Bombshell NYT Expose Details War Crimes By American-Led Volunteer Force In Ukraine

 The last many weeks (or even months) of Ukraine coverage by mainstream media has seen a major shift. One might observe that Western reporters are actually starting to do their jobs for a change, and digging into to 'inconvenient' truths and stories which a year ago no outlet would have touched amid the general pro-Kyiv euphoria.

A military correspondent with The New York Times has issued the newest bombshell report this weekend which shines a spotlight on not just Ukrainian troops but American and foreign fighters who've volunteered with pro-Kyiv forces and have committed potential war crimes. The report, titled Killings of Surrendering Russians Divide an American-Led Unit, reveals how US troops are participating in units which conduct extra-judicial killings of Russians who have legitimately surrendered.

Much of the eyewitness accounts come from a German volunteer identified as Caspar Grosse, a medic in an all-foreign unit led by an American who says he witnessed clear war crimes and that his conscience has forced him to speak out.

He described how last August, a wounded, unarmed Russian soldier was seeking a peaceful surrender by crawling and calling out to Ukrainian front lines. Grosse relates to the Times that he "saw the soldier plead for medical attention in a mix of broken English and Russian. It was dusk. A team member looked for bandages." And then he was shocked to observe the following turn of events:

That is when, Mr. Grosse said, a fellow soldier hobbled over and fired his weapon into the Russian soldier’s torso. He slumped, still breathing. Another soldier fired — "just shot him in the head," Mr. Grosse recalled in an interview.

Mr. Grosse said he was so upset by the episode that he confronted his commander. He said he spoke to The New York Times after what he regarded as unwarranted killings continued.

The unit in question goes by the "Chosen Company" - widely considered the most reputable and well-known volunteer group of international troops. Grosse further verified this and other similar incidents in his journal, which he provided the Times.

But the outlet also had video evidence to go on which verified separate such killings. "In a second episode, a Chosen member lobbed a grenade at and killed a surrendering Russian soldier who had his hands raised, video footage reviewed by The Times shows," it documents. "The Ukrainian military released video of the episode to showcase its battlefield prowess, but it edited out the surrender." This means Ukraine's military censors and these volunteer units are literally editing out clear war crimes before releasing to the world what amounts to official propaganda.

And given it was a "Chosen member" who lobbed the grenade, this means a foreign fighter is being singled out by the paper for the extrajudicial killing which violates the Geneva Conventions.

The Times further reviewed text messages from a group chat it has reviewed. "In a third episode, Chosen members boasted in a group chat about killing Russian prisoners of war during a mission in October, text messages show," the publication writes. "A soldier who was briefly in command that day alluded to the killings using a slang word for shooting." He said he would take responsibility.:

Below are some of the actual group chat messages provided by Grosse: 

“If anything comes out about alleged POW blamming, I ordered it,” wrote the soldier, who uses the call sign Andok. He added an image of a Croatian war criminal who died in 2017 after drinking poison during a tribunal at The Hague.

“At the Hague ‘I regret nothing!’” he wrote. It was one of several text messages reviewed by The Times that make reference, directly or obliquely, to killing prisoners. Andok said in an interview that he had been joking.

The report says that a Greek soldier known as Zeus was at the center of multiple episodes that involved killing Russian prisoners or those in the act of surrendering.

In Ukraine, Killings of Surrendering Russians Divide an American-Led Unit. A Greek soldier known as Zeus was at the center of all 3 episodes — tossing grenade & firing at wounded Russian - Killing prisoners of war is a violation of the Geneva Conventions https://t.co/VXADCIqq8L pic.twitter.com/fXKZxg2odw

— George Roussos (@baphometx) July 6, 2024

"Today a good friend willingly executed a bound prisoner," a journal entry by Grosse begins, recounting one of the incidents which Zeus was behind. "As the prisoner was sitting in a trench blendage with his jacket draped over his shoulders, Zeus came up behind him and shot him into the back of the head multiple times. Going to bed."

The NY Times was actually able to track down members of Chosen Company who were involved or who witnessed the alleged killings. In a group chat message, one foreign fighter warned others against "snitching on bros". The person claimed that "anyone who had spoken to reporters faced years in prison for releasing confidential information."

"I’d prefer to stop any investigation before it starts and simply say it was a misunderstanding," the foreign fighter warned, trying to enforce silence among his unit. "End of day, we are brothers."

Likely, the report is just the tip of the iceberg, and comes after two-and-a-half years of grinding war with Russia. How many other war crimes like this are happening in these foreign units? Until now, the mainstream media has appeared to ignore such abuses taking place among Ukraine forces, instead only focusing on the crimes of the invaders. Likely there are many more such tragic, scandalous accounts like it. Read the rest of the NY Times report here.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/bombshell-nyt-expose-details-war-crimes-american-led-volunteer-force-ukraine

Canada police charge Syrian returnee with terrorism offenses

 Canadian police said on Saturday they had charged a returnee from Syria with terrorism-related offenses after an investigation into allegations that she had gone to join the Islamic State group.

Kimberly Polman, 51, was charged with two counts of leaving Canada to participate in the activity of a terrorist group and participation in the activity of a terrorist group, the police said in a statement.

The charges under Section 83 of the Criminal Code stem from the investigation into the allegations Polman traveled to Syria from Canada in 2015 to join ISIS, police said.

She was repatriated to Canada in 2022 but not charged criminally, her lawyer said at the time.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/canada-police-charge-syrian-returnee-020634355.html

Biden team sent approved questions to radio stations before post-debate interviews

President Biden’s campaign provided suggested questions to two Black radio hosts who did the first interviews after the president’s disastrous debate performance, according to interviews they gave on Saturday. Going forward, Biden’s team will not provide suggested questions before interviews, said a source familiar with the booking operations.

The two Thursday radio interviews in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, two crucial swing states that Biden must win to hold the presidency, were part of the Biden campaign’s efforts to demonstrate that the president could speak off the cuff in the wake of a debate performance in which the president struggled to complete sentences, lost his train of thought repeatedly, and sounded raspy. 

The revelation that the campaign provided suggested questions now raises further questions about whether the president can perform in unscripted moments.

“While interview hosts have always been free to ask whatever questions they please, moving forward we will refrain from offering suggested questions,” a source familiar with the Biden booking operation told The Hill. 

Biden scheduled these radio interviews and an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in the days after his poor debate performance. During the ABC interview, Biden specifically mentioned the two radio interviews as evidence that he could handle the rigors of the campaign. 

Andrea Lawful-Sanders, the host of “The Source” on WURD in Philadelphia, said that members of the Biden team gave her a set of eight questions, and she chose four for her interview with the president. 

She told CNN’s Victor Blackwell, the host of “First of All” on CNN, that questions were sent to her beforehand when he asked her why the questions she asked Biden appeared to be the same as those asked by Earl Ingram, a Wisconsin radio host. 

“The questions were sent to me for approval,” Lawful-Sanders said. “I got several questions — eight of them…and the four chosen were the ones that I approved.”

Biden Campaign spokesperson Lauren Hitt wrote to The Hill that “it’s not at all an uncommon practice for interviewees to share topics they would prefer.” 

Ingram was on the show alongside Lawful-Sanders, and while he did interject during the interview on CNN, he later told the AP that the campaign had followed a similar process with him. He said the campaign gave him four questions, and there were no negotiations on what he could ask. 

“They gave me the exact questions to ask,” Ingram told the Associated Press. “There was no back and forth.”

He added that the process “gave him pause,” but that “he is not a journalist” and did not want to pass on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. 

“I probably would never have accepted, it but this was an opportunity to talk to the president of the United States,” he told the AP.

Blackwell weighed in on the hosts’ revelation, saying that he “did not know how” the Biden campaign could convince voters that the president could handle another term as president by sending in questions beforehand. 

“The reason I ask is not a criticism of either of you,” Blackwell said. “It’s just that if the White House is trying now to prove the vim, vigor, acuity of the president, I don’t know how they do that by sending questions first, before the interviews, so that the president knows what’s coming.”

During both interviews, the president appeared to misstep at different points. During the interview with Lawful-Sanders, Biden appeared to trip over his words when he said he was proud to have been the “first Black woman to serve with a Black president.” 

Hitt also pointed to former President Trump canceling an interview this week because the interviewer would not agree to his questions, saying that the Biden campaign has never “conditioned” an interview on acceptance of questions suggested by the campaign. 

Hitt added that after her interview on CNN, Lawful-Sanders made an additional comment, saying that she never “felt pressured” to accept the questions.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4758192-biden-team-sent-approved-questions-before-interviews/

These Democratic lawmakers, officials have publicly backed Biden since the debate

 President Biden and his campaign have been in clean-up mode this week after his poor debate performance sparked panic within the Democratic Party and some calls for him to step down.

As of Saturday evening, five House Democrats have publicly gone against the party and asked Biden to step aside so a new candidate can take on former President Trump.

Many Democratic lawmakers and other public officials, however, are sticking by Biden and urging both their fellow politicians and the American public to do the same ahead of the high-stakes election this fall.

Here’s who has publicly backed Biden after the debate:

Vice President Kamala Harris

Directly following the first presidential debate, Vice President Harris defended Biden during an interview with CNN that was occasionally tense.

She said Biden had a “slow start” to the evening but was able to make a “strong finish” and pointed to Biden’s character over Trump’s.

As calls for Biden to step aside continue, Harris has emerged as one of the top choices for his replacement.

Still, she doubled down on her support for the president and said they intend to beat Trump together.

Gov. Gavin Newsom

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.), one of Biden’s biggest allies, dismissed concerns about the president’s abilities directly following the debate.

Newsom, who has also been rumored to be a top choice if Biden steps aside, called all the talk about Biden’s performance “unhelpful and unnecessary.”

He urged people to not look at 30 minutes of Biden’s presidency, but rather at the last 3 and a half years.

Gov. Kathy Hochul

Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) was among several Democratic governors who met with Biden this week.

During the meeting, the governors pledged their support to Biden, Hochul said.

In a post online, she said Biden is “in it to win it. The stakes this November could not be higher.”

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-Mich.) also was at the meeting at the White House.

In a similar post online, she said Biden is the Democratic Party’s nominee and that she will support him.

“He is in it to win it and I support him,” she posted.

Like Harris, Whitmer has been rumored as one of the few people that the party could choose if Biden steps aside.

Gov. Tim Walz

Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) joined the meeting and also voiced his support for Biden.

Walz spoke outside the White House after the meeting and said all of them were “looking for the path to win.” He said Biden had the governors’ backs during the COVID-19 pandemic and they have his back now.

He said Biden is fit for office and last week’s debate was a “bad performance.”

Gov. Wes Moore

Gov. Wes Moore (D-Md.) was also in attendance during the governors meeting. The Maryland Governor said the meeting with Biden and Harris was “honest” and “candid.”

Moore said they were open with Biden about the concerns they have and what they have heard from their constituents.

“We said we will stand with him,” Moore said. “The president has always had our backs, we’re going to have his back as well.”

Sen. John Fetterman

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) told his fellow Democrats to “chill the f— out” after reports emerged of the party panicking following the debate.

He said he refuses to join the “Democratic vultures” because one bad performance is “not the sum total of the person and their record.”

Just over a week after the debate, Biden participated in an on-camera interview with ABC. Fetterman said anchor George Stephanopoulos should ask the president nine questions, including if he’s been impeached or slept with and bribed a porn star, hinting at Trump.

Sen. Chris Coons

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said the stakes of this election “couldn’t be higher” and the only Democrat that’s beaten Trump is Biden.

“He is our candidate for November. And he has the best shot to beat him,” Coons said.

Directly after the debate, an energetic Biden appeared in North Carolina to speak to voters. While his demeanor was much brighter, he still received criticism because he was speaking off of a teleprompter.

Coons said he thinks that Biden should have more “unscripted” and “off-the-record” moments.

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi acknowledged concerns earlier this week, saying it’s fair to ask if the 81-year-old Biden has a condition or if the debate was just “an episode.”

Still, she defended Biden following the debate and emphasized he is “attuned” to the issues when she works with him.

She also shot down the suggestion that Biden could be replaced by another candidate.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said Biden has had her district and the country’s backs over the last four years.

“He’s listened, and most importantly, he’s delivered,” she wrote on X. “He is an honest man running against a serial liar who was a disgrace to the office.”

She said that Democrats will beat Trump this fall by “having Biden’s back.”

Rep. Haley Stevens

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) posted on Instagram at a Michigan Biden-Harris campaign event, where she said Democrats are “FIRED UP” to go “make sure voters know President Biden has their backs.”

Rep. Jasmine Crockett

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) doubled down on her support of Biden and warned of a second Trump term.

She asked for fellow Democrats to “unite around the ticket,” which is currently Biden and Harris. She said she will support the ticket as it stands “so long as the president says that he can do this job.”

Rep. John Garamendi

Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) said he wants his fellow Democrats to slow down and take a deep breath when it comes to their concerns about Biden.

He said the panic following the debate was a “feeding frenzy” and urged them to understand the “enormous importance” of their actions and what Biden has done for the country.

“Let’s take a look at what this president has done and also what he’s managed to do since that debate,” Garamendi said.  

The California Democrat said it’s not an easy task being the president and running a campaign, but Biden has done both.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4758299-democrats-supporting-biden-interview-debate/

Pennsylvania capitol evacuated after bomb threat

 The Pennsylvania State Capitol building was evacuated Saturday after state lawmakers received an email from an individual claiming they had placed explosives in the complex and were armed with a knife.

A House Democratic Caucus spokesperson confirmed to ABC27 News that everyone inside the building was told to evacuate immediately.

Capitol Police began searching the Pennsylvania complex with K9 units, but no explosives were found during the search, the outlet reported.

The email was titled “My manifesto” and sent to state lawmakers around 5:45 p.m. Saturday evening. The individual claimed to have put “highly lethal lead azide devices” around the building “in the name of Palestine.”

State Rep. Ryan Bizzarro (D) posted on the social media platform X, thanking law enforcement for their “courage and professionalism.”

In another post, Bizzarro said he said he is “tired of the foolery and unhinged behavior” and said he hopes they “find this menace.”

According to his post, the email to lawmakers said the individual plans to trigger a new explosive “every few hours until Joe Biden goes on national television and publicly denounces the illegitimate state of Israel.”

In a statement to ABC27 News, Capitol Police said it is working with the FBI to conduct a comprehensive search and investigation

President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden are expected to depart Washington Sunday morning and head to Pennsylvania for campaign events.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4758364-pennsylvania-capitol-evacuated-after-bomb-threat/

Changes to Medicare Could Make It More Expensive

 While much of the Inflation Reduction Act analysis has been focused on the newly established mandate for the federal government to set drug prices in Medicare, bringing down the price of medicines, the law also makes other changes to Medicare. It reduces federal subsidies to low-income and high-need people, putting more financial risk onto the health insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers that offer drug plans and puts a limit on out-of-pocket spending for beneficiaries.

With any change in law, there are some desired and expected outcomes and likely unexpected downsides. In this case, the shifting financial incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act are expected to erode the attributes that make the Medicare drug benefit or “Part D” well-liked. Academics, actuaries, and business leaders anticipate the upcoming changes will result in more restrictive drug formularies and fewer part D plans. Moreover, the Inflation Reduction Act will not reduce drug costs meaningfully for most Medicare beneficiaries and will increase out-of-pocket costs for many. 

When surveyed, Medicare Part D enrollees report high satisfaction with the plan, particularly their ability to get their medicines affordably in a plan they find convenient to use. However, when surveyed, many healthcare plan administrators indicated that they plan to make formularies more restrictive and use more utilization controls due to the Inflation Reduction Act; they also expect premiums to increase. They may steer Medicare beneficiaries to use drugs that have to be administered by a doctor rather than pills that can be picked up at a pharmacy because those drugs fall outside of the pharmacy benefit where risk is changing.

Several aspects of the design change likely create incentives that encourage more restrictive formularies. Of the 50 million people enrolled in the drug benefit, roughly two million have health needs resulting in high out-of-pocket costs. With the Inflation Reduction Act those beneficiaries will no longer have to pay for covered drugs after they have spent $2,000 out-of-pocket, meaning the plan picks up the cost afterward. This provides greater financial certainty to beneficiaries and it also creates a greater incentive for plans to avoid this cost and risk. This may include formulary restrictions or exclusions.

With the Inflation Reduction Act, plans will have significantly more financial responsibility for beneficiaries who incur higher medicine costs and who have low income, which will include people with conditions such as Multiple Sclerosis, HIV, certain cancers, and autoimmune diseases. While the federal government does provide extra money, the risk adjustment does not adequately cover the costs for these beneficiaries. Plans may respond by narrowing formulary coverage for certain conditions so as not to attract beneficiaries needing these drugs or to avoid the potential uncompensated costs of these medicines in their enrolled beneficiaries. This benefit change can potentially encourage plans to use practices that can deter the higher-cost, unprofitable beneficiaries from enrolling with their formulary designs, as was seen following the enactment of the Affordable Care Act.

In 2024, Medicare beneficiaries find themselves with fewer stand-alone prescription drug plans to choose from relative to the program's inception. As plans assume more financial risk under the Inflation Reduction Act , the profitability of stand-alone drug plans is likely to be challenged, leading to potential market exits.  Mutual of Omaha Rx has already announced its departure from the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan market at the end of 2024, citing the Inflation Reduction Act as the reason. Such exits will further limit beneficiaries’ already shrinking choice of pharmacies, potentially forcing them to pay higher cost sharing at their local independent pharmacy if it is out of network.

Recent analysis suggests that most beneficiaries are unlikely to see a substantial reduction in their out-of-pocket costs from the federal price setting, and for many, costs will actually increase. Seven of the first ten selected drugs are predominantly on formulary tiers that require a fixed copayment, meaning beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket costs will typically remain the same regardless of the underlying price of the drug. For the remaining three drugs, the cap on out-of-pocket costs would make the total costs the same for drugs with and without a price control in most instances. Moreover, while the law requires plans to cover the drugs with price controls, they can still impose utilization management hurdles. The Inflation Reduction Act introduces another change to the benefit structure that, when interacting with the government price setting, will cause roughly 3.5 million beneficiaries to pay more if they are taking a drug with a government-set price, many of them low-income and in employer group plans.  

The Medicare Part D program relies primarily on competition, with federal oversight, to provide beneficiaries with options for drug coverage through private insurance plans. CMS reviews the Part D formularies and may only approve a plan design, including a formulary if it is unlikely to “substantially discourage enrolment” by people eligible for the benefit. Under this oversight, drug formulary restrictions have increased over the past decade, even for medicines treating serious health conditions such as cancer or schizophrenia, that were given extra protection from being excluded. So, as Medicare is further modified due to the Inflation Reduction Act, CMS and Congress need to anticipate emerging problems. This includes considering if the current Part D formulary standards and review procedures are sufficient to protect patient access as directed by the law and monitoring the impact of IRA on access to medicine and Part D Plans in implementation, considering modifications to preserve benefits and not expand the policy until the net effect on health and beneficiary satisfaction is better determined.

Kirsten Axelsen is a visiting scholar with the American Enterprise Institute and a biopharmaceutical company consultant.

https://www.realclearhealth.com/blog/2024/07/05/changes_to_medicare_could_make_it_more_expensive_1042585.html

Western Elites Have a Reality Problem

 Joe Biden’s debate performance is not, and should not be seen as, a personal failure, but as another example of the systemic institutional breakdown that drives the populist revolt across the globe.  

By vigorously denying the president’s obvious decline, liberals in the legacy media tried to make us believe something that obviously was untrue. The people who claim to want to protect Americans from disinformation and American institutions from being destroyed actively worked in direct opposition to the truth and, in doing so, undermined faith in one of the nation’s most iconic institutions — the office of the president of the United States. 

Most people engage with reality pragmatically, not politically. We focus on solving the challenges of day-to-day life functionally, not as an ideological construct. We don’t make believe, we make do. We exist in a real world filled with actual challenges to be overcome, and we use our talents and willpower to make our lives better and achieve our personal dreams. 

Sometimes, we need experts to study, media to report, and government to address systemic problems we encounter. Increasingly, however, Western intellectuals, senior business executives, government officials, and media thought leaders are divorced from the pragmatic reality in which “make-do” people live. 

Elites are increasingly ideological and inventive. They seem to believe that their role is to make us believe what they imagine about us and the world around us instead of helping us deal with the actual reality in which we live. 

Rather than making our lives better, elites are absorbed with making us better instead.

Consider what elites want to make us believe:

Unregulated immigration and open borders are not a problem. If you disagree, you’re  jingoistic or nativist or “Christian nationalist” or some other pejorative term.

Police are bad and arresting criminals is white supremacy because criminals are disproportionately black – so “defund the police.” If you point out that fewer criminals in jail mean more crime in our neighborhood – racist!

Climate change threatens the very existence of human life on earth and is the number one issue facing humanity – more important than crime, drugs, hunger, housing, China, immigration, or anything else in your silly, miserable little mind.  Anyone pointing out that it was warmer in the United States 90 years ago, or that in the 35 years during which this idea has captured elite imagination none of the apocalyptic forecasts has proven to be true, is a “denier” – as if disputing a flawed computer model’s projections for 90 years in the future is somehow akin to denying the appalling reality of the Holocaust 90 years in the past. 

Sexual identity is a “cultural construct,” but gender is indelible – so a man can be a woman, and vice versa. Anyone who doesn’t accept this at face value is a hateful “transphobe” – or something.

Western culture is institutionally racist. If you dare ask – which institution is racist? – you’ve merely confirmed your own bias. Everyone must be trained in the new racism – and so every institution of any size must train employees in DEI ideology to learn that getting ahead on merit is a myth and they are inherently “privileged” and therefore undeserving of the fruits of their labor.

Hamas terrorists and their supporters in Gaza are the real victims, while the Israeli civilians they attacked, raped, and mutilated are inhumane.

The litany goes on, seemingly forever, but COVID and the elites’ authoritarian response laid bare for many the extent to which institutions fail to serve but instead seek to make us believe things that are often observably untrue. Consider all the make-believe aspects of the pandemic: The new virus came from a market, not the laboratory in the same city where the U.S. funded Chinese research into enhancing similar viruses. It was a pandemic “of the unvaccinated.” If everyone wears a cloth or paper mask, it will stop the spread; standing six feet apart will also stop the spread; cannabis dispensaries are essential, but attending church is not; and Anthony Fauci is science.

The divide between make-do and make-believe leadership does not correspond exactly to the partisan split between right and left. Across the ocean, Tories were crushed and Labour romped precisely because Tory leadership has been of the elite, make-believe variety – on immigration and COVID.  

Ironically, Britain will veer deeper into make-believe with Labour, as the rest of the West experiences a course correction, thanks to the political engagement and revolt of those making do. A single election is not enough for Western institutions to return to reality, but it reflects at least a partial awakening.

Events such as the conceptually absurd pro-Hamas protests in Western capitals and at leading Western educational institutions have had the effect of shocking go-along-to-get-along pragmatists within our elites into observing that Western culture has developed a reality problem.

Ultimately, our culture needs courageous pragmatists among the elites to push back against their imaginative and ideological make-believe colleagues with resolution, reasoning, and ridicule.

Here’s a way to start: Be gentle to those who imagine things that are not true, but don’t play along just to get along or to avoid being called names; question narratives, don’t parrot them; and only vote for those focused on making it easier for you to make do and achieve your own goals.

Richard Porter is a lawyer in Chicago and National Committeeman to the RNC from Illinois.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/07/06/western_elites_have_a_reality_problem_151213.html