Russia Suspends LNG Exports At Huge Baltic Sea Terminal After Ukraine Drone Attack

 Russian gas giant Novatek said it had been forced to suspend some operations at its huge Baltic Sea fuel export terminal on Sunday due to a fire started by what Ukrainian media said was a drone attack, Reuters reported.

The giant Ust-Luga complex, located on the Gulf of Finland about 170 km (110 miles) west of St. Petersburg, is used to ship oil and gas products to international markets. It processes stable gas condensate - a type of light oil - into light and heavy naphtha, kerosene and diesel to be shipped by sea.

According to Reuters, it was not clear how long the disruption would last, how many tankers would have to idle outside the port, and what the knock-on effect would be on international energy markets.

The Interfax-Ukraine news agency said the fire was the result of a special operation carried out by Ukraine's security services.

"The Ust-Luga Oil terminal in the Leningrad region is an important facility for the enemy. Fuel is refined there, which, among other things, is also supplied to Russian troops," it cited one source as saying. Of course, the fuel is also used to supply Europe where energy prices are now expected to spike as a result of this latest supply disruption.

"A successful attack on such a terminal not only causes economic damage to the enemy, depriving the occupiers of the opportunity to earn money to wage war in Ukraine, but also significantly complicates the logistics of fuel for the Russian military."

While Reuters was not able to confirm that the fire resulted from a Ukrainian drone attack, it writes that if it did "such an attack would demonstrate Kyiv's ability to conduct strikes deeper into Russia than usual using what are believed to be domestically produced drones at a time when it is on the defensive on the battlefield and struggling to secure as much Western financing as it wants."

Such an attack, the latest in a spate of apparent strikes in recent days targeting Russian energy facilities, would also raise questions about the quality of Russian air defense systems around key infrastructure facilities.

The incident, along with what Russia says was a Ukrainian artillery strike on civilians in a Russian-held city in eastern Ukraine that left at least 25 dead, is sure to prompt broader Russian retaliation in a war which shows no sign of ending.

Alexander Drozdenko, the Leningrad region's governor, said on the Telegram messaging app, that there had been no casualties at the Ust-Luga terminal and all workers had been safely evacuated. Russian news agencies reported that two storage tanks and a pumping station had been damaged, but that the fire had been brought under control.

Novatek, which is Russia's largest liquefied natural gas producer, said in a statement it had suspended some operations after the fire which it said was the result of "external influence."

"The technological process at Novatek-Ust-Luga has been stopped, and an operational headquarters has been established to eliminate the consequences. Damage assessment will be carried out later," the company said.

Russian news outlet Shot reported that local residents had heard a drone operating nearby followed by several explosions.

Russia and Ukraine have targeted each other's energy infrastructure in strikes designed to disrupt supply lines and logistics.  On Friday, a drone attack hit an oil depot in Russia's western region of Bryansk, bordering Ukraine, for which Moscow blamed Kyiv. That came a day after an attack on a Russian Baltic Sea oil terminal that Russian officials said was unsuccessful.

Baza, a Russian news outlet known for its security services contacts, posted footage on Telegram on Sunday of large flames shooting into the sky over what appeared to be an industrial complex.

Three international tanker ships were anchored near the Ust-Luga terminal, though there were no reports of damage to them from the fire, the St Petersburg-based Fontanka outlet said.

Drozdenko said a "high alert regime" had been introduced and that officials had gathered for an emergency meeting.
Novatek processed 3.4 million tons of stable gas condensate at the complex in the first half of 2023, according to the most recent data available, up 0.6% from the same period a year earlier.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/russia-suspends-lng-exports-huge-baltic-sea-terminal-after-ukraine-drone-attack

Wearing A Continuous Glucose Monitor: Troubling Trend Or Health Hack?

 by Sheramy Tsai via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

In January 2023, 42-year-old Jenni Southerington reached a pivotal moment in her health. Skeptical about her prediabetes diagnosis, she started using a continuous glucose monitor. The device’s two-week data revealed unexpected morning glucose spikes despite strict fasting. Ms. Southerington found that certain foods would worsen her condition. “Eating a spoonful of rice had the same effect as half a cup,” she said.

Her experience underscores a growing trend of people without diabetes monitoring their blood sugar, either out of concern over disease or to optimize their health. But while these devices can offer valuable insight, many people may not need them and could suffer unneeded expense and stress from using them, experts warn.

CGMs Demystified

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are small, wearable devices that provide real-time data on blood sugar with a sensor typically placed on the arm or abdomen.

Unlike traditional fingerstick tests, CGMs don’t require repeated skin punctures. CGMs gauge glucose in the interstitial fluid—the fluid between body tissues. The collected data is wirelessly relayed to a user’s choice of device, be it to a smartphone app, a watch, or directly to an insulin pump, typically every five minutes or about 288 times a day.

Continuous glucose monitors were once reserved for people with diabetes, but more and more health-conscious people are wearing them as a way to monitor their blood sugar.(Dragoljub Bankovic/Shutterstock)

“At their core, CGMs provide knowledge, and knowledge is power. Any person wearing a CGM can better understand how different foods and activities affect their glucose levels,” Dr. Andrew Demidowich, assistant professor in the Division of Endocrinology at Johns Hopkins Medicine, told The Epoch Times.

Not everyone shares Dr. Demidowich’s enthusiasm.

The Central Role of Glucose in Metabolic Health

Glucose, a simple sugar, is a key fuel source for the body, but it creates problems if it builds up in the blood. High blood glucose is more than just a marker for diabetes—it’s a central player in poor metabolic health. Metabolic diseases, which include diabetes, obesity, and heart disease, are increasing globally. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlights that more than one-third of U.S. adults suffer from a cluster of conditions known as metabolic syndrome, which includes high blood pressure, high blood sugar, excess body fat around the waist, and abnormal cholesterol levels.

Processed foods, including refined grains and sugars, as well as an increasingly sedentary lifestyle are wreaking havoc on people’s metabolic health. The rise of diabetes and obesity have been linked to processed foods that cause significant spikes in blood sugar. And while exercise can help manage these effects, especially after eating, many people prefer more passive forms of entertainment.

(The Epoch Times)

Rapid fluctuations in glucose can stress the body and trigger inflammation, which can lead to chronic diseases such as heart disease, arthritis, and certain cancers. Watching glucose levels can help people understand what improves their blood sugar level—and what makes it worse.

“I often tell my patients that we are all unique, and how one person’s sugar levels react to a certain food, like a banana or orange, may be completely different in how it may affect another person,” Dr. Demidowich said.

CGMs for All

CGMs were once limited to diabetes care. Initially vital for the 1.9 million Americans with Type 1 diabetes requiring daily monitoring, CGMs are now being used by a much broader demographic. This shift is significant in a nation in which an estimated 38 million people live with diabetes.

Continuous glucose monitors are small devices that measure glucose in the interstitial fluid using a small sensor probe. (Illustration by The Epoch Times/Shutterstock)

CGMs can provide real-time insights into the effects of lifestyle choices on glucose levels. Diet is just one of the many factors affecting glucose levels—exercise, stress, sleep, illness, dehydration, and pain also play significant roles.

More people are using CGMs as a way to self-optimize their health and make better decisions about food, physical activity, and more. The growing use of CGMs signifies a shift toward personalized, data-driven health and wellness strategies.

A 2018 Stanford University study, led by professor Michael Snyder, uncovered frequent and previously undetected blood sugar spikes in healthy individuals.

“There are lots of folks running around with their glucose levels spiking, and they don’t even know it,” Mr. Snyder said in a statement, underscoring the risk these spikes pose for cardiovascular disease and insulin resistance, a diabetes precursor.

The study, using CGMs on participants, suggests that even those without diabetes can experience significant glucose fluctuations.

“We think that these continuous glucose monitors will be important in providing the right information earlier on so that people can make changes to their diet should they need to,” Mr. Snyder said.

Echoing these potential benefits, a related study by George Washington University researchers found that 90 percent of CGM users reported shifts toward healthier living, with nearly 50 percent of them more inclined to exercise after noticing blood glucose spikes and 87 percent modifying their diets based on the feedback from their devices.

Dr. Demidowich has seen these effects himself, which is why he encourages patients with prediabetes to use the devices.

“I’m a big proponent of people with prediabetes wearing a CGM, even if just for a short time like 2 to 4 weeks, to better understand how to optimize their lifestyle and diet to avoid progression to diabetes,” he told The Epoch Times.

Real-time data can change patient behavior, he said.

“As providers, we can recommend cutting out sugary beverages or processed foods, but when patients see their sugar levels spiking in real-time, that becomes a powerful impetus for change.”

Too Much Information?

However, not everyone shares this enthusiasm for widespread CGM use. Dr. Robert H. Shmerling, senior faculty editor at Harvard Health Publishing, raises an issue with the devices’ utility for non-diabetics. He says there isn’t conclusive research demonstrating benefits for this group, pointing out that most people without diabetes naturally maintain normal blood sugar levels.

“Just because you can measure something doesn’t mean you should,” Dr. Shmerling wrote in an article. CGM use in the nondiabetic population may be premature and driven more by marketing than medical necessity, he cautioned. He noted that unnecessary monitoring could lead to false alarms, increased anxiety, and possibly harmful interventions.

Some people simply don’t know what healthy blood sugar looks like, and that can lead to confusion and fear, which can undermine, rather than improve, health.

Dr. Shmerling’s skepticism is echoed by 70-year-old Bob Volat, a Type 1 diabetes patient since age 59 who praises CGMs as a transformative tool in his health journey, calling them “an absolute gift.”

However, in a conversation with The Epoch Times, Mr. Volat questioned the utility of such advanced technology for nondiabetics, viewing it as overly complex and potentially motivated by profit. The devices aren’t cheap and he believes people may be swayed by aggressive marketing.

Rather than purchasing devices, he advises that people take a more holistic approach to health that goes beyond a singular focus on glucose levels.

Decoding Blood Sugar: Understanding Spikes and Glucose Tolerance

Prediabetes and diabetes are diagnosed based on specific blood glucose levels and A1C test results. The A1C test, measuring average blood sugar over two to three months, offers a comprehensive view of long-term glucose control.

Beyond these diagnostic benchmarks, there’s an increasing focus on the intricacies of blood sugar regulation, especially the health impacts of frequent sugar spikes, which CGM devices can adeptly identify.

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/wearing-continuous-glucose-monitor-troubling-trend-or-health-hack

Our Weird Passivity Toward Iran’s Aggression

 By Clarice Feldman

Watching our response to Iranian aggression against us and our allies, I’m reminded of Sherlock Holmes mystery, “The Curious Case of the Dog That Didn’t Bark.”  Turns out the watchdog didn’t bark because it knew the thief, and my supposition is that there is a good reason why we have behaved as if Iran and its proxies merit no more meaningful response: This Administration -- as did Obama’s -- has been thoroughly compromised respecting the ayatollahs.

In a lengthy post, Hussain-Abdul-Hussain, who analyzes such things for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, summarized the recent provocations of Iran.

This week, Iran attacked without provocation Pakistan, later claiming preposterously that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched the attack without the knowledge of Iran’s foreign minister. It’s a pattern -- after attacks by the IRGC in Iraq, and from Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen, the regime claims these were done without its knowledge. No one there, it seems, contrary to evidence, is accountable for the damage. “If their people are happy living with these 'resistance' garbage models, then they should not complain of the misery and wars they are living in.”

The Administration has backed off its historic mission of protecting freedom of navigation. Instead, it keeps choosing appeasement.

Direct aggression against the U.S. and its allies by the Houthis in Yemen are clearly backed by Iran, causing substantial disruption of sea passage in the Red Sea, and yet the allied response has been too weak to eliminate the Houthi aggression. 

Despite three American and British attacks on Houthi missile launch sites in the past two weeks, the Yemeni terrorist group continues to target shipping in the Red Sea. Only days ago a Houthi ballistic missile hit the Gibraltar Eagle, an American-owned and -operated cargo ship. The attacks may have depleted the Houthi arsenal, which includes Chinese-built anti-ship missiles, but they clearly have not eliminated it. 

Many observers have noted that it indeed will be exceedingly difficult for the United States, the United Kingdom and their supporting partners to silence the Houthi rockets, missiles and drones that have forced major shipping lines to reroute their ships past the southern tip of Africa. The Houthis operate numerous mobile launchers that “shoot and scoot” back into hiding. Targeting them, therefore, is no small challenge.

Moreover, the Houthis have demonstrated their resilience in the face of unrelenting air attacks. Constant Saudi and Emirati bombing, backed by American command and control and related capabilities, in support of the internationally-recognized Yemeni Government, did not stop Houthi advances on the ground against government forces. 

In theory, the United States and Britain, which possess total air superiority, could support armed airborne drones on a round-the-clock basis. [snip]

There are numerous difficulties with pursuing such a course of action, however. There are insufficient drones available to support continuous operations that could handle attacks on more than a limited number of targets. Moreover, there is only one aircraft carrier, the Dwight D. Eisenhower, currently deployed in the Red Sea… 

Iran can, in sum, keep supplying the Houthis with the missiles and launchers, which it does by sea, “burying the weapons inside humanitarian supplies to the impoverished country.” Not only is this response insufficient to end the shelling of commercial traffic on the Red Sea, we are financing it. “The Biden administration has, in effect, financed Tehran’s supply chain to the Houthis” by relaxing its sanctions on oil sales from Iran. “These funds have enabled Tehran to continue to supply its proxies and allies in Iraq, Lebanon and, of course, the Houthis.”

So obvious has this become, that this week, the Administration announced it was reimposing sanctions on the Houthis, sanctions Trump imposed and that the Biden administration immediately lifted when it took office. Like most Biden moves, it was more cosmetic than real.  

The Biden administration’s recently announced sanctions on the Iran-backed Houthi rebels will include a carveout that permits the terror group to engage in lucrative energy and fuel-related transactions with Americans, a decision that congressional critics say effectively neuters the sanctions.

A license issued by the Treasury Department and circulated to Congress this week authorizes "transactions related to refined petroleum products in Yemen involving Ansarallah," otherwise known as the Houthi militant group. This includes authorization for the "sale of refined petroleum products for personal, commercial, or humanitarian use in Yemen."

The decision to grant this carveout is already attracting congressional concerns, with GOP lawmakers telling the Washington Free Beacon they have begun pushing the House Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees to investigate the license, which they say undermines sanctions that are intended to choke off the terror group’s resources.

The sanctions on the Houthis, which will go into effect next month, have already drawn fierce pushback from Republican officials for being issued under a weaker federal statute that does not criminalize support for the terrorist group or force banks to seize their assets, the Free Beacon reported on Wednesday.  [snip]

One senior GOP congressional source familiar with the matter said it is "puzzling" that a "broad license" allowing these types of transactions with the terror group is being issued.

The United States is not the only entity captured by Iran. There are the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA) and the United Nations. At the international blabfest in Davos, which was enlightened only by the warning that it’s gone off the rails by Argentina’s new president, the head of the IAEA warned that it is unable to exercise oversight of Iran’s nuclear program because of Tehran’s refusal to cooperate even as it expands its operations. IAEA inspectors “have suggested that Tehran has stockpiled enough enriched uranium to make ‘several’ warheads.”

Iranian officials continue to frustrate International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)inspectors, who have suggested that Tehran has stockpiled enough enriched uranium to make "several" warheads. 

"Though it may be drowned out due to all the other bad news out of the Middle East involving Iran, the regime is getting closer and closer to establishing itself as a threshold nuclear state," Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) with a focus on Iranian security, told Fox News Digital. [snip]

Iran has seemingly benefited from what the Wall Street Journal termed President Biden's policy of "conciliate to evacuate," or developing agreements with Iran to reduce U.S. presence and responsibility in the Middle East. [snip] 

In addition to increased attacks from Iranian proxies over the past few months, Iran withdrew the designation of "several experienced Agency inspectors," according to Grossi, which amounted to "effectively… about one-third of the core group of the agency’s most experienced inspectors designated for Iran."

Tehran then sped up enrichment in Dec. 2023 following a monthslong slowdown that many attributed to back channel agreements with the U.S. that led to the release of American citizens held in Iran. The IAEA also determined that Iran had enough uranium enriched up to 60% - close to weapons-grade – to produce three nuclear bombs. 

At the same time that Iran is frustrating inspections and increasing its production of weapons-grade uranium, the UN astonishingly announced that Iran will preside over its ‘Conference on Disarmament.” 

“This is outrageous! The regime that’s sent arms to Putin in Russia’s war against Ukraine, planned the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, and provided missiles to Yemen’s Houthis to disrupt global shipping will be in charge of monitoring global nuclear weapons disarmament. The irony of ironies… Islamic Republic is rapidly moving to develop nuclear weapons of its own.”

I can’t think of any international organization doing what it was designed to do. The World Economic Forum is even more ridiculous, if that’s possible, than the United Nations. When it isn’t telling us to eat bugs, it’s proposing we all get brain implants which can be measured (and controlled by the WEF, I suppose). The great Iowahawk (David Burge) compares this to a “big International Bond villain conference” with “Blofeld [Klaus Schwab], Rosa Kleb [Ursula Von der Leyen], Jaws [John Kerry], and Odd Job [Xi]”

Maybe the ayatollahs have already inserted Klaus Schwabian implants into the heads of the western world’s leaders. It’s otherwise hard to imagine such idiocy.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/01/our_weird_passivity_toward_irans_aggression.html

RFK Jr Seeks Path To Victory By Forcing House To Elect President

by Jeff Louderback via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

To win the 2024 election as an independent, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is firstly hoping for an outright win, but the second path to victory is to make sure no other candidate wins 270 electoral votes.

If no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes in a presidential election, the winner is decided in a contingent election by the House of Representatives, where each state votes as a bloc.

The House has picked the president twice in American history.

In 1800, Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson were deadlocked after the electoral votes were counted. The House cast their ballots to elect President Jefferson, who received 61 percent of the popular vote.

When none of the four presidential candidates received an electoral vote majority in 1824, the House elected John Quincy Adams on Feb. 9 the following year.

“People are starting to realize that Bobby can win, with where he is in the polls,” Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, the campaign manager of Mr. Kennedy, told The Epoch Times.
“They are starting to see that, for the first time in their lifetime, the two-party system can be broken and they can vote for somebody who excites them rather than having to vote for the lesser of two evils,” she said. Ms. Kennedy is also the candidate’s daughter-in-law.

The Green Room in the White House in Washington, circa 1962. A portrait of President John Quincy Adams by George P.A. Healy hangs above the fireplace. (Archive Photos/Getty Images)

Ms. Kennedy said Mr. Kennedy could be considered a preferred candidate over former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, the likely Republican and Democrat nominees.

The prospect of Mr. Kennedy winning as a compromise candidate is relatively slim because a contingent United States election is decided by state delegations. Republicans currently hold a four-vote delegation lead, according to a tally maintained by ProPublica.

The next House of Representatives, composed of lawmakers elected in 2024, would vote in a contingent election. A consensus forecast by 270toWin based on an aggregate of forecasts by five major analytics firms sees Republicans keeping their delegation majority in the House in 2024.

Few independent and third-party candidates have won electoral votes. In 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt ran as an independent against his former protégé, President William Howard Taft, after failing to win the Republican nomination.

President Roosevelt carried eight states and gained 27 percent of the popular vote but won just 88 electoral votes compared to Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s 435.

Independent candidate and former Alabama Gov. George Wallace won five states in 1968. He needed to prevail in only one more state with 10 or more electors to prevent Richard Nixon from an Electoral College majority.

In 1992, Ross Perot captured around 19 percent of the popular vote, won several counties, and placed second in two states, but he did not secure electoral votes in a race won by Bill Clinton over President George H.W. Bush.

Brian Seitchik, a Republican strategist and former Trump campaign staff member, told The Epoch Times that the strategy to capture enough electoral votes to send the presidential election to the House is “absurd.”

“It was talked about in 1992 when Ross Perot was running. It was talked about when George Wallace was on the ballot many years ago,” Mr. Sietchik said.

“It’s a fantasy that Republican nerds like to talk about—just like they like to talk about a brokered convention. We haven’t had a brokered convention since the 1960s, so these are just sort of political fantasies.”

David Carlucci, a former New York state senator and a Democrat strategist, told The Epoch Times that Mr. Kennedy faces a “daunting challenge” to get electoral votes.

“Regardless of your political affiliation—Democrat, Republican, or Independent—it’s undeniable that the Electoral College poses challenges to an independent candidate. The strategy of winning states necessitates a precise campaign focused on specific demographics, leaving little room for candidates like RFK Jr. to impact safe red and blue states, which constitute the majority,” Mr. Carlucci said

“With fewer than 10 swing states, an independent candidate faces an uphill battle against the targeted efforts of Democrats and Republicans in these crucial areas,” he said.

Mr. Kennedy is traveling the country to private fundraising events and rallies designed to collect signatures to get him on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-seeks-path-victory-forcing-house-elect-president

US Supreme Court Action Alters Course Of Jan. 6 Defendant Sentencings

 by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to review a case called Fischer v. United States, which experts say could weaken prosecutors’ hand in hundreds of Jan. 6 cases, including former President Donald Trump’s, is already upending some defendant cases and sentencing proceedings.

In December, the Supreme Court decided it would take up the appeal by Jan. 6 defendant Joseph W. Fisher of the Biden administration’s novel use of an Enron-era evidence-tampering law to prosecute hundreds of defendants for obstruction of Congress during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol incident.

The obstruction of Congress charge—which carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison—is the most widely charged felony in Jan. 6 cases, including against President Trump.

Mr. Fischer was indicted for various alleged offences for his role in the Jan. 6 incident, including obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder, violent entry, and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds—and obstruction of Congress based on 18 U.S. Code Section 1512(c)(2), or “Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.”

This is an evidence-tampering provision that’s part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which experts say was conceived largely to curb wrongdoing on Wall Street—but is now used by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Jan. 6 cases.

Mr. Fischer challenged the obstruction charge, claiming that 1512(c)(2) does not prohibit his alleged conduct on Jan. 6. A district court agreed but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit reversed that decision, siding with a broader reading of the provision, namely that it applies other forms of obstructive conduct, not just ones related to investigations and evidence.

While it’s unclear when the Supreme Court will hold the first hearings in Mr. Fischer’s appeal, several legal experts told The Epoch Times in earlier interviews that the high court is likely to find that 1512(c)(2) is being improperly used against Jan. 6 defendants.

If the challenge proves successful, the Supreme Court’s decision could have far-reaching consequences, potentially erasing some charges against President Trump and overturning felony convictions for numerous Jan. 6 defendants.

The implications extend beyond individual cases to the core strategy employed by the Justice Department (DOJ) in securing convictions.

Meanwhile, the fact that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Mr. Fischer’s challenge to the provision is already having an impact on some Jan. 6 cases.

Challenges Based on Supreme Court Review

Since the Supreme Court agreed in mid-December to take up the Fischer appeal, a number of Jan. 6 defendants have asked judges to pause their trials and sentencing proceedings pending the outcome of the case.

One of these is John Strand, a former underwear model convicted of obstructing Congress on the basis of 1512(c)(2), who describes himself as a “political prisoner.” He was sentenced to 32 months in prison.

On Jan. 19, Mr. Strand’s attorneys filed a motion for release pending the Fischer appeal and a motion for reduction of sentence based on the zero-point offender guideline, which gives defendants with no criminal history an extra two points off their sentencing calculations, court filings show.

The DOJ has taken the position that Jan. 6 defendants are ineligible for sentence reduction on the basis of the zero-point offender guideline, which has some exceptions, including for violent crimes.

Noteworthy in Mr. Strand’s filing is the singling out of the obstruction charge, which in his case is the only felony he’s been found guilty of.

“In particular, a substantial question exists as to whether the statute underlying Strand’s sole felony conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), applies to his conduct on January 6, 2021, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to grant certiorari in United States v. Fischer.”

While it’s too early to know whether the judge in Mr. Strand’s case will side with his request to reduce his sentence, several other Jan. 6 defendants have won early release based on the Supreme Court’s decision to review the Fischer case.

Early Release and Postponement

Last week, a federal judge ordered the early release of Thomas Adams, who was found guilty of two counts for his role on Jan. 6, including the obstruction charge, his sole felony.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta noted in his Jan. 10 order that Mr. Adams would probably have received a lighter sentence than the 14 months he was given (in addition to 36 months of supervised release) absent the obstruction charge.

While prosecutors argued Mr. Adams should be kept in jail, the judge disagreed, saying that the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case suggests the outcome is a “close question” at a minimum.

One day after Judge Mehta ordered Mr. Adams to go free, U.S. District Judge John Bates ordered the release of Alexander Sheppard, who was previously sentenced to 19 months in prison for several misdemeanors and one felony (the obstruction charge).

Mr. Adams’s attorneys asked that he be released from prison at the end of his misdemeanor convictions, citing the pending Fischer appeal. The judge agreed, with the caveat that if the Supreme Court rules against Mr. Fischer and upholds his sentencing based on the obstruction charge, Mr. Sheppard may be required to serve out his full sentence.

“The Court will order Sheppard released after he has served six months in prison—on May 2, 2024. The parties shall contact the Court within three days of the Supreme Court issuing its decision in Fischer with their positions as to what if any further proceedings are necessary,” Judge Bates wrote in his order.

“The Court may ultimately conclude that a further period of incarceration is warranted upon a potential remand after a decision in Fischer,” the judge added.

Three other federal judges have postponed pending Jan. 6 cases in which obstruction is the only felony charge, according to Politic, which cited a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington as saying that around 100 Jan. 6 defendants face charges in which 1512(c)(2) is the only felony charge.

The same law challenged by Mr. Fischer is instrumental in charges against President Trump. Should the Supreme Court limit or disagree with the Justice Department, it could have a significant impact on the former president’s trial, currently set for March, potentially leading to a retrial.

Concerns of Overreach

Defense lawyer Kira Anne West, who has been involved in more than 50 Jan. 6 cases, has accused the Justice Department of overreach in prosecuting some of the approximately 1,300 Jan. 6 cases.

Ms. West, who volunteered to defend dozens of Jan. 6 defendants, said during a recent C-SPAN “Booknotes” podcast that most of her Jan. 6 clients had neither a criminal history nor did they engage in any violence that day.

“Some simply went into the building, turned around, and went out,” she said. “Many were in for a very short period of time, less than 20 minutes. Yet the government is charging them with felony charges that you can get up to 20 years in prison for. That makes absolutely no sense to me.”

She said it’s unusual for so many minor cases to go to federal trial, calling it a waste of money.

“I think in my whole career, I’ve had one misdemeanor case in federal court before Jan. 6. Now, I have tons of them,” Ms. West said.

While she did not downplay whatever violence took place that day, saying it was a “serious crime” for people to attack police officers, she did say she saw the Biden administration’s approach to Jan. 6 cases part of a longstanding pattern of federal “overreach.”

“What I’ve experienced as a defense lawyer, which I’ve experienced for years, is that there is quite a bit of government overreach as far as who they’re prosecuting and what they’re charging them with,” she said.

Jim Burling, vice president of legal affairs for the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit public interest law firm that challenges government abuses, told The Epoch Times in a recent interview that it is “utterly absurd” for the Biden administration to charge Jan. 6 protesters with the felony obstruction charge that carries a 20 year sentence.

“I think both the liberals and the conservatives on the Supreme Court are going to be very wary of this overcharging,” he said of the Fischer case that the high court will weigh.

Matthew Vadum contributed to this report.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/us-supreme-court-action-alters-course-jan-6-defendant-sentencings

The Many Faces Of Kevin Morris - Hunter Biden's Financial Patron

 by Jonathan Turley, op-ed via The Hill,

“Who was the real me? I can only repeat: I was a man of many faces.”

Those words by author Milan Kundera could well have been written for Kevin Morris, a critical figure in the unfolding Hunter Biden scandal.

Morris (picture left below) was largely unknown to most people until he emerged as the Democratic donor who reportedly paid Hunter Biden millions to handle his unpaid taxes and maintain his lavish lifestyle.

The Hollywood lawyer and producer portrayed himself as a good Samaritan on a biblical scale — a good man who simply found a desperate stranger on the road and gave him more than $5 million.

His counsel, Bryan M. Sullivan stated that “Hunter is not only a client of Kevin’s, he is his friend and there is no prohibition against helping a friend in need, despite the inability of these Republican chairmen and their allies to imagine such a thing.” 

The statement captures the problem for Morris. It is increasingly hard to determine what Morris was at any given moment: Democratic donor, lawyer, friend. Indeed, that problem that some of us have raised for months.

Lawyers are not supposed to pay the bills of their clients.

Specifically, California Bar Rule 1.8.5(a) states that “[a] lawyer shall not directly or indirectly pay or agree to pay, guarantee, or represent that the lawyer or lawyer’s law firm will pay the personal or business expenses of a prospective or existing client.” They are required to maintain clear representational boundaries. This is also now the subject of a new bar complaint filed by a conservative legal group this week.

Friends have described Morris as a “rule-breaker” and admit that his relationship with Hunter raises eyebrows. “Certainly it’s not careful, but he’s a gunslinger,” one told the Los Angeles Times. “This is how he rolls.”

But the legal ethics rules are designed to avoid gunslinging generally and ambiguity specifically.

Hunter calls him both his lawyer and his “brother.” Lead counsel Abbe Lowell observed, “I have never in any of my representations of any other client — other than someone who is an immediate family member of one of my clients — known anyone who is like Kevin.”

When the relationship began, Morris was playing the role of loyal Democratic donor.

He was introduced to Hunter at a 2019 political fundraiser by another producer and Democratic deep pocket, Lanette Phillips. Soon thereafter, Morris was giving Hunter copious amounts of money and legal advice. That would include reportedly paying off Hunter’s long-delinquent taxes before criminal charges were filed. It also included paying for Hunter’s lavish lifestyle.

Morris may be most eager to avoid the label “democratic donor” because these payments could be viewed as an unreported campaign donation. Morris was brought in during Joe Biden’s campaign for president. Then, on February 7, 2020, Morris flagged how the taxes represented a “considerable risk personally and politically.” He seems to have sought to resolve that political liability by paying off the taxes and calling it a “loan.”

Those “loans” would continue, and Morris insists that it was all standard “loan” stuff. Except he is not a bank. He was repeatedly referring to Hunter as his “client.” 

It is also important that these millions are treated as loans because, if they are actually gifts, they could create a new tax problem. Hunter has to declare such “gifts.” 

Few would view Hunter as a good risk for a loan, given his history of stiffing a wide array of businesses and associates. Indeed, he reportedly even faced a complaint over failure to pay for alleged high-end prostitutes. He was even accused of using a credit card connected to his father to pay off an alleged Russian call-girl. Even the art dealer who recently sold Hunter’s art reportedly testified that Hunter never reimbursed him for the costs of the shows.

That art adds an interesting twist to the mysterious role of Morris. Recently, art dealer Georges Bergès blew away White House claims that Hunter had been barred from knowing the names of purchasers under a comprehensive ethics system. He admitted that Hunter knew the identity of 70 percent of the purchasers. 

It was not hard. Despite news reports of buyers flocking to buy the art, it turns out it was largely Morris who bought the art.   Notably, however, Morris only reportedly paid Bergès’ 40 percent commission on the $875,000 purchases. It is not clear whether Morris used the sales to wipe out part of the loan debt.

That would be a clever way to treat the money as a loan, if it were used for that purpose.

• You simply have Hunter crank out dubious pieces of art and arrange for an ally to throw art shows in New York.

• You then have media allies write how buyers were “floored” by Hunter’s talent.

• Finally, you pay the commission on the excessive prices for the art while writing off the value of the art as a type of in-kind payment of the loan.

While many mocked at the Pablo Picasso-level pricing of Hunter’s art pieces (some works approached half a million dollars), those inflated prices would be useful to count as direct or indirect payments for the loans.

We still do not know how these purchases or the loans were treated, and whether Morris was acting as a donor, friend, or lawyer. Now, Morris is adding a new role to this pile of identities, reportedly supporting a new movie on Hunter Biden. 

Call it “Mr. Biden Goes to Washington,” an effective rewrite of Frank Capra’s classic, only the corrupt establishment apparently wins.

In the movie, a young novice appointed to the U.S. Senate fights the corruption of Washington, where his senior senator has sold access and influence to James Taylor, a wealthy businessman. Taylor scoffs at the notion that the establishment can be challenged. After all, they control the media, and what the public will read and hear. As Taylor assured the senior senator, “I’ll make public opinion out there within five hours! I’ve done it all my life…You leave public opinion to me.”

Morris is still fighting to shape public opinion, and, in Hollywood, movies make reality.

Morris “makes public opinion,” and the media can be expected, again, to assist in those efforts.

Many in Washington believe that Hunter’s stunts in holding a press conference defying his subpoena, and later crashing his own contempt hearing, were literally made-for-television moments. These scenes were captured on film and will no doubt be featured in the new film on his heroic struggle.

The question is the audience for the film. Clearly, in the Beltway, audiences are likely to be sobbing with emotion as Hunter fights against inquiries into influence peddling. They will cheer at Joe Biden’s moment channeling John Wayne, when he declared, “No one f**ks with a Biden.”

However, most audience members would not have felt the same thrill if, at the end of the original movie, the corrupt Sen. Joseph Paine and the wealthy Taylor had emerged as the victors, fighting off the do-gooders and “boy rangers” supporting Jimmy Stewart’s main character.

The question is also who would play Morris — or more accurately, how many would have to play this “man with many faces.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/many-faces-kevin-morris-hunter-bidens-financial-patron