Connect with us

Published

on

On Wednesday, fourth-place GOP presidential contender Vivek Ramaswamy capped off a month of conspiratorial campaigning by asserting, yet again, that the January 6, 2021, riot inside the Capitol building was an “inside job.”

“There is now clear evidence,” the 38-year-old entrepreneur tweeted, “that there was at the very least entrapment of peaceful protestors, similar to the fake Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot & countless other cases. The FBI won’t admit how many undercover officers were in the field on Jan 6, Capitol police on one hand fired rubber bullets & explosives into a peaceful crowd who they then willingly later allowed to enter the Capitol. That doesn’t add up & the actual evidence turns the prior narrative upside down: if the deep state is willing to manufacture an ‘insurrection’ to take down its political opponents, they can do anything. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.”

The timeline of Ramaswamy’s revelation is certainly curious. Law enforcement use of (a small number of) rubber munitions and flash-bang devices on that day was known in real time, as was the U.S. Capitol Police’s selected removal of barricades in front of some oncoming demonstrators, back when the future presidential candidate was still pinning partial blame for the “disgraceful Capitol riot” on the “downright abhorrent” behavior of former President Donald Trump. The 2020 plot to kidnap Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer looked “an awful lot like entrapment” by at least January 2022; as of September 2022, Ramaswamy was still decrying the “Grand Old Party of Crybabies” for insisting, despite the “lack of evidence of fraud,” that “the presidential election was stolen.”

The only bit of stated evidence that looks remotely new is an apparent reference to the June 2023 congressional testimony of former FBI Washington Field Office Assistant Director Steven D’Antuono that “a handful” of agency informants were on the scene January 6, and that he wasn’t sure of the overall number. (D’Antuono also testified that the FBI had been instructing its informants to discourage Trump supporters from heading to the Capitol that day, since there were credible fears that his planned “Stop the Steal” rally could turn violent. He also characterized the notion of the feds stoking the protest as being “furthest from the truth.”)

Whatever the import of one or even several handfuls of government agents amid the 884 individuals to date who have been convicted of January 6related crimes, it took a while for Ramaswamy to arrive at “entrapment” as the primary cause. In July 2023, even while beginning to shift blame away from Trump (calling it “unproductive”), the candidate was still pegging as the main culprit “pervasive censorship.” By the end of August, in direct contradiction to his “victimhood mythology” critique of the year before, the candidate was triangulating his January 6 position by saying that had he been in thenVice President Mike Pence’s shoes, he would have somehow made the transfer of presidential power contingent on federal election reforms.

Part of Ramaswamy’s positioning is, in the uncharitable words of National Review Editor in Chief Rich Lowry, “to avoid criticizing Trump at almost all costs.” He has pledged to pardon the 46th president, as well as “all peaceful, nonviolent January 6 protesters who were denied their constitutional due process rights.” He vowed to pull out of the Colorado primary in protest of the state Supreme Court banning Trump from the ballot. He has called Trump an “excellent president,” defended his use of the word vermin, and described his own campaign as “America First 2.0.” When news broke this week that Ramaswamy would not be spending previously planned money on television ads in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, Trump wrote on Truth Social that “He will, I am sure, Endorse me.”

Whatever the campaign context, Ramaswamy has been on an “inside job” tear this month, beginning with this rapid-fire volley of Trump-friendly conspiratorial assertion at the December 6 GOP debate:

Why am I the only person on the stage at least who can say that January 6 now does look like it was an inside job, that the government lied to us for 20 years about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in 9/11, that the Great Replacement Theory is not some grand right-wing conspiracy theory but a basic statement of the Democratic Party’s platform, that the 2020 election was indeed stolen by Big Tech, that the 2016 election, the one that Trump won for sure, was also one that was stolen from him by the national security establishment that actually put out the Trump-Russia collusion hoax that they knew was false?

This was followed one week later by a live and contentious CNN town hall, in which moderator Abby Phillip pressed him repeatedly to provide evidence for the provocative “inside job” claim. Amid several condescending remarks along the lines of “I know this is very uncomfortable for you,” the candidate mustered the same three tidbits reiterated in this week’s tweet: that “there were federal law enforcement agents in that field,” that some of the Capitol building’s security guards rolled out the proverbial “red carpet” for the trespassers, and that the Whitmer plot proves January 6 intent:

It’s the same issue, and the same FBIsame even part of the FBI. Three people who were in an alleged plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer were acquitted at the end of trial, because it was entrapment. That is, government agents put them up to do something they otherwise wouldn’t have done….FBI agents putting them up to a kidnapping plot that we were told was true, but was entrapment. Same thing with the Capitol Police, people letting them in freely, many of those people then being charged. The government cannot put you up to do something, and then charge you for it. That’s wrong.

The Michigan case, which Reason treated with skepticism from the beginning, has some glaring differences with January 6, and not just that the Capitol Police are not, in fact, the FBI. One was a private, ginned-up conspiracy among a handful of surveilled and infiltrated actors to commit a crime that had zero chance of taking place; the other a planned public event featuring thousands of motivated participants. The centrality of FBI informants to the Whitmer plot was clear from the charging documents onward; but as C.J. Ciaramella pointed out in a feature article posted in September 2022, “no court records in the hundreds of prosecutions of January 6 rioters have mentioned the use of agents provocateurs.”

Could there have been government agents trying to stoke conflict on that chaotic day, only to watch their handiwork spin so horribly out of control that one protester was shot and killed, 114police officers reported injuries, and elected officials were scurried off into safe rooms during what was supposed to be the certification of the presidential election? Absolutely, yes. As Ciaramella wrote, “It’s not an entirely unreasonable suspicion, given the bureau’s history of infiltrating and disrupting political movements.”

But there’s a vast chasm between just asking questions about that day versus making bald factual assertions about a “manufacture[d]” plot to “take down…political opponents.” The latter formulation feeds the very “victimhood mythology,” “sore losing,” and “conservative brand of victimhood” Ramaswamy was decrying just 15 months ago. It contributes to an apocalyptic rhetorical populism for which violence is a logical next step. And it denies agency to the more than 200Trump supporters who, of their own volition, chose to attend the Stop the Steal rally, march to the Capitol, trespass on the grounds (whether by strolling in through a removed barrier or bashing through obstacles), then engage in conduct that led to their criminal conviction of “assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers and/or obstructing officers during a civil disorder.”

You can be suspicious of the FBI, critical of the overly aggressive January 6 prosecutions and sentencing, and of the belief that those convicted of nonviolent crimes from that day shuld not be imprisoned, without embracing an evidence-starved theory of government malfeasance that just so happens to let both Trump and his most violently deluded supporters off the hook. Yet Ramaswamy’s transparent cynicism is arguably a rational (if grotesque) response to political incentives, given that half of Republicans pin blame for January 6 on the left.

“Ramaswamy has sounded as pro-Trump as Trump’s own children, inveighed against an establishment that barely exists, played footsie with conspiracy theories, and courted controversiesboth righteous and stupidto gain the attention of the base of the party,” Lowry wrote. “It’s dispiriting that such a shrewd and self-interested guy thinks this is how you rise within the Republican Party.”

It’s even more dispiriting that he’s probably right.

Continue Reading

World

Heathrow warns of delays as cyber attack disrupts European airports

Published

on

By

Heathrow warns of delays as cyber attack disrupts European airports

European airports – including London’s Heathrow – are warning of delays after a “technical issue” affected check-in and boarding systems.

Brussels Airport said a cyber attack was causing the disruption, as it confirmed 10 flights had been cancelled and 17 flights were experiencing delays of more than one hour.

“It is still too early to say when the problem will be resolved,” it said.

Berlin Airport is also among those experiencing delays.

The attack targeted a business providing check-in and boarding systems for several airlines around the world.

With automated systems down, staff are having to conduct manual check-in and boarding procedures, according to Brussels Airport.

“This has a large impact on the flight schedule and will unfortunately cause delays and cancellations of flights,” it said in a statement on its website.

Heathrow warned of delays caused by “a technical issue” at a third-party supplier and told passengers to check the status of their flight before travelling to the airport.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

SHARE WITH SKY NEWS

You can share your story, pictures or video with us using our app, private messaging or email.

:: Your Report on Sky News apps

:: WhatsApp

:: Email

By sending us your video footage/ photographs/ audio you agree we can broadcast, publish and edit the material.

Continue Reading

World

Less camp, more conservative – welcome to Russia’s alternative Eurovision

Published

on

By

Less camp, more conservative - welcome to Russia's alternative Eurovision

Banned from Eurovision after its invasion of Ukraine, Russia will hold a rival international song contest on Saturday, with an emphasis on “traditional values”.

Instead of camp, think conservative – patriotic pop with a PG-rating.

“Intervision” was launched under the order of Vladimir Putin, with the hope it would serve as an expression of Moscow’s international pulling power.

Intervision decorations in  Red Square, Moscow, ahead of the contest
Image:
Intervision decorations in Red Square, Moscow, ahead of the contest

There are contestants from 23 countries, which are a mixture of Russia’s allies old and new, including Belarus, Cuba and Tajikistan as well as China, India and Saudi Arabia.

The odd one out is the United States, who’ll be represented by an artist called “Vassy”. She’s not part of an official delegation, but an American voice is still a coup for the Kremlin, which will seek to use this contest as proof of the West’s failure to isolate Russia on the global stage.

‘War whitewash’

Intervision is not entirely new. It was originally launched in the 1960s as an instrument of Soviet soft power, before largely fading from view in the 1980s.

More on Eurovision

According to Moscow, its revival has nothing to do with politics. But Ukraine has condemned it as propaganda, and an attempt to whitewash Russia’s war.

It was a point I put to some contestants after their final press conferences, but it didn’t go down well.

“We don’t think like that, we are here to spread peace,” India’s Rauhan Malik told me, when I asked if his participation was a show of support for Russia’s invasion.

Malik, one of the contestants
Image:
Malik, one of the contestants

“Are you not turning a blind eye to Russia’s aggression?” I countered.

“I have no idea about it,” he said. “I have no idea about the current situation that’s happening. I don’t want to speak about that as well.”

Eurovision legends Abba would almost certainly not make the Russian contest guest list. Pic: AP
Image:
Eurovision legends Abba would almost certainly not make the Russian contest guest list. Pic: AP

Really? He had no idea? But before I could go on, I felt a forceful hand on my shoulder and a minder stepped in.

The intervention was even quicker when it came to speaking to Brazil’s act. As soon as I mentioned the word Ukraine, I was drowned out by shouts of “no, no, no, no” and the duo were ushered away.

Brazilian contestants, duo Luciano Calazans and Thais Nader
Image:
Brazilian contestants, duo Luciano Calazans and Thais Nader

Where’s the glitter?

Intervision is not just a reaction to Russia’s recent exclusion from Eurosivion, however, it’s also a reaction to the contest’s values and what it’s come to represent.

Its celebration of sexual diversity and LGBTQ+ rights are seen as a symbol of what the Kremlin calls the West’s moral decline. In contrast, Intervision organisers say their contest will promote “traditional, family values.”

Judging by the costumes on show ahead of last week’s draw, that translates to less glitter, more embroidery, with a thematic emphasis on national heritage.

Read more from Sky News:
NATO responds after Russian military jets ‘violate’ Estonian airspace
‘Gender testing rules would have earned me an Olympic medal’

Two ambulance workers arrested in connection with six deaths

Follow the World
Follow the World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

So what do Russians think of Intervision’s resurrection? Can it replace Eurovision?

“We don’t miss Eurovision,” Galina and Tatiana say, underneath a collection of purple and pink ‘Intervision’ flags near Red Square.

“It was so horrible, especially lately. We didn’t like watching it at all.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why are countries boycotting Eurovision?

Polina agrees, believing Russia’s version will be “more interesting”.

“Many countries that participated in Eurovision want to boycott it, so it’s interesting to see a more peaceful event now,” she says.

Igor is more circumspect. “I’d like to believe that this isn’t a political event,” he says, “but rather an event that unites nations and people.”

Intervision will succeed in uniting some nations. But at the same time, it may only deepen divisions with others – further evidence that Russia and the West are singing very different tunes.

Continue Reading

World

She smiled and his eyes filled with emotion – the moment British couple were freed by the Taliban

Published

on

By

She smiled and his eyes filled with emotion - the moment British couple were freed by the Taliban

At Kabul International Airport, we watched as a string of Afghan, Qatari and British officials walked into a building by the runway, alongside doctors.

On the runway a plane waited, the steps ready for what appeared to be an imminent departure. We had heard from our sources about the possible release of Peter and Barbie Reynolds, the elderly British couple detained in February, but we had no official confirmation yet.

Then, from behind a double door, I caught the eye of Barbie. The 76-year old smiled at me – her face seemingly bright with relief. Her husband, Peter, 80, then stepped into frame. A tall gentle looking man, his eyes looked filled with emotion.

Their relief and gratitude was immediately apparent. It was of course impossible to know what state their health was in, but they appeared alert and composed, despite nearly eight months in detention.

The couple’s son, Jonathan, had previously said his father had been suffering serious convulsions and his mother was “numb” from anaemia and malnutrition. The UN had also described their conditions as “degrading”. But today, as he prepared to leave the country, Peter wouldn’t be drawn on the conditions he faced. “We’re just very thankful, very thankful,” he told me.

Peter Reynolds arrives in Doha with his daughter Sarah Entwistle following his release. (Picture: Reuters)
Image:
Peter Reynolds arrives in Doha with his daughter Sarah Entwistle following his release. (Picture: Reuters)

Barbie, who spent part of her detention in a separate facility, looked strikingly calm – a graceful and understated demeanour. “We’ve been treated very well,” she said as she made her way to the plane. Taliban officials maintained they received adequate medical care in prison and their human rights were respected.

The couple’s four children campaigned carefully but consistently for their release. “We’re looking forward to seeing our children,” Barbie told me with a wide beam. I asked if she had a message for family and friends. “God is good as they say here in Afghanistan,” she declared.

More on Afghanistan

And despite their surprise detention, she hoped they would be back. “Will you return to Afghanistan?” I asked. “Oh yes, if we can,” she said. “We are Afghan citizens.”

What happened

The couple have been together since the 1960s and married in the Afghan capital, Kabul, in 1970. They have lived in the country for 18 years and ran an organisation called Rebuild, which provides educational and leadership programmes, including training for mothers and children.

They have been described by family as having a lifelong love of Afghanistan. After the Taliban seized control in August 2021 and many other Westerners left, they decided to stay. They were arrested on their way home to Bamiyan. The Taliban has said the couple broke Afghanistan law. But after the couple faced four court proceedings, no charges were ever brought.

In a statement today, Hamdullah Fitrat, Deputy Spokesman of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, said: “Two British nationals named Peter and Barbara Reynolds, who had violated the laws of Afghanistan, were released from custody today following the judicial process. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan does not view the issues of its nationals from a political or bargaining perspective.”

Peter and Barbie Reynolds  walk after disembarking from a plane, in Doha, Qatar.
Pic: Reuters
Image:
Peter and Barbie Reynolds walk after disembarking from a plane, in Doha, Qatar.
Pic: Reuters

Both the UK and Qatari officials were keen to express their deep gratitude to Afghanistan’s leadership for releasing the Reynolds. Richard Lindsay, Special Envoy to Afghanistan said it was a “very great humanitarian day”. But he acknowledged he did not know on what grounds the couple were held.

The Qataris appeared to play a critical role in negotiating with the Afghan authorities. They said they were able to ensure medical assistance was provided and enable the couple to communicate with their families. “The release of Barbie and Peter Reynolds shows that when two parties are committed to reaching an agreement, Qatar’s mediators will find a way to achieve it,” one Qatari official told Sky News.

In 2022, the Taliban banned Afghan women from working for NGOs. What led up to the arrest of the Reynolds, who dedicated so much of their lives to running an NGO is still unclear. But for their family, today is a day they had longed for.

Continue Reading

Trending