EU state siding with Russia

EU state threatens Ukraine with power cuts

Slovakia promised to retaliate if Kiev stops transporting Russian gas

Slovakia could cut electricity supplies to Ukraine if Kiev stops transporting Russian gas to EU nations, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has said.

The Central European country, whose economy heavily relies on Russian gas, receives its supplies through Ukrainian territory via Soviet-era pipelines. Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmigal announced earlier this month that, starting from 2025, Kiev will stop transporting Russian gas and will only use its pipeline system to deliver gas from alternative suppliers. The current contract with Moscow expires on December 31, with Kiev stating that it would not renew the deal.

“After January 1, we will assess the situation and potential reciprocal measures against Ukraine,” Fico said in a video message on Facebook. “If necessary, we will stop supplying electricity that Ukraine urgently needs during network outages.” He added that Bralistava could consider other retaliatory steps.

“Stopping the transit of Russian natural gas through Ukraine is not just a hollow political gesture. It’s an extremely costly move, one that we, in the European Union, will pay for,” Fico said.

He wrote on Facebook that, by scrapping the transit deal, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky “will cause billions worth of damages to the EU, including the Slovak Republic, and there will be a further reduction of the EU’s competitiveness.”

Ukrainian officials have criticized Fico for his recent trip to Moscow, arguing that the “pro-Russian” stance of Slovakia and Hungary are damaging the EU’s reputation and undermining the bloc’s resolve to help Kiev.

Russian President Vladimir argued this week that by terminating the transit deal Ukraine was “punishing” EU countries, as the continent continues to battle the energy crisis.

“We have always stood for [energy] supplies, for the depoliticization of economic issues. We have never refused supplies to Europe,” Putin said.

Kiev has so far not responded to potential sanctions from Slovakia. Bloomberg cited a person familiar with the matter as saying that Ukraine’s “counter-move” could be halting the transport of Russian oil to Slovakia.

https://www.rt.com/news/610102-slovakia-threatens-ukraine-electricity/

Here We Go Again! The Latest Attack on Democracy and Our Right to Vote

In an opinion piece published by The Hill on December 26, 2024, lawyers Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte recommend a full assault on Democracy to block President-elect Donald J. Trump from assuming the presidency to which he was elected by a landslide in a fair election with overwhelming participation.

They argue that members of Congress, the representatives of the voters who chose President Trump by a record number of votes, now have an obligation to thwart the expressed will of the American people and that such action by Congress should be constitutionally insulated from judicial review.

They are wrong in every regard. Their thesis represents a dangerous perversion of the Constitution rather than the lawful application of the 14th Amendment. Indeed, among other fatal deficiencies in their argument and their purported support for it, they not only misread Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, they ignore Sections 1 and 5 and the 5th Amendment guarantee of due process with respect to action by the federal government.

Around 1864, President Lincoln reportedly said in substance, “Elections belong to the people….” Davis and Schulte clearly disagree.

All of the information they rely on to argue that Congress should bar President Trump from assuming the presidency was fully available and taken into account by the electorate and was soundly rejected as disqualifying.

The writers apparently believe in Democracy and the sanctity of the vote only when their side wins.

They clearly reject the fundamental principles affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1979, in the landmark case, Illinois Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, that “it is beyond cavil that ‘voting is of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.'”

Rather they appear to subscribe to the Jerry Nadler (D-NY) school of anti-Democracy, reflected in his shameful call in 2019 to find a way to remove President Trump from office, because, in his view, the American voters cannot be trusted.

They also appear to have abandoned their distinguished legal credentials and any acuity for legal reasoning in favor of partisan political nonsense. The errors in both the premise and the substance of their attempts to find supporting legal arguments could fill pages. Let me highlight just a few:

They minimize as “dicta” the majority opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson to the extent it reaffirms the 1869 decision from Justice Chase in Griffin’s Case which unequivocally held that the disqualifying provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is not self-executing and requires enforcing legislation by Congress on such fundamental issues as identifying to whom it applies, what constitutes “insurrection,” what any disqualifying process should be, what burden of proof applies, and more.

Instead, these writers would nullify an American election for President based on events which provide absolutely no cognizable legal support for their monumentally misguided agenda.

They rely on the second impeachment trial as a purported basis for Congress to find insurrection and disqualify President Trump.

They could not be more wrong. First, the articles of impeachment did not charge insurrection.

Indeed, even the partisan Special Counsel, Jack Smith, in his efforts to attack President Trump after the impeachment trial, never alleged insurrection, notwithstanding the insistence by a shadow group of Trump-hating would-be prosecutors operating behind the scenes that he includes charges under the federal insurrection statute in his indictment.

Smith knew, as the House knew, that President Trump never engaged in insurrection or any other conduct covered by Section 3. Even more to the point, the second impeachment trial cuts against the writers entirely.

President Trump won! To say it supports disqualification because a majority of politicians voted for conviction when the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote is the equivalent of saying a criminal defendant is guilty if a jury splits 7-5 when the law requires unanimity for a conviction.

President Trump was acquitted of any charged impeachable offense as a matter of law.

more…

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/12/here-we-go-again-latest-attack-democracy-our/

https://youtu.be/rRpbyR68GiA