re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Has Ukraine won the war yet? How's my fellow warmonger rinos and dems?

Kiev is currently on Fire

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

Ukrainian monitor:

“As of now, the location is clear. These ballistic missiles are only detected on approach/descent to the target, so it is impossible to report where it is flying in advance.

So stay in shelters. The alarm was also declared after the explosions, because the radar detected the targets late. So it's better for everyone to be in shelters.”

They didn’t detect the launches, yikes.

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

"President Trump is my hero. I’m so thankful for him. I’m forever indebted.”

- Marc Fogel

Twitter Link

10:35 PM

Ukraine is run by a series of oligarchs/criminal syndicates

Klychko is an actual gangster though. He owns strip clubs and brothels in Ukraine. And if you’re in sex industry, it means you’re also tied up with the drug trade too.

There are a few of things that occurred to me about this possible Rare Earths deal:

1) The US has spent around $200B, some of which hasn't reached Ukraine yet. Trump asked for a $500B repayment via the Rare Earths. This seems to put the US in a position to defend the agreement should Russia balk at this condition. I guess what I am trying to say is that this component of the deal ties the US very closely to Ukraine. How aggressive will Trump be in securing this $300B profit?

2) I can see the Ukrainian public not being a fan of this, and it having a negative impact on what we hear is already lousy morale. "Why am I fighting to protect America's investment?"

3) Ukraine was probably counting on selling those minerals to help fund the country's rebuilding. By giving $500B to the US, they are losing a significant funding source on top of losing the US helping to pay for any of the rebuilding. I don't think Trump will give $ to Ukraine to help with the reconstruction.

4) In the peace negotiation, if Putin stalls or doesn't want to really negotiate, Trump can now say he is going to give Ukraine whatever weapons it needs in order to protect our investment. It gives him some justification to escalate.

quote:

---

It is enforced by the Administrative branch. If the Administrative Branch refuses to acknowledge the checks and balances of the Judicial and Legislative Branches we have a Constitutional crisis.

---

In this scenario, you are Abby Phillip and I am Scott Jennings.

Scott gets it. Abby doesn't.

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

Twitter Link

Jennings responded to the moves by the district court judges on "News Night with Abby Phillip" Monday, saying, "I think there’s a difference between saying whether you’re complying with the law, and then you have these individual district court judges setting, effectively, broad federal policy that is specifically reserved for the president of the United States. I think we do have a constitutional crisis, and it’s being caused by these judges."

"What are you talking about?" Phillip doubtfully asked.

"They’re not here to tell us how to spend the money. They’re not here to set broad federal policy. That is the president’s job, as elected by the people," Jennings replied.

"These judges are supposed to be settling discrete, specific matters, not policy setting. I think [Vice President J.D.] Vance is right," he added.

Vance, who is a Yale Law School graduate, posted Sunday on social media platform X, "If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal.

"Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."

Jennings argued, "It is the executive branch’s job to figure out how to spend money, once it is appropriated by Congress." .

Former New Hampshire GOP Gov. Chris Sununu agreed, saying, "The court cannot say, 'You have to spend these dollars today.'"

CNN legal analyst Elie Hong soon jumped in the fray, asking Jennings, "If a district court judge rules in a way that the president dislikes, should the president listen, or should the president defy?"

"If a district court judge tries to usurp the authority of the chief executive of this country, he should absolutely defy it," Jennings answered.

Sununu again concurred, saying, "You just can’t compel the executive branch to spend the dollars. You can’t do that."

Philip then waded in, calling Jennings's position "bizarre." She questioned, "When the court says, 'Congress ... appropriated this money, you must unfreeze it while we litigate this,' why can’t Trump comply with that?"

"So you’re saying a judge should decide how and when money is spent for years and not the president of the United States?" Jennings responded to Phillip.

"Scott, let me explain it a little bit more slowly," she answered somewhat mockingly.

"You don’t have to talk to me like that," Jennings retorted. "I have a position on this and you have an opinion. We can disagree."

"Listen to me, because you’re not listening, and you’re making claims that are not connected to the facts," Phillip continued in a berating tone.

"Maybe you are," Jennings fired back.

He then proved he was listening by restating her position that a district judge should be able to say, "So while we litigate this, and I'm a judge, and I’m in charge of the executive branch and you’re not?"

"Forget it. I totally disagree," Jennings said.

Jennings certainly did not deserve the treatment Phillip gave him.

Who knows? Maybe she thinks she's intellectually superior to Jennings as a graduate of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. But he is a former fellow there, as well as at the University of Chicago.

Further, Jennings served in public affairs positions in George W. Bush's White House and has decades of experience in politics as a reporter and working on campaigns.

Jennings knows where he stands, and he rightfully did not allow Phillip to talk down to him.

Link to full story