O presidente dos EUA, Donald Trump, sugeriu nesta terça-feira (27) que a Venezuela poderia se tornar o 51º estado norte-americano.
“O país (Venezuela) se tornará próspero e, quem sabe, talvez em breve ele se torne um próspero 51º estado. É possível. Vamos fazer isso acontecer. Vamos torná-lo o 51º estado. E, em vez de um presidente, teremos uma eleição para governador. O que acha? Pois é”, afirmou durante um comício na cidade de Corpus Christi, no Texas.
Trump também afirmou que a Venezuela possui vastas reservas de petróleo e que grandes empresas do setor estão investindo bilhões de dólares no país.
Leia Mais:
“Quero agradecer à Venezuela, onde nossa relação se tornou muito, muito boa — excelente, na verdade. Bilhões e bilhões de dólares estão sendo investidos agora, por parte das maiores empresas de petróleo — muitas delas vindas do Texas — em todo o território venezuelano”, afirmou o presidente americano.
Trump fez as declarações diante de um navio ancorado ao largo da costa, o qual, segundo ele, transportava um milhão de barris de petróleo provenientes da Venezuela.
O presidente americano acrescentou que o petróleo venezuelano seria refinado no Texas e afirmou que a carga foi obtida sem custo algum para os contribuintes norte-americanos.
Trump também disse que os preços da gasolina e do diesel cairiam para os consumidores dos EUA, e elogiou os militares norte-americanos pelo que descreveu como uma vitória contra a Venezuela.
Cassidy Hutchinson had implicated Donald Trump in US Capitol attack during testimony before House committee
The justice department on Tuesday failed to secure a grand jury indictment against a former White House staffer who provided dramatic but disputed testimony against Donald Trump before a House committee investigating the 6 January 2021 US Capitol insurrection, according to two people familiar with the matter.
A grand jury in Washington rejected prosecutors’ request to return an indictment charging Cassidy Hutchinson, said the people, who spoke to the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the case. It’s the latest setback in the justice department’s efforts to charge perceived adversaries of the Republican president.
In some cases, court paperwork bears unmistakable signs of urgency — typos, unorthodox tactics and the signatures of the department’s senior political leadership.
Attorney General Todd Blanche announcing the indictment of L. Louise Lucas, a prominent Virginia Democrat, on drug-trafficking charges last week in Norfolk, Va.
The investigation of Cassidy Hutchinson was directed to the Justice Department’s civil rights division, which normally focuses on issues like police violence and election integrity.
Páginas na internet de jornais de diversos países repercutiram nesta terça-feira (27) a fuga de Flávio Bolsonaro do Brasil. O embarque escondido para os Estados Unidos, menos de 48 horas após perder as eleições presidenciais, foi noticiado pela agência Reuters.
Um dos primeiros veículos a noticiar a fuga foi o Infobae, da Argentina, que disse haver uma suspeita de que o senador teria embarcado com a família em um jato particular, em Puerto Iguazú, com destino aos Estados Unidos. A versão, porém, não foi confirmada pelo governo da Argentina.
O La Nación, também da Argentina, destaca que fontes próximas ao senador afirmaram que os Estados Unidos estariam diretamente envolvidos na fuga.
O periódico diz ainda que, sob o governo de Donald Trump, o país norte-americano tem se tornado o refúgio do clã Bolsonaro e lembra que Eduardo Bolsonaro, irmão de Flávio, também está nos EUA.
O espanhol El País lembrou que o senador se recusou a aceitar a vitória de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva logo após a apuração. O jornal relembra que, em 2022, Jair Bolsonaro também não reconheceu a derrota e que viajou aos Estados Unidos antes da posse de Lula, mas acabou voltando ao Brasil.
O inglês The Guardian afirma que Flávio Bolsonaro estaria a caminho dos Estados Unidos e que sua fuga pode selar o destino da extrema-direita brasileira.
A fuga de Flávio Bolsonaro começou a ser noticiada pela manhã, por jornais argentinos. O coordenador de campanha do senador, Rogério Marinho, chegou a negar a informação.
Depois, Marinho disse que não tinha notícias de Flávio Bolsonaro desde às 8h e que o senador teria dito que “queria dar um tempo”.
The ceasefire around Russian-occupied Oleshky in Kherson Oblast has expanded beyond the town to provide safe passage for humanitarian convoys, US First Lady Melania Trump said on 27 October. The expansion is intended to facilitate aid deliveries to civilians trapped under Russian occupation.
Ukraine and Russia are observing a localized ceasefire to enable a humanitarian mission to reach Oleshky, where residents have faced months of shortages of food, medicine, and medical care under Russian occupation.
Trump said the ceasefire took effect at 04:00 Moscow time on 27 October, two days ahead of the original schedule, to protect civilians and facilitate the delivery of critical humanitarian aid. Russia’s chief of General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, had confirmed the arrangement, she said.
Ukraine’s human rights ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets said no ceasefire violations had been recorded by 19:49 Kyiv time on 27 October, and Russian forces had made no attempts to advance. He added that he remained in constant contact with his Russian counterpart, Yana Lantratova.
THE CEASEFIRE HAS COMMENCED The ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia took effect at 4:00am Moscow time on October 27, 2026.
Timing was accelerated two days ahead of schedule to protect the safety of civilians and to facilitate the delivery of critical humanitarian aid. The…
Road to Oleshky must be cleared before aid can arrive
Lubinets said the ceasefire began at 03:00 Kyiv time and would remain in effect until 22:59 Kyiv time on 1 November. He reported no violations since it began and said Russian forces had made no attempts to advance.
The next steps are to clear mines from the road to Oleshky and deliver humanitarian supplies. Representatives of Ukraine, Russia, and the United States will be present once the route is cleared and the aid arrives, Lubinets said in an interview with Ukrainian broadcaster 1+1.
He added that everyone who wants to leave for Ukrainian-controlled territory would be able to do so and that assistance would be provided to everyone who needs it.
The Financial Times earlier reported, citing sources familiar with the negotiations, that residents who agree to leave Russian-occupied Oleshky during the ceasefire would first be transported to occupied Crimea or Russia before being allowed to return to Ukrainian-controlled territory.
Humanitarian mission follows months of efforts
Oleshky has been under Russian occupation since 2022. The town has been cut off for months, with shortages of food, medicine, and medical care worsening.
The White House announced on 23 October that Melania Trump had secured a localized ceasefire originally scheduled to begin on 29 October. Russia subsequently announced a ceasefire on the Kherson axis from 27 October, with preparations to secure a route for a humanitarian convoy.
Explore further
Ceasefire planned for occupied Oleshky as residents face starvation and blocked escape routes, White House announces
Lubinets said efforts to address the humanitarian crisis in Oleshky began in late February 2026, but progress accelerated in September following Melania Trump’s involvement.
The expanded ceasefire area is intended to facilitate the humanitarian operation, but the route must still be cleared and supplies delivered before the mission can reach residents. The new boundaries of the ceasefire area have not been specified publicly.
America’s mid-term congressional elections on November 3rdwill mark the beginning of the final two years of the Trump administration and thus the nearing of a potentially historic moment of reckoning for that country’s estranged allies. The reckoning may seem like a long way ahead, but in what historians will see as just the blink of […]
O presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, voltou a dizer nesta terça-feira (27), durante um comício no Texas, que as eleições no Brasil foram fraudadas.
“Eles fraudam muito bem (os democratas). São os maiores fraudadores de eleições da história. Embora o Brasil também esteja fazendo um bom trabalho nisso, não é? Eu não tomei partido, não gostei, não me pareceu muito bom”, disse Trump.
O presidente americano está em meio a uma intensa agenda de campanha pelo país antes das Eleições de Meio de Mandato, as Midterms, marcadas para 3 de novembro. Trump tem realizado comícios quase diariamente para incentivar a participação de eleitores em apoio aos republicanos, que tentam manter o controle do Congresso.
Em discursos que chegam a durar 90 minutos, Trump defende suas políticas econômicas, vangloria-se do tamanho das multidões, zomba de manifestantes e chegou a fazer comentários sobre as nádegas de um colega republicano.
Aqui estão cinco pontos principais sobre as aparições do presidente, realizadas, em sua maioria, em áreas de forte apoio republicano pelo país:
O discurso econômico de Trump
No início do mês, Trump afirmou ter feito um “mau trabalho” ao explicar seu desempenho econômico. Ele tem tentado corrigir isso em seus comícios, destacando uma taxa de pobreza em nível historicamente baixo, baixo desemprego, recordes no mercado de ações e preços mais acessíveis para alguns itens alimentícios.
No entanto, seu discurso entra em conflito com as preocupações dos eleitores quanto aos gastos com combustível, compras de supermercado e outras despesas do dia a dia.
Os preços ao consumidor aceleraram em setembro, impulsionados pela disparada no custo da gasolina. O preço médio do combustível nos EUA é de US$ 4,27 por galão (US$ 1,13 por litro) — cerca de 40% mais caro do que há um ano, segundo a AAA. Trump tem prometido, repetidamente, que os preços da gasolina cairão assim que a “guerra com o Irã” terminar.
Esse descompasso ficou evidente do lado de fora de um comício de Trump na zona rural do Kansas, onde Chester Daniel, um veterano militar de 90 anos e apoiador de Trump, afirmou que a economia ainda tem “um longo caminho a percorrer” para ajudar os trabalhadores.
“Preços? Altos demais! Nunca voltaremos aos patamares de quando tudo isso começou, mas eles precisam cair bastante”, disse Daniel. “Não sei como esses jovens conseguem sustentar suas famílias.”
Republicanos na defensiva e o mapa dos comícios
O roteiro de viagens de Trump revela o quão difícil será para os republicanos manterem o controle do Congresso, com o presidente sendo forçado a adotar uma postura defensiva, mesmo em redutos conservadores. Trump viajou duas vezes ao Texas em apoio a Ken Paxton, candidato republicano ao Senado; fez campanha para o senador republicano em exercício Roger Marshall, no Kansas; e esteve duas vezes em Ohio em apoio ao senador Jon Husted.
Trump também participou de comícios para candidatos republicanos em disputas acirradas no Alasca, Iowa, Montana e Carolina do Sul. Ele tem uma visita ao Mississippi programada para segunda-feira (26).
Trata-se de locais onde os republicanos costumam vencer com facilidade — e não de campos de batalha eleitorais onde Trump normalmente dedicaria tempo durante as semanas cruciais que antecedem uma eleição.
Nas pesquisas, Paxton aparece ligeiramente atrás do democrata James Talarico, enquanto Marshall enfrenta um desafio considerável do democrata Adam Hamilton em um estado que não elege um senador democrata há quase um século. Em Ohio, Husted está atrás do ex-senador democrata Sherrod Brown, e, em Iowa, a candidata republicana ao Senado, Ashley Hinson, trava uma disputa acirrada contra o democrata Josh Turek.
Chama a atenção a ausência, até o momento — a menos de duas semanas do dia das Midterms—, de estados como Michigan, Maine, Minnesota e New Hampshire, que também registram disputas acirradas para o Senado. É provável que ele visite alguns desses locais em breve; há uma viagem programada para Michigan no domingo, e ele também mencionou planos de ir ao Maine.
O foco de Trump sobre o tamanho do público nos comícios
Trump transformou o tamanho do público em um tema recorrente de seus comícios durante o ciclo eleitoral de Meio de Mandato, descrevendo arenas lotadas e milhares de pessoas que, segundo ele, teriam ficado do lado de fora — o que ele apresenta como prova de sua popularidade contínua.
No entanto, a adesão real aos eventos de campanha nas últimas semanas tem sido irregular. Alguns comícios atingiram a capacidade máxima, mas sem qualquer sinal da multidão excedente descrita por Trump. Em outros, grandes setores de assentos permaneceram vazios, mesmo em locais de porte modesto.
“Faço isso todas as noites e, não importa aonde eu vá, é sempre a mesma coisa. São multidões enormes”, disse Trump em um comício na Carolina do Norte, na terça-feira. “Temos telões do lado de fora. Milhares e milhares de pessoas. Há algo muito especial acontecendo.”
O local estava lotado, mas não havia sinais de multidões do lado de fora esperando para entrar ou acompanhando o evento pelos telões. Em um comício realizado no dia 7 de outubro em San Antonio, no Texas, Trump afirmou que as filas do lado de fora da arena estendiam-se por duas milhas (aproximadamente 3,2 km), mesmo com grandes áreas vazias no interior do local.
O tamanho do público nem sempre é um indicador preciso de apoio político; contudo, Trump tem utilizado esse dado como um sinal de força, ainda que seu índice de aprovação tenha caído para 31% — o patamar mais baixo de todo o seu mandato presidencial —, segundo uma pesquisa Reuters/Ipsos divulgada na semana passada.
Trump não é candidato nas eleições de 3 de novembro. Para os candidatos republicanos, a questão é saber se o entusiasmo que ele desperta entre seus apoiadores pode se converter em votos para eles.
A França como um exemplo nas Eleições de Meio de Mandato
Trump tem usado frequentemente o presidente francês, Emmanuel Macron, como um contraponto em seus discursos de campanha, alegando ter forçado Macron — por meio da ameaça de impor tarifas sobre o champanhe (um produto de exportação francês muito popular) e outros bens — a aumentar os preços de medicamentos prescritos na França.
No entanto, na última semana, aproximadamente, Trump adotou uma nova narrativa sobre a França, apresentando os violentos distúrbios ocorridos no país nas últimas semanas como um alerta do que, segundo ele, poderia acontecer nos EUA caso os democratas vençam as eleições de meio de mandato. Trump atribuiu a responsabilidade pelos distúrbios a imigrantes e muçulmanos, seguindo uma estratégia já conhecida que tem marcado sua atuação política há mais de uma década.
“Que diabos aconteceu com a França?”, perguntou Trump a uma multidão em uma arena de competições agropecuárias em Clemson, na Carolina do Sul, na quarta-feira.
Vale notar que os protestos na França ganharam mais destaque nos discursos recentes de Trump do que dois outros grandes problemas de política externa que ele não conseguiu solucionar: a invasão da Ucrânia pela Rússia e sua “guerra” contra o Irã.
“Eles vão acabar, de um jeito ou de outro”, disse Trump sobre os dois conflitos durante o comício em Clemson. Ele não explicou como esses conflitos poderiam terminar, mas queixou-se de não ter recebido o Prêmio Nobel da Paz por seus esforços na resolução de conflitos ao redor do mundo.
Trump e o foco no físico
Há muito tempo, Trump demonstra uma fixação pelo físico humano que vai além da metáfora do “corpo político”.
Nesta temporada eleitoral, Trump tem dado atenção especial a Husted, um ex-jogador de futebol americano universitário da Universidade de Dayton, de 59 anos.
Em comícios realizados em Ohio, Kentucky e Carolina do Norte, Trump expressou admiração pelo físico de Husted, chegando a comentar que os glúteos dele parecem “um amontoado de músculos”.
“Depois, olhei para as pernas dele e pensei: ‘Caramba, que pés grandes!’. Em seguida, observei seus ombros e dei um tapinha — cheguei a machucar a mão! Parecia um pedaço de aço. Eu disse: ‘Esse cara é um monstro!'”, relatou Trump.
Na sexta-feira, Trump teceu elogios semelhantes a Robert F. Kennedy Jr., seu secretário de Saúde e Serviços Humanos, declarando em um comício na Flórida que o político de 72 anos “tem o corpo de alguém de 30 anos”.
Comentários desse tipo são recorrentes no repertório de Trump. Na reta final de sua campanha de 2024, ele aproveitou um discurso em um comício na Pensilvânia para contar uma história grosseira sobre as proezas — para além do golfe — da lenda do esporte Arnold Palmer. Ao longo dos anos, Trump tem focado frequentemente nos atributos físicos das pessoas, chegando, inclusive, a zombar do peso e da aparência de seus oponentes.
Trump considera que até alguns de seus amigos carecem de senso de moda — é o caso de Paxton, conhecido por seu visual desleixado.
“Pode ser que alguns não gostem do jeito que ele se veste”, disse Trump sobre ele durante uma convenção republicana em Dallas, em meados de setembro, acrescentando: “Eu não gosto”.
Isso, contudo, não impediu Trump de fazer campanha para Paxton. Ele retorna ao Texas na terça-feira (27) para participar de mais dois comícios.
A rapper Nicki Minaj, 43, pode ter conquistado um cargo na Casa Branca comandada por Donald Trump, 80, atual presidente dos Estados Unidos.
O diretor de comunicação da Casa Branca, Steven Cheung, publicou um vídeo a bordo do Air Force One, o jatinho do presidente, no qual Trump conversa com a rapper. “Eles podem ter encontrado a nova secretária de imprensa da Casa Branca”, escreveu na legenda.
Em meio às eleições de meio de mandato, Nicki viajava com Trump para um comício no Michigan, enquanto o presidente faz campanha para o partido republicano na reta final do período eleitoral.
Logo depois, durante o comício, uma cena chamou a atenção do público, quando o presidente comentou sobre o bumbum da rapper enquanto falava com o público no pleito. No domingo (25), Trump declarou: “Acabei de ver uma bunda incrivelmente linda, Nicki Minaj. É difícil não notar, fique em pé”.
Nicki se declarou uma apoiadora do presidente Donald Trump e se intitulou como sua “fã número 1” recentemente. Já o atual presidente, também trocou elogios com a cantora e a chamou de “grande amiga”.
“Eu nunca pensei em sair do país. Eu vou entregar os passaportes e vou me defender dessa aberração, que é uma clara tentativa de me intimidar”, disse o senador Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ) em vídeo publicado nas redes sociais na última segunda-feira (26), após o ministro do STF (Supremo Tribunal Federal) Alexandre de Moraes conceder 24h para o parlamentar entregar seus passaportes.
A determinação ocorreu após a derrota do filho do ex-presidente Jair Bolsonaro (PL) na disputa pela Presidência da República no último domingo (25) e diz respeito ao inquérito que apura denúncias de lavagem de dinheiro e evasão de divisas junto ao advogado Willer Tomaz.
Apesar da declaração, esta terça-feira (27) começou com rumores de que o senador teria deixado o país rumo a Argentina. O governo brasileiro chegou a acionar autoridades do país sobre um eventual risco de fuga por parte de Flávio.
Ao longo do dia, a PF (Polícia Federal) cancelou os passaportes do parlamentar, que não foram entregues dentro do prazo concedido por Moraes.
A confirmação da fuga, no entanto, veio por parte de aliados do senador, que afirmaram à CNN Brasil que ele deixou o país rumo aos Estados Unidos, de Donald Trump, junto de sua família. Ainda segundo essas pessoas próximas, o governo dos EUA teria apoiado a fuga e sinalizou asilo a Flávio.
President Trump renewed calls for Venezuela to be the 51st U.S. state after touting the barrels of oil coming from the South American country. “It will become a prosperous country, and who knows? Maybe someday soon, it will become a prosperous 51st state,” Trump said of Venezuela. “That’s possible. Let’s make it the 51st state.”…
President Trump renewed calls for Venezuela to be the 51st U.S. state after touting the barrels of oil coming from the South American country. “It will become a prosperous country, and who knows? Maybe someday soon, it will become a prosperous 51st state,” Trump said of Venezuela. “That’s possible. Let’s make it the 51st state.”…
Officials in Argentina said Mr. Bolsonaro entered the country by land then flew to Ecuador. Brazilian police had asked him to hand over his passports because of his links to an investigation.
Former White House press secretary Katie Zacharia, who was fired from her role after five days following a rocky debut and scrutiny of her legal background, accused reporters of fueling “Trump Derangement Syndrome” in their coverage of President Trump. While Zacharia has remained relatively quiet since her ouster less than two weeks ago, in an…
Former White House press secretary Katie Zacharia, who was fired from her role after five days following a rocky debut and scrutiny of her legal background, accused reporters of fueling “Trump Derangement Syndrome” in their coverage of President Trump. While Zacharia has remained relatively quiet since her ouster less than two weeks ago, in an…
If there’s one story MSNOW’s Rachel Maddow is known for, it’s her tenacious, years-long focus on a broad theory that Trump is a compromised agent of Russian intelligence installed by Russia via a shady patchwork of direct funding, loose connections, opaque meetings, election interference, Facebook ads, innuendo, and genuinely strange behaviors. From 2016 to 2025, Maddow mentionedRussia 6,126 times on her primetime program The Rachel Maddow Show.
This analysis isn’t a commentary on the validity of the “Russiagate” story, as such. I think it was inflated, and served the ends of some of the worst elements in the US security state, but there was certainly an element of truth to it. (Trump is brazenly venal, and would presumably take bribes from anyone). At the same time, the conspiracy mongering veered into Loose Change territory and was, ultimately, contradicted by Trump’s own policies which—while rhetorically critical of Ukraine—have largely continued to arm and support the country in its four-year-and-a-half war against Russia’s aggression.
The state of Israel is running what could very well be construed as GOTV commercials for the Republican Party during an election season.
What’s noteworthy is less that Maddow has covered Trump’s connections with Russia, and the associated seemingly weekly breathless developments. It’s that, over the past two years in particular, she has very conspicuously avoided a major story about another country influencing domestic politics in service of Trump and a pernicious reactionary agenda: that of Israel’s influence over the president, and its broader attempts to influence politics in the US. A report in Zeteo last week details how Israel is directly funding ads in swing states that not only advertise Israel’s alleged security benefits to the US, but show images of Trump’s 250 year celebration, the White House, and Trump’s ambassador to Israel, painting them in a heroic light. In other words: the state of Israel is running what could very well be construed as GOTV commercials for the Republican Party during an election season.
This is, of course, just the tip of the iceberg. A Quincy Institute report in June calculated $1 billion in influence operations since 2023 directly backed by the state of Israel targeting the American public via lobbyists, TV ads, media campaigns, AI output-altering fake websites, propaganda delegations, building “business ties” with Silicon Valley, and a host of other, more opaque efforts. Israel’s attempt to influence US politics has exploded in recent years, and this is just what is disclosed:
And all of this is one top of the decades-long multibillion dollar informal network of pro-Israel propaganda groups like the Anti Defemation League (ADL), the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and Christians United for Israel (CUFI), organizations largely funded by American donors with ideological commitments to Israel, though not directly by the state of Israel. These groups frequently align messaging with and coordinate with the Israeli government, but there was always a thin veneer of plausible deniability. These latest efforts are not even bothering to maintain this veneer: Israel is, increasingly, directly funding influence operations—many of which have explicit ties to the Trump White House. Indeed, Trump has taken the unusual step of openly endorsing Netanyahu in his upcoming election, and several of Trump’s advisors, including his own son-in-law, are heavily invested in Israeli companies. His former campaign manager Brad Parscale literally runs one of the aforementioned Israeli influence operations. Put another way: Trump’s “ties” to Israel and the influence the state of Israel has over Trump is far better documented, much clearer, and much more consequential than any ties he has or ever had to Russia.
Yet Maddow only covers one of these angles.
Maddow rarely talks about Israel in general—much less its influence over Trump. And, on the rare occasion she does, it’s safely within the confines of “Netanyahu Bad/Israel Good” or “Netanyahu wants Trump to win the election” safe pseudo-criticism. As Mondoweiss’ Michael Arria noted in 2021, even before Oct. 7, 2023, Maddow understood how avoiding the topic would benefit her burgeoning career, mentioning Israel only six times from 2011 to 2021 in over 2,000 shows. As I document in my book on liberal media’s role in helping destory Gaza, How To Sell a Genocide, Maddow largely avoided the subject in the first year of the Gaza genocide, and didn’t mention it at all for seven of the first twelve weeks of the Gaza assault, despite over 3,000 Palestinians being killed a week by American bombs. And when she did bring up Gaza, unlike her broad, deep, and sympathetic portrayal of Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine, Maddow’s coverage was superficial and hurried. The one major exception among MSNBC primetime stars who did have the courage to center Palestine as something more than a box to check, Joy Ann Reid, was subsequently fired for what she says was her coverage of the genocide.
Trump’s “ties” to Israel and the influence the state of Israel has over Trump is far better documented, much clearer, and much more consequential than any ties he has or ever had to Russia.
The most Orwellian moment of Maddow’s conspicuous silence on Israel was when she did a long, detailed segment on foreign powers’ influence on Trump’s attack on Iran on the first day of the bombing, entitled “Follow the money.” To kick off the segment, Maddow bizarrely handwaved away Israel’s involvement, telling her viewers, “There’s a lot of attention on Israel, and indeed Israel and the United States have worked together in the bombing campaign… but it is the Gulf Arab states that are arrayed against Iran.” She then proceeded to pin the nefarious influence entirely on “Gulf Arab states, countries like Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates in Qatar.” This isn’t to say these countries don’t unduly influence the Trump clan—this is well documented—but their influence is relatively small compared to that of Israel and the Trump family connection with Israel and pro-Israel donors and it’s not particularly close.
Maddow’s defenders could argue that the major difference is that Israel is an “ally” of the US, whereas Russia isn’t. But, despite the fact that the majority of Americans do not agree with this sentiment in the normative sense, the “Gulf Arab states” Maddow accuses of corrupting Trump are also US allies, so this is obviously not the reason. The real reason is that she knows discussing the elephant in the room of Israeli influence over both Trump and US body politic more broadly would pretty much spell the end of her career, as it did with Reid and, to a lesser degree, other MSNBC/MSNOW personalities that were demoted or pushed out after October 7 for having the temerity to veer off the safe script of pseudo-criticisms of Israel. As I also document in my book, the first, last, and only time MSNBC/MSNOW’s parent corporation (then Comcast) directly intervened in MSNBC/MSNOW’s coverage was to dress down network executives for letting anchors Ayman Mohyeldin and Ali Velshi attempt to contextualize the October 7 on the day of the attack. Saying anything meaningfully critical of Israel would also compromise Maddow’s access to high status arch-zionists like Hillary Clinton, with whom Maddow is doing an event in two weeks at the pro-Israel Streicker Center. Whatever the reason, the liberal media personality who built her large, intense media following sowing paranoid visions of dark, reactionary foreign influence operations is clearly determined to not mention the most brazen, obvious, and deleterious one.
Israel has spent $1 billion to influence US politics and is directly paying for ads promoting MAGA. Why isn't MSNOW's “foreign influence” sleuth covering it?
O vice na chapa de Flávio Bolsonaro (PL), o deputado federal Alfredo Gaspar (PL-AL), disse nesta terça-feira (27) que o filho do ex-presidente sofre uma “perseguição implacável”.
“Diante da perseguição implacável sofrida pelo presidente Flávio Bolsonaro, presto minha solidariedade a ele, a Fernanda e às suas duas filhas, rogando a Deus pela segurança e pelo bem-estar dessa família amada”, publicou em rede social após a confirmação de que Flávio deixou o país rumo aos Estados Unidos.
“Foi uma honra estar ao seu lado nessa batalha. Conte com minha lealdade e amizade“, completou.
Diante da perseguição implacável sofrida pelo presidente Flávio Bolsonaro, presto minha solidariedade a ele, a Fernanda e às suas duas filhas, rogando a Deus pela segurança e pelo bem-estar dessa família amada.
Derrotado nas urnas no último domingo (25), Flávio Bolsonaro não entregou os passaportes ao STF (Supremo Tribunal Federal), conforme solicitado pelo ministro Alexandre de Moraes na última segunda-feira (26), de forma que a PF (Polícia Federal) cancelou os documentos.
Mais cedo, o governo brasileiro tinha acionado autoridades argentinas sobre um eventual risco de fuga do senador. O site Infobae – da Argentina – tinha publicado que o ex-presidenciável havia cruzado a fronteira em um voo privado. A CNN Brasil não confirmou qual foi a rota do avião de Flávio.
The vote for the 26th Knesset serves as a crucial referendum on the state’s institutions, economy, and military strategy.
The legislative elections for the 26th Knesset, the legislative power, take place at a critical political crossroads for Israel. Scheduled as the first parliamentary contest since the outbreak of hostilities against Gaza following the events of October 7, 2023, these elections serve as a national referendum on the governance model of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The outgoing 25th Knesset became the first Israeli legislature since 1988 to complete its full four-year term without early dissolution, surviving despite severe domestic turmoil, mass protests over judicial reforms, and persistent coalition instability.
However, the upcoming vote occurs under international scrutiny and severe domestic polarization. Official data from the Israeli Central Elections Committee shows the number of ballots needed across the country to fill all 120 seats in parliament.
Political analysts note that the campaign reflects deep fractures within Israeli society regarding military strategy, economic priorities, and the future shape of the state’s institutional structure.
Social and Geopolitical Context of the 2026 Elections
The socio-political environment surrounding the current electoral moment is marked by the prolonged attacks on Gaza and wider regional escalations involving Lebanon and Iran.
These conflicts have heavily strained the Israeli economy, accelerated militarization across public life, and deepened existing social divides.
Economic pressures, driven by soaring military expenditures and disruptions across key industrial sectors due to a labor crisis resulting from the movement of Palestinians, the trade blockade, and the brain drain, have intensified Israeli public debate concerning state budgets and resource allocation.
Simultaneously, domestic divisions have intensified around long-standing structural issues, most notably the military conscription exemptions granted to the ultra-Orthodox Haredi population, generating coalition crises and widespread friction between secular citizens and religious factions.
On the diplomatic front, the state faces unprecedented international isolation, underscored by ongoing proceedings at the International Court of Justice and arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court against Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, former Israeli Defense Minister, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Despite mounting global pressure and civil society accountability campaigns, the political establishment continues to rely heavily on strategic diplomatic and military backing from Western allies, maintaining an insular focus on security doctrines as voters head to the polls.
Netanyahu escalates racist incitement with false claims of ballot raids by Muslim Brotherhood —— Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intensified his election-day rhetoric, publishing inflammatory claims on social media that supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood were… pic.twitter.com/Oq6hWpSDku
The Electoral System: Proportional Representation and Coalition Dynamics
Israel uses a closed-list nationwide proportional representation system to elect the 120 members of the Knesset. The entire country forms a single electoral district.
Voters select a political party slate rather than individual constituency representatives. To gain representation in parliament, a party list must clear an electoral threshold of 3.25 percent of the total valid votes.
Because no political party in Israeli history has ever won an absolute majority of 61 seats on its own, every administration requires a multi-party governing coalition.
Following the Central Elections Committee, official vote tallies determine seat allocations using the d’Hondt method, which allocates parliamentary seats among the various candidate lists based on the votes received.
Parties frequently enter formal surplus vote-sharing agreements before election day to capture remaining unallocated seats.
Once results are certified, the President of Israel holds consultations with elected party leaders before tasking a chosen candidate, typically the head of the largest faction or coalition bloc, with forming a government within a 28-day timeframe.
This framework gives smaller sectoral and single-issue parties significant leverage during post-election negotiations. Far-right, religious, and nationalist slates often demand key ministerial posts, policy concessions, or budget allocations in exchange for their critical coalition votes.
Political analysts note that institutional features of the system, combined with state policies, impact electoral participation among Palestinian citizens of Israel. Electoral threshold adjustments and legal challenges against Arab-led party slates continuously shape voter turnout in Palestinian municipalities.
While Palestinian citizens account for roughly 20 percent of the population, their representative parties face ongoing systemic exclusion from executive coalition agreements, restricting their influence within the parliamentary framework.
As Arab voter turnout rises, Israel’s far-right leaders are sounding the alarm. War criminal Netanyahu accused “supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood” of raiding polling stations and “stealing the elections,” saying Israel is “in a war for the home.”
The candidate field for the 26th Knesset reflects a fragmented political landscape divided into distinct ideological camps, which we will detail:
The Right-Wing and Religious Coalition
• Likud: Led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the ruling party centers its platform on national defense, state security, and maintaining its long-standing parliamentary dominance.
• Otzma Yehudit: Headed by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, this far-right faction advocates for expanded settlements, strict law-and-order policies, and hardline security measures.
• Religious Zionist Party–Zehut: Led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich alongside Moshe Feiglin, this nationalist alliance focuses on West Bank administration, land policies, and conservative social programs.
• Ultra-Orthodox Parties: Shas, led by Aryeh Deri, and United Torah Judaism (UTJ), led by Yitzhak Goldknopf, prioritize state funding for religious institutions and maintaining draft exemptions for Haredi seminary students.
The Opposition Alliances
• Together (Beyachad): A political alliance formed by former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid. The joint platform focuses on institutional stability, economic reform, and governance changes.
• Yashar: A new political movement launched by former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot. The party presents a technocratic platform focused on national security, military management, and state administration.
• Yisrael Beiteinu: Headed by Avigdor Lieberman, this right-wing secular nationalist party focuses on mandatory military conscription for all demographic groups and civic policy reforms.
• The Democrats: Formed through the merger of the Labor and Meretz parties under the leadership of former IDF Deputy Chief of Staff Yair Golan, this unified center-left party emphasizes judicial independence and social-democratic domestic policies.
Arab-Majority Parties
• Joint List: Re-established by Hadash, Ta’al, and Balad under the leadership of Yousef Jabareen, the alliance campaigns on civil rights equality, an end to house demolitions, legal recognition for unrecognized Bedouin villages, and opposition to military occupations.
• United Arab List (Ra’am): Led by Mansour Abbas, this pragmatic Islamist faction focuses on securing municipal development funds, infrastructure investments, and crime-reduction programs for Arab communities.
Netanyahu: Governance Record, Systemic Corruption, and Legal Jeopardy
Benjamin Netanyahu, with more than 15 years, is the longest-serving Prime Minister in Israel. Netanyahu governance has consistently centered on maintaining military administration over occupied Palestinian territories, expanding West Bank settlements, and privatizing state assets.
Netanyahu administrations restructured national tax policies, deregulated key economic sectors, and prioritized defense spending over social welfare initiatives. Netanyahu’s political trajectory remains deeply entwined with ongoing legal proceedings across both domestic and international courts. In domestic tribunals, he faces active criminal charges across three separate indictments known as Cases 1000, 2000, and 4000.
– Case 1000 involves charges of fraud and breach of trust regarding allegations that he received expensive gifts from wealthy business figures in exchange for political favors.
– Case 2000 includes fraud and breach of trust charges related to negotiations with media publishers to secure favorable press coverage in return for legislation restricting competing news outlets.
– Case 4000 contains the most severe charges, bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, alleging that Netanyahu granted regulatory concessions to telecom giant Bezeq in exchange for positive coverage on the Walla news platform.
Netanyahu consistently denies all allegations, maintaining that the investigations represent a politically motivated campaign by law enforcement authorities. In early 2023, his government introduced a major judicial reform initiative designed to restructure judicial appointments and limit Supreme Court oversight over executive decisions.
Opposition figures and legal experts argued that these proposals aimed to undermine judicial independence and stall his ongoing trial, prompting widespread domestic protests and deep institutional instability.
On the international stage, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, determining that reasonable grounds exist to hold him criminally responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
The court cited specific charges, including the deliberate use of starvation as a method of warfare and intentional attacks directed against civilian populations.
Although the Israeli government rejects the jurisdiction of the tribunal, the warrants impose severe diplomatic constraints and travel limitations on Netanyahu across states parties to the Rome Statute.
Voter turnout in Israeli elections as of 16:00 GMT surpassed all votes cast in the 2022, as per data released by the Central Elections Committee.
The final distribution of seats in the 120-member Knesset will determine whether the incumbent coalition or opposition alliances secure the 61-seat majority required to govern.
If the right-wing and religious coalition retains power under Netanyahu’s leadership, the administration is expected to immediately revive paused judicial reform packages to restructure judicial selection processes and restrict legal oversight of executive actions.
Under this outcome, state policy would focus on expanding West Bank settlement infrastructure, maintaining long-term military control over Gaza, and preserving military conscription exemptions for the ultra-Orthodox population to maintain internal coalition stability.
Alternatively, if an opposition alliance formed by figures such as Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, or Yair Lapid captures a parliamentary majority, executive authority would shift toward institutional stabilization. An opposition-led government would likely halt proposed judicial overhauls, reinstate traditional oversight mechanisms, and launch official state inquiries into military and intelligence failures.
Regarding military service, an opposition government would attempt to implement universal conscription policies that include Haredi citizens, a move likely to provoke significant resistance from religious sectors.
Striped of executive protections, Netanyahu’s domestic criminal trials would proceed without executive delays, while international legal pressures stemming from International Criminal Court warrants would remain active.
In the event that neither political bloc achieves a clear 61-seat threshold, the Knesset would enter a state of severe parliamentary deadlock. Under Israeli electoral law, Netanyahu would remain in power as caretaker Prime Minister while political factions negotiate prospective coalition agreements or initiate procedures for new legislative elections, extending the prevailing political uncertainty.
Sources: TeleSUR – Al Jazeera – Al Mayadeen – Press Tv – Anadolu Agency – TRT World – RT – The Times of Israel – Reporteros Sin Fronteras – BBC – DW – EFE – AP News – AFP
O ministro da Secretaria de Relações Institucionais, José Guimarães (PT), afirmou à CNN Brasil nesta terça-feira (27) que o governo brasileiro espera que o presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, reconheça a vitória do presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT).
O mandatário estadunidense é, segundo Guimarães, o único chefe de Estado “importante” que ainda não ligou para Lula após a vitória.
“Ele fez uma declaração que respeita e gosta muito do Lula. A nossa expectativa é que ele, a curto prazo, possa reconhecer o resultado, porque todos os chefes de Estado importantes já ligaram para o Lula, inclusive aqueles que possuem configurações políticas diferentes do Lula”, disse Guimarães.
Segundo Guimarães, a vitória de Lula desafiou às injustiças de Trump, que acenou ao adversário bolsonarista durante e após pleito.
“Aliás, diga-se de passagem, que todos os países da América Latina, o Brasil resistiu a tudo e a todos: às injustiças do Trump, tudo aquilo que ele fez ao Brasil o Brasil deu uma resposta à altura. Temos que comemorar muito porque foi uma eleição atípica”, disse o ministro.
Questionado por repórteres sobre sua avaliação do pleito, realizado no domingo (25), Trump disse que achou “terrível”. Flávio Bolsonaro (PL), que foi derrotado por Lula, anunciou que não reconhecerá o resultado da votação e que pedirá anulação.
“Não tomei partido, mas a imagem que passou para o mundo foi péssima; é mais uma eleição — e você sabe, eleições precisam ser inquestionáveis —, por isso, para mim, a situação pareceu muito ruim”, adicionou.
“Não apoiei ninguém nem nada, mas acompanhei a eleição e ela pareceu tão corrupta”, acrescentou.
Em outro momento, o presidente dos Estados Unidos foi questionado se faria algo a respeito da eleição brasileira, respondendo que não comanda o Brasil e que tem bom relacionamento com Lula.
“Eu gosto do Lula, me dou muito bem com ele. Só acho que a forma como a apuração foi feita passou uma impressão muito ruim”, disse.
A little more than a year ago, President Donald Trump publicly demanded that Pam Bondi, then the attorney general, find a crime to pin on former FBI Director James Comey. Trump's underlings have repeatedly tried to do that, first charging Comey with lying to Congress and then accusing him of threatening to assassinate the president. But the first indictment was dismissed because Trump had illegally appointed the prosecutor who obtained it, and the second was doomed right out of the gate because it aimed to punish constitutionally protected political speech.
The Justice Department's latest attempt to follow Trump's marching orders was revealed on Monday, when U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden unsealed a "criminal information" that claims Comey illegally shared classified information with The New York Times on October 5, 2016. In an attempt to meet the statutory deadline for that charge, prosecutors filed it exactly 10 years after the alleged disclosure. But Comey's lawyers argue that federal law required the government to obtain a grand jury indictment within 10 years of the alleged offense, which it failed to do.
Whatever you make of that dispute, the president has made it clear that he wants to imprison Comey, a longtime nemesis because of his role in the "Russiagate hoax" during Trump's first term, and does not much care about exactly how that happens. Justice Department officials, meanwhile, are keen to pursue Trump's personal vendetta by using their prosecutorial powers as an instrument of his revenge.
The new case "would almost be funny if it weren't such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice," Comey said in an online video on Monday. "I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid of these people, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary."
In the New York Timesstory at the center of the case, Charlie Savage and Nicole Perloth reported that Yahoo had adapted "a system intended to scan emails for child pornography" to comply with a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order seeking "messages containing a computer 'signature' tied to the communications of a state-sponsored terrorist organization." Savage and Perloth cited "two government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity."
Dustin Farahnak, a special U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, says that story included "first-time disclosures of classified information not intended for the public domain." According to Farahnak, the government has evidence that Comey "directed staff" to discuss "specific accuracy concerns" about a prior Reuters report on the same subject with Savage. In the process of doing that, Farahnak says, those FBI officials "illegally transferred classified information."
Comey's attempt to set the record straight, according to Trump's henchmen, was a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison under 18 USC 793(d), an Espionage Act provision that applies to an official who "willfully" shares "information relating to the national defense" with an unauthorized recipient when he "has reason to believe" it "could be used to the injury of the United States." Comey also faces a charge of conspiring to violate Section 793, which likewise carries a maximum 10-year sentence.
If Comey's alleged disclosure was such a grave crime, you might wonder, why did it take a decade to charge him? Because two prior investigations of the same incident concluded that criminal charges were not warranted.
Beginning in March 2017, John Durham, the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, looked into the genesis of the Times article. The investigation found that James Baker, then the FBI's general counsel, was one of the anonymous sources. Baker said he had acted under instructions from FBI Chief of Staff James Rybacki, whom he understood to be conveying Comey's wishes. Durham's investigation included interviews, emails, phone records, and consideration of the relevant statutes. In December 2018, Comey's lawyers note, Durham "wrote a classified memorandum outlining the investigation and recommending 'NO prosecution for Baker or anyone else.'"
The following month, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia "opened an investigation into the same subject matter," Comey's lawyers say. That investigation "was closed without any charges in February 2020" after the office "declined to prosecute."
Given the outcomes of those two investigations, the decision to charge Comey now stinks of desperation to slake Trump's thirst for revenge. According to Comey's lawyers, the tardiness of the charges also fatally undermines the case.
Federal law generally requires that prosecutors file charges within five years of the alleged crime. But the Internal Security Act of 1950 made an exception for Section 793, saying "an indictment for any violation" of that provision "may be found at any time within ten years next after such violation shall have been committed."
The charges against Comey "should be dismissed as time barred," his lawyers argue: "Section 19 of the Internal Security Act gives the government an extended ten-year limitations period in which to charge Section 793 offenses. But as Section 19 unambiguously states, the government may invoke that extended period only by obtaining a grand jury indictment. A criminal information—which the government can issue unilaterally without grand jury involvement—does not suffice. Because the default five-year statute of limitations for federal felonies has long since elapsed on the alleged offenses, and the government's information does not meet the express statutory requirement for an extended ten-year limitations period, the information is untimely and must be dismissed."
Whichever side prevails on that issue, no one should have any illusions that the Justice Department is pursuing the mission suggested by its name. "It remains unclear what [McFadden] will do with the matter and whether DOJ will even be able to secure an indictment—as required by the Constitution," Cato Institute legal fellow Mike Fox says in an emailed press release. "Should the matter proceed, it is unequivocally clear that this case is a vindictive prosecution—a classic case of lawfare by a weaponized Justice Department."
Login
