Trump and his billion dollar losses

So the super successful billionaire businessman Donald Trump suffered huge losses over a ten-year period according to revelations in The New York Times today. His companies lost more than $1 billion between 1985 and 1994. In that period he only paid income tax twice, in 1987 and 1988. No wonder Trump has been insisting he is never going to make his tax contributions public. Whenever questioned about it he or his lawyers or accountants always say his companies are still being audited. There were suspicions that as Trump seemed reluctant to broadcast the amount of tax he had paid, his accountants must have arranged some cunning tax-avoidance scheme. Voters paying their taxes wouldn't have liked that of their president. But not paying tax because of huge business losses is something else. That doesn't sit well with a president who likes to boast how successful he has been in his life. The fact that some, if not many, of his companies have gone bankrupt over time is not new. But the £1 billion losses over ten years is a bit of a revelation. The New York Times clearly has some well-informed and well-positioned sources in the Inland Revenue Service who have fed the information to its reporters. It was inevitable that it would come out eventually. Everything is leaked in Washington. Nothing is sacred. But as I have argued before I think it is only right that the president of the United States should be totally open about everything in his life, from his tax contributions to his visits to doctors. When a president has things to hide, then newspapers will find him out in due course. But there is something extraordinary about Trump. No matter what dirt is thrown at him, whether by investigative newspapers or by his political opponents, nothing really seems to stick. He just shrugs it off and so do his loyal supporters. So, despite my enthusiasm for Senator Kamala Harris as the potential Democratic presidential candidate, and the favourable poll findings for Joe Biden, currently very much in the lead among the 20 candidates, neither is going to beat Trump just by attacking him for all his faults. Outside Washington, no one seems to care. The tax revelations will make headlines for a day or so, and will then get forgotten.

Trumps prepares for military confrontation with Iran

Will there be a war between the US and Iran? The present signals are not looking good. Iran was obviously angry about the US designating its Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organisation and the Iranian economy is seriously going down the tubes because of the White House's tighter and tighter sanctions. But more worrying is the expected announcement from Tehran tomorrow (Wed) that it's going to start going back to some form of nuclear research in retaliation for Donald Trump's decision last year to withdraw the US from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Until now Iran had played ball with the Obama-backed deal because the other signatories, China, Russia, UK, France and Germany, had vowed to stick to it and urged Tehran to do likewise. But the troube is the other signatories haven't lifted sanctions which was part of the deal because of the threat from the US to penalise any countries trading with Iran. Major contracts in the pipeline have been cancelled. So I guess the Tehran regime has decided that they're getting nothing out of the 2015 nuclear deal, so it's time to chip away at the agreement and return to nuclear research - thus opening up the prospect of a complete breakout and a rush to develop a nuclear weapon. No wonder Trump has ordered an aircraft carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln, plus bombers, to the region as an intended deterrent. There have also been alarming intelligence signals of Iran plotting to target US troops in Iraq and elsewhere, perhaps Yemen. The US still has around 5,200 troops in Iraq and the Iranians are heavily involved in Iraq. The Pentagon is worried that Iranian-backed militia might target the huge American embassy compound in Baghdad. The intelligence became so serious last week that the US commander of Central Command, responsible for American troops in the Middle East, appealed for a carrier presence. We're approaching a dangerous period. At present both sides are facing up to each other without firing a shot. But in these situations, one false move by either side could lead to a violent confrontation. If an Iranian proxy force attacked US troops in Iraq, causing fatalities, would Trump order a massive retaliatory strike against Iran? Trump is wary of getting the US involved in yet more wars in the Middle East, but he has behind him two of the most hawkish advisers who have been itching to get at Iran ever since the nuclear deal was signed: Mike Pompeo, secretary of state and former CIA director, has always accused Iran of cheating on the deal, and John Bolton, national security adviser, who is totally anti-Iran in every way. Both men would no doubt advise Trump to respond with mighty force if any American troops are killed or injured. Pat Shanahan, the acting defence secretary, won't get a look in because he doesn't have the clout, being only a temporary Pentagon chief - for the moment. So watch and see what happens after tomorrow's announcement from Tehran. The carrier isn't in place yet. But when it is, there will be huge tension in the region that could explode.

Can China be trusted to do a trade deal with the US?

It's the oldest game in the book. In order to get a deal, whether a peace deal, a trade deal, an arms deal or any other sort of deal, one or other side ramps up the pressure in the lead up to the crucial talks that are intended to produce results. Thus, the Taliban kills more and more people just as peace talks are underway with the US in Qatar, North Korea fires off short-range missiles and "new" tactical weapons as part of the message-sending to Donald Trump to be more concessionary the next time there is a summit. Now Trump is piling the pressure on China to do a proper trade deal by tweeting that he is going to more than double the tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods on Friday. This week a Chinese trade negotiating team is due in Washington and there has been speculation based on hints from US officials that a deal is in the making. But can the Chinese really be trusted to compromise and agree a trade arrangement to suit everyone? Trump clearly doesn't think so which is why he is threatening to boost tariffs on Chinese goods just as the Beijing team arrives in Washington.However, the Chinese were traders before the United States of America was even founded. Trading is in their blood. They are the world's masters of exporting everything from computers to plastic dolls and T-shirts. "Made in China" is on almost everything you pick up in the shops. The Chinese economy which is growing at more than six per cent a year depends on it. Millions and millions of Chinese containers cross the oceans to every part of the globe. So why would Beijing be happy to do a deal with Trump that will impact on this mighty export machine? If there ever is a deal between Beijing and Washington it's likely to be so watered down that it won't have the sort of beneficial gains which Trump has been promising ever since he came into office. But at least he has taken on China and the threat of higher tariffs might, just might, make Xi Zinping twitch and tell his negotiating team to sound conciliatory. President Xi is, like most Chinese leaders, a master of cunning and political intrigue. His legacy will depend on his success at keeping the Chinese economy booming but he also realises that in this globalisation world China cannot be isolationist and he probably believes that Trump's threats are real. But who is the better player of poker? I would put my money on Xi. Trump is desperate for a political and diplomatic triumph and if Xi is cunning eough, which he undoubtedly is, he will give just enough to Trump to let him boast about his amazing trade victory without it having any real impact on the Chinese economy. The best poker player always wins.

Admiral Fallon plotting military action in Venezuela

It looks like the Pentagon and Admiral Fallon, commander of US Southern Command, are plotting and planning some sort of miiltary action in Venezuela. But fortunately, from a brief comment from the admiral the planning is all about stabilising the country if/once Nicolas Maduro falls. That seems to make sense. So it would be US troops distributing food aid and medicine and making sure Juan Guaido is settled in safely as the new president. This is what the Pentagon would call best-case scenario planning. In reality this sounds like pie-in-the-sky planning. Judging by the stalwart support of the Venezuelan army for Maduro, I can't see the Big Man suddenly caving in, especialy after Moscow told him to stay put. But who knows, perhaps Trump and Putin, in their hour-long telephone chat this weekend, might have come to an agreement. Unlikely I know but Putin and Trump do have a sort of relationship that just might produce results. Putin would be furious if the US launched an invasion and toppled Maduro, but if he could get a promise from Trump not to do that, there might be room for a deal. I think even Putin must realise that hanging on to a man like Maduro who is destroying his country and its people will probably in the end turn out badly for him and for relations with the US. I know this may seem naive because normally Putin doesn't care a fig for anyone. But he DOES want to be a player on the world stage and he probaby has a better chance of achieving that with Trump in the White House than with say Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or Bernie Sanders. So let's watch and see. Perhaps US and Rusian troops could act together to stabilise the country and do some good for a change. I know I know, that's about as likely as Trump saying to Mexico, "OK guys you can all come and live in the US free gratis."

The disgraceful impugning of a civil servant's reputation

This Gavin Williamson affair is getting dirtier by the day. "Friends" of the sacked defence secretary - journalistic code for Williamson himself - have claimed his firing was all a vendetta orchestrated by Sir Robin Sedwill, the Cabinet Secretary and National Security Adviser. He, Sedwill, had it in for Williamson ever since they had rows over defence spending and had already made up his mind that he, Williamson, was guilty of leaking the secret Huawei decision to a journalist on The Daily Telegraph. That's the supposed real truth behind the sacking. Well I'm on the outside and have no privileged information about either of these two gentlemen in this current situation. But after working as a journalist in Whitehall, including a period as Whitehall Editor on The Times, I can say with some conviction that a civil servant who ends up as cabinet secretary does not ensure the sacking of a minister on the grounds that he and the minister had had a disagreement over spending. Sir Mark Sedwill's remit from Theresa May was to uncover who had leaked the secret information about Huawei to the newspaper. Full stop. I cannot for the life of me imagine that the prime minister said, "Sir Mark, we need to get rid of Williamson, so make sure you find/concoct/make up compelling evidence against him." That is just total nonsense and an outrage to suggest it, as "friends" of the sacked minister appear to be saying or implying. Sedwill examined or got MI5/GCHQ to examine the mobile phones of eight ministers who attended the notorious National Security Council meeting, and the only one that came up trumps (sorry, wrong word) was the mobile phone of Williamson. It proved that he had had a telephone conversation lasting 11 minutes with the reporter Steven Swinford. Williamson denies Huawei even came up in the conversation. But come on, who believes that? Swinford is such a good reporter that The Times has recruited him (before this story broke by the way) and he joins as deputy political editor very soon. There is absolutely no way that Swinford, on the day the secret meeting was held, would not have asked Williamson, "Oh and by the way, Gavin, what happened at the NSC meeting? Anything you can tell me? Can you give me a steer?" Or Swinford might even have used the well known Fleet Street ploy which would have gone something like this: "Gavin, would it be ok for me to write that a decision was made to approve of Huawei's involvement but perhaps only in a limited way, something like that? And could I speculate perhaps that you were opposed to the decision, and others too, such as Sajid Javid (Home Secretary) and Jeremy Hunt (Foreign Secretary)? Don't reply if I'm right and then I'll know I'm right". Silence follows lasting five or six seconds. Williamson then replies with a few words about Brexit and the Tory leadership. Voila, the secret is divulged without a word from Williamson. This is just speculation on my part but after a lifetime in journalism. One of the reasons why I believe this is what probably happened is that Williamson swore on his children's lives that he was innocent. Again, from long experience, people who swear on their children's lives or their mother's life or say things like "I swear on the Bible" are often/generally lying. Criminals do it all the time when questioned by police. It's just a very odd and rather creepy thing to say, swearing innocence on your children's lives. Leave the poor children out of it I say. And as for impugning the integrity of Sir Mark Sedwill, that says a lot about Williamson, none of it pleasant.

The case for and against Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson

So the "leaker" of classified information from the UK National Security Council meeting on Huawei has been found and sacked. The career of Gavin Williamson, Defence Secretary, is seemingly over. But there are some interesting question marks still? Williamson has adamantly denied leaking the information about the Government's decision to allow the Chinese company to provide its 5G technology to help build the next generation of telecommunications in this country. He was sacked because Theresa May told him there was "compelling" evidence that he was the leaker. "Compelling" is an interesting word. It implies that the evidence was pretty damn good and that it pointed in his direction. But if the evidence had been as we say "copper-bottomed" or as the police would say, "bang-to-rights", or as the Americans would say, "slam dunk", why didn't the prime minister tell Williamson the evidence was "overwhelming" or "unquestionable" or "so clear it could lead to his prosecution". Williamson handed over his phone and has bizarrely admitted to "friends" - in other words, he admitted it himself to journalists - that he had spoken to Steven Swinford, The Daily Telegraph deputy poliical editor who broke the leaked story on the same day as the National Security Council meeting. Williamson apparently spoke to him for 11 minutes. But he claims he never mentioned Huawei but spoke to the reporter about Brexit and the Tory leadership race. This is surely the "compelling" evidence Theresa May referred to. What I don't understand is that if the leak investigators had Williamson's phone then they would have been able not ony to trace the phone call to Swinford but get a full read-out of the conversation. The technology for that is available and pretty simple. And if there were complications, like encription, then either MI5's technology department or the massivey powerful GCHQ signals intelligence apparatus would have been able to provide a transcript of the conversation to Downing Street. So if Williamson insists he only spoke about Brexit and the Tory leadership, and the transcript reveals he not ony mentioned Huawei but provided details of the National Security Council meeting that filled the front page of The Daily Telegraph the following day, this would demonstrate beyond doubt that Williamson is lying and deserves to have been sacked and should face prosecution. But I don't think that can be the case. Otherwise Mrs May would have been able to say, "We have indisputable proof that Gavin Williamson leaked the Huawei story to The Daily Telegraph". On the other hand Whitehall moves in mysterious ways. Maybe Theresa didn't want to reveal that she had been able to listen to his conversation with Swinford because Britain was in the 21st century and actually had the ability to intercept people's phone conversations!!! So very typical of Whitehall. So that's maybe why Theresa May used the word "compelling". Either way it seems Williamson was bang to rights. In which case will the police move in and start investigating? Not if Downing Street has anything to do with it. But if Williamson is really innocent as he says he is then he should welcome a police investigation and the real leaker should start quivering in his/her boots.

Maduro doesn't know whether he is coming or going

According to Mike Pompeo, this is the scene that was playing out in Caracas last night. President Nicolas Maduro, alleged leader of Venezuela, took fright when he saw his rival-for-president Juan Guaido standing with a bunch of defected troops demanding his ousting by the army. Maduro ordered his getaway plane to be ready and started packing a few essentials, such as rolls of US dollars, gold ingots, bathing costume and goggles, and told his friends in Cuba he was on his way and to prepare his beach villa for a long stay. This is me, not Pompeo now. Cuban leader Raul Modesto Castro Ruz, then urgently rang Moscow and told his mate Vladimir Putin that Maduro was about to do a runner. Now back to Pompeo: Moscow rang Maduro and persuaded him to stay in Caracas because it would be highly embarrassing for Maestro Putin if his Venezuelan anchorman flew off into exile leaving that much better-looking President-in-waiting Juan Guaido in charge. Maduro took a ittle persuading but eventually agreed to stay and put the rolls of dollars and gold bars back into his safe. (That bit is me of course, not Pompeo haha!). Maduro's aides, let alone his family, must have been wondering what the conchitas was going on. Washington couldn't believe it either. US eyes and ears had been watching and listening and the White House had been told the Big Man Maduro was off to Cuba. That bloke Putin doesn't miss a trick. His argument to stay must have been very persuasive. Anyway, it allowed Maduro to make a statement pooh-poohing Pompeo and effectively accusing him of making up the whole story. He contacted his generals and they all said, allegedly, "Mr President, donna worry we iz all on your side." Pompeo looks a duncehead and Putin is smiling like a Cheshire cat. And Juan Guiado could now get arrested for mounting an attempted coup! What a helluva story. All we need now is for the US Marines to arrive to put Maduro back on that plane for Cuba. Forciby!