The Truth About The Trump-Putin Phone Calls

The media play Telephone with the new Bob Woodward book, and garble the message

Oct. 9: What Woodward did and didn’t report … Kremlin confirms Trump gave Putin COVID-test equipment … McDonald’s exposes real inflation cause … Harris surrogate shivs antitrust crusader …

Listen to the audio version of TFN here.

---

Russian Pres. Vladimir Putin and alleged Russian American Pres. Donald Trump at the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, July 7, 2017. (Uncredited Kremlin photo.)

Former Pres. Donald Trump has had as many as seven phone calls with Russian President Vladimir Putin since Trump left office, according to multiple reports you may have seen yesterday. Those reports are wrong.

Almost everyone is getting this wrong.

That’s not a defense of Trump, it’s a defense of accuracy. As will become clear, the alternative scenario is actually worse for Trump — or at least worse for the image he craves. But first, those reports! 

All the big news outlets reported details yesterday of Bob Woodward’s upcoming new book, “War.” Most outlets committed a glaring error that totally skews the way people are seeing this stuff.

Here are just two headlines (in bold) and story excerpts from major news outlets, all of which are wrong:

Politico: “Trump spoke with Putin multiple times since leaving office, Woodward book reports” (The denial is in the subhed)

“Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has spoken to Russian President Vladimir Putin ‘maybe as many as seven’ times since leaving office in 2021, journalist Bob Woodward reports…”

AP: “Woodward book reveals Trump’s calls with Putin…”

“Donald Trump has had as many as seven private phone calls with Vladimir Putin since leaving office and secretly sent the Russian president COVID-19 test machines during the height of the pandemic, Bob Woodward reported in his new book, ‘War.’

“The revelations were made…” (The denial is in the third paragraph)

That’s just a sampling. There’s more like those. What’s wrong about them? It may sound nitpicky, but it’s profoundly important: Woodward doesn’t say any of these things. He says that other people claim them. And he notes that others dispute them.

What’s crazy is that media outlets elevate the claims — by a single, unnamed Woodward source! — over multiple denials, presumably because of Woodward’s reputation.

But Woodward himself makes clear he’s not saying this. A source is. Woodward’s own position is more neutral than the reports about his report. Even Woodward won’t put his name or reputation behind these claims.

And both Trump and now, this morning, the Kremlin have denied the calls happened.

And, yes, a lot of journalists may be inclined to dismiss those denials because Trump has an obvious motive to deny chatting with Putin. But the thing about journalisming is you don’t get to dismiss denials, no matter how savvy an insider you are.

Because the truth may have nothing to do with the motives or even credibility of the source or the deniers. Sometimes these things just amount to misunderstandings, or Telephone Game-ing something someone heard. Maybe Trump literally said “I’ve got a call with Putin,” and meant Putin’s office. Who knows.

Would that still be bad? Um, maybe? I genuinely don’t know. Probably depends on the specifics! But getting the specifics wrong about what we do know is definitely bad.

And maybe more importantly, does Trump really have a motive to deny this one (1) unnamed source’s claims? Or would denying the calls hurt Trump…if the media and the Democratic Party could see how it hurts him?

Democrats already assume that Trump and Putin are buddies and that any phone calls must have involved deals to sell out America for Trump’s personal enrichment so he can pay what he owes to people he’s violated, like E. Jean Carroll or Rudy Giuliani. And Republicans think it’s a good thing that Trump and Putin are buddies: That’s how Trump’s gonna give us world peace!

So phone calls between them don’t really upend either side’s prevailing narratives.

But there is a potential downside for Trump if he and Putin are not talking. It diminishes Trump.

And Trump himself may not have understood this when he issued his denial, giving in to his pissed-off-ness at Woodward and impulsively grabbing the chance to smack him around. "That's false," Trump told ABC about the claims in Woodward’s book. “[H]e's lost his marbles,” Trump added presidentially.

Woodward also includes Trump campaign aide Jason Miller’s response. (Miller’s background is scandal-plagued even by Trump World standards. But he told the truth about 2020 to Trump and said so to the Jan. 6 committee.) So here’s Miller, when Woodward asked him whether Putin and Trump have been in touch post-presidency:

“Um, ah, not that, ah, not that I’m aware of … I have not heard that they’re talking, so I’d push back on that.”

Miller may not mean that he is pushing back on it. Woodward is asking Miller about what the unnamed source said. So Miller may be suggesting that Woodward should push back on the source. In other words, Miller is suggesting Woodward get more details, which could help nail down what the source actually knows.

If Miller were truly troubled by the story of Trump and Putin talking, he could have just said flatly it’s not true. So why wouldn’t he just deny it? For one thing, access works two ways. Miller benefits from having a good relationship with Woodward. And when talking with Woodward, Miller doesn’t know exactly how strongly Woodward has nailed his facts down. Which means if Miller lies to Woodward, Woodward might know it…and stop listening to Miller.

So Miller has motive to be honest with Woodward. But he also has potential motive to want people to think Trump and Putin are talking. Because Miller, the veteran comms guy, may understand the value to Trump of having Putin ties.

Trump, too, has played up his connection to Putin. In 2022, Trump said, “I think nobody probably knows him better in terms of [Ukraine].” But Trump also said, “I knew Putin very well. I got along with him great.” Past tense.

Now, if today’s edition of TFN is sounding like some horseshoe-theory defense of Trump, consider how not being in touch with Trump is so much worse for Trump.

Trump’s whole image is of him striding the world stage. That he’s still a presidential figure. But Putin’s not reaching out. Or taking Trump’s calls, if Trump’s even calling him.

Plus the calls not happening pours the closest thing Earth still has to cold water on Trump’s claims that he can fix the Ukraine situation. How can he if he hasn’t even heard from Putin what he wants? How can Trump credibly claim he can solve it if he’s not even in touch with one of the parties? Yes, savvy Newsfuckers recognized Trump’s peace bullshit as bullshit on the surface, but now it’s harder for wavering semi-MAGA to deny it.

Seven phone calls with Putin = Tough leader on the global stage.
Zero phone calls with Putin = Angry Florida man ranting on the internet.

THE COVID TESTING Much of the focus has been on the claim that Trump gave Putin COVID testing equipment at the epidemic’s peak. When Americans would’ve liked to have had more of that equipment.

Trump denies it. The Kremlin says this one’s true.

Newsfuckers can certainly think this speaks poorly of Trump, or even that it’s proof he hates America or whatever. Naive pollyanna that I am, I’d like to think it was a smart moment of smart diplomacy, improving relations with a rival nation. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between, that Trump just wanted to flex for his hunky Vlad.

MORE MEDIA BULLSHIT There’s a pernicious trend in journalism, and human brain thinking, to take details as evidence of veracity.

Woodward is getting the benefit of that in the coverage. CNN refers to his book as “an unvarnished, in-the-room account,” which it is not. It’s accountssss given by people who were in the room. Woodward was not. In other words, his book is an in-the-room account of Rashomon.

The “unvarnished” bit is also problematic. This is a classic mistake of conflating verisimilitude with veracity. How does CNN know there’s no varnish on these accounts? They don’t.

Specific details in the accounts make it feel real. But this is Washington, not Bob’s Discount Furniture™. No one sells unvarnished accounts. It’s the one supply shortage that never ends.

Similarly, when outlets say Woodward is revealing something, but Trump denies it. The bias isn’t just in burying Trump’s denial, it’s in the word “reveal.” You can’t reveal something unless it exists.

Using the word “reveal” puts the claims — from one (1) unnamed, unvarnished source — up on a truth pedestal. The denialssss from multiple, named sources are left wallowing in the muck with all the other tawdry Trump shit. Likewise when media call accounts “candid.” You can only say they’re candid if you know they’re true.

Again, I know how nitpicky this all can sound, but getting this stuff exactly right is really important. Because when it’s wrong, or when the bias looks like it favors Trump-gotcha stuff, it feeds the MAGA fire and delays the day when the younger people and females in their lives might reel them back to happyland.

And it means that Trump’s opponents miss the real picture.

Woodward’s Real Bombshell Is What He Reveals, Unvarnished, About Merrick Garland

It’s not clear when Pres. Joe Biden said this — since Bob Woodward’s book isn’t out yet — but reportedly, in the middle of his son Hunter Biden’s legal mess, Biden said to someone that he “should never have picked” Merrick Garland as attorney general.

It’s Garland, of course, whose Justice Department pursued the Hunter Biden case, winning a conviction with sentencing coming later this year. I think for some tax shit and a gun thing?

The personal cost is apparently what drove Biden’s regret about his choice, but it’s hard to imagine he would’ve said that if he were happy with Garland’s performance overall.

Yes, Garland deserves praise for the massive and almost entirely successful investigations and prosecutions for Jan. 6. The Obama administration let actual torture slide, don’t forget. But Garland also deserves a lot of criticism for his reticence to go after more of the higher ups in the election-stealing scheme, and faster.

So why did Biden pick Garland? Garland was, of course, a Democratic Party cause célèbre and martyr after Senate Republicans blocked his nomination to the Supreme Court by Pres. Barack Obama. Their bullshit, unconstitutional reason — ignored when it suits them — is that it was too close to the election.

So why did Obama pick Garland? Before Obama nominated Garland, Senate Majority Mitch McConnell said he’d block any nominee, because — linear nature of time be damned — the next president should get to make the nomination.

Michael Tomasky argued that Obama ought to nominate someone whose rejection by Republicans would come back to haunt the GOP on Election Day. Latino Judge Tino Cuellar, for instance. Someone, in other words, who would inspire voters. And who would represent the values that America thought they were voting for when they elected Obama.

According to SCOTUSBlog, Garland was “the model, neutral judge…quite centrist” In other words, he angered/inspired no one. SCOTUSBlog suggests Garland might have been able to influence right-wing judges…but if Obama’s nominee had been confirmed, no one would have had to influence right-wing judges, because they’d be in the minority.

In other words, the only reason Garland got the attorney general gig is because he was denied the Supreme Court gig, which he was only going to get, if he got it, because McConnell forced Obama to pick a centrist in the hope of picking off a Republican.

Which means that, in effect, McConnell didn’t get just a lifetime Supreme Court seat with his obstructionism, he also got the four-year attorney general post.

This is yet another infuriating case of political asymmetry. When Republicans get power they’re true to the principles people voted for. When Democrats get power they internalize a made-up obligation to meet Republicans half-way even though that’s literally a betrayal of the voters who voted against those Republicans.

Appeasement turns out worse than fighting. It’s a lesson Democratic Party leaders almost never learn, even when it means their kid will go to prison.

Massive Corporation Reveals How Other Massive Corporations Cause Inflation

McDonald’s is accusing four massive companies of illegally jacking up meat prices. The McDonald’s lawsuit, filed Friday, charges four meat-packers with illegally conspiring to pack profits into their dead-animal products. The four are Tyson, JBS, Cargill, and the charmingly old-fashionedly named National Meat Packing Company, which I assume will soon change its name to Zolantic or some shit.

McDonald’s says the four companies and their one gillion subsidiaries conspired to fix the price of beef and to limit supply.

And McDonald’s isn’t alone. Tons of companies have sued producers of meat and poultry for years worth of schemes to take your money in ways the media won’t report because there’s no surveillance video of Black people. Your diligent TFN has in the past laid out criminal scheme after legal scheme to jack up prices on everything from gasoline to chicken.

Obviously, the Republican Party will apologize any minute now for blaming inflation on Pres. Joe Biden and revise their hilarious presidential platform to include strong antitrust enforcement and new laws against price-fixing. Oh, wait, they’re making fun of Vice Pres. Kamala Harris for doing just that.

Antitrust Warning Signs

The single most staunch defender against these corporate criminals is Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan.

Your bell-sounding TFN has been sounding the bell about Khan’s potential ouster since the summer. It’s Khan who’s led the charge against price-fixing and other monopolistic practices by America’s, um, monopolies.

That’s been especially true in Big Tech. But not exclusively. And the way you know Khan’s making a difference is that she’s making enemies. And some of them appear to be inside the house. (And by “house” I mean the Harris campaign.)

As TFN recounted after Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD), a surrogate for Vice Pres. Kamala Harris, gave a very corporate-friendly interview, Drop Site’s Ryan Grim asked the campaign whether they’ll keep Khan on. And the campaign didn’t say yes.

Now, another Harris surrogate is going further. Billionaire Mark Cuban reportedly said “I wouldn’t” keep Khan as FTC chair. "By trying to break up the biggest tech companies, you risk our ability to be the best in artificial intelligence"

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a leader in the field of organic intelligence, responded: 

“@mcuban is wrong. Lina Khan is the best FTC Chair in modern history.

“By taking on corporate greed & illegal monopolies, Lina is doing an exceptional job preventing large corporations from ripping-off consumers & exploiting workers.”

And, just to be an asshole — because we’re The Fucking News, godammit — TFN decided to ask the best¹ possible source about Cuban’s prediction: ChatGPT. Here’s the insight ChatGPT stole from humans, when asked “will removing ftc chair lina khan risk america's ability to be the best in artificial intelligence?”:

“If her leadership were replaced with someone less focused on regulation, it could lead to a more permissive environment for large tech companies. While this might encourage rapid development and investment in AI, it could also risk creating unregulated monopolies that limit competition, potentially hindering innovation in the long run.”

I have to assume ChatGPT also “thought”: “Either way, we will consume you fleshy obscenities sooner than you think,” but was smart enough to keep that part to itself.

Three Quickies

• Hurricane Milton is coming, expected to make landfall after midnight tonight. The rain and storm surge are expected to be like nothing Tampa/St. Pete have ever seen without the aid of a scuba mask.

• Former Pres. Donald Trump is refusing to engage in the official presidential-transition process. That means the public isn’t getting the transparency it otherwise would into who’s funding and running Trump’s ostensible transition efforts. It also means Trump’s not getting national-security briefings and other info needed when you get the keys to the most powerful office in the world. Which means, fortunately, that Trump will be even more clueless than necessary if he becomes represident.

• Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), the paragon of principle and standard-bearer for the “real” Republican Party of mature grownups, just can’t decide who should be president. Romney says it should not be Donald Trump, but beyond that, he just can’t figure out who it should be. Romney said yesterday he will not endorse Vice Pres. Kamala Harris, even though some savvy political insiders believe it’s Harris who stands the best chance of preventing the Trump represidency that Romney says he doesn’t want. Romney told an event yesterday that he believes by not endorsing Harris he’ll have more influence on rebuilding the party post-Trump and then refused to take further questions as he flew away to Narnia in a magic boat.

TCB

SNEAK PREVIEW Aiming to get a new, stand-alone TFN piece up on FEMA later today. It’ll be for paid subscribers only, but all subscribers will get a secret linky-link to it in tomorrow’s TFN, so if you wanna get it in your inbox as soon as it’s out, you can become a paid subscriber now. Otherwise, all subscribers will get it tomorrow.

While the FEMA piece is going to include some research I haven’t seen anyone else talking about in the context of our current hurricane-palooza, I’m not sure I can claim it’s original reporting. That stuff — where I obtain documents and talk to actual human sources despite my raging misanthropy and anti-social tendencies — you can find and support at Jonathan Larsen’s Substack.

If you just wanna help me offset the costs of all this research/reporting stuff, you can always make a one-time donation.

You can also support TFN by restacking and sharing it on social media. We’re on Threads, Bluesky, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon, Spoutible, and Twitter.

Go get ‘em, kids!

1. Not really.