Authored by Mimi Nguyen Ly via The Epoch Times,

Former President Donald Trump has denounced U.S. prosecutors after they proposed Jan. 2, 2024, as the start date for his trial on charges related to his efforts to dispute the results of the 2020 election.

The proposed trial date is just two weeks before voters would first cast their ballots in the 2024 Republican presidential primary, where President Trump is the frontrunner.

“Deranged Jack Smith has just asked for a trial on the Biden Indictment to take place on January 2nd., just ahead of the important Iowa Caucuses,” he wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, late Thursday.

“Only an out of touch lunatic would ask for such a date, ONE DAY into the New Year, and maximum Election Interference with IOWA!” the former president continued. “Such a trial, which should never take place due to my First Amendment Rights, and massive BIDEN CORRUPTION, should only happen, if at all, AFTER THE ELECTION. The same with other Fake Biden Indictments. ELECTION INTERFERENCE!”

The Iowa Republican caucuses are scheduled for Jan. 15 and have traditionally served as a gauge for the potential success of presidential contenders.

Prosecutors from U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office, in a court filing on Thursday, argued for a swift trial in the high-profile case, citing the “public’s strong interest in a speedy trial” in asking the judge to set the start of the trial for Jan. 2, 2024.

“This trial date, and the proposed schedule outlined below, would give the defendant time to review the discovery in this case and prepare a defense, and would allow the Court and parties to fully litigate any pre-trial legal issues,” prosecutors wrote in court filings on Thursday.

“Most importantly, a January 2 trial date would vindicate the public’s strong interest in a speedy trial—an interest guaranteed by the Constitution and federal law in all cases, but of particular significance here, where the defendant, a former president, is charged with conspiring to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, obstruct the certification of the election results, and discount citizens’ legitimate votes,” they added.

The prosecutors said they plan to provide President Trump’s legal team with most of the evidence they intend to present at trial as part of the discovery process by the end of August.

They expect to take no longer than four to six weeks to present the evidence in the trial.

The U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the federal 2020 election trial, has set a hearing on a proposed protective order in the case, for the morning of Aug. 11. The hearing concerns how the evidence will be managed by President Trump and his legal team.

President Trump is the first former president to face criminal charges, and in total, he faces 78 different charges in three criminal cases brought against him this year.

He has proclaimed his innocence in all the cases and has accused President Joe Biden, a Democrat, and his administration of targeting him for political reasons, in part due to his leading position in the 2024 presidential race.

The case at hand is related to the second and latest federal indictment from Mr. Smith’s office, to which President Trump pleaded not guilty on Aug. 3. The indictment charges President Trump with four criminal counts related to alleged election conspiracy regarding his efforts to dispute the results of the 2020 election.

The first federal indictment from Mr. Smith’s investigations had dealt President Trump a total of 40 counts relating to the alleged retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago home. A trial in May 2024 has been scheduled for the case.

Besides the two federal indictments, President Trump was charged in April with state felonies accusing him of falsifying business records in New York, for which he will face a trial in March 2024.

President Trump believes any trial should be postponed until after the 2024 elections.

After Elon Musk wrote on “X” — formerly known as Twitter, last Sunday that he will be fighting his arch-nemesis Meta CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, in a mixed martial arts cage match, the internet was excited — then one day later, upset that the billionaire said, “Exact date is still in flux. I’m getting an MRI of my neck & upper back tomorrow.” 

Then on Tuesday, hopes of the fight faded when Musk responded to Chris Anderson, host of TED Talks, agreeing that a ‘battle of brains’ in a “cage match-style debate” would be more “noble.”

In a rollercoaster of emotions this week, the internet is cheering once again the fight appears to be on.

On Friday morning, Musk tweeted, “I spent 3 hours in an MRI machine on Monday. Bottom line is that my C5/C6 fusion is solid, so not an issue.” He added, “However, there is a problem with my right shoulder blade rubbing against my ribs, which requires minor surgery. Recovery will only take a few months.” 

Musk said the fight will be “managed by my and Zuck’s foundations (not UFC).” And live streaming of the event will be hosted on X and Meta platforms. He said, “Everything in camera frame will be ancient Rome, so nothing modern at all.” 

Zuck v Musk fight will be live-streamed on 𝕏.
Who’s ready to witness the most awaited battle ever 👀
🎈Colosseum, Rome pic.twitter.com/86GKwsmXC4

— sid (@immasiddtwts) August 7, 2023

Musk said he “spoke to the PM of Italy and Minister of Culture. They have agreed on an epic location.” 

The fight will be managed by my and Zuck’s foundations (not UFC).

Livestream will be on this platform and Meta. Everything in camera frame will be ancient Rome, so nothing modern at all.

I spoke to the PM of Italy and Minister of Culture. They have agreed on an epic location.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 11, 2023

He also said the fight will “pay respect to the past and present of Italy” and “all proceeds go to veterans.” 

And all proceeds go to veterans

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 11, 2023

Who could have predicted in 2023 that the billionaire owners of social media companies would agree to fight on the world stage? 

It was just on Monday when we reported that China was facing a new debt crisis as a record number of local government financing vehicles (or LGFVs also considered the currently most aggressive form of Chinese shadow banks), had missed commercial paper debt payments:

A total of 48 LGFVs were overdue on commercial paper, which typically carries a maturity of less than a year, up from 29 in June, according to a Huaan Securities report citing data from the Shanghai Commercial Paper Exchange. Their missed payments amounted to 1.86 billion yuan ($259 million), more than double the 780 million yuan in June.

And with Beijing suddenly finding itself on the defensive everywhere, amid collapsing exports, CPI deflation, record youth unemployment and lack of credit growth, overnight China’s leadership decided to finally take some proactive steps instead of just endlessly talking, and as Bloomberg reported, China will allow provincial-level governments to raise about 1 trillion yuan ($139 billion) via bond sales to repay the debt of local-government financing vehicles and other off-balance sheet issuers, a small step toward addressing what it called “one of the biggest threats to the nation’s economy and financial stability.”

The Ministry of Finance has informed relevant authorities about the “refinancing bonds” program, people with knowledge of the matter said, asking not to be identified as they aren’t authorized to discuss the program. The quota has been set for each region, one of the people said, without providing further details on sizing.

The report notes that all provincial-level governments but Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong and Tibet will be able to use the bonds to repay off-balance sheet liabilities, known as “hidden” debt in China, as it is kept off the balance sheets of local authorities, yet is widely considered in financial markets to carry an implicit government guarantee of repayment. Authorities also identified 12 provinces and cities as “high-risk” areas where more support will be provided, including the provinces of Guizhou, Hunan, Jilin and Anhui, as well as Tianjin city. A Bloomberg source familiar with the latest plan didn’t explain why Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong and Tibet had been excluded from the new debt swap program, those four places either have no “hidden” debt or have very little.

Effectively what China is doing is bailing out weaker issuers including LGFVs, and shifting the debt burden to provincial governments instead.

The debt raised is kept off the balance sheets of local authorities, yet is widely considered in financial markets to carry an implicit government guarantee of repayment.

The problem however, as Goldman notes this morning, is that it’s small in the context of the issue:

“The amount covered under the debt swap program, though, is a drop in the bucket compared to the 66 trillion yuan the International Monetary Fund estimates local government financing vehicles will hold by the end of this year. It’s also far smaller in size than a similar initiative launched by the government in 2015.” 

Back then, China deployed a massive debt-swap arrangement worth 12.2 trillion yuan for a few years in a bid to lower the amount of off-balance sheet debt carried by local governments. Now widely referred to as “hidden” debt, the term refers to funds raised by government-related entities — such as LGFVs — which borrow from banks and bond markets to finance infrastructure spending and other public projects.

President Xi Jinping had previously described the issue of hidden debt as one of the “major economic and financial risks” facing China. The government began a round of nationwide inspections to work out how much money local governments’ owe, another sign of how authorities were working to tackle financial risks, Bloomberg News reported in June.

The program suggests that “China is reducing the debt load on local government financing platforms to boost their capacity to serve as a channel for future stimulus,” rather than stimulus in the second half of the year, said Duncan Wrigley, chief China economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics Ltd.

He added that the “main buyers” of refinancing bonds are likely to be domestic banks and asset managers, such as wealth management funds, insurers and pension funds.

The modest size of the bailout is just one problem; the other one is that it doesn’t really do anything besides shift debt around: indeed, as Bloomberg notes, China’s 2015 program didn’t do much to actually solve the debt issue. Meanwhile, the costs of servicing debt have risen in recent years, creating a drag on Chinese fiscal spending. At the same time, many local governments have seen their income drop due to a two-year property market slump and two years of pandemic relief spending. That’s raised the risk that LGFVs will default on their debt, which could destabilize China’s financial system.

Even so, the swap program this time around – which is just another can-kicking exercise – may help defuse the risks of default faced in the regions where it’s implemented. It can also bring down the financing costs on the hidden debts, give local governments more time to repay, and improve funding conditions in those places. One person said the issuance will be planned in batches.

Unlike a write-off, however, the debt will still have to be serviced — squeezing the room already debt-laden local governments have to sell more bonds to fund infrastructure investment and spur economic growth.

Beijing has tried a few other ways to resolve debt woes in recent years. In 2019, some counties in less-developed regions were picked by the government to replace their hidden debt with bonds in a trial program to improve their financing ability.

In late 2020, special local bonds for refinancing purposes were introduced — first as a way for weak regions to reduce their off-balance sheet liabilities, and then as a strategy for rich places including Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong in southern China to clear hidden debt. Guangdong in 2021 became the first to claim it had successfully eliminated such debt.

Unfortunately for China, there is just no magic wand it can wave and watch its record debt disappear. Meanwhile, no matter how it classifies it, reshuffles it or spreads it around…

… the total will just keep rising, giving Beijing only one option: to kick the can it will have to shift more of it to the buyer of last resort, the PBOC, something the “developed” world discovered in 2008.

The death toll from the wildfires that ravaged the resort town of Lahaina on the island of Maui jumped to 55 on Friday. Local authorities believe the count may rise, and recovery of remains could be days or even weeks. 

On the heels of Hawaii declaring a state of emergency, President Biden approved Hawaii’s disaster declaration on Thursday, allowing federal funds to pour into Maui County. 

“Anyone who’s lost a loved one, whose home has been damaged or destroyed, is going to get help immediately,” Biden said. 

He continued, “Damage assessments are continuing, and additional forms of assistance may be designated after the assessments are fully completed.” 

Earlier, Maui County Fire Chief Brad Ventura said the fire that leveled Lahaina was 80% contained. None of the fires burning in the area are 100% contained. 

Fire Map: Island of Maui 

Fire Map: Lahaina

Here’s the aftermath in Lahaina. 

I just finished a day spent talking to people in Lahaina. The scale of destruction and suffering is hard to comprehend.

Residents pleaded that others take time to understand the scope and provide help. I will have more soon, but here are some clips. pic.twitter.com/SAK7suCjiH

— Mike Baker (@ByMikeBaker) August 11, 2023

Before and After

Hawaii Gov. Josh Green said the fire is the largest natural disaster in the state’s history. He said there was no question in his mind that rebuilding the town would take billions of dollars and years. 

Green added: “It does appear like a bomb and fire went off, if I may. And all of those buildings virtually are going to have to be rebuilt.”

Today in “further proof that inflation is making it difficult for people to afford a single, solitary meal” news…

Just days after announcing a promotion where someone who legally changes their name to “Subway” will receive free sandwiches for life from the chain of the same name, the response has been overwhelming.

Nearly 10,000 people have already volunteered to legally change their names to “Subway” within 96 hours of the company’s announcement of the promotion, according to a new report from NBC. 

Subway’s “name change challenge” was announced on July 26th and stated: “Between August 1 and August 4, Subway superfans and sandwich lovers can visit SubwayNameChange.com, and enter to win free Subway Deli Heroes for life if they commit to legally change their name. Subway will select one lucky winner to earn free sandwiches and assume an iconic new identity. Subway will provide the winner with money to reimburse them for legal and processing costs for the name change, making it easy and effortless to become Subway and enjoy a lifetime of delicious subs.”

This month, one winner will be selected from the group and will receive not only free sandwiches, but also legal and processing costs to formally complete the name change, the report says. 

Subway has been using the promotion to get the word out about using freshly sliced meats in U.S. restaurants.

“Subway brand love and dedication run deep, especially when free sandwiches are up for grabs. In 2022, one superfan camped out for two days to get a footlong tattoo of the Subway Series logo in exchange for free Subway for life. Now, the addition of freshly sliced meats at Subway, showcased on its new Deli Hero subs, is inspiring a whole new level of passion,” the company wrote in its PR. 

The chain is also in the process of attempting to find a buyer for a price of up to $9 billion, but so far interest has been tepid from the market. 

The chain has more than 37,000 restaurants in over 100 countries. 

Authored by Savannah Fortis via CoinTelegraph.com,

The emergence of high-level artificial intelligence (AI) technology has caused the United States and China to safeguard their resources in a race to develop the most powerful systems.

A tense relationship is developing between the two world powers, as the Biden Administration announced it would limit Chinese tech investments in semiconductors, quantum computing and AI.

This move subsequently sparked concerns from regulators in other countries, with lawmakers in the United Kingdom and the European Union considering their next move in response to the U.S. action.

The U.S. guards AI and other tech

On Aug. 9, The White House released two executive notes about AI developments in full or in part. The first outlined a new opportunity for hackers to compete for monetary compensation by using AI to help secure U.S. infrastructure from cybersecurity vulnerabilities.

However, the second defined China, Hong Kong and Macau as a “country of concern.” It stated the U.S. would regulate investments in such countries and sectors that “covered national security technologies and products.”

This included semiconductors, which are often used in the development of AI, microelectronics and quantum information technologies. It deemed these sectors “critical for the military, intelligence, surveillance, or cyber-enabled capabilities of a country of concern.”

The document read:

“Rapid advancement in semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies, and artificial intelligence capabilities by these countries significantly enhances their ability to conduct activities that threaten the national security of the United States.“

Currently, only the countries mentioned above were included in the note, though in a remark to Reuters, a Biden administration official said other countries could be added in the future.

The U.S. has already been cracking down on outward investments in Chinese technologies, along with Chinese access to services and products coming from the United States.

In October 2022, U.S. regulators placed bans on the export of semiconductor chips to China, which are needed to create high-powered AI systems, and have since expressed the desire to further restrict their availability.

China responds to tech spat with the U.S.

China immediately responded to the announcement from the Biden administration in a statement via the official channel of the Chinese Embassy in the United States.

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson said it “strongly deplores and firmly opposes” the “single-minded” decisions of the U.S. on its investments in China. It said such a move politicizes business engagement and “overstretches” security concepts.

“This is blatant economic coercion and tech bullying, an act that seriously violates the principles of market economy and fair competition…”

The statement continued, calling the move “de-globalization” and an effort to phase China out of the scene.

China said it will follow the developments closely and will work in favor of its rights. 

In response to previous U.S. measures around restricting AI technologies, China announced it would be tightening its controls on the export of AI chip-making materials.

In an Aug. 10 report from the Financial Times, sources close to the matter said that China’s internet giants, including Baidu, ByteDance, Tencent and Alibaba, have all made billion-dollar orders of Nvidia A800 processors in fears of even tighter controls from the United States.

The EU and U.K. consider the recent restrictions

Biden’s action against China immediately sparked responses from regulators overseas.

On Aug. 10, a spokesperson from the office of U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the new orders clarify the U.S. position and the U.K. will consider the measures as it continues to “assess potential national security risks attached to some investments.“

Sunak and Biden signed an agreement to strengthen their alliance in June, which included deepening ties in areas such as advanced technologies like AI.

The European Commission made a statement on the same day, saying it would also analyze the U.S. decision.

European regulators have been actively monitoring developments in the AI sector and have been among the first to propose laws around the development and rollout of the tech.

Via Remix News,

Poland’s national bank has increased its gold holdings by 2.3 million ounces since the start of the year…

The National Bank of Poland (NBP) increased its gold reserves for the fourth consecutive month in July as the country continues to aggressively stockpile the precious metal.

According to calculations by the DGP newspaper, 720,000 ounces of gold were bought last month, valued at about $1.4 billion. This is more than in any of the previous three months. The paper estimated that the total gold reserves held by the Polish central bank have increased to 9.6 million ounces, or nearly 300 tons.

Since the beginning of the year, the NBP has increased its gold supply by 2.3 million ounces.

Before starting his second term as the president of the NBP, Adam Glapiński announced that he would increase gold reserves by 100 tons. With this year’s purchases, he has already fulfilled over two-thirds of that promise.

Monetary gold held by the NBP was valued at $18.8 billion at the end of July.

It accounted for 10.4 percent of the central bank’s official reserve assets. In the local currency, the gold held by the central bank was valued at 75.3 billion złotys.

Foreign currency reserves are primarily meant to ensure the financial stability of the economy. That’s why the money is invested in safe and liquid assets, meaning those that can be quickly sold. However, they should also generate income.

Since the beginning of this year, gold prices in global markets have increased by over 6 percent. It currently costs just over $1,900 per ounce. In terms of return rate since the beginning of the year, gold has performed the best among the main metals.

Silver has depreciated by 2.2 percent and platinum by 15 percent. The rise in gold prices has in part been due to buying it as a way to hedge against inflation.

And it’s not just Poland.

Despite significant selling by Turkey that slowed net central bank gold buying in the second quarter, central banks added a record amount of gold to their reserves through the first half of 2023.

Net central bank gold purchases totaled 387 tons through the first half of the year, according to data compiled by the World Gold Council. That was the highest first-half total since the organization started compiling quarterly data in 2000.

A shocking video from Leeds, UK shows police arresting an autistic teenage girl after she allegedly used the word “lesbian.”

As Paul Joseph Watson makes clear in the following, the video’s context isn’t fully clear, but it suggests the arrest was triggered by a comment about an officer resembling her lesbian grandmother.

The girl’s mother claims police ignored her daughter’s physical condition during the arrest.

With Yorkshire crime soaring, the incident raises concerns about police priorities, as resources are used for speech-related incidents rather than addressing real crimes.

Watch PJW’s full-take on this incident below:

Authored by Francis P. Sempa via RealClear Wire,

Jessica Berlin, a policy analyst writing in the Center for European Policy Analysis’ online journal, has proposed a NATO without limits–an expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to all democratic nations.

“The 21st-century threat landscape,” she contends, “calls for a global alliance capable of mutual defense.”

“NATO must open its doors,” she writes, “to new members beyond Europe and North America.”

Her proposal is breathtaking in scope: an attack on any democracy is an attack on all democracies. It is a recipe for endless wars on all continents and a reckless extension of America’s nuclear guarantee to all the world’s democracies. It turns John Quincy Adams’ prudent counsel on its head: America goes abroad in search of monsters to destroy and is the champion and vindicator of the freedom and independence of all democracies.

Berlin’s proposed “New Alliance Treaty Organization” fulfills the vision of Woodrow Wilson who sought to use American power, treasure and blood to make the world “safe for democracy.” It echoes the irresponsible Truman Doctrine which rhetorically committed the United States to “support free peoples around the world who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” It mirrors the reckless pledge of President John F. Kennedy to “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” It shares the Utopian vision announced by President George W. Bush that the United States will “extend the benefits of freedom across the globe” and to “bring the hope of democracy . . . to every corner of the world.”

Berlin is simply the latest exponent of democratism, an ideology that Patrick Buchanan argued would “bleed, bankrupt, and break this republic in endless crusades and interminable wars.” It is a tragedy of history that the ideology of democratism coincided with the rise to power of what President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex.” That tragedy is written in blood in Southeast Asia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and lesser conflicts. And Berlin envisions the new NATO as not only the army of the world’s democracies but also the armed force that will be used to prevent or stop genocide wherever it occurs. Here, Berlin mimics Samantha Power’s notion that the United States and its European allies have a “responsibility to protect” (R2P) the rest of the world’s people.

One of history’s greatest statesman Otto von Bismarck once remarked that “it is unworthy of a great state to dispute over something which does not concern its interests.” Bismarck was referring to actual, concrete interests, not interests defined by ideology. The great British geopolitical thinker Sir Halford Mackinder understood that democratic ideals must give way to geopolitical realities. Closer to home, America’s first and greatest president, George Washington, counseled his countrymen to conduct foreign policy without sentiment or emotion, and to “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,” and to “safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”

Jessica Berlin not only wants to make NATO permanent; she wants to expand it to geographical and ideological lengths that even its most ardent supporters and admirers should shy away from.

Crusaders and ideologues make for dangerous statesmen.