I know—it sounds like two overlapping topics. And it’s true that I don’t even have an educated guess to offer, but there is matter of interest in these items.
First, the drones. There appears to be a mistranslation or unclear translation in the first tweet. I don’t know the Russian, but I can guess (based on my Polish) that “since” reflects an original that really means something like “as of” or “up to”. “Kept” probably reflects an original verb in the imperfect aspect—meaning continued or repeated activity. So the first paragraph probably means: “As of this morning, American recon aircraft were continuing to operate in the Black Sea area.”
Rybar Force
@rybar_force
Now this is interesting. Since this morning, American recon aircraft have kept operating in the Black Sea area. Along the Romanian and Bulgarian coast, as well as in the SW Black Sea, MQ-9A [Reaper], RQ-4B [Global Hawk] and R-8A [RQ-8A?] operated. But,
12:38 PM · Aug 3, 2023
just a couple of hours ago, the Reaper left the zone with emergency squawk code 7600 and went to Câmpia Turzii Air Base, Romania, and after some time the Global Hawk went back to Sigonella with code 7400.
These, of course, may be technical issues with American UAVs. But we'd like to believe that the issues with these aircraft, which provide targeting for Ukrainian UAVs, arose due to the actions of our electronic warfare units, which are disrupting the work of US intelligence.
You can find a full list of “squawk” or transponder codes here. Here are the two named codes as described:
7400 US, UK, Australia Unmanned aerial vehicle lost link.
7600 ICAO Radio failure (lost communications).
I’ll hazard a guess and suggest that the simultaneous communication failures of these two drones—which provide targeting information against Russia—was probably a result of Russian action. This may be a Russian escalation short of a shootdown. In any event, this illustrates the type of EW cat and mouse game that is ongoing. The use of US drones to actively seek out and provide targeting information to Ukraine seems to me to be an unquestionable act of war. While Russia has responded with restraint, this is the type of thing that they will certainly not forget.
Now as for lawfare—the Ruling Class jihad against Trump—I’ve looked at various articles that explain the latest indictment. There uniformly scathing, and for good reason—the basic legal theory behind the charges has been previously used by Smith against a GOP candidate and was rejected 8-0 by the SCOTUS. Here’s an article that reviews the purely theoretical issues of law involved in the indictment in what I believe is a pretty clear and succinct style:
6 Ways Jack Smith’s Latest Indictment Is Legally Flawed And Politically Shady
This is the author (I’ve cited him in the past):
Will Scharf is a former federal prosecutor, who also worked on the confirmations of Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. He is currently a Republican candidate for Missouri Attorney General.
Scharf says everything you’d expect him to say about the attempted criminalization of political speech and related issues—which, as noted, was previously attempted by Smith and rejected resoundingly by the SCOTUS in the Bob McDonnell case in VA. The big question going forward, however, seems to be whether Trump would be best served by insisting on a speedy trial or by dragging the process out with thorough discovery. This is an issue of legal tactics—but also of political tactics. I’ve seen commentators coming down on both sides and I have to admit that I’m not qualified to decide.
Scharf states that the repeated Dem calls for a speedy trial are pure cynicism. I suspect he’s absolutely correct—they see political advantage in bringing Trump to trial ASAP. On the other hand, could it be that they’re wrong about this? It wouldn’t be the first time. Are they really ready to go to trial and, if they’re not, would Trump be better served by pushing the issue himself? I suspect they’re not ready for a serious trial but want to sucker Trump into dragging the process out—while they smear him in the media. But maybe I’m wrong about that.
Here’s what Scharf says, in general. His views seem, to me, to be pretty inarguable:
As he did with his original indictment in the documents, Jack Smith accompanied his announcement of charges yesterday with a cynical call for a “speedy trial.” More than anything else, Smith’s insistence that these cases that he is bringing should be tried at the height of a presidential election adds fuel to the fire of Trump’s expressed view that the special counsel is waging a political campaign against him, not a valid legal investigation.
…
… In the documents case, Smith followed his speedy trial call with a voluminous discovery production consisting of close to a million pages of documentary evidence, nine months of video recordings, and terabytes of data to be analyzed by Trump’s defense team. He then proceeded to file a superseding indictment adding new charges and a new defendant. That case was either ready for trial at the time it was brought, or it wasn’t, but Smith can’t have it both ways — his public statements and court filings amount to a gaslighting of the federal court and indeed of the American people.
…
Inserting this case into the presidential election season has all the appearances of an attempt by Smith to substitute the judgment of his office, a single judge, and 12 D.C. jurors for the millions of Americans who would otherwise have had the opportunity to weigh these facts, alongside all the other political considerations that go into a presidential election. ...
Prosecuting a political opponent during a presidential election in this manner smacks of banana republic politics.
Trump has a moral obligation to let this "trial" run its course, not just for the sake of the future of the nation of America but because it is the right thing to do - to expose the fraud, the lies, the fake news, the misinformation / disinformation and to make a stand for truth. Not doing so runs the risk of perpetuating this post-truth era. If we cannot return to a world where truth is not relative but absolute, where does this end? We already have too many insane "truths" causing irreparable harm to so many, as in "safe and effective" and, there are an infinite number of genders and not only do you get to choose your own, you can transition. Look where the Russian hoax took us - war. In each of the 3 examples I just cited you have death and maiming. I have long feared for the future of Western Civilization. I regret that struggle has been all but lost. I now fear for the future of humanity. I believe the root problem here is that the Usurper has stolen even this: "I am the way and the truth ...". God help us.
My own view is Trump should not opt for a speedy trial. If he knocks out this indictment, the Dems will just initiate another one. So he may as well take his time and fight these cases properly. Those voters who are already firmly in the Never Trump camp aren't going to move anyway - whether the trial is happening or over, or he's convicted or freed. It doesn't matter to them. But the ongoing, egregious persecution of Trump and the reporting on election fraud as part of the trial proceedings may well sway those in the middle. It is a chance to finally hear all the evidence about election fraud that was blocked in 2020 - assuming this DC Court allows that.
I'm not in the US, but like many I follow US politics closely. I used to read the NYT and WaPo. I was disappointed Trump won in 2016 and relieved that Biden was "elected" in 2020. Covid was my wake-up call like it was for so many people. I now believe that the Deep State has targeted Trump since he announced for President and that the 2020 election was stolen. Once you realise they lied about Covid, you soon realise all the other things they lie about (climate change, Trump, RFK assassination, vaccines etc). And when you're awake you don't go back to being asleep - so our numbers grow every day all round the world. That gives me hope.