Reports detail the president's plan to turn the agency on left-wing opponents

The former Trump adviser vowed to «expose Trump's abuse» following his indictment in a classified docs case

Moscow has accused Berlin of pursuing “re-nazification” and gearing up for war against Russia through its militarization drive Read Full Article at RT.com

A Russian war correspondent has been killed in a Ukrainian drone attack, his employer has said Read Full Article at RT.com

US President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton has been charged with mishandling classified documents Read Full Article at RT.com

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin discussed the Ukraine conflict during their phone call on Thursday Read Full Article at RT.com

The IMF has urged nations not to impose “unhealthy” tariffs following Donald Trump’s new round of trade measures Read Full Article at RT.com

President Donald Trump held a press conference Thursday, where he boasted that his deal-making skills have helped him end an imaginary eight wars. “I know about deals,” Trump said when asked about an upcoming meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. “I don't think any president’s ever ended a war, frankly. One war. I did eight of them.”  x x YouTube Video He didn’t, and he hasn’t. But that didn’t stop Trump from launching into a baseless attack on his predecessors.  “Did Bush ever end—do you think Biden ended a war? Biden started wars because he was stupid. But do you think Biden ended any wars? No, I don't think,” he said. Of course, Trump is wrong. President Joe Biden ended the war in Afghanistan, a conflict started by Republican President George W. Bush in 2001.  And Biden isn’t the only president who has ended a war. Richard Nixon ended the Vietnam War, Dwight D. Eisenhower ended the Korean War, Harry Truman ended World War II, Woodrow Wilson ended World War I, James Polk ended the Mexican-American War, and a guy named Abraham Lincoln ended a series of American wars. Then again, that’s nothing compared to Trump’s eight!

John Bolton—once President Donald Trump’s national security adviser and now one of his fiercest critics—has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Maryland, according to CNN. Bolton, who’s expected to turn himself in as early as Friday, is just the latest in a string of criminal cases involving figures who’ve crossed paths with Trump and landed in his political crosshairs. The FBI raided Bolton’s home and Washington-based office two months ago, seizing several folders labeled “confidential” and documents that reportedly referenced weapons of mass destruction, according to Politico.  John Bolton It’s still unclear whether the charges prosecutors are pursuing stem directly from what agents found. CNN also reports that Bolton allegedly shared highly classified information with his wife and daughter over email. Bolton, a former U.N. ambassador and longtime foreign policy hawk, has been one of Trump’s most outspoken detractors since leaving the administration. He called Trump unfit for office in his tell-all memoir and routinely blasted his handling of global affairs—making him a favorite target of the president’s wrath. Trump didn’t wait long to respond to the raid, calling Bolton a “sleazebag” and comparing the search to his own Mar-a-Lago ordeal. “It’s not a good feeling,” Trump told reporters. But his animosity toward Bolton isn’t new. Back in 2020, Trump told Fox News, “I believe that he’s a criminal, and I believe, frankly, he should go to jail” for allegedly mishandling classified information. Bolton’s legal team has rejected those claims. Attorney Abbe Lowell has said that Bolton committed no wrongdoing and that the seized materials were “ordinary records” for a former official to have. The timing of this case is hard to ignore, as it comes just weeks after the Justice Department brought charges against two other high-profile Trump foes: former FBI Director James Comey, who once ran the investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign, and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who went after the Trump Organization in a civil fraud case. Both have denied any wrongdoing, and critics argue that the wave of indictments points to a broader campaign of retribution. Former FBI Director James Comey According to ABC News, Bolton’s case is being run out of the U.S. attorney’s office in Maryland—unlike the Comey and James cases, which a Trump-appointed prosecutor is leading in Virginia. Reuters has also reported that some career prosecutors initially resisted moving forward, saying that more investigation was needed, but senior DOJ officials ultimately pressed ahead. The political stakes are obvious. Trump built his comeback campaign around punishing his perceived enemies, often leaning on the DOJ to act. Earlier this year, he even removed a federal prosecutor who he thought wasn’t acting fast enough against his opponents. Bolton, meanwhile, has already paid a price for speaking out. In January, Trump stripped him of his security clearance and Secret Service protection—a move widely seen as retaliation. The indictment is almost guaranteed to spark a fierce fight over whether the DOJ is upholding the law or caving to political pressure.  And for Bolton, it marks yet another collision course with the president he once served—a reminder of just how personal Trump’s pursuit of his critics has become.

A cartoon by Mike Luckovich. Related | Trump's minions waste millions of tax dollars on ads kissing his butt

A daily roundup of the best stories and cartoons by Daily Kos staff and contributors to keep you in the know. What the heil? Swastika found in House Republican's office. Weird how this kind of thing keeps happening to the GOP. Total coincidence! Trump plans to open door to more terror attacks in blue states But, you know, he’s ending crime, etc., etc. John Fetterman faces party plot to kick him to the curb Trump’s favorite Democrat might soon be on his way out. The GOP's Nazi problem has the House speaker flustered Being the party of Nazis is hard work, okay? Trump team claims national parks are 'thriving' amid GOP shutdown If by “thriving” you mean “more dangerous than ever.” Cartoon: Won't be needing these Miranda rights, schmiranda rights. Trump and Musk made up—so now some rich schmuck might land his dream job Nothing says “American values” like billionaires helping billionaires. Trump's bajillion-dollar fantasy We’d love to know who taught this man math. Australia, how dare you besmirch right-wing crackpot Candace Owens Well, that’s one country that has standards … Click here to see more cartoons.

The latest lucky ducks to learn they’ll be illegally paid during the GOP’s government shutdown are those terrorizing immigrants. Hey there, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents, come on down! HuffPost obtained an internal Department of Homeland Security memo showing that despite the federal funding lapse, the White House has ordered the agency to pay officers at ICE, Border Patrol, and Customs and Border Protection.  The memo appears to be light on details like “Where is this money coming from?” and “What is the legal justification for this?” Nonetheless, DHS is ensuring them “full and timely payments” for the entirety of the shutdown. In fact, just so the most fascistic federal employees don’t miss a cent, they’ve been promised the money (and back pay) no later than Oct. 22.  If you want any better symbol of how only President Donald Trump’s favorite employees are getting paid, the DHS staff required to cut checks will not be paid for their efforts until after the shutdown ends, according to one HuffPost source.  Well, maybe they get paid. The administration is plotting a way to ignore the law that requires furloughed federal workers to be paid when a shutdown ends. In other words, all those DHS payroll folks might get the privilege of working pro bono during the shutdown.  But who cares about them, right? America’s masked fascists at ICE and CBP will now join military troops, including the Coast Guard, in getting paid during the shutdown.  Is this illegal?  A protester is arrested by police and federal officers outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, Oregon, on Oct. 6. Folks, it is so illegal, and it is all just vibes. Trump has ordered Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget to “use for the purpose of pay and allowances any funds appropriated by the Congress that remain available for expenditure in Fiscal Year 2026 to accomplish the scheduled disbursement of military pay and allowances.” So, the president is directing the defense secretary to use whatever funds he feels like to pay the troops, regardless of the fact that Congress may have appropriated those funds for other things—and, of course, regardless of the fact there is a government shutdown and funding has lapsed.  The New York Times headline writers are not meeting the moment at all, reporting this as Trump “expanding his authority” to spend federal money without Congress. This is not a thing. The president doesn’t have this authority. There’s nothing for him to expand. This is just sheer lawlessness where Trump is singlehandedly deciding how all tax dollars are spent. It’s from the same playbook as his idea of taking the revenue he got from singlehandedly imposing illegal tariffs, and illegally shuffling it over to farmers, who are being hurt by … his illegal tariffs. Gotta keep them voting Republican!  It’s the same impulse behind DHS demanding that airports show Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s little propaganda video, in which she attacks Democrats for the GOP’s shutdown. The administration wants to tie shutdown pain to Democrats while saving its favored groups from any pain at all.   In another new and ominous development, Trump is claiming a “very wealthy” person offered to pick up the tab and pay troops during the shutdown.  Arguably, this is worse than Trump decreeing he can ignore congressional appropriations and the funding lapse, and use money however he wants. Linking the payment of the military to the purported largesse of some unnamed donor is some end-of-empire shit. The military should not be beholden to the whims of a random billionaire—but it’s something Trump is now discussing, even if he’s saying it won’t happen.  All of these are moves to consolidate the loyalty of the military and other favored groups under Trump. He, Trump, is the one who stood up for them, who made sure they got paid, all while the Democrats kept the government shut down. He, Trump, kept money in their pockets and food on their table and a roof over their family’s heads while the Democrats kept the government shut down.  What wouldn’t you do for a guy like that?

J.M. Smucker Company alleges Trader Joe’s product is a «copycat» of its popular Uncrustables treats

Shortcrust pastry may seem daunting to make — but it doesn't have to be with these tips from a pastry chef

The former special counsel issued a dire warning while speaking in London

The NYC mayoral candidate would not be knocked off message

Dave Taylor has the Capitol Police investigating the flag as «vandalism»

NATO defense chiefs have privately urged that the rules of engagement be broadened to allow Russian jets to be shot down Read Full Article at RT.com

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has rejected US President Donald Trump’s claim that BRICS countries seek to undermine the dollar Read Full Article at RT.com

US President Donald Trump has confirmed that he authorized CIA operations in Venezuela Read Full Article at RT.com

US Democrat Nancy Pelosi has told a journalist to “shut up” during an altercation on the steps of the Capitol Read Full Article at RT.com

Italy’s highest court has blocked the extradition of Ukrainian Nord Stream sabotage suspect to Germany Read Full Article at RT.com

President Donald Trump won in 2024 largely by arguing that he—unlike the Democrats—was focused on people’s economic insecurities. While Democrats debated Gaza, transgender rights, abortion, and democracy itself, Trump’s message centered largely on economic security. Trump had no actual policy platform to lower prices “on Day 1,” but that didn’t matter to a lot of voters. They simply wanted to be seen. While Democrats (me included) pointed to improving jobs and economic numbers, many Americans weren’t feeling good about their own finances—and at least someone acknowledged their pain. That message was so powerful that 46% of Latino voters backed Trump despite his explicitly racist rhetoric. A person’s concerns about bigotry and democracy are almost always outweighed by their worries about feeding their family. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, shown in 2004. Years ago, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards spoke about “two Americas” during his 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns. His argument was simple: There was one America for the rich and well-connected—with privilege, access to quality health care and education, and political influence—and there was another America for everyone else, where people struggled to make ends meet, juggled multiple jobs, lacked health care, sent their kids to underfunded schools, and had zero political power. Today, this “two Americas” divide has grown more stark. Earlier this year, an economic analysis by Moody’s Analytics found that the top 10% of earners—those making roughly $250,000 a year or more—now account for an astonishing 49.7% of all consumer spending. Thirty years ago, that figure was roughly 36%. Moody’s chief economist estimated that this same 10% now drives nearly a third of the nation’s gross domestic product. “The finances of the well-to-do have never been better, their spending never stronger, and the economy never more dependent on that group,” he told The Wall Street Journal. Education and income remain tightly linked, which is shown in government studies from 2018 and 2022. And 56% of college graduates backed Democratic nominee Kamala Harris last year. But among non-college-educated voters, her support was just 45%. So perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that she won those making more than $100,000 a year, 51% to Trump’s 47%, while losing those earning less than $100,000 by the same margin, according to exit polls. It’s distressing that Democrats have lost the very argument they once defined. Edwards warned of two Americas—one with power and privilege, another struggling to survive. Twenty years later, that divide has deepened, and somehow it’s Trump who’s managed to speak to the people living in the second America. He doesn’t offer them solutions, only recognition—and in a country where so many feel unseen, that’s enough.  The greatest con in American political history isn’t just that Trump sold himself as their champion. It’s that Democrats stopped talking to them at all.

To support this work and receive my weekly newsletter with background on each cartoon, please consider joining the Sorensen Subscription Service! Also on Patreon. Follow me on Bluesky or Mastodon Related | Trump team recruits influencers to push lies about ‘lawless’ cities

By Sarah Jane Tribble for KFF Megan Waiters can recite the stories of dozens of people she has helped connect to the internet in western Alabama. A 7-year-old who couldn’t do classwork online without a tablet, and the 91-year-old she taught to check health care portals on a smartphone. “They have health care needs, but they don’t have the digital skills,” said Waiters, who is a digital navigator for an Alabama nonprofit. Her work has involved giving away computers and tablets while also teaching classes on how to use the internet for work and personal needs, like banking and health. “It’s like a foreign space.” Those stories are now bittersweet. Waiters is part of a network of digital navigators across the country whose work to bring others into the digital world was, at least in part, propped up by a $2.75 billion federal program that abruptly canceled funding this spring. The halt came after President Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that the Digital Equity Act was unconstitutional and pledged “no more woke handouts based on race!” The act lists exactly whom the money should benefit, including low-income households, older residents, some incarcerated people, rural Americans, veterans, and members of racial or ethnic minority groups. Politicians, researchers, librarians, and advocates said defunding the program, along with other changes in federal broadband initiatives, jeopardizes efforts to help rural and underserved residents participate in the modern economy and lead healthier lives. “You could see lives change,” said Sam Helmick, president of the American Library Association, recalling how they helped grandpas in Iowa check prescriptions online or laid-off factory workers fill out job applications. The Digital Equity Act is part of the sweeping 2021 infrastructure law, which included $65 billion to build high-speed internet infrastructure and connect millions without access to the internet. This year, Congress once again pushed for a modern approach to help Americans, mandating that state leaders prioritize new and emerging technologies through its $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program. A KFF Health News analysis found that nearly 3 million people in America live in areas with shortages of medical professionals and where modern telehealth services are often inaccessible because of poor internet connections. The analysis found that in about 200 mostly rural counties where dead zones persist, residents live sicker and die earlier on average than people in the rest of the country. Access to high-speed internet is among a host of social factors, like food and safe housing, that help people lead healthier lives. “The internet provides this extra layer of resilience,” said Christina Filipovic, who leads the research for an initiative of the Institute for Business in the Global Context at Tufts University. The research group found in 2022 that access to high-speed internet correlated with fewer covid deaths, particularly in metro areas. Related | Telehealth abortion access could be challenged nationwide in new lawsuit During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal lawmakers launched a subsidy program paid for by the infrastructure law. That aid, called the Affordable Connectivity Program, aimed to connect more people to their jobs, schools, and doctors. In 2024, Congress did not renew funding for the subsidy program, which had enrolled about 23 million low-income households. This year, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick revamped and delayed the infrastructure law’s construction initiative — known as the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program, or BEAD — after announcing plans to reduce regulatory burdens. More than 40 states and territories have submitted final proposals to extend high-speed internet to underserved areas under the administration’s new guidelines, according to a Commerce Department dashboard. In May, the Digital Equity Act’s funding was terminated within days of Trump’s Truth Social post. While many states in 2022 had received money to plan their programs, the next round of funding, designated for states and agencies to implement the plans, had largely been awarded but not distributed. Instead, federal regulators — including the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the federal agency overseeing implementation of the Digital Equity Act — notified recipients that the grants would be terminated. The grants were created and administered with “unconstitutional racial preferences,” according to the letter. In Phoenix, officials learned in January that the city was slated to get $11.8 million to increase internet access and teach digital literacy, but they received an email May 20 stating that all grants, “except for grants to Native Entities,” had been terminated. “It’s a shame,” said Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, a Democrat. The money, she said, would have helped 37,000 residents get internet access. Georgia’s Democratic leaders in July sent a letter to Lutnick and NTIA’s then-acting administrator, Adam Cassady, urging reinstatement of the money, noting that the federal cut ignores congressional intent and violates public trust. The act’s creator, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), said during an online press conference in May that Republican governors in 2024 supported the law and its funding when each state touted completing its required digital equity plans and asked for resources. Sen. Patty Murray asks a question during a June 18 Senate committee hearing on Capitol Hill. “I cannot believe there aren’t Republican governors out there that are going to join with us to fight back on this,” Murray said, adding “the other way is through courts.” All 50 states developed digital equity plans after months of focus groups, surveys, and public comment periods. NTIA Digital Equity Director Angela Thi Bennett, during an August 2024 interview with KFF Health News, said the “intentional community engagement” by federal and state leaders to deliver broadband to unserved communities was “the greatest demonstration of participatory democracy our country has ever seen.” Thi Bennett could not be reached for comment on this article. NTIA spokesperson Stephen Yusko said the agency “will not be able to accommodate” a request for an interview with Thi Bennett and did not respond to questions for this article. Caroline Stratton, a research director at the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, said the act’s funding allowed states to staff offices; identify existing high-speed internet programs, including those operating within other state agencies; and create plans to fill the gaps. “This sent folks out looking,” Stratton said, to see whether agencies in the state were already working on health improvement plans and to ask whether the broadband work could contribute and “actively help move the needle.” State grant applications included goals to promote health care access. In Mississippi, the plan consists of the state university and another agency’s health improvement plan, Stratton said. While states were required to create programs that would help specific covered populations, some states modified the language or added subcategories to include other populations. Colorado’s plan included immigrants and “individuals experiencing homelessness.” “In every state, there’s a loss,” said Angela Siefer, executive director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. The nonprofit, which was awarded nearly $26 million to work with organizations nationwide but did not receive any funds, filed a lawsuit Oct. 7 seeking to force Trump and the administration to distribute the money. “The digital divide is not over,” Siefer said. The nonprofit’s grant had been planned to support digital navigators in 11 states and territories, including Waiters. Her employer, the nonprofit Community Service Programs of West Alabama, expected to receive a $1.4 million grant. In the past two years, Waiters spent hours driving the roads of rural Alabama to reach residents. She has distributed 648 devices — laptops, tablets, and SIM cards — and helped hundreds of clients through 117 two-hour digital skills classes at libraries, senior centers, and workplace development programs in and around Tuscaloosa, Alabama. People of “all races, of all ages, of all financial backgrounds” who did not “fit into our typical minority category” were helped through her work, Waiters said. Trump and his administration should know, she said, “what it actually looks like for the people I serve.”