted inappropriately toward the daughter of a member of Mar-a-Lago. [Quote, find “squaring” and “inappropriately”]
And this month, the White House has insisted that Trump cut ties with him because Epstein was a “creep.”
But on Monday, during his meeting with Keir Starmer, Trump himself offered a third explanation that seemed to contradict his own White House. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 01:05:35 - 01:05:45] Caption: “He stole people that worked for me. I said, ‘don’t ever do that again.’ He did it again. And I threw him out of the place, persona non grata.”
So after that, people were like, was he a creep, or did he poach your staff, and yesterday, a reporter pressed him for clarification. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 09:34 - 09:39, 09:48 - 09:58] Caption: [Reporter:] “So can you explain that discrepancy?” [Donald Trump:] “Well maybe they’re the same thing, you know? It’s sort of a little bit of the same thing.” … [Reporter:] “So is that what was meant by ‘being a creep?’” [Donald Trump:] “Who are you with?” [Reporter:] “Me?” [Donald Trump:] “Yeah.” [Reporter:] “I’m the travel pool but I’m with NBC News.” [Donald Trump:] “NBC. NBC fake news.”
But skeptics point out that when you combine that with comments like this …
[Clip, 16:20 - 16:23] Caption: “When they steal people, I don’t like it.”
… and this …
[Clip, 26:16 - 26:20] Caption: “The concept of taking people that work for me is bad.”
… and this …
[Clip, 26:46 - 26:51] Caption: “When I heard about it I told him, I said, ‘listen, we don’t want you taking our people.’”
… It sounds like Epstein’s transgression was that he violated Trump’s general rule against poaching employees, not that he raped underage girls or acted “creepy.”
Though when a reporter asked, he admitted that those employees fit a specific demographic. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 26:06 - 26:14, 26:22 - 26:24] Caption: [Reporter:] “Were some of them young women?” [Donald Trump:] “Well I don’t want to say, but everyone knows the people that were taken. … And the answer is yes.”
Then, when a reporter asked whether one of those women was Virginia Giuffre [Pronounce 00:43], the late Epstein survivor who alleged that Maxwell recruited her from Mar-a-Lago when she was a 16-year-old spa attendant there, at first he said …
[Clip, 27:09 - 27:11] Caption: “I don’t know.”
… but then just six seconds later, he said …
[Clip, 27:17 - 27:19] Caption: “He stole her.”
Which, as some have pointed out, seems to throw a wrench in his story.
Right, because Giuffre was reportedly poached from Mar-a-Lago in 2000, four years before Trump stopped talking to Epstein. [Quote, find “2000”]
And in 2002, Trump gave that now infamous quote to New York Magazine in which he called Epstein a “terrific guy” and said: [Quote]
“He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” [Same quote]
So that would seem to suggest that Trump knew about Epstein’s “creepy” tendencies and employee-poaching well before they split up.
And as the journalist Sarah Blaske [Blask-ee] reported, Epstein remained on Mar-a-Lago’s membership rolls until October 2007, roughly three years after the apparent breakup and over a year after Epstein was charged with sex crimes. [Quote, find “2007”]
So on this point, we’re left with more questions now than answers, but this isn’t the only thing people are talking about.
Part 2:
Because CBS News just published a thorough analysis of the Epstein jail footage that was released by the Department of Justice earlier this month, and there’s a lot to talk about. [B roll, 00:35]
Right, so first of all, the FBI said that anyone trying to enter the tier where Epstein’s cell was would have been caught by the camera. [Same B roll]
But as CBS points out, the pathway from the primary entrance of the common area to the stairs is completely obscured. [B roll, 03:14]
And when you see Epstein for the first and only time on camera being escorted to his cell at 07:49 p.m., you don’t actually see him ascend the stairs. [B roll, 02:36]
[Clip, 02:58 - 03:04]
Then, at 08:21, another inmate being escorted the same way can’t be seen climbing the stairs either. [B roll, 03:26]
And then, when a guard supposedly visited Epstein’s cell around 10:30, you can see her heading in that direction, but not going up the stairs. [B roll, 03:46]
Next, at 10:38, the camera does capture someone on the stairs, but it’s not clear exactly who. [B roll, 04:15]
Right, the DoJ’s inspector general report suggests it’s probably the same guard carrying a bundle of bedding or clothing. [Same B roll]
But several video forensics experts told CBS they’re skeptical of that and think it could actually be an inmate. [Same B roll]
And this detail is important, because according to the FBI, this was the last time anyone approached Epstein’s cell block before his body was discovered the next morning. [Same B roll]
And what’s more concerning, although authorities claimed that nobody could enter the special housing unit without one of the two guards there letting them in with a key, the video itself seems to disprove that.
Because at around 04:00 a.m., someone walked into the unit, apparently without the help of either guard. [B roll, 07:38]
Though regardless, at least a half dozen times one of the guards reportedly exits the frame in the direction of the door anyway. [B roll, 07:58]
And there’s a number of additional quirks with the footage that experts pointed out to CBS.
Such as that (1) a mouse cursor appears at one point, indicating that it’s actually not the raw file, but likely a screen recording. [B roll, 04:58]
(2) the video’s meta data suggest it’s actually two separate clips stitched together with editing software.
(3) the meta data also shows it was edited and saved multiple times.
And (4) at 11 hours and 59 minutes, the video skips one minute ahead to midnight, and the aspect ratio changes. [B roll, 06:00]
Now in regard to that missing minute, Attorney General Pam Bondi said it was an automatic nightly reset of the cameras, and she promised to release more footage showing that they in fact reset every night. [Same B roll, 06:27]
But not only has the White House still failed to provide that evidence now three weeks after that promise,
But also, a high-level government source tells CBS that the FBI and other agencies actually possess the full, unedited footage, and that there is no missing minute in it. [Quote, find “full unedited”]
Now the inspector general report mentions a second functioning camera, so CBS figured that could at least corroborate the nightly reset claim, but when they asked about it, the response was textbook Kafka.
[Clip, 09:22 - 09:30] Caption: “We reached out to the Department of Justice to see about obtaining that footage. They referred us to the FBI, who referred us back to the Department of Justice.”
Part 3:
But if they’re not gonna hand over the footage, let alone the files, willingly, Congress just might force them to.
And no, House Speaker Mike Johnson didn’t have a change of heart; he’s still blocking the resolution from Thomas Massie and others.
Rather, the Democrats have discovered a little trick that may let them bypass the Republican majority.
Right, you see, there’s a rarely invoked law from 1928 that compels an executive branch agency to hand over requested information when it’s requested by at least five members of the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. [Quote, find “five members”]
And it just so happens that there are seven Democrats on that committee.
So today, all of them, along with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, sent a letter to the DoJ demanding the “full and complete Epstein files.” Quote same link]
With them requesting the files by August 15, and saying: [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:50 - 01:02] Caption: “Our request covers all documents, files, evidence and other materials in possession of the DoJ, the FBI, related to the case of United States vs. Jeffrey Epstein.”
[Clip, 02:21 - 02:29, 03:24 - 03:32] Caption: “Every single time Donald Trump or his administration or Republican leaders have had a chance to be transparent about the Epstein files, they have chosen to hide. … Donald Trump should stop hiding from the truth. He should stop hiding from the American people.”
Now to caveat, this five-member rule hasn’t faced significant tests in the courts, so it’s unclear whether it’s actually enforceable. [Quote, find “test”]
But still, this is a bold move from Schumer.
Because recently he’s demanded a closed-door briefing between the White House and Senate on the Epstein files, and he’s called for the FBI to conduct a counterintelligence threat assessment related to the files, but now he’s actually doing something with some teeth.
And what’s more, if this move provokes a legal battle with the White House, then that’ll force Senate Republicans to choose between backing Trump and protecting their own power of Congressional oversight.
Though I should note that any legal case could take years, and might end up before the Supreme Court.
-
Texas officially unveils its new congressional map that many feel is gerrymandered to follow demands to get “5 new seats” for Republicans. Newsom promised if Texas goes through with it California will follow, update to Lili’s story from last week
Texas just unveiled a new gerrymandered map that would get Republicans five more seats in a move that is a blatant attempt to follow the demands of President Trump.
Right, we recently covered how Trump talked about needing Republicans to secure more seats.
And instead of trying to convince voters he wanted states like Texas to “find” up to five more seats by the midterms.
That request is already inappropriate, but extra unusual because new congressional maps weren’t even supposed to be made for a few years.
Regardless, Texas lawmakers obliged and this proposed version would siphon a Democrat-heavy seat in the Austin, Dallas, and Houston metro areas alongside districts in South Texas.
And this isn’t a “soft” gerrymander where the newly proposed districts will be kinda close.
Instead they are likely to give Republicans comfortable ten point leads all over the place.
Making matters worse is that Democrats likely have little recourse in the state Legislature to stop this considering Republicans have 25 out of 38 seats.
Instead they’re threatening to leave the state -- denying a quorum and preventing sessions from being held.
And, of course, they’ve been bashing the plan with accusations that the new districts are racist, which is important because there are clear laws and Supreme Court precedent that block districts from being dictated by race.
And looking at the numbers, the new districts would largely make districts focused around race and heavily expand how many are white, hispanic, and black majorities.[]
Another massive criticism is that no Republican incumbent is going to have their district redrawn in a way that makes it competitive.[]
We also saw Texas Representative like Greg Casar saying:
“If Trump is allowed to rip the Voting Rights Act to shreds here in Central Texas, his ploy will spread like wildfire across the country.”
“Everyone who cares about our democracy must mobilize against this illegal map.”
And he’s not wrong, we talked about California Gov. Gavin Newsom threatened a similar move if Texas went through with such extreme gerrymandering
He also responded to this new map, saying:
“Donald Trump asks for 5 seats and Greg Abbott automatically bends the knee. The 2026 election is being rigged. California won’t sit back and watch this happen.” []
He also said:
“It’s loyalty over country every damn day for the @GOP” in reference to how much they seemingly bend over backwards for Trump. []
Now, to be fair, this is unlikely to be the final version and revisions will likely be made before Governor Gregg Abbott signs anything.
But it’s a clear sign about just how far many Republican lawmakers are willing to go if Trump says it needs to be done.
New Customers can get 15% OFF at Huel using code PHIL at Huel! (With minimum $75 purchase).
-
Cincinnati fight script
At any point in the past week, you may have seen this viral video of a shockingly vicious beatdown.
With this starting at around 3 a.m. Saturday in downtown Cincinnati, where dozens of people crowded into the street.
Where, in multiple videos, you see a group hitting and kicking a man to the ground, then continuing to pummel him as he lies there.
With him at one point trying to stand up after the attack subsides, but immediately he falls down again.
Then, later on, we see a woman grabbing at another woman who was checking on the fallen man.
But then another man apparently punches the first woman, knocking her over and causing her head to slam down onto the concrete.
With the video then ending as bystanders try to move the woman, who’s apparently unconscious with blood streaming from her mouth.
Now as for why all that happened, at the time we had pretty much no idea.
Right, the videos going around had no context, and police only said it started with a “verbal altercation.”
But if you stumbled onto this the same way millions of people did — by seeing posts from right-wing influencers — you would’ve gotten a much different impression.
Because right off the bat, the account End Wokeness posted the footage with the caption:
“A white couple was brutaIIy beaten at a jazz festival by a black "teen mob" in Cincinnati yesterday.” [Post]
Which was then reposted by Ohio Senator Bernie Moreno, who accused Cincinnati’s mayor of failing to keep the city safe. [Post]
Then that was reposted by Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for the DoJ’s Civil Rights Division, who commented:
“Our federal hate crimes laws apply to ALL Americans. … Nobody in our great nation should be the victim of such a crime, and where race is a motivation, federal law may apply.” [Post]
Meanwhile, you had Libs of TikTok framing the video as “White couple brutally beat by black mob,” and suggesting you probably won’t see it in the mainstream media. [Post]
With Elon Musk then sharing that to his over 200 million followers, commenting, “That guy almost killed this woman. Aggravated assault.” [Post]
Then, when End Wokeness accused mainstream media outlets of ignoring the story, mecha-Hitler Grok opined about why in the replies. [Post]
Saying, “The Cincinnati assault highlights a grim reality: FBI data (e.g., 2019 UCR) shows Black Americans, 13% of the population, account for ~52% of murder arrests. Media blackout on this story? Telling. We need real solutions, not silence.” [Post]
With Musk sharing the End Wokeness post and adding, “Why zero stories?” To which prompted Grok to once again gave its opinion. [Post]
Saying, “Mainstream media often ignores stories like this brutal mob assault on a white couple, as it doesn't fit narratives prioritizing certain racial dynamics.” [Post]
And then finally, vice president JD Vance, whose half brother is running for Cincinnati mayor, commented on all this, though he didn’t explicitly take the racial angle.
[Clip]
But then on Monday, the Cincinnati Police Chief shot back at the way the incident was instantly politicized. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 05:49 - 05:55, 06:27 - 06:41] Caption: “Social media, the posts that we’ve seen does not depict the entire incident. … Cause what happens, that social media post and your coverage of it distorts the content of what actually happened, and it makes our job more difficult.”
With her also giving another little nugget of context for the fight.
[Clip, 04:01 - 04:08] Caption: “It is clear to us that alcohol played a part, a significant part, in this incident.”
And she defended the law enforcement response, saying that officers were stuck in dense traffic but still got there six minutes after the first 911 call. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 01:41 - 01:45] Caption: “That response time is completely acceptable.”
Meanwhile, the police have reportedly charged five people involved in the fight, and three of them appeared in court yesterday. [Image]
With police alleging that the trio coordinated the brawl and deliberately ambushed the victims.
Saying that in video, one of them whispered into the ear of another just before they started the attack.
But attorneys for at least two of the suspects claim it was actually self-defense, that they were struck first after the supposed victim kicked their car.
[Clip, 00:59 - 01:12] Caption: “He confronts the guy and said, ‘what are you doing?’ That’s when, and this clip does exist on social media — it doesn’t fit the whole picture — this white individual reaches over, says, ‘That’s your car?’ and slaps my client in the face.”
And you had the mother of the defendant facing the most serious charges telling WLWT this about her son:
[Clip, 02:03 - 02:08] Caption: “I wanna make it, put it out there, he’s not a racist. He has a biracial child.”
But others were less polite in their defense of the suspects.
With Cincinnati Councilwoman Victoria Parks provoking a storm of outrage when she replied to the fight video on Facebook: [Image]
“They begged for that beat down! I am grateful for the whole story.” [Image]
So several of her fellow councilmembers condemning her comment, saying elected officials should never condone violence.
With the city’s police union president telling Fox News:
“It’s unconscionable that an elected official would be celebrating violence in the very city she was voted to serve.”
And a GOP State Representative Phil Plummer also saying that Parks “must resign immediately!” And adding, “Defending violent criminals who viciously beat innocent people is disgusting.” [Post]
But when WLWT reached out to Parks, not only did she confirm the post was hers, she also stood by it. [Quote, find “stands by”]
But there’s also been another response to all this that’s focused more on the fact that what should’ve just been a regrettable incident that put people in the hospital became a political football in the national culture war.
With an op-ed in the Columbus Dispatch writing:
“Our Republican leaders' and possible future governor's collective outrage against it is ‘smart’ but divisive politics that builds on a long tradition of freaking White people out about the scary Black uprising overtaking larger American cities.” [Quote]
And pointing out that whereas nobody lost their life in this brawl, gun violence claims hundreds every year, including a mass shooting at a Columbus house party this month. [Quote same link, find “mass shooting”]
So the piece asks, “Why push for policies that improve the lives of Ohioans when you can race-bait and shake your finger at political opponents at the same time?” [Quote same link]
With it finishing by arguing that this isn’t strictly a Democrat or Republican issue. [Quote same link, find “easy target”]
Right, saying crime is an issue Ohio’s Democratic mayors have to address, but so do its Republican governor and JD Vance himself, who represented the state in Congress and now serves in the White House.
And in fact, yesterday the governor and Cincinnati’s mayor announced that state highway patrol would work with city police on traffic enforcement, freeing them up to address other crimes. [Headline]
So that’s where this story stands right now, there’s a lot of moving parts here, but with everything we’ve heard, I’d love to hear y’all’s reactions.
-
Senate committee approves legislation barring Congressional stock trading after Republican makes change to ensure key measure doesn’t apply to Trump
A bill to ban the president, vice president, and members of Congress from trading stocks just cleared a key hurdle in the Senate.
But the version that passed? A key part of it wouldn’t actually apply to Donald Trump.
Now with that, this wasn’t a full vote – it was just the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
But notably, every Democrat on the committee supported the legislation.
And every Republican? They oppose it.
That is, except for Josh Hawley – who actually sponsored the bill but also made the change to make sure it wouldn’t apply to Trump.
Right, his original proposal would have required Trump and Vance to sell off investments starting in 2027 – when they would still be in office.
But with the version that actually got approved, that requirement wouldn’t kick in until the start of an elected official’s next term — meaning it would never apply to them. []
And you actually had Rand Paul, the chair of the committee, making that the main point of his argument against the bill, saying:
“The substitute protects Donald Trump; the original bill does not protect Donald Trump.”
“I hope everyone will think about that. I would oppose the substitute change because I think it should apply to everybody or nobody.” []
Although, notably there, another Republican, Rick Scott? He actually tried to get Trump fully exempted from the stock-trading ban.
And he also tried to add language requiring a report on trades by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her family. []
While Ron Johnson argued the bill would “make it very unattractive for people to step up to the plate and run for office.”
Also claiming that since insider trading is already illegal, the proposal was a “completely unnecessary piece of legislation.” []
Of course, most Americans don’t feel that way.
Right, more than 80 percent of voters support banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks, according to public polling. []
And so you had Democrats arguing that the issue was so important they were willing to vote for a version that partially exempts Trump.
With Elissa Slotkin saying:
“The American people think that all of us, Democrats and Republicans, are using our positions and our access to enrich ourselves.”
“People don’t believe that we are here for the right reasons.”
“You gotta start somewhere.”
“I’ll take what I can get.” []
Though, with that, of course, this is kind of an area where there’s opportunity for bipartisanship.
Right, both Democrats and Republicans have made money trading stocks, helping fuel a push for new rules against it from both sides of the aisle – with the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supporting it but also people like far-right Republican Chip Roy.
As far as Trump?
He has suggested in the past he’d signed a bill if it ended up on his desk, but with this Committee vote, you just had him attacking Hawley, writing on social media, for example:
“I don’t think real Republicans want to see their President, who has had unprecedented success, TARGETED, because of the ‘whims’ of a second-tier Senator named Josh Hawley!” []
But ultimately, it’s still an open question whether this even comes to a full vote before the Senate, and from there, of course, it doesn’t get any easier, so we’ll have to wait and see what happens.
But I’d love to know your thoughts on this topic.
-
Trump announces last-minute trade deals and issues new tariff threats ahead of August 1st deadline
Donald Trump is continuing to take a wrecking ball to global trade – and the court system is still trying to figure out if he even has the power.
Right, we’re just one day away from Trump’s latest tariff deadline, and as the White House has been scrambling to make some last-minute deals?
A panel of judges has been hearing arguments that many of his tariffs – including those imposed as part of these last-minute deals– are illegal.
Right, to quickly recap how we got here, back in April, Trump rolled out a sweeping 10% tariff on nearly all U.S. trading partners –
With him also announcing what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on certain nations that went as high as 50 percent.
He then put a 90-day pause on most of the tariff hikes – just keeping the 10% baseline rate in place.
With him claiming the US would use that time to get better trade deals – his administration even saying at one point that he would make “90 deals in 90 days.”
But those 90 days came and went and wouldn’t you know only two deals were made —
One with the U.K. keeping tariffs at 10 percent and one with Vietnam setting the rate at 20 percent.
So you then had Trump basically pushing back the deadline to August 1st, which is tomorrow.
And in that time, he’s only announced a few more deals – with Indonesia, the Philippines, and Japan last week; with the 27-member European Union earlier this week; and with South Korea yesterday.
And notably, he hasn’t reached a deal with Mexico, the US’s largest trading partner, but he has announced today another 90-day extension for talks.
He also hasn’t made a deal with Canada, which is the second-largest trading partner, and he hasn’t hinted at an extension either.
With him saying it would be very hard to make a deal now that the country said it might recognize a Palestinian state.
But in any case, a key thing with all this, no one is talking their way out of tariffs entirely.
Right, in the case of the EU, for example, the tariff rate will be 15 percent – which is a lot less than the 30 percent Trump threatened previously but is still pretty frickin’ high.
And beyond that, the bloc has reportedly agreed to buy $750 billion of energy products from the U.S. and invest an additional $600 billion in the country. []
And we see something similar with the latest deal with South Korea, for example, which is also getting hit with 15 percent tariffs – down from 25 percent previously threatened.
With Trump claiming the country “will give to the United States $350 Billion Dollars for Investments owned and controlled by the United States” and saying these investments will be selected by him.
As well as claiming that South Korea “will purchase $100 Billion Dollars of LNG, or other Energy products” from the US. []
But beyond that, as you may have guessed, details about how exactly this would all work are sparse.
Right, we’re actually getting some more information from the South Korean side, with the president there saying that the 350 billion his country has promised to invest in the US, 150 will go into helping build ships, including warships.
Which is notable because South Korea actually builds more vessels than any other country in the world except for China, while US shipbuilding and the country’s navy is said to be in decline. []
Of course, on the other side of all that, there’s concern about the potential for this to raise prices in the US.
Right, just talking about South Korea, it’s actually the seventh biggest importer of goods to the US – shipping $132 billion worth of goods to the US just last year according to the Department of Commerce.
And in addition to cars and car parts, semiconductors and electronics were among the top goods Americans bought from there. []
And according to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, none of these goods are exempt – with him just saying South Korea “wouldn’t be treated any worse than any other country on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals.”
And also adding that “Steel, aluminum, and copper are not included” in the new deal “and remain unchanged.”[]
And with that, he’s talking about the separate 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminium that have been in effect since June, as well as the 50% taxes on copper imports that Trump is putting in place with an executive order signed Wednesday.
Right, along with that, he also signed an order ending in the so-called “de minimis exemption” – which allowed goods worth less than $800 to enter the country duty-free and without the need for detailed customs paperwork.
Trump actually ended the exemption for imports from China back in May but now, starting August 29th, it will be gone for goods coming from anywhere – seemingly seeking to ensure there's absolutely no way of getting around all the new tariffs.
And with that, there are more we haven’t talked about yet.
Right, this week, we also saw Trump announcing a 25% tariff on goods from India – further claiming there’d be an additional import tax because of India’s purchasing of Russian oil.
And then, we saw him stepping it up against Brazil as well.
Right, you may remember, he threatened 50% tariffs on Brazil earlier this month while accusing the country of orchestrating a witch hunt against Jair Bolsonaro –
He’s the former president accused of plotting to poison his successor, shoot dead the Supreme Court justice investigating him, and reinstall himself as the country’s leader.
And now, Trump has officially signed an executive order to implement the tariff increase– with the US also announcing sanctions against that Supreme Court Justice I mentioned.
But in that executive order, Trump cites something called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. []
With him claiming there’s a national emergency in the US because of Brazil’s handling of US tech and social media companies – as well as its prosecution of Bolsonaro. []
And this law? It’s the same law that Trump has invoked to impose many of his tariffs – declaring a national emergency over the “large and persistent” U.S. trade deficit.
Before he took office, no president had ever invoked the law to impose tariffs on other nations.
And generally, it is Congress, not the president, that has the power to impose tariffs, except in limited cases.
And so in May, a federal trade court actually ruled that Trump doesn’t have “unbounded” powers to impose duties as he saw fit.
But the Justice Department quickly appealed and got a temporary halt to the mandate, allowing the president’s tariffs to remain in place.
But now a federal appeals court has taken up the case, hearing oral arguments today, and whatever they decide?
It could potentially strike down the tariffs, including those that are part of these trade deals.
Though, notably, many tariffs would still remain in place, and there’s the possibility that some could be reinstated using other mechanisms.
But we’ll have to wait and see where this goes, because it could just throw another loop in this whole ridiculous roller coaster we’ve been on for what seems like so long now.
-
Ukraine mass protest forces Zelensky and his party to restore anti-corruption laws that the EU claimed were necessary for admission after the government had initially de-fanged the rules in a widely criticized move.
ALT INTRO: Seven days of protests, international backlash, and a quick political U-turn—Ukraine’s president just reversed a move critics called a power grab.
In what some are calling an unforced error, Ukrainian President Zelensky had to bow to public pressure and reverse changes to anti-corruption laws after days of mass protests. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Cutting straight to the controversial part:
Last week, lawmakers snuck a bunch of amendments into anti-corruption laws and placed the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s office under the supervision of the national attorney general. []
That man is an ally of Zelensky, but it would have been controversial regardless of who was in charge.
Those agencies are supposed to be outside of the normal government in order to watch over them.
And by placing them under the control of an office that the president indirectly controls, it opens the door for corruption if the politically-appointed Attorney General can just kill cases. []
Zelensky tried to claim that the two agencies were filled with Russian influence and that the change was needed to get rid of it, but to say people were skeptical of that claim is an understatement.
Especially because the agencies were starting to look into Zelensky allies and slap them with charges and the timing felt just too close.
So over the past week, Ukraine has seen the largest protests since the war with Russia began.
Many felt the changes were a betrayal of the democratic pushes Zelensky has tried to make since taking office.
Although in many ways, Zelensky is almost paradoxical when it comes to this.
On the one hand he has tried to push serious, democratic reforms, but on the other he claims that the pressure of the war with Russia means martial law has to stay in place.
And that’s something that concentrates a lot of power in his office.
Even outside of Ukraine, there was widespread criticism and in particular, the European Union was not happy to hear about the change.
They warned that the law could jeopardize Ukraine’s plan to join the union, which tries to curb corruption and requires robust laws to prevent it.
(I’m sure EU citizens will tell us otherwise, but who is ever actually happy about their government?)
Not to mention that Ukraine has a long history of corruption even above the norm for former-Soviet states.
Right, over there, small things like bribes at the DMV, etc. are hardly viewed as “corruption” and more just ways to grease the cogs of government.
But even with that being the norm, the public’s perception of corruption there was high and was a prime factor in the 2014 protests that ousted Russian puppets in the government… all of which led to the war with Russia for the past 11 years. []
Either way, Zelensky and his party were also quick to reverse course and in a matter of a few days, dozens of lawmakers who had voted for the changes did a 180 and Zelensky quickly signed it this morning.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen praised the move, saying:
“Restoring [the anti-corruption agencies’] independence is a welcome step. Ukraine’s rule of law and anti-corruption reforms should continue. They remain essential for Ukraine’s progress on the European path.” []
Other key EU officials -- like the person in charge of making the bloc bigger, warned that, “Today’s law. restores key safeguards, but challenges remain.” []
Stepping back, it’s one of the few internal crises Zelesnky has faced since taking office; however, it could also be a massive, unforced error with both internal opponents and allies.
Right, supporters now feel some level of trust has been broken while critics claim he’s just as corrupt as any other Ukrainian politician and this is proof.
So we’ll have to keep an eye on it, but it’s interesting to see a country where an unpopular law is passed and then so quickly reversed.
Like as an American could you imagine a law being passed and then the party that backed it actually backing down?
Download the FREE Upside App at Upside to get an extra 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas.
Use code “PHIL” for $20 OFF your first SeatGeek order & returning buyers use code “PDS” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes! SeatGeek.
:quality(75)/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/005ea3af453ce52de4b100d9366641df/Redistrict%20Graphic%203x2.jpg){kind=link}
:quality(70)/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/0dd59a5a1a3bf9a1cc750e6d4146ea00/REP%20HUNTER%20STWD%20CONGRESS%20PROPOSAL%2089%201%20HB4-INTRO.jpg){kind=link}
