May 8th • 3h 19m
Shownotes
Every new episode of No Agenda is accompanied by a comprehensive list of shownotes curated by Adam while preparing for the show. Clips played by the hosts during the show can also be found here.
Rubio
Marco RUBIO: US Operation in Venezuela?
From Andrew Resulius:
"When Rubio says that the US "rescued" Venezuelan opponents held by @NicolasMaduro's regime in the Argentine embassy in Caracas, he is not reporting an isolated event: he is constructing a geopolitical narrative with surgical precision.
He chose the word "rescue" and not "release" or "departure" for a clear reason: "rescue" implies danger, violence, and urgent intervention. Those "rescued" are victims. The regime, therefore, is a kidnapper.
This word turns a possible negotiated solution into an extraction operation. It casts Chavismo as a regional threat, justifying intervention, pressure, or even more drastic actions.
It also raises the profile of those released: they are not just exiles, they are heroes. Survivors of a dictatorship that kidnaps people inside embassies. The message for the region is: if Maduro does this in Caracas, what won't he do in another allied country?
This kind of language is neither neutral nor improvised. It's part of a discursive shift that seeks to close the diplomatic space and open the field to a narrative of urgency: Security first. Rights second.
Exaggeration? No. This is how many legitimization operations begin: a political act is redefined as an international crime. An adversary is transformed into a threat. And the public is primed to applaud when "the solution" arrives.
We don't know yet if there really was an operation. But Rubio's language is the real news: the word "rescue" is the starting gun in a new phase of the narrative about Venezuela.
And as always: words pave the way for actions."
RFK Jr
Nicole Shanahan turns on RFK Jr over Means appointment
Yes, it's very strange. Doesn't make any sense. I was promised that if I supported RFK Jr. in his Senate confirmation that neither of these siblings would be working under HHS or in an appointment (and that people much more qualified would be). I don't know if RFK very clearly lied to me, or what is going on. It has been clear in recent conversations that he is reporting to someone regularly who is controlling his decisions (and it isn't President Trump). With regards to the siblings, there is something very artificial and aggressive about them, almost like they were bred and raised Manchurian assets.
India vs Pakistan
Big Tech AI and the Socials
Canada
Boots on the ground - Canada
Adam,
Long time listener and (anonymous) donator.
I vacationed in St John’s, Newfoundland, Canada recently. At a bar I asked for an old fashioned. The bartender replied in a huff, “We can’t make you that! We got rid of all bourbon and ANY American alcohol because of your tariffs!”
I politely accepted and asked for a Coors (brewed in Golden, CO) and was given one with no issue. Looking behind the bar I saw several other beers/liquors made in America. There were several other instances of anti-American “virtue signaling” amongst the Canadians on my trip. It’s never been this bad!
Rare Earths
Climate Change
Iberian Peninsula Blackout BOTG
Your source is correct. Power centralisation and the big green scam brought us the outage. The kilowatt price/h went up 300% in Spain!
I just think that there could also be a long-term operation at play, testing renewable energies and geoengineering. Time will tell.
Thanks!
Sacha
Replacement Migration
Paying for Self-Deportation BOTG
Adam—One thing I haven’t seen covered in the [“CBP Home”/$1,000 payment story](https://apnews.com/article/trump-immigration-mass-deportation-payment-border-illegal-c459325c4a73dba0d5a89fa19dbee334) is the due-process angle. Generally speaking, if you consent to something, due process is taken care of.
This is why a police officer who pulls you over will always start with “Do you mind if we search the trunk?” If you consent, it’s a done deal. You’ve waived your Fourth Amendment (search-and-seizure) rights, which would have required probable cause.
So in terms of due process—which is where all the judges are getting hung up on deportation—this arguably clears the way. Still, I predict that opponents will argue that consent isn’t really consent here because it’s made under duress—i.e., the threat of deportation or criminal prosecution. Consent must be knowing and voluntary to be effective.
This is why a police officer who asks for your consent can’t say “Give me your consent or else I’ll just get a warrant.” That’s coercion.
There will be other objections too, but this is the constitutional one I foresee. Cheers and have a good week.
Rob
Transmaoism
Transgender Troop Ban BOTG Rob
Adam—The M5M is sure to get this wrong, so here’s a quick summary. Today SCOTUS entered the attached order that stays a lower-court ban on President Trump’s order barring “trans troops” from serving. It’s a bit of a ping-pong game, and SCOTUS’s order could end up getting vacated down the road (more on this below).
But for now, the stay allows the Trump Administration to proceed with discharging trans troops. It will last at least until someone seeks cert from SCOTUS, which could be 18 months to two years. (The median duration of appeals in the Ninth Circuit is 15 months. You then get 90 days to file a cert petition. Then in this case there’ll probably be full-scale briefing, complete with scores of amicus briefs, and then we must await a SCOTUS decision on whether to grant cert. If cert is granted, add another six to nine months.)
I thought you might appreciate a step-by-step analysis of how we got here:
· Biden Administration: Trans troops can serve (trans in)
· Trump Administration: Trans troops cannot serve (trans out)
· District Court (sitting in Washington state): Trump’s ban is preliminarily enjoined (trans in)
· Trump appeals to Ninth Circuit, asks Ninth Circuit to stay the District Court’s injunction; Ninth Circuit denies motion, allowing injunction to stand (trans in)
· Trump asks SCOTUS to stay the District Court’s injunction; SCOTUS grants stay 6-3 (trans out, for now)
Here’s what could happen next (there are more permutations, but these are the big ones):
· Ninth Circuit **upholds** the ban, the trans troops seek cert, and SCOTUS **denies** cert: injunction dies, ban becomes permanent (trans out)
· Ninth Circuit **upholds** the ban, the trans troops seek cert, and SCOTUS **grants** cert: stay remains in force until SCOTUS decides the case and issues a judgment (trans out pending decision)
· Ninth Circuit **vacates** the ban, Trump seeks cert, and SCOTUS **denies** cert: stay terminates, preliminary injunction comes back to life, case goes back to District Court, and the case is litigated (trans in pending outcome of litigation)
· Ninth Circuit **vacates** the ban, Trump seeks cert, and SCOTUS **grants** cert: stay remains in force until SCOTUS decides the case and issues a judgment (trans out pending decision)
There are two other preliminary injunctions too—one from the District of D.C. and one from the District of New Jersey. I’m not sure of the status of those, but I have to think that the District Judges will now voluntarily stay their injunctions pending appeal. To do otherwise given SCOTUS’s stay would be petty and wasteful, in my opinion.
—**Rob**
