Blue Press Journal

Tag: russia

  • Bacon Rebukes Trump for Echoing Putin’s Unverified Claims on Ukraine Drone Attack

    BLUE PRESS JOURNAL – Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) delivered a sharp rebuke to former President Donald Trump on Monday, criticizing him for swiftly endorsing Russian claims that Ukraine launched a drone attack on a presidential residence in the Novgorod region—despite a complete absence of verifiable evidence.

    In a post on the social media platform X, Bacon urged Trump and his team to “get the facts first before assuming blame,” adding a pointed indictment of Russian President Vladimir Putin: “Putin is a well-known boldface liar.”

    The controversy erupted after Trump claimed he was “very angry” about the alleged attack, which Moscow said involved 91 long-range drones. When pressed on whether there was any evidence to support the claim, Trump responded: “Well, we’ll find out. You’re saying maybe the attack didn’t take place? That’s possible, I guess, but President Putin told me this morning.”

    That response sparked outrage from foreign policy experts and political leaders across the spectrum. For Bacon, a senior Republican notorious for his hardline approach to Russia and unwavering support for Ukraine, Trump’s naïve acceptance of Putin’s claims was not merely diplomatically careless—it was downright reckless and posed a serious threat.

    “President Trump and his team should get the facts first before assuming blame,” Bacon emphasized. His statement underscored growing concern within parts of the Republican Party about the former president’s repeated deference to authoritarian leaders, particularly Putin.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky vehemently rejected the Russian claims, branding them as “a blatant fabrication crafted to justify further assaults on Ukraine.” He fiercely warned that these insidious disinformation campaigns are not just tactics but calculated attempts to sabotage peace initiatives and distort the truth on the battlefield.

    Indeed, past Russian accusations of Ukrainian aggression—often debunked—have preceded intensified military offensives. Analysts say these claims are part of a strategy to shift blame and erode international support for Kyiv.

    Bacon’s criticism reveals a rift in Republican foreign policy. While Trump praises Putin and downplays Russian aggression, Bacon argues for a firm U.S. stance based on truth, intelligence, and alliances.

    “Trusting Putin’s word over verified facts doesn’t just mislead the public—it endangers our global standing and emboldens dictators,” Bacon said in a follow-up interview. “We can’t afford to be complicit in spreading Russian propaganda, especially while Ukraine fights for its survival.”

    As the war in Ukraine drags into its third year, the fight for information has morphed into a battleground just as vital as the war front itself. Deceptive narratives, fueled by influential political figures, wield the power to twist public perception, manipulate aid decisions, and steer diplomatic efforts into uncharted territory.

    Trump’s repeated reliance on uncorroborated claims from an adversarial regime raises urgent questions about judgment, foreign policy competence, and the lasting impact of rhetoric on national security.

  • Lawmakers Slam Trump’s Russia-Ukraine Peace Plan as “Wish List” for Moscow

    Blue Press Journal – A group of lawmakers expressed their strong criticism of President Donald Trump’s approach to ending the Russia-Ukraine war, revealing that Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the proposed peace plan as a “wish list” of the Russians. The lawmakers’ comments came during a panel discussion at the Halifax International Security Forum in Canada on Saturday.

    The proposed 28-point peace plan, which has been widely leaked, appears to acquiesce to many Russian demands, including Ukraine’s surrender of large pieces of territory. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly rejected these demands. According to the White House, the plan was the result of a month-long collaboration between Rubio and Trump envoy Steve Witkoff, with input from both Ukrainian and Russian sources.

    However, lawmakers are now questioning the plan’s legitimacy, with Senator Angus King stating, “It rewards aggression. This is pure and simple. There’s no ethical, legal, moral, political justification for Russia claiming eastern Ukraine.” King’s sentiments were echoed by other lawmakers, who argue that the plan would only embolden Moscow’s aggression and send a worrying message to other leaders who have threatened their neighbors.

    Rubio’s characterization of the plan as a “wish list” of the Russians raises serious concerns about the Trump administration’s approach to the conflict. “The fact that the Secretary of State is describing it as a ‘wish list’ suggests that this is not a serious proposal,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen. “It’s a recipe for disaster and a betrayal of Ukraine’s trust.”

    The lawmakers’ criticism arises as Trump urges Kyiv to accept a plan by late next week, which requires Ukraine to make major concessions to Russia. Lawmakers stand united against a plan they view as rewarding Russian aggression.

    In the words of Senator King, “This is not a peace plan; it’s a surrender plan.” The international community is watching closely as the Trump administration’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues to spark controversy and debate.

  • Frustration Mounts Among GOP Senators Over Trump’s Russia Stance

    Blue Press Journal – A growing number of Senate Republicans are expressing frustration and disillusionment with President Trump’s approach to Russia, particularly his reluctance to impose tough sanctions on the country. The president’s stance has led to a stalemate over bipartisan legislation aimed at punishing Russia for its actions in Ukraine.

    At the heart of the issue is Trump’s insistence that all NATO countries must agree to stop buying Russian oil before the US moves forward with sanctions. However, this demand is seen as unrealistic, given the strong trade relationships between Russia and certain NATO member countries, such as Hungary and Turkey.

    One anonymous Republican senator voiced frustration with Trump’s “love affair” with Russian President Vladimir Putin, citing the president’s recent red-carpet welcome of Putin at a US military base in Alaska. The senator also criticized Vice President Vance’s comments defending Putin’s approach to peace negotiations.

    The senator’s comments come as Russia launched a massive drone and missile attack against Ukraine last week, marking the largest aerial barrage of the three-and-a-half-year war. This escalation has only added to the sense of urgency among lawmakers to take action against Russia.

    Senators Lindsey Graham and Thom Tillis, both Republicans, are leading the charge to pass the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025. Graham and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, the lead Republican sponsors of the bill, plan to push for its inclusion in the continuing resolution that must pass by September 30 to avoid a government shutdown.

    Tillis expressed disbelief over the lack of progress on sanctions legislation, arguing that passing the bill would send a strong signal to Russia. “It’s irrational to me to think it would not raise the awareness on Putin’s part that the Senate has spoken,” he said. “Why on earth we’re not taking it up, I don’t see the strategic advantage of that.”

    As the situation in Ukraine continues to deteriorate, Senate Republicans are growing increasingly impatient with Trump’s approach to Russia. With the deadline for passing the continuing resolution looming, lawmakers are facing a critical test of their ability to work together to address the crisis in Ukraine and hold Russia accountable for its actions.

  • Trump Rolls Out Red Carpet for Putin, Fails to Secure Ceasefire in Ukraine

    Blue Press Journal– President Donald Trump hosted Russian President Vladimir Putin on American soil, extending a warm welcome to the accused war criminal despite his brutal invasion of Ukraine. The meeting, which was billed as a press conference, ended without any significant progress or agreement from Putin to halt his attacks on Ukrainian civilians.

    The visit began with a ceremonial flyover of U.S. military jets, a rare honor for close allies. Trump invited Putin to ride in the presidential limousine, where they were seen laughing and chatting on the way to the meeting room. This display of camaraderie has raised eyebrows, given Putin’s human rights record and aggression in Ukraine.

    Putin, who was charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Court in 2023, faces arrest in most countries and required a waiver of U.S. sanctions to travel to the United States. Despite this, Trump extended a warm welcome, speaking for less than four minutes on stage and declining to take any questions from the press.

    The meeting’s outcome has troubled many, as Putin showed no signs of backing down from his invasion of Ukraine. The absence of a ceasefire has raised concerns that Trump’s efforts were futile and that Putin may disregard the U.S. president’s diplomatic overtures.

    “It’s disturbing that the president would go to such great lengths to host Putin, only to fail to secure a commitment to end the violence in Ukraine,” said a senior diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The fact that Putin continues to bomb civilian cities and kill non-combatants suggests that he is not taking Trump’s warnings seriously.”

    As the international community condemns Putin’s actions in Ukraine, Trump’s decision to host him in the U.S. has sparked criticism. Many question the wisdom of welcoming an accused war criminal and whether the meeting will hinder conflict resolution efforts.

    The situation in Ukraine remains dire, with civilians bearing the brunt of Putin’s aggression. The lack of progress in the Trump-Putin meeting is a troubling sign that the road to peace in Ukraine is long and uncertain.

  • Declassified Document Deals Blow to DNI Director’s Claims of Anti-Trump Conspiracy

    Tulsi Gabbard Has been Fabricating Claims

    Blue Press Journal – A newly declassified document has undermined claims made by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that the Obama administration conspired against Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. The document, an annex to a report by special counsel John Durham, further debunks the theory that Russian spies were not behind the key 2016 emails that were hacked and released during the campaign.

    Gabbard had hoped to uncover evidence of a “treasonous conspiracy” by the Obama administration to falsely blame Russia for interfering in the election to help Trump. However, the declassified document, combined with previous findings by special counsel Robert Mueller and the Senate intelligence committee, suggests that Russian interference was, in fact, a reality.

    The 2019 report by Mueller and a bipartisan report by the Senate intelligence committee in 2020 both concluded with “high confidence” that Russia had interfered in the election to help Trump. These findings were further validated by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who in 2018 admitted to wanting Trump to win the election.

    Former intelligence insiders have dismissed the idea of a “deep state” conspiracy against Trump as a fiction. “Trump is lying when he speaks of a ‘deep state’,” said Fulton Armstrong, a retired CIA analyst. “But if there were one, it would not be Democrat. The culture of that world is deeply Republican.”

    Gabbard’s claims were also contradicted by John Brennan, the CIA director under Obama, who told The New Yorker that Obama had instructed intelligence officials to keep evidence of Russian meddling quiet until after the election to ensure a fair outcome. Brennan cited multiple sources of intelligence, including a high-quality clandestine source, that indicated Putin wanted Trump to win due to his views on Russia.

    The declassified document is the latest blow to Gabbard’s crusade to prove a conspiracy against Trump. The disclosures by Durham further undermine her claims, and it remains to be seen how she will respond to the new evidence. The incident highlights the ongoing controversy surrounding the 2016 election and the role of Russian interference, with many experts continuing to affirm that the intelligence community’s assessment of Russian meddling was accurate.

  • The Desperate Lie: Trump’s Attempt to Taint Obama’s Presidency

    Blue Press Journal: In a shocking display of pettiness and desperation, President Donald Trump is peddling a baseless conspiracy theory aimed at tarnishing the legacy of former President Barack Obama. This egregious lie, which accuses Obama of conspiring with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, is a blatant attempt to deflect attention from Trump’s own well-documented ties to Russian interference.

    The facts are unequivocal: the 2016 election was indeed hijacked by foreign interference, with Russia actively working to aid Trump’s campaign. This conclusion is supported by a plethora of evidence, including the findings of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, the Mueller report, and the unanimous assessments of Trump’s own intelligence chiefs. Even Tulsi Gabbard, now Trump’s director of national intelligence, previously acknowledged Russian interference in the election during a 2018 appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

    However, in a stunning reversal, Gabbard has now orchestrated a report that shamefully labels the assertions of Russian interference as a “seditious conspiracy” and attempts to shift the blame to President Obama. This gross distortion of reality is a testament to the depths of desperation and dishonesty that Trump and his loyalists are willing to sink to in order to salvage his tarnished reputation and divert attention from the Epstein Files.

    It is appalling that Marco Rubio and Tulsi Gabbard, who have access to the same intelligence reports and findings, are willing to lie, defame, and endanger lives in order to prop up Trump’s fragile ego. Their complicity in this charade is a stark reminder of the dangers of partisan loyalty and the erosion of democratic norms.

    Trump’s movement (MAGA) has always been built on a foundation of lies and misinformation, but this latest accusation is a particularly egregious threat to the very fabric of our democracy. By poisoning the well of public discourse with baseless conspiracy theories, Trump is inciting hatred and opening the door to political violence on a scale we’ve never seen before.

    It is imperative that we reject this desperate attempt to rewrite history and hold Trump and his enablers accountable for their actions. The facts are clear: Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump, and President Obama had no involvement in this scheme. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is a blatant lie, and those who perpetuate it should be ashamed and held legally accountable.

  • Tulsi Gabbard’s “Treason” Claim Debunked: Facts Reveal No Evidence of Obama Manipulation

    Today, Tulsi Gabbard sparked controversy by suggesting that former President Barack Obama had engaged in “treasonous” activities. However, a closer examination of the facts reveals that Gabbard’s claims are unfounded and lack substantial evidence. In fact, the 2017 assessment that Gabbard is attacking, which was conducted by the intelligence community, did not find any evidence of vote count alteration by Russia, but rather revealed that Russia had made efforts to influence the election through hacking and social media manipulation.

    It is essential to note that the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee reviewed the findings of the 2017 assessment and found that they were well-supported and unbiased. The committee concluded that there was no political interference by the Obama administration in the development of the intelligence community’s conclusions. This contradicts Gabbard’s claims of Obama’s alleged manipulation of the intelligence community.

    Before jumping to conclusions about indictments and incarceration, it is crucial to demand specific names, actions, and laws that would have been violated. So far, Gabbard and President Trump have failed to provide concrete evidence to support their allegations. The suggestion that Obama engaged in treasonous activity by simply asking the intelligence community to assess Russia’s well-documented activities is not supported by the evidence.

    In fact, the intelligence community’s assessment of Russia’s actions during the 2016 election was based on a thorough review of the available evidence. The assessment found that Russia had indeed attempted to influence the election through various means, including hacking and social media manipulation. However, it did not find any evidence that Russia had altered vote counts or changed the outcome of the election.

    The lack of evidence to support Gabbard’s claims suggests that her accusations are unfounded and potentially politically motivated. It is clear that

    Gabbard could very well be inviting legal repercussions upon herself with these outrageous lies.

    The facts reveal that Tulsi Gabbard’s “treason” claim against former President Obama is not supported by evidence. The 2017 assessment, which was conducted by the intelligence community, found no evidence of vote count alteration by Russia, and the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the findings were well-supported and unbiased.

  • Tulsi Gabbard’s Baseless Claims Boost Trump’s Russia Denials

    In a shocking display of loyalty to her boss, President Donald Trump, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has come under fire for perpetuating the president’s long-debunked claims about Russian interference in the 2016 election. On Friday, Gabbard called for the Obama administration to be “prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law” for allegedly manufacturing intelligence to support the claim that Russia interfered in the election to boost Trump’s campaign.

    This statement is a blatant attempt to rewrite history and erase the findings of multiple investigations over the past eight years. The 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, published during Trump’s first term, concluded that Russia did indeed meddle in the election with the specific goal of helping Trump win. The assessment was based on evidence gathered by the intelligence community, including the CIA, FBI, and NSA.

    Gabbard’s claims have been met with swift criticism from lawmakers, including Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Warner pointed out that the Senate Intel Committee had already unanimously concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. “If there had been some Obama conspiracy, we would have found it,” Warner said in a statement. “This latest lie is another sad, dangerous example of Tulsi Gabbard trying to rewrite history and erode trust in the [intelligence community].”

    Gabbard’s possible sympathies with Russia have raised eyebrows in the past. During her confirmation hearings, lawmakers questioned her about her defense of Russia’s 2020 invasion of Ukraine. Former aides also alleged that she regularly consumed media from RT, the Kremlin’s propaganda outlet. These concerns have led many to wonder whether Gabbard is truly committed to serving the interests of the United States or if she is instead working to advance a pro-Russia agenda.

  • If America Does Not Stand With Ukraine, What Do We Stand For?

    The recent decision by President Donald Trump to cancel a planned weapons shipment to Ukraine has sent shockwaves around the world, raising concerns about the United States’ commitment to defending democracy and sovereignty. This move is not only a betrayal of Ukraine’s trust but also a sign of weakness in the face of Russian aggression.

    Ukraine has been embroiled in a conflict with Russian-backed separatists in the eastern part of the country since 2014, resulting in the loss of thousands of lives and the displacement of millions of people. The international community, including the United States, has consistently condemned Russia’s actions and provided support to Ukraine in its efforts to defend its territory and democratic institutions.

    The canceled weapons shipment, which included anti-tank missiles and other defensive equipment, was a critical component of Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russian aggression. By canceling this shipment, the Trump administration is effectively abandoning Ukraine to the mercy of its more powerful neighbor, undermining the country’s ability to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

    This decision is not only a strategic mistake but also a moral failure. If the United States is not willing to stand with Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, what do we stand for? Do we not believe in the principles of democracy, freedom, and self-determination? Do we not recognize the importance of defending the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations against external threats?

    The implications of this decision go far beyond Ukraine. If the United States is willing to abandon a country that is fighting for its very existence, what message does this send to other nations around the world? Does it not embolden authoritarian regimes and aggressors to pursue their expansionist agendas, knowing that the United States will not stand in their way?

    This decision undermines the credibility of the United States as a global leader and a defender of democracy. If we are not willing to stand up to Russian aggression in Ukraine, how can we expect other nations to trust us to defend their interests and security? The consequences of this decision will be far-reaching, damaging the reputation of the United States and emboldening our adversaries around the world.

    Standing with Ukraine would be a powerful statement of American values and principles. It would demonstrate our commitment to defending democracy, freedom, and sovereignty, and our willingness to stand up to authoritarian regimes and aggressors. It would also send a strong message to Russia and other nations that the United States will not tolerate aggression and expansionism, and that we will defend our allies and partners around the world.

    Trump’s decision to cancel the weapons shipment to Ukraine is a sign of weakness and a betrayal of American values. If we do not stand with Ukraine, what do we stand for? We must recognize the importance of defending democracy, freedom, and sovereignty, and we must be willing to take a stand against authoritarian regimes and aggressors. The United States must reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine and the international community, and we must work to strengthen our alliances and partnerships around the world to defend our shared values and interests.

  • Trump and the Military Crossed a Line

    Recent internal communications from the 82nd Airborne Division reveal a carefully orchestrated effort to shape the narrative around President Trump’s recent visit. Documents indicate that soldiers were selectively chosen to appear behind Trump based on their political affiliations and physical characteristics. The men chosen to stand behind him during the event were predominantly male. Their enthusiastic laughter and applause during Trump’s partisan speech marked a startling and uncommon moment where military personnel publicly engaged in overt political partisanship.

    One source disclosed a message to troops indicating that those who held opposing political views to the current administration and preferred not to be present should discuss with leadership to not attend. This situation unfolded at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, showcasing a stark departure from the usual presidential visit, which is typically characterized by decorum and neutrality. Instead, Trump delivered a speech filled with partisan rhetoric, drawing boisterous responses from soldiers behind him, thereby blurring the critical line between military duty and political engagement.

    Compounding the unconventional nature of the event, a retailer from Tulsa, Oklahoma, sold pro-Trump merchandise on-site. Allowing the sale of explicitly partisan items on an Army base likely violates numerous Defense Department regulations designed to uphold the military’s longstanding commitment to political neutrality, a commitment the Army has historically taken great care to maintain.

    Trump has taken partisanship further than any prior president, treating gatherings with troops as campaign events and openly criticizing his rivals. Retired Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, renowned for his role in coordinating military aid during Hurricane Katrina, labeled the speech “inappropriate,” asserting he had never witnessed anything like it during his 37 years of service.

    With military presence in LA and directives from the President aimed at political military initiatives, it is essential for Americans to recognize the gravity of this situation. The military’s involvement in such overtly partisan activities poses a significant threat to our constitutional principles, marking a dangerous departure from the ideals of neutrality and professionalism that have long defined our armed forces.