There's A Great Deal We Aren't Being Told About Ukraine

There've beern several stories over the past week about Hunter Biden being broke, for instance:

According to court filings in California, Hunter's attorneys claim he "has suffered a significant downturn in his income and has significant debt in the millions of dollars range." Imagine that; when daddy's no longer pulling the strings from the Oval Office, the money well runs dry faster than Hunter can say "Where's my crack pipe?"

Like most of these stories, this one misses a much bigger point:

Remember Hunter's illustrious "art career"? You know, the one where anonymous buyers totally weren't paying for access to the White House? Those sales have crashed harder than Hunter after a bender. From selling 27 pieces at an average of $54,481.48 each, he's now managed to sell just one piece for a measly $36,000.

The art career comes very late in the saga. Hunter's connections with his then-senator father almost certainly got him into Yale Law, and after graduating, jobs with the MBNA bank, for which his dad had done a great deal to facilitate its move to Delaware. His subsequent career was based entirely on his connections with Joe, but there wasn't much of an overall direction -- he had a job in the Clinton Commerce Department, then he founded a lobbying firm, then Joe put him on the Amtrak board.

In 2006, he and Uncle Jim struggled to take over the international hedge fund Paradigm Global Advisors, but that didn't turn out well. It wasn't until Joe was elected vice president in 2008 that things began to turn around; in 2008-2009, he began his dealings through Seneca Global Advisors and Rosemont Seneca Partners. However, it appears that his addictions always stood in the way of success; by 2013, Joe had to get him a job in the US Naval Reserve, but he failed a drug test on his first day of work.

Here's where Ukraine enters the picture, and things start to get puzzling. I've brought up the 2014 Maidan Revolution here, in the context of allegations that it was a coup sponsored by the US intelligence community:

Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs “Toria” Nuland was the “mastermind” behind the Feb. 22, 2014 “regime change” in Ukraine, plotting the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych while convincing the ever-gullible US mainstream media that the coup wasn’t really a coup but a victory for “democracy.”

I've never seen a good explanation for how quickly the Bidens got involved after these events:

Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma in May 2014, less than three months after Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was pushed from power and fled to Russia in the culmination of the massive, monthslong Euromaidan protests over official corruption and his decision to scrap plans for a trade agreement with the European Union and pursue closer ties with Moscow.

Hunter Biden's business partner, Devon Archer, had joined a month earlier, when the U.K. froze a Burisma bank account holding $23 million amid suspicion of money laundering.

At the time, Joe Biden was the U.S. vice president and President Barack Obama's point man for Ukraine, which was battling Russian and Russian-backed forces in a war fomented by Moscow in the eastern Donbas region following Yanukovych's departure. Russia had also seized control of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula.

According to NPR, European governments and international institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, were concerned about the country's endemic corruption:

Obama made then-Vice President Biden the point man, and he became a frequent visitor to Ukraine. By his own count, Biden says he went there about a dozen times from early 2014 through early 2016.

. . . In the spring of 2014, as Joe Biden began his trips to Ukraine, Hunter Biden took a position on the board of the country's largest private gas company, Burisma. He was reportedly paid up to $50,000 a month.

The question of a possible conflict of interest — with Hunter Biden profiting in a country where his father was actively working with the government — was raised publicly at the time.

Joe Biden said that he followed government ethics regulations and that his son was a private citizen who made his own decisions.

This brings up the question, another one that hasn't been much pursued, of what Obama actually thought of Joe. It looks as if Ukraine was a front-burner issue for the intelligence community, and eliminating the appearance of corruption was at least theoretically high on the priority list in order to maintain the prestige of the new regime. And it looks as though Joe's dozen trips to Ukraine as "point man" over the two years between the revolution and his departure as vice president reflect that apparent urgency.

But what did he actually accomplish? And what was he actually doing on all those trips? We've never had a good account. All we know is that Hunter and his partner were on the Burisma board and making big bucks, at least until Joe left office as vice president and Ukraine point man:

The Ukrainian energy company that was paying President Biden’s son Hunter $1 million a year cut his monthly compensation in half two months after his father ceased to be vice president.

From May 2014, Burisma Holdings Ltd. was paying Hunter $83,333 a month to sit on its board, invoices on his abandoned laptop show.

But in an email on March 19, 2017, Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi asked Hunter to sign a new director’s agreement and informed him “the only thing that was amended is the compensation rate.”

The only reasonable conclusion is that Hunter was paid by Burisma as a kickback to Joe, who was there to control the corruption, or something like that. But then we have the whole issue of Trump's call to Zelensky:

The scandal came to light when a whistleblower report revealed that President Trump had asked Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in July 2019 to investigate Joe Biden, Trump's political opponent in the 2020 presidential election, his son Hunter Biden, and company CrowdStrike, to discuss these matters with Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr. . . Trump acknowledged he had told Zelenskyy "we don't want our people like Vice President Biden and his son [contributing] to the corruption already in the Ukraine." According to the whistleblower, the call was part of a wider campaign by Trump, his administration, and Giuliani to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Bidens, which may have included Trump's cancelling a scheduled trip to Ukraine by Vice President Mike Pence, and Trump withholding $400 million in military aid from Ukraine.

It's hard for me to avoid thinking Trump was aware of the degree of the Bidens' involvement in Ukraine corruption, and in fact I suspect that as president, he knew much more than has ever been publicly revealed. In fact, I would go so far as to wonder if what Trump knew then has been behind Trump's current Ukraine policy -- among other things, curing the corruption will involve getting rid of the whole post-Maidan regime. There's a reason Joe pardoned Hunter for any “offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.”

But what got me started on this train of thught was the story that Hunter is broke. Let's get real, Hunter has always been broke. Only months before he got the Burisma deal, Joe had tried to get him a job with the Navy, but he failed the drug test. We're talking desperate straits; given his addictions, Hunter was useless to anyone, and I've been saying all along that none of the Biden family's get-rich-quick schemes ever seem to have paid off.

Except Ukraine. That had at least a chance. But two things killed even that: Joe was apparently told not to run for president in 2016 in favor of Hillary -- but when Hillary lost, that cut off any sort of gravy train. By 2020, Joe was too out of it to try to cash in, Hunter was too much of a basket case to help out, and then Putin invaded. It isn't just Hunter who's broke, it's the whole family at this point.

I'm convinced that what's been revealed so far is just the tip of the iceberg.

What's Going On In Ukraine?

We sorta-kinda know Trump has "paused" military aid to Ukraine, but we know very little beyond that.

Trump was expected to further outline his plans for Ukraine and Russia in the speech to Congress, but did not reveal any further details on how he plans to end Europe's biggest conflict since World War Two.

Trump said Ukraine was ready to sign a minerals deal with the U.S., which Washington says is crucial to secure continued U.S. backing for Ukraine's defense.

Four sources told Reuters that the Trump administration and Ukraine plan to sign the deal in return for military aid, which Trump has paused. But later on Tuesday U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News, "There is no signing planned," according to a post on X by a Fox reporter.

Trump gave no further details on the minerals deal, leaving its fate unclear.

And precisely what has been paused? CNN calls it "shipments", but what does that involve?

President Donald Trump is ordering a pause on shipments of US military aid to Ukraine after his heated Oval Office argument with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last week, a White House official told CNN Monday.

The halt in aid, which came after Trump held a series of meetings with top national security officials at the White House, could have dire effect on Ukraine’s war-fighting abilities, officials and analysts said. It will remain in place until Trump determines Zelensky has made a commitment to seeking peace talks, one official said, essentially forcing Ukraine to a negotiating table by threatening further losses on the battlefield.

But it's not just "shipments". As of Wednesday,

The Trump administration appears to have ordered at least a partial halt to the crucial intelligence that the United States shares with Ukraine to defend against the Russian invasion, according to a US military official and public remarks made by top Trump administration officials.

Statements from national security adviser Mike Waltz and CIA Director John Ratcliffe on Wednesday morning indicated that a pause in intelligence sharing is in place but the extent of the limitations was not clear. Both officials also suggested that the pause may be short-lived if the president can be satisfied that Ukraine has taken steps towards negotiations to end the war – a controversial effort that appeared to be derailed after Friday’s fiery Oval Office meeting between President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“We are pausing, assessing, looking at everything across our security relationship,” national security adviser Mike Waltz told CBS News, asked directly about intelligence-sharing with Kyiv. The Trump administration had already announced a freeze in weapons deliveries to Ukraine, part of the White House effort to attempt to pressure Kyiv into a swift end to a war it didn’t start.

The UK Telegraph reported,

Ukraine’s most powerful missiles were left frozen on Wednesday after the US cut off intelligence-sharing and demanded fresh talks with Volodymyr Zelensky.

Kyiv was forced to agree to reopen negotiations with the White House, and Mr Zelensky said a new summit could begin next week, after he met European leaders on Thursday.

. . . Crucial intelligence for long-range missiles such as Himars, which have been key to holding back the Russian offensive, went dark at about 2pm on Wednesday.

White House officials said the US would only lift the ban on sharing the data if it could “nail down negotiations” with Ukraine, which are expected to cover the minerals deal that was put on ice after the clash in the Oval Office last Friday between Mr Zelensky and Donald Trump.

Diplomatic sources, however, suggested Mr Zelensky may have to offer additional concessions to get talks back on track.

Sundance at Conservative Treehouse is among the few analysts who are covering these developments.

When President Trump stopped “intelligence sharing” with Ukraine, what he technically did was stop allowing Ukraine to use exclusive USA targeting systems controlled by U.S Intelligence, the CIA, the National Reconnaissance Office and the U.S. National Geospatial Intelligence Agency.

These terrain mapping systems, the missile and drone targeting systems, are what military forces inside Ukraine need to carry out offensive drone and missile attacks against Russian forces.

. . . In essence and material reality, the elements in Ukraine who are conducting war, and this includes U.K and U.S special forces, the CIA and various NATO allied military operators (not Ukraine military) can no longer effectively hit long-range Russian targets, without the U.S. targeting system that identifies it.

. . . Effective immediately without targeting system access, ATACMS, HIMARS, Storm Shadow and Taurus missile systems are no longer functional to those Ukraine operators (remember, those operators are not necessarily Ukranian).

. . . All of the intellectually honest researchers know that it is the USA (special forces) and to a lesser extent the collaborating U.K (special forces) who have been operating these systems.

. . . ♦ From the Russian Perspective – In the mind of Putin he now sees President Trump stopping NATO/EU/CIA/UK forces from being able to reach Russia with any attack system.

They don’t need to discuss it, and likely would not, but Putin’s people clearly can see that Trump’s people have stopped the West from their ability to hit Russia with anything.

An unspoken trust is being established through actions, not words. That’s a radical shift, and pretty cool all things considered.

Clearly some people are beginning to see what's going on, at least from the intelligence establishment's point of view:

President Donald Trump’s decision to pause American military aid to Ukraine is handing Russia’s Vladimir Putin the upper hand on the battlefield and in geopolitical negotiations, former officials and experts warned Tuesday.

. . . Michael McFaul, Washington’s ambassador to Russia under President Barack Obama, likened the move to President Franklin D. Roosevelt losing “the 1940 election to an America Firster who then had the U.S. switch sides in World War II. ... We’d all be speaking German now.”

“That’s why this current moment feels like,” he wrote on X. “Three years into a war between an imperialist dictatorship with autocratic allies and a democracy, Trump just switched sides.”

The problem continues to be that realistically, Ukraine has never been anything but a puppet of US intelligence, something Secretary Rubio acknowledged earlier this week:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a Wednesday interview described the war in Ukraine as a proxy war between the United States and Russia, as he sought to explain on the Oval Office blowup last week between Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, President Trump and Vice President Vance.

“I think an important thing to understand about last Friday is not last Friday. It’s everything that led up to it,” Rubio said during an interview on Fox News’s “Hannity.”

“It’s been very clear from the beginning that President Trump views this as a protracted, stalemated conflict,” Rubio said. “And frankly, it’s a proxy war between nuclear powers, the United States helping Ukraine, and Russia.”

Ukraine has been a US pawn since the Maidan Revolution, which Russia always viewed as a provocation. A resolution of the conflict can only be achieved via a direct agreement between the US and Russia.

LA Mayor Karen Bass Recall Movement Moves Haltingly Forward

Via KTLA:

A movement is underway to recall Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass over her handling of January’s deadly and destructive Palisades Fire.

The Los Angeles Times reported Monday that paperwork had been filed with the Los Angeles Ethics Commission after it was initially filed with the state of California last week. The filing allows opponents of Mayor Bass to raise money so they can put a recall on the ballot.

. . . Critics blasted Bass for not being in the city -or country- when the Palisades Fire erupted on Jan. 7. The massive blaze burned out of control for several days, scorching roughly 24,000 acres and destroying nearly 7,000 homes, businesses and other structures. The wildfire also claimed the lives of 12 people.

The mayor previously said she had not been told about the severity of the fire weather conditions before she left for a diplomatic mission to Ghana. She cited that as one of the reasons for firing L.A. Fire Chief Kristen Crowley.

However, the issues surrounding the Pacific Palisades Fire and the Bass recall aren't simple. The biggest inflection point up to now has been Bass's firing of Kristin Crowley, the LGBT Los Angeles fire chief, on February 21.

[Bass's] decision comes after reported turmoil between the mayor and fire chief following the Palisades Fire that broke out on Jan. 7. The two put on a united front after speculation of the chief's firing days after it erupted.

Bass made it clear she was not going to make a decision to remove Crowley while the city was experiencing an emergency with the fires and the rainstorms that followed.

About a month before the Palisades Fire broke out, Crowley sent a memo to the Board of Fire Commissioners that budget cuts "have adversely affected the Department's ability to maintain core operations." Budget cuts and the department's ability to fight the fires were points of contention while the fires were burning.

In the wake of the fire, there was an initial wave of opinion that called Crowley a "DEI hire":

On Monday [January 13], Crowley received an unsigned letter, purportedly from her own current and former chief officers, echoing claims that had filtered from right-wing commentators and social media as her interviews made the rounds through the national news over the weekend. The letter excoriated her for taking TV interviews while the city burned.

But that was quickly overtaken by other voices, including the public employee unions, that supported Crowley's insistence that budget cuts hampered the fire department's ability to respond. The fact that Crowley is a lesbian almost certainly drove Bass's initial reluctance to remove her immediately after the January fire; gays are part of the uneasy coalition of Latins, blacks, and Hollywood-Westside elites that voted Bass in as mayor.

But cracks within the coalition emerged when Crowley told the media in almost as many words that Bass had betrayed her:

“Three years I’ve been in this seat, I’ve sounded the alarm — we need more,” Crowley told Fox LA’s Gigi Graciette during an extended live spot. “We are screaming to be properly funded so our firefighters can do our jobs. My job as chief is to make sure my voice is heard.”

“Did the City of Los Angeles fail you?” Graciette pressed her until almost 13 minutes into the interview, when Crowley drew a deep breath, flashed a bemused smile to the camera and finally said it: “Yes.”

Opposition to Crowley within the department quickly evaporated:

[T]o the firefighters with boots on the ground in the Palisades, her “outburst” cemented Crowley as a folk hero.

“In the LAFD it went viral,” said Freddy Escobar, president of the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, the union representing the department’s rank and file. “Everyone was very shocked, but very happy and excited. They support her 110%.”

“This is the only fire chief that has spoken up against the people who appointed her,” said Capt. Chuong Ho, another union leader. “If that doesn’t show courage, I don’t know what does.”

The Palisades Fire hasn't disappeared as an issue, and over more than a month since the fire, Bass has faced continued criticism for being on a junket to Ghana when the fire started. A change.org petition demanding that Bass resign was started by mid-January, and by January 17, it had reached 152,000 signatures. Although this has no legal effect, continuing talk of a Bass recall must have been behind Bass's eventual firing of Crowley on February 21.

The now-formal recall effort that began this week has begun to attract serious funding:

Nicole Shanahan, the Silicon Valley philanthropist who helped fund Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s presidential campaign and served as his running mate, has a new cause: recalling Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

Shanahan is listed as a major funder of the effort in a disclosure on the campaign’s new website and had previously met with proponents of Bass’ ouster. Opponents of the mayor see her as more vulnerable than ever due to her handling of the January wildfires in Los Angeles, which ignited when she was on a diplomatic trip to Ghana.

. . . It will take a flood of funding to take out Bass, even as she has taken flak for the Ghana trip and for sacking the fire chief who was in charge during the response effort. Her opponents would have to collect around 330,000 signatures, representing 15 percent of Los Angeles’ registered voters, in four months to initiate a recall. Her term ends in 2026.

They will also have to overcome associations with the Republican party in a heavily Democratic city.

Paperwork filed with the city on Monday indicated that several backers with ties to the GOP are involved in the attempt, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Bass's supporters are already taking the line that the recall is a right-wing effort, but even there, the political factions aren't conventional -- the public statements from recall supporters tend to stress their support for Crowley, the lesbian fire chief. But as of now, this isn't a winning issue -- last week, Crowley appealed her firing to the LA City Council and lost in an overwhelming vote:

After a lengthy and at times heated discussion, the panel voted, 13-2, to deny the appeal. The two council members who supported reinstating the former chief were Monica Rodriguez and Traci Park. Park's district includes Pacific Palisades, the area within the city where the fires that ignited in early January were most devastating and deadly.

Crowley needed votes from 10 of 15 council members to overturn Mayor Karen Bass' decision to fire her.

Of the two council members who voted to reinstate Crowley, Traci Park was elected to her seat representing Pacific Palisades and nearby areas in 2022 on a platform opposing the city's homeless policies. However, other affluent parts of the city continue to elect council memhers with progressive policies on crime, homelessness, and migration, and their continued support for Bass is reflected in the reinstatement vote. The other council member who supported Crowley, Monica Rodriguez, represents a working-class Latin area and appears to have based her support on an alliance with public employee unions. At the link,

Leaders of the firefighters union urged the council to reinstate her, saying she was the only chief in recent years to speak about the need for more resources at the Fire Department.

“The men and women of our great Fire Department support Chief Crowley because she stood up, she spoke out, and she had our backs,” said Chung Ho, a director with United Firefighters of Los Angeles City.

Union President Freddy Escobar said “her honesty cost her her job.”

Rodriguez, a supporter of Crowley whose council District 7 includes Pacoima and Shadow Hills, said the mayor has promoted “falsehoods” around the ex-chief’s failure to perform.

“It's sending the wrong message to every city employee and general manager that it's safer to stay silent than to call out what’s wrong,” Rodriguez said.

While the recall Bass movement reflects to some degree the much more visible tendency across the country for the previous Democrat coalition to break apart, with wealthy elites, labor, Latins, and gays beginning to have second thoughts, the LA City Council vote on reinstating Crowley suggests much more will have to happen in California to bring about real electoral change.

"How'd That Work Out?"

"How'd that work out?"

President Trump on weaponizing the government against him. 🤣 pic.twitter.com/rMQVbKVChw

— Turning Point Action (@TPAction_) March 5, 2025

I was expecting a very different address to Congress from the one I saw last night. For one thing, if we watch a State of the Union at all, my wife and I put extra wine in reserve, expecting it will be needed to make it through the whole tedious experience. Last night, even though Trump spoke at record length, we didn't need the extra wine. But also, we were both expecting a more usual Trump stream-of-consciousness speech, but this one was structured and focused. In Mark Halperin's words at 9:10,

[H]e just gave an extraordinary performance, and you can hate Donald Trump and still have to acknowledge it was an extraordinary performance, talking for a hundred minutes, not boring, high energy, and really used the luxury he had of an opposition which came in saying the focus was going to be on the real lives of real people and instead engaged in a performance unlike any I've ever seen. You don't want to cheer for Donald Trump saying he shut down the border, because you think his border policies aren't good? OK. But it is not human to sit there while that little boy cancer survivor is waived into the Secret Service and then hugs the head of the Secret Service. That is not human. . . . It's not about patriotism, it's not about politics, it's about humanity and judgment.

His point that the opposition was a "luxury" is insightful. Rep Al Green might have been scripted by Trump's own people, an elderly (age 78), unattractive, bitter figure yelling incoherently, shaking his cane at Trump, refusing to sit down after repeated warnings from the Speaker, and finally being escorted out by the Sergeant at Arms. But Nancy Pelosi's cameo appearance was just as providential:

On Tuesday, Trump delivered a wide-ranging and politically charged address to a joint session of Congress. During it, he said, "America is back," while celebrating the flurry of executive orders he had signed since being inaugurated as president for the second time on January 20.

This included the order Trump signed on February 5, titled 'Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports,' which banned transgender athletes from competing against women and girls in educational institutions and grassroots sports.

During these remarks, a television camera briefly focused on Pelosi, who slowly moved her head from side-to-side while appearing crestfallen and holding a walking stick.

A 14-second clip of this was reshared on X, formerly Twitter, by Savanah Hernandez, a Turning Point USA contributor, and it went viral with over 2.2 million views and more than 29,000 likes.

Just so we’re all aware, this was Nancy Pelosi’s reaction as Trump was discussing men not being allowed to play in women’s sports pic.twitter.com/8E4LKxjYpw

— Savanah Hernandez (@sav_says_) March 5, 2025

She also chewed on her dentures, never a good look. The camera at one point briefly pulled back to show Rep Steny Hoyer, age 85 and like Pelosi retired from leadership but still in the House, looking, if possible, even more cadaverous than Pelosi. Another great moment was from Sen Elizabeth Warren:

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was interrupted from reading her phone by President Trump when he called out Warren by her Trump-given nickname when he was talking about ending the war in Ukraine.

President Trump said, “You wanna keep it (the War in Ukraine) going for another five years? Yeah. Pocahontas says yes”. Warren’s reaction to being singled out for wanting to keep the war going? She started applauding.

A bizarre reaction for someone just made fun of by the President during a televised address broadcast seen around the world.

Well, she wasn't paying attention, was caught off guard, didn't fully grasp what was happening, and simply doubled down on the mistake. But the whole evening was like that:

The Democrats did significant damage to their brand, although by now, I’m not sure there is anything left of their brand. What do they even stand for anymore? Certainly not for the kid with multiple surgeries on his brain given an honorary appointment to the Secret Service. They sat there, stone-faced and entitled, and looked like petulant little brats in a rage because they couldn’t have ice cream before dinner.

They humiliated themselves and made Trump look like a hero. Now, some might say the Democrats set Trump up in the meeting with Zelensky and that Trump paid them back by setting them up here. He knew they wouldn’t stand and clap for anything, so why not make them an offer they couldn’t refuse? But still, they fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.

I've thought for a while that their main problem was that Nancy Pelosi became the de facto party leader sometime in the early 2000s, but as she's aged out, there's been no replacement. The party simply wants to keep on with the Pelosi formula, and part of that problem is that Pelosi is still all too visible.

But beyond that, good grief, Trump is a year older than I am, and I couldn't have put on that performance ten years ago, let alone now.

FBI Delivers Epstein Files, New York Field Office Head Fired

On Friday, I posted that something like this was goinmg to have to happen if Bondi and Patel were going to have any credibility. Bondi wrote to Patel,

By 8:00 a.m. tomorrow, February 28, the FBI will deliver the full and complete Epstein files to my office, including all records, documents, audio and video recordings, and materials related to Jeffrey Epstein and his clients, regardless of how such information was obtained.

I said,

But as of yesterday morning, there was no indication that any of those allegedly missing Epstein items had been delivered -- or, alternatively, that any recalcitrant FBI officials had been fired. And where was Director Patel? If the allegation was that the New York office was sitting on those files, wouldn't you expect Patel to be up there, commandeering a conference room, and asking hard questions? Apparently not.

I was willing to grant that the Oval Office confrontation with Zelensky would soak up the weekend news cycle, and as of last night, it does seem that Bondi was able to get the FBI to follow orders.

James Dennehy, who leads the FBI New York Field Office, revealed to his staff on Monday that he was forced to step down, a move that comes after he resisted directives from President Donald Trump’s appointees at the Department of Justice.

Dennehy wrote in a message to his staff, which was reviewed by the Washington Examiner, that he was told late on Friday that he was to retire on Monday. He “was not given a reason for this decision,” he wrote.

. . . Bondi alleged that a “source” informed her that the FBI New York Field Office was withholding “thousands of pages” from her related to the [Epstein] case, and she ordered newly-confirmed FBI Director Kash Patel to investigate the matter and provide her with any outstanding material by Friday. It remains unclear what files Bondi believed the New York office was improperly withholding.

Via Just the News,

Bondi told Fox News' Sean Hannity on Monday that she has now received a "truckload" of new information that she and her team are quickly sorting through. But they have to be careful in protecting Epstein's victims, she said.

"We got them all Friday at 8 a.m. Thousands of pages of documents. I have the FBI going through them," she said. "It's now in the possession of the FBI. Director [Kash] Patel is going to get me a detailed report as to why all these documents and evidence had been withheld ... We're gonna go through it as fast as we can."

She also accused the Biden administration of not pursuing the case or Justice for the victims, even after Epstein's death.

"No one did anything with them. Why were they sitting in the Southern District of New York? I want a full report on that," Bondi said. "You know, sadly, these people don't believe in transparency. But I think more unfortunately, I think a lot of them don't believe in honesty."

There are still some lingering questions. Both Bondi and Patel appear to have been willing to take the FBI's word before last Thursday that they'd turned over all the records, when once they were released, almost nobody bought it that this was the case. If rank and file in the alt media were able to see through this instantly, why were Bondi and Patel so confident that the limited hangout would satisfy anyone? Rep Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), the Chairwoman of the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets, continues to be skeptical:

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) said she was “not confident” yet that Attorney General Pam Bondi would release the client list of disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

“I’m not confident on the Epstein client list because I haven’t had the briefing yet from the Department of Justice,” Luna said during her Monday night appearance on One America News’s “The Matt Gaetz Show.”

“I’ll know more tomorrow on that, but based on what I’m hearing from the attorney general, she keeps saying that she is going to release something, so I am going to take her at her word for that,” the Florida Republican told former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.).

Over the weekend, Bondi said on Fox News she was misled on the Epstein documents while also defending the ridiculed documents dump on Thursday.

“I kept saying, there has to be more. There has to be more,” Bondi said. “I was assured that’s it.”

Well, Bondi is just the US Attorney General, after all. How can she be expected to know all this high-level stuff? And so far, there's still no new info and no schedule for when any of it will be released.

Who Controls Zelensky?

Is Zelensky his own man? Almost certainly not. Recent Ukrainian history, especially the Maidan Revolution of 2014, which has been frequently characterized as a coup, is marked by a series of questionable elections, with either Russian-aligned or Western-aligned forces pulling the strings. Volodymyr Zelensky, elected president in 2019, ran on an anti-establishment and anti-corruption platform, but has had questionable connections with the Bidens and is clearly aligned with corrupt factions in Ukraine.

According to Wikipedia, although Zelensky initially said he would serve only a single term, he walked back this promise in May 2021, saying he had not yet made up his mind. and he has subsequently suspended elections following the 2022 Russian invasion. One reason frequently cited for his opposition to a peace agreement is the fact that it woulld result in new elections.

So far, even as events have turned against Ukraine, someone thinks he's doing well enough to stay, even though the resources appear always to have been in place to remove any Ukrainian president and could still be invoked at any time, constitution or no. Who would his owner, or owners, be? Sundance at Conservative Treehouse has been the most prominent speculator:

The broader ‘western’ intelligence actors have been in control of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s activity in the conflict with Russia. The outline of their plan is within the statements delivered by the Ukrainian leader, we just have to accept them.

The people who control Ukraine, Intelligence Community, CIA, elements of U.S. State Dept., NATO, EU Commission and the private sector banks and World Economic Forum investment handlers, do not want to accept a Ukraine-Russia ceasefire or peace agreement.

This aforementioned network of influence agents specifically does not want President Trump and President Putin to come to terms, because they well understand the regional territory of Ukraine will not return.

. . . As soon as U.S. troops enter the equation on the ground in Russia, particularly as the buffer force in the point of conflict between Ukranian and Russian military, there will be some intentional event created to harm U.S. troops and thrust the USA NATO alliance in direct combat with Russia.

This is the element of Zelenskyy’s greatest need. If U.S. troops are killed or drawn into combat, an escalated war against Russia becomes the tool to get all the captured territory back. The outline is clear.

Putting US troops in a position to backstop token European troops as a peacekeeping force is clearly the aim of Starmer's "coalition of the willing", and in the view of Stephen Wertheim in The Guardian, this is what Trump is determined to avoid:

In the past month, the Trump administration has delivered several strong and sometimes conflicting messages to America’s allies and partners in Europe. Discerning the signal in the noise isn’t easy, but amid the zigs, zags and bombast, the new administration appears to be taking a position that Ukrainian and European leaders aren’t hearing – or are trying to alter.

The crux of the message seems to be this: the US will either broker an end to the war in Ukraine in short order or remove itself from the conflict, unless perhaps it deems Russia to have obstructed a ceasefire. (As Trump told Zelenskyy on Friday: “You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out.”) Washington will also refuse to make any commitment to Ukraine’s postwar security, such as Nato membership, that would run a major risk of drawing the US into direct war with Russia – “world war three,” as Trump sees it – if Russia invades Ukraine again.

The US has the sovereign right to adopt this stance, for the sake of its own interests, which include limiting the costs and risks the US is bearing for European defense.

. . . On Friday, in the Oval Office, Zelenskyy contested Trump’s stance. The Ukrainian president stated flatly: “We will never accept just [a] ceasefire. It will not work without security guarantees.” Zelenskyy maintained that strong security guarantees had to come from the US, not just Europe. A European military force, he said, would not work unless the US provided a significant backstop: “They need USA.”

In short, Zelenskyy insisted he would not agree to a ceasefire, because Russia would not honor it, unless the US provided precisely what Trump had seemingly already ruled out. As the conversation devolved, Trump eventually threatened to withdraw US aid to Ukraine altogether if Zelenskyy’s position did not change.

It's less important from Trump's point of view that Zelensky's controllers be identified than it is to remove their current agent, namely Zelensky. There can be little question that Zelensky's most visible sponsors -- the UK's Starmer, who has clearly ordered King Charles to put his own prestige on the line by posing for pictures with Zelensky, and France's Macron, are among his controllers. But who controls Starmer and Macron? Good question, and we may never know. But does it matter?

Not to Trump. His program is now to get Zelensky out of the picture:

Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday said that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy might need to resign to bring peace to his country following a contentious meeting between Zelenskyy, President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance on Friday.

“Something has to change,” Johnson said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, echoing comments made Friday by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “Either he needs to come to his senses and come back to the table in gratitude, or someone else needs to lead the country to do that.”

Tulsi Gabbard, who is at least nominally in charge of the US intelligence community that's thought to own Zelensky, is of similar mind:

Gabbard joined “Fox News Sunday,” where she weighed in on international relations after Zelensky and Trump’s meeting had a fiery ending.

“President Trump recognizes the urgent need to end this war after three long, bloody years and has proven that he is the only person that can do this,” Gabbard said. “President Zelensky has different aims in mind.”

Gabbard argued that Zelensky will only accept a deal that leads to “what he views as Ukraine’s victory,” no matter if it leads to a third world war.

“President Trump is committed to peace and to freedom,” she said. “We’re seeing this big divergence here between his position and his commitment to these values and the interests of the American people and the interests of President Zelensky and these European leaders.”

So it looks like the message Trump is now sending to Zelensky's handlers is either get him with the program -- unlikely -- or get rid of him. Trump can wait. If they put Zelensky in, they can take him out, one way or another. It reminds me a little of what Rush Limbaugh said about himself, the people who control the media didn't put him in, and they can't destroy him. Same for Trump, the people who put Zelensky in can take Zelensky out, but they didn't create Trump, and they can't get rid of him.

"You Don’t Have The Cards Right Now."

Before Zelensky showed up in Washington Friday, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer arrived the day before carrying an invitation from King Charles for a state visit. Now, Charles is also hosting Zelensky for his own state visit. According to the UK Independent,

King Charles is to meet Volodymyr Zelensky at Sandringham on Sunday in a rare and dramatic sign of royal support.

The King’s invitation to the Ukraine president came a day after Donald Trump sparked worldwide outrage by insulting and abusing Mr Zelensky at the White House.

And it is only two days after Mr Trump accepted an invitation from the King for an unprecedented second state visit to Britain – delivered to him personally by Sir Keir Starmer.

The king, of course, has no direct power over much of anything in the UK or anywhere else, and his utterances are normally limited to anodyne remarks on topics like the weather. Apparently Starmer feels Charles's prestige alone will mevertheless be sufficient to carry his program:

UK Prime Minister Sir Kier Starmer said ahead of a Lancaster House summit on Sunday that Britain and France will work to craft a Ukraine ceasefire deal that would be presented to the United States.

Echoing the language of former U.S. President George W. Bush, the Labour Party leader said that London and Paris will seek to build a “coalition of the willing” to enforce a peace in Ukraine.

The UK and France have already committed to sending troops into the former Eastern bloc nation to act as peacekeepers, but other European nations, notably Italy, Germany, and Poland, have so far shot down the idea.

. . . The British leader said that he would work with French President Emmanuel Macron to craft a “plan” for peace in Ukraine that they would present to the United States.

Attempting to throw his weight around, President Macron appeared to demand that Europeans be given a voice at the negotiating table, saying per The Times: “If the United States settled a ceasefire solely with Russia, it would breach international law. For a permanent member of the UN Security Council, that would be a profound break.

The link continues,

However, despite the tough talk from Starmer and Macron, it is unlikely that they alone could actually provide the security garuntees needed to prevent Ukraine from being invaded in the future.

Former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander at NATO, General Sir John McColl, said: “There is absolutely no way that the European nations without American support can provide any form of security guarantee for Ukraine.”

“It can either be a peace support operation, which means you simply report if there is an incursion, or it can be a peace enforcement operation, which means you fight if there is an incursion. If it’s the latter, then Europe simply does not have the capabilities to be able to do that on its own.”

So the US de facto position has been, and now has been expressed directly, that Ukraine can't become a member of NATO.

Stating that the U.S. does not believe NATO membership for Ukraine would be a "realistic" outcome of any negotiated peace settlement with Russia, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, today, called on NATO allied countries to increase their defense spending and take the lead in providing for Ukraine and Europe's security.

The problem is that Starmer, Macron, Zelensky, and King Charles don't have any cards. The NATO countries without the US aren't a credible military force. and they could not become one for generations. On the European continent without US boots on the ground, these are cards that Putin holds. Yet politicians like Canada's Chrystia Freeland propose a fantasy that NATO without the US could be a balancing force, presumably against both Putin and Trump:

I would start with our Nordic partners, specifically Denmark, which is also being threatened, and our NATO European allies. I would be sure that France and Britain were there who possess nuclear weapons and I will be working urgently with these partners to build a closer security relationship that guarantees our security in a time when United States can be a threat.

If they're fully aware they can't be a peacekeeping force in Ukraine without US guarantees, how can they think they can face off against the US without US backing? Right now, Starmer, Macron, and whatever reluctant allies they may have in the pro-Ukraine coalition have the problem of Zelensky. Opinion in the US is increasingly that Zelensky is the Gordian knot of Ukraine negotiations, and Trump's goal is now to cut the Gordian knot. Friday's confrontation simply made this more public; a week earlier, this was already the prognostication:

“Trump’s administration obviously doesn’t like Zelensky and does everything to let everyone know that,” said a Ukrainian political analyst and active-duty soldier who asked not to be identified by name.

“Recent remarks by the US president show that he wants Ukrainian elections ASAP and Zelensky replaced by someone more negotiable. This can be some who Trump and his allies trust: military leader or businessman.”

Washington insiders say there’s no obvious contender whom Trump would prefer if Ukraine were to hold elections, as Trump and his allies like Tesla and SpaceX boss Elon Musk insisted this week should happen.

It's clear that Fiday's confrontation was something that had been simmering for some time, and it worked to Trump's benefit, since it will solidify domestic suppoprt for his Ukraine agenda. Neither Zelensky nor the pro-Ukraine NATO leaders have any cards to play -- certainly not the king.