Scarymucci's gone

Oh my God, that has to be the quickest sacking in White House history. Just ten days Anthony Scarymucci lasted as White House director of communications. He didn't even have time to pick up his pay cheque before he was hoofed out. I would have loved to be the fly on the wall in the Oval House but I know for sure what went on. General John Kelly, jaw thrust forward as only a four-star general in the Marine Corps can do it, demands to see Trump. In he goes and says the following: "It's Scarymucci or me Mr President. I can't be your chief of staff with that foul-mouthed wanker, sorry, banker sitting down the corridor. He goes or I go." Trump prefers generals to Wall Street bankers,so he agrees to fire Scarymucci. General John Kelly is now boss of bosses. Whoever replaces Scarymucci will be closely vetted by the general but what's the betting it will be a former military man? Scarymucci and Disney Priebus and Jack Comey and all the others who have been fired or resigned, no doubt to be followed soon by Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, must be wondering what the hell is going on. Actually Scarymucci was the easiest one to fire. He was so rude and loud-mouthed and obnoxious that even Trump must have regretted appointing him although he loves a bit of chaos. It has certainly been a topsy-turvy few weeks. Never mind that Kim Jong-un can now hit Chicago with an intercontinental ballistic missile, Xi Zinping is showing off his military might, Maduro is destroying democracy in Venezuela, and Putin is kicking out most of America's spies from Moscow! Let's look on the bright side. General Kelly is a good man. He'll sort out Trump, possibly. But a word of warning, general, don't try and tell Trump what to do, don't try and stop him tweeting. As some wise old bird said, Trump is Trump and ain't no one goin' to change him.

A coup at the White House

The generals are taking over at the White House. Trump loves "my generals". With Disney Priebus gone in a flash after the Scarymucci scolding, in comes four-star General John Kelly, a Marine Corps man to his fingertips. If he can't get control of the White House and keep it in good order, no one can. But Kelly, moved from the Department of Homeland Security, will find the White House a very different place to be in charge. Running his own department is one thing. Generals are good at that because they know how to command men and women and they are good at strategic planning. But the White House is a hotbed of political in-fighting. He will find it much more of a challenge to keep the likes of Stephen Bannon, chief strategist, and Anthony Scarymucci, new director of communications and filthy language, under control. But being a retired four-star Marine general he will no doubt focus on the one main job, to keep Trump happy and informed, and fight off the political rats and foxes when they try to stir the waters. It will be an eye-opener for Kelly who is a pretty straight talker and normally gets what he wants. He joins Lieutenant-General HR McMaster, National Security Adviser, which will be an interesting partnership. Kelly is a four-star and McMaster is a still-serving three-star, but in the White House, military star ratings won't really count. Kelly as chief organiser and mastermind of Trump's life as president will need to show respect to McMaster but he will not allow anyone to order him around. Kelly is now the boss of the White House - below Trump of course. He will be in on everything that goes on in the Oval Office, and his words of advise will have a big impact on the president. And Trump can be sure as hell that General Kelly won't start leaking classified stuff to the press. Marine generals don't leak, period! Not that I'm accusing Priebus of leaking. It seems to me to be highly doubtful that he was behind all the recent leaks, despite Scarymucci's blatant allegations. But Kelly will stamp his authority on the White House and anyone caught even thinking about leaking will find out what it's like to be punished by a four-star general. So the era of Kelly begins. But how long will it take before Kelly and Scarymucci lock horns, and who will win? For my money, Kelly will see off the Wall Street banker. Scarymucci has caused such consternation and confusion since he took over last week as director of comunications that Kelly will need to sort him out straightaway. Sort him out well and good, never mind what Trump thinks. Otherwise Kelly will himself not last long as Trump's second chief of staff in six months.

White House finger-pointing

There will be no whitewash in the White House. Perhaps one of the most famous statements from the Oval Office in modern times. President Richard Nixon promising to be transparent over the Watergate burglary. Bill Clinton's denial of having sex with the White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, was another memorable moment. The Nixon affair led to his resignation. The Clinton affair led to a failed attempt at impeachment. Now what will Trump's fate be? What will be his most famous statement? Right now his White House looks and sounds like a school playground, with everyone shouting at each other, no one trusting each other, new people coming in swinging accusations around, no one taking charge. It's ripe for disaster. No wonder every American living hundreds or thousands of miles away from Washington thinks DC is a swamp full of hippos flopping around and getting muddier and muddier. The latest fun and games emerged almost as soon as Anthony Scarymucci arrived as the new director of communications. He started pointing fingers at White House leakers, especially the Disney man, Reince Priebus, the chief of staff (I nicknamed Priebus Disney in a previous blog because the name sounds like something out of a Disney film). And doing it in public, in interviews. Just who does he think he is? Does he think he's the president? This man is a goofball, all slick and smart and fancies himself. He's the director of communications,for heaven's sake, not the director of the FBI. Well we know what happens to directors of the FBI in the Trump administration. They get fired. So it won't be long before Scaramucci gets shown the door. Why on earth did Trump appoint him in the first place? He has no experience in public relations, he's a hedge fund guy. Why did Trump think that makes him a perfect candidate to run White House communications? No wonder Sean Spicer resigned. Now we know for sure, he couldn't stand the sight of Scarymucci. And for good reason. But out of curiosity, why did Scarymucci accuse Disney Priebus of leaking stuff from the White House? There is no question that someone is leaking highly embarrassing material to the newspapers. The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal are full of the wonderful White House tittle tattle. But could it really be the chief of staff himself? If Scaramucci is right and Disney confesses or is found out, he HAS to go. No president can survive with one of his most important appointments betraying him. But what evidence does Scarymucci have? Or is he, at his new master's behest, deliberately stirring the waters because Trump wants Disney out but doesn't have the balls to do it himself. A bit like his attacks on Jeff Sessions. If Trump wants the attorney general to go, he should fire him, never mind the consequences. But instead he keeps on insinuating via poisonous tweets that Sessions is a dead duck walking. What a way to run a government.

Afghanistan is waiting Mr Trump

Nobody has a clue what's going on in Trump's mind over Afghanistan. Jim Mattis, the US Defence Secretary, said a long time ago that a new strategy on Afghanistan was nearly ready and that it would cover not just Afghanistan but also all the neighbouring countries, such as Pakistan and India. Since then, nothing. All that talk of sending up to 4,000 more US troops is, at present, all talk and no action. Meanwhile, the Taliban is on a killing spree. There is still no official appointed at the Pentagon to mastermind Afghanistan policy. Discussions in the White House on the way forward end in arguments and disagreement. Trump basically needs to make a decision. Is he prepared to send a mini-surge of troops to Afghanistan, and if he is, what does he want them to do? Trump is so obsessed with attacking his Attorney General, shouting at those investigating the Russia collusion issue, and destroying Obamacare that foreign policy is being pushed to the backburner. We're told North Korea is now a year away from developing an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead that can reach part of the US. But if there is a plan A, B and C, Trump has only got as far as bellowing a warning about military action but no one, least of all Kim Jong-un, seems to believe him. Six months have gone by and the word, Afghanistan, has hardly passed his lips. By the time he makes up his mind, the snows will be returning to Afghanistan and the fighting season will be over. Of course it's right for major policy decisions to come together after proper thought and discussion. But the US had a president before who took too long to make up his mind. No one thought that Trump, with his bold promises during the election campaign, would follow the example of Barack Obama. It's time for action, Mr President. Afghanistan is waiting.

Jared Kushner, the cool customer

So Jared Kushner is innocent ok?! He's also a pretty cool customer. His 11-page explanation of everything he did and said involving Russians during the election campaign and also during the transition period looks transparent and honest. There's no obvious attempt to omit or deceive. There's no hint of anger, although there must have been times when he felt extremely angry at the way his character was being besmirched in some of the Washington newspapers. Many of the stories about him were full of innuendo, and in one case, a Reuters report claiming that he had made two phone calls to the Russian ambassador to Washington, our old friend Sergey Kislyak, may just be untrue. Kushner said he could find no evidence that he had made such calls. He said he checked all his phone records. So perhaps that report was a little bit of black propaganda which Reuters fell for. I have read and reread those 11 pages and they seem genuine to me. It will be difficult I think for even the most hardened anti-Trump newspapers and broadcasters to claim that Kushner's statement is full of lies and omissions. Unlike his father-in-law, Kushner does not seek the limelight, and his statement reads like a man who feels he has been wronged and wants to put the record straight. Perhaps others in the Trump inner circle should follow his example and speak plainly and simply without all the bombast. But his claim of total innocence doesn't mean the Russians were not involved in meddling in the election and peddling mischief. I believe they were doing both, meddling and peddling, and Jared Kushner was caught up on the fringes of the Russian game but without any malice, let alone criminality. Jared Kushner is a cool customer but not a devious plotter, colluding with Moscow. From my reading of the 11-page statement, the FBI can cross him off from their list of "persons of interest".

Sean Spicer's last press conference

Sean Spicer enters the White House press room for the last time. Every chair and space is taken. A packed audience. The whole of the White House Press Corps is there, plus every foreign correspondent based in DC. The latter all have to stand because the chairs have names on the back: these are the representatives from Fox News, NBC, CBS, New York Times etc. Spicer is wearing a light grey with yellow stripes suit, a green tie and orange shirt. Impeccable as ever. Spicer: I have nothing to announce today other than this is my last press conference before you all. I just wanted to say, it is totally wrong to say I have resigned because I'm upset at the president's appointment of Mr Scarymucci... Shouted voice from the front row: "Scaramucci!!" Spicer: "Sorry, Scaramucci. It has nothing to do with Scary...Scaramucci. I just decided I wanted to spend more time with my family. I've had six wonderful months serving the best president this country has ever had." Washington Post: "What, better than Abraham Lincoln, Franklyn D Roosevelt, George Washington, Dwight Eisenhower, Kennedy.....?" Spicer: "Better than Obama." New York Times: "You said best in the history of the US." Spicer: "I can't believe you're twisting my words. What I said was, President Trump was the best since Obama." New York Times: "But Trump is the only president since Obama." Spicer: "I never said Trump was the best, I just said he was the best president I have ever worked for." New York Times: "But you haven't worked for any other president." Spicer: "You're all the same, you people. You just twist words and claim I say things I never said." Washington Post: "You definitely said Trump was the best president this country has ever had." Spicer: "Yes I believe he is." New York Times: "So, as I was saying, better than Lincoln, Roosevelt, Washington, Eisenhower, Kennedy..." Spicer: "I never said Trump was better than George Washington or Abraham Lincoln." New York Times: "Yes you did." Spicer: "No. I didn't." New York Times: "Yes you did, you said Trump was the best president...": Spicer: "I never compared him to Lincoln." New York Times: "If you say Trump is the best president in the history of our country, then that's tantamount to saying he's better than Lincoln." Spicer: "Tantamount is a long word." New York Times reporter guffaws. Spicer: "Does anyone have a sensible question to ask?" ABC: "Was Lincoln worse than Trump as president of the United States?" Spicer: "I didn't serve Lincoln." Guffaws throughout the room. Spicer: "You see!! This is why I have resigned. It's because of you. You are not serious journalists." ABC: "Actually we are just doing our job, you are the one preventing us from doing it properly because you come out with stuff and then expect all of us just to broadcast it as gospel. But if we say on the next bulletin that you said Trump was the best president in the history of the US, and then compare Trump to Lincoln and Kennedy you will no doubt say it's all fake news and that you never said it." Spicer: "I never mentioned Lincoln." ABC: "That's not the point. The point is, if you think Trump is the best president, then we have the right to compare Trump's achievements with, say, Lincoln and George Washington." Spicer: "I never mentioned George Washington." Wall Street Journal: "What about Ronald Reagan? Is he better than Reagan?" Spicer: "I never mentioned Reagan." Wall Street Journal: "What about George W Bush?" Spicer: "You've got to be kidding me." New York Times: "So, let's get this clear, you definitely think Trump is a better president than George W Bush?" Spicer: "I never mentioned Bush." Washington Post: "Do you think Hillary Clinton would have made a better president than Trump?" Spicer: "Hillary Clinton should be in jail." Washington Post: "So you did manage to mention Hillary Clinton?" Spicer: "Trump defeated her by the biggest majority in the history of the United States." Washington Post: "But that's simply not true." Spicer: "Right, that's a wrap. I've had enough of you. Goodbye. I'm off to spend time with my family. Good luck with Scarymucci."

Trump's first six months

Donald Trump's greatest achievement since becoming President of the USA on January 20 is that he has provoked a trillion words of disbelief, anger, confusion, amazement, despair, hilarity and depression around the world. There is probably not a single individual on the planet above the age of seven who has not formed an opinion about the 45th US president. Ask any child in any country who Trump is, and he/she will have an answer. It will not often be to his liking. Trump's first six months have been like no other American president's first six months. He has wallowed in accusation and allegation. He has been the bete noire of almost every US major newspaper and broadcaster. Sometimes the Washington Post has seven or eight opinion pieces on Trump in the paper on the same day, most of them saying the same thing one way or the other. All bad. It's an incredible achievement. Trump has created a mass market all by himself. The whole world has become Trumpetised. Now maybe this is what he set out to do, to grab the attention of the planet and put his Trump stamp on everything, from global trade to climate change, immigration and, well, Muslims. He selected seven, then reduced to six, countries, mostly made up of Muslim citizens and basically said, keep away from America, we don't want you. This is the land of the free, the moral superpower. Well, no longer. Whatever Robert Mueller comes up with after completing his investigation into alleged collusion between Moscow and the Trump team during the election campaign, we already know what the president will say. If it's a clean bill of health, he will scream: "I told you so, I told you it was all a waste of time, just fake fake fake news." If Mueller uncovers prima facie evidence of collusion with really senior Trump people, whether associates, family or even Trump himself, then the president will tell all his supporters: "This is a conspiracy, a total witchhunt, Mueller is a bad man, I shall carry on regardless". And he will carry on regardless. Don't think, Mr Mueller, that if you produce a damning report for the Justice Department, it will make any difference to the White House encumbent. He is here to stay, well at least for his full four-year term and probably another four years after that. There will be no Trump downfall. Everything will be denied and dismissed. In fact, Mueller might as well pack up and take his bucket and spade to the beach. Trump ain't going nowhere!!

Trump speaks his mind - again

Anyone holding a cabinet post in the Trump administration must be living on their nerves. Will the Big Man in the White House wake up one morning and start tearing them off a strip for doing a bad job? Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General and one of the strongest allies of Trump, has clearly been irritating the president ever since he announced he was recusing himself from the Justice Department investigation into the Russia collusion affair because of his eventually-confessed meeting with the Russian ambassador to Washington during the election campaign. That was in March. Now suddenly the irritation boiled over and in his interview with The New York Times today he thundered against Sessions for letting him down. He obviously expected Sessions to fight his corner and make sure that under no circumstances would a special counsel be appointed to lead the inquiry. But Sessions opted out and his deputy immediately appointed Robert Mueller, ex-FBI director, to be a special counsel. Poor Trump must have been beside himself at the time and now it has all come out. Sessions is in seriously bad odour. Whether Trump had already made that clear privately to Sessions we don't know. But if he hadn't, the interview in the paper must have shaken Sessions. Sessions is now on notice that he could be removed at any time. It could be a Trump tweet: "Go now Sessions, you're a bad man." Or it could be another newspaper or TV interview: "Sessions, you're fired." This is administration by fear and trepidation. Another way of putting it is: hanging on to your job by your fingertips clinging to a sheer precipice. Is this a good way of running a government? Sessions is certainly going to be on edge from now on, although he professes to love his job and has no intention of resigning. We'll see. Now there are also rumours of disaffection with Lieutenant-General HR McMaster, the National Security Adviser. He is not at all happy with Trump's love-in with Putin. He doesn't trust Putin, and probably rightly. But Trump is determined to forge good relations with Putin, and I doubt McMaster can talk him out of it, nor will the director of the Russian department of the National Security Council be able to dissuade him from this course. This official must be having nightmares trying to talk sense to the president. There are no rumours against Jim Mattis at the Pentagon. He is still the star of the show. John Kelly at the Department of Homeland Security is doing fine as well, sounding pretty tough about immigration and security risks etc. But all of them should beware of risking the wrath of Donald Trump. And all of them should check their fingernails and keep them long and strong!

Trump and Putin in secret natter

The White House has been desperate to get it across that the "second", previously unacknowledged meeting at the G20 summit in Hamburg between Trump and Putin was nothing out of the ordinary. This was what leaders of countries did, the White House said. But, as everyone knows, these meetings are normally very carefully scripted and choreographed well before they actually happen. Only one meeting of around 30-40 minutes was planned, and none of the media who attended the G20 had any inkling of another session between the two leaders. Well, it wouldn't be such a big deal if it was anyone else but Trump and Putin. But an unheralded, unmentioned second meeting must mean a lot more than Putin saying to Trump: "Hey, Mr President, fancy a coffee, just the two of us?" What was really behind it all? Was this the moment when Putin laid out his cards and said to Trump: "Look, Donald, can I call you Donald? It's time we got things sorted out. I tell you what, I'll deal with Assad and get this whole Syria thing fixed, I'll put pressure on Beijing to get Kim Jong-un off his high horse, and in return, you give me back my two (spook) mansions in the US, turn a blind eye to what we're trying to do in Ukraine, and lift all sanctions." If any of that is true, I suspect Trump would have replied: "Vladimir, my hands are tied at the moment because of all this rubbish about you and me colluding, but I'm happy to come to an arrangement. You get Assad and Kim off my back, permanently, and you can have your mansions back and I'll see to it the sanctions are phased out. Just give me another six months. You should come and spend a long weekend at Mar-a-Lago. Do you play golf?" I reckon Putin and Trump now have a special relationship, even if the above conversation never took place. They like each other, and want to do business together. It's just possible that if Trump can shake off the accusations re the Russia collusion affair, this special relationship might work. It might bring benefits for the world. But can Putin ever be trusted, really trusted?

Comey blockbuster shockbuster

So James Comey, respected but fired FBI director, is going to write his memoirs and tell all about his confrontation with Trump over the Russia collusion affair. Remove "respected" and just leave "fired". Comey is not going to do his reputation as a maltreated FBI man any good by writing a blockbuster, leaking everything to the world about his relationship with the president. It is decidedly unseemly for the man who was at the centre of the Russia/Trump allegations to be seeking to make tons of cash out of his experience. Publishers are beating his door down to grab his memoirs. Soon Hollywood will be knocking, Jon Hamm will be lined up to play Comey, perhaps it will be turned into a musical a la La La Land. Ok, Comey is out on his luck, feels aggrieved, is desperate to get his version of events into the public eye. But hasn't he done that already? He leaked his conversations with Trump to the media, we know what he thinks he said and what he thinks Trump said. Is he going to reveal a mass of confidential stuff that should remain, well, confidential? As I said, it all appears tawdry and unseemly and sort of stands up Trump's accusation that the former FBI director was/is a grandstander, one of those top officials who cannot resist the chance to burst into print to make a pile of money. Of course, every past president, or many of them, former secretaries of state, ex-defence secretaries, have written their memoirs. But that's expected. They are historical documents, and few of them stir up much trouble. Bob Gates wrote his memoirs as a former CIA director and Defence Secretary perhaps a little prematurely because he was writing about people still in office. But Comey is a major player in the current investigation into whether Russia and the Trump campaign colluded to destroy Hillary Clinton. He should sink into the background with grace and leave well alone. Instead, he's going to have his publishers and literary agent egging him on to stir up as much dirt as possible because the more dirt, the better the sales. Comey will come across as a bitter, vengeful man, interested only in trying to come out on top and shoving Trump into the dung. This says much about the state of politics right now in the United States. Far from salvaging Comey's reputation, a blockbuster shockbuster, serialised no doubt in the New York Times or Washington Post, will turn people against him, not just Trump and co, but ordinary, respectable citizens who feel that a former director of the FBI should behave with dignity and get on with his life without spewing more dirt into an already highly polluted Washington environment.

Trump and Macron love-in

The love-in between Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron is clever politics. For both men. Trump, more than anyone, needs friends in Europe, and Macron who is trying to be de Gaulle Part Two, or perhaps even Napoleon Bonaparte Two, clearly thinks having Trump for him, rather than against him, is good business. Both men will have returned to their respective offices pretty satisfied with the Bastille Day get-together. Ok, Trump has got Theresa May to ring when he wants a chat, but until Brexit is sorted out one way or the other, May is not going to be top of the list of anyone's contacts book. Macron on the other hand is a new boy with a bit of vision for his country, strong views on most things, and a real interest in being THE political conduit between Washington and Europe. Merkel has election problems ahead and she and Trump have already fallen out, so it gives Macron a great chance to take the lead in Europe when it comes to Trans-Atlantic issues. He also has an attractive wife, noted by Trump in his usual charming way which probably helps. So it's all go for Trump and Macron. Trump will be pleased because he probably believes that he did actually hit it off with the francais president and that could be useful for him in the future. As far as we know, the Russia affair was not even mentioned in Paris which was polite of the Frenchman. For Theresa May it must be sickening. Normally, the special relationship between Britain and the US rides above every other sort of relationship. It's historically special because of the two country's nuclear-sharing and intelligence-sharing agreement, and also the language-sharing advantage. But now, the May government is overwhelmed with the responsibility of taking the UK out of Europe - probably the worst decision EVER taken for our country in living memory. So while May prepares to turn Britain into a piddly little island of no consequence, why would Trump spend much energy on seeking her advice or consulting on major European topics. He keeps on promising lovely, wonderful trade deals with Britain, but we will have to see. Obama said Britain would be at the back of the trade queue after Brexit, and I suspect this is what is going to happen, even with Trump in the White House. For a start, before he offers anything to poor old Britain, Trump will probably ring his new friend Emmanuel and ask what he thinks. Macron might reply: "Mais non, Donald. non, non, non."

See-through Mexico wall

Trump wants transparency. He said so while travelling on Air Force One to a bunch of White House press people. Well, he was actually talking about The Wall at the time, the one he hopes to build along the Mexican border. We haven't heard much about the wall since Trump took office. Mostly because he has had other things on his mind, like that pesky Russia thing which he still can't shake off even though Putin, his new best mate, promised him he had NOTHING to do with "meddling" in the US presidential election. "Niet nadoyedlivyy (no meddling)!" Or something like that. So, back to the wall. Trump has said he wanted Mexico to pay for the wall. But the Mexican president said:"Ni habler (no way)!" The Mexican probably added: "No entrometas (do not meddle)." So then Trump said he was going to install solar panels along the border wall which would help to generate enough power to pay for the construction of the wall. Pretty good idea, although very costly and everyone laughed anyway, except for the biggest solar panel companies of course. Now on board Air Force One to Paris, Trump said the wall had to be transparent. Why? Because, he said, there would be Mexican drug traffickers on the other side of the wall slinging over bags of the stuff weighing 60 pounds, and if the wall was made of bricks, innocent passers-by might be hit on the head, unaware that a bag of dope was airborne and about to land on his or her cranium. Good thinking and very caring, Donald. So we have a wall made of toughened glass with solar panels on top. It's beginning to take shape. But I guess the response of the drug cartels will be: "Vamos a tirar las drogas por la noche y soplar un silbato (we'll throw the drugs at night and blow a whistle." So what do you say about that, Trump? Any other ideas? The answer is obvious. Ask a drug baron to demonstrate how high he can throw a bag of drugs and then build the wall 20ft higher. Trump would then be able to say to the druggies. "You can go blow a whistle (puedes soplar un silbato)." The transparency idea does have its merits. If you put searchlights along the border, at night the thousands of late-shift border guards can then spot who is throwing the 60 pound bags, and can inform the Mexican authorities. But the way things are going between Mexico and Trumpland, the guys in charge on the other side of the border may well reply: "Salta a correr (go take a running jump)". So, in reality, I'm not sure this wall is ever going to take shape. One of those big promises that sounded good but is a bit impractical. Still, it's excellent news that Trump is keen on transparency.

Move it Mueller

I think by the time Robert Mueller and his highly-paid team of investigators and prosecutors have finished their inquiry into Trump/Russia/collusion/family stuff, the whole of American and the world will be sick to death with it. I know it's all terribly important for democracy etc whether the Russians interfered to bring Trump to the White House and whether anyone in the Trump family/campaign team/aunties/uncles/cousins knew about it or arranged it. There's got to be an element of truth in some, if not, all of it, especially the Russian interference bit, but you would expect Moscow to try and get in the way of a Clinton presidency because Putin couldn't stand the sight of Hillary. I mean this is not a pleasant world we live in. Big players on the world stage never play by the book. They have always been devious, cunning, using their powers to the maximum, lied, omitted, deceived etc etc. And I'm not just talking Russia here. I'm talking everyone with power, huge budgets and national or self interests at stake. Certainly American governments have been involved in all kinds of shenanigans - the Bay of Pigs, bombing Cambodia and Laos, regime-change in Iraq, CIA plotting against socialist President Allende in Chile, invasion of Grenada, to name but a few. Russia is a democracy but it's an autocratic democracy, so Putin can pretty well do what he thinks is best for the glory of the Motherland. And that's putting it nicely! So, it's no big deal in the grand scheme of things if Putin authorised a bit of skulduggery in the American presidential election. I'm NOT cordoning it, but Putin is a KGB man through and through. This all comes naturally to him. The bigger deal is whether Trump colluded with Putin. That's on a different scale, and if true and totally provable, Trump's a dead Donald. Stuffed, finished, kaputski!! What we need more than anything is for Mueller to accelerate his inquiries, stop spending all his time recruiting fancy lawyers and get to the heart of it all as quickly as possible. For goodness sake, a huge amount of work must have already been done by other agencies - CIA, NSA, Justice Department, FBI etc. So move it, Mueller. If this goes on for months/years, the United States will just stop functioning, and that's bad for all of us. Even for Putin. There are far far bigger things at stake which need to be sorted out within the next two years or this world of ours is going to get more dangerous, more unsafe and more unpleasant. Time to bring this whole saga to an end!!

New York Times v Trump

Journalism in the US is very different from journalism in the UK. Ok, British journalists get scoops, of course they do, but reporters in the UK always have to beware of libel and secrecy laws and privacy rules and codes of practice etc. In Washington, the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal get the most amazing leaks. I'm not saying they're handed out like unsolicited gifts, the reporters have contacts and secret sources like all good journalists. But the Leaker Brigade in DC, those handing out the sensitive, confidential, sometimes top secret stuff to newspapers,seems to be getting bigger by the day. The New York Times really has got its teeth into the Trump Junior story and the latest leaked email is devastating. It looks like Trump's son was offered the prospect of some serious dirt on Hillary Clinton by a female Russian lawyer supposedly acting for the Kremlin, and he replied he'd love it. Well, if that is true and the email is genuine, then Mr Junior Trump has got some serious explaining to do. And, perhaps even more dramatic, did he tell his Daddy about the Russian lawyer approach, and did his Daddy reply: "Hey, son, go for it, sounds like a dream offer to get that b..ch!" The Trump son's lawyer is saying it's all hogwash and that it amounted to nothing and was all pretty harmless, although there WAS a meeting with this exotic lawyer (that's my adjective, based on the expectation that if the Kremlin is going to send a lawyer on a secret mission, it's bound to be a good-looking lady. That's not sexist, it's straightforward spy tradecraft. But apparently, so says Junior, nothing was revealed at the meeting to indicate the Russian had a handbag full of Hillary dirty linen. Well, no doubt, there will be more revelations once the New York Times gets hold of additional emails, texts, transcripts of telephone conversations etc etc. We Brits in the reporting world are so envious of our American colleagues. We'd have had injunctions, writs and heaven knows what thrown at us by now if we had started to publish confidential emails. Junior Trump seems quite a swaggery sort of bloke, but he better watch out. His Daddy is going to be on the warpath.

Putin's take from his meeting with Trump

I think Putin, or Pootin, as the Americans like to say, is probably feeling pretty good after his unexpectedly long meeting with Trump in Hamburg last week. He's much smaller than Trump, he has far less hair, but after a long career in the KGB and his undoubted control of the Kremlin - whoever hears of Dmitry Medvedev these days (the Russian prime minister, remember?) - Putin is, if nothing else, a cunning leader. There's an old old British television comedy show in which the boss of the main comic character has a phrase he comes up with all the time: "I didn't get where I am today by not being..." cunning/clever/hard-boiled/or whatever it is on that particular day. Putin knows his stuff. I reckon he has got Trump very well sorted out in his mind and will feel even more confident about dealing with him in the future. Why? Because Trump has so few friends in the Washington establishment, so few, if any, close counterparts in Europe, that having a "friend" in Moscow will provide the American president with a little warmth and sympathy from a man with a similar style. "Donald," Putin might well have said in Hamburg,"any time you want to talk, just give me a ring. I'll always be there for you." Ok, Putin would not have said that in so many words, but there's nothing like a friendly smile and a pat on the arm to make a fellow under siege back home feel less isolated. So Hamburg was a splendid success for Putin. Whatever Trump says, it was Putin who came off best. He looked Trump in the eye and denied any knowledge of any official Russian interference in the US presidential election. Trump's a straightforward sort of guy who wants more than anything to believe Putin is telling the truth. Despite all the apparent evidence uncovered by the US intelligence community that there WAS Russian interference, Trump would prefer to believe Putin than the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, DNI and the whole shooting match of intelligence services, because it will make his life so much easier if all that Russian collusion stuff is total nonsense. He wants to believe it's fake news, therefore it IS fake news. Yes, Putin must be very satisfied with the way things went in Hamburg.

Offspring diplomacy

Ivanka Trump slotted into her father's seat at the high table at the G20 summit. An unprecedented moment. Trump trips out to see the Indonesian leader in a private session but instead of calling on a senior official to sit in for him he summons Ivanka. It has caused a rumpous. How dare Trump, Ivanka is unelected and holds no cabinet post, the president's critics cried out. But I think it was a great idea. Bring on the younger generation, let them have a say. Actually I don't think Ivanka said anything during her 15 minutes of fame, but she looked pretty savvy sitting there between Theresa May on her left and President Xi Zinping on her right. Did either May or Xi turn to her and say: "Excuse me dear, this is for grown-ups, what do you think you are doing?" I doubt it. They probably thought, oh my God, Trump always has surprises, but let's be nice to her. It's not her fault. I think from now on, every leader should bring his or her favourite child to world summits, or favourite nephew or niece if there's no child. Then, potentially, at the height of a critical negotiating moment, all the leaders could say:"Right, we're off, bring in the kids, let's see if they can sort it out." It will become known as offspring diplomacy. I think it's a terrific idea, provided, of course, the nominated son, daughter, niece or nephew has some clue about what's going on in the world. Ivanka's fine and she's pretty cool. But I can't vouch for the other leaders' families. Neither Angela Merkel nor Theresa May have children of their own, but I'm sure they could nominate a young relation. Putin has two daughters but I doubt he would be happy having either of them sitting in his chair, so he may have a problem with offspring diplomacy. Xi Zinping has a daughter. I can't see him agreeing either, but if Trump does it, then most of the other leaders might feel pressurised. Well done President Ivanka, you looked pretty good with all the oldies (sorry President Macron and Prime Minister Trudeau, I know you're both youngsters).

How dangerous is North Korea?

It's a mug's game to predict how a war would go. But let's look at North Korea, and recall the apocalyptic predictions about war with Saddam Hussein in 2003. The equations are different. Saddam's Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, despite what Bush/Blair and others said, but he had a million men under arms, Scud ballistic missiles, and, of course, the pledge to wage the "mother of all battles". In the end, the Iraqi military were found wanting. Even the so-called elite Republican Guard crumbled under America's shock and awe firepower, the Scud missiles were inaccurate and pretty useless, and the average ordinary Iraqi soldier preferred to give up rather than fight. There was no apocalypse, well not for the US-led coalition anyway. For Saddam it was a total disaster. His mighty military muscle looked pretty flabby. So how do we draw all the lessons from that war of 14 years ago and project them into a US war with North Korea? Some of the statistics are similar. Kim Jong-un has around a million men in uniform, a huge arsenal of ballistic missiles and artillery, AND nuclear weapons, although no one really knows yet whether the North Korea dictator has managed to shape nuclear warheads to fit on to his missiles. It definitely can't be ruled out. But if there is a war, a proper war, not the odd airstrike here and there, will it be the mother of all battles, will it be nuclear war, will it be the end of the world? My prediction is that North Korea will also be found wanting. The million men at arms doesn't mean anything unless they are a superbly drilled, disciplined, trained and equipped force. We don't know the answer to that but I suspect the "terrified factor" will play a role. They are not going to be 7ft tall supermen. You start dropping bombs on them and they could collapse. Kim has thousands of artillery pieces lined up on the border with South Korea. But many of them won't work properly, and a large proportion of them do not have the range to reach Seoul. So the much-predicted firestorm of artillery strikes that could kill tens of thousands of people in Seoul is probably over-egging it. The most dangerous component of Kim's arsenal is his inventory of ballistic missiles, and now, as the Pentagon has confirmed, his potential intercontinental ballistic missile capability that COULD be armed with a nuclear warhead. He just might be able to get one launched, from a mobile launcher, hidden from US satellite eyes. But every counter-measure the Americans have at their disposal - cyber warfare, Patriot missiles, THAAD anti-missile system, the interceptors based in Alaska - will be ready for action. I hope there will never be a war of any kind with North Korea because the potential consequences for the region, for the US and for the world, are scary to contemplate. But that doesn't mean that Kim Jong-un has the capability to defeat the US or even to kill so many people in South Korea, Japan and elsewhere that the military option cannot ever be considered.

Thirteen rules for Trump at G20 summit

I know it's a bit cheeky for a mere mortal to suggest how the president of the United States should conduct himself at the G20 summit in Hamburg this week. But this is Donald Trump, right? So here goes, a few golden rules, Mr President: *You may be the leader of the western world (sort of) but you've only been in the chair for less than six months and they have on the whole gone spectacularly badly for you. So watch out for the boys and girls who have been leaders for much longer eg Chancellor Angela Merkel (since 2005), Xi Zinping (since 2013) and Vladimir Putin (since forever). I don't mean show humility, but don't publicly throw your weight around so everyone round the table gets pissed off on Day One. *Come very very well prepared. No freelance agenda. Remember when Ronald Reagan met Mikhail Gorbachev for a summit in Reykjavik in 1986? Reagan started suggesting off the cuff how wonderful it would be if all ballistic missiles were banned. Maggie Thatcher nearly had a fit when she heard. *Don't snog/grab/overhug/lips-kiss any woman who isn't your wife at any point in the two-day summit. *Don't bear-hug Putin. Shake his hand fairly nonchalantly. None of this superpower grip stuff like you did with poor Emmanuel Macron. *Don't go looking for your new friend, King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. The Saudi monarch won't be there. He has decided not to turn up for some reason. So it will be a G19 summit! *Chancellor Merkel is the host. Hamburg is in Germany. Therefore, she will hold sway. Whatever you do, don't push her out of the way when you're trying to get to the front to be seen with Putin and Zinping. *Don't push anyone out of the way, and don't hold hands with anyone either, especially not Theresa May. *Russia and China have preempted the G20 summit by coming up with a Grand Plan for dealing with North Korea. Smart move on their part. You don't have to bash their heads when you say NO THANKS to their idea of stopping the annual US military exercises with South Korea. Just be cool and somewhat stand-offish and actually quite tough. They are going to look frightfully smug, so wipe the grin off their faces without actually doing it physically. Tricky one. *Be nice to people you can't be bothered with, like the two presidents from the EU, Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker. I know I know. That's going to be really tough but a few courtesies, ask them where they're planning to go on holiday, that sort of thing. *Be very nice to Theresa May without touching. But please don't offer to rehouse all the survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire. They want to stay local, ok? They don't want to live in Omaha, Nebraska, with all the buffaloes. *Macron is trying to be a sort of Sun God president, so watch out for that. Being 30 years younger than you, Macron has a lot going for him but if you start teasing him about how he summoned his ministers to pay court to him at the Versailles Palace, he might strike back and cancel his invitation to join him to celebrate Bastille Day on July 14. *The best looker of course is the exotically-socked Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister. He's very very popular, so don't deliberately step on his toes out of jealousy. *Leave the summit with your dignity still intact, some tough words on North Korea, Syria and Iran, and the well wishes of nearly everyone. The last bit will be the hardest.

Is Kim Jong-un scared of Trump?

I wonder what Kim Jong-un thinks of Trump. Is he scared of him? He certainly wasn't scared of Obama. Is he scared of Xi Zinping? Is he scared of Putin? I reckon the answer to all those questions is no. The reason is that he has got away with what he wanted to do ever since taking over from his father. He has called everyone's bluff and has just carried on doing what he does best, developing and testing ballistic missiles, developing and testing nuclear warheads, and starving his people. No one has stopped him. Sanctions have been worse than useless, and the pressure from Washington, Beijing, and now Moscow, to freeze his missile programme, he seems to disregard with ease. Now Trump, not for the first time, has warned that he is running out of patience with Kim. The trouble is when he said that before, everyone, including no doubt President Zinping, sat up and thought: "Oh my God, what is Trump going to do?" Well, actually nothing. And now he has said it again. Saying you are running out of patience is getting close to saying there is a red line beyond which Kim must not cross. But, as we all know, warning of red lines in politics, especially in superpower politics, is a dangerous game. Obama liked to use the phrase but lived to regret it. Trump has so far avoided using the phrase, but has turned instead to a sort of big sigh of impatience. How long, one might ask, does it take for patience to run out completely? And when it does, what do you, as president of the United States, do next? Trump has at least twice told Beijing that if it can't rein in Kim, then the US is prepared to go it alone. But go it alone to do what? If I'm asking this question, then you can bet Kim Jong-un is asking exactly the same question, and probably coming up with: "I don't think Trump, despite his bravura personality, has the balls to take me on. So yah boo sucks." The trouble is, no one wants the US to take on North Korea militarily because of the awful potential consequences. I mean terrifying consequences. Not for the US which is nice and far away, despite Kim's claim of being able to reach the polar bears in Alaska with his latest ballistic missile. But for South Korea and Japan, where thousands of US troops are based, and possibly the US military base at Guam. Kim must have been through this scenario in his mind a million times. He loves to boast about being able to hit the US but he can't possibly want a full-scale war in the region which he will lose. So, feeling relatively reassured that Trump will not order his generals to bomb North Korea to bits, Kim's policy, if that is the right word, is to carry on regardless and keep raising the stakes, so that one day, possibly in the next two years, he can announce to the world that his boys have successfully miniaturised nuclear warheads to fit on the end of his longest-range ballistic missiles, and that he has joined the exclusive nuclear club. So watch out! Trump has declared that that won't happen. But it WILL happen unless Trump considers taking preemptive action of some sort within the next two years. Kim probably believes Trump is all bluster, so he will risk the future of his country by snubbing his nose at Washington, Beijing and Moscow. China is never going to attack North Korea. Russia is never going to attack North Korea. Only the US would consider it. But right now the only thing that might upset Kim's luxury-style living is a slightly nagging question: what does Trump mean when he says he's running out patience? But he then probably shakes his head and tucks into his bacon and scramble egg.

The Grenfell questions

A million words have already been written about the terrifying fire at the Grenfell tower block in North Kensington which claimed 80 lives and probably a lot more by the time the forensic scientists have completed their job and the police have traced everyone who was living there including the illegal residents. But there are some totally obvious questions and even more obvious answers that don't require a judge-led inquiry to uncover. It is now clear that hundreds of similar tower blocks throughout the country were provided with the same inflammable cladding that was placed around Grenfell. So here is the first question: how is it possible in the 21st century when we are supposed to know pretty well everything about health and safety that an agreement was made in local authorities up and down the nation that it would be a good idea to put cladding around tower blocks that contained inflammable material? Was this done in ignorance, to save money or just because they didn't care, ie the blocks were going to have poor people in them and nobody puts as much effort into caring for poor people as they do about building posh car parks or roundabouts and putting flower beds round trees in local streets or filling up holes in the roads or paying big salaries to council officers? If it was to save money, then the Jeremy Corbyn argument has to be considered. He said that the dangerous cladding was installed because of the government's austerity programme. So his argument presumably is that local authorities have been so squeezed by cuts in government grants every year that they had no choice but to choose the cheapest sort of cladding to put around tower blocks and to hell with the consequences. Well, that argument simply doesn't hold water. Every local authority every year gets a certain amount of money to spend each year. It's their individual grant allocation. Their responsibility is then to assess the priorities, and the things at the bottom of the list might just fall off for a particular year to make sure the key programmes are maintained. No council planning committee chairman should ever be able to decide: "Hey, we can save 300,000 pounds by putting inflammable cladding on each of our tower blocks, so let's do it." No planning committee should EVER pass that, because it would be immoral, outrageous and totally irresponsible. So, it's not austerity per se that is at the bottom of the Grenfell tragedy, it's a cockeyed judgment about priorities. But what I don't understand is that once such a decision was taken and a company was contracted to install the dangerous cladding, why didn't the building inspectors and the local Fire Brigade not intervene and say: "You can't put this stuff around this tower block. What if there is a fire?" Nobody spotted it?! Is that possible? Surely there can't have been a giant conspiracy, involving the planning committee, the council top officials, the building regulators and the Fire Brigade? All over the country?? I can't believe that. So, complacency and negligence must have played a part. Another question: how come there are companies who make money out of producing inflammable cladding to put around buildings? It's like that old advertisement on the television about some car or other where a bloke goes into shop with his son and asks for two life jackets to go sailing. He is told there's one type that costs 50 pounds or so and another one that looks similar but is only 10 pounds. The customer goes for the cheaper one because the shop assistant tells him he is pretty sure it will be all right? Is that what the planning committee chairmen were told? "Look, this cladding is much cheaper and it should be fine. Come on, when did you last have a serious fire at one of your tower blocks?" I bet that's what the judge will discover at the end of his long investigation.

Putin preparing for his meeting with Trump

The Big Moment is about to happen. Trump and Putin are going to meet for the first time as heads of their respective administrations at the G20 summit in Hamburg on July 7-8. No agenda has yet been fixed for the little chat but I'm thinking the Kremlin and the White House are furiously deciding what to say and what not to say and how to say it and when to say it and whether to smile and whether to shake hands or bear hug. The US National Security Agency and Russia's Special Communications Service, Moscow's equivalent of the NSA, must be working overtime to listen in on any gossip to give a heads-up for their leaders on what might come up during the G20 bilateral. Here is a speculative transcript of the NSA's eavesdropping on the Kremlin's presidential office meeting between Putin, Sergey Lavrov, foreign minister, and Sergey Naryshkin, head of the SVR, Russia's foreign intelligence service. Putin: "Tell me three things I don't know about Trump." Naryshkin: "I'm pretty sure you know everything, Mr President." Putin, glowering: "Three things." Naryshkin, looking worried: "Trump lost his virginity at 14, he thinks his daughter has a great body and he's desperately worried about being impeached." Putin: "Are you sure about the last thing?" Naryshkin: "We have a terrific agent inside the White House who overheard him saying just that." Putin: "Good, I can use that. As well as the golden shower pictures of course." Naryshkin: "You know they're fake, Mr President?" Putin gives him a withering look and turns to Lavrov. Putin: "On Syria, tell Tillerson (Rex Tillerson, US Secretary of State), I want no rubbish about dropping Assad. Assad stays whatever happens in the next 12 months. If Tillerson starts blathering on about the need for peace and that Assad should go, tell him the meeting with Trump is off." Lavrov: "Yes, Mr President. Don't worry, Tillerson knows the score." Putin grins: "It will be good to see Rex again." Lavrov: "Mr President, I suggest you don't go on too much about Tillerson having the Russian Order of Friendship (from his days as Exxon chief). It has become quite tricky for him in Washington." Putin: "Rubbish. I will remind him as often as I can, especially in Trump's hearing, that he is an honoured member of the Order. Perhaps I'll give Trump the Order as well, if he plays ball with Syria. That'll screw things up nicely for him back in Washington. Yes, that's a great idea. Please prepare the ceremony." Lavrov: "He might refuse it." Putin: "Show him the golden shower pics and he'll soon agree." Lavrov: "So you want to me to arrange a ceremony for the G20 summit?" Putin: "Get it done." Lavrov: "We have to prepare an agenda and a joint statement on shared goals, Mr President, before the G20 starts. Anything you want to headline?" Putin: "Yes, tell the White House I want Ivanka to come to Moscow to talk about women's rights. But I don't want that dreadful husband of hers to come too. Just Ivanka. She can meet Mariya and Yekaterina (his daughters)." Naryshkin: "Perhaps Alina as well(Alina Kabaeva, Putin's alleged dishy girlfriend)." Putin gives him his best assassin look. Naryshkin cowers. Putin: "That's all. I just want three things out of the meeting with Trump. The Order of Friendship for Trump, my Ivanka idea and no concessions on Syria. All the other stuff, counter-terrorism, Isis, pirates, blaa blaa blaa, you can shove into the joint statement. And if Theresa May so much as hints that she thinks her aircraft carrier is better than mine, tell Downing Street I will snub her during the whole summit."