February 4, 2020--Impeachment Post Mortem

As our president once so eloquently put it, "Who gives a shit about Ukraine?"

Other countries were on his shit list, but it turned out that Ukraine would wind up in the headlines and at the center of his impeachment, which will be resolved tomorrow when the Senate votes to find him not guilty of having committed high crimes and misdemeanors. 

He will have the boys over for a beer and then jump onboard Air Force One and head south and west on his exoneration tour.

It is likely to be nauseating so I recommend pulling the plug on your TV to block out MSNBC and CNN for at least a month. It will take more than that to recover.

While tuning out I suggest we force ourselves to do an impeachment forensic to ask how we got into this mess, especially how the Dems, sorry, screwed up and helped to bring it about. How we got snookered by Trump into impeaching him so he could take advantage of the foregone conclusion, knowing, as we should have, that the disposition would be that Trump would walk. 

Trump knew that, Mitch McConnell especially knew that, and even we knew that. 

It didn't take a neurosurgeon to add up how many votes the Democrats had (51) and that the Constitution stipulates two-thirds plus one senator (67) need to vote guilty to remove a president.

So what were we up to while seeking to find grounds to impeach and try Trump?

The usual--doing all we could to show how smart we are and how stupid the Republicans are. So by any rational measure we turned out to be clever and lost while the Republicans, not interested in rational measures, proved to be stupid and won. 

Great.

We knew that at most we'd get perhaps two Republicans to break ranks and that Mitch would get all but two from his caucus. (Though I suspect Susan Collins will vote with her colleagues to acquit Trump. Mitch in return will pay her off with a couple of more Zumwalt-class destroyers to be built at the Iron Works in Bath, Maine.)

Here's how Trump did it--

He knew Dems in the House had their eyes wide open, looking for something to grab onto, anything to launch the impeachment process. Trump knew that whatever they came up with for their Articles wouldn't matter. With Mitch fulminating and twisting arms, he'd easily defeat them in the Senate and remain in office. He was gambling that getting impeached, especially for something exotic like hanky-panky in Ukraine, would sound like a witch hunt to his fervent base and assure he would be exonerated and his favorability poll numbers, like Clinton's, would rise.

Nancy Pelosi knew Trump was setting a trap and for months resisted allowing her committee chairmen and women to begin an inquiry.

Her strategy was working until Trump dangled Ukraine in front of them.

Here's how that worked--

Trump learned that there was a whistle-blower report that outlined how Trump and his senior staff were attempting to blackmail the new president of Ukraine, holding up the delivery of already approved military equipment until President Zelensky announced that he was going to begin an investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden's allegedly corrupt dealings in Ukraine.

To ensnare the Democrats, who were eager to initiate their own investigation--this one into Trump--he declassified notes of a phone call with Zelensky in which he asked the Ukrainian president to do "us a favor, though" by looking into what the Bidens were up to.

In other words he got the impeachment process going by revealing the smoking gun at the outset. That was brilliant. He turned Watergate on its head by in effect confessing up front. This released him from needing to concentrate on every aspect of the prosecution's case and thus he was free to lash out unfettered.

The Democrats took that bait and Nancy Pelosi had no recourse but to allow the inquiry. 

The Democratic House managers were well prepared and presented an open-and-shut case. The only problem was that more than half the "jurors," all the Republicans in the House, had their minds already made up and his attacks on the process were unrelenting. (For the sake of fairness, virtually all the Democrats also had their minds made up before the inquiry began.)

So it became a reality show. Something about which Trump knows more than a little.

Again, none is this is arcane or difficult to figure out. The difference is that the Dems got lost in the details of the narrative and the evidence that they unearthed and wove into their Articles of Impeachment. The Republicans ignored the evidence and didn't challenge Trump's lawyers' lies. The GOP kept their eyes on the prize--again, winning. Feeling good about our virtue, many progressives assumed our familiar role as losers in these kinds of ugly confrontations.

As disturbing as it is, it is essential to do the forensics because if we are to rescue our country from Trump and his crowd, we need to know how this happened and how we became our own worst enemies. An all too familiar phenomenon.

January 28, 2020--Bolton's Bombshell

For some time, in defense of Trump as he moved toward impeachment, Republican senators who hold his fate in their hands have disparaged the Democrats' case, asserting that all their witnesses were one-off. 

These witnesses did not have direct contact with the president. Thus, what they knew and were testifying about was, in effect, hearsay, which they claimed, is not admissible in trials. Their testimony was based on what they heard second-hand from governmental colleagues and the people to whom they reported.

Putting aside the fact that the impeachment hearing underway in the Senate is not a civil nor criminal trial and has its own rules and procedures, including allowing what otherwise might be considered hearsay, there may be an opportunity that, if allowed by the GOP Senate caucus, would help move proceedings closer to the truth. The truth all senators, in their special impeachment oath, swore to follow.

"Bring us just one witness with direct exposure to Trump," Republican senators promised, "and we will listen to what she or he has to say.

Well, as of Monday night there is indisputably one such potential witness.

John Bolton, Trump's former National Security Adviser.

The New York Times reported that copies of Bolton's book about his time in the Trump White House are being circulated among senior staff who have been asked by Bolton's publisher to review it to see if any of it threatens national security. This is routine for any former staff member writing about his or her time serving in the administration.

Bolton claims there is nothing in the draft for the White House to be concerned about. But, more significant, the Times has obtained a leaked copy of the manuscript and it contains in-depth commentary about Trump's dealings with the Ukrainians. Dealings about which Bolton had extensive and direct access to Trump.  Specifically, Bolton writes that he witnessed Trump for months knowingly withhold congressionally-approved military aid the Ukrainians desperately needed to defend themselves against the invading Russians until President Zelensky agreed to open an investigation to gather "dirt" about his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son.

With Bolton's book in hand, Republicans can no longer assert that there is no one who can serve as a direct witness to Trump's impeachable behavior. To gather Bolton's evidence all they need to do is vote to have it available to the House impeachment managers, Trump's legal team, and the full Senate.

January 2, 2020--Jack: Impeachment

"I can't believe you guys stepped in it."

"Make it quick Jack, I only have a few minutes for you." 

This was not true, I had time on my hands as I usually do during the holiday season, but I was in no mood to get involved with him. I'd rather be staring at the ceiling. 

"I'm talking about impeachment. Especially what your Dems are up to."

"Going after Trump, that's what we're up to. And I say, it's about time."

"So he's got you snookered too. I love that." I could hear him chuckling. 

"I repeat--I only have a few minutes for you."

"I'll bet you never heard of this one." I stifled myself, not responding, and so Jack continued, "She fell right into his trap. Trump's" He paused, trying to engage me. I continued to hold my tongue, "How did this whole impeachment thing get started?"

"Enlighten me." I didn't know where he was going with this.

"By Trump ordering the release of the written transcript of his conversation with the newly-elected president of Ukraine. The so-called extortion or bribery conversation where he told Zelensky he would release the authorized military assistance money to Ukraine if they agreed to dig up dirt about the Bidens."

"Of course I know about that. It was pretty stupid for your boy to try to get away with that."

"At the time a lot of media people and liberals were also gleeful, thinking he gave them the smoking gun up front. With Nixon the smoking gun was at the end of the impeachment process with Trump it was up front. Your people thought he shot himself in the foot and off they raced to get impeachment going. You remember, I'm sure, that Nancy didn't want to go there. She was worried that like with Clinton if Trump got impeached by only the Democrats his favorables would go up. It would help him get reelected. But when he released the transcript Pelosi couldn't continue to duck going for impeachment. She had no choice but to unleash Schiff."

"So far, we agree."

"Good. Now let's look at this from where the situation is going rather than where it is--stalled in the House because Nancy doesn't want to send the articles of impeachment to Mitch in the Senate until she has rules in place to call witnesses and examine subpoenaed documents. Mitch is happy about her slowing the process down because as soon as he gets back from New Years he'll start to claim the Dems are engaged in a coverup. They know Trump is not going to be voted out of office. That the Democrats are engaged in a witch hunt. Blah, blah. You've heard all this before. But best of all Nancy is playing right into his hands. She's been smart up to this point but very soon her political strategy is going to come crashing down."

I said, "About this we disagree. Mitch is going to have to allow a few witnesses since if he doesn't it will look like what it is--that he and his senators are engaged in a coordinated coverup. Can you imagine what Bolton and Rudy have to say as witnesses? They may turn out to be the real smoking guns."

"Some of this could happen," Jack said, "but it won't matter. Whatever the Dems come up with--witnesses, emails, stuff like that--Trump is not getting kicked out of office. He's going to be found not guilty and ten minutes after that vote he'll embark on a 10-city Exoneration Tour, boasting there was no collusion, no bribery, no obstruction. Then he'll get the Clinton bump."

"What a nightmare," I said under me breath.

"If you see things unfolding that way--and I'm sure you do," he chuckled again, "it's obvious Trump is behind the whole thing. He's the only one smart enough to come up with this scenario and sucker the Democrats into moving against him. He wanted to be impeached. He engineered the whole thing. And now he'll expose Nancy's failed strategy and take Biden down at the same time. Sort of like a trick shot in pool. Two for one. And that will leave the Democrats with Bernie as their candidate. A trifecta for our president."

My head was throbbing. Was I ever sorry I answered the phone. I swore that next time . . .

November 18, 2019--Big Stuff

"He only cares about the big stuff. He doesn't give a shit about Ukraine."

Last week so said Gordon Sondland, Trump's million-dollar, pay-for-play ambassador to the EU who was having a gay old time galavanting around Europe on the taxpayers' dime until he realized that his casual testimony before the House impeachment committee was likely perjury and if it was proven to be so might land him in the slammer for a decade or more. 

Not exactly his retirement plan. He had been thinking that if he flattered Trump enough and served as his all-purpose butt boy he, rather than Rudy, would wind up Trump's second-term secretary of state.

Forget that. Now for him, with what happened to Roger Stone vividly in mind, it's all about saving his own skin. So expect him to spill the beans as he amends his testimony for a third time later this week. I expect him to throw Trump under the bus before Trump does this unto him. 

So, forget the million he contributed to the Trump inauguration. He'll never miss it. It will be worth it in the stories he'll have available to share with his West Palm Beach drinking buddies.

Also, expect soon to hear from John Bolton and of course private attorney Rudy. Bolton has already begun to open up and it is reliably reported that America's Mayor is under criminal investigation and likely will want to cut a deal. That will require him to turn on Trump.

Speaking of Rudy, I've been thinking about his serving Trump pro bono. For someone totally obsessed with power and money--especially the latter--what's it about that he's not charging for his work for Trump?

The answer leads to Ukraine. It also explains why Trump has been so devoted to destroying the reputation of our former Ukraine ambassador, Marie Vovanovitch, and why he has been so obsessed with undermining the reformist administration of President Volodymyr Zelensky before it can even get launched.

Ambassador Sondland is wrong--Trump does give a shit about Ukraine because it is a place where Trump feels he can off load the evidence that he and the Russians colluded to fix the 2016 election and pin the blame on Ukraine. This would please Putin and allow Trump to remove the sanctions imposed on him while simultaneously assuring that corruption is encouraged in Ukraine because from Paul Manafort's and Rudy's examples he is aware that a corrupt Ukraine is an ideal place to make, steal, and launder big money. 

This suggests that big money is the "big stuff" ambassador Sondland had in mind.

November 14, 2019--Who Gives A Damn About Ukraine

My liberal friends should have been feeling good yesterday evening after the first day of public hearings in the House impeachment investigation. 

But when I called around, though they felt the Dem's did well, exposing Trump in calm but vivid testimony, there was an underlying sense of depression. Finally, one friend blurted out how I sense many were feeling. 

"I don't like myself for saying this, but in the larger context who gives a damn about Ukraine? I know there's a hot war going on there and thousands of Ukrainians have been killed and wounded, but do we impeach much less expel a president who was attempting to shake down a foreign country?" 

He continued, "I don't want to sound uncaring about Ukraine, I feel for them and hate that the Russians are occupying more and more of their territory. If Ukraine winds up losing the war and slips into the Russian orbit, which is quite possible, it means the return of the Soviet Union. That's what's at geopolitical stake. But still, when it comes to impeachment, Ukraine? More than anything else we need to rid ourselves of Trump and I'm not sure yesterday contributed to that."

"What would you have done?" I asked.

"I would have tried to find a way to charge and impeach Trump where the focus is about America. About how what Trump is doing is threatening us directly. Where the issues are easy to understand and how as a result he is making us more unsafe."

"Any specific suggestions?"

"Many but here are two--How Trump was directly involved with Russia as they interfered in our last presidential election so that he is now beholden to them and subject to blackmail. And how, as an abuse of power, Trump moved to withdraw all American troops from Syria which is leading to the resurgence of ISIS, which in turn threatens the lives of Americans at home and overseas. Both of these cases would be easy to make and would hit close to home."

I said, "I think I agree." Whether or not I'll be able to sleep tonight is another matter as there is still Ukraine which is our ally and deserves a lot of help."

November 7, 2019--Flipping

There was a flurry of reports earlier this week that one the two Ukrainians languishing in jail for campaign finance violations, Lev Parnas, was talking with prosecutors about copping a plea in return for testimony about Rudy Giuliani's shadow diplomacy in Eastern Europe. 

As that word filtered out, we can only imagine what "America's mayor" must have been thinking and imbibing. Nothing that would help him sleep through the night.

But the one who should really be tossing and turning is our president.

I initially thought that Parnas' potential flipping would focus exclusively on Rudy. That he would provide testimony that would be devastating to the former mayor. 

This may be true but is less than half the story because if Parnas helps bring down Giuliani, Giuliani, to save himself from spending a few decades in jail, will flip, and turn his fire on Trump.

And while on the subject of flipping, what about the recently-fired National Security Advisor, John Bolton, who Democrats in the House are eager to interview as part of their impeachment inquiry?

Jilted and publicly humiliated by Trump he must be seething and have quite a story to tell. We are likely to hear it unless Bolton secures a multi-million dollar tell-all book deal which would be less valuable as a commercial property if he agrees to spill his beans to Congress for free on live TV.

I feel certain Parnas will flip and testify and so, ultimately, will Bolton. The former to avoid prosecution the latter for sweet revenge.

November 4, 2019--Stupid Is

Until Friday my favorite stupid thing was Trump releasing what he calls a "transcript" (which it isn't) of his July 25th "perfect" telephone call with Ukraine president, Volodymyr Zelensky. In effect, a confession that he did indeed commit a crime when he tried to lure Zelensky into digging up dirt on the Bidens.

Next most stupid would be Trump reading the full 8-pager on TV in what he is calling a version of a Franklin Roosevelt's fireside chat. 

With a six-pack at my side, I'd want to soak up every word and nuance of the reading. Unless Trump redacted it further, it would underline its confessional nature. 

Next for Trump would be for him to actually shoot someone on Fifth Avenue (where, from a New Yorker's perspective, Trump will thankfully no longer be living) to see if he could get away with it. 

The answer to that one--yes he would.

Now, in a perverse bipartisan trope, Elizabeth Warren has done something almost equally stupid--at the end of last week she announced how she, if elected, would pay for her Medicare for All plan.

First, all 130 million who have private medical insurance would no longer be covered that way because if her proposal was enacted all would lose that coverage. How politically stupid is that? That the 130 million of us who have even far from perfect private insurance would trust the government to do a better job of providing medical insurance then, say, Aetna of Humana?

Then, continuing the stupid theme, she acknowledges that her plan would cost an additional $20.5 trillion. That's "trillion" with a "T."

This would double our current national debt since there is no way Congress would pass legislation to get billionaires and corporations to pay for it via dramatically increased taxes.

The plan put forth by Warren will likely derail her candidacy. Just as she was catching up with or passing Biden and Sanders in the polls, on Friday she dropped this plan, hoping it would slip by unnoticed. 

Quite the contrary--her plan, going forward, is how she will be characterized and mocked by Trump and her Democratic opponents. It's already happening. I can only imagine the nicknames Trump has in store for her.

What is it with Democrats that we are so prone to self-sabotage? Just as I was feeling better as Nancy Pelosi and the House moved the impeachment process into strategically smart higher gear, Warren does this. 

It could be politically even worse if her plan calls for free health care for undocumented immigrants. I can't yet bring myself to research that. It is already bad enough.

October 24, 2019--I'm Worried

We make it a habit to watch Nicolle Wallace's show, Deadline, every afternoon on MSNBC. It's usually smart talk with interesting guests who manage to make all sorts of bad and troubling news lively and even enjoyable.

Wednesday in Washington was the day in which Bill Taylor, former ambassador to Ukraine gave his riveting testimony to the House impeachment committee. It amounted to a scathing indictment of the president. It was also the day when Trump claimed that the impeachment investigation was a "lynching."

At the end of the hour, Rona asked me what I thought.

"Not bad," I said.

"Just that?" Rona said, hearing my flat comment.

"I thought it was a little boring."

"Boring! Considering everything that happened today, how important it was to the future of our country, and your takeaway was that it wasn't entertaining enough? This is not an entertainment." 

"What can I tell you. That's what I felt."

"We don't have the luxury of seeing what's going on as entertainment. We're talking life and death. In Syria literally. And then metaphorically here. In America what we're witnessing is about the possible end of American society as we've come to know it."   

"I know you're right, but . . ."

"I'm sorry to be jumping on you this way, on our anniversary yet, but . . ."

"No," I said, "I deserve the chastisement. Now more than ever we have to weigh in, press on the process, and do everything we can to resist. It's serious business. As serious as anything we've been forced to face as a people. I'll do better."

"I hope so," Rona said, "Because I'd be worried if people are getting bored and running out of gas. There's a long way to go."

October 11, 2019--Everything to Hide

If Trump and his administrative henchmen have nothing to hide, why are they hiding all requested and subpoenaed documents and refusing to testify before Congress?

If they had nothing to hide, all they would need to do to end the impeachment investigation is turn over their papers to the various congressional committees, show up to answer questions, and in their testimony demolish their opponents' accusations and arguments.

It would be simple. But the answer is obvious--they have everything to hide.

September 27,2019--Trump's "Though"

The president of Ukraine, Volodymrt Zelensky, had just poured his heart out to our president--Ukraine was in a hot war with Russia and needed the nearly $400 billion in military assistance the U.S. Congress had appropriated to help them defend themselves. 

Trump without a public explanation and without informing the Ukrainians had unilaterally suspended the transfer of those urgently needed weapon systems. 

Zelensky, in their July 25th phone call, told Trump about his country's desperate needs. 

Almost as a non sequitur, as if he hadn't been listening, Trump said, "I would like you to do us a favor, though."

Something about this gnawed at me. I couldn't for quite some time put a finger on it. It was not just about Ukraine's needs. It wasn't only about one president humbling himself before the more powerful one. Though that rankled. 

It was something about that tacked-on "though."

"Though" used that way is a version of "however."

"Though" from the dictionary--it indicates that "a factor qualifies or imposes restrictions on what was said previously."

In fact, that "though" reveals Trump was not listening. That to him the Ukrainian president was an afterthought.

That "though" revealed that Trump doesn't care about Ukraine. He doesn't care about the frantic Zelensky. That "though" shows Trump doesn't care about Russian threats. That "though" exposed as much as anything we have seen the past three years that Trump cares only about Trump. 

In spite of that, though, his end is approaching.

September 23, 2019--Jack's Coffee On Rona

"I got to admit I never read the Constitution cover to cover."

"Well, you should," I said to Jack. "If you want to pretend to be a true conservative you should have it memorized. Conservatives are always boasting how they follow it religiously and wave it around like it was Mao's Red Book, but of course ignore it when it's convenient for them to do so. Like how now they  are ignoring the Congress's Constitutional power to provide oversight of the president and his administration. To hold him and them accountable for their actions."

"You're reading my mind," Jack said, sounding sober, "It's the so-called oversight function I want to talk about."

"This I have to hear," Rona muttered. We were at the Bristol Diner again having breakfast when Jack showed up. 

"The Constitution may call for this, but the way I look at things your people, though they are squealing like stuck pigs claiming Trump is not cooperating, actually prefer it this way so they can score some cheap political points by beating up on him for not going along with their call for copies of memos and emails and telephone records and the testimony of witnesses like former White House counsel, whatever his name is."

"McGahn."

"That's him."

"And your point other than to criticize the Democrats in the House who want to provide that legitimate oversight is . . .?"

"That they are coming off looking like wimps and crybabies."

"So, what would you have them do after admitting you haven't read the Constitution and don't know why our Founders built Congressional oversight and checks and balances into our system?"

"To make sure our presidents don't become tyrants."

"Very good, Jack," I said, "I'm impressed. That's basically right. We had just fought a war of independence against England which was ruled by what our colonial leaders saw to be a corrupt monarch. George III. They didn't want to see the United States go down a similar path. It was more complicated than that but you got the essence of it. So what's your problem?"

"It's really your problem. I'm trying to help you guys out."

"That'll be the day," Rona said, not looking up.

Without missing a beat, Jack said, "No really. Though we disagree about pretty much everything, I enjoy arguing back and forth with both of you guys. It keeps me sharp."

"That should only be," Rona said.

"If you want to have a useful conversation about this," I said, "you need to get your facts right. Then we can exchange views. But without agreeing about some facts we can't do that."

"Let's try that," Jack said, "I'm in that kind of mood this morning. Not for us to rag on each other but to see if we can find some common ground. Because to tell you the truth I don't like what Trump seems to have done with the president of the Ukraine. To blackmail him to get dirt on Biden and his son. Look, I want to see Biden lose but not by having foreign governments involved in our elections. That's my view and should be for all conservatives who believe in democracy."

"I can't believe my ears," Rona said, looking up.

"So," Jack said to the two of us, "I know why you're upset about the Ukraine, but isn't the oversight business among Democrats in the House mainly political posturing?"

"I'm glad we can at least agree about Ukraine," I said, "The oversight function, as I said, is more complicated but at least equally outrageous and dangerous."

"Why dangerous?"

"Because Trump by refusing to cooperate with Congress when they try to apply checks and balances is in fact attacking the Constitution itself. Our government itself. If you look at the actual Constitution, Congress, really the House of Representatives, is given the preeminent role in our three-part governmental system, which as you know, in addition to Congress, is the executive branch (the president and his administration) and the federal courts. But by refusing to cooperate with Congress's legitimate oversight function Trump is wanting to make the executive branch preeminent. To in effect do away with Congress to gather more power to himself. To be fair, and I know I'm rattling on, previous presidents have done various things to weaken the hands of Congress and even the courts. Roosevelt, for example, wanted to pack the Supreme Court to get it to rule in favor of his New Deal programs. Happily for the sake of checks and balances, that didn't work out. Quite a few Democrats, members of his own party, opposed Roosevelt. Which should be a lesson for today's Republicans as Trump's threat to our system is so total and serious."

"I need to think about this," Jack said. "I must admit that some of what you're saying rings true and is disturbing. But don't get your hopes up," he added quickly, "I'm still a Trumpian, but I need to think about this because I don't want to see our democracy undermined. I have to admit that there are signs that this is happening. I don't want us to get involved in another civil war. That we don't need.

Rona said, "I may be hallucinating but I'm paying for your coffee this morning."

November 29, 2018--Triple Agent Paul Manafort

Paul Manafort may be all the bad things he has pled guilty to and even worse all that juries have found him guilty of, but though he may not be the shiniest penny, in regard to things important to him (money and power, especially money) he may actually be brilliant.

For someone so seemingly unimpressive he somehow managed to amass millions--tens or hundreds of millions--mainly by finding ways to be of serious service to some of the world's sleaziest operatives in some of the most complicated and corrupt regions of the world. Especially in parts of the former Soviet Union, more specifically, primarily in Ukraine.

He also managed for a while to put on a glittering show of opulent living, with houses and apartments in Manhattan (including in Trump Tower), East Hampton, and Brooklyn as well as his reputed million-dollar bespoke sharkskin wardrobe.

But now we see him being wheeled in and out of courtrooms, looking pathetic in an orange prison jumpsuit, seemingly brought low. But who knows, considering his slimy skills, he may be hatching a way to fool almost everyone and manage to walk away largely unscathed.

This could be because, after working in Eastern Europe where nothing it was it seems and there is someone scheming to cut you down at every turn, he has so mastered the art of subterfuge that he may have found a way to work for the Russians (Putin) and Trump while pretending to be working for Robert Mueller. 

In other words he may have figured out how to operate as a triple agent, playing these three sides against each other. 

And through one of the seams that connect these pieces Manafort may find a way to slither out to some version of freedom.

Working with the Russians, Manafort has more goods on Trump to market that are essential puzzle pieces that fit with the covert material the Russians already have on Trump--remember that dossier and what it allegedly contains about Trump's escapades with, among other transgressions, prostitutes in Moscow. If Manafort working as a secret agent for the Russians is true, think of the resulting additional leverage they have on Trump. It helps explain Trump's wimpy behavior when it comes to anything Putin.

Working concurrently for Trump as his campaign manager (my favorite part--for free) he managed to keep the Trump-Russia collusion going while on the surface doing all the basic gofer things campaign managers routinely do like getting a platform written that everyone can agree to and ultimately ignore.

And then, with Robert Mueller, the very smartest of his handlers, Manafort seemingly turned the tables on Trump to become a valuable resource to the special counsel and his investigators. In that role, other than Trump's boys who know all the family felonies, by ratting on Trump and his inner-inner circle, Manafort could help Mueller connect all the illegal dots while auditioning for the part of star witness before grand juries, congressional committees, and eventual impeachment hearings and criminal trials. For these services Manafort could expect to be rewarded by not having to do any jail time and might even wind up with his own show on Fox News.

That seemed to be where things were headed until a few days ago when Manafort was discovered to have been lying to Mueller's team. As a result Mueller puled the plug on Manafort, leaving the investigation bereft of anyone who could testify with direct knowledge about the BIG picture.

Furthermore, in his role as a secret agent mole within the Mueller operation, a few days ago we learned from Trump's lawyers that Manafort's lawyers have been colluding with them, leaking to Trump's people inside information about the workings and strategies of the Mueller probe. 

When it comes to Manafort so much is complicated and seemingly self-inflicted. 

So much so that most of the print and cable legal analysts are left scratching their heads, frustrated that they can't seem to make sense of Manafort's recent moves--lying to Mueller and his people after making a sweet deal to get a reduced sentence by cooperating truthfully. Apparently  as a result of lying to Mueller, Manafort seems to be facing at least a decade of hard jail time.

It could turn out that Manafort blew it. But it may mean he will be pardoned with gratitude by Trump for undercutting arch-villain Mueller (he will be pardoned in a matter of just weeks) and figure out a way to skulk back to Ukraine where he can live out the rest of his natural life in whatever splendor Ukraine has to offer. This assumes, of course, that he will find a way to keep from getting killed by a Putin hit squad.

In Manafort's line of work, you win some and you lose some.

July 16, 2018--Bromance In Helsinki

Here's what to expect today in Helsinki at the Trump-Putin summit--

Putin publicly will throw Trump a crumb or two. 

Just enough to make it appear that the president's strategy of "befriending" the Russian dictator in a one-on-one relationship is paying off.

Trump has already delivered for the Russian leader (even before he became president) and so, from his friend Vladimir Putin's perspective, he deserves his little reward.

Trump has shrugged off Putin's crimes in Crimea and the Ukraine; he has destabilized and thus weakened both NATO and the European Union (to Trump the EU is a "foe"); he has undermined the political standing of British prime minister, Theresa May (she mishandled Brexit because she didn't take his "advice"); and done all he could to undercut Europe's dominant economy and leader, Angela Merkel, claiming Germany is a "captive" of Russia; and Trump has ignored Putin's meddling in our presidential election and thus tampered with our democracy.

You and I even know why Trump has functioned as Putin's lackey--

Putin has the goods on him. 

Remember that infamous BuzzFeed dossier, the one that reports on Trump's private business dealings in Russia (some of them likely illegal) as well as those incendiary claims that Trump in 2013, while in Russia for the Miss Universe Pageant, cavorted with prostitutes and intentionally sullied the same hotel suite used by Michelle and Barack Obama. My guess is that Putin has a KGB video tape of those golden showers.

Thus, to help keep his boy propped up expect Putin to say he will personally investigate what's behind the recent indictment by the Mueller team of a dozen Russian intelligence operatives. Pretending to know nothing about it he will agree to look into the charge that they directly hacked Hillary Clinton's campaign and he will, with a straight face, promise to report what he finds directly to Trump. (Don't hold your breath waiting for the results of that investigation.) 

Also, expect Putin to say he will order his military to work more closely with America's special forces to coordinate the hunt in Syria for the remnants of ISIS (again, resist holding your breath); and, as a bonus for Trump being such an important member of the Putin team, the Russian president will agree to open bilateral discussions leading to a plan to reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons. (Once more don't . . .)

Then, speaking of nuclear weapons, Putin will praise Trump for meeting with Kim Jong-un and will agree to use his non-existing influence to press Kim to actually denuclearize. My advice--again, don't hold your breath for any of this to happen. It's all about the pretending and photo-ops.

At the end of their private meeting, at a joint press conference, metaphorically speaking, expect nothing but hugs and air kisses. 

And after that, expect nothing. Except Putin's relentless campaign to weaken all aspects of American and Western European life. With Trump continuing to clear the way for him.

April 25, 2016--Dateline: The Rest of the World

While waiting for election returns from Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Maryland, and Prince's autopsy findings, a new Cold War is breaking out. This time not only with Russia but also China. And, who knows, maybe with Saudi Arabia.

Vladimir Putin's Russia is beginning to sound and look like the old Soviet Union with economic dislocation fueling an aggressive foreign policy to both reannimate dreams of a restored Imperial Russia and as a chauvinistic distraction for the Russian people who will soon likely be needing to line up for hours to buy a loaf of bread or a liter of vodka. But while in line they will have their nationalistic dreams to sustain them.

Circuses but no bread.

Rather than acting like a European partner, which we saw signs of for a decade or so, Putin is leading Russia's military buildup and deploying forces on numerous fronts in an attempt to secure what it sees as its sphere of influence and to provide opportunities to flex military muscle in order to poke the US and Western Europeans in the eye, partly as a response to the economic sanctions we and our European allies have imposed on Russia in retaliation for its expansionist moves in Ukraine.

And, while they're at it, they've taken to buzzing U.S. warships in open waters

Under Putin's leadership they have of course reannexed Crimea, threatened various parties in the Balkans, and have become actively involved in Syria, deploying an entirely new mix of smart weapons whose existence has caught Western observes by surprise.

What happened to all those clunky Soviet tanks and misfiring missiles? Clearly once again avoiding CIA detection, right under the noses of our various surveillance agencies, the Russians seemingly overnight on the ground and in the skies in Syria are putting on display a whole range of new, sophisticated 21st century weapons systems.

So much for recent efforts under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to "reset" relations with Putin and Russia. He and Obama can't even talk to each other. Even Stalin and Roosevelt got along better!

Meanwhile, in Asia, also with thoughts about a restored Dynasty, President Xi Jinping of China, also in part to distract the Chinese people from a cooling economy and to deflect thoughts from rampant governmental and corporate corruption (which directly involves his own family), Xi has been investing heavily in modernizing and rapidly expanding China's military capacities and reach.

New fighter jets, aircraft carriers, and a modern submarine fleet are among recent acquisitions. In addition, as an extension of its imperial moves in the South China Sea, encroaching on what we impotently claim to be international waters, and pushing toward South Korean and Japanese waters, under Xi, China is creating a series of new islands which already include air strips and naval facilities. We talk and talk and threaten and threaten while China dredges and dredges and builds and builds.

Perhaps most ominous is Russia's and China's moves to modernize their nuclear weapons. Making warheads smaller and smaller so that they can be mounted on advanced intercontinental missiles with vastly increased capacities to avoid detection. In retaliation, the Obama administration, has quietly begun to do the same for our aging nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

Ironically, Barak Obama who came to office proclaiming that nuclear disarmament was his highest priority, and thus quickly received the Noble Peace Prize, is leaving office engaged in a restored full-tilt nuclear arms race with Russia and China.

And also while we have been obsessing about our presidential election and other entertainments, in response to the bold nuclear deal we struck with Iran, Saudi Arabia is talking quietly, in response to that, of developing its own nuclear weapons.

Sic transit . . .

October 20, 2015--Globalization

I'm a creature of deep habit so when I need new underwear I order them on line from Jockey.

I like them because they shun printed labels and come in long sizes. Unless I have long undershirts, they ride up and out pops my plumber's crack.

Part of my obsessiveness has me doing this twice a year--early fall and early spring. Each time 12 pairs of briefs and 12 v-neck tees.

My recent order just arrived and I was pleased to see stitched-on labels in the shorts but, alas, printed ones in the tees. I should have ordered a few more dozen and stashed them away because the trend in labels is clear.

I did notice on them that all the underwear was made in Cambodia.

Cambodia? Not China? Not the Philippines? Not Sri Lanka? Cambodia? Isn't Cambodia Pol Pot's country? The evil butcher of uncounted millions of his own countrymen? The head of the Khmer Rouge? The communist monster?  Now they're making Jockey shorts?

I know he was overthrown in about 1995 and I suppose it's good news that Cambodians are making underwear for Americans, though I suspect workers are probably fortunate if they are making more than $5.00 a day.

Also, for years I have been using Bic razors for shaving. Metal ones. In fact, my favorites are called just that--"Metal." They haven't been for sale in drug stores for at least a decade so I've bought them mainly on line through eBay. They come in packs of five and so, when I can, I order as many as possible. The last time, a few years ago, I bought a dozen packages and have been using them very carefully, knowing the time will soon come when they will no longer be available from anyone, anywhere.

But I keep searching the Web.

About a month ago a treasure trove of Bic Metals was offered for sale--20 packages of five! One-hundred individual razors. All for about $48 dollars, including shipping.

By my calculation, since one razor lasts me three months, using four a year, I would have a 25-year supply.

For me, virtually a lifetime's amount because I'm assuming if I'm still alive in 25 years I'll probably have a beard down to my waist and no longer have need for a Bic or any other kind of razor.

I'm assuming that Rona will give me a trim with a scissor when she visits me in the nursing home.

But then there was my mother who lived to three days past her 107th birthday. If I have her genes . . . who knows. But for razors, one way or another, I'll be all set. As to underwear, that's another story.

It took forever for the razors to arrive. After about a month, they were waiting at the post office. Rona went in to retrieve them. Usually when there's a package (mainly books from dozens of different booksellers and of course Amazon), it takes her about five minutes to gather what's waiting for us (mainly me) at the postmistress's window. This time Rona was inside for at least 15 minutes.

She was shaking her head when she finally emerged, clutching to her chest the package of what I assumed were the razors.

"You won't believe what they put me through."

"Put you through?"

"Yes. I had to show them two forms of ID and . . . "

"ID? They known you for years. But still they carded you?"

"Yes. And I had to fill out and sign three forms. Homeland Security forms." She collapsed in the passenger seat.

"Homeland Security? Those are the razors, right?" She nodded. "I can understand not being allowed to take them on a plane but these are just razors for shaving. Bic Metals."

"I know what they are and how you're obsessed with them but . . . "

"But what?"

"They came from the Ukraine."

"From where?"

"Ukraine. I think you say it without the The."

Skeptical, I said, "Can I see the package?"

And sure enough it did come from The Ukraine. I mean Ukraine, where the Ukrainians and Russians are fighting. It had Ukrainian and U.S. customs stamps all over it and was wrapped and double wrapped in brown paper and transparent tape. So totally taped up that I knew it would take me half an hour to unpack it.

"I'll bet it not the razors. It must be something else. Do we know anyone who lives in The . . . ?"

"Not as far as I know," Rona said. "Let's get home and open it to see what's in it."

After unloading the car I asked Rona to unwrap the package since I'm not good with those that are all taped up, especially one that was likely to contain something delicate.

But, it turned out, it contained my razors. As advertised, one-hundred of them.

"You mean you didn't realize the razors were coming from Ukraine?"

"Obviously. All I cared about was getting a big hoard to last me forever. It didn't matter where they were coming from."

"The ladies at the post office are dying to hear what's in the package. They're very professional and discrete and never would ask. I assume they know, if they're interested, that they're mainly books. About this one though . . ."

"What a world," I said. "And of course it's OK to tell them about the razors. Even my underwear if you or they would like."

Rona siad, "If you behave like this I won't be coming to the old age home to cut your beard."

June 16, 2015--The New Cold War

This report from the New York Times isn't from 1955 but appeared yesterday--

In a significant move to deter possible Russian aggression in Europe, the Pentagon is drawing up plans to store battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and other heavy weapons for as many as 5,000 American troops in several Baltic and Eastern European countries, official say.

What happened to détente? What happened with the Obama administration's claim that it had successfully pressed the "reset button" in our relations with Russia?

This sounds to me like all too familiar sabre-rattling.

But there's more.

A few days earlier the Pentagon announced that a Russian jet fighter buzzed a U.S. reconnaissance plane flying well outside Soviet borders over the Black Sea. It came within 10 feet of the American plane and maintained its provocative position for 10-15 minutes before breaking off. Overnight, the Russians announced they would match the U.S. buildup in Eastern Europe.

This to me sounds like back to the future and is very scary.

We know that Obama and Vladimir Putin despise each other and can't stand to be in the same room.

Nixon managed to meet and talk with Nikita Khrushchev, Roosevelt and Truman sucked it up and met and negotiated with Stalin, so why can't the current U.S. and Russian presidents do the same thing?

They would probably claim it's because they disagree about Crimea, which Russia annexed a year and a half ago. Obama sees Putin threatening more incursions in other culturally Russian parts of Ukraine; Putin sees it as an inevitable part of Russia's national destiny. We in America above all should understand his version of Manifest Destiny.

But none of this requires Cold-War-style confrontations. If Putin and Obama had a civil working relationships it all could be resolved with a few phone calls.

"Vlad, what's going on with you guys? I mean in Crimea." 

"Well, Barack, it's a traditional part of Russia, the people there are of Russian descent, speak Russian, and want to be a part of Russia. So why not let things take their course?" 

"I see your point. But what we need to do, Vlad, is sell the idea to our own people and make the case that you let the Crimeans vote about affiliating with Russia. Which they did and overwhelmingly wanted to. I'll work on Poroshenko to convince him it's no big deal. He owes me one. Everyone knows Crimea has been largely autonomous for decades so we should be able to put a fig leaf on the situation. How does that sound?" 

"I think I can make that happen. In the meantime, send my best to Michele." 

"And mine to . . . Sorry, I forgot her name. The gymnast?" 

"Alina, Alina Kabaeva. Will do. Talk to you soon. Call any time. You know I don't sleep."

So now that their relationship is ruptured, there will be no conversations of this kind and as a result we have economic and diplomatic sanctions flying in both direction, Russia has been kicked out of the G-8 (which is now again the G-7), and there are not-so-veiled threats of more to come, including additional close encounters in the sky and at sea. All we need is for one jet fighter pilot to make a mistake and launch a missile and who knows what would happen next.

This is the way adolescents behave, not the leaders of the world's two most powerful nations, both still with hundreds of intercontinental missiles at the ready and thousands of nuclear warheads.

Where are the adults?

November 18, 2014--Minding Our Business

Briefly--

Why is it that every president since at least Harry Truman, when abroad, feels the need to lecture other leaders about human rights?

Most recently Barack Obama in China where he chided his host, President Xi Jinping, about stifling political dissent in Hong Kong, then during a quick visit to Myanmar he gently prodded fellow Nobel Prize winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi about her country's resistance to power sharing with the opposition, and then a day or two later at the G-20 summit in Australia where he again took Vladimir Putin to task for Russia's incursions in Ukraine.

Without doubt, China, Russia, Myanmar, and a host of other countries could do a lot better. A lot. But is it our place to criticize them about their human rights crimes and misdemeanors?

Back in the old Cold War days in response to our constant hammering on abuses in the repressive Soviet Union, though God knows there was much to point out, Soviet leaders such as Nikita Khrushchev were equally quick to retort that we were hypocritical, that we had human rights problems of our own, most notable that there was still government sanctioned and imposed segregation that kept Negroes "in their place" and Native Americans mainly confined to arid reservations.

And today, if they were inclined (and Putin certainly has been--severely criticizing us as the cause of most of the problems in today's Middle East) they could point out that after six years of the Obama presidency Guantanamo is still operating, U.S. citizens are routinely spied on by many government agencies, and poverty and inequality are worsening.

I know that one reason American leaders feel it necessary to criticize the records of others--even when being hosted by them--is to demonstrate to the rightwing back home that they are tough enough to stand up to our adversaries while trumpeting our alleged "exceptionalism."

My question to traveling presidents--In a dangerously fractured world, where we should be seeking to reduce tensions even with leaders we despise (Putin comes to mind), do we need another Cold War, do we want to chill further relations with our major trading partner and debt holder (China), do we want more Westerners to be beheaded in Iraq, do we want to find peaceful ways to keep Iran from getting The Bomb?

I am more and more attracted to Henry-Kissinger-style realpolitik--diplomacy based primarily on power and practical and material considerations rather than on ideological notions or ethical premises.

Just as we hate it when others point fingers at us, it's time for us get off our proverbial high horse.

August 7, 2014--Israeli (Jewish) Exceptionalism

The outrage and debate continues over civilian casualties in Gaza and Israel. More accurately, about what has been happening in Gaza. There have been relatively few Israeli civilian causalities and, even if there were many more, the outrage would, by comparison, be muted.

Hamas and the Palestinians are not just the underdogs in this fight--improvised rockets versus jet fighters and smart bombs--but they are also not Jews.

This must be said--being not-Jews means less is expected of the Palestinians.

More is expected of the Jews (and I mean Jews as distinguished from Israelis) because of the Holocaust. Because of it, it goes, Jews should know better when it comes to inflicting harm and worse on innocents--people who are killed or wounded not because they are enemy combatants but because of who they are.

Jews were rounded up and mass murdered in Germany, and in much of the rest of continental Europe, because they were Jews. Not soldiers, not resistance fighters. For this reason, Jews should know better. But they also know that the world stood by largely silent. And thus were complicitous. This complicates matters.

By this logic Israeli Jews, and the rest of us who are Jews, should be very careful about setting upon anyone just because of who they are. We should know that if we allow this, worse perpetrate this, "they" will come for us next. As they have for millennia.

This is the Jews' patrimony. Mine as well.

So here we are today seeing the slaughter of innocents in Gaza. Carried out by Israelis. By Jews.

That is not our patrimony nor the lessons we should have learned from our own history.

All right. Point made.

But there is another, related point to make--

To expect Jews, Israelis to act as if there is something often referred to as Jewish Exceptionalism is to apply a higher standard to them than to any other nation or people.

Where is the equivalent outrage about the United States being responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes, a few human rights group keep that tally and attempt to grab an occasional headline. But beyond that there is, again, silence.

How much "collateral damage" (that hideous euphemism that means killing of innocent people), how much has there been in South Sudan or Eastern Ukraine? How widely reported has that been? And what martial etiquettes have been assigned to the Russian-backed forces or the Sudan People's Liberation Army? Certainly not the same as those imposed on Jews and Israelis.

But stories about the 1,400 Palestinians who have thus far been killed--admittedly at least half of them noncombatants--have been on the front page of the New York Times for days. Including yesterday, explicitly, with multicolored graphs distinguishing among different categories of the dead, "Civilian or Not? New Fight in Tallying the Dead in Gaza."

This has the tincture of anti-Semitism.

It is no coincidence that anti-Semetic rallies and confrontations have been erupting in many places in Europe, horrifyingly also in Germany. This derives not just from a long history of festering hatred but from the conflation of Israel and Jews--of a nation with a people.

They, we are not one and the same. Many Jews, including me, though we recognize the existential threat to Israel that Hamas and its tunnels and rockets represent and Israel's right to defend itself, not all Jews support a separate state of Israel or the current reactionary, repressive government.

And thus to expect us to be any better than other people is unreasonable. And since it it expressed so one-dimensionally, and leads so quickly to condemnations and worse, all Jews are wise to have their radar tuned to high. Danger of the old sort is lurking.

July 21, 2014--Clown Car

I don't know if they're still doing this, but in my youth, a favorite moment during the Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey circus was when a car smaller than a VW would trundled to the center of the center ring and slowly disgorge clown after clown after clown after clown. At least a dozen appeared to have been piled into that tiny vehicle. I guess this was the inspiration for Steven Sondheim's Bring in the Clowns.

Of course there was a trap door beneath where the car came to rest and the clowns scrambled up from below the circus floor. Think of this as a metaphor for what follows.

Though Ringling Brothers may have moved on to higher-tech stunts, the good news is that their own version of the clown car is beginning to trundle toward center stage in the Republican scramble for the 2016 presidential nomination.

Three GOP clowns were especially active last week--Chris Christie, thinking his troubles are either behind him or that potential voters in Iowa have not been tracking the Bridgegate scandal (or, what is in fact true for them, seeing it to be a scandal created by the liberal eastern-establishment media) plunged into adoring crowds who came out to see a genuine political celebrity (ironically a celebrity created as much by media-fed scandal as achievement) who was eager to show the Republican competition how a seemingly straight-talking, tell-it-like-it-is anti-Washington regular overweight guy looks and feels like in the flesh (double meaning intended).

It feels pretty good, the ever-modest Christie concluded, all smiles before heading back to New Jersey, praying that the various prosecutors and grand juries investigating the mess at the GW Bridge as well as other signs of corruption will not indict him before next November. My guess is they will, and that that will finally deflate him. In the meantime, he'll keep pressing the flesh. (Sorry, at times I can't restrain myself from being bad.)

Also getting into their clown gear were Rick Perry, who I believe is still governor of Texas, and Rand Paul, Ron's son, who I think is a senator though the last time he was seen in Washington was two years ago when he was sworn in. He's now a part of the Washington establishment, like it or not, and since politically being perceived that way is a ability, he is trying to figure out how to be both a senator and an anti-establishment, anti-governement figure though he is in fact a public employee and earns more than $200,000 a year in salary and generous benefits paid for by taxpayers whose taxes he wants to cut. Get it?

Only a clown could be that audacious. And then have you seen his hair-dye job and eye makeup? Right out of clown school. But there I go again being bad.

What is unusual so many months before the Iowa caucuses is for undeclared but for-certain candidates to attack each other directly, by name. This early in the game unannounced candidates have always talked in broad generalities while wandering around the country attempting to line up wealthy supporters while appearing to be above the fray and trying to act presidential.

But Rick Perry couldn't control himself. He went right after purported front-runner Rand Paul both by policy and name. Maybe he recalled that the last time around, assuming his memory is more intact this time--he had trouble during the debates remembering even his own talking points--perhaps he is acknowledging that that last-minute strategy didn't work. His front-runner status lasted about a week.

Though the problem may have been more him than his strategy, this time around he is working more on the strategy than the "him" part.

The governor showed up last week with a new pair of professorial-looking eye glasses. These are part of a strategy to look smart because, again in 2012, he both looked and sounded, how else to put this, dumb.

And he's even given up wearing cowboy boots. Another strategy to make him look serious. And maybe to appeal to women and independents who don't like to see too much testosterone in their presidents. Though God knows with John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and FDR it flowed freely.

All Democrats. Hum.

Rick Perry, to show he knows the location of Russia and that he can't see it from his ranch, and is thus comfortable with foreign policy issues and therefore ready to move into the White House, but also to distinguish himself from the GOP frontrunner, attacked Rand Paul by name, calling him an "isolationist," "flat wrong," and "curiously blind" (recall the eyeglasses).

Very bold. But before the ink dried on reports about Perry's otherwise high-toned speech, Paul's people retaliated, calling Rick Perry "dead wrong," saying that though he is running around wearing "smart glasses" (not spiffy smart but the style of glasses that make you seem smart), "apparently his new glasses haven't altered his perception of the world or allowed him to see more clearly."

I call that hitting above the belt and not politically smart since so many voters need glasses not to make them look smart but to see. Though someone should check to see if Perry's have prescription lenses or are just window glass.

Now if we could only get Herman Cain wound up and ready to climb into that clown car how much fun would that be this hot summer where nothing else is going on. Except, of course Israel invading Gaza and Russians or Ukrainian rebels shooting down commercial airplanes.

June 6, 2014--Progressive Dinner With Vladimir Putin

High school is breaking out among the G-7.

They are meeting in Europe right now without including G-8--Russia. Because of their annexation of Crimea they, actually, Vladimir Putin, are in the doghouse.

No better evidence of how ridiculous things can get have been all the maneuvers to keep Putin and Barack Obama from running into each other. This is because Putin in fact has been in Brussels but meeting less officially with European counterparts and he, as well as Obama, were in Paris yesterday and will be in Normandy today, the 70th anniversary of the D Day landings.

But the funkiest machinations were those involving dinner and souper (supper) on Thursday (in a movement I will unpack that distinction) in Paris, hosted by French president Francois Holland.

"Dinner," at an undisclosed Parisian restaurant, will include Obama but not Putin while souper, which will follow dinner, will include Putin but not Obama.

So for Monsieur Hollande and other members of the G-7 or G-8 it will be like a progressive dinner (where courses are served at different locations) with the dinner part, I suppose, consisting of small plates while souper will be more robust.

Or the other way around.

I am not privy to the menus but they could be something like the following--

Always the good host, Hollande, wanting Obama to feel at home after being largely ignored at the G-7 talks, at dinner will order up a Chicago-style deep-dish pizza and a a couple of Big Baby double-cheesebergers.

"What, no Moules Marinieres?" Obama will ask. "Back home I eat Bug Babies all the time."

Dinner conversation with him will center around how, after tapping her phone, he can get Angela Merkel to return his calls.

At the Putin souper cabbage borscht will be served after which there will be skewers of lamb shashlyk.

"What, no Blanquette de Veau?" Putin, pouting, will ask. "In Moscow all I eat is shashlyk."

Souper conversation with him will likely include putting the final touches on France's sale of 1.2 billion-euros' worth of helicopter carriers to Russia in, sort-of, violation of the sanctions the West has imposed on Russia because of its intervention in Ukraine.

But as they say in Paris, C'est la vie.