Spencer Eye Hospital in Lyari has reopened, and patients can get free care through the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation. Nobody sensible begrudges that. But Bilawal Bhutto Zardari did not stop at the hospital. As reported, he declared the new-province question closed, accused federal representatives of spreading hatred in Karachi, and complained of inflation, joblessness and crushing electricity bills. Then he said he would like to see all of Lyari run on solar power.

Read that again. The party that has governed Sindh without a break since 2008 is complaining about Sindh’s state.

The party that wrote the rules

The 18th Amendment of 2010, which the PPP counts among its proudest achievements, made health, municipal services and urban infrastructure provincial subjects. The NFC Award gave provinces a larger share of national resources. The PPP wanted the powers, took the powers and has held them ever since. A party cannot cut the ribbon on that arrangement and then point at Islamabad when it fails to deliver. When water runs short, roads break up and hospitals decay, the first door to knock on is in Karachi.

That is why the “spreading hatred” line sits so badly. Federal politicians may well owe Karachi explanations of their own. But a citizen asking why his city is in this condition is not spreading hatred; he is asking a question. Renaming questions as hostility is politics’ oldest dodge. A government that trusts its record simply answers.

A promise to the courts, answered with a majority

The same amendment inserted Article 140A, which obliges every province to hand political, administrative and financial authority to elected local governments. In February 2022, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed, called it a mandatory obligation. It struck down Sections 74 and 75(1) of the 2013 Sindh Local Government Act, barred the province from starting new projects in the local government domain without the local government’s consent, and ordered that local governments receive their Provincial Finance Commission share with no arrears.

How did the PPP respond? In September, the Sindh Assembly passed the Sindh Local Government Amendment Bill 2026 by majority vote while opposition lawmakers tore up copies of it in protest. The Jamaat-e-Islami said the new law still does not give chairmen adequate powers, and a PTI member accused the provincial government of contempt of a Supreme Court judgment. The opposition fought hardest over the provision the PPP insisted on: keeping sitting mayors and chairmen in office as administrators until fresh elections, which it then pushed through with its numerical majority.

Nobody forced those amendments through. A party with a majority chose to use it, on the exact question the Supreme Court told it to settle in the city’s favour. MQM Pakistan lawmakers have pointed out that the PPP’s own 2008 manifesto promised to devolve local government powers. Eighteen years later, the manifesto is still waiting.

Yes, Karachi has an elected mayor, and he is from the PPP. But a title is not authority. If control over water, solid waste, and the master plan for a city of more than 20 million is reportedly still being bargained over in provincial committee rooms, he looks more like a spokesman than its manager. The party that preaches cooperation should let its own mayor manage.

Full stop on the province, full speed on what?

The Sindh Assembly has placed a full stop on the question of new provinces. Magnificent. Eighteen years of water shortages, broken roads and decaying hospitals, and the one thing this government has ever delivered with perfect speed is a full stop. One wonders what else it might finish if it applied that urgency to the sentences that matter to Karachi, the ones about water, roads and hospitals, which seem to trail off mid-thought every budget season.

And what of the full speed? Mr Bilawal is the frontman of a family that has run Sindh for eighteen years, and his cabinet is a fine collection of gentlemen who have never been seen in a hurry to fix a pipe, yet are never far from signing a contract. Ask anyone at a Karachi tea stall what a Sindh minister’s portfolio really is, and watch them smile. Something about percentages. Something about files that move faster when they are fed. Of course, it is all gossip, and gossip is not evidence, so we would never say it ourselves. Let the ministers prove the tea stalls wrong. Publish every contract award. Publish every audit response. Publish, project by project, what was spent, what was built and who was paid. If the books are as clean as the ribbons are shiny, it will be the easiest press conference of their lives.

Funny how the ministers who can announce a scheme in thirty seconds always need thirty years to show the receipts.

Bills, solar and arithmetic

Electricity tariffs are set federally, and households feel the strain. Neither point is in serious dispute. But the chairman put the remedy in the province’s hands, so the numbers are fair game.

Sindh has announced 275,000 solar systems this fiscal year at about Rs18 billion, with a subsidised financing scheme for middle-income families alongside. As Dawn reported, the chief minister was earlier told that the province has roughly 2.6 million households off the grid. Even if every system reached one of them, the programme would cover about one in ten. Earlier reports describe a typical system as enough for a fan and three bulbs. That matters to a family with no electricity. It does little for a Karachi household staring at a heavy grid bill.

A wish, fifteen months late

The chairman says he wishes to solarise all of Lyari. Yet in July 2025 the provincial energy minister had already inaugurated a “Solar Homes” project there, presented as part of the chairman’s vision of a fully solar-powered Sindh, and a PPP assembly member promised to expand it to other Lyari neighbourhoods in the coming days.

Fifteen months on, the people of Lyari are offered a wish. How many homes are done? Which neighbourhood comes next, and when? A government that can stage an inauguration can publish a progress report, and the public is entitled to one.

The test

Declaring the province question closed does not close the grievances behind it. They concern water, roads, hospitals, bills, and who gets to decide. The PPP can respond. It can give real power to elected local governments, in line with Article 140A and the Supreme Court’s judgment. It can release the local share of provincial funds on time. It can put water, waste and planning under one accountable city authority. It can publish contract awards and solar delivery figures house by house.

Hospitals will keep being restored, and ribbons will keep being cut. But a ribbon is not a ledger, and eighteen years is long enough to be asked for the ledger.

The post Eighteen Years in Power, the PPP Still Owes Karachi Answers appeared first on Daily Pakistan English News.

Central Elections Committee publishes final election results, Knesset set to be sworn in on November 10 * Argentina’s Milei congratulates Netanyahu on ‘great victory’ at election

Está disponível mais uma edição do Milénio Stadium!

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Good news on growth, bad news on inflation: “The pace of price increases stepped up in September, keeping inflation well above the Federal Reserve’s target, while the economy grew faster than expected in the third quarter, according to Commerce Department reports Thursday.”

* That we knew this was coming doesn’t make it any easier to swallow (or inhale): “President Donald Trump said Tuesday that his administration is ‘terminating’ a Biden-era rule that aimed to cut planet-warming emissions of methane from oil and gas drilling. Trump said during a campaign rally in Texas that the change would save companies and consumers billions of dollars and unlock 210 million barrels of oil. That’s equivalent to about 10 days of U.S. petroleum consumption.”

* The obvious call: “A federal judge has denied the Trump administration’s request for an emergency order that would have forced California to set aside mail ballots from more than 20,000 registered voters whom the Department of Homeland Security has identified as ‘likely’ noncitizens.”

* Another heartening ruling: “Chronically ill people on Medicaid won’t be bound by new work requirement rules that the latest Trump administration guidance requires in order to qualify for ‘medically frail’ exemptions, a federal judge ruled Thursday.”

* The White House’s pal in Pyongyang wants attention again: “North Korea launched a barrage of ballistic missiles toward its eastern waters Thursday, South Korea’s military said, days after the North threatened to resume front-line propaganda loudspeaker broadcasts and deploy new weapons along the rivals’ tense border. The launches also followed leader Kim Jong Un’s surprise weekend visit to China, the North’s main ally and economic pipeline, to push for greater cooperation.”

* Putting the government back together again is going to be a dramatic undertaking: “President Donald Trump has overseen the departure of about 1 in every 5 government workers since the start of his second term, a faster and deeper overhaul than under any recent predecessor, a Washington Post analysis found. By some metrics, Black people — who have historically made up a larger portion of government employees compared with their share of the population — were hit hardest, The Post found.”

* Trump doesn’t often surprise me, but I’ll confess I didn’t see this latest rhetorical trend coming: “Trump has long had a penchant for complimenting — or disparaging — the physical appearances of his allies and enemies alike. But a new analysis by The Washington Sun shows that Trump has referenced physical appearance almost three times as much in the past year as he did during the same period in the 2016 campaign.”

See you tomorrow.

The post Thursday’s Mini-Report, 10.29.26 appeared first on MS NOW.

High-stakes diplomacy was seen. Three Muslim countries flew to Iran. Meetings organised by Turkish, Pakistani, and Saudi Arabian officials with European leaders of the UK, France and Italy last Friday in Istanbul paved the way for Pakistan to take credit for organising this assembly of influentials in Tehran a day before the general elections in Israel. The situation in reality is much more complicated than it appears.

Reportedly, Houthi militia activities inside Saudi Arabia and impending US-Israel combined strikes on Iran were two areas of discussion.  How much time participants give to each issue, and with what attitude and seriousness, remains to be seen.  However, the kinetic happening of the last three weeks between Saudi Arabia and Yemen and its aftermath remained a source of concern for Saudi Arabiaas well as other Mecca pact signatories.

A significant part of the meeting was concerning the Houthi militia’s activities at a time when Saudi Arabian interceptors are down by 91%. Saudi Arabia is under maximum vulnerability and continuous pressure but is operating with a lot of maturity. Why Saudi Arabia is under so much pressure from many directions is by itself a bigger question.One school of thought argues that pressure on KSA is about renegotiating and reconfiguring US military presence, and that the US wants Saudi Arabia to take the initiative.

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is not only reluctant but has some reservations and sees other alternatives. Not allowing free use of its air space during active war period in the recent past, Mecca pact and military cooperation with Ukraine are few recent steps which speak of Saudi desire for a broad based, multifaceted security umbrella than the US specific shield which she wore for 65 years.

Participation in the meeting, especially by the Saudi defence minister, was exceptionally significant. It has melted the ice where diplomacy has been allowed to stretch its limits and resultantly the situation might evolve differently aftera week or so. Reportedly, Iran has remained stubborn and apparently made very few concessions. Iran’s strategy was very clear. If we are safe, you all are safe, and vice versa. Iran’s body language seemed more prepared to absorb the impending combined strikes than to make any concessions at this point. A window of six strike days is available before celebrating mid-term election results and Netanyahu’s victory in the USA and Israel on 4 Nov.

This is still possible if Iran gets permission to sell its oil in return for opening the Strait of Hormuz.  It might work for Trump at home as a last resort. It will not be a winning situation, but it may avert the disaster of war. Trump’s options, though limited, are still doable. At the same time, the global arena smells bad, as if a strike decision has already been made.  If Iran survives and retaliates, the world will see a kind of recession and events not seen before.

Let’s hope and pray that sense prevails over madness. Peculiar to Pakistan, in the event of a lingering and expanding Middle East conflict, the widening gap between military pressure and negotiated settlement had to be bridged. It’s a diplomatic race led by Field Marshall to prevent a wider Middle East war.  Pakistan has definitely created an opportunity, but timing could not be more critical than where the clock stands today.  All four countries have agreed to continue consultations on regional peace and security, which speaks to the talks’ conclusive nature and is exceptionally encouraging. Ice between Iran and Saudi Arabia is cracking if not yet melting and is likely to pave way for regional security and stability.

The US and the world need to understand how fragile temporary halts are during complicated, consequential issues.  Pakistan and its top leadership are extending diplomatic reach while promoting collective understanding by tying commitments to verifiable outcomes. Lastly, what did Field Marshall actually do in Tehran? The report says he offered a deal to Iranian officials with Donald Trump’s blessing.  It had something for both America and Iran. If approved, Mecca pact and Qatar shall act as guarantors.

The post Field Marshal Reaches Tehran during Testing Times appeared first on Daily Pakistan English News.

If you spend enough time paying attention to political messaging, you’ll inevitably hear about “dog whistle” politics. The idea is straightforward: Just as actual dog whistles can only be heard by canines, officials and candidates often use coded language to deliver subtle messages to targeted audiences in ways that are not immediately obvious to everyone else.

Donald Trump and his allies have been using these rhetorical tactics quite a bit lately.

On Wednesday afternoon, for example, the official “war room” account for the president’s political operation published an item to social media that read, “Which way Western Man?” The typical person might not have given this much thought, but it’s quite likely that fascists recognized the phrasing immediately.

Last year a Newsweek report supplied the relevant context after Trump’s Department of Homeland Security pushed a similar message:

The Trump administration has been accused of quoting a white supremacist who was backed by a Neo-Nazi group, as part of its social media campaign to recruit immigration enforcement agents.

In a post shared to X on Monday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said “Which way, American man?”, a quote appearing to reference Which Way, Western Man, a 1978 book by the avowed white supremacist William Gayley Simpson, who argued Hitler was right and Jews must be killed.

The post from the president’s official “war room” account came three weeks after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin published an item of his own via social media that accused the left of trying to “vandalize the demographics of America.”

For some generous observers, it might be tempting to give the Republican administration the benefit of the doubt, but there’s also a track record to consider. The New York Times reported earlier this year:

The posts have referred to neo-Nazi literature, ethnic cleansing and QAnon conspiracies, mused about deporting nearly a third of the U.S. population, and promoted lyrics from an anthem bellowed by the far-right militants of the Proud Boys.

Their authors are not on society’s fringe. They are in the offices of the White House and the departments of Homeland Security and Labor, using official government accounts.

The article highlighted several messages, including one from January in which the White House and DHS jointly posted a recruitment ad for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The message began, “WE’LL HAVE OUR HOME AGAIN.”

It wasn’t long before observers noted this same phrase is the name of a song, which, as the Times noted, was written by members of a self-described “pro-White fraternal order” and has been embraced by white nationalist groups.

To be sure, administration officials have repeatedly denied that they’re trying to send signals to right-wing extremists and have insisted that the rhetorical similarities are coincidental.

That said, William Braniff, director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab at American University, told the Times that one or two posts might be easy to overlook. But “when you add it all together,” Braniff said, “it’s much harder to dismiss.”

The post Team Trump pushes notorious phrase linked to white supremacists (again) appeared first on MS NOW.

When Ben Carson led the Department of Housing and Urban Development, he faced a variety of controversies, but one of the most embarrassing involved furniture he bought for his office at taxpayer expense. In one especially memorable congressional hearing, the then-secretary offered a rambling, and at times contradictory, explanation for the spending, initially saying the furniture was necessary in part for “security” reasons, before ultimately blaming his wife.

Around the same time, then-Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt also spent more than $43,000 to install a soundproof phone booth in his office for reasons that never made any sense.

Nothing of consequence came of the incidents, even if the controversies might have served as cautionary tales for future Cabinet members: It’s best to exercise caution when it comes to public funds and office decor.

It’s a lesson Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who actually served alongside Carson in the first Trump administration, failed to learn. The New York Times reported:

Linda McMahon, the education secretary, plans to spend $43,000 on new furniture for her government office, a work space makeover that comes as she lobbies Congress to shut down her department.

Ms. McMahon’s team has informed Congress that her current furniture is worn out and “cannot be configurationally or aesthetically integrated into the agency’s new office space,” according to Education Department records reviewed by The New York Times that have not been publicly disclosed.

I know effectively nothing about interior design, but I suppose “cannot be … aesthetically integrated” is another way of saying “looks funny.”

The amount of money is notable in its own right, but that McMahon wants to spend money on furnishing an office she doesn’t think should exist adds an element to the story that makes it unavoidably worse.

Two Democratic senators — Patty Murray of Washington, the vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies — wrote to the secretary this week, pressing her to abandon her spending plans.

“It has come to our attention that as you cut off funding for students, push out staff, and do all you can to illegally dismantle the very department you lead, you plan to spend $43,278.64 on new furniture for your own office,” the senators wrote. “You vowed to put yourself out of a job; now you expect American taxpayers to pick up the tab to refurnish your own office.”

“Secretary McMahon, you have asked students, families, and teachers across the country to endure extraordinarily painful cuts in the name of ‘fiscal responsibility,’ and you have pushed out nearly half of the staff at the Department,” they added. “This year, you have asked Congress to slash funding for important K-12 programs and to cut funding for higher education programs by nearly $5 billion. But it is clear that you do not think that you should have to abide by the same rules you want to apply to others.”

Murray and Baldwin concluded, “The American people are sick of the corruption, sick of the waste, and sick of the hypocrisy coming out of all corners of this administration.”

The Education Department’s press secretary told the Times the agency was “saving taxpayers millions of dollars,” in large part by moving to smaller offices as part of the broader effort to dismantle the department altogether. It’s a line McMahon is likely to repeat the next time she testifies on Capitol Hill.

The post ‘Sick of the waste’: Democrats seize on Linda McMahon’s office furniture flap appeared first on MS NOW.

One of the nation’s strangest laws is primed for reform in a new bill from Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., that would bring a dose of logic to federal drug policy.

That unusual law — Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch called it a “curious animal” — is the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act. Known as the Analogue Act for short, it’s part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which was rushed into law ahead of that year’s midterm elections by a bipartisan Congress and Republican President Ronald Reagan. Passed in the shadow of high-profile deaths, including that of basketball star Len Bias, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act brought mandatory minimum sentences and a vast disparity in punishment for crack and powder cocaine offenses, respectively.

The Analogue Act separately sought to solve the problem of so-called designer drugs. The problem, as the authorities saw it, was that the law was too specific. Cocaine, heroin and other drugs were illegal because they were listed under the Nixon-era Controlled Substances Act’s drug schedules. But nothing was stopping underground chemists from tinkering with listed substances to produce new ones that the law didn’t capture. Congress could ban novel drugs as they appeared on the illicit market, but that took time and would only apply going forward. Bad actors went unpunished in the meantime, so the government thinking went.

As I laid out in my book, “Bizarro,” on the inside story of the Analogue Act and one of the most peculiar cases it spawned, law enforcement was tired of playing catchup in the cat-and-mouse game. It wanted to go on offense. The result was the Analogue Act, which expanded federal drug law to say that any substances “substantially similar” to already illegal ones like cocaine, heroin and others on the most restricted drug schedules were illegal, too.

‘Curious animal’

In solving one problem, the Analogue Act confronted another: the Constitution.

Due process means that people need notice of what’s legal, so they can live their lives accordingly. Yet the act’s substantial-similarity test outlawed a potentially infinite number of substances with a vague, unscientific standard. Whether that standard is satisfied in a given case depends on whether prosecutors can convince juries that one substance is “substantially similar” to another. The ambiguous test has led to conflicting verdicts in different cases involving the same substance.

Even the Drug Enforcement Administration’s chemists haven’t always agreed among themselves about which substances qualify as analogues. If the government’s own experts can’t agree about what’s legal, how can people subject to the law be expected to know?

Judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents alike have questioned the act’s constitutionality. Notable among them is Gorsuch. Before President Donald Trump appointed him to the Supreme Court in 2017, the jurist called the act a “curious animal” in a 2015 ruling when he was on the Denver-based appeals court. Gorsuch deemed the “substantially similar” test’s meaning an “open question,” as he wondered whether it gives citizens fair notice.

But even since he joined the high court, the justices have refused to consider a petition attacking the Analogue Act. The court’s lack of interest effectively has left the matter with Congress.

Taming the animal with an ‘and’

Enter the new bill announced by Cohen, who has criticized the drug war during his nearly two decades in the House. The Democrat isn’t running for re-election this year, after Tennessee Republicans passed a congressional map, backed by recent Supreme Court rulings, that splintered his Memphis base in what was the state’s only majority-Black district.

Cohen’s “Public Health and Research Reforms in Controlled Substances Act” would, as its name suggests, shift drug law from a punitive approach to one centered on public health, with a revamped scheduling system, scientific research promotion and other measures.

Its analogue amendment wouldn’t overturn the constitutionally suspect “substantially similar” test, but it would address one of its ridiculous aspects.

To understand the fix, it’s necessary to know what the act says currently. It has three sections that define what a controlled substance analogue is, according to its 1) structure, 2) effect and 3) represented effect. It defines an analogue as a substance:

i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II;

ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II; or

iii) with respect to a particular person, which such person represents or intends to have a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.

Beyond the vagueness at the heart of the term “substantially similar,” a key issue is the language in between each section. There’s an “or” in between the second and third sections on effect and representation, but there’s nothing in between the first and second sections on structure and effect. A draft version of the 1986 law had an “and” in between those first two sections, which would have clearly meant that, to qualify as an analogue, at least a substantially similar chemical structure was required.

It’s unclear why the “and” didn’t make it into the final version of the Analogue Act. But its omission has prompted an outlier legal argument that prosecutors only have to prove one of the three prongs: structure, effect or representation of effect. The consequences of that reading are extreme, because if only representation is required (regardless of what the substance actually is or does), then people can serve decades in prison for selling something that isn’t similar to a scheduled drug at all.

What an appeals court called an “absurd” example of that phenomenon arose in a prosecution against people who sold a mixture of candle wax and flour under the pretense that it was crack/cocaine. “The treatment of candle wax and flour, no matter how it is marketed, as a schedule I controlled substance is an ‘absurd’ result of the kind our canons of construction instruct us to avoid,” the Philadelphia-based court said in a 2003 case, reversing a district court that ruled otherwise.

Yet the concern over that absurdity was not relegated to history. Just a few years ago, a San Francisco-based appeals court suggested that the act could still be used to achieve such an outlandish outcome. Even the government wasn’t pressing for that aggressive interpretation, so the court didn’t feel bound to embrace it in that case.

But if the Analogue Act stays on the books as is, courts could keep reaching “absurd” results in future cases.

‘Open question’

Cohen’s proposed legislation would prevent that absurdity by adding the “and.” Had it been there at the time of the wax-and-flour case, the district court would have had to side with the defense, because even if the mixture was marketed as crack, its chemical structure was not substantially similar to crack by any reasonable measure.

To be sure, the new bill’s analogue amendment wouldn’t solve the due process problem inherent in the “substantially similar” test; that could probably only be done by overturning the act entirely. Still, the bill would bring a dose of logic that has been missing for four decades.

Whether that modest measure has the votes to become law with today’s Congress and White House is, as Gorsuch put it in 2015, an “open question.” But even if this bill doesn’t pass, it’s an important question to keep asking.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

The post Neil Gorsuch called this law a ‘curious animal.’ A new bill would tame it. appeared first on MS NOW.

For the past several weeks, Republicans worried about the outcome of Alaska’s U.S. Senate race have focused on one aspect of the contest above all others: the fact that there are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot.

After months of arguments, a state judge in Alaska ruled in late June that retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan could run against incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, and a few months later, after the first round of balloting, state election officials finalized the top four candidates for Alaska’s unique system. Both Dan Sullivans advanced to the general election.

This has generated all kinds of allegations that the Democratic nominee, former Rep. Mary Peltola, and her allies coordinated behind the scenes to get the other Sullivan onto the ballot. The candidate and her team repeatedly said they weren’t involved, but The New York Times published a report Wednesday that called those denials into question. From the article:

The Peltola campaign has repeatedly denied any involvement in his candidacy. But The Times has found, based on interviews and text messages, along with documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign, that not only did Ms. Peltola’s team work with people trying to recruit Mr. Sullivan to run for Senate, but the effort was much broader. The group worked to coax other would-be spoilers into the race, to dilute the incumbent’s support and help catapult the Democrat to victory.

Not surprisingly, Republicans who were already worked up about the allegations when there was no evidence became apoplectic in response to the newspaper’s report. Donald Trump published four separate rants to his social media platform, for example, each of which alleged unidentified crimes, called for Peltola’s disqualification or both. Around the same time, the president told reporters that the Democratic nominee “should resign,” and at a Wednesday night rally in Ohio, he also called for her prosecution.

On Thursday morning, Trump hedged on whether Peltola should be allowed to serve in the Senate, even if Alaskans elect her.

Other Republicans went down a similar path. Incumbent Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy ordered an investigation into whether Peltola’s campaign should face criminal or civil penalties; Attorney General Todd Blanche scurried to Fox News to accuse Democrats of “cheating”; House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer launched a congressional investigation; and even Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who’s generally been friendly with Peltola, complained of “a culture of deception.”

For now, it’s fair to say that there are legitimate questions about what transpired, though they don’t yet have definitive answers. That said, even if the allegations are true, it’s important not to lose sight of the relevant details.

There’s a qualitative difference between genuine electoral scandals and routine campaign mischief. Asking an official who oversees a state elections system to “find” 11,780 votes that don’t exist is disgraceful on a historic scale, but looking for candidates with names similar to an opponent is a tactic with a deep American pedigree. It’s common enough to have earned a familiar name: ballot-stacking.

That’s not to say it’s a good thing. It’s not. But both parties have utilized this strategy for generations — there’s a classic story from 1946 about John F. Kennedy’s first congressional primary, which included two men named Joseph Russo — and it’s never been the subject of hysterics, Justice Department prosecutions or federal investigations.

The same is true of campaign mischief in general. Republicans, including one of Trump’s own lawyers, tried to help Kanye West qualify for the presidential ballot in 2020, as part of a dumb trick. GOP operatives did the same thing in the 2024 race, trying to boost Cornel West’s independent presidential campaign as part of an effort to improve Trump’s chances.

Even in the Sullivan-Peltola race, the Senate Republicans’ top super PAC has invested in a Green Party candidate from Arizona — not because it supports his candidacy, but because it’s playing a cheap electoral game.

Similar tactics have been common in Alaska for a while, including in 2010, when some of Murkowski’s critics encouraged people with similar names to register as write-in candidates.

Again, if members of Team Peltola denied involvement in a scheme they were involved in, they’ll deserve to be criticized for underhanded campaign tactics. But to pretend that the latest apparent instance of ballot-stacking is some kind of hair-on-fire scandal is a mistake.

The post Eyeing Alaska, Trump and Republicans pick a fight over campaign mischief they can’t win appeared first on MS NOW.

Nel totale silenzio mediatico è stato approvato in Commissione Federalismo un provvedimento destinato a sottrarre diversi miliardi al Mezzogiorno e alle aree fragili nei prossimi anni. L’aspetto più grave è che i meridionali non lo sanno e pochi addetti ai lavori lo hanno capito per un semplice motivo: il testo su cui sono stati chiamati a votare i parlamentari è abbastanza tecnico, infarcito di formule statistiche, tecnicismi economici e il solito meccanismo di “scrivere difficile per far capire poco”. Eppure l’Atto Governo 449 rischia di spaccare definitivamente l’Italia e mettere in seria difficoltà i comuni più fragili, un dettaglio non di poco conto che l’ANCI ha sottovalutato, emettendo un parere favorevole al testo “ringraziando per i miglioramenti metodologici apportati”.

Il documento – che assume la spesa storica corrente del 2023 come variabile di riferimento per stimare i fabbisogni dei territori – parte da un assunto già di per sé critico: chi in passato ha speso poco, spesso non per disinteresse, ma per la strutturale mancanza di risorse, si vede oggi riconoscere un fabbisogno inferiore di risorse. E come vengono determinati i fabbisogni delle varie funzioni dei territori? Adottando variabile e metriche che penalizzano in modo drammatico il Sud.

Per la “Funzione Territorio”, ad esempio, il provvedimento quantifica il fabbisogno di risorse a cui avranno diritto i comuni sulla base dell’intensità del servizio effettivamente erogato in passato, prendendo in considerazione parametri come i chilometri di strade asfaltate negli ultimi tre anni o l’estensione delle piste ciclabili. Così, i territori che non hanno disposto dei fondi necessari per la manutenzione ordinaria negli anni precedenti, riceveranno un riconoscimento economico ridotto, alimentando un circolo vizioso.

A questo si aggiunge l’introduzione di variabili premiali legate alla percentuale di territorio oltre i 1.500 metri d’altitudine o alla presenza di gallerie superiori ai 500 metri. Un’impostazione che avvantaggia l’arco alpino e le grandi arterie del Nord, tagliando fuori le complesse aree collinari, costiere e appenniniche del Sud, drammaticamente esposte al dissesto idrogeologico ma prive dei requisiti altimetrici o infrastrutturali previsti dal modello.

La medesima distorsione caratterizza la “Funzione Ambiente”, la cui determinazione del fabbisogno poggia su un indicatore sintetico dei rifiuti (elaborato su dati ISPRA) che pesa il numero di impianti provinciali già esistenti, quali discariche o impianti di compostaggio e digestione anaerobica. Un modello che anziché dotare le province del Sud delle risorse necessarie per superare lo storico gap infrastrutturale nella gestione dei rifiuti, finisce per penalizzarle proprio per la carenza di impianti sul territorio.

E, ancora, per la “Funzione Istruzione”, le determinanti del fabbisogno per l’edilizia scolastica includono la percentuale di superficie degli edifici situati in zone climatiche fredde, tralasciando completamente le classi esposte al caldo estivo, una scelta che favorisce nettamente le regioni settentrionali e montane, ignorando la calura estiva che affligge d’estate i territori meridionali.

E per la “Funzione Trasporti e Polizia Provinciale”? La variabile principale per calcolare i fabbisogni dei territori, da ora in poi, sarà quella del numero di veicoli circolanti, il che penalizza ancora una volta il Meridione: commisurare i trasferimenti alla densità di veicoli immatricolati significa premiare i territori a più alto reddito e a maggiore concentrazione industriale, riducendo le risorse laddove la mobilità è compressa da contesti socio-economici fragili.

Per la cronaca, il Pd si è astenuto sul provvedimento mentre il M5S ha votato contro, registrandosi un durissimo intervento della Senatrice Vincenza Aloisio che, riferendosi al testo lo ha definito “un documento che sotto mentite spoglie penalizza il Sud”. L’Atto Governo 449 rischia, così, di abbandonare la sua natura perequativa per trasformarsi in una barriera invisibile ma insormontabile, destinata a formalizzare e rendere definitiva la divisione dell’Italia in due velocità.

L'articolo Approvato nel silenzio l’atto che spacca l’Italia: così Sud e aree fragili perdono miliardi proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

di Roberto Celante

Leonardo Maria Del Vecchio dovrebbe avere già capito dal comunicato ufficiale di Seif che la propria idea di acquisire la maggioranza delle azioni del Fatto Quotidiano non è destinata a concretizzarsi. Leggere queste mie righe, ancorché esprimano il punto di vista di un semplice lettore, potrebbe giovare a Del Vecchio per rassegnarsi più rapidamente, così come potrebbe far desistere subito eventuali altri aspiranti editori.

In primo luogo, e in linea generale, deve essere chiaro che nemmeno la più ampia disponibilità di denaro dà il diritto di comprare qualsiasi cosa solo perché, per interesse, per capriccio, o per noia, la si desideri. Perché, dietro la proprietà, ci sono le persone e le loro vite, quindi possono esserci, o esserci state, le loro ansie e le loro speranze, le loro battaglie e i loro traguardi, le loro sconfitte e le loro rivincite. Il che non significa necessariamente essere materialisti, ma riconoscere che vi può essere una qualche forma di legame tra proprietà e sfera emotiva, che va rispettato.

Nel caso specifico della titolarità delle azioni dei soci fondatori del Fatto Quotidiano, vi è un legame ancora più forte, perché esse costituiscono la garanzia dell’indipendenza dei giornalisti, soci e non soci. Il vero proprietario del Fatto Quotidiano è, infatti, la deontologia professionale dei giornalisti, perché solo a questa essi devono rispondere.

La presenza di un editore, cioè di un socio di maggioranza assoluta, o relativa, può avere un’influenza sulla linea editoriale del giornale, a maggior ragione se l’editore ha forti interessi da tutelare in altri settori economici. L’organo di stampa, infatti, potrebbe voler essere utilizzato come uno strumento pubblicitario, oppure come un’arma contro la concorrenza, oppure come la parte agguerrita di un processo mediatico parallelo ad eventuali inchieste della magistratura che coinvolgano l’editore, orientando l’opinione pubblica a credere a una fantomatica persecuzione giudiziaria.

Non è scontato che la mera presenza di un editore porti automaticamente all’avverarsi di uno, o più, degli scenari prospettati; però, espone certamente i giornalisti a quei rischi, concreti o putativi, tali da attentare alla loro indipendenza. Il tema è cruciale, perché il giornalismo, in una democrazia sana, dovrebbe essere il “cane da guardia del potere”, non un servo del padrone.

Inoltre, la Costituzione tutela la democrazia, non soltanto avendo delineato l’architettura istituzionale dello Stato, ma anche riconoscendo il diritto allo studio per tutti (art. 34) e la libertà di stampa (art. 21), perché sono gli strumenti fondamentali a disposizione dei cittadini per valutare l’operato dei politici e delle lobby. La posizione attuale dell’Italia nel ranking mondiale della libertà di stampa è a un preoccupante 56° posto su 180 Paesi e, senza il Fatto Quotidiano, sarebbe certamente a un livello ancora più basso.

Ecco, quindi, tutti i motivi che, a mio parere, portano i soci fondatori a respingere irremovibilmente la proposta di acquisizione del Fatto Quotidiano da parte di Leonardo Del Vecchio. Perché nel 2009 hanno affrontato il rischio d’impresa, senza il paracadute del finanziamento pubblico e stanno continuando a farlo, senza soluzione di continuità; perché solo l’assenza di un editore permette al Fatto Quotidiano di continuare a restare una voce autorevole e indipendente nel panorama mediatico italiano; perché essere indotti a lavorare in modo diverso significherebbe perdere non soltanto la propria indipendenza, ma anche la propria identità e dignità; perché, infine, il Fatto Quotidiano perderebbe tutti i lettori, senza attirarne di nuovi, dato che i suoi giornalisti, soci e non soci, dovrebbero improvvisarsi a fare un mestiere diverso, che non riuscirebbero mai a imparare.

Il blog Sostenitore ospita i post scritti dai lettori che hanno deciso di contribuire alla crescita de ilfattoquotidiano.it, sottoscrivendo l’offerta Sostenitore e diventando così parte attiva della nostra community. Tra i post inviati, Peter Gomez e la redazione selezioneranno e pubblicheranno quelli più interessanti. Questo blog nasce da un’idea dei lettori, continuate a renderlo il vostro spazio. Diventare Sostenitore significa anche metterci la faccia, la firma o l’impegno: aderisci alle nostre campagne, pensate perché tu abbia un ruolo attivo! Se vuoi partecipare, al prezzo di “un cappuccino alla settimana” potrai anche seguire in diretta streaming la riunione di redazione del giovedì – mandandoci in tempo reale suggerimenti, notizie e idee – e accedere al Forum riservato dove discutere e interagire con la redazione.

L'articolo Il Fatto non si vende: avere denaro non dà diritto a comprare qualsiasi cosa proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In Kansas’ U.S. Senate race, the Rev. Adam Hamilton, the Democratic nominee, joked Wednesday that that he considers it “a great compliment” that national Republican leaders keep campaigning in his home state.

“It tells me that they are terrified that they’re going to lose this race — and they should be,” he said.

Soon after, the latest CNN poll in Kansas showed Hamilton leading incumbent Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, 49% to 45%.

* In Texas’ U.S. Senate race, the latest CNN poll also found Democratic state Rep. James Talarico leading Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton, 49% to 43%, although most other recent polling has pointed to a closer race.

* In Maine’s U.S. Senate race, the same CNN poll also found Democrat Troy Jackson ahead of incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins, 49% to 45%.

* In Michigan’s U.S. Senate race, the latest CNN poll also found Democrat Abdul El-Sayed leading former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, 49% to 42%, which is also a wider margin than we’ve seen in other recent high-quality polls.

* MS NOW’s polling averages for the races above, compiled by data partner FiftyPlusOne, are broken out here.

* In Mississippi’s U.S. Senate race, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has made another final-week investment, hoping to boost local prosecutor Scott Colom in his surprisingly competitive race against incumbent Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith.

* In Wisconsin’s gubernatorial race, the latest Marquette Law School Poll found Democrat David Crowley leading Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany, 51% to 44%.

* Though Louisiana has been generally considered one of the least competitive states in this year’s election cycle, Donald Trump announced that he will lead “a major TeleRally” on Monday night in support of Republican Rep. Julia Letlow’s Senate candidacy. With so many other competitive races on the ballot, it’s not clear why the president would spend the night before Election Day focused on helping Letlow in a race she’s all but certain to win anyway.

* In a key congressional race in Pennsylvania, No Going Back, a group affiliated with Trump’s MAGA Inc. super PAC, recently tried to boost Republican Rep. Scott Perry with an attack ad targeting Democrat Janelle Stelson. The ad included unsubstantiated allegations that were so problematic that a Harrisburg-area television station pulled the commercial from the air. This is the first and only instance from this election cycle that a campaign ad has been pulled by a station.

* And in Ohio’s gubernatorial race, Axios reported that Republican officials are increasingly convinced that Vivek Ramaswamy’s notorious attack ad is poised to cost him the election. At a Wednesday night rally in the Buckeye State, Trump nevertheless defended the ad and said it had merit.

The post Thursday’s Campaign Round-Up, 10.29.26: Poll shows Hamilton leading in Kansas appeared first on MS NOW.

Sens. Jeff Merkley and Steve Daines proposed a four-part bipartisan agenda in a Washington Post op-ed aimed at reducing Senate dysfunction by reforming the filibuster and streamlining legislative processes.

Sens. Jeff Merkley and Steve Daines proposed a four-part bipartisan agenda in a Washington Post op-ed aimed at reducing Senate dysfunction by reforming the filibuster and streamlining legislative processes.

The closer we get to Election Day, the more hysterical Republican rhetoric has become when targeting Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic U.S. Senate nominee in Michigan. Donald Trump, predictably, has helped lead the slanderous charge, condemning the candidate as a “jihadist” who “should not be allowed to serve in our Senate.”

As is too often the case, the rest of the party has followed the president’s lead and headed for the gutter. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said El-Sayed “sleeps in a bin Laden jersey.” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. campaigned in Michigan this week and thought it would be good idea to trash the scientific and literary accomplishments of a half-billion Arab Muslims. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas this week explicitly said that “there is a very real risk that Americans will die” if El-Sayed is elected and serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

But it was something Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio said during a Wednesday night rally that stood out as unusual.

Moreno: "Rogers is in a race w/ somebody that is an affront to me as an American. El-Sayed can be nowhere near DC. Do you think he understands that concept that our rights come from God Almighty? That Jesus came here for our salvation? He should be nowhere near DC & Rogers is going to kick his ass."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-28T22:56:58.048Z

Making the case to Buckeye State voters who can’t cast ballots in Michigan’s Senate race, the GOP senator suggested that El-Sayed should be disqualified from serving in the chamber because he does not accept divinity of Jesus Christ.

“This character, Abdul El-Sayed, can be nowhere near Washington, D.C.,” Moreno said. “Do you think he understands that concept, that our rights come from God Almighty? That Jesus came here for our salvation? He should be nowhere near Washington, D.C., and [Republican candidate] Mike Rogers is going to kick his ass on Tuesday.”

So, a few things.

First, whether Moreno understood this or not, he was speaking at a rally that was intended to generate support for the GOP ticket in Ohio — a ticket led in part by Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republicans’ gubernatorial candidate, who is Hindu.

Second, when Moreno was sworn in as a senator, he swore to support and defend the Constitution, which includes Article VI, clause 3 — a provision that says “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

And third, as Moreno really ought to know, roughly 1 in 3 Americans are not Christians, and the idea that they should be disqualified from congressional service because of their beliefs is plainly insane. Indeed, let’s not forget that there are Jewish Republicans in Congress and the White House Cabinet who would disagree with the senator’s belief that that “Jesus came here for our salvation.”

If Republicans want to try to influence the outcome of Michigan’s race, fine. That’s a normal part of the political discourse. But I’d be interested in knowing how many other Republicans agree with Moreno’s suggestion that religious minorities should be excluded from serving in the Senate.

The post GOP’s Moreno targets El-Sayed with a religious test that even many Republicans can’t pass appeared first on MS NOW.

A couple of months ago, Donald Trump announced plans to create a new national military academy, which he called the U.S. Space Academy. “You think of West Point, and you think of Annapolis, and you think of the Air Force Academy, and you think of the Coast Guard Academies,” the president said. “Great, they’re all great, but we’re going to have now the Space Force.”

It’s not altogether clear exactly what Space Academy graduates would do, but if the Republican’s plans are implemented, this will be the first new federal military academy opened in the United States since 1954.

The White House also hasn’t said where exactly this service academy would be. As it turns out, the president has some thoughts on the matter, which he shared at his latest campaign rally. NBC News reported:

Trump pledged to establish the new U.S. Space Force academy in Ohio, but only if Sen. Jon Husted wins re-election next week.

“And I wanted you to know that if Jon Husted wins, I am going to consider putting the Space Academy right here, if you win,” Trump said.

He added that “every state” wants the Space Force academy (itself a dubious claim), but that Ohio will be the one to get it — if Ohioans vote the way he wants them to in a Senate race.

If former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown prevails, Trump can still deliver the service academy to the Buckeye State, but by his own admission, he won’t. For the president, this is a transaction: He’s prepared to deliver a treat to Ohio, but it’s conditional on his satisfaction with a specific election, which has literally nothing to do with the Space Force or its academy.

This has become a staple of his midterm messaging:

Sept. 16: Trump told a North Carolina audience he wouldn’t approve federal disaster relief funds for the state unless they elected former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley to the Senate. (He seemed to be kidding about this, though it wasn’t funny, and with him, it’s sometimes tough to tell.)

Oct. 3: The president told an Ohio audience he might look unfavorably at the state’s future emergency aid requests if they didn’t elect a Republican governor.

Oct. 17: Trump told a Kentucky audience that his administration would invest in a local economic revitalization project, but only if his preferred GOP Senate candidate won.

Oct. 19: Trump told a Kansas audience he was prepared to approve a yearlong waiver for selling fuel blended with 15% ethanol (the E15 policy), but if Kansans elected a Democratic senator, “I’m not doing it.”

Oct. 20: The president told a North Carolina audience he would settle claims related to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, but only if Republican candidates won. “If we don’t win, there’s no money,” Trump declared. “If we do win, you’re getting it.”

Almost daily: At effectively every 2026 campaign rally, Trump vows to send $5,000 checks to every American adult — but only if the election results make him happy. (Last week in North Carolina, the president explicitly said, “If we lose, you get nothing. You’re going to get nothing. If we lose, you get nothing.”)

In case this isn’t obvious, nothing about a Democratic-led Congress would prevent Trump from delivering any of these benefits to these states or constituencies. The president made the commitments conditional, not because he had to, but because he chose to.

In any normal American election, candidates tell voters about the priorities they’ll advance if elected. That’s not controversial in the slightest. What Trump is saying is qualitatively different — and vastly worse. The incumbent Republican is effectively telling voters, in state after state, that he could deliver for them, but if he’s not satisfied with the election results, he simply won’t bother.

So they better make sure he’s satisfied with the election results.

Trump has goodies to hand out, and the public will benefit from his benevolence — unless voters dare to hurt his feelings. This isn’t how elections are supposed to work in a healthy democracy.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Trump’s latest transactional pitch: Space Force academy is conditional on election outcome appeared first on MS NOW.

A meno di 48 ore dal responso delle urne che hanno decretato a sorpresa il quarto mandato di Ińacio Lula da Silva, il suo antagonista Flávio Bolsonaro ha preso il largo, diretto negli Stati Uniti dopo aver oltrepassato il confine con l’Argentina, azione di cui Javier Milei ha negato il coinvolgimento. Lo attende Trump, che gli ha concesso il visto d’ingresso.

Il Supremo Tribunale Federale (STF) aveva chiesto il ritiro del suo passaporto e il divieto di espatrio per gravi accuse di complicità in riciclaggio. Per capire meglio i dettagli di questa vicenda su cui si è basata la candidatura di Bolsonaro Jr. alla presidenza del Brasile, bisogna partire dal concetto di immunità parlamentare secondo il sistema giuridico nazionale.

In Brasile, la concessione di un tribunale separato dalla giustizia ordinaria è prevista esclusivamente per politici con incarichi parlamentari, in primis il Presidente della Repubblica Federale e il suo vice, poi nell’ordine senatori, deputati e ministri, durante l’esercizio della loro funzione. Quando ciò accade, il personaggio in questione passa sotto la giurisdizione unica del STF, presidiato allo stato attuale dal giudice Alexandre de Moraes, che sta conducendo l’inchiesta su Bolsonaro Jr.

Anche se i candidati alla presidenza non rientrano in questo privilegio, a prescindere che Bolsonaro fosse già senatore, il codice elettorale concede loro una finestra ante voto di 15 giorni durante i quali non possono essere arrestati, che si protrae fino a 48 ore dalla chiusura dei seggi. Periodo sufficiente al mancato presidente per squagliarsela.

De Moraes è da tempo nel mirino di Trump, che ha fatto di tutto per favorire la campagna elettorale del figlio dell’ex presidente, fino a coinvolgere Meta di Zuckerberg, il quale si sarebbe prestato a oscurare l’account Instagram di Lula, favorendo nel contempo la visibilità del profilo di Bolsonaro. Accusa che il creatore di Facebook ha respinto, attribuendo l’incidente al malfunzionamento temporaneo degli algoritmi. Guarda caso, solo da una parte.

Lo scopo principale di Bolsonaro era quindi di salire al Planalto (il palazzo presidenziale, cioè la Casa Bianca brasiliana) ai fini di usufruire della sospensione di azione penale durante il mandato dei 4 anni per i reati precedenti al voto. Periodo dove potrebbe scattare la prescrizione di cui già aveva usufruito Lula, pur condannato in primo grado per il suo presunto coinvolgimento nell’inchiesta Lava Jato.

Va precisato però che tale condanna era stata già annullata per manifesta parzialità del collegio giudicante di allora, composto dall’ex giudice Sergio Moro (ora governatore dello Stato Federale di Paraná) e dal procuratore di Lava Jato Deltan Dallagnol che perse il rinnovo del suo mandato per via di una legge speciale (A Ficha Limpa) promulgata nel 2010 e applicata dal STF per punire la parzialità riscontrata nel processo a Lula.

Flávio è indagato principalmente per riciclaggio ed evasione fiscale in combutta con il suo socio, l’avvocato Willer Tomaz, il quale è anche sotto lente per il dirottamento di fondi INSS (Instituto Nacional Do Seguro Social, l’Inps brasiliano) nei suoi conti privati.

In particolare, Bolsonaro Jr è accusato di aver utilizzato soldi provenienti dal lavaggio di denaro sporco passati per il Banco Master, ai fini di finanziare la produzione del film Dark Horse dedicato al padre, con l’obiettivo di ripulire la sua reputazione macchiata nell’ordine dalla pessima gestione della pandemia durante la sua presidenza, dal tentato colpo di Stato dopo la vittoria di Lula nel 2022, e infine dal tentativo di fuga; fattori che portarono Jair alla condanna a 27 anni, con il carcere commutato poi agli arresti domiciliari temporanei per motivi di salute.

Quello della fuga è un vizio comune di famiglia, dato che dopo il padre fu Eduardo, fratello di Flavio, a riparare negli Usa, diventando lobbista di Trump che gli concesse asilo politico con lo scopo di sabotare la campagna elettorale di Lula favorendo quella del primogenito.

Tornando all’indagine, secondo il quotidiano O Globo ripreso dalla Bbc Brasil, negli hangar degli aerei dell’avvocato Tomaz gli inquirenti rinvenirono 130 milioni di reais in contanti (circa 22 milioni di euro) provenienti dalle scommesse clandestine, riciclati attraverso il Banco Master.

Anche se Bolsonaro Jr non è ancora apertamente accusato di complicità, gli inquirenti comunque indagano sui 5 viaggi internazionali fatti in 5 mesi dalla famiglia Bolsonaro a bordo dei suddetti aerei di proprietà Tomaz.

Tuttavia il crimine che è valso a Bolsonaro il soprannome Racadinha deriva dall’odiosa estorsione che egli praticava sui suoi dipendenti e su altri impiegati ministeriali, i quali dovevano versare al figlio di Jair una percentuale dei loro stipendi per conservare il posto di lavoro. Ciò non ha però impedito a circa 60 milioni di brasiliani di votarlo, sorpassando nel primo turno Lula. E questo la dice lunga sul cinismo locale, frutto delle disuguaglianze e della corruzione che affligge il colosso sudamericano.

L’arma che ha consentito a Lula di farcela al secondo turno è stata quella del gruppo WhatsApp “Exército do Lula”. 10 milioni di iscritti in pochi giorni, un movimento virtuale di giovani che si è concretizzato in quei voti decisivi per la vittoria, malgrado il sabotaggio dei governatori bolsonaristi che aveva causato ritardi dei trasporti pubblici per ostacolare la folla dei lavoratori diretta ai seggi.

Lo smacco più grande subito da Trump: proprio la chat di Zuckerberg – la più diffusa sul pianeta – ha fatto pendere la bilancia a favore del suo nemico, impedendogli così, senza il Brasile, di completare il suo feudo in Sudamerica con la nazione principale.

Foto © F.Bacchetta

L'articolo Flávio Bolsonaro scappa negli Usa dopo la sconfitta in Brasile: le ragioni della fuga proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

As the ninth month of the war with Iran gets underway, there’s new reason to believe the simmering conflict is poised to turn hot again. The Wall Street Journal reported, “The U.S. has told several Gulf Arab countries to be prepared for a short, intense military campaign after the U.S. midterm elections, people briefed on the conversations said.

“The communications through diplomatic and military channels are among a growing number of indications that the U.S. and Israel are readying to launch a new round of heavy combat operations against Iran, risking a major escalation in hopes of degrading Tehran’s strength and pushing it toward negotiations.”

It stands to reason that U.S. military planners would have a lot on their plate right now, which made it all the more notable that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appears to have fired the Pentagon official chiefly responsible for planning. The Atlantic reported:

Earlier this week, the Pentagon’s chief planner, Army Lieutenant General Brett Sylvia, was ousted from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. No explanation was given. This comes at an inopportune moment, given that President Trump may be planning to relaunch the war on Iran. Sylvia, the former commander of the 101st Airborne Division, becomes the latest in a long line of senior officers who have been shown the door since Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth arrived at the Pentagon almost two years ago.

No replacement for Sylvia was named, and it is unclear who will take over his responsibilities.

The Washington Post published a related piece, noting that none of the relevant players commented on the development, but adding that Sylvia’s “online biography appears to have been removed from the Joint Staff website.”

The same report went on to note, “Sylvia’s abrupt removal has infuriated colleagues, who saw him as a battle-tested and thoughtful leader.”

But while the public waits for additional details about why the hapless defense secretary did this — Sylvia had been targeted by Laura Loomer, a right-wing influencer who often advises President Donald Trump — the larger context is tough to ignore: Two months ago, The New York Times reported that Hegseth’s personnel moves have been so dramatic that he has left the U.S. Army “essentially rudderless” during an ongoing war in the Middle East.

And yet it’s hard to imagine that more dramatic personnel moves are going to put a rudder back on the U.S. military.

I’ve spent months documenting the scope and scale of the former Fox News host’s relentless purge, which has affected every branch of the armed forces and which has grown so serious that it’s fueling congressional plans to impeach Hegseth.

But with the president in his corner, the secretary doesn’t appear to care — about the pushback, the fallout, the outrage or the consequences.

Political scientist Caitlin Talmadge, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor who specializes in foreign policy and military operations, noted via social media earlier this year, “Firing senior officers for cause is one thing. Firing them repeatedly on this scale and with no explanation is unprecedented in our nation’s history.”

The practical effects matter. Over the last year, a great many critics have expressed concerns that Hegseth is destabilizing the U.S. military. In fact, The New York Times reported last fall that the secretary had fired or sidelined so many officials “with little explanation” that he’d created “an atmosphere of anxiety and mistrust” within the department.

Politico published a similar report the month before, noting that the secretary’s firings have “injected a fresh wave of fear into the Pentagon over the cost of speaking up and who might be next.”

Early last year, five former defense secretaries, including retired Gen. Jim Mattis, Trump’s first defense secretary, condemned the pattern of firings as “reckless.” In a joint letter to Congress, they asked the House and Senate to hold “immediate hearings to assess the national security implications” of the dismissals.

Hegseth and the administration appear to have ignored those concerns; the purge is still going on; and GOP leaders on Capitol Hill have scheduled no such hearings — though that seems likely to change if there’s a Democratic majority next year.

Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, who served as a Marine officer in Iraq and now serves on the House Armed Services Committee, spoke to Politico about Hegseth’s purges, which the congressman described as politically motivated.

“That’s a recipe not just for a politicized military, but an authoritarian military,” Moulton said. “That’s the way militaries work in Russia and China and North Korea.”

The Massachusetts Democrat made those comments a year ago. The problem is far worse now.

For his part, Hegseth testified on Capitol Hill in April and defended the pattern during congressional testimony, telling lawmakers who asked about his personnel purge, “Under Barack Obama, 197 general officers were removed. So this is not something specific to this administration.”

We learned soon after that the statistic the secretary cited was entirely made up and had no basis in fact. Whether or not Hegseth is prepared to acknowledge the facts, he’s removed more senior military leaders than any defense secretary in recent American history.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Hegseth purges yet another top general, intensifying controversy appeared first on MS NOW.

di Carlo Sorgi*

La Gip di Milano, Tiziana Landoni, ha scarcerato Youssef Siher, accusato di istigazione per delinquere aggravata dalle finalità terroristiche e di partecipazione violenta alle manifestazioni pubbliche per aver creato sui social il “Movimento 17 ottobre”. La sezione distrettuale antiterrorismo della Procura di Milano aveva chiesto la custodia cautelare in carcere. Il fermo non è stato convalidato e non sono adottate misure cautelari.

Con un video diffuso sui social per attaccare ancora una volta frontalmente una decisione giudiziaria, Giorgia Meloni senza mezzi termini ha definito “vergognosa” l’ordinanza del Tribunale, parlando di un atto che finisce per “mortificare in modo insopportabile il lavoro delle forze dell’ordine, degli inquirenti e del Viminale”. Per Meloni, decisioni di questo tipo metterebbero infatti in discussione “la capacità stessa di uno Stato normale di difendere le persone perbene dai raid violenti che colpiscono le città”. Alle parole di Meloni e di altri esponenti politici, ha risposto con un comunicato stampa ufficiale la presidenza del Tribunale di Milano: “Dichiarazioni politiche irricevibili che evidenziano la scarsa conoscenza degli istituti giuridici di uno stato di diritto. Il giudice è terzo e soggetto soltanto alla legge”.

Esaminiamo le contestazioni formulate nei confronti di Youssef Siher e le motivazioni della Gip milanese. La prima contestazione è quella di istigazione a delinquere (art. 414 C.P.) che – spiega il giudice – è un reato di pericolo concreto, cioè idoneo a provocare la commissione di delitti, sicché “la compressione del diritto di libera espressione delle proprie opinioni è ammissibile solo quando venga effettivamente in gioco la tutela di altri beni costituzionalmente protetti e, in particolare, quello della sicurezza pubblica”. Negli scritti dell’indagato ci sono dichiarazioni con toni aspri e espressioni volgari (“lo Stato ci piscia addosso e i media ci fanno credere che piove” e “Meloni dichiara guerra al futuro di questo Paese e noi dichiariamo guerra a questo presente infame”), ma non accompagnate da specifici e concreti riferimenti ad azioni violente o in altro modo costituenti reato, tali da indurre gli utenti a commettere atti di tal genere.

La pubblicazione del “vademecum di incitamento a tecniche di guerriglia urbana ispirato alla Rivoluzione egiziana del 2011” era parziale, senza la parte (che Siher aveva nel proprio computer ma non condiviso) con consigli potenzialmente più aggressivi verso le forze dell’ordine. Questa riduzione appare, per il giudice, indicativa delle modalità di protesta collettiva che si era proposto di organizzare, le quali non contemplavano l’aggregazione di persone finalizzata alla commissione di atti di violenza. In ogni caso “nei post e nei comunicati pubblicati, Siher non prospetta mai l’attuazione di azioni violente o l’adozione di altri comportamenti integranti reato, né risulta essersi ispirato alle gravi violenze verificatesi nelle giornate del 17 e 18 ottobre 2026, neppure menzionate quale modello delle forme di protesta da lui proposte”.

Le condotte di Siher, quindi, “oltre ad evocare azioni di ‘disobbedienza civile’, non si traducono nell’adozione di comportamenti violenti o più in generale criminosi, ma sono espressione della sua ferma volontà di avviare una stabile forma di protesta a fronte di problematiche socio-economiche che, secondo il suo pensiero, non trovano risposta nelle attuali politiche governative.”

Le osservazioni formulate valgono ad escludere anche la configurabilità del nuovo reato di “violenza organizzata nelle manifestazioni pubbliche”, art. 420 bis C.P., introdotto con il decreto sicurezza 190/2026, l’ottavo del Governo Meloni. Conseguentemente niente gravi indizi di reato, niente convalida dell’arresto, niente misure cautelari.

Per completezza il Gip esclude anche il pericolo di fuga, una delle condizioni per i provvedimenti di custodia cautelare. In effetti Siher non era a casa quando la Polizia lo aveva cercato ma era stata la sua famiglia a dire alle Forze dell’Ordine che da un po’ di tempo Siher stava con la moglie da loro amiche a Milano, dove era stato infatti trovato.

Prima di parlare bisogna conoscere i fatti e questo vale in particolare per chi ha incarichi pubblici rilevanti. Il provvedimento del Giudice di Milano appare motivato con attenzione ai principi di diritto, non solo di quello penale ma anche dei fondamentali diritti della persona della nostra Costituzione.

Se torniamo con la mente alla recente storia del referendum sulla Magistratura, questo caso rappresenta una conferma dell’assunto della totale indipendenza dei giudici rispetto ai pm, che era stata una delle critiche alla base della riforma costituzionale rigettata dal referendum con il suo NO, e ci lascia immaginare cosa sarebbe successo se fosse passata la riforma con una presenza dell’esecutivo certamente più ingombrante sulla Magistratura e tale da ridurne l’indipendenza.

L'articolo La scarcerazione di Siher è motivata con attenzione ai principi di diritto. Checché ne dica Meloni proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.