Flynn blockbuster

It hasn't taken Lieutenant-General Mike Flynn (retired) long to work out how he can get back into the limelight. His solicitor informs us all that Flynn has a helluva story to tell about connections with Russia but he wants immunity from prosecution. This guy is something else. Not long ago he said that anyone seeking immunity from prosecution had obviously done something criminal. Ooops, had he forgotten that? Now he wants immunity for spilling the beans about Moscow's alleged links to the Trump campaign. So does that mean Moscow WAS behind some nefarious scheme to link up with the Trump acolytes to undermine Hillary Clinton? Is that really the story he wants to tell? If true, Flynn must have decided to turn against his boss, well, former boss, and come clean about what was going on. But do we believe him? He lied to the FBI and Vice-President Mike Pence without batting an eyelid. He said he didn't talk about lifting sanctions against Moscow when he met with the Russian ambassador in Washington, but he did because the FBI said he did. If he tells the world that Moscow was in league with the Trumpites during the election campaign, he will be doing the president no favours at all, and, effectively giving support to the woman he loathes - Hillary Clinton. She must be watching all these latest developments and saying over and over again: "If only...if only...Bill, if only..." I don't think Flynn is going to betray Trump, I don't think he has bombshell evidence up his sleeve which will once and for all clarify exactly what happened or didn't happen during the election campaign. But if he wants immunity from prosecution, I assume he has something interesting to say. Whatever it is, he's going to be even more unpopular than he already is in the White House, and might well have to join his fellow compatriot, Edward Snowden, in Moscow, to avoid being pursued by the FBI. But probably it's all nonsense, aimed at putting the Flynn brand back in the marketplace. The Justice Department is never going to risk offering him immunity. Flynn is too much of a loose cannon. Trump's got enough problems on his hands. Whatever the White House says, they do NOT want Flynn telling all before Congress, whether it's true or not.

Trump's mind

What does Donald J Trump really really believe in? What does he really want to do with his time in the White House? I'm not being conspiratorial, I'm not even thinking about Moscow and the Putin friendship row which as far as I can see is much ado about not very much. No, what's in Trump's mind? Does he just come up with fancy ideas for the sake of it without actually thinking whether such ideas are feasible, practical, possible or sensible? Take his scrapping of Obama's climate-protection regulations which led to a collapse in morale in the coal industry. Did he think that his signature at the bottom of the executive order would instantly rejuvenate the coal business and provide tens of thousands of jobs? I think he did, judging by the fact he surrounded himself with coal miners as he signed. The truth is that the coal industry has faded so fast into the background that it's most unlikely it can be revived, whatever Trump does. For example, many power station owners have dropped coal in favour of natural gas. It's cleaner for everyone, reliable, efficient and more cost-effective. Going back to the bad old days of burning coal seems like a retrograde step, never mind the damage the fossil-burning does to the environment. China went on a coal-fired power station building frenzy, and caused massive pollution up and down the country, and, thus, across the globe, adding to the human contribution to climate change. OK, Trump doesn't believe in all that, he seriously is of the opinion that climate change has nothing to do with us humans and our bad habits. What DOES he believe? That the patently obvious changes in the climate are down to an increase in methane-gas flatulence among our bovine friends? Or that it's God trying to warn us or punish us for our wayward behaviour? I don't think he cares about climate change (Trump, not God), even though he has children of his own, and, unlike Obama, he obviously hasn't been watching Sir David Attenborough's television programmes highlighting the alarming changes going on, especially in the Antarctic. All he wants to do is bring back coal, never mind the consequences, so that he can boast that he has created thousands more jobs as part of his America First campaign. None of his "advisers" presumably whispered in his ear that his plans might be thwarted by power station bosses who no longer want coal to drive their plants. In the UK, we don't have a coal industry anymore. All the old mines have been closed. And we've still got masses of coal left underground. Times have moved on. Trump wants to go backwards. It's the same with his other ideas. Like the Mexico wall. Building walls to keep people out is not what the new world is about. Not in the West anyway. Remember the Berlin Wall, Mr President. That came down, brick by brick, slab by slab, and a new country was born. And has survived against all the odds and flourished. Mexico is a neighbour, not an enemy. If you want to keep illegal immigrants away, think of other ways, Mr President. Forget the wall! It will be an immense waste of money. But perhaps he only wants to build the wall to create jobs!! America First. Creating jobs is good, but the Mexico wall-building industry, like the coal industry, is going to be damaging for everyone. PS I see the Trump family company wants to build another hotel in Washington. Well, at least if everything goes politically wrong for him, he can still pile up his profits for the day when he leaves or gets kicked out of the White House!!

Behind the bush leaks

For those unaware of the skulduggery going on between the White House and Representative Devin Nunes, Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, here’s a brief resumé: Nunes, a Trump supporter and chairman of the committee currently investigating alleged/suspected links between the Trump campaign team and Moscow during the election period, held a press conference, without informing any of his fellow committee members, to announce to reporters that there was nothing in the claims of links between Trump and co and Russians. He’d looked into it, seen a bit of stuff stamped classified and was happy to tell the world that Trump was cleared. So that’s it, then. Except, of course, the committee investigation has only just started, so the other members of the committee, especially the Democrats, were not at all happy. Unsurprisingly. There have been calls for Nunes to recuse himself – a commonly used word in Washington these days - from heading the investigation on the grounds that it appeared he had already made up his mind that Trump was innocent OK! Some even suggested he step down from the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee. THEN, it turned out that he had been to the White House, well actually to the grounds of the White House and had met up with some unidentified individual who passed him classified documents – secret intelligence – which apparently revealed that there was zero evidence that Trump and the KGB – sorry, nice-looking Russian gentlemen – had been in cahoots over screwing Hillary Clinton’s attempts to become the 45th president of the United States. Well, to say the least, this stinks! Sounds like a put-up job if ever there was one, a nice little secret document, probably signed off by Trump himself which says there ain’t no evidence, period. Nunes rushes off to hold his press conference, like a good Trumpite, and everyone falls for it! Oh no they don’t. Sean Spicer, the wonderfully articulate Press Secretary, is hounded with questions about who Nunes met, what were the documents, was it an official leak, who let Nunes into the White House, who knew Nunes was coming, where exactly did he and the “official” meet and did Trump know? Indeed, did Spicer know, and if he did know what exactly did he know? Spicer came back with some classic responses, taking us all back to the Alice in Wonderland White House I blogged about some weeks ago. Here are some of the best replies from the press conference he gave yesterday. SPICER: So, obviously, all of what I know has been available through public comments. I know that Chairman Nunes confirmed that he was on White House grounds Tuesday. And, frankly, any questions regarding who he met with or why he was here should be referred to him. I've seen some of the comments that he's made to your outlet in particular about who he met with. And I would refer you to his comments that he's made. I'm not going to get into who he met with or why he met with them. I think that's something that he had made very clear, and I'll let him answer it. He is the one who has discussed what he is reviewing. And so I will leave it up to him and not try to get in the middle of that. Asked about the “leak”, he replied: SPICER: I think there's a difference between a leak and someone pursuing a review of a situation that they have determined. There's a difference between a leak -- someone leaking out to reporters for nefarious -- to take classified information and share it with people who aren’t cleared. Chairman Nunes is cleared; he's the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Someone who is cleared to shared classified information with somebody else cleared is not a leak. One section of the Q and A Q Just to be clear, just to kind of follow up on what everyone has been asking about Chairman Nunes -- so the White House does not -- does the White House have knowledge of the information that Chairman Nunes received when he came to the White House the first time? And if that's the case, or if that's not the case, is your position that the White House is not going to look into where he got the information from or who gave him the information until his investigation is complete? SPICER: I think that -- I'm not aware of where he got it from. I know in his public statements he’s talked about having multiple sources. And so I don't know how he derived the conclusion that he did. And I think that at this point, the goal would be to wait until the review that he is undertaking is completed. Q Why would Nunes need to brief the President on documents he viewed on White House grounds? SPICER: Because that's a big assumption that you're making that that's the only thing. As I said just a second ago, he had multiple sources on multiple topics. We don't know what he briefed him on in its totality. And so to jump to that conclusion is, frankly, irresponsible. So to sum it all up, here’s the likely scenario in the grounds of the White House during the meeting between Nunes and ??? Official: Hi Devin, nice to see you. Nunes: Hi Bob (or Jack or Chuck or Sally or Susan) Official: Er, I’m a source, you understand, in fact I’m multiple sources, ok? Nunes: Er, fine, I understand. Official:I’m not a White House official. Nunes: Of course not. Official: We’re meeting here behind this bush because I happened to be here today to see, well, I just happened to be here and thought it was convenient… Nunes: Quite. Official: So I have in my hand a few bits of paper which I thought you might find interesting for your committee’s investigation. Sums it all up really. Nunes: Excellent, just what I need. Official: But remember, I’m multiple sources. Nunes: Yes, of course. Official: You can do with it what you want, but we know nothing about it. OK? Nunes: Like usual then? Official: Yes, like usual. See you for lunch soon, Devin. Nunes: Sure Bob (or Jack or Chuck or Sally or Susan).

Is Trump competent?

The shambles over Trump's failure to persuade his own party to support his health reform bill is not just a huge setback for him. It raises a number of very serious questions: is Trump a total liability as president? Is he incompetent? Are his main advisers complacent and incompetent? The answers to these questions are, yes probably or yes definitely. So much has gone wrong already, one wonders whether any of his promises made during the election campaign are going to bear fruit. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, in fact just the opposite, because most sensible intelligent people, American or otherwise, have no time for his extreme ideas, like banning Muslims from entering the country from certain parts of the world, building a wall along the border with Mexico etc etc. But the West, indeed the world, cannot afford to have an incompetent president in the White House. It's bad for all of us. But in the two months Trump has been sitting in the Oval Office, it has been a bit of a disaster. First of all, he thought he would start off with his travel ban idea. Well, that got thrown out by a constitution-minded federal judge, but in the process there was total chaos at all airports. Anyone with a name like Hussein or Mohammed, wherever they were coming from, whether from the banned list of countries or the Caribbean, got the frosty look from immigration and marched off to a small room for interrogation. Even retired American deputy chiefs of police got the same treatment for heaven's sake. What sort of damage did that do for the reputation of the United States as a humanitarian, welcoming, democratic society? But White House lawyers obviously told Trump, yes Mr President, of course you can do this, no federal judge would dare act against you. So off he went, half-cock, as they say, and ordered the ban, and immigration officers started doing the heavy-handed bit. Then Trump came up with a revised travel ban, leaving off Iraq from the list which must have been a huge relief for the US military commanders helping to prosecute the war against Isis in Mosul, but didn't really alleviate the problems at every port and airport as people continued to pour in, unsure whether they would be instantly deported or allowed in. Trump got bored with all of this and announced he was going to replace Obamacare and got his lackeys to draft a bill. Once again, it was all done half-cock. The bill was terrible, no one had thought it out properly. The only motivation for the Trumpcare alternative seemed to be to save money to pay for big tax cuts. He tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the Republican congressmen by announced it to be a wonderful bill but no one was fooled. It was rubbish. So many American citizens would be excluded from the bill's health coverage that it would be patently irresponsible for Congress to support it. And they didn't. Trump blamed the Democrats but it was the Republicans who defeated him. Of course the Democrats voted against it. Now Trump is bored with health as well and is turning to tax cuts. But with such incompetence and wrong-thinking coming out of the White House, what on earth will he do about tax? And will he be able to afford it, or, should I say, will the country be able to afford huge tax cuts? Perhaps Trump will just do away with the State Department. That should save some money, along with anything to do with protecting the environment. It's all beginning to look seriously worrying. I hope Trump is worried, not just angry.

Trump trumped

Trump: "What the hell is going on?" Aide: "Mr President, the Republicans, your party, won't go along with it." Trump: "But I told them, I ordered them to sign up to my wonderful health plan." Aide: "I'm sorry, Mr President, they don't seem to like it." Trump: "Get them all on the phone NOW." Aide: "We tried that, Mr President, in fact you tried that, but they won't listen." Trump: "So they want Obamacare, is that what they want?" Aide: "No, Mr President, they don't but they don't want Trumpcare either." Trump: "Watch how you speak to me, I'm the president." Aide: "Yes, Mr President." Trump: "My plan has to be accepted. Otherwise I can't cut everyone's taxes. The one pays for the other." Aide: "I know, Mr President, but I'm afraid you'll have to find something else to fund tax cuts." Trump: "This is outrageous. How dare they! Who do they think they are?" Aide: "They're democratically-elected members of Congress." Trump: "I know who they are, you OAF. But I'm the president. How do you think they got democratically elected in the first place?" Aide: "Well, Mr President, they were voted in." Trump: "They were voted in, you moron, because of me." Aide: "Ah yes, of course, Mr President." Trump: "Get that Paul Ryan on the phone. He's a disaster. Call himself the leader of the House, and he can't even deliver the numbers for me? Get him on the phone now." Aide: "Yes, Mr President." Phone rings. Trump: "Ryan, is that you? What the hell's going on? You've failed." Ryan: "I did my best, Mr President." Trump: "Best?! BEST?!! Rubbish. I didn't get where I am today by failing." Ryan: "Your health bill, Mr President, just doesn't do it for anyone. It's going to leave millions more uncovered by insurance. That's not sellable." Trump: "Not sellable?! I can sell anything to anyone. I didn't get where I am today by not selling anything to anyone." Ryan: "Well, Mr President, it didn't work this time." Trump: "So where am I going to get the money to pay for my tax cuts." Ryan: "Perhaps you could sell some of your resorts, golf clubs and apartment buildings." Trump: "Ryan, you're fired." Ryan: "Mr President, you can't fire me, I was democratically elected." Trump: "You're finished, Ryan. I didn't get where I am today by not being able to fire people." Ryan: "But..." White House phone is slammed down.

The terrorist's upbringing

Two extraordinary facts have emerged about Khalid Masood or Adrian Russell Ajao or whatever his other aliases are: he was brought up in Rye and went to school in Tunbridge Wells. For any of my blog readers overseas, let me explain why this is extraordinary. Rye is a quaint, very picturesque, very touristy town in East Sussex, a truly English countryside-type of place, lovely old houses, pubs and hotels, a location associated with all that is British, especially in the eyes of foreign visitors who flock there every year. Tunbridge Wells in Kent is the same, though larger. In fact, there's a very longstanding joke about Tunbridge Wells. When an irate letter appears in The Times or some other national newspaper complaining about train fares, rate rises, the price of avocados etc, it's very often written by an angry, retired colonel from Tunbridge Wells. Not all the residents of Tunbridge Wells are retired colonels, but there are a lot of them about in this elegant town. So how, I ask, is it possible for a man who has Rye and Tunbridge Wells in his blood to become a radical fanatic in his 50s who goes out on a killing spree and ends up dead in a pool of blood within the grounds of the historic Parliament building in Parliament Square? Could he have so hated his very English upbringing that he felt the need to turn against everything those two towns stood for and convert to a radical ideology that seems to have driven him to violence and murder? No wonder it's difficult to pinpoint a stereotype for the typical terrorist living in the UK. There isn't a stereotype. OK, he moved away from the Sussex and Kent countryside and ended up in Birmingham, home of a lot more Asian-origin people than in Rye or Tunbridge Wells, and clearly became radicalised by watching too many violent propaganda videos on dodgy websites. But it begs the question, if he had stayed living in Kent where he was educated, would he ever have even considered becoming a terrorist? Perhaps he might have led a respectable life, maybe who knows, have joined the British Army to do his bit for his country, and have ended up in 20 years time writing irate letters to the newspapers from Tunbridge Wells.

MI5 watchlist

So the attacker responsible for the terror killings in Westminster was known to MI5. There may be people who, hearing that from the Prime Minister, will say, "how on earth could he carry out what he did if he was being watched by MI5?" Well let's be real about this. Theresa May said he was known to MI5 from some years ago. In other words, his name came up because he appeared to be espousing radical Islamist views. But there are probably thousands of people of similar persuasion living in Britain, some of them more radicalised than others and a small number actually plotting some possible attack in the future without taking meaningful steps. But the majority may just be developing a slow-burning hatred for the West in general and Britain in particular, after watching propaganda videos of fellow Islamists being attacked in the war zones of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere. So, let's estimate there are 4,000 angry radical militant-orientated people living in this country, most of whom will do nothing to put their anger into killing action. Can MI5 and the police watch all of them? By watch, I mean, having 24-hour surveillance operations monitoring their every move. Well, MI5's staffing levels have grown significantly over recent years, but they will never have enough to keep watch over every suspected radical who just might launch a terror attack. To mount a round-the-clock surveillance operation on a single individual, it takes a series of daily shifts involving up to 24 MI5 officers. Multiply that by 4,000 and you get the picture. All MI5 can do is focus intelligence efforts on individuals who seem to be the most likely to pose a grave threat to the security of the country. Even that task places huge pressure on the manpower available. It is simply not realistic to keep a permanent watch on every person who has been spotted on the odd occasion voicing radical views or mixing with undesirable radicals at their local mosque. This Westminster Bridge/Parliament Square killer had come into MI5's radar a few years ago. But unless the Security Service has slipped up, it is probably the case that in recent years, this individual, now thankfully dead, has done nothing to give away his secret plotting. Had he started making phone calls to fellow radicals talking of carrying out an attack, I have no doubt he would have been given the sort of 24-hour surveillance needed to build up a full picture of his movements, associations and life pattern. His name was there on MI5's database, but there are tens of thousands of names listed, all included because of some recorded evidence of radical behaviour. This man was on the database list but was not, I assume, on a current watchlist. Terrorists play the long game. They can pick their moment and their target, maybe after several years of playing the life of a normal human being, with a job, even with a wife and children. They strike when they think the moment is right. Perhaps this hate-filled individual chose Wednesday because it was the first anniversary of the March 22 suicide bombings in Brussels. It may be as simple as that.