P.M. Carpenter

In his bizarro world, Lindsey Graham makes a good point

A mildly different take on Mr. Gorbachev

I have delayed writing about the death of Mikhail Gorbachev, since print and broadcast outlets have indulged the subject so heavily for two days running.

I submit this commentary only as a divergence from most of the reporting. From what I've read and seen, American officials, historians and journalists have concentrated on Gorbachev as a man of vision. That he was, of course. But I tend to see him more as a man of phenomenal guts.

I lean toward this opinion chiefly because virtually every Soviet official and citizen, whether high or low in the USSR's hierarchy, knew of the system's fatal flaws. No empire built on lies and ideology rather than truths and reality can stand for long — the Soviet Union, Q.E.D. 

For all the criticisms of consumerism, it's what makes an economy robust. (Unfortunately, it also keeps most people broke.) Yet Soviet hardliners kept pumping more and more of the country's resources into military spending, starving millions of Russians of a decent life and instilling deep disaffection about "The System."

Also private jokes and ridicule. A man enters a shop and asks: "You don’t have any meat?" "No," replies the lady, "We don’t have any fish, it’s the shop next door that doesn’t have meat."

When one's government is reduced to a laughingstock, it's in real trouble.

But the system could be harsh, shall we say, toward critics. Nevertheless, Gorbachev fearlessly pushed perestroika, also glasnost. The thanks he got was a coup by the hardliners. He later turned over the reins of power to the hapless Boris Yeltsin.

Until then, Gorbachev was truly Mikhail the Lionhearted. No other Soviet official ever had the courage to do, and accomplish, what he did. And for that, I believe, he'll be forever remembered. 

The USMA proudly displays a KKK nameplate. Really, this one will leave you scratching your head.

Either West Point cadets never look up, or every academy class is racist, or they're all under orders to respect every last West Point tradition, no matter how insufferable.   ​​​​​

"For decades, the students at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in New York have walked beneath a panel of three bronze plaques mounted at the entrance of Bartlett Hall Science Center that includes," reports The NY Times, "an image of a hooded figure and the words 'Ku Klux Klan' written below it."

The Times gathered this information from The Naming Commission, established by Congress in 2021 to provide "recommendations for the removal or renaming of Defense Department assets that commemorate the Confederacy." 

A Ku Klux Klan plaque would seem to be a good start. 

But in another tradition — that of baroque bureaucracy — the Naming Commission cannot actually recommend the plaque's removal. That's somebody else's department. Such a ghastly suggestion would fall outside the commission's scope, "because the Ku Klux Klan ... emerged after the Civil War," writes the Times. Go figure.

The panel can only "[flag] the item for review in its report."

In a brain-dazzling turnaround, the Times then reports that "West Point said the academy is reviewing the recommendations made by the panel." In consultation with the Defense Department, of course, which is famous for its intolerance of bureaucratic foot-dragging.

It gets weirder. The Point's former art director, Dr. Aundrea Matthews, said that "people at West Point had long discussed the plaque and its origins." Let's grant that the academy was culturally fine with the plaque for 90 years after the Civil War. It's been nearly 70 years since the modern civil rights movement erupted, however. But still no light bulbs?

Retired Brig. Gen. Ty Seidule, a commission member and professor emeritus of military history at the Point, wrote a book in 2021 in which he tried to grasp why the academy is also displaying a portrait, in the Jefferson Hall Library, of West Point graduate Robert E. Lee. 

Forgetting for a moment that Lee far outperformed Benedict Arnold in treason — perhaps reason enough to not literally paint him as a hero? — the Southern commander was among this nation's greatest military bumblers; strategically — see: Pennsylvania; see, Maryland — and tactically — see: Pickett's Charge.

Gen. Lee's portrait should instead be hanging in some yet-constructed, badly needed military Museum of the Worst, or at the very least, the global headquarters of the Aryan Nations Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, which, I just learned, is located in Phoenix.

Incidentally, New York's Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney sent a letter two years ago to the Pentagon "arguing for the renaming of military buildings and facilities with Confederate names," a request that would logically include the removal of Confederate artwork.

There hangs a tale, as well as a KKK plaque and the likeness of a national traitor.     

The Justice Department slams Trump and any need for delay, leaving blood everywhere

Last night, federal prosecutors filed a scorching rejoinder to Trump's plea for a special master to review his ill-gotten papers from his time in the White House — a request designed only to delay the Justice Department's investigation.

If the judge now rules in Trump's favor, her decision, self-evidently, would be grounded in merely a favor returned: her appointment to the bench by the former president.   ​​​​​

DOJ's filing has Trump dead to rights. It reveals that Trump and his "custodian of records" lied to investigators on 3 June, claiming, in reply to a subpoena, that they had conducted a thorough search of his Mar-a-Lago premises for any classified material and were turning over any pertinent documents.

Trump returned 38 sensitive documents to the Justice Department that day. One of his lawyers also informed DOJ that any White House records remaining at Mar-a-Lago were in a storage room.

That was a prosecutable lie. When FBI agents searched the premises in August they discovered more than 100 additional classified documents. In their filing, prosecutors wrote that this "calls into serious question the representations made in the June 3 certification and casts doubt on the extent of cooperation in this matter."

Shockingly, many of the materials that Trump had stashed away were so sensitive that "even the FBI counterintelligence personnel and DOJ attorneys conducting the review required additional clearances before they were permitted to review certain documents," says the filing.

A Justice Department photo shows some of the seized papers labeled "Top Secret" spread on the floor. They were found in Trump’s office. One cover sheet displays an "HCS" mark, an intelligence acronym signifying that the information came from a human source.

The aforementioned custodian of records was Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran, a former federal prosecutor whom I already described as having acted a bit weirdly in this case. Another attorney representing Trump on 3 June was Christina Bobb, a former host on the far-right One America News Network. DOJ notes that both were suspected of interfering with the investigation.

Says the filing: "The former President’s counsel explicitly prohibited government personnel from opening or looking inside any of the boxes that remained in the storage room, giving no opportunity for the government to confirm that no documents with classification markings remained."

More explicitly, says DOJ: "Government records were likely concealed and removed … and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation." Again, this was after a subpoena; it also followed Team Trump's assurance that a "diligent search" had been made of the premises.

Additionally noteworthy is that at the 3 June meeting, reports the filing, "neither counsel nor the custodian asserted that the former President had declassified the documents or asserted any claim of executive privilege" — the latter being one of Trump's justifications for a special master.

Meanwhile, on Truth Social Trump was claiming that his representatives "were cooperating fully" and that "the government could have had whatever they wanted, if we had it."

And last night he once again threatened social violence should the Justice Department pursue its investigation and prosecution. Trump is behaving precisely what he behaved prior to 6 January 2021: inciting riots — and worse.

The federal judge hearing Trump's motion for a special master, Aileen Cannon, will hold another hearing tomorrow. On the face of it the motion is obsolete, given that a DOJ "filter team" has already surveyed the records for any privileged materials.    

Says DOJ's filing: "Plaintiff’s motion to appoint a special master, enjoin further review of seized materials, and require the return of seized items fails for multiple, independent reasons.... Plaintiff has shown no basis for the Court to grant injunctive relief. Plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits; he will suffer no injury absent an injunction—let alone an irreparable injury; and the harms to the government and the public would far outweigh any benefit to Plaintiff."

Trump's sole intent is to delay, delay some more, and then further delay. He's trying to beat the clock: to protect his lounging in lavish surroundings by forestalling, before death, an almost certain conviction on several felony counts, including, possibly, incarceration.

Thus now is the time for Attorney General Merrick Garland to stop the clock by indicting this lifelong outlaw.

***

Good point from a reader: "Regarding your column about the recovered documents at Mar a Lago, is it not a conflict of interest for a Trump-appointed judge to consider his request for a 'special master' to review the documents?" Imagine Trump's fury if she were an Obama-appointed judge.

Ukraine's D-Day: the long-awaited offensive begins

This is what Ukraine has been preparing for and what we've been waiting for. An offensive campaign in the south. Rarely any longer is it called a counteroffensive, since Russia has spent the last several weeks mostly digging in, as the Germans did in 1944 in preparation for D-Day. 

The Ukrainian government reported that its armed forces had "breached the occupiers' first line of defense near Kherson." Military as well as civilian officials said "fighting along a swath of the front line escalated sharply," in the words of The NY Times.

The city of Kherson — once home to nearly 300,000, reduced by almost half since Putin's invasion — and its surrounding area are the focal point of Ukraine's offensive operations. Yesterday, "electrical networks blinked out amid the fighting" and the Ukrainian military said it had struck a Russian base. The Russians reported evacuations from several towns.

A U.S. defense official said "The announced offensive shows the Ukrainians’ appetite for progress on the battlefield." but added that the Pentagon remains skeptical about Ukraine's military capabilities. The official would have been less skeptical had the U.S. supplied Ukraine with the amount and types of weapons it needed for such a major undertaking. 

Perhaps the most reliable confirmation of a large and largely successful Ukrainian offensive came from Russia denying it. Kherson's installed Russian lackey refused to acknowledge that an offensive was underway. Later, Russia's ministry of defense conceded that Ukrainian troops had indeed carried out assaults in three directions, adding, of course, that the attacks had "failed miserably" and that Ukrainian forces suffered "heavy losses." 

The Times reports that "it remained unclear if this was the start of the southern counteroffensive that Ukraine has telegraphed for months, or a continuation of strikes in the south that Ukraine has been carrying out for the last several weeks." Ukraine's southern command spokesperson said the country had started "offensive actions on many directions" in the south but later said that "every military operation requires silence" and "everyone needs to be patient."

President Volodymyr Zelensky offered this: "Anyone want to know what our plans are? You won’t hear specifics from any truly responsible person. Because this is war. And this is what it is during the war." 

Still, it's unquestionable that now is the time for a Ukrainian push. Fall rain is about to begin, leaving roads impassable, and Europe's support will be thrown into doubt once winter causes energy prices to rise even further.

Zelensky reiterated last night in his national address that Russian troops will be thrust from all occupied territories. "If they do not listen to me," he said, "they will deal with our defenders, who will not stop until they liberate everything that belongs to Ukraine." 

It sure sounds like a major, sustained offensive. 

Chuck Todd may be on his way out from "Meet the Press"

I can feel your pain. What a woesome headline — for maybe those few straggling viewers of MTP. I myself haven't watched Chuck Todd in years, nor do I watch any of the other Sunday talk shows. But Mr. Todd brought something nearly ineffable to the network's wall-to-wall dullness: shoe-throwing exasperation. 

The Daily Beast's "Confider" relates that Todd was already demoted ​​​​this year when his "Meet the Press Daily" on MSNBC was cast into the scarcely traveled depths — I presume — of NBC’s streaming service. But his worst humiliation came at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, wherein the Comedy Channel's Trevor Noah said to him, "How are you doing? I’d ask a follow-up, but I know you don’t know what those are."

As bad as that aggravating habit was with Chuck, I used to get just as annoyed by his saying "right" to even Republican nutjobs' remarks. It was a verbal tic. As for follow-ups, Todd at least has some defense. Widely known in political talk-show circles is that if a host presses politicians too much, they'll just stop coming. So no more show. This would be fine with me, since an hour of a party and administration talking points is an hour forever squandered. 

The really strange part of Todd's probable escort out of the NBC building is that the decision is being made by one David Gelles, whom the Confider writes was "a long-time CNN producer." He was "parachuted in to help fix the sinking show." Fair enough. But this was also the guy who "helped develop" CNN's broadcasting disaster of the century: the almost instantly pulled CNN Plus streaming service.

The Washington Post's media correspondents described the debacle "as one of the biggest and most expensive misfires in recent media history." $100 million worth. But it seems that in the lofty world of network executives, the U.S. Army's aphorism reigns: "Fuck up and move up."

Anyway, Mr. Gelles' first task is that of deciding Chuck's fate. For a numbers man, that wouldn't take long. This year his Sunday show is down 21% in total viewership and down a bit more in the prime demographic market, "more than any of the other Sunday politics shows," observes the Confider.

Who would succeed him? NBC White House correspondent Kristen Welker, say "multiple insiders" (once again proving that among journalists, the word "several" is no more). No word on Ms. Welker's feelings about this. I, for one, would be taking fistfuls of uppers. 

Newt Gingrich and Kevin McCarthy, the team from hell

Speaking completely out of character, Newt Gingrich told The Washington Post that Kevin McCarthy opposes the creation of a purely negative, anti-Biden campaign for this fall's silly season. "We need a positive message, too," said Gingrich. "I think that’s clearly what McCarthy wants to do and I’ve offered to look at stuff and offer advice."  

Asking Gingrich to not focus on the negative is like asking a silverback gorilla to not pound his chest. There's intention and there's DNA, and Gingrich is riddled with nucleotides of the meanest, nastiest, most malicious sort. It is the marvel that is Newt.

And then there is the party he created with his 1990 word list in the pamphlet, "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control." It advised his colleagues to describe Democratic pols (excuse me, "Democrat" pols) with characterizations such as anti-flag, traitorous, corrupt and, of course, liberal.   

In the contemporary setting, note Gingrich's one little word to the Post. "We need a positive message, too." There we have it, a bit of a slip betraying his first love: malice. By "too," Gingrich meant that whatever positive message he and Kev come up with, it'll be washed out by the party's Newt-created rhetorical habit of limitless bile.    

McCarthy told Breitbart — it seems he wouldn't speak with the "liberal" Washington Post — that he and Gingrich have been working on "a Commitment to America," a linguistic cousin to the 1994 "Contract with America." Said Professor of public affairs Paul Teske in 2018, "Essentially, it claimed that it would 'drain the swamp'—though they didn’t use that term, in terms of what Donald Trump would later articulate." 

Although the Contract's electoral potency has been debated, 1994's practical result was the GOP's taking of the House and Senate, 12 governorships and control of 20 state legislatures. The Contract emphasized 10 bills that Republicans would vote on in the first 100 days, including term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and social security reform. So much for its real-world results. 

Probably more damning for Democrats was the yearlong "Harry and Louise" television campaign against Bill & Hillary's healthcare plan and, as usual, the midterm curse for the party in power.

But most damaging?  The Republican Party was by then a thuggish commune devoted to little more than what is commonly called the politics of destruction — scorched-earth politics, deeper social divisions, congressional investigations and a senseless impeachment.   

And that is what we'll get with the Republican Party's "Commitment to America," The Post previews its principal goals as "tapping into parental discontent; countering the rise of China with new economic measures; and 'oversight' of the Biden administration."

But should Republicans retake the House, their mission will be "With three you get one"; nothing but Biden admin investigations and absolutely nothing to do with benefiting everyday Americans. 

Their revised contract would be better called a Commitment to Slander. The one upside to this potential two-year calamity is that President Biden will be there to veto any bills a Republican Congress does pass. That is to say, I don't see 2022 as politically determinative of much. The far more important battle will come in 2024.  

Meanwhile ...

It never seems to bother Trump that there is no constitutional provision for anything like these "recommendations." I once thought he proposed them just to rile up his base. But over the years, and having learned more about Trump's peculiar thinking, I believe he believes they're possible. After all, he ran many of his businesses into the ground in the same, haphazard way.  

By the way, In Trump's reserved, very thoughtful Truth message he also rather curiously conceded that he indeed lost the election. If the FBI hadn't interfered, "Trump would have easily won the 2020 Presidential Election." He persists in committing these kinds of slips; he has so many lying plates spinning in the air, he can't keep them straight. 

Did a National Republican Army kill Alexander Dugin's daughter?

No one knows. But Ilya Ponomarev, an expelled member of the Duma who also fled Russia after he alone voted against the annexation of occupied Crimea, says yes.

He now lives in Kyiv, is the top executive at a U.S. investment firm in Ukraine, founded a television channel called February Morning seven months ago, and last week read a manifesto from the purported National Republican Arny — an anti-Putin group operating inside Russia, according to Ponomarev.

The partisans' message was that they had placed the bomb in the car driven by Darya Dugina, the daughter of Alexander Dugin. Like her father, Darya was "a commentator who combined hawkish, imperialist views with jargon-laden political philosophy," wrote The NY Times in a week-old profile of her.

Speaking more recently with the Daily Beast, Ponomarev reflected that "the activists chose a sacred figure of Russian fascism and that’s not up to me to criticize the target of their deed." He also said that the "resistance fighters" have been in contact with him since April, and that his job is merely to convey their messages to the world.

"We have been receiving videos and text messages from the Russian rebels about their actions nearly every day," said Ponomarev, adding that "they throw Molotov cocktails at military draft offices, blow up railroads, pop tires of cars with Russian pro-war symbols and attack activists who were collecting money for the war."

It's only logical that if a National Republican Army exists in Russia, the underground movement would seek an outside outlet to publicize its anti-Putin activities.

But is Ponomarev that voice? And is there actually a National Republican Army conducting such activities? Skepticism abounds.  

Said a Moscow expert on radical groups, Alexander Verkhovsky: "Of course, there are anti-war partisan groups in Russia. They throw Molotov cocktails, blow things up, but if they were united in some big army, they would have had at least some channel independent from Ponomarev on Telegram." That too is logical. "But let’s see what else they do," he told the Beast. 

Some Ukrainian experts are also skeptical, such as Tetiana Popova, a Ukrainian politician and a specialist in media. "We’ve known Ponomarev for many years, as a businessman mostly—we think that he might genuinely wish to see an armed rebel movement in Russia but his source can easily be a Russian Federal Security Service and the NRA could be their idea." 

The Kremlin, Moscow, Russia — these are murky places close to total opaqueness, which befits a paranoid, former KGB agent trained in counterintelligence. For all we know, he could be the truest believer in a National Republican Army — like Trump, disbelieving in his own intelligence service, the FSB.

Whatever the case of a Russian NRA, Ponomarev told the Daily Beast that antiPutinites such as Garry Kasparov have begun shunning him because they "are afraid of dealing with me." That statement is as murky as Moscow. But "I am at war" and ostracism won't stop him, said Ponomarev.   

Trump's legal 'defenses' are laughably clumsy, muddled, and invalid

In assessing the worthiness of Trump's legal defense in the case of illegally held documents at his Florida home, it's hard to know where to begin. At first blush there seems to be no defense at all — which also seems impossible, since we're looking at a case involving an often successfully litigious, former president of the United States. Later, however, after reviewing the supplications he has tried out so far, one realizes that one's first blush was ... altogether spot on. Trump is virtually defenseless.  

Perhaps his most significant hazard is his own legal team — mostly an amateur-hour triad of a former television host, a parking garage lawyer, and an insurance claim counselor who joined the bar in 2014 and has never litigated a case. (The Washington Post.) Trump does have a couple of erstwhile federal prosecutors, Jim Trusty and Even Corcoran. Trusty was hired after the defendant saw him on TV, of course; he was with the Justice Department's organized crime section — good experience for a mobster like Trump. Also Evan Corcoran.

There is no word yet on Trusty's contribution to the former president's defense, but Corcoran's has been, let us say, a little weird — probably because he could think of nothing else to submit to the Department of Justice. In May, he sent a three-page letter to a high-ranking DOJ official which The NY Times describes as a "hodgepodge of contested legal theories, including Mr. Corcoran’s assertion that Mr. Trump possessed a nearly boundless right as president to declassify materials and an argument that one law governing the handling of classified documents does not apply to a president."

Why did I describe Corcoran's contribution as a bit weird? Because DOJ attorneys found it so — or in the Times' words, "deeply puzzling." Their in-the-works search warrant pursued various crimes; not one in which did the warrant specify the documents' classification status. Furthermore, although Corcoran graciously explained the law to DOJ on the handling of classified material, that too was irrelevant to its warrant. 

In his own defense — that being one reason why he can't find good lawyers; he too often acts as his own — Trump is promoting outrageous political knavery as the cause of all his troubles. When his written decrees read more like stump speeches than valid, jurisprudential arguments, onlookers know it is Trump speaking, not legal counsel. Plus he appears to believe that DOJ prosecutors will eventually back off because of the public anger he foments, thus dismissing the rule of law. (The really scary part is that DOJ could do just that.)  

Trump's s lawyers have also maintained that the records were packed and transported by the General Services Administration — a claim, writes the Times, that is "flatly denied by that federal agency." Yet this too leads back to Trump's intervention in the matter, which is to say, insertions of mendacity and misdirection. Says former US attorney and FBI official Chuck Rosenberg, "There seems to be a huge disconnect between what’s actually happening ... and what they’re actually doing, which is treating it like they’ve treated everything else, recklessly and thoughtlessly."

Maybe the weirdest of Trump's messages sent to DOJ was that of this content: "The country is on fire. What can I do to reduce the heat?" Reports the Times: "A Justice Department spokesman would not say if the message ever made it up to [Attorney General] Garland; but the senior leadership was befuddled by the message, and had no idea what Mr. Trump was trying to accomplish." 

Most likely, neither did Mr. Trump. He — on Truth Social — and his lawyers — in bizarre, half-baked letters — have been careening all over the procedural road, ending each time in a clattering smashup. In return, DOJ officials have been either amused or profoundly bewildered. Evidentially, what Trump has in his defense is nothing but a primal scream — At long last, I am screwed! Have mercy on me! 

But for a man who by 2016 had survived 3,500 legal cases in state and federal courts, as a USA Today analysis found, his luck and all mercy have finally run out. 

Trump's court filing was - who woulda thought? - a real Trumpian mess

To read Breibart.com, you would think that Trump has regally triumphed in federal court. "Federal Judge Sides with Trump, Announces 'Preliminary Intent' for 'Special Master'" is the far-right website's top headline in very large, black letters.

Well, not quite.

First I must note that Breitbart repeats its lede in the text, but then writes that a special master would — not will — review seized documents to see if privileged material is contained in them. Doubtless, Breitbart assumes its readers aren't up on the nuances of auxiliary verbs.

CNN, conversely, reports that "Trump responded Friday to a judge’s request that he elaborate on his request that the court appoint a 'special master' to oversee the review of evidence recovered from the search of his Mar-a-Lago residence with a 12-page filing that touched [only] briefly on the newly released affidavit the FBI used to obtain the warrant."

The judge, Aileen Cannon, merely wrote that "Pursuant to [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] ... the Court hereby provides notice of its preliminary intent to appoint a special master in this case." Who knows? Ms. Cannon is a Trump-appointed judge, so she might yet appoint a special master.  

Except for this. Nowhere in Trump's filing to Cannon did he state that privileged attorney-client material was among the papers seized by the FBI, which he had claimed on his website, Truth Social. Thus, further reports CNN, "The new response appeared to fall short of the elaboration Cannon was seeking."

Trump "also did not include with [his] filing a motion for immediate action from the judge – like a request for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction – despite the judge’s request that he put before her 'the precise relief sought.'"

There's more. Trump and his parking-garage lawyer are barking to the faithful that the controversy, to put it mildly, centers entirely on the Presidential Records Act. This, of course, is wildly untrue. The heart of the case involves Trump's violations of the Espionage Act and his more common endeavor, obstruction of justice — which in this case could earn him a sentence of 20 years in a federal slammer, "twice as long as the penalty under the Espionage Act," notes The NY Times.

Otherwise, Trump is also yelping that "the unprecedented, unnecessary, and unannounced FBI/DOJ Raid (Break-In!) of my home ... was done for political purposes just prior to the Midterm Elections (and 2024, of course!)," which, as he wrote on Truth, was a "disgrace to our now Third World Nation!"

You could spend hours making a list of political hitmen from both the left and right; hours, because the list would be nearly endless. And yet during those hours, not once would the name "Attorney General Merrick Garland" pop into your head.

That neatly summarizes the case for just how spectacularly screwed Trump is.

Trump is about to lose Truth Social - a comedy of (more) incompetence

The Fake News Media is devastated by how well TRUTH is doing so ...

—Donald Trump, yesterday, 1:28 p.m.

Trump’s Truth Social website is facing financial challenges as its traffic remains puny ...

—The Washington Post, yesterday, 6 a.m.

Since the Post's story had already been read to him, Trump went on to say that the fake news media is "working overtime to criticize and demean" his site, adding that "many of the big guns in Washington, D.C. ... are going after the outside financial company ... but that won’t do it. They said it is doing worse since the Raid, but actually it is doing MUCH better, up more than 550%. We all love TRUTH!!!"

Brace for a shock. Not one word of what Trump wrote is true. The fake-news Washington Post neither criticized nor demeaned Truth Social; the "outside financial company" itself has noted that the site is in trouble; and since the "raid," Trump's readership numbers are verifiably — and considerably — down.

The site's data show that its "Trump" section has less than 4 million followers. Twitter, on the other hand, has roughly 37 million U.S. followers who use the site every day. According to Similarweb, a traffic-reporting site, Trump's venue peaked in readership in tandem with the FBI's search of Mar-a-Lago; thereafter it shrank to about 300,000 views each day, "down from nearly 1.5 million on the day of its launch," writes the Post.

One needn't take Similarweb or the Post's word for how poorly Truth Social is doing. The evidence lies in filings with the Security and Exchange Commission from Digital World Acquisition, the firm that bankrolled Truth Social and planned on taking it public. In the filings Digital World has observed that "a number of companies that were associated with [Trump] have filed for bankruptcy" and that "there can be no assurances that [Trump’s media company] will not also become bankrupt."

Digital World has further observed to the SEC that Truth Social "may never generate any operating revenues or ever achieve profitable operations," and, last May, it wrote  that if the site is "unsuccessful in addressing [its] risks, its business will most likely fail." The financing firm's stock price has fallen by nearly 75 percent since March and "reported in a filing last week that it had lost $6.5 million in the first half of the year." Digital World ignored the business world's #1 rule: Never invest in this guy.

The company isn't the only one to suffer the stupidity of combining "money" and "Trump." Truth Social has also ceased payments to its web host, RightForge, and is now behind in what it owes by more than $1 million. 

Here, though, is the best part of this retooled liquidity-trap comedy: Two in-the-know sources informed the Post that "the lack of payment had fueled anger that Trump could shortchange a champion of his 'free speech' mission." Not at all. In stiffing RightForge, the habitual swindler has merely demonstrated his long-held devotion to the most authentic of free speech.

The final stupidity of this Trumpian burlesque came in the grifter's hiring of former congressman and zaniest of wingnuts Devin Nunes as the company's CEO. Digital World's filings show that he "earns" $750,000 a year, and after two years — assuming the financially disastrous website holds on that long — his own grifting will rise to $1 million per annum.

"Representatives from Trump’s company and Digital World did not respond to requests for comment," notes the Post. But Trump had no need. He's shafting his financier, screwing his web host, and disinforming his followers. For Trump, it's just unremarkable business as usual.

**

A special request to international readers

In this piece on the rise, fall, and eventual doom of Trump's Truth Social, I cited a web-traffic site by the name of Similarweb. Once done with the Trump piece, I took a look at its reporting on this site.

What I found is that pmcarpenter.com ranks 1,510th in the "Law[?] and Government/Other Law and Government" category — somehow, Google and YouTube outranked me; that readers come largely from the U.S., of course, but also significantly from Scandinavia and Western Europe; and that in the last reporting month of June, readership had nearly doubled. (Chart is from Similarweb.)

The last stat is bittersweet — both rewarding and disappointing. I'm delighted that pmcarpenter.com saw an increase in its number of readers, yet there was no commensurate rise in readers' contributions. My own stats reveal large numbers of readers from Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and Africa as well. The amplification of international readership is no doubt the result of my extensive writing on the Russia-Ukraine war, which is riddled with global consequences.

So here's my ask. If you are among this site's international readership, please assist in its continuing operation by helping out with a financial contribution of any amount. Just visit the "Make A Donation" button in the sidebar. The process is exceptionally easy; as a guest you merely enter a figure — important: omit a dollar sign or that of any other currency — your address (which in no way do I use or sell), your credit or debit card information, and you're done.

With your help, what won't be over and done is the continuation of pmcarpenter.com. I plan on persevering for as long as I'm capable. And your financial assistance will do a lot of good in achieving that goal. My writing hours are long and sometimes tiring, but I'm greatly honored that you care to read these commentaries on American politics and international affairs.

Thank you,

—PM

 

In this piece on the rise, fall, and eventual doom of Trump's Truth Social, I cited a web-traffic site by the name of Similarweb. Once done with the Trump piece, I took a look at its reporting on this site.

What I found is that pmcarpenter.com ranks 1,510th in the "Law[?] and Government/Other Law and Government" category — somehow, Google and YouTube outranked me; that readers come largely from the U.S., of course, but also significantly from Scandinavia and Western Europe; and that in the last reporting month of June, readership had nearly doubled. (Chart is from Similarweb.)

The last stat is bittersweet — both rewarding and disappointing. I'm delighted that pmcarpenter.com saw an increase in its number of readers, yet there was no commensurate rise in readers' contributions. My own stats reveal large numbers of readers from Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and Africa as well. The amplification of international readership is no doubt the result of my extensive writing on the Russia-Ukraine war, which is riddled with global consequences.

So here's my ask. If you are among this site's international readership, please assist in its continuing operation by helping out with a financial contribution of any amount. Just visit the "Make A Donation" button in the sidebar. The process is exceptionally easy; as a guest you merely enter a figure — important: omit a dollar sign or that of any other currency — your address (which in no way do I use or sell), your credit or debit card information, and you're done.

With your help, what won't be over and done is the continuation of pmcarpenter.com. I plan on persevering for as long as I'm capable. And your financial assistance will do a lot of good in achieving that goal. My writing hours are long and sometimes tiring, but I'm greatly honored that you care to read these commentaries on American politics and international affairs.

Thank you,

—PM

The karma of Trump

Writing for the Daily Beast, national security attorney Bradley Moss dramatically ventures what most of the legal world assumed days ago: "I have finally seen enough. Donald Trump will be indicted by a federal grand jury."

Of course he'll be indicted. If he were not, Merrick Garland's Department of Justice would become the Supreme Court's doppelgänger — a collection of reckless government hacks in whom the citizenry has lost all confidence. The American justice system would be left in absolute shambles. Furthermore, no future breaches of national security laws could be prosecuted by DOJ with credibility, having already coddled the most egregious violator of such laws in the nation's history.

Moss asserts that "the probable cause affidavit" — summarized here on this site — "makes clear to me three essential points:"

"(1) Trump was in unauthorized possession of national defense information, namely properly marked classified documents.

"(2) He was put on notice by the U.S. Government that he was not permitted to retain those documents at Mar-a-Lago.

"(3) He continued to maintain possession of the documents (and allegedly undertook efforts to conceal them in different places throughout the property) up until the FBI finally executed a search warrant earlier this month."

From which Moss concludes, "That is the ball game, folks." In brief, what more could be illegally outstanding? What possible, i.e., admissible, defenses exist? By all accounts, none.

And so the national security lawyer assesses Trump's Keystone Cops situation thus: "I believe there is little left for the Justice Department to do but decide whether to wait until after the midterms to formally seek the indictment from the grand jury."

He goes on to muse that "the cruelest irony for Trump is that it never needed to be this way." Indeed, Trump had plenty of opportunities to escape prosecution. He sidelined them all. Had he not, DOJ would have let the matter drop quietly; we probably would have never known of his sticky fingers and feckless counterarguments if he had simply done the right thing. But that, as we've come to know, is not and never has been the Trumpian way.

And that is why I happily prefer to overlook "the cruelest irony for Trump." Who gives a damn?

What's more, there is no irony here. None whatsoever. Trump has been a premeditating malefactor all his life, saved only by unmerited virtue of his privileged birth, armies of lawyers and steamrolling celebrity. Instead what we're witnessing is KARMA — in this case, the most perfect of all human destinies turned magnificently sour.  Dick Nixon's once-unexampled comeuppance now warrants no more than a facepalm.

Over Trump's legally charred corpse we can positively revel. We have as well a republican obligation to rejoice. Those happiest days are here again; 1974 is too long past, the rot must be dashed again, and the impenitent criminal now before us must be publicly shamed and, one hopes, summarily handcuffed.

Incarceration is another story, plagued as it is by the presidency's incomprehensible deification and the whims of juries (plural, for let us not forget that this serial outlaw has other serious charges confronting him).

Still, and in the meantime, we can and must celebrate. Karma has roosted, it's laying eggs in Trump's birdnest of an orange do, and no matter what comes next, he'll be forever condemned as a neofascistic scofflaw in the annals of American political history.

What comes after his passing is up to us.  

What lies ahead in the Russia-Ukraine war - and, possibly, for the world

Says Michael Kofman, director of Russian studies at a Washington, D.C.-based research institute, "Kyiv likely sees  [an offensive in southern Ukraine] as a window of opportunity, beyond which lies the uncertainty of a protracted war against a Russian army that has had time to entrench."

Kofman adds that an offensive is "risky," that being true for every battlefield initiative. His deeper risk assessment entails an "outcome [that] could affect external support." More acutely, any such Ukrainian venture would come with unique troubles. For instance in a NY Times article assessing the war's next few months, noted alarmingly is that "Despite the arrival of artillery systems from NATO members, Ukraine’s arsenal is still largely made up of Soviet-era arms" — less reliable, less effective, and replacement parts nearly impossible.  

But Ukraine cannot afford a protracted war, especially in the south and along the Black Sea coast. There, a stalemate reigns, yet its persistence would leave Russia in charge of the coastline, further damaging Ukraine's export economy. Moreover, Putin would strengthen his hold on the region, most ominously through annexation, thus placing it under Russia's nuclear umbrella. 

Says former defense minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk, "The very difficult state of our economy, the constant risks of air and missile attacks and the general fatigue of the population from the difficulties of war will work against Ukraine. It makes no sense to drag out the war for years and compete to see who will run out of resources first." 

Thus far, Ukraine has been striking Russia's southern positions with long-range artillery and covert operations, hitting weapons depots and military bases, including those in Crimea. But outside analysts have observed what the Times calls a "disconnect" between civilian leaders, "pressing for a major victory," and more cautious military leaders, wanting to reinforce their combat strength before launching a major offensive. The internal debate goes on. 

As for Vladimir Putin's internal situation, he's nervously aware that his forces have failed to conquer even one major city since early July, which has left his hardcore nationalists begging for a more aggressive strategy. Nevertheless, Putin has settled for a prolonged conflict — a "plodding offense designed to exhaust and kill Ukrainian forces," reports the Times.

Ruslan Pukhov, a defense analyst who operates a Moscow think tank, says that "expectations that this will end by Christmas or that this will end by next spring” are mistaken. "I think this will last a very long time." Putin is ratcheting up his homeland propaganda so as to put such expectations down. "In Russian state media," writes the Times, "the message that Russia might be only at the start of a long and existential war against the West ... is sounding with increasing clarity."  

Putin's designs on southern annexation — coming in September, most likely — will further pressure President Zelensky to begin an offensive. Consequently, all lights are blinking green. This is where Mr. Kofman's warning about Ukraine's dependence on Western military aid comes into play. Should Mr. Zelensky's offensive collapse, the U.S. and its NATO partners might well strongarm the democratically elected Ukrainian president into entering peace talks with the self-appointed Russian dictator. That would spell the end for Ukraine.

Putin would use peace to gather reinforcements for more war, intent as he is on taking all of Ukraine. Then more nations in non-NATO-aligned Eastern Europe, and later still, a push against NATO itself. And that would spell Western civilization's greatest challenge. Having abandoned Ukraine, would the West forcefully confront Putin elsewhere? Let us just say that recent history is unencouraging.  

The Republican Party's response to Trump's criminal violations of national security laws