A place were I can write...

My simple blog of pictures of travel, friends, activities and the Universe we live in as we go slowly around the Sun.



November 30, 2023

Which one was the plant??

Takeaways from the DeSantis-Newsom debate

By Eric Bradner

As California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis opened a debate Thursday night on Fox News, Newsom told DeSantis the two had one thing in common.

“Neither of us will be the nominee for our party in 2024,” he said.

The highly unusual debate — one moderated by Fox’s conservative host Sean Hannity and billed by the network as the “Great Red State vs. Blue State Debate” — was a window into an alternative political universe; one in which President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump were not on course for a 2024 rematch of the 2020 presidential race.

The odds were stacked against Newsom, the Democrat who faced both a Republican sparring partner and questions posed from conservative angles as he sought to play surrogate for Biden’s reelection effort.

But the stakes were much higher for DeSantis, whose flagging bid for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination is in desperate need of a jolt with the Iowa caucuses less than seven weeks away.

Here are six takeaways from what Hannity and Fox News billed as the “Great Red State vs. Blue State Debate”:

Newsom serves as the Biden surrogate

DeSantis opened the debate by asserting that Newsom was seeking the national limelight as part of a shadow 2024 presidential run, built on the belief that the 81-year-old Biden won’t ultimately seek a second term.

“Why don’t you just admit it? You’re running,” DeSantis said.

But Newsom went to bat for Biden, defending the president’s record on the economy, immigration and more in front of Fox’s right-leaning audience.

“Fourteen million jobs, 10 times more than the last three Republican presidents combined,” Newsom said as he began to reel off a list of economic achievements after DeSantis called him a defender of “Bidenomics.”

DeSantis lambasted Biden’s handling of the US-Mexico border. “This is a guy who says the Biden administration is not lying to the public about the border,” he said of Newsom. “They are lying to you.”

Newsom, meanwhile, pointed to DeSantis sending buses of migrants from the Texas border to Martha’s Vineyard. He said DeSantis did so “so that you can out-Trump Trump.”

And how’s that going for you, Ron? By the way, you’re down 41 points in your own state,” Newsom said.

Later, Newsom sneered at DeSantis for mispronouncing Vice President Kamala Harris’ name.

“Shame on you,” Newsom said, repeating the correct pronunciation of the vice president’s name. “It’s Madame Vice President to you.”

DeSantis faces attacks about shifting positions

Newsom also lobbed a series of attacks that sounded like they could have come from any of DeSantis’ primary opponents, accusing the Florida governor of shifting positions on issues like immigration and environmental protections as he began to eye a presidential run.

Those attacks — clearly designed to damage DeSantis in front of an audience of likely Republican presidential primary voters — were among the debate’s most memorable moments.

The most notable might have been on the subject of pandemic policies. DeSantis called Newsom a “lockdown governor,” criticizing his coronavirus pandemic-era decisions while pointing out that the California governor’s children attended a private school that had received a waiver to open for in-person education while public schools were shuttered.

Newsom shot back that DeSantis had “followed science,” closing bars and restaurants and heeding the advice of former top infectious disease official Anthony Fauci, and “promoted vaccines.”

“You passed an emergency declaration before the state of California did. You closed down your beaches, your bars, your restaurants,” Newsom said. “Donald Trump laid you out on this, dead to rights.”

He did all of that until he decided to fall prey to the fringe of his party. And as a consequence of that, Ron, tens of thousands of people lost their lives,” he said.

DeSantis gets to show his general election mettle

With Trump skipping the Republican presidential primary debates, those clashes have provided limited opportunities for DeSantis and other contenders to move the needle.

Thursday night at least offered the Florida governor an opportunity to remind Republican viewers why they’d widely come to like him before the 2024 campaign — and why the pro-DeSantis super PAC is named “Never Back Down.”

He repeatedly used Newsom as a stand-in for Biden and called the California governor “slick.”

“He wants you to believe him over your own lying eyes,” DeSantis said.

For Newsom, who is not a presidential candidate, the job was easier.

Joe Biden will be our nominee in a matter of weeks. And in a matter of weeks, Sean, he’ll be endorsing Donald Trump as the nominee of the Republican Party,” he said.

Hannity the ‘hall monitor’

Hannity, the long-time conservative Fox host, opened the debate pledging to play a neutral role Thursday night. He also told the debaters he didn’t intend to serve as a “hall monitor.”

That much was clear almost immediately, as both Newsom and DeSantis ran right past the 60-second marks Hannity had set for answers.

However, the questions were largely a continuation of what plays out on Hannity’s show on a regular basis — designed largely to put Newsom in a defensive posture.

The California governor often opted to sidestep the questions he was asked — potentially to his own detriment with the audience. And at times, Newsom attempted to become the moderator himself.

During a clash on abortion, he posed a question for DeSantis. “Ron DeSantis, will you or will you not sign a six-week ban in the unlikely case you become president of the United States?”

Sharp differences on abortion

Among the debate’s most pointed moments was the clash on abortion rights.

Newsom highlighted DeSantis signing into law a measure that bans most abortions in Florida after six weeks of pregnancy.

So extreme is your ban that criminalizes women and criminalizes doctors that even Donald Trump said it was too extreme,” Newsom said.

Asked by Hannity why he had signed that bill into law, DeSantis said he believes “in a culture of life.”

Ultimately, DeSantis never answered Newsom’s repeated questions over whether he would sign a national abortion ban into law — and Hannity never followed up.

Newsom, meanwhile, was asked if he would support any limits to abortion rights. He said he supports abortion rights, noting that late-term abortions are “extremely rare” and come as a result of fetal anomalies or conditions that jeopardize the health of the mother.

“It is an extreme, extreme exception,” he said. “It should be up to the mother and the doctor and her conscience.”

What’s the value of a debate like this?

Whatever the merits of a clash of progressive, blue-state ideas and conservative, red-state policies might be, what played out Thursday night was something different.

Mostly, the more than 90-minute debate was DeSantis and Newsom accusing each other of lying and mischaracterizing the other’s records.

“You’re nothing but a bully,” Newsom told DeSantis in the debate’s closing minutes.

“You’re a bully,” DeSantis responded.

Hannity, near the end, attempted to shift to what he called a “lightning round,” seeking quick answers from both debaters.

“It’d be great if both of you guys cooperated. I’m not a potted plant here,” Hannity said.

Neither cooperated.

Sure...

Florida Democrats plan to cancel presidential primary, enraging Dean Phillips’ campaign

The representative says the state party has deliberately moved to keep him off the ballot. Florida Dems say he is acting “unbecoming.”

By HOLLY OTTERBEIN and GARY FINEOUT

Florida appears poised to hold no presidential primary election for Democrats this cycle after the state party submitted only President Joe Biden’s name as a candidate up for the nomination.

The move to leave Rep. Dean Phillips off the primary ballot left the Minnesota Democrat enraged on Thursday. In a statement first provided to POLITICO, Phillips, who has launched a longshot primary bid against Biden, accused Florida Democratic Party officials of rigging the primary. He threatened a lawsuit and a convention fight if he didn’t win ballot access in the state.

“Americans would expect the absence of democracy in Tehran, not Tallahassee,” said Phillips. “The intentional disenfranchisement of voters runs counter to everything for which our Democratic Party and country stand. Our mission as Democrats is to defeat authoritarians, not become them.”

The Phillips campaign’s complaint is rooted in the process by which candidates can get on the ballot in Florida. Under state law, it is left up to the parties to decide who makes the primary ballot. The deadline for parties to submit a list of approved candidates to state election officials is Thursday.

But Florida Democrats acted before then, sending a notice on Nov. 1 to the state that had Biden as the only primary candidate. Phillips had entered the race a few days earlier, and self-help guru Marianne Williamson had been campaigning for months by then. Under state law, if a party only signs off on one candidate for the primary ballot, the contest is not held.

Florida’s primary is held March 19, which puts it in line behind Super Tuesday and several other large states such as California and Texas. It is expected to allocate 250 delegates.

In his statement, Phillips called the handling of the process by the Florida Democrats a “blatant act of electoral corruption” and demanded Biden “condemn and immediately address” it.

The Biden campaign did not provide a comment for this story.

Nikki Fried, the chair of the Florida Democratic Party, contended the party followed its “standard process” that was outlined on its website.

“We are dismayed by Dean Phillps’ conspiratorial and inappropriate comments comparing the state of Florida to the Iranian regime as part of his knee-jerk reaction to long-established procedures,” Fried said. “This is unbecoming of someone running for higher office.”

The delegate selection plan cited by Florida Democrats does not spell out an exact deadline for candidates to ask to be placed on the primary ballot.

An initial version of that plan from early April said the party would prepare and approve a list of “recognized” candidates. A revised version, submitted to the state on Nov. 1, was changed to say the list would be approved at the state party convention. That convention began Oct. 27, the day Phillips launched his campaign, and ended Oct. 29, which is when the state party approved Biden as the only candidate.

Phillips’ campaign said the representative first sent two letters to the Florida Democrats on Nov. 7 in which he provided staff contact information and stated that he was writing “to emphasize my personal commitment to encouraging full participation by our supporters in Florida’s delegate selection process.”

Eden Giagnorio, a spokesperson for the Florida Democratic Party, provided a different timeline. She said that Phillips’ campaign first reached out to the state party on Nov. 22 requesting a conversation. Two days ago, she said the campaign spoke with the party’s executive director and “we learned for the first time that they were asking about this, which is not enough time because we have to give our state executive committee 10 days’ notice to convene them to vote.”

However, Giagnorio acknowledged, “There’s no requirement for presidential candidates to do anything to get on the ballot.” She said there are no plans to add additional names to the list of approved candidates by today’s deadline.

In addition to considering a lawsuit against the Florida Democratic Party, Phillips’ campaign said that it is planning to take its fight to the Democratic National Committee.

The representative’s aides argue that Florida Democrats are in violation of the national party’s rules that require delegates to the Democratic National Convention “be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participants.”

A DNC spokesperson said the committee offered to provide guidance to the Phillips campaign on state party processes weeks ago, but that the campaign did not take up the offer, and continues to be available to him and other Democratic candidates.

Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser to Phillips, said, “That’s very kind. I’m sure they would not have conceived of a situation where Florida would violate the party’s rules.”

If the DNC is unpersuaded to make a change, Phillips’ team said that it will escalate its fight up to the convention, where it will “contest the credentials of each and every delegate” from Florida, including superdelegates.

Phillips’ approach of attacking the primary process is reminiscent of the tactic adopted by insurgent presidential candidates in the past, most notably Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

In 2016, Sanders’ team claimed the primary process was rigged against him. Many Democrats felt those accusations soured some young and liberal voters on Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, in the general election. Sanders’ aides and allies have long argued that he did everything he could to campaign for Clinton after the primary ended.

Earlier this month, Phillips apologized to Sanders on X, formerly known as Twitter, writing: “I had long dismissed his complaints about the rigged Democratic Party primary system. But you know what? He was right.”

Weaver, who managed Sanders’ 2016 campaign, laid into the Florida Democratic Party in a statement.

“The Florida party is engaging in the politburo politics of places like Cuba or the old Soviet Union. Communist Party insiders make the decision instead of the people,” said Weaver. “After all that has been done to erode confidence in the democratic process since 2020, does our party really want the legitimacy of our nominee to be put in question by this corrupt, rigged process?”

The process for getting on a state-run presidential primary ballot varies. In some states, it’s like running for any elected office, with requirements for voter signatures and a filing fee paid to the government. Other states just pull the names of active candidates and place them on the ballot. And still others outsource the process to the respective state parties.

The situation in Florida stands in contrast to one of its neighbors that uses a similar system. The Georgia Democratic Party’s executive committee voted last week to place three names on that state’s March 12 primary ballot: Biden, Phillips and Williamson. A press release at the time noted that the state party “followed an open process, publicized the plan on the party’s website, and considered all candidates who submitted their written request to be included.”

Not kind.....

‘My Mother Told Me Not to Speak Ill of the Dead’: Political Experts on Henry Kissinger’s Legacy

Historians, academics and political thinkers examine the life and legacy of the controversial statesman.

By POLITICO MAGAZINE

The death of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger at age 100 yesterday marked the end of one of the most impactful — and most controversial — careers in American politics. Loathed and loved, reviled and revered, hailed as a brilliant statesman and condemned as a shameless war criminal, the German-born academic inspired fierce debate for decades. Which raises the question: How should we consider his legacy?

POLITICO Magazine reached out to political thinkers, academics and historians for their thoughts on how we should look back on Kissinger’s life and work. Some focused on his influence over the Vietnam War. One called him “overrated.” And another scholar noted, simply: “My mother told me not to speak ill of the dead, which pretty much precludes me from saying anything at all about Henry Kissinger.” Their answers paint a nuanced portrait of a statesman who — right or wrong, good or evil — left a lasting mark not just on Washington, but the world.

‘Kissinger always saw himself as akin to adviser to kings’
BY ARASH AZIZI

Arash Azizi is a senior lecturer in history and political science at Clemson University.

Henry Kissinger fancied himself after Metternich, the legendary Austrian chancellor of the 19th century and a subject of his 1954 doctoral dissertation at Harvard. Alongside the Russian Tsar Alexander and other European statesmen of their era, Metternich had helped build up the reactionary order that held Europe together following the shock of the French and other Atlantic revolutions.

In a sense, Kissinger always saw himself as akin to adviser to kings and not a diplomat subject to democratic oversight of the people. He would have more properly belonged to the pre-democratic era. In the same vein, he approached diplomacy as a game of great powers with little care for ex-colonial states that were coming to their own in the rapidly decolonizing world of 1960s and 70s, or millions of people whose lives would be affected by the decisions of the ‘great men’ he admired all his life.

With such an approach, it’s not surprising that he aided and abetted in a long list of grave crimes: bombing of Cambodia, opening up to its murderous Maoist government just because it was anti-Soviet, green-lighting Argentina’s gruesome anti-communist torturing and killing of its own civilians, helping to overthrow the democratically elected socialist government of Chile in 1973 and approving of Pakistan and Indonesia’s killing campaigns as they attempted to suppress the independence of the newly rising nations of Bangladesh and East Timor. These weren’t random acts of violence but, so long as they served Kissinger’s ideas of great power interests, they didn’t bother him.

‘His world view … left no room for small powers’
BY LIEN-HANG T. NGUYEN

Lien-Hang T. Nguyen is a Dorothy Borg associate professor in the history of the United States and East Asia at Columbia University.

Although dealt a difficult hand with regard to Vietnam, Kissinger managed to execute the opposite of Nixon’s aim to achieve “peace with honor” ending American military intervention in Southeast Asia. His worldview, which rested on great power politics to manage international affairs, left no room for small powers. The enemy and the ally in Vietnam, then, were relegated to the margins in deciding their fate under Kissinger’s handling of the peace negotiations to end the Vietnam War. The result? The Paris Agreement to End the War and Restore the Peace managed to do neither in early 1973. The war dragged on for two more years, countless Vietnamese lives lost and America’s reputation tarnished.

‘Like the Tin Man, he seems to have lacked a heart.’
BY KELLEY BEAUCAR VLAHOS

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is the editorial director of Responsible Statecraft and senior advisor at the Quincy Institute.

Kissinger’s reputation seems to have gotten better with age. That is not to say there aren’t plenty of commentators today who are palpably disgusted by his legacy, rightly pointing to his hard-nosed realism, a Machiavellian approach to statecraft and strategy that laser-focused on national interests rather than ideology, balancing and containing rather than messianic values promotion and humanitarian intervention. His approach in several well-documented cases left scorched earth and human destruction behind, namely in Indochina, Bangladesh, Latin America. For that he has been called a war criminal and monster.

But generations have been born and grown since Kissinger whispered and plotted with Nixon and coldly moved pieces around the global chess board. His legacy as the maestro of detente with China in 1973 may be overstated (Nixon deserves some credit) but students of statecraft and realism today say that in the intervening years, the pendulum has swung the other way, with ideological pursuits driving decision-making at the highest levels of Washington, resulting in hot wars and mass destruction. Some yearn for Kissinger’s intellectualism and steely-eyed realism that kept national interests at the forefront and crusades at the other end of history. What they should acknowledge is that Kissinger lacked his own “balance” in regards to the human component in foreign policy. Like the Tin Man, he seems to have lacked a heart. Maybe that is what he will be best known for.

‘He had a point of view: order before justice.’
BY JOSHUA ZEITZ

Joshua Zeitz is a historian and POLITICO Magazine contributor.

Whatever one thinks of Henry Kissinger — mastermind or schemer, realist or war criminal — he had a point of view: order before justice.

His doctoral dissertation, entitled “Peace, Legitimacy and Equilibrium: A Study of the Statesmanship of Castlereagh and Metternich,” earned high praise for its bold, synthetic reinterpretation of the Congress of Vienna of 1814-15, which saw the major European monarchies reimpose continental stability in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, at the cost of stifling national and liberal forces unleashed by the French revolution. In later years, Kissinger would loudly protest to anyone who’d listen, “Metternich is not my hero!” But Metternich’s style of politics informed his later career as an architect of American foreign policy. “If I had to choose between justice and disorder, on the one hand, and injustice and order, on the other,” Kissinger told a fellow grad student, “I would always choose the latter.”

So it was that Kissinger oversaw a three-part strategy to end America’s war in Vietnam. The first part was linkage — convincing North Vietnam’s Soviet sponsors to reduce their commitment to their client state in exchange for more open economic markets with the West. The second part was Vietnamization — handing the war over to the South Vietnamese. That worked, inasmuch as it meant the end of the war for most American families. During Nixon’s first term, the number of American ground troops in Vietnam dropped from 475,000 to just under 25,000.

The last part, of course, was force — a brutal, unrelenting air campaign, particularly in Cambodia and Laos, with code names like MENU, Operations Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, Supper, Dessert, Snack and so on. That killed untold numbers of civilians and cemented Kissinger’s reputation as a soulless war criminal.

Kissinger’s legacy is a complicated one. Whether he actually achieved order at the expense of justice is a topic we’ll continue to debate for time immemorial.

‘Some of his most celebrated ideas … look a bit nutty and more than a bit reckless in retrospect.’
BY RAJAN MENON

Rajan Menon is the director of the Grand Strategy Program at Defense Priorities.

Was Henry Kissinger among the greatest secretaries of state in the history of the United States — or was he an infamous war criminal whose policies claimed millions of lives in such places as Vietnam, Cambodia, East Timor and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh)? If you’re seeking a definitive answer, you won’t find it. In the United States and much of Europe, Kissinger will be feted as a towering figure: a brilliant strategist, a diplomat with few equals and socialite par excellence. Some of his most celebrated ideas, such as proposing the use tactical nuclear weapons if NATO proved unable to stop a Warsaw Pact advance, which he spelled out in his 1957 book Nuclear Weapons and American Foreign Policy, though hailed by many at the time, look a bit nutty and more than a bit reckless in retrospect. Perhaps his most important achievement was the role he played, alongside President Richard Nixon, in opening a new chapter in the United States’ relationship with China, a country with which he remained all but smitten until his death this month.

In part, Kissinger’s larger-than-life reputation in the United States owes to his adeptness in cultivating the media. Reporters were flattered by his attention, even if some understood that he was using them to push narratives that placed him in the limelight or to leak information to embellish his reputation and damage that of rivals. Nixon he treated with craven flattery in his presence but scorn, even pity, behind his back. Kissinger, the epitome of realpolitik, believed that states do, and should, act with cold calculation and self-interest and never be swayed by sentimentality — and that the United States in particular should jettison what he regarded as its ingrained inclination toward idealism. But he applied that maxim with particular diligence when it came to palace politics, notably as Nixon’s national security advisor and, later, his secretary of state.

In much of what’s now called the Global South, Henry Kissinger will be remembered for his willingness to truck with dictators, even those who committed mass atrocities and loathed democracy. One example was Pakistan president Yahya Khan, whose 1971 butchery in East Pakistan Kissinger enabled because Pakistan was facilitating his secret trip to China to lay the groundwork for Nixon’s opening to that country. To Kissinger, it did not matter in the least that the East-Pakistan-centered Awami League, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, had won the December 1970 election, beating Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s Pakistan People Party. He either believed Yahya’s claim that Mujib wanted more than autonomy and in truth was a Bengali separatist, or didn’t care, so long as Yahya was willing to help with his mission to Beijing. The Pakistani military’s pitiless crackdown killed between 1 and 3 million Bengalis, displaced as many as 17 million internally and drove millions more into India as refugees. To reassure Yahya against a countermove by Soviet-backed India, the Nixon administration sent the USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal in December 1971. Kissinger was always more comfortable with military-dominated Pakistan than with democratic India, whose leader, the imperious Indira Gandhi, he loathed, if only because she brought his well-hidden insecurities to the surface.

Pakistan 1971 is but one example of Kissinger’s blood-soaked realism. People in other parts of the Global South will have their own remembrances of this side of Kissinger. Thus it is that in death as in life, he will be a figure revered by millions and reviled by at least as many, including critics in his own country.

‘My mother told me not to speak ill of the dead’
BY ROSA BROOKS

Rosa Brooks is an associate dean for Centers and Institutes and Scott K. Ginsburg professor of law and policy at Georgetown University.

My mother told me not to speak ill of the dead, which pretty much precludes me from saying anything at all about Henry Kissinger. (Feel free to publish that!)

‘It’s on the myth more than the man that we must focus’
BY MARIO DEL PERO

Mario Del Pero is a professor of international history at Sciences Po and author of The Eccentric Realist: Henry Kissinger and the Shaping of American Foreign Policy.

The global wave of interest, emotion, passion (critical or celebratory) that the death of Henry Kissinger has stirred speaks volumes about the power and even resilience of the Kissingerian mythology. Because it’s on the myth more than the man that we must focus. The latter — as an intellectual, scholar, statesman, adviser to various princes — has been way more conventional and orthodox than many hagiographers want us to believe. With ups and downs, glorious moments and temporary setbacks, the myth has however resisted and even enjoyed a sort of second youth in recent times.

What myth? one might ask. A dual one, I’d argue, itself an example of the many contradictions of Henry Kissinger and his life: an American myth, destined primarily to the international public; and a European myth, whose audience was instead mostly domestic. The myth of an inclusive and diverse America, which speedily integrated and “Americanized” the young German Jew by way of World War II and the Cold War, and then propelled him to the higher echelons of power. And the myth of a Europe, now absorbed within a capacious West led and guided by the United States, still capable of providing the new hegemon with the knowledge and acumen necessary to its role. Kissinger has often played on this latter aspect: on representing itself as the astute, omniscient, no-nonsense European lent to immature and naïve America to tutor it to the perennial rules and complex arcana of world politics.

With his thick German accent, often opaque prose, aphorisms and cynical irony, Kissinger has actively built his image of the erudite European realpolitiker teaching, as he once said, the United States to “learn to conduct foreign policy as other nations had to conduct it for so many centuries — without escape and without respite.” His has often been a “discourse of crisis”: a narrative and a public pedagogy particularly effective when traditional internationalist codes and strategies were contested and the domestic consensus around them appeared to crumble. And this also explains the recent return with a vengeance of the myth of Henry Kissinger.

‘If there’s a single word I’d apply to Kissinger, it’s ‘overrated.’
BY DAVID GREENBERG

David Greenberg is a professor of history and journalism & media studies at Rutgers and a contributing editor at POLITICO Magazine.

There’s no question that Henry Kissinger was one of the most important foreign policy officials of the postwar era. But the greatest? Hardly. Kissinger worked with Richard Nixon during a time of immense change in international affairs, with the Cold War winding down even as the Vietnam War raged. But Kissinger was overrated as a foreign policy visionary: The vision of détente with the Soviet Union originated under John F. Kennedy, and Nixon would have pushed the opening to China no matter who his national security adviser was.

In fact, if there’s a single word I’d apply to Kissinger, it’s “overrated.” He was overrated as a scholar (famous mainly for writing a very long dissertation). He was overrated as a strategist (he often gave bad advice, as he did in urging George W. Bush not to withdraw troops from Iraq). He was even overrated as a villain — the Christopher Hitchenses of the world loved to call him a “war criminal,” but this was a fundamentally unserious charge. The Defense Department, not the State Department, prosecutes wars, and the president oversees it — but the Hitchenses preferred to go after Kissinger than Mel Laird or James Schlesinger or even Nixon. Ironically, his critics tended to let him off the hook for what was obviously his worst crime: his involvement in Watergate.

‘Overall, the scorecard is not impressive.’
BY FREDRIK LOGEVALL

Fredrik Logevall is a Laurence D. Belfer professor of international affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, professor of history at Harvard University, and author of Embers of War: The Fall of an Empire and the Making of America’s Vietnam.

Kissinger’s legacy is jumbled and contradictory. He and Nixon (whose own role should not be understated) achieved important results in relations with the Soviet Union, for example, and there can be no doubt that the opening to China — about which Kissinger was initially skeptical — stands as a high point of their diplomacy. Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy following the October 1973 war persuaded Egypt and Israel to commence direct negotiations and make genuine concessions. Underneath these efforts was a pronounced confidence on Kissinger’s part about what vigorous and good-faith diplomacy can yield, even among and between staunch adversaries. On this he was surely correct; it’s a lesson today’s policymakers should remember. But there’s also the darker side of Kissinger’s years in power. His unshakable concentration, great-power politics and his predisposition to ignore smaller countries or to see them as inconsequential led him to pursue policies with often calamitous consequences — in all corners of the globe. On the war in Vietnam, there is room for disagreement about the options that he and Nixon had or did not have in 1969, about whether and when they adopted a “decent interval” strategy, and about whether the deal that resulted in the Paris Peace Accords of 1973 could have been had sooner. But overall, the scorecard is not impressive. Notwithstanding Kissinger’s repeated claim that no responsible statesman would ever let domestic political concerns interfere with the conduct of foreign policy, the evidence (including from the White House tapes) makes clear that he and Nixon considered all Vietnam options through the lens of partisan politics and, later, the 1972 presidential election.

‘It is fairly clear that Kissinger did in fact nimbly shift tactics to suit the basic strategy of maintaining American power and supremacy.’
BY ZACHARY KARABELL

Zachary Karabell is a contributing writer at POLITICO Magazine and the author of many books including Architects of Intervention: the United States, the Third World and the Cold War.

Henry Kissinger has long been held as an icon of realpolitik, a fancier word than realism to connote an approach to foreign affairs that is dictated by doing whatever the moment demands to maximize advantage rather than looking to grand philosophy and morality. Over the years, that notion of Kissinger as the arch-realist has been challenged, refuted, rebutted and defended. But looking back at his time shaping policy from the late 1960s to the mid-1970s (though arguably he continued to shape policy till his dying day as an adviser and wise man), it is fairly clear that Kissinger did, in fact, nimbly shift tactics to suit the basic strategy of maintaining American power and supremacy.

It may be that Kissinger’s realism was only one facet of a complicated man, driven by his own ambitions and perhaps by a genuine desire for peace in the world even as he supported policies of great violence in Chile, Southeast Asia and elsewhere. But in practice, his pragmatism and nimbleness (or to some, duplicitousness) stand out. That was nowhere more evident than in the years of “shuttle diplomacy” following the Arab-Israeli War of October 1973. While Israel was already an unequivocal ally of the U.S., Kissinger understood that a bear-hug embrace of Israel would deeply undermine American security by shattering American influence in the Arab world. As the Saudi led OPEC oil embargo demonstrated, the United States and Western Europe were too dependent on Middle Eastern oil, and the domestic consequences of soaring energy prices could not be ignored. Support for Israel had to be balanced by cultivating the Arab States; given the surfeit of maximalist demands in the region, that was no easy balancing act. Kissinger’s nearly two years of shuttle diplomacy stabilized the conflict, paved the way for the treaty between Egypt and Israel and may have prevented the next world war from starting.

The lesson for American leaders today is evident: moral and material support for Israel must be entwined with assiduous diplomacy and tangible measures to address both the demands of the Arab states and of the Palestinians. Whether one agrees with that morally is immaterial, because only if that is done will there indeed be anything approaching a lasting peace rather than the phony peace of the past decade. Call that realism or cynicism or idealism. It doesn’t matter what the label is; it matters, as Kissinger would have recognized, only that total war is prevented, American power and prosperity are intact and the global system remains stable. And all of those are necessary preconditions to a world where more people prosper and fewer suffer.

Cooperating....

Pro-Trump attorney who helped orchestrate fake electors plot cooperating in Nevada criminal probe

By Zachary Cohen and Kyung Lah

A Nevada state-level criminal investigation into the fake electors plot intended to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 election win is ramping up with prosecutors securing the cooperation of a key witness, even as some of those who served as pro-Trump electors remain politically active ahead of the 2024 election.

Kenneth Chesebro, a lawyer who helped orchestrate the fake electors plot across multiple states, has agreed to sit down with Nevada investigators in hopes of avoiding prosecution there, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

Chesebro’s cooperation with Nevada prosecutors covers his involvement in that state leading up to January 6, 2021 – when pro-Trump rioters stormed the US Capitol in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying Biden’s legitimate electoral victory.

In late 2020, Chesebro wrote a series of memos spelling out what the pro-Trump electors should do in their respective states. In one memo, Chesebro acknowledged that he was promoting a “controversial strategy” that even the Supreme Court with its conservative supermajority would “likely” reject.

Chesebro has already pleaded guilty in the Georgia 2020 election subversion case, where he has admitted to conspiring with former President Donald Trump to put forward slates of fake electors in multiple states.

CNN has identified Chesebro as an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal criminal case that special counsel Jack Smith brought against Trump this summer.

Nevada is among at least five states that have launched criminal investigations into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Two of those states – Michigan and Georgia – have already brought criminal charges against some of the people who signed onto the alternative slates of fake electors, and more charges could be brought soon.

Chesebro also has been contacted by prosecutors in Arizona related to their investigation into fake electors, according to two sources familiar with the matter. The status of those talks is unclear.

Several of the Nevada fake electors are still active in politics, taking part in Republican Party activities leading up to next year’s election. Two of those people under scrutiny by Nevada investigators are now crisscrossing the state to “educate” voters about the 2024 electoral process.

That has led to tensions in certain quarters of Nevada’s Republican Party. Amy Tarkanian, a former state GOP chairwoman who once supported Donald Trump but now calls MAGA a threat to democracy, said she hopes Nevada joins other states in taking action against the fake electors.

“There need to be some repercussions,” said Tarkanian, “so it will make people think, very, very hard about trying to pull this kind of garbage off ever again.”

She added: “You want to make sure that everyone sees that these people are spreading lies and it’s malicious. And that this is something that could affect the outcomes of future elections, and it has to be stopped.”

Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, a Democrat, is spearheading the investigation of the fake elector scheme in that state. Ford’s office declined to comment on Chesebro’s cooperation in the ongoing criminal probe.

Fake elector ‘road show’

None of the six fake electors from Nevada agreed to speak to CNN, which recently attended a self-described “road show” held by two of the 2020 fake electors – Nevada Republican party national committeeman Jim DeGraffenreid and Nevada Republican vice chairman Jim Hindle. The men have been traveling to local Republican party events explaining caucus mechanics to local Republicans.

Hindle declined to answer questions on whether he had been contacted by Nevada investigators about the fake electors plot. “I would have no comment on that one until we really know what’s going on,” Hindle said. “You’d have to contact our lawyers.”

When asked by CNN about the irony of two 2020 fake electors attempting to “educate” voters about the 2024 election process, Hindle said, “I apologize, but this is not something I will entertain.”

Asked about the impact of the Georgia case in Nevada, DeGraffenreid declined to comment in any manner, handing out a way to contact his attorney. DeGraffenreid did tell CNN he now believes Biden is the US President and won the state of Nevada in 2020.

CNN also attempted to contact Shawn Meehan, another 2020 fake elector who this fall launched a right-wing website called ‘Guard the Constitution,’ that pledges on its site to be a conservative information portal focused on action.

Meehan declined to comment about the state AG’s investigation.

The other fake electors, including Nevada Republican Party Chairman Michael McDonald, did not reply to CNN’s request to do an interview.

CNN has previously reported that both DeGraffenreid and McDonald were given limited immunity in exchange for testifying before a federal grand jury in Washington, DC as part of the election interference investigation into Trump. That immunity, however, would not protect them from potential criminal charges at the state level, including any that could come from the Nevada probe.

Both DeGraffenreid and McDonald declined to answer questions in other settings, including last year before the House January 6 committee, citing their Fifth Amendment protections.

Multiple state probes

One of the sources familiar with Chesebro’s cooperation in Nevada told CNN there are indications the Nevada probe could expand beyond actions that took place in that state, similar to how prosecutors in Georgia have charged individuals for their broader involvement in Trump’s attempt to remain in power.

Chesebro’s cooperation discussions in Nevada come after the judge overseeing the Georgia case amended the terms of his plea deal allowing Chesebro to travel to Nevada, Arizona and Washington, DC, “to meet with counsel” regarding ongoing election fraud investigations, according to a new court filing Monday.

As part of his plea deal with Georgia prosecutors, Chesebro was placed on probation and agreed to cooperate in any relevant future cases, both inside and outside the state.

The federal election interference case brought by special counsel Jack Smith alleges Trump and allies orchestrated a broad, multi-state conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results, in part by putting forward slates of fake, pro-Trump electors in seven key swing states.

As part of that plot, six Republicans in Nevada signed false Electoral College votes in December 2020 for then-President Trump, who lost the state to Biden. The scheme included similar efforts in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and New Mexico.

In Georgia, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has charged multiple individuals involved in the plot to put forth fake electors in that state. Michigan’s Attorney General Dana Nessel in September charged more than a dozen individuals who acted as fake electors.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has launched an investigation into the fake elector scheme there. 

The New Mexico attorney general’s office is also investigating the fake electors put forward from that state, CNN has confirmed.

Special counsel prosecutors in the federal case against Trump could still seek Chesebro’s testimony or potentially bring separate charges against him in the future.

There is no indication though that Smith’s team is in need of additional information from Chesebro to take Trump to trial in March, as currently scheduled.

Upended the presidential campaign

The 543-word editorial that may have just upended the presidential campaign

The post by Trump calling for Obamacare’s replacement has lit a fire under Biden’s slow burn campaign.

By MERIDITH MCGRAW and ADAM CANCRYN

Republicans thought they were done with their Obamacare nightmare. Then Donald Trump read a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

It was an item by the paper’s editorial board that piqued the former president’s frustration — one focused on health care industry consolidation but touching enough on the Affordable Care Act to reignite grievances about failing to repeal the law. And so, he fired off a post on Truth Social saying he was “seriously looking at alternatives” and that 2017’s failed repeal and replace effort was “a low point for the Republican Party.”

In a click of a button, a long-dormant campaign fault line was reopened.

The post lit a fire under President Joe Biden’s slow burn campaign. Significant campaign resources were quickly mobilized in response. Groups began preparing new ads calling for Obamacare’s protection. GOP lawmakers on the Hill had to take cover from inquisitive reporters asking if they backed Trump’s call. Advocacy organizations dusted off old playbooks.

“It’s a story that tells itself,” said Leslie Dach, the chair of Democrat-aligned group Protect Our Care. “He’s opening up a Pandora’s box of hurt.”

The assumption among Trump advisers was that the primary reason he put out the social media missive was that he’d read that Journal editorial, which was included along with his post. But they noted health care policy had recently been top of mind — just the week before, Trump had lunch with former Kansas Gov. Jeff Colyer, a surgeon, where they talked about health care, among other things, which prompted an endorsement.

The fallout from Trump reading the Journal editorial page looms large. It didn’t just underscore how potent health care remains as a policy motivator for Democrats, but how deeply embedded the Affordable Care Act has become in the nation’s political and social fabric. It also demonstrated once again, how Trump’s impulsive social media habit remains a major variable for the coming election and how much the Republican Party’s policy portfolio can be affected by the whims and media diet of its figurehead.

Trump’s campaign is drawing up a health care proposal, although it is unclear when that will be released or if it will propose a full replacement plan (Republicans have struggled to put one together for years). The campaign is also setting up working groups that focus on specific issue areas, like health care. And Trump has released policy videos focused on “taking on Big Pharma,” ending pharmaceutical shortages, and addressing chronic childhood illnesses and drug addiction.

But in terms of another full blown repeal-and-replace proposal, one Republican close to the campaign said, “there’s not a real ‘there’ there. No one’s working on this.”

The Trump campaign did not comment.

For Democrats, Trump’s renewed attacks on Obamacare amount to a political gift that some in the party said they couldn’t have timed better. The threat to “terminate” the signature health law comes amid a Biden campaign effort to highlight what Trump would do if returned to office, and portray his agenda as out of step with the vast majority of Americans.

The Biden campaign has rushed into action since Trump’s post over the holiday weekend, blasting out a series of emails centered on his remarks and scrambling a press call Tuesday where former Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned repeatedly of an “assault on the financial and health security of America’s families.”

“It’s as personal as any public issue can be,” Pelosi said, recounting her fight with Trump over his failed 2017 efforts to repeal Obamacare. “The choice simply could not be clearer.”

At a Tuesday campaign reception, Biden highlighted Trump’s remarks as well, telling the crowd that “I hope you didn’t miss it.”

The Biden campaign plans to launch new ads later this week in swing states contrasting Biden and Trump’s health care records. On X, formerly known as Twitter, the campaign has posted or reposted about the issue over a dozen times in the last few days — including distributing clips of Trump attacking Obamacare over the past several years.

It all represents an abrupt pivot for an operation that, until now, had prioritized a range of more immediate issues — like spotlighting Biden’s legislative accomplishments and his work to revive the economy — or casting Trump as a broader threat to democracy. When Biden has mentioned health care, it’s largely been in the context of lowering drug prices.

But Obamacare is familiar territory for Democrats who have successfully run on defending the health law. Dach said Protect Our Care has a trove of material from prior Obamacare fights that’s suddenly relevant again, including clips of Trump attacking the law on dozens of occasions. Over the last few days, he added, he’s gotten calls from Democratic operatives around the country eager to make the issue central to their own down-ballot races.

One longtime Democratic pollster said Wednesday that Trump’s repeal-and-replace rhetoric was a welcome reminder that, for all of Biden’s difficulties, “Trump can still fuck up.”

“We can win that issue, believe me,” said the pollster who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Be my guest … Thank you. Keep doing it.”

Despite Trump’s assertion that he is looking at “alternatives” to Obamacare, three Republicans close to the campaign said there’s recognition that few in the party want to take another shot at Obamacare repeal, and that there are no big new ideas for how to replace a law that’s now ingrained in the U.S. health system.

In a series of posts on Wednesday morning, Trump said he was not trying to “terminate” Obamacare but “replace it with much better healthcare.”

“Obamacare Sucks!!!” he added for emphasis.

But rather than a wholesale overhaul, conservative health experts in touch with the campaign have urged Trump officials to build a platform that chips away at parts of the law.

A government-wide policy planning effort by the Heritage Foundation that’s meant to be a blueprint for the next GOP administration proposes loosening a range of Obamacare rules aimed at enforcing a minimum level of benefits. Those include easing guardrails on what types of plans can be offered and developing a separate, less-regulated market for insurance that’s not eligible for government subsidies.

The proposal also encourages reviving an effort to limit federal funding for Medicaid by imposing financial caps or block grants, a top priority during Trump’s presidency that the administration was never able to implement.

“The reform has to be bigger than just Obamacare,” said Roger Severino, a former senior Trump health official who was lead author of the 54-page section outlining a range of conservative priorities across the health care landscape. “We need to reassess how we could improve the system and learn the lesson that was learned hard, that the top-down management of Obamacare didn’t work.”

Bobby Jindal, the former governor of Louisiana who recently endorsed Trump and is chair of the Center for a Healthy America at the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute, has advocated for Republican-led state legislatures to take a number of approaches. Those include expanding on things like the Trump administration’s rules requiring price transparency for health plans and hospitals and patient-based Medicaid reforms. In Arkansas, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders has called for Medicaid work requirements.

Trump allies in the meantime have pressed the campaign to take sharper rhetorical aim at Biden on health care, in an effort to erode Democrats’ advantage on the issue. Among suggestions made to officials is to link rising health costs to overall inflation, according to one of the Republicans close to the campaign.

But instead, those nuances have been lost amid what several allies saw as Trump’s overriding focus on his failure to repeal Obamacare six years ago. The GOP frontrunner still stews over the late Sen. John McCain’s decision to tank a narrow repeal measure on the Senate floor. And he is still bitter at other Republicans, like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who convinced him to prioritize repeal early on in his presidency and rely on congressional Republicans to draw up a plan that could pass.

“He went along with them and we all saw what happened,” said one of the Republicans close to the campaign. “Trump feels burned.”

Is a trap.....

Trump’s call to repeal Obamacare is a trap for GOP

Opinion by Patrick T. Brown

One of the biggest self-inflicted political wounds of former President Donald Trump’s first years in office was how the Republican Party handled health care. It would later be overshadowed by the Trump administration’s initial response to the pandemic, two impeachments and political violence on January 6, but it’s worth remembering as well.

After years of railing against the Affordable Care Act, and pledging to “repeal and replace Obamacare,” Trump endorsed a Republican effort to unwind the health care law in a rushed and haphazard process.

Trust in the GOP’s health care plan sank, the lack of preparation became clear, and after the late Sen. John McCain gave a final thumbs-down to the effort in the summer of 2017, the party largely slunk away from the topic.

This is a mistake. Health care spending makes up about 18% of our national GDP (by some estimates, twice as much per person as peer nations), and the complexity and expense of the US health care system weighs on families’ minds. Republicans who allow Democrats to be the one party associated with solutions on health care will find — as in the midterms of 2018 — that the lack of a proactive approach to health care will be punished by voters.

For his part, a recent post on TruthSocial suggests Trump is still interested in returning to the fight to repeal Obamacare. “The cost of Obamacare is out of control, plus, it’s not good Healthcare. I’m seriously looking at alternatives,” he wrote. The response from senators who represent different parts of the Republication coalition — from Maine’s Susan Collins and Louisiana’s Bill Cassidy to Ohio’s J.D. Vance — demonstrate how little appetite there is among most elected Republicans for revisiting that fight.

Indeed, while the GOP is fragmented in all sorts of ways, proactive and positive conversations about how to make the US health care system better are quietly occurring away from cable news spotlights.

From scholars like Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity President Avik Roy to Ed Dolan of the Niskanen Center, a libertarian-rooted think tank in Washington, DC, the conversation has decidedly shifted from repealing Obamacare to figuring out what to do next. The GOP should welcome that pivot.

There are two tracks along which a Republican approach to health care that goes beyond a content-free strategy of “repeal and replace” is developing. The one that has the best chance of appealing to the conservative coalition of today embraces a version of supply-side thinking for the 21st century. “Supply-side” thinking gets a bad rap, associated with tax cuts and theories of “trickle-down economics.”

But in an expensive sector of the economy, like health care, taking steps to increase the supply of options facing consumers can actually help the market function more smoothly. And this way of thinking can appeal to traditional Republicans and more populist types as well. Applying classic conservative principles of a limited government and appreciating the power of markets should mean repealing some of the policies that are in the way of a supply-side approach to health care.

Part of the reason prices for health care services are high is because of anti-competitive behavior by hospitals, drug makers, physicians and health systems, who know that limiting supply and competition in the industry is a safe bet for increasing profits. As a business strategy, it’s logical, but it doesn’t mean policymakers should play along.

One of the most egregious examples of this thinking is “Certificate of Need” laws, a relic of the 1970s that require new health care facilities to obtain permission from state agencies, who are often influenced by incumbent stakeholders, to open. As Aubrey Wursten of the Independent Women’s Forum recently reported, only 15 states have fully repealed laws that restrict competition in health care in this way.

There are other examples of policy-created impingements on allowing the health care market to work better. As policy analyst Robert Orr wrote, fears of a “physician surplus” lead to an artificial cap on medical school enrollments.

In 2020, he found that “the number of practicing physicians per person in the United States is lower than in just about any other developed country.” On top of that, physicians groups like the American Medical Association lobby against laws that would allow nurses and physician’s assistants to perform a wider array of routine tasks, ensuring less competition for these procedures.

Policymakers should push for greater competition by allowing skilled nurses and physicians assistants to perform routine tasks, as well as exploring greater funding for seats in medical schools, revisiting the length and structure of medical schools or allowing more medical professionals from overseas to practice in the US.

More recently, the Affordable Care Act accelerated a growing wave of hospital consolidations and anti-competitive behavior from major health systems. Republicans, traditionally the party that tended to defer to big business, have increasingly signaled frustration at hospitals and doctors’ groups they see as on the wrong side of Covid-19 policies and the culture war.

Supporting efforts, like the bipartisan legislation from Republican Reps. Michael Burgess from Texas, Drew Ferguson from Georgia, and Democratic Rep Debbie Dingell from Michigan to investigate the effects of these mergers should be an easy lift for many Republicans, even the most politically risk-averse ones.

The second track where Republican health care policy thinking is developing is a long-term project. A recent report by the Washington-based consultancy Baron Public Affairs traces some of the health care ideas and principles percolating among the so-called “New Right.” As evidenced by Vance’s interest in making childbirth more affordable, younger and more ideologically flexible, Republicans are looking for ways to make health care more family-friendly.

Their assessment of trends among younger conservatives suggests a growing realization that even with insurance, health care costs and complexity causes too many headaches for too many Americans. As the report notes, “A straightforward step toward improving health care for workers and their families could be making the health care experience — especially billing and customer service — simpler and easier to understand.”

This would require more aggressive regulation and willingness to buck the interests of the health care industry than most elected Republicans have the stomach for now.

Even some of the more modest pro-competition moves face the headwinds of a status quo bias and the unavoidable reality that major industry groups for policies that push costs upward without making health care better — and those groups tend to be generous campaign donors.

America’s convoluted system of health insurance and health care could stand a ground-up reform, but as the political backlash to the — in all, fairly modest — reforms in the Affordable Care Act suggest, that day will be a very long time coming.

In the meantime, Republicans will suffer politically if they return to the messaging of repealing Obamacare. And more importantly, health care will continue to be an albatross around their neck if they aren’t able to offer some solutions that can make finding and paying for health care less of a pain in the neck for individuals and families.

$5.2 trillion wealth

New billionaire heirs overtake self-made ones as $5.2 trillion wealth transfer begins

By Hanna Ziady

Billionaires minted in the latest year accumulated more wealth through inheritance than entrepreneurship for the first time since UBS started tracking the fortunes of the world’s richest almost a decade ago.

And billionaire heirs are more likely than their parents to focus on the major opportunities and challenges facing the global economy, investing in sectors such as clean energy and artificial intelligence, the Swiss lender said in a report Thursday.

“The great wealth transfer is gaining significant momentum as many billionaire entrepreneurs age,” Benjamin Cavalli, who oversees strategic clients in the global wealth management unit at UBS, told reporters.

“This is a theme we expect to see more of over the next 20 years as more than 1,000 billionaires pass an estimated $5.2 trillion to their children.”

UBS (UBS), which counts half the world’s billionaires as clients, found that $150.8 billion was inherited by 53 heirs over the 12 months to April, exceeding the $140.7 billion accumulated by 84 new self-made billionaires over that period.

Overall, the number of billionaires globally climbed 7% to 2,544. Their combined wealth rose 9% to $12 trillion, before taking inflation into account.

That total remains below a peak of $13.4 trillion reached in 2021, when the global billionaire community grew to 2,686 individuals following a post-pandemic rally in assets such as stocks and property.

The report’s findings also reflect the subdued state of the IPO market through 2022 and early 2023, which limited the opportunities for entrepreneurs to list their businesses and so increase their wealth.

“Economic, geopolitical and policy uncertainty have been a challenge to entrepreneurial wealth creation of late,” said Max Kunkel, chief investment officer for family and institutional wealth management clients at UBS.

For the first time, Europe led the growth in billionaire wealth as a “post-pandemic shopping splurge” lifted the profits and share prices of leading luxury goods companies, based in France, benefiting the billionaire families behind them, the report said.

That includes LVMH chairman Bernard Arnault and his five children. Arnault is the world’s third-richest man, with a net worth of $167 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Arnault’s wealth eclipsed that of Tesla’s Elon Musk and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos — who hold the number one and two spots respectively — late last year.

While technology and healthcare billionaires have accumulated the greatest wealth over the past decade, the report highlighted “early signs of improving fortunes” for industrials billionaires, which include the likes of India’s Gautam Adani, behind the multinational conglomerate Adani Group, and Mukesh Ambani of Reliance Industries.

“This may continue amid government incentives in several countries to promote the energy transition and higher defense spending,” the report said.

Risks and opportunity for UBS

The “staggering” transfer of wealth to younger generations presents a huge opportunity for UBS, but also poses considerable risks, according to Cavalli.

“You can either be on the winning or receiving side of it, or… lose substantial assets in time to come if you do not know the potential beneficiaries,” he said.

Typically, younger clients prefer to have a different banker to their parents, although not necessarily a younger banker, Cavalli said, pointing out that many heirs are themselves over 50.

The changing of the guard could also have an impact on charitable giving, with less than a third of inheriting generations seeing philanthropic goals as one of their main objectives, compared with two-thirds of first-generation billionaires, according to the UBS report.

Heirs lean more toward impact investing — that is, socially or environmentally beneficial investing — over “classic grant-giving philanthropy,” Cavalli said. “The patriarchs in the past have been well-known for writing checks to causes they personally have an affinity and a passion for.”

Billionaire investor Charlie Munger, who died Tuesday at the age of 99, was known for his charitable giving. For example, in October he donated Berkshire Hathaway shares worth $40 million at the time to the Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery, according to a regulatory filing.

Reinstates gag order

New York appeals court reinstates gag order against Donald Trump in civil fraud trial

By Lauren del Valle

A New York appellate court has reinstated a gag order prohibiting former President Donald Trump and attorneys from making public statements about the courtroom staff in the ongoing $250 million civil fraud trial.

Judge Arthur Engoron originally issued the order barring Trump from making public statements about his court’s staff after Trump made numerous comments about a clerk, who Trump says is biased against him.

Hundreds of threats against Engoron and the law clerk were made public last week. Engoron’s clerk has received 20 to 30 calls per day to her personal cell phone and 30 to 50 messages daily on social media platforms and two personal email addresses, according to court papers.

“Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon, It is ordered that the motion is denied; the interim relief granted by order of a Justice of this Court, dated November 16, 2023, is hereby vacated,” the latest appellate ruling says.

The appeals court paused the gag order earlier this month, but on Thursday said it should be restored while the official appeal is pending.

During a break in the trial Thursday morning, Engoron announced the appeals court ruling reinstating the gag order.

“I intend to enforce the gag orders rigorously and vigorously. I want to make sure that counsel informs their clients of the fact that the stay was vacated,” the judge said.

“It is a tragic day for the rule of law, but we’re aware,” Trump’s attorney Chris Kise said.

“It is what it is,” Engoron responded.

The $250 million lawsuit was brought by the New York attorney general’s office and alleges that Trump and his co-defendants committed repeated fraud in inflating assets on financial statements to get better terms on commercial real estate loans and insurance policies. Engoron already ruled the former president is liable for fraud and he’s considering how much the Trumps will have to pay in damages.

Trump had urged the appeals court on Monday to continue to block the gag order, saying that threats to the judge and his law clerk do not “justify” limiting the former president’s constitutional right to defend himself.

Trump has posted repeatedly on Truth Social about Engoron’s clerk, originally last month claiming she was a “girlfriend” to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, and showing a picture of the two of them together.

“How disgraceful!” Trump wrote. “This case should be dismissed immediately.”

Trump also went after the clerk in his comments outside the courtroom, though he didn’t mention her by name.

“And this rogue judge, a Trump hater. The only one that hates Trump more is his associate up there,” Trump said. “The person that works with him. She’s screaming into his ear almost every time we ask a question. A disgrace. It’s a disgrace.”

Engoron has fined Trump twice for a total of $15,000 for violating the gag order.

Trial nearing an end with decision in 2024

A decision in the civil fraud trial will not be issued until the end of January at the earliest, Engoron said in court Thursday.

The New York attorney general’s office has said if it puts on a rebuttal case, it can be done in one day. That will likely happen on December 12, the day after the former president is expected to testify as the last defense witness.

There will no closing arguments after the conclusion of witness testimony, rather both sides are required to submit written briefings by January 5, 2024.

Everyone will be back in court to give their oral arguments on January 11.

Engoron said he will aim to file his written decision on the docket by the end of the month. He will not issue his decision in open court.

Waiting on DC gag order ruling

Trump is awaiting another appeals court to rule on a separate gag order in the federal election subversion case against him brought by special counsel Jack Smith.

Former President Donald Trump speaks to Texas state troopers and guardsmen at the South Texas International Airport on Sunday, November 19, in Edinburg, Texas.
Takeaways from the tense appeals court hearing over the Trump gag order in federal election subversion case
A three judge panel of the DC US Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments earlier this month on the gag order that had been issued against him by Judge Tanya Chutkan.

The limited gag order from Chutkan – which was temporarily frozen by the appeals panel when they agreed to hear the case – restricts Trump’s ability to directly attack Smith, members of his team, court staff or potential trial witnesses. He is allowed to criticize the Justice Department, proclaim his innocence and argue that the case is “politically motivated.”

Indicted?

Arizona officials who refused to canvass election results are indicted by grand jury

The indictment marks a rare instance of criminally prosecuting people connected to the vote canvassing being dragged out last year in six Arizona counties.

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

Officials in a rural Arizona county who delayed canvassing the 2022 general election results have been criminally charged, the state’s top prosecutor said Wednesday.

A grand jury in Maricopa County Superior Court has indicted Cochise County Supervisors Peggy Judd and Tom Crosby on one count each of conspiracy and interference of an election officer.

“The repeated attempts to undermine our democracy are unacceptable,” Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said in a statement. “I took an oath to uphold the rule of law, and my office will continue to enforce Arizona’s elections laws and support our election officials as they carry out the duties and responsibilities of their offices.”

Judd and Crosby did not immediately respond to requests via text and email for comment.

Jane Montgomery, spokesperson for Cochise County, declined to comment. She confirmed both supervisors will be responsible for their own legal representation.

The indictment marks a rare instance of criminally prosecuting people connected to the vote canvassing being dragged out last year in six Arizona counties.

In December 2022, Cochise County certified election results only after a judge ruled Crosby and Judd, both Republicans, were breaking the law by refusing to sign off on the vote count by the deadline.

Crosby and Judd said they weren’t satisfied that the machines used to tabulate ballots were properly certified for use in elections. This prompted lawsuits including one from then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat.

They both were subpoenaed to court earlier this month. Ann English, the lone Democrat on the three-member board and the only supervisor to vote for certification, was not subpoenaed or indicted.

At the time, Judd and Crosby told The Associated Press they had no idea why they were being subpoenaed. Crosby was shocked.

“I don’t feel like I broke a law. But, obviously the courts had different feelings,” Judd said.

Last year, election results were certified without issue throughout most of the country. But in Arizona, the six counties hesitated to meet the certification deadline amid pressure from some Republicans. Democrats ended up winning U.S. Senate, governor and other statewide races in what has now become a swing state.

Caused many deaths....

Henry Kissinger, diplomat who helped to reshape the world, dies at 100

His polarizing years as the nation’s top diplomat reordered US relations with friends and foes.

By DAVID COHEN

Henry Kissinger, a ruthless practitioner of the art of realpolitik who had an outsize impact on global events and who won a premature Nobel Peace Prize for ending a war that kept going, has died.

A cunning, erudite strategist whose transformative diplomatic efforts helped to reshape the world, Kissinger was 100.

His death Wednesday was announced by his consulting firm. No cause was given.

The former secretary of State will be forever connected with President Richard M. Nixon, particularly for their efforts in three areas: getting America out of the Vietnam War, opening diplomatic relations with China and reducing tensions with the Soviet Union. For decades thereafter, Kissinger’s work with Nixon and President Gerald Ford earned him the role of the Republican Party’s elder statesman when it came to foreign policy.

“The Middle American professional politician and the German-born Harvard professor,” wrote George C. Herring in “America’s Longest War” of Nixon and Kissinger, “could hardly have been more different in background, but they shared a love of power and a burning ambition to mold a fluid world in a way that would establish their place in history. Loners and outsiders in their own professions, they were perhaps naturally drawn to each other.”

In 1973, Kissinger shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Le Duc Tho, his North Vietnamese counterpart, for hammering out an agreement to end the Vietnam War. The accord, which was signed Jan. 27, 1973, had “brought a wave of joy and hope for peace over the entire world,” the Nobel committee said.

However, Tho declined to accept the prize, saying peace was not yet a reality, and the war rapidly flared up again, minus the American troops.

More significant in the long term was Nixon’s “opening” of China; Kissinger helped establish relations with communist government there. The duo also focused on “detente,” an effort to improve relations with the Soviet Union. These developments came about as Nixon and Kissinger played the two Communist superpowers off each other, a tactic that also helped extricate America from the quagmire in Vietnam.

“Our objective,” Kissinger once wrote, “was to purge our foreign policy of all sentimentality.”

Nixon and Kissinger saw nearly all international issues through a Cold War prism, so their efforts, for instance, to end the 1973 Yom Kippur War in the Middle East turned into a high-stakes poker game involving the Soviets. The 1971 India-Pakistan war set off similar calculations about superpower relations.

Political developments in South America and Africa — often in places most Americans couldn’t find on a map — also attracted their interest and involvement. Every crisis was assessed, every triumph leveraged. Lethal force was often part of the equation.

“Kissinger personified human complexity — his characteristics ranging from brilliance and wit to sensitivity, melancholy, abrasiveness and savagery,” Stanley Karnow wrote in “Vietnam: A History.” “As he adapted to Nixon’s court, with its arcane and unsavory intrigues, he was able to acquire a talent for duplicity.”

Mostly untainted by the Watergate scandal that toppled Nixon, Kissinger continued to wield influence in the waning days of the administration. “You have saved this country, Mr. President,” he was heard telling Nixon in an April 1973 White House tape. “The history books will show that, when no one will know what Watergate means.”

Nixon resigned in August 1974, but Kissinger remained in office.

“He is, so far as this American is concerned,” said Ford in awarding him a Presidential Medal of Freedom in early 1977, “the greatest Secretary of State in the history of our Republic. His superb record of achievement is unsurpassed in the annals of American history.”

Heinz Alfred Kissinger was born May 27, 1923, in Germany to an Orthodox Jewish family. He fled in 1938 for New York to escape the Nazi persecution of Jews, picking up a new first name and later becoming both an American citizen and American soldier.

In World War II, his knowledge of Germany landed him a role as a counterintelligence officer in the Army, working with Fritz Kraemer, a fellow refugee who became his mentor. After the war, Kissinger was given a significant role in the occupation of Germany.

Kissinger went on to attend Harvard University and then teach there, gaining attention with a 1957 book, “Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy.” He also served as a consultant to Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, and he was part of Johnson’s early efforts to bring the North Vietnamese into negotiations. In 1968, he was advising Republican presidential candidate Nelson Rockefeller, but Rockefeller was defeated by Nixon, whom Kissinger initially had little respect for.

“Nixon’s nomination drove him to despondency,” Karnow wrote. “The country, he feared, was about to be taken over by an anti-Communist fanatic. Over the next few weeks, however, ambition spurred him to reconsider. He began to ingratiate himself with the Nixon camp.”

Weeks after the November election, Nixon brought Kissinger in as national security adviser.

Kissinger and his chief military aide, Gen. Alexander Haig, took charge of Nixon’s power center on foreign policy, allowing Nixon to routinely bypass Secretary of State William Rogers and Defense Secretary Melvin Laird — and the career professionals working for them. Diplomatic niceties were adhered to only when they served Kissinger’s aims.

“After Nixon made it clear to Anatoly Dobyrnin, the Soviet ambassador to the United States, that he should work through Kissinger, the two men met regularly in Kissinger’s office without anyone else being present,” wrote Margaret MacMillan in “Nixon and Mao: The Week That Changed the World. “Dobyrnin entered and left the White House by the service entrance. In time, a private telephone linked Kissinger’s office directly to the Soviet embassy.”

Having boxed him out, Kissinger eventually supplanted Rogers. In September 1973, Kissinger, without surrendering the duties of national security adviser, became secretary of State. By the time Kissinger was overwhelmingly confirmed to that post, author Ray Locker wrote in “Haig’s Coup,” “most senators saw Kissinger as the island of stability in the roiling seas of the Nixon administration.”

Nixon distrusted the Eastern establishment (particularly Ivy Leaguers of the Jewish faith), but he made an exception for Kissinger, who would tolerate Nixon’s rants about the “flabby soft bastards” and “sipping martini crowd” of places like Kissinger’s Harvard. The two men weren’t friends, but they were partners. “Our differences made the partnership work,” Nixon wrote in his memoirs.

“Nixon and Kissinger viewed themselves as principled realists,” John A. Farrell wrote in “Richard Nixon: The Life,” as opposed to “dreamy” idealists in the mold of President Woodrow Wilson.

Together, they treated the world like an elaborate chess board that needed to be played skillfully. Everything was linked.

“The result,” Herring wrote in his study of the Vietnam War, “was a foreign policy that was sometimes bold and imaginative in conception, sometimes crude and improvised, sometimes brilliant in execution, sometimes bungling; a policy dedicated to the noble goal of a ‘generation of peace,’ but frequently ruthless and cynical in the use of military power.”

When he became president in January 1969, Nixon inherited the brutal, formless mess that was the Vietnam War. The turbulence it had generated in the United States was one of the main reasons Nixon had been elected over Vice President Hubert Humphrey.

“No sooner was he installed in the White House,” Karnow wrote, “than Kissinger directed his staff to canvass American officials in Washington and Saigon for their appraisals of the prospects for Vietnam.”

In working to extricate the U.S. from Vietnam, Nixon and Kissinger combined extended negotiations in Paris with tactics designed to intimidate North Vietnam during difficult points in the talks. Those included conducting massive bombing raids (“War by tantrum,” as James Reston of the New York Times dubbed it) and hinting at the possibility that Nixon was irrational enough to use nuclear weapons, the so-called “madman theory.”

The aim behind this cutthroat behavior was to bring America’s troops home without suffering an outright defeat or diminishing the nation’s superpower status — “peace with honor.”

At times, Kissinger secretly negotiated with North Vietnam without the presence of anyone from South Vietnam, reflecting his fatalistic and ultimately accurate view that America’s partner in combat could only be propped up so long. The U.S. State Department was also excluded.

“The only problem is to prevent the collapse in ’72,” Kissinger told Nixon at one point, a cold-blooded calculation about South Vietnam meant to ensure that Nixon’s re-election prospects were not destroyed by a North Vietnamese victory. The war could not be won, but neither could it be lost — at least not right away.

Fighting continued until the Paris Peace Accords of January 1973. America’s troops came home at long last, and so did U.S. prisoners of war, but combat soon resumed. By the end of 1975, all of Vietnam was ruled by communists, as were neighboring Laos and Cambodia (which Nixon had invaded in the spring of 1970, with Kissinger’s backing).

Efforts in China turned out better: Nixon’s surprise visit in February 1972 was set up by a series of calculated moves. Foremost among them were Kissinger’s secret visit in July 1971— the first by a U.S. government official since Mao Zedong seized power in 1949 — and a follow-up Kissinger visit in October.

Kissinger’s first visit was, Farrell wrote, “the stuff of thrillers.” While in Pakistan, Kissinger feigned illness and went to the airport in disguise, leaving even his clothes behind as he secretly flew to Beijing.

“We have come to the People’s Republic of China with an open mind and an open heart,” Kissinger told Zhou Enlai, China’s prime minister, in their meeting July 9, 1971. The two men spoke about Taiwan, Vietnam and Korea — Asia’s hot spots. Two days later, Kissinger sent a prearranged signal to Nixon that the meeting was a success — the word “Eureka.”

According to MacMillan, Kissinger told the American ambassador in Pakistan as he headed home: “I got everything I wanted. It was a total success on my part. I did a beautiful job.”

Months later, Kissinger joined Nixon in visiting China and meeting with Mao, its ailing supreme leader. On that trip, Kissinger painstakingly negotiated a joint communique that set the tone for future relations. Years later, Kissinger wrote: “For both sides, necessity dictated that a rapprochement occur.”

When relations were established, the power dynamic of the Cold War shifted dramatically. The Soviet Union came to fear a new U.S.-China partnership, leading to Nixon-Kissinger breakthroughs with Leonid Brezhnev’s stagnating Soviet regime on arms control and trade.

“We were quite convinced that once we were in contact with Beijing, the diplomacy between Washington and Moscow would become unfrozen,” Kissinger said in a 1983 interview, who added: “We would seize the opportunity.”

This Nixon-Kissinger diplomacy served to shake up the dynamics of relationships around the globe, after a long period of superpower stalemate. Remaking the world required the ability to conduct drawn-out negotiations and in-depth geopolitical analysis, as well as to understand the limitations of any diplomat’s knowledge. Those were Kissinger’s strengths.

“The superpowers,” he later wrote, “often behave like two heavily armed blind men feeling their way around a room, each believing himself in mortal peril from the other, whom he assumes to have perfect vision. Each side should know that frequently uncertainty, compromise, and incoherence are the essence of policymaking.”

In September 1973, with the help of the United States, Chilean President Salvador Allende was ousted by the military. A Marxist, Allende had been democratically elected, but Nixon — urged on by Kissinger — feared that example might be contagious. Allende ended up dead, and Gen. Augusto Pinochet launched a bloody regime.

One of Kissinger’s most telling quotes came amid discussion over the situation: “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.” (That quote is sometimes rendered with stupidity in place of irresponsibility, but the scorn for democratic processes remains intact.)

During that era, Kissinger became an unlikely celebrity whose name and image were evoked in many different ways.

His name commonly popped up in situations that required delicate diplomacy. So it was that when the general manager of the NFL’s Philadelphia Eagles wanted to convey how complicated things were in his office, Jim Murray said he “had the most Henry Kissinger-type job of anybody I know in my position.” To be a “Kissinger” or “Dr. Kissinger” in that era was to be the person in your workplace, organization, school or rock band who was always trying to keep the peace. There is no current equivalent.

Kissinger was known to hobnob with celebrities at such New York night spots as Studio 54, often in the company of famous women. John Belushi (“I’m a really, really fat roly-poly diplomat”) and future Sen. Al Franken portrayed him during the early years of NBC’s “Saturday Night Live,“ and Kissinger appeared on such TV shows as “The Dean Martin Celebrity Roast.”

The 1976 Peter Sellers comedy “The Pink Panther Strikes Again” featured a German-accented secretary of state with bushy eyebrows who was clearly Kissinger. And Woody Allen made a fake TV documentary mocking Kissinger called “Men of Crisis: The Harvey Wallinger Story,” though PBS got cold feet and shelved it.

The sports world also claimed him.

In 1975, Kissinger threw out the first pitch at baseball’s annual All-Star Game. A year later, the master of shuttle diplomacy was named an honorary member of the Harlem Globetrotters, that basketball team’s first-ever such honoree. The owners of the New York Cosmos used his diplomatic skills (and lifelong affection for soccer) to help recruit soccer superstar Pele from Brazil.

Kissinger’s eagerness to be in the public eye often led to jibes about his ego.

“Everything pompous that you could possibly want to say about him, he says about himself first,” quipped broadcaster Barbara Walters when Kissinger was an unlikely selection in 1980 as “man of the year” by New York’s Friars Club, an organization generally focused on having comedians make fun of other comedians.

Others held Kissinger in contempt, particularly those who had worked to end the Vietnam War.

“For more than four decades,” Weather Underground co-founder Mark Rudd said, “I’ve harbored the faint hope that Kissinger would be indicted for war crimes in having planned and prosecuted the mass murder of hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Chile, and other countries.”

In particular, Kissinger was criticized for his advocacy of using bombing raids and other lethal tactics as diplomatic leverage.

“The drama of any air raid on a civilian population, a gesture in diplomacy to a man like Henry Kissinger, is about the inhumanity of many of man’s inventions to man,” novelist Kurt Vonnegut wrote in 1994.

Fellow novelist Joseph Heller devoted part of 1979’s “Good as Gold” to the efforts of his protagonist, Bruce Gold, to write a book demolishing Kissinger’s image.

“In Gold’s conservative opinion,” wrote Heller, “Kissinger would not be recalled in history as a Bismarck, Metternich or Castlereagh but as an odious schlump who made war gladly and did not often exude much of that legendary sympathy for weakness and suffering with which Jews regularly were credited.”

Kissinger’s Jewishness was an essential aspect of his image and often seemed to factor in America’s complex relationship with Israel. He was the first Jewish person to serve as U.S. secretary of state.

“No Jew in modern times has yielded greater power on the world stage,” wrote J.J. Goldberg in “Jewish Power,” a 1996 book.

But he had sharp critics within the Jewish community. He helped marshal the Nixon administration’s unsuccessful opposition to the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, legislation designed to force the Soviet Union to improve treatment of its persecuted Jewish citizens.

His complicated balancing act during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, in which Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack against Israel, came under intense scrutiny. Israeli military hero Moshe Dayan complained that Kissinger exchanged “the security of Israel for the good graces of the oil countries.”

After Ford lost the 1976 presidential election to Jimmy Carter, Kissinger moved on to a career as a consultant and lecturer on international affairs.

President Ronald Reagan subsequently appointed him to chair the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America. It was one of many boards and commissions he would serve on; for instance, when Elizabeth Holmes wanted to enhance the credibility of her over-hyped Silicon Valley startup Theranos, she brought in Kissinger and George Shultz for a double dose of prestige.

Kissinger was a prolific author, with a career capped by his three volumes of White House memoirs: “White House Years,” “Years of Upheaval,” and “Years of Renewal.” A 2011 book, “On China,” discussed his role in the opening of China.

He could also always be counted on to offer informed commentary, either on TV or in print. Kissinger’s approach to the practical applications of American power never changed very much; he always attempted to cut through conventional rhetoric to find what he perceived as deeper truths about what the United States needed to do in each new situation.

“The management of a balance of power,” he wrote in “White House Years,” “is a permanent undertaking, not an exertion that has a foreseeable end.” In that same book (and often thereafter), he said: “History knows no resting places and no plateaus.”

Through the years, he was frequently called upon to lend an air of authority on global affairs to would-be candidates. In February 2015, Michael Crowley noted that many presidential hopefuls still considered it something of a necessity to pay a visit to Kissinger.

“Candidates running for president like to be seen with or described as having talked to Kissinger,” one expert said, “because they think it sends a message that they themselves are serious about foreign policy.”

He also remained an unconventional thinker. In discussing his 2022 book “Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy” with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Kissinger offered a distinctly differently opinion on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aims in waging war against Ukraine.

“You can interpret it in one of two ways,” he said of Putin. “The way it is generally interpreted — I know almost no exception — is that he wanted to reconstruct the empire.”

“But you can also interpret it as a recognition of growing Russian relative weakness, that the domestic situation is not evolving very rapidly, and, here, the West is approaching via Ukraine. ... I interpret it to myself as much as a last act to show that there were limits to what Russia could tolerate.”

In July 2023 at the age of 100, he returned to China, where he was an honored guest. Chinese leader Xi Jinping hosted him in the same building where Zhou had met him 52 years earlier.

“China and the United States’ relations will forever be linked to the name ‘Kissinger,’” Xi said.