The world is facing a “fifth wave of the debt crisis,” World Bank (WB) President David Malpass warned on Friday, calling for support for struggling countries.

The pandemic has pushed many countries to borrow more to prop up their economies and now face the risk of their debt straining from the combined effect of inflation and rising interest rates.

“More transparency”

“I’m concerned about the level of debt, concerned about a number of countries,” Malpass told an online news conference. “In 2022 alone, some of the poorest countries will have matured some $44 billion in debt held by the private sector or other governments,” an amount greater than the international aid received by the same countries World Bank.

“We are currently facing what I believe is a fifth wave of the debt crisis,” he added, calling for “radically more transparency” on debt levels, from both lenders and borrowers.

Call to China

The World Bank President was addressing the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and a G20 finance meeting to be held in Washington next week.

David Malpass took the opportunity to once again urge China, one of the top lenders to low-income countries, to communicate more about the loan amounts and to do more to facilitate the restructuring of the most problematic debts.

His comments follow warnings from IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva, who on Thursday estimated that nearly a quarter of emerging economies and up to 60% of the poorest countries are at risk of a debt crisis.

Explosive cocktail for business

A situation exacerbated by the slowdown in the global economy under the combined effect of inflation fed by the rise in energy and food prices and the monetary tightening decided by central banks to limit the latter.

“Given the risk of a financial crisis in developing countries, it is very important to recognize the role that advanced economies play in supporting growth,” said David Malpass. “Developing countries also need to see more capital flowing into them,” and even if the WB tries to increase its aid, “it’s just not enough,” he added.

The World Bank records four previous debt crises since the 1970s that most often led to financial crises in emerging and developing countries, such as the Asian crisis in the late 1990s.

For years, President Biden repeated the same mantra when asked about Hunter Biden’s influence activities and alleged crimes: “My son has done nothing wrong.” It was always incredible — as was his denial of any knowledge of these deals despite emails and pictures to the contrary.

So the President and the press moved on to a new defense. As the father recently pointed out to his son, “He’s been struggling with an addiction problem. He got over it. He wrote about it.”

The family and media have been cultivating the position for months as they anticipate possible criminal charges. Such allegations would not only be embarrassing for the President, but also for the media, which has been actively involved in covering up the multimillion-dollar influence schemes of the Biden family, including Hunter and his uncle James. Once the criminal behavior has been uncovered, all that remains is defense against addiction.

Hunter Biden’s autobiographical book laid the groundwork for this last line of defense. While the book didn’t sell particularly well with audiences, the media offered flattering interviews about his stories of addiction. The narrative has been intensified by much of the same media outlet that buried the scandal, including articles about how the family fought “to keep him alive”.

A photo of Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop shows his addiction-ruined teeth.

Feds have been sitting in a criminal case against the first son for months.

Now, The Post reports that prosecutors are guessing charges given the addiction and how it could undermine any criminal process. While there’s no question that the defense would likely use such an addiction, it’s usually more of a concern to pursue a conviction than an indictment. Addiction may be brought before the court as a mitigating factor in determining the accused’s guilt.

The most obvious problem for anti-addiction is that Hunter didn’t appear to have had a chemical-based challenge in maintaining a multi-million dollar global influence trading system. The image of a crackhead holed up in high-end hotels with call girls is eroded by thousands of emails about international money transfers and complex deals stretching from Moscow to Kyiv to Beijing.

The fact is, you can be an addict or an alcoholic and still be a criminal. Addiction didn’t seem to stop prosecutors in cases like the murder trial of The Sopranos actor Lillo Brancato and the film A Bronx Tale. Brancato was addicted to drugs when he took part in a burglary that ended in a shooting. He was convicted and sentenced to 10 years.

Indeed, in some cases, prosecutors use addiction as a motive for committing crimes, particularly for paying for or acquiring further crimes.

Not only would this possible charge not be based on a drug offense, it would also involve a high-functioning defendant who would have made millions through influence-peddling. Indeed, the now sober Hunter has repeatedly insisted that while his family name earned him many of his previous positions, he is a lawyer with experience useful in jobs such as serving on the board of Ukrainian energy conglomerate Burisma Holdings.

It will be difficult for Hunter to go from the privileged but capable defense to the hopelessly dependent defense. Most hopeless addicts are trying to hack property or rake in a few bucks for their next hit. Hunter flew around the world arranging meetings with his father and coordinating multiple global accounts.

The media has been complicit in the cover-up of the Biden family’s multi-million dollar influence schemes, including Hunter and his uncle James, above. AP

Furthermore, using addiction to defeat the gun and tax burden will only exacerbate questions about the allegations of influencing peddling. If Hunter was a hopeless addict incapable of criminal intent or reasonable decision-making, why were foreign prospects at his door offering him millions of dollars as a board member, attorney, or consultant? With no skill or ability to sell, you are left with raw and open corruption to gain access to or influence over his father.

For President Biden, defending the hopeless addict will also fall short with most people outside of the mainstream media. During this time some of his own bills were being paid by Joe, including accounts associated with his overseas operations.

Of course, the defense can be more effective as an excuse for the Justice Department to agree to a generous plea deal than in an actual trial. Attorney General Merrick Garland has already protected both Joe and Hunter Biden by refusing to appoint a special counsel, despite what the current regulations clearly require to do so. Congressional Democrats have continued to block any investigation into the Biden family’s influence schemes.

The best-case scenario is a plea deal that does not include Foreign Agent Registration Act fees. The Justice Department has used FARA aggressively in previous criminal cases such as that of Paul Manafort. However, such an indictment would likely reveal details about previous foreign dealings of Hunter Biden and possibly his uncle James. A plea for a gun registration count and tax counts would allow political and media allies to declare the matter closed.

This is why increasing addiction is both predictable and instructive. By implying that it would complicate a process, the family and their allies can present a plea deal as a good deal for the public. But there has never been a lack of criminal evidence, only an interest in exposing and prosecuting Hunter Biden’s corrupt practices

.Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor in the Law School of George Washington University.

In a nine-line paragraph, Jean-Luc Mélenchon bluntly explains his decision to vote against this text. THOMAS SAMSON / AFP

In 2014, the NGO, co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize, could not count on Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s support when it was threatened with dissolution by Vladimir Putin. The Russian judiciary today ordered the seizure of Memorial’s offices in Moscow.

The pans are piling up for the leader of rebellious France. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, MEP at the time, spoke out clearly against a European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2014 denouncing the dissolution of the NGO Memorial in Russia. A vote by the original rebel that would have gone unnoticed had it not been so exhumed on Twitter.

During his tenure as MEP, Jean-Luc Mélenchon reported extensively on his votes during plenary sessions. From 20-23 October 2014, MEPs are invited to vote on a resolution tabled by five political groups (ECR, EPP, Verts/ALE, S&D, ALD) aimed at denouncing the dissolution of the NGO Memorial, launched by the Russian Foreign Agents Law.

In a nine-line paragraph, Jean-Luc Mélenchon bluntly explains his decision to vote against this text: “The resolution aims to condemn Russia. We find that when the EU is concerned about Russia’s non-compliance with international legal obligations, it is much less vigilant in other cases (editor’s note from Hungary)”. The Tribune even called the resolution a “tense text” aimed at “isolating Russia”. However, the resolution does not envisage sanctions against Lenin’s country, but rather an increase in European financial aid for Russian civil society.

“I don’t remember that event very well, but Jean-Luc Mélenchon had to vote against it to push the European institutions to their limits and confront them with their contradictions,” explains Le Figaro, an LFI MEP who remains anonymous would like and voted for dissolution. People often misinterpret the no vote, and then the context was different than today.”

SEE ALSO – Russia: Nobel Peace Prize gives NGO Memorial ‘moral strength’

Read alsoCan we say with Jean-Luc Mélenchon that “the police kill”?

In October 2014, the invasion of Ukraine had not yet taken place, but the authoritarian excesses of the Putin regime were already very present and the association, co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize, had paid the price for it. Founded in 1989 as part of a USSR policy of transparency, the organization is dedicated to remembering the crimes and repressions of the Soviet Union. Gradually, the NGO began to denounce the abuses of Vladimir Putin’s regime and fought for respect for human rights in Russia. In 2012, she was accused by the Kremlin of painting a bad image of the former USSR and not mentioning the “foreign agent” label in her publications. It was banned on Russian territory in 2016 before being officially liquidated in 2021.

On October 7, the Russian judiciary ordered the seizure of Memorial’s offices in Moscow. The premises of the NGO were turned into public property by the Tverskoy court. “Memorial had exposed its involvement in the rehabilitation of Nazi criminals, discrediting the authorities and creating a false image of the USSR,” Ria Novosti news agency said.