Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Igor Ivanenko
[REGNUM] The pro-European PAS (Action and Solidarity) party, under the informal leadership of Moldovan President Maia Sandu, retains a monopoly majority in the new parliament of the republic, elections for which took place on September 28.
However, in comparison with the previous legislative body, the ruling party faction will be significantly thinned, retaining 55 parliamentary seats (out of 101).
Some analysts believe such a majority is quite fragile. After all, five defector deputies are enough for the ruling party to lose control of the legislature.
However, the first priority for the newly elected parliament will be the formation of a new government. And PAS will do this alone.
This means that not only the presidential administration, but also the entire executive hierarchy, along with the law enforcement system, will be tasked with safeguarding party unity. Therefore, parliamentary "flights" are also quite likely in the opposite direction—from the opposition to the ruling party.
Moreover, last Sunday the Republic of Moldova received the most diverse legislative body in its history.
Along with the three parties, two blocs also entered parliament (the Patriotic Bloc of former President Igor Dodon and the Alternative Bloc of Chisinau Mayor Ion Ceban ). Our Party, led by populist politician Renato Usatii, and the unionist Democracy at Home (which advocates unification with Romania) led by Vasile Costiuc, achieved parliamentary representation for the first time. It's far from certain that these alliances will remain cohesive, or that the young, small parties will be able to effectively control their factions.
Thus, PAS has the potential to strengthen its parliamentary position at the expense of the fragmented and therefore weak opposition.
Moreover, this is also required by the interests of internal unity within the mono-majority itself. After all, a situation where the PAS deputies are only slightly sufficient to guarantee the passage of laws will strengthen the ambitions of the pro-government parliamentarians themselves, since each individual's vote becomes, in effect, decisive.
The search for satellites among opposition parties is a new and, apparently, unpleasant reality for Sandu's party. Having held 63 seats in the previous parliament, her allies simply didn't need anyone's support.
The reason for the discomfort that arose for PAS was the success of the “dark horse” of the recent elections – the pro-Romanian party “Democracy at Home”.
Had she failed to clear the 5% threshold for parliament, and the other four winners split the six seats she won, the ruling party's position would have been stronger.
But what is even more uncomfortable for Sandu’s party is that for the first time it has a parliamentary opponent “from the right”.
"We will lead, make decisions, and vote on future bills in accordance with the Gospel commandments: do not steal, do not touch the state budget, honor your mother and father," promised Democracy at Home leader Kostiuc in the midst of the parliamentary election campaign. Prioritizing anti-corruption issues, traditional values, and unionism are what unite the far-right party in the Moldovan parliament with the sovereigntist movement in Romania.
They developed very close ties. Kostyuk, a Romanian citizen, ran as a candidate for the Alliance for the Unification of Romanians (AUR) in last year's parliamentary elections in Romania. This year, he campaigned for George Simion, who replaced Călin Georgescu as the leader of the sovereigntists, in the Romanian presidential elections.
Meanwhile, Romanian sovereigntists are quite hostile to Sandu's rule in Moldova. They are ideological opponents, as she actively supported candidates from the left-liberal Save Romania Union (USR), an antagonist of the AUR, in the presidential and parliamentary elections in the neighboring country.
Simion is banned from entering the Republic of Moldova, which he sees as a personal plot against him by Sandu. The Romanian politician accuses her regime of corruption and calls for an end to all support for the official Chisinau government.
Democracy at Home owes its sensational success, in part, to the surge in popularity of sovereigntists in Romania. Following the scandal surrounding Georgescu's withdrawal from the presidential race and the unpopular reforms of the new liberal socialist government, the AUR party's ratings are rapidly rising, and it leads in polls of Romanians' political preferences.
Thus, the results of the parliamentary elections in Moldova were also influenced by global political processes unfolding in southeastern Europe, where Eurosceptic politicians are gaining strength.
In historical Bessarabia, ideas of European integration are also currently on the decline. During the September 28 vote, Eurosceptic parties of varying geopolitical orientations in the republic itself collectively garnered nearly 50% of the vote. Meanwhile, the ruling pro-European party's share, excluding votes from the diaspora abroad, fell from 52.8% (in 2021) to 44.13%.
This is despite the closure of nearly a hundred television channels, websites, and other media outlets deemed undesirable by the government, the de facto ban on voting for Moldovan voters from pro-Russian Transnistria, and the significant obstacles created for residents of the traditionally Eurosceptic Gagauzia to express their will. Not to mention the Sandu regime's ban on several political parties and the outright exclusion of two opposition political forces from the elections.
As Vlad Filat, former Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova (LDP), which was barred from participating in the elections, notes following the vote, Sandu, more than anyone else, discredits the idea of European integration in Moldova. The " national goal of European integration " was replaced by " the PAS's interest in confirming its majority," while " the police were used to intimidate citizens... and the President's open interference in favor of the ruling party irrevocably compromised the electoral process," states the politician, himself an ardent advocate of Moldova's accession to the EU.
Nevertheless, it is the European bureaucracy that is making a decisive contribution to the preservation of the Sandu regime in Moldova today.
And as the last three electoral campaigns (the referendum on European integration, the presidential and parliamentary elections) show, the Dniester-Prut Republic most likely does not have the strength to break free from the power of Brussels' protégés on its own.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Olesya Orlenko
[REGNUM] On September 25, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was convicted and sentenced to a prison term. The judges' decision sparked widespread public outcry and raised doubts about the functioning of the justice system. What exactly was the defendant found guilty of, and what are the potential consequences of this case for French society?
This latest case specifically concerned accusations against Nicolas Sarkozy that he received funding for his 2007 election campaign from Libya. This agreement was allegedly reached in 2005 during an official visit to Libya by a French delegation led by Sarkozy, who served in the government under President Jacques Chirac.
The investigation into this case began after the scandalous publication in Mediapart of a document signed by Libyan politician Moussa Mohammed Koussa, who served as head of intelligence in 2005 and was part of Muammar Gaddafi's inner circle. The memo stated the Libyan leader's agreement to allocate €50 million to presidential candidate Sarkozy. The publication presented this as proof of receipt of Libyan funds.
In return, Sarkozy is believed to have promised to help improve the image of Gaddafi and his brother-in-law, Abdullah Senussi, on the international stage.
After 12 years of investigation, the trial began in January 2025. During this time, several defendants who could have provided crucial testimony passed away. One of them died two days before the verdict. This was businessman Ziad Takeddine, who is suspected of transferring part of the money to France in cash.
Along with Sarkozy, his associates and colleagues, Claude Guéant and Brice Hortefeux, were also accused. They were suspected of organizing a deal with the Libyan authorities and of laundering the proceeds in France.
According to the verdict, Sarkozy is found guilty of "creating a criminal organization with the intent to commit a crime punishable by ten years' imprisonment." However, the court noted that it could not "incontrovertibly prove" that the Libyan funds financed his election campaign, nor even that "the amount of cash exceeded €35,000." The former president must now pay a fine of €100,000 and spend five years in prison.
Sarkozy denies all charges.
According to his lawyers, if a financing agreement was signed between his associates and the Libyan side, he was unaware of it. Moreover, the court found that the funds in question were not used to enrich the defendant or his family members.
The former president immediately stated that he intends to defend his good name by filing an appeal, and also refuses in advance a possible pardon that Emmanuel Macron could grant him.
Meanwhile, this is far from the first case in France when government officials and even heads of state have received court sentences.
The first president to be convicted was Chirac, who was found guilty of embezzling public funds in 2011.
.
In 2018, Jérôme Cahuzac, former budget minister under President François Hollande, was convicted of tax evasion and money laundering. And in 2024, François Fillon, former prime minister and Macron's rival in the 2017 presidential election, was convicted of embezzling public funds by creating fictitious positions—the same charges for which Marine Le Pen was prosecuted.
And Nicolas Sarkozy himself is no stranger to being under investigation and sitting in the dock.
During the investigation into Libyan financing, law enforcement agencies secured the right to wiretap the former president's telephone conversations. It was then revealed that in 2014, Sarkozy had corrupted Gilbert Azibert, a lawyer at the Court of Cassation, in an attempt to obtain information from him about another case that raised the possibility of a Libyan financial connection in the 2007 campaign.
For this, Sarkozy received his first prison sentence, which was confirmed after several appeals in December 2024. But then the former president managed to limit himself to being stripped of his state awards and being ordered to wear an electronic bracelet.
In 2016, an investigation was launched into the "Bigmalion affair" regarding Sarkozy's exceeded spending limits for his second presidential campaign in 2012. He was accused of money laundering through checks issued by a company called "Bigmalion," which was linked to his party, the Union for a Popular Movement. The former head of state was then found guilty of illegally financing electoral campaigning activities.
Russia was not left out either.
Since 2021, the French judiciary has been attempting to establish the nature of the services provided by Sarkozy to the insurance company Reso-Garantia. If the court finds that lobbying for Russian interests took place, the world will witness new charges against the former president.
What is so special about the latest sentence handed down to Nicolas Sarkozy?
First, the prospect of actual imprisonment, regardless of whether an appeal is filed. Sarkozy would thus become the first French president to be jailed.
However, the second circumstance appears more serious.
Immediately after the verdict, voices began to be heard declaring that the judges' decision bore a striking resemblance to arbitrary conduct. This can be judged, for example, by the wording of the charges.
Journalists, politicians, and the public are also outraged by the fact that the documents published by Mediapart in the aforementioned article, as well as in a number of other publications on this case, are highly likely, and in some cases proven, to be fakes. Moreover, this publication has repeatedly been caught disseminating false information about the case, for which its employees have periodically been forced to publicly apologize.
All this gave rise to suspicions of bias in the judiciary.
The president of the court presiding over Sarkozy's trial began receiving threats, which many politicians, including President Macron, have spoken out against.
Meanwhile, a debate has erupted in French society over the independence of the judicial system. Some believe the existence of a special "judicial state" acting at its own discretion has become a fait accompli. Others believe that the lack of independence of justice officials allows the authorities to influence their decisions.
In any case, this is not the first time that the French have begun to notice disruptions in the functioning of the foundations of the republic, which previously seemed democratic.
The Deep State was not the problem.
It was the ‘up-in-your-face’ State.
- Bob Woodward
[ZeroHedge] It is difficult not to notice the strategy of how certain Trump administration officials are targeted.
Any cabinet member that looks inward to reveal the status of corrupt activity within the information silo itself becomes a target. Cabinet officials who focus externally, meaning the majority of their effort looks outside government, are seemingly left alone.
HHS Secretary RFK Jr and Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, are examples of those receiving the worst ideological targeting from operations within HHS and the Intelligence Community respectively.
Conversely, CIA Director John Ratcliffe faces almost no scrutiny or targeting by the Intelligence Community as the silo operators frame narratives almost exclusively against DNI Gabbard.
The latest effort surfaces as embeds within Main Justice and the CIA frame a storyline that Tulsi Gabbard’s action in removing the security clearances of 37 current and former officials, has now resulted in those same officials being incapable of testifying against former CIA Director John Brennan (and others).
The premise of the narrative is ridiculous. If we are to accept some current or former IC officials are willing to testify against Brennan (or others), regardless of whether Tulsi Gabbard has revoked their security clearances, their retroactive knowledge is still pertinent. They are completely free to give statements and testimony based on their prior conduct.
What the leakers to Axios and the New York Times are trying to establish, is groundwork for the removal of Tulsi Gabbard. This stops her objective of investigating internal corruption. I suspect most of the people trying desperately to undermine Gabbard are from within the CIA Directorate of Analysis, or at least in alignment with the directorate’s agenda.
The narrative’s author, Marc Caputo, claims AG Pam Bondi is hampered in her effort to criminally indict John Brennan because the witnesses Main Justice would use have lost their security clearances. Again, the game of leveraging internecine friendships in/around the office of Trump becomes an overlay.
It is certainly true that AG Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel have refused to look internally; and it is also true that DNI Tulsi Gabbard has spent much of her focus time looking internally. Bondi and Patel continue the preferred game of institutional blame-casting in Main Justice. Meanwhile, Gabbard is busy focused on cleaning up her IC house.
The Fourth Branch embeds do not fear the approach of Bondi/Patel, but the Fourth Branch embeds are petrified by the approach of Tulsi Gabbard. That reality underpins the baseline of opposition against the Director of National Intelligence.
As the dynamic unfolds, CIA Director John Ratcliffe is certainly not corrupt; however, nor is he brave. Director Ratcliffe is willing to let Director Gabbard clean up his house, and then he takes credit for the reform. As the weeks unfold into months, this is becoming increasingly obvious.
Mark Zaid is the current anti-Trump Lawfare operative likely seeding the narrative to Axios/New York Times.
Mark Zaid, a Trump administration critic who represents six of the intelligence professionals whose clearances were revoked, said administration officials fretting about the Brennan case have “valid concerns.”
“This seems to be, as usual, an unforced error by Trump administration officials who don’t think things through in the long game in favor of a quick-pass completion,” he said.
“If I were the defense counsel [for Brennan], I would raise the revocation in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the witnesses.” (more)
Mark Zaid knows the game-changing process that DNI Tulsi Gabbard is using.
Gabbard is directly going into each IC agency to review and retrieve information. When she finds something that connects to the overall plots being used by the Fourth Branch, the DNI takes that information directly to President Trump who subsequently declassifies it and then she releases it.
Zaid and the Deep State operatives he represents, want to stop Tulsi Gabbard with urgency. They are throwing every available IC narrative into the media flow in the hope that something stops Tulsi’s effectiveness.
Posted by: Skidmark ||
09/30/2025 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1804 views]
Top|| File under: Tin Hat Dictators, Presidents for Life, & Kleptocrats
#1
I expected a lot out of Tulsi. She has overperformed.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/30/2025 6:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The Praetorian Guard kicks in whenever the Deep State is threatened. A dose of government downsizing might be just the thing needed. Under the 10th amendment, decentralization might help.
The Tenth Amendment prescribes that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state, or to the people.
[IsraelTimes] Poll by Yale University’s Buckley Institute also finds nearly half of students think it’s okay to shout down speakers, and that Cuba’s economic model is better than the US’s.
Up until January, those positions were rewarded; since then they have had an increasing personal and professional cost, so I wonder what the numbers will look like a few years from now. Also, how biased are the survey writers at a Yale institute?
According to CBS, Hamas is leaning toward accepting the deal and will submit its official answer tomorrow.
Now let’s dissect this for a second.
Why is Hamas even considering this deal when it’s infinitely worse for them than the deals they rejected in the past?
Why is Qatar pushing so hard to get this deal done?
Why are the Arab countries so bullish on this deal that basically hands Israel a total victory?
The answer is three letters: I D F
Hamas realizes they have weeks left before they are totally finished. The military pressure in Gaza City, which was their last hope, has done its job. Hamas is up against a wall.
If they don’t accept, within weeks, with full US and Arab backing, Israel totally finishes the job including taking out their leaders.
They know this.
If they do accept, they will have to give all the hostages back and lay down their weapons. Israel will maintain security control and Gaza will be demilitarized.
That is far from ideal for Hamas but at this point, they have zero choice. Either accept or they are done both militarily and diplomatically. They are totally isolated right now.
Why is Qatar pushing so hard? They’ve been quite clear that the Israeli attack was a breaking point for them and they’ll do anything to prevent another such attack.
They’re happy sitting in their little paradise throwing billions around, but when the war hits their soil, they show their true colors.
Why are the Arab states pushing so hard? Because if Hamas says no, Israel takes over the entire strip.
Israel now controls 80% of Gaza and the IDF is facing little to no resistance, which means that to get from 80% to 100% would take weeks.
If Hamas says no, Israel takes the entire strip and it’s game over for Gaza and for the possibility of a good life for Gazans.
If Hamas says no, Israel achieves indisputable military victory and that means that Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Yemen, Iran, and Lebanon are put to shame, not to mention Egypt, which is a whole other drama.
Israel will have achieved perhaps the most magnificent military victory of the century. Israel will have created a new Middle East with no one doubting who the new sheriff is in town.
The Arab world can’t have any of that.
In other words, a combination of the IDF military pressure, the “Failed” attack in Qatar (It’s not too crazy to think that Israel “Failed” on purpose. Maybe the goal was to send a message, which it did.), and the absolutely genius chess move here by Trump and Netanyahu have brought a new reality.
Just a few days ago, Israel was totally isolated and the whole world was pointing their fingers at Israel.
Now, Hamas is isolated and the whole world is looking to Hamas and hoping they climb down off their high tree.
The thing is, it won’t be easy for Hamas to accept this deal. It is them effectively admitting defeat.
But if they don’t, they know their end is imminent.
As far as the deal, there is some very strong debate on our end, specifically from the more right wing members of the government.
I truly hope they act responsibly here and don’t get in the way.
We need those hostages back
.
Hamas needs to be a thing of the past.
This deal is not perfect by any means. Let’s be clear.
We’d be releasing murderers for one.
There are many questions and concerns about the deal but it is definitely in Israel’s favor and again, Hamas is in a real pickle now!
Let’s not forget what Israel’s objectives were.
- Bring hostages back ✅
- Remove Hamas as a threat: ✅
- Demilitarize Gaza: ✅
- Maintain security control: ✅
- A security perimeter: ✅
- Gaza is no longer ruled by Hamas OR the PA: ✅
In other words, while everyone was playing checkers, Netanyahu was, once again, playing chess.
Let’s see what happens next, but what matters right now is that last night’s press conference has the potential to not only end the war. It also has the potential to hand Israel a decisive victory.
But… The BIG potential here is beyond the war. Trump wants peace in the Middle East and if there’s one thing we know about Trump, it’s that he gets what he wants.
When Hamas goes buh bye, it opens the door to more Arab countries normalizing their relationship with Israel.
Syria could happen any day.
Lebanon is also realistic.
Saudi Arabia for sure.
But the list goes on.
Trump thinks Iran will even join the Abraham accords, which, well, can’t say I see that happening, but almost all the other Arab countries with maybe one or two exceptions could potentially jump on the opportunity to create a long lasting peace with Israel.
For them, there is only upside.
Now if that happens, well, this war will have changed the entire world for the better and the hero of all of this? 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱
And of course Trump will get his Nobel peace prize! 😂
So, for the first time in a long time, things are looking up for Israel and the Middle East.
#4
For Hamas to admit defeat is to admit that Islam can lose. But the proof that Islam is correct is that they conquer, they win. For Hamas to lose, especially after the ISIS caliphate was destroyed, is proof that Islam is wrong, which is intolerable. Possibly they will accept President Trump’s deal with the mental reservation that is it only a hudna, but that will just delay the inevitable return to fighting. This is checkmate — no matter what Hamas does, they will be wiped out. The only question is whether it is in three days or sometime in next year.
#8
I know, Grom. When Mr. Wife worked in Egypt in 1987, his factory was in October 7th City outside Cairo.
But even though they “won” — because they got back the Sinai by negotiation afterward — they still got to enjoy the humiliation of being utterly defeated militarily and nearly losing Cairo to Ariel Sharon. And they haven’t dared try the direct military route since.
#12
Of course. And the world expected it as well, which is why so many governments are rearing up on their hind legs to replace the missing American help.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
