We provide discount on tablets under government tablet program. If you too are someone who is looking to avail these benefits then check it now.
Day: September 29, 2025
GEICO Insurance Review GEICO is a good insurance company that is rated 3.8/5 by WalletHub’s editors, based on insurance quotes, customer reviews, and ratings from organizations such J.D. Power and the NAIC. GEICO’s reviews from customers are good overall, though some common complaints are auto insurance rate increases and slow claim response times GEICO Insurance Ratings Reviews on …
Lewis Hamilton’s bulldog Roscoe passed away on the evening of 28 September 2025.
The post Lewis Hamilton Pays Heartfelt Tribute to dog Roscoe: ‘Will Cherish the Memories’ first appeared on Trump News – trump-news.org.
Conversations with the Gemini
8:14 AM 9/29/2025
Topics
Trump, Comey, and the Ham Sandwich
Trump, Comey: Institutions Under Pressure
Syria, 9/11, and Conspiracy Theories
CIA-Mossad: A Complex Intelligence Alliance
Russia’s Future After Defeat
Russia’s Mongol-Tatar Echoes
Attack on Grand Blanc Township Church Leaves Community in Shock
GRAND BLANC TOWNSHIP, Mich. – A tranquil Sunday morning service was shattered on September 28, 2025, when a man rammed his vehicle into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Grand Blanc Township, subsequently opening fire on the congregation and setting the building ablaze.
The incident began around 10:25 a.m. at the church located on McCandlish Road.
Law enforcement officers responded to the scene within minutes and engaged in a shootout with Sanford, who was ultimately neutralized.
The aftermath of the attack was a scene of devastation, with the church building severely damaged by the fire.
The Grand Blanc community has been left reeling by the tragedy. Vigils and prayer services were held to honor the victims and support those affected by the violence. Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expressed their profound sorrow and offered condolences to the families of the victims.
Investigations into the attack are ongoing as law enforcement officials work to piece together the events that led to this senseless act of violence.
–
Comey Indicted: A Legal Proverb and a Political Grudge Match
The recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey has brought a long-simmering feud with President Donald Trump to a boil, simultaneously resurrecting a classic legal adage about the ease of securing an indictment—the proverbial “ham and cheese sandwich.”
On Thursday, September 25, 2025, a federal grand jury indicted James Comey on charges of making a false statement to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.
The indictment has once again highlighted the vast difference between an indictment and a conviction, a distinction famously captured by the legal aphorism that a grand jury would “indict a ham sandwich” if a prosecutor asked them to. This phrase, attributed to former New York Chief Judge Sol Wachtler in 1985, underscores the relatively low bar for securing an indictment.
An indictment is a formal accusation by a grand jury that there is enough evidence to justify a trial. The grand jury’s role is not to determine guilt or innocence but merely to decide if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. The proceedings are conducted in secret and are largely controlled by the prosecution, with the defense having little to no opportunity to present its case.
A conviction, on the other hand, is a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by a petit jury after a full public trial. This requires a much higher standard of proof and involves the presentation of evidence and arguments from both the prosecution and the defense, the cross-examination of witnesses, and the unanimous agreement of the jurors.
The “ham and cheese sandwich” analogy, therefore, serves as a cynical but often accurate commentary on the power of prosecutors in the grand jury process. It suggests that securing an indictment is more a reflection of the prosecutor’s will than the strength of the evidence.
In the context of the Trump-Comey saga, the indictment of Comey can be seen through this lens. Supporters of the former FBI Director and critics of the current administration will likely argue that the indictment is politically motivated, a fulfillment of a long-stated desire by President Donald Trump to see his perceived political enemies prosecuted. They may view it as a prime example of a prosecutor leading a grand jury to indict a figurative “ham and cheese sandwich.”
Conversely, those who have long criticized Comey’s actions, particularly his public statements regarding the Hillary Clinton email investigation and his role in the early stages of the Russia probe, may see the indictment as a necessary step toward accountability. For them, the indictment represents a legitimate finding of probable cause that a crime was committed.
The legal battle to come will ultimately determine whether the indictment of James Comey is a precursor to a conviction or simply a political act that proves the “ham sandwich” proverb true once more. The trial will move beyond the one-sided presentation of a grand jury and into the adversarial arena of a courtroom, where the much higher burden of proof will be required to turn an indictment into a conviction.
–
Trump vs. Comey: A Nation’s Institutions Under Pressure
The long and tumultuous feud between President Donald Trump and former FBI Director James Comey has reached a critical juncture with the recent indictment of Comey.
Legal Analysis: A Case Fraught with Political Overtones
The indictment charges James Comey with making a false statement and obstructing a congressional proceeding.
The indictment itself has been described as unusually thin, and reports indicate that the grand jury’s decision was not unanimous. Furthermore, the resignation of the previous U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who reportedly had reservations about bringing charges, has fueled speculation that the prosecution is politically motivated.
Comey’s defense is expected to argue that the prosecution is a vindictive act of political retribution orchestrated by the Trump administration. His legal team will likely highlight the former President’s long history of publicly attacking Comey and calling for his prosecution. To secure a conviction, the government faces the high legal burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Comey knowingly and willfully intended to mislead Congress. Legal analysts suggest that proving such intent, particularly in the context of complex and nuanced testimony, will be a significant challenge.
The very act of prosecuting a former FBI director for his testimony before Congress is unprecedented and sets a dangerous precedent, potentially chilling future testimony from government officials.
Political and Social Significance: Erosion of Trust and Deepening Divides
The Trump-Comey saga has had a corrosive effect on public trust in key governmental institutions. The constant attacks on the integrity of the FBI and the Department of Justice have politicized these institutions in the public eye, with perceptions of their actions often filtered through a partisan lens.
The conflict has also served as a powerful engine of partisan polarization.
The affair has also fundamentally altered the relationship between the presidency and federal law enforcement. The long-standing norm of a degree of independence for the FBI and the DOJ has been shattered, replaced by an expectation of personal loyalty to the president.
Predictions: A Trajectory of Retaliation and Uncertainty
The indictment of James Comey has opened a new and perilous chapter in American politics, with several potential long-term consequences:
-
A Cycle of Political Prosecutions: The move against Comey could normalize the use of the legal system to settle political scores. Future administrations may feel empowered to launch investigations and prosecutions of their predecessors and political opponents, leading to a dangerous cycle of retaliatory justice that would further destabilize the political landscape.
-
Further Erosion of Institutional Norms: The willingness to disregard established norms of prosecutorial independence sets a precedent that will be difficult to reverse. Future presidents may feel less constrained in their efforts to influence the justice system, further blurring the lines between politics and law.
-
Deepening Political Paralysis: The hyper-partisan environment fueled by the Trump-Comey conflict is likely to intensify, making bipartisan cooperation on even the most pressing national issues increasingly difficult. The political discourse may become even more toxic and dominated by accusations of bad faith and criminality.
-
Uncertain Legal and Political Outcomes: The ultimate outcome of the legal case against James Comey remains uncertain. An acquittal could be seen as a rebuke of the Trump administration’s actions and could embolden critics. A conviction, on the other hand, would be a seismic event, further inflaming partisan tensions and raising fundamental questions about the fairness of the justice system.
In conclusion, the confrontation between Donald Trump and James Comey has transcended a personal feud to become a critical stress test for American democracy. The ongoing legal battle and its political fallout will have lasting implications for the rule of law, the integrity of governmental institutions, and the very nature of political discourse in the United States for years to come.
–
Flawed Premise: Syrian Power Shift and 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Recent events in Syria, including the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime and the rise of Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), have been co-opted by a baseless conspiracy theory alleging Israeli orchestration and a cover-up of the “truth” about 9/11. This narrative is unsupported by credible evidence and misrepresents the complex realities of the Syrian conflict and the established facts of the September 11th attacks.
The Unfounded Claim of Israeli Intervention
There is no factual basis for the assertion that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu engineered the change in power in Damascus. Israel’s involvement in the Syrian civil war has been primarily characterized by airstrikes targeting Iranian and Hezbollah assets, not direct intervention in the internal conflict to install a specific leader.
Understanding Abu Mohammad al-Jolani and HTS
Abu Mohammad al-Jolani’s history is complex and cannot be reduced to a simple “Al Qaeda leader” label.
The Established Facts of 9/11
The claim that these events in Syria somehow prove that al-Qaeda is a “myth” constructed to conceal the “truth” about 9/11 is a significant leap in logic that ignores a mountain of evidence. The consensus of the international intelligence community, exhaustive investigations such as the 9/11 Commission Report, and a wealth of declassified documents firmly establish that the September 11, 2001 attacks were planned and executed by al-Qaeda, an organization founded by Osama bin Laden. This conclusion is based on intercepted communications, financial records, and the testimony of captured al-Qaeda members.
The attempt to link the recent power shift in Syria to a long-disproven 9/11 conspiracy theory is a form of misinformation that relies on speculation and a disregard for factual evidence. The events in Syria are the culmination of a decade-long civil war with its own intricate dynamics, and they do not alter the established historical record of the 9/11 attacks.
–
A Bond Forged in Secrecy: The Complex Dance of the CIA and Mossad
The relationship between the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Israel’s Mossad is a multifaceted and deeply entrenched alliance, characterized by decades of extensive cooperation, punctuated by periods of significant friction and controversy. This intricate partnership, born out of the exigencies of the Cold War and the volatile dynamics of the Middle East, remains a cornerstone of both nations’ national security architectures, adapting to evolving geopolitical landscapes and shared threats.
A Symbiotic Partnership in the Shadows
The foundation of the CIA-Mossad relationship was laid in the early 1950s, driven by a mutual need to counter Soviet influence in the Middle East. The CIA, a relatively young organization, recognized the value of Mossad’s human intelligence capabilities and its deep understanding of the Arab world. In return, the fledgling Israeli agency gained access to American resources, technology, and global reach.
This cooperation has manifested in numerous ways over the decades:
-
Counterterrorism: A primary area of collaboration has been the fight against terrorism. The two agencies have a long history of sharing intelligence on terrorist organizations, plots, and individuals, leading to numerous disrupted attacks.
2 This partnership became even more critical in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent “War on Terror.” -
Combating Nuclear Proliferation: A shared concern over the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran has been a significant driver of recent cooperation.
3 This collaboration has reportedly included intelligence sharing on Iran’s nuclear program and, according to recent reports, culminated in joint operations.4 In a rare public acknowledgment in June 2025, the head of Mossad thanked the CIA for its assistance in a series of operations against Iranian targets, highlighting the ongoing depth of their partnership on this critical issue.5 -
Intelligence Gathering and Analysis: The agencies have historically complemented each other’s strengths. Mossad has often provided valuable human intelligence (HUMINT) from within the Middle East, while the CIA has offered its vast technical intelligence (TECHINT) capabilities, including satellite imagery and signals intelligence (SIGINT). Declassified documents have revealed early instances of this exchange, such as Mossad providing the CIA with intelligence on the Soviet Union gleaned from Jewish immigrants.
Strains and Scandals: A Relationship Tested
Despite the deep-seated cooperation, the CIA-Mossad relationship has been far from seamless, marked by significant conflicts and controversies that have, at times, threatened to derail the partnership.
-
The Jonathan Pollard Affair: The most damaging episode was the 1985 arrest of Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst who was caught spying for Israel.
6 Pollard had provided vast amounts of classified American intelligence to his Israeli handlers, causing a severe breach of trust and straining relations for years.7 The affair led to a re-evaluation of intelligence sharing protocols and left a lasting scar on the relationship, with many in the U.S. intelligence community feeling a profound sense of betrayal. -
Divergent Strategic Interests: While often aligned, the national interests of the United States and Israel do not always converge, leading to friction. Disagreements over issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the pace and approach to dealing with Iran, and Israel’s covert operations have periodically created tension between the two agencies.
-
Lesser-Known Conflicts: Beyond the high-profile Pollard case, there have been other, less-publicized instances of disagreement and mistrust. These have often revolved around concerns about Israeli intelligence operations within the United States and differing assessments of regional threats.
The Present State: An Enduring, Pragmatic Alliance
Today, the relationship between the CIA and Mossad is characterized by a pragmatic and indispensable partnership. The shared threats of terrorism, cyber warfare, and nuclear proliferation in the Middle East continue to necessitate close collaboration. The recent joint operations targeting Iran in the summer of 2025 underscore the current, active nature of this cooperation on the most pressing national security issues.
While the memory of the Pollard affair serves as a cautionary tale, the intelligence sharing between the two agencies is believed to be robust, particularly on matters of mutual and immediate concern. The directors of the CIA and Mossad are known to maintain regular and direct communication, facilitating the rapid exchange of critical information.
In conclusion, the CIA-Mossad relationship is a dynamic and complex tapestry woven with threads of deep cooperation, strategic divergence, and occasional betrayal. It is a partnership born of necessity and sustained by shared interests, one that has weathered significant storms and continues to be a pivotal, if often unseen, element in the turbulent landscape of global intelligence and security. The enduring nature of this alliance is a testament to its strategic importance to both the United States and Israel, a bond forged in the shadows that continues to shape events in the Middle East and beyond.
–
The Future of Russia: A Critical Analysis of the “Inevitable Defeat” Narrative
The assertion that a Russian defeat in Ukraine would automatically trigger the collapse of a “Mongol-Tatar Mafia State,” ushering in a “rebirth” into a European model and resolving a century of geopolitical conflict, presents a highly optimistic and deterministic view of a complex and uncertain future. While the war in Ukraine is undoubtedly a pivotal moment in Russian history, the trajectory of a post-conflict Russia is far from certain and is subject to a multitude of internal and external factors. A closer examination of the components of this assertion, supported by a range of geopolitical and historical analyses, reveals a more nuanced and potentially less sanguine picture.
Deconstructing the “Mongol-Tatar Mafia State”
The term “Mongol-Tatar Mafia State” is a powerful and evocative descriptor, yet it conflates distinct historical and political concepts.
The “Mongol-Tatar Yoke” and its Legacy: The historical Mongol domination of Russia (13th-15th centuries) left a lasting impact on its political development.
The Modern “Mafia State”: The characterization of contemporary Russia as a “mafia state” finds more traction among some political analysts.
While both the historical “Yoke” and the modern “mafia state” concept point to authoritarian and centralized tendencies, they are distinct phenomena. Attributing the current system solely to a Mongol inheritance risks overlooking the more immediate and potent legacies of the Soviet Union and the tumultuous 1990s.
The Unpredictable Aftermath of “Defeat”
The notion of an “inevitable defeat” in Ukraine is itself a complex issue, with definitions of “defeat” ranging from a complete military collapse and withdrawal to a protracted stalemate that drains Russian resources and political will. The consequences of such a scenario are far from predetermined.
Scenarios for a Post-Putin Russia: Analysts envision several potential futures for Russia after Putin, none of which guarantee a seamless transition to a “healthy European way of development.” These scenarios include:
-
A More Hardline Nationalism: A humiliating defeat could lead to a “stab-in-the-back” narrative, fueling an even more aggressive and revanchist nationalism. In this scenario, a new leader might emerge who promises to restore Russian pride and military might.
-
Fragmentation and Instability: The immense strain of a lost war could exacerbate existing internal tensions, potentially leading to a period of civil unrest, regional separatism, or even the violent collapse of the state. This “Time of Troubles” could create a power vacuum filled by competing factions, including hardline security elites and regional warlords.
-
Continuation of Authoritarianism: The existing power structures, deeply entrenched in the security services and bureaucracy, could manage a transition of power that preserves the authoritarian system, albeit with a new face.
5 This could involve a “managed succession” where a chosen successor maintains the core tenets of “Putinism.” -
A Limited and Fraught Democratization: While a democratic opening is a possibility, it is by no means the most likely outcome. The weakness of Russian civil society, the suppression of independent media, and the deep-seated political apathy of the population present significant obstacles to a genuine democratic transformation.
6 The experience of the 1990s, which many Russians associate with economic hardship and national humiliation, has also soured public perception of liberal democracy.
Resolving the Geopolitical Conflict?
The idea that a Russian defeat would resolve a century-long geopolitical conflict and signify a “REAL victory over the USSR and the KGB” requires a nuanced understanding of Russia’s historical relationship with the West and the enduring legacy of its Soviet past.
A Century of Confrontation: The roots of the conflict between Russia and the West are deep and multifaceted, predating the Soviet Union. Throughout the 20th century, this relationship has been characterized by periods of intense ideological rivalry, proxy wars, and a fundamental clash of geopolitical interests. While the collapse of the USSR in 1991 appeared to herald a new era of cooperation, the subsequent expansion of NATO and differing views on international security led to a resurgence of tensions. A change in leadership in Russia would not automatically erase these underlying geopolitical realities.
The Enduring Legacy of the USSR and the KGB: The Soviet Union may have dissolved, but its institutional and psychological legacy continues to shape modern Russia.
In conclusion, while a Russian setback in Ukraine could act as a catalyst for significant change, the optimistic prediction of an inevitable and smooth transition to a European-style democracy is not strongly supported by current analyses. The path forward for Russia is likely to be turbulent and contested, with a range of possible outcomes that do not necessarily align with Western hopes for a “rebirth.” The deeply ingrained historical, political, and institutional factors that have shaped modern Russia will continue to exert a powerful influence on its future trajectory.
This video from the Stimson Center provides further insights into the potential futures for Russia’s geopolitical orientation.
For more information, you may find this video on the future of Russia-China relations insightful: The SCO Summit and the Future of Russia China’s ‘No Limits’ Deal
–
The assertion that the “neo-imperialist post-Soviet Russian Mafia State under the cover of Putinism is one and the latest of the historical waves of the Mongol-Tatar system of governing” is a complex thesis that draws parallels between contemporary Russia and the historical period of Mongol rule over the Rus’ principalities. While not a direct continuation, scholars and analysts have noted certain structural and political similarities that suggest a lasting influence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke on Russian political culture and statecraft.
At the heart of this argument lie several key perceived parallels: the centralization of power, the nature of the state’s relationship with society and the economy, and an expansionist foreign policy.
The Specter of the Golden Horde: Centralization and Autocracy
The Mongol Empire, and its successor, the Golden Horde, governed the Rus’ principalities through a system of tribute and vassalage.
Similarly, “Putinism” is characterized by a “power vertical,” a highly centralized political structure where regional leaders and institutions are beholden to the Kremlin.
Economic Relations: From Tribute to State Capitalism
The economic model of the Golden Horde was largely extractive.
Critics of the modern Russian state describe it as a “mafia state” or a kleptocracy, where a small elite of government officials, oligarchs, and security service members (the siloviki) are bound together to control and exploit the nation’s wealth.
A Neo-Imperial Foreign Policy?
The Mongol Empire was built on conquest and the subjugation of neighboring territories. The Golden Horde maintained its dominance through military might and by playing rival principalities against each other.
Contemporary Russian foreign policy under Putin has been described as “neo-imperialist,” characterized by a desire to reassert influence in the “near abroad”—the former republics of the Soviet Union.
Divergences and Historical Debate
It is crucial to note that this thesis is a matter of historical and political interpretation and not without its critics. Many historians argue that the influence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke is overstated and that Russian political development was also heavily influenced by Byzantine traditions, Orthodox Christianity, and its interactions with European powers.
Furthermore, the modern Russian state operates within a globalized and technologically advanced world that is vastly different from the medieval period of Mongol rule. The ideologies and justifications for power have also evolved significantly.
In conclusion, while contemporary Russia under Putin is not a direct replica of the Mongol-Tatar system, the argument that it exhibits certain enduring patterns of governance—such as a strong, centralized autocracy, the fusion of political and economic power, and an assertive foreign policy—is a compelling one. These parallels suggest that the historical experience of the Mongol yoke may have left a lasting imprint on Russia’s political DNA, an imprint that some see re-emerging in the 21st century.
–
The post Conversations with the Gemini 8:14 AM 9/29/2025 first appeared on Trump News – trump-news.org.
Conversations with the Gemini
8:14 AM 9/29/2025
Topics
Trump, Comey, and the Ham Sandwich
Trump, Comey: Institutions Under Pressure
Syria, 9/11, and Conspiracy Theories
CIA-Mossad: A Complex Intelligence Alliance
Russia’s Future After Defeat
Russia’s Mongol-Tatar Echoes
Attack on Grand Blanc Township Church Leaves Community in Shock
GRAND BLANC TOWNSHIP, Mich. – A tranquil Sunday morning service was shattered on September 28, 2025, when a man rammed his vehicle into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Grand Blanc Township, subsequently opening fire on the congregation and setting the building ablaze.
The incident began around 10:25 a.m. at the church located on McCandlish Road.
Law enforcement officers responded to the scene within minutes and engaged in a shootout with Sanford, who was ultimately neutralized.
The aftermath of the attack was a scene of devastation, with the church building severely damaged by the fire.
The Grand Blanc community has been left reeling by the tragedy. Vigils and prayer services were held to honor the victims and support those affected by the violence. Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expressed their profound sorrow and offered condolences to the families of the victims.
Investigations into the attack are ongoing as law enforcement officials work to piece together the events that led to this senseless act of violence.
–
Comey Indicted: A Legal Proverb and a Political Grudge Match
The recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey has brought a long-simmering feud with President Donald Trump to a boil, simultaneously resurrecting a classic legal adage about the ease of securing an indictment—the proverbial “ham and cheese sandwich.”
On Thursday, September 25, 2025, a federal grand jury indicted James Comey on charges of making a false statement to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.
The indictment has once again highlighted the vast difference between an indictment and a conviction, a distinction famously captured by the legal aphorism that a grand jury would “indict a ham sandwich” if a prosecutor asked them to. This phrase, attributed to former New York Chief Judge Sol Wachtler in 1985, underscores the relatively low bar for securing an indictment.
An indictment is a formal accusation by a grand jury that there is enough evidence to justify a trial. The grand jury’s role is not to determine guilt or innocence but merely to decide if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. The proceedings are conducted in secret and are largely controlled by the prosecution, with the defense having little to no opportunity to present its case.
A conviction, on the other hand, is a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by a petit jury after a full public trial. This requires a much higher standard of proof and involves the presentation of evidence and arguments from both the prosecution and the defense, the cross-examination of witnesses, and the unanimous agreement of the jurors.
The “ham and cheese sandwich” analogy, therefore, serves as a cynical but often accurate commentary on the power of prosecutors in the grand jury process. It suggests that securing an indictment is more a reflection of the prosecutor’s will than the strength of the evidence.
In the context of the Trump-Comey saga, the indictment of Comey can be seen through this lens. Supporters of the former FBI Director and critics of the current administration will likely argue that the indictment is politically motivated, a fulfillment of a long-stated desire by President Donald Trump to see his perceived political enemies prosecuted. They may view it as a prime example of a prosecutor leading a grand jury to indict a figurative “ham and cheese sandwich.”
Conversely, those who have long criticized Comey’s actions, particularly his public statements regarding the Hillary Clinton email investigation and his role in the early stages of the Russia probe, may see the indictment as a necessary step toward accountability. For them, the indictment represents a legitimate finding of probable cause that a crime was committed.
The legal battle to come will ultimately determine whether the indictment of James Comey is a precursor to a conviction or simply a political act that proves the “ham sandwich” proverb true once more. The trial will move beyond the one-sided presentation of a grand jury and into the adversarial arena of a courtroom, where the much higher burden of proof will be required to turn an indictment into a conviction.
–
Trump vs. Comey: A Nation’s Institutions Under Pressure
The long and tumultuous feud between President Donald Trump and former FBI Director James Comey has reached a critical juncture with the recent indictment of Comey.
Legal Analysis: A Case Fraught with Political Overtones
The indictment charges James Comey with making a false statement and obstructing a congressional proceeding.
The indictment itself has been described as unusually thin, and reports indicate that the grand jury’s decision was not unanimous. Furthermore, the resignation of the previous U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who reportedly had reservations about bringing charges, has fueled speculation that the prosecution is politically motivated.
Comey’s defense is expected to argue that the prosecution is a vindictive act of political retribution orchestrated by the Trump administration. His legal team will likely highlight the former President’s long history of publicly attacking Comey and calling for his prosecution. To secure a conviction, the government faces the high legal burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Comey knowingly and willfully intended to mislead Congress. Legal analysts suggest that proving such intent, particularly in the context of complex and nuanced testimony, will be a significant challenge.
The very act of prosecuting a former FBI director for his testimony before Congress is unprecedented and sets a dangerous precedent, potentially chilling future testimony from government officials.
Political and Social Significance: Erosion of Trust and Deepening Divides
The Trump-Comey saga has had a corrosive effect on public trust in key governmental institutions. The constant attacks on the integrity of the FBI and the Department of Justice have politicized these institutions in the public eye, with perceptions of their actions often filtered through a partisan lens.
The conflict has also served as a powerful engine of partisan polarization.
The affair has also fundamentally altered the relationship between the presidency and federal law enforcement. The long-standing norm of a degree of independence for the FBI and the DOJ has been shattered, replaced by an expectation of personal loyalty to the president.
Predictions: A Trajectory of Retaliation and Uncertainty
The indictment of James Comey has opened a new and perilous chapter in American politics, with several potential long-term consequences:
-
A Cycle of Political Prosecutions: The move against Comey could normalize the use of the legal system to settle political scores. Future administrations may feel empowered to launch investigations and prosecutions of their predecessors and political opponents, leading to a dangerous cycle of retaliatory justice that would further destabilize the political landscape.
-
Further Erosion of Institutional Norms: The willingness to disregard established norms of prosecutorial independence sets a precedent that will be difficult to reverse. Future presidents may feel less constrained in their efforts to influence the justice system, further blurring the lines between politics and law.
-
Deepening Political Paralysis: The hyper-partisan environment fueled by the Trump-Comey conflict is likely to intensify, making bipartisan cooperation on even the most pressing national issues increasingly difficult. The political discourse may become even more toxic and dominated by accusations of bad faith and criminality.
-
Uncertain Legal and Political Outcomes: The ultimate outcome of the legal case against James Comey remains uncertain. An acquittal could be seen as a rebuke of the Trump administration’s actions and could embolden critics. A conviction, on the other hand, would be a seismic event, further inflaming partisan tensions and raising fundamental questions about the fairness of the justice system.
In conclusion, the confrontation between Donald Trump and James Comey has transcended a personal feud to become a critical stress test for American democracy. The ongoing legal battle and its political fallout will have lasting implications for the rule of law, the integrity of governmental institutions, and the very nature of political discourse in the United States for years to come.
–
Flawed Premise: Syrian Power Shift and 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Recent events in Syria, including the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime and the rise of Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), have been co-opted by a baseless conspiracy theory alleging Israeli orchestration and a cover-up of the “truth” about 9/11. This narrative is unsupported by credible evidence and misrepresents the complex realities of the Syrian conflict and the established facts of the September 11th attacks.
The Unfounded Claim of Israeli Intervention
There is no factual basis for the assertion that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu engineered the change in power in Damascus. Israel’s involvement in the Syrian civil war has been primarily characterized by airstrikes targeting Iranian and Hezbollah assets, not direct intervention in the internal conflict to install a specific leader.
Understanding Abu Mohammad al-Jolani and HTS
Abu Mohammad al-Jolani’s history is complex and cannot be reduced to a simple “Al Qaeda leader” label.
The Established Facts of 9/11
The claim that these events in Syria somehow prove that al-Qaeda is a “myth” constructed to conceal the “truth” about 9/11 is a significant leap in logic that ignores a mountain of evidence. The consensus of the international intelligence community, exhaustive investigations such as the 9/11 Commission Report, and a wealth of declassified documents firmly establish that the September 11, 2001 attacks were planned and executed by al-Qaeda, an organization founded by Osama bin Laden. This conclusion is based on intercepted communications, financial records, and the testimony of captured al-Qaeda members.
The attempt to link the recent power shift in Syria to a long-disproven 9/11 conspiracy theory is a form of misinformation that relies on speculation and a disregard for factual evidence. The events in Syria are the culmination of a decade-long civil war with its own intricate dynamics, and they do not alter the established historical record of the 9/11 attacks.
–
A Bond Forged in Secrecy: The Complex Dance of the CIA and Mossad
The relationship between the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Israel’s Mossad is a multifaceted and deeply entrenched alliance, characterized by decades of extensive cooperation, punctuated by periods of significant friction and controversy. This intricate partnership, born out of the exigencies of the Cold War and the volatile dynamics of the Middle East, remains a cornerstone of both nations’ national security architectures, adapting to evolving geopolitical landscapes and shared threats.
A Symbiotic Partnership in the Shadows
The foundation of the CIA-Mossad relationship was laid in the early 1950s, driven by a mutual need to counter Soviet influence in the Middle East. The CIA, a relatively young organization, recognized the value of Mossad’s human intelligence capabilities and its deep understanding of the Arab world. In return, the fledgling Israeli agency gained access to American resources, technology, and global reach.
This cooperation has manifested in numerous ways over the decades:
-
Counterterrorism: A primary area of collaboration has been the fight against terrorism. The two agencies have a long history of sharing intelligence on terrorist organizations, plots, and individuals, leading to numerous disrupted attacks.
2 This partnership became even more critical in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent “War on Terror.” -
Combating Nuclear Proliferation: A shared concern over the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran has been a significant driver of recent cooperation.
3 This collaboration has reportedly included intelligence sharing on Iran’s nuclear program and, according to recent reports, culminated in joint operations.4 In a rare public acknowledgment in June 2025, the head of Mossad thanked the CIA for its assistance in a series of operations against Iranian targets, highlighting the ongoing depth of their partnership on this critical issue.5 -
Intelligence Gathering and Analysis: The agencies have historically complemented each other’s strengths. Mossad has often provided valuable human intelligence (HUMINT) from within the Middle East, while the CIA has offered its vast technical intelligence (TECHINT) capabilities, including satellite imagery and signals intelligence (SIGINT). Declassified documents have revealed early instances of this exchange, such as Mossad providing the CIA with intelligence on the Soviet Union gleaned from Jewish immigrants.
Strains and Scandals: A Relationship Tested
Despite the deep-seated cooperation, the CIA-Mossad relationship has been far from seamless, marked by significant conflicts and controversies that have, at times, threatened to derail the partnership.
-
The Jonathan Pollard Affair: The most damaging episode was the 1985 arrest of Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst who was caught spying for Israel.
6 Pollard had provided vast amounts of classified American intelligence to his Israeli handlers, causing a severe breach of trust and straining relations for years.7 The affair led to a re-evaluation of intelligence sharing protocols and left a lasting scar on the relationship, with many in the U.S. intelligence community feeling a profound sense of betrayal. -
Divergent Strategic Interests: While often aligned, the national interests of the United States and Israel do not always converge, leading to friction. Disagreements over issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the pace and approach to dealing with Iran, and Israel’s covert operations have periodically created tension between the two agencies.
-
Lesser-Known Conflicts: Beyond the high-profile Pollard case, there have been other, less-publicized instances of disagreement and mistrust. These have often revolved around concerns about Israeli intelligence operations within the United States and differing assessments of regional threats.
The Present State: An Enduring, Pragmatic Alliance
Today, the relationship between the CIA and Mossad is characterized by a pragmatic and indispensable partnership. The shared threats of terrorism, cyber warfare, and nuclear proliferation in the Middle East continue to necessitate close collaboration. The recent joint operations targeting Iran in the summer of 2025 underscore the current, active nature of this cooperation on the most pressing national security issues.
While the memory of the Pollard affair serves as a cautionary tale, the intelligence sharing between the two agencies is believed to be robust, particularly on matters of mutual and immediate concern. The directors of the CIA and Mossad are known to maintain regular and direct communication, facilitating the rapid exchange of critical information.
In conclusion, the CIA-Mossad relationship is a dynamic and complex tapestry woven with threads of deep cooperation, strategic divergence, and occasional betrayal. It is a partnership born of necessity and sustained by shared interests, one that has weathered significant storms and continues to be a pivotal, if often unseen, element in the turbulent landscape of global intelligence and security. The enduring nature of this alliance is a testament to its strategic importance to both the United States and Israel, a bond forged in the shadows that continues to shape events in the Middle East and beyond.
–
The Future of Russia: A Critical Analysis of the “Inevitable Defeat” Narrative
The assertion that a Russian defeat in Ukraine would automatically trigger the collapse of a “Mongol-Tatar Mafia State,” ushering in a “rebirth” into a European model and resolving a century of geopolitical conflict, presents a highly optimistic and deterministic view of a complex and uncertain future. While the war in Ukraine is undoubtedly a pivotal moment in Russian history, the trajectory of a post-conflict Russia is far from certain and is subject to a multitude of internal and external factors. A closer examination of the components of this assertion, supported by a range of geopolitical and historical analyses, reveals a more nuanced and potentially less sanguine picture.
Deconstructing the “Mongol-Tatar Mafia State”
The term “Mongol-Tatar Mafia State” is a powerful and evocative descriptor, yet it conflates distinct historical and political concepts.
The “Mongol-Tatar Yoke” and its Legacy: The historical Mongol domination of Russia (13th-15th centuries) left a lasting impact on its political development.
The Modern “Mafia State”: The characterization of contemporary Russia as a “mafia state” finds more traction among some political analysts.
While both the historical “Yoke” and the modern “mafia state” concept point to authoritarian and centralized tendencies, they are distinct phenomena. Attributing the current system solely to a Mongol inheritance risks overlooking the more immediate and potent legacies of the Soviet Union and the tumultuous 1990s.
The Unpredictable Aftermath of “Defeat”
The notion of an “inevitable defeat” in Ukraine is itself a complex issue, with definitions of “defeat” ranging from a complete military collapse and withdrawal to a protracted stalemate that drains Russian resources and political will. The consequences of such a scenario are far from predetermined.
Scenarios for a Post-Putin Russia: Analysts envision several potential futures for Russia after Putin, none of which guarantee a seamless transition to a “healthy European way of development.” These scenarios include:
-
A More Hardline Nationalism: A humiliating defeat could lead to a “stab-in-the-back” narrative, fueling an even more aggressive and revanchist nationalism. In this scenario, a new leader might emerge who promises to restore Russian pride and military might.
-
Fragmentation and Instability: The immense strain of a lost war could exacerbate existing internal tensions, potentially leading to a period of civil unrest, regional separatism, or even the violent collapse of the state. This “Time of Troubles” could create a power vacuum filled by competing factions, including hardline security elites and regional warlords.
-
Continuation of Authoritarianism: The existing power structures, deeply entrenched in the security services and bureaucracy, could manage a transition of power that preserves the authoritarian system, albeit with a new face.
5 This could involve a “managed succession” where a chosen successor maintains the core tenets of “Putinism.” -
A Limited and Fraught Democratization: While a democratic opening is a possibility, it is by no means the most likely outcome. The weakness of Russian civil society, the suppression of independent media, and the deep-seated political apathy of the population present significant obstacles to a genuine democratic transformation.
6 The experience of the 1990s, which many Russians associate with economic hardship and national humiliation, has also soured public perception of liberal democracy.
Resolving the Geopolitical Conflict?
The idea that a Russian defeat would resolve a century-long geopolitical conflict and signify a “REAL victory over the USSR and the KGB” requires a nuanced understanding of Russia’s historical relationship with the West and the enduring legacy of its Soviet past.
A Century of Confrontation: The roots of the conflict between Russia and the West are deep and multifaceted, predating the Soviet Union. Throughout the 20th century, this relationship has been characterized by periods of intense ideological rivalry, proxy wars, and a fundamental clash of geopolitical interests. While the collapse of the USSR in 1991 appeared to herald a new era of cooperation, the subsequent expansion of NATO and differing views on international security led to a resurgence of tensions. A change in leadership in Russia would not automatically erase these underlying geopolitical realities.
The Enduring Legacy of the USSR and the KGB: The Soviet Union may have dissolved, but its institutional and psychological legacy continues to shape modern Russia.
In conclusion, while a Russian setback in Ukraine could act as a catalyst for significant change, the optimistic prediction of an inevitable and smooth transition to a European-style democracy is not strongly supported by current analyses. The path forward for Russia is likely to be turbulent and contested, with a range of possible outcomes that do not necessarily align with Western hopes for a “rebirth.” The deeply ingrained historical, political, and institutional factors that have shaped modern Russia will continue to exert a powerful influence on its future trajectory.
This video from the Stimson Center provides further insights into the potential futures for Russia’s geopolitical orientation.
For more information, you may find this video on the future of Russia-China relations insightful: The SCO Summit and the Future of Russia China’s ‘No Limits’ Deal
–
The assertion that the “neo-imperialist post-Soviet Russian Mafia State under the cover of Putinism is one and the latest of the historical waves of the Mongol-Tatar system of governing” is a complex thesis that draws parallels between contemporary Russia and the historical period of Mongol rule over the Rus’ principalities. While not a direct continuation, scholars and analysts have noted certain structural and political similarities that suggest a lasting influence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke on Russian political culture and statecraft.
At the heart of this argument lie several key perceived parallels: the centralization of power, the nature of the state’s relationship with society and the economy, and an expansionist foreign policy.
The Specter of the Golden Horde: Centralization and Autocracy
The Mongol Empire, and its successor, the Golden Horde, governed the Rus’ principalities through a system of tribute and vassalage.
Similarly, “Putinism” is characterized by a “power vertical,” a highly centralized political structure where regional leaders and institutions are beholden to the Kremlin.
Economic Relations: From Tribute to State Capitalism
The economic model of the Golden Horde was largely extractive.
Critics of the modern Russian state describe it as a “mafia state” or a kleptocracy, where a small elite of government officials, oligarchs, and security service members (the siloviki) are bound together to control and exploit the nation’s wealth.
A Neo-Imperial Foreign Policy?
The Mongol Empire was built on conquest and the subjugation of neighboring territories. The Golden Horde maintained its dominance through military might and by playing rival principalities against each other.
Contemporary Russian foreign policy under Putin has been described as “neo-imperialist,” characterized by a desire to reassert influence in the “near abroad”—the former republics of the Soviet Union.
Divergences and Historical Debate
It is crucial to note that this thesis is a matter of historical and political interpretation and not without its critics. Many historians argue that the influence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke is overstated and that Russian political development was also heavily influenced by Byzantine traditions, Orthodox Christianity, and its interactions with European powers.
Furthermore, the modern Russian state operates within a globalized and technologically advanced world that is vastly different from the medieval period of Mongol rule. The ideologies and justifications for power have also evolved significantly.
In conclusion, while contemporary Russia under Putin is not a direct replica of the Mongol-Tatar system, the argument that it exhibits certain enduring patterns of governance—such as a strong, centralized autocracy, the fusion of political and economic power, and an assertive foreign policy—is a compelling one. These parallels suggest that the historical experience of the Mongol yoke may have left a lasting imprint on Russia’s political DNA, an imprint that some see re-emerging in the 21st century.
–
Categories
Early Edition: September 29, 2025
Signup to receive the Early Edition in your inbox here.
A curated guide to major news and developments over the weekend. Here’s today’s news:
FEDERALIZATION OF DOMESTIC POLICING
President Trump on Saturday said he had directed troops to be sent to Portland, Oregon, and that he authorized the troops to use “full force” to respond to protests around ICE facilities. According to a Pentagon memo to Oregon leaders received yesterday, 200 members of the Oregon National Guard are being placed under federal command and control in connection with the plan. Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek (D) said she “made it very clear” to Trump that she objects to the deployment. Chris Megerian and Konstantin Toropin report for AP News; Luke Broadwater, Anna Griffin, and Hamed Aleaziz report for the New York Times.
(See Trump Administration Litigation below for the lawsuit filed on Sunday by Oregon and Portland.]
Members of 13 federal agencies, including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, will start arriving in Memphis today in connection with Trump’s crime crackdown order, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) said on Friday. The operation will also include 300 troopers from the Tennessee Highway Patrol and an unspecified number of National Guard troops, Lee said. Juliana Kim reports for NPR. The Guard is acting under the command and control of the Governor and deployed at the request of a Presidential Memorandum.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS
During an extraordinary gathering of hundreds of U.S. generals and admirals in Quantico, Virginia, tomorrow, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is planning to address the army leaders on military standards and the “warrior ethos,” according to multiple sources. Trump yesterday said he would attend the meeting, saying that “It’s really just a very nice meeting talking about how well we’re doing militarily, talking about being in great shape, talking about a lot of good, positive things.” According to a former defense auditing official, the likely cost of the army leaders’ travel to the event is in the millions of dollars. Tara Copp, Ellen Nakashima, Dan Lamothe, Alex Horton, and Noah Robertson report for the Washington Post; Yamiche Alcindor and Alexandra Marquez report for NBC News.
Trump on Friday called for Microsoft to “immediately terminate the employment of” Lisa Monaco, Microsoft’s head of global affairs, alleging without proof that Monaco is a “menace to U.S. National Security.” Monaco served as Deputy Attorney General under the Biden administration. Separately, Trump also said he “would certainly imagine” the DOJ is investigating former FBI Director Christopher Wray, whom Trump accused of doing “a terrible job.” Sebastian Herrera reports for the Wall Street Journal; Yamiche Alcindor and Alexandra Marquez report for NBC News.
Tulsi Gabbard’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence last month eliminated the group that writes the Global Trends report. The report, published every four years, outlines the future risks to the United States and the world. The Office said that it found the draft 2025 report to “violate professional analytic tradecraft standards in an effort to propagate a political agenda” and that the group “had neglected to fulfill [its] purpose.” According to former officials, some of the report’s warnings, in particular on climate change, had become politically inconvenient. Julian E. Barnes and Helene Cooper report for the New York Times.
The Energy Department has added “climate change,” green,” “emissions,” and “decarbonization” to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s “list of words to avoid,” according to a Friday email seen by POLITICO. Other words to avoid include “energy transition,” “sustainability/sustainable,” “‘clean’ or ‘dirty’ energy,” “carbon/CO2 ‘Footprint’” and “tax breaks/tax credits/subsidies.” Zack Colman reports.
The White House is developing a plan that could give universities that pledge to adhere to the values and policies of the Trump administration an advantage in the award of federal research grants, according to two White House officials. Laura Meckler and Susan Svrluga report for the Washington Post.
The FBI has fired agents who were photographed kneeling during a 2020 racial justice protest in the wake of George Floyd’s killing by Minneapolis police officers, sources told AP News on Friday. The FBI Agents Association confirmed that more than a dozen agents have been fired and described the move as unlawful in failing to respect the employees’ legal rights. Eric Tucker reports for AP News.
In cooperation with the Justice Department, multiple federal regulators have sent or are about to send requests for information concerning alleged political and religious discrimination by banks to a number of financial institutions, the Wall Street Journal reports. According to the Journal, the regulators who have sought information from banks include the Small Business Administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Gina Heeb, AnnaMaria Andriotis, and Dylan Tokar report.
U.S. DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS
New York City Mayor Eric Adams yesterday announced he would abandon his re-election campaign, ending weeks of speculation. Adams gave no indication he had a specific job lined up after his term expired. At one point, Trump administration aides had been involved in discussions to offer Adams an administration post to encourage him to leave the race and to counter the Democratic front-runner, Zohran Mamdani. Nicholas Fandos, Dana Rubinstein, William K. Rashbaum, and Maggie Haberman report for the New York Times.
In the years before his death, convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was apparently linked to billionaire and former Trump advisor Elon Musk, tech billionaire Peter Thiel, and Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon, according to documents published by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Friday. Hailey Fuchs reports for POLITICO.
The Dominion Voting Systems election tech company has settled its defamation lawsuit against Trump’s former lawyer and former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, according to court records and a statement by Dominion. The company did not specify the terms of the settlement. Rylee Kirk reports for the New York Times.
Project 2025 publishers, the Heritage Foundation, and their spinoff, the Oversight Project, last week issued a call for the FBI to designate “Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism” as a domestic terrorism threat category. The groups’ publication alleges, without proof, that “experts estimate that 50% of all major (non-gang related) school shootings since 2015 have involved or likely involved transgender ideology.” Dell Cameron and Andrew Couts report for WIRED.
U.S. FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Chinese President Xi Jinping intends to persuade Trump to oppose Taiwanese independence, sources told the Wall Street Journal. The sources said that Xi plans to press Trump on this issue as the United States shows eagerness for a Washington-Beijing trade deal. Lingling Wei reports.
The Taliban administration released U.S. citizen Amir Amiry yesterday following negotiations mediated by Qatar. Amiry’s release comes weeks after the Taliban announced an agreement with the United States on prisoner exchanges. The Taliban continue to hold at least three U.S citizens, a U.S. official told the New York Times. Elian Peltier and Adam Goldman report.
U.S. military officials are drawing up plans to target drug traffickers inside Venezuela, four sources told NBC News. The sources said that U.S. strikes within Venezuela’s border could begin in a matter of weeks. Courtney Kube, Gabe Gutierrez, and Katherine Doyle report.
The Trump administration revoked Colombian President Gustavo Petro’s visa on Friday after he joined a pro-Palestinian demonstration in New York. “Revoking it for denouncing genocide shows the U.S. no longer respects international law,” Petro posted on social media on Saturday. Luis Jaime Acosta and Natalia Siniawski report for Reuters.
TECH DEVELOPMENTS
A Biden administration Pentagon plan to field thousands of AI drones by August 2025 to prepare for a potential conflict with China has fallen short of its goal, according to sources. To accelerate the program, the Pentagon is moving the work to a new division known as the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group. Shelby Holliday, Heather Somerville, and Brenna T. Smith report for the Wall Street Journal.
U.S. IMMIGRATION DEVELOPMENTS
The U.N. Committee Against Torture last week sent a request to Ghana to halt onward deportations of at least five migrants who were recently deported from the United States to Ghana. The request highlights that the affected individuals had U.S. court-ordered protections against being returned to their home countries where they face a risk of torture. Mattathias Schwartz and Chris Cameron report for the New York Times.
Attorney General Palm Bondi announced on Friday that she will send Justice Department agents to ICE facilities to protect immigration officials “to safeguard federal agents, protect federal property, and immediately arrest all individuals engaged in any federal crime.” Kaanita Iyer reports for CNN.
ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR — U.S. RESPONSE
Negotiations over the latest iteration of Trump’s plan to end the war in Gaza are “at their final stages,” Trump told Axios yesterday, asserting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “on board” with the plan. In a statement, Hamas said that the group has not received any new ceasefire proposals from mediators, and stressed that negotiations have been suspended since Israel’s failed attempt to kill its leaders in Doha three weeks ago. U.S. officials suggested that Arab and Muslim countries have been in touch with the militant group on the proposal. Barak Ravid reports.
Netanyahu will give Israel’s response to the newest U.S. proposal for a Gaza ceasefire when he meets Trump in the White House later today, according to a senior Israeli official. Other Israeli officials suggest Netanyahu is expected to present reservations to the plan during the meeting and push for changes. Netanyahu yesterday said that the deal has “not been finalized yet.” Matt Spetalnick and Steve Holland report for Reuters; Tal Shalev, Oren Liebermann, and Kit Maher report for CNN.
ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR
The Israeli military has killed at least 18 people across Gaza today and advanced to within a few hundred meters of Gaza City’s Al-Shifa and Al-Helo hospitals, according to medics. The Médecins Sans Frontières medical charity late on Friday said it had been forced to suspend its activities in Gaza City after its clinics were encircled by Israeli forces. Nidal Al-Mughrabi and May Angel report for Reuters; Nidal Al-Mughrabi and Alexander Cornwell report for Reuters.
The Palestinian death toll in the Israel-Hamas conflict has now surpassed 66,000 deaths, Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry said yesterday. Samy Magdy, Melanie Lidman, and Giovanna Dell’Orto report for AP News.
ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR — INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE
The vast majority of officials and diplomats gathered at the U.N. General Assembly Hall on Friday appeared to walk out as Netanyahu took the stage for his address. In his speech, Netanyahu said that Israel would “finish the job” in Gaza, and claimed that the Israeli intelligence services were livestreaming his speech to the phones of people across Gaza. Gaza residents told CNN they had not received any messages or streams related to the speech. Barak Ravid and Dave Lawler report for Axios; Tal Shalev, Jennifer Hansler, and Oren Liebermann report.
RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR
Russia attacked Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities yesterday with nearly 600 drones and 48 missiles, killing at least four people in the capital. “This vile attack came virtually as the close of U.N. General Assembly this week, and this is exactly how Russia declares its true position,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said yesterday. Marc Santora reports for the New York Times; James Waterhouse and Rachel Muller-Heyndyk report for BBC News.
The United States is considering Zelenskyy’s request for long-range Tomahawk missiles, Vice President JD Vance said yesterday. Tomahawk missiles have a 2,500km range, which would allow Ukraine to strike targets deeper inside Russia. Steve Holland reports for Reuters.
Defense ministers from ten EU countries agreed on Friday to develop a drone wall along their borders with Russia and Ukraine to detect, track and intercept drone incursions into European airspace. “Russia is testing the EU and NATO, and our response must be firm, united and immediate,” EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius said. Lorne Cook reports for AP News.
OTHER GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS
Moldova’s pro-European ruling party won a majority over the Russia-leaning Patriotic Bloc in yesterday’s parliamentary election. “The people of Moldova have spoken […] they chose democracy, reform, and a European future, in the face of pressure and interference from Russia,” President of the European Council Antonio Costa said on social media. Dan Peleschuk reports for Reuters.
Denmark this week banned all civilian drone flights to “simplify security work” for the police ahead of a European Union summit in Copenhagen, the Danish transport minister said yesterday. Nick Thorpe and Tabby Wilson report for BBC News.
Israel has reintroduced its demand for a humanitarian corridor to Syria’s southern province of Sweida in Israel-Syria security talks, four sources told Reuters. A Syrian source said the demand had derailed plans to announce a deal this week. In previous talks in Paris, Syria rejected this same request as a breach of its sovereignty. Maya Gebeily reports.
The Indian government on Friday detained Sonam Wangchuk, the leader of a popular protest movement in Ladakh, accusing him of instigating violent protests that threatened national security. The protests in Ladakh last Wednesday, associated with Wangchuk’s arrest, called for greater governmental autonomy in the region. Anupreeta Das and Hari Kumar report for the New York Times.
IRAN
The U.N. Security Council on Saturday reinstated an arms embargo and other sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme, activating the snapback mechanism. While Tehran has warned of a harsh response to the reimposition of sanctions, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Friday that Iran had no plans to leave the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Michelle Nichols reports for Reuters.
Iran’s intelligence service attempted to recruit “hundreds of [Israeli] citizens” via phone calls on Saturday, the Israeli police said in a statement. When they picked up, “a person spoke to them and offered to recruit them to an Iranian organisation.” Dana Karni and Catherine Nicholls report for CNN.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION LITIGATION
The Supreme Court granted an injunction on Friday, allowing the Trump administration to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid previously appropriated by Congress. The majority wrote that based on its “preliminary view” of the case’s merits, the plaintiffs did not have a legal right to bring a lawsuit under the relevant federal statutes. The short, unsigned order on the court’s emergency docket was issued over the dissent of three liberal judges. Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney report for POLITICO.
Oregon and Portland yesterday sued to block Trump from deploying the state’s national guard, arguing that the move amounts to an unconstitutional abuse of power. “Far from promoting public safety, Defendants’ provocative and arbitrary actions threaten to undermine public safety by inciting a public outcry”, the lawsuit contends. Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney report for POLITICO.
The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to uphold Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. In a pair of petitions, the government lawyers argued that the Constitution’s promise of citizenship was conferred on “freed slaves and their children, not on the children of aliens temporarily visiting the United States or of illegal aliens.” Abbie VanSickle reports for the New York Times.
Did you miss this? Stay up-to-date with our Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions
If you enjoy listening, Just Security’s analytic articles are also available in audio form on the justsecurity.org website.
ICYMI: last week on Just Security
Children, Young People and the Emerging Terrorism Threat Landscape
The post Early Edition: September 29, 2025 appeared first on Just Security.
The post Early Edition: September 29, 2025 first appeared on Audio Posts – audio-posts.com.
British RAF Eurofighter Typhoon FGR.4 spotted over Jordan. #OSINT #MiddleEast #jordan #israel pic.twitter.com/nUVIdkhagN
—
I hate jilthy fews
(@saracen96) September 29, 2025
The post British RAF Eurofighter Typhoon FGR.4 spotted over Jordan. #OSINT #MiddleEast #jordan #israel first appeared on JOSSICA – jossica.com.
The post British RAF Eurofighter Typhoon FGR.4 spotted over Jordan. #OSINT #MiddleEast #jordan #israel first appeared on The World Web Times – worldwebtimes.com.
@nexus_osint Rien à foutre de cette grosse merde de Poutine.
The post @nexus_osint Rien à foutre de cette grosse merde de Poutine. first appeared on JOSSICA – jossica.com.
The post @nexus_osint Rien à foutre de cette grosse merde de Poutine. first appeared on The World Web Times – worldwebtimes.com.
The post @nexus_osint Rien à foutre de cette grosse merde de Poutine. first appeared on The World Web Times – worldwebtimes.com.
