Tuesday, February 24, 2026

Trump is about to start a war he hasn't bothered to explain

                                                                           

  LOTS OF POSTS IGNORED BY BLOGGER.....

ALL POSTS ARE AVAILABLE ON

MIDDLEBORO REVIEW AND SO ON

THIS IS DEFINING:

That’s why it’s so important to remember that we had an agreement with Iran that did, in fact, constrain its nuclear program. It was called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and it was painstakingly negotiated by the US, Russia, China, France, Germany, and the UK, and finalized in mid-2015. In exchange for sanctions relief, it put in place a monitoring system to ensure that Iran could not enrich uranium beyond what was necessary for civilian use.

When Trump took office in 2017, his own military and national security advisers tried to convince him that the JCPOA was working and would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. But because it was negotiated under Barack Obama, Trump convinced himself that it was a disaster, and in 2018 he abandoned the agreement. To no one’s surprise, Iran then resumed its efforts to reach the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, leading us toward the place we are now.


Trump is about to start a war he hasn't bothered to explain

It's not even clear he knows why he wants to bomb Iran.


Trump in the White House yesterday. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty)

PN is supported by paid subscribers. Become one 



When asked last week what his message was to the people of Iran, President Trump seemed puzzled, pausing for a moment before saying “they better negotiate a fair deal.”

Apparently realizing that it is not within the Iranian public’s ability to negotiate anything, Trump then said, as though sharing a profound insight, “You know, the people of Iran are a lot different than the leadership of Iran. And it’s a very very sad situation.”

Aaron Rupar @atrupar.com
Q: Do you have a message to the Iranian people? TRUMP: In Iran? Q: People in Iran TRUMP: Uhhh -- they better negotiate a fair deal
Fri, 20 Feb 2026 19:13:23 GMT
View on Bluesky

But don’t worry; Trump will get over his sadness very quickly. Because it looks like the US is about to launch a major attack on Iran — again.

The problem is, no one seems to know exactly what Trump is after or why he is doing this now. He’s about to write a new chapter in the long and (mostly) ignominious history of American presidents thinking they can bend the world to their will by dropping bombs on foreign countries, yet he himself doesn’t seem to know why, let alone how it’s supposed to end.

Trump’s reckless Iran strikes could backfire spectacularly

Trump’s reckless Iran strikes could backfire spectacularly

·
June 23, 2025
Read full story

Last June, the US and Israel conducted a series of strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and military leadership; Iran responded with waves of missile and drone attacks on Israel, most (but not all) of which were neutralized by Israeli air defenses, as well as a perfunctory shot at a US base in Qatar. When the 12 day war was over, Trump told the world that the problem of a nuclear Iran had been eliminated.

“The strikes were a spectacular military success,” he said. “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.”

Yet here we are eight months later, and it turns out that the Iran nuclear program was not totally obliterated, as was clear at the time. Now Trump has sent two aircraft carrier groups to the area, the largest buildup of American air power in the region since the Iraq War.

What are we doing here?

The ostensible purpose of this saber-rattling is to convince the Iranian government to do three things: shut down its nuclear program, stop building ballistic missiles, and cease its support for proxy groups in the region including Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen.

While none of that is objectionable on its own, those are the same demands we’ve been making for years. So why has it suddenly become so urgent that we’re ready to let the bombs fall?

A note from Aaron: Working with brilliant contributors like Paul takes resources. If you aren’t already a paid subscriber, please sign up to support our work 

No one seems to have a good answer. Nor is it clear what precisely we’ll be bombing — just nuclear facilities? Anything military? Civilian infrastructure? And if the administration actually wants to affect regime change in Iran, that’s an outcome that aerial power alone almost never produces. The administration’s uncertainty on that point is understandable; if the Islamic Republic were to fall, there’s no way to know what would replace it and what kind of chaos could result.

But it was just six weeks ago that Trump told Iranians risking their lives by protesting the regime that “help is on the way.” In subsequent days they were slaughtered by the thousands, and Trump has stopped pretending that he has any “help” to offer.

The "cognitively irresponsible" presidency

The "cognitively irresponsible" presidency

·
February 7, 2025
Read full story

If he does decide to initiate another military conflict, it almost certainly won’t involve any ground operations. Trump took office saying he would end America’s “forever wars,” but only those who weren’t listening very closely believed he had no appetite for overseas military adventurism. Trump loves a good bombing campaign, but favors operations that are quick, involve minimal risk to US personnel, and don’t require him to clean up after whatever mess he made.

In the first year of his second term, Trump bombed seven different countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, Somalia, and Nigeria. That’s not exactly a record of restraint, but it shows how he likes to operate.

Though Iran’s ballistic missiles and proxy groups are part of the official rationale, Trump is focused on the country’s efforts to develop its nuclear capacity. That’s why it’s so important to remember that we had an agreement with Iran that did, in fact, constrain its nuclear program. It was called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)and it was painstakingly negotiated by the US, Russia, China, France, Germany, and the UK, and finalized in mid-2015. In exchange for sanctions relief, it put in place a monitoring system to ensure that Iran could not enrich uranium beyond what was necessary for civilian use. (Iran has always claimed, not very persuasively, that it has no intention to build nuclear bombs.)

When Trump took office in 2017, his own military and national security advisers tried to convince him that the JCPOA was working and would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. But because it was negotiated under Barack Obama, Trump convinced himself that it was a disaster, and in 2018 he abandoned the agreement. To no one’s surprise, Iran then resumed its efforts to reach the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, leading us toward the place we are now.


He hasn’t even tried to persuade anyone

While Americans are well used to the cycle we’re in — escalating tensions, belligerent statements from both sides, a seemingly unstoppable march to war — there has been a gaping void where we normally find a vigorous propaganda effort.

We all know how it works: The president gives a big speech explaining what his goals are, administration representatives fan out to make the case, members of Congress debate whether it’s a good idea, diplomats are sent to persuade allies that they should join in the effort, and all of that creates waves of news coverage and analysis that help the public understand what’s at stake and what the potential outcomes are.

In its extreme version (e.g. the Bush administration’s preparation for the Iraq War), the government creates bogus narratives and fake evidence of the terrible danger America is in if we don’t immediately let loose with all our spectacular capacity to rain hellfire down on any country anywhere in the world. But even that presumes that without the legitimacy of public support, the war can’t proceed.

Trump's Venezuela adventure is already a propaganda disaster

Trump's Venezuela adventure is already a propaganda disaster

·
Jan 6
Read full story

But none of that has happened. There’s been no effort to persuade allies or Congress (let alone obtain an official congressional authorization), and Trump’s own comments about Iran are brief and vague, full of weak attempts to sound tough and his usual “We’ll see what happens” dodge. There may be some cheerleading for war on Fox News, but you couldn’t call it a coordinated effort to persuade the public that their very lives depend on starting a new war, or at the very least that it’s a moral imperative we simply cannot ignore.

Matthew Gertz @mattgertz.bsky.social
Hannity last night: We need to invade Iran because they won't give up their nuclear program. Hannity last June: Iran's “nuclear ambitions” are “officially dead” after Trump "obliterated" their nuclear sites. www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity...
Thu, 19 Feb 2026 18:04:22 GMT
View on Bluesky

That’s not to say that if it tried, the Trump administration could convince the public that a war with Iran (or at least an extended bombing campaign) is a grand idea. This isn’t 2002, when the fear and anger produced by September 11 were still fresh and two-thirds of the public believed the lie that Saddam Hussein had a hand in those attacks.

So far, the public is highly skeptical. A Quinnipiac poll last month found the public opposing a strike on Iran if the regime continued killing protesters by a 70-18 percent margin. A University of Maryland poll found only 21 percent of people saying they favored “the United States initiating an attack on Iran under the current circumstances.” Likewise, when a Washington Post/Ipsos poll released Sunday asked respondents, “In general, do you support or oppose Trump using the US military to force changes in other countries?”, only 20 percent said yes.

You might say that it’s just a reflection of the public’s dislike of Trump, which is probably true — but if that’s the gut feeling they have, it’s an accurate one. Even if you believed that using the military to overthrow a foreign government or make some other kind of change might sometimes be a good idea, trusting this president and this government to do it right would be foolish in the extreme.

Simon Rosenberg on Trump’s no good, very bad year

Simon Rosenberg on Trump’s no good, very bad year

·
Jan 16
Read full story

Maybe the polls would look different if Trump had put some effort into convincing the public that attacking Iran is important or necessary. But that might not have helped. His approval ratings are extremely low, and his increasingly erratic public presentation have left him largely unable to persuade anyone who isn’t already embedded in the MAGA movement of much of anything.

And it’s not like the public version of Trump hides a private one who is thoughtful and wise. Looming over all this is the undeniable fact that whether we start our next war, and how it proceeds, will be determined by the capricious whims of one elderly, erratic, ignorant, impulsive man. No one could seriously believe that Trump’s decision will be made through a careful process of deliberation on the best long-term interests of the United States, let alone what the effects will be on the Iranian population or the wider Middle East.

In the best-case scenario, Iran’s negotiating stance loosens up and a nuclear deal emerges that allows Trump to declare victory. We might even get something that resembles the JCPOA, eight years after Trump threw it in the trash. At this point, almost all the alternatives look far worse.

Thanks for reading Public Notice. This post is public so feel free to share it.



That’s it for today

We’ll be back with more tomorrow. If you appreciate today’s PN, please do your part to keep us free by signing up for a paid subscription.



If DOJ Is Trump's Law Firm, Aileen Cannon Is His Judge

                                                                          

  LOTS OF POSTS IGNORED BY BLOGGER.....

ALL POSTS ARE AVAILABLE ON

MIDDLEBORO REVIEW AND SO ON


If DOJ Is Trump's Law Firm, Aileen Cannon Is His Judge


South District of Florida federal Judge Aileen Cannon has history with Donald Trump. He appointed her to the bench in May 2020. She was confirmed that November. Then came the June 2023 indictment of Trump by federal prosecutors. It landed on her desk.

Some judges would have recused. There is no precedent, because no former president had been indicted previously. But a reasonable jurist might have thought that the public wouldn’t have confidence in the objectivity of a judge sitting on a criminal case against the president who appointed her. It would have been the safe bet for someone concerned about the integrity of the judicial branch of government. Judge Cannon did not recuse.

To be fair, the government didn’t ask her to. That turned out to be a miscalculation.

From the earliest moments of the case, even before it was indicted, Cannon’s decisions were questionable. Mar-a-Lago was searched on August 8, 2022, well before Trump’s indictment and Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel. Cannon was asked to consider the unusual motion Trump’s lawyers filed to restrict the Justice Department’s ability to use evidence seized during the search. It was an attempt to impose an unprecedented (back when that word still had meaning) constraint on the government’s ability to investigate a criminal case.

This image, contained in the indictment against former President Donald Trump, shows boxes of records stored in a bathroom and shower in the Lake Room at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla.

But Cannon agreed with Trump’s position, assigning a special master to review seized documents. Her decision dramatically slowed the progress prosecutors were able to make. On December 1, shortly after Jack Smith’s appointment in November, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Cannon. The per curiam order did not mince words: “This appeal requires us to consider whether the district court had jurisdiction to block the United States from using lawfully seized records in a criminal investigation. The answer is no.”

The manifestly unmeritorious decision she made in Trump’s favor pre-indictment was a harbinger of everything that was to come. The case was indicted on June 8, 2023. There is no way to know how much the loss of four months in giving prosecutors full access to the evidence against Trump contributed to the ultimate demise of the case, which was dismissed without going to trial on Smith’s own motion, once Trump was reelected.

Once Trump and his co-defendants were charged, Judge Cannon ruled in their favor at virtually every opportunity. She ruled for them on pretrial motions, like this one, after delaying. She rejected a request by prosecutors, a fairly routine one, to protect witness identities pre-trial. A timeline of her rulings and the delays they engendered is set out at length in this ABC report. Ultimately, Smith’s request to dismiss the case went to the Eleventh Circuit because Cannon had dismissed the prosecution in July 2024, accepting the highly questionable defense theory that Jack Smith’s appointment was unlawful. That decision was on appeal when Trump was elected.

We discussed Cannon’s decision in this post, where I noted that “Until today, every federal judge that considered the issue—all eight of them—unanimously found that attorneys general have the constitutional authority to appoint a special counsel. But Judge Aileen Cannon disagrees. In a 93-page opinion, nicely timed for the first day of the Republican convention … she dismissed the entire indictment.”

But pursuant to DOJ rules that prohibit the prosecution of a sitting president, Smith had little choice but to ask the Eleventh Circuit to dismiss the case as to Trump. When he did so, he wrote: “This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant.”

That catches us up, more or less, to what happened today, when Judge Cannon ruled on what she characterizes as two “unopposed” motions, one by Trump, one by his co-defendants, both designed to prevent release of Volume II of Jack Smith’s special counsel report, the one covering the Mar-a-Lago case. If it weren’t such a serious matter, “unopposed” would be funny—these motions preventing the routine release of a special counsel’s report are only unopposed because the Attorney General, who should have filed an opposition, lives in Trump’s hip pocket. Cannon has managed to hold up the release of Volume II for over a year at this point.

In December, I wrote to you that Judge Cannon was “doing everything she can to prevent the release of Volume II of Jack Smith’s report for as long as possible.” Back on Inauguration Day, she issued an order blocking the Justice Department from sharing the report with leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, who were set to receive it in accordance with the typical practice after a special counsel concludes their work. And because DOJ is on Trump’s side, no one challenged it. Then, two groups of journalists, American Oversight and the Knight First Amendment Institute, asked to intervene so they could advocate for the release of Volume II. Even after their motion was fully briefed, Judge Cannon refused to rule on it—for months. On November 3, an Eleventh Circuit panel gave Cannon 60 days to rule, finding that the parties had “established undue delay in resolution of their motions to intervene.” That language might sound benign, but it’s a sharp criticism when an appellate court says that about a district judge. She denied the request to intervene in December; that ruling is currently on appeal.

Just before Christmas, with that 60-day deadline looming, Judge Cannon entered an order giving the government until February 24, 2026, to release the report. But we noted at the time there would undoubtedly be another effort to drag the matter out further. It came in the form of a January motion filed by Trump in his “individual capacity” asking her to issue “an order prohibiting the release of Volume II of the Final Report prepared by so-called ‘Special Counsel’ Jack Smith and his office.”

Knight and American Oversight went back to the Eleventh Circuit seeking an order from that court that would require Judge Cannon to stay all proceedings on the Trump defendants motions until the Eleventh Circuit decides whether they can intervene in the case, essentially stepping into the role of the Justice Department and representing the interests of the American people. That case, which we touched on last night, is being briefed. Oral argument isn’t set until June.

So what did Judge Cannon do? This morning, she went ahead and ruled—unsurprisingly, in Trump’s favor.

Throughout her opinion, which you can read here, she assumes, as though there can be no dispute, that since she had ruled the special counsel’s appointment was contrary to law, the report shouldn’t be released. She ignores the fact that every other judge to consider the constitutionality of special counsel appointments ruled the other way—she’s alone on this one. And she continuously refers to “unopposed” motions as though that is some sort of virtue, instead of the reality we now live with of a Justice Department that does the president’s bidding, not the people’s.

It’s likely there will be an appeal. But that won’t come from Trump’s law firm, formerly known as the Justice Department. More than likely, the American Oversight and Knight potential intervenors will try to raise it in the course of their preexisting appeal. Judge Cannon reasserted, in a separate order today, that they could not intervene in the case.

The procedural history is convoluted. And I almost hesitate to inflict it on you. But it’s important because we cannot afford to forget that, no matter his reelection, Donald Trump was charged in two federal criminal cases, and those charges were never heard by a jury. In the Mar-a-Lago case, the Trump-appointed judge who handled the matter essentially refused to let it go to trial, with a series of highly questionable rulings and a healthy dose of delay. In other words, if there was a way for Judge Cannon to rule for Trump and against public disclosure, she took it at every turn, up to and including today.

Many people believe Volume II is unlikely to contain information beyond what was revealed in the detailed speaking indictment brought by the government. But Trump has fought long and hard to keep it out of public view, which has led to speculation about whether it might include new information, for instance, about his motives for keeping classified material after he left the White House and what, if anything, was done with it. For now, we don’t know the answer. But it’s hard to miss the glaring similarity to the Epstein Files, where it increasingly appears attempts to avoid disclosure were meant to protect wealthy, powerful people. Why not just release Volume II if Trump, as he says, is innocent? You’d think that might help him prove his “case” and set the matter aside for once and for all. But that is not the path he has taken.

If you value legal analysis that doesn’t just react to headlines but explains how we got here—and where we’re going—Civil Discourse is for you. As a former U.S. Attorney and appellate lawyer, I bring a long institutional memory to these cases—we’ve been covering this one from the beginning. If you value clarity over clickbait and depth instead of hot takes, become a paid subscriber to Civil Discourse and support this work.

We’re in this together,

Joyce




Steve Cohen has no idea what’s coming TENNESSEE DESERVES BETTER!

                                                                         

  LOTS OF POSTS IGNORED BY BLOGGER.....

ALL POSTS ARE AVAILABLE ON

MIDDLEBORO REVIEW AND SO ON


Leaders We Deserve

Steve Cohen has no idea what’s coming.

In Memphis, people are showing up, talking about the change they want to see in their district, and rallying around Justin J. Pearson’s campaign.

I’m positive Justin can beat Steve Cohen in November. But only if we give him the resources to take on a 10-term incumbent who’s been in office for almost two decades.

Will you split a $10 donation between Leaders We Deserve and Justin right now to help defeat Steve Cohen in this Democratic primary?

Donate $10 »

Here’s what’s going on in Memphis:

On MLK Day, Justin was there at sunrise, first in line, marching with pastors and union leaders, meeting people where they are. One organizer even said, “He shows up everywhere.”

Cohen didn’t even show. And as Justin said that day, “His absence isn’t felt.”

That contrast basically sums up the entire race.

Cohen is counting on the idea that Memphis will stick with the same old, same old. He’s trying to wave off this race as if it’s just noise — he’s even compared Justin entering the race to Pearl Harbor. That just shows how threatened he is and how out of touch he’s become. No one in Congress should have such a level of entitlement. Even when Cohen was asked in a recent interview why he was running for reelection the best answer he could give was “because it comes up every two years."

Meanwhile, State Rep. Justin J. Pearson is relentlessly organizing in church basements and community events, having real conversations with voters, and building real momentum in this campaign.

This isn’t just about one seat. It’s about whether Democrats are willing to stop settling for the status quo and start electing leaders who will fight like the house is on fire — because it is.

So, can you donate $10 right now to help Justin J. Pearson beat Steve Cohen and bring new leadership to Congress?

If you’ve stored your info with ActBlue Express, we’ll process your split contribution between Justin J. Pearson and Leaders We Deserve instantly:

     

Thank you,

David Hogg




To give by check:
Leaders We Deserve
611 Pennsylvania Ave SE
#192
Washington, DC 20003

Email us: info@leaderswedeserve.com

PAID FOR BY LEADERS WE DESERVE, LEADERSWEDESERVE.COM, NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE'S COMMITTEE



Morning Digest: California voters could make major changes to recall elections this fall

                                                                   LOTS OF POSTS IGNORED BY BLOGGER..... OR REMOVED ON THEIR WHIM! ALL POSTS...