Trump's Hastily Clinched US Surrender to Iran MoU Beginning to Unravel

Not surprising that, having hastily signed his Memorandum of US Surrender Understanding with Iran because he feared that gasoline prices at the pump might cause his MAGA herd to lose the elections, Trump's postponement of the real issues at stake - nuclear issue, ballistic missiles, Iranian frozen assets, Iran's proxies.... - is now coming back to bite him in the ass as he pretends to solve all those issues in 60 days. This sounds more like his 2024 campaign promise of resolving the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours once in the white house, thanks to his stupid charm.

The dumbass is now screaming at himself. "Gasoline prices better start going down a lot faster than what I'm seeing!" he said on social media. Gasoline prices is the only thing on his mind right now. Forget nuclear, forget ballistic, forget Hezbollah, .... none of those weighty issues matter to the Great Moron because he doesn't understand them. They're too complicated for his white trash American brain.

Now that the celebrations at signing the toilet paper are ebbing, and sobriety is taking over the terror-inspired drunkenness, reality is setting in. The reality is that Iran got so much more than the US, and any expectation that Iran will within 60 days give in on all the issues for which dumbass Trump launched the war as he was led by the Zionist leash handler Netanyahu is an asinine expectation. The leash has a bit frayed between the two buddies because a moron friend like Trump is reckless, impulsive and unpredictable. Israel's military and political leadership were taken by surprise at the Great Moron throwing Israel under the bus just to get the Strait of Hormuz open and see gasoline prices in Glasgow, Montana, drop. I guess the "Judeo-Christian" bullshit is vulnerable to such momentous issues like the price of a gallon of milk at the local 7-11. The Israeli leadership is complaining that Israel's military freedom of action, particularly in Lebanon, which has never ever been challenged, is suddenly hostage to the diplomatic tug of war in Washington DC. Live and learn.

Perhaps Hezbollah should learn its lessons too, namely that warmongering and terrorism are a dead-end. But, as is the case now with the Lebanese government leading the negotiations in DC on behalf of Hezbollah, when military savagery is combined with civilized negotiations and diplomacy, there may be some gains to be made.

Predictably, we should expect Trump to now start lashing out at Iran just as he is lashing out at Netanyahu: Why? Because with every reckless decision he makes, he comes face to face with his own stupidity. And the "genius" that he thinks he is cannot look at himself in the mirror and see stupidity. How could the moron think that Iran will offer him concessions on a plate of baklava after refusing to make them for decades?

America, do not elect a businessman moron again next time around. NO, you can't run a country like you run a business, especially when the businessman in question is a weird hybrid of a moron and a criminal.
=================================================

US, Iran at odds on nuclear inspections, frozen assets in deal to end war
By Jarrett Renshaw and Tala Ramadan
Wed, June 24, 2026

LOWER MACUNGIE TOWNSHIP, Pennsylvania/DUBAI, June 23 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Iran had agreed to nuclear inspections into "infinity," while Tehran said it had made no such concession in negotiations, raising questions about the viability of their fragile peace deal.

The two countries, which ended a first round of negotiations in ‌Switzerland on Monday, also offered conflicting accounts about financial incentives for Iran, control of the Strait of Hormuz, and Israel's parallel war in Lebanon - all major aspects of their framework deal ‌signed last week aiming to end the war.

Nevertheless, Trump said negotiations with Iran were going smoothly. "We're getting along quite well," he said at a rally in Pennsylvania.

The United States also relaxed travel curbs on Iran's World Cup soccer team, allowing it to travel from ​Tijuana, Mexico, to Seattle two days before its next match instead of one.

In signs of withering domestic support for the war, Trump's poll numbers weakened while the Republican-controlled Senate defied the president and voted to halt the war, in a largely symbolic move that highlighted fissures in his party.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll found 35% of Americans think the U.S. is now in a weaker position with Iran than before the war, while 23% believe it is in a stronger position.

The Senate vote of 50-48 endorsed a resolution passed by the House of Representatives this month, reflecting growing concern even among some of Trump's Republicans about the unpopular conflict that began on February 28.

It ‌was the first time both chambers of Congress had passed a resolution ⁠directing a president to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities under the War Powers Act, though it was not immediately clear how the votes might affect the conflict.

RESCUING SEAFARERS

Though prospects for a lasting peace are far from certain, the initial agreement between Washington and Tehran has allowed traffic to flow again through the strait, which typically ⁠handles one-fifth of global energy supply.

Trump said on Wednesday he had told the Justice Department to look into oil companies for not lowering pump prices in line with falling crude costs.

"Gasoline prices better start going down a lot faster than what I'm seeing!" he said on social media.

Oil prices fell more than 1% on Wednesday, extending this week's losses and trading near their lowest since before the war began on February 28.

The United Nations' shipping agency said it was ​working ​to evacuate 11,000 seafarers stranded when Iran closed the strategic waterway.

The agreement calls for Iran to allow traffic to ​flow freely for 60 days, though it has said it might impose tolls or ‌other fees on shipping subsequently.

In a joint statement on Tuesday, Iran and Oman, which controls the other side of the strait, stressed their "sovereign rights" in the waterway, adding that they would work together to manage traffic, along with associated costs.

Oman said it had coordinated with the International Maritime Organization to provide a temporary corridor for vessels seeking to transit the Strait of Hormuz.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, visiting Gulf allies unsettled by the peace deal, said Iran would not be allowed to charge tolls in the strait as part of any final agreement.

The deal calls for an immediate end to the war, including in Lebanon, lifting U.S. sanctions on Tehran and unfreezing Iranian assets held abroad. It also outlines a $300-billion investment fund for the Islamic Republic's reconstruction.

AT ODDS OVER NUCLEAR INSPECTIONS, FROZEN ASSETS

The framework itself sets no limits on Iran's nuclear program, ‌an issue to be tackled in 60 days of negotiations.

Trump claimed that Iran had agreed to allow international inspectors ​indefinite access to its damaged nuclear sites.

"Iran has fully and completely agreed to highest level Nuclear inspections long into the future (Infinity!!!)," ​Trump said on social media.

Iran denied it had discussed its nuclear program at the talks and ​said it had not agreed to invite International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors back to the country.

The two sides also disagreed on details of a provision that would give ‌Iran access to funds that have been frozen in overseas accounts.

Trump said any ​unfrozen assets would be used to buy food and ​medical supplies from the U.S., while Iran's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Ali Bahreini, said Iran would decide how to spend that money.

Washington has already agreed to waive sanctions on Iran for 60 days, allowing Tehran to sell oil and related products and receive payment for them.

Israel's parallel war against Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon also remains a sticking point.

Bahreini said the deal requires ​Israel to withdraw its troops from Lebanon, while Israel has said it ‌will maintain a security zone in southern Lebanon and act to "neutralize" threats against Israeli soldiers and citizens.

Even as Israel and Lebanon renewed talks in Washington on Tuesday, Israeli gunfire killed ​two people in southern Lebanon, its civil defence and health ministry said, prompting Iran-backed Hezbollah to accuse Israel of violating a ceasefire that has largely held since Sunday.

(Reporting by Reuters ​bureaus; Writing by Lincoln Feast, Sharon Singleton and Clarence Fernandez; Editing by Gareth Jones, Cynthia Osterman and Raju Gopalakrishnan)

Re-post: Will Hezbollah Mount a Coup Against the Lebanese State & Seize Power?

I am re-posting this writeup because it is becoming increasingly clear that Hezbollah risks losing its "resistance" pretext should Iran and the US make a deal. The tenor of Hezbollah's leadership commentary on is now extending beyond merely surviving the latest war. Like Trump, Hezbollah never admits defeat because victory for them is to survive total annihilation. 

Hezbollah's discourse now has become a frontal attack on the Lebanese State hierarchy, blaming it for colluding with Israel by engaging in negotiations with it, and accusing its critics of treason.

There is no question that there is no return to the status quo ante preceding the latest two years of war. Neither the Lebanese, nor Israel, nor the international community will countenance a resumption of an endless latent war between Hezbollah and Israel. This does not necessarily mean that peace will finally arrive to the tormented small country. 

Israel has clearly demonstrated its unwillingness to seize land it has invaded in the south because experience has shown it to be a very costly and unpopular option. But its leadership is standing up to Trump's demands that it ceases bombing Lebanese targets, and says that even under a ceasefire agreement, Israeli soldiers will hold on to territory they have seized and will not withdraw from south Lebanon, as Iran and Hezbollah say they are required by the Memorandum of Understanding  Which means that Israel prepares to occupy the Lebanese south - a Security Zone 10 km deep - by "remote control": Minimal presence of soldiers on the ground, coupled with unceasing bombing and destruction to prevent Hezbollah from reconstituting a new front.

Hemmed in by a Sunni-led Syria that is in theory hostile to Shiite Hezbollah on the north and east of Lebanon, by Israel on the south and west, and by the majority of the Lebanese population that has explicitly rejected Hezbollah's warmongering on behalf of Iran, Hezbollah will have to face two options: Either disarm voluntarily and somehow reintegrate the mainstream Lebanese political class as a demilitarized political party; or seek to ensure its survival as a "force" to be reckoned with that combined its military capacity with the political domination of the country.

As both the Sunni Muslims and the Christians of the country continue to hang on to a united but largely failed Greater Lebanon (as of 1920), but threaten to decentralize the state structure to escape Hezbollah's domination, Hezbollah might find itself isolated but still engaged in warfare with Israel that has occupied much of the Shiite heartland in the south. 

As Hezbollah claims yet another divine victory and is expressing undying gratitude to Iran for having defended Hezbollah's interests during the negotiations leading to the current agreement between the US and Iran, it seems likely that the Shiite community now high on its supposed victory will demand compensation for the sacrifices it made (thousands of dead operatives, a decimated leadership, and its villages and territories in the south and the east either occupied, destroyed or under constant bombing). It says it made those sacrifices for the "sake of Lebanon and its people" (the new slogan in Hezbollah's propaganda) when in the past its slogans were "leading the way to Jerusalem", it seems that Hezbollah has changed its focus from fighting the Israeli occupation of Palestine to demanding a bigger slice of the Lebanese pie. 

This may include rejecting the National Pact that divides the Lebanese communities (18 of them) into the duality of one Christian camp and one Muslim camp, and replace it with the triad of Christian, Sunni and Shiite. From the مناصفة ( a 50-50 division of power between Muslims and Christians) the Shiites will want a مثالثة (a 33-33-33 division of power between Sunnis, Shiites and Christians). I predict even a worse scenario where Hezbollah would actually seize power by force and impose its will on the rest of the Lebanese. A Hezbollah-led Lebanon will give Iran a beachhead on the Mediterranean.

Which is why Trump has suggested to relieve Israel of its failing attempts over decades to subdue Hezbollah, and instead assign that task to the Sunni-led Syrian regime. Just as the Assad regime was assigned the task to subdue Yasser Arafat's PLO in the Lebanon of the 1960s and 1970s. 

Whether a civil war ensues, as it did in 1975, remains to be seen. 

===========================================

[reposted]:

Israel has, as we write these lines, taken the entirety of the Lebanese Southern District. It is razing all the Shiite villages and towns to the ground south of the Litani and Zahrani rivers, such that, given enough time, nature would have re-asserted itself and all the boundaries, markers and hallmarks between villages and houses would have disappeared. Unless of course, Israel organizes a land rush for all the Yahweh-crazy Zionist settlers and invites them to build their kibbutzim and settlements. 

During antiquity, the city of Tyre in particular was both a friend and an enemy of the invading Hebrew nomads and their kings David and Solomon circa 800 BC. King Hiram of Tyre did help the Hebrew kings who, as nomadic desert-dwelling people, admitted to him to living in miserable goat-skin tents and being ignorant of masonry. Hiram sent cedar wood, engineers and masons to Jerusalem and built them palaces and the first Hebrew Temple in Jerusalem (modeled on the Melkart Temple of the Tyrian superpower). But when Phoenician Princess Jezebel, daughter of King Ithobaal of Tyre married King Ahab of Israel, she brought with her the worship of the Phoenician deities (Baal, Adonis, Asherah) and displaced the worship of Yahweh. The Hebrew religious conservatives of the time panicked and rebelled against her and killed her. From that point forward, ultra-powerful Tyre became a much maligned neighbor for the Hebrews and the Torah is replete with curses and hateful comments against it. It is even suggested that this breakup of the Hebrew-Phoenician alliance and the threat of the Assyrian empire invasion of the region is what prompted the Phoenicians of Tyre to create their mighty colony in Carthage in today's Tunisia.  

Back to May 2026. Israel appears to have no intention of withdrawing any time soon, if at all, which means that the Lebanese Shiites who have fled north and are now sheltering among the other communities (Maronites, Sunnis, Druze...) would need to find a more "permanent" place to settle in the near future. The other communities have been welcoming them on humanitarian grounds, even though there is a deep political resentment at Hezbollah's waging wars despite the objections of these other communities.

Back in the 1980s-1990s, Israel occupied a strip along the border with the help of local residents (both Maronites and Shiites) who had been cut off from the central government by the Palestinians first, then by Hezbollah. In that situation, Shiite villages remained relatively intact and became incubators of a guerilla warfare by Hezbollah which forced the Israelis to withdraw in 2000, turning the whole charade into a victory for the Iranian terrorist militia. 

This time, the Israelis seem to have learned from that bitter experience. This time, Israel is completely erasing villages and towns from the map, eliminating any hope for the Shiite villager supporters of Hezbollah to ever return, let alone wage a guerilla war against the new Israeli occupation. Israel is thus managing a minimalist occupation, leaving troops briefly on the ground only for operational purposes and relying mostly on air assaults. 

The question on the minds of the Lebanese is: What is Hezbollah going to do now that it has been deprived of its most valuable asset, the Shiite villages bordering Israel? 

The welcome mat of the other communities will sooner or later have to be removed. Schools, churches, official buildings... will have to be taken back. Tent camps for the refugees are typically installed on open terrain often belonging to the State or to religious orders. Residents of some neighborhoods are already contesting setting up these camps in the middle of residential neighborhoods, fearing a repeat of the Palestinian exodus of 1948 and 1967 during which refugees set up camps initially temporarily, thinking they'd be returning to their villages and towns that the Zionists ethnically cleansed. The 1975 War in Lebanon was essentially fought to prevent Yasser Arafat's PLO from taking over of the state, and the refugee camps around Beirut that he had turned into fortified and heavily armed holdouts were dislodged at great cost: Sabra, Shatila, Tel Zaatar, Jisr El-Pasha, Dbayyieh and others. No one wants a repeat of those events, and the otherwise jaded Lebanese have been adamant at preventing the creation of such camps.

Where will the Shiites go? They still have a dominating presence in the eastern Bekaa Valley and in the Hermel further north. They could conceivably end up settling there among other pro-Hezbollah Shiites. 

There are rumors, mostly from radical right-wing pro-Trump Maronites in the US who vehicle Zionist-inspired ideas and who are stupid enough to think that they can clone the strictly Jewish model of the Zionists in their colony in Palestine and set up a strictly Christian Lebanon that would have to constantly live on a war footing, when they are unproductive, disorganized, disunited, lack the organizational skills of the Zionist universe, and have no "interests" whatsoever to entice the West to help them. Still, the Zionists are prodding these idiotic Maronites to fall into their trap and believe in such an illusion whose tenor seems to fit well with the Zionist bullshit plans of redrawing the maps of the region. According to their hallucinations, the pro-Trump Lebanese Maronites think that the Lebanese Shiites may be somehow "induced" to leave Lebanon altogether, perhaps settle in Shiite-friendly areas of Syria, Iraq and even further afield in Iran. 

If these ideas have any currency, it is in the hope by these Zionizing Maronites that a Lebanon emptied or truncated of its Shiites would by default revert to the Maronite-dominated Lebanon that existed between WWI and 1975. Just like an Israel voided of its Palestinians would by default become a purely "Jewish" state. An amputated Greater Lebanon that would shrink back to the majority Maronite, semi-independent, Mount Lebanon Governorate , a.k.a. "Smaller Lebanon", that existed between 1860 and 1914 is something many Christians in Lebanon seem to be longing for after decades of bitter and coerced coexistence with the Muslims. 

To begin with, the latter wanted to be part of Syria and never wanted to be part of that Maronite-dominated Lebanon. They spent most of the post-1943 independence decades betraying and undermining the agreed-upon coexistence formula - neutrality, no East-no West - by shoving Lebanon into "Arab nationalist" causes that were given precedence over the agreed upon neutrality: Nasser of Egypt's revolution (the US landed 10,000 US Marines in 1958 in Beirut to protect Lebanon against Nasser), the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party (SSNP) of Syria that mounted a coup in 1961, the Baath Party of Syria's Assad regime that struck a deal with Kissinger in 1974 to protect Israel's seizure of the Golan and destabilize Lebanon, the Palestinian Liberation Organization of Yasser Arafat that waged a war against the Lebanese state (1973), and finally the Iranian terror militia of Hezbollah (beginning in 1982) that continues to this day to dislocate Lebanon into a dysfunctional degraded State. 

It is understandable that the Maronite Catholics of Lebanon want to separate from the Muslims, given the failure of integrating the latter into the Greater Lebanon monstrosity created by the Maronite Church in 1919. But separation does not need to be done a-la-Zionism, i.e. with brutality and violence. What the Maronites of Lebanon must do to survive free is to unify their positions, cease their chronic internecine infighting, abandon their feudal-tribal-sectarian socio-political organization, agree on a common objective, speak with international stakeholders with one voice, and politically negotiate their separation with the Muslims. The dysfunctional Greater Lebanon that created a state but failed to create a nation must be abandoned in favor of a decentralized confederation or federation in which the districts (some Christian, some Muslim), would become self-ruling, an idea that is gaining ground. 

For now, the bigger question is what will Hezbollah do "politically" now that it is deprived of its territorial asset? It is the only sectarian militia that is openly operational in the country. Neither the Sunni Muslims, nor the Maronite Catholics, nor the Druze exhibit signs of militarization: As far as one can tell, no one has a militia other than Shiite Hezbollah. But everyone fears Hezbollah. So, a civil war between the communities is possible but unlikely.

What is more likely is that Hezbollah might seize power by toppling the Lebanese government of Joseph Aoun and Nawaf Salam, split the army by calling on the Shiite soldiers of the regular army to quit and join its ranks, something the Sunni Muslims, then allied with the PLO against their own government, did in 1976 when a Sunni Lieutenant by the name of Ahmed Khatib led a sedition, created the Arab Army of Lebanon allied with the PLO and Syria, and proceeded to attack regular army barracks across the country.

The Lebanese army is poorly equipped, even though the Americans have been bragging for the last two decades about gifting it useless scrap and junk leftovers of ancient wars' vintage. So any resistance or opposition by the State and its army to a Hezbollah takeover is unlikely to turn things around. Hezbollah's existence rests upon its anointing itself as a "resistance" movement. By seizing power, it would re-constitute for itself a new resistance front against Israel's new and improved occupation, this time across the new "border" along the Litani and Zahrani rivers, assuming the Israelis stop their advance there.

But without its own Shiite "territory", community and villages, Hezbollah can only launch this new front if it has sole power over the country. Sunni, Maronite or Druze villages and towns would not willingly welcome a Hezbollah resistance from within their districts. 

One thing is certain: Israel will not abandon the Lebanese south this time; it may even annex it as it has done with the Syrian Golan. There will have to be a rearrangement of the pawns inside the Lebanese chessboard. For now, the Lebanese wait and see.  

Obama's 2015 JCPOA Was Much Better for the US than Trump's Surrender MoU with Iran

Trump's "deal" with Iran gives it billions it badly needs, lifts sanctions, lifts the US blockade, allows Iran to begin export-import trade, makes America's Arab Gulf Girls in their flowing robes pay $300 billion to rebuild what the US destroyed in Iran, allows Iran to sell its oil and make more billions that will allow it to heal its economy and the regime to reassert its domination after years of sanctions, etc... in exchange for what?

Opening the Strait of Hormuz? But this was never an issue to begin with. Smartass Trump awakened the Iranians to their possible extortion of the world by closing the Strait. In other words, Trump helped create the Strait of Hormuz problem. 

Iran's concessions in the MoU are only a slew of PROMISES, not tangible immediately-implemented concessions, in the hastily concluded MoU ... I repeat: Iran made only PROMISES in Trump's MoU that were already binding concessions in Obama's 2015 JCPOA deal, but not here because they still have to be negotiated. Trump is giving the Iranian regime 60 days to heal, rebuild its arsenal, rebuild its nuclear facilities, refurbish Hezbollah in Lebanon, AND do whatever the heck it wants to do while tergiversating and delaying and procrastinating. 

And all of this because Trump suddenly was seized by delirium tremens convulsions at the prospect of losing the midterm elections and becoming a sitting duck targeted by Congressional Democrats by innumerable hearings, investigations, and prosecutions. He wants to go into the November election period having made his herd of MAGA morons forget about his war - and his defeat - by Iran. You see, his only alternative to his speedy surrender was to order a land invasion of Iran. His Zionist handlers thought they could push the village idiot and incite the deranged orangutan into the war. Which they did. What they didn't know was how to maintain their control of the unpredictable coward imbecile when he suddenly balked at being bamboozled.

I suggest Donald Dumb rewrite his book and name it the FART OF THE DEAL. 

=============================================

KEVIN SHALVEY
Tue, June 23, 2026 

President Donald Trump announced "major combat operations" against Iran on Feb. 28, with massive joint U.S.-Israeli strikes targeting military, government and infrastructure sites.

Delegations from the United States and Iran arrived over the weekend at the Bürgenstock resort in Switzerland, where they entered negotiations aimed at a war-ending deal based on a memorandum of understanding signed last week by both countries.

President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Iranian officials agreed "fully and completely" to allow inspections of its nuclear sites, saying the Strait of Hormuz would remain open as long as Tehran held to those terms.

Iran's Foreign Minister spokesperson, Esmail Baghaei, said early on Tuesday that Tehran does not "have any plans" to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to access sites damaged during the war, according to Iranian state media.

Elisabeth Mandl/Reuters - PHOTO: Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Raffael Grossi speaks to the media on the opening day of his agency's quarterly Board of Governors meeting in Vienna, Austria, June 8, 2026.

Despite Iran's "protestations and false statements to the contrary," officials in Tehran have "fully and completely agreed to highest level Nuclear inspections long into the future (Infinity!!!)," Trump said on social media on Tuesday. "This will insure 'Nuclear Honesty.' If they did not agree to this, there would be no further negotiations!"

"Based on this and other major concessions being made by Iran, I have agreed to allow the Hormuz Strait to remain OPEN, with no further Naval Blockade," Trump added. "However, all ships are remaining in place should it be necessary to reinstitute the Blockade, which seems, at this point, highly unlikely."

Iran and the United States agreed to allow traffic through the strait as part of the terms of the memorandum of understanding signed last week by both countries.

Iran does not "have any plans" to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to access sites damaged during the war, the spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry, Esmail Baghaei, said on Tuesday, according to Iranian state media.

"Fundamentally, there is no established protocol for such a situation," he said, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency.

Iran's delegation did not meet with IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi during the U.S.-Iranian talks in Switzerland, IRNA reported.

Vice President JD Vance said on Monday during a news conference in Lucerne, Switzerland, that Iran had agreed to allow the United Nations-affiliated IAEA inspectors to enter their country.

"The Iranians have agreed to invite IAEA inspectors back into their country," Vance told reporters at Bürgenstock, the Swiss resort where the talks were held.

He added, "That is a major milestone for the American people, and the first step in permanently denuclearizing or permanently ending a nuclear weapons program in Iran, and that's exactly what we wanted to do, that's exactly what we asked to happen."

-ABC News' Jamie Dorrington and Fritz Farrow

In addition to speaking with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, Secretary of State Rubio also held a call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday to discuss "solidifying" a ceasefire and "future talks," a U.S. official confirmed.

As a result of those calls, the U.S. "started a monitoring mechanism via CENTCOM so that our policymakers have real time and accurate information about fighting in Lebanon," the official said.

The official also confirmed that another round of talks between representatives of Israel and Lebanon are set to take place in Washington this week over the course of three days.

-ABC News' Shannon Kingston

Vice President JD Vance left the first days of technical negotiations with Iran projecting optimism, telling reporters as he left Switzerland that he felt "great about the progress that we made."

"The fundamental thing we got is, No. 1, we set up the mechanism to ensure not only the Straits of Hormuz are open, but will stay open," Vance said.


Nathan Howard/Reuters - PHOTO: Vice President JD Vance speaks to members of the media before boarding Air Force Two, after the U.S. and Iran held high-level talks at the Lake Lucerne Summit, at Emmen Military Air Base, Emmen, Switzerland, June 22, 2026.

"... No. 2, we actually set up the right mechanism to ensure the regional cease fire to manage the inevitable conflicts that will come up," Vance said.

Vance reiterated his earlier comments in which he said Iran will be allowing IAEA inspectors into the country.

Vance said the U.S. will have to "see" what Iran "actually let[s] the inspectors do" once they are in Iran.

"We have the Iranians allowing weapons inspectors, nuclear inspectors into their country for the first time in a long time. We're obviously going to bolster those inspections, that inspection regime, to make sure they can never have a nuclear weapon," Vance said.

Inspections were part of the Obama-era agreement that Trump canceled during his first term, after which Iran stopped letting international inspectors in.

-ABC News' Emily Chang, Hannah Demissie and Michelle Stoddart

Hours after Vice President JD Vance announced from Switzerland that Iran agreed to let international nuclear inspectors into the country, President Donald Trump said on social media that Iran will have to "agree to have Major Weapons Inspections" for a long period of time.

"Everybody is fully aware that Iran will agree to have Major Weapons Inspections in order to ensure 'Nuclear Honesty' long into the future," Trump said in the post.

Inspections were part of the Obama-era agreement that Trump canceled during his first term, after which Iran stopped letting international inspectors in.

-ABC News' Michelle Stoddart

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to visit the Middle East this week for the first time since the war with Iran began, with stops planned in the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain, according to the State Department.

He is slated to leave Tuesday and return on Thursday.

-ABC News' Shannon Kingston

The Trump administration has formally issued a waiver on the sale on Iranian oil, following through on a promise from the Memorandum of Understanding signed by President Donald Trump.

The waiver legalizes the sale of Iranian oil and allows transactions involving vessels that had been previously sanctioned.

The sanctions will be waived for a 60-day period beginning Monday and ending at 12:01 a.m. ET on Aug. 21.

The waiver also allows for "any payment of funds owed to Iran, the Government of Iran, or any blocked person for the purchase of crude oil" to be made in U.S. dollars.

The waiver does not, however, allow the sanctions on Iranian oil to be lifted for people in North Korea, Cuba and parts of Ukraine like Crimea.

-ABC News' Shannon Kingston and Michelle Stoddart

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the Israel Defense Forces will remain in the security zone in southern Lebanon as "long as necessary" to protect residents in the north and the citizens of Lebanon.


Abbas Fakih/AFP via Getty Images - PHOTO: Smoke rises from the site of a string of Israeli airstrikes that targeted the southern Lebanese city of Nabatieh on June 20, 2026.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei said on Monday that technical talks between experts have begun in Switzerland under the framework of the memorandum of understanding, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported on Monday.

The technical talks follow Sunday's discussions between high-level U.S. and Iranian delegations. Those talks ended early on Monday, Pakistani Prime Minister Shebhaz Sharif said.

Baqaei told IRNA that Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran's deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, is leading the Iranian delegation in the technical negotiations.

According to a joint statement issued by the mediators, the technical working groups will focus on nuclear issues, sanctions, monitoring mechanisms and dispute-resolution procedures, with negotiations set to continue in Switzerland through the end of the week.

-ABC News' Somayeh Malekian and Victoria Beaule

The Iranian delegation in Switzerland has left the talks and is heading back to Tehran, Iran's state media reported early on Monday, citing the Iranian Foreign Ministry.

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran's parliament, who is leading the Iranian delegation, "left the building where the negotiations were held on Monday, following approximately 18 hours of intensive dialogue and consultations," Iran's state broadcaster reported.

-ABC News' Victoria Beaule

=================================================

And.... here is what funny guy Jon Stewart had to say about Trump's toilet paper MoU:

On the Daily Show, Stewart joked about how Vice-Moron JD Vance was snubbed by Qatari leaders while in Switzerland for peace talks.

"Well, that is awkward," said Stewart, after playing footage of the vice-president looking awkward as world leaders exchanged hugs and greetings. "JD Vance really answers the question, 'What if a middle school dance were a person?  

"Things just went from bad to wallflower with Vance getting more and more exasperated, as the mean girls just couldn't see that he has a lot to offer too," Stewart added.

"So basically, JD Vance is just there to pick up the white flag, get it signed, hand out a couple of orange slices, call it a game," joked Stewart.

The US has pledged to help create a $300bn reconstruction fund for Iran, as well as to unfreeze the country's assets and allow it to resume selling oil.

"So the 'hard line, extremist regime' of Iran gets a nuclear stockpile, missiles and money?" asked Stewart with confusion. "Iran is a circumcision away from becoming Israel."

Vance has announced that Iran has allowed International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors back into its country as a result of the US peace deal, saying "that is a major milestone for the American people."

"Oh yeah, that's a big milestone," said Stewart sarcastically. "We haven't had nuclear inspectors in Iran since, oh, when you started bombing them last year.

"The Iran inspectors only went in there after the JCPOA, which Obama negotiated, and they only left when we attacked Iran."

Trump has called Obama's deal "the worst deal ever negotiated of any kind".

Stewart said: "I guess the theory is: why would you trade smaller concessions to Iran for peace, when we could instead lose a war with them and make bigger concessions?



"Well, I hope you learned your lesson, Iran," he joked. "There's plenty more concessions where that came from!"

Vance said that unfrozen Iranian assets would in fact benefit the US as they would be spent on American soy, wheat and corn, calling it a "classic Trump deal".

"Oh it's a classic Trump deal," said Stewart. "Announce a bold action with grandiose ambition, and then shit the bed and then state confidently that bed shit was the goal all along. And finally, name the bed after Trump."

More Senate GOP Morons Seek Redemption Ahead of Midterms

For more than a decade now, they've protected him. They allowed him to turn the GOP into a MAGA tribe beholden only to him. They repeatedly voted against impeaching him. They defended his abusive and illegal breaches of the law. They colluded with him in his insurrection and seditious attack on Congress in January 2021, forsaking whatever principles they claim they have and peddling favors from him. 

For a while, they were afraid of him. He could unseat them in elections. He could sue them. He could unleash his White Christian supremacy terrorists or his Zionist lobby against them. The bent and kissed the ring.

But now, all "good things must have an end". The American people are sick and tired of the Great Moron. They are tired of the bad economy. They are tired of not being able to afford groceries while the Great Moron and his family and friends are raking billions in blatantly crude deals under the guise of making war and peace decisions. Farmers are saying it is too late to fix the damage his tariffs have done to their livelihoods.

So, the crawling cold-blooded GOP-MAGA reptiles who found warmth under The Great Moron's cankled feet are beginning to smell the stench of their incestuous relationship with their criminal felon leader. And slowly, one by one, they are peeling off the MAGA tattoo and pretending to oppose him, now that it is too late after enabling his destruction of America's standing in the world, and now that they know the tide has turned and they face impending doom in November. They walked with Trump to protect their seats. Now they are walking against him to protect their seats. What principles! What character! What integrity! 

===========================================


Trump relationship with Senate GOP crumbling after repeated clashes
Alexander Bolton
Mon, June 22, 2026


President Trump's relationship with key Senate Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), is crumbling after repeated clashes over strategy on an array of issues. The two sides are splitting further apart as the midterm election nears and GOP lawmakers fear the potential loss of both chambers of Congress.

GOP senators say there has been a major loss of trust between the president and many members of their conference as the White House has repeatedly blindsided Thune and other Republican leaders.

Trump will have a chance to discuss his differences with Republican senators in person this Wednesday, when he is invited to speak to the Steering Committee on Capitol Hill. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), the Steering Committee's chair and a close ally of the president, extended the invitation.

The president undercut GOP leaders last week when he suddenly ordered Jay Clayton, his nominee to serve as director of national intelligence, to not show up at his Senate confirmation hearing. The reversal of the plan left Thune and other Republicans dumbfounded.

Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), who lost his Senate Republican primary runoff by 27 points after Trump blasted him as "very disloyal" and endorsed his opponent, said Republican colleagues are feeling betrayed by what some of them view as the president's lack of respect for them as senators and, in most cases, loyal Republicans.

"In my case, there was no real reason given my support for the president's agenda," Cornyn said, describing the confusion caused by Trump's unexpected attacks on him during the Texas GOP primary runoff, which came even though Cornyn had voted with Trump 99.3 percent of the time.

"When he endorsed my primary opponent, people realized you could never do enough to stop the president from endorsing your primary opponent. I think that destroyed what remained of any kind of trust. I think that changed the playing field in a way where you see a lot more what I would call transactional relationships as opposed to one based on trust," Cornyn said, describing the deteriorating relationship between Senate Republicans and Trump.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said Trump hurts Senate Republicans' chances of keeping their majority every time he ambushes them with a surprise announcement or keeps them in the dark about a key development.

"When we're five months out from a major election [when] we historically have headwinds, you've got to be pitch-perfect and you got to execute with precision. We can't surprise the president and the administration cannot surprise us. Every time we do that between now and November, we're diminishing our chances of holding our majorities," Tillis said.

He cited the extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the annual defense authorization bill as must-pass bills that are now in limbo.

Republican senators are growing more and more frustrated over Trump's unrelenting calls to pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act, which would require people to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote and to show photo ID when voting, despite the fact that it has already failed five times on the floor.

Trump surprised Republicans again when he posted on social media Wednesday morning that he would not sign an extension of FISA's enhanced surveillance authorities unless the SAVE America Act is attached to it — something that is a complete nonstarter with Republicans.

Cornyn on Friday circulated a quote from The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel, who criticized Trump for making unrealistic demands related to FISA that could risk national security and warned that failing to work constructively with GOP lawmakers is "accelerating his lame-duck status."

"Here's where things go off the rails: When the president fails to acknowledge some hills simply can't be held and charges up anyway. That's what happened in the fight over Bill Pulte, wiretapping and the SAVE America Act. His no-win standoff with his Senate GOP risks more than national security. It's accelerating his lame-duck status," Cornyn posted on the social platform X.

Democrats have said they will refuse to pass the FISA 702 reauthorization as long as Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency — whom they've accused of weaponizing mortgage records — is serving as acting national intelligence director.

Trump left Thune and other key Republican senators twisting in the wind last week by ignoring their requests for a briefing on the administration's memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Iran, leaving them unprepared to answer criticism of the deal.

Thune told reporters on Tuesday that he expected to get a briefing later in the week on the details of the deal with Iran, but that briefing didn't come before the White House released the MOU, leaving Senate Republicans scrambling to interpret it themselves.

The majority leader said "we're trying to get" the text of the memorandum, yet many GOP senators — except some of Trump's closest allies who participated in a call with the White House — were left in the dark.

Now Republican senators are facing questions about why the White House is so out of step with their leadership, and they are struggling to come up with answers.

When asked why Trump had derailed Clayton's hearing to serve as director of national intelligence, which Thune had hoped would clear the way for a speedy confirmation vote and a follow-up vote on a bill to extend FISA's lapsed authorizations, Thune could only mutter: "Good question."

"I've never been asked to slow a nomination down before," he said with an uncomfortable laugh when asked when Clayton's nomination would move and why Trump slowed it down.

A senior Republican aide said GOP senators are becoming numb to what many of them view as the president's irrational moves — such as the decision to block Clayton and to push for $1 billion in taxpayer money for the new White House ballroom.

"This is par for the course. Before, members might be appalled, then it becomes that members are frustrated. Now, it's members are resigned to these type of decisions that are inexplicable, there's not a good explanation," the aide said of Trump's sudden opposition to moving Clayton's nomination and his doubling down on attaching the SAVE America Act to the FISA bill.

"This is entirely an unforced error," the aide said.

Last week's snubs came after the Trump administration surprised GOP senators by floating a $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund just as they were prepared to move forward on a $70 billion budget reconciliation bill.

That move provoked a revolt, with GOP senators refusing to debate the reconciliation bill before Memorial Day, as Thune had planned, because they didn't want to vote on politically dangerous amendments to scrap the "weaponization" fund while acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the idea was still on the table.

Last month's meeting between Blanche and Senate Republicans in the Capitol's Mansfield Room turned into what one senator described as a "screaming fest."

The tensions have cooled since then between Blanche and Republican senators, but he still faces a rocky path to getting confirmed as attorney general for a longer term.

Just one Republican "no" vote on the Judiciary Committee would be enough to sink him.

He also may have a challenge in getting enough support on the Senate floor from Republicans such as Sens. Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who are undecided on how to vote.

And Trump is starting to get more pushback from unexpected corners of the Senate GOP conference in recent days.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who is usually in lockstep with Trump, raised eyebrows on Wednesday when he balked at Trump's call on social media to cancel Clayton's confirmation hearing.

Cotton initially said he would still go forward with the hearing despite Trump's early morning rant on social media.

Cotton then postponed the hearing when it became clear that Clayton would not show up, calling Trump's interference "regrettable."

The Arkansas senator, who is the third-ranking member of GOP leadership as Senate Republican Conference chair, went on Fox News on Thursday to vent his concerns over Trump's peace deal with Iran.

He warned that unfreezing tens of billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets and lifting sanctions on Iranian oil exports could backfire on U.S. national security interests.

"We know that this terrorist revolutionary regime is not going to spend that money on daycares or on hospitals. They're going to use it to rebuild their drone stockpiles, their missiles, to fund Hamas and to fund Hezbollah," he said of Iran's leadership.

On Friday, when Hezbollah forces struck an Israeli tank in southern Lebanon, killing four Israeli soldiers, Cotton wryly commented on social media: "Apparently no one informed Hezbollah of the 'ceasefire.'"

Corruption Galore in Donald Dumb's Universe: Growing GOP Opposition as Midterms Loom

Growing Opposition from Republicans to Trump as Midterms Loom. Fearing nationwide anti-Trump corruption seeping into the midterms, GOP morons begin retreating: Trump's stench is toxic.

Trump wants immunity for him and his family against IRS audits of his financial dealings which generally reek of corruption, backroom deals, cheating and fraud. In New York, he was convicted of fraud and cheating on his financial papers to secure loans.

I wish ALL LAW-ABIDING TAX-PAYING AMERICANS can benefit from such favorable treatment. But Trump and his dynasty of morons are part of the swampy elite he promised to drain if elected. Instead, his corruption has blossomed to such a point that his corruption is now global, leveraging his fake peacemaking in other countries to secure deals for his own private empire. 

If Trump wants to save his hide and that of his MAGA morons in November, he should disband the IRS, impose a flat tax on everyone, and liberate the American people from the Mafias of lawyers and accountants and other financial middleman leeches between the government and the people. The same thing should be done with the insurance industry. 

Alas, such steps will eliminate private sector corruption upon which the GOP thrives. Hence, it is unlikely that Donald Dumb will seek to eliminate the hazy crowd of corrupt attorneys and financial cheating wizards who helped him build his ill-gotten wealth.
==================================================

Republican senators start to question Trump's audit immunity deal
Burgess Everett
Mon, June 22, 2026


Republican senators start to question Trump's audit immunity deal

Senate Republicans are raising concerns about President Trump’s audit immunity agreement with the IRS, with some outright opposing the protection.

Senate Republicans helped thwart half of President Donald Trump's settlement with the IRS — his $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund. Now they're starting to raise concerns about the other half of that deal: Trump's audit immunity.

Five GOP senators told Semafor that they have questions about last month's agreement by the Justice Department to shield Trump, his family, and his businesses from IRS audits or prosecution. Some of them said they outright oppose the audit protection.

The issue could affect the confirmation of Trump's attorney general nominee, Todd Blanche.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Blanche promised to get him a briefing on the deal during a recent private meeting ahead of his hearing next month in the Judiciary Committee, where Cornyn sits and Republicans' one-seat majority makes every vote pivotal.

Blanche underscored to Cornyn that the "purely retrospective" settlement didn't immunize Trump from "future audits on future taxes," the senator told Semafor. But Cornyn is declining to back Blanche until he learns more: "I'm not prepared to vote against him. I'm not prepared to vote for him until I get clarity on that."

The audit agreement was announced in tandem with a $1.8 billion fund designed to compensate people who alleged unjust prosecution by the federal government, including those convicted of participating in the Capitol riot. The Trump administration has since backed away from that fund — but not from Trump's audit immunity.

Under the immunity deal, Trump and his network are excused from audits or any other federal probes of past tax filings. It's a settlement that former IRS and DOJ officials warned Monday far exceeds the scope of the underlying lawsuit, which Trump filed after an ex-IRS contractor leaked his return.

Cornyn isn't the only lawmaker seeking more details on the agreement, including whether it would preclude future audits of past filings or touch only certain past filings.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., told Semafor he expects senators to offer amendments repealing it, adding that he "absolutely" disagrees with it: "No American should be above the law, not even the president — and maybe even particularly the president."

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she thought the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over the IRS, "should take a look" at it.

"Any kind of immunity deal deserves scrutiny," Collins said. "There's, oddly enough, been less discussion generally, in the press and elsewhere, about the tax issue [than the anti-weaponization fund], but I'm unclear whether it's … retrospective or whether it's going forward; whether it applies to a specific case or whether it's all-encompassing."

Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, declined to comment on the IRS settlement given "it's related to issues in front of the Finance Committee." But another GOP panel member, Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, said he also had questions about its contours, telling Semafor that "we're still trying to get the rest of the details."

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, told Semafor that "I don't like it and I've asked for more information on it."

Murkowski added: "I'm trying to look at it through the lens of citizens of Alaska out there who are like, 'Wow, that's a hell of a sweet deal to the president, his family, and his business.'"

The agreement may have saved the president more than $100 million in liability under now-closed inquiries. The Justice Department said it's working to assuage senators' concerns.

"The Department of Justice will respond to any questions or clarifications a senator may have or seek. We are currently working to set up the briefing mentioned," said a spokesperson for the Justice Department when asked about the meeting with Cornyn.
Know More

The Trump family sued the IRS in January over the leak of tax returns during the president's first term, prompting questions about whether Trump could legally challenge an entity he controls. DOJ, which represents the IRS, never contested the case, even though it was filed outside the statute of limitations and blamed the IRS for a contractor's actions.

Federal law prohibits the president and his aides — but not the attorney general — from directing the IRS to abandon audits. Though DOJ and IRS officials signed the portion of the settlement that created the $1.8 billion fund, Blanche was the only one who signed the audit-related provisions.

"Anytime the IRS settles with an individual taxpayer or another company, as part of the settlement, it's standard, it's typical to get rid of past ongoing audits," Blanche told a House committee earlier this month. "It's nothing that gives any sort of immunity in the future to the president or his family or his organizations."

The White House defended Blanche when asked for comment about senators' concerns regarding the deal. Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said Blanche has "done an excellent job" and added that "President Trump has a great relationship with Todd and is very pleased with the job he's done so far."

A federal judge has since reopened the IRS case, citing concerns that the president may have misled the court about the settlement process. Thirty-five former federal judges had warned her it raised "profound questions about the parties' candor toward the court and manipulation of the judicial system."

Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Semafor he doesn't expect Cornyn to be an impediment to Blanche's confirmation but had no qualms with the Texan scrutinizing the immunity deal.

"In his role of oversight of the executive branch of the government," Grassley said, "any member of Congress would be entitled to that information."

==================================================

35 Retired Federal Judges Slam Trump's 'Laughable' Defense of His 'Obviously Collusive' IRS Settlement

Jacob Sullum
Updated Mon, June 22, 2026


35 Retired Federal Judges Slam Trump's 'Laughable' Defense of His 'Obviously Collusive' IRS Settlement

President Trump's lawsuit against the IRS, which resulted in a controversial settlement, has been criticized by 35 former federal judges for being collusive and potentially fraudulent.

As President Donald Trump's lawyers tell it, there is "no evidence" that the May 18 "settlement" of his lawsuit against the IRS, which included huge favors for him, his family, and his supporters, was a product of collusion. That position is hard to take seriously, since both sides in the lawsuit were represented by attorneys who worked for Trump, and the president himself has described the cozy arrangement as "a settlement with myself."

In a June 12 brief ordered by Kathleen Williams, the federal judge in Florida who oversaw Trump v. IRS, the president's lawyers improbably maintained that the "settlement" was business as usual at the Department of Justice (DOJ). That brief "only underscores the need to investigate whether the parties have perpetrated a fraud on this Court and corrupted the integrity of the judicial process," 35 former federal judges argue in a response filed on Friday.

Trump sued the IRS on January 29, claiming that an IRS contractor's illegal disclosure of his tax returns had caused "at least" $10 billion in damages. In addition to offering a plainly preposterous estimate of the injury he had suffered, Trump missed the statutory deadline for filing such claims. And even if he had filed his lawsuit on time, he would have faced the challenge of arguing that the contractor qualified as an "officer or employee of the United States"—a point that the DOJ has disputed in other cases involving similar claims.

Despite those manifest legal weaknesses, the DOJ never contested Trump's claims, in sharp contrast with the way it has handled lawsuits against the IRS by plaintiffs who were not the president. That failure underlined the blatant conflicts of interest created by the case, which pitted Trump against an agency he oversees, represented by DOJ lawyers who serve at his pleasure. Further compromising the DOJ's ability to represent the IRS, an executive order that Trump issued in February 2025 bars the government's lawyers from taking legal positions that contradict the president's.

The situation was so bizarre that Williams questioned whether the case involved a genuine controversy between adverse parties, as required for the lawsuit to proceed. But two days before the deadline for briefing on that crucial issue, Trump dropped his lawsuit, and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced a "settlement agreement" that promised $1.8 billion in taxpayer money for an "Anti-Weaponization Fund" designed to benefit Trump's friends and followers. The next day, Blanche revealed an addendum that purports to shield Trump and his family from liability for tax violations and any other federal offenses they might have committed prior to May 19.

Neither of those provisions was logically related to Trump's complaint that the IRS had failed to properly supervise contractors entrusted with confidential tax information, and the benefits they offered were starkly different from the terms of prior settlements involving unauthorized disclosure of tax returns. The Anti-Weaponization Fund provoked an intense, bipartisan backlash, prompting Blanche to ditch the plan two weeks after announcing it. But Blanche said the sweeping immunity deal, which could save Trump more than $100 million in back taxes, interest, and penalties, remained in place.

The retired judges, who include former 4th Circuit Judge Michael Luttig and several other Republican appointees, note that the June 12 brief from Trump's lawyers glides over "clear and convincing" evidence of collusion, which they say is "more than enough to warrant further investigation." That evidence, they say, suggests "the parties used this suit and subsequent settlement to give cover for a give-away to the lead Plaintiff, who also controls the Defendants."

As Luttig et al. see it, Trump's case against the IRS features "an obviously collusive suit; an unprecedented, clearly unwarranted settlement premised on the supposed legitimacy of that suit; active steps to prevent the Court from scrutinizing the legitimacy of their invocation of the judicial process; and now, the Justice Department unilaterally walking away from the huge settlement slush fund, even as it keeps the Plaintiffs' broad personal release." The abandonment of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, they say, is itself striking evidence of collusion.

"That one 'side' of the purported dispute could unilaterally scrap a material term without even so much as a revised written agreement makes it crystal clear that these parties were never adverse," the retired judges argue. "Instead, this suit was collusive from the start: the same person controlled it on both sides of the 'v': President Trump. DOJ's failure to raise dispositive winning defenses while 'settling' the case for an astronomical sum of taxpayer dollars and extraordinarily broad releases to plaintiffs just days before having to answer this Court's questions about collusiveness is further evidence of both collusion and fraud on the court."

Trump's lawyers argued that the DOJ would have been authorized to settle Trump's claims even if he had never filed a lawsuit. Not so, Luttig et al. say: "No authority permits the Government to settle truly non-adverse cases. The statute permitting the Attorney General to settle 'imminent litigation,' for example, does not extend such authority to situations where there is no actual dispute to 'compromise.' The same is true for the statutes authorizing the compromise of tax liabilities and federal claims. For all these statutes, it beggars belief that Congress intended to open the Treasury to 'settlements' orchestrated by the same party controlling both sides of the collusive 'dispute.'"

In an effort to show that Trump's case involved a real legal dispute between adverse parties, his lawyers noted that three of the plaintiffs—Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization—were not the president of the United States or even "employees of the federal government." When "private plaintiffs sue the United States for statutory violations," they said, the case is "inherently adversarial."

Please, Luttig et al. say. They note that the individual plaintiffs are "from the same family," that they are "business partners with the same financial interests and counsel," and that they "own or manage the corporate plaintiff." In any event, "Plaintiffs have no answer for the fact that the lead Plaintiff, President Trump, directs and controls the Defendants. That alone renders this lawsuit non-adversarial, collusive, and jurisdictionally improper."

Trump's lawyers suggested he could have won the case on the merits. But as Luttig et al. note, they did not offer "any explanation of how they could overcome the statute of
limitations defense," which "would eviscerate liability."

Despite that fatal flaw, Trump's lawyers claimed the DOJ reached "a fully proper government settlement" after weighing the merits of Trump's claims and assessing the cost of defending against them. They noted that civil defendants routinely decide against litigating claims based on "the entirely rational conclusion that the cost of defense exceeds the cost of settlement."

That suggestion, Luttig et al. say, "is laughable given the facts of this case: a settlement worth nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer funds plus a capacious and extraordinary general release that purports to forfeit claims for substantial sums in unpaid taxes and other potential damages and fines." Such "monumental relief," they note, "dwarfs any conceivable 'cost of defense.'"

Trump's lawyers argued that the former federal judges did not have standing to file the May 27 motion in which they urged Williams to reopen the case. But that issue is "a red herring," Luttig et al. say, because Williams has "inherent authority" to "investigate fraud."

If Williams concludes that Trump used a phony lawsuit to obtain favors for himself, his relatives, and his supporters, Luttig et al. note, she can impose sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which covers "a range of bad faith conduct," including submissions filed "for an improper purpose," claims with "no reasonable factual basis," and filings "based on a legal theory that has no reasonable chance of success and that cannot be advanced as a reasonable argument to change existing law." They add that "a bad faith or improper purpose might include collusively filing a lawsuit with claims subject to multiple dispositive defenses solely to provide cover for a collusive settlement."

Luttig et al. say Williams also has "inherent power" to reopen the case under Rule 60, which applies to submissions that "defile the court itself" or constitute "a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." They add that Rule 60 "also encompasses an 'unconscionable plan or scheme' perpetrated upon the court."

Because "it addresses schemes that fall in the cracks between existing statutory
mechanisms, the Court's inherent authority confers broad power to remedy fraudulent conduct and sanction litigants and attorneys," Luttig et al. say. "A court's power in such cases is expansive: 'whatever form the relief has taken in particular cases, the net result in every case has been the same: where the situation has required [it] the court has, in some manner, devitalized the judgment.'"

When Williams ordered Trump's lawyers to address Luttig et al.'s charges of collusion and fraud, she did not ask the DOJ for its take on the "settlement agreement." But we can be confident that its response would be similar, since its lawyers also work for Trump—a basic reality that underlies the brazen corruption of his "settlement with myself."

The post 35 Retired Federal Judges Slam Trump's 'Laughable' Defense of His 'Obviously Collusive' IRS Settlement appeared first on Reason.com.

Horrific Scale of Trump's Blunder with his Surrender to Iran

The scale of Trump’s political blunder in Iran is coming into focus


US President Donald Trump departs after a Medal of Honor Ceremony in the East Room of the White House on June 18, 2026, in Washington, DC. - Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Analysis by Aaron Blake, CNN
Mon, June 22, 2026 

The first major poll conducted since the Trump administration signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran has a point that seems like good news for Trump: Americans overwhelmingly agree he should end the war rather than push for more concessions.

But it's not because they actually like the agreement; it's because they think the war is a debacle, and they just want to be done with it.

A new CBS News-YouGov poll shows that even as Americans get their first glimpse — however tentative — of the finish line, it hasn't improved their views of the war one iota.

And as the administration enters a new phase in this process, it's worth a check-in on where the politics stand and how they could impact what comes next.

Americans think it's a bad deal

The poll shows 78% of Americans said they'd prefer to end the war now, while just 22% wanted to hold out — to "continue … until Iran gives up more."

At least one Trump political adviser was celebrating that finding on Sunday. He suggested it showed the American people were on Trump and Vice President JD Vance's side on the accord with Iran.

But the rest of the poll makes it abundantly clear that's not true.

Vice President JD Vance reacts to a question from a reporter during a news conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on June 18, 2026, in Washington, DC. - Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

When asked to actually review the agreement, just 22% of Americans said it's better for the United States than Iran, while significantly more — 37% — said it's better for Iran. (The other 41% said it was about equal.)

The percentage who said it's better for the US included just 39% of Republicans. So just to underscore, only about 4 in 10 members of Trump's own party think his administration negotiated a win here.

Americans also said 45%-29% that the war hasn't been successful from a strategic standpoint.

They're accepting a strategic loss

But that last finding might undersell how much of a strategic defeat Americans see this as.

Perhaps nothing drives that home like polling on the nuclear issue — Trump's most critical goal.

While Trump has repeatedly asserted his aim was to permanently stop Iran's nuclear program, the CBS poll shows 69% of Americans and even 45% of Republicans said this agreement, if finalized to bring the war to a conclusion, won't accomplish that.

This echoes a Fox News poll conducted the weekend the framework was being negotiated in mid-June. It showed registered voters said 64%-35% that it was unlikely a peace agreement would stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons.

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran, Seyyed Abbas Araghchi, third from right, and Speaker of the Islamic Parliament of Iran, Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf, second from right, with the Delegation of Iran at the Lake Lucerne Summit at the Buergenstock resort in Obbuergen, near Lucerne, Switzerland, on Sunday, June 21, 2026. - Urs Flueeler/Pool/AP

Notably, the agreement leaves many details for later, so there are still plenty of issues to iron out on the nuclear front.

But the Trump administration appears to be walking back some of its goals, and these findings get at the rank pessimism that exists in the American public.

The new CBS poll also shows:

68% said the agreement, if finalized, won't have stopped Iran from threatening other countries. Nearly half (48%) of polled Republicans agreed with that statement.

79% said it hasn't made Iran's leaders more pro-US.

74% said it hasn't made Iran's people safe and free, which Trump had said was one of his goals earlier this year.

They think the war was counterproductive

A striking and consistent detail in polling on the Iran war are findings that suggest the war is not only viewed as a failure, but as counterproductive.

And that continues today.

Trump claims the war has destroyed Iran militarily and pulverized its nuclear program. But just 37% of Americans say Iran is weaker today than before the war began.

More than 6 in 10 say Iran is as strong as it was before (38%) or stronger (25%).

A man observes oil tankers, general cargo ships, bulk carriers and fishing boats anchored in the waters off Muscat near the Strait of Hormuz on June 18, 2026 in Muscat, Oman. The US and Iran have an agreement to bring an end to the war and open the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway through which vast amounts of oil and gas are transported every day. - Elke Scholiers/Getty Images

While Iran has surely suffered major military losses, it has also demonstrated significant leverage via its now-proven ability to lock down the Strait of Hormuz and jeopardize the world economy.

Speaking of which, Americans think the war is likely to continue exacting a toll in the months and years to come.

A clear 57% majority said the war has actually "created more problems than it solved." That's nearly three times the 21% who said it had solved more problems than it created.
They think Trump was caught off-guard

And when it comes to that impact, Americans seem to think Trump simply didn't understand what he was getting himself into.

The poll asked whether people thought the Trump administration understood the impact the war would have on the world economy.

Fully 64% thought the war impacted the world economy more than the administration expected. That includes 51% of polled Republicans.

Of course, there's plenty to back that up — both from Trump's own public comments as well as reporting. CNN reported in March that the administration underestimated Iran's willingness to try and close the Strait of Hormuz.

Americans are just anxious for it to be over — and think Trump is, too

The last big lesson is that Americans are on the same page with Trump in a way: They just want it to be over, and they think Trump does, too.

The Fox News poll in mid-June had shown 70% of registered voters said they were concerned the war would become a long-term commitment. And 87% said it was important to avoid a prolonged war.

That likely helps explain why people might be willing to accept a suboptimal agreement. The administration said the war was likely to last about four to six weeks, and it's now dragged on for nearly four months.

Americans haven't seen many deliverables during that time. And given they didn't see much reason to go to war in the first place, it's not a big logical leap that they would decide to cut bait.

And perhaps most tellingly, that's what they think Trump is doing right now — trying to cut bait.

The CBS poll asked whether Americans thought the Trump administration was reaching this agreement because it had met all of its goals, or because it "wants the conflict to be over."

Two-thirds of Americans said it was because the administration just wants to wrap it up.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com

Trump's "peacemaking" with Iran Involves Sneaky Profit-making

Per his own spelling: "DUM" Trump is a smartass mafioso leveraging wars to profit himself 

Per AI:

President Donald Trump has declared that unfrozen Iranian assets must be used to exclusively purchase U.S. agricultural products, specifically targeting corn, soybeans, and wheat to benefit American farmers. This proposal, described by Vice President JD Vance as a "classic Trump deal," involves a mechanism where both the U.S. and Qatar retain approval authority over the funds to ensure they are spent on food rather than military rebuilding.

Iran has explicitly rejected the obligation to buy American goods, with Central Bank Governor Abdolnaser Hemmati stating that existing agreements do not mandate purchasing agricultural inputs from the United States. While Trump insists the funds are intended to feed Iran's "very hungry" population, Iranian officials maintain they are free to source essential goods from any provider offering better price and quality.

Political Context: The push aims to support U.S. farmers impacted by the war and tariffs ahead of the November midterm elections. 

[LI Insert: Trump wants Iran to fund the US economy that he himself has degraded with his tariffs and disastrous economic policies. He wants to coerce the Iranians into buying US products which goes against the principles of capitalistic free market in which Iran has the right to purchase goods wherever it finds it suitable. As is typical of the Great Moron, Trump wants to repair the damage his tariffs have done to US farmers - who have been defecting en masse from him and whose votes he badly needs - by profiteering from the war he launched against Iran.]

Frozen Assets: Approximately $6 billion in Iranian funds held in Qatar are central to these negotiations, with total frozen assets estimated between $20 billion and $50 billion globally.

Discrepancy: The U.S. views the unfreezing as conditional on food purchases, whereas Iran views it as a right to access its own money for various non-sanctioned needs.

More Defections from Totalitarian GOP-MAGA's Trump Dictatorship

 Another very prominent figure of the GOP-MAGA republican herd of conservative morons is defecting. Tucker Carlson has already been on the out and out with the policies of Trump on such issues as Palestine, ICE tactics and the Iran war, but now he has officially declared he no longer supports the Republican party. 

If you tally all those former MAGA-GOP figures who have defected, I can let you guess how many more feel the same way but are cowards and without principles who fear reprisals from the tyrant moron in the White Outhouse. There is the possibility that those who are defecting now at this precise moment anticipate some role for themselves in the November midterms and are positioning themselves as centrists by default and want to appeal to voters who have largely abandoned Trump and his asinine record.

=============================================


Tucker Carlson says he'll no longer support the Republican Party

JESSE BEDAYN
Mon, June 22, 2026 

Longtime conservative commentator Tucker Carlson said on a podcast that "there's no chance I would support the Republican Party" ahead of the November midterm elections, dismissing the political affiliation he's defended as a pundit for decades, including as one of Fox News Channel's most popular hosts.

"Not gonna support the Democratic Party," Carlson was quick to add, speaking late last week on the show "Can't Be Censored." "I don't know what I'm going to do."

Carlson, who has amassed a large following on his own podcast since being fired from Fox News in 2023, has more recently diverged from the party, a disillusionment supercharged by President Donald Trump's decision to go to war with Iran in February.

Carlson supported Trump in 2024. After the war began, he apologized for supporting the then-presidential candidate and "misleading people," saying it wasn't intentional.

He's repeatedly criticized the war as being at the behest of Israel at the expense of Americans, and attacked the party for failing to represent its own voters, citizens and nation.

"They are making decisions on the basis of other criteria, what's best for this company, what's best for Israel, what's best for our donors," he said. "That's not just, like, they are off in the wrong direction, like, that is unacceptable, that's treasonous, it's immoral, it can't continue."

"I've been a consistent defender for 35 years of the Republican Party, I mean very consistent defender, but there's no defending this," he said. "So no, I'm out. And if I'm out, then I think a lot of other people are out."