Thursday, July 5, 2018

How Trump Went From ‘Fire and Fury’ to Dismissing North Korean Nuclear Advances - New York Times

How Trump Went From ‘Fire and Fury’ to Dismissing North Korean Nuclear Advances

By David E. Sanger
July 4, 2018

WASHINGTON — When the North Koreans were shooting off missile tests and detonating new, more powerful atomic bombs last year, President Trump responded with threats of “fire and fury” and ordered the military to come up with new, if highly risky, pre-emptive strike options.

But since the one-day summit meeting last month in Singapore, Mr. Trump has done an about-face, while the North’s nuclear program has continued. “Many good conversations with North Korea-it is going well!” he wrote Tuesday morning on Twitter.

Even the recent revelations of seemingly modest North Korean progress on missile technology and the production of nuclear fuel — including continued work on a new nuclear reactor that can produce plutonium — have not dimmed Mr. Trump’s enthusiasm. He argues that they mean little compared to the new tone of conversations, and that even though North Korea has not disassembled a single weapon, his mission should be judged a success.

It is that jarring reversal of tone that has led Mr. Trump’s critics to argue that he was taken in by Kim Jong-un, the North’s 34-year-old leader.

Turning the enthusiasm of the meeting in Singapore into a concrete, verifiable agreement is now the job of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is leaving Washington early Thursday for North Korea. It will be his third trip there, but the first to flesh out a timetable and a common understanding of what the Singapore commitment to “work toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” really means.

Complicating the task is this: Mr. Pompeo, a former C.I.A. chief who knows the details of the North Korean program intimately and has solicited plans for how to accomplish his goals, must show that he can get the North Koreans to go far beyond the agreement his predecessor once-removed, John Kerry, achieved in negotiations with Iran. Mr. Trump has called that deal a “disaster” for years and pulled out of it two months ago.

Now, it looms over Mr. Pompeo’s talks.

By engaging Mr. Trump in the process of “denuclearizing” the Korean Peninsula, Mr. Kim may be calculating that the president would not dare walk away — especially after Mr. Trump noted before the summit meeting that “everyone thinks” he should win a Nobel Peace Prize, before modestly adding, “but I would never say it.”

Still, the test missile engine site that Mr. Trump told reporters was being dismantled still stands, satellite pictures show. And the C.I.A., among other agencies, has warned that the North’s strategy may now be to build up abilities that can be traded away later, hoping to maneuver Mr. Trump into accepting the country as a de facto nuclear power, and settle for concessions on the size and reach of Mr. Kim’s nuclear force.

Mr. Trump and his allies say that is nonsense; sanctions remain and Mr. Trump has not flinched from the goal of “complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization.”

“There’s not any starry-eyed feeling among the group doing this,” John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, insisted Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” saying that most of the major steps toward denuclearization could be taken in a year. In private, Trump administration officials say, Mr. Bolton’s view is the same as it was before he joined the administration: that the North Koreans will never entirely give up their program.

The big question is whether Mr. Kim is truly ready to change course or playing for time with Mr. Trump — as his father and grandfather did with the past four presidents.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump is in sales mode.

Frustrated by the series of reports that the North is chugging forward, despite its “denuclearization” pledge, Mr. Trump boasted in a tweet on Tuesday that there had been “no Rocket Launches or Nuclear Testing in 8 months. All of Asia is thrilled. Only the Opposition Party, which includes the Fake News, is complaining.”

Then, with a Trumpian flair, he added, “If not for me, we would now be at War with North Korea!”

Mr. Trump is at least partly right: There have been no missile or nuclear tests since November, a freeze that many, including some Democrats, said was a necessary first step. But a freeze and denuclearization are completely different things.

Mr. Kim retains all of his nuclear abilities, and thus his leverage. He can resume testing any time. Just a year ago, Rex W. Tillerson, then the secretary of state, called that position insufficient because it merely perpetuated an ability to strike that Mr. Trump had, until recently, characterized as intolerable.

But it also reveals, in perhaps the most critical national security crisis Mr. Trump faces, his tendency to conflate a good meeting with a good outcome. It is as if President John F. Kennedy, meeting with the Soviet Union’s Nikita Khrushchev for the first time in Vienna in 1961, had declared the Cold War solved. The Cuban missile crisis broke open 16 months later.

Mr. Kim has already accomplished something, too. The heat has been turned down drastically, and the United States has, unilaterally, suspended military exercises with South Korea.

The Obama administration’s Iran agreement shadows Mr. Trump’s talks with the North.

The president regularly calls Iran a major nuclear threat, even though it no longer has enough fuel to make a single nuclear weapon. Under the 2015 agreement, it shipped 97 percent of its nuclear material out of the country. And it never possessed nuclear weapons.

Yet Mr. Trump pulled out after concluding that the United States gave away too much in return for an agreement that would gradually allow the Iranians to resume production around 2030.

The stark contrast between how Mr. Trump talks about Tehran, while insisting that the North is “no longer a nuclear threat,” will become harder and harder to sustain if Mr. Pompeo cannot get Mr. Kim on a rapid denuclearization schedule.

And Mr. Pompeo will need to achieve an inspection regime that provides assurance — not only to intelligence agencies but also to the public in South Korea, Japan and the United States — that the North is not hiding weapons, missiles or production facilities. The C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency believe that, today, it is hiding all three. So far, Mr. Pompeo has said nothing about the details he intends to present, and Mr. Bolton suggested that stories about new intelligence on the North’s improving its nuclear abilities only imperiled the diplomatic process. As a television commentator and columnist, Mr. Bolton often repeated similar reports when it came to building his case about how to deal with Pyongyang and Tehran.

One thing is clear, however: The Trump administration has not uttered the phrase “complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization” in weeks, and Mr. Pompeo has also softened his tone. Some administration officials say that South Korea urged getting rid of the everything-must-be-dismantled-immediately approach. And South Korean officials say that while Mr. Kim might not surrender his entire program anytime soon, he might dismantle parts of it, reducing his readiness to go to war.

“Perhaps the biggest diplomatic problem the U.S. will face, if we can get North Korea to agree to fully denuclearize, will be the timing of that denuclearization and how we verify the component steps,” William Perry, the former defense secretary under President Bill Clinton, wrote this week in Politico Magazine.

Mr. Perry, who negotiated repeatedly with the North, cautioned that “these steps will be complex, will take many months, if not years, and will require intrusive verification procedures.”

“But the U.S. has negotiated agreements equally difficult with the Soviet Union, so we do have a positive precedent,” he wrote.



Donald Trump: OPEC is "doing little to help" with gas prices - CBS News

 July 5, 2018, 8:09 AM
Donald Trump: OPEC is "doing little to help" with gas prices

President Donald Trump says OPEC is "doing little to help" rising gas prices and claims "if anything, they are driving prices higher."

Mr. Trump tweeted Wednesday: "The OPEC Monopoly must remember that gas prices are up & they are doing little to help. If anything, they are driving prices higher as the United States defends many of their members for very little $'s. This must be a two way street. REDUCE PRICING NOW!"

Last month, members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel agreed to pump 1 million barrels more crude oil daily, a move that should help contain the recent rise in global energy prices. However, summer months in the U.S. usually lead to increased demand for oil, boosting the price of gasoline in a midterm election year.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
 The OPEC Monopoly must remember that gas prices are up & they are doing little to help. If anything, they are driving prices higher as the United States defends many of their members for very little $’s. This must be a two way street. REDUCE PRICING NOW!

6:46 AM - Jul 5, 2018

An Iranian oil official said the  U.S. president should stop tweeting about oil because Mr. Trump is making the situation worse, according to Bloomberg News.

"Your tweets have driven the prices up by at least $10 per barrel," Iran's OPEC governor Hossein Kazempour Ardebili said the message, Bloomberg reported, citing the Iranian Oil Ministry's Shana news service. "Pls stop it, otherwise it will go even higher!"

Glencore's Buyback Bravado The not-so-subtle message from a $1 billion share repurchase - Blommberg

Glencore's Buyback Bravado
The not-so-subtle message from a $1 billion share repurchase.

By
July 5, 2018, 8:07 PM GMT+10

If you’re in a hole, keep digging. Photographer: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg
Glencore Plc’s announcement of a $1 billion stock buyback on Thursday was short on both wit and color. So allow me to hazard a rough translation: “Don't worry, we're rich and our share price should be much higher.”

Faced with the unwelcome attention of the U.S. Department of Justice, most companies would be inclined to batten down the hatches. But, just a couple of days after being ordered to hand over a decades's worth of documents related to its activities in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Venezuela and Nigeria, the world’s top commodities trader is splashing its cash.

Digging Down
Glencore's stock price was dented by the DoJ's subpoena

Glencore does bravado well – too well, perhaps, for its own good.

Two recent examples are pertinent: not long after the Baar, Switzerland-based company had overcome a nasty tussle with short-sellers, CEO Ivan Glasenberg quipped last year that the balance sheet was now in such good shape that his firm could afford to pay a $20 billion dividend. And earlier this year, Glencore announced it would restart royalty payments to its former Congo business partner Dan Gertler – even though he had recently been made subject to blocking sanctions by the U.S. The company’s solution was to pay Gertler in euros, a possibly unwise move even if Glencore says it had discussed the matter with U.S. authorities.

Compared to the now famous $20 billion boast, today’s buyback and the $2.9 billion of dividends Glencore is promising shareholders this year look pretty modest. But, they send a signal that Glasenberg, who own 8 percent of the stock, thinks the recent sell-off is overdone and the company's balance sheet is more than capable of withstanding a bit of legal trouble.

Indeed, if you leave aside the legal woes, it would be hard to make the case that Glencore's shares are overvalued. Providing commodity prices don't collapse, analysts expect the company to generate about $54 billion of Ebitda in the next three years. With net debt down to about $10.7 billion, and its capital expenditure requirements fairly limited, that should leave plenty of spare cash to return to shareholders. Yet the stock only trades on about eight times estimated earnings, a steep discount to peers BHP Billiton Ltd. and Rio Tinto Plc.

That gap exists because Glencore is seen as a more risky proposition: it's also facing a possible corruption probe in the U.K. and its troubles in the Congo are too copious to list here.

Perhaps Glencore decided to proceed with the buyback to show it has nothing to fear from the Justice Department. But external investors, who aren't privy to the same information, will struggle to share that confidence. The DoJ struck back at Glencore less than a month after the miner’s apparent attempt to circumvent U.S. sanctions. It's hard not to conclude the company misjudged the situation. In business, as in life, pride can often come before a fall.

Migration Deal Rescued Merkel’s Government. Now, She Has to Save the Deal. - New York Times

Migration Deal Rescued Merkel’s Government. Now, She Has to Save the Deal.

By Melissa Eddy
July 4, 2018

BERLIN — Two days after pulling her government back from the brink by agreeing to set up transit camps for migrants at the border — and to eventually turn some of them away — Chancellor Angela Merkel is working to keep the deal from falling apart.

She and her interior minister have critical meetings Thursday with the leaders of Austria and Hungary, who must agree to take back some of the migrants in order to make the deal Ms. Merkel struck with the rebellious Bavarian partners in her own government.

Those leaders already criticized Ms. Merkel for her welcoming stance in 2015, when hundreds of thousands of people fleeing conflicts in Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere flooded into Europe. So it is unclear if Austria and Hungary will go along with taking in migrants that Germany turns away.

Those decisions will be important in keeping her three-party coalition intact. Although the conservatives in her coalition have signed onto the deal, the other partner, the center-left Social Democratic Party, has expressed reservations about setting up “transit camps,” especially if other countries won’t take the migrants back and they are left in limbo.

The stakes of Thursday’s negotiations are high, not only for Ms. Merkel — who sought in a television interview to reassure Germans that her government had returned to stability — but for Europe itself. She has fought for democratic principles and the ideal of open borders in the face of a sharp swing to the right among many of the European Union’s 28 member states.

“Europe needs Germany to have a stable government — now more than ever,” said Marcel Dirsus, a political scientist at the University of Kiel. “Ms. Merkel is not perfect, but she is measured, calm and rational. Germany and Europe would be worse off without her.”

Under European Union rules, migrants are supposed to apply for asylum in the first member country in which they arrive, rather than pressing on to other nations like Germany. But Ms. Merkel’s government stopped enforcing those rules when other European countries balked at handling the migrants in their countries.

Ms. Merkel agreed on Monday to set up the transit centers after a two-week standoff with her interior minister, Horst Seehofer, who is head of the Christian Social Union, the conservative party in Bavaria that is the third party in her governing coalition.

The centers would be set up at certain crossing points along Germany’s border with Austria, where migrants arriving from the south would be screened to determine whether they had already applied for asylum in another country in the European Union.

If so, they would be returned to that country. If that country declined to take them back, the deal states that “on the basis of an agreement with Austria,” they would be sent back there.

But Austrian leaders and members of the Social Democrats say that such an agreement does not exist.

Mr. Seehofer is heading to Vienna on Thursday to discuss the transit center deal with the Austrian chancellor, Sebastian Kurz.

In Berlin, Ms. Merkel is to hold talks with Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, whose country was the first point of entry into the European Union for many of the migrants who later made their way to Germany, and whom Berlin would like to now send back.

Mr. Seehofer’s party has cultivated close ties with the Hungarian leader, even as Ms. Merkel has been critical of Mr. Orban’s rejection of taking in migrants.

In addition to demanding more clarity on the details of the deal, the Social Democrats are insisting that any camps not become “massive” internment camps, where people would be held indefinitely. Despite those concerns, the party appeared likely to remain in the coalition, analysts said, because it stands to lose support if the government falls and new elections are held.

In what appeared to be an effort to assuage concerns among her coalition partners, Ms. Merkel said in an interview with the German public broadcaster ARD that authorities would have to decide on the fate of those passing through the centers within 48 hours.

The number of people seeking asylum in Germany has dropped significantly after peaking at more than a million in 2015. But a string of attacks on young women by migrants, a terrorist attack by a migrant on a Christmas market, and fears that the country’s social welfare system is being abused have caused many Germans to turn against the openness, led by Ms. Merkel, shown by Germany three years ago.

The German federal police said that in the first five months of this year, their officers stopped 4,600 people they classified as “unauthorized arrivals” — those who would now be sent to the centers. They say they turned back more than half of those people, but did not explain what happened to the others.

Ms. Merkel has been edging to the right on migrant issues over the past year as her center-right party has bled supporters to the nationalist, anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany party. That same party now threatens Mr. Seehofer’s grip on power in Bavaria before a state election in October.

But the deal Ms. Merkel struck Monday makes clear that she has shifted further from the values she has long espoused on Germany’s — and Europe’s — being strong enough to take in those in need.

Despite the bitterness of the dispute over migrants, the chancellor insisted that her fractious coalition, and she herself, would survive for a full, four-year term.

“I can’t promise that there won’t be disputes again about other issues, as this is usual when a government includes three parties,” the chancellor said in the television interview.

“This time it was a ferocious dispute about a very emotional topic,” she said. “But I firmly expect, and I’ll do my part to ensure, that our government does good work, not only now but in the coming years.”

Russia 'must explain nerve agent poisoning' - BBC News

July, 5, 2018

Russia 'must explain nerve agent poisoning'

Home Secretary Sajid Javid has called on Russia to explain the Novichok poisoning after two people were exposed to it in Wiltshire.

The couple, believed to be Charlie Rowley, 45, and Dawn Sturgess, 44, fell ill at a house in Amesbury on Saturday and remain in a critical condition.

Mr Javid said the nerve agent used in the latest poisoning was the same type as that which ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal was exposed to in March.

He said 100 counter-terrorism officers were working with Wiltshire Police.

"It is completely unacceptable for our people to be either deliberate or accidental targets, or for our streets, our parks, our towns, to be dumping grounds for poison," he told MPs.

"It is now time that the Russian state comes forward and explains exactly what has gone on."

Thailand cave: Rescuers in race against weather as rains close in - BBC News

July 5, 2018

Thailand cave: Rescuers in race against weather as rains close in

Rescue workers are concerned about what might happen when monsoon rains hit
Rescuers are racing against the rains to free 12 boys and their football coach, who are trapped in a flooded cave in northern Thailand.

A deluge is expected to hit in a matter of days that could force the water level up, threatening to flood the pocket where the group took refuge.

The teenage boys and their 25-year-old coach have been trapped for 12 days.

They were found on Monday night by rescue divers, on a rock shelf about 4km (2.5 miles) from the cave mouth.

The boys have now received food, foil blankets, and medical attention, and rescuers are trying to run cables through the cave tunnel so they can speak to their families.

When are the rains coming?
The region of Chiang Rai where the boys are trapped has for the past few days experienced a dry spell, and rescuers have taken advantage of this to pump water out of the cave complex.

About 128 million litres of water had been pumped out by Thursday, with the water levels coming down at an average rate of 1.5cm per hour. Rescue workers are now able to walk through a 1.5km (0.9 mile) stretch from the entrance to what's being called the third chamber.

Image copyrightREUTERS
Image caption
Water is being pumped out of the cave complex around the clock
But heavy monsoon rains are forecast for Sunday. Chiang Rai Governor Narongsak Osotthanakorn said they were "racing against water".

"We are calculating how much time we have it if rains, how many hours and days," he said.

The Tham Luang cave complex is regularly flooded during the rainy season until September or October, raising fears that a delay could leave the boys trapped in the cave for months.

What is being done to rescue the boys?
There is hope that enough water can be pumped out of the cave tunnels for the boys to be able to wade - or be floated - out.

But rescuers are also planning for other eventualities.

A team are exploring the forested mountain land above the cave complex to see if they can find a chimney down to the cavern sheltering the boys. They have enlisted the help of bird-watchers, who are specialists in finding hidden holes, the AFP news agency reports.


Media captionBill Whitehouse from the British Cave Rescue Council explains how the boys and their coach might be rescued
Thai Navy Seal divers are also teaching the boys the basics of diving, with a view to guiding them out through flooded waters if necessary.

But such a rescue would be fraught with risk, say experts. Many of the boys cannot swim or dive, and there is a high risk they might panic in the dark, murky, narrow waterways.

The journey for the group to travel up to the cave entrance would take around five hours, rescue divers say.

The Thai military has previously said that if the boys can't dive out, the group may have to wait for up to four months for flooding to recede before they can leave.

Food and other supplies are being put in place for that eventuality.

What are the rescue options?
'The boys are my brothers'
Helier Cheung, BBC News, Tham Luang cave

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Teams of volunteers are each playing their part in the rescue effort
Rescue teams are working in extremely difficult conditions. The heat has been sweltering and unrelenting, at over 30C, while much of the site is submerged in squelchy mud that is several inches thick in places and extremely slippery.

But the work has continued at an unrelenting pace. Everyone is aware that once the monsoon rains start, rescue efforts will be much more difficult.

Meanwhile, hundreds of workers are helping to keep the site in order, with road engineers laying gravel to try and secure the mud, workers for the Thai royal kitchen providing hot food for everyone, and volunteers handing out water bottles and ice lollies to those on site.

One local civil servant, who had volunteered to help hand out supplies, said he did not know the boys personally but had decided to help because "I consider the boys in the caves as my brothers".

Community of hope springs up outside cave

How are the boys coping?
Video from Thai Navy special forces on Monday showed the boys looking emaciated but smiling and at times laughing.

The arrival of food, foil blankets and the prospect of speaking to their loved ones will have buoyed their spirits.

But concern is mounting for both their physical and mental health after 12 days below ground - and it is not clear how they would be helped to survive months more in the cave.


Media captionChilean miner sends message to Thai boys
Video shows Thai cave boys in good health
The Brits behind the Thai cave boys search
How will the boys cope underground?
The boys and their coach had gone on their bikes up to the caves on Saturday 23 June after football practice. It was one boy's 16th birthday, and the team had taken a picnic.

They knew the caves, and some reports suggest they had wanted to explore deeper than on previous occasions.

They entered the cave when it was dry but sudden heavy rains quickly flooded the exit and rushed through the narrow passages, clogging them with mud and debris.

Trump’s Supreme Court Pageant Could Come Down to Looks - Intelligencer ( New York Magazine )

July 4, 2018

Trump’s Supreme Court Pageant Could Come Down to Looks
By
Margaret Hartmann
@MargHartmann

He’s a Supreme Court justice, and he could play one on TV. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
President Trump has made no secret of how important appearance is to his hiring process. Trump has often remarked that his nominees just look right for their respective roles, and he’s fond of the phrase “central casting.” When considering Mitt Romney for Secretary of State, he said he “looks the part of a top diplomat right out of ‘central casting.’” In a speech to the National Governors Association he said of Vice President Mike Pence, “He’s a real talent, a real guy. And he is central casting, do we agree? Central casting.” He even used the phrase when referring to military leaders at a post-inauguration lunch, adding, “If I’m doing a movie, I’d pick you General, General Mattis.”

Therefore, it’s unsurprising to hear that as Republican officials consider which potential Supreme Court nominees will face an easier confirmation battle in the Senate, poring over their legal writings, Trump is thinking about more superficial matters.

“Beyond the qualifications, what really matters is, does this nominee fit a central casting image for a Supreme Court nominee, as well as his or her spouse,” a Republican close to the White House told Politico. “That’s a big deal. Do they fit the role?”

While nominating someone to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy might be the most consequential pick of Trump’s time in office, most of the the hard work was already done months ago by the Federalist Society. Since Trump is selecting from their list of 25 conservative justices, there’s no risk of him picking a judge who’s great-looking but ideologically horrifying to his base.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump’s short list has been whittled even further, and is now focused on three U.S. appeals court judges: Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Raymond Kethledge. The paper says a “central tension” in the process is whether to base the decision primarily on their work, or on their biography and personal chemistry with Trump.

Kavanaugh is seen as the frontrunner. He’s a former Kennedy clerk with a long record of judicial rulings. One person also noted to Politico that the photo of him being sworn in to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit “looks all-American” — which seems like a not very subtle way of expressing why Amul Thapar, Mitch McConnell’s favorite candidate and the only minority on Trump’s list, didn’t make the final cut.


Brett Kavanaugh is sworn in by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to be a judge to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images
Trump reportedly asked Marie Louise Gorsuch to stand next to her husband during his nominating speech, and was delighted by the couple’s appealing image. But there’s a problem with the telegenic white people in the Kavanaugh picture: One of them is President George W. Bush. Kavanaugh’s wife, Ashley, is close to the Bush family, having served as W.’s personal secretary for years. Brett Kavanaugh is also a protégé of Ken Starr; he wrote much of the graphic report on Bill Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky and led the investigation into the death of Vince Foster. Trump’s hatred of the Clintons might triumph over his hatred of the Bushes.

Barrett is a more controversial pick, as she’s a clearer threat to Roe v. Wade, but that might make her more appealing to Trump. The Catholic judge had a previous run-in with Dianne Feinstein, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democrat, who remarked during her confirmation hearing that “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.” Feinstein was accused of applying a religious test, and the incident could help fire up the base.

As the Washington Post noted she’s also “young (46), good on her feet, telegenic, unmistakably conservative and, with seven children, has the kind of family you want sitting behind you during tense confirmation hearings.” But that might not be good enough for Trump. A source tells Politico she performed poorly in her interview. Also, the president is said to be looking for someone with a degree from Harvard or Yale, and Barrett went to Rhodes College and Notre Dame Law School.

If personal chemistry with Trump winds up being the determining factor, the nomination could go to Kethledge, the dark horse pick. A source said Kethledge and Trump hit it off during their interview, and the president “loved” him. While he does not hail from the Ivy League, he went to the University of Michigan, one of the most well-respected public schools, for his undergraduate and law degrees.

While there is little publicly available commentary on the attractiveness of Kethledge and his family compared to the other contestants, he has other qualities that seem appealing to Trump: a Midwestern background, a passion for hunting and fishing, and a book on leadership co-authored with West Point graduate and veteran Michael Erwin. Here’s a quote from an interview in which Kethledge describes how they came to write a book about the importance of solitude:

Maybe a month later, Mike and I were having beers in an Irish pub in Ann Arbor. He mentioned a speech that Bill Deresiewicz had given at West Point about solitude and leadership. I talked about my barn office in northern Michigan, in a forested area overlooking Lake Huron. I have no internet connection, the HVAC is a wood stove, and my workspace is a simple pine desk. I told Mike that I get an extra 20 IQ points from being in that office.

He was in the office when he learned he was on Trump’s list of 25 potential Supreme Court nominees:

I was up in my barn office, actually working on a chapter for this book. The landline phone rang. It was my wife, calling from the gym, where she was on a treadmill. She said, “I just saw you on TV! You’re on Trump’s list!”



That was how I heard the news. It was distracting. I really had to get that chapter done in the short time I had up there. So I thanked my wife for letting me know, and went back to work. Fortunately my cellphone doesn’t work up there.

That’s exactly the kind of anecdote Trump would love to share at Monday’s dramatic nomination ceremony.

Though, Steve Bannon claims the media has it all wrong. He suggests that Trump, the former reality-show and beauty pageant host, is making his Supreme Court picks based on a rigorous study of their judicial temperament, while the stodgy lawyers and politicians who previously occupied the Oval Office went mainly by personality.

“I think President Trump is conducting a search built on the principles he established during his first Supreme Court selection — written opinions and the thinking behind them matter most,” the fired White House chief strategist told the Journal. “Past Republican presidents focused on biography and interviews.”