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.

Terror attack

What a vulnerable world we now live in. Any radical hate-person can just jump into a car, drive into a crowd of people, stab a policeman, all in one of the most famous areas of London. Terrorism is so easy these days. Al-Qaeda was the major threat not that long ago and of course still remains a major threat but, so far at least, they have focused on explosives to cause mayhem. London's worst-ever terrorist attack on July 7, 2005, involved a series of coordinated suicide bombings that killed 52 people. Today, one hopes, that sort of terrorism has a better chance of being stopped because it requires planning and expertise and training, all of which can, with luck, be picked up by the intelligence services. But since the emergence of Isis/Islamic State/Daesh, terrorism has become a random, dangerously simple, individual activity which can be carried out anytime, anywhere. The articulated lorry terrorist attack in Nice was the most gruesome of all such attacks, because of its simplicity and sheer determination of the terrorist to kill as many people as possible. Today's Westminster Bridge attack was smaller scale, thank God, but the idea behind it was the same. One individual can just wake up one morning and decide to drive his car into people to kill them. However many times we are warned always to be vigilant, no one expects to walk across Westminster Bridge in the middle of the day and face a terrorist behind the wheel of a car. It's just not in anyone's mind, how could it be. Not that far away from Westminster Bridge and Parliament where the police officer was fatally stabbed is Thames House, headquarters of MI5. Could they possibly have imagined that this was going to be the day when London would be targeted by some hateful human being? Did they have any intelligence-led inkling that this particular person was plotting to do what he did? Very unlikely although in the days ahead we may discover that he was on their watch database. But if he had kept a low profile before, and not shown any sign of being a radical fanatic, how can MI5 be expected to protect us from such people? It is arbitrary terrorism, in the name of something, whatever that is. There are probably a lot of these people living in the UK now, just waiting to do their bit to add to the deaths and injuries already suffered in other European capitals. Politicians are saying that this sort of terrorism will not change our lives. Quite right, they won't. But this individual today has succeeded in changing or ending the lives of about 54 people - the four dead victims and the 50 injured. Those injured will never again feel totally safe walking the streets of London. The rest of us are just relieved we were not there on Westminster Bridge at that time. For a time we will be more wary of vehicles appearing to act erratically. But the terrorists who hate us and don't care about losing their lives for their so-called cause will be able to choose what they do next and when they do it. We all aware of that now. There are bound to be future attacks. But we can't spend our days worried about it. For the 50 injured, however, and the families of those killed, it's a different story. Today marks the day their lives became less predictable. I wish them well.

Alleged al-Qaeda mastermind appeals to Supreme Court

I wrote this story for The Times yesterday but it didn't make it. I think it's interesting, showing how an inmate of Guantanamo, although held outside the jurisdiction of the US federal justice system, still believes in the potential power and fairness of the American Supreme Court. Kinda weird really! --------------------------------------------------------- The alleged mastermind of a terrorist suicide attack on an American warship which killed 17 sailors and wounded 37 other crew members, is appealing to the US Supreme Court in an attempt to stop his trial at Guantanamo Bay detention camp on the grounds that he was tortured by the CIA. Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a 52-year-old Saudi national and alleged senior member of al-Qaeda who has been held at Guantanamo since 2006, has been charged with orchestrating the attack in 2000 on the USS Cole, a guided-missile destroyer, when it was off Aden. An explosives-filled boat was driven to the warship while it was engaged in refuelling. The detonation blasted a huge hole in the side.He is also charged with directing an attempted boat attack on USS The Sullivans, another guided-missile destroyer, and a suicide bombing of MV Limburg, a French supertanker, which killed one crew member and injured 12. He faces the death penalty if convicted.It’s the first time that an inmate of Guantanamo at the US naval station in Cuba has appealed to America’s highest court to block a military tribunal. His lawyers have amassed a huge pile of documents to back their case. A bid to the US Appeals Court to stop the military trial failed last year.Declassified official reports reveal Al-Nashiri was subjected to waterboarding torture three times, hung naked upside down in chains, threatened with a power drill, confined in a small box, forced to have a cold bath while being scrubbed with a wire brush, and told that his mother would be brought before him and sexually abused.The so-called enhanced interrogation techniques were carried out while Al-Nashiri was being held by the CIA in secret “black” prisons in Poland after his arrest in Dubai in 2002. He was transferred to Guantanamo in September, 2006.His lawyers also want the Supreme Court to rule on the legal implications of President George W Bush’s war on terror which led to the setting up of Guantanamo after 9/11 and the detention of al-Qaeda suspects categorised as “enemy combatants”. As such, the 41 remaining detainees are held outside the US federal system, and are not protected by America's constitutional rights.The lawyers argue that since Al-Nashiri’s alleged crimes were committed before 9/11, he should not be held or put on trial at Guantanamo.If he was put on trial in the US, the torture he suffered could then become a key part of his defence. He was charged in 2011, but at pre-trial hearings in the Guantanamo military tribunal courtroom, defence lawyers were initially prohibited from raising the torture issue or even mentioning the CIA for reasons of national security.The Supreme Court will soon include a judge nominated by President Trump, if confirmed by the Senate. Mr Trump has said he wants to keep Guantanamo as a detention centre. President Obama tried to close it but was blocked by Congress. Judge Neil Gorsuch began his Senate confirmation hearing yesterday (Mon).

How to stop the madman in North Korea

What on earth to do about Kim Jong-un, the mad dictator in North Korea. His father and grandfather were both fearsome leaders, bent on having nuclear arms and dominating the region/world. But this son of the dynasty is seriously worrying on a scale even greater than his relatives. You would never believe it that he was educated in Switzerland and enjoys the trappings of western culture. He is hell bent on developing an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead that can reach the homeland of the United States. The latest evidence, of an improved engine thrust for his missiles, demonstrates that he is well on the way. North Korea already claims, probably falsely, that it has successfully miniaturised a warhead to fit on the end of a long-range missile. I say falsely, but who really knows? Certainly not the United States with all its spying apparatus. The miniaturisation programme is being carried out in a deep, deep bunker far from the prying eyes of US spy satellites, and I sincerely doubt there are any CIA-employed spies inside Kim Jong-un's inner circle or in any of the underground nuclear bomb-building laboratories. So it's a sot of guess and hope for the best. Not very comforting for us normal mortals who want to lead a quite life and sleep well at night. I once asked Leon Panetta when he was US Secretary of State for Defense what kept him up at night more than anything else, he replied North Korea and Iran. Today he would probably narrow that down to North Korea. This closed country is a serious threat to the world. Kim Jong-un really does believe that if he can have an assortment of nuclear-armed ICBMs sitting on the backs of lorries ready to be fired at the slightest twitch of his finger, the world will bow to his demands. Maybe when he is alone in his bedroom after he has watched the latest box set of an American TV drama series, he gets to thinking about actually firing one of those missiles for the sheer hell of it. Just to make sure it can reach the US without being shot down by America's THAAD anti-missile defence system, now parked in South Korea, or an Aegis class warship offshore armed with a Standard hit-to-kill anti-missile weapon. Never mind the consequences, he might think. But, in fact, what would the consequences be? Jim Mattis, the pugnacious US Secretary of Defence, not that long ago a four-star general in the Marine Corps, has warned Pyongyang of an overwhelming response if he launches a nuclear missile against anyone. But would Trump have the nerve to retaliate with a nuclear strike against North Korea that could kill thousands of people, and spread radiation everywhere. And there would still be time for Kim Jong-un to order his artillery troops near the border with South Korea to fire every shell they have in stock to destroy Seoul. Whichever way you look, it's a nightmare scenario. But assuming that Kim Jong-un has enough brains to work this out for himself, it's probably what keeps him happy each day. He knows that even the American president with a mighty nuclear weapons arsenal at his disposal is not going to fire off a mass nuclear attack which will change the whole world's future, not just North Korea's. Mattis clearly has in mind an "overwhelming" conventional strike. We're talking B2 strategic bombers and F22 Stealth fighters, on a continuous run to try and knock out all the nuclear facilities, Kim Jong-un's palace, the artillery batteries and anything else that threatens South Korea or Japan. Nevertheless, such retaliation would have huge unforeseen consequences. How would China react? How would the rest of the world react? How many people could Kim Jong-un kill before his regime is destroyed?  Trump and Rex Tillerson, US Secretary of State, have indicated that everything is on the table, including the military option. That, presumably, includes preemptive action; in other words, taking out the nuclear facilities in North Korea BEFORE Kim Jong-un presses the nuclear button. But that's a very dangerous consideration. China would NEVER accept the justification for a pre-strike against a neighbour it stupidly supports. So what, Trump might ask! But any preemptive action would unquestionably lead to a massive response from Pyongyang against South Korea where the US has 28,500 stationed troops. And there's no certainty that the B2s and F22s, both capable of evading North Korean air-defence radars, would finish off the job successfully. North Korea has its longer-range missiles on trucks. So they're constantly on the move and they're well camouflaged. The best bet would be to target Kim Jong-un himself, if he could be found, and hope that all the fawning generals who accompany him wherever he goes, writing down everything he says in their little notebooks, will give up and run away! Who'd be the president of the United States over the next four years? And by the way, I don't believe Trump would be any different from his predecessors in deciding what the hell to do if Kim Jong-un was all set to fire an ICBM at the US.

Amazon rules

This is a one-off observation, nothing to do with my world views, as in the headline to my blog. It's about Amazon and authors. So my book, First with the News, about my frontline and other experiences as a journalist for the Daily Express and then, for the last 30 years, on The Times, has now been out for about three and a half months. I have discovered, presumably like all authors, that the only true weather vane for sales is Amazon's book ranking which changes by the hour. It is easy to become obsessed by it. I AM obsessed by it. I check on the rankings of my book every two hours or so. It's pathetic but that's the way it is. First with the News appears to have sold petty well although I have no idea as yet how many. But having been reasonably high up, in the very low hundreds on the ranking chart, I have now slipped to around 400,000. So I'm never going to be in the top 100, well who knows. But after suffering deep depression at how down the chart my book now is I suddenly acquired an extraordinary fact, well a claimed fact, which lifted my depression almost immediately. Ok, so I'm 400,000 from being Number 1, but Amazon apparently sells at any time nearly 34 million books. That's 34 million. So on that basis, 400,000 is not so bad and the low hundreds is amazing. I think Amazon is extraordinary, they publish so  much detail about your book, publish reviews, which in my case, fortunately, have all been terrific, many written by people I don't know, and then, of course, list the rankings. So it's a daily routine for me to switch on my laptop in the morning and, first thing, go to Amazon. By comparison, other publishing outlets, well at least for my book, often give very few details and certainly no rankings. It took me weeks to persuade Foyles, for example, to include an image of the front cover of my book on their website, along with the barest of details about the book itself. I can't see anyone buying my book from Foyles, one of the most famous names in the bookselling market in Britain. My local Waterstones bookshop in Richmond, another famous name, have been brilliant, displaying copies of the book which sold pretty quickly. See pictures below of the one copy still unsold, now on the shelf of the biography section. I like being not far from a biography of Charles Dickens! But Amazon rules, God bless 'em. I just wish that the book now on the 400,000 ranking mark starts selling big-time to push me further up the ladder. I don't want to hover around the 400,000, let alone slip further down, even though I'm a long way from being the 34th million!

Eavesdropping on Trump

Ok, let's make it clear from the start, GCHQ, the UK Government's signals intelligence eavesdropping centre shaped like a doughnut in Cheltenham, did not, would not want to, shouldn't ever, and will never listen in on the telephone conversations of President Donald J Trump. And also never did when he was president-elect sitting in Trump Tower. Right, got that out of the way, whatever Trump himself believes. Apart from the obvious - you don't eavesdrop on your closest ally or someone who is looking very likely to be your closest ally. Well that's supposed to be a golden rule although, as we know from past experience, it has not always been the case. We bugged the French once. They're pretty close allies. And we probably got from the Americans what Merkel was talking about on her private phone during the Obama era. But bugging Trump? Don't be silly, absolutely not. GCHQ which hardly ever makes any public statements, has described the eavesdropping allegation against Trump as ridiculous. I believe them, although we're never going to know for sure, because that's the way intelligence-gathering works. You never know!! But if GCHQ had bugged Trump in Trump Tower, it can be safely assumed that the following vital intelligence would have been uncovered:
Mobile phone chit-chat between president-elect and the Russian president:
"Hi, is that President Putin?"
"Who wants to know?"
"Trump here."
"Ah Mr Trump how nice to hear you."
"Now look here, Putin, can we do business or what?"
"You want to sell me something, build a golf course near my dacha?"
"No, proper business. You know, be allies and stuff."
"Always ready to do business of course."
"We could sort out Syria together."
"Absolutely."
"We could stop spying on each other."
"Excellent."
"You could stop killing your opponents."
"I don't have any opponents."
"I know, that's because you keep assassinating them."
"Mr Trump this is, as you say, fake news. Don't believe what you read in the Western press."
"Well put that to one side for the moment, I want you to stop cyber-attacking the US."
"Certainly, Mr Trump, provided you stop cyber-attacking Russia."
"Call me Donald."
"Donald."
"If I get Mike Flynn to call your man in DC, can he discuss things?"
"Certainly, Donald. Call me Vlad."
"Like what we could do together in Syria?"
"Yes, just one thing."
"Yes?"
"Lift all these outrageous sanctions against my friends."
"That was Obama."
"So, when you're president, just lift them. Then we can do business."
"I'll get Flynn to raise it.....eh...Vlad."
"Good, we like your Flynn."
"Congress might not like it."
"Then do what I do."
"Which is?"
"I make a decision, everyone follows. It's easy."
"But we're a democracy."
"And so are we, Donald, so are we."
"Yeah, right. I'll get Flynn to contact your man here."
"Good, nice doing business with you Mr President-elect."

Trump tax "leak"

Trump: "Spicer, come to the Oval Office."
Sean Spicer: "Yes, Mr President".
Trump: "What took you so long?"
Spicer: "Eh, it's four minutes walk, Mr President."
Trump: "Now I want to get this tax stuff sorted out."
Spicer: "What tax stuff, Mr President?"
Trump: "Some bastard is going to leak my tax returns from the IRS."
Spicer: "What!! How did you hear this?"
Trump: "It's Obama."
Spicer: "Obama told you?"
Trump: "No, idiot, he's got people in the IRS."
Spicer: "But it's a federal offence to leak your tax returns."
Trump: "It was a federal offence to bug Trump Tower!"
Spicer: "Yes, of course, Mr President."
Trump: "So we're going to do something about this."
Spicer: "Fire the whole of the IRS?"
Trump: "No, Spicer, what's wrong with you today?
Spicer: "Eh...."
Trump: "So I'm going to give you in a brown envelope one of my tax returns."
Spicer: "Eh...."
Trump: "This tax return will reveal that I paid a lot of tax, like every average taxpayer."
Spicer: " But I thought you hadn't paid any tax for...."
Trump: "Spicer, stop interrupting."
Spicer:  "Sorry, Mr President."
Trump:  "2005 was a good year. I paid a helluva lot of tax that year."
Spicer: "So you want me to...?"
Trump: "Yes, shove it through a bastard reporter's mailbox, and then run like hell."
Spicer: "New York Times?"
Trump: "Never, I wouldn't want to give them the satisfaction."
Spicer: "So, maybe some obscure organisation? DCReporting.org perhaps?"
Trump: "Never heard of them."
Spicer: "I know a guy there."
Trump: " Do you know where he lives?"
Spicer: "Yes."
Trump: "So what are you waiting for?"
Spicer: "Shouldn't I wait till it's dark?
Trump: "Ho ho ho. Yes, Spicer, a night raid, I like that."
Spicer: "And you're sure the 2005 return is the best?'
Trump: "2005 is the only tax return I ever want leaked. 2006, 2007, 2008, none of those must ever come out, nor 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 1986, 1987..."
Spicer: "I get the picture."
Trump: "This is strictly between you and me, Spicer. You understand? And don't be spotted doing the business. I'll deny it whatever happens."
Spicer: "Yes, Mr President."

When is a wiretap not a wiretap

What I have really enjoyed about the Trump administration so far are the different explanations for the presidential tweets. It must be a nightmare being Sean Spicer or Kellyanne Conway or anyone who gets shoved before the cameras to explain away their master's latest tweet utterance. The best of the lot has been the wiretap thingamabob. So Trump says Obama - yes Obama, not his plumber or next-door neighbour or some nameless flunky - wiretapped everything he said while sitting in his gold chair in Trump Tower dreaming of being president of the United States. Well, we all know that Obama's lot said this was "false", and most sensible people in Congress had their serious doubts. So up comes the first explanation. By wiretap he didn't mean wiretap specifically, just a sort of generic word meaning surveillance, watching through binoculars, peeping under doors, peering through keyholes, that sort of thing. Oh and Obama himself wasn't being accused of bending his knees to catch sight of Trump through a crack in the curtain. No no no, what the president meant was that he felt/knew/guessed that someone with an Obama label on his t-shirt was doing a bit of spying. So, no actual bugging then. No wiretapping per se. No Watergate plumbers. In fact, probably what Trump tweeted was based on a remark overheard on a bus spoken by the nine-year-old nephew of a man who voted Republican and once said over breakfast that he thought Obama was a bugger!

All the world's a war zone

With a swift stroke of his pen Donald J Trump is turning more parts of the globe into official war zones. That's because it's easier for the military  boys to go in hard into certain areas without worrying too much about civilian deaths. So, while Iraq and Afghanistan have been deemed to be war zones for as long as one can remember, there are other countries where designated terrorist organisations are operating but are not described as war zones, according to the White House manual that deals with such things. But Trump has been persuaded, not without much pause for thought apparently, to designate parts of Yemen and Somalia as war zones. This means the "Oh my God there could be civilians there" clause in the WH manual can be ignored. Thus, for example, the area  of Yemen where the US Navy Seal Team 6 went into all guns blazing in January, soon after Trump took office, was just such a newly designated war zone. Between 15 and 25 civilians were killed, including children. Now this is not a criticism of the military. They had their orders and none of the commandos who participated would have wanted to see any civilians die, let alone children. But when a region is officially a war zone, there's a different mindset. Civilians then become unfortunate collateral damage. In the Iraq war there was so much collateral damage that the number of civilians killed could never be accurately recorded. In the last eight years, we had all become accustomed to President Obama's policy of approving airstrikes and, in particular, armed drone strikes on known or suspected terrorists, Islamic militants and other nasty people on White House hit lists, but only on the condition that there was an infinitesimal risk of a civilian or two being killed in the process. It was absolutely not full proof. Civilians did die, wives sleeping with their terrorist husbands, children running into the aim of the Hellfire missile at the last moment, passengers in a car carrying the local al-Qaeda chief, or sometimes, when the target was the wrong one. But Obama tried to be scrupulous about avoiding civilian deaths where possible. He even drew up an Obama edict which stipulated that military or CIA strikes could only go ahead if there was almost no possibility of civilian casualties and where the target was known to present a real and imminent security threat to the United States. The Pentagon has been pushing for some time to lift the Obama restrictions for certain areas of the world to allow for a greater concentration of airstrikes, drone strikes and special forces raids. It didn't take long. Trump's pen did the necessary. So it's definitely bad news for terrorists - which is good - but potentially bad news for innocent civilians - which is not good.

Megaphone diplomacy

It's difficult to think of a more irresponsible form of politics and diplomacy currently going on between Turkey and the Netherlands. A veritable shouting match that does neither country, but especially Turkey, any good. So President Erdogan, increasingly determined to become the all-powerful, not very democratic leader of Turkey, wanted his minions to hold rallies among Turkish residents in the Netherlands to persuade them all to vote for him in a referendum that will provide him with the omnipotency he seeks. The Dutch people, probably among the gentlest souls on the planet, don't fancy having wild rallies involving another country, launching off on their soil. Well, the Dutch government doesn't favour it, because there are crucial elections in the Netherlands this week.and have been putting blocks on Turkish government officials turning up on their borders ready to mount Back Erdogan rallies. It seems to me to be highly provocative of Turkey to imagine they can do what they like in another country - an allied country by the way, both being members of Nato - without doing so in the most friendly, diplomatic and courteous way possible. But no, before you can say "hey wacht eens even" (hey wait a minute), Erdogan is accusing the nice Dutch people of being Nazis. I don't want to be disrespectful to the Turkish president, but is he forgetting that people have rights, that countries have the right to make decisions without being barked at from a foreign country? Now Erdogan is threatening strong counter-measures after the Dutch authorities prevented two of his ministers from entering the country. All very unpleasant, unnecessary, unwise and distinctly sinister.  Megaphone diplomacy was always a dangerous form of interchange. Mr Erdogan needs to calm down and remember we are all supposed to be friends facing increasingly dangerous problems in Europe and in other parts of the world. Put your megaphone back in the cupboard!

Day in the life of Rex Tillerson

So Rex Tillerson is sitting at his desk in the State Department. He's used to being a big boss. He was CEO of ExxonMobil of course. Can't get much bigger than that. So it can't have been the best moment in his week when he got a phone call from one of his underlings which probably went something like this:
"Mr Secretary, did you know that the Mexican foreign minister is right now in the White House seeing the president?"
"WHAT? WHO? Can't be true. I would have been told....surely."
"Mr Secretary, I just got a call from my mate in the NSC who said this bloke Luis Videgaray walked in looking pleased with himself and was swept straight into the Oval Office."
"I don't believe it!! Why wasn't I told? I'm the xxxxxx secretary of state for God's sake."
"Yes, Mr Secretary, you are."
"Ring the White House immediately and demand an explanation. Tell them I'm very angry. Tell them I'll resign. Tell them I didn't get where I am today by being snubbed and left out and...(bursts into tears)."
"Yes, Mr Secretary, I'll ring at once."
Five minutes later the underling comes into the secretary of state's office.
"Mr Secretary, the White House says thank you for your remarks but that nice Mr Bannon is dealing with the Mexican foreign minister. Oh and Jared Kushner is also there."
"But but but.. Jared and I get on well. He likes me. Why didn't he tell me?"
"Mr Secretary, do you want me to ask him?"
"No!!"
"Mr Secretary, is there anything else I can do for you?"
"Yes, get me a xxxxx sandwich, cheese and pickle on rye."
"Yes, Mr Secretary."
"And a bottle of water."
"Gas?"
"No, I hate gas."
"But I thought ExxonMobile was into gas?"
Tillerson hurls a book at the underling. The book, entitled How to be a Successful Secretary of State"  crashes to the floor.

Obama drama

I'm beginning to feel sorry for Barack Obama who, not that long ago, was President of the United States of America. In fact, exactly seven weeks ago. Then off he went and was seen next kite-surfing in some exotic location without a care in the world. There's only one thing better than being President of the USA, it seems, is being the ex-President of the USA with time on your hands. Well, fair enough, eight years of being in the world spotlight 24 hours a day, a guy deserves a break. But now it's all going terribly wrong. Obama is the only president - obviously -  who has had the misfortune of being succeeded by Donald J Trump, and the Donald appears determined to unravel, destroy, turn into mincemeat everything that his predecessor did or tried to do. His so-called "legacy" achievements are being ditched, nay, spat upon from a great height by Trump who couldn't care less about treating his predecessor with honour and generosity. Obamacare is finished. OK, it was always too expensive and complicated and there's something distinctly un-American about forcing people to pay a penalty if they don't sign up to Barack's health-care reforms. But the guy had a good go at doing what no previous president had achieved. He got his health reforms through Congress and past the Supreme Court when critics claimed it was unconstitutional. Now Trump and the Republican Party are putting all their efforts into repealing Obamacare and inserting their own complicated insurance/tax credits/heaven knows what scheme which will probably be just as expensive and restrictive. No one in the US wants a national health system modelled on the UK version. Oh my goodness, no. The NHS is Communism by anther name in the view of a lot of Americans. Now we have Trumpcare. But I doubt his ideas will be the answer to everyone's dreams in America. Basically, the country is split between those who desperately need health/social care and those who believe they are never going to be ill and therefore refuse to pay for other people's diseases and health disasters. Anyway, Obamacare is out of the window before Barack has climbed off his surf board. What next? The nuclear deal with Iran? Judging by the excessive aggression shown by the Iranian Republican Guard in the Gulf and elsewhere, they've already decided that Trump is going to tear up the deal, so it's  back to "America is Satan, down with the evil empire". All that intricate diplomacy could just be thrown away! I sincerely hope not, and that Trump will come to his senses. But he ain't worried about hurting Obama's feelings. Tweeting that Obama was responsible for authorising the bugging of Trump Tower during the election was his coup de grace. It got everyone topsy-turvy. Poor Obama, just when he was settling down to a new quiet life, he finds himself at the heart of a big-time investigation. I doubt there will be any more kite-surfing in the foreseeable future. Obama would be wise to keep his head down and hope Trump goes away.

Paranoia

Well thank you WikiLeaks, you've done it again. Chosen your moment to perfection to spread the word that the spooks are watching you, reading your emails, listening to your phone calls, and hacking into your TV!! I have to say I am heartily sick of WikiLeaks. All they do is try to destroy your peace of mind. Just when you think life is improving, a new batch of secret secret stuff is published, showing that Big Brother is around more than ever. Well, as a journalist I suppose I should be happy that government secrecy is exposed, especially if innocent people's lives are being covertly monitored. But I did not welcome the arrival of Edward Snowden. My first reaction was that he was an extraordinarily dangerous traitor. He was a trusted employee of the CIA and National Security Agency (NSA) and he just walked off with the Crown Jewels, got a few journalists to meet him in a hotel in Hong Kong, dished out all the secrets of the NSA in particular, and then, having done the damage, took a flight to Moscow where he has been ever since. He is America's version of Julian Assange. WikiLeaks founder Assange is stuck for life in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and Snowden is probably stuck for life in a flat in Moscow. Not much sympathy, in fact no sympathy for either. OK, so Snowden revealed stuff that showed the NSA's eavesdropping reach was burrowing into the lives of American citizens, foreign leaders, anyone with a funny-sounding name. And Obama, being Obama, took the middle road - attacking Snowden for his treachery on the one hand, and agreeing that reforms were needed to ensure the NSA was not abusing people's rights etc etc. Fine. But I can't believe and don't believe that the NSA was literally trying to monitor and eavesdrop on the world just for fun. There was method and motivation, not madness. It was all about protecting the United States from terrorism, and trying to find out what foreign leaders were thinking privately. Hey, this is called spying. It's what they do and what they've done for centuries. It just looks much worse today because the technology is so much more capable, and more available. It's good, therefore, to have restraints and accountability. I'm up for that, whether it be in the US or UK. But wholesale leaks of secret stuff can never be good for anyone because it creates the sense that nothing is private any longer. Above all, it creates paranoia. Washington right now is already beset with paranoia, and the worst culprit is Trump. He tweets paranoia every day. Now, according to WikiLeaks's latest handout, the CIA and NSA can hack into anything and everything. I didn't understand about their hacking into Samsung Smart TVs. Can't they watch Homeland on their own TVs?!!! But, thanks to WikiLeaks, we all now have to believe that we are under continuous surveillance. So what's new? Trump, remember, said he loved WikiLeaks because of their publication of the hacked emails from the Democratic National Party during the election campaign. I can't believe he likes the latest breach of secrecy. Well, whatever he thinks, I'm sure it won't stop WikiLeaks from continuing with its campaign to generate more paranoia and make sleeping at night just that bit more difficult.

Off the record

An unofficial transcript of a Sean Spicer gaggle has come my way:
Spicer: So this is a gaggle, all off the record, that means no attribution, although you can source it to a small chunky bloke with terrible dress sense. I have nothing really to say today, except that the president is playing golf on Saturday with a former No 1 champion and it's not Rory McIlroy this time. He'll also be meeting with a Chinaman whose name I cannot give you.
CNN: Is he a businesman?
Spicer: I can't reveal who it is.
CNN: Does he play golf?
Spicer: I don't know.
CNN: What's his handicap?
Spicer: What makes you think he has a handicap? Why do you always have to think the worst in people. He's a very nice Chinaman, someone the president has known for a long time.
New York Times: Is it anything to do with expanding the Trump trademark in China in return for never accusing Beijing of currency manipulation?
Spicer: Typical Times, that's all fake news.
New York Times: Can I quote you?
Spicer: No, this is all off the record as I said.
New York Times: But I can source it to a small chunky bloke with terrible dress sense?
Spicer: Er, yes.
ABC: Has the president's business in China increased in size and value since he rang President Xi Jinping and told him he supported the one China policy?
Spicer: There is absolutely no link between the Trump trademark in China and the president's support for the One China policy.
ABC: Yes, but has the Trump business empire increased in size in China?
Spicer: Sounds like more fake news to me.
Washington Post: Is the carrier currently in the South China Sea going to stop China building more military installations on the disputed islands?
Spicer: We have a carrier in the South China? That sounds like a question for the Pentagon.
Washington Post: It was announced that USS Carl Vinson is in the South China Sea.
Spicer: So ask the Pentagon what it's doing.
Washington Post: So you don't know?
Spicer: It's classified.
Washington Times: Just going back to the Trump trademark in China...
Spicer: Ask something else, otherwise you'll be banned from the next gaggle.
Wall Street Journal: The FBI director has dismissed the president's claim that Obama authorised a wiretap of Trump Tower. So is Trump going to apologise and put out a correction?
Spicer: You must be joking.
Wall Street Journal: But Comey has asked the Justice Department to make sure there's a correction?
Spicer: Did the director tell you this?
Wall Street Journal: No, but...
Spicer: So it's fake news!
Wall Street Journal: But...
Spicer: You're banned from tomorrow's gaggle.
LA Times: Can I ask about Ivanka?
Spicer: No.
LA Times: She's been spotted flogging her jewellery to tourists through the fence at the White House.
Spicer: No gaggle for you ever again.
Buzzfeed: Is there any truth in the report that Trump plans to turn the front lawn of the White House into a putting green?
Spicer: Yes, I mean no! Well that's it. Remember, all off the record.

A proper hornet's nest!

President Donald T really has stirred it up now, accusing Obama of wiretapping his phones in Trump Tower during the election campaign. Of course, Obama's cronies have denied it. But is there some substance of any kind to this? First of all, though, Obama as president was barred by law from ever ordering a wiretap against anyone in the United States, let alone someone standing for president in an election campaign. For nearly 40 years, since the establishment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 1978, presidents have been removed from the legal process required for authorising wiretaps, so as to avoid any executive abuse of people's rights. Permission has to be given by judges sitting in the so-called FISA court after examining all the evidence of a potential plot by outside foreign interests to interfere with or undermine the security of the United States. So Obama is innocent OK! Well, then let's look at other possible scenarios. There WAS an allegation about Russian interference in the election, and there WERE suggestions that Trump aides had been in touch with Russian intelligence people to combine efforts to destroy Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the election by releasing hacked emails of Democratic National Party skulduggery. So the FBI's ears obviously pricked up. There were urgent chats with the US Justice Department, and before you could say Bob's your aunty, a wiretap request was put to the FISA court for tapping into the phones of a couple of US-based Russian numbers. It was turned down. Two more attempts were made, according to the BBC, and finally the Justice Department got its approval. But, as far as is known, the FISA approval had nothing to do with eavesdropping on any of the phones in Trump Tower. That would surely smell of Watergate!! But some sort of tap was put in place, all legit. No Obama involvement. And the FBI uncovered nothing. However, in the real world, there could have been an over-breakfast chat between Obama, and, say, his attorney general, going something like this:
 "Hey, AG, what are all these rumours I hear about the Russians pumping money and dirt into the election? You doing anything about that?"
"Well Mr President, can't really talk about this, as you know, but I get your drift. Nice jam by the way."
"Outrageous! Would love a whisper of what you find out. Perhaps over breakfast again. I'll make sure I have the same jam."
"Sure Mr President, we'll sort it."
Well, we all know what happened to Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, when, within earshot of four loyal knights,  King Henry VIII cried out: "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
Even if such a conversation took place over toast and jam - and I have of course totally made it up - it still doesn't mean Obama authorised the wiretap of Trump Tower. It's far more likely that Trump has put his own spin on a remark he heard on a Conservative radio show alleging that the Trump campaign had been bugged. Anyway James Clapper, the man who confessed he was counting the days to his retirement from his job as director of national intelligence under Obama, has stated that no such bugging took place - to his knowledge! So that's all right then. Trump, you can rest easy. Stay cool, Mr President, and leave that nice Mr Obama alone.

Kremlin Kislyak sensation!

WARNING: This is fake news!
A leaked telephone call  between the Kremlin and Sergei Kislyak reveals an astonishing Moscow plot to use the Russian ambassador to Washington as an FSB stooge during the US presidential election:

"Kislyak, listen carefully, I will say this only once."
"I'm having breakfast with the Trump Tower commissionaire, what do you want?"
"You have to meet with some of Trump's guys, get in with them, lay foundations."
"Of course, that's why I'm having breakfast with the..."
"Forget the commissionaire."
"He's a nice guy, and the croissants are fantastic.."
"Forget the croissants."
"So you want me to..."
"Get in with them. Get meetings set up, record everything."
"I am the ambassador..."
"Yes yes yes, these are new orders. When Trump wins we want a complete file on all your meetings, so we can use them for our advantage."
"But how do you know Trump will win. I've got money on Hillary."
"Forget Hillary. Trump will win. We have decided."
"You mean..."
"Yes, Trump will win. You don't need to know why or how."
"So I should put money on Trump?"
"Yes, and put some on for us too. Ten grand."
"OK, so who do you have in mind for contacts?"
"Flynn first. We know him. Putin likes him. Get him to talk about these outrageous sanctions. Record it but secretly."
"I don't like Flynn. He's not my type. This commissionaire is full of good stories."
"Forget the commissionaire."
"Anyone else?'
"Yes, Sessions. I want him to be our man."
"But he'll never agree to see me."
"Kislyak, just do your job. Record everything."
"So, Flynn and Sessions. Anyone else?"
"Go for Trump eventually, offer him a dacha. Get someone to photograph the two of you together shaking hands, or better still, a bear hug."
"I don't think..."
"Trump's your man. He's the one we really want. But do Flynn and Sessions first. Report back."
"But what if the FBI record me talking to these guys?"
"Hahahaha, that's the most cunning part of our plan. We'd love the FBI to listen in. Goodbye Kislyak."

The Russian connection

Attorney General Jeff Sessions cannot survive. He told a porky in his Senate confirmation. He said he had had no contacts with the Russians, yet now we hear he met with the Russian ambassador to Washington twice during the election campaign when he was in Trump's team. That Sergei Kislyak, with his double chins, gets around, doesn't he? Chatting away with retired Lieutenant-General Mike Flynn when Trump had him lined up in his mind to be his national security adviser. And meeting with Jeff Sessions when he was clearly going to be Trump's attorney general. I wonder if old Kislyak got a bonus from Putin for all his secret sessions with Sessions and Flynn! Well, they must have been secret because neither Sessions nor Flynn seemed eager to speak about the contacts. Flynn denied he had said a word about lifting sanctions against Moscow in his chats with Kislyak when he was questioned by the FBI, and then told Mike Pence the same thing before the vice president went on television to support. him. Although he HAD raised sanctions. So he was forced to resign. Now Sessions is going through the same verbal contortions.He's not denying having met with Kislyak but he denies misleading the Senate when he said he hadn't had contacts with Russians. That's a tricky one to explain. The thing about politics is that when an issue gets a bit of momentum behind it, and the media start to call for someone's head to roll, there is a sort of inevitability about the way it's going to go. So Sessions will continue to sound outraged that his integrity has been called into question, and his critics will get more and more heated about the way the Senate was "lied to", and before you can say quack quack, Donald will make a phone call: "Jeff, sorry buddy, but you've got to go. It's curtains for you."

The buck stops with the generals

There was so much focus on Trump's address to Congress, and the surprising conclusion that he sounded faintly presidential at last, that his most unpresidential remark, uttered before he left for Congress, was lost in the wash of verbiage. Speaking on Fox News, increasingly the preferred platform for his views, the one-month-old President of the United States said the special forces raid in Yemen which led to the death of US Navy Seal, Special Operator William "Ryan" Owens, was not his fault and placed the blame firmly on the generals who had come to him with the plan to raid the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula compound in south-central Yemen on January 29. His actual words were: "They lost Ryan." One of Trump's more illustrious predecessors, President Harry S Truman, popularised the phrase, "the buck stops here". So convinced was he that the president, and no one else in his administration, had to take responsibility for every decision taken, he put a sign on the desk in the Oval Office with those very words to remind him every day that he was in charge. But Trump placed the blame for Owens' death on the generals in the Pentagon. He even tried to offload any responsibility for the raid itself, saying the planning had all been carried out before he entered the White House, so he wasn't really involved. Well, we may be in a fake news world now, but that is grossly untrue and extraordinarily cowardly of the new president to try and absolve himself of any blame for the raid going wrong. The FACT is that he was presented with the plan five days after he came into office. He had time to look it over and discuss it with the generals before giving his authorisation the following day. Trump's go ahead was crucial. The operation would not have gone ahead without the president's say-so. That's the way the executive system works. So, while it was not his personal fault that Special Operator Owens died, he cannot just step aside and say the generals were to blame. The buck, Mr President, stops here. And "here" is not the Pentagon but the Oval Office. OK, so he praised the hero, Ryan Owens, and invited his widow to hear his speech to Congress, cleverly uniting everyone attending in the most emotional moment of the address. But only a few hours before, Trump had in effect pointed the finger of blame for the Seal's death at the door of General Jim Mattis at the Pentagon and General Joseph Votel at Central Command. Pretty disgraceful in my view.