Was 40-year-old Trump recruited by the KGB?

  

According to a former Soviet spy, the KGB tried to recruit Trump in the 1980s (Image: Getty)

BENEDICT ARNOLD: Is this what Putin has on Trump causing his total capitulation?

by Alexander J. Motyl, opinion contributor

The Hill - 03/6/25 7:30 AM ET

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill 

The former head of Kazakhstan’s intelligence service, Alnur Mussayev, recently claimed in a Facebook post that Donald Trump was recruited by the KGB in 1987 and given the codename "Krasnov" when the 40-year-old real-estate mogul first visited Moscow.

The allegation would, if true, be a bombshell. Mussayev provides no documentary evidence —but then how could he? He alleged that Trump’s file is in Vladimir Putin’s hands.

Mussayev isn’t the only ex-KGB officer to have made such an assertion. Several years ago, Yuri Shvets, a former KGB major now resident in Washington, D.C., served as one of the key sources for Craig Unger’s best-selling book, “American Kompromat: How the KGB Cultivated Donald Trump, and Related Tales of Sex, Greed, Power, and Treachery.”

Just after Mussayev made his claim, another ex-KGB officer living in France, Sergei Zhyrnov, categorically endorsed the allegations in an interview with a Ukrainian journalist. 

According to Zhyrnov, Trump would have been surrounded 24/7 by KGB operatives, including everyone from his cab driver to the maid servicing his hotel room. Zhyrnov said that Trump’s every move would have been recorded and documented, and that he could have been either caught in a “honey trap” (“All foreign-currency prostitutes were KGB — one hundred percent,” he said) or perhaps recorded bribing Moscow city officials in order to promote his idea of building a hotel in the Soviet capital.

None of these former KGB operatives has provided evidence, but the fact that three KGB agents located in different places and speaking at different times agree on the story suggests this possibility should not be dismissed out of hand. If there’s one thing we’ve learned from the first Trump administration and from the initial weeks of the second, it is that everything, including what appears to be impossible, is possible.

Also lending credence to the allegations is the fact that kompromat on Trump would easily, simply and convincingly explain the president’s animus toward NATO, Europe and Ukraine, his admiration of Vladimir Putin and his endorsement of authoritarian rule. One could even invoke “Occam’s razor,” the philosophical principle that claims that simple explanations should be preferred to complex ones.

We could then dispense with contorted explanations that focus on Trump’s mercurial and narcissistic personality on the one hand and American party realignments on the other. Indeed, even if true, these explanations could be accommodated as bells and whistles adorning the central narrative propounded by three KGB agents.

Naturally, Trump and his supporters will bristle. Surely, the three KGB agents are on somebody’s payroll. Who wouldn’t want to discredit the U.S. president? It could be the CIA or FBI, except that these are now firmly in the hands of Trump loyalists. Besides, would they have the ability to buy or coerce residents of Kazakhstan and France? Ditto for other Western intelligence services.

Perhaps it’s Putin? But he surely has no interest in undermining a president who supports his policies toward Ukraine, NATO and Europe.

Somewhat more plausible would be an officer or officers within the Russian intelligence community who oppose Putin and Trump’s designs. This version seems unlikely, but only at first glance, since we know that Putin’s seemingly impregnable regime is actually riven with cracks.

But why would a clandestine opposition make up a story and convince Shvets to spill the beans several years ago? Wouldn’t the dissidents know it’s true?

Perhaps all three ex-KGB agents are simply lying, in the hope of attracting attention and bolstering their fame? A resident of Washington might have this motive, but a Kazakh and Frenchman?

What leads me to think that there might be something to the allegations is the fact that an acquaintance had a very similar experience at just the same time. A left-leaning ladies’ man, he was wined and dined in Moscow for several years in the late 1980s, courted by the ladies — by his round-the-clock interpreter, as well as by a woman who approached him in a department store and invited him home.

We’ll probably never know the truth. But even with no slam-dunk evidence, the allegations should be, to say the least, disturbing, especially for the genuine patriots in the MAGA camp.

 Alexander J. Motyl is a professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark. A specialist on Ukraine, Russia and the USSR, and on nationalism, revolutions, empires and theory, he is the author of 10 books of nonfiction, as well as “Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires” and “Why Empires Reemerge: Imperial Collapse and Imperial Revival in Comparative Perspective.”

 

Trump's Speech to Congress: Finally, Democrat hero emerges while Trump lies, lies, and lies some more

Rep. Al Green of Texas stands up to Trump.  This guy is intimidating enough to give Kash Patel a run for his money.

And right behind Green was a group of Dems willing to call Trump on the carpet when he lied.

Rep. Al Green joins Liz Cheney in pantheon of progressive heroes.   By James Keyworth Blue Country Gazette Editor 3/5/2025   In case you missed Trump's address to Congress Tuesday night, it was more of the same from the president - only worse.  (A summary of the speech follows below.)   The good news: a number of Democrats, led by Rep. Al Green of Texas, finally registered some tangible opposition to the Republican threat to take down our democracy.   Green got himself booted from the proceedings when, early-on, he stood with his cane and bellowed that the president had no mandate to do the things he's doing. When entreaties from Mike Johnson and JD Vance to cease and desist failed, Green was escorted out of the hall.   At last a Democratic hero to lead the opposition with flair and passion.  (More on Rep. Al Green follows the speech summary below.)   Meanwhile, the speech continued with a small group of Democrats signaling Trump's lies and mistatements by flashing signs with various messages.  Other Democrats walked out of the speech in progress with messages clearly visible on the backs of their shirts.   On an evening that Trump filled with doom and gloom, a number of Democrats finally registered some meaningful opposition.  Al Green has joined Liz Cheney in my small pantheon of progressive heroes.   Now, more about Trump's speech:

Trump's BS just another day at the office Indivisible Team Last night, President Elon Musk allowed Trump to make a joint address to Congress and the nation, and reinforced what we already knew: Trump is a corrupt megalomaniac who is running our country to the ground. He celebrated mass firings in the federal workforce and pledged to destroy agencies that keep our country safe. He spread outrageous lies about Social Security and the war in Ukraine. He continued his hateful tirades targeting immigrants and trans people. And without any trace of irony, he declared that "The days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over," while Musk looked on from the galley.  And Republicans in Congress cheered him on at every opportunity. They have abandoned their responsibility to uphold our constitution and serve their constituents because they’re all in on the Trump-Musk agenda: looting the government for the ultra-rich and making working families pay the price.  The only moments of hope throughout Trump’s speech were from Democrats who fearlessly disrupted business as usual. From Rep. Melanie Stansbury to Rep. Al Green to all those who joined mass walkouts during the speech, these leaders refused to let his authoritarian agenda go unchallenged.   Their courage must inspire us now. Congress is heading home for recess next week, from March 15 through March 23, and Republicans are already announcing they’ll be hiding from constituents. Our goals: Make every Republican own their complicity and demand accountability, and support every Democrat committed to fighting against the Trump-Musk coup.

 

Who is Al Green, the Democrat removed during Trump’s speech to Congress?  One tough hombre.

Mike Bedigan

in New York

NewsWorldAmericasUS politics

The Independent

Wednesday 05 March 2025 06:05 GMT

 

During the opening moments of Donald Trump’s address to Congress, Democratic representative Al Green got to his feet in protest, pointing his finger at the president while shouting “you have no mandate.”

The congressman, who represents Texas’ 9th District and is currently in his 11th term, was swiftly escorted out, telling reporters outside: "It's worth it to let people know that there are some people who are going to stand up" to the president.

Green, 77, has previously spoken out against Trump, including over his comments about Gaza, and vowed to introduce articles to impeach the president for what would be the third time.

So who is the firebrand Democrat from The Lone Star state?

During the opening moments of Donald Trump’s address to Congress, Democratic representative Al Green protested, pointing his finger at the president while shouting ‘you have no mandate’ (Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved)

The congressman, who has previously spoken out against Trump, including over his comments about Gaza, was quickly escorted from the chamber (AP)

Originally from Louisiana, Green earned a law degree from the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University in 1974, despite not having an undergraduate degree. After graduating he co founded the law firm Green, Wilson, Dewberry, and Fitch.

In 1977, he was appointed justice of the peace in Harris County, Texas, and served until retiring in 2004, when he successfully ran for Congress. Running on his long record of public service in Houston, he won the election with 72 percent of the vote.

In his first term, Green introduced the Homes for Heroes Act, which created a veterans’ affairs position in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to assist veterans experiencing homelessness to find affordable housing.

Green is currently in his 11th term of representing Texas’ 9th District having first gained the seat in 2004. He has consistently been a vocal critic of Trump (2025 Getty Images)

During his tenure in Congress, Green has continued to focus on issues such as fair housing and fair hiring practices for the poor and minorities.

He has also been a very public and vocal critic of Trump, having previously led multiple attempts to have the president impeached, while the White House has dismissed his protests as “publicity stunts.”

Last month, barely two weeks after Trump returned to office, Green announced he wanted to introduce further impeachment articles against him, also condemning Trump’s call for the U.S. to “take over” Gaza.

“It was unbelievable, when I saw the President and the Prime Minister of Israel standing near each other, and the President was indicating that there would be this takeover of Gaza,” he told The Independent at the time.

Last month, barely two weeks after Trump returned to office, Green announced he wanted to introduce further impeachment articles against him, also condemning Trump’s call for the U.S. to ‘take over’ Gaza. (Getty Images)

In 2017, before Trump was successfully impeached twice, Green forced a vote on whether to open debate on a motion to impeach the president. The effort failed after only 58 other Democrats supported it.

After his threat to introduce further impeachment articles in February,​ the White House dismissed Green’s efforts, with White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Harrison Fields accusing Democrats of continuing to “waste their time on publicity stunts that go against the wishes of the American people.”

“President Trump was elected in a historic landslide to deliver his America First agenda and keep the promises he made on the campaign trail – Democrats can either get on board or keep losing elections,” Fields previously told The Independent.

Green currently serves on the Financial Services Committee as well as the Committee on Homeland Security.

Elon Musk seems ready to pull the rug out from under America's retirees

Does the man even own a tie?  Talk about demeaning the presidency by underdressing.  And his hands are so much bigger than Trump's.

 

TO THE CONTRARY, HERR MUSK: Social Security is a pay-as-you-go, highly functioning, exceptionally efficient program

Opinion by Zeeshan Aleem

MSNBC 

March 4, 2025

 

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog

Mega-billionaire and DOGE chief Elon Musk told Joe Rogan last week that he believes Social Security is “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time” and suggested the program is wracked by fraud. That’s ironic coming from a plutocrat who is peddling false “savings” to provide cover for his project to hobble the federal government.

It was also ironic because Social Security is a highly functioning, universal and exceptionally efficient part of the American social safety net. It’s the opposite of a Ponzi scheme. Which is why the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose cutting it.

In a Ponzi scheme a scam artist lures investors into a fake investment project, pockets a lot of the cash and uses new “investors” to funnel cash to the older ones — until new recruits slow down and the whole thing collapses. Everyone is being lied to, and nobody is really getting returns on their investment.

Social Security, which has been around since the 1930s, is politically toxic to touch precisely because it does pay everybody out. It is not some kind of black box in which money sloshes around mysteriously but a simple “pay as you go” program, wherein current workers, via the payroll tax, fund payouts for retirees and disabled people. In 2024, about 1 in 5 U.S. residents received Social Security.

As the Social Security Administration explains, “In 2025, when you work, about 85 cents of every Social Security tax dollar you pay goes to a trust fund. This fund pays monthly benefits to current retirees and their families and to surviving spouses and children of workers who have died. About 15 cents goes to a trust fund that pays benefits to people with disabilities and their families.”

And as the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities notes, in part because Social Security is universal and isn’t means-tested, it’s extremely cost-effective: Managing the program costs less than 1% of the revenue that funds the program.

Social Security isn’t unreliable — almost all retired Americans pay into it and draw from it. And, as the CBPP explains, Social Security is “most workers’ only source of guaranteed retirement income that is not subject to investment risk or financial market fluctuations.”

Musk’s argument that Social Security is some kind of scheme to defraud the public rests in part on misinformation about dead people getting payouts. In the interview, Musk repeated a claim about tens of millions of people incorrectly being marked as “alive” in the Social Security database. But experts have debunked this claim by explaining that Musk has conflated Social Security number figures with actual beneficiaries and said there’s no evidence of widespread fraud. The SSA’s inspector general found in 2024 that only 0.84% of the trillions of dollars disbursed from 2015 to 2022 were improperly allocated. Most of those improper payments were overpayments, and some of them were recovered. 

The other thing Musk cites as evidence that Social Security is a scheme are the numbers that show Social Security obligations exceed projected tax revenue. That’s true and universally acknowledged — and not remotely scandalous. With people living longer lives and the birth rate decreasing, there will need to be a change to Social Security funding in order to keep the program working at the level it currently works at. There are a number of strategies for dealing with this that have to do with changing the way taxes fund Social Security.

The only people in American politics who are likely to pull the rug out from under retirees is today’s Republican Party. Musk’s misinformation about Social Security, his and President Donald Trump’s constant claims that it needs to be probed for a nonexistent mass waste and fraud problems and massive cuts to the Social Security Administration’s workforce are themselves the red flags that should have American taxpayers who’ve paid into the system worried about being taken for a ride. 

This hateful human being, richest in all the world, is threatening to put  retired Americans in poverty by his cuts to Social Security, a program we have paid into all our working lives.  It is not the property of the American government.

This article was originally published on MSNBC.com

Tim Walz Might Run in 2028 if You Ask Him Nicely

 

Tim Walz speaks during a campaign rally with Vice President Kamala Harris. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) Tim Walz speaks during a campaign rally with Vice President Kamala Harris. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)  

Calls out Trump's "corruption" and Hegseth's "revolting views on women"

David Remnick / The New Yorker

03 March 25

There was a moment not long ago when we all got to know Tim Walz—a big, bluff, good-humored guy, born in Nebraska, who became a teacher, a football coach, and the governor of Minnesota. For three months last year, he campaigned on the national ticket with Kamala Harris. 

As late as Election Day, Walz was convinced that he and Harris were headed to the White House. He was going to be the Vice-President of the United States, living at the Naval Observatory, one heartbeat away from the Presidency. Donald Trump’s preëlection rally at Madison Square Garden, with all its extremist rhetoric, augured victory to Walz.

“It just felt like people would choose a calmness and a hopefulness over that,” Walz told me the other day, from his office in Minneapolis. “Obviously, Donald Trump knew more about America on November 5, 2024, than I did.”

The pain of losing will not soon abate. “That’s one I’ll take with me to the grave,” he said in a long conversation with me for The New Yorker Radio Hour. As Walz follows the chaotic course of the second Trump Administration, he feels that he “let people down,” he said. 

“An old white guy who ran for Vice-President, you’ll land on your feet pretty well. But I still struggle with it. It was my job to get this one. And now when I see Medicaid cuts happening, when I see L.G.B.T.Q. folks being demonized, when I see some of this happening, that’s what weighs on me personally.” 

The sense of regret runs deep: “I knew what my job was. It wasn’t to become Vice-President. It was to protect the most vulnerable. It was to make sure that we balance the budget. It’s to make sure that we keep peace in the world, make sure we tackle climate change, make sure that women make their own reproductive rights. All of those things are at stress right now.”

Since the election, Walz told me, he and Harris have spoken only “a couple times.” He explained, “I’m doing my job, and she’s doing her job, and she’s out in California, I believe, living, and I’m here in beautiful Minnesota, where the weather’s always great.” When I asked why they don’t call or text, Walz said, laughing, “Well, maybe she doesn’t want to talk to me after we got this thing done. No, I think it’s just there’ll be a time and a place. But we left good, and my family misses her. My daughter, especially.”

He described his relationship with Harris as “professional.” “It was clear that she was the top of the ticket, and my job was there to support her,” Walz said. “She inspired me. I think there were a lot of things that America never knew about her. When I found out she was a band kid, I’m, like, Why aren’t we running ads on that?”

During the campaign, especially during his debate with J. D. Vance, Walz was criticized for being excessively conciliatory in a contentious race, too eager to bridge unbridgeable gaps. He told me that it was “naïve” now to search for compromise with Trump: “He’s not interested in finding common ground with us. He sees us as an impediment and an obstacle, and I think he’ll continue to move to remove those obstacles the best he can.” 

Walz did not hesitate to say that he thought the President was corrupt and that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a fellow-Minnesotan, “really worries me” for, among other things, his “revolting” views on women.

The moment is hardly one for downplaying the crisis in Washington. “I would argue that the road towards authoritarianism has been paved with people saying, ‘You’re overreacting,’ ” Walz told me. “I don’t think you can underestimate how far [Trump] will go. And I think you should assume a worst-case scenario. 

If I’m wrong, that’s O.K., democracy holds. If I’m right, then we need to be prepared that he’ll continue to make these moves. As governor, my job is to make sure the firewall is there.”

When I asked Walz if former President Joe Biden should have recognized the realities of his age and prospects and dropped out of the race much earlier than he did, Walz did not dismiss the idea—but he didn’t endorse it, either.

“That’s a decision he needed to make,” Walz said. He recalled meeting with Biden in January, 2024, in Duluth, for a joint appearance about infrastructure. Biden, he said, “was great. He was spot-on. He was on the issues. He was doing what he needed to do.” Walz went on, “I hear some people say that if he’d have left the summer before, we’d have had a convention. We might have had different candidates and all that. I don’t know if we still would’ve won. . . . Was there somebody else out there? I think we keep looking for this charismatic leader that was going to rise and lead us out of this. I don’t think it works that way. I think, as a party, we just need to do a better job of connecting.”

Recently, Walz decided not to run for an open Senate seat in Minnesota. In fact, after twelve years as a member of Congress (2007-19), he’d rather “eat glass” than return to the Capitol, he said. The jobs are too frustrating. There’s nothing getting done, no sense of compromise. He’d rather fight Trump from his position as governor.

But what role might he play in the next election cycle?

“Look, I never had an ambition to be President or Vice-President. I was honored to be asked,” he said. “If I feel like I can serve, I will. And if nationally, people are, like, ‘Dude, we tried you, and look how that worked out,’ I’m good with that.”

After circling the question for a bit, I said, “I guess what I’m asking you is: Would you run for President?”

“Well, I had a friend tell me, ‘Never turn down a job you haven’t been offered,’ ” Walz said. “If I think I could offer something . . . I would certainly consider that. I’m also, though, not arrogant enough to believe there’s a lot of people that can do this.” If the circumstances are right, in 2028, and he has the right “skill set” for the moment, Walz said, “I’ll do it.”

“You might do it?” I asked.

“I’ll do whatever it takes. I certainly wouldn’t be arrogant enough to think that it needs to be me,” he said.

“I’ve always said this: I didn’t prepare my life to be in these jobs, but my life prepared me well. And, if this experience I’ve had and what we’re going through right now prepares me for that, then I would. But I worry about people who have ambition for elected office. I don’t think you should have ambition. I think you should have a desire to do it if you’re asked to serve. And that’s kind of where I’m at.”

If a picture is worth 1,000 words, here's 2,000 for you.

Why Aren’t We in the Streets?

   

Chris Dols and other Government workers protest outside the Federal Building in Lower Manhattan against Elon Musk’s push for mass firings, Feb. 19, 2025. (photo: Ben Fractenberg/The City)

 

"Trump is power-tripping like never before"

Susan B. Glasser, The New Yorker

01 March 25

 

Last Friday night, minutes after President Donald Trump announced the firing of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and a purge of the military’s top lawyers, I received an e-mail from my cousin in Los Angeles. “Why are we not in the streets?” she wrote. 

“The Germans even marched against Musk. The French would have barricaded every government building.” All week long I’ve been thinking of that message, composed in the heat of the moment after an unprecedented event that already seems forgotten amid all the subsequent unprecedented events.

In the days since then, Trump warned agency heads to prepare for “large-scale” layoffs by mid-March, fired thousands of additional government employees, and ordered Elon Musk, deputized as his chief job-slasher, to “GET MORE AGGRESSIVE.” He’s axed bird-flu inspectors in the midst of a bird-flu outbreak and got rid of thousands of Internal Revenue Service personnel at the height of tax season. 

On Monday, the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Trump ordered the U.S. to stand not with Ukraine but instead with Russia, in a U.N. vote that put America on the side of dictatorships and against most of our democratic allies—a profound shift in American foreign policy. 

On Tuesday, Trump’s White House abolished a century-old tradition by decreeing that only news organizations handpicked by the President’s staff would be allowed in the press pool. 

On Wednesday, at the first Cabinet meeting of his second term, Trump allowed Musk to hold forth before any Senate-confirmed members of the actual Cabinet. (“Is anybody unhappy with Elon?” he asked. “If you are, we’ll throw him out of here.”)

On Thursday, Trump vowed to impose stringent twenty-five-per-cent tariffs on Canada and Mexico next week, as well as additional levies on Chinese goods—which, if he follows through, are likely to result in higher prices for American consumers already concerned about inflation.

And yet, making my way around Washington this week, the city showed no signs of the Trumpian tumult. Disruption, apparently, is just our new normal. 

There were no major protests in the quiescent capital, unless one counts the lawsuits against Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” that have been piling up in federal court, or the small crowd that gathered on Thursday outside of U.S.A.I.D.’s now shuttered headquarters with hand-lettered thank-you signs for the thousands of workers who were given fifteen minutes to clean out their desks. 

These acts were a far cry from the popular uprisings that presumably would have convulsed Paris or any other European city if the President of the republic suddenly and unilaterally reoriented the nation’s geopolitical strategy, turned on its major trading partners, and allowed the world’s richest man to cut hundreds of thousands of federal workers and billions of dollars in government services.

Instead, the opposition was receiving this counsel from James Carville in the Times: “Roll over and play dead.” (His actual words.)

Maybe the legendary strategist will once again prove his political genius with his advice to Democrats to do nothing and simply wait for Trump to screw everything up before, eventually, descending “like a pack of hyenas” and going for his “jugular.” 

In the meantime, however, Carville’s call for “strategic political retreat” sure seems like something a lot closer to unilateral disarmament. What’s the point of having two political parties in our democracy if one of them is no longer loyal to the Constitution and the other one is so weak and consumed by infighting that its response is to say, Never mind, we can’t get our act together. Sorry that Trump is ruining the country but we’ll be back next year in time for the midterms?

Mindful of this argument, I took a scroll through the social-media feed of the House’s Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, which contained not a single mention in recent days of either Musk or Trump, and for the most part simply restated talking points against the proposed Republican budget resolution that passed this week in a 217-215 vote. (Over in the Senate, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer at least had a lot more to say on X about Trump and the “billionaires’ club” and the “chaos” across the land.) 

Civil society, too, has been remarkably muted in its response. After Trump’s White House seized control of the press pool, there was no boycott or organized resistance and not much more than expressions of Susan Collins-esque deep concern; rival journalists quickly accepted the press pool access that was stripped from their politically noncompliant colleagues.

Carville’s case for doing nothing, incidentally, is not merely some provocative outlier. I’ve heard many Democrats make versions of it privately since Trump’s victory in November. One friend joked that they should treat Trump’s attack on Washington like Napoleon’s march on Moscow, drawing the President and his party into an unwinnable fight. (Though, to be fair, the Russians had to burn down their own ancient capital before defeating the French invaders.)

Like Carville, many justify their choice to do nothing with the argument that the “resistance” to Trump failed during his first term—a bizarre act of rewriting history that I have a hard time understanding. Did they forget how Democrats took back control of the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterms? Or that many of Trump’s own first-term appointees successfully resisted from within, preventing him from following through on his most disruptive ideas for slashing the American government, attacking the rule of law, and reorienting our foreign policy, many of which he is now acting on? Did they forget that Trump was defeated in 2020 in an election that ended with Democrats in control of not only the White House but both houses of Congress?

There’s also a partisan cynicism embedded in this calculation—that Trump’s second term isn’t really the fascist threat that Democrats warned about on the campaign trail but a regrettable interlude that must be waited out. Talk about a risky assumption, one that seems premised on the idea that the damage from Trump 2.0 can be undone in four years just as quickly as it’s being done.

Is this really the week to make that case?

There is no doubt that Trump is power-tripping like never before. And why shouldn’t he? It’s not just Democrats walking off the field. Republicans are offering him a level of adulation that would make Kim Jong Un blush. 

In the House, his party members are competing with one another to turn sycophancy into law, proposing everything from a Trump-branded airport to a Trump-themed federal holiday, according to the Wall Street Journal. 

At Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting, the session opened with a prayer from his new Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Scott Turner. “Thank you, God,” he said, “for President Trump.” 

In a White House photo op this week, Trump posed with a red baseball hat emblazoned with the slogan “Trump Was Right About Everything!” (I received a fund-raising e-mail from Trump on Thursday, selling the hats for forty-seven dollars.)

Trump’s recent rage at Ukraine’s leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, publicly pushing back on him for “living in a disinformation space” was telling: Trump views himself as the President Almighty, as one foreign diplomat recently put it to me—no challenges are welcome. 

At such a moment, I understand the theory of the case: let him dig his hole and bury himself in it.

But my fear is a different one. In just five weeks in office, Trump has asserted sweeping authorities and consolidated control over the executive branch by appointing what is undoubtedly the most extreme Cabinet in American history. 

What we don’t know yet is exactly how far he plans to go, now that so little apparently stands in his way. Will he follow through on his past threats to investigate and imprison political enemies? Or to use the American military to crack down on political dissent at home, given that he’s fired top generals and wants to replace them with others willing to profess loyalty to him personally? 

I don’t know, but I do know this: the man who calls himself our King is more than delighted for his enemies to wallow offstage in their own weakness. Nature, and Trump, abhor a vacuum.

'Absolutely unconscionable': Ex-Republican demands Trump's removal from office after fight

 

Zelensky signals "Enough!" to Trump and Vance's Oval Office debacle:  Is it time to boot this mess of an administration out of the White House before it's too late?

“All of the Republicans in Congress are cowards and lapdogs" 

Story by Matt Laslo

• 1d •

3 min read

Raw Story

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The nation’s capital is reeling from the Oval Office brawl heard round the world but, somewhere, Vladmir Putin’s smiling, according to a former intelligence official.

After President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance tag-teamed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on live TV using Russian disinformation as their talking points, it’s become evident that this new White House is compromised, some onlookers suggested.

“The enemy is on the inside,” former Republican Virginia Congressman Denver Riggleman told Raw Story. “There’s so much fear, but we need to overcome that fear now, and the rational, the sane — those who care more about this country than securing mineral rights for their oligarch friends — might be the way we need to go now. This is America. This isn't Russia lite.”

Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.

But with Trump’s aides booting Ukranians from the White House grounds after Vance and Trump piled on Zelensky, critics fear the president is being played by propaganda

With tech billionaire and X owner Elon Musk working inside the White House, disinformation is now regularly flowing from the Oval Office, Riggleman said.

“What's happened is that we have such a disinformation and propaganda landscape based on social media and far-right alternative media that there's no way for us to understand how integrated lies are into our policy making,” he said.

What’s so dizzying to Riggleman — an Air Force veteran who went on to be a National Security Agency contractor — is that Ukraine, formally at least, remains an ally, whileRussia is, formally, a foe.

After today’s White House meeting blew up, Riggleman says it’s obvious Trump and Vance are going out of their way to appease the Russian strongman.

“They're specifically trying to make Putin happy. It's interesting that the most powerful country in the world is bending the knee to a bare-chested b— horse rider,” Riggleman said. “This is absolutely unconscionable, and, because of his insanity, he should be removed on the 25th Amendment.”

The exchange makes Riggleman glad he left the Republican Party, but he also thinks it might break some of MAGA’s grip on some of his former GOP colleagues.

“All of the Republican Congress are cowards and lapdogs, because they value the power of their seat more than the future of this great country,” Riggleman said. “Trump has overplayed his hand for the first time for real when you're talking about what's happening with Ukraine and Russia, and I believe this might break the dam of those who have allowed ignorance and hubris to rule their decision making.

America’s now on the wrong side, he said.

“It's not just a realignment of interest, it means we've become the baddies,” Riggleman said. “Really, what it comes down to is that, as somebody who is a former Republican, I never thought there would be a day where a Republican administration messages to Russia for their favorable assessment of us. I find it appalling. I find it disgusting.”

This episode is likely to rankle many Trump supporters, Riggleman predicts, especially veterans and active duty servicemembers.

“For people who fought for this country in so many different ways — real veterans that haven't been radicalized by insanity and conspiracy theories — right now, you're going to see a mobilization of the sane, I think, in a way you've never seen in foreign policy and things of that nature,” Riggleman said.

With the Democratic Party so weak and beleaguered these days, Riggleman thinks this latest Oval Office fight showcases the need for a new, viable third party.

“It’s almost like we have the crazy and the coward party, and I think we now need to understand and we need to build a third way,” Riggleman told Raw Story. “I just don't see how a two-party system survives in a social media, data-manipulated ecosystem.”

 

 

Zelenskyy shows true leadership as Trump implodes in Oval Office meltdown

President Donald Trump welcomes Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House on Friday, Feb. 28, 2025.

Trump and Vance gang up to humiliate U.S. on world stage

 

By Walter Einenkel 

Daily Kos Staff 

Friday, February 28, 2025 at 12:42:43p MST

 

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog 

Donald Trump and JD Vance teamed up to embarrass the United States on Friday and derail any meaningful efforts toward a peace deal in the Russia-Ukraine War when they decided to publicly berate Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during what was supposed to be a diplomatic press conference in the Oval Office.

The ambush began with Vance launching into a rant, criticizing former President Joe Biden’s handling of Russia’s 2021 invasion of Ukraine. Zelenskyy seemed to irritate the vice president by reminding him that “diplomacy” only works when both sides show that they can be trusted to keep the peace—and Russian dictator Vladimir Putin shattered that diplomacy when he decided to invade Ukraine.

Tensions quickly escalated when Vance called Zelenskyy “disrespectful” and Trump acted as a Putin mouthpiece, angrily asserting that Ukraine doesn’t “have the cards” to negotiate, and both men repeatedly demanded that Zelenskyy be grateful to the United States for its aid.

For his part, Zelenskyy remained as calm as one can when being berated by two men who lack any integrity whatsoever. 

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins posted an image of Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States Oksana Markarova with her head in her hand during the exchange.

Shortly after the blowup, Trump ran to his Truth Social account to bloviate. 

“We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure,” Trump wrote. “It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE. He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.”