Trump warns he will lock 'em up

Donald Trump, potential jailbird, potentially the next president of the United States, has bizarrely united his two possible futures by warning he will lock up his political opponents if he gets back into the White House. I don't know whether Trump likes a joke or indeed has a sense of humour but I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he must have been having a laugh when he made the comment during an interview on Glenn Beck's BlazeTV show. But you never know with Trump. He still seems to hold a grudge against Hillary Clinton who wasn't prosecuted after being found to have used her personal mobile phone for sending sensitive government-business emails. He said at the time, in 2016, that she should be locked up, and all his supporters used to cry "Lock her up". But he told Beck if he was reelected in November 2024 he'd lock up his political opponents. What he really meant I'm sure was that he would take revenge against politicians who are now trying lock HIM up and that he would be in the right to lock THEM up. A joke? Well, sort of. But it certainly doesn't sound too good for a presidential candidate to reveal he has the instincts of a dictator. If he doesn't like 'em, lock 'em up. Hillary Clinton better beware. He might get her retrospectively after all!

The Pentagon is going mad about drones for a war with China

The Pentagon has a new idea. They are going to buy thousands and thousands of land, sea and aerial drones over the next two years with the aim of frightening Beijing into behaving non-aggressively in the Indo-China region. With so many available unmanned systems, the Pentagon is telling Beijing it could fill the air and sea and, if necessary, land with robotic systems to damage the massive navy and army if they so much as dare to head off towards Taiwan. The new drone programme was announced with huge enthusiasm a few days ago but no one as far as I'm aware asked the obvious question: "I thought it was supposed to be all about America's superiority in aircraft carriers that was deterring Beijing from trying to seize Taiwan, and the mass of anti-ship missiles which are being bought for the US Marines. How can swarms of drones really put off the mighty Chinese fleet from scurrying across the South China Sea to Taiwan? Well, the Pentagon thinks it's the best way forward and they are planning to push ahead as fast as possible. Officials also point out the drones will be cheap. They also point to the lessons learnt from the war in Ukraine where drones fill the skies every day. But the other lesson learnt from Ukraine is that masses of aerial drones get shot down, although the sea drones used by Ukraine have been very effective. Who knows, in two years time when the Pentagon has bought all the drones it wants for the China theatre, the PLA (People's Liberation Army) will have come up with a super anti-drone system that will undermine drones' effectiveness. The carriers, of course, will stay play a huge part in deterring China but the great thing about drones is that they are unmanned and cheap, so if you lose a few thousand no American lives are lost, whereas if a carrier is sunk, you're talking mass casualties and the loss of a ship costing up to $13 billion.

A deluge of trials for Donald "Mugshot" Trump next year

Now for the first time we know the dates for the four trials so far fixed for the multiple criminal charges laid against Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States. All of them will take him out of the campaign trail while he sits in the dock. The first one will be on March 4. That's the big one relating to accusations he incited and inspired the mass revolt and attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. A few weeks later he will be on trial for business fraud linked to the hush money paid to a porn star with whom Trump allegedly had an affair. Then on May 20, it will be the case involving Trump's retention of classified files at his residence in Florida, and finally on September 6 the trial linked to the alleged interference in the Georgia election. If these dates go ahead, Trump will be hugely in the news every day but not while making campaign speeches or appearing at rallies before adoring supporters. I have no doubt his absence from the campaign trail will make little or no difference to his popularity. But four trials, all in the key months when rival Republican candidates will be fighting hardest to win the nomination, could at least make Republican voters sit up and take notice. Do they really want Donald "Mugshot" Trump as president? While the performance of his rivals remains so poor, Trump will power ahead to the nomination. But even the Wall Street Journal, once a firm supporter of Trump, is now calling for an alternative candidate, and I don't think they have Ron DeSantis in mind, despite earlier enthusiasm. That enthusiasm has seriously waned. Even if all four trials don't go ahead as currently planned, at least one and may be two WILL begin before the election. So Trump in the dock will become a familiar image. The scowl-look he has rehearsed will be there for all to see every day. It won't be a pretty sight.

Guantanamo trials up in the air over judge's ruling

The US government's prosecution of high-ranking al-Qaeda terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has suffered a dramatic setback, after a ruling by a military judge. A "voluntary" confession made to federal agents by Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, accused of masterminding the suicide bomb attack on the USS Cole which killed 17 American sailors in 2000 has been thrown out as inadmissable. The judge, Colonel Lanny Acosta, had heard that the federal agents had interrogated the accused in a courteous and friendly manner when they questioned him at the Guantanamo detention centre in 2007. However, after his arrest in 2002 for the bombing of the US warship outside the port of Aden, al-Nashiri spent four years in secret CIA "black" prisons where he was tortured in a programme officially called "enhanced interrogation. The judge ruled that the years of violent treatment which included the simulated drowning technique of waterboarding would have been in his mind when he volunteered to be questioned again at Guantanamo. "Any resistance the accused might have been inclined to put up when asked to incriminate himself was intentionally and literally beaten out of him years before," Acosta wrote in his ruling posted on the US Military Commission's website. The ruling could have profound implications for all future trials at Guantanamo where detainees charged with capital offences have suffered similar harsh treatment at the hands of CIA interrogators. The biggest case, long delayed by pre-trial legal arguments about the CIA's use of torture, involves five accused co-conspirators behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged architect of the hijacked planes plot. Mr Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times. US military prosecutors at Guantanamo have based their cases on the pledge that none of the evidence brought to trial would include confessions made under duress by CIA interrogators. Court evidence would be based mainly on FBI and New York police investigations. However, the judge's 50-page ruling means that "it is actually not possible to sanitise cases against people who were in the [CIA's] extraordinary rendition programme [when terrorist suspects were flown from one country to another without any judicial process]", Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas told the New York Times. It's not as if this decision conclusively settles this question for every case. But both in its reasoning and in its symbolism I think it's going to be a de facto precedent," he said. The US government is expected to appeal against the judge's ruling.

Trump piles in the money post mugshot

The state of politics in the US today: Donald Trump appears at a county jail on serious election-interference charges and is the first president ever to have a police mugshot taken of him and since then has raised more than $7 million in donations from adoring fans. He raised more than $4 million on Friday alone, the day after he was booked at Fulton county jail in Atlanta, Georgia. So the adoration of Donald Trump continues whatever he does or says. Maureen Dowd, the scathing anti-Trump columnist for The New York Times has written probably her most damning piece ever on the former president in her column today. But will it make a difference? I'm afraid not. The extraordinary donation statistics are evidence alone that this man remains armour-proofed against anything thrown at him. Politics in America is all about money money money and Trump is never going to be short of cash. Everyone decent in the US, from President Joe Biden to all Democrat voters and every non-Trump-loving Republican has every reason to be fearful of the future.

Has Trump peaked too early?

Is there a tiny chance that Trump is attracting so much publicity with all his criminal indictments hanging around his neck that some of the undecided voters and even some of his less passionate supporters will at some point have had enough of his face in their faces and opt for someone with softer features, a quieter voice and pronounced views but without shouting them from the rooftops every day? Right now I would say there is no chance of that happening. But how about in, say, six months time when everyone will have had a deluge of Trump and will be waiting for him to make his first appearance in a trial? Might some voters, Republicans I mean, begin to say to themselves, do we really want four more years of this? It's what some newspapers in the US are already calling Trump fatigue. It sounds like wishful thinking by Democrat supporters but it could be argued that Trump has peaked too early. He started his campaign before anyone else and has built up an unrivalled head of steam at the top of the rankings. If I was a betting man I would say the following rivals have absolutely no chance at all of unseating him: Mike Pence, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie and pretty much all the rest, with two exceptions - Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy. They are still outsiders by a long way. But if Trump has peaked, could either of them surge forward? Vivek RamaswamyI doubt has the staying power, but Nikki Haley is the outsider worth a few dollars for a bet in my view. She may well rise up the rankings because she has a lot going for her. If Trump fatigue really does set in, then Haley for president might become a more interesting prospect, and she could be capable of beating Joe Biden.

The Trump cavalcade after his jail appearance says it all

Donald Trump may be facing four separate indictments and could potentially end up in prison before the presidential election next year but my God does he still have all the razzmatazz that goes with being a former president. When he left Fulton county jail in Georgia his cavalcade was massive. So many hefty-looking vehicles to protect the 45th president you would have thought he was some sort of Big Cheese. Well he is a Big Cheese still despite all the criminal charges against him. Wherever he goes he is a huge presence. This is what his so-called Republican rivals have to put up with, and Joe Biden too. As for the police mugshot it will now become the must-have image for every T-shirt-selling shop. Someone will make a fortune. It is the most phenominal contradiction. Normally when people are charged with serious criminal offences they try and hide from photographers and scurry out the back door, often with a coat over their heads. Not Trump. He loves the publicity, never mind that he might end up in prison. He will sweep from state to state in his convoy of armoured vehicles and Secret Service escorts and will hammer all his rivals into the ground. He is truly a phenomenon and it's really really scary that he could become president again.

Yevgeny Prigozhin was on Putin's most wanted hitlist

As is so often the case with Putin revenge operations, many questions have still to be answered over the reported death of Yevgeny Prigozhin. If he was on board the private business plane which hurtled to the ground with black smoke trailing behind, then he is definitely dead. But you have to ask, knowing he was top of Putin's hitlist why would be risk travelling in a plane with his senior staff en route to St Petersburg where he has his palatial residence? Maybe, just maybe, he got complacent. Two months had gone by after his bizarre mutiny against the Kremlin establishment (ie Putin) was called off before he and his armoured vehicles reached Moscow. Did he honestly think he had been let off the hook? When Putin calls someone a traitor, as he did Prigozhin, there can surely be no doubt in anyone's mind that the named traitor will come to a sticky end whether it be immediately or two months or two years later. After all he waited eight years before he sent assassins to Salisbury to try and fatally poison Sergei Skripal, former Russian intelligence officer, and his daughter Yulia. Skripal had betrayed Russia by giving secrets to MI6 and was swapped in a spy exchange in 2010. Amazingly he survived the assassination attempt. But for the rest of his life he will have to be protected by MI6. When Putin says revenge he means revenge. So back to Prigozhin, surely he cannot have fooled himself that Putin would go all soft and cuddly suddenly and forgive him for daring to mutiny against him and his inner circle? There has to be a tiny possibility that he wasn't on the plane but the Kremlin will never admit this even when the post mortems are carried out on the ten passengers. So Prigozhin will be "dead" even if he wasn't killed on the plane. But working on the theory he WAS on the doomed plane, will we ever find out what happened? Was it a bomb on board, hidden in a box of fine wines, as some reports suggest, or was the plane shot down from the ground? Either way, judging by the video images, whatever happened was sudden and catastrophic. So not a malfunctioning engine or a flight of seagulls at 30,000ft. If it was a bomb how on earth did the perpetrators get it on board without arousing suspicion among the three bodyguards who were listed on the manifest? The Kremlin will eventually come up with their conclusion which will run something like this: "After an exhaustive investigation it would seem there was an engineering defect in one of the gear boxes which caused a catastrophic implosion. The tragic deaths of all those on board was therefore as a result of a mechanical fault. The company that leased the aircraft has been closed down and the owner arrested and charged with manslaughter. Long live Vladimir Putin."

VIva Vivek but not as president of the USA

There is non-stop publicity about Vivek Ramaswamy, the 38-year-old bio-tech entrepreneur who wants to beat Donald Trump and then Joe Biden to become president of the United States. He has become the whizz kid, longest-shot Republican contender who has suddenly climbed right up to third or maybe even second place behind you know who. One of the reasons is that he makes himself available for every possible interview whether it be a podcast or a local radio station or the big boys of the media world. But now the glamour boy with a private plane has ruined it. He has admitted he is a conspiracy theorist and doesn't believe the full story has been told about 9/11. He raised a bizarre matter in an interview the other day when he wondered why there were no federal agents on any of the passenger planes, implying that somehow the US government of the day knew al-Qaeda was going to hijack the planes and fly them into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. Later he denied he suggested any such thing and claimed he was talking about the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Now come on, Mr Ramaswamy, you can't talk about federal agents not being on board the 9/11 hijacked planes and then claim you were misquoted. I hate it when politicians do that. Voters are not idiots. They heard what they heard, and, like me, they probaby didn't think much of it. A million man hours have been spent investigating 9/11. I reckon we know pretty much everything by now and the old conspiracy theory about how the US government was somehow involved is pure tosh. Is Vivek going to claim the US never landed on the moon next and that aliens from outer space are even now having lunch at some secret US military base? Conspiracy theorists should never be allowed to stand for president. Vivek Ramaswamy has blown it and blown his chances and will have some explaining to do at tonight's first Republican debate on Fox News.

Ukraine's increasingly bold drone war inside Russia

Ukraine’s growing armed drone campaign deep inside Russia has claimed its biggest success, destroying a strategic bomber at a base more than 400 miles from the Ukrainian border. New images have shown a Tupolev Tu-22M3 swing-wing Backfire bomber shrouded in flames and black smoke at the Soltsy-2 airbase which is about 315 miles west of Moscow. The Soltsy-2 base is home to Russia’s supersonic nuclear-capable Backfire bombers which have been used extensively to launch Kh-22 cruise missiles against targets in Ukraine. Kyiv’s increasing use of domestically-produced long-range drones to attack military targets inside Russia is becoming a game-changing tactic in the war which has now lasted more than 540 days. The US has declined to give Ukraine long-range armed drones, such as the MQ-9 Reaper which has an operational capability of 1,150 miles because of the Biden administration’s reluctance to include weapons that can be used to hit targets inside Russia. Washington wants to avoid escalating the war to a point where Russia and Nato could come into direct confrontation. As a result, Ukraine has developed its own longer-range drones, based on old Soviet designs, and there have been numerous attacks in recent months, some of them reaching Moscow itself. On Sunday Ukrainian drones hit a number of targets in Russian regions bordering Ukraine. The defence ministry in Moscow claimed a drone strike in the Moscow region was jammed, causing it to crash. The destruction of a Backfire bomber, however, will serve as a warning to Moscow that Ukraine has an improving capability which will pose an increasing challenge to Russia’s air defence systems. The attack on the Soltsy-2 airbase involved a “copter-type UAV [unarmed aerial vehicle]”, according to the Russian defence ministry. It claimed an aircraft was “damaged” , but the latest images show the bomber engulfed in flames. The base has been hit by Ukrainian drones before, causing structural damage to aircraft. But the latest attack is believed to be the first to have destroyed a strategic Backfire bomber. The challenge posed by Ukraine’s long-range drones was emphasised in the defence ministry’s statement, with the admission that after it was detected approaching the base in Novgorod region it was only targeted with “small arms fire”. The Kyiv government is working with more than 80 Ukraine-based drone manufacturers to produce several thousand a year. Longer-range models are a priority. One new model is the UJ-22 developed by the UKRJET company in Ukraine which has a reported range of up 500 miles, although it can only carry a small payload at that distance. With a maximum 20 kilogram warhead it can reach Moscow but not cause significant damage. President Zelensky hinted in July that Russia would suffer more attacks at home. “Gradually, the war is returning to the territory of Russia, to its symbolic centres and military bases, and this is an inevitable, natural and absolutely fair process,” he said. Russia has for months been engaged in launching long-range drone attacks on Ukrainian cities, using Iran-supplied kamikaze Shahed-136 unmanned aerial vehicles.

Trump will be present at the first Republican TV debate but not in person

Working out Donald Trump's reasoning for not attending the first Republican presidential TY debate on Wednesday in Milwaukee is not too difficult. He knows that even though he won't be there in body, there will be such a huge, visible vacancy on the stage that the Fox News presenter's first question is almost bound to be: "Why do you think the leading contender for the nomination has decided not to attend these proceedings?" It will be all about Trump Trump Trump. So why bother turn up when all the other contenders will do his job for him, giving him free publicity. Trump says he won't attend the TV debates, plural. But let's see. His ego will probably get the better of him once he sees his rivals performing so badly in the first debate. But for the one on Wednesday he will sit back in his armchair wherever he is and have a good laugh at the people who think they can oust him as the Number One contestant. Without him there to goad them, his rivals will have to put up a helluva good fight on the stage to get anywhere near his popularity. At least they will get a better chance to air their views without having Trump interrupting all the time, as he loves to do, waving his arm around at the same time. The debate Trump won't be able to boycott is the one-on-one session with Joe Biden if he gets nominated next July. But in the meantime he thinks he has done more than enough to win the nomination without having to stand next to his pale rivals and explain why he should be president even if he is in jail.

Is Biden a good, average or weak president?

To get an answer to this question, don't ask any Republicans in the US. They all believe that Biden is a weak president, some believe he is too weak to be president at all and should definitely not be allowed to serve another four years. Well, they are Republicans, so they would say that. But the bad news for Biden is that a lot of voters, when asked in polls, also think of him as a weak president. He is certainly not overwhelmingly popular. He doesn't have the titanic presence of a Donald Trump or the suave coolness of a Barack Obama or the shrewdness and Texan drawl of a George W Bush or the glamour of a Bill Clinton or John F Kennedy. He is steady, slow-as-you-go and a bit shuffly, but determined, decent, loyal and well-meaning. Is he strong enough and inspirational enough to do another four years in the White House when the world is going to be increasingly dangerous and unpredictable? I think this is what US voters, both Democrats and Republicans, will be thinking about the closer it gets to November 2024. It's why Americans are so likely to make the same mistake they made in 2016 when they voted for Trump. They like big and bold and blustery. They wanted Trump in 2016, not quite so much in 2020 and maybe a lot more in 2024, depending on whether he is in jail or not. Biden can never be described as big and bold and blustery. Nor can his vice president Kamala Harris. So I think the chances of Biden winning are getting more remote as the days and weeks go by. This is seriously worrying for the Democrats who have no alternatives, but also seriously worrying for the Republicans who want power back in the White House but are fearful of what Trump might do if he wins. The choices for voters are really not good!

Does the Cuban missile crisis offer any ideas for ending the war in Ukraine?

The world nearly came to an end in 1962 when Krushchev tried to ship nuclear warheads into Cuba to fit onto missiles already in place. Reading "Lessons" by Ian McEwan, his brilliant new novel whose main character experiences the fear of being vapourised by a Soviet nuclear attack as a pupil in boarding school during those climactic weeks reminded me of my similar fears as a child looking out of the window waiting for something to happen. But there was no nuclear annihilation. The world was saved by brinkmanship diplomacy and ultimately by a deal which persuaded Krushchev to call back his ships with the nuclear warheads. The missile crisis was over. The deal of course was that if Krushchev removed the missiles from Cuba, President John F Kennedy would agree to dismantle the intermediate-range nuclear missiles installed in Turkey aimed at the Soviet Union. A world-saving quid pro quo. There nust surely be a similar world-saving quid pro quo to end the war in Ukraine and return the planet to some form of normality. The war cannot, must not, go on and on, killing more and more people, with every day threatening a terrible escalation and nuclear terror back on the schedule. Most wars end in negotiation and compromise. Not the Iraq war of course. That ended in a very prematurely-called victory which was then replaced with years of insurgency and the creation of the Islamic State (Isis). The trick, like in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, will be to find the formula which will be acceptable to Moscow, Kyiv and Washington (and possibly Beijing).

Does Putin really want a for-ever war?

Putin cannot win his war in Ukraine, he can only prolong it. And that's what he is doing. The war is part of his long-term strategy to wear down the West and eventually to emerge alongside the president of China as the two dominant leaders of the world for the foreseeable future. What are the options for the West? Stay in the fight for ever? Push for a doubtful peace? Call the whole thing off and leave Ukraine to a grim future? Or accept Ukraine as a Nato member and confront Russia with all the might of a full-scale conventional war? Do any of these options raise hopes of an honourable settlement? I fear not. So if Putin has already decided to regard the war in Ukraine as a permanent feature in his diary, the West's choices are minimal. Stick it out to the end is the most favoured choice, but what will the end look like? No one knows. Not Putin, not Biden, and probably not the next president of the United States if it's not Biden. At some point in the next 12 months, we are going to have to call Putin's bluff. It would be dangerous. But the fact is, the war IS damaging the Russian economy, inflation is rising steeply and in terms of his original objectives very little has been achieved on the battlefield. It's time perhaps to start getting really tough with Putin. A for-ever war and all the atrocities that go along with it just cannot be permitted. Putin has many weaknesses, it's time the West exploited them to the full.

One anti-abortion senator against the Pentagon

Hundreds of military nominations in the United States are being held up amid a deepening battle over the Pentagon paying servicewomen to cross state lines for abortions. The blockade on military promotions from Tommy Tuberville, the Alabama Republican senator, follows the Pentagon refusing to change its policy on paying for service members to travel to another state to receive abortion and other reproductive services. More than 300 senior officer nominations are now on hold as part of the stand-off. The defence department pays for service members to travel to states that still offer reproductive healthcare following last year’s ruling by the US Supreme Court overturning the historic 1973 Roe v Wade case, which had made abortions legal across America. A Pentagon spokeswoman said there would no backing away from the policy. Promotions have to be confirmed by the Democrat-led Senate but can be put on “hold”. As a result of the impasse between defence chiefs and Tuberville, for the first time in US history three of the services — the army, navy and marine corps — are currently being commanded by interim officers following the retirement of their chiefs. In the most bizarre case, the first woman to be nominated as chief of naval operations, Admiral Lisa Franchetti, should have taken charge on Monday, replacing Admiral Mike Gilday. Instead, in a handover ceremony she was appointed in an acting capacity. Without her official Senate confirmation, she can legally perform her duties as the top officer but will not be able to issue guidance to the service as incoming chiefs are normally required to do. The guidance would put her personal stamp on the way ahead for the US navy facing an increasing threat from China’s maritime aggression in the Indo-Pacific region. Calling the situation “unprecedented”, the defence secretary Lloyd Austin said: “Because of this blanket hold, starting today, for the first time in the history of the department of defence, three of our military services are operating without Senate-confirmed leaders. This is unprecedented, it is unnecessary and it is unsafe.” Tuberville, however, has refused to budge. He is a member of the Senate’s armed services committee, which vets all top military appointments. “We’re not going to change our policy on ensuring that every single service member has equitable access to reproductive health care,” Sabrina Singh, the deputy Pentagon press secretary, said at a briefing. “If you are a service member stationed in a state that has rolled back or restricted healthcare access, you are often stationed there because you are assigned there. It is not that you choose to go there,” she said. “A service member in Alabama deserves to have the same access to healthcare as a service member in California [or] stationed in Korea.” The next high-profile job to be held up could be at the end of next month, when General Mark Milley, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, retires. President Biden’s chosen replacement for Milley, General Charles Q Brown, would remain in the panel as air force chief of staff until approved by the Senate. Tuberville says the Pentagon’s assistance to servicewomen seeking abortions is illegal. Under the Supreme Court ruling in June last year, the nine judges, six of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, approved Mississippi’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks. It meant individual states had the right to ban abortions. But about half of the 50 US states still provide such healthcare services. The Pentagon spokeswoman added: “The department does not have an abortion policy. We have a healthcare policy and we have a travel policy that allows for our service members to take advantage of healthcare that should be accessible to them.” Aiming remarks at Tuberville, she pointed out that his state of Alabama was host to the Pentagon’s defence missile agency. “Right now it is being dutifully commanded by a one-star general but he is filling the role of a three-star general,” she said.

Trump's best bet

The way forward for Donald Trump is now obvious, if you are in the Trump camp that is: Delay all the trials for as long as possible, then win the election and stay immune from prosecution as the sitting president until 2028 by which time he will be aged 82. Any reinstated prosecutions after 2028 could then be subject to rulings on the constitution by the Supreme Court which could take a year or two to resolve by which time the president at the time would probably say, "the old boy is too ancient to go to jail, so let's call the whole thing off". Voila! So I have no doubt every attempt will be made by Trump's lawyers to postpone all the trials on the grounds that they might interfere with the constitutional right of the fomer president to stand for reelection. Jack Smith, the special counsel who has brought some of the most serious indictments against Trump will puff and puff but in the end all the legal barriers will become too gargantuan as the election day gets closer and closer. As for all the charges brought against Trump and 18 others in the alleged Georgia election conspiracy, the very fact that there are so many defendants makes it virtually impossible for trials to be held in the foreseeable future. Some former White House lawyer during the Trump administration has suggested the trials could be two years away at least. So, there we go: delay, win the election and avoid prosecution.

Trump swamped with new criminal charges

There are no real surprises any more in the Donald Trump saga. He is being showered with so many criminal charges that it's almost impossible to keep count. More than 80 anyway. Even if only one sticks he is in big trouble. If he is convicted on every charge, then bye bye Trump for ever. But in the meantime the United States of America is buuilding itself up for the biggest set of trials it has witnessed for decades. Trump in the dock here, Trump in the dock there, Trump in the dock everywhere. His large face and candyfloss hair is going to be seen in the defendant's chair dozens and dozens of times. When the trials begin there will be no other news. The whole country will be gripped. Just to put it bluntly: the man who wants and expects to become the 47th president of the United States in November 2024 has right now more chance of being sent to jail than to the White House. And that has landed the US in a mammoth crisis. What social eruption is it going to cause? Will his millions of fans watch quietly and accept that justice is being seen to be done? No, absolutely not. The latest series of indictments involving Trump and 18 others accuse them all of being part of a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election result in Georgia in 2020 - 41 separate charges! It's huge! Perhaps the biggest set of charges so far. The battles in the courtrooms are going to be unprecedented. The battles in the streets are going to be dangerously unpredictable.

What if Trump's legal problems prevent him from standing?

Polling figures and analysis published in The Hill paint a fascinating scenario. What if Trump becomes so embroiled in fighting the increasing number of indictments - with more expected soon arising from the allegation that he tried to overturn the Georgia vote in 2020 - he is prevented in some way or other from continuing to stand as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination? If that were to happen, it would be a disaster for the Republicans because none of the other candidates could just step in and take his place. None of them have anywhere near his popularity and following. So Republican voters would be so disillusioned they might not bother to turn out and vote. Joe Biden would walk it. I think this is absolutely correct. Why on earth would Trump's supporters switch their loyalties to, say, Ron DeSantis or Mike Pence or Nikki Haley? They wouldn't do that. They would say it's Trump or nobody. So for the Republican party it would be the worst possible outcome. The presidency would be handed to Biden on a plate. A lot of senior Republican politicians are quietly appalled at the prospect of having Trump back in the White House, but they would rather have Trump than another four years of Biden. So it's a total catch-22 situation. And Trump's devoted followers? Of course they won't vote for DeSantis instead even though at one point he was looked on as a younger Trump. A sort of mini-Trump. But not any more. So, instead, Trump's fans would stay at home and refuse to vote for anyone. Trump himself of course has said he will carry on campaigning for the White House irrespective of what the Justice Department and Jack Smith, special counsel, do to try and convict him of serious charges. But there could come a point where Trump may have to focus all his efforts on fighting the charges and staying out of jail. Right now I can't see that happening but you just never know.

DeSantis is history

Ron DeSantis fails on pretty well every count. He is not instantly likeable, he has no charisma, he has some fairly nasty political views, he doesn't make good speeches and he is losing staff every day. Also, everyone prefers Trump. On Saturday DeSantis appeared at a rally in Iowa and all he could hear were cries of "We love Trump". He must have loved that. When he announced he was standing for the Republican nomination I truly believe he felt he had as good a chance as anyone of outrunning Trump and then defeating Biden for the White House. You could see it in his eyes and in his general swagger. He was the new man, the great new hope of the Republican party, the guy who would outshine and outsmart Trump. Trump dismissed him from the start and said he had no chance of matching his popularity. Oh my God, was Trump right! DeSantis has slipped into oblivion, even though he lies second in the Republican race for the White House. If you think DeSantis still has swagger, then have a look at Trump at his next rally. He oozes swagger. And generally speaking, swagger can get you into the White House through the front door. Of course DeSantis will continue to campaign and continue to hope. But basically, unless there is a miracle over the next few months, he has no chance of upstaging Trump, let alone beating him for the nomination.

Could Hunter Biden be the downfall of his father?

The appointment of a special counsel to look further into Hunter Biden's business dealings guarantees that while the Republicans have to worry about all the legal challenges faced by their expected nominee candidate for the 2024 election, Donald Trump, the Democrats will now have serious worries over whether President Biden is going to be brought down by his son. The Republicans will make much of the investigation into Hunter Biden's affairs. He has already had one setback in his attempt to rid himself of charges against him. A prosecution deal in which he would have pleaded guilty to relatively minor offences, two cases of non-payment of tax in 2017 and 2018 when he earned a sizeable sum, and possessing a firearm when using and being addicted to drugs which is a felony, fell apart. The judge in the case didn't like the sound of the plea bargain arrangement and threw it out. Back to square one. Now with a special counsel given additional powers to delve further into his businesses, notably in Ukraine and China, the Republicans will enjoy trying to associate Hunter's good and bad fortunes to his father. Did the son exploit his father's status to win contracts and did the president benefit in any way himself? This is all gutter politics but in an election year you can bet the Hunter Biden story is going to run and run.

Will Kamala Harris at last make a difference?

Kamala Harris it is claimed is upping her game to make more of an impact on behalf of Joe Biden's reelection campaign. It is surely about time. So far she has made little difference to the Biden administration's good fortunes. She had and has so much potential it has always seemed bizarre that she has not come forward to let the American people know that as Biden's vice president she could if necessary take over the reigns of power. With Biden as old as he is, it has becme increasingly important for her to demonstrate her skills and powers of leadership. But it simply hasn't happened. Now, she has her chance and I think it would be entirely beneficial both for the Biden administration and for the country if she steps out from behind Biden and shows what she is made of. It is of course the curse of every vice president that their role is to support the president without making a lot of noise or fuss. But the US is in an election countdown and so far all the focus has been on Donald Trump and his so-called rivals for the Republican nomination. Kamala Harris needs to take on new responsibilities so that the public will take notice. Biden has the advantage of being the encumbent president, so he gets as much publicity as he needs every day. His vice president needs now to be hitting the headlines, though obviously for the right reasons. She is more than competent as a speechmaker and looks good. Biden will benefit from having a vice president with a higher profile. So let her be unleashed.

Why run for president when you know you won't win?

A comment made by the governor of South Dakota sums up the Republican race for the presidential nomination. Governor Kristi Noem was asked on Fox News whether she would be running and she was adamant that while Donald Trump was in the race no one else had a chance. So why run when you can't win, she said. It's probably the most realistic comment anyone in the Republican party has made since the campaigning began. It is true to say that the governor is pretty pro-Trump, thanking him for leaving her to get on with her job without interference when he was the president. And maybe she is angling to be chosen as his running mate. But the fact is, all the Republicans who have stepped forward to run against Trump are whistling in the wind. Florida goveror Ron DeSantis I'm sure felt he had a very good chance to overtake Trump. He had won the governership overwhelmingly and seemed to be on a roll. But it didn't last long. In fact, his campaign has gone downhill fast. The polling figures show beyond any question that he is so far behind Trump that he might as well give up now and take up fishing. All the others, from Mike Pence to Nikki Hayley, might as well drop out now, too. They are just wasting good money and creating a make-belief world which is founded on sand dunes. Ok, it's good for democracy and voters' choice but you do wonder why any of the non-Trump candidates are still running. It must be very dispiriting. Governor Kristi Noem was spot on.

The war in Ukraine is changing dramatically

Much of the focus in the past four months has been on Ukraine's much-vaunted counter-offensive aimed at driving the Russians out of occupied areas in the south and east. The progress has been less than dramatic. A village here, a few square miles of territory there. But nothing so significant that you could say the operation is a wild success. But in the meantime Ukraine's special forces have been engaged in a huge escalation of attacks against Russia itself and inside Crimea. The war is getting closer and closer to the Russian people. Ammunition dumps have been blown up, factories churning out equipment for the war have been attacked, individual military commanders have been targeted and apartment blocks on the outskirts of Moscow have been hit by drones. The Russian people must surely now have got the message that their "enemy" is operating within their communities. Their lives are being targeted. At what point will Russians begin to blame their leader for the disruption to their lives? Or will they continue to swallow the Kremlin propaganda and believe that Ukraine and its western partners are out to destroy Russia? Putin is counting on deceiving the Russian population, so that all their anger is focused on Nato and Kyiv. This ploy has worked well since the invasion of Ukraine began but can all Russians be so gullible? Do they not have minds of their own? Can they not see that by invading another country, Putin is to blame for every act of violence that has occurred within the boundaries of Russia? Whether the counter-offensive makes a big breakthrough or not, I see the war switching in emphasis away from the hard grind of attritional warfare towards an intensification of attacks inside Russia and Crimea. There will come a boiling point, both for Ukraine and for Putin.

Could the perceived rush to put Trump on trial before the election have serious consequences?

Viewed through the eyes of Donald Trump and every American who voted for him in 2020 and who plans to vote for him in 2024, the indictments and apparent rush to put the former president on trial well before the date of the election imply, nay prove, that the Biden adminisration and Justice Department are hellbent on getting him convicted and sentenced as quickly as possible. This may not be fair but it looks that way if you are a Trump-voting Republican. As a consequence you could argue - again if you a signed-up member of the Trump fan club - that every decision taken in relation to the charges levelled at Trump have been politically based and politically biased. Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed to investigate all the allegations against the former president, might argue - I don't know because I'm not sure anyone has asked him - that it was his duty to gather all the evidence and put it to a grand jury as swiftly as was appropriate and according to the legal responsibilities imposed on him and to ensure that trials be held in a manner and timing that matched the seriousness of the charges. In other words, he felt obliged to set a framework for trials that was both recognisably fair and acceptable to the defendant and to the prosecuting authorities. Delay for political reasons should not be considered, nor should an unseemly rush be allowed, also for political reasons. If this was Smith's thinking, then he cannot be accused of acting outside his remit in order to do President Biden a favour. But looked at from the Trump position, it could be argued that Smith was helping Biden to get reelected by his decision to cram all the indictments together well before the 2024 election, making it impossible for Trump to campaign without having the special counsel's Sword of Damocles hanging over his head. But then you have to ask: what if Smith had delayed all the decisions, and thus the trials, until after the 2024 election? Would that have been fairer to Trump? But what if he then lost to Biden? Trump's fans would scream that Smith and the Justice Department had conspired to get Trump defeated. Or what if Trump won the election? Could the trials go ahead with Trump as the elected president? Neither option would be good for the United States of America. So, the conclusion is, it's surely better to get the trials over and done with before the election. Then the voters can decide. Unfortunately, it still all smacks of politics.

How Moscow is trying to turn Mariupol into a city to live in - for Russians

One of the most depressing reports coming out of the war in Ukraine was the revelation that Russia has been building new apartments in Mariupol in the south and inviting Russian families to come and live there. Moscow wants to Russify Mariupol which Russian artillery and cruise missiles effectively destroyed about a year ago. The city on the north end of the Sea of Azov was turned into a graveyard of dead civilians and destroyed buildings. It was an annihilation programme, carried out with total brutality despite brave rearguard defensive action by a Ukrainian military unit. Now Russians are moving in to new apartments, even though much of the city centre is still awash with destruction. It's a cynical exercise by the Kremlin to try and retain control and possession of a once great Ukrainian city. It will lose its Ukrainian status. Residents will be expected to talk Russian, have Russian passports and no doubt swear loyalty and allegiance to Vladimir Putin. It's exactly what Hitler did when he took over Poland. I need say no more.

A Trump/Biden contest could lead to a repeat of January 6

There has to be a strong possibility that if Trump and Biden battle it out for the White House next year, the end result will be so close that we could get another January 6 2021 violent incident. Let's say Biden is declared the winner by a tiny margin. Would this be acceptable to Trump and his followers? Would they dispute it and claim fraud all over again? Let us hope that governors and the National Guard and the White House are even now thinking about and planning for the worst scenario for November next year. Polling seems to be suggesting a close-run battle between Trump and Biden and if the former president follows the same path he did in 2020 he will never accept an election result unless it favours him. So, the only way of avoiding a repeat of January 2021 is for Biden to win an overwhelming mandate when even Trump cannot argue he is the victim of an injustice. But this is unlikely to happen, judging by the current polls. And what if the result is announced in Biden's favour, with Trump waiting to be declared the winner from a prison cell? The potential for violence hardly bears thinking about. I'm sure I can't be the only person fearing the worst.

What would Trump be like as the 47th president?

I think it is fair to predict that if Donald Trump becomes president again in November next year, he will feel he has carte blanche to do exactly what he wants from the White House for his second four years. If he was a man of vision and moral rightness and democratic values this would give him an immense opportunity to do good both for the United States of America and for the world. But his critics and enemies and observers of his first four years in office say his track record indicates he will use his power in a way that will benefit him personally and his businesses to the detriment of his fellow citizens. And that he might launch into some foreign policy decisions that will endanger, not make safer, the rest of the planet. He has already promised to end the war in Ukraine in his first day in office. Really? How does he propose to do that? One phone call to his friend Vladimir, and the Russian president will back down? Surely only if there is a massive quid pro quo which allows Putin to claim an historic victory. Just like Trump did with the Taliban! And what would Trump do about China and Taiwan? Try the Trump charm offensive like he did with Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader? That was all Hollywood but no substance. For Trump to overcome all of his present legal problems - the three indictments with more to come - and then win the Republican nomination AND beat Biden into the ground? He would feel like the Emperor with a full wardrobe. He could do things that would have long-term consequences, like extracting America from Nato and leaving Europe to fend for itself. He threatened to do it before his first term in office but in the end came round. Would he come round if he becomes president again? He absolutely might not. It is probably time Europe and all of America's allies started planning for the worst scenario. With Trump back in the White House not even the most brilliant soothsayer could predict what might happen.

Will DeSantis et al improve their chances now?

Now that Donald Trump is facing hugely serious charges and the threat of conviction and prison, will this help or hinder the chances of his Republican rivals winning the nomination in July next year? Right now, the answer is clear. Trump is way ahead and will remain way ahead for the forseeable future. But there could come a time over the next six to nine months when his principal rivals, such as Ron DeSantis, will have to make a big decision. Do they go all out and say Trump should stand down and leave the race to others while he fights for a life outside a prison cell? This will take courage. Or to put it another way, a move such as this could lead to political suicide. But the Republican party as a whole will also have to make this decision. How long do they continue to back Trump? Are there people with courage and vision in the party who will say, enough is enough, it's time to move on from Trump and give their backing to another candidate? At this time I doubt there is anyone around, apart from the tiny minority of Trump critics in the Republican party, who would dare to come out in public and make a statement of this kind. Why? Because they know that there would be a howl of derision from the millions of Trump devotees around the country. But if Trump is convicted, what then? Will it be too late for the bravehearts to step forward? This is the extraordinary state of affairs for the Republicans. They are all in limbo, waiting to see what happens. How any of them can continue to back Trump is one of the great mysteries of the universe. But they do, either out of a mindless loyalty to him, or out of cowardice or out of total absence of common sense. So the party will probably stagger on behind the Trump bandwagon because he still represents the best hope they have to oust Biden from the White House.

Has Trump got a case?

Let's look at two of the indictments against Donald Trump from his lawyers' point of view. First, the classified documents which he hoarded in his residence in Florida, some of them classified as top secret, and a few of them very very sensitive indeed. And not kept in heavily locked storage but lying around in boxes in his bathroom, available for any guest to open and look through. In fact Trump was so proud of his boxes that he liked to show his guests what he had and invited them to read and take note. Presumably he boasted about the sort of stuff he had to deal with when he was president. Pretty cool, right? But all unlawful. No question abut it. Guilty as proven. But then you look at the defense counsel side of things. Sure the 45th president had classified documents in his residence but he had been president of the United States for four years, he was a Big Cheese, he meant no harm to the nation he loved and served. They were just documents and he wasn't showing them to the Russians or Chinese or Iranians, for God's sake. And by the way, other presidents and vice presidents have done the same and they weren't charged with federal offences. And what about Hillary Clinton? She wanted to be president and yet she was regularly emailing classified stuff to people on her personal phone, I repeat, personal phone, not her official business phone. And she got away with it. No charge, no indictment, no prison sentence threatened. So why pick on Donald Trump? To repeat, he meant no harm and by the way as the outgoing president he had declassified all the documents in his head, and presidents can do that. Please show me the rules that dictate a president has absolutely no right to make judgments about classified documents that were prepared for him when he was president. All these documents have been handed over, so that should be an end to it. If Donald Trump is guilty of keeping documents, then so is President Biden, former Vice President Mike Pence, former presidential candidate and secretary of state Hillary Clinton and probably every president since the Civil War. So get a life and leave my client alone. ACQUITTED. Then there's the even more serious charge of conspiracy to overturn an election and telling lies to back it up and as good as inciting his supporters to charge on the Capitol and try to tear it down. But, the defense counsel will say, Donald Trump loves his country and he believed totally that the election had been undermined by fraud and that he had been denied a second term in the greatest office in the land as a result. This is what he genuinely believed. And, by the way, he was not alone in this belief. At least 17 million noble citizens of this nation we love also believed it was a fraud. So it was President Trump's right and duty to defend the honour of the nation and dispute the election result. And as for inciting his supporters to violence, Donald Trump specifically called on his fans to march on the Capitol but to do so peacefully. Not once did he say that the Capitol should be stormed and that congressmen and women should be put in fear of their lives. Never for one moment did the 45th president imagine that his words would lead to such appalling violence and he has many times denounced the violence and regretted the tragic loss of life of five people on that day. He didn't conspire to bring violence to the capital and to the Capitol. He tried to bring about what he believed was the just and honourable and correct conclusion to an election which he and all his supporters were convinced he had won. ACQUITTED. It could happen.

Latest Trump indictment is a massive moment in US history

It is impossible to overestimate the significance of the decision to charge the 45th president of the United States with conspiracy over his alleged involvement in the January 6 2021 assault on the Capitol. It is such a massive moment in US history that his two other indictments seem almost of passing interest. The president of the United States being indicted for trying unlawfully and fraudulently to overturn the democratic vote in the 2020 election?! It's almost beyond belief even though we have all been expecting it ever since Jack Smith was appointed special counsel to investigate the January 6 attack. Trump must for once be seriously worried about his future but he still rants on about how the Justice Department is weaponising the legal system to stop him from becoming president again. A lot of people will believe him. If he is found guilty of the latest indictment, no one seems to have any concept of what this will mean for the country and in particular for the 2024 presidency. If he is acquitted, no one seems to have any real concept of what this will mean for the country and in particular for the 2024 presidency. Well perhaps not the latter so much. If he is acquitted of the conspiracy charge but convicted of hoarding classified documents as per the previous indictment, then he will become the Republican nominee for the 2024 election and probably end up as president. I don't believe, I can't believe, that if Trump is convicted of conspiracy he will be back in the White House. Meanwhile all the adversaries of the United States in the world are looking on and relishing the prospect of the superpower in a state of political and potentially anarchic chaos.

Medvedev is so free and easy with his nuclear warning talk

Dimitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, has been at it again, threatening nuclear war. This time in an article he said that if Ukraine, backed by Nato, attacked Russia, then Putin would order the use of nuclear weapons as per the Russian military doctrine whch states nukes will be used if the country faces an existential threat. Well, first of all, Russia does not face an existential threat, neither from Ukraine nor from Nato. A few drones launched on Moscow isn't the same as an existential threat. As Medvedev well knows. He is just upping the rhetoric to try and scare Ukraine and the West. Medvedev has become a rather piteable character. Once respected in the West as a reasonable individual to do business with, he is now Moscow's Siren voice, trying to drag us all into Armageddon. Lindsey Graham, the hawkish US senator, has suggested that if Putin fired a nuclear weapon at Ukraine that would be treated as an attack on Nato. I'm not sure what he means by that. But if Putin did dare to do such a thing I'm pretty sure the war in Ukraine would escalate rapidly and could well involve Nato. Perhaps Medvedev should think before he talks or writes in the future.