Raw Story

Newly-minted Prime Minister Dick Schoof faced a baptism of fire at the opening of the Dutch parliament over remarks by two cabinet ministers about a conspiracy theory with neo-Nazi roots.

Schoof was inaugurated on Tuesday with pomp and fanfare to head a coalition government dominated by far-right leader Geert Wilders and his anti-immigration Freedom Party, the PVV.

Two days later, the new Dutch premier's first lower house debate spiralled into chaos when not only the opposition, but Wilders himself aimed his arrows at Schoof, his own choice for the top job.

No amount of preparation could ready Schoof, a veteran career civil servant, for his first appearance within the bear pit of Dutch parliamentary politics, marked by interruptions and sniping on X, formally known as Twitter.

At the centre of the controversy are two cabinet ministers from Wilders's PVV: new Asylum and Migration Minister Marjolein Faber and Foreign Trade and Development Aid Minister Reinette Klever.

Both have in the past spoken about the so-called "omvolking" -- the Dutch term for the "great replacement" theory that supposes that Europe's white population is being deliberately replaced by immigrants.

While both ministers have "distanced themselves" from the term, they maintained that there was a "worrying demographic development" in the Netherlands, where the ruling coalition now wants to implement the "strictest immigration policy ever."

Isolated

But Schoof reiterated during the debate: "I repeat, this government is against discrimination, racism and exclusion."

The Dutch left-wing opposition accused Schoof of tolerating those who have made "conspiratorial" and "racist" remarks -- which also included criticizing the wearing of veils -- within his ministerial team.

Wilders himself then launched a virulent attack on Schoof for not defending his ministers for "being made out as racists", calling Schoof's response "weak."

Schoof, not aligned to any party and who has been appointed by a four-party coalition of the PVV, the Liberal VVD, the farmer-friendly BBB and the new centre-right NSC, appeared isolated on all sides.

Yet on Friday at his first weekly press conference, Schoof denied there was discord within cabinet relationships.

"I repeat what I said. This government is for all Dutch people. It's against racism, discrimination or any conspiracy theories."

At the same time, Schoof reiterated he had "full confidence in his ministers."

Leiden politics professor Ruud Koole told AFP the first debate was a litmus test to see how far the PVV's junior coalition parties would go to normalize extreme views within Wilders' party.

"It turns out very far," he said.

"The statements made in the past by PVV ministers about the 'great replacement' have been swept under the carpet," Koole said.

"All three the other coalition parties have accepted to have the 'great replacement' rephrased as a 'demographic phenomenon'," he said.

'Disgusting'

Wilders, who claimed a stunning victory in last year's parliamentary elections, continues to lead his party as an MP.

He gave up on ambitions to become Dutch prime minister after other coalition parties threatened to withdraw because of his anti-Islam and eurosceptic views.

Wilders said he wanted to limit immigration to the Netherlands "as much as possible", but he has indeed called the "great replacement" theory "disgusting".

But during the debate, he aimed his barbs at Schoof for not defending his party's ministers.

Wilders's outburst was immediately criticized by the junior coalition partner leaders of the VVD and the NSC on X.

"I was particularly struck by how defensive Wilders was and how he tried in a frantic and authoritarian way to deny the racism that his party clearly propagates in various ways," said Sarah Bracke, sociology professor at the University of Amsterdam.

"It is intellectually and politically untenable to continue to deny that the ideas at the heart of the PVV, and also of this government, are not racist, or that it would be enough to no longer mention the term 'great replacement' to make extremist and racist ideas disappear," she told AFP.

"If Mr Wilders continues to criticise his prime minister, this could lead to Schoof's resignation," added Leiden University's Koole.

"But we are not there yet," he said.

© 2024 AFP

A former attorney for Donald Trump says it might be best for the country if an "addled" and "out-of-it" President Joe Biden drops out of the presidential race, but that swapping Biden with someone else could end up hurting the party's chances at retaking the White House.

Former prosecutor Jim Trusty was asked Friday on Newsmax's "Newsline" about a recently aired clip in which Biden appears to flub a sentence and call himself a "black woman." Responding to the clip, Trusty called Biden "addled" and said he has appeared that way for several years.

"It's not just slips of the tongue, it's dramatic, complete, you know, falling down incompetence," said Trusty. "We've seen that for a long time and we know it must be much worse like after sun-down, when he's sitting at home with Dr. Jill."

Trusty said it was shameful that the people who continue to support the president are "all about power, and not about country."

Biden staying in the Oval Office invites, he said, "all sorts of mischief" from America's adversaries and pseudo-enemies, who could be eyeing his appearance and saying "now's our chance."

"They could do that realistically knowing he's just not up to the task," said Trusty.

All this, he said, warrants a conversation about invoking the 25th Amendment.

Read also: Morning Joe battles Axios founder over N.Y. Times' treatment of Joe Biden

"People should be doing it out of love of country and concern for the safety of this country, not out of some political calculation," he said.

In fact, doing so could end up hurting Trump's chances of regaining the White House.

"For Donald Trump, it's probably best if Biden stays in," he said.

Trusty joins Republicans including MAGA Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) in calling for Vice President Kamala Harris to invoke the 25th amendment to remove Biden.

Roy on Wednesday told Fox News that Biden is surrounded by a "cadre" of ventriloquist-esque progressives who are manipulating his moves like a "puppet."

Roy said the Biden camp has hidden his "lack of competency and ability." And while he believes former President Donald Trump will beat either Biden or Harris in the election, he called it an "issue of the constitution, straight-up," to remove Biden.

"The president, frankly, isn't all there. Everybody knows it. It is telling that the media, the mainstream media, so-called, is all in a tizzy because of the political ramifications," he said, adding that he believes the media has been "propping up a Manchurian Candidate."

Under the amendment, the vice president and a majority of the cabinet can notify the president pro tempore of the Senate and the House Speaker that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. Doing so would allow the vice president to become acting president.

Watch the clip below or at this link.

A Romanian court on Friday eased travel restrictions on controversial influencer Andrew Tate and his brother, allowing them to travel within the European Union while awaiting trial over human trafficking and rape charges.

U.S.-born Briton Tate and his brother Tristan, who say they are innocent, are accused of having formed an organised criminal network in early 2021 in Romania and in Britain.

The former professional kickboxer and his brother face charges of human trafficking, rape and forming a criminal group to sexually exploit women.

The Bucharest court on Friday said it "orders the replacement of the obligation of the (two) defendants... not to leave the territory of Romania with the obligation of the defendants not to leave the territorial limit of the European Union".

They can leave the EU zone only "with the prior authorisation of the judge of the preliminary chamber or the court," it said.

The brothers would still be subject to judicial supervision, which requires them to appear before authorities regularly.

The Tates' spokeswoman Mateea Petrescu welcomed the ruling, saying her clients could now "pursue professional opportunities without restriction".

At the end of 2022, the Tates were arrested in Romania and spent three months in detention before they were indicted in June 2023.

Prosecutors allege that 37-year-old Tate, his brother and two women set up a criminal organisation and sexually exploited several victims.

The victims were allegedly forced to engage in pornographic acts.

The Tates also face rape and assault allegations in separate cases in Britain, where authorities issued a European arrest warrant.

In March, a Romanian judge ordered the brothers to be extradited to the UK to face the accusations, but only once after a separate Romanian criminal case against them is finished.

A trial date in Romania has not yet been set.

Tate moved to Romania years ago after first starting a webcam business in the UK.

In 2016, Tate appeared on the "Big Brother" reality television show in Britain but was removed after a video emerged showing him attacking a woman.

He then turned to social media platforms to promote his divisive views.

Giving tips on how to be successful, along with misogynistic and sometimes violent maxims, his videos have made him one of the world's best-known influencers.

© Agence France-Presse

National security expert Marcy Wheeler is probing a report recently released by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) that targets the intelligence officials who discounted the Hunter Biden laptop story during the 2020 election as Russian interference.

While those intelligence officials agreed that the laptop had been tampered with, Jordan feared a "deep state" conspiracy — and dug into every aspect of the officials' identities and responsibilities in contracts with U.S. intelligence agencies.

In the interviews with the officials, Wheeler found a number of details previously unknown to the public. At one point in the questioning, former U.S. Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Michael Morell revealed he was concerned about Donald Trump's "deep narcissism."

Read Also: A neuroscientist explains why Donald Trump’s narcissism is now a major threat

Speaking to the House Judiciary Committee on April 4, 2023, Morell had already retired from government but was questioned about signing onto an intelligence letter dismissing the laptop concerns, along with a number of other communications he had despite being a private citizen.

At one point, the committee asked about an email that he sent to others who signed the letter in which Morell called the 2020 election, "The most important election since 1860 and 1864 when the very existence of the country was on the ballot."

"You know, it's funny, reading the letter from the generals supporting President Trump, I agree with a number of the points that they make," Morell said when asked why he thought the election was so important. "I'm as concerned about the defense budget. I'm a pretty conservative guy when it comes to national security.

"But I have to tell you that, you know, spending 33 years at CIA and watching literally hundreds of world leaders during that time, President Trump's personality traits deeply concerned me, what I believed to be deep narcissism, what I believed to be deep paranoia, what I believe to be a type of sadism where you — not sexually, of course, but a type of sadism where you, you know, are happy when your opponents have been injured in some way — I'm talking politically — that those were all traits that I saw in foreign leaders who did significant damage to their country and significant damage to the democracies of their country," Morell continued.

He specifically cited leaders he felt match that kind of Trump personality: Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Vladimir Putin in Russia.

"So, I was deeply concerned about the potential impact of President Trump on our democracy," Morell explained. "And, you know, my fear, in my view, was borne out by his failure to act on January 6, 2021. So that's what I meant when I wrote that. That's what I was thinking."

Read the full transcript of the interview here.

A discussion about how the press is covering President Joe Biden's poor debate performance grew combative on Friday morning when MSNBC host Joe Scarborough went back and forth with Axios founder Jim VandeHei, accusing the New York Times of flooding the zone with Biden attack stories while ignoring Donald Trump's debate lies.

According to VandeHrei, the Biden White House has been threatening reporters if they report on Biden's health, and now the Times is in overdrive on Biden stories.

With the Times' reporting coming under new scrutiny that dates back to their breathless coverage of Hillary Clinton's emails just weeks before the 2016 election that put Trump in the White House, Scarborough stated the venerable paper is back to giving the convicted felon ex-president a pass.

"They're in a massive panic," VandeHei said about Democrats. ""The New York Times has a story picking apart almost every sentence of the two radio interviews he [Biden] did; He did say some weird things in there. Imagine, even if you're at the top of your game, someone is scrutinizing everything you say. That's his reality if he stays in. "

"Jim, let me, I want to interrupt," said Scarborough. "You're so right. Again, everything, especially after that debate, is valid. But you go through the New York Times articles and look at that WAUK interview. I mean, when I ran [for office] at 31, you get on there and start talking fast, get a lot of stuff on your mind, and it's all over the place, you know? I wouldn't want to see the transcripts of my interviews."

"Right," the Axios founder agreed.

ALSO READ: 'Everyone is miserable': White House insiders describe staffers' despair amid uncertainty

"The fact they're going through the interview saying, well, here, he sort of stumbled and went to this or that, and there was a little stream of consciousness, I think it is absolutely ridiculous," the Morning Joe host continued. "Especially, again, when you look at the crazy s--t Donald Trump says every day. And the papers have already — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal — they just say, 'Oh, yeah, he's crazy.'"

"Stack that up with what Biden is saying in these interviews, his Wisconsin interview, what he said Fourth of July, all of these other things, and as far as — you know, now they're seizing on, 'Oh, he said this. Forgot Mayorkas' name," he continued. "Do you know how many times I do this, I do this show and forget Mayorkas' name? This is at 7:30 in the morning instead of 8 at night."

"Again, I don't want to go on, I'm not carrying the guy's water," Scarborough clarified. "I said what I said last Friday. But I went to Ireland to interview the guy, we did two or three things in Ireland, events in a day, I went back to the hotel wiped out. I read the paper the next morning and saw Biden did seven. It is a constant, steady schedule."

"This idea that we're going to hold Joe Biden to one standard and Donald Trump to another standard, which is really no standard at all if we're getting into the syntax and the crazy things he says," he added. "I want to see the New York Times write that story the next time Donald Trump gives a speech if his people ever allow him off the golf course or away from the Dunkin Donuts shop."

Watch below or at the link.

MSNBC 07 05 2024 07 19 32 youtu.be

Former President Donald Trump bragged Friday that he never called a group of neo-Nazis "very fine people" — but cited a controversial fact-check that has been partially disclaimed as proof.

Trump published his boast to Truth Social in the form of a quotation which he attributes to a report from the conservative tabloid the New York Post, but actually originates with a Fox News post.

"Left wing fact checker admits Trump never called Charlottesville neo-Nazis ‘very fine people’," Trump wrote, quoting the Fox News headline.

"While Trump did say that there were 'very fine people on both sides,' he also specifically noted that he was not talking about neo-Nazis and white supremacists."

ALSO READ: Republicans weaponizing ignorance is a dangerous game

The fact check in question came from Snopes late last month and almost immediately drew criticism that resulted in an updated editor's note.

The claim Snopes declared false was that "On Aug. 15, 2017, then-President Donald Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists who attended the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, 'very fine people.'"

Snopes acknowledged Trump had said of the rally — which turned violent when neo-Nazis and white supremacists clashed with counter protesters — "there were "very fine people on both sides."

The false ruling was based on Trump's comment to a reporter that neo-Nazis and white nationalists should be "condemned totally."

"You had some very bad people in that group," Trump said. "But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides...I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists."

The New Republic immediately slammed Snopes take, arguing the fact-checking site had failed to recognize Trump's rhetorical doublespeak when he referenced people who had shown up the night before the rally to protest "innocently" and "quietly."

"The 'night before' that Trump was referring to included the infamous tiki torch march, the one with people chanting 'Blood and soil!' and 'You will not replace us!' and 'Jews will not replace us!'" wrote author Parker Molloy. "Those were the people Trump was specifically referring to in his defense of attendees."

ALSO READ: How Donald Trump could run for president — and lead the nation — from prison

Snopes responded to criticism with an editor's note:

"This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false," the note reads. "For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump's characterization was wrong."

Whom precisely Trump had in mind when he made the comment only Trump can know. But it's worth noting this is not the first report, or brushing off, of such praise.

One House Republican broke out in giggles when a Raw Story reporter asked about Trump's reported praise of Nazi Dictator Adolf Hitler, revealed this year by his former chief of staff John Kelly.

Kelly said the former president praised Hitler for his economic record and claimed he "did some good things."

And former executive vice president of the Trump Organization Barbara Res revealed last month that her former boss thought it was funny to make jokes about the Nazis around Jewish employees.

"Then he looked at a couple of our executives who happen to be Jewish, and he said 'Watch out for this guy, he sort of remembers the ovens,' and then smiled," Res said. "He was making a joke about the Nazi ovens and eating people."