I still hold to the premise that bigger things are in play here.
Spheres of Influence based on geography.
US wrestling Israel as much as possible while Russia curtails Iran / Houthis.
Sidelining the UK/EU.
Sub-optimizing Ukraine needs in order to optimize larger goals. The give and take to make a bad situation look less bad eg. recognizing Crimea, loosening sanctions etc.
Alaistair Crooke seems to hint that either the US negotiation team is completely inexperienced and dumb as a box of rocks, or the Ukraine ceasefire was all a show and there was never any real intent on having a ceasefire it's just that Trump said he would so he did and apparently it was signed by the US.
No intent as it was not written in any customary sense
"What a surprise - Putin rejects an unconditional ceasefire. He wants to keep bombing and killing innocent Ukrainians. He wants Ukraine disarmed. He wants Ukraine neutralised. He wants to make Ukraine a vassal state of Russia. He isn’t negotiating. He’s laughing at us."
Trump - While knowing Putin's request(s) - and knowing US UK EU UA will never meet them ---- why not have a few phone calls - then write up a ceasefire proposal that does not address all of Putin's requests, write up a ceasefire that omits essential terms ( as Alaistair Crooke stated) write up a ceasefire you know will never be agreed to --- Sign it and send it to Putin
And then have your lackeys Johnson Rubio et al tell everyone you were the reasonable one, you offered a reasonable ceasefire, you met their requests, but Putin wants to kill innocent people so Putin denied your reasonable request. It's a game show.
Boris Johnson post merely indicates the speculation is correct
Also OT, but CJ Roberts unsolicited public comments did not help change my low opinion of his performance. I wonder if he’s making note of the fact that the only source of this judicial overreach is coming from the “no Obama judges” side of the aisle!
Turns out there are “Obama judges and Bush judges and Trump judges”, huh, fancy that.
I know our esteemed host has spoken up for Roberts's qualities as a defender of constitutional values, but I personally find it terrifying that the most crucial constitutional inflexion point since the US civil war may be decided by individuals like him and Coney Barrett.
The crisis of the judiciary has been building for many decades, and Roberts has only very limited control. He's trying to *steer* the judges back to within a reasonably constitutional role while maintaining the public prestige of the judiciary as a societal institution that is nonpartisan--the public perception. But his tools for doing that largely amount to trying to lead by restrained example.
Right now, I imagine he's trying to come up with some solution that will defend the prerogatives of the Executive while not seeming partisan. Not easy, because he can only do that within the parameters of the cases that come to him. He would prefer to see appellate courts get things right a few times first. There have been a few of those. He doesn't want to rush into this.
Yes, it has and the reasons are obvious. You can’t get the appellate court to act right when they are selected to do what they are doing, obstruction and defending corruption while enabling criminality. It’s called social justice. Irony.
His statement today wasn't a *defense* of the Obama judges. It relied on a bit of a fiction, as if some of the judicial antics we're seeing fall within normal parameters on which reasonable legal scholars can agree to disagree. The reality, of course, is that many of these judges are documentably driven by partisan/ideological considerations that could wreak havoc going forward on our entire constitutional order, because they're obsessed with Orange Man Bad. In that context, Roberts' statement really was more of a warning to the judges to exercise restraint because Roberts has no control over what Congress could decide to do. They're playing with fire by being unreasonable.
The judges are aiding and abetting crime and corruption with obstruction and hiding their activism behind the law. These actions are what their ideological insanity refers to as social justice.
You caught my interest I was not aware of any hubbub, so I looked, the only statement I read was
Roberts indicated that “[f]or more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
It is not a rebuke as the headlines read, it is just a very simple and well known statement of fact/law No reasonable person could argue with this statement; This is simple basic fact/law.
Perhaps Roberts was just pointing out a slippery slope that could be improperly worked in the future by either side, if it is not quelled now
Turley has written that impeachment is the wrong path and to follow constitutional. These actions are only time activist judges follow the law is when they are attempting to protect crime and corruption. It’s devious and in line with their ideological approach.
Trump is stoking the fires and creating an 80/20 situation on public opinion, where 80% agree with Trump. Trump has been doing this to the Democrats, where due to the true believers leftist they need to be on the 20% on cutting government, transgenders, deporting gangsters, etc.
I almost feel sorry for Roberts. Trump is deliberating creating cases that cause judicial overreach by true believer judges.
Absolutely true. But this is the role of the president, who is the only official who represents We the People as a whole. Recall when the Obamacare bill went to the SCOTUS, Roberts' reasoning basically amounted to: At some point we need to listen to the voice of the people. Well?
Mexican "cartels" serve a key function of poisoning the US, keeping it weak and off balance, and maximizing brutality and suffering which is exactly what US elites, the UK monarchy, and other globalists want to do. Queen Elizabeth even awarded Honorary Knighthoods to Mexican Presidents Vicente Fox (2002), Felipe Calderon (2009), Enrique Pena-Nieto (2015, and Ernesto Zedillo (1998). The Mexican "government" is fine with them. Mexican labor fleeing to US adds billions in remittances to Mexican economy.
You really think we have the ability to take Iran out? Not going to happen. Russia and China will support them and in turn with Russia's Hypersonic Missiles and Kinetic Energy bombs Israel will suffer and its army wiped out.
We don't even have the resources to put an Army in the field for any length of time, much less supply it and we have squandered much of out bombs and munitions on Ukraine and Israel and have not been able to recover.
They are gonna try. Just like they planned. Iran the only one left. They took down Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia.
Westley Clark returned to Washington to see the same general and inquired whether the plan to strike Iraq was still under consideration. The general's response was stunning:
"'Oh, it's worse than that,' he said, holding up a memo on his desk. 'Here's the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We're going to take out seven countries in five years.' And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran."
While Clark doesn't name the other four countries, he has mentioned in televised interviews that the hit list included Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan. .
perhaps interesting China Global Times had an article on a call being held, but not a followup
and India paper I read seemed to repeat US statements
"The two leaders also discussed the situation in the Middle East and the Red Sea region, pledging joint efforts to stabilize the situation in these crisis-stricken areas."
Tx. Running around a lot today. Is Trump creating a crisis to bring Russia in to help solve it? That would definitely qualify as multi-dimensional chess.
Attacking Iran is insane. The U.S. invasion and destruction of Iraq was a disaster. Attacking Iran would be exponentially worse. Next level insanity. Trump’s base would vaporize as well as the rest of the country. Want to ensure an opening for a domestic Marxist revolution and takeover of the U.S.? Invade Iran.
Nothing has changed. Russia is still grinding forward. It would be interesting to do a daily comparison between the number of words exchanged in these "negotiations" and kilometres of Ukrainian territory captured by the Russians. I suspect the latter variable would be unaffected by the former.
According to a statement from U.S. press secretary Karoline Leavitt, both Trump and Putin 'agreed' that the conflict in Ukraine 'needs to end with a lasting peace,' and that 'negotiations will begin immediately in the Middle East.'
So is Trump going to impose his views on the Palestinians and Iranians like he did with Zelensky? If he believes he can do that, he is seriously underestimating the latter.
Red Sea, Black Sea and Panama Canal, seems like this more about business and reducing inflation than anything else.
I still hold to the premise that bigger things are in play here.
Spheres of Influence based on geography.
US wrestling Israel as much as possible while Russia curtails Iran / Houthis.
Sidelining the UK/EU.
Sub-optimizing Ukraine needs in order to optimize larger goals. The give and take to make a bad situation look less bad eg. recognizing Crimea, loosening sanctions etc.
Alaistair Crooke seems to hint that either the US negotiation team is completely inexperienced and dumb as a box of rocks, or the Ukraine ceasefire was all a show and there was never any real intent on having a ceasefire it's just that Trump said he would so he did and apparently it was signed by the US.
No intent as it was not written in any customary sense
https://youtu.be/NXsykiIDK2g?t=196
Boris Johnson says it was all a show
"What a surprise - Putin rejects an unconditional ceasefire. He wants to keep bombing and killing innocent Ukrainians. He wants Ukraine disarmed. He wants Ukraine neutralised. He wants to make Ukraine a vassal state of Russia. He isn’t negotiating. He’s laughing at us."
https://x.com/BorisJohnson/status/1902117437018903037
Who gives a rats arse what Boris Johnson says.
What I intended or meant was - my speculation
Trump - While knowing Putin's request(s) - and knowing US UK EU UA will never meet them ---- why not have a few phone calls - then write up a ceasefire proposal that does not address all of Putin's requests, write up a ceasefire that omits essential terms ( as Alaistair Crooke stated) write up a ceasefire you know will never be agreed to --- Sign it and send it to Putin
And then have your lackeys Johnson Rubio et al tell everyone you were the reasonable one, you offered a reasonable ceasefire, you met their requests, but Putin wants to kill innocent people so Putin denied your reasonable request. It's a game show.
Boris Johnson post merely indicates the speculation is correct
From the American Conservative
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/trump-should-resist-another-america-last-war-in-the-middle-east/
Bottom line is Russia will talk when Ukraine surrenders, no other options.
Trump will have to eat his Ego to get a deal.
As this situation continues to unfold, I am reminded of Ayn Rand’s words, “You can ignore reality but you can’t avoid it.”
OT, but the JFK files just dropped. The Truth is Out at last!
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/kitten-corner-the-jfk-files
Also OT, but CJ Roberts unsolicited public comments did not help change my low opinion of his performance. I wonder if he’s making note of the fact that the only source of this judicial overreach is coming from the “no Obama judges” side of the aisle!
Turns out there are “Obama judges and Bush judges and Trump judges”, huh, fancy that.
I know our esteemed host has spoken up for Roberts's qualities as a defender of constitutional values, but I personally find it terrifying that the most crucial constitutional inflexion point since the US civil war may be decided by individuals like him and Coney Barrett.
The crisis of the judiciary has been building for many decades, and Roberts has only very limited control. He's trying to *steer* the judges back to within a reasonably constitutional role while maintaining the public prestige of the judiciary as a societal institution that is nonpartisan--the public perception. But his tools for doing that largely amount to trying to lead by restrained example.
Right now, I imagine he's trying to come up with some solution that will defend the prerogatives of the Executive while not seeming partisan. Not easy, because he can only do that within the parameters of the cases that come to him. He would prefer to see appellate courts get things right a few times first. There have been a few of those. He doesn't want to rush into this.
Yes, it has and the reasons are obvious. You can’t get the appellate court to act right when they are selected to do what they are doing, obstruction and defending corruption while enabling criminality. It’s called social justice. Irony.
I hope you are right, Mark. With my head, I believe you. With my heart...
His statement today wasn't a *defense* of the Obama judges. It relied on a bit of a fiction, as if some of the judicial antics we're seeing fall within normal parameters on which reasonable legal scholars can agree to disagree. The reality, of course, is that many of these judges are documentably driven by partisan/ideological considerations that could wreak havoc going forward on our entire constitutional order, because they're obsessed with Orange Man Bad. In that context, Roberts' statement really was more of a warning to the judges to exercise restraint because Roberts has no control over what Congress could decide to do. They're playing with fire by being unreasonable.
The judges are aiding and abetting crime and corruption with obstruction and hiding their activism behind the law. These actions are what their ideological insanity refers to as social justice.
I saw his comments as more being a warning to Trump.
Thanks for your thoughts on the subject.
He might've been better served by being silent.
You caught my interest I was not aware of any hubbub, so I looked, the only statement I read was
Roberts indicated that “[f]or more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
It is not a rebuke as the headlines read, it is just a very simple and well known statement of fact/law No reasonable person could argue with this statement; This is simple basic fact/law.
Perhaps Roberts was just pointing out a slippery slope that could be improperly worked in the future by either side, if it is not quelled now
If Trump doesn't owe Roberts a favor, we all do
Turley has written that impeachment is the wrong path and to follow constitutional. These actions are only time activist judges follow the law is when they are attempting to protect crime and corruption. It’s devious and in line with their ideological approach.
Perhaps…
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/03/18/president-trump-goes-scorched-earth-on-judge-boasberg-chief-justice-john-roberts-defends-boasberg/#more-270208
also Roberts private home and family had protestors after roe wade so he probably a bit protective and rightly so Trump statements could be inciteful
Trump is stoking the fires and creating an 80/20 situation on public opinion, where 80% agree with Trump. Trump has been doing this to the Democrats, where due to the true believers leftist they need to be on the 20% on cutting government, transgenders, deporting gangsters, etc.
I almost feel sorry for Roberts. Trump is deliberating creating cases that cause judicial overreach by true believer judges.
Absolutely true. But this is the role of the president, who is the only official who represents We the People as a whole. Recall when the Obamacare bill went to the SCOTUS, Roberts' reasoning basically amounted to: At some point we need to listen to the voice of the people. Well?
It’s always been the plan to attack Iran. It’s why we have built them up for the past forty years. Now it’s time to take them out.
Same with the Mexican cartels..
Mexican "cartels" serve a key function of poisoning the US, keeping it weak and off balance, and maximizing brutality and suffering which is exactly what US elites, the UK monarchy, and other globalists want to do. Queen Elizabeth even awarded Honorary Knighthoods to Mexican Presidents Vicente Fox (2002), Felipe Calderon (2009), Enrique Pena-Nieto (2015, and Ernesto Zedillo (1998). The Mexican "government" is fine with them. Mexican labor fleeing to US adds billions in remittances to Mexican economy.
You really think we have the ability to take Iran out? Not going to happen. Russia and China will support them and in turn with Russia's Hypersonic Missiles and Kinetic Energy bombs Israel will suffer and its army wiped out.
We don't even have the resources to put an Army in the field for any length of time, much less supply it and we have squandered much of out bombs and munitions on Ukraine and Israel and have not been able to recover.
They are gonna try. Just like they planned. Iran the only one left. They took down Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia.
Westley Clark returned to Washington to see the same general and inquired whether the plan to strike Iraq was still under consideration. The general's response was stunning:
"'Oh, it's worse than that,' he said, holding up a memo on his desk. 'Here's the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We're going to take out seven countries in five years.' And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran."
While Clark doesn't name the other four countries, he has mentioned in televised interviews that the hit list included Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan. .
I read this reported in Turkey paper
perhaps interesting China Global Times had an article on a call being held, but not a followup
and India paper I read seemed to repeat US statements
"The two leaders also discussed the situation in the Middle East and the Red Sea region, pledging joint efforts to stabilize the situation in these crisis-stricken areas."
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/putin-and-trump-discussed-bilateral-ties-ukraine-conflict-middle-east-kremlin/3513540
Note: China Global Times did report:
Hamas says head of its government in Gaza killed in Israeli airstrikes
By Xinhua
Published: Mar 18, 2025 05:35 PM
Hamas says head of its government in Gaza killed in Israeli airstrikes
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202503/1330351.shtml
Tx. Running around a lot today. Is Trump creating a crisis to bring Russia in to help solve it? That would definitely qualify as multi-dimensional chess.
Attacking Iran is insane. The U.S. invasion and destruction of Iraq was a disaster. Attacking Iran would be exponentially worse. Next level insanity. Trump’s base would vaporize as well as the rest of the country. Want to ensure an opening for a domestic Marxist revolution and takeover of the U.S.? Invade Iran.
I recall this being discussed about the Oslo Accords and Clinton.
Here is an example:
"Accords did more to lay bare where the parties disagreed, than provide any real roadmap forward"
https://www.aaiusa.org/library/how-the-us-failed-oslo
Doesn’t read like a peace deal is imminent.
Not without more and substantial US concessions. Putin said nice public things to make Trump look good, but didn't budge on substance.
Nothing has changed. Russia is still grinding forward. It would be interesting to do a daily comparison between the number of words exchanged in these "negotiations" and kilometres of Ukrainian territory captured by the Russians. I suspect the latter variable would be unaffected by the former.
Next meet in ME:
According to a statement from U.S. press secretary Karoline Leavitt, both Trump and Putin 'agreed' that the conflict in Ukraine 'needs to end with a lasting peace,' and that 'negotiations will begin immediately in the Middle East.'
So is Trump going to impose his views on the Palestinians and Iranians like he did with Zelensky? If he believes he can do that, he is seriously underestimating the latter.