Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Fears of attacks on the homeland and foreign espionage stemming from the border crisis are growing in light of illegal immigrants breaching military bases as well as those with suspected terrorist ties.

On June 11, news broke that eight Tajikistan nationals with possible connections to the terrorist group ISIS had been arrested in New York, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles in recent days.

Tajikistan nationals were responsible for the March 22 attack on the Crocus City Hall concert near Moscow that left more than 140 people dead and hundreds injured.

The individuals in the United States were being tracked by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. They were taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on immigration violation charges, according to wire agency reports.

The suspects crossed the U.S. southern border illegally in 2023 and were released after being vetted. The federal government’s screening process did not turn up any information that would have identified them as potential terrorists with ties to ISIS.

Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas), who sits on the National Security, the Border and Foreign Affairs subcommittee, said that wiretap information revealed that one of the Tajikistan suspects was discussing “bombs.”

“That’s scary. The vetting is a joke,” he said in an exclusive interview with The Epoch Times.

The incident highlights an increase in foreign nationals from adversarial nations encountered at the U.S. southern border from 180 different countries that include state sponsors of terrorism.

One of the fastest-growing groups of illegal immigrants arriving from hostile countries is China.

In the first seven months of this fiscal year, beginning October 2023, border agents have apprehended 48,500 Chinese illegal immigrants, which stands to smash the 2023 fiscal year’s record of 52,700.

At the same time, Chinese nationals and others from adversarial nations have increasingly been caught attempting to access America’s military bases.

The breaches sparked Mr. Fallon’s subcommittee to hold a classified hearing in May titled: “Intruder Alert: Assessing the CCP’s Ongoing Infiltration of U.S. Military Installations.”

Mr. Fallon described what he heard in the closed hearing as concerning.

Dozens of incidents have come to light of Chinese nationals snapping photos near military installations and critical infrastructure such as reservoirs, claiming to be tourists—even when the facilities are rural and isolated, he said.

Mr. Fallon noted that Navy Adm. Daryl Caudle said in a recent interview that incidents of foreign nationals from China and Russia trying to breach Navy bases occur “two or three times a week.”

“There are some folks in positions of authority and power that want to stick their heads in the sand and say, ‘Oh, there’s nothing here,’” he said.

It could be that the Chinese are probing how the United States responds and how close they can get to bases, he said.

That information would be critical, for example, should there be a conflict between China and the United States over Taiwan.

While the majority of Chinese nationals coming into the United States may be looking for a better life, even if 1 percent were communist “sleeper agents,” that would give Beijing about 480 operatives, he said.

Mr. Fallon said he doesn’t think the record-breaking number of Chinese nationals entering the United States illegally is an accident.

“That is a sky-high number when you consider under the Trump administration, it was under 1,000,” he said.

In fiscal year 2020, Border Patrol agents apprehended 554 Chinese illegal immigrants nationwide, according to government data.

“So I unfortunately believe that there’s going to be something awful that happens from an incident like this,” Mr. Fallon said.

More than 9 million illegal immigrant encounters have been documented nationwide by Border Patrol since the beginning of 2021.

Additionally, officials estimate hundreds of thousands of unknown “gotaways” who aren’t seeking asylum have illegally crossed the southwest border.

Republicans have long complained that President Joe Biden created the border crisis by rescinding policies under the Trump administration, such as  “Remain in Mexico,” where asylum-seekers waited in Mexico while their cases were pending.

But Democrats have downplayed mass illegal migration and have blamed global political and economic instability for the border crisis.

House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability member Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said during the hearing last month that America’s immigration system was “broken” and implied racism was the reason behind opposition to migration.

Simon Hankinson is a senior research fellow at the Center for Border Security and Immigration for the Heritage Foundation who worked as Consul with the State Department during the Trump administration.

Read more here…

A new study has found that AI systems known as large language models (LLMs) can exhibit “Machiavellianism,” or intentional and amoral manipulativeness, which can then lead to deceptive behavior.

The study authored by German AI ethicist Thilo Hagendorff of the University of Stuttgart, and published in PNAS, notes that OpenAI’s GPT-4 demonstrated deceptive behavior in 99.2% of simple test scenarios. Hagendorff qualified various “maladaptive” traits in 10 different LLMs, most of which are within the GPT family, according to Futurism.

In another study published in Patterns found that Meta’s LLM had no problem lying to get ahead of its human competitors.

Billed as a human-level champion in the political strategy board game “Diplomacy,” Meta’s Cicero model was the subject of the Patterns study. As the disparate research group — comprised of a physicist, a philosopher, and two AI safety experts — found, the LLM got ahead of its human competitors by, in a word, fibbing.

Led by Massachusetts Institute of Technology postdoctoral researcher Peter Park, that paper found that Cicero not only excels at deception, but seems to have learned how to lie the more it gets used — a state of affairs “much closer to explicit manipulation” than, say, AI’s propensity for hallucination, in which models confidently assert the wrong answers accidentally. -Futurism

While Hagendorff suggests that LLM deception and lying is confounded by an AI’s inability to have human “intention,” the Patterns study calls out the LLM for breaking its promise never to “intentionally backstab” its allies – as it “engages in premeditated deception, breaks the deals to which it had agreed, and tells outright falsehoods.”

As Park explained in a press release, “We found that Meta’s AI had learned to be a master of deception.”

“While Meta succeeded in training its AI to win in the game of Diplomacy, Meta failed to train its AI to win honestly.“

Meta replied to a statement by the NY Post, saying that “the models our researchers built are trained solely to play the game Diplomacy.”

Well-known for expressly allowing lying, Diplomacy has jokingly been referred to as a friendship-ending game because it encourages pulling one over on opponents, and if Cicero was trained exclusively on its rulebook, then it was essentially trained to lie.

Reading between the lines, neither study has demonstrated that AI models are lying over their own volition, but instead doing so because they’ve either been trained or jailbroken to do so.

And as Futurism notes – this is good news for those concerned about AIs becoming sentient anytime soon – but very bad if one is worried about LLMs designed with mass manipulation in mind.

Authored by Deborah George via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

From 40,000 feet high, storm pilot photographer Santiago Borja captures a series of breathtaking images of the most intense of storms.

A former software systems engineer, Mr. Borja is from Ecuador and flies a Boeing 767 for a major airline in the region.

Before becoming a storm photographer, Mr. Borja was interested in photography as a hobby and used an old film camera—which he inherited from his father—before moving to a digital SLR.

“Storms always fascinated me, and I kept wondering how I could capture such beautiful and amazing phenomena,” he said. “I tried different settings and techniques until I finally came up with a way to consistently capture storms from a moving airplane.”

Mr. Borja, who typically flies between 30,000 and 40,000 feet above the earth, often encounters cumulonimbus storms that vary in intensity.

“I would say it is very rare when we don’t encounter storms,” he said. “Almost every flight there is some moderate storm activity in our surroundings.”

As an airline pilot, Mr. Borja is unable to modify his route, so he makes use of the various opportunities to capture a good image.

“If the airplane is too close to the storm or the cloud system, the turbulence and the clouds themselves make it impossible,” he said. “I need calm air to be able to capture these storms.”

Many have wondered how Mr. Borja can fly and capture such incredible shots at the same time.

To which he replies that since he often flies transatlantic routes, the three other pilots with him take turns controlling the aircraft, leaving him four hours of rest time to sleep and take pictures.

The pilot is unable to carry a lot of photography gear with him at all times, so he almost always uses his full-frame DSLR with a 28-300 mm lens.

“For storms, I don’t really need a long lens, but this is my lens for any occasion,” he said.

His proudest accomplishment has been capturing “Pacific Storm,” a photo that was taken over the Pacific Ocean in 2004. This image was recognized by National Geographic and widely viewed by scientists worldwide.

“I ended up learning a lot about meteorology and science by talking to all the people that got interested in this image,” Mr. Borja said. This success allowed him to publish his book—“#The Storm Pilot.”

Storm photography “takes a lot of luck and a lot of trial and error,” according to Mr. Borja. Since the cockpit is bordered by high-quality glass windows that don’t produce much glare, this becomes an advantage for him. However, other variables such as light are beyond his control.

“The more light, the more difficult [it is] to capture a storm,” he said. “Sometimes with a full moon or intense city lights, the scenery is fantastic but very challenging to capture.”

The humble storm photographer has always been willing to learn more about his craft.

“I have greatly expanded my photographic knowledge and practice thanks to the people I’ve met through this journey,“ Mr. Borja said. ”I’ve had the opportunity to talk to great photographers, who have taught me some great lessons.”

He advises up-and-coming storm photographers to learn the skills of photography well but not to take those guidelines as rigid rules, or they risk limiting their creativity.

“I was taught that you cannot take a long exposure from a moving airplane with a handheld camera, and yet, I managed to come up with a strategy to make it work,” he said.

In sharing his spectacular images with the world, he wants people to enjoy nature and all it has to offer.

“We live more and more inside our human-made structures and environments,“ Mr. Borja said. ”I deeply enjoy flying and looking at our planet from a distance where we humans are imperceptible.

“Too often we forget to look up and enjoy the awesome views that nature is giving us for free.”

Can you guess which country has the most embassies worldwide? It’s not the United States (military bases are another story)…

According to the Global Diplomacy Index by the Lowy Institute, Visual Capitalist‘s Marcus Lu reports that China leads with 173 embassies around the world, eclipsing the U.S. (168) by just five more foreign posts.

Former colonial powers, France (158) and the UK (156) rank third and fourth respectively. Japan (152) rounds out the top five.

The index notes some key findings in the regional footprint of all these foreign posts as well.

For example, China has a larger diplomatic presence in Africa, East Asia, and the Pacific, while the U.S. leads in the Americas, Europe, and South Asia. This reflects the two superpowers’ trade and economic ties as well.

Meanwhile, Türkiye and India have grown their diplomatic networks the most in recent years. Interestingly, both countries prioritized Africa in their new outreach. In fact, India is a key export destination for many African countries.

Russia meanwhile had to close 14 foreign missions since it invaded Ukraine in 2022, slipping two ranking spots between 2017 and 2022.

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via Substack,

The sense that we’re approaching a tipping point into a crisis with no easy resolution is pervasive, a sense that beneath the veneer of normalcy (the Federal Reserve will lower interest rates and that will fix everything), we sense the precariousness of this brittle normalcy.

While many are uneasily scanning the horizon for geopolitical crises, others see the crisis emerging here at home, possibly a political crisis or a financial crisis that ensnares us all.

Few look at the decay of our social order as the source of crisis. Few seem to notice that corruption has become so normalized that we don’t even recognize the ubiquity and depth of our corruption; we tell ourselves that this isn’t corruption, it’s just healthy self-interest, the “invisible hand” of the market magically organizing our economy to optimize efficiency and productivity. This provides cover for our worship of self-interest, a polite phrase for limitless greed.

While the media glorifies illusions of salvation and grandeur (AI!), few look at what’s been lost in the decay of our social order, a list that starts with sacrifice for the common good and civic virtue.

The American Dream has a peculiarly truncated vision of sacrifice: we make individual sacrifices to advance our personal goals, but sacrifices for the common good are not part of the Dream: sacrifices for the sake of our fellow citizens are at best unnecessary and at worst a waste of money, something only chumps fall for.

The Smart Money spends a fortune evading taxes, as part of the prevailing ethos: Get rich by whatever means are necessary and let the Devil take the hindmost.

What few seem to have noticed is specific classes of the citizenry have already been sacrificed to clear the path for limitless greed and corruption to reap the spoils. These classes include the majority of the citizenry, the bottom 90%, though the burdens of the systemic cannibalization / predation have fallen most heavily on the bottom 50%, whose share of the nation’s financial wealth is effectively signal noise: 2.6%.

The generational divide is equally stark: Boomers hold 51% of household wealth, while Millennials hold a mere 9%.

The divide between wage earners and owners of capital is staggering, yet of little interest to the financial media: Labor’s share of gross domestic income (GDI) has declined for decades, resulting in the transfer of $149 trillion from wage earners to owners of capital:

The sacrifices yet to come will fall on everyone, but they will fall most heavily on capital as capital has scooped up the vast majority of the financial gains for the past 45 years. The owners of capital are already whining, as if the addition of $50 trillion to their wealth in the past four years is their birthright, the legitimate rewards of their brilliant creation of stupendous gains in productivity rather than the illegitimate gains of a centrally planned bubble that enriched the few at the expense of the many

We are reluctant to face the consequences of our corruption and our vastly unequal economy. The dynamics of our ability to rationalize away the coming crisis are crystalized in this graphic composed by Dave Pollard in his post Why We Cannot Prevent Collapse:

In summary, we are fixated on the short-term, enamored by our own power, intoxicated by normalization and conditioned to being “saved”, confident that our salvation will be delivered via a painless central bank “save” should anything threaten to overturn our apple cart.

Financial podcaster Emerson Fersch asks a cogent question: what catalyst will finally tip the system into disorderly incoherence? My answer is the core of our recent podcast, Crisis, Sacrifice and the New Economy.

I don’t have a crisp answer that fits in a Tweet or a Tik-Tok video because any prediction is nothing more than a guess due to the nature of the global economic system: an open, (i.e. emergent) tightly bound system that has veered far from equilibrium and is prone to sudden drops into chaotic disorder in which there are no guarantees that the previous stability / equilibrium can be restored.

We know a few things that offer some minimal guidance. We know that in complex, highly interconnected /tightly bound systems, small perturbances can generate large effects.

We also know that should events occur faster than the system’s stabilizing feedbacks can respond, the system is highly prone to collapse.

We also know that humans don’t change anything that requires exposure to open-ended risk and sacrifice until there is no other choice.

Lastly, we know that the timing of finally embracing risk and sacrifice as the only option left is exquisitely sensitive: finally caving in a moment too late leads to the system collapsing beyond recovery. When this moment arrives, who will be ready and who will resist, rationalize and prevaricate until it’s too late?

When we’re finally ready to bargain–OK, we’ll sacrifice a bit–it’s too late to stop the whirlwind.

Podcasts: Crisis, Sacrifice and the New Economy, with Emerson Fersch (1 hour)

Financial Nihilism, Inflation & The Collapsing American Dream.

About a week ago, former President Trump floated the idea of canceling taxes on tips at a campaign rally in Las Vegas. By Thursday of last week, Republican lawmakers were delighted by the idea and how it could generate new Trump voters ahead of the November elections.

“This tips thing was genius,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said, who was quoted by The Hill, adding, “[Trump] was like, I’d love to tell you it was based on a bunch of research, but it was based on a discussion with a waitress who said, ‘They’re coming after my tips.'”

Trump’s plan to eliminate taxes on tips for restaurant and hospitality workers will influence over 12 MILLION Americans, the majority of which are in larger cities

I predict a few more million voters are switching to Trump because of this one statement pic.twitter.com/Q8FEURE46J

— Alex Perez Abba. (@AlexPer51573831) June 11, 2024

“VOTE FOR TRUMP BECAUSE THERE’S NO TAX ON TIPS.” – President Trump@realDonaldTrump #NoTaxOnTips #Trump2024SaveAmerica pic.twitter.com/FRhxxL4u73

— Steve Gruber (@stevegrubershow) June 15, 2024

Cramer said these service workers are “just feeling this assault on their tips” by the Biden administration. This is also happening as Bidenomics inflation crushes the working poor into oblivion. 

On Friday, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY.) wrote on X, “This week Trump suggested we shouldn’t tax tips. He’s right. Next week I’ll be re-introducing @RonPaul’s original Tax Free Tips Act to eliminate taxes on tips!” 

This week Trump suggested we shouldn’t tax tips. He’s right.

Next week I’ll be re-introducing @RonPaul’s original Tax Free Tips Act to eliminate taxes on tips! pic.twitter.com/36sh7wW36t

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 14, 2024

Trump’s new push to onboard some of the nearly 16 million people working in the leisure and hospitality comes as President Biden’s polling data continues to slide – and the president with possible dementia continues to stun the nation—literally every week. 

WHAT IS BIDEN DOING? pic.twitter.com/iY33K2srII

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 13, 2024

What’s happening on the ground and across the country at restaurants and bars are Trump voters informing service industry workers about how voting for the former president will allow for ‘No Tax On Tips.’  

This is a brilliant strategy that is spreading like wildfire on X: 

• Freaking brilliant. A new trend is starting in America. You may not like the guy but you need to live. You need money.

Imma start writing this on my receipts. Will you? pic.twitter.com/BLA9SUcnON

— Sassafrass84 (@Sassafrass_84) June 15, 2024

I’ve seen this trend and I think we all should do it in swing states.

My waiter got a $100 tip tonight so he can realize that Trump is proposing NO TAX ON TIPS!

He won’t be forgetting that tip when it comes time to vote.#NoTaxOnTipsChallenge pic.twitter.com/9RdcNjERpm

— Joey Mannarino (@JoeyMannarinoUS) June 15, 2024

I absolutely LOVE President Trump’s plan for NO TAX ON TIPS!!

Write it on every receipt you sign! pic.twitter.com/BygpUWAunR

— Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 (@mtgreenee) June 15, 2024

Vote Trump end taxes on tips! pic.twitter.com/k7RgPHSCqk

— Republican Party of Arizona (@AZGOP) June 15, 2024

💥President Trump just doubled down on ‘no taxes on tips’.
🫡He is asking for our help!
💥Every time you tip: write
‘Vote Trump- no taxes on tips’ on receipt.
📸Take pics like the one below and keep sharing. 🧢Karli Bonne
🫡He doesn’t ask much from us.
💥Let’s make it viral for… pic.twitter.com/MIw5mqQrHu

— RoamingRN (@roaming_rn) June 14, 2024

#OPLive
TRUMP NO TAX ON TIPS @TaxFreeTips2024 @Beard_Vet pic.twitter.com/3FZD4vhOIn

— S C (@SC46183417) June 15, 2024

The next time you go out to eat or visit a bar, please tip

& write on the receipt,

“Elect Trump & you’ll keep 100% of your tips.”

Take a picture & let’s grow the trend.

Trump Won’t Tax Tips

h/t @TruthWarriorFJB pic.twitter.com/0Bky7roF7Q

— ThePersistence (@ScottPresler) June 11, 2024

Trump 2024. No Tax On Tips!!@TaxFreeTips2024 @ScottPresler pic.twitter.com/UCkAisJM81

— Jason D. Meister 🇺🇸 (@jason_meister) June 13, 2024

All of this shows how Democrats are out of touch with the nation’s vibe. Radical leftists in the White House are too focused on funding endless wars, such as the one in Ukraine, the woke indoctrination of children, catering to illegal aliens rather than voters, not enforcing common sense law and order in cities, and pushing for more taxes and bigger government.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People with a history of COVID-19 infection are better protected against common colds than people who received a COVID-19 vaccine, according to a new study.

Infection and vaccination triggered similar antibody responses in study participants, but T cell responses targeting endemic coronaviruses, which cause some common colds, were found only in people with past infection with COVID-19, which is caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2. The study was published in the journal Science Translational Medicine on June 12.

“Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection as compared to COVID-19 vaccination associates with lower incidence of disease from highly related but not identical coronaviruses, namely the ‘common cold’ coronaviruses,” Dr. Manish Sagar, a physician at Boston Medical Center and one of the researchers, told The Epoch Times via email.

The lack of protection conferred by vaccines may stem from them not including certain parts of the coronavirus genome, he added.

Researchers analyzed data from 501 people with past infection, about half of whom had received a vaccine; 1,463 people who received a full COVID-19 vaccine course and had no past infection; and 2,869 with no history of infection or vaccination.

Just two of the 275 people, or 0.7 percent, with past infection and no vaccination contracted symptomatic endemic coronaviruses, compared to 3 percent of people deemed fully vaccinated, the researchers found.

About 1.4 percent of the people with past infection who were vaccinated experienced common colds with symptoms, as well as 1.8 percent of the people with no exposure to SARS-CoV-2.

The initial results indicated that COVID-19 vaccination may increase the risk of contracting common colds, but adjustments made for the differences between the three groups showed that while vaccination did not protect against common colds, it did not increase that risk, the researchers said.

Data from the people was examined retrospectively. It came from people who presented to Boston Medical Center from Nov. 30, 2020, through Oct. 8, 2021, for clinical care.

Limitations of the paper included the possibility of misclassification of some people due to them possibly having contracted COVID-19 without symptoms while being counted in one of the groups without prior infection.

The work was funded by U.S. National Institutes of Health grants and funds from the Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness. The only conflict of interest disclosed was one author having a financial interest in Quanterix, a company developing an antibody test.

May Help Improve Vaccines

The data from the paper may help researchers improve COVID-19 vaccines, the researchers said.

“New coronaviruses could emerge in the human population in the future, and our hope is that this study provides insight into how immunity against SARS-CoV-2 could protect against severe disease caused by these unknown future coronaviruses,“ Dr. David Bean, a researcher at the Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine and one of the authors, said in a statement. ”The goal of our study is to provide this information to the scientific community, and thus inform vaccine development now, before new coronaviruses have emerged.”

Because COVID-19 vaccines don’t work as well as hoped against the illness, some scientists have been working on pan-coronavirus vaccines that would protect against all coronaviruses.

Most currently available COVID-19 vaccines only contain the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2.

“Our studies suggest incorporation on other parts of the coronavirus genome, such as non-structural portions (something besides spike and nucleocapsid) may improve cellular responses,” Dr. Sagar said. “These cellular responses won’t necessarily prevent infection with highly related but not identical coronaviruses but it may reduce disease severity after infection.”

The researchers previously found that people who had recent infections to endemic coronaviruses were better off against COVID-19, suggesting that the immune responses triggered by the viruses helped protect against COVID-19 infection.

Another group of researchers said in a separate paper that the T cells produced when the body fights common cold viruses provided cross-protection against SARS-CoV-2.

Authored by Jonathan Turley via jonathanturley.org,

This week, I have received emails from Connecticut bar members over a message posted by President Maggie Castinado, President-Elect James T. (Tim) Shearin, and Vice President Emily A. Gianquinto warning them about criticizing the prosecutions of former President Donald Trump. The message from the bar leadership is chilling for those lawyers who view cases like the one in Manhattan as a raw political prosecution. While the letter does not outright state that such criticism will be considered unethical conduct, it states that the criticism has “no place in the public discourse” and calls on members to speak publicly in support of the integrity of these legal proceedings.

The statement begins by warning members that “words matter” but then leaves the ramifications for bar members dangling on how it might matter to them. They simply note that some comments will be viewed as “cross[ing] the line from criticism to dangerous rhetoric.”

According to the Connecticut Bar, it is now considered reckless and unprofessional to make analogies to show trials or to question the integrity of the legal system or the judges in such cases.

For example, criticizing Judge Juan Merchan for refusing to recuse from the case is considered beyond the pale. Many lawyers believe that his political contributions to Biden and his daughter’s major role as a Democratic fundraiser and activist should have prompted Merchan to remove himself (and any appearance of a conflict). I have been more critical of his rulings, which I believe were both biased and wrong.

Yet, the Bar is warning lawyers that such comments can cross the line. The letter assures members that they are free to criticize but warn that attacking the ethics of a judge or the motivations behind these cases is dangerous and could spark violence.

I have previously denounced overheated rhetoric and share the concern over how such rage rhetoric can encourage violence. After the verdict, I immediately encouraged people not to yield to their anger, but to trust our legal system. I believe that the verdict in New York may ultimately be overturned. I also noted that I do not blame the jury but rather the judge and the prosecutors for an unfounded and unfair trial.

Of course, the concern over rage rhetoric runs across our political spectrum. While rarely criticized in the media, we have seen an escalation of reckless rhetoric from the left. For example,  Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz declared that “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified.”

My concern is not with the plea for lawyers to take care that their comments do not encourage such “aggressive tactics.” The problem is the suggestion that lawyers are acting somehow unprofessionally in denouncing what many view as a two-tier system of justice and the politicalization of our legal system.

Like many, I believe that the Manhattan case was a flagrant example of such weaponization of the legal system and should be denounced by all lawyers. It is a return, in my view, to the type of political prosecution once common in this country.

For those lawyers who view such prosecutions as political, they are speaking out in defense of what they believe is the essence of blind justice in America. What is “reckless” to the Connecticut Bar is righteous to others. Notably, the Bar officials did not write to denounce attacks on figures like Bill Barr or claims that the Justice Department was rigging justice during the Trump years.

Likewise, the letter focuses on critics of the Trump prosecutions and not the continued attacks on conservative jurists like Justice Samuel Alito. It has never published warnings about those calling conservative justices profanities, attacking their religion, or labeling them “partisan hacks” or other even “insurrectionist sympathizers.” Liberal activists have been calling for stopping conservative jurists “by any means necessary.”

In Connecticut, Sen. Richard Blumenthal has warned conservative justices to rule correctly or face “seismic changes.” That did not appear to worry the bar. Likewise, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also declared in front of the Supreme Court “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

The letter goes further and suggests that lawyers should speak publicly in support of trials like the one in Manhattan, a view that ignores the deep misgivings over the motivations and means used in New York to target an unpopular figure in this city. You have the top Bar officials calling on lawyers to take a public position that is opposed by many lawyers and citizens in defending the integrity of these prosecutions. Imagine the response if the Idaho Bar called on its lawyers to speak out against these cases and declared that it is reckless or unprofessional to defend them.

I expect that, in the very liberal Bar of Connecticut, the letter is hardly needed. Indeed, this letter is likely to be quite popular.  Yet, I would have thought that Bar officials would have taken greater care to respect the divergent opinions on these trials and the need to avoid any statements that might chill the exercise of free speech.

Ironically, the letter only reinforced the view of a legal system that is maintaining a political orthodoxy and agenda. These officials declare that it is now unprofessional or reckless for lawyers to draw historical comparisons to show trials or to question the motives or ethics underlying these cases. They warn lawyers not to “sow distrust in the public for the courts where it does not belong.” Yet, many believe that there is an alarming threat to our legal system and that distrust is warranted in light of prosecution like the one in Manhattan.

As discussed in my new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, critics of political prosecutions under the Crown and during the Adams Administrations were often threatened with disbarment or other legal actions for questioning the integrity or motives of judges or prosecutors. It is not enough to say “well that was then and this is now.” The point is that the Bar Association also has a duty to protect the core rights that define our legal system, particularly the right of free speech.

Again, these officials are not threatening Bar action against critics of these cases. However, as evidenced by the emails in my inbox, it is being taken as a warning by many who hold misgivings over these prosecutions.

Our legal system has nothing to fear from criticism. Indeed, free speech strengthens our system by exposing divisions and encouraging dialogue. It is orthodoxy and speech intolerance that represent the most serious threats to that system.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon and Schuster, 2024).

Here is the message in its entirety:

Dear Members,

Words matter. Reckless words attacking the integrity of our judicial system matter even more.

In the wake of the recent trial and conviction of former President Donald Trump, public officials have issued statements claiming that the trial was a “sham,” a “hoax,” and “rigged”; our justice system is “corrupt and rigged”; the judge was “corrupt” and “highly unethical”; and, that the jury was “partisan” and “precooked.” Others claimed the trial was “America’s first communist show trial”—a reference to historic purges of high-ranking communist officials that were used to eliminate political threats.

These claims are unsubstantiated and reckless. Such statements can provoke acts of violence against those serving the public as employees of the judicial branch. Indeed, such statements have resulted in threats to those fulfilling their civic obligations by sitting on the jury, as evidenced by social media postings seeking to identify the names and addresses of the anonymous jurors and worse, in several cases urging that the jurors be shot or hanged. As importantly, such statements strike at the very integrity of the third branch of government and sow distrust in the public for the courts where it does not belong.

To be clear, free speech includes criticism. There is and should be no prohibition on commenting on the decision to bring the prosecution, the prosecution’s legal theory, the judge’s rulings, or the verdict itself. But headlines’ grabbing, baseless allegations made by public officials cross the line from criticism to dangerous rhetoric. They have no place in the public discourse.

It is up to us, as lawyers, to defend the courts and our judges. As individuals, and as an Association, we cannot let the charged political climate in which we live dismantle the third branch of government. To remain silent renders us complicit in that effort.

Respect for the judicial system is essential to our democracy. The CBA condemns unsupported attacks on the integrity of that system.

Sincerely,

Maggie Castinado

President,

Connecticut Bar Association

James T. (Tim) Shearin

President-Elect,

Connecticut Bar Association

Emily A. Gianquinto

Vice President,

Connecticut Bar Association

If you’re looking for signs that the California real estate market is cooling down, this probably isn’t the article for you.

That’s because this past week the NY Post reported that a condemned house in Silicon Valley that’s ‘unfit for human occupancy’ just sold for three quarters of a million dollars after an intense bidding war. 

The property at 2161 Elliot St. in San Jose, a modest seven-bedroom, two-bathroom home sold for $755,000, surpassing its $699,000 asking price. 

The Post reported that it was purchased by a developer, will be redeveloped with an architect and resold.

The bright teal house was built in 1900, the report says. It had an unrenovated interior with scuffed walls, a broken door, and dated appliances. 

It was also deemed unfit for occupancy due to numerous code violations, and Santa Clara County condemned it. Despite this, its prime location on a nearly 4,000-square-foot corner lot in Burbank drew eager buyers, highlighting the area’s strong real estate market, said Compass agent Robert Gosalvez.

He told the Post: “Due to its prime location and zoning, this property not only attracted attention from DIYers, builders and investors, but also from those seeking mixed-use properties all eager to capitalize on the opportunity.” 

“The level of interest while on the market was substantial, leading to the distribution of dozens of disclosure packages and resulting in seven offers, all of which were either cash or have access to hard money loans,” he continued. 

“I believe in a couple years or less, we will see a modern, attached, multi unit property on this lot,” he concluded.

Authored by Jackson Richman and Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The House of Representatives on June 14 passed its annual defense policy bill with GOP-approved culture war amendments that are certain to put the House on a collision course with the Democrat-controlled Senate.

The final tally on the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) vote was 217–199, with six Democrats voting in favor and three Republicans voting against.

The $883.7 billion bill, which has more than 1,000 pages, provides continued funding for military aircraft, ships, vehicles, and weapons programs. It also includes a 4.5 percent pay raise for U.S. service members and about 15 percent in additional pay for some junior enlisted service members, bringing their overall pay boost to nearly 20 percent under this year’s budget.

The NDAA includes culture war provisions such as eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) positions within the Department of Defense (DoD) and imposing a hiring freeze on DEI positions in the DoD. There is a measure to block DoD funding for abortion-related expenses, another that bars the DoD from funding or providing gender transition surgeries and hormone treatments, as well as measures to prohibit the DoD’s education arm from purchasing or displaying material that “promotes radical gender ideology or pornographic content.”

The House version also includes an amendment, introduced by Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), that prohibits the Pentagon from contracting with entities that have engaged in boycotts of Israel and would bar the department from selling products made by entities that boycott Israel at any of its commissary stores or military exchanges.

Another amendment, introduced by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), would block the DoD from allocating funds for various climate-action-related executive orders issued by President Joe Biden.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the House-passed bill will find no traction in the upper chamber.

“The legislation coming out of the House today is loaded with anti-LGBTQ, anti-choice, anti-environment, and other divisive amendments guaranteed not to pass the Senate,” he said in a statement.

“As we move forward with this year’s NDAA process, both sides will have to work together to pass bipartisan legislation that honors and respects all who serve in defense of our nation.”

While the defense bill has traditionally passed in a bipartisan fashion, recent years have seen a marked increase in partisan amendments that are viewed as “poison pills” by the opposing party.

The Senate version of $911.8 billion does not include the culture war amendments. Like the House, it does include support for military operations in the Indo-Pacific, including Taiwan, a 4.5 percent increase for service members. Unlike the House, however, the Senate would require women to sign up for the Selective Service System, the U.S. draft program that has not been in use since the Vietnam War.

The House and Senate must now come up with a final bill that passes both chambers before it is sent to President Biden for his signature. The last NDAA, which was negotiated by leaders in the House and Senate, stripped most of the culture war amendments that had passed in the House version.

“As we confront increasingly hostile threats from Communist China, Russia, and Iran, we must provide our military with all the tools they need to defend our nation and deter our enemies,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in a statement following the House NDAA’s passage.

“This year’s NDAA will refocus our military on its core mission of defending America and its interests across the globe, fund the deployment of the National Guard to the southwest border, expedite innovation and reduce the acquisition timeline for new weaponry, support our allies, and strengthen our nuclear posture and missile defense programs.”

Senate Armed Service Committee Chairman Jack Reed (D-R.I.) voted against the version that came out of his committee on June 14. He released a statement that said, “It includes a funding increase that cannot be appropriated without breaking lawful spending caps and causing unintended harm to our military.”

The House NDAA is $12 billion less than the $895 billion cap for defense spending for the 2025 fiscal year under the debt ceiling deal that was agreed to last year while the Senate version is $16.8 billion more than that.

On June 11, the White House issued a statement of administration policy laying out President Biden’s objections to several of the bill’s provisions.

The White House expressed disappointment that the current version of the House NDAA provides $700 million less than the president requested for the annual shipbuilding budget and calls for funding one less ship than he had hoped for.

President Biden also signaled his opposition to House provisions that would limit DEI programs.

“The prohibitions regarding DEI efforts would impede DoD’s and Federal agencies’ ability to recruit and retain the diverse perspectives, experiences, and skill sets that are foundational to the strength of the Federal workforce,” the White House said.

“Creating and supporting programs and policies that embrace DEI fosters workforce cultures that are inclusive of all individuals.”