Sonali De Rycker, a general partner at Accel and one of Europe’s most influential venture capitalists, is bullish about the continent’s prospects in AI. But she’s wary of regulatory overreach that could hamstring its momentum. At a TechCrunch StrictlyVC evening earlier this week in London, De Rycker reflected on Europe’s place in the global AI […]

Foreign Affairs Don’t Blame Trump If He Gives Up on Russia-Ukraine The president brought the warring nations together but can’t force them to make peace.   Is it possible to broker a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine? There have been doubters and skeptics on this question from the moment the first round of diplomacy occurred a few weeks after Moscow’s February 2022 invasion. The general consensus in Washington’s think tank circuit and Europe’s halls of power is that Russian President Vladimir Putin is simply too thick-headed, greedy, and intransigent to talk to. The only figure of major consequence who thought a settlement could be achieved was Donald Trump—and even his optimism, on the campaign trail and then in office, was predicated less on the ability of the combatants to strike an honorable peace and more on his supposed magical powers of persuasion.  But even President Trump is getting discouraged these days. Objectively speaking, the Trump administration’s first three months of shuttle diplomacy has been a wash. This hasn’t been for a lack of trying. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, peace envoy Steve Witkoff, and Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg have done an extensive amount of traveling during this time—Witkoff has reportedly met with Putin four times. Meanwhile, Trump has browbeaten Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into participating in the U.S.-mediated process (something Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, refused to do) and the administration has even put a draft peace deal on the table for discussion. Trump has taken a lot of heat for his diplomacy-first approach, particularly from those perfectly comfortable with having Zelensky dictate U.S. policy on the war.  But for those of us who supported diplomacy from the start, we must admit that the trend line isn’t good. Sure, this week Ukrainian and Russian officials met in Turkey for the first time in more than three years at Trump’s urging. Yes, this in and of itself is an accomplishment of sorts. But getting to this meeting was riddled with so much gamesmanship by the two sides, with Zelensky daring Putin to fly to Turkey and Putin responding by sending two lower-level Russian negotiators instead, that one wonders if either leader is capable of going beyond histrionics. As Rubio said before the May 16 session took place, the odds of success were slim: “I don’t think anything productive is actually going to happen from this point forward, until [Trump and Putin] engage in a very frank and direct conversation, which I know President Trump is willing to do.”  The meeting, which lasted about one hour and 40 minutes, didn’t produce any bombshells. But it would be a mistake to assume bombshells were in the offing anyway. While a prisoner exchange was agreed to, there wasn’t progress on the real matter at hand: getting to a deal. The Russians reportedly submitted hardline demands to the Ukrainians, including a full withdrawal from the parts of Ukraine Putin annexed in 2022. The topic of a ceasefire was broached, yet not settled. At this point one wonders if Trump should spend any more of his valuable time on striking a deal to end the war. Withdrawing from Russia-Ukraine diplomacy wouldn’t be a sign of defeatism but rather a reflection of reality. Mediators can do plenty during peace negotiations, like bringing the warring parties into the same room, shuttling proposals back-and-forth, and leaning on one side or the other (or both) to bring an agreement to fruition. This is what Jimmy Carter did during the 1977-1978 Israel-Egypt peace negotiations, what Richard Holbrooke did at Dayton in 1995 to end the war in Bosnia, and what President Bill Clinton tried to do with Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Liberation Organization chairman Yasser Arafat during the closing months of his presidency.   But ultimately the talent of the mediator isn’t the most important variable in conflict diplomacy. Rather, the willingness of the parties themselves to break from maximalism and permit the other side a graceful off-ramp is usually the difference between success or failure. Clinton couldn’t get an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal across the finish line because Barak and Arafat were too divided on the big questions, such as what the borders of a future Palestinian state would be, how Jerusalem would be divided up, and how the Israeli settlements would be dealt with. Compromise, the one ingredient required to close, was too high a bar. The Ukraine-Russia talks aren’t dead in the water like the Israeli-Palestinian peace process was (and still is). But evidence for an imminent breakthrough just isn’t there. When the Trump administration finally got Ukraine to support a 30-day ceasefire arrangement in March, the Russians shrugged the proposal off. When the Trump administration convinced Kiev to sign onto a 30-day ceasefire in the Black Sea weeks later, Moscow linked its participation to U.S. and European sanctions relief. And when Putin declared unilateral, short-term ceasefires to mark important dates on the Russian calendar, Zelensky viewed it all as a public relations gambit by the Kremlin to persuade Trump that it was Moscow, not Kiev, who most wanted peace.  Zelensky and Putin both claim they endorse an end to the three-year-long war. The problem, as always, is that the two leaders aren’t working on the same paradigm—indeed, they are operating in separate universes. Originally, Zelensky demanded an immediate 30-day truce before authorizing direct talks with Putin, only to change his approach after Trump, to the surprise of Kiev’s European allies, called for direct talks right away. That solved one problem but created another: what to actually talk about? The Russians want to get to work on a comprehensive solution; the Ukrainians want to talk about nothing at this point other than getting a ceasefire.  None of this even accounts for the chasm between what Ukraine wants in a hypothetical settlement and what Russia considers acceptable. Putin, despite suffering hundreds of thousands of casualties over the last 16 months for an area smaller than the size of Delaware, is still harping on his original terms: formalizing his annexation of five Ukrainian regions, curtailing the size and capability of the Ukrainian armed forces, and dictating Kiev’s foreign policy. The Ukrainians remain dead set against any of this, and the loss in men and materiel over the last three years don’t seem to be having an appreciable effect on what they are—and aren’t—willing to live with. All of which is to say that Trump’s declining optimism is indicative of where the war is at this stage. If progress continues to elude, the White House could hardly be blamed if it threw up its hands, quit the peace process, and consoled itself that no stone was left unturned. The post Don’t Blame Trump If He Gives Up on Russia-Ukraine appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Eurocrats Watch Poland With Bated Breath U.S. officials are also closely monitoring the upcoming presidential contest. Credit: Vitalii Nosach/Getty Images The message to Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk is clear: America is watching. As Poland’s presidential election approaches—the first round will occur Sunday, the same day as nearby Romania’s second round—the significance is not lost on American public figures, including President Donald Trump. Barring a shock result, the candidates emerging to the second round will be Warsaw’s Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, who is aligned with the liberal, EU-backed government of Tusk; and Karol Nawrocki, a prominent historian aligned with the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party, which led conservative governments from 2015 to 2023.  For conservatives, the short-term prize is the status quo: outgoing term-limited President Andrzej Duda is informally allied with PiS. His presidential veto has been a critical, albeit imperfect, check on a government that has arrested political opponents, disregarded judicial rulings, scrubbed the media ecosystem, and handicapped its opponents’ participation in elections. This is the “Smiling Poland” promoted by the EU bureaucracy, regional talking heads like Anne Applebaum and Timothy Snyder, and the partially departed Biden foreign-policy apparatus.  To their chagrin, the Nawrocki campaign is ascendant. Polls suggested a comfortable Trzaskowski advantage for months, but Nawrocki has surged and enters the final weeks as the arguable favorite. “Tusk’s candidate [Trzaskowski] is far from the image of a nice, calm, confidence-inspiring guy,” journalist Marek Pyza wrote recently in the conservative weekly Sieci. “In recent weeks, he gives the impression of an exhausted, offended narcissist, frustrated that he has any opponents in this race, that anyone dares to ask him any uncomfortable questions.” Nawrocki’s momentum coincides with a string of visible endorsements. In late April, President Duda backed Nawrocki as his successor. Earlier this month, Nawrocki unexpectedly visited the White House for the National Day of Prayer. He posed for photos with President Trump and met with several key administration officials. The transatlantic visit “can be viewed as a kind of endorsement,” explained Jarosław Szczepański, a political scientist at the University of Warsaw. “This can be interpreted as support because the U.S. administration, seeing that Nawrocki could be a continuation of Andrzej Duda’s presidency, is supporting him as much as diplomatic protocol allows.” Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee followed up the visit with a letter to Michael McGrath, EU Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, and Rule of Law, in which they requested “a briefing about how the actions of Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government might infringe upon Americans’ right to free speech online and what the EU is doing to respond to the Tusk government’s anti-democratic actions.”  Neither an unofficial Trump endorsement nor a statement from House Republicans is likely to move the needle with Polish swing voters. These moves are about putting Polish and European officials on notice that the United States will not tolerate anti-democratic liberal overreach in a country as strategically important as Poland. The coincidence with Romania’s presidential election is symbolic. (In a TAC interview this week, Romanian candidate George Simion asserted, “I’m proud to call Karol Nawrocki—a close ally and the likely successor to President Andrzej Duda—a friend.”)  Since Vice President J.D. Vance’s February speech at the Munich Security Conference, the world has witnessed France ban Marine Le Pen and Germany classify Alternative for Germany as an extremist group, both acts reminiscent of the banana-republic justice served in Romania last year.  The election outcome is not assured, even in the absence of liberal machinations. Even polls favorable to Nawrocki suggest a close race. Trzaskowski has the full backing of Polish and European institutions and next-door neighbors in Germany, not to mention the Polish urban managerial class, for whom the opposition conservatives are anathema. Then, irrespective of polling, there are simply too many variables of voter behavior in the second round. In a rapidly gentrifying Poland, the margins are getting tighter for conservative electoral coalitions. As usual, supporters of the agrarian Polish People’s Party (PSL) are enjoying considerable attention. Due to animosity toward PiS, it is part of the ruling government, but its socially conservative views often cause it to bicker with coalition partners. Nawrocki cannot afford to shed voters in the agrarian strongholds where PSL is influential.  Supporters of the centrist Szymon Hołownia, an influential figure in the current government who has run a disappointing presidential race, might decide in sufficient numbers that they are exhausted of the Tusk-Trzaskowski camp. Some supporters of the smattering of left-wing candidates could decide Trzaskowski is a bigger threat than the conservative; likewise, voters of two right-populist candidates might elect not to side with their more mainstream conservative rival. Of course, a critical mass of voters might simply stay home. Perhaps analysis of these traditional electoral factors is quaint in this European political environment. Arguably the most important question is whether Prime Minister Tusk and his allies in Brussels would allow Nawrocki to win—and then take office. “You will win,” President Trump reportedly told Nawrocki during their DC meeting. More revealing was Tusk’s alleged response to the question of what he’ll do if Trzaskowski loses: “I’ll manage.” Maybe these are the musings of experienced politicians with access to high-quality information. Nonetheless, predictable wheels are turning. On Wednesday, Polish data-network operator NASK announced suspicious Facebook ads potentially funded from abroad. Warsaw and Brussels must soon determine how many more lines they are willing to cross. The post Eurocrats Watch Poland With Bated Breath appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs The Istanbul Talks Were a Success Contrary to the gloom emanating from European capitals, the Russia–Ukraine meeting was a promising step toward an end to the war. Credit: Vlasov Yevhenii Predictions to the contrary, Ukraine and Russia’s first direct talks in three years, held in Istanbul on May 16, went quite well. Most importantly, the two sides agreed to keep talking.  For the Trump administration, which has made ending the war in Ukraine a priority, this initial round of negotiations marks the exact sort of breakthrough it had hoped to create. Washington’s priority now should be to encourage continued talks between the combatants, even as fighting persists. This will require pushing back on Europe’s calls for more pressure on Putin and resisting the temptation to interfere before the two sides are ready to tackle issues that cannot be addressed without American involvement. After all, the most sustainable peace will be one agreed to by Ukraine and Russia together, not one coerced by the United States or Europe.  Despite naysayers on both sides of the Atlantic and the uncertainty up to the last minute, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators not only met, but achieved notable results. According to statements made by the heads of the Ukrainian and Russian delegations, the two teams agreed to at least three next steps: to conduct the largest single POW exchange to date (1,000 personnel on each side); to produce a written version of their vision for peace for discussion at a future session; and to hold initial discussions about a meeting between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky. The positive report from the Russian and Ukrainian delegations, as well as their Turkish hosts, contrasted sharply with the negative reactions of Zelensky himself and key European leaders, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk, and the UK’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer. This group, assembled for a meeting in Albania, called the Russian refusal to accept an unconditional ceasefire “unacceptable,” and urged Trump, once again, to join them in imposing greater costs on Russia. Tusk even argued the Russians had “de facto broken off negotiations” and now was the “time to increase the pressure.” The European assessment is as unsurprising as it is inconsistent with the facts on the ground. Since Trump’s election, European leaders have sought to convince him that Putin would never seek a stable settlement in Ukraine. As Trump and his team sought ways to resolve the brutal war, Europe has interfered with and even undermined U.S. efforts. Europe’s leaders have, for instance, encouraged Zelensky to set maximalist conditions for peace, adopted new sanctions packages aimed at Russia, floated plans for “reassurance forces” that would require an American backstop the Trump administration opposes, and offered unsubstantiated warnings of Russia’s plans to invade NATO territory. The European reaction to talks in Istanbul was simply more of the same—an attempt to extend the war, reconstitute Biden’s “coalition of democracies,” and pull the United States deeper into a conflict that does not advance its interests. If Trump is serious about peace, he won’t listen. Trump should rule out new ultimatums and coercive measures targeting Russia of the kind pushed by Europe. These sticks are unlikely to work against Putin. As Russian negotiators indicated in Istanbul, Moscow is ready to keep fighting for several more years if necessary and believes that it can withstand additional Western punishment whether in the form of sanctions or whatever additional military aid might be sent to Ukraine. Instead, Trump should encourage Ukraine and Russia to keep talking. The administration can support continued negotiations by framing today’s meeting in Istanbul as a constructive first step and signaling its support for further working level discussions. A Putin-Trump meeting—a prospect floated by President Trump himself—could help signal American support for the Ukraine–Russia negotiations and indicate that the United States sees Russia as an essential interlocutor in any effort to resolve the conflict. But a potential presidential meeting should not be billed as an all-or-nothing occasion to determine Putin’s willingness to end the war in Ukraine. There is no simple test, or single headline, that can settle this question. Continued conversation between the combatants—and away from the spotlight—will be far more revealing of each side’s motivations. Ending the war between Russia and Ukraine will take time and require many rounds of talks. At this point, process is more important than high profile summits or dramatic dealmaking. It may take longer than he originally hoped, but with a little more patience, Trump’s goal of peace in Ukraine looks increasingly achievable.  The post The Istanbul Talks Were a Success appeared first on The American Conservative.

Back during his first term I thought he was good. Now he's just a washed up zionist chooch.... :-(.

It seems like at least once a year, the topic of “BMI,” or “body mass index,” being a flawed measuring system for fat mass and health comes up in conversation. Experts will explain how BMI leads to an incomplete perspective at best—since it doesn't take into consideration several key factors that influence a person’s body composition—and at worst, actual health risks, affecting eligibility for things like weight loss medications, insurance rates, joint-replacement surgery and fertility treatment. And then life moves forward.And yet, despite the constant debunking, the belief in BMI still marches on. And this time, it was hurled at the USA rugby star and Olympian Ilona Maher. More specifically, someone commented “I bet that person has a 30% BMI” on one of Maher’s TikTok videos. BMI is not always an accurate measure of health.Could this person have simply been pointing out the inherent flaw of BMI? Saying that Maher, an elite athlete, would be considered “overweight” using this system? Perhaps. But this is the internet we’re dealing with, so Maher (and others) interpreted it to be an insult.And under that context, Maher wasn’t having it, and chose "not to just ignore the haters."“Hi, thank you for this comment. I think you were trying to roast me, but this is actually a fact. I do have a BMI of 30. Well, 29.3 to be exact,” Maher said in response video…which became something of a roast itself.Maher talked about how she had been considered “overweight” her entire life, and even recalled being “so embarrassed” to turn in a physical form to the office which had “overweight” written on it.“I chatted with my dietician, because I go off facts, and not just what pops up here. You know, like you do.” she quipped while tapping her temples. See on Instagram Maher is 5-ft.-10-in. and 200 lbs, which is considered “overweight” by BMI standards. But as she explained, about 170 of those 200 pounds are “lean muscle mass.”“Do that math in your head…you probably can’t,” Maher said sarcastically.It’s easy to see through this example how bogus BMI really is, especially for athletes.Essentially, “BMI doesn’t tell you what I can do.”“It doesn’t tell you what I can do on the field. How fit I am. It’s just a couple of numbers put together,” she said. “It doesn’t tell you how much muscle I have, or anything like that.”Maher concluded by faux lamenting, “I do have a BMI of 30. I am considered overweight. But alas, I am going to the Olympics, and you’re not.” The U.S. women's rugby team with First Lady Jill Biden and members of the U.S. delegation to the 2024 Summer Olympic GamesThe White House/Public Domain While Maher’s clapback was certainly satisfying, it also provided some much needed reassurance to folks. So many commented on how this outdated concept has affected (or still effects) their own body image of that of a loved one.“How can I get my teenage daughter with a high BMI (but fit!) to understand this?! She feels shamed even at the doctor for her BMI.”“Dancer here, I'll never forget at 13 being told I had the BMI of 24 of ‘overweight.’ I broke down and the nurse said it didn’t mean anything and all I could think was then WHY are you making me do this?!” Weight and BMI can't say what we can do. Giphy “I had to ask the doctor’s office to put a note on my child’s file to not bring up/talk about BMI in her check ups. It isn't an accurate representation of health!”“Thank you for sharing your weight, bc seeing lbs numbers in different bodies has been so helpful in me loving mine. I’m nowhere near an athlete's body but damn, the numbers really do us in.”Until a more affordable solution pops up, BMI will continue to rear its ugly head in doctor’s offices and in our psyches. Maybe this is a reminder that our bodies are so much more than height and weight every now and again is a good thing. And if it comes from an Olympian…even better.Maher also shut down any notions that her BMI was high due to anything other than muscle with a Sports Illustrated cover shoot in August of 2024. Um, yeah. See on Instagram Thin and fit are not the same thing. Thank you, Ilona Maher, for the powerful reminder.This article originally appeared last year.

"Like a merry-go-round."

"...I heard somebody who also felt so desperately alone".

David Brooks wants us to feel sorry for Harvard kids. Again. In his latest column, “We Are the Most Rejected Generation,” Brooks wrings his hands over the plight of elite students — those sad, over-polished, ghosted, spiritually limp products of Ivy League ambition. He presents their problem as one of rejection. The college application rat race. The endless “no” from Goldman Sachs. The swipe-right silence. The club they didn’t get into. The seminar they weren’t picked for. (RELATED: The Children of Elites Are in Trouble) But he’s wrong. Catastrophically wrong. The crisis isn’t rejection; it is within — deep, deep within. These kids aren’t breaking down because they’re getting told “no.” They’re breaking down because they were raised in a culture that told them they are the performance. That their value is in the likes, the LinkedIn post, the offer letter, the elevator pitch. That they’re nothing until they’re something. And “something” is always defined by someone else. This isn’t a culture of resilience. It’s a culture of fragile illusions. (RELATED: Message for Gen Z: The Future Looks Great!) Brooks sees the effects, but he won’t name the cause. He gestures vaguely at “meritocracy,” “exclusion,” and “competition.” But he refuses to confront the deeper truth: these students aren’t suffering from too much pressure. They’re suffering from a system that replaced identity with achievement, meaning with metrics, and purpose with prestige. They’re empty, not exhausted. Let me be brutally clear: Brooks is mourning the implosion of a class he helped shape. The NPR-class, the New York Times crowd, the brunch-and-balance brigade, who thought that stripping religion, tradition, and family from the moral center of society wouldn’t have consequences. That if you filled kids with enough TED Talks, summer programs, and mindfulness apps, they’d be just fine. (RELATED: Why are Liberal Women so Unhappy?) But they’re not fine. They’re anxious, medicated, overqualified, and emotionally adrift. They can code in Python and write a diversity statement, but they don’t know who they are. They’ve been coached to answer every question except the ones that matter. What is good? What is true? What is sacred? (RELATED: John Selden: Religion Sets the Boundaries of Decency) Brooks watches this slow collapse and thinks it’s about rejection. As if the existential crisis at the core of the most credentialed generation in history is about how many Goldman Sachs internships they applied to. And Brooks, ever the milquetoast moralist, never turns the mirror around. No. What’s killing them is absence. Absence of rootedness. Absence of virtue. Absence of anything they weren’t told to want. He says these kids are living in the “seventh circle of Indeed hell.” But who built it? Who built the culture where the Ivy League is a factory floor? Who told kids to specialize by 12, perfect their “narratives” by 15, and perform adulthood by 18? Who helped flatten childhood into a CV? Who cheered the algorithmic economy that turned job applications into lottery tickets and dating into slot machines? Who clapped as faith, family, and tradition were stripped for parts and sold off for credentials, “freedom,” and five-star fellowship programs? Brooks isn’t a bystander. He’s an architect. A soft-spoken architect of the very world he’s now lamenting. He says students are haunted by rejection. But how else could it go when you raise a generation in a meaning vacuum? Strip the transcendent from their lives. Replace it with performance metrics and prestige tokens. And then act surprised when they fall apart the second someone doesn’t applaud? He complains about students being cold, polished, masters of self-presentation. That they deliver perfectly pitched answers that “warm the cockles of your middle-aged heart.” But Brooks is describing a generation that he and his class demanded into existence. Brooks touches on the mental health crisis. But again, he won’t say the quiet part out loud: this generation’s depression isn’t biochemical. It’s cultural. It’s spiritual. It’s what happens when you live in a world with no sacred center, transcendent horizon, or vision of what it means to be human beyond “be productive and be liked.” (RELATED: Christianity, Inc.: The Rise of Silicon Valley’s False Prophets) He says the Ivy League kids are afraid their degrees are “weights around their necks.” That they’re embarrassed to list their schools on applications. That in the age of Trump, merit feels like stigma. Again: who fed them the lie that merit meant destiny? That Harvard meant immunity? That progress was linear and permanent and deserved? The worst thing Brooks does is frame all of this as a tragedy of high achievers, as if the collapse of meaning is mostly about how tough it is to be rejected from the Crimson Key Society. He says nothing — absolutely nothing — about the working-class kids who never even entered the game. Who were told by 8th grade that they’d never matter. Who didn’t have parents to bankroll gap years and therapy. Who got a trade, a truck, or a warehouse shift while the Ivy League set debated the trauma of not getting into their third-choice consulting firm. Brooks asks, “Are these kids just whining through their privilege?” His answer: “Maybe a little.” No. Not “maybe.” They are. But they’re also suffering from something very real. Not rejection. Not pressure. But starvation. Moral, spiritual, and emotional starvation brought about by a world that trained them to want everything except the one thing they need. And Brooks, faithful priest of polite secularism, won’t say it. He’ll mourn the symptoms. But never the disease. There is an easier way to grow up, David. But it involves telling kids the truth: that you are more than your résumé, that failure is not moral death, that some things are worth suffering for, that truth exists, that meaning exists, and that God is not a metaphor. Until then, every rejection will feel like ruin. Because a culture that doesn’t give its children purpose will always send them begging for approval. READ MORE from John Mac Ghlionn: Who’s Afraid of Christian Nationalism? MrBeast’s ‘Book’ Is a Middle Finger to Every Serious Writer Beyond DEI: How a Top US University Became a Marxist Factory The post David Brooks Still Can’t Say the Word ‘God’ appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On April 11, 2025, Aliakbar Mohammed Amin was arrested in Georgia for allegedly threatening to kill Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and her family. He was charged with transmitting interstate threats after sending text messages targeting Gabbard, her husband, President Trump, and the White House. The messages included statements such as “You and your family are going to die soon” and “Prepare to die, you, Tulsi, and everyone you hold dear. America will burn.” Federal agents searched his social media and found similar threats as well as images of a firearm pointed at photos of Gabbard and her husband. A firearm was recovered from his home during a search. He is in custody pending trial and faces up to five years in prison if convicted. Amin has been charged pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 875(c) which provides, in relevant part, the following: (c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This statute prohibits threats sent through interstate systems such as text messages, emails, or social media. However, under the relevant caselaw, it must be proven that the defendant transmitted the communication with the purpose of issuing a threat or with knowledge or reckless disregard that it would be interpreted as a threat. Also, the transmitted communication must convey a serious expression of intent to commit unlawful violence as distinguished from hyperbole, political speech, or idle talk. Which brings us to May 15, 2025, when — like an empty-headed, attention-seeking 13 year old — former FBI Director James Comey posted a photograph on Instagram showing seashells arranged on the beach to form the numbers “8647.” Comey captioned the picture as follows: “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” (RELATED: James Comey’s Insane ‘86 47’ Threat) The post was deleted shortly thereafter due to backlash from those who interpreted it as a threat against Donald Trump, the 47th president, with “86” being slang for “get rid of” or “kill.” Comey then issued a follow-up statement on Instagram saying, “I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on the beach walk, which I assumed were a political message. I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.” How could a guy who was an assistant U.S. attorney, U.S. attorney, and FBI director not know the meaning of “86ing” someone? Of course, Comey’s claim that he was unaware that “86” can be a reference to killing stretches credulity to the breaking point. Or, as President Trump commented to Bret Baier on Fox News, “He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant.” And then Trump described Comey as a “dirty cop” whose experience as FBI director from 2013 to 2017 (when Trump fired him) made his claim of ignorance completely implausible. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has publicly condemned Comey’s Instagram post. In a post on X, Noem stated, “Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey just called for the assassination of @POTUS Trump. DHS and Secret Service is investigating this threat and will respond appropriately.” In her later appearance on Fox News, Noem emphasized the sensitivity and danger of Comey’s post, given the two recent assassination attempts on Trump in 2024. She suggested that Comey’s post was a deliberate and “highly concerning” provocation warranting a strong response. Now, in addition to Sec. 875(c) (discussed above), there are three other statutes that come into play. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871(a) prohibits knowingly and willingly transmitting a threat to kill or harm the president. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 373 makes it a federal crime to “solicit, command, induce, or otherwise endeavor to persuade another person to engage in a federal crime of violence.” (Emphasis added) And 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1111 prohibits the murder of the president. In short, the necessary criminal statutes are in place, Comey’s actions are not in dispute, and the feds are investigating. The only open question is whether Comey’s actions constitute a true threat under the statutes and relevant case law. So, is he guilty? That’s an open question that will have to be resolved by the Secret Service, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice. But here’s one thing that is crystal clear: Thanks to his gobsmackingly ill-advised actions, the benighted James Comey has handed on a silver platter, to a hostile law enforcement establishment under the direction of a president whom he tried to destroy, an ample investigative predicate pursuant to which his life is about to be torn apart and thoroughly turned inside out. To determine whether Comey was truly seeking to cause harm to President Trump, law enforcement has complete justification to use every investigative tool at its disposal. In addition to agents interviewing Comey, he will undoubtedly be subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury to explain himself under oath. At each stage, he will be at risk of being criminally charged for false statements to agents as well as perjury and false swearing before the grand jury. In addition, his emails, text messages, social media, home, and office will be searched for electronic and physical evidence pertaining to his Instagram post and his feelings and intentions regarding Trump. Similarly, his family, friends, business associates, neighbors, and others who have had contact with Comey will doubtless be interrogated and, if appropriate, questioned before the grand jury regarding Comey’s possible animus, utterances, associations, and actions. Who knows what will be discovered and what secrets — criminal or not — will be made public? Comey may be criminally charged and/or convicted. But, even if he isn’t, he is about to undergo the absolute and ruinously expensive hell that he and his agents have put so many others through. For, in our system of justice, even at the investigative phase, the process is the punishment. But, in Comey’s case, the suffering will be all the more intense since, as the saying goes, self-inflicted wounds are the most painful. And, for a self-adoring narcissist like James Comey, knowing that he did this to himself will only add to the anguish. Heh. George Parry is a former federal and state prosecutor. He blogs at knowledgeisgood.net. READ MORE from George Parry: The American Bar Association’s Day of Reckoning Shooting Blanks From the Bench The post James Comey’s Riddle in the Sand appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.