Sunday, March 9, 2025

He's Not Your Bro

Looking further at the debacle of the Zelensky-Trump-Vance White House meeting, something that originally escaped my notice needs some attention, as it gets to the heart of President Trump's views of Vladimir Putin.

Trump has always been susceptible to flattery, particularly from those he considers his equals.  In his 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, Trump lawyer Michael Cohen stated the only discussion he ever had with Trump about Russia was when Trump said to him one day in the office prior to the 2016 campaign, "Did you see that President Putin said some really nice things about me?"  After his disastrous 2018 meeting with Putin in Helsinki, I wrote that Trump seemed like a star-struck teenage girl in his presence.  At the same time, when acting at a distance, during his first administration Trump was much more aggressive with Russia than either Obama or Biden.

Nonetheless, it seems Trump feels some type of special bond with Putin and that bond was created by the Russia Collusion Hoax.  During the recent White House meeting, Trump said to Zelensky: 

“Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, ever hear of that deal?”

A very revealing comment as the President makes clear he thinks the Russia Collusion matter was something that both he and Putin were put through together, making them "bros" of a sort, a kind of bonding experience.  He thinks they have a common enemy in the Democrats and their sycophants in the media who put them through this ordeal.  It explains why Putin was his first call to an international leader after the Mueller Report was released.

Having thoroughly investigated the Russia Collusion allegations, I know it is, by far, the biggest American political scandal of my lifetime.  But Vladimir Putin is not one of the victims, he is one of the perpetrators, and he has played American politicians, including Trump, and media across the political spectrum for fools.

Putin's goal for years has been to weaken America by creating division.  Prior to 2016, the Kremlin supported Occupy Wall Street and the American environmental groups seeking to block energy development, particularly fracking.  Through social media, his minions have supported Black Lives Matter and those opposed to the organization.  A Facebook executive testified that after the 2016 election, the Russian bots immediately switched to agitation against the incoming Trump administration. Disruption, chaos, and distrust is Putin's goal.  In this effort he has been successful and Russia Collusion was his crowning achievement.  In perpetrating this hoax, Hillary Clinton, James Comey and the Intelligence Community, Adam Schiff, and the New York Times could not have done more damage to trust in our institutions if they'd been paid agents of the Kremlin.

While we've had many other scandals since, including the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, Trump's Stop the Steal garbage, and four years of pretending Joe Biden was at the top of his game, so full of energy he was running rings around younger staffers (the NY Times actually wrote a story promoting this nonsense), along with a swarm of fake narratives on other matters, Russia Collusion was the big poison injected into our system; the starting point. 

Putin was playing all sides against each other.

It astonished me that those who took the Steele Dossier allegations that Trump and his campaign were collaborating with the Russians on face value, never stopped to ask themselves why that information was coming from what the dossier itself described as Russian sources, including intelligence sources.

Let's look at the players involved in those allegations:

FusionGPS, the company hired in April 2016 to investigate Trump's Russia ties, by a Clinton Campaign desperate to divert attention from Hillary's email fiasco, was at the same time working for Denis Katys, a Russian oligarch, helping him to lobby the Federal government to lift the Magnitsky sanctions, sanctions imposed by the US, after Magnitsky, a Russia journalist exposing Putin's corruption, was jailed and beaten to death by Putin's thugs. Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion, was working closely on this project with Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who arranged the Trump Tower meeting in June 2016 with Fredo Trump Jr.  Simpson met with her the day before and the day after the Trump Tower event.

Fusion hired Christopher Steele to conduct the investigation.  Steele had worked on the Russia desk for MI6 in the UK, before retiring a decade earlier.  At the time he was hired by Fusion, Steele was also working for Oleg Deripaska, another Russia oligarch, currently under indictment by the U.S.  Deripaska was cast by the media as a "bad guy" because of his connection with Paul Manafort, but the same people, including the Clinton Mob Lawyers working for Mueller, stayed mum about his connection with Steele.

Steele hired as his "major sub-source" Igor Danchenko, a Russian national, who had illegally remained in the U.S. and was being paid, through a cut-out, a monthly retainer by Steele.  Danchenko was the subject of a FBI counter-intelligence investigation after allegations made by fellow employees at the Brookings Institute, a liberal think tank, that he told them if they got jobs in the Obama administration he would pay them for information.  Upon investigation, the FBI determined that Danchenko had been in contact with known FSB (Russian intelligence) officers in the U.S. (1)

Given this background, in his final report, Special Counsel John Durham wrote:

"It appears the FBI never gave appropriate consideration to the possibility that the intelligence Danchenko was providing to Steele - which, again, according to Danchenko himself, made up a significant majority of the information in the Steele Dossier reports - was, in whole or in part, Russian disinformation."

He goes on:

"The failure of the FBI to assess properly the prior counterespionage investigation of Danchenko is incomprehensible."

Another of Steele's sources for the allegations in the dossier, in particular, the most scandalous and one that got much of the initial press attention when the dossier became public, that on a visit to Moscow in 2013, Trump insisted on having the same suite at the Ritz-Carlton used by President Obama and then had prostitutes come to that room and piss on the bed, turned out not to be a Russian, but an American.  Charles Dolan was a DC lobbyist and public relations guy who was representing Russia in the United States.  Dolan was in close contact with Putin's press secretary and Russia's ambassador to the U.S.  He was also an advisor to the Valdai Club, a Moscow organization which organized events for Westerners and seen as a propaganda outlet for Putin.  Along with his Russia connections, Dolan was also the former executive director for the Democratic Governor's Association, had chaired the Virginia campaigns for Clinton-Gore in both 1992 and 1996, been appointed by President Clinton to two four-year terms on the State Department's U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, was a senior advisor to Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and a supporter in her 2016 presidential bid.  And, in January 2017, Dolan emailed an acquaintance describing Igor Danchenko as a "Russian agent". (2)

One of the bombshells contained in the Durham Report is that an FBI review conducted in 2018 "showed that the Russians had access to sensitive U.S. government information years earlier that would have allowed them to identify Steele's subsources . . . Steele's subsources could have been compromised by the Russians at a point in time prior to the date of the first Steele dossier report".  The Review team was then told "no more memorandum were to be written" and a further meeting held in which "the review team was told to be careful about what they were writing down because issues relating to Steele were under intense scrutiny". 

Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Dina Corsi then directed the Review team not to document any recommendations, context, or analysis in the memorandum.  Team members described this as "highly unusual" because analysis is what analysts do.  An Office of General Counsel Attorney at the briefing "remembered being shocked" by Corsi, stating "it was the most inappropriate operational or professional statement he had ever heard at the FBI".  As of last year, Corsi was still at the FBI.

As a reminder, the Durham Report concluded:

"Notably, not one of the damning allegations contained in the Steele reporting was ever corroborated"
So who was playing who? 

Trump's failure to recognize Putin's long-term goals is potentially a disaster.  Because Trump personalizes everything he cannot see the bigger picture.  What happens next in the Ukraine-Russia war will be a test of whether Trump can drop his illusions about Putin. (3)

Trump's second administration is shaping up much differently than his first.  The first time around he was surprised to win and unprepared for the office, floundering around for quite a while, not being astute enough to know much about his own appointees and willing to take advice from DC Republicans.

Russia Collusion took a gullible and conspiratorial Trump and constructed an actual conspiracy against him, leading to a daily media beating for years and reducing his ability to run his administration.  They actually were all plotting against him!  Including Putin.  

The hoax also contributed to the destruction of his relationship with DC Republicans.  His Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, was a good senator and a decent man, but his naivete led him to recuse himself on flimsy grounds from Russia collusion matters, leaving Trump unprotected.  Eric Holder and Merrick Garland never would have recused themselves in the same situation, because they viewed themselves, as Holder once described it, as the "wingman" for their presidents.

That left the Justice Department on Russia matters under the weak reed of Rod Rosenstein, who Trump was assured would be just fine by DC Republicans.  Rosenstein quickly crumbled under the pressure and appointed Mueller as Special Counsel and then stood aside.  Rosenstein would later testify that if he'd known the truth about the Steele Dossier he never would have appointed Special Counsel, and that Mueller knew by September 2017 there was nothing to the allegations, yet the investigation went on for another year and a half.

Finally, when Mueller was appointed, Trump had to retain his own lawyers, who were good litigators, but traditional DC Republicans.  They assured Trump that Mueller would be a "straight-shooter" and once he saw the evidence he'd quickly close up shop, so they advised full cooperation with the Special Counsel.  Trump agreed, and over one million documents were provided with no claims of Executive Privilege made and he allowed, in an unprecedented move, his own White House Counsel to be interviewed about his discussions with President.  All to no avail, as Mueller and his Clinton Mob Lawyers kept going, though they knew they had nothing, it was essential for political purposes and continuing media coverage to keep the pretense up as long as possible.  If Bob Barr hadn't come in as AG and forced Mueller to close shop, the farce would have continued until Trump was out of office.

Trump had enough of "honorable" men who played by the rules of DC. That's why he now only wants those whose top priority is personal loyalty to The Boss; their competency and real agendas are of less concern.  It's also why, as I predicted three years ago, this is his Revenge Tour.  Will the tour bus be driven off the cliff, like he did in 2020?  I did not vote on the presidential line in 2024 because of that prospect on the one hand, and the insane and divisive policies and growing authoritarian streak of the Democrats on the other.

The bottom line is that however we got here, and however unfair it was to Trump, at the end of the day Donald Trump is fully responsible for his own actions and decisions.  He's the President of the United States, after all.

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 

(1) The full Danchenko story is even more damning.  The allegations against him arose in the first Obama administration.  When the FBI learned that Danchenko had returned to Russia in 2011 it suspended the investigation.  In December 2016, FBI analysts identified Danchenko as Steele's major sub-source and then learned that while his wife boarded the flight to Moscow five years earlier, Danchenko had not, remaining in the U.S.  Durham discovered the rest of the story.  Danchenko was desperate to find employment after losing his Brookings job because if he failed his visa would no longer be valid.  An arrangement was made that he would be hired by a Russian operating an IT company in Virginia, but he would actually be paid by Christopher Steele who would funnel the funds through the IT company.  In other words, breaking American immigration law by committing a fraud.  According to Durham, "Danchenko Employer was merely a front to allow Danchenko to continue his work on behalf of Orbis [Steele's firm], while at the same time allowing him to secure a work visa through alleged employment with a U.S. based company".  His employer, an ethnic Russian, described Danchenko as "boastful . . . having low credibility, and a person who liked to embellish his purported contacts with the Kremlin". In January 2017 Danchenko was interviewed by the FBI and explained he was just passing on gossip and bar talk regarding the allegations and was not aware how Steele would use it.  Danchenko said he could not corroborate any of the allegations.  That interview concluded the day before FBI Director Comey led President Trump to believe the FBI was not investigating the credibility of the Steele Dossier; Comey was responding to the President telling him that he was thinking of ordering the FBI to investigate the dossier.

Realizing it had a problem on its hands with Danchenko, the FBI and later the Mueller investigation, decided to try to make it difficult for anyone to identify him as the major source for the dossier, making the Russian a Confidential Human Source (CHS) and paying him $220,000 over the next two years. 

Interestingly, Danchenko was hired at Brookings at the instigation of Fiona Hill, later to be an opponent of Trump's and involved in the attempted impeachment of the President over Hunter Biden's corrupt dealings in Ukraine.  In a September 2017 FBI debriefing, Christopher Steele stated he was introduced to Danchenko by Fiona Hill in 2011.  Steele described Hill as a "close friend" and told the FBI she "has a very high opinion" of Danchenko.

(2)  In March 2017 FBI analysts identified Dolan as the source of the Ritz Carlton and other allegations in the Steele Dossier.  Two months later those same analysts were transferred to Mueller's team and assigned to the unit working on corroborating the allegations in the Steele Dossier.  But wait, you might think, didn't Robert Mueller repeatedly state in his Congressional testimony that the dossier was "outside my purview" with his report omitting any mention of the dossier in the discussion of possible collusion?  Yes, he did state that, but he lied to Congress, which is criminal conduct.  The FBI agents not only told Special Counsel Durham about the dossier team under Mueller, they testified to it in open court during the trial of Igor Danchenko.  

The analysts continued to work on Dolan and in August 2017 briefed several senior people on the Mueller team on their work, and drafted a case opening document on Dolan, including a request he be interviewed.  However, on September 7 they were instructed "to cease all research and analysis related to Dolan",   According to Dolan the analysts' contemporaneous notes "explicitly state that Mueller investigation leadership directed [them] to dedicate no resources" to Dolan.  Their request to open a case on Dolan was denied with them being told it was a "higher level decision" and the document was to be deleted from the Special Counsel's computer system.

The shocked analysts "discussed whether the decision not to open on Dolan was politically motivated, given Dolan's extensive connections to the Democratic party", with one of the analysts speculating that "the information on Dolan ran counter to the narrative that the Mueller Special Counsel investigators were cultivating".  The analyst believed the decision would eventually be reviewed by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and, after deleting the report from the Mueller system, uploaded memorandum to three other separate case files on the FBI system to make sure OIG would have access.  That is where the Durham team located it several years later.

Later that month, the analysts were instructed to "cease [all] work on attempting to corroborate the Steele reports" and the unit was disbanded, with members transferred to other teams in the Special Counsel's office.

Durham notes that while the Special Counsel interviewed hundreds of witnesses during his investigation, Charles Dolan was never interviewed.

It is obvious that Dolan was never interviewed, and the investigation halted, because Mueller's Clinton Mob Lawyers did not want to document what he knew because his connections would expose the relationship between the Clinton Campaign and the Kremlin, destroying the narrative they had so carefully constructed.

Though Mueller knew by September 2017 that nothing in the dossier could be collaborated, he never said anything at the time or in the final report, even denying that his office ever investigated it.  You can read more about the Mueller team's obstruction of justice here.

(3)  The expiration of the Tik Tok ban extension in early April will be another test for the president's ability to see the bigger picture.  His extension in January was actually illegal, but no one has the legal standing to challenge it.  However, the president has an independent obligation to ensure the legality of his actions.

Not For Me

Why would I want to drive that car in that town?  I'd be forever squishing folks against the buildings!

 

Saturday, March 8, 2025

The Workingman's Eddie Coyle

The Friends of Eddie Coyle (1973)

(Robert Mitchum as Eddie Coyle)

Back in 2014, I wrote Eddie Coyle's Friend, about a novelist I greatly admire, George V Higgins.  I probably worked harder on that post than on anything else I've written, figuring Higgins deserved it.

I just came across an appreciation of the novel and movie, The Friends of Eddie Coyle by Daniel Moran, writing on Substack and found it quite perceptive and worth a read. Here are some excerpts:

This kind of dialogue may seem easy to write, but anyone who has ever tried knows it’s almost impossible. Here, we get everything we need to know about these two guys and the rules of their worlds in a handful of near-grunts.

I was an English major—sure, things like Eddie Coyle were fun to read, but shouldn’t I be reading more Keats, James, and Shakespeare? I didn’t know that the music found in the works of these writers could also be heard (if faintly) in a book like this one. I’ve since read it several times and I’m always amazed by how the book carries its reader along in a series of conversations that move so quickly yet reward close-reading. The book reads itself to you like a criminal nanny.

Everyone loved the realism, but a more accurate word is “realism.”(1) I have no idea if actual gunrunners are as interesting as the people in these pages or if their dialogue is worth overhearing. I’d bet that it’s not. What’s absolutely realistic, however, about Eddie Coyle is how everybody in it—just like the reader—is constantly negotiating to just get to the next step of what he needs by the end of the day. . . His story—the real realism—is about going to work and being someone in middle management who has to answer to all kinds of people and wants to just get his part of the process complete so he can move on to the next thing. It’s about the guy in Purchasing who won’t sign the form you need so that you can tell the client that yes, everything is in motion, because that guy in Purchasing thinks that you’ve cozied up to the Senior Vice President of Acquisitions for a job that he’s had his eye on for months. It’s about having to speak in a conciliatory tone when trying to wrangle a favor from the guy in the next cubicle.

Peter Yates’s 1973 film is an object lesson in how to faithfully adapt a novel to the screen. It stands with John Huston’s The Maltese Falcon and the Coens’ True Grit as an example of a screenwriter (in this case, Paul Monash) sitting with the novel propped open on his desk so he can type the dialogue word-for-word in screenplay format. Huston’s version of Falcon was the third attempt to adapt it for the screen and the Coens’ True Grit was the second; both of their versions are superior to their predecessors because they knew what was great about the novels and transferred that greatness to the screen.     

I have not seen the earlier versions of the Maltese Falcon, but as much as I enjoyed John Wayne in True Grit, the Coen's True Grit is superior.

Coming across this post led me to read more of Moran's work and it is quite good.  He's got that thing.

---------------------------------------

(1)  In my Higgins post I wrote:

The dialogue Higgins wrote was realistic but it wasn't real.  Very few people actually talk like that, or at least they don't talk like that for so long and, at times, he could venture dangerously near Damon Runyon territory.  But mostly, Higgins had a knack for cadence, ambiance and simplicity that rang true even if it wasn't actually true. 

Chicago

 

A few nights ago I saw Chicago perform a sold out show at the Celebrity Theater in Phoenix.  A last minute invite from a friend; had not known they were still touring.  A fun show though the sound balance could have been better.  They played for two hours, just playing their hits and the most popular cuts off their albums. Musically they miss their phenomenal original guitarist and drummer, Terry Kath and Danny Seraphine, but it was an enjoyable experience.

Afterwards I did a little research.  I had not realized how popular they were - I liked some of their early stuff, not so much the later, more pop style tunes.  Not only are they still touring, they tour every year!  The band has sold 100 million records.  Billboard ranks them as 15th in the top singles artists of the past 75 years and as 9th in album sales.  Between 1970 and 1989, Chicago had 22 Top 20 singles, including thirteen in the Top 5 and two number 1s.  During the same period the band racked up 14 Top 20 albums, including five in a row hitting the top spot.

Personnel in the group has gone through a lot of changes over the years, but three of the original members are still there; Robert Lamm, James Pankow, and Lee Loughnane.  Pankow and Loughnane are part of that famous horn section.  In the photo above, Pankow is on the left, with Loughnane on the right.  In the center is Ray Herrmann who's been performing with the band for twenty years.  Pankow is now 77 (and still a nonstop live wire on stage) and Loughnane is 78.  Lamm, 80, plays keyboards and sings, though his voice is notably weaker.

Pankow and Lamm wrote all of Chicago's early hits, like 25 Or 6 To 4, Beginnings, Make Me Smile, Saturday In The Park etc.

Chicago was formed in 1967, releasing its first album in 1969.  During the show, Pankow remarked how scared they were as a bunch of young guys making their first record, and thinking that if things went well they might make a couple of albums.  Instead it became a life long journey for him and he thanked the audience for allowing that to happen.

Saturday, March 1, 2025

The Drive In

 

The town I grew up in had a drive in.  Saw several movies there with my parents.  The first one that comes to mind was The Outsider starring Tony Curtis, a biopic about Ira Hayes, the Pima Indian who was one of the flag raisers on Iwo Jima that I recently wrote about.  The film was released in December 1961 saw I probably saw it in the spring of '62 when I was eleven.

Friday, February 28, 2025

What's Next? Who Knows?

On Wednesday the Wall Street Journal carried a piece by one of my favorites, Holman Jenkins Jr (and isn't that a perfect name for a WSJ op-ed writer).  The title was "Trump's Trumpy Ukraine Gambit".  While rightfully excoriating the Biden Administration's incoherent and ineffectual approach to the Ukraine war, his focus is on the current president.  Referencing Trump's calling Zelensky a "dictator" he writes:

 Mr Trump's all-purpose strategy when frustrated is tit-for-tat.  It fills his need to dominate the news constantly while he fumbles around for a laurel to award himself in place of the one that got away. . . . A Trump blather blaming Ukraine for not negotiating segued into something he clearly didn't mean, yet now his team must mumblingly agree Ukraine started the war.

And concludes:

So here we are.  In most instances, Mr Trump flops around noisily (and offensively) and then lands on the path of least resistance.  He wants a win and doesn't care how.  The U.S. clearly has a lot of turmoil to go through before it surfaces a leadership cadre to handle the moment we're actually living in.  But we still have to live in the moment and the best of realistic possible outcomes, perhaps surprisingly, remains on the cards in the next year or so: Turn a hot war into a cold one.  Build up Ukraine's military to outwait the Putin regime on its path to atrophy and decay.

Since the Jenkins column we've now had further developments.  On Thursday, while meeting with British Prime Minister Starmer, a reported asked Trump about the "dictator" remark.  Trump's response; "Did I say that? I can't believe I said that. Next question."

And then we had today's debacle.  Whether it was Zelensky's lack of self-control or bad advice (1), he made a fatal mistake in confronting the president.  It is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong.  You just do not try, particularly if you are in Zelensky's position, to argue with Donald Trump in public.  I am not sure Zelensky's position is recoverable short of a groveling humiliating apology and even that may not work as, in the end, I believe Trump prefers a deal with Russia.

The proposed, and now dead, minerals deal with Ukraine did not contain an American security guarantee.  I was okay with that from my perspective, but I think Trump's idea was to leave things open so if he got a better deal with Putin he would just walk away from any Ukraine deal.  After all, it's just a piece of paper to him.  We just saw the same thing in play regarding the 25% tariffs being imposed on Mexico and Canada.  Trump loudly complained about those who entered into the stupid trade deals we now have.  Well the last person to enter into one of those "stupid" deals was Donald Trump in 2019.  He demanded that NAFTA be revised with terms more favorable to the U.S. and Canada and Mexico ultimately agreed.  Now he denounces his own agreement.  His word cannot be relied upon and other foreign leaders will take note.

Given Trump's reckless and contradictory statements it is often difficult to figure out what he really believes and what his ultimate goals are.  Are tariffs "wonderful" and a mechanism to balance the budget and eliminate the personal income tax or are they bargaining chips to get better trade deals?  I have no idea and it may be that Trump doesn't either.  

Trump talks about annexing Canada, or part of it, and imposing tariffs while at the same time demanding it restart its part of the Keystone Pipeline, even as he denounces Canada for stealing in its trade relations, and claiming that country sells nothing we need.  At the same time, he has undercut the conservative candidate for prime minister in this summer's election.  Prior to Trump's bombastic statements, the conservative was handily leading Trudeau's party.  Polling currently now shows a dead heat.  What's the goal here?  Or is Trump just improvising like he usually does? (2)

With regards to Russia, Trump seems to be making the same mistake with Putin that FDR made with Stalin and the old USSR. a total miscalculation as to Putin's goals.(3)  Much of the Trump crowd blames NATO and Ukraine for the war.  But while Russian propaganda plays on this theme, Putin himself has stated the war is about something else, as his lengthy interview with Tucker Carlson made clear.  Despite Tucker's frantic efforts to get Putin to talk about NATO expansion as the cause, Putin delivered a lengthy lecture on Russian and Ukraine history, starting in the 9th century.  In Putin's view Ukraine has no right to exist as an independent state as it is inherently Russian.  Putin, both in the interview, and as shown in Russian actions in the occupied Ukrainian territories, is determined to wipe out the country, and crush Ukrainian culture and language.  

I oppose NATO expansion but the idea that the decrepit armed forces of our NATO allies were actually capable of threatening Russia is laughable and everything since the start of the war in 2022 only underlines the lack of collective NATO capabilities (in that respect Trump and Vance are correct). On the other hand, Putin's attack on Ukraine precipitated two long time neutral countries, Sweden and Finland, to join NATO and they actually have decent military establishments.

The idea by the Trump administration that it can persuade Putin to loosen his ties to China is not going to work.  Putin is not a communist but he believes the failure of the USSR was a disaster for Russia as it lost its empire, an empire that he wants to reconstitute.  Reuniting the empire is his version of Make Russia Great Again.  The Europeans and Americans are the biggest obstacles to that goal, while China is his biggest ally in fulfilling his aspirations since it also accomplishes Xi's goals.

Even with all this, it is hard to have any sympathy for the Democrats in light of the Obama and Biden administrations inept policies regarding Russia and the mythology about Trump and Russia created by the Democrats and their media allies during President Trump's first administration (for more read Ukraine Blues).  Let's not forget that in the run up to the Russian invasion in February 2022, the Biden administration was sending clear signals that if Putin agreed to just "wetting his beak" by taking the rest of the Donbas, the U.S. would be okay with that.  And during the first 48 hours of the invasion Biden and European leaders were telling Zelensky he needed, for his own safety, to leave Ukraine.  I've always admired Zelensky's courage in staying at Ukraine's darkest hour.  It was a shame to watch him today fumble the deal inches from the goal line.

-----------------------------------

(1) Were these the same people who advised him to essentially endorse Harris in the election?  At best, Harris would have been a weak reed to rely upon.  A little sucking up to Trump would not have hurt - he loves that stuff.

(2) Let's contrast Trump and the Democrats.  The Democrats consistently lie about their policies.  One need go no further than to look at the Harris campaign.  Trump has two different modes.  The first is when he is absolutely clear about his policies (for instance, immigration) but lies and exaggerates about the facts supporting his case.  The second is when you can't make sense of his policies - as with Ukraine, tariffs, and Canada - possibly because he doesn't know, but he lies and exaggerates about whatever he is saying about those issues at that particular moment. 

(3) And just as Obama did with Iran.