Trump Meets with Zelenskyy and Friends

At this point, with roughly 10 years of Trumpism in the bank, we seriously doubt we will ever be persuaded that he has scored a major foreign policy "win."

Why do we say that? Well, consider the following:

1. Trump is some combination of dishonest and delusional. As such, he tells tales about what he's accomplished, and those tales never line up with the facts.
   
   
2. Trump is easily manipulated. For a man who has been an inveterate liar and consummate manipulator for more than half a century, he seems utterly unable to detect when he is being lied to, and when he is being manipulated, by others. Other foreign leaders know this, and use it to their advantage.
   
   
3. Trump cares only about the short term. He wants to meet with [FOREIGN LEADER X] for an hour or two, and then promptly get on Fox or on social media to crow about how great he did, and how he's earned a Nobel Prize for sure. Real diplomacy doesn't work like that; it takes a long time and is painstaking. And making public proclamations about how you "won" is antithetical to the whole process, since nearly every diplomatic situation involves setting it up so people on all sides can save face.
   
   
4. Trump is ignorant. He doesn't put in the work, he doesn't understand the imperatives facing the other people at the negotiating table, and he doesn't understand the implications of most or all of his "solutions."
   
   
5. Everyone is ignorant. Even if Trump was a Richard Nixon-level diplomat, the fact is that nobody has all the information needed to understand a particular negotiation, since each side has secrets. Further, it's not generally possible to declare a particular diplomatic effort to be a success for years, or even decades.

Given this extensive track record, it is hard to envision a set of facts that would cause us to conclude that Trump had scored a real diplomatic coup.

The meeting with Putin is a case in point. Trump went into the "summit" with one course of action in mind (namely, a ceasefire), and came out with a very different course of action (Ukraine must cede land, and must agree never to join NATO). In short, Trump went in with a point of view that reflected what most of the world wants, and he left with a point of view that reflects what Putin wants. The flip-flop was so aggressive that there were more than a few folks yesterday suggesting that Putin helpfully "reminded" Trump of the kompromat he (Putin) allegedly has. For example, here's Drudge:

Matt Drudge leans a bit conspiratorial, and he's definitely a Never Trump conservative. Still, not only did Trump completely embrace Putin's point of view, he also extracted zero concessions in the process of doing so. This artless dealing was so obvious, it was even noted on Fox's airwaves.

It is not known exactly what Putin said to Trump, or when he said it, to compel near-total obeisance. It IS known that Putin not only arranged to get the summit held on American soil (something of a power play, particularly when that soil was once a Russian possession), and that he went first at the press conference despite not being the host (definitely a power play), he also spent some time alone with Trump in "The Beast." This is a rather serious breach of protocol, because the Federal Security Service (Russia's version of the Secret Service) undoubtedly demanded that they be able to sweep the vehicle, which means they collected some useful intel on the steps taken to protect presidents when they are traveling by ground.

And while much of what Putin said remains a secret to the general public, there is at least one thing that the Russian said that is known, and that illustrates how unbelievably easy it is to manipulate Trump. To wit, Putin remarked that Trump actually won the election of 2020, but that it was stolen from him by fraudulent mail-in ballots, and that there can never be a fair election when mail-in voting is allowed. Trump, who just does not have ANY awareness of when someone is playing him, got onto his brought-to-you-by-Russia-Today social media platform, and unleashed a rant that was absolutely nuts, even by his standards. We are going to replicate it here, because it really needs to be seen to be fully appreciated (especially the slow descent into ALL CAPS). However, you may not want to actually read it all, unless you want your head to hurt:

I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we're at it, Highly "Inaccurate," Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES, which cost Ten Times more than accurate and sophisticated Watermark Paper, which is faster, and leaves NO DOUBT, at the end of the evening, as to who WON, and who LOST, the Election. We are now the only Country in the World that uses Mail-In Voting. All others gave it up because of the MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD ENCOUNTERED. WE WILL BEGIN THIS EFFORT, WHICH WILL BE STRONGLY OPPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY CHEAT AT LEVELS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, by signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections. Remember, the States are merely an "agent" for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes. They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do. With their HORRIBLE Radical Left policies, like Open Borders, Men Playing in Women's Sports, Transgender and "WOKE" for everyone, and so much more, Democrats are virtually Unelectable without using this completely disproven Mail-In SCAM. ELECTIONS CAN NEVER BE HONEST WITH MAIL IN BALLOTS/VOTING, and everybody, IN PARTICULAR THE DEMOCRATS, KNOWS THIS. I, AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, WILL FIGHT LIKE HELL TO BRING HONESTY AND INTEGRITY BACK TO OUR ELECTIONS. THE MAIL-IN BALLOT HOAX, USING VOTING MACHINES THAT ARE A COMPLETE AND TOTAL DISASTER, MUST END, NOW!!! REMEMBER, WITHOUT FAIR AND HONEST ELECTIONS, AND STRONG AND POWERFUL BORDERS, YOU DON'T HAVE EVEN A SEMBLANCE OF A COUNTRY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!!! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

This comes after multiple years of both Trump and the Republican Party saying that mail-in ballots are swell. The President has already cooked up an executive order demanding an end to both the ballots and the machines, but elections are run by states, so that's not going to go anywhere. Meanwhile, Putin must be dumbfounded as to how unbelievably easy it is to put one over on Trump.

We'll also point out one other thing about the Putin "summit": Trump didn't even understand what he was there to negotiate. Note that the main lieutenants he took with him were Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and United States Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff. Those guys are not the diplomats, they are the dealmakers. Specifically, they deal in goods and land. And they were there because the President thought he and Putin were going to talk land swaps. Undoubtedly, the Russian allowed Trump to think that, but that was not actually what was on the agenda.

If there is a way to have a bigger diplomacy fail, we can't imagine what it might be. Trump was unprepared going in, was played like a fiddle during the meeting, and exited it sounding like a Russian asset. And yet, as is par for the course, he engaged in all sorts of bragging about how well he'd done, and how well he is doing. Here is one such message:

One year ago, the United States was an almost DEAD COUNTRY. Now we are the "HOTTEST" Country anywhere in the World, the envy of all. What a difference a President makes!!!

Here is another:

Do the great American Flags I put up in front of both entrances of the White House look FANTASTIC, or what??? WOW, what a difference!!! President DJT

Trump also reiterated his view that he should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

And that, finally, brings us to yesterday's meeting at the White House, with Volodymyr Zelenskyy the guest of honor, but with numerous foreign heads of state also in attendance. Zelenskyy and his colleagues know all about buttering up Trump, and they did much of it yesterday, starting with the Ukrainian praising Trump for his strength. The only way this could have been more obvious is if Zelenskyy also noted that he admires the size of Trump's penis. Of course, at the same time that Mark Rutte, Ursula von der Leyen, Emmanuel Macron, Friedrich Merz, Keir Starmer, Giorgia Meloni and Alexander Stubb were flattering Trump, they were also outmaneuvering him. The reason that Zelenskyy came accompanied by a contingent was to prevent another sneak attack from Trump and J.D. Vance.

And indeed, there was no sneak attack, so that's a win for Zelenskyy. Beyond that, the only things that really came out of yesterday's meeting were that: (1) Everyone agrees that Ukraine needs serious security guarantees, but (2) nobody agrees exactly what that means. The Europeans, to a greater or lesser extent, all spoke of Article V-like guarantees. That's the part of the NATO charter that pledges all members to respond to an attack on any one member. If Ukraine got such assurances, that would be tantamount to granting NATO membership, even if such membership was not formalized. Putin would be very, very unhappy about that, since he most definitely intends to attack Ukraine again, even if there's a truce, and he does not want the possibility of a response from Germany, the U.K., the U.S., France, etc.

Trump, for his part, did not say much about the Article V talk, but did hint he might be open to a situation where U.S. troops were sent to Ukraine as part of a peace agreement. That would also displease Putin, which means Zelenskyy & Co. dragged Trump at least a little bit back toward a more European-centric, and less Putin-centric view of the war. The meeting broke up at that point, allowing Trump to get to what REALLY matters, which is going on Truth Social to send a message celebrating his success. (Z)

Republicans Think Voters Flunked Civics 101

Texas Democrats' quorum-jumping has come to an end. They all returned to the state, which means the Texas legislature will now have a quorum. Texas law enforcement officers have been assigned to keep an eye on the Democratic members, and to escort them to the state capitol on Wednesday, when the vote on the new Texas district maps will be held. This certainly does not bring to mind images of the Reichstag or the Supreme Soviet. No, sir!

That means that, very soon, all eyes will soon be on California. And Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) made clear yesterday that he will be leading the fight against Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D-CA) plans. The Speaker posted a long rant to eX-Twitter; the last paragraph (of four) gives a pretty good feel for the thing:

Democrats across the nation have played politics with redistricting for decades, and this is just the latest example. Republicans who are following state and federal laws will not be lectured by people who abused the system. I have instructed the NRCC to use every measure and resource possible to fight the California Democrats' illegal power grab. I will continue to lead efforts to defend our House Republican incumbents and grow our majority so that we can continue to deliver on our commonsense, America First agenda.

Do you really think he believes this nonsense? It's possible; he has some strange ideas about things, and it's much easier to sell a lie if you believe it. We presume it goes without saying that a person could reasonably argue that both Texas and California are abusing the system, or that they're both playing an unfair game to the best of their ability. But the notion that Texas is as pure as the driven snow, while California is the Great Satan? Please. It is reminiscent of Mitch McConnell's rules for appointing a Supreme Court justice in the last year of a presidential term, which boiled down to "yes for Republican nominees to the Court, but NO for Democratic nominees."

And this is not the only crime against civic education being perpetrated by Johnson and his fellow Republicans. The GOP is still trying to work out its messaging for the midterms. As seems to be the case for most elections these days, the plan is not so much to make a case that the Republicans are good, as it is to make a case that the Democrats are really, really, really bad. And, as part of that, the red team is already trying to weaponize impeachment.

Now, you might be confused as to how the Republicans can weaponize impeachment, since it's a Republican administration in the White House right now. The answer is that, with Johnson taking the lead, they are warning that if those nasty, nasty Democrats gain the House, they will immediately impeach Trump, and that will be the end of the Trump presidency, MAGA, etc. Obviously, this conveniently overlooks that an impeachment won't remove Trump, only a conviction would do that. And a conviction would require something like 17 Republican votes in the Senate, which is not happening.

As we point out in the headline, the crap that Johnson, et al., are peddling depends on voters not understanding basic U.S. civics. The problem is that Johnson, et al., might be sleazy, but betting on voters (particularly Republican voters) not knowing their civics is a pretty good wager.

When it comes to the redistricting, Democrats are going to have to work hard to frame California's efforts as a response to Texas' maneuvering, and not a naked power grab. Fortunately for the blue team, Texas is making it pretty easy to sell that story, and Newsom is very media-savvy.

Impeachment, we think, is much tougher. It is clear to us that impeachment threats do more to gin up MAGA voters than anyone else. And we are certainly not the only ones who think that way; to take one example, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) said: "We should never, at least in the near future, use the 'I' word. One of the things we learned is that articles of impeachment are also articles of recruitment for Trump."

The problem here, pre-midterms, is that there are some Democratic officeholders for whom a sentence has three parts: a noun, a verb and impeachment. It will not be easy for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), et al., to impose the kind of messaging discipline Cleaver proposes. And then, post-midterms, assuming the blue team retakes the lower chamber, they will probably have to put impeachment on the back burner for a good while. If they moved forward with articles of impeachment on Day 1 (or 2, or 3), even if they were well-justified, it would absolutely look like a political stunt. That's true even without Republicans' predicting a Day 1 impeachment.

We would guess that the only way that Democratic-brought articles of impeachment will pass muster with the 60% of voters who are not MAGA is if they wait until Trump does something really impeachable in 2027 or early 2028, and then they move forward with that. Since he does something impeachable pretty much every week, the blue team should have plenty of opportunities, if this is a statement they want to make. But again, it will require a lot of discipline, and somehow persuading members like Reps. Al Green (D-TX) or Shri Thanedar (D-MI) to refrain from introducing articles of impeachment every 2 minutes. Should there be any doubt on this point, consider how seriously people take articles of impeachment when they are introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). (Z)

Of Course Trump Has a Corporate Enemies List

The week is young, but this is a pretty strong contender to be "least surprising news of the week," even once the clock has struck midnight this Sunday. Yesterday, The Telegraph (UK) reported that the White House has a "secret" spreadsheet that tracks 533 companies and trade organizations, in terms of how enthusiastically they have supported the administration in general, and the BBB in particular. The spreadsheet is consulted when making decisions about "corporate requests."

Donald Trump himself is not known for being this detail-oriented, or for using computers for anything besides late-night social media rants. So, we assume this spreadsheet is the work of one of his underlings (maybe Susie Wiles). But beyond that? Of course the administration is keeping score, and of course Trump allows himself to be influenced by "Who did the most to kiss my rear/finance my projects?" as opposed to "What would be best for the country?"

Note that we do not think this is entirely unique to Trump. Surely most/all presidential administrations (maybe not Jimmy Carter's) have at least a mental list of the entities that have been supportive. And while that mental list probably didn't directly influence the decisions made by Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or George H.W. Bush, it undoubtedly influenced decisions about who could, and could not, get those presidents (or, maybe their Cabinet secretaries) on the phone for a little lobbying.

What makes Trump unusual (although George W. Bush, and his relationship with Enron/Halliburton, is close) is how unbelievably hamfisted his administration is about these things. Not only is there a spreadsheet, but it's now publicly known that spreadsheet exists. And with him, it is surely much easier to turn dollars into friendly decisions than with any other president. The main risk for these corporate interests is that they will eventually learn that Trump is not an honest politician, as defined by (hopelessly corrupt) 19th century spoilsman Simon Cameron: "An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought." (Z)

Today's Cable News News

Truth be told, Newsmax is very clearly a propaganda outlet, and not a news operation. But the headline amused us, at least mildly, so we went with it.

Back in 2020, after the army of Tokyo Roses employed by Fox, Newsmax and OAN told lie after lie after lie about how Dominion Voting Systems' vote-tallying machines were rigged, there was much talk that Dominion wanted its day in court, and that no amount of money would be enough to dissuade the firm's leadership from that course. This was not due to an insatiable thirst for revenge, mind you, but ostensibly because their brand and their image were so badly damaged by the lies told about their equipment that the firm's only hope was to win the case in court AND in the court of public opinion.

What a difference 5 years makes. Maybe the hit to Dominion's reputation was not as great as feared, since the "news" channels and individuals making the claims are so obviously off their rockers. Maybe adopting a "never settle" posture put Dominion in a better position to negotiate. Or, maybe nearly $1 billion in settlements is enough that it doesn't really matter if Dominion's core business bounces back or not.

Whatever the case may be, yesterday Dominion settled its suit against Newsmax for $67 million. It had already settled with OAN for an undisclosed amount, and with Fox, of course, for a whopping $787 million. If we imagine that the OAN settlement was similar in amount to the Newsmax settlement, then that's a total haul of around $920 million. Not bad, since even if a jury had awarded two or three times that (a big maybe), it would have taken years of appeals to get paid off.

Note that just because one (more) case has been settled, it does not mean this story has reached its conclusion. Smartmatic settled with Newsmax for about $40 million, and with OAN for an undisclosed amount, but still has a $2.7 billion lawsuit pending against Fox. There are also suits from both Smartmatic and Dominion pending against individuals, most obviously Rudy Giuliani and the MyPillow guy, Mike Lindell. Time will tell if the two companies actually bother with those cases, since you can't get blood out of a stone, and both men are broke.

Meanwhile, there was also a small bit of news on the other side of the political news aisle. MSNBC hasn't really had a connection with Microsoft for a long time, and it's not going to have a connection with NBC for much longer, as it's being spun off. So, the pooh-bahs decided it was time to change their outdated name. Yesterday, they announced the new name, and it's... Aunt Jemima Syrup, which IS available. No, wait. That's some other company's outdated name. Actually the new name for MSNBC will be MS NOW. Here's their new logo, which makes clear what the new name means:

Yesterday, there were many people decreeing that the new name is stupid. Eh. They're trying to change it as little as possible, and they managed to do it without bending and twisting too much. What we don't get is the flag with red and white stripes, but no blue and no stars. Is this a subtle clue that they are going to provide heavy coverage of issues in Austria?

We wouldn't have done a whole item on a cable station's rebranding. But since we were doing cable news news anyhow, we figured we'd mention it. (Z)

A Nation of Immigrants: A Big, Red "J"

Today, we're moving on to something new. Above, we have a couple of items that touch on Democratic strategy. And tomorrow, we have an item on political discourse. This new series, which will run for at least a few weeks, is meant to allow readers to consider the question of how Democrats should approach the issue of immigration in 2026 and 2028.

It is not a secret that the Republicans have hit the Democrats hard on immigration for at least 25 years. And the Democrats have largely responded by talking about how very strong their border policies are, and how they've done a great deal to reduce illegal border crossings. The first problem here is that the Democrats are also trying to appeal to voters who are immigrants, or who are the descendants/relatives of immigrants. So, the blue team can't lean into the anti-immigrant rhetoric the way Donald Trump does. The second problem, related to the first, is that the Republicans have largely won the "we're the party that takes border security seriously" debate. That may, or may not, be supported by the facts, but that's the way it is.

In 2026/2028, we can see three basic approaches to this issue that the Democrats might pursue. The first is to do the same thing the Party has been doing, and defend Democrats' record on border security. Of course, everyone knows the apocryphal line about the definition of insanity—doing the same thing and expecting different results.

A second possibility is to highlight the rather serious downsides of the Trump approach to immigration. This might include individual horror stories, it might include talk of siccing military forces on U.S. cities like Los Angeles, it might include discussion of the economic consequences of the administration's policy. There is certainly some merit to this approach, in that it gives Democrats a different angle than the one they usually take.

The third possibility, which could plausibly co-exist with the second, is to take a positive stance on immigration. Something like this: "Nobody wants gangs and drugs in the United States, but at the same time, we do want the many and valuable things that immigrants have contributed, and continue to contribute to American life. That means we cannot err too far in the direction of being too loose, or too far in the direction of being too harsh." One could imagine this being paired with a campaign of, say, 30-second ads that tell "immigration stories." This approach would certainly allow the blue team to stake out different ground than the current iteration of the Republican Party does. And it's ground that many Democrats will find agreeable, and possibly even some Republicans. Remember that St. Ronnie of Reagan's policy was to welcome those immigrants who have a contribution to make.

Note that we do not have an answer to the question of which approach or approaches would be best. We're just going to lay out some information, to let readers think about the issue, and to think about what approach might be most compelling. To that end, in this series, we are going to share a reader story of immigration, and then we will couple it with a brief story of Trump immigration policy gone bad. This seems the best way to compare and contrast. We'll lead off with a story from reader R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY:

My grandparents (Frieda and Ernst Lederer), mother (Jenny) and uncle (Bruno) immigrated to the United States from Trieste, Italy, arriving in April 1939, almost exactly 5 months before the start of World War II. The family were Austrian Jews (my mother had been born in Vienna). Although functionally refugees from fascist persecution, they were legally regular "chain" migrants sponsored by Grandma's brother-in-law, Morris Gruber, who had immigrated years before and established a successful business, Presto Machine Products Corp., in Brooklyn. He sponsored the immigration of all of his wife's siblings, spouses and children, and my great-grandmother, literally saving their lives.

The impetus for all the immigration was the Nazi Anschluss of Austria in March 1938, as the rest of the family still lived in Vienna. Another of Grandma's brothers-in-law was sent to Dachau at the beginning of June 1938, but was released near the end of September. It was very clear that it was time to leave.

In Trieste, Grandma had to tread the fine line with the Nazi consulate of being persistent, but not enough of a nuisance to get them to complain to Italian police. She was able to convince them to give her and my grandfather passports (and including their children on her passport) on February 1, 1939. Grandma then had to take the train to Naples (even today a nine-hour train trip) to the U.S. consulate, where she was able to submit the paperwork and on March 1 obtain the visas for the United States.

I attach images from Grandma's passport, which has been handed down to me, including the first page complete with a big, red "J" identifying her as a Jew and next to the Nazi eagle carrying a swastika badge; the other side of that page with her photo, name, and the Nazi issuance stamp and signature; and the last page, with the U.S. immigration visa that also listed my mother and uncle. That page also shows the family's date of embarkation for America, March 30.



It is chilling to me to hold this document in my hands. It screams, "This was real; this actually happened." I know it sounds crazy, but every time I go through the pages, there is a palpable sense of relief when I get to the last page and see the U.S. seal. I can't imagine the terror of those times, nor the upheaval of the two months from receiving the passports from the Nazis to boarding the ship to freedom. My grandmother, one of the most loving people I've ever met (she regularly babysat me for years), was also tough as nails in persisting to save her family. Her memory is a blessing.

As a post-script, a few years ago, Austria passed a law that granted citizenship to descendants of persons forced to leave, or who were prevented from returning to Austria because of fascist persecution. I applied for and was granted citizenship, including an Austrian passport. At the time, I did it mostly to vindicate my family's memory (all four of those immigrants had passed away by then), and to give the finger to the Nazis after over 80 years. But with the creeping rise of fascism here, I am also comforted that I can leave for the E.U. should the U.S. heirs to the Brownshirts start marching again (my wife and son also have E.U. citizenship through my Irish mother-in-law). It would be a terrible, bitter irony if the three generations before me were saved from Austrian fascism by the United States only to have me saved from American fascism by Austria.

Thanks, R.E.M.

Turning to today, let us briefly note the story of Luís Leon, an 82-year-old Chilean man. He was granted asylum in the United States in 1987, after having been persecuted by the Augusto Pinochet regime. He worked in a leather-manufacturing plant for nearly 40 years, raised a family, and then retired. Earlier this year, he lost his wallet, in which he had his identification and his green card. Given the current political situation, Leon and his wife decided that they better get replacements ASAP, and so they made an appointment with their local immigration office.

Undoubtedly, readers can guess what happened next. Leon was handcuffed and led away, with not a word of explanation given to his wife. He was deported to Guatemala, despite having no connection to that nation. Leon has chronic health problems, and takes prescriptions to help with those. At some point thereafter, the family got a call from a stranger who claimed to be an immigration lawyer, and who said that Leon was dead.

This turns out to be untrue. There was apparently a case of mistaken identity, and he was confused with someone else, who really is dead. Leon is, at last report, in a hospital in Guatemala. His family is struggling to get any information about him and, of course, he still hasn't been returned to them.

If readers have stories of their own to share, like the one from R.E.M., or news to bring to our attention, like the story about Luís Leon, please do send that to us at comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Immigration Stories." (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger