news

Bolivian prosecutors demand the arrest of former President Evo Morales

Following a controversial legal process, the Bolivian justice system has issued an arrest warrant against former leftist President Evo Morales, who governed Bolivia from 2006 to 2019. The Prosecutor’s Office is seeking a 20-year sentence against one of the Andean country’s most prominent opposition leaders.

The prosecution accuses Morales of having had a romantic relationship with a minor who allegedly had a daughter with Morales while he was president of Bolivia.

However, the news outlet Telesur reported that the alleged victim, named Cindy Vargas, appeared before the Court Against Violence Against Women and requested that the case be dismissed: “I am not a victim; the incident did not occur, nor was there any exploitation.” In light of this, Vargas objected to public institutions pursuing legal action on her behalf and requested that the case be dismissed.

Furthermore, Morales stated: “For more than 40 years, not only have they accused me of being a drug trafficker and a terrorist, but they have investigated me through every possible avenue without having found a single piece of evidence of those crimes or of corruption. The iconic leader demanded that his accusers present “legal and factual evidence” of the alleged crimes he committed. “I do not seek impunity,” Morales asserted.

The Bolivian state wants to find any way to clamp down on the left because they understand the right's position is so shaky and fragile. Can an iron grip bring the Bolivian movement to heel? Or will it force a response it's unable to repress? Well, Evo knows:

Despite what he describes as a targeted lawfare campaign, Morales emphasized that his accusers will never be able to “silence the organized, combative, and outraged people in the face of a government of the rich, of neocolonialists, and of traitors.”

The Bolivian people fought for and enjoyed the fruits of 20 years of socialist progress, even if restrained by a liberal political system. Will they surrender that progress because internal friction of now-dead MAS? Or will they rise to the occasion and act as the protagonists of their own history?

For now, several media outlets speculate that Morales is in Cochabamba, where his most loyal supporters are protecting him against any possibility of imprisonment. Furthermore, several of his supporters have promised that if the former president is arrested, they will launch nationwide protests.

In this regard, union leader Dieter Mendoza said that if they touch Morales, there could be an insurgency and the country could descend into chaos: “If they touch Evo Morales, this is going to cause chaos. The country is going to be thrown into chaos in ways you can’t imagine; there will be an insurgency across Bolivia.”

Nepal’s top court halts government’s attempts to ban trade union for civil servants

imo the Nepalese situtation is very unstable

Wes Streeting resigned as UK Health Secretary and calls for Starmer to step down.

::: spoiler Personal take / editorialising I note that his last major act as Health Secretary was allowing Palantir full access to NHS patient records. He also spent his entire term telling trans people that new restrictions on their healthcare / rights have all been part of some bigger plan to make things better, somehow, that will now clearly never be followed up on (if it wasn't clear already).

He also neglected to mention the Mandelson affair in his published criticisms of Starmer.

Nationwide USA Gas Prices: 5/14

Gasoline has risen by 2 cents, diesel by 1

The previous wartime high was gasoline $4.558 and diesel $5.674 on 5/7

Illinois, home to Chicago, has risen 10 cents in a week

Mississippi is the only state to have an average under $4, sitting at $3.998

UK Labour Govt facing the consequences of not eliminating (or at the least controlling the yield curve) the bond market which they could've easily done by simply passing a law.

Ultimately, it won't be financial market that brings down the Labour Government but party infighting.

In The Economist this morning:

On Wednesday the leaders [Xi and Trump] concluded two-hours of talks in Beijing. Details of the discussion have yet to be released, but Mr Trump wants trade to be top of the agenda, and hopes to secure commitments from China to buy more American beef, beans and Boeing aircraft. Each side is uneasy about export controls imposed by the other. America wants China to keep critical minerals flowing, meanwhile China wants greater access to advanced American computer chips. The two powers may also agree to a rare co-operative effort to tackle risks posed by increasingly powerful AI models.

Is the "greater access to American computer chips" in the room with us right now? Instead of wanting these chips, China has banned them, encouraging domestic chip production. In fact, I'd wager Jensen (Nvidia's CEO) has joined Trump on this trip specifically to lobby the Chinese to reverse that ban and start buying Nvidia chips!

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-bans-foreign-ai-chips-state-funded-data-centres-sources-say-2025-11-05/

NYT - Trump [made] brief comments to reporters about how his meeting with Xi went. “Great. Great place. Incredible. China’s beautiful,” Trump said, according to a pool report. He declined to answer questions about Taiwan.