4 Hostages Rescued. At Least 274 Palestinians Killed:
The death toll from an Israeli raid on the Nuseirat refugee camp has risen to 274 Palestinians, Gaza’s Health Ministry said Sunday. Israel’s Saturday raid, one of the bloodiest in the war, on the central Gazan camp freed four hostages. Visuals from Gaza showed roads strewn with debris and grievously wounded Palestinians, some without limbs.
I dunno. Perhaps a ceasefire would have been a more preferable alternative. But not if genocide was your goal all along. BTW, looks like the Israeli ‘War Cabinet’ might splinter today:
Israel’s centrist war cabinet minister Benny Gantz has delayed a statement he was due to give later on Saturday in which he was widely expected to announce his resignation from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s emergency government.Last month, Gantz presented the conservative prime minister with a June 8 deadline to come up with a clear day-after strategy for Gaza, where Israel has been pressing a devastating military offensive against the ruling Palestinian militant group Hamas.
For all his efforts to evade transparency and, instead, offer a steady stream of lies, Donald Trump has always been brutally honest about one thing: his penchant for revenge.
This lust has, over the years, taken on a particular kink. When possible, Trump has often enjoyed walking up to a microphone and implying—if not outright saying—that his enemies should be investigated, prosecuted, or arrested by the government he wants to head. These enemies include a seemingly endless list of people, from James Comey to Joe Scarborough.
It’s no surprise that vengeful threats of political prosecution have escalated since Trump’s conviction; he and his allies now appear hellbent on opening investigations into all their perceived enemies. Republicans have made clear political persecution could take place as a key role of government should Trump return to the White House.
Far-right fossil fuel allies have launched a stunning and unprecedented campaign pressuring the supreme court to shield fossil fuel companies from litigation that could cost them billions of dollars.
Some of the groups behind the campaign have ties to Leonard Leo, the architect of the rightwing takeover of the supreme court who helped select Trump’s supreme court nominees. Leo also appears to have ties to Chevron, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Supreme court justices met on Thursday to consider whether or not to take up the fossil fuel companies’ request, and the justices could grant or reject the petition in the coming days.
If granted, the request could catalyze the dismissal of the wave of climate accountability lawsuits against big oil – a major win for the defendants seeking to limit their liability for the climate crisis. But it’s the kind of ask about which the supreme court would not normally offer its opinion, advocates and legal experts say.
“The court would probably not think this request is important, unless someone told them it was very important,” said Kert Davies, a director at the Center for Climate Integrity, which supports the litigation against big oil.
Some conservatives have been telling them exactly that.
“I have never, ever seen this kind of overt political campaign to influence the court like this,” said Patrick Parenteau, professor and senior climate policy fellow at Vermont Law School.
Well, we’ve never had a Supreme Court so blatantly and openly corrupt.
I Agree With Charles Oberly. The blatant show-trial of Hunter Biden is disgraceful:
Even accepting all the government’s allegations as true, it’s hard to understand why it is prosecuting the younger Biden: At the time he purchased a firearm, Biden was a nonviolent, 40-something struggling drug addict with zero criminal history. He proceeded to possess a firearm for 11 days and did not use it for any purpose (let alone in a crime).
It has been reported that he is charged with a crime that has almost never been prosecuted – an addict without criminal history misrepresenting his addiction on a firearm purchase form.
Modern prosecutors’ offices have developed simple guideposts for whether to prosecute gun possession:
- Was it used in a crime?
- Was the purchaser a felon?
- Was the purchaser a suspect in another (typically, violent) crime?
- Did the purchaser have a criminal record?
- Was the person a danger to the community?
That is: From all available information, in this time where violent crime is every office’s priority and nonviolent addicts are treated differently than they once were, I cannot conceive of an office spending any resources – let alone five-plus years, countless agents and numerous prosecutors – on a case with similar facts.
What do you want to talk about?