Pretty much no one other than the principals involved (and I, of course, include myself among the "Pretty much no one") has even the slightest way of knowing if this is even remotely true in the slightest.  I don't believe it is, but there's more shading to the story, which is the point here today.
 
This was posted on TwiXter a couple nights ago by Seth Abrahamson, who’s a reasonably well-respected “journalist, lawyer, NYT-bestselling Trump and Musk biographer, former CNN and BBC analyst, retired journalism professor.”  He wrote --
 
“MAJOR BREAKING NEWS: The Daily Beast published a sourced allegation that Trump has been a Russian spy since 1987 and—possibly under threat—deleted it. But in an act of unusual heroism, it left it up long enough for archives to capture. PLEASE RETWEET:”
 
Now, honestly, as I said, although I obviously have zero way of knowing if this story -- alleged by a former Soviet intelligence chief -- is true, I doubt that it is.  Further, I completely understand why it has been basically unreported:  there just is far too much that isn't or can't be (for now) corroborated for such a highly-damning charge -- though whether that's the reason, or it was pulled by The Daily Beast under pressure, which is another matter (and story...) entirely.  Rather, I’m writing about this because, while I doubt that Trump is a “Russian spy,” I have long believed (and wrote on these pages during his 2016 campaign) that I do think Putin has something on Trump who (while not a “spy”) is what’s known in Russia as a “useful idiot.”
 
And I say this, not as a conspiratorialist or just because so many of Trump’s actions heavily embrace Putin and Russia.  That grip can, in part (or in very large part) be attributed to his well-documented love of strongmen dictators like Hungary’s Orban, Turkey’s Erdogan, North Korea’s Kim, China’s Xi, Putin of course, and more -- but I say it because of another factor.
 
It’s well-known and accepted that Russia spies on and records prominent businessmen from around the world when the visit the country.  And Trump, we know, visited Russia often before he was elected in 2016, trying to set up deals there, trying to get the rights to a Trump-brand hotel in Moscow.  What we also know is Trump loves, loves, loves to talk about himself and brag endlessly to salve his rapaciously needy ego.  And we know he loves to flaunt laws (putting aside him saying he wants to throw out the U.S. Constitution, witness his settlement with the DOJ for illegal rental practices and his many recent convictions).  And loves to humiliate others.  And exaggerates and lies.
 
So, it is near-impossible for me to imagine that in all his trips to Russia, Trump didn’t try to impress his Russian hosts with how brilliant he was in making deals and tricking people he was negotiating with and cheating the fools.  And cheating the government, getting around their laws using his mass of attorneys to find loopholes both legal and illegal -- we even heard him brag in his 2016 debate with Hilary Clinton that he didn’t pay any taxes, and the reason he gave was “Because I’m smart.”  There are a lot of actually smart people who pay taxes.  And we heard him brag that women let you do anything if you’re a star and can grab their p*ssy.  And we know he was found liable (twice) for the equivalence of rape.  So, he likely bragged in Russia, as well, what he did with and to women whether they wanted him to do so or not.  Bragged about whatever he could – the truth, exaggerations, lies – including clever things, questionably deceitful things and even illegal things to impress every Russian businessman, every Russian government official, every Russian period who he met.
 
It's just almost impossible for me to even imagine he didn’t.  And it’s equally impossible for me to imagine that throughout it all, when at a party or in a private room, his Russian comrade wouldn’t say, “I’m sorry, I didn’t hear that clearly, could you repeat it and speak louder into that vase.”  Or into their lapel pin.  Or into the bed headboard.  Or into wherever a microphone was hidden.  And it’s all on tape or digitized.
 
I cannot imagine that Trump didn’t say things that would be deeply embarrassing to him if made public or that was illegal because he says all of that regularly, almost every time he’s spoken in public for the past eight years.  If not decades.  And it’s impossible for me to think Russia doesn’t have a vault dedicated to what Trump has said (embarrassing, illegal or just boring) on his visits over the years – because that’s what Russia does for all prominent businessmen.
 
And so, I’ve long believed that Russia has something recorded on file about Trump that he wouldn’t want known. They probably have massive volumes of such things on Trump – much about things illegal -- but even just “something” that’s embarrassing is enough.  And so, it’s almost near-impossible to imagine he hasn’t been a “useful idiot” for Russia for decades.  And when you do even just one favor for Putin and Russia, you’re hooked.  Because everything then builds on that and gets worse.  And then – to Putin’s amazement and joy – this “useful idiot” and plain idiot because president of the United States.
 
I would believe that in my bones even if Trump never was elected.  And I would believe it even if he didn’t lay down and roll over for Putin at every chance he’s had.  But given the reality that Trump was elected – and that he has rolled over for Putin about not just near-everything, but the most egregious, reprehensible things – now, saying that Ukraine started the war that Russia began and saying that it’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy who’s the dictator, not Putin who has been charged by the International Criminal Court as a war criminal – it’s on the edge of impossible that Trump today is in Russia and Putin’s pocket.
 
That doesn’t make him a “spy.”  In fact, being Trump, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s convinced himself that everything he says and does that favors Putin is perfectly normal and his own idea and brilliant and all for the good of America.  What it does, though, is make him – at best – a “useful idiot.”
 
With all that said, here’s how that archived Daily Beast article begins.  But first, I must repeat:  I don’t believe Trump is a Russian spy (for starters, because I think Trump is too much of an actual idiot to be a spy...) -- while adding that my not believing it doesn’t mean it’s not so, I just don’t believe it, most especially without serious evidence. But everything the former Soviet intelligence chief has charged in the article could overlap with and give weight to the likely truth of Putin having something embarrassing or illegal on Trump and threatening him with going public...and using him --

There's more, and you can read the full archived article here.

​It borders on the impossible not to express how clueless, crass, repulsive, sickening and whatever synonym you want to add Trump was yesterday in his public statement about the tragedy plane crash.  Blaming Obama, Biden, DEI programs and even the soldier flying, and trying to tell experts how helicopters work, despite never having flown a helicopter, ridiculed visiting the site of the tragedy in the same city where he lives, and making so much of it all about (of course) himself – that’s repugnant enough, but to do so all before there’s even been an investigation takes it to another level.  One long ago gave up thinking Trump can’t sink to a new low.
 
And right after he fired 100 senior members of the FAA advisory committee.  (And no, to be fair – a concept that has never seemed to touch Trump, or most of his enablers – this committee does not directly impact the issues that appear to have cause the crash, not would the firings have changed a thing.  But they can’t help but have affected morale in the department.  And far more to the point, imagine the fury and outrage from Fox, most of the extreme right in Congress, the MAGOP base and most of all, Trump, if this mass firing had taken place by President Biden right before a tragic crash.  Never mind, by the way, that there isn't even an FAA Director!  That's because Elon Musk pushed to get the then-Director fired, despite having years to go in his term, so he resigned -- and Trump had never gotten around to nominating a new one, because, why bother?  And again, yes, this didn't cause the crash.  But just imagine how the MAGOP world and Trump would have responded.  No word from Elon Musk, I should note...)
 
On the positive side, Trump was trashed as dumb, demented, depraved and nauseatingly unqualified by a great many Democrats in Congress on social media – I’m not online “friends” with all and therefore only get a handful of social media posts from members of Congress, and also I didn’t have the news all day – more on that in a moment -- so I don’t know how many are denouncing him, but it’s a great many (if not most or almost all…or even all), and it’s scathing, and happily he is not sliding under the radar for it.  As for every MAGOPs daring to criticize Trump for his reprehensible, cruel, irresponsible words  -- the concept is almost unimaginable. 
 
Which brings us to watching the news.
 
I was shaking my head with clenched teeth most of the day at MSNBC and CNN.  This crash is tragic, and should be heartbreakingly covered.  But it’s a crash, and while 67 deaths is horrific on so many levels, we’ve seen crashes of 400-passenger planes and full military transports, and coverage rarely came close to what the TV news medias has been doing. 
 
They’ve been covering the crash since 6 PM (Los Angeles time) Wednesday night until now with almost-literally nothing to add ever since reporting there was a crash.  The only updates I’ve seen in 24 hours of ongoing coverage is that all the passengers were lost, there was a contingent up next-generation figure skaters, and the two black boxes were found.  In 24 hours of coverage.  There has been a great deal of expert supposition, though, when I’ve checked in.  But even far more reptition. 
 
And it’s sad and tragic – and should be covered substantively.  But at the same time this non-informative coverage has been going on relentlessly, the Senate confirmation hearings with Robert Kennedy Jr,, Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel to head three major national security and national health cabinet posts that critically impact the lives and safety of every single American have been taking place. 
 
On Wednesday night, after RKjr had a deeply confrontational hearing, MSNBC stopped their analysis of it about 20 minutes into Rachel Maddow’s show and for the rest of the entire evening -- so he got off being bluntly and importantly critiqued all night.  And both networks were still covering the crash non-stop the next morning – missing opening statements of the cabinet hearing, and cutting back and forth between the hearings and reporters at the crash site adding next to nothing about it.  Even when the hearings had a recess, the news should still be covering it, analyzing it – because it’s important and actually news, rather than going to the crash 18 hours later and repeatedly saying, essentially, “We have nothing new to add.”

And this morning, a full 37 hours after the crash, the morning after RKjr, Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel all testified, the first 55 minutes of both MNBC and CNN's 7 AM news program was not about any of those cabinet nominees -- each of whose confirmation puts the entire country at risk -- but was still about...the crash.  (MSNBC finally did a brief report on something else.  Though, no, not the hearings.)  And it was the lead story once again on the 8 AM newscast.  And for all the coverage this morning, the only new items are 1) that the staffing in the air control booth was not normal.  (Not that it caused the crash, just that it wasn't normal.)   And 2) a Trump tweet -- before any investigation is complete, of course -- slamming how the soldier was flying.  A couple of things you wouldn't think, after 37 hours, would still be not only the lead story, but the only story.
 
Cover the tragedy, absolutely.
 
But raise your standards at least just a little on what is news, on what is important and adjust your focus to the actually critical story that impacts the security and health of every American.  Literally.  For the potential future of democracy and a wannabe fascist dictator.  Yes, I get it, the viewing public loves a good crash.  Loves a 12-car pile-up.  It's quite a razzle-dazzle distraction.  But you really don't have to sink to that level.  For 37 hours.  So far.
 
Perspective is always a good thing.

As Al writes about his podcast, “Dana Milbank, Washington Post Opinion columnist joins us this week! His latest book, ‘Fools on the Hill: The Hooligans, Saboteurs, Conspiracy Theories and Dunces who Burned Down the House,’ chronicles the ineffectiveness of the members of the U.S House. He makes the case that the MAGA members in the House have turned it into a dysfunctional nightmare with no interest in making policy. From Lauren Boebert to Marjorie Taylor Greene, they have turned the “conservative” party into a party that exists solely to carry out the wishes of Donald Trump.
 
“We also discuss the latest Trump press conference in which he floats the idea of changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and doesn’t rule out military force to acquire Greenland. Anyone ready for another 4 years of this??”

Trump is who he always has been – an egotistical, insecure, malignant narcissist.  (Which, to be clear, is not just a description, but a medical term -- someone who, if they don’t get everything they want, will burn the house down, even if they are in it.)  And he can’t help himself because it’s just who he is.
 
And now, on top of who he's always been, he’s 78 and has early dementia, which is degenerative and will only get worse.  As I’ve quoted Dr. Jack Gartner, of Johns Hopkins – “I tell people to look at Trump now, because it’s the best you will ever see him.” 
 
I’ve long thought and written that it seems likely for all of this that he will implode – because…well, he’s 78, incompetent, insecure, a malignant narcissist, out of his depth, a racist, and has dementia.  And to make matters worse, he’s surrounded himself with a cabinet filled with many people have no competence for the jobs they’re being asked to lead.
 
And to make matters even worse, as a starting point: prices aren’t going to magically drop -- putting aside inflation, prices always go up.  Consider that as recently as 1970, a first-class postage stamps used to be a six cents.  Gas was 35-cents a gallon.  A new car cost $3,500.  So, now add in today's inflation.  And then add in further that Trump wants to impose tariffs, which will skyrocket prices even more.  He’s even said himself that he won’t be able to lower prices for a while.  (“A while” is herewith defined as “Don’t hold your breath.”)  He’s not going to end Russia’s war against Ukraine on Day One, as he promised.  If anything goes wrong in the Israel-Gaza/Hamas ceasefire (and gee, what could possibly ever go wrong in the Middle East…?), it will be on Trump, because he’s the one who went dancing around in his supposed-part (non-existent) is bringing about peace. 
 
So, the pressures will build…and Trump, who is incompetent and doesn’t like to work – showing up around 11 AM and so often going off to play golf – will have fellow incompetents and loyalist hacks like Pete Hegseth, Robert Kennedy Jr, Tulsi Gabbard, Pam Bondi and others to try to resolve problems.
 
That’s why I loved a great article by Jason Linkins of The New Republic on how Democrats should deal with Trump. It’s a bit long, but I love his suggestions.  And unlike most plans for resisting Trump, this is pretty basic and easy. The core of it is –
 
“Rather than exert so much energy trying to thrust Trump out of the presidency, liberals would be well served to spend their time thrusting the presidency upon Donald Trump. Instead of searching for illusory quick fixes for the existence of the Trump administration, start demanding the Trump administration fix everything quickly.”

Brilliant, I think.  Take Trump at his word.  Push him to live up to his promises – most of which are impossible to accomplish, and others will infuriate the public, even much of his base.  And not only point out relentlessly when he is failing to bring them about (and we know Trump abhors being criticized and told he has failed), but make him work.  Which may be the only thing Trump hates today almost as much as being criticized.

This is the man who memorably said, "I alone can fix it."  Take him at his word.  And push people to demand it, as well.  He spent the past four years blaming Democrats for everything, including having the best economy in the world.  Now, it's on him.  That's why less than 50% of American voters elected him, winning by a razor-thin 1.4%.  To fix everything he blamed others for.  So, make Trump work. And put the responsibility on him when he fails.  And keeps failing.  

Hey, we're still waiting for The Wall, and Infrastructure Week, and his big beautiful Healthcare Plan.

As I said, as far as "push-back" plans go, this is comparatively easy:  take him at his word, hold him to it, point out when promises aren't accomplished and make him work.

A friend asked me if I thought Democrats had the discipline to carry this plan out.  I do think Democrats have the discipline to do so, most especially because once they start to “attack,” I think it would take on a self-propelling impetus, like a snowball rolling downhill and picking up speed and substance – not because (like exercising) it becomes second nature, something you just do every day, but also because I think the problems will keep piling up, as unsolved problems keep getting in the way.  So, having the discipline is not so much an issue for me.  The question, though, I think, is if they’ll have the focus to start it. 

We’ll see.  I don’t know.  But I think it’s possible that if Democrats don’t get organized enough to put such a plan into operation, starting it might come naturally, and Trump failures and broken promises begin to occur.  And if so, it will feed on itself.

That being said, Jason Linkins' article is very valuable reading.  In fact, even if you only check out part of it, it's well-worth it.  You can find the article here.

After writing my piece yesterday on the Washington Post killing the editorial cartoon by Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Ann Telnaes that bluntly slammed Post owner Jeff Bezos and some other billionaires who have caved to Trump, I didn't feel that was enough, so I wrote to the paper's executive editor and opinions editor who made the decision -- as well as three managing editors, to cover all the bases.  And I thought it only proper to post that email, as well.

I think that considering how gnashed my teeth were when I wrote it, and curled my typing fingers, it comes across as very polite, all other things considered, though pointed.  Though I wanted to spew my anger more, I know from experience as a "professional letter writer" that a letter that blasts the recipient with fury won't get read much past the first sentence.

Not that I have any great expectation that this letter will be read, mind you.  Especially considering how many letters they must have been receiving.  And I have even less expectation that it will have any impact for what it says.  But at least having one more letter received that is highly critical of the decision will make the pile larger.

Dear Washington Post editors,
 
I fully understand that at this point any further comment on the Post’s decision to kill Ann Telnaes’ cartoon, will have next to no impact.  But to say nothing would be irresponsible.
 
The reason given for the action, that it was about “repetition” bordered on insulting to your readers.  It suggested that the Washington Post will only do a piece or two about a big news story and then move on.  I can’t even imagine a basis for merely hoping people would believe this.  For any notable story, every newspaper will cover it from countless angles – repetitively.  And that doesn’t take into consideration that an article, op-ed and cartoon are totally different entities.
 
The Post is certainly aware of the controversy it created when their endorsement of Kamala Harris was killed by owner Jeff Bezos, no doubt losing many subscribers.  So, to feed into that perception just a couple months later was deeply problematic judgement – especially for those who have long looked to the Post for clear, honest reporting…done (as the expression goes) without fear or favor.  And to do so when your publication certainly understands what’s at risk to democracy with the new administration coming in (that has been described by many experts as pushing an agenda that is authoritarian, or even fascist) is equally problematic for trust in the reporting and editorial judgement.
 
Problematic all the more because the Post obviously knows these decisions are in protective support of a political leader who has repeatedly called them and all journalists the “enemy of the people.”  To further enable such a person seems not just craven, but almost inexplicably self-defeating.

Though it’s not especially important that I’m a subscriber, I note that because I’m not quite sure why I haven’t canceled my subscription yet, especially now after this second “strike.”   The best I can figure is how much I deeply want to support a strong press in times when finances for the industry are difficult, even when I am appalled by some of its actions contrary to a free press and democracy.  Whether these are decisions forced by an owner, though agreed to by those who know better and are in a position to act otherwise, or are decisions made by those to anticipate the owner, the end result is the same.   And there is much excellent that the Post does.  But the paper (for me) is on the edge of that “three strikes and you’re out”.
 
If Jeff Bezos wants to protect his outside investments, that’s understandable.  But he shouldn’t then own the Washington Post and leave that responsibility to someone who is willing to defend a free press.  However, what he “should” do is clearly not a concern of his.


Robert Elisberg

On Friday, editorial cartoonist for the Washington Post -- and Pulitzer Prize-winner Ann Telnaes quit her position when the opinions editor of the paper rejected her cartoon.  Telnaes has been with the Post since 2008.  And “In all that time," she wrote, I’ve never had a cartoon killed because of who or what I chose to aim my pen at.  Until now.”

Telnaes posted a draft of her cartoon in her Substack article that discussed the situation.  The cartoon depicted a range of billionaires bowing at the statue of Trump. The group included Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post (and founder of Amazon).  Others shown were Meta’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg; Sam Altman, OpenAI’s CEO; Patrick Soon-Shiong, owner of the Los Angeles Times; and Mickey Mouse, for The Walt Disney Co.

The cartoonist said the decision was to block her work was a “game changer" that was “dangerous for a free press.”  You can read her full article here. 

The Post’s opinions editor, David Shipley, released a statement that said he respected Telnaes “but must disagree with her interpretation of events.”

What Shipley gave as he apparent reason was that “Not every editorial judgment is a reflection of a malign force. My decision was guided by the fact that we had just published a column on the same topic as the cartoon and had already scheduled another column — this one a satire — for publication. The only bias was against repetition.”

The explanation strikes me as utterly disingenuous, bordering on the tipping edge of ridiculous lying.  It suggests that if there’s a major news story, the Washington Post will only cover it to a limited degree, and only post a couple of articles on it during a week.  On its face, that’s laughable.  A major story might get a half-dozen articles about it in a single edition of the paper.  And more articles every day as long as it’s a story.
 
“Sorry, we published a story on the presidential race last Monday and had another on Wednesday, we can’t have another this week.”
 
“While we appreciate your editorial cartoon about the bombing in New Orleans on New Year’s Eve, we already had an opinion column on it, so we’re done with any further commentary about the event.”
 
“Yes, we understand your work is a cartoon commenting on the Gaza-Israeli fighting, and the two op-eds we published about it this week were text, but we’re trying to avoid repetition in our coverage.”
 
This, of course, isn’t the first conflict that the Post has had in its editorial dealings with Trump since the election.  Owner Bezos blocked the newspaper endorsing Kamala Harris.  And not only created great outrage, but lost many subscribers.  One would think the paper would be even more sensitive to how they handled the perception they are creating in their editorial judgement.

And, of course, the irony of this all is that the Post editors confirmed the very point of the cartoon by their actions killing it.
 
James Carville appeared on Jen Psaki’s show on MSNBC yesterday.  He was appropriately scathing in his reaction to the Washington Post’s action.
 
“Let's be very forceful and let's be very upfront here,” he said, “...the billionaire class in this country has exercised such power that they got rid of the cartoonists at the Washington Post, okay? They are having editorial sway over a cartoon that runs. I grew up with Conrad, Herblock, studied Thomas Nast.  What David Shipley, what happened under his watch is a disgrace to journalism in America, I don't know how that guy could possibly get up in the morning."
​
Here are five-minutes of Carville's appearance, which includes comments on other subjects, as well.