Trump bumbles and fumbles on Russia-Ukraine negotiations, leaving Putin fuming and setting up Zelensky, Ukraine, and NATO to fend for themselves

 

Putin: Does this man look happy? (Getty)

Has something gone sour with the bromance between Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin? It looks like the answer is yes at the moment. Less than a week after being re-elected to a second term -- what some have called the greatest comeback in political history -- Trump informed Putin that he should not escalate the war with Ukraine. Putin did not react warmly to receiving a directive from the U.S. leader, even though Trump likely finished the request with a "pretty please," uttered through chattering teeth. Was Putin chastened in the least? Nope. His response was more or less an abrupt, "Go to Hell." On top of that, Russian  state media got down and dirty by playing naughty with nude photos of Trump's wife, Melania So, where does that leave U.S.-Russian relations, which were supposed to be one of Trump's few areas of strength? It's hard to say for sure, but they suddenly seem to have turned frosty. Perhaps Putin, chagrined at the thought of seemingly taking orders from Trump, felt the need to remind Trump who holds the upper hand in this power play. And, by the way, he's not the least bit impressed with Trump's historic achievements of late.

Russian TV seemed to land an egregious low blow by placing nudie photos (from her modeling career) of Melania Trump before the nation's viewers. Here is how the Kyiv Post describes it under the headline "Kremlin Power Games Begin: Exposing Melania Nude Photos on State TV; Russian state-run TV show “congratulates” Trump on election by highlighting once and future First Lady modeling career photos, possibly spelling out the power dynamic of the US-Russia relationship":

Russian TV “congratulated” US President-elect Donald Trump on the election by highlighting once and future First Lady modeling career photos, including nude images – likely with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s approval, in a possible bid to set the Kremlin’s power dynamic of the Putin-Trump and Moscow-Washington relationships. (See image at the end of this post.)

Russian newscasters celebrated Trump's electoral victory with jokes and jabs about the next first couple on prime-time TV last week. The husband and wife presenter team of Yevgeny Popov and Olga Skabeyeva showed the collage of modeling photos on the nationally broadcast Russian show 60 Minutes, as reported by Newsweek. Melania modeled around the world in the 1990s and early 2000s before marrying Trump in 2005.

“Here is how Melania looked in the year 2000. This is the cover of the magazine GQ.” Many of the photos were from a 2000 GQ photoshoot and show Melania completely nude and in suggestive positions.

“The future first lady lies on top of furs in a negligee. Inside the magazine, Melania’s sexy photos near a private plane and aboard the plane. In one of the shots, the model is wearing only her underwear, lying on a blue carpet with the US seal, as though the editors of the men’s magazine knew something in advance about the future of their model,” the presenters said.

Appearing on a popular TV program sanctioned by the Kremlin, the photos almost certainly had to be approved by Putin for airing before they went live. The show aired after Trump reportedly spoke to Putin on Thursday and warned him not to “escalate” Ukraine.

Sharing Melania’s old photos in the popular show was meant to be an obvious slight to the president-elect that spells out the power dynamic of the US-Russia relationship – or at least how Putin would like it to be.

By publicly shaming Trump’s wife, the Russian leader is demonstrating both that nothing is off-limits and who is in the dominant position. The Russian leader has used misogynistic attacks and rhetoric for decades to demean his enemies and bolster his supporters.

The stunt may also have been meant as a subtle threat that the Kremlin holds other embarrassing or politically damaging material that could threaten the 47th president.

Rumors have circulated for decades that Putin may have held onto some sort of incriminating leverage over Trump from the days he traveled to the Soviet Union and later Russia as a businessman. 

Now Putin appears to be using Melania to make Trump understand that Russia has power in many forms, and is not afraid to personally attack the president-elect to achieve its aims. Putin is attempting to set the stage to welcome his ally back into the White House on Russian terms. The president-elect has yet to publicly respond to the “congratulatory” message.

So much for any notion that Trump will earn respect on the international stage. Heck, he's already been dissed by his No. 1 fanboy. How did the Trump-Putin relationship take a wrong turn so quickly? Under the headline "

Putin Gives Trump Massive Middle Finger, Days After Warning on Ukraine; The Russian leader is making it clear that Donald Trump has zero power to stop Russia’s deadly war on Ukraine," Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling, of The New Republic (TNR), provides background, writing:

Less than a week after being elected to a second term, President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t appear to be the international strong-arm he claimed he’d be.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has already waltzed right past a pointed warning from the MAGA leader, sending tens of thousands of soldiers to the Ukrainian war front after Trump told him not to escalate the situation.

Ukraine’s top military commander, Oleksandr Syrskyi, told NBC News that Russian forces are “trying to dislodge our troops and advance deep into the territory we control” in Kursk, a city in southwestern Russia that borders Ukraine. Ukrainian forces “continue to hold back” a “nearly 50,000-strong enemy group” in the occupied region, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wrote in a Telegram post Monday.

Ukraine has warned of a looming counteroffensive in the embattled region for weeks. Among Russia’s allies on the front line include more than 10,000 North Korean soldiers—confirmed by the Pentagon—who are engaging in “combat against Ukrainian militaries,” according to Zelensky.

“There are losses; this is a fact,” he said.

“The importance of this operational area cannot be underestimated given the number of enemy troops concentrated there,” Syrskyi wrote on Telegram. “If it were not for the steadfastness of our soldiers, these tens of thousands of enemies from the best Russian assault units would have stormed our positions.”

Trump had spoken with Putin over the phone on Thursday, reportedly advising the foreign leader not to escalate the war, reminding Putin of America’s military capabilities in Europe, according to The Washington Post.

Russia immediately turned its back on the discussion, claiming that the report was “pure fiction.”

Trump now looks like an impotent tool for making  the bold claim during the campaign that, if elected, he could resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 24 hours. Did any of Trump's supporters actually believe that, or did they allow their hero to play them for fools? Is this what Trump meant by "peace through strength"? If so, it landed with a thud, which rhymes with dud. Houghtaling picks up on that theme:

One of Trump’s biggest and boldest campaign promises was that he would immediately end the Russian invasion of Ukraine—though his philosophy on how to achieve that was suspiciously scant of details and, at times, veered toward solutions that would invariably aid Russia.

In June, Trump said he would be open to an increase in U.S. weapons aid to Ukraine so long as it shows up for peace talks with Russia, reported Reuters.

Trump’s advisers envisioned that the peace talks—which Trump promised to facilitate upon winning in November—would also quietly include Ukraine ceding part of the country that is currently occupied by Russian forces. The concept was drawn up by retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg and Fred Fleitz, both former chiefs of staff in Trump’s National Security Council.

Note that Trump's idea for resolving the conflict involved giving Putin exactly what he wants, rewarding Russia for violating international norms by invading and stealing Ukrainian land in the first place.

Ukrainian President Volodymir Zalensky has repeatedly said there will be no peace until Russian troops are expelled from his country and all land is returned. Trump now is trying to back away from any plan that would involve Ukraine ceding land, but he started with an idea that had no chance to succeed. Is this a form of Trump's"negotiating genius"? Houghtaling writes:

Trump’s ardent opposition to NATO—the Western military and trade alliance—has also raised eyebrows, even sparking condemnation from some of his former allies. In February, Trump claimed he told a European leader that he’d allow Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to NATO allies if they didn’t “pay” their “bills.” And while Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton cast doubt on the incendiary story, he didn’t question the MAGA leader’s desire to nix the strategic alliance.

“Look, I was there when he almost withdrew, and he’s not negotiating,” Bolton said at the time. “His goal here is not to strengthen NATO, it’s to lay the groundwork to get out."

If Trump has his way, it appears, both Ukraine and NATO will be tossed overboard, and Putin will be emboldened to invade Poland, Belarus, Romania, or whatever suits his fancy. Does that sound like the makings of WWIII? Did Americans really go to the polls and vote for this?

If U.S. voters aren't having "buyer's remorse" already, they should be prepared for that to set in soon.

Melania nude, as seen on Russia TV (greekreporter.com)

Trump has failed to sign mandatory documents related to ethics and conflicts of interest, possibly putting his second administration and the U.S. on shaky ground

Citizens  for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

 

Donald Trump's second term in the White House might get off to a rocky start because he and his team have failed to file documents related to ethics and conflicts of interest, according to a post at the Daily Beast. Why would Trump let what seems like a relatively easy task slide? Is this a sign of the kind of incompetence that plagued his first term?

The Beast's Emell Derra Adolphus explains under the headline "Donald Trump Banned from Nation's Secrets by Defying Ethics Laws: Trump’s assembled transition team has refused to participate in the established transition process":

President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House could be a bumpy ride because he has not pledged to avoid conflicts of interest, among other ethical concerns, while in office.

The New York Times reported that Trump’s transition team missed the Oct. 1 deadline to submit an ethics plan in accordance with the Presidential Transition Act. What’s more, NYT reported that Trump’s assembled transition team has refused to participate in the established transition process, usually beginning months before elections.

The team has also missed numerous deadlines for signing agreements required to participate in national-security meetings and to gain access to federal agencies.

“While transition planning is private activity, it is deeply connected to the activity of our government and the stewardship of public resources,” said Max Stier, the president and chief executive of the Partnership for Public Service. The nonpartisan group assists presidential candidates with the transition through the Center for Presidential Transition.

Stier added, “The avoidance of conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest is critical to that task.”

Given Trump's vow to restructure the government bureaucracy that federal agencies form, you might expect that completing these agreements would be a top priority. But it appears that is not the case. Is Trump serious about transforming federal agencies? For now, the answer appears to be "no." Adolphus writes:

Trump was the very reason Congress amended the Presidential Transition Act law in 2019, which requires candidates to post an ethics plan with “information on how eligible presidential candidates will address their own conflicts of interest during a presidential term.”

Although Trump’s transition leadership has drafted an ethics code and statement to govern its staff, NYT reported that Trump’s plan was not included.

At the moment, it's not clear Trump intends to sign the required documents. If he does not, it could have serious consequences for the government and the Trump administration, according to a report at CNN. Write Betsy Klein and Alayna Treene:

As president, Trump repeatedly came under fire from ethics groups for potential conflicts of interest relating to his businesses and brands. Both Trump’s and his family’s foreign business ties have also come under intense scrutiny throughout his time in office and on the campaign trail.

Trump and his transition team are already behind in accessing key transition briefings from the Biden administration, as they have failed to sign a pair of agreements to unlock critical information before taking over the federal government in 72 days.

The holdup revolves in part around the mandatory agreement over ethics issues.

A source familiar with the process acknowledged that details are still being worked out with the Biden administration regarding the ethics agreement, which is required by law under the Presidential Transition Act and which applies to all members of the transition team. Updates to that bill requiring the ethics pledge were introduced by Trump ally Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, and signed into law by Trump himself in March 2020.

The source would not expand further on the Trump team’s concerns over the ethics pledge.

Trump’s most recent financial disclosures as a candidate showed that he has continued to make millions off his properties, books and licensing deals. He and his family recently launched a new cryptocurrency business.

A sizable share of his net worth, meanwhile, is tied to the publicly traded parent company of Truth Social, the conservative social-media network. Trump is the dominant shareholder and said Friday that he has no intention of selling his 114.75 million shares, worth about $3.7 billion.

The Trump team ignored a pair of key pre-election deadlines to unlock transition activities with the Biden administration’s General Services Administration and the White House. Experts are sounding the alarms about impacts to Day 1 national-security preparedness.

It sounds as if Trump is not sure he wants to be president or a business tycoon, with all the attending conflicts that entails. Those issues, of course, should have been worked out long before he ever started a campaign. For now, it's hard to tell if Trump is even serious about being president. If he is not, that could endanger our country even more than his second term already is likely to put the U.S. on shaky ground.

More information about Donald Trump and conflicts of interest involving his businesses is available at this article from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

Evidence shows Russia issued bomb threats to discourage voter turnout in mostly Democratic precincts, helping Donald Trump "win" the 2024 election. Will the U.S. do anything more than shrug?

Arizona voters line up on an election day marred by bomb threats (AP)

 

News sites are filling up with analytical pieces about Tuesday's presidential election. I've tried to read as many as I can, with plans to highlight some of the best work in upcoming posts here at Legal Schnauzer. The No. 1 article I've seen so far comes from former ESPN and MSNBC journalist Keith Olbermann. What makes Olbermann's piece stand out? He is the first writer I've seen flatly question the integrity of the 2024 presidential election. In fact, he addresses evidence that suggests Russia used bomb threats in multiple precincts to interfere on behalf of Donald Trump. 

The bottom line: Olbermann believes the election was rigged, and I agree with him. In my view, this is by far the biggest story of the election, and based on my research, Olbermann is the first and only reporter to take it on -- in clear, concise, and unvarnished language. Plus, he has the kind of journalism chops that could produce a series of articles on this subject, perhaps even a book. My hope is that we will see some kind of long-form work on this subject, coming from Olbermann in the not-too-distant future. I have no doubt he is capable of uncovering facts that will make many Americans' stomachs churn. On the other hand, it might renew faith in our system for those who yearn to see Trump, and the allies who likely helped bring the election scam to fruition, held accountable. 

Maybe best of all, Olbermann is fearless. He's not afraid to call Donald Trump "insane" and he's not afraid to heap criticism on Attorney General Merrick Garland for letting the Trump Train of Corruption get this far without launching an investigation. 

My hope is that our readers will read, ponder,and digest the Olbermann article below. It probably will be the most important, and most revealing, work you have read in  a while. We encourage you to share it with as many friends, acquaintances, and loved ones as you can. It truly is one of those stories that every American needs to read -- as our nation balances on the precipice between democracy and tyranny. I'm going to get out of the way, so you can dig in to a piece that reveals journalism to be an important and noble profession. By the way, the article originated with Olbermann's current project, a podcast that will take you back to his days as an ESPN anchor who redefined sports reporting and commentary on cable news before moving to MSNBC and helping launch Rachel Maddow into network stardom. In other words, Olbermann has talent, and he knows talent. He also knows a big story when he smells one. Let's pray that his nose for news helps bring our Republic back from the depths.

Enjoy,

Legal Schnauzer

 

Countdown With Keith Olbermann (Click on link for audio.)

A-Block (1:44) SPECIAL COMMENT: "No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. The mistake that is made always runs the other way. Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly." H.L. Mencken (1926).

Nice of Hispanic males to vote for the guy who will deport all their relatives and friends and namesakes and when they run out, deport them.

Also: the anti-Trump conservative who's trying to be optimistic: at least now Trump won't try another coup!

And Jeff Bezos congratulates Trump because if they're still blackmailing Bezos on Trump's behalf, this is what it would look like!

And details on the future of this podcast (yes, it has one).

B-Block (20:51) SPECIAL COMMENT TWO: My theory of The Lifeboat and how it explains who voted for Trump and why.

C-Block (34:00) GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK.

 

November 5, 2024

Russia has committed an act of war against this nation and our government.

We were attacked last night (11/5/24), as certainly as if they came across the borders or BOMBED polling stations - 40 or more - 32 Russian bomb threats just in Fulton county, Georgia, alone.

And what are you going to do about it, President Biden? What are you going to do about it, Merrick Garland? There is real-time evidence of Russian interference in our elections. Russians deciding who becomes president, who goes to the Senate, the House.

Thirty-two bomb threats – many already identified as coming from Russian email sources – in the most Democratic part of Georgia. A quarter of the state’s Black population subjected to a terror attack – in Fulton and DeKalb Counties. And in Pennsylvania – one that closed a county elections offense for an hour, at least 10 others. AND in Wisconsin. AND in Michigan. AND in Arizona – at least 10 in Arizona. AND when Georgia extended voting, the Republican National Committee went to court to stop it.

Regardless of the outcome of the election, this is an act of war.

Russian interference means Trump – Trump already admitted at the debate he talked to Putin AFTER he left office - and now Trump means Elon Musk, and we know Musk has been in contact with Putin frequently since 2022, and turned Twitter into a whorehouse for pro-Russian and pro-Trump indoctrination.

Remember the Wall Street Journal October 24 Elon Musk's Secret Conversations With Vladimir Putin." Elon Musk, the world's richest man and a linchpin of U.S. space efforts, has been in regular contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin since late 2022." The discussions confirmed by several current and former U.S., European, and Russian officials touch on personal topics, business, and geopolitical tensions. In the Journal on October 24, its sources reported Putin asked Musk to not activate his Starlink satellite internet service over Taiwan as "a favor to the Chinese dictator, Xi Jinping." That, the Journal quoted a former Russian intelligence officer as saying, happened late last year, quoting the article again later in 2022, Musk was having regular conversations with "high-level Russians," according to a person familiar with the interactions.

At the time, there was pressure from the Kremlin on Musk's businesses and "implicit threats against him", the person said, threats unless he did what? The Journal went on to say that since Musk has "a security clearance that allows him access to certain classified information, his continuing contact with Putin triggered "potential national-security concerns among some in the current administration," and the Journal reporters also said that while some on the Biden staff seem to have been aware of Musk's connection to Russia and Putin, maybe most did not. "Several White House officials said they weren't aware of them." Were they aware that Musk had taken over goodness knows what? Or for something not happening? Musk took Twitter, swung it into a position in which it was a home for every pro-Russian idiot and bot and every Nazi and every racist and every anti-Semite, and every anti-American force that had thumbs. Is Musk going to be arrested? Detained? Questioned? Are his clearances going to be removed? Is somebody going to send him an email asking if he knows what happened? Did he have any connection to it? Could he get a message through to Putin?

Is Trump going to be arrested? Detained? Questioned? Anybody connected to Trump? How about a statement from Merrick Garland? Or is that timid, useless, impotent man still working on preventing the copying of music, cassette and eight-track tapes. Trump's Supreme Court has given the president, not him, not anyone in particular, but the office of president of the United States, it has given the president blanket immunity, pre-approval to do basically anything he wants and fear no prosecution. as long as he can vaguely prove he did it as part of his official duties. I'm guessing here, but responding to an attempt unquestionably successful at least in part, to interfere with the election by a foreign country, is unquestionably part of those official presidential duties.

Have we ceded control of this country to Russia, President Biden? Does Putin get to shut down polling places and scare off what will be for all time an immeasurable number of American voters in the places where, in our history, members of minority groups have been shot at and killed for trying to vote? Do the Russians get to shut down polling places now, act as the KKK, influence the outcome of elections in the states that are key to the election? Do they get to make these decisions? Or -- it's a quaint notion --  do Americans get to make these decisions? President Biden? What are we going to do in response to this? Are we going to turn off Russia's power grid? Are we going to seize Starlink and shut it off where the Russians are using it in Ukraine? Are we going to give Ukraine all of the seized Russian oligarchs super yachts and other investments in cash? Are we giving Ukraine all it needs to obliterate the entire Russian force inside its country, while we still have a country? Are we expelling Russian diplomats? Are we voiding the electoral results in the states the Russians invaded by remote control -- or are we even thinking about how to correct this? Are we considering doing something more severe? Or are we repeating 2016, where despite overwhelming evidence that Trump got help from Russia to get elected, we shrugged.

This week, we turned our government over to a bunch of crooks who have proved themselves, time and time again, manipulated by, and instructed by, and shown how to cheat and lie and kill Americans by Vladimir Putin. Are we going to get a statement from this administration? Oh wait, wait, there was a statement from this administration. I'll quote it in full: "The FBI is aware of bomb threats to polling locations in several states, including Georgia, many of which appear to originate from Russian email domains. None of the threats have been determined to be credible thus far. Election integrity is among the FBI's highest priorities. We will continue to work closely with our state and local law-enforcement partners to respond to any threats to our elections and to protect our communities as Americans exercise their right to vote." As an aside I'll note, except for last night.

As always, the FBI statement continues, but there is no signature, there is no office, there is no name connected to this. It is the FBI as an institution. "As always, we urge the public to remain vigilant . . ." it says. Again, as an aside, because Merrick Garland does not remain vigilant, "and report suspicious activity to state or local law enforcement or submit tips to the FBI at one eight hundred call FBI or online at tips dot FBI dot gov." How extraordinarily and completely and impotently pathetic. The Russians just shot our democracy in the heart, and those who are there solely to protect that democracy and the citizens of this nation, us -- those who are there solely to protect us -- have responded to this invasion-by-proxy by establishing . . . a toll-free tip line."

Mary Trump has seen America's new president-elect up close, giving her insight into the mental-health flaws that so often have led him on a deviant path

Mary Trump and MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell (MSNBC)

 

Few people on the planet know America's new president-elect the way Mary Trump knows him. She has watched him wrestle with a damaged psyche that, in her view, makes him  unfit to serve in the office he soon will assume. She has spent time in the dysfunctional household that produced him. As a clinical psychologist and best-selling author, she has the expertise to understand the mental-health flaws that took him down a deviant path  that led courts to find him a convicted felon, an adjudicated rapist, and a serial abuser of women, who has vowed to build his second term around a maniacal desire to seek retribution against perceived enemies -- whether or not there is the slightest evidence they have wronged him.

As Donald Trump's niece, and an outspoken critic of his effort to regain the presidency, Mary Trump knows America is in for some dark days, which we apparently brought on ourselves. Reports are starting to surface of oddities in Tuesday's election, which indicate we cannot understand how the results happened without a thorough investigation. I submit that interviewing Mary Trump would be a good place for investigators to start. 

In a post yesterday at her Substack page, "The Good in Us," Mary Trump writes of her concerns about the damage a chaotic and divisive Donald Trump second term could inflict on America. Because of her status as a mental-health professional, Mary Trump wrote in March of this year about a Trump campaign staffer contacting her out of concern that the candidate's mental health was declining. Mary Trump wrote about that experience under the headline "Losing It." In her most recent article -- titled "Waking up to the End of America; It happened here" -- Mary clearly is trying to understand the events that led to America taking a frightful gut punch on Tuesday. I believe her words can help many Americans cope with having their lives upended. Mary writes:

I went to bed just after 7:00 a.m. so I already knew, but it wasn’t until I woke up a couple of hours later that I fully processed what this country had done. Nothing seemed right—the sun shone too brightly, and the American flag that flies on the roof of a building a couple of blocks away from me wasn’t at half mast. Surely, it should have been.

This is much worse than 2016, but today I am possessed of an exquisite detachment that, while I know it is bad for me, I will hold onto for as long as I can. Because I really did think we were better than this, and I don’t want to confront the feelings associated with recognizing just how wrong I was.

I can't really offer you much in the way of comfort today. There is a lot that's going to be playing out in the next days, weeks, and months, and we are going to have to grapple with all of it under pretty unimaginable circumstances. There's no false hope; no silver lining. 

I don’t think Vice President Kamala Harris could have run a better, more professional, more inspiring campaign. It was nearly flawless, but for many reasons rooted in our dark and desperate and unacknowledged history, too many people refused to buy into her message of hope and unity. Too many people want what Donald Trump has to offer them. It will not serve them well.

I think it's fair to say it will be much worse for those of us who fought as hard as we could to make sure we never had to wake up to this nightmare. As always, in times of great upheaval, it will be worst for the most vulnerable among us.

I do think it's important, though, especially now, to acknowledge what we are and have been to each other as a community, what we will continue to be—what you have all created here. We worked as hard as we could and left it all on the field, individually and collectively. We’ll have to examine why it wasn't enough. Some of the reasons are obvious, some will require closer analysis. We’ll get to those as the fraught days of the transition unfold.

I also want to reassure you about the only thing I can: I’m not going anywhere. The Good in Us and Mary Trump Media will be here for the duration. I had hoped we would wake up today with a mission to keep pressure on a new Democratic administration to do everything in its power to strengthen our democracy instead of constantly fighting a rear-guard action against encroaching fascism. Instead, the fascism is here, and we have to confront it head-on.

Our goal is to be at the leading edge of the fight against the tyranny that will soon engulf what once was the world’s greatest democracy. There aren’t words to convey effectively how devastating it is that the American experiment has failed; to learn so many of us apparently place no value in the promise this country offered; to find that tens of millions of us are completely sanguine about the repercussions the rest of the world and future generations now face because of this violent, reckless decision.

My heart breaks for us. My heart breaks for Ukraine. My heart breaks for our NATO allies and the coalition we formed in the wake of World War II after we defeated fascism. The irony is not lost on me that it is fascism that will take a wrecking ball to what we created together 75 years ago. The irony is not lost on me that the person chosen to lead the effort to destroy what so many people dedicated and sacrificed their lives to build and protect is a deviant autocrat devoid of empathy, humility, and honor.

I think I’ve made it pretty clear in the last few months that one of the reasons we have ended up here is the so-called traditional/legacy/corporate media. Time and time again, when the American people needed clarity and reasoned analysis, we got false equivalence and normalization. We got lied to.

I will never lie to you. Our goal at Mary Trump Media is to fill the void that has been left by those who have turned their backs on their responsibility to protect and strengthen democracy and now democracy lies in ruins at our feet.

I pledge my unwavering allegiance to you and to the truth. I will do my best to look squarely in the face of—and guard against—the horrors we will be facing.

To those of you who have been, and continue to be with me on this journey, I am eternally grateful. I promise I’ll do my best to move forward and find some hope in what is an abjectly dark and tragic time.

We have our work cut out for us, but we know what we need to do.

Thank you.

Upgrade to paid

Latino men support the candidate who has repeatedly vowed to deport them -- probably without due process; do election outcomes get any nuttier than that?

Kamala Harris gives concession speech (AP)

The results of Tuesday's presidential election likely will not help everyday Americans. But they did produce a headline that was so nutty it made me guffaw out loud. In an article at The New Republic (TNR) that was designed to analyze Donald Trump's march back to the U.S. presidency, here was the header: "Latino Men Were the Big Defectors—but They Weren’t the Only Story; Here’s how Harris failed to replicate Biden’s 2020 victory over Trump."

So, Latino men like the idea of being deported by an American version of a wannabe dictatorial fascist? Well, it's good to know because that is exactly what they are going to get -- and it might come without due process, if Trump has his way, or anything remotely connected to the rule of law, which seems to be the case with many of Trump's harebrained ideas. 

What were Latino men thinking when they cast votes for Trump? I can only guess, but it's a bit like former slaves voting for Jefferson Davis or  Robert E. Lee as president. Under the headline noted in the first paragraph, TNR Editor Michael Tomasky tried to explain what happened on Tuesday, which wound up being an election day that looked like a scene from A Nightmare on Elm Street:

How in God’s name did the Democrats lose yet another election to Donald Trump, after defeating him somewhat comfortably four years ago?

If you go carefully through the exit polls and compare them to 2020, you actually see a fair amount of stability. Even a little modest improvement in some places. In 2020, Trump won the white vote 58–41 percent. On Tuesday, he won it by less, 55–43. Among white women, Kamala Harris did a bit better than Joe Biden: Trump won white women 55–44 over Biden and 52–47 over Harris. The result among white men wasn’t statistically different: Trump won them 61–38 over Biden and 59–39 over Harris. For all the talk of defections among Black men, the exit polls say otherwise. Biden won them 79–19, and Harris carried them 78–20. She also won among independents, although by a few points less than Biden did.

Only one group of voters really stands out. Biden had won Latinos 65–32. Harris won them by only 53–45. And the biggest change of all is among Latino men: Biden won them 59–36, and this time, Trump beat Harris outright, 54–44.

At the same time, the breadth of the Trump—and Republican—win doesn’t seem like it can be pinned solely on that. He won the popular vote by five million. He won every swing state that’s been called so far—not by huge margins, but also not by the razor-thin margins that characterized 2016 and 2020. He came closer in blue states—New Jersey, Illinois—than anyone in many years, going back probably to the previous century. And so far, all those MAGA senators have swept their Democratic opponents.

This is probably explained by the fact that the Trump vote, again, was underestimated by the polls—by around 3 percent, John Heilemann said Wednesday on Morning Joe. This was a huge debate during this campaign. I was among those who thought the pollsters, who had made that mistake in 2016 and 2020, were overcompensating this time around and undercounting Harris voters. I thought Harris would narrowly win white women, and win women overall by more than 15 points. I was wrong. (Her margin among women was just 10 points.)

So it wasn’t all Latino men, by any means, but in the exit polls, their vote is the only eye-popping shift. The “floating island of garbage” didn’t matter. May have helped, who knows. There’s no breakdown yet that I’ve seen of different Latino groups, but Trump’s Puerto Rican support apparently did not crater. He outright won heavily Latino counties in New Jersey, for example, that Democrats usually win on autopilot.

So, what did happen in a race where Democrats clearly had the only candidate who is fit and competent to hold the nation's highest office? Americans don't care about those things? Americans would prefer to live under an authoritarian government, rather than a democracy? Have our citizens really grown that stupid and complacent? You can almost hear the wheels in Tomasky's brain clicking as he tries to explain the unexplainable:

So the question is why. Cataclysmic as this result is, and what it’s going to lead to in this country over the next four years, I think people may have a tendency to get too hysterical in answering this question.

For example, Harris didn’t suck as a candidate. In fact, she ran a good campaign overall. I thought “We’re not going back” was powerful, and her optimistic tone made a good contrast to Trump’s darkness. She was overly cautious on some things. Israel apparently hurt her in Dearborn, MI, but there was no widespread left-wing revolt against her. Jill Stein got a paltry 611,760 votes, versus 1,449,370 in 2016. Cornel West didn’t even register in the Associated Press tally I checked Wednesday morning. Likewise, few centrists ran away from her. Except for Latino men, and to a lesser extent Latina women, she held the Democratic Party together. Polls kept telling us that Democratic enthusiasm was through the roof.

I think she made two specific late mistakes—one was something she did, and the other was something she didn’t do.

The mistake she made was saying on The View on October 8 that she couldn’t think of anything she’d have done differently than Biden. Various exit poll results tell us that in a sense, she was seen as the incumbent, and she paid an obviously steep price for Biden’s 40 percent approval rating. That became a Trump commercial.

And maybe this was all even simpler than that. As numerous people have now pointed out, every incumbent party in a developed country that had to deal with Covid and inflation, whether a party of the left or the right, has now been voted out.

This last one is an interesting thought from Tomasky, filled with irony. Who brought both the disease and the accompanying economic problems to America's shores?

It was Donald Trump. So, Trump caused the problems, and voters now are giving him credit for solving them. Did many Americans fail to take the 2024 election seriously? I'm starting to think the answer is yes. Tomasky writes:

But it also isn’t that simple. The thing Harris didn’t do: I kept wishing that I would see an ad by one of the prominent Black or Latino men who endorsed her that didn’t focus on praising Harris or even denouncing Trump in the normal, he’s-a-threat-to-democracy way. I wanted to see, say, LeBron James talking directly to young men of color about why Trump was not a tough guy at all; why he was a weakling and a bully, and explaining that a real man doesn’t lie or make excuses or disrespect women. Who knows, that kind of thing could have made a difference.

But millions of men bought Trump’s idea of masculinity. How much outright sexism and racism drove the vote? We’ll never know. But enough. This is another mistake I and probably a lot of people on the broad left made. Sexism and racism (the former undoubtedly more of a factor here than the latter) will never disappear, but there seemed reason to think that by 2024, they’d be minor factors. They may well have barred the door.

I might add a third mistake: not going on Joe Rogan’s podcast. Another exit poll result that surprised me was that late deciders were evenly split—completely not what pre-election polls were suggesting. I wonder if the pro-Trump late deciders were influenced by Rogan’s endorsement of him.

In the end, Tomasky asserts, Trump did not have to do much to win the election; he just sat back and watched Democrats beat themselves -- while regular folks went to polling places and set a torch to their own country, for reasons I'm not sure anyone can fathom at this point:

Nothing Trump did mattered. None of the lies, the hate, the microphone oral sex, the musing about Liz Cheney facing bullets. Nothing. As Alex Shephard argued here, Democrats have spent nearly a decade trying to convince swing voters that Trump was a unique threat to the republic, and they’ve failed.

Now, we will live with that failure, and with a fully unleashed Trump, and his idea of masculinity, for the next four years. I fear for the people he’s going to round up (and we should definitely take him at his word on that); for transgender people; for Palestinians, for whom it can get worse; for Ukrainians, for whom it can get far worse; for a lot of people who’ll be on the receiving end of his brutish policies. And we’ll see, in a year or two, how different a country the United States is going to be.

The Philadelphia Inquirer uses powerful language to endorse Kamala Harris and her progressive agenda over Donald Trump and his stale, refried fascism

Kamala Harris addresses a rally in Philadelphia (NY Times)

The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have been scorched -- by commentators in both the mainstream press and online media -- for preparing endorsements of Kamala Harris for president and then pulling them, apparently under pressure from the Donald Trump campaign and his No. 1 surrogate, Elon Musk. Since then, many papers, large and small, have shown the courage to go through with endorsements of Harris -- clearly the most fit and competent candidate in the 2024 field. Among large papers, that includes the Philadelphia Inquirer and The New York Times. The Philadelphia paper's editorial endorsing Harris is our favorite, and we share their sentiments word for word. Why did the Philadelphia Inquirer endorse Harris? They share their reasoning in clear and concise language, and we encourage our audience to read it. We hope you will follow up on Tuesday with a vote for Kamala Harris, the candidate who will protect our democracy and strengthen our government from a wannabe dictator, Trump, who former associates say is a fascist and admirer of Nazi leader Adolph Hitler and plans to serve only his personal interests. Here is the Philadelphia Inquirer's Harris endorsement, which is one of those pieces that is so good I wish I had written myself: 

Kamala Harris for president | Endorsement; There has never been a more important presidential election in our lifetime. The road to the White House may well run through Pennsylvania and every vote matters.

by The Editorial Board
Published Oct. 25, 2024, 12:41 p.m. ET

Voters face an easy but tectonic choice in the race for the White House.

Will they choose the first woman or the oldest man to be the next president?

Will they choose the prosecutor or the convict?

Will they choose the candidate who supports restoring Roe v. Wade, or the man who bragged about overturning it?

Will they choose the candidate with a tax plan to help the middle class or the one who wants to help the super rich?

Will they choose the candidate who backs a tough bipartisan immigration law or the guy who killed the measure?

Will they choose the candidate who wants to combat climate change or the one who thinks it is a hoax?

Will they choose the candidate who upholds the peaceful transfer of power or the one who summoned a violent mob to attack the U.S. Capitol?

Will they choose the candidate who stands up to Vladimir Putin or the one who said Russia could do “whatever the hell they want”?

Will they choose the candidate who champions education, health care for all, and sensible gun safety laws, or the person who wants to close the U.S. Department of Education, repeal Obamacare, and told supporters after a school shooting to “get over it”?

Will they choose the candidate who supports the working class or the one who is anti-union and opposed raising the minimum wage?

Will they choose a woman of color who wants to unite the country, or a man with a history of misogynistic, racist, and divisive comments and actions?

Will they choose the candidate who supports LGBTQ rights or the one who wants to roll back protections for the gay community?

Will they choose the candidate who will uphold the presidential oath, or the one who was impeached twice for high crimes and misdemeanors, profited from the White House, dangled pardons to cronies, and was indicted four times?

This baker’s dozen list could go on, but the choice is clear and obvious. Vice President Kamala Harris wants to help all Americans.

Donald Trump wants to help himself.

That is why the Inquirer endorses Kamala Devi Harris to be the 47th president of the United States.

If elected, Harris, 60, would be the first Black, South Asian woman to hold the nation’s highest office. She rarely references her historic candidacy, and instead is laser-focused on earning votes through the substance of her vision, ideas, and temperament.

Harris, who grew up in a middle-class family and worked at McDonald’s one summer between college, broke other barriers as the first woman of color elected district attorney in San Francisco in 2004 and attorney general in California in 2010. Her record as a prosecutor doesn’t fit neatly in a box, as she was both tough on crime and progressive.

Harris was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2016 and became the first female vice president in 2020. As President Joe Biden’s No. 2, she cast a record number of tie-breaking votes in a polarized Senate, including for the nearly $2 trillion American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act.

The American Rescue Plan contributed to inflation but also enabled the U.S. economy to bounce back faster and stronger from the pandemic than any other industrialized nation, while the Inflation Reduction Act added hundreds of thousands of green energy jobs and spurred infrastructure projects in every state.

By any fair measure, Biden deserves credit for leading the country back to normalcy following the economic collapse caused by the pandemic, Trump’s chaotic mismanagement, and complot to overturn the 2020 election.

Biden has been a calming and consequential president. His policies helped to create millions of jobs, record stock market gains, and higher wages. The Economist recently called the U.S. economy “the envy of the world.”

Yet, Biden, 81, reluctantly stepped aside following his poor debate performance. He deserves credit for putting the country ahead of his ambition — unlike Trump, 78, who has carried on in the face of growing questions about his advanced age and cognitive decline.

Biden’s departure in late July thrust Harris to the top of the ticket. With little notice or time, Harris has met the monumental moment.

She assembled a positive, focused, and forward-looking campaign that has inspired the Democratic Party faithful, and gained support from scores of influential Republicans, including several from Trump’s administration.

Her choice of running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, underscored her focus on building a humble and positive administration focused on helping middle-class and vulnerable Americans. It was yet another contrast to Trump’s selection of J.D. Vance, an unqualified and unpopular fraud who belittles women and once compared Trump to Hitler, but who is now willing to overturn an election for him.

If elected, Harris will likely maintain many of Biden’s positive policies, while charting her own path. In a wide range of interviews and speeches, Harris has demonstrated toughness and empathy — with a dash of cool aunt style.

She eviscerated Trump so thoroughly in their first debate that he backed out of a second meeting. During the debate, Harris did what no man has been able to do to Trump in his nearly 10 years on the political stage: She exposed his lies, frailties, and lack of vision for the country while laughing off his carnival-barking blather.

Harris’ dismantling of Trump served as a real-time reminder that he is unserious and unprepared for the world’s toughest job. Her ability to rattle Trump showed how foreign adversaries can easily steamroll and manipulate him.

Beyond unmasking the raging bully, Harris has substantive plans that will build on the Biden administration’s success. Her tax plan would lower taxes for 95% of Americans while those at the very top would pay more. Hence, the billionaire rebellion led by Elon Musk and others.

She wants to help small-business start-ups by increasing tax deductions from $5,000 to $50,000. She wants to restore the successful pandemic-era child tax credit that reduced childhood poverty by 30%.

Harris has a slew of proposals to make housing more affordable, including tax breaks for builders on homes aimed at first-time buyers, and offering $25,000 in down payment assistance for buyers who paid their rent on time for two years.

She supports U.S. Sen. Bob Casey’s (D., Pa.) bill to crack down on companies for price gouging, and wants to continue Biden’s efforts to lower prescription drug costs.

Harris also backs the bipartisan border deal Trump pressured GOP lawmakers to kill. If Democrats win control of Congress, she supports a federal law to restore the abortion rights that existed under Roe v. Wade.

Harris has many other commonsense proposals for education, gun safety, defense, climate change, and more spelled out on her website.

Meanwhile, Trump is mainly running to escape a mountain of legal troubles, stemming from his coup attempt, stolen classified documents, and conviction for paying off an adult film star to influence the 2016 election.

He is also out for retribution. More than 100 times, he has threatened to jail perceived enemies. He also has targeted media companies and journalists.

Trump has spent the campaign tearing down the country. He rails about the enemy within, but claims his armed mob of supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, took part in a “day of love.” He likens America to a failing, “third-world” nation.

Trump has nothing to offer but fear itself.

His campaign has careened from one reckless lie to another, claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio were eating cats and dogs, and telling hurricane victims that disaster relief funds were spent on migrants.

Campaign stops have turned into Kabuki theater. In Pennsylvania, Trump aimlessly bobbed on stage to music for 39 minutes, served McDonald’s fries at a staged event, and told crude jokes about late golfer Arnold Palmer’s genitalia.

During a campaign rally in Michigan, Trump told women to “get your fat husband off the couch” and “tell him to go and vote for Trump.”

Sadly, many supporters laughed and cheered, though some have left his rallies out of boredom and exhaustion. Like Trump, this act is old.

There is no vision to lift or unite the country. Instead, Trump pits neighbor against neighbor. He has made it safe for white supremacists, antisemites, and neo-Nazis to come out from the shadows and attend his events waving swastikas and shouting, “Make America White again.”

Trump claims immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country,” echoing the rhetoric used by Adolf Hitler.

John F. Kelly, Trump’s former chief of staff and a retired Marine general, said Trump met the definition of a “fascist” and would rule like a dictator.

Retired Gen. Mark Milley, who served as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Trump, warned that the former president is “the most dangerous person to this country” and a “fascist to the core.”

Those warnings should not be ignored.

Beyond the anger, lies, and hate, Trump’s half-baked policy proposals would spell disaster for the economy, democracy, and his supporters, save a few billionaires.

Trump plans to impose tariffs on imported products from China and other countries. The tariffs amount to a national sales tax that would increase the prices of goods from clothes to computers to cars, and cost the typical family $2,600 a year.

Economists agree the tariffs would reignite inflation, lead to layoffs, reduce stock prices, and trigger a trade war.

Trump’s proposals to eliminate taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits would drain the Social Security Trust Fund in six years and lead to a 23% reduction in benefits.

Trump also plans to use local police and the National Guard to round up and deport millions of immigrants. Besides the cruelty and legal hurdles, it would take years and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Plus the economic impact. Mass deportations would shock the labor supply, boost the cost of fruits and vegetables, and increase inflation. America’s immigration system has been broken for decades, but this is not how to fix it.

Then there is Project 2025, a detailed plan to install Trump loyalists throughout the federal government and do away with civil liberties, the rule of law, and the separation of powers. The Education Department would be eliminated, and the National Weather Service dismantled. Trump has tried to distance himself from the plan, but his fingerprints are all over it.

Many supporters have learned to tolerate Trump’s crudeness, corruption, and incompetence. Some sadly revel in it. But many fail to understand that he doesn’t care about them. Trump made that clear at a recent rally: “I don’t care about you. I just want your vote.”

Trump will not leave the country better off. Just ask the hundreds of thousands of families who needlessly lost loved ones because he mismanaged, lied, and downplayed the pandemic. His plan to end the war in Ukraine mostly sounds like surrender, which would leave NATO teetering, and American moral authority diminished.

There has never been a more important presidential election in our lifetime. The road to the White House may well run through Pennsylvania. Attention must be paid. Every vote matters.