He and only he
Another shipment of squalor from the bottomless source:
Let’s cut to the chase here: Is former President Donald Trump trying to sabotage Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich’s chances of being released before the November election?
On Thursday, Trump posted on social media that because of his extra-special relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, he — and only he — can free the innocent young American who has been languishing in a foreign jail for over 400 days. Trump claims that Putin will free the reporter as a unique personal favor to him — but will not do it for anyone else, which presumably includes President Joe Biden and the rest of the United States government.
And this will apparently only happen if Trump is returned to the White House, according to the post:
Evan Gershkovich, the Reporter from The Wall Street Journal, who is being held by Russia, will be released almost immediately after the Election, but definitely before I assume Office. He will be HOME, SAFE, AND WITH HIS FAMILY. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, will do that for me, but not for anyone else, and WE WILL BE PAYING NOTHING!
Got that? Putin is Trump’s best friend and nobody else is so that must mean that Trump is the best person in the world. By the way this fella Gershkovich is just a toy in Trump’s game, which is why Trump isn’t telling Putin to release him now.
What is clear is that Trump continues to think that his relationship with Putin, such as it is, is a selling point for his presidential candidacy. And he obviously values this relationship highly. Back in 2018, Trump famously sided with Putin over his own intelligence agencies when asked about Russian election interference. Over the years he has defended Putin from charges that he is a killer. (“There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?” Trump told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly when asked about Putin’s reported penchant for murdering political opponents.) After the death of dissident Alexei Navalny in a Russian prison, Trump pointedly refused to condemn Putin or hold him in any way responsible.
Because he admires him.
In the meantime the Wall Street journal really does stand out from a crowd of fairly Trump friendly main stream media as being quite blind to all of Trumps bull shit claims and behaviour. I don’t know if that’s trying to protect their man in Russia, or just how they are.
This is one of those rare things that might well be true, though I expect Putin might actually want something in exchange.
He’s just using a fairly standard Republican tactic (see Nixon and Vietnam, or Reagan and Iran). But as always with Trump, he can’t help saying the quiet part out loud.
Boasting about promises from a brutal dictator? That sounds familiar.
That didn’t work out too well in 1938.
Worked out just fine for FoMoCo. Kodak, GE, IBM, and Standard Oil also did exceptionally well supplying the German war machine. Not to forget Chase Bank who suspended the accounts of its Jewish customers.
BK beat me to it, though I’d add that Putin’s gain seems clear to me: he gets a brown-nosing moron as his US counterpart, instantly ending any chance of US aid for Ukraine.
On the other hand, the White House could be bulldozed, a Kremlin built in its place, and Vlad Putin (NB: not to be confused with Vlad Dracula, difficult to avoid I know) invited to take up residence. Some arrangement like that. I am sure Vlad and The Donald would have lots to talk about, and likewise vivendis to modus.
Why does this magazine remind me of the National Lampoon cover “If you don’t buy this magazine, we’ll kill this dog”?
And wouldn’t this count as “diplomacy” by private individuals, which I believe is illegal?
My instinct tells me that this is just more of his usual self-aggrandising lying. He’s the playground bully making pie-in-the sky promises, claiming to have the ear of the local mob boss because the latter was indulgent when he thought that Trump could get him useful intelligence. Trump has no influence with Putin, or Evan Gershkovich would already be free.
YNNB @8, I think you’re thinking of the Logan Act, which is of dubious constitutionality, and hasn’t been used to charge someone in over a century. It regularly gets brought up by partisans of the party in power demanding that some member of the other party be charged for talking with foreign leaders, but it should not be taken seriously.