Czech government faces no-confidence vote over bitcoin scandal

PRAGUE (Reuters) -The main Czech opposition party on Thursday called a no-confidence vote in the government, accusing it of corruption over the acceptance of a payment to the state by an ex-convict worth $45 million in bitcoin.
The vote, scheduled to take place on Tuesday, is likely to fail as the government has a majority in parliament - but it could still dent the ruling centre-right coalition's chances in an October 3-4 election in which it trails the opposition.
Political veteran Pavel Blazek resigned as justice minister on May 31 for accepting the payment for the state, though he denied doing anything illegal.
Opposition groups including the ANO party led by former prime minister Andrej Babis have called on Prime Minister Petr Fiala to quit and said the payment was evidence of corruption.
"We have no choice," ANO vice-chair Alena Schillerova said on X after filing the no-confidence motion.
The man who made the donation of 468 bitcoins to the state was in jail from 2017 until 2021 after being convicted of involvement in the drug trade, fraud and illegal possession of weapons.
Blazek has faced criticism for possibly legitimising the ex-convict's assets, instead of turning to prosecutors or police to help secure them.
Opinion polls show Babis's ANO party with a clear lead over the main group in the government coalition led by Fiala's ODS party.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Vox

2 hours ago

• Vox

Three ways Trump's attack on Iran could spin out of control

is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers ideology and challenges to democracy, both at home and abroad. His book on democracy,, was published 0n July 16. You can purchase it here. Vice President JD Vance, President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during an address to the nation in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2025. Carlos Barria/Reuters/Bloomberg via Getty Images When Vice President JD Vance appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday morning, anchor Kristen Welker asked him a simple question: Is the United States now at war with Iran? In response, Vance said, 'We're not at war with Iran; we're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' This is akin to saying that, in attacking Pearl Harbor, Imperial Japan had merely declared war on America's warship construction program. Yet it's notable that Vance felt the need to engage in such contortions — and that President Donald Trump, in his address to the nation last night, went out of his way to emphasize that there were no additional strikes planned. The Trump administration does not want to admit it has begun a war, because wars have a way of escalating beyond anyone's control. What we should be worrying about now is not how the US-Iran fighting began, but how it ends. It is all too easy to see how these initial strikes could escalate into something much bigger — if Iran's nuclear program remains mostly intact, or if Iran retaliates in a way that forces American counter-escalation. It's possible neither occurs, and this stays as limited as currently advertised. Or factors beyond our knowledge — the 'unknown unknowns' of the current conflict — could lead to an even greater escalation than anyone is currently predicting. The worst-case scenario, an outright regime change effort akin to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, cannot be entirely ruled out. I don't know how bad things will get, or even if things are likely to get worse. But when I watched Trump's speech, and heard his obviously premature claims that 'Iran's key nuclear facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,' I couldn't help thinking about another speech from over 20 years ago — when, after the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003, George W. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and declared 'Mission Accomplished.' The mission hadn't been accomplished then, as it almost certainly hasn't been now. We can only hope that the resulting events this time are not a similar kind of catastrophe. Escalation pathway one: 'finishing the job' We do not know, at present, just how much damage American bombs have done to their targets — Iranian enrichment facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Satellite imagery shows that there are above-ground buildings still standing, belying Trump's claims of complete destruction, but many of the targets are underground. It's possible these were dealt a severe blow, and it's possible they weren't. Either scenario creates pathways to escalation. If the damage is indeed relatively limited, and one round of American bombs was not able to shatter the heavily reinforced concrete Iran uses to protect its underground assets, the Trump administration will face two bad choices. It can either let a clearly furious Iran retain operational nuclear facilities, raising the risk that they dash for a nuclear weapon, or it can keep bombing until the attacks have done sufficient damage to prevent Iran from getting a weapon in the immediate future. That commits the United States to, at minimum, an indefinite bombing campaign inside Iran. But even if this attack did do real damage, that leaves the question of the program's long-term future. Iran could decide, after being attacked, that the only way to protect itself is to rebuild its nuclear program in a hurry and get a bomb. It has already moved to quit the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), an agreement that gives international inspectors (and, by extension, the world) visibility into its nuclear development. There are, again, two ways to ensure that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei doesn't make such a choice: a diplomatic agreement akin to the 2015 nuclear deal, or else a war of regime change aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government altogether. The first isn't impossible, but it certainly seems unlikely at present. The US and Iran were negotiating on its nuclear program when Israel began bombing Iranian targets, seemingly using the talks as cover to catch Iran off guard. It seems very unlikely that Iran would see the US as a credible negotiating partner now that it has joined Israel's war. That leaves the other form of 'finishing the job': a full-on war of regime change. My colleague Josh Keating has argued, convincingly, that Israel wants such an outcome. And some of Trump's allies, including Sens. Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, have openly called for it. 'Wouldn't the world be better off if the ayatollahs went away and were replaced by something better?' Graham asked, rhetorically, in a Fox News interview last Monday. 'It's time to close the chapter on the Ayatollah and his henchmen. Let's close it soon.' Such a dire outcome seems, at present, very distant. But the further Trump continues down a hawkish path on Iran, the more thinkable it will become. Escalation pathway two: a US-Iran cycle of violence There's a military truism that, in war, 'the enemy gets a vote.' It could be that Iran's actions force American escalation even if the Trump administration doesn't want to go any further than it has right now. So far, Iran's military response to both US and Israeli attacks has been underwhelming. Tehran is clearly hobbled by the damage Israel did to its proxy militias, Hezbollah and Hamas, and its ballistic missiles are not capable of threatening the Israeli homeland in the way that many fear. But there are two things Iran hasn't tried that are, after American intervention, more likely to be on the table. The first is an attack on US servicemembers stationed in the Middle East, of which there are somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 at present. Of particular note are the US forces currently stationed in Iraq and Syria. Iraq is home to several Iranian-aligned militias that could potentially be ordered to directly attack American troops in the country or across the border in Syria. The second is an attack on international shipping lanes. The most dangerous scenario involves an attempt to use missiles and naval assets to close the Strait of Hormuz, a Persian Gulf passage used by roughly 20 percent of global oil shipping by volume. If Iran either kills significant numbers of American troops or attempts to do major damage to the global economy, there will surely be American retaliation. In his Saturday speech, Trump promised that if Iran retaliates, 'future [American] attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' An effort to detonate the global oil market would, without a doubt, necessitate such a response: The US cannot allow Iran to hold its economy hostage. We do not, to be clear, know whether Iran is willing to take such risks, or even if it can. Israeli attacks have devastated its military capabilities, including ballistic missile launchers that allow it to hit targets well beyond its borders. But a 'cycle of violence' is a very common way that violence escalates: One side attacks, the other side retaliates, prompting another attack, and on up the chain. Once they start, such cycles can be difficult to prevent from spiraling out of control. Escalation pathway three: the Iraq analogy, or things fall apart I want to be clear that escalation here isn't a given. It is possible that the US and its Israeli partners remain satisfied with one American bombing run, and that the Iranians are too scared or weak to engage in any major response. But those are a whole lot of 'ifs.' And we have no way of knowing, at present, whether we're heading to a best- or worst-case scenario (or one of several possibilities in the middle). Key decision points, like whether Trump orders another round of US raids on Fordow or Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz, will determine which pathways we go down — and it's hard to know which choices the key actors in Washington, Tehran, and Jerusalem will make. I keep thinking about the 2003 Iraq war in part for obvious reasons: the US attacking a Middle Eastern dictatorship based on flimsy intelligence claims about weapons of mass destruction. But the other parallel, perhaps a deeper one, is that the architects of the Iraq War had little-to-no understanding of the second-order consequences of their choices. There was so much they didn't know, both about Iraq as a country and the likely consequences of regime change more broadly, that they failed to grasp just how much of a quagmire the war might become until it had already sucked in the United States. It's over 20 years later, and boots are still on the ground — drawn in by events, like the creation of ISIS, that were direct results of the initial decision to invade. Attacking Iran, even with the more 'modest' aim of destroying its nuclear program, carries similar risks. The attack carries so many potential consequences, involving so many different countries and constituencies, that it's hard to even begin to try to account for all the potential risks that might cause further US escalation. There are likely consequences taking shape, at this moment, that we can't even begin to conceive of. The nature of the Trump administration gives me little hope that they've properly gamed this out. The president himself is a compulsive liar and foreign policy ignoramus. The secretary of defense has run his department into the ground. The secretary of state, who is also the national security adviser, has more jobs than anyone could reasonably be expected to perform competently at once. It is, in short, far less competent on paper than the Bush administration was prior to the Iraq invasion — and look how that went. It's possible, despite all of this, that the Trump administration has adequately gamed out their choices here — preparing for all reasonably foreseeable contingencies and capable of acting swiftly in the (inevitable) event that some response catches the world by surprise. But if it didn't, then things could go badly and tragically wrong.

Miami Herald

2 hours ago

• Miami Herald

Trump's Iran strike could boost — or ruin — his troubled presidency

President Trump's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites is a high-stakes gamble that could either breathe new life into or irreparably damage his troubled second term in the White House. Yet for the world at large, it may well prove to be a welcome development. Before we get into why Trump's decision aligns with the consensus among the world's biggest democracies — that Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons — let's remember that Trump's popularity was falling fast before the strike. Only 42% of Americans approve of Trump's job performance, while 54% disapprove of it, according to a large-sample Reuters-IPSOS poll conducted June 11-16. Most Americans view Trump negatively, not only on the economy, which was once his strong point, but also on immigration, according to polls. The U.S. economy has slowed dramatically since Trump took office and launched his erratic tariff wars. According to the latest World Bank projections, the U.S. economy will only grow by 1.4% this year, which would be half of its 2.8% growth last year, in part because of the uncertainty created by Trump's on-and-off threats to impose huge import taxes on foreign goods. Likewise, many Trump voters in states with large immigrant communities, like Florida, are disappointed by Trump's decision to deport hundreds of thousands of immigrants without criminal records, including more than 350,000 Venezuelan Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders who entered the country legally. During the 2024 campaign, Republicans claimed that Trump would focus on deporting violent criminals. Before his Iran strike, Trump was also haunted by his growing image as a wavering leader. His repeated reversals of his own tariff ultimatums — first vowing to impose 145% tariffs on China, then reducing them to 30% — made him an object of mockery in European capitals and among U.S. critics. A Financial Times columnist popularized the acronym TACO — Trump Always Chickens out — to describe the U.S. president's trade strategy. Trump got visibly upset when he was asked about the TACO reference at a recent press conference. His fear of being perceived as an indecisive leader may have pushed him — after weeks of reportedly telling Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu he would not get dragged into the conflict — to join Israel's military offensive against Iran's nuclear sites. But if Trump's Iran gamble turns out well and Iran's theocratic dictatorship either crumbles or gives up its uranium enrichment program through diplomatic negotiations — a big if — Trump will be credited with having done something four previous presidents contemplated but ultimately failed to do. Internationally, virtually all major Western democracies agrees that Iran is a threat to Israel, and to the world. In a statement at the end of the June 16 summit of the G-7 group of Western democracies in Alberta, Canada, the leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada said that 'We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.' The G-7 bloc's statement added that 'Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror in the Middle East,' and that 'We affirm that Israel has a right to defend itself.' Days earlier, on June 12, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the first time in 20 years issued a statement warning that Iran was not complying with its nuclear nonproliferation agreements. Translation: Iran was enriching uranium at levels only justified to build nuclear weapons. Skeptics who don't follow Iran's political history may ask themselves why the world doesn't allow Iran to have nuclear weapons like India, Pakistan and other countries. The answer is simple: Unlike other countries, Iran has a state policy of trying to 'eliminate' a nearby sovereign country — Israel— that has been recognized by the United Nations since 1948. This is not about Western countries being against Iran's Jurassic theocracy for imprisoning women for failing to cover their heads with a hijab, or for executing gays, or any of its other abhorrent internal policies. The reason is that if we allow a country that calls for the destruction of another nation to have a nuclear bomb, it will set a precedent that makes the world even more dangerous. In Iran's case, it's not just Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's crazy rhetoric, but his actions. Iran has long provided financial aid to terrorist groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Iran's proxies have carried out terrorist attacks as far away as Argentina, where Hezbollah was found responsible for the bombing that killed 85 people and wounded hundreds at the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in 1994. There are many ways in which Trump's political gamble may go wrong, especially if Iran moved some of its enriched uranium into a secret location outside Fordo, or if it unifies Iranians behind their decrepit regime. But if Iran's regime falls, or agrees to a serious international nuclear monitoring agreement, Trump's faltering second term will get a second wind. Don't miss the 'Oppenheimer Presenta' TV show on Sundays at 9 pm E.T. on CNN en Español. Blog:

New York Post

6 hours ago

• New York Post

Homeland Security warns of possible terrorist attacks in US following strike on Iran

The Department of Homeland Security issued a terrorism alert on Sunday — warning of possible Iranian attacks against the US following the American airstrikes against Tehran's nuclear program. DHS warned officials to be on the lookout for Iranian-led attacks over the next three months by terror cells inspired to retaliate following Saturday night's strike. 'The likelihood of violent extremists in the Homeland independently mobilizing to violence in response to the conflict would likely increase if Iranian leadership issued a religious ruling calling for retaliatory violence against targets in the Homeland,' DHS said in a statement. Advertisement Iranians at a rally in Tehran after the US airstrikes on three of the countries nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025. via REUTERS Along with the possibility of extremist attacks on US soil, officials warned that the chances of both cyberattacks and antisemitic acts are likely to increase. The advisory comes after the NYPD put out its own alert last night, with Gov. Hochul upping security at the MTA and Port Authority.