“Disloyal, a Memoir: The True Story of the Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump,” by Michael Cohen is a trashy book, written in prison in a trashy, Brooklynese style, by  a convicted felon.  And yet, especially in its early chapters, it tells the reader a great deal about President Trump.

   Cohen’s central thesis, reinforced again and again over its 300-plus pages, is that the craven, narcissistic, grifter that he worked for on the 26th floor of the Trump Tower is the exact same person that occupies the Oval Office today. Trump, he argues, is Trump, then and now. 

   He is the same Trump that maneuvered endlessly in his Trump Tower days to promote himself in the tabloids and on talk radio and TV. Cohen illustrates his theory with all sorts of inside accounts of the shady “deals” Trump promoted over the years. “Disloyal,” is certainly not literature, but it has the ring of truth. Cohen’s book probably will not change your view of Donald J. Trump; more likely it will reinforce it.

Racing Interruptus

Terence Smith: Sailing through Annapolis’ season of racing interruptus in a 16-foot boat

By Terence Smith

Capital Gazette |

Oct 03, 2020 at 1:00 PM 

There are nine Herreshoff 12.5s that sail regularly in Annapolis, lovely, 16-foot, gaff-rigged boats originally designed by the great Nathaniel Herreshoff in 1913. His design of an open-cockpit, full-keel sailboat was — and is — perfect.
There are nine Herreshoff 12.5s that sail regularly in Annapolis, lovely, 16-foot, gaff-rigged boats originally designed by the great Nathaniel Herreshoff in 1913. His design of an open-cockpit, full-keel sailboat was — and is — perfect. (Courtesy of Bill Museler / HANDOUT)

It was a tiny victory, in a tiny sailboat, against a tiny fleet, but a satisfying victory, nonetheless.

But the fact that the informal and admittedly insignificant race was being held on a Wednesday afternoon just off the Annapolis Yacht Club and was not organized by the club as part of its longstanding and popular Wednesday Night Racing series tells you something about the impact of the pandemic — and this year’s capricious weather — on the maddeningly frustrating 2020 sailing season.

At its best, this season was Racing Interruptus. Mostly, it didn’t happen at all.

Now, how tiny is tiny? Well, the “fleet” on this afternoon consisted of three Herreshoff 12.5s. They are lovely, 16-foot, gaff-rigged boats originally designed by the great Nathaniel Herreshoff in 1913. His design of an open-cockpit, full-keel sailboat was — and is — perfect. As a result, it has not been changed in 100-plus years. There are scores of them racing up and down the East Coast and a fleet of nine 12.5s that regularly competes in Annapolis.

How tiny was the victory? Well, here’s how it went: with Jana Davis, executive director of The Chesapeake Bay Trust, calling tactics, I steered Dear Prudence, my 1994 Herreshoff 12.5, to a good start just off AYC and pulled well ahead of the other two boats in the race on the first leg. As we approached the turning mark near the far shore, I said to Jana, “Look at that current, it’s rushing past the mark.”

Did I do anything to compensate for the current? No, instead I cut the mark too close to port and was promptly caught in the current and pushed within an arm’s length of the mark. Poor Dear Prudence got caught in the current and spun around 360-degrees while the other boats passed us and turned for home. We rounded the mark a second time and followed in the wake of the others. For a life-long sailor, it was a mortifying moment.

A spirited tacking duel followed as we beat to windward on the long leg to the finish. We slowly caught the other boats and matched them tack-for-tack. At the very last moment, in a classic example of dumb luck, we shot across the finish line first! We won by half a boat length.

Herreshoff 12.5s are an open-cockpit, full-keel sailboat. It has not been changed in 100-plus years. There are scores of them racing up and down the East Coast and a fleet of nine 12.5s that regularly competes in Annapolis. - Original Credit:
Herreshoff 12.5s are an open-cockpit, full-keel sailboat. It has not been changed in 100-plus years. There are scores of them racing up and down the East Coast and a fleet of nine 12.5s that regularly competes in Annapolis. – Original Credit: (Courtesy of Bill Museler / HANDOUT)

That is what I mean by a satisfying victory: pulling it from the jaws of defeat after a boneheaded blunder at the turning mark.

A “normal” Wednesday Night Race series offers two dozen weekly races between April and September and turns out 100-plus boats in various classes and sizes from the little Herreshoffs to big, powerful racing yachts. On a nice evening with a decent breeze, it is a gorgeous spectacle that often concludes at the bar in the yacht club or the Boatyard Bar and Grill where videos of the race are run repeatedly.

But there was nothing normal about this year. Thanks to the pandemic and restrictions imposed by the governor, the whole season started six weeks late and even then most classes initially raced every other week to avoid congestion. In addition, the hot, sticky weather in July and August produced threatening thunderstorms on Wednesday evenings with uncanny regularity. The race committee had no choice but to cancel at the last hour again and again.

When the season concluded on Sept. 2, the Herreshoff class, for example, managed only seven races instead of 24. Bummer.

Pandemics and the weather are obviously beyond the control of the AYC Race Committee. Given the continuing threat of COVID 19, and the heat and humidity intensified by climate change, the 2021 season may be no better than the sadly unsatisfying 2020 debacle.

So, here is my suggestion: why not extend the season and schedule make-up races on weekends? The Herreshoff class has been holding its informal races, on Wednesdays during September, with makeups on Thursdays and may soon schedule them on weekends in October.

The Annapolis Yacht Club Race Committee could do something similar and the beautiful waters off Annapolis would once again look as Annapolis should look, pandemic or no.

Terence Smith, journalist and sailor, lives in Annapolis.
Terence Smith, journalist and sailor, lives in Annapolis. (By Paul W. Gillespie / Capital Gazette)

Terence Smith, journalist and sailor, lives in Annapolis. His website is He can be reached at

Whither the Newsroom?

The beleaguered, diminished editorial staff of The Annapolis Capital Gazette – a daily so old that it printed the Declaration of Independence – observed Labor Day with a cavalcade and rally protesting the decision of its publisher, The Tribune Company, to close its newsroom permanently.

“A Car is Not a Newsroom,” read one reporter’s sign, “We deserve better,” read another, “Save Local News” was a third.

“We’re not leaving without a fight,” said Selene San Felice, a Capital reporter, out on the street in front of her locked former office, conceding that there was no chance The Tribune Company would reverse its cost-conscious decision. Her concern, and that of other staffers, is that more cuts are coming.

When the Washington Post reported on the plans to close the newsrooms of the Capital and four other of Tribune’s local papers, the subhead asked an intriguing question: “What’s a Newspaper without a Newsroom?”

The Post piece noted that, in addition to The Tribune, the financially troubled McClatchy Company “took steps to close seven of its newspaper offices around the country.” Again, not temporarily because of the virus, but permanently.

The pattern is pretty hard to miss, and it certainly caught my eye. It was just the latest sign of the precipitous decline in advertising and revenue that has shuttered 2,100 newspapers across the country since 2005. It is also an example of the hard-headed, bottom line calculations imposed by the vulture capital firms that are acquiring and systematically bleeding the assets of scores of papers all over the country.

But still, the question: what is a newspaper without a newsroom?

In a nearly five-decade career in daily journalism I worked in three newspaper newsrooms and three network and public television newsrooms.

The first was a noisy, wooden-floored, high-ceilinged space on the second floor of The Stamford Advocate in Stamford, CT. There was a semi-circular news desk and the clatter of stand-up Remington typewriters.

The second and by far the most filthy and romantic, was the city room of The New York Herald Tribune on 41st Street. The vast room had no air conditioning, so the tall windows were left open night and day in the summer and the Manhattan grit crunched under your shoes as you arrived for work. But I loved it. And, look who labored at the desks near you: Tom Wolfe, Jimmy Breslin, Charles Portis and a dozen other rising stars. You didn’t have to look far for inspiration.

The third was the sprawling newsroom of The New York Times, an imposing, block-wide space between 43rd and 44th Street in those days, filled with Pulitzer winners, veteran shoe-leather reporters and cranky editors. David Halberstam was just back from the jungles of Vietnam, Gay Talese was on his way to a celebrated literary career and Harrison Salisbury was headed to Moscow. In the newsroom, your colleagues shared stories, gossip, advice and got your competitive and creative juices flowing.

The Washington and New York newsrooms of CBS News were filled in the 1980’s and ‘90’s with bold-faced names like Cronkite and Rather. They were mostly open, but a glass-walled section was called the NUB, short for Next Up Broadcast. The pace inside the NUB was intense, bordering on frantic, especially as 6:30 p.m. approached, broadcast time for the live CBS Evening News. A young producer, Susan Zirinsky, was a human whirlwind. Today, she is president of CBS News. Again, the newsroom was a place where you could share ideas and subject your own story proposals to critical review by your colleagues.

My final newsroom, the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, now simply The PBS NewsHour, was, like the broadcast itself, more low key, measured and serious. The news mattered here, not ratings. It was housed in a dreary, two-story building in Shirlington, Va, just across the Potomac from Washington. The quarters were cramped, but we put on a reliable, responsible, hour-long newscast that reached a million or more discerning viewers each night. (The self-deprecating slogan among the staff: “We Dare to be Dull.” Today’s PBS NewsHour, with Judy Woodruff at the helm, is brighter and better.) Once again, the newsroom was the womb from which it all sprang.

The five soon-to-be-homeless Tribune papers are The Annapolis Capital Gazette, The Carroll County Times of Westminster, MD, The Morning Call of Allentown, PA, the Orlando Sentinel and, believe it or not, The New York Daily News.

The Daily News was once the largest circulation newspaper in the country, selling 2.4 million copies every day in the 1960’s. It’s newsroom in The News Building on E. 42nd Street had a huge globe dominating its lobby. It was so iconic, so clearly big time, it was used as the set of the Daily Planet in the Superman films. Today: The Daily News sells 200,000 copies on a good day and the newsroom is gone.

All these papers were the product of the collaboration, cooperation and inspiration that emerged from the collective creation of their newsrooms. Now they will all be permanently “remote,” emerging online from the homes and computers and cellphones of their staffers. Reporters will be filing from their cars.

Can it work? Absolutely. The Capital and and others have demonstrated that during the pandemic shutdown, working remotely and delivering first rate work to their readers. The extraordinary reporting of The New York Times and Washington Post on the Trump foibles of the last six months has all been done remotely.

Will it save the companies money? Of course.

Will it be the same – and as good? Absolutely not.

Our Imperial Presidency

Mark it down: April was when the wheels finally came off the Trump bandwagon.

After weeks of rambling, largely incoherent performances in the daily White House coronavirus briefings, punctuated by assaults on the media generally and individual reporters occasionally, President Donald Trump went into total meltdown on Thursday, April 23. That was when he mused, in spontaneous free-association, about the possible merits of ingesting disinfectants and projecting sunlight and ultraviolet light into the body to counteract the virus.

“I’m not a doctor,” he said, belaboring the obvious and tapping his temple, “but I’m, like, a person that has a good you-know-what.” Even for a “very stable genius,” as the President has described himself in the past, it was an extraordinary moment. Sitting off to one side, Deborah Birx, who is a doctor and the coronavirus response coordinator, was a study in self-restraint as she looked down at her hands folded in her lap.

In the momentary silence that followed, you could almost feel White House aides, Trump supporters and Republicans around the country cringing. This time, the President had strayed into clearly dangerous, life-threatening territory with no obvious escape route. This time, his Teflon coating had failed to protect him.

Even President Trump realized his blunder. The next day, he cut the White House briefing short and walked out without taking any questions; the next day he tweeted that he was too busy to attend the briefing. But by Monday, he was back in the limelight.

“You know, I can’t really explain it,” Maryland’s Republican Governor Larry Hogan said on one of the Sunday shows when asked about the President’s Thursday comments. Hogan, who has been careful and measured in his own statements on the virus, added: “It does send a wrong message…when you just say something that pops into your head.”

That is apparently what the President did. Aides reported later that he had attended part of a technical briefing just before the news conference on the impact of bleach and other disinfectants and sunlight on the virus. No one was suggesting this as a medical treatment for humans, but Trump took it there in his comments, urging the medical experts to test whether it could kill the virus in people.

You would not expect anyone to take this wacky idea seriously, but calls to state and local medical departments about it spiked in the immediate aftermath of the President’s off-the-cuff remarks.

The whole incident underscores a more fundamental question: why is this President — really, any President — briefing the nation on such a vital, highly complicated, public health issue as the Covid 19 pandemic? The answer in this case, of course, is that everything President Trump does is about President Trump. In this locked-down, socially-distant world, he is not able to hold the big, noisy political rallies that he enjoys so much. The daily briefings have been the substitute, an opportunity to lie, exaggerate and mislead, while making wildly-inflated claims about his Administration’s performance.

Instead, the nation should be briefed by medical and public health officials, who actually know what they are talking about, and who should be in a position to make the crucial decisions on testing and managing the pandemic that only the Federal government can make. Drs. Anthony Fauci and Birx have played that role, but only as supporting players to the President, who remains front and center.

Such is the consequence of our imperial presidency. As Congress has ceded more and more power to the executive in recent decades, we have created an impossibly demanding role for the President, any President. The man in the Oval Office — so far, all 45 have been men — is called upon to decide war and peace and, in the case of the corona virus, life and death.

No one, man or woman, can fulfill this limitless role. No one person can be the decider-in-chief on everything. Perhaps, in the wake of this virus, the nation can re-balance: Congress can reassert itself and the professional civil service can be given greater responsibility and authority in crises where expertise is crucial.


Corona Down Under

It was a simple, uncomplicated idea: three weeks in summery Australia at the dreary end of the U.S. winter, a long overdue visit with my son, Chris, his wife, Kerri, and two of my three granddaughters, Scout and Saylor, who are living in Brisbane, Queensland, for two-three years for his work. I hadn’t seen any of them in 15 months.
What could go wrong?

The flight over was long, God knows it was long, but mercifully uneventful. A mere 30 hours after leaving Annapolis, Maryland, I was deposited by Virgin Australia into the Brisbane airport at 6 a.m. the next day, or the day after that, who could possibly know which after a cross-country flight to LAX, crossing the international date line and a 13-hour leap to sunny Brisbane? Through my comatose fog, I heard my son say we were off for three days to Noosa, a breathtakingly beautiful beach and national park a couple of hours both of Brisbane on the aptly named Sunshine Coast. Swimming and surfing and eating and sipping commenced, more or less non-stop, for the next 72 hours. The weather was perfect, there were Koalas in the eucalyptus trees, probably sharks and other deadly things in the warm, soothing water, and an 80-mile-long deserted beach on which my son let his 9 and 11-year-old daughters violate all local laws and common sense by driving his four-wheeled SUV at lunatic speeds through the silky sand. No one turned an eye as we went by. When in Noosa.. .

The next two weeks in Brisbane were a delightful blur: lunches with Chris in the glass-and-steel, high-rise central business district, which gives Brisbane its derisive nickname, Bris-Vegas; rides on the City Cat ferry up and down the wide Brisbane river, a couple of strolls along the cleverly-designed Southbank, with its museums, Ferris wheel and rain-forest walk (really.) A couple of rounds at the Bulimba Golf Club, which features pig racing with pari-mutual betting on Sundays and one round at the hilly Victoria Park Golf Course, with spectacular views of the downtown skyline.

Evenings featured kid things: an almost professionally-run, weekly junior swim meet, with, mercifully, beer, wine and food for sale to the parents and grandparents, especially the grand parents; two sixth-grade basketball matches, silly games of HORSE with the girls on the basketball court in the neighborhood park, that sort of thing.

There were a couple of fun weekend trips to the Gold Coast and, on the Sunshine Coast, the wonderfully-named Mooloolaba Triathalon, where parents and children, thousands of them, biked, ran and swam along a beautiful beach. Important information: the crispy salmon at the Mooloolaba Surf Cub (temporary membership free when we were there) is outstanding. Don’t miss it on your next trip to Mooloolaba.

MEANWHILE, the world was tuning on its axis , making a mess, as usual, Biden was up, Bernie was down, everybody else was gone, Super-Tuesday seemed to cement it, but there were Joe and Bernie debating one Sunday night (Monday morning for us) on CNN, to no discernible consequence. AND, from China, and South Korea, Iran and Italy, of all places, came reports of some virus thing. Trump said not to worry, but I was down under and Australia does a lot of business with China, with a great deal of travel between the two nations, so I did worry a bit, despite the President’s cavalier dismissal of the whole fuss. The Australian government’s not-inspired response to the crisis was to quarantine the returnees from China on Christmas Island, off the south coast, for 15 days.

THEN, all hell broke loose, especially on the airwaves and internet. Quarantines, national shutdowns, travel bans, schools, bars and restaurants closed, businesses shuttered, people told to stay at home in Europe and, gradually, the U.S. President Trump finally realized this virus thing is not going to go away and may, annoyingly, be serious. From my home of Annapolis, MD, comes word of a general shutdown! Not down under. Australia initially barred gatherings larger than 500, but the schools , restaurants and businesses remained open. Life goes on. How long before Australia catches up?

I was scheduled to fly home on Virgin Australia (great food on board,) when country after country was closing its doors. No one was moving. I went to the Brisbane Airport and indeed, it was unusually quiet. BUT, my flight to Los Angeles, connecting to Washington DC, was packed. A long, anxious line of hopeful passengers snaked around the boarding gate. These were Americans, not sure they would get home at all if they didn’t get out of town. The passengers had cut short cruises, tours and personal travel to return home while the returning was still possible. To a passenger, they were concerned that Trump was going to shut them out and air travel to the U.S. would be suspended. As a result, the flight was virtually full, prompting me to pony up for Business Class, where the three-course lunch comes with a crisp Chardonnay and a lovely, light New Zealand Pinot Noir is served with the cheese course. Eight hours later, coffee and crumpets for breakfast. This may be a world-wide crisis, but there is no reason to suffer.
When our Virgin Australia 777-300 ER (Extended Range) landed at LAX, we were shuffled through immigration and customs by officials wearing masks and gloves and sent to the Delta Customer Service desk to rebook on-going flights since the Virgin flight was nearly two hours late and most connections had been missed. For me, instead of a direct flight to Washington and home, I won the prize of a stop in Detroit.

When I finally reached Reagan National, it was 7:15 p.m. on March 18, the same day I had departed Brisbane 36 hours and four airports before, and the terminal was deserted. The Uber driver told me on the way to Annapolis that everything was shut down, bars and restaurants closed, Washington’s famous rush hour was a thing of the past. “I haven’t been in a traffic jam all week,” he said glumly, almost as though he missed it.

The moment I arrived home, my wife, Susy, made me launder all my clothes and shower from head to foot. I then began a self-quarantine that continues to this day, mostly staying home and walking the dogs.
Frankly, it was more fun in Australia.

Remembering Jim Lehrer

Let me tell you a brief story about Jim Lehrer, the longtime anchor of The PBS NewsHour, who died yesterday in his sleep at 85. The story illustrates his integrity and his commitment to news and fairness.

When he invited me to join The NewsHour in 1998, it was to establish and anchor something new: the Media Unit that would report and analyze the news and the way it is reported to the American people. Jim believed that news about the news IS news and should be covered as such. He was prepared to devote a portion of his broadcast to it and had even secured a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts to fund it.

The grant was for three years and lasted for seven, precisely because Jim backed it all the way. He never wavered from his conviction that it was important, even crucial, for the news to be presented honestly, fairly and with respect for the intelligence of his viewers. He might have called it “Fair and Balanced,” had another organization not co-opted that phrase.

I came to the NewsHour from decades in the news business, at The New York Times and CBS News, two fine organizations. From the first morning meeting at the NewsHour, I discovered that Jim and his former partner, Robin MacNeil, had created a culture at their broadcast that was special. The news and truth came first. It would be presented fairly and honestly. Every day. It was not a competition for ratings and eyeballs. It was more important than that. Did we “Dare to be dull” at times? Guilty as charged. Did we make mistakes? Of course.

Integrity was the key word. And it still is. That was Jim — and Robin’s — gift. To everyone.

Back in 2001, Jim was quoted in the American Journalism as follows:

“I have an old-fashioned view that news is not a commodity. News is information that is required in a democratic society, and Thomas Jefferson said a democracy is dependent on an informed citizenry. That sounds corny, but it is the truth.”

Amen, Jim.

Carter, Rockefeller and The Shah of Iran: What 1979 Can Teach Us About The Dangers of Shadow Diplomacy

An edited transcript of an interview on NPR’s Here and Now with the host, Robin Young, on January 2, 2020:

The attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad this week is serving as a warning about the dangers of shadow diplomacy.

The Washington Post reported this week that Rudy Giuliani was part of a back-channel effort to ease President Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela. President Trump’s personal lawyer was also involved in an effort to interfere in U.S. policy in Ukraine, the subject of the upcoming impeachment trial against the president.

Shadow diplomatic efforts like those orchestrated by Giuliani and others are “not new,” says former New York Times reporter Terence Smith. Smith reported on this in the late 1970s when David Rockefeller, heir to the Standard Oil fortune and chief executive of Chase Bank, tried to convince a reluctant President Jimmy Carter to bring the Shah of Iran – who was deposed in the 1979 revolution – to the U.S.

Nearly 40 years later, the Times’ David Kirkpatrick used Rockefeller’s private minutes to corroborate much of what Smith wrote in a 1981 piece about those puppet masters.

Carter’s decision to bring Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran to the U.S. prompted angry Iranians, who wanted the shah tried for corruption, to attack the U.S. embassy in Tehran – holding 52 hostages for 444 days.

View of a massive demonstration against the Shah of Iran in downtown Tehran, Iran, Oct. 9, 1978. (Michel Lipchitz/AP)
View of a massive demonstration against the Shah of Iran in downtown Tehran, Iran, Oct. 9, 1978. (Michel Lipchitz/AP)
After he was deposed, Mohammad Reza Shah went on an “odyssey,” Smith says, looking for a country that would accept him, his family and small band of supporters. Carter didn’t want to let the shah into the country for a number of reasons, including the fact that he wanted to establish a relationship with Iran’s new leaders.

Carter reluctantly brought the shah to the U.S. because he was told that Mohammad Reza Shah was very sick, and he could only get the treatment he needed in New York. Smith says when he asked Carter in 1981 why he admitted the shah, his answer revealed he was misinformed about the shah’s health.

“He said, ‘Well, I was told that he was close to death and that he … needed to come to New York for medical treatment and that New York was the only place where he could get this,’ ” Smith says.

“I had interviewed Dr. Benjamin Kean, who had examined the Shah and knew firsthand that that was not true,” he adds. “So I said to the president, ‘You know that’s not correct. That he was not at the point of death, and New York was not the only facility that could save him.’ In fact, the work that needed to be done could have been done anywhere, including in Mexico where he was.”

Smith says Carter “insisted vehemently” that he was told this narrative. “And I don’t doubt him for a minute,” he says.

Kirkpatrick’s latest reporting in the Times shows that Carter was in fact misled. But Carter was perhaps oblivious as to who was pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Picture of exiled Muslim leader Ayatollah Khomeini overshadows huge anti-Shah demonstration commemorating 25 years of the monarch’s rule and symbol of his power, Dec. 10, 1978, in Tehran. (Michel Lipchitz/AP)
Picture of exiled Muslim leader Ayatollah Khomeini overshadows huge anti-Shah demonstration commemorating 25 years of the monarch’s rule and symbol of his power, Dec. 10, 1978, in Tehran. (Michel Lipchitz/AP)
Rockefeller, a Republican, and his supporters were working very closely with the presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan – Carter’s opponent in the 1980 election – to ensure the hostages weren’t released until after the election. If they had been set free beforehand, Carter might have won reelection.
“David Rockefeller was a great friend and supporter of the Shah of Iran, along with Henry Kissinger and [former shah attorney] John J. McCloy, and so they had … their own agenda, as you say, their own foreign policy, if you like, which was to persuade President Carter to admit the shah,” Smith says. “And so they mounted quite a campaign to do it.”

Rockefeller was such a staunch supporter of Mohammad Reza Shah because his bank was very profitable with Iran when the shah was in power, Smith says.

“In fact, by 1979, the bank had syndicated more than $1.7 billion in loans for Iranian public projects. And that’s the equivalent of maybe $5.8 [billion] to $6 billion today,” he says. “So as they say in Washington, there was real money involved.”

The attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad by an Iran-backed militia is almost a repeat of history, Smith says.

“The outbreak of violence in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad in the last couple of days is so haunting because it’s almost a carbon copy of what happened in Tehran, actually nine months before the hostages were taken, and then again, when the hostages were taken,” he says.

Smith says the difference between what happened in the ‘70s and the shadow diplomacy of today is that Giuliani’s tactics are “much more direct.”

“This is the president’s personal lawyer … Rudy Giuliani taking an active role to try to bring about events that would, he hoped, help President Trump in his reelection and damage his presumed opponent, Joe Biden,” Smith says. “So this, I would argue today, is a much more blatant and out front obvious manipulation by, in this case, the president’s personal lawyer, than what you had before [which] was positively subtle and gentlemanly by comparison.”

Cassady Rosenblum produced and edited this interview for broadcast with Tinku Ray. Samantha Raphelson adapted it for the web.

This segment aired on January 2, 2020.

Election Contagion

Here’s what worries me in the wake of the recent Israeli elections and in anticipation of the U.S. 2020 Presidential election:
In a sentence, I worry that the American voter may arrive at the same sort of transactional decision that a plurality of Israeli voters apparently did, namely hold their collective noses and vote for Donald Trump for a second term.
Break it down with me: after 10 years of Benjamin Netanyahu as their prime minister, Israeli voters have no illusions about Bibi.
They know he is a narcissistic power addict who will do anything to keep himself in office. If he survives through July, he’ll become the longest serving prime minister in Israel’s 71-year history after the founding father, David Ben Gurion.
They also know that if the pending prosecutorial charges against him are true, he is personally corrupt. They know he has fallen in love with the good life of fancy cigars and pink champagne and has apparently enriched himself with investments in some of Israel’s arms suppliers.
And yet they voted for him in sufficient numbers to give him the opportunity to form what will be the most hard-right, religiously-conservative government in their nation’s history.
The vote was partly a referendum on Bibi, but it was more than that. It was a decision that, despite his many personal and political failings, Netanyahu has steered the country to a strong economy, relative security and a standoff with the Palestinians. He also has a close and profitable relationship with President Trump and his family, a cozy cooperation that has already borne fruit with the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem and overt support for Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. Can U.S. support for Israeli annexation of key West Bank settlements be far behind? Is it already baked into the “deal of the century,” the U.S. peace proposal that is expected to be unveiled soon?
The bottom line, the Israeli voters seemed to be saying, is all that really counts.
Will the U.S. voter come to a similar conclusion in 2020?
If the U.S. economy is still strong, if unemployment is still low, if wages are up measurably, if Trump’s trade wars have not destroyed American agriculture, if U.S. troops are not committed to any new wars, will the American voter give the President another turn around the dance floor?
If no broadly-appealing Democrat emerges from the primary pack, will the voters settle for the devil-you-know?
After two-plus years in office, and especially after the damming documentation in the Mueller report of President Trump’s lies, the American voters can have no more illusions about their president’s character than the Israelis do about Bibi. Will they hold their collective noses as significant numbers of Israelis did?
The answer depends largely on the Democrats. It depends on how they frame the debates and whether the candidate who emerges from the primaries can appeal to the centrist voters in the industrial Midwest who defected to Trump in 2016.
Stay tuned.

Bibi and The Donald

It is hard, these days, to miss the striking similarities between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu and President Donald “The Donald” Trump.
It goes well beyond their nicknames.
Both of these embattled leaders are facing multiple investigations, both have launched relentless assaults on the media, both use the megaphones of their offices to push a nationalist, autocratic approach to power and both, of course, are running for re-election, Bibi in April and The Donald, presumably, in 2020.
Bibi is currently under the Israeli state prosecutor’s microscope; The Donald is a featured player in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Recent reports from Israel suggest that Bibi will be indicted for bribery in a month or so, before his April 9 re-election bid to become the longest-serving Prime Minister in Israeli history; The Donald, aka “Individual 1,” has already been depicted as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Michael Cohen case and could well be the subject of a sealed indictment from the Southern District of New York, now universally described on cable news as SDNY.
Both men have dismissed the investigations as groundless witch hunts mounted by their respective “deep states.”
And both leaders are curiously close to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Bibi has traveled repeatedly to Moscow to confer with Putin on the growing Iranian presence in Syria; The Donald has met the Russian leader five times and had nothing but kind words for him since his 2016 campaign. One major difference: Bibi has not, as far as is known, been negotiating behind the scenes to build a Netanyahu Tower in Moscow.
When it comes to attacking the media, both men have launched full-scale campaigns. Bibi has complained early and often about his treatment in the feisty Israeli press and broadcast networks. His Likud Party recently unveiled a splashy election billboard featuring huge pictures of four leading Israeli journalists with the slogan: “They won’t Decide.”
The Donald, of course, has repeatedly denounced the U.S. media as “fake news” and “enemies of the people.” Over the weekend, the President celebrated the staff cuts at numerous news operations. One minor difference: Bibi is not known to spend hours each day watching cable news and tweeting his reactions.
The two men have been and remain politically close: Bibi has applauded The Donald at every opportunity, Trump has taken page after page from the Israeli playbook by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal and moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, an empty, but symbolic move that Bibi has sought for years. If there is anything else Bibi wants from The Donald, apparently he just has to ask.
Both men are adept at manufacturing crises, real and imagined, to distract attention from other problems. The Donald has conjured caravans of drug dealers and criminals assaulting the southern border in order to build support for his Wall; Bibi has repeatedly and dramatically pointed to Iran as an existential threat to Israel, launched multiple attacks on Hamas forces in Gaza, confronted Hezbollah along the Lebanese border and mounted hundreds of air strikes against Iranian targets in Syria. Many of these threats to Israel are real; confronting them aggressively tends to divert the public’s attention from other, politically awkward headlines.
Finally, both men are gifted political operators: Bibi became Israel’s youngest prime minister when he served in the late 1990’s, returned to office in 2009 and has beaten back repeated challenges over the last decade; Trump pulled off an amazing political upset in 2016 and has dominated the headlines and airwaves ever since.
At this point, the public opinion polls in Israel favor Bibi’s re-election, albeit by a narrow margin; Trump’s prospects are less promising. The President’s standing in the polls descended to new lows after the abortive government shutdown. But it is too early to count him out for a second term. No appealing Democratic candidate has emerged from the growing crowd of declared and undeclared, and the 2020 election is a political lifetime away.

Putin’s Delight

Even in the midst of a cold Moscow winter, Vladimir Putin must be feeling warm and satisfied as he reads the headlines these days from Europe and the United States.
I suspect he smiles to himself as he watches Britain’s Brexit debacle, Emanuel Macron’s desperate “listening tour,” Germany’s sagging economy and the nationalist, anti-immigrant, right-wing rumblings coming from Italy, Hungary, Poland and beyond. Yes, he must say to himself, yes, indeed.
And he no doubt feasts his eyes on the chaos in Washington: a shuttered government, a paralyzed Congress, daily Trumpian tantrums, trade wars, counter-intelligence investigations and roiling markets. Yes, yes indeed. It is all going according to plan, Putin says to his aides and cyberwarfare specialists.
Putin knew it would be a long-term project to destabilize the West; he never thought the wheels would start coming off so soon. He certainly never dreamed that Trump would suddenly pull U.S. troops from Syria, creating an inviting vacuum for Russia and Iran to fill. It’s simply too much to hope for.
So, now the stage is set for more Russian adventures in Ukraine, increased pressure on the Baltic states and more mischief in Syria and Afghanistan.
What a happy new year it is turning out to be!