Connect with us

International

Zelensky, not Trump, instigated Oval office clash

Published

6 minute read

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

Miranda Devine pushes back against claims that 47th President Donald Trump “ambushed” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during their Oval Office meeting, arguing that it was Zelensky who provoked the confrontation. Devine contends that Trump was “cordial” and intent on brokering peace, while Zelensky entered the meeting “in bad faith,” contradicting and interrupting the president before ultimately derailing the negotiations.

Key Details:

  • Devine asserts that Zelensky was “negative from the start,” contradicting Trump within minutes and repeatedly interrupting him in an “insolent” manner.

  • Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Zelensky should have voiced concerns privately at a scheduled lunch instead of creating a public spectacle.

  • Trump’s detractors, according to Devine, are using this incident to fuel yet another “Russia hoax” in their ongoing attempts to discredit him.

Diving Deeper:

Miranda Devine, in her latest op-ed for the New York Post, refutes the mainstream media’s portrayal of 47th President Donald Trump’s recent Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as an “ambush.” Instead, she argues, it was Zelensky who instigated the confrontation by entering the meeting with “negative body language” and a “hostile attitude.”

“Trump could not have been more cordial,” Devine writes, emphasizing that Trump had successfully navigated complex negotiations to bring both Russia and Ukraine to a moment where peace seemed possible. But Zelensky, she asserts, was determined to sabotage that effort.

From the outset, Zelensky took a defiant tone, directly contradicting Trump’s assertion that Europe had provided far less financial support to Ukraine than the U.S. “President Trump said that they made less support, but they are our friends,” Zelensky interjected, attempting to downplay Trump’s concerns. When Trump reiterated his position, Zelensky repeatedly interrupted with “No, no, no.” Despite Trump’s attempt to keep the exchange lighthearted, the tension in the room was palpable.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent later weighed in on the debacle, telling Fox News that “if Zelensky wanted to contradict Trump, the proper venue for that would have been 15 minutes later [at a private lunch].” Instead, Zelensky chose to grandstand before the press, leading to what Devine describes as the complete “blowing up” of the peace talks.

At the end of the meeting, Zelensky’s smirk and thumbs-up to someone off-camera left little doubt in Devine’s mind that he had orchestrated the confrontation deliberately. His ambassador, she noted, appeared distraught, watching the spectacle unfold “with her head in her hands.”

Devine sees a broader political game at play. She argues that the media and Trump’s political enemies have seized upon this incident to spin yet another “Russia hoax,” akin to the discredited Steele dossier, the first Trump impeachment over a call with Zelensky, and the “Laptop from Hell” censorship saga. “They could not tolerate that Trump… would be successful in ending the war,” Devine writes, suggesting that warmongers on both sides of the aisle needed this peace effort to fail.

Trump, for his part, did not let the moment pass without drawing a direct line to the Biden family’s corruption in Ukraine. He referenced Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop, telling Zelensky: “It came out of Hunter Biden‘s bathroom. It came out of Hunter Biden’s bedroom. It was disgusting. And then they said… the ‘laptop from hell’ was made by Russia. The 51 agents. The whole thing was a scam.”

Despite his provocations, Zelensky was met with Trump’s signature diplomatic coolness. When Zelensky dismissed the minerals deal, a key component of Trump’s proposed peace framework, Trump did not lash out. Even when Zelensky warned that “your American soldiers will fight” if Ukraine failed, a “severe provocation” as Devine puts it, Trump remained composed.

Only after an extended barrage of Zelensky’s interruptions and dismissive tone did Vice President JD Vance finally respond, stressing that “the path to peace and the path to prosperity is maybe engaging in diplomacy.” That set Zelensky off, leading Trump to finally push back. “We’re trying to solve a problem,” he told the Ukrainian leader. “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel, because you’re in no position to dictate that.”

Now, with the negotiations shattered, the fate of Ukraine rests in Europe’s hands at an upcoming summit. “Ukraine can’t survive without America,” Devine warns, and Zelensky may soon realize that the stunt he pulled in the Oval Office cost him far more than he anticipated.

You can watch all 46 minutes of the February 28 meeting between Trump, Vance and Zelensky here. 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

International

RFK Jr. tells Tucker how Big Pharma uses ‘perverse incentives’ to get vaccines approved

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Matt Lamb

Kennedy defended his decision to fire all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which he decried as a tool used to “rubber stamp” vaccines.

The vaccine approval process is a “bundle of perverse incentives” since pharmaceutical companies stand to make billions of dollars in revenue from it, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told Tucker Carlson recently.

Kennedy appeared on Carlson’s show yesterday to discuss a variety of issues, including the potential link between autism and vaccines and his overhauling of the vaccine advisory committee at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last month.

Kennedy began by explaining that Big Pharma has been targeting academic journals to ensure its products receive favorable reviews.

“The journals won’t publish anything critical of vaccines … there’s so much pressure on them. They’re funded by pharmaceutical companies, and they’ll lose advertising and revenue from reprints,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy then noted that Big Pharma will “pay to get something published in these journals,” before accusing industry leaders of pushing drugs on doctors and of hiring “mercenary scientists” to manipulate data until their product is deemed safe and effective.

The entire complex is broken due to the “perverse incentives,” he lamented.

Later in the interview, Kennedy defended his decision to fire all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in June, which he decried as a mere tool to “rubber stamp” vaccines.

This sort of “agency capture” explains the lucrative nature of vaccines, he added.

Kennedy then summarized the “perverse” process as follows:

First of all, the federal government often times actually designs the vaccine, [the National Institutes of Health] would design it, would hand it over to the pharmaceutical company. The pharmaceutical company then runs it … first through [the] FDA, then through [the] ACIP, and gets it recommended.

If you can get that recommendation you now got a billion dollars in — at least — revenues by the end of the year, every year, forever. So, there was a gold rush to add new vaccines to the schedule and ACIP never turned away a single vaccine … that came to them they recommended, and a lot of these vaccines are for diseases that are not even casually contagious.

Kennedy further pointed to the Hepatitis B shot for newborns as an example of how the industry has been corrupted.

In 1999, the CDC “looked at children who had received the hepatitis vaccine within the first 30 days of life and compared those children to children who had received the vaccine later — or not at all. And they found an 1,135% elevated risk of autism among the vaccinated children. It shocked them. They kept the study secret and manipulated it through five different iterations to try to bury the link,” he said.

“We want to protect public health,” Kennedy explained, but “these vaccines … can cause chronic disease, chronic injuries that last a lifetime.”

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Global media alliance colluded with foreign nations to crush free speech in America: House report

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Dan Frieth

The now-defunct ad coalition GARM shared insider data and urged boycotts of Twitter to punish non-compliance with its ‘harmful content’ standards, a US House Judiciary report shows.

A new report from the U.S. House Judiciary Committee has shed light on what it describes as an alarming collaboration between powerful corporations and foreign governments aimed at suppressing lawful American speech.

The investigation focuses on the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an initiative founded in 2019 by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), which the committee accuses of acting as a censorship cartel.

According to the report, GARM, whose members control about 90 percent of global advertising spending, exploited its market dominance to pressure platforms like Twitter (now X) into compliance with its restrictive content policies.

A copy of the report can be found HERE.

The committee highlighted how GARM sought to “effectively reduce the availability and monetization” of content it deemed harmful, regardless of public demand for free expression.

Documents obtained by the committee reveal direct coordination between GARM and foreign regulators, including the European Commission and Australia’s eSafety commissioner.

In one exchange, a European bureaucrat encouraged advertisers to leverage their influence to “push Twitter to deliver on GARM asks.”

Similarly, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant praised GARM’s “significant collective power in helping to hold the platforms to account” and sought updates to “take into account in our engagement and regulatory decisions.”

Partial email from Julie Inman Grant to Rob Rakowitz dated November 9, 2022, expressing interest in GARM's collective power to hold platforms accountable and emphasizing the importance of brand and platform safety, with email addresses partially redacted.

Robert Rakowitz, GARM’s co-founder and initiative lead, expressed a chilling goal in private correspondence, stating that silencing President Donald Trump was his “main thing” and likening the president’s speech to a “contagion” he aimed to contain “to protect infection overall.”

Email from Rob Rakowitz dated Tuesday, November 1, 2022, discussing plans approved by the Steer Team to influence Twitter and Elon Musk regarding advertising standards, mentioning collaboration with WPP and outlining transparency and remediation plans for advertisers; includes blacked-out and redacted email addresses and ends with his title as Initiative Lead at the Global Alliance for Responsible Media and mentions WFA locations in Brussels, London, New York, and Singapore.

The report outlines how GARM distributed previously unavailable non-public information about Twitter’s adherence to its standards, fully aware this would prompt advertisers to boycott the platform if it failed to conform. According to the House report, Rakowitz admitted that this information sharing was designed to encourage members not to advertise on Twitter.

He went as far as to draft statements urging GARM members to halt advertising on the platform, telling colleagues he had gone “as close as possible” to saying Twitter “is unsafe, cease and desist.”

Despite the widespread impact of GARM’s actions, including what the committee describes as coerced “concessions” from platforms, internal polling circulated within GARM showed that “66 percent of American consumers valued free expression over protection from harmful content.”

Still, GARM pressed ahead with efforts to “eliminate all categories of harmful content in the fastest possible timing,” ignoring consumer preferences.

Even after GARM dissolved in 2024 amid legal challenges, similar efforts persisted.

A new coalition led by Dentsu and The 614 Group briefly attempted to revive GARM’s mission before disbanding under scrutiny. Gerry D’Angelo, a former GARM leader, reflected on the initiative’s overreach, stating, “Did we go too far in those first rounds of exclusionary restrictions? I would say yes.”

The Judiciary Committee warns that despite GARM’s downfall, the threat of collusion to stifle free expression remains.

It pledged to continue oversight to defend “the fundamental principles” of the Constitution and ensure that markets, not coordinated censorship efforts, shape the flow of information in the digital age.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

Trending

X