Scovato e smascherato da Striscia La Notizia con l’inviato Max Laudadio, il “mago di Rimini” che sosteneva di poter guarire dal Covid e da altre malattie con filtri e misteriose polverine, è stato condannato a 10 mesi e a una multa per l’esercizio abusivo della professione di omeopata e per aver violato i sigilli dell’autorità apposti su alcune confezioni di erbe che utilizzava come medicamenti. Il Tribunale lo ha invece assolto perché il fatto non sussiste per il reato di truffa. Orfeo Bindi, 70 anni, era finito nel registro degli indagati perché prescriveva “pozioni” miracolose per prevenire il Covid, curare malanni e ridurre il cancro. La pubblica accusa, rappresentata dal vice pubblico ministero onorario, Simona Bagnaresi, aveva citato come testimoni la maggior parte dei 30 clienti di Bindi, ma nessuno di questi ha dichiarato di essersi sentito truffato. Insomma gli credevano e forse gli credono ancora. Nessuno ha denunciato e nessuno di conseguenza si era costituito parte civile. Sentiti tutti a sommarie informazioni degli inquirenti, avevano quindi spiegato di non sentirsi raggirati. Anche se la prestazione del guaritore, come testimoniato dal servizio del programma di Canale 5, si aggirava intorno ai 100 euro. L’uomo, su cui avevano eseguito gli accertamenti del caso i militari della Guardia di Finanza, in un’inchiesta coordinata dal sostituto procuratore Davide Ercolani, era accusato di aver prescritto erbe mediche che chiamava “polverine” promettendo la guarigione da patologie compreso il coronavirus. Gli investigatori delle Fiamme gialle aveva eseguito un’ordinanza del gip, Benedetta Vitolo nei confronti di Bindi, sospeso dall’esercizio della professione di medico omeopata. Quindi il rinvio a giudizio e il processo. Il legale di Bindi, l’avvocato Antonio Giacomini del Foro di Forlì, ha annunciato il ricorso in appello. L'articolo Condannato il “mago” di Rimini che sosteneva di guarire il Covid con le polverine proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

di Sara Gandini e Paolo Bartolini I social non sono sempre luoghi di deprimente appiattimento, politico e culturale: a volte permettono di far circolare interventi e informazioni che non ottengono spazio nei telegiornali e sulla stampa mainstream. In particolare ci ha colpito uno spezzone rivelatore del giornalista Marc Innaro nel quale questo professionista dalla schiena dritta racconta il clima di censura e intimidazione a cui sono stati soggetti coloro che hanno voluto semplicemente offrire una prospettiva alternativa su quanto stava (e sta) accadendo all’incrocio dei tre punti dirimenti dell’attuale età dell’emergenza: la gestione pandemica, la guerra in Ucraina, il genocidio (ancora in corso) che Israele sta portando avanti ai danni dei palestinesi. Innaro ha spiegato in modo chiaro come in Rai si è fatto di tutto per scoraggiare i giornalisti a fare il loro lavoro e testimoniare ciò con cui venivano a contatto. Durante una intervista a Che tempo che fa, Innaro ha infatti raccontato che in Russia la gestione della pandemia era meno “blindata”, più attenta a non opprimere angosciosamente la popolazione usando misure di buon senso, come permettere ai supermercati di avere orari prolungati, pagati dallo stato, e mezzi pubblici più frequenti per evitare affollamenti. Inoltre ha spiegato come in Russia si parlasse di una sperimentazione che sembrava dare buoni risultati contro la Covid-19 come la terapia con il plasma iper-immune, e a quel punto Burioni, ospite fisso dell’epoca, pensò bene di tuonare contro Innaro accusandolo di antiscienza. Quando poi di fatto la sperimentazione ha dimostrato risultati ottimi ed è stata pubblicata su riviste molto importanti. Sappiamo benissimo, in seguito, come lo stesso giornalista sia stato “allontanato” per le sue misurate osservazioni sulla vicenda russo-ucraina, da fine conoscitore della storia precedente al febbraio 2022, solo per aver ricordato che l’invasione dell’Ucraina non era comprensibile senza dare il giusto peso ai timori russi circa l’espansione della Nato ad est. Infine, giunto in Egitto proprio in concomitanza con l’esplosione della furia militare israeliana, Innaro ha sentito altre pressioni che gli impedivano di raccontare il punto di vista di chi denunciava il genocidio, decidendo alla fine di uscire dal circuito Rai. Tutto questo conferma, se mai ce ne fosse bisogno, che i fenomeni più eclatanti di questi cinque anni sono legati da un filo sottile. Nessuna cospirazione o piano segreto per sterminare l’umanità. Piuttosto un consolidarsi di strategie di controllo dell’opinione pubblica e di repressione del dissenso, funzionale a interessi sfumati e convergenti. Da quelli del neoliberalismo di guerra (atlantista ed europeo) a quelli delle aziende farmaceutiche, per arrivare a quelli legati alla digitalizzazione e all’intelligenza artificiale (vedi Draghi: “se non ti vaccini contagi e muori” e “se l’Europa non investe sull’Ai muore”). Evitare le polarizzazioni superficiali e andare in profondità significa oggi riconoscere che la logica bellicista (già presente nella retorica della governance pandemica, con il Nemico da sconfiggere, i sacrifici eroici, i disertori da punire e i delatori da premiare) ha saturato quasi ogni angolo dell’informazione, della politica, dell’economia, dell’immaginario. Resistere in modo nonviolento a questa sciocca ferocia, spacciata per “Difesa” delle nostre vite dalle minacce provenienti dalle turpi autocrazie, è necessario in ogni sede. Le voci del dissenso sono chiamate ad alzarsi e a farsi coro, perché l’età delle emergenze è il laboratorio dove si prepara la fine dell’umanità, soprattutto occidentale, a partire degli ucraini forzati ad arruolarsi per arrivare alle violenze sulle donne ucraine, dai soprusi degli occupanti agli abusi dei mariti di ritorno dal fronte, e infine il macello dei palestinesi, tutte vittime designate dell’economia emergenziale e di guerra. Grazie quindi a chi da mesi e mesi, ogni giorno, partecipa al presidio in solidarietà con Gaza davanti al duomo di Milano. Una presenza silenziosa ma significativa, che con una determinazione commovente pone domande a tutti noi. L'articolo Colpisce il racconto di Marc Innaro sulle pressioni in Rai. Covid, Ucraina e Gaza: fenomeni legati da un filo sottile proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

LONDON — Boris Johnson, look away now. The 800-page report from Britain’s official inquiry into the coronavirus pandemic landed Thursday evening. It makes for grim reading for the country’s former prime minister, and much of his top team. Johnson has yet to respond. But the inquiry machine-guns a “too little, too late” government response to the early raging of the virus in 2020, a “toxic culture” in No. 10 Downing Street under the then-PM — and a serious failure to take heed of mistakes made. “Unless the lessons are learned and fundamental change is implemented, the human and financial cost and sacrifice of the Covid-19 pandemic will have been in vain,” the inquiry’s chair Heather Hallett, warned as the report was published Thursday. POLITICO pored over the full report to full out some of the biggest recipients of criticism. 1) BORIS JOHNSON COULDN’T MAKE HIS MIND UP Johnson is roundly criticized for failing to take the virus seriously enough in the initial months, for “oscillating” between different decisions on whether to actually introduce a lockdown, and for a host of controversial comments which caused offense to victims’ families when they came out during the inquiry’s evidence gathering process.  Particular criticism is reserved for Johnson as boss. The culture in Johnson’s No. 10 is described as “toxic and chaotic.” He is accused of “reinforcing” a workplace where the views of others, particularly women, were ignored — and of “encouraging” the behavior of his chief aide, Dominic Cummings. 2) DOMINIC CUMMINGS MADE THE CULTURE WAY WORSE — BUT SAVED LIVES Cummings arguably comes in for even harder criticism than Johnson. The report accuses the then-PM’s chief aide of having “materially contributed to the toxic and sexist workplace culture at the heart of the U.K. government.” It says he was a “destabilising influence” at a time of crisis — and that he was at fault for a “culture of fear, mutual suspicion and distrust” in government. Cummings is, however, praised by the report for his “commendable action” in bringing about a change in the government’s early pandemic strategy, which saved lives.  The culture in Boris Johnson’s No. 10 is described as “toxic and chaotic.” | Wiktor Szymanowicz/Getty Images 3) MATT HANCOCK WASN’T TRUSTED TO BE STRAIGHT WITH PEOPLE The short-lived reality TV star Matt Hancock is a figure of fun in U.K. politics these days — but he once held a role of enormous importance as health secretary during the pandemic.  For his contribution to Britain’s efforts as the virus initially spread, Hancock earns multiple instances of harsh criticism in the report.  Hancock is slammed for the “overenthusiastic impression” he gave to Johnson and top officials on his department’s readiness to face a pandemic, and it is said he gained a reputation for “overpromising and underdelivering.” The report even says concerns were raised about Hancock’s reliability and trustworthiness in meetings as Britain grappled with how to respond in the early days. The report ultimately says Britain should have locked down a week earlier than it did in March 2020, blaming officials, politicians and scientists for not moving quicker. It argues that the failure to do so came at a cost of around 23,000 lives. 4) CHRIS WORMALD SHOULD’VE DONE MORE Government officials were concerned that the Covid inquiry could prove embarrassing for Chris Wormald — who now serves as Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s cabinet secretary, a supremely powerful role at the head of Britain’s civil service. During the pandemic, Wormald was the top civil servant at Hancock’s Department of Health and Social Care, which is repeatedly criticized for giving false impressions on how prepared it was. While Hancock is widely blamed for this, the report does slam Wormald for failing to “rectify” the health secretary’s overconfidence. It says his failure to take any action “gave rise to additional concerns about the effectiveness of Wormald’s leadership.  That was as bad as it got for the current Cabinet Secretary, who might breathe a sigh of relief. Dominic Cummings is praised by the report for his “commendable action” in bringing about a change in the government’s early pandemic strategy, which saved lives. | Wiktor Szymanowicz/Getty Images 5) BITS OF THE BRITISH STATE ITSELF WERE SERIOUSLY SHAKY Whitehall itself comes in for some stark criticism, although the report stops short of a damning indictment of the whole system. The Cabinet Office — often referred to as the wiring at the center of government — is particularly slammed for failing to take more of a lead in early pandemic decision making. The report says that the government’s decision making structures “required improvement” during the pandemic, and that Johnson often sidelined his cabinet in favor of “centralised decision making.”  Brief sections on Welsh and Scottish governing cultures during the pandemic conclude that neither had real issues with relationships, though then-First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is accused of hogging the limelight with her daily lockdown press conferences, even if there’s praise for her “serious and diligent” approach to leading Scotland through the pandemic.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Im Bundestag tagt die Corona-Enquete-Kommission – und gleich die erste öffentliche Sitzung nach der Sommerpause zeigt, wie tief die Gräben noch sind. Thema: Grundrechte und staatliche Eingriffe während der Pandemie. Zwischen Schutz und Freiheit, Eigenverantwortung und Vertrauen in die Wissenschaft wird heftig gestritten. Rixa Fürsen spricht mit Pauline von Pezold, die den Auftritt der AfD-Abgeordneten und ihrer Sachverständigen beobachtet hat. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es morgens um 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team bringen euch jeden Morgen auf den neuesten Stand in Sachen Politik — kompakt, europäisch, hintergründig. Und für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Unser Berlin Playbook-Newsletter liefert jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Hier gibt es alle Informationen und das kostenlose Playbook-Abo. Mehr von Berlin Playbook-Host und Executive Editor von POLITICO in Deutschland, Gordon Repinski, gibt es auch hier:   Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski.

President Donald Trump said Sunday he won’t be in attendance at the Supreme Court this week for a pivotal legal showdown that could gut the tariff policy at the center of his economic agenda. Trump had flirted publicly with going to the oral arguments in the tariff case Wednesday, even though such a move by a sitting president would appear unprecedented. But as he returned to the White House from Florida on Sunday, he told reporters on Air Force One that he doesn’t plan to go. At about the same time, Trump posted a longer statement on Truth Social, slipping in confirmation he won’t be at the crucial high court session. “I will not be going to the Court on Wednesday in that I do not want to distract from the importance of this Decision,” Trump wrote. Still, the president doubled down on the case’s importance and his predictions of disaster if the high court forces him to abandon his most sweeping tariffs. “It will be, in my opinion, one of the most important and consequential Decisions ever made by the United States Supreme Court,” Trump wrote. “If we lose, our Country could be reduced to almost Third World status — Pray to God that that doesn’t happen!” The justices are set to weigh a pair of legal challenges to Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs on several countries by invoking a nearly 50-year-old law. No president before Trump has used the law, known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to impose tariffs, which have brought in tens of billions of dollars to the U.S. government. Trump’s decision came after at least one prominent Trump ally indicated it would be unwise for the president to attend. “I think it’s a mistake,” Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana told POLITICO last week. “I’m sure the president is interested in the arguments,” Kennedy added. “Some may interpret it as an attempt to put pressure on the justices, and I think if the justices receive it that way, I’m not saying they will or they won’t, but if they do perceive it that way, I think it will backfire.” Some Democrats also said the move Trump was mulling was likely to be counterproductive. “It is a fairly unsubtle effort to intimidate the Supreme Court. Parties have a right to attend Supreme Court arguments, but the president could listen to it in a variety of other ways, and I think it’s just an attempt to bully the court, and frankly, I think it will backfire,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. However, speaking to journalists last month, Trump said he felt obliged to go given the stakes. “It’s one of the most important decisions in the history of the Supreme Court and I might go there. I really believe I have an obligation to go there,” Trump said. The move would have given the president a first-hand view as the justices weigh whether to uphold his wide-ranging tariffs on dozens of U.S. trading partners — a policy Trump has made a signature of his second term. Since suffering a defeat at an appeals court earlier this year, Trump has used almost apocalyptic terms to warn about the impact of a similar ruling from the justices. In a social media post in August, the president suggested the U.S. would be left destitute if his tariffs were deemed illegal. Such a ruling “would literally destroy the United States of America,” he wrote. The official request the administration made to the high court in September for urgent consideration of the case was only slightly more reserved. “The President and his Cabinet officials have determined … that the denial of tariff authority would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. Historians and lawyers who practice regularly before the court said they were not aware of any prior occasion in which a sitting president attended oral arguments. Presidents do grace the Supreme Court’s ornate courtroom on occasion for the formal investiture of new justices and typically visit the building during events marking the death of a justice. Trump attended the official installation of two of his nominees to the court: Justices Neil Gorsuch, in 2017, and Brett Kavanaugh, in 2018. He also visited the court in 2020 for ceremonies related to the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (He did not attend the investiture of his third Supreme Court nominee, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. That event was delayed until 2021 due to the coronavirus pandemic, and Trump was out of office at the time.) “In general, the justices are very protective of their status and prerogatives and they really don’t like it when it looks like they’re being bullied,” said Washington University law professor Daniel Epps. Stephen Wermiel, a Supreme Court historian, said it would be “a very awkward situation for him to attend.” “If he is there to remind the justices how important the case is to him, that is extremely superfluous. They are quite aware of the importance of the case. If he is there as a form of jawboning, that is even more inappropriate,” he added. Trump has previously shown up to lower court proceedings where his attendance was not required. In January 2024, Trump flew from his Florida home to a Washington federal courthouse a few blocks from the Capitol to watch Sauer, then one of his personal attorneys, argue that Trump’s service as president immunized him from criminal prosecution. Special counsel Jack Smith, who had obtained the criminal indictment claiming Trump illegally conspired to overturn the 2020 presidential election, was also present. Whatever Trump’s intent in turning up that day — and breaking courtroom protocol by sitting at the counsel table with his lawyers — the D.C. Circuit judges didn’t back down. Despite the then-ex-president’s presence, all three judges, including a Republican appointee, rejected Trump’s immunity arguments. When Trump’s appeal of that decision went before the Supreme Court about two months later, Trump was sitting in a separate criminal trial in Manhattan on charges he illegally covered up hush money payments to a porn star. The former president asked to be excused from the trial to attend the immunity arguments at the high court, but the state court judge, Juan Merchan, declined. “Arguing before the Supreme Court is a big deal; I can understand why your client wants to be there,” Merchan said to Trump’s lawyers. “Your client is a criminal defendant in New York County Supreme Court. He’s required to be here.” Sauer, who argued the immunity case for Trump at the high court, had a strong, if unsupervised, outing. In a decision that broke largely along ideological lines, the high court declared Trump immune from criminal prosecution for some actions he took as president,effectively kneecapping Smith’s election-related prosecution. When Trump returned to office this year he named Sauer to his current post as the federal government’s top lawyer at the Supreme Court. He’s set to defend Trump’s tariff policy on Wednesday. Epps, who served as a law clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy, said one factor Trump or his advisers might have considered is whether he would have the patience to endure what could be two or even three hours of arguments on rather dry legal topics. “I have no idea how he would conduct himself. … Do you think he could sit there respectfully while people are debating this?” Epps said. “He would presumably want to be on his phone … The whole thing sounds horribly, horribly awkward.”

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Von den Bundesländern bis zur COP30 in Brasilien: Der Kanzler reist, verhandelt und kämpft um Vertrauen in die Wirtschaft. Im Gespräch mit Rasmus Buchsteiner geht es um steigende Krankenkassenbeiträge, drohenden Stellenabbau, den geplanten Stahl-Gipfel und die Frage, ob aus den vielen Runden endlich greifbare Ergebnisse werden. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview erklärt Franziska Hoppermann, Vorsitzende der Enquete-Kommission zur Corona-Aufarbeitung, wie die Arbeit des Bundestags Gerechtigkeit und Versöhnung schaffen soll. Sie spricht über die Rolle von Jens Spahn, wo die Corona-Kritiker bleiben und erste Lehren aus den Anhörungen. Und: Hans von der Burchard analysiert das erste Telefonat seit längerer Zeit zwischen Friedrich Merz und Benjamin Netanjahu. Es geht um humanitäre Hilfe für Gaza, diplomatische Spannungen – und darum, ob Deutschland wieder Einfluss im Nahost-Friedensprozess gewinnt. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski.

BRUSSELS — An adviser to U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lauded Europe’s data on Covid-19 vaccines in front of European Parliament lawmakers on Wednesday. Robert W. Malone, one of RFK Jr.’s newly selected vaccine advisers to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the United States can’t gather and analyze data as well as Europe does it, name-checking the Nordics and the U.K. especially for their systems. “One of the consequences is we can’t do, frankly, as good a job as you can do in epidemiology, which may be part of the reason why in some nation states, we’re getting better data on the Covid harms from Europe, the U.K., than we’re getting from the United States,” Malone said. That’s because, among other things, “we don’t have socialized medicine the same way you do, and we have barriers to ensure patient confidentiality,” he told right-wing MEPs gathered in the Parliament to launch the Make Europe Healthy Again (MEHA) movement with the Patriots for Europe group. Under RFK Jr., the U.S. has tried to reign in who can receive Covid-19 shots, which until recently were offered to everyone over 6 months of age at least once a year.   Europe diverged from American Covid-19 shot recommendations during the pandemic, restricting eligibility to those who would be at greatest risk from catching the virus as well as weighing the possible side effects. Younger men and teenagers, for example, appeared more susceptible to a rare heart condition after vaccination. RFK Jr., who has campaigned against the use of certain vaccines, has cited Europe’s approach to Covid-19 vaccination in his attempts to restrict who in the U.S. should receive it. He has also pushed for pregnant women to avoid using paracetamol (Tylenol), linking its use to increasing rates of autism in the U.S., under his Make America Health Again (MAHA) campaign.

PARIS — Bruno Le Maire’s comeback to French politics lasted under 14 hours. But that was enough time to spark fury across the political spectrum and make him the ideal scapegoat for France’s new government crisis.  After leaving politics last year, the man who led France’s economy and finance ministry for seven years made a surprise return on Sunday evening, when he was named armed forces minister in Sébastien Lecornu’s short-lived executive.  But Le Maire didn’t even have a chance to enter the Hôtel de Brienne, the HQ of the defense ministry. His appointment immediately unleashed outrage from almost all parties, with the conservative Les Républicains — Le Maire’s onetime political home — saying it was even one of the reasons they questioned supporting Lecornu’s executive, triggering its collapse. With that, the man who held France’s most powerful ministry longer than anyone, shattered another record: the shortest ministerial tenure in recent history. Unlike Lecornu and his other ministers, Le Maire has stepped away from his caretaker role. Le Maire acknowledged that his brief quasi-comeback “has provoked incomprehensible, false, and disproportionate reactions from some people.” FINGER-POINTING IN ALL DIRECTIONS The main line of fire against him came from his former party, Les Républicains, which he left in 2017 to join Emmanuel Macron’s camp, as did Lecornu. Conservative leader and outgoing Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau stated that Lecornu broke his trust by appointing Le Maire without informing him in advance. Le Maire never spared criticism for his former party, and they’ve returned it in kind, holding him responsible for allowing France’s debt to spiral out of control after the coronavirus pandemic.  During his record seven-year tenure as minister, Le Maire became a familiar face in Brussels and in EU capitals, coming to embody the French push for strategic autonomy, a more confrontational trade policy towards Washington and Beijing, as well as increased subsidies for strategic sectors.  Le Maire might have won the battle of ideas on the EU stage as the French economic doctrine he pushed with Macron has become mainstream in Brussels, but that didn’t help him gain popularity at home, where he is still perceived as a product of the French elite and as the man responsible for France’s budget troubles. FUGUE SUISSE Before his flash-in-the-pan return to political life, and after he left Bercy last year, Le Maire had seemingly found happiness far from politics. He took a teaching position in the Swiss lakeside city of Lausanne, where he teaches classes every Monday, and became an advisor to Dutch semiconductor giant ASML, while also giving conferences around Europe.  Only a couple of weeks ago, Le Maire said that joining Sébastien Lecornu’s government was “completely out of the question.” But his words did not age well. | Pool photo by Ludovic Marin/EPA Freed from the duties of a ministerial life, he could finally devote more time to writing, an occupation that earned him criticism when he was still a minister. He is currently working on a non-fiction book focused on politics, which could prepare the ground for his possible comeback as a presidential candidate in 2027. Only a couple of weeks ago, Le Maire said that joining Lecornu’s government was “completely out of the question.” But his words did not age well. On Friday morning, his cellphone rang. His former head of cabinet, Emmanuel Moulin, who is now Macron’s chief of staff, tried to convince him to join the government, but with no success. On Saturday, Lecornu, who started his political career as an adviser to Le Maire in his twenties, also tried and failed. But a lengthy call with Macron on Sunday finally did the trick. A key argument put forward to convince Le Maire to join the government as defense minister was the fact that, thanks to his good relations with the German political class, he could help build a “Europe of defense” — an idea that remains just that, despite rising threats across the continent. A QUICK END However, on Sunday evening, a few minutes after Moulin announced the list of new ministers, which included Le Maire, the backlash began, startling the former finance minister. “You can see that I am only a pretext and that the problem is unfortunately infinitely deeper,” Le Maire said on Tuesday in an interview with online media Brut, adding that he “didn’t realize that political life had deteriorated so much in just one year and had become so hysterical, so violent, so detached from reality, so polarized.” On Friday morning, his cellphone rang. His former head of cabinet, Emmanuel Moulin, who is now Macron’s chief of staff, tried to convince him to join the government. | Pool photo by Ludovic Marin/EPA Retailleau’s party was divided internally on whether to support Lecornu’s government and was just looking for a scapegoat to mask the party’s internal division, said one person close to Le Maire, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. Retailleau himself on Monday acknowledged that, regardless of Le Maire, Lecornu’s government would not have lasted.  Yet now the former finance minister and fiction writer finds himself transformed into one of France’s most famous literary characters: Benjamin Malaussène, the professional scapegoat of Daniel Pennac’s books.  Regardless, by next Monday, Le Maire will be back in Lausanne with his students and restart his life far from politics. Until the next comeback. 

STRASBOURG ― Ursula von der Leyen appealed for unity when she appeared before MEPs on Monday ― for the sake of the whole of Europe. Three months on from the last time she faced a no-confidence vote, the European Commission president was in a slightly more conciliatory mode, and so were her more moderate opponents. In July, von der Leyen used the occasion to defend herself against accusations of wrongdoing on “Pfizergate” ― the unpublished text message exchange with a drugmaker CEO during the Covid pandemic. But this time there was less policy debate and fewer surprises. MEPs will vote on the two no-confidence motions, brought by the far right and far left, on Thursday (even though she’ll almost certainly survive that because her centrist opponents say they’ll back her). Here are some things we noticed. 1. A SOFTER TONE BUT VON DER LEYEN STILL PLAYS UP THREATS FROM THE KREMLIN When she faced the first no-confidence vote in July, the Commission president made headlines by saying her critics were “supported by our enemies and by their puppet masters in Russia or elsewhere.” She wasn’t quite so strident this time but it’s clear she still sees this as a valid line of attack. She urged lawmakers not to fall into what she called a “trap” laid by Vladimir Putin. She said the Russian president’s attempts to divide Europe were “the oldest trick in the book,” which aimed to “weaken our resolve and resilience.” “This is a trap and we simply cannot fall for it,” she said. 2. SHE DID SEEM TO TRY TO BE MORE CONCILIATORY Von der Leyen said she understood that many of the criticisms heading her way “come from a place of genuine and legitimate concern,” citing issues such as Gaza, Ukraine, trade, and relations with the U.S. That struck a far more mollifying note than the one she expressed in July. 3. VON DER LEYEN THINKS IT HELPS TO PORTRAY HERSELF AS THE STABILITY AMID THE CHAOS When the world is going to hell in a handbasket, at least it’s got the president of the European Commission to keep things steady. That’s one of the tactics von der Leyen is using to urge MEPs to stick by her. Ursula Von der Leyen said she understood that many of the criticisms heading her way “come from a place of genuine and legitimate concern.” | Christophe Petit Tesson/EPA “The world is in the most precarious and perilous state it has been for decades, and Europe is on high alert, from reckless space incursions to attempts at economic cohesion,” she said. “We need to focus on what really matters, which is to deliver for Europeans.” 4. THE CENTRISTS ARE RALLYING ROUND HER… The past few months have seen an escalation in the conflict between von der Leyen’s center-right and the center-left Socialists and Democrats, who aren’t supporting the motion to remove the Commission president. There have been some very public falling outs between the parliamentary chiefs of each side, Manfred Weber of von der Leyen’s European People’s Party and S&D boss Iratxe García. But now they seem to be on the same page for what they see as the greater good ― turning their ire on the extremes and keeping von der Leyen in power. Weber was scathing in his criticisms, notably calling out the far-right Patriots for Europe group for their opposition to the U.S. trade deal. “You are the ones with strong ties to MAGA, so what are you doing for us now?” And García said: “In the face of the empty cries of the far right and a left that has given up governing, our response is clear — dialogue, negotiation and compromise are what bear fruit and improve the lives of citizens.” 5. …BUT IT’S NOT A BLANK CHECK “Support is not unconditional; it depends on you,” García told von der Leyen, suggesting the threat of further opposition will never be far away. “You will only have our support if you keep the agreed promises.” 6. SHORTER IS BETTER? Another of von der Leyen’s tactics seems to be to talk less. In July, she spoke for around 15 minutes, this time she limited herself to just seven. 7. PARIS HANGS OVER EVERYTHING… It’s been another day of turmoil in the EU’s second-largest country. French politics has been a bit of a mess for a while and there’s a school of thought that this has leaked onto the European stage. After all, this week’s two motions of no confidence were both proposed by French MEPs, from the far right and far left respectively. EPP chief Weber described the motions as a “simple propaganda tool.” “I hope you have collected enough material for your French electoral campaign,” he told them. “Support is not unconditional; it depends on you,” Iratxe García told von der Leyen. | Martin Bertrand/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images 8. …AND THE FRENCH FAR RIGHT AREN’T REALLY PRETENDING OTHERWISE  “This is a vote against the Europe of Macron,”  said far-right French MEP Jordan Bardella, who proposed one of the no-confidence motions. (It should be remembered that Macron and von der Leyen don’t hail from the same party.)  9. HER CRITICS AREN’T PULLING THEIR PUNCHES “You have been accompanying the genocide in Gaza,” said Manon Aubry, co-chair of The Left, which proposed the other motion. She also said: “You capitulated to Donald Trump.” Bardella spoke of von der Leyen’s “trade surrender” and said the bloc’s migration and enlargement policies were eroding European sovereignty. 10. ALL IS NOT ROSY IN THE CENTRISTS’ GARDEN Von der Leyen ― like EPP Commission presidents before her ― has relied on Europe’s mainstream parties to keep her in power. But that” pro-European majority”, as it’s called, “is malfunctioning,” according to liberal Renew Europe chief Valérie Hayer. Voting in favor of von der Leyen, as her group will do, “doesn’t mean everything is fine,” Hayer said. “Because since the first motion of censure last July, we can’t say we’ve really made any progress.” 11. THE GREENS ARE NOT PART OF THE VON DER LEYEN CLUB VDL’s EPP is weakening Europe because it’s vacillating on “which side of the political spectrum they stand on,”  Greens co-leader Terry Reintke said. The Greens have plenty of complaints, from the “late reaction” to suffering in Gaza to the scrapping of climate initiatives. But they won’t vote against her, Reintke said, because “do we really, in this crucial moment, want an institutional crisis?” 12. THE ECR IS ON THE FENCE The right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists are no real fans of von der Leyen but they don’t particularly agree with some of her critics either. That will all add up to some of the group backing her in the confidence vote, and some not. That happened in July, too, when the Brothers of Italy party backed von der Leyen, while the Polish ECR delegation voted to remove her. The right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists are no real fans of von der Leyen but they don’t particularly agree with some of her critics either. | Christophe Petit Tesson/EPA “In the ECR, every national delegation will be free to vote according to its conscience and in the interest of its people,” said leader Nicola Procaccini. 13. THE WORLD IS WATCHING (MAYBE) Von der Leyen concluded her speech by saying she believed her words needed to “reverberate around Europe and beyond,” and the message was that “Europe stands together ― and it delivers together.” Whether they’re listening in Prague, Budapest, Bratislava ― or even Berlin and Paris, for that matter ― is another question. Von der Leyen looks almost certain to survive this week, but the wolves are circling.

GIULIANO DA EMPOLI, THE MODERN MACHIAVELLI An Italian-Swiss writer specializing in top-level power games and autocrats has become essential reading for Europe’s political elite, particularly Emmanuel Macron. By GIORGIO LEALI in Paris His name is Giuliano da Empoli, and in recent years his works have become some of the most fashionable reading for those in Europe’s halls of power. | Illustration by Natália Delgado/ POLITICO There’s an outsider among the small group of people following French President Emmanuel Macron in the narrow corridors of the United Nations and the lavish meeting rooms of the Riyadh Ritz Carlton. He is neither a bodyguard, nor an aide, nor a diplomat. He thinks of himself simply as a writer.  His name is Giuliano da Empoli, and in recent years his works have become some of the most fashionable reading for those in Europe’s halls of power. Just like notorious Florentine diplomat Niccolò Machiavelli, author of “The Prince,” da Empoli specializes in diagnosing the strongmen of his age. While for Machiavelli that meant studying the secrets of Cesare Borgia’s success, da Empoli has been exploring the world of Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman. His last two books focused on tyrants and autocrats, and presidents and ministers across Europe have gobbled them up in the hopes of surviving the increasingly dog-eat-dog world of geopolitics. Macron is on first-name terms with da Empoli and quotes him in his speeches. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen — who has spent much of this year sparring with Trump over his threats to Greenland — has a direct line to the phlegmatic Italian-Swiss national.  In an elegant parlor overlooking the garden at the Parisian headquarters of his publisher Gallimard, da Empoli admitted to POLITICO that, like Machiavelli, he likes to be “the one who is in the room, in the place where decisions are taken and things happen, but who stays a bit on the side.” Best-selling novel “Le Mage du Kremlin” by Giuliano da Empoli on sale in a book shop in Paris. | Sam Tarling/Getty Images While Machiavelli tailored “The Prince” as a guidebook on Realpolitik for Florentine statesman Lorenzo de’ Medici, da Empoli also views himself as providing advice to the leaders of his day, in return for access to top-level subject matter. “For me, it is a way to get material to feed my writing. For them, it is also a way to have a different perspective from that of professional advisers or the other people they speak to,” he said. Machiavelli and da Empoli admittedly had different reasons for picking up a pen. The Florentine wrote his masterpiece to try to win back favor and a political role with the Medici family, on whose orders he had been tortured. Da Empoli insisted he was happier as a writer, staying on the sidelines. Ironically enough, he said he was turned off by the cut-throat nature of politics he encountered in his earlier days. BRUSSELS IS NO PREDATOR In France, da Empoli mania is in full swing.  Companies, universities, lobby groups and think tanks are bending over backward to get him to speak at their events.  “He is a big headliner. Clients want us to book him as a guest for their annual events and seminars, especially given the current geopolitical uncertainties,” said a Paris-based strategy consultant who was granted anonymity to protect their relationship with clients. “But it is hard to get him, as his agenda is full for months.”  Macron brought him to the United Nations General Assembly in September last year, followed by a state visit to Canada. Last December he joined the French president on an official visit to Saudi Arabia, where he filled his notebook with ideas for his latest book — which the French president quoted in a speech to the army this summer. That book, “The Hour of the Predator,” was published in French in the spring and comes out in English next week. It explores the universe of Trump, Putin, Crown Prince Mohammed and Salvadorean President Nayib Bukele — the self-styled “world’s coolest dictator.” (There is not a single mention in this non-fiction work of the European Union’s institutions or their leaders — whom da Empoli considers to be the exact opposite of predators.) Giuliano da Empoli said he has no plans to exploit his fame for a return to front-line politics. | David Levenson/Getty Images Da Empoli argues these leaders owe much of their success to their ability to surprise adversaries with rash and sometimes ruthless decisions, like the killing and dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The Saudi crown prince, da Empoli writes, is the type of leader who would have thrived in Machiavelli’s times. Da Empoli described him as the “reincarnation” of Italian cardinal Cesare Borgia — who, as Machiavelli wrote, killed his enemies after inviting them for dinner. “These Borgias are characters who move in a world without rules — or break the rules, producing political miracles,” da Empoli said. It’s a world in which rule-bound Brussels struggles to make the grade. “If there’s something that brings together Trump, Putin and tech lords … it’s that they all attack almost daily Brussels, its rules, the European integration process,” he said. “Having written a book entirely about predators, it is normal, natural, that Brussels doesn’t feature in it.” MACHIAVELLI’S NEIGHBOR Politics has been part of da Empoli’s life since childhood. His father, Antonio, was a top economist who advised socialist Prime Minister Bettino Craxi. In 1986 the elder da Empoli survived an attack by far-left terrorists when Giuliano was 12. That’s when he first learned that politics comes with an inevitable dose of violence — a theme he regularly returns to in his books. “Politics is the activity that must prevent us from killing each other, but for this very reason it also concentrates a great deal of violence within itself,” he said. Da Empoli had become a young progressive by his early 20s, but was academically intrigued by the success of center-right tycoon Silvio Berlusconi among young voters, who skewed left in the 1990s. “It seemed important to me to investigate the reasons of the success of the adversary — which, after all, is what I continued doing until today,” he said. So the young writer published his first book on the struggles of young Italians, in which he criticized the Italian left for seeking short-term consensus to the detriment of future generations. The book earned him lunch invitations and the friendship of former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, an eccentric Christian Democrat. And his ideas lined up neatly with the policies later championed by Matteo Renzi, whom da Empoli ended up working for. The young writer published his first book on the struggles of young Italians, in which he criticized the Italian left for seeking short-term consensus to the detriment of future generations. | Leonardo Cendamo/Getty Images Da Empoli started as Renzi’s adviser when the future prime minister was mayor of Florence. As Renzi’s deputy for culture, da Empoli’s office in the Palazzo Vecchio was next to the one Machiavelli had occupied when he was secretary of the Florentine Republic. He once said he even felt the famed author’s spirit floating there. During his years beside Renzi in Florence, da Empoli came to the conclusion that skilled politicians take too much pleasure from violence and betrayal, and that this wasn’t what he was looking for. So da Empoli progressively left front-line politics. He founded a think tank called Volta in 2016, published articles and wrote books on the rise of populist movements — including Italy’s 5Star Movement — and the role of the spin doctors behind them. Yet da Empoli continued to orbit the political world, developing a network of influential contacts from Macron to former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, never quite cutting the cord from politics completely. After years of shuttling between Italy and the French capital, in 2019 da Empoli decamped for Paris, where he was born, drawn by the country’s “intimate connection between literature and politics.” The French capital remains a place where authors and philosophers still enjoy fame on the level of rock stars and actors, and where politicians regularly try their hand at writing fiction. Macron, as a teenager, even dreamed of becoming an author.   Stuck in a silent, locked-down Paris during the coronavirus pandemic, da Empoli wrote “The Wizard of the Kremlin,” his first work of fiction. The book tells the story of an imaginary Russian spin doctor inspired by former Vladimir Putin adviser Vladislav Surkov.  He chose to write a novel because he thought a “subjective and perhaps less-rational” work would grant him greater creative freedom to explore the themes he was interested in.  The Wizard Of The Kremlin (Le Mage Du Kremlin) red carpet during the 82nd Venice International Film Festival on Aug. 31. | Earl Gibson III/Deadline via Getty Images It hit bookshelves on April 2022, a few weeks after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and quickly became a bestseller. Readers hungry to better understand Putin and the oligarchs in his inner circle lapped it up.  “The book gave a form of collective intelligence to events that in themselves seemed just brutal and violent,” said former French Culture Minister Aurélie Filippetti, a writer herself.  “I don’t know a single person in the [French] political world who has not read his books.” Da Empoli’s star is now brighter than it has ever been, even if the movie adaptation starring Jude Law (who plays Putin), Paul Dano and Alicia Vikander premiered to mixed reviews at the Venice Film Festival in August.  The author’s admirers say his success has much to do with his capacity to make complex topics easily digestible, often by skillfully mixing refined historical anecdotes with references to pop culture and TV series.  Like Machiavelli, da Empoli is not so interested in the morality of his subjects, but is rather focused on understanding what’s going on inside the minds of characters like Putin or Trump. And that’s a point he particularly cares about. “The common thread of my books is to try to enter in the head of the villains, of the adversary,” he adds. “It is more interesting than to simply stigmatize them.”