The US Supreme Court deserves better.

You didn't have to watch the satirical show on Saturday night on US TV to guage how a lot of people are viewing the Kavanaugh/Blasey Ford battle. But it was a brilliant take-off of the angry, sniffing judge, over-emphasising for comical effect his aggressive, denial denial performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Did anyone come away from that extraordinary series of outbursts and actually think to themselves: "Yes this is a great guy and should be on the Supreme Court for his measured intellect and brilliant mind, never mind the sniffing." Well, the Republicans, except for Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, clearly thought he was a good guy, thus agreeing with President Trump's description of him. Now I realise that members of the Supreme Court don't have to be really really nice people. That's not part of the job requirements. But they do need to be seen as upright model citizens who have earned the right to sit in judgement on their fellow Americans. Whatever their politics they also need to be unbiased, balanced and thoughtful. After that deluge of hatred and anger and sniffing, does Brett Kavanaugh meet those basic requirements? Trump loved him for his outrage, and said so in a tweet, but I can't imagine there were many who would agree with him. He came across as an unpleasant in-your-face sort of bloke, not remotely calm or compassionate or understanding. He may well pass the FBI test - he has passed it six times already - and he may well end up sitting on the Supreme Court. But he will remain a wholly divisive figure and that cannot be good for justice in the United States.

Trump is going to win the Supreme Court battle

Listening to the Republican and Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee it's difficult to understand how an issue like sexual assault can be treated from such totally different viewpoints. The Democrats passionate for Christina Blasey Ford's position as the innocent and suffering victim and the Republicans determined to put her words to one side and to pursue with no more delay confirmation of Trump's nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court. What is odd in this whole thing is that the FBI who have to carry out background checks on all people offered key administration posts dredged up not a whisper of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. Now, ok, they didn't know about Christine Ford because she had kept her accusations against the judge to herself, her husband and her therapist. Her name only came out because someone who saw a confidential letter from her detailing her allegations leaked it. But did the FBI actually delve back to Kavanaugh's high school days or did they just start at, say, his time at Yale University, or perhaps even later? How comprehensive were they? Four women, one anonymous, have made accusations against Kavanaugh about bad or outrageous behaviour when he was younger. But if the FBI picked up on this, did they ignore it as youthful indiscretions? Did they, I wonder, ever have a chat with Mark Judge, the good friend of Kavanaugh who was allegedly "a witness" to the claimed sexual assault against Christine Ford? This man Judge could have been summoned to give evidence to the Judiciary Committee but after he had apparently said he had no recollection of any such incident, the Republicans on the committee ruled against him appearing before them. We can assume, however, that Judge would have maintained his position that he knows nothing. What about the Democratic members' appeal for the confirmation hearing to be delayed to allow a full investigation by the FBI? That would surely have been the fairest way forward. But somehow I doubt whether the mighty FBI would have got any further than anyone else. Professor Ford, convincing though her evidence was, could not remember where or exactly when the alleged incident took place. It would be difficult for the FBI to know where to start. Ok they would interview Mark Judge but if he stuck with his story that he has no recollection of any such assault, the FBI would have no one else to go to to try and corroborate Ford's accusation. I feel desperately sorry for her. By coming forward she was never going to win because whichever way the nomination went she would have been blamed.

Christine Blasey Ford gives rivetingly convincing evidence

This may be premature because, as I write, Professor Christine Blasey Ford is still answering questions about the assault she said she suffered at the hands of Judge Brett Kavanaugh when he was 17 and she was 15 at high school. She is giving very powerful evidence, it is dramatic and traumatic and wholly believable. It is difficult to imagine how Kavanaugh, nominee for the Supreme Court, can give an account that I assume will dispute her allegations. He has disputed everything up to this point. What is very disturbing and appalling is that since her name came into the public domain she has been subjected to a torrent of hatred and mysogeny, so much so that she and her family have had to move away for their own safety. It says a whole lot about the state of mind of certain people in the United States that they felt it was their right to attack and abuse a woman who had been brave enough to come forward about an alleged sex assault against her in the 1980s. Social media is fun when it's used for entertaining, pleasureable or informative reasons. But to use social media to spit out violence and hatred and prejudice should be criminally unlawful. This poor woman who has been speaking with tremendous dignity to the Senate Judiciary Committee and with the whole world able to watch on live stream on their mobiles, has already been trashed by the president of the United States. Perhaps it's no wonder that hate-filled bullyboys and maybe bullygirls too around the country have targeted Dr Ford as if she is some common street girl. From the evidence so far, this has been the most disturbing part of her testimony. Her friends advised her to make the alleged attack public, they advised her to go to the newspapers, they advised her to get a lawyer. But she knew, because she said so, that if she did she would run the risk of being villified by people who will never understand why a woman would keep secret such an incident for more three decades. Her fears were justified and now she will always be known as the woman who brought down President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court - if that is what happens. And it surely will.

Trump and his laughing audience

Donald Trump got a good laugh at the United Nations General Assembly but that was definitely not part of the script. A speech writer might often put a little note at the side in brackets after a paragraph containing something potentially funny: (pause for audience laughter). But the guffaws that erupted when Trump declared he had done more as a president in his first 18 months than any president in US history had clearly been written with a straight face. No laughter expected, so no bracketed advice. Trump didn't seem to mind, in fact it made him grin and he admitted he had not expected such a response. Either his skin is made of rhino hide or he just didn't get it. On the whole I think it was unfortunate that delegates burst out laughing but I guess they couldn't stop themselves. What is amazing is that the president's speechwriter included such a passage, or may he didn't and it was Trump who inserted it. Surely someone in the White House team must have feared that making such a claim would bring the wrong reaction from the UN delegates? But maybe they are all now so scared of the Apprentice King president that no one dares speak up. Sarah Huckabee Sanders MUST have considered this. She's the press secretary, she knows how reporters react when she makes outlandish claims on behalf of her boss. Laughing at the president of the United States of America might have some unpredictable consequences. Just look at John Bolton's speech in New York yesterday. The national security adviser threatened any European government with "terrible consequences" if they dared to continue trading with Iran after November 4 when the reimposed US sanctions against Iran come into force. Britain, France and Germany, co-signatories of the ill-famed 2015 Iran nuclear deal, along with some other members of the EU, have said they intend to carry on trading with Iran through a special conduit, ignoring US orders to honour the toughest-of-all economic sanctions against Tehran. Quite what the terrible consequences might be we don't know but if Bolton meant it and I assumed he did, then EU trade with the US is going to be hit hard. I have said before that I believe it is totally wrong for Europe to side with Iran against the US, and laughing at Trump during his major speech at the UN ain't going to help one jot.

What if Trump is proved wrong about Judge Brett Kavanaugh?

Donald Trump is sticking with Brett Kavanaugh as his nominee for the Supreme Court and dismisses the sex assault accusations against him, saying it's all a political stunt by the Democratic Party. He also insists Kavanaugh is an amazing bloke whose middle name is integrity. Although I guess the president has had little alternative but to support his nominee, what if it turns out that the judge is lying - or has serious memory loss - and the women who have come forward with their stories of his sexual misbehaviour can back them up with proof, and the Senate Judiciary Committee believes them? If Kavanaugh is not confirmed for the Supreme Court, it won't be just a matter of Trump shrugging his shoulders and nominating someone else. Kavanaugh is Trump's perfect candidate for the Supreme Court because at his age - only 53 - he will be around long enough to have a huge influence on judgement-making in the court - the sort of influence Trump will find to his personal and political taste. Losing Kavanaugh will also be a blow to Trump's judgement, prestige and leadership. It could give a huge boost to the Democrats in the midterm elections on November 6. In other words, if Kavanaugh is not confirmed by the Judiciary Committee or by the full Senate, as required, it will be disastrous for Trump. No wonder he is going out of his way to trash the women who have come forward and to bellow what a good bloke his nominee is. Kavanaugh appearing on Fox News with his wife to denounce the accusations against him was extraordinary. It was also desperate and could go against him on Thursday when Professor Christine Blasey Ford appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee and gives her alleged account of how she was assaulted when she was 15. It will be one of the most dramatic appearances of any confirmation hearing of this sort. I don't think Trump can win this one. If the Republican members of the committee and the Senate rough-ride over the Democrats and confirm Kavanaugh's nomination whatever Dr Ford says, the voters, even Trump supporters, might take their revenge on November 6. If Dr Ford fails to convince the committee members, Democrats as well as Republicans, it will still leave a very unpleasant taste in the mouth. The voters might take their revenge anyway.

Rosenstein for the high jump

Rod Rosenstein has three days of high suspense before he meets face to face with Donald Trump at the White House over the New York Times conspiracy story.The not-for-much-longer deputy attorney general is for the high jump. If he doesn't jump, Trump will jump on him. Thanks to the New York Times poor Rosenstein's apparent "joke" about wearing a wire to tape Trump and talking about the 25th Amendment is likely to get him the chop. Although Trump's favourite news presenter on Fox has advised him against firing Rosenstein someone like Donald J is not going to take lightly any hint of conspiracy against him. As I said in a previous blog I seriously doubt Rosenstein genuinely plotted to have Trump thrown out of the Oval Office. Who the hell is he after all? Just the deputy attorney general. He's not a big gun when you have bigger guns working closely with the president every day. But the New York Times claimed Rosenstein thought he could corral General Kelly and Jeff Sessions to slap a 25th Amendment onto Trump's back. Trump has two options when he meets Rosenstein on Thursday: fire him on the spot with or without evidence, or laugh it off. If he does the latter I'm guessing there will be a condition attached: "I won't fire you this time but I want this Mueller witchhunt wrapped up before the end of the year or both you and Mueller will be fired." Rosenstein is between a rock and a hard place. If he denies the New York Times story as an exaggerated piece of piffle, Trump may just accuse him of lying and sack him anyway. If he admits any of the story is true but he didn't really mean it, Trump will definitely sack him. If Trump does hold off from firing him but demands a quick end to the Mueller Russia collusion investigation, Rosenstein will probably say he has given free reign to the former FBI director and the law requires the process to continue at its own pace. So then Trump will fire him. I don't think Trump can ever trust Rosenstein again. He doesn't trust or like Sessions, the attorney general, either, so he might just sack them both and have a clean sweep at the Justice Department. He would argue that he now has just cause to do so because of the reported conspiracy. But if Trump were to remain true to his previous statements that everything appearing in the New York Times is fake news, why would he believe this particular story hahaha? So that has to be Rosenstein's argument when he sits or stands in front of Trump on Thursday: "But Mr President, as you know, these sort of stories are all made up for political reasons, just fake news." Trump could then be stymied, hoist with his own petard. I wonder if Trump knows that phrase from Hamlet.

The judge versus the professor

There is only decision to be made when Judge Brett Kavanaugh, nominee for the Supreme Court, and Professor Christine Blasey Ford, appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Who is lying? From the outpouring of support for Professor Ford I can now fully appreciate why women who allege they were sexually assaulted many many years ago only come forward at a much later date. This can be no specific comment on this particular case but I totally understand why so many women keep these dark secrets to themselves. It's about being scared, terrified, shamed and desperately worried about being misunderstood, ridiculed, laughed at and disbelieved. A truly terrible situation for a woman of any age, and a despicable commentary on certain male attitudes towards women. I don't go along with the line that constantly comes up in newspapers, that in those days it was different, there were different standards and morals etc etc. That is rubbish. Just because there is so much emphasis today on men who have abused their positions to sexually assault women, that does not mean that 30, 40, 50 years ago this sort of behaviour was acceptable. Any woman facing an overbearing, drunk, demanding man determined to force himself on her deserves justice. Now back to the Kavanaugh/Ford case. Each will give their version of events to the Senate committee but it will be far greater an ordeal for the accuser than for the accused. Unless a witness comes forward to say he saw what happened more than 30 years ago, it's going to be almost impossible for the committee to know for sure exactly what happened or didn't happen and whether it was Kavanaugh or someone else involved. Kavanaugh, with the Supreme Court job in the melting pot, denies there was any such incident, which, as described by Ford, was pretty graphic and disgusting and scary. There are 21 members on the Senate committee, only four of whom are women. They are Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking minority member, and Senators Mazie Hirono, Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar. All the women are Democrats. The Republican members are solid males. If Ford makes a convincing appearance and points an accusing finger at Kavanaugh and explains why it was him and only him who attacked her, it's hard to believe that any of the women on the committee will doubt her story. They will also know within themselves why she said nothing all those years ago. Any woman going to the police/FBI to make a sexual assault accusation 30 years ago, and probably even today in this new allegedly inclusive era, would have been confronted by close questioning and examination and doubt. But will these four female senators have sway over the Republican male senators if their gut instinct tells them Christine Ford is telling the truth despite what is expected to be a statement of denial by the accused. It's not a court of law, she doesn't have to produce forensic evidence or photographs. It will come down to: who is the most believable? If the committee trust her account or even suspects the Trump nominee for the Supreme Court is lying, the president should start looking for someone else to nominate.

Rod Rosenstein, super plotter or innocent wit?

I've never met Rod Rosenstein, the mild-looking deputy attorney general of the United States of America, but I've seen him in action on the TV and in the newspapers and he doesn't seem to me to be a cunning plotter hoping to bring down President Donald J Trump. I think, although I hate to say it against my brother journalists, that the New York Times may have got this scoop somewhat skewed. They claim Rosenstein last year raised the possibility of wearing a wire when going to see Trump in the White House and that he felt confident he could persuade General John Kelly, chief of staff, and Jeff Sessions, his boss and attorney general, to cite the 25th Amendment to chuck out Trump from the White House on the grounds, presumably, that the president no longer had the required faculties to be the US commander-in-chief and was downright dangerous to boot. He didn't say the last bit. I am surmising. Strangely enough I can just about see Sessions saying these sort of things because he must have had it up to here with Trump's insults and rudery. Trump has been openly plotting against Sessions for months. But Rosenstein? Not in my book. He MAY have thought it and MAY have even whispered it with a smile on his face to a few chums, but actually intended to carry it out? In other words, a coup!? I really don't think so. If the New York Times story is true, I mean every word of it, and there is proof somewhere, then Rosenstein is like that dead parrot in the Monty Python sketch. He is no more, he has departed this life, it is over for him. I also don't see General Kelly as a plotter. This is a four-star Marine Corps general for heaven's sake. For a man like him it would be tantamount to treason. He would have thrown Rosenstein out of the White House if he so much as mentioned the word amendment, let alone the 25th. The 25th Amendment of course is the ruse by which those closest to the president, any president, can frogmarch the commander-in-chief out of the Oval Office and remove him to a funny farm. It's all part of the wonderful US constitution. But for someone like Rosenstein, a relatively inferior official in the great scheme of things Washington, to have a go at launching a 25th at Trump is so unlikely it makes me think someone somewhere, or several people, have been watching too many reruns of the TV drama series Designated Survivor! The only thing that worries me is Rosenstein's response to the New York Times story. He jumped in quickly to say that the story was "inaccurate and factually incorrect". That sounds like a very careful choice of words by a highly qualified lawyer. What he could have said was: "Excuse the French but this story is bollocks." But then maybe deputy attorney generals don't talk that. But if he had, his denial would have been much more convincing.

Trump goes big on cyber warfare

So Donald Trump has loosened all the previous restrictions on resorting to cyber warfare to hit America's enemies and has given his Cyber Command/NSA chief permission to use this deadly weapon whenever he sees fit. The British government has also set up a cyber warfare offensive unit which will do likewise. This is definitely the era of cyber attacks, and with Russia, China, North Korea and Iran already well into their stride in attacking the West with cyber weapons, it's soon going to be time for the world to try and draw up a cyber warfare control treaty. But I guess that's a fantasy. So watch out for some serious retaliatory attacks from the US if Russia and its fellow cyber offenders target American institutions and/or infrastructure. Of course, the US, under previous presidents has already done just that but with no transparency from the White House. Obama approved the cyber attack on Iran's uranium-enrichment centrifuge systems with the devastatingly effective Stuxnet virus in a joint operation with Israel codenamed Olympic Games but the US has still not confirmed it; and North Korea's ballistic missile launch sites were cyber-targeted, causing many of the launches to fail, all done in total secrecy. The biggest hack against the US was carried out by China when Chinese hackers stole 22 million files of people with security clearance from the Office of Personnel Management, a wealth of information which no doubt China's spies are exploiting to the maximum to this day. Was Beijing suitably punished for this espionage intrusion? No is the answer. Beijing has always denied doing any such thing but is probably plotting to do something similar at any moment. Cyber warfare in any government's hands is a dangerous game. When, for example, will the British government feel it is appropriate for the Ministry of Defence and GCHQ, the signals intelligence service, to launch a cyber attack and against whom? Likewise, can we expect cyber attacks from the US to become a regular occurrence? The man to watch is General Paul Miki Nakasone. He is the relatively new boss at the NSA and Cyber Command, a super-powerful dual position, especially under Trump. Like US commanders in Afghanistan and Syria, the four-star US Army general will now have leeway to cyber attack without having to go through the bureaucratic process required when Obama was in charge. The NSA director then had to ask almost everyone for their view first, not just the president but the Department of Commerce and Homeland Security and a host of other interested parties. Personally, a little bureaucracy for using such a significant weapon of war sounds somewhat reassuring. However, bureaucracy was the reason why Osama bin Laden wasn't killed in 2002 in Afghanistan. A very tall bloke looking remarkably like the al-Qaeda leader was spotted in northern Afghanistan heading Pakistanwards and a request was made to greet him with a precision-guided bomb. But first permission had to be given by the Pentagon and the White House and by the time everyone had had a good chat and then relayed a signal saying YES OK, bin Laden had moved on and disappeared. It took another nine years to get him. In this new cyber world, General Nakasone will be able to attack with a cyber weapon if in his judgment it is reasonable, necessary and urgent.

Kim Jong-un and the same old missile engine test site

It really is quite extraordinary how everyone in Washington, well in the White House, well ok actually Trump, and in South Korea are getting so excited by Kim Jong-un's announcement that he will destroy a missile engine test site and let UN inspectors in to verify it. I thought the North Korean leader had promised to do exactly that when he saw Trump for the summit in Singapore in June!! Trump came out saying how wonderful it was that his new friend Kim was going to knock down a missile engine test site. Then there were satellite images which appeared to show the North Koreans starting to destroy the missile engine test site. So, what's new? I suppose his statement that UN inspectors can pay a visit is new. But the repetition of an old promise is a clever ploy used by governments everywhere. First you make the announcement, then you make the same announcement but in a different context and then you say it all over again the following year, hoping no doubt that everyone will have forgotten what you said in the first place. It's called political mirrors. Kim seems to have learned the mirrors game. I doubt that the missile engine test site is that important. Kim probably has another two somewhere else. But his statement when meeting with the South Korean president was enough to get Trump all stirred up and he told Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, to get back to negotiating with the North Koreans. The last planned meeting was cancelled by Trump because of the bad vibes coming out of Pyongyang. So off will go Pompeo and his team of advisers, including the CIA's head of the Korean desk, with the expectation that Kim might come up with some more morsels. Pompeo has even gone so far as to predict that North Korea will be denuclearised by 2021. I will be the first in the queue to congratulate Trump and Pompeo if this happens. But beneath all the smiles and handshakes and hugs between Kim and President Moon of South Korea there is a wily brain at work. Kim doesn't want Trump to be triumphant, he wants Kim Jong-un to be triumphant. And that means he will demand huge concessions from Pompeo. I can't see Kim agreeing to a 2021 deadline to remove all the nuclear weapons he has spent so much money on developing unless the US agrees to withdraw all troops from South Korea and sign a non-aggression pact. Kim is clever. He knows that with Trump in the White House he just might get what he wants. Trump is desperate to save money and stop US troops being stationed all over the world, and removing the 28,500 troops from South Korea would save an awful lot of money. Just cancelling one joint military exercise between the US and South Korea saved $14 million. The last time Pompeo and the North Koreans got together, the secretary of state was accused of behaving like a gangster. This time I reckon Trump has told Pompeo to be real nice with Kim. Real nice.

US Air Force chiefs have massive expansion plans. Will Trump approve?

My story in The Times got cut by half so here is the full version because I think it's interesting and there are a lot of facts that were left out in the paper: US AIR FORCE chiefs want to go back to Cold War-size combat aircraft strength to be ready for a war with Russia or China. A new plan outlined this week would see the number of operational squadrons increase by 24 per cent from the current 312 to 386. At the height of the Cold War when a conflict with the Soviet Union was an ever-present threat, the US had 401 squadrons. The bill for creating 74 extra operational squadrons, including training 40,000 additional air force personnel and civilians at a cost of more than $5 billion a year, would represent a rearmament programme not seen since the presidency of Ronald Reagan. However, the argument for more fighters, bombers, surveillance aircraft and refuelling tankers, presented by Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, reflects the new US national defence strategy announced in January. This shifted the main focus of America’s military away from counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism towards confronting the threat posed by competing major powers, specifically Russia and China. An extra 74 squadrons could add between 888 and 1,776 aircraft to the US Air Force, depending on the size of the individual squadron ( 12 to 24). Highlighting the current military exercise in Russia involving 300,000 Russian and Chinese troops, Ms Wilson told a conference outside Washington: “We must see the world as it is. That was why the national defence strategy explicitly recognises that we have returned to an era of great power competition.” She said the air force was too small to cope with current and future commitments. As part of the new-look force, if approved by the White House and Congress, there would be seven more fighter squadrons, five extra bomber squadrons, and 15 additional tanker squadrons to ensure combat pilots could cover the distances from American bases to Russia and China. Both Russia and China are engaged in a comprehensive military modernisation programme, each having developed stealth combat fighters to rival the American F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter. Russia’s air force currently has 1,176 “combat-capable” fixed-wing aircraft, China, 2,397, the US Air Force, 1,478, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ Military Balance for 2018. These figures do not include support aircraft, such as refuelling tankers. The US is in the process of introducing its new fifth-generation F-35 across the armed services and is developing a long-range nuclear-capable bomber, the B-21 Raider, to replace the ageing B-1B Lancer and B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. Underlining the vast increase in funding required for boosting the air force by 74 extra squadrons, each F-35 is estimated to cost $85 million, the B-21 bomber, $564 million, and the new supertanker under development, the KC-46A Pegasus, $147.4 million. ends

Maduro stuffs himself with the finest steak as his people starve

The pictures of President Maduro enjoying the finest of steaks in an expensive celebrated Turkish restaurant in Istanbul will I'm sure be welcomed and appreciated by the thousands of families in Venezuela who literally have to hunt through the rubbish dumps to find food. The sight of him relishing the food and smoking a cigar will remind the people of Venezuela, if they need reminding, that they have the most corrupt and uncaring leader running their country or should I say running away from their country. He might just as well stay stuffing himself with food in Istanbul the good he will do by returning to Caracas, now one of the most unpleasant cities in the world. Those who have stayed in Venezuela, either because they have been prevented from leaving or have no choice because Maduro has taken all their money face every day with a huge personal challenge: how to find food to feed their families. The shops are empty and with inflation running at a ridiculous rate, there's very little they can afford to buy anyway. Maduro, sitting in this restaurant being personally served by a chef who appears to think it's an honour to have the president of Venezuela eating his food, is oblivious of the suffering of his citizens. Provided he gets his three meals a day I don't suppose he spends a moment on wondering how other people in his country are eating or if they are eating at all. The picture of Maduro enjoying his meal in Istanbul is just another example of a leader who cares not a fig for his country provided he and his family are doing fine thank you very much.

Why now accuse the Supreme Court justice nominee?

I wonder whether Brett Kavanaugh, nominated for the US Supreme Court, ever thought or feared that an alleged incident 30 years ago when he was a teenager might come up during the Senate committee hearing into his new prospective job? He has denied the accusation made by a former high school female pupil that he held her down on a bed, tried to remove her clothes and put his hand on her mouth when she began to scream. The judge has said no such incident occurred. But the female student, now a professor who has identified herself as Christine Blassey Ford insists it did take place and she is willing to give evidence about it to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Now if this claimed sexual assault took place, it must be right for Professor Ford to be given the chance to appear before the committee deciding on whether to approve the appointment of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. He can then give his side of the story and the senators can make up their own minds. That's called justice. But the first question should surely be: "Why Professor Ford are you making this accusation now 30 years later? Why didn't you mention it at the time or way back when your alleged attacker was rising up in the judicial world?" Well, the answer to the first question is all about youth and fear. If the incident took place then she must have been terrified and too scared to tell anyone in case they thought she was just being a sneak or making it up for some personal reason. But later, was there not a moment when she must have thought she should say something? Whatever the truth of the accusation, is it the fact that Kavanaugh has been selected by Trump that has provoked her into going public after 30 years. If she is a victim of a sexual assault I am on her side and she deserves to be heard. But if there is anything political in her coming forward - ie she hates Trump - then it may have to be treated with care. I make no judgment and I am no fan of Trump, but such an accusation at this particular time makes me wonder whether the presence of Trump in the White House is behind it. The senators at least need to know what her motivations are, apart from wanting to tell everyone about an incident 30 years ago.

The price of loyalty towards Donald Trump

Thirty pieces of silver in exchange for cooperating with the law is one of the oldest games in the legal/prosecution world. There is no such thing as loyalty when it comes to facing 20 years in jail. Paul Manafort, Trump's former chairman of his team during the presidential election campaign, looked as if he was going to stay totally loyal to his president and do his time in prison without spilling the beans, or any beans. He seemed so intent on facing up to his likely punishment without snitching on Trump and the Russian link, alleged Russian link, that even the president went out of his way to praise Manafort for staying loyal. So many others, scared of going to prison, had agreed to cooperate with Robert Mueller, the special counsel ,and tell him everything they know about Russian collusion. But Manafort stood out as Trump’s golden boy. In fact, it has been widely rumoured that Trump intended to pardon Manafort for the crimes for which he has already been convicted, like money-laundering. But facing a whole lot of other charges, Manafort has finally caved in to the charms of Robert Mueller and has now agreed to cooperate with the Russia collusion investigation in the hope that his time in jail can be reduced. Mueller is like a large spider building an ever-growing web that grabs everything and everyone that comes its way. Manafort must have been told he had a choice, go to prison for 120 years or confess everything to Mueller. Out goes loyalty to the president. Poor old Trump, is there anyone left who is not cooperating with Mueller? It was a risky move by Manafort because I guess his chances of being pardoned by the president have now gone out of the window. Surely Mueller must now have a ton of stuff to produce his report to the Department of Justice? But does Manafort know something no one else knows, something to finally drive the nail into Trump’s coffin? Somehow I doubt it. The coffin nails I suspect are held by Donald Trump Junior, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, and possibly Jeff Sessions, the attorney general. And Trump himself of course. The more Trump people who cross over to the Mueller side the less likely it will be, I suspect, that the president will agree to be interviewed by the special counsel. The whole investigation will end up stalemated and Trump will carry on regardless and go waltzing towards his second term as president.

Putin is becoming a laughing stock

The Novichok story from the Moscow angle gets better and better. Even the Russian interviewer who spoke to them wasn’t convinced and anyone who doesn’t like Putin and has had the courage to speak out thinks their tourist tale of visiting Salisbury Cathedral is comical and totally unbelievable. So not all Ruskies believe their Kremlin master. There are probably millions of decent free-thinking Russians who view the Salisbury pair as a disgrace to the Motherland. This could turn out to be wonderfully embarrassing for Putin. He is fast becoming the laughing stock of the world. I bet even Kim Jong-un is laughing up his sleeve although if he is he shouldn’t let anyone see him. After all, he sent, allegedly, two female assassins to smother the face of his half-brother with a handkerchief laced with nerve agent at Kuala Lumpur airport and he died. But Putin made a huge mistake by dismissing the Novichok scandal and telling everyone the two men identified by Britain’s Scotland Yard were sweet darling little chaps. For Putin that was an error of judgment because it made him look totally stupid and an obvious liar. He will no doubt be furious at the way the whole thing has been treated and anyone n Moscow who has been quoted casting doubt on the two Russians’ explanation should check under their cars every morning.

We're just touristskis, claim the Novichok suspect pair

If it wasn't for the fact that two people nearly died and later a poor woman did die and her boyfriend was also sick, and a police officer was hospitalised and half of Salisbury was quarantined and vehicles were removed wrapped in plastic never to be seen again, the two Russians' explanation for their presence in the Wiltshire city when the Skripals were poisoned would be hilarious. We were just tourists visiting the famous cathedral, Alexander Petrov and Rusian Boshirov have claimed. As a noted expert on military/defence type matters cutely put it on the radio, the only thing that the Russians said that bore anything like the truth was their statement that the train was late getting to Salisbury. The idea that these two men travelled all the way from Moscow to Heathrow for a few days just to visit Salisbury Cathedral is laughable and ridiculous even though it is one of the finest cathedrals in this country.But what to do about these Russians? Their script was clearly written by the Kremlin and Putin and co must be laughing their heads off as they tuck into their botscht soup and congratulate themselves with a few shots of vodka. It was certainly quite a performance, all innocent and guileless and ....touristy. It's exactly what we all expected although I was a bit disappointed they didn't confirm my blog yesterday that they probably went to Salisbury to buy the special fudge.

Putin claims the Novichok suspects are Innocent OK.

The two accused Skripal Novichok poisoners are not criminals at all but were just ordinary citizens going about their innocent business while walking the streets of Salisbury when the said nerve agent was sprayed onto the front door knob of the former Russian intelligence officer turned MI6 informant. This at least is the story Vladimir Putin wants us all to believe. The Russian president appears to think he has the perfect answer to the accusation that the two men seen on video and identified by the UK police as members of Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency were responsible for one of the most dangerous and outrageous state-sanctioned assassination attempts in this country. These two men are innocent ok, says Putin, and promises more will be revealed. The two men, named by the Metropolitan police as Alexander Petrov and Rusian Boshirov, not only appeared on CCTV in Salisbury but were known to have entered the UK on a flight from Moscow and left Heathrow for Moscow the day after the poisoning, and when police checked out the hotel room where they had stayed in East London before travelling to Salisbury, lo and behold there were small traces of Novichok in the room. That’s more than circumstantial evidence, that’s what police and prosecutors like to call prima facie evidence. But Putin insists they were innocent civilians, not criminals at all. So on the basis of the Putin logic, these two men got caught up in this affair innocently, and happened to get a scraping of Novichok on their clothes while they were shopping for Salisbury’s finest fudge at the well-known Roly’s Fudge Pantry in the city to take back to their wives. The problem for the UK government is that the names of the two Russians were presumably taken from their passport details, and the passports, if provided by the GRU in Moscow, would be false documents. So the names may have been made up. Putin says he knows where these two individuals are, so I’m guessing his Kremlin henchmen have done a swift check around to find two people who look like Petrov and Boshirov but with different names, and they will be produced at a press conference to tell the world that at the moment when they were supposed to be in Salisbury they were actually watching a football match and eating pizzas in the Russian capital, and there will be photographs to prove it. Or he will produce the two real suspects and “prove” that they have never worked for the GRU and are in fact very keen Anglophiles and fudge-eaters who travel the world comparing fudge-makers for a future book to be entitled The Great Fudges of the World. I have to say, for sheer gall, Putin takes the biscuit, as we say in Blighty.

Jim Mattis is telling an untruth, Bob Woodward claims

It's wonderful when two men of distinction in their own individual fields claim each is lying against the other. Bob Woodward hasn't actually said Defence Secretary Jim Mattis is a liar. He just delicately pointed out that he wasn't telling the truth. The same thing but in more gentlemanly language. Mattis on the other hand made it clear that he never said what Woodward said he said and that the quotes attributed to him were fiction. We're talking of course about the Woodward book "Fear" and his claim that Mattis had described Trump as a fifth-sixth grader. With Trump describing the book as all made up and other important people quoted in the book, such as John Kelly, chief of staff, denying he called the president an idiot, there has been pressure on Woodward to stand up for his reporting. Judging by his previous books, the Watergate reporter is a meticulous gatherer of information from multiple interviewees. He must have spoken to someone who said he was present when Mattis made the derogatory remark about Trump. I assume he didn't get the juicy quote from Mattis himself, otherwise the defence secretary's adamant denial of saying any such thing would be a bit brazen especially if Woodward had a tape recorder with him. When asked on one of the interminable Sunday chat shows whether Mattis was lying, he replied that he was not telling the truth but understood why he had denied the quote because he had to try and save his job. That sort of comment puts Mattis in a very difficult situation. Woodward has built a reputation as a trusted chronicler of political dramas. No one will believe Trump's accusation that the Washington Post journalist made it all up. But Mattis, saving his job or not, must have been confident enough to put out a denial. Perhaps he had no recollection of making such a remark, or perhaps one of his officials said it, and then decided to claim it was his boss who spoke the words. Either way, Woodward is sticking to his guns. So Mattis and John Kelly and others quoted indirectly in the book must be hoping it all just goes away. A rirade of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched against Syrian regime targets might help.

It's the British behind chemical attacks in Syria - outrageous claim by a US Republican senator

Wars, conflicts, foreign crises are never won or concluded by propaganda but it can certainly make an impact. Propaganda was one of the big weapons in the Second World War. In the Falklands conflict in 1982, the military junta in Argentina claimed on numerous occasions that one of the Royal Navy's two aircraft carriers had been sunk. Back in London, as a reporter it was almost impossible to know what was truth and what was fiction because the Ministry of Defence was being tightlipped about almost everything happening 8,000 miles away in the South Atlantic. But it was pretty crude propaganda and no one really believed it especially as both carriers had been sent to parts of the South Atlantic where the Argentine aircraft with their Exocet missiles found it difficult to reach. Bashar Assad the Syrian president has become pretty good with propaganda, blaming everyone else for chemical attacks, barrel-bomb attacks, slaughter of civilians etc. Now he has fed into the ear of a willing US Republican senator the old chestnut that British intelligence has been behind the chemical attacks in Syria with the aim of blaming the Damascus regime and getting Trump to bomb the Syrian regime. Specifically, a smooth-looking individual who had a nice chat with Assad in the Syrian capital, Senator Richard Black has claimed on an Arab TV station that MI6, Britain's secret intelligence service, coordinated with the White Helmet rescue organisation in Syria to fake chemical attacks, including training people to act out as victims. It's baloney. And such obvious black propaganda that only a fool would believe it. Senator Black is obviously a fool. But a dangerous one because it means Assad believes he has certain American politicians in his pocket. I'm sure MI6 has officers or agents or both working behind the scenes in or around Syria but the idea they are manufacturing chemical attacks and filling hospitals with crying children affected by chlorine burns is ludicrous. The US State Department has said as much. Shame on Senator Black for being so gullible.

Will they ever find out who dunnit in the White House?

It has to be unprecedented for pretty well every single person in the Trump cabinet member and senior official closely associated with the president to put out a statement denying being the author of the devastating anti-Trump oped in the New York Times. It's the most intruiging mystery since the hunt for the Deep Throat in the Watergate scandal who spilled the beans bit by bit in an underground car park to Woodward and/or Bernstein during the 1970s scoop of the century. But what really fascinates me is not who penned the article but how many people at the New York Times know who he or she is. The paper says it defnitely knows who the author is. Well, they could hardly print an anonymous oped without knowing who was writing it. That would be seriously unprofessional. So who knows what we all want to know? Just the editor, the publisher and the oped editor perhaps? Who would the anonymous author have initially contacted and was it by email or by phone or during a discreet lunch somewhere in or outside Washington? Whichever way the deal was done it could be traceable by the FBI IF Trump insisted on the Justice Department getting involved. After all, he did tweet that it was TREASON. If I was a disgruntled Trump cabinet member and wanted to air my views in public in the New York Times I reckon I would only contact someone I personally knew and could trust. So, it could even be an individual reporter I had known for years, or a columnist. Then that person would go to the editor and tell him. The editor would then bring in the oped editor and probably no one else. The subeditor given the job of putting the oped into the paper would certainly not be told the identity of the author. So that's a maximum of three people. The publisher might want to know but the editor would probably say it was best to keep the name within the tightest possible circle. The first question the editor would have asked is: "Are you absolutely sure this is genuine and is not a scam by the Democratic Party?" The author would have to have shown his face at some point to verify his bona fides. The one thing that worries me is that in the newspaper world, when a rival paper gets a big scoop - eg Bob Woodward's book on the Trump White House serialised in the Washington Post - the number one priority is to get back at your rival by publishing something equally scoopish to snatch away all the publicity being made by, in this case, the Washington Post. The timing of the New York Times oped was no coincidence. The Woodward stuff was running to huge acclaim, the paper's circulation was rising rapidly and, BANG, in comes the New York Times with its "spoiler" as we say in Fleet Street. So how long did the paper have this anonymous oped on the stocks or was it penned as soon as the Woodward book serialisation started to run because the author thought it was the best time to contact the New York Times? I bet they had it ready to go for some weeks, knowing that their rival was soon to publish the Woodward stuff. The spoiler succeeded. All the attention now is on the New York Times, not the Washington Post. Brilliant. Reporters on the New York Times who don't know who wrote the oped must be gossiping like mad. "Go on, Mr Editor, tell us, we promise not tell anyone else." Ho ho ho. The name will come out sometime I guarantee.

Who is telling the truth, Jim Mattis or Bob Woodward's sources?

Well, having put Jim Mattis firmly on the map yesterday in my Times piece and blog on the rift beteeen the US defence secretary and Donald Trump, up comes the first excerpts of Bob Woodward's latest book detailing extraordinary remarks attributed to Mattis in denigrating his commander-in-chief. Woodward in his book "Fear: Trump in the White House", says his sources told him Mattis described Trump as having "the understanding of a fifth or sixth grader", following a conversation he had with the president explaining why it was necessary to keep troops in South Korea. It's also claimed Trump ordered Mattis to go and kill Syrian leader Bashar Assad (in four-letter terms) after the regime's chemical strike against rebels last year. Mattis said ok, then told aides he would do no such thing and came up with a limited cruise missile strike instead which Trump approved. The latter allegation I can well believe because Mattis has had to play this game ever since he took over ss defence secretary. Keep the president happy by looking as if he is going to carry out his intemperate orders and then produce a more modest option which Trump is persuaded to accept. But the allegation that he called Trump a fifth or sixth grader doesn't sound like Mattis to me. He is the most tightlipped person in Washington. He doesn't do insults, especially against his commander-in-chief. It would be pretty stupid and Mattis is not stupid. Rex Tillerson is alleged to have called Trump a moron when he was secretary of state, and, despite his denial, I'm pretty confident he did just that. His job was on the line for ever afterwards and, sure enough, he was sacked. Mattis's denial was immediate and convincing. Here is what he said in a rushed-out statement while he was en route to India: "The contemptuous words about the President attributed to me in Woodward's book were never uttered by me or in my presence. While I generally enjoy reading fiction, this is a uniquely Washington brand of literature, and his anonymous sources do not lend credibility. While responsible policy making in the real world is inherently messy, it is also essential that we challenge every assumption to find the best option. I embrace such debate and the open competition of ideas. In just over a year, these robust discussions and deliberations have yielded significant results, including the near annihilation of the Isis caliphate, unprecedented burden sharing by our Nato allies, the repatriation of US service member remains from North Korea, and the improved readiness of our armed forces. Our defense policies have also enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. In serving in this administration, the idea that I would show contempt for the elected Commander-in-Chief, President Trump, or tolerate disrespect to the office of the President from within our Department of Defense, is a product of someone's rich imagination." I kind of believe him. Someone has done the dirty on him, some closeish aide may have heard him mutter something under his breath and embellished it, or perhaps made it up for his or her own satisfaction, knowing that Woodward would seize on it for his juicy new book. Or perhaps it was a rumour going round that Mattis may have said something and, Chinese whispers, it suddenly becomes a full-throated insulting quote. If Mattis did say it, it would be totally alien to his normal very very careful posture on all things political. He must be looking around at all his officials and wondering who the hell just put the skids under his job. Will Mattis survive? Possibly. But it's going to be an uncomfortable time over the next few months. As for General John Kelly, White House chief of staff, allegedly calling Trump an idiot, he must have thought it on numerous occasions but did he actually say it in the presence of others? He denies it. Perhaps he mouthed it and someone lip-read!

Mad Dog Mattis's rift with Trump

FOR THOSE UNFORTUNATES WHO DO NOT READ THE TIMES, HERE IS AN ARTICLE BY ME RUNNING ONLINE TODAY, WITH A BIT EXTRA THAT WAS SUBBED OUT. Donald Trump used to routinely refer to Jim Mattis, his Defence Secretary, by his nickname “Mad Dog” in honour of the warrior reputation the former Marine Corps general acquired during a long military career. These days, after a series of policy disagreements, the president mockingly calls him “Moderate Dog”. “The bloom is definitely off the rose as far as Trump is concerned,” according to a former senior Pentagon official, talking about the president’s waning enthusiasm for his defence secretary. It is, he said, “a reflection of Mattis’s efforts to modulate Trump’s mood swings on issues like North Korea and Iran as well as relations with allies”. General Mattis, 67, is one of the group of so-called ‘grown-ups’ in the cabinet, and widely regarded to have formed a well-coordinated team with John Bolton, the national security adviser and Mike Pompeo, secretary of state - even though the defence secretary’s policy instincts are sometimes at odds with the more abrasive Mr Bolton. The other general in the cabinet, John Kelly, the president’s chief of staff, gets on well with General Mattis but his days may be numbered. “Kelly is merely going through the motions at this point,” the former official said. Moving against the two military men in his inner circle is not without risk for Mr Trump. The extraordinary memorial service for Senator John McCain was packed with rows of senior officers in uniform applauding Meghan McCain, his daughter, as she spoke about her father’s legacy as a great American against the “cheap rhetoric” of a president who has never served in the military. Mr Trump retains the support of the majority of the armed forces according to polls, but General Mattis is revered by the services. A dispute over future joint military exercises between the US and South Korea was the latest in a tug of war between the president and defence chief. This year’s planned exercises were cancelled by Mr Trump as a mark of good faith to help motivate North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to start dismantling his nuclear weapons stockpile, following the summit in Singapore in June. General Mattis last week indicated that the next round of exercises for 2019 would go ahead. Mr Trump jumped in quickly, tweeting to emphasise that it was the White House not the Pentagon, that made these sort of decisions. The president picked General Mattis as defence secretary because he admired his record as a combat commander, and military people Mr Trump trusted had recommended him for the job. However since General Mattis took over at the Pentagon in 2017, there have been numerous policy disputes between the two: *The president said he wanted US troops out of Syria as soon as possible. General Mattis made it clear they had to stay to finish the mission. *Mr Trump wanted a close relationship with Russia and for the Russian and American military to work together in Syria. General Mattis said he was happy to continue with the existing arrangement under which the two countries maintained contact to avoid mid-air jet fighter clashes over Syrian territory. He opposed any other military cooperation. *The president proposed a new space force. The defence secretary was against the idea on the grounds it adds to the Pentagon’s bureaucracy and was unnecessary. Mr Trump announced it anyway and General Mattis has been forced to implement his president’s wish. He is trying to do it at minimum cost. When General Mattis was appointed, the view in Washington and in Nato capitals was that he would act as a restraint on a president who appeared to make foreign policy decisions on the hoof and in many respects he has succeeded. Mr Trump accepted that US troops had to stay in Syria, and Afghanistan, and the idea of American and Russian forces working together in Syria soon fell by the way side. “Friction between the president and secretary of defence is not unheard of, but what is generally unheard of is how public the friction is,” another former senior Pentagon official said. “We have a president who apparently feels compelled to share his every thought with everyone, and whose policy-making process seems limited to what he and he alone happens to believe at any particular moment – and which is often subject to change at a moment’s notice.” “We have an unusual situation where a former general is serving as defence secretary. George Marshall did but that was a long time ago [1950-51] and President Truman adored him,” he said. “I think Mattis’s objective, as it was during his time in uniform, is first and foremost to serve the nation. The oath is to the constitution, not the president. I also think he sees himself trying to help the president who had no experience in national security affairs prior to assuming office, to learn on the job,” the former official said. “Failing that, Mattis is trying to limit what he sees as any missteps by the president. At times he tries to take the lead, as with the issue of military exercises in Korea, at the risk of finding himself too far out in front,” he said. History is littered with US defence secretaries who have fallen out with their presidents. Jim Schlesinger, probably the best strategic thinker to serve as defence secretary, from 1973-75, did not get on well with either President Ford or Henry Kissinger, secretary of state. Congress regarded him as too abrasive. He was finally seen as a liability and was eased out. Donald Rumsfeld who served as defence secretary from 1975-77 under President Ford, and from 2001-2006 under President George W Bush, was associated with failed policies, particularly Iraq, and was replaced. Robert McNamara, 1961-68 under Presidents John F Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, suffered the same fate over Vietnam. Caspar Weinberger, 1981-87, was seen as pushing too hard for increased defence spending and also became a political liability in the latter part of President Reagan’s administration and he was replaced. Chuck Hagel, 2013-2015, came to differ with President Obama on several key policies, most notably on US strategy in Syria, and was sacked. However General Mattis is a determined survivor, and is not a man who wants to be seen to be confronting his own commander-in-chief. He backed down over the space force decision and issued a statement clarifying his remarks about military exercises with South Korea. Mad Dog or Moderate Dog, General Mattis’s advice will likely be indispensable in the months ahead should North Korea talks break down irretrievably, and Kim Jong-un reverts to ballistic-missile tests, or the stand-off with Iran escalates towards a military clash.

Who is going to run against Trump in 2020?

From Donald Trump's perspective, the chance of being relected for a second term probably looks pretty good. Not because his leadership and policies are so successful that every voter in the land will make the decision he is the best man for another four years. But because the Democrats are coming up with a host of most unlikely candidates to fight him. Joe Biden is near the top of the list of possibles. But this is a man who said he wanted to be president, then he said he wouldn't go for the 2016 nomination because his son tragically died of cancer, but went through a period of not being sure and now he seems to think 2020 is the one to go for. But he will be 77 by then. Surely the US needs a younger man at the helm, especially after Trump? Then there's Senator Elizabeth Warren, a smart woman no question but she will be 71 in 2020. Senator Bernie Sanders wants to have another go. But Bernie shot his bolt the last time round when he was rival to Hillary Clinton. I have stood up close to Bernie Sanders in the White House Park when he was beng interviewed for a television programme and he seemed, to me, to be a very ordinary person, lacking in charisma and certainly lacking presidential qualities. There's a string of others, such as Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Senator Kamala Harris of California, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker and New York governor Andrew Cuomo. But none of them are inspiring candidates. And now there is one more potential candidate, John Kerry, an energetic secretary of state under Barack Obama, and failed presidential candidate, beaten by George W in 2004. I like Kerry, I thought he was a good secretary of state, a very tall imposing man who, if nothing else, would look like a president. But he will be nearly 76 when the election is running. Trump has already laughed him off as a rival, attacking him for being the archtect of what he sees as the disastrous 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Despite his age, I would vote for Kerry if I were an American citizen, unless some young inspiring politician steps forward. I am still holding out hopes for Joaquin Castro, the 43-year-old Democratic congressman for Texas. But then that's because it would be so bizarre to have a President Castro running the United States!

When will Isis be actually defeated?

Isis are still around, still plotting to attack the West, still recruiting foreigners, still a big threat to our security and lives. They were supposed to have been defeated in Iraq and mostly defeated in Syria, and crippled in Libya and constantly targeted in Afghanistan. But they remain a threat. It's always dangerous to say any terrorist organisation has been defeated. Look at al-Qaeda, they're not the threat they posed under Osama bin Laden but they haven't gone away, especially in Yemen. The best bit of news was the confirmation that al-Qaeda's chief bombmaker had been killed. Ibrahim al-Asiri had been a mighty and dangerous thorn in the flesh of the West for years, designing increasingly sophisticated explosive devices. His death is a major blow to al-Qaeda. But they're still in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen and a host of other places. The same with Isis. Just when you think they're all gone from Iraq, they stay fighting in Syria and start up training camps in northern Afghanistan. Neither al-Qaeda nor Isis are defeated. What worries me is that the US is now so obsessed with preparing for war with Russia or China that these terrorist groups will slip down the list of priorities. That would be dangerous for all of us.

Donald Trump persona non grata at McCain funeral

Donald Trump was everywhere at John McCain's funeral, everywhere but actually there. His absence, demanded by McCain himself, said everything about the way the United States is at the moment, politically, and everything about the disdain for Trump felt in what I suppose is right to call the Washington estabishment. John McCain was not a member of the establishment. He was in many ways a maverick, like Trump. But the establishment, headed by Barack Obama and George W Bush, wrapped their arms around one of their favourite sons and closed the door on the incumbent president. I don't suppose Trump cares that much, but it was the clearest and most symbolic snub to a man who showed no respect for one of the country's most dominant and resilient politicians. The funeral eulogies for McCain were devastating in their rejection of Trump, especially by the senator's daughter, Meghan. Will any of this make a difference to the political scene in the US? Will it persuade some people to vote Democrat rather than Republican in the mid-term elections in November? I fear probaby not. For everyone living outside Washington, this was a funeral for one of the best known senators, but all the anti-Trump stuff will probably fall by the way side. People outside Washington do not think like people inside Washington. That's the reality. As a consequence, I think the funeral of John McCain, an emotional and emotive event, will have no impact on the mid-term elections or on the way voters decide to vote on November 6.