Bolen C (Page 190)

On May 8, 2024, Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived in Budapest, Hungary, for a two-day condition visit at the offer of Hungarian President Tamás Sulyok and Prime Minister to celebrate 75 years of Sino-Hungarian connections. &nbsp,

To enable shed light on ties between Hungary and China, I sat down and spoke with&nbsp, Dr. Levente Horváth, the founding Director of the&nbsp, Eurasia Center&nbsp, of the John von Neumann University in Hungary. Horvath is competent in Mandarin Chinese and is an expert on the subject. The Eurasia Center‘s study focuses on political, economic, and cultural developments and styles across Eurasia. Horváth oversees the Center’s varied research activities, transfer programs, and workshops ,which are designed to lead to a better knowledge of tips and factors that lead to economic development and greater European communication and integration. &nbsp,

His new book – Chinese Geopolitical Thinking: The Belt and Road Initiative from a Chinese Perspective – presents a nuanced ( and unorthodox ) interpretation of the ideas that motivate China’s foreign policy, including its much-bruited Belt and Road. In that myth-busting level, he challenges American stories about China.

The meeting was in two sections, beginning in Budapest following&nbsp, Xi’s discussions with Orbán. We spoke once as we continued the conversation as I attempted to understand Orbán’s intentions in pursuing an end to the war between Ukraine and Russia in the face of Brussels’s unfavorable response to his travels because that portion of the interview took place prior to Orbán’s new higher rankings “peace operations” to Kiev, Moscow, Beijing, and Washington. Here is the pieced-together discussion:

Q:   Orbán claims to be looking for a political alternative to the Ukraine-Russian conflict, and it has been reported on numerous occasions. He is on a” Peace Mission”. May you shed light on his intentions? What sustains him despite Brussels ‘ severe criticism? &nbsp,

Horváth: &nbsp, Let me first become clear, I do not respond for Orbán. In my opinion, many factors explain Orbán’s program. I list those variables without placing them in order of importance. Orbán, who is a competent politician and diplomat, is motivated by the following criteria: &nbsp,

• Orbán does not see that Brussels is interested in peace and he reminds everyone that NATO started as an alliance for peace, but” today, instead of peace ,]NATO’s ] agenda is the pursuit of war, instead of a defensive, it is an offensive]alliance ]”. He had so intervene. The most pressing and crucial issue of now is Europe’s harmony.
• Europe does n’t feel safe, and Orbán wants to do something about that. He wants to stop the anguish and destruction in Ukraine and prevent the conflict from spreading to Europe. &nbsp,
• Orbán sees that the effects of this battle have severely beat Hungary’s economic growth and profitability. In other words, the conflict has led to financial hardships for some and also led to a certain form of deindustrialization. The best way to prevent the deindustrialization of Europe’s economies and maintain stability is through harmony. &nbsp,
• Orbán believes that without speech and politics, peace is not feasible. When no one in Europe appears to be interested in maintaining harmony, Orbán may step up and take the lead.
• Orbán believes that Putin is no insane but more logical. Orbán a few days ago said that Putin”is a more than 100 % moral people. When he negotiates, when he starts to reveal his place, when he makes ideas, saying yes or not, he is super-rational”, Orbán believes, as reported by Switzerland’s Die Weltwoche.

For these reasons, I believe, Orbán, as president of the Council of the European Union, has undertaken this harmony vision – as he calls it. If tranquility is the goal, officials need to know what Ukraine, Russia, China, Türkiye and NATO are thinking. That is the first stage for a political arrangement.

Tragically, some in Brussels and Washington, calculating from their statements and actions, are dead set against Orbán’s harmony goal. For Europe as a whole, this is foolish and dangerous. &nbsp,

Orbán continues to push ahead. Notwithstanding all the criticism from Brussels, Orbán and President Erdogan of Türkiye only met in Washington during NATO’s conference. Orbán is undeterred. Whether Orbán and President Biden will satisfy is questionable. I had, on the other hand, imagine that Orbán will match with former President Trump while in Washington. Orbán wo n’t care because he is more concerned with peace than what Washington, London, and Brussels think, despite the fact that Brussels ‘ foreign policy establishment will be irritated. &nbsp,

Piedra: &nbsp, Orbán and Xi met in Budapest in early May this time. One important outcome of their sessions was that they elevated their bi-lateral connections to an “all-weather complete proper relationship” – those are Orbán’s terms. Please elaborate.

Horváth: &nbsp, In a word, the healthy state of Hungarian-Chinese relations today is the fruit of years of hard diplomatic work, which has withstood the test of time. We have embarked on a” Golden Voyage”, as President Xi recently said. You see, back in 2010, Hungary announced its” Opening to the East” policy. The goal was to broaden and expand the scope of our international relations. Because the Hungarian government recognized that the world economy was rapidly changing at the start of the next 14 years, Hungary has worked to strengthen its ties to Asian nations. In response to these economic and political shifts, Budapest’s foreign policy not only focused on China, but also began to actively engage with other Asian nations. &nbsp,

Regarding China, I must mention that Hungary and the People’s Republic of China celebrated their 75th anniversary this year. Both sides stressed that relations between the two nations have never been stronger during the visit of Chinese President Xi in May. Hungary has entered China’s inner circle of strategic partners, which I think is encouraging, by increasing the level of strategic cooperation. I think the consequences of this partnership will be clear: All five pillars of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative – policy coordination, facilities connectivity, unimpeded trade, financial integration and people-to-people exchanges – will continue to expand and deepen Hungarian-Chinese relations, notwithstanding a very complex global geo-political setting. &nbsp,

At a joint news conference in Budapest, Orbán lauded the” continuous, uninterrupted friendship” between Hungary and China over the past decades. &nbsp,

Piedra: &nbsp, But how did Hungary get to where it is today in its relations with China? &nbsp,

Horváth: Hungarian and Chinese leaders both acknowledge that mutual respect and the principle of non-ingérence in one another’s domestic politics are prerequisites for successful relations. Additionally, they must be unburdened by or free of ideological disagreements. This approach to bilateral engagement is a significant cornerstone of Hungarian foreign policy, which helps explain how excellent Sino-Hungarian relations are in general. &nbsp,

Moreover, based on our experience, we do not see the Belt and Road Initiative as a threat to our strategic autonomy as a sovereign nation. We do n’t care too much what Brussels thinks, even though we understand that Hungary is criticized by some EU bureaucrats for wanting to develop close relations with China. They are free to say anything.

If you had n’t noticed, Hungary’s meetings with President Xi in Budapest were extremely cordial and&nbsp, not&nbsp, designed” to make up for lost time”, so to speak, which perhaps has been the case with some other countries in the EU. Why? Because Brussels’s relations with China have been strained, they only have themselves to blame. &nbsp, Hungary does not hurl insults at China. &nbsp,

Piedra: &nbsp, Despite their insults and confrontational language, EU countries continue to deal with China. &nbsp, &nbsp,

Horváth &nbsp, Countries in the EU ca n’t get away from the fact that China is the second largest economy in the world and, by some projections, its GDP will surpass that of the US within the next decade. As a result, some European nations ‘ leaders recognize China’s significance on the global stage, even though it is sometimes difficult for them to deny it. In order to strengthen economic ties and cooperation, they are still in Beijing. In this sense, reality trumps ideology. Despite the rhetoric, EU countries are unable to completely delink from China. &nbsp,

So once again, despite all the hype or scare tactics from Brussels, Western countries maintain economic relations with Beijing. Our relations, I must say, are very good. This is because Hungary is pursuing a positive and constructive engagement policy. Additionally, we are a free and independent country that wo n’t let Brussels put pressure on us. &nbsp,

Piedra: &nbsp, Can you explain why Brussels, London and Washington are not happy with enhanced Sino-Hungarian cooperations? &nbsp,

Horváth &nbsp, To be sure, you must ask them. But, yes, the evidence would suggest that Brussels, London, and Washington are not happy with Sino-Hungarian cooperation. This is demonstrated by their frequent lectures and political criticism of China ( and Hungary ), which show how subordinate their economic ties to ideology are. Brussels should, in my opinion, focus on economic connectivity and integration rather than try to de-risk their economies from China’s economy. To pursue policies that aim to limit China’s influence in Europe, in my opinion, will not serve the interests of Europe. On this matter, in contrast, Orbán has been very smart and farsighted. &nbsp,

Western nations are concerned about losing their historic position as the world’s preeminent power at the same time. But the times are changing. The traditional Western powers are no longer able to impose policies on other countries, as it seems, as the Western dominated unipolar world order is shifting towards multipolarity. To maintain good relations with other nations, the Western powers will need to work together and find common ground with other world leaders. &nbsp,

Hungary, unlike most other European countries, does not support decoupling from China, as I said earlier. That upsets Brussels. Hungary instead tries to reap the full economic rewards of its cooperation with China and other Asian nations. We are pragmatic, which occasionally means that we wo n’t rebel against the ruling bureaucrats in Brussels or respond to them on their orders.

Therefore, I believe it is possible to say that Brussels, London, and Washington are unhappy with more Sino-Hungarian cooperation because our strong relations with China flies in their political and ideological direction, which blinds them to the benefits of constructive diplomatic and economic relations. &nbsp,

Piedra: &nbsp, You have stated in your book&nbsp, Chinese Geopolitical Thinking that” the Atlantic Era is coming to an end, the era of Eurasia has begun, in which China is playing an increasingly important role”. That is a powerful claim. Do you believe Western Sinologists and Atlanticists will reevaluate their opinions on how to handle relations with Beijing if your assessment is accurate?

Horváth &nbsp, By the beginning of the 21st century, China – and Asia more broadly speaking – had regained its dominant role in the world economy. This year, Asia will account for roughly 60 % of the world’s economic growth, according to the IMF. The world economy has moved 8,300 km eastwards from Europe to Asia in the last 40 years, putting the center of gravity in the process. Asia is once more today the pinnacle of the global economy. &nbsp,

China is increasingly influential in international politics, with the United States and the EU as its allies, and it is seen as a steadily more attractive ally for nations in the Global South. This view is reflected in the rise of the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. &nbsp,

In this context, Western Sinologists need to become aware of China’s developments and become more aware of its impact on international relations. What do I mean? China’s strategic thinking cannot be adequately described or understood in Western traditional geopolitics. &nbsp,

Moreover, the Western-dominated unipolar world order – a legacy of WWII and a colonial way of thinking – is changing into a multipolar world order where there will be several new important countries from Asia, such as Indonesia and India, and other continents, Brazil, and South Africa.

And yes, I believe Western leaders should alter ^their stances toward Asian nations, which are no longer ^their home, given how increasingly ^they demonstrate political and economic independence and strategic autonomy in a new multipolar world order. It is safe to say ^that ^the” Atlantic Era” ]defining ] ^the single dominant center of power since ^the 15^th&nbsp, century is coming to a close. And ^this is difficult for Atlanticists to accept, which contributes to ^the rise in conflict in ^the world today. Hungary, for its part, will only work toward peace. In ^this regard, Hungary is eager to encourage peace between Russia and Ukraine and wants to cooperate wi^th China to ^this end.

Piedra: &nbsp, In a related sense, you have said that a “new world order” is taking shape, and that China will play a significant role in its formation. What do you mean by “new world order”? Given your understanding, how do you see this “new world order” unfolding over the next few years? &nbsp,

Horváth &nbsp, The decades after the Cold War saw the emergence of an American-led, unipolar world order. Our perception of the status quo is changing as a result of China’s recent resurgence as a global power. ]With ] the return of China&nbsp, on the world stage, I think it is safe to say that international platforms that are not Western, such as the BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, are gaining strength across the globe. To ignore this fact would be foolish.

Piedra: &nbsp, Let me stop you. But does n’t China wants to be a hegemon?

Horváth: &nbsp, It is important to understand that, contrary to much of the thinking among Western elites, China is not seeking to replace the United States as the global hegemon. China does not seek to be a hegemon. According to the evidence, China operates in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the UN and does not want to interfere with other nations ‘ internal affairs. &nbsp,

China believes that the Western elites, acting as hegemonic rulers, can alter the laws of international relations whenever it sees fit. Chinese President Xi has repeatedly emphasized that the world is large enough for both the US and Chinese economies to grow together. He desires a multipolar world order that benefits everyone. &nbsp,

In contrast, Washington, with its Western ways of looking at things, sees China as a challenger and even as an existential threat. The US’s foreign policy, in fact, is based on zero-sum considerations – a &nbsp, principle where there are only winners and losers. Westerners believe that China wants to expand at the expense of the United States. This is not true, based on my understanding. &nbsp,

Piedra: &nbsp, Most Western think tanks would not agree with you. &nbsp,

Horváth &nbsp, China maintains a win-win philosophy in foreign policy, whereby cooperation and building mutually beneficial alliances are paramount for success. The global community does not suffer the same way as it does expanding its geopolitical influence around the world. Working with China, the nations of the Global South also want to strengthen their position in the changing world order that has previously been dominated by the Global North. This transformation appears to be inevitable, especially given the demographic picture: the West needs to realize that the 800 million people in the Western “world” pale in comparison with the 7.2 billion in the non-Western world.

Piedra: China is mysterious to most Westerners, including to many academics, who see the world through the simplistic lens of “good” vs “evil” in the conduct of foreign affairs. You have made the case that Chinese geopolitical thinking is more nuanced. In other words, present-day China is more the product of 5, 000 years of Chinese history and pedagogy than it is of messianic Marxism-Leninism, an ideology that is unprecedented in Chinese history, dates only to 1949 and is now running on fumes. Can you give a detailed explanation of how the West might interact with Beijing and how you interpret Chinese foreign policy? &nbsp,

Horváth &nbsp, Beijing’s reform and opening-up policy of 1978 laid the foundations for China’s rise. Since the 1980s, the pace of China’s development in the areas of infrastructure ( railways, roads, river and seaports and air transport ) has been unprecedented, even unimaginable for Western countries. China has been working to reclaim what it believes is its proper position in the world economy since 1978. &nbsp,

A few points of Chinese thought should be brought up. Ancient Chinese strategists argued in their writings that a nation must prepare for war, be well-versed in the fight, and appear weak in the process. China has prepared itself economically and is studying its potential adversaries, but this does not imply that it wants to go to war. China has thoroughly researched the West to understand its dominant practices and practices in terms of foreign policy. Interestingly, unlike the West, China has remained modest in its ambitions and does not seeking to take the lead on the world stage. &nbsp,

Piedra: &nbsp, Here again, few in the West will agree with you.

Horváth&nbsp, The West judges Chinese thinking through the lens of its own historical, social, and political developments. The West’s analytical approach is a mistake, in my view, because China has developed in a completely different context over the past 5, 000 years – it does not see development, I must again stress, as a product of geo-political dominance or hegemony, which is mostly a Western way of thinking. Western expression cannot be used in a standardized or overused manner to describe Chinese thought, especially in international relations. &nbsp,

Piedra: Taking over the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, do you expect &nbsp, that Orbán will be able to improve China-EU relations, especially in the area of trade and investments? Or do you believe that Orbán’s efforts to restore common sense to international relations will be thwarted by the leadership class in Brussels, London, and Washington? &nbsp,

Horváth &nbsp, To begin with, I’d like&nbsp, to quote Orbán&nbsp, in order to get a sense of Orbán’s thinking:” Progressive liberals will stop at nothing to defend their positions of power. Our adversaries plot how to get rid of us by sitting in the seats of power and at the head of institutions, rather than serving the common good. In this circumstance, we must prevail in 2024. And we will”.

Hungary ]has held ] the presidency of the Council of the EU, despite the European Parliament’s earlier efforts – lobbying against and even bad mouthing us – to postpone the Hungarian presidency. Brussels is constantly looking for ways to tie Hungary’s hands. To achieve its objectives, Brussels, for example, has sought to manipulate the rule of law (technical and procedural ) to take away Hungary’s voting rights in the Council. Moreover, Brussel’s demands to abolish consensus decision-making are also at the heart of Hungary’s refusal to veto joint decisions. &nbsp,

Orbán, who is also the president of the European Union, wants to act as a mediator and peacemaker in disputes over the conflict in Eastern Europe and China, as well as pursuing compromises and advancing the integration of Europe and East Asia, particularly with China. &nbsp,

Financial advisor and expert in international development Javier M. Piedra. He served as USAID’s deputy assistant administrator for South and Central Asia during the Trump administration.

Continue Reading

On July 15, 2024, the federal prosecutor who presided over the case involving former president Donald Trump’s use of classified documents declared the situation unconstitutional.

Trump appointed US District Judge Aileen Cannon to the bench, who ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the trial, had been unjustly appointed and lacked the authority to bring the case.

Here’s how the federal government has used special judges in high-profile studies over the years, and how Cannon’s decision, which Smith said he is appealing, would alter continued and future situations.

A brief history of separate judges

Because the attorney general is chosen by a political leader and is accountable to him, it can be challenging to assure impartiality in the US Justice Department. Leaders are empowered by this to try to influence the attorney general in order to seek a political agenda.

When the Watergate break-in analysis threatened to put him on criminal charges and put him in office, President Richard Nixon did it.

On the night of October 20, 1973, Nixon mandated that Archibald Cox, who Richardson had appointed to lead the Watergate investigation, be fired. Richardson refused and resigned.

Nixon finally authorised Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to sack Cox. Ruckelshaus even refused and resigned. Lastly, Nixon ordered Solicitor General Robert Bork, the next most top official at the Justice Department, to fire Cox. Bork complied.

This shocking sequence of events, frequently referred to as the Saturday Night Massacre, demonstrated how leaders was exercise political influence over federal criminal investigations.

In order to better protect the Justice Department from the presidency, Congress considered regulations to transform it into an independent agency following the Watergate scandal.

This would have been in line with the original intentions of some founders. However, Congress made a more reasonable transformation decision, and it passed the President Jimmy Carter-enacted Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which established the Office of Independent Counsel.

Because the attorney general had the option of appointing an impartial counsel to evaluate, investigations into wrongdoing that might occur outside of the purview of the president were made possible.

The Ethics in Government Act even disqualified Justice Department staff, including the attorney general, from participating in any research or trial that was “result in a personal, financial, or social conflict of interest, or the presence thereof” for the inspector.

The US Supreme Court has previously supported attorneys.

A few years after, the Reagan administration argued that separate lawyers were illegal. Its argument: the action violated the consultations section of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which states that” Officials of the United States” are “appointed by the President” and” content to the advice and consent of the Senate”.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1988 that independent attorneys were legal, because the appointment clause even states that” Congress may coat the appointment of poor officers in the President only, in the Courts of Law, or in the Mind of Sections.”

In fact the Supreme Court determined that officials can be considered either “principal” and must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, or “inferior”, which could be appointed by a department brain, such as the solicitor general, or courts.

An “independent guidance should be regarded as an inferior rather than a main officer” is ruled by the Supreme Court.

Development of particular judges

In 1999, the Ethics in Government Act– which had a twilight section – needed to be renewed.

By that point, both the political events and their president had been humiliated by previous impartial counsel investigations. Liberals were embarrassed by the Monica Lewinsky incident, while Republicans were reeling from the Iran-Contra controversy.

In the future 2000 election, it was also unclear which gathering would win the White House, and neither party wanted the other to gain any ground in the future. Both parties made the decision to simply allow the Ethics in Government Act expire during this conflict, thus removing the possibility of appointing coming separate counsel.

In the same way that separate judges operated, then-Attorney General Janet Reno authorized the nomination of what she called special judges, who could look into a number of delicate things.

In 2017 to look into possible Russian meddling in the 2016 votes and probable connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as a special guidance.

Attorney General Bill Barr appointed John Durham in 2020 to look into the sources of the information that led to Mueller’s visit.

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel in 2022 to look into studies into former president Donald Trump’s involvement in the January 6 rebellion as well as his handling of classified government documents when he left office in 2021.

After leaving his position as evil chairman in 2017, Robert Hur was appointed by Garland as special counsel to look into President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents.

Additionally, in 2023, Garland appointed David Weiss as special counsel to look into Hunter Biden’s improper purchase of a gun as well as tax-related issues.

Results beyond Trump

In early July, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that history, current and future leaders have partial immunity from prosecution.

Justice Clarence Thomas used his concurring view to challenge the propriety of Smith’s visit, even though the legality of specific judges was not in this situation. Thomas argued that no legislation granting the attorney common the authority to appoint a special guidance has been passed by Congress.

Thomas noted that the 1978 Ethics in Government Act had expired and that no new legislation had been passed to authorize the nomination of separate guidance. Thomas questioned the general’s authority to appoint specific judges as a result.

In her 93-page get dismissing the case against Trump, Judge Cannon echoed Thomas ‘ explanation.

Cannon inquired if there was a “law in the United States Code” authorizing the visit of Special Counsel Smith to lead this case.

She therefore answered her personal problem.

” After careful research of this pivotal problem, the answer is no”, she wrote.

Cannon’s decision may become appealed to the Supreme Court. If that happens, the outcome may impact more than just Trump’s classified records case.

Under Cannon’s decision, any and all particular judges, including those that have investigated Joe and Hunter Biden, could also be deemed illegal.

Westminster College associate doctor Joshua Holzer.

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.

Continue Reading

As the noise of shots interrupted Donald Trump’s protest in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, the former US president clutched his right ears before squatting to the ground.

People of the Secret Service immediately surrounded Trump, who ferociously pumped his fist at the audience. As Trump stood, paw raised, in front of the US flag, blood rushing from his hearing to his cheek, and quickly became a symbol of that moment.

Almost instantly, crime scientists from all parts of the political band began to speculate over the attempted assassination.

I’m a scientist who studies how conspiracy theories come into existence electronically, with a special focus on those that affect political processes. My research across a number of systems after this incident reveals how quickly different conspiracy ideas have emerged and what they might mean for political proceedings in the future.

Conspiracy scientists ask: who is liable?

Only hours after the incident, the FBI released the cop’s personality: 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. One visitor was killed and two others were critically injured when Crooks fired several shots from a local balcony outside the rally venue. He was killed at the same time as him. A cause has not yet been determined.

Despite the release of the shooter’s personality, the democratic left and right have a big conspiracy that the murder attempt was planned and/or staged. However, who is supposed to include arranged it? Depending on which online communities you numerous, this is up for debate.

The Democratic party appears to be the target of left-wing conspiracies. According to their alleged “evidence,” Trump’s face did n’t have any blood on it until he raised his hand to his cheek ( although this is difficult to verify based on online videos ). However, they claim Trump used a barrel to release false body.

Trump was escorted offstage by the Secret Service, which provided additional “evidence” in the form of “evidence.” If Trump had been an active shooter, according to these principles, the situation would have been much more urgent.

Right-leaning followers of the” staged” idea place to either President Joe Biden, the US Department of Justice, or other prominent celebrities as being either explicitly or implicitly concerned.

Their “evidence” even involves the Secret Service. Before the assault, some claim that the Secret Service really had interrogated and clearly identified the sniper. Some crime scientists even go as far as to claim that the gunman was aware of the roof from which he could shoot from without being interrupted.

They both attribute the Secret Service’s carelessness in organizing the rally’s safety or their active complicity in the shooting.

A political option

A study conducted in the United States in 2022 discovered that a belief in crime theories can be highly related to specific mental characteristics and non-political worldviews.

Specifically, the scientists found secretive thinking is n’t consistently associated with a particular social gathering, but with how serious a person’s values are. This is seen both for extreme-left and especially for serious right-wing political views.

It’s likewise reflected in what is happening online now that the Trump death effort was carried out, wherein social media users with different political stances are promoting the theory that the incident was staged.

The causes for secretive beliefs can be mental, social or political. They may range from seeking a sense of individuality and society, to disdain in the state and other organizations.

Conspiracy theories are used to profit political characters and other powerful players.

With the selection of Senator J. D. Vance as Trump’s running mate, we may anticipate more energy to be added to the ashes. One of the most well-known officials asserts that the Biden administration is directly or indirectly to blame for the murder effort.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and Congressman Mike Collins are just two of the people who share this sentiment.

Elon Musk, the head of X ( formerly Twitter ), has reposted a number of messages from an alt-right political activist asking how the shooter managed to sneak onto the closest possible roof of a presidential candidate, suggesting the Secret Service was being unintentionally remiss. One of these comments has so far received 91 million views.

Following the event, X has become a center for conspiracy theories, and other platforms ‘ comment sections and news reports have also become a forum for discussion. Wherever users is deliberate and express their opinions, secretive thinking can spread.

In the run-up to a very contested election, officials who are exacerbating the conspiracy theories are causing more conflict. Vance is one of those who could potentially be in the US national line of succession if Trump wins the election in November.

What are the implications?

What does these conspiracy theories mean in the long run besides highlighting the profoundly political character of US elections?

Past research suggests that people’s perceptions of obvious conspiracies are lowered when they are presented with them. It may become difficult for people to trust the political processes that come with the 2024 election because voters from both sides of the political spectrum are exposed to secretive thinking ( and becoming increasingly hostile debate ) around the assassination attempt.

25 % of Americans believe the FBI may have been behind the January 6 Capitol attack, according to a poll conducted earlier this year. Despite the US Congress conducting an extensive research and lots of legal situations involving rioters, this is untrue.

Additionally, research suggests that people’s hostility of the state and its institutions may cause them to alter how they interact with the political system. Some may be compelled to support a republican system or a change in government, while others may choose to abandon democracy completely.

One might anticipate that the current upheaval of political violence will prompt a more sane democratic stance in the coming months. But if the current state of things is any guide, the prospect for politics is concerning.

Katherine M FitzGerald is PhD Candidate, Queensland University of Technology

The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.

Continue Reading

China’s development of a new engine that uses low-resolution dish images to observe US warships around the world is a major improvement in sea surveillance capabilities and military strategy.

A team from the Dalian Naval Academy, led by Hong Jun, has created a method to track and identify US warships globally using low-resolution satellite images made available to the public, according to the South China Morning Post (SCMP ).

The researchers focus on studying wake patterns, similar to fingerprints at sea, to distinguish between different ships, despite the poor quality of the images, where a ship may hold less than a image.

According to the SCMP report, the study, which was published in the Chinese book Computer Simulation, reveals real parameters that, when combined with their algorithm, could probably identify specific US warship models in specific circumstances.

It asserts that the US ship’s vessels have outdated Cool War-era technology. As demonstrated by the Houthi’s repeated attacks on the nuclear-powered USS Dwight D Eisenhower aircraft carrier, the ability to monitor and recognize these boats is essential for launching problems on moving targets at sea.

According to the SCMP review, China has significantly expanded its World study satellite network, with resolutions similar to those of the US Keyhole detective satellites. These satellites are used to record high-speed F-22 cunning fighter jets and monitor warships.

The report says that programs like NASA’s Worldview give near-real-time pictures for free for institutions without advanced dish abilities, albeit at lower proposals. The researchers note, however, that despite the extensive awake patterns of ships, yet these images can be useful for send recognition.

At the same time, SCMP points out that the methodology has considerations, such as limitations with fast-moving goals and under powerful winds and waves. According to the report, the experts emphasize the need for further screening and refinement in order to improve accuracy.

That advancement follows a string of China’s innovations in space-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance ( ISR ). In May 2024, Asia Times reported that China’s Taijing-4 03 sensor imaging spacecraft has captured detailed pictures of the US Navy’s important Naval Station Norfolk.

The images revealed three US plane companies, two warships and four unexplained vessels. The satellite has advanced surveillance tools like artificial aperture ( SAR ) and AI processors for quick target identification and identification.

Additionally, China has equipped its Jilin-1 commercial World study dish with AI, enabling it to reach a 95 % accuracy rate in identifying little objects, seven times greater than its previous technology.

Moving objects are said to be tracked by AI even if they twist quickly or vanish into a hole. By 2025, China plans to launch the full cluster of 138 Jilin-1 satellites in orbit.

In inclusion, a Taiwanese AI-powered satellite detected and tracked the USS Harry S Truman aircraft carrier during a state transport chisel off Long Island, New York’s beach, providing China with real-time locations of the company’s location.

The satellite’s AI could rapidly process high-definition images, identifying military assets with minimal computational resources. Despite limitations in space, such as processing power and harsh conditions, Chinese scientists have also made breakthroughs in AI “weight reduction” and chip resilience.

Clayton Swope explains why China prioritizes investing in space-based observation and imagery in a January 2024 article for the Center for Strategic and International Studies ( CSIS ).

According to Swope, these investments enable China to effectively monitor the Indo-Pacific region in real-time in an effort to combat threats to its freedom of movement and security.

He claims that China’s combination of its current geosynchronous space-based optical surveillance capabilities and its new geosynchronous space-based optical surveillance capabilities will make it easier to find and track US and allied naval forces in the Indo-Pacific.

Swope also mentions that because stealth technology is less effective against optical sensors, it may be possible for China to detect smaller objects like ships and airborne assets like fighter jets and bombers.

These capabilities enable China to now automatically identify and recognize ships, send real-time targeting data to missile launch sites, and significantly improve its ability to attack carriers and demolish combat aircraft on the ground in a pre-emptive strike.

In February 2023, Asia Times noted that these developments challenge carriers ‘ relevance. On the one hand, carriers serve as mobile airbases, operating outside anti-access/area denial ( A2/AD ) bubbles.

They are more survivable than static land-based airbases. They also serve as the maritime powers ‘ dominant status symbols.

On the other hand, China’s strategy to combat US naval dominance in the Pacific appears to be validated by the vulnerability of large surface warships to advanced anti-ship missiles, as demonstrated by the Moskva sinking in February 2022.

Chinese naval planners intend to use advanced anti-ship ballistic missiles, such as the DF-21D and DF-26B, to preemptively strike US aircraft carriers.

These developments may lead to a fundamental shift in naval doctrine, removing the carrier from its position as the navies ‘ primary ship. If these multibillion-dollar warships only perform a few functions and are viewed as too risky, defense planners and politicians may object to funding them.

The US may be considering fielding more “lightning carriers,” smaller carriers with lighter aircraft loads, but the ships may have the same vulnerabilities as their larger counterparts because their small air wings restrict their combat capabilities.

In addition, SCMP reported this month that China has simulated attacks on US military installations in the Xinjiang desert, including fighter jets and aircraft carriers.

A model aircraft carrier and 20 jet replicas that resemble US stealth fighters are shown in SCMP satellite imagery that have signs of significant damage, possibly as a result of practice missile and air attacks.

According to the report, the exercises are a part of China’s plan to counteract the projection of US naval power, particularly in situations involving Taiwan or the South China Sea.

SCMP points out that these exercises may also serve as preemptive long-range strikes against strategic locations like Guam, Alaska, and Hawaii, and may increase China’s precision in striking moving targets at sea and land-based facilities like airfields.

Continue Reading

Based on music recorded in Butler, Pennsylvania, an audio forensic analysis&nbsp conducted by Catalin Grigoras, director of the National Center for Media&nbsp, Forensp, at the University of Colorado in Denver, and Cole Whitecotton, top professional research&nbsp connect at Media Forensics, may indicate the possibility of a subsequent shooter.

According to these specialists,” The first&nbsp, three&nbsp, pictures were consistent with alleged tool A, the second five were consistent with alleged tool B and the final’ sound desire’ was &nbsp, emitted by a possible weapon C”. We are aware that one of them was the gunman who had been identified, and the other a Secret Service shooter. We are unsure of the owner of the “possible tool C.” A minute sniper? The state sniper team’s trained spotter

The FBI claims that the gunman was acting only, but only one has been identified. The commission may want to rethink its conclusion.

Evidently, this contentious sound forensic analysis needs friend assessment. There are, however, additional issues that need to be addressed that are beyond the sound forensics.

Below I review some of what we know, and a lot we do n’t know, and I ask questions where the information we have so far leads.

I participated in the John F. Kennedy death, along with thousands of others, as a sort of learner. I’ve read tens of thousands of pages of books and papers, and I’m proud. &nbsp, But what turned out to be most remarkable, as far as I am concerned, are two points.

Second, I believe there was a significant scandal that still exists sixty and a half years after Kennedy’s death.

Second, it appears that President Trump had promised to release all that is still in the Kennedy killing’s libraries even though he withheld some of them. He allegedly&nbsp, told Roger Stone&nbsp, that he ( Stone ) “would not believe what is in the]still ] classified ]and unreleased ] files”.

That indicates that Trump believed walking that plank to be harmful.

What’s worrying about 2024 is whether we will have a fair research and ensure that all the information is kept intact. &nbsp, Obviously President Biden has ordered some sort of inspection. A strong FBI analysis with congressional oversight is what I personally prefer. The FBI has the investigative skills to carry out the task, but it requires leadership and oversight, which should be expected. &nbsp, It wo n’t be easy to sell the American people on a sloppy or politically biased review.

The weapon

We have not been able to identify the weapon used by the identified sniper. &nbsp, No images of it. We do n’t have a model number or the name of the manufacturer.

AR-15s may get altered to improve their accuracy. &nbsp, There are a&nbsp, range of websites&nbsp, that have directions.

It’s unknown whether the cannon had a reflector look or another aiming device. &nbsp, It was perhaps too far from the target for a light cursor, although some claim a range of 500 feet in morning. ( Trump was less than 400 feet from the shooter’s location when the shooting occurred. ) It seems too far in a setting with unnatural TV lights and bright sunlight. Also, no one saw any proof of a light on Trump.

We’re not sure if the firearm was altered. It probably was used straight away, according to my private opinion.

The weapon will need to be forensically tested. Whether that has happened, we don’t know, and if it was we do not know the results.

In reality, we are unsure if any of the shots have been found. &nbsp, Fired and recovered shell, if found, could possibly be matched to the weapon or arms. This will also play a role in determining whether a minute gunman was present. It is important to point out that laws police blocked off the entire region as a crime scene. &nbsp, The chase for shells and other information is good underway.

We’re not sure if the firearm had a carrying rope that extended over the shoulder. Since witnesses witnessed the gunman and the gun, they could ascertain how it was carried and whether it was kept in any way secret, which does not appear to be the case.

The shooter is even purchased a five-foot staircase at Home Depot. We’re never sure what type or how much, but we do understand that aluminum ladders are very mild despite being awkward to transport around. There are also ladders made of plastic that are also gentle, as well. There is at least one photo of the ladder up against the building ( assuming, for the moment, it was the Home Depot-purchased&nbsp, ladder ).

We’re not sure if the two police officers who arrived at the developing after being yelled at by the group that a gunman was on the roof actually used the same staircase, but they most likely did. The shooter is turned his gun at the shooter, who later claimed he” jumped” or fell to the ground after the first police officer poked his head above the roof line.

It could be that the rope was put in place the day before the march. The shooter is reportedly was present at the scene and was seen hovering around the metal detectors nearby; why we are n’t sure because he avoided entering the rally’s security area. He is not said to have been carrying a rope around.

On&nbsp, the houses, according to some witnesses, the gunman allegedly sped from one tower to the next. However, as previously reported, that does n’t seem to align well with the ladder’s position. &nbsp, We need to hear more.

Some believe that the gunman needed assistance in order to execute this well-planned operation.

He undoubtedly required amazing luck to be able to walk a ladder in the dead of night onto a roof. &nbsp, Lots of people saw him but the reaction took too long, was sleepy and inadequate.

We’re not sure if the witness instructions were broadcast on television or via cell phone, but it seems to me that the Secret Service guns were given directions to appear, and the response would be that the shooter’s place was revealed to the rifle group. The Secret Service sniper team gazed at the shooter with a telescope before taking aim, according to Larry Johnson and Chris Whitcomb, who are both former FBI HRT snipers. &nbsp, &nbsp,

No details are known about any gunshot detectors being used at the rally. A reliable gunshot detector can triangulate and locate a shooter in a millisecond when a shot is fired.

The weapon was “legally purchased” by the shooter’s father, according to the FBI. Since the shooter was at a gun range last Friday, “practicing,” it is clear he had access to the gun. Was it bought for the purchaser’s son? The son could legally buy a gun in Pennsylvania as he was 20 years old (minors in Pennsylvania under 18 cannot buy a gun, although there are some permitted gun activities allowed with supervision).

Since we do not know when the gun was actually purchased, it might have been for the son when he was just a kid. He was rejected for being inaccurate in his aim and unsafe in his gun handling when he tried out for the high school shooting team. Does the gun trace to that time?   Perhaps the students who saw him could recognize the weapon used at the time.

According to reports, the shooter’s identity was determined by DNA, which would have required family members to provide DNA samples ( spit into the test tube ). There are facilities in nearby Pittsburgh and perhaps elsewhere where, once DNA samples were delivered, they could check for a match within 90 minutes. Additionally, it is highly likely that the father has the gun’s serial number.

Did the police take human remains for drug testing? The shooter is, who saw the policeman climb up before he turned at fired at Trump must have been incredibly brazen and calm. Did drugs play a role?

So far as we are aware, the shooter made no effort to remove the weapon’s serial number. If that had been done the gun would not have been traceable to the father.

On Friday, the shooter purchased 50 rounds of 5.56 ammunition. Because this is permitted in Pennsylvania, the weapon clip is likely to hold 30 rounds.

Preliminary acoustic evidence ( see above ) says there possibly were three people firing. There was a first burst of gunfire coming from the shooter’s location, a second burst, but the location is n’t clear and different from the first burst, and possibly a third shooter who fired one shot. According to forensic acoustic experts, there may have been two shooters.

The identified shooter could have moved location for the second round, but there was little time and no one has reported any change of location.

The Secret&nbsp, Service agent sniper team on the roof behind Trump on stage shot how many shots, we do n’t know how many. Most accounts claim that it took just one shot to stop the shooter. &nbsp, The agents were equipped with sophisticated sniper weapons, one mounted on a tripod and one on a small stand for a prone shot. According to what we are told, the shooting started after the shooter started firing, but that does not exactly correspond to the acoustic&nbsp evidence. The acoustic evidence may point to the possibility that the last single shot, if confirmed, may have been fired by the snipers. &nbsp, The shooter is was dispatched by a single headshot.

There are a few ( perhaps more ) possibilities. One is that the first or second firing rounds were spliced into the sniper round to target Trump and the podium. &nbsp, The problem with this theory is that the microphone on the podium may not have heard the sniper round, or would have heard it differently from the shots fired from some distance away. If the second volley had been interspersed with the first, it would have to have come from somewhere else. &nbsp, &nbsp,

That leaves the third alleged shot unaccounted for. The Secret Service fired the third shot, as an alternative. That would indicate that roughly 9 shots in two volleys had already been fired, a significant, potentially fatal, and delayed response. ( One person was killed trying to protect his family, two others were critically wounded. )

We need to see if the Media Forensics team’s initial determination holds up to scrutiny because the recording of the ballistic blast of the rounds picked up by the podium microphone is available for further investigation.

The shooter is

The only candidate for the actual shooter is the 20 year old Thomas Matthew Crooks. If a second shooter was involved, they fled and are not being pursued, or at least we are unaware of any efforts in that direction. The Secret Service and FBI both acknowledge that there was only one shooter, as they both made the declaration before the evidence, including ballistic evidence, was examined. &nbsp, If you should think that sounds a lot like the Kennedy Assassination, you may not be far off the mark.

Before there was a credible investigation, I thought it was premature and amateurish to make any concrete declaration about the threat’s scope. Sadly, all too frequently law enforcement releases statements that are inaccurate or incomplete. &nbsp, If there was a second shooter, or if there were other accomplices, they are long gone ( which means there could still be an active threat against Trump ).

Crooks is alleged to have been a trustworthy and good worker. Fellow students claimed that he was a loner and frequently faced bullying at school. &nbsp, Whether this amounts to any sort of motive is hard to judge, but often disgruntled, bullied students turn on their school or fellow students and not on presidential candidates. It seems too far a way to be reliable.

This is unusual because there is no social media history for the young man. &nbsp, Most wannabe murderer-assassins want publicity to air their grievances&nbsp, and get sympathy from the public. Some people are undoubtedly aware that they might not survive, so the social media postings, including videos and manifestos, serve as last wills and testaments.

Sadly, the police have been known to withhold some things, as they did in Nashville after March 27, 2023, when a mass shooting occurred at the Covenant School. The shooter is, Audrey Hale, was a transvestite. Hale’s plan was to target “white privileged cr***ers” and “f****ts” before turning the gun on herself.

No real Crooks friends have yet to appear, assuming he had some. &nbsp, Former students who talk about him say that they really did not know him, that he stayed to himself. &nbsp,

If Crooks was a person ripe for exploitation, it is worthwhile to inquire. &nbsp, A person without friends can be open to manipulation and can feel a sense of protection, even of inviolability.  There is at least a reasonable chance that Crooks did not anticipate dying when he shot at Trump. allegedly there were bombs or IEDs in his old van when he parked across the field, suggesting that he may have planned a” spectacular” escape. &nbsp, While the explosives&nbsp, devices in the van have been reported, they have not been seen. The van was towed away by law enforcement, according to news.

Security

There is a general consensus that security at the Trump rally was poor. The main argument for that is the lack of coverage of buildings in the line of sight of the podium where Trump stood. The shooter is had an unobstructed view of Trump’s head when he fired from a prone position (which improves accuracy by making the shooter stable).  

The Secret Service is supposed to coordinate other law enforcement activities in a high security event involving the Secret Service and lay out all the protection ground rules.

The Secret Service said it was the responsibility of local law enforcement to protect the outer perimeter, which is partially true but also intentionally misleading, since the Secret Service had to approve all the security measures. We do n’t know whether this was done, and whether the Secret Service approved all security measures, so we wonder, like millions of others, how they could have a view from the rooftops.

Additionally, we are not familiar with the communications system. &nbsp, Surely there was a Secret Service command center ( that’s why these folks have clear plastic earphones connected to secure radios ). One would also assume that there is a&nbsp, a recording, or recordings of the communication channels. The recordings are significant pieces of evidence.

According to reports, the Secret Service was understaffed, had only arrived at the fairground the day before, and that its employees had been spliced together because the “regulars” were out defending Jill Biden and Kamala Harris. If accurate, and it certainly is, it would indicate that the preparations were hurried and performed below industry standards.

There also has been criticism of the team assigned to physically protect Trump. They did their job, but as the video clearly demonstrates, sending short ladies to body-protect a big, 6 foot 3 inch VIP is not logical. Because the woman was too short to cover him, of course, miracle de Dieu gave Trump the chance to fist-pump the crowd and yell” Fight, Fight” &nbsp. &nbsp, Not much planning there.

Let’s face it, Secret Service security occasionally blunders. They allowed President Reagan to be shot almost fatally on March 30, 1981 at the side entrance outside the Washington Hilton. In the killings of both Kennedys the Secret Service failed to protect either the president in a Dallas motorcade ( November 22, 1963 ) or his brother running for president and murdered at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles ( June 5, 1968 ).

Despite numerous requests, President Biden and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas have consistently denied Robert Kennedy Jr. requests for Secret Service protection. Mayorkas finally relented on July 15 after being instructed by Biden to do so. &nbsp, Two hours before the Mayorkas announcement Trump, having met with Kennedy, called on Biden to provide protection to Kennedy. &nbsp, &nbsp,

It is crucial to point out that Trump praised the security of the Secret Service.

It is likely the Secret Service will be subjected to serious scrutiny by Congress. There is no chance of an internal investigation of any kind given the attitude of her director, who blames others for her failures. Therefore, Kimberly Cheatle, the company’s director, should step down as she is in charge of the Pennsylvania scandal. She can go out the door with her boss Mayorkas, the man who denied protection to Kennedy.

In a certain way, I want to categorize Cheatle’s fate. She has a wealth of experience and is a highly qualified Secret Service agent. But she is responsible for the mess.

The Secret Service needs a new beginning, beginning with the removal of all the wake-based lies that undermine its mission. It is supposed to be tough, military, highly trained, and its agents are willing to give themselves up. &nbsp, Selfless attention to duty in terms of protecting Donald Trump was certainly on display at the Trump rally in Butler.

The Secret Service sniper team did what they did, but there are still questions about the timing, as lives could have been saved and the threat could have been eliminated much sooner. Bullets flying around the shooter could have been a part of the dissuasion. Any argument that the Secret Service has to wait until actual harm has been done will not protect anyone, including the American president.

The Secret Service requires a new beginning. The agency has already experienced too many outright failures, as well as numerous drunk agents and other issues that needed fixing and attention. &nbsp,

Training for counter-assault teams and counter-sniper teams may also require new operating rules. Before you expel a threat, you should n’t have to wait for bodily harm to occur.

Unfortunately the instinct of government organizations, just as in the civilian world, is to protect and cover up failure. This is not the time for that, &nbsp.

Stephen Bryen served as the Near East Subcommittee of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee&nbsp and as the deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. &nbsp,

This article was originally published on his Substack, Weapons and Strategy, and was republished with permission.

Continue Reading