Friday, September 28, 2018

Kavanaugh’s Testimony Was His Joseph N. Welch Moment


By Victor Davis Hanson
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kavanaughs-testimony-was-his-joseph-n-welch-moment/
September 27, 2018


Image result for brett kavanaugh


Christina Ford’s testimony did not alter, positively or negatively, the facts of her allegations. She still cannot adduce where or when the alleged assault of 36 years prior occurred, or how she arrived at, or departed from, the alleged, but unnamed, location of the assault, or how many people and of which gender were present at the alleged assault. Nor did she name a single witness that could corroborate her narrative. Nor could she refute any of the named witnesses who contradicted her accounts.
The entire purpose of today’s hearing was for the Democrats to call for a lengthy “FBI investigation,” and thereby delay the hearings until after the midterms, excusing Trump-state senators up for reelection from having to vote No on Kavanaugh, while giving time for a likely fifth, sixth, and seventh psychodramatic accuser to step forward, whose lurid falsified allegations take days to refute, but insidiously bleed Kavanaugh by a thousand lies.
It is true that Ford was an empathetic witness in recounting what she seems to believe happened.And the argument of her supporters is that, because she sincerely believes that she was assaulted and that on some occasions 30 or more years after the alleged incident mentioned it to others, therefore her allegations are proven — when in fact raising the allegations 30 years and more later confirms only that she believes her own allegations, not that her allegations as they concerned Judge Kavanaugh are valid.
There was almost no attention paid to the Ramirez and Swetnick accusations — apparently because Democrats concluded that the advantages of trying to prove a Kavanaugh pattern of illegal or improper behavior was far outweighed by the utter lack of credibility by subsequent accusers, who, if they were to appear, would make that embarrassing fact quite clear. There was still no adequate explanation of why Democrats forced Ford to lose her anonymity or why they did not prompt an “FBI Investigation” immediately upon receipt of the allegation by Senator Feinstein.
The designated Republican questioner of Ford, Rachel Mitchell, succeeded in sounding sober, judicious, and conciliatory, and was able on numerous occasions gently to draw out inconsistencies in Ford’s testimony.

Ford, for example, seems to have had no problem with flying after all, both for work and leisure — until summoned to follow up her accusations with evidence and potentially to face cross examination. Ford also seemed to suggest that her entire process of pressing accusations against Kavanaugh, her meetings with politicos, her use of counsel, or her lie-detector test came about mostly incidentally and of her own direction and volition — despite references to an array of enablers and handlers.
She had no real explanation of why her various testimonies to her therapist, to the media, and in her initial letter and subsequent statement are in conflict on important details of who exactly was present and where at the alleged attack.
Still, Mitchell’s problem was that she never collated her questions into a coherent narrative leading to conclusions, and thus there was de facto no cross-examination of Ford’s assertions. Inferences were not enough. True, the Republicans succeeded in not appearing bullying, but went to the opposite extreme of seeming ineffectual and impotent. That was the morning’s grievous error, given that many of the Republican senators, as evidenced by the later questioning of Kavanaugh, are skilled interrogators and superb attorneys and yet sidelined themselves.
Just when pundits were declaring Kavanaugh’s obituary, he appeared resolute, fiery, and presented an outraged denial that essentially put the entire Democratic effort at destroying him on trial.
He became the proverbial Joseph N. Welch; the Democrats became a collective Joseph McCarthy.
His effort galvanized heretofore somnolent Republican senators into stepping up and decrying the current farce. Lindsey Graham gave the greatest speech of his life, and the most remarkable from any Republican in years. He threw down the gauntlet to remind that any Republican who joined the witch hunt should be ashamed. That moment likely did a great deal to provide cover for a few wavering senators who might have been thinking of abandoning Kavanaugh, and, indeed, seemed to render obsolete some of the old Republican divides over Trump — given a new shared conservative outrage at the progressive efforts at character assassination.
Not one Democrat senator could find any inconsistency in Kavanaugh’s testimony, and their feeble attempts to do so had the effect of appearing bullying and crudity — ironically in the manner that the Republicans had feared they might appear if too aggressive in questioning Ford.
Where are we, then, as the hearings wind down?
A paradox.
The Democrats were eager to see Republicans come off as crude and then ensured that they acted so themselves. They had no new argument either in supporting Ford or opposing Kavanaugh — other than the old saw of serially calling for a delaying “FBI investigation.”
Kavanaugh in the end himself proved the most reliable, factual, and transparent witness, and Republican Senators belatedly discovered that they were far better questioners than any expert prosecutor.
Politically, the result is twofold. It is not certain that Kavanaugh will be confirmed, but any Republican who believes that he is a sexual assaulter and unfit for the Supreme Court will likely face ostracism. Second, should he be confirmed, Kavanaugh will not just be a knowledgeable conservative jurist, but a skilled and unafraid advocate in the tradition of Antonin Scalia.

God Stalks the Kavanaugh Hearings


BY ROGER L SIMON
https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/god-stalks-the-kavanaugh-hearings/
September 27, 2018



Far be it for me, someone who spent the better part of his life as your typical secular agnostic, to talk about God. But that was what I have been thinking about in the hours since I spent my day, as many of us did, watching the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing.

I guess it first hit me when Judge Kavanaugh, in the midst of his powerful and heartfelt opening statement, one few expected him to make, choked up, fighting back tears as he spoke of his ten-year old daughter's desire to pray for Dr. Ford. I had trouble choking back my own and it dawned on me I was watching an event that I thought was political being transformed into a spiritual one.

Nothing was as expected. A real rape had taken place but it wasn't the one everyone was talking about.  It was simultaneously a rape of Judge Kavanaugh, his family, and the American people themselves.  The collateral damage was Dr. Ford, her friends, and her family. And the perpetrator was the Democratic Party, principally their Judiciary Committee members, their ranking member, and the minority leader.

It also dawned me that whatever the pundits were saying had become irrelevant.  The American people were watching now -- they would make up their own minds -- and... I thought I'd never say this... God was looking down on the proceedings.

For the first time I had a visceral understanding of what Dennis Prager meant when he said God was involved in the American founding. (I've been reading his book on Exodus.)
And then Lindsey Graham said what so many of us were feeling, making the most magnificent, impassioned speech I have heard in Congress since Joseph Welch's famous "Have you no shame, sir?" to Joe McCarthy.  No, scratch that. I was a little kid then and was told to despise McCarthy by my parents.  I could be all or partly wrong about that, but I'm not about Graham.  He hit a home run with the bases full in the seventh game of the World Series.

He was so good, in fact, that for a moment the Democrats seemed chastened.  But it didn't last long and pretty soon that ranking member, Ms. Feinstein, was up to her old tricks, doddering as she may have become, reading with her head down a litany of recent accusations against Kavanaugh so ludicrous even the New York Times wouldn't print them.

But, for all intents and purposes, the hearings were already over.

Louisiana Senator Kennedy formally ended them, appropriately enough, by asking Judge Kavanaugh to swear to God that he never sexually assaulted anyone.  He so swore.

Kavanaugh, I  predict, will soon be Justice Kavanaugh.

But I can't let go of my religious theme so quickly.  I am Jewish and trying, as many do as they grow older, to find consolation in my faith. I make no claims for any knowledge or depth in this.  I am very much a neophyte.  But nevertheless,  I was offended, even appalled, by the activities of my co-religionists Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Richard Blumenthal on the committee.  They have shamed our faith by disobeying  one of the keystones of the Ten Commandments, the Ninth: “Thou shall not bear false witness.” (Exodus 20:13)

I suspect Feinstein even knows this deep down.  But I'm still not sure I want to know about what role she did or didn't play in hiding or revealing Dr. Ford's accusations. It's all too nauseating and depressing.  Whatever it is, it doesn't look good and does no service to women or anybody else, least of all Dr. Ford.

That Richard Blumenthal -- a man who lied about his military service - would dare begin interrogating Judge Kavanaugh by asking him to translate the watchword of Roman law Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (False in one thing, false in everything) was such eye-rolling arrogance and self-delusion it made you wonder what they have in the drinking water in the state of Connecticut.

But never mind.  All is well.  As I finished typing this, I reached into my wallet, curious to see if the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" were still printed on our money.  (Frankly, I hadn't bothered to look closely for a long time.)  Thankfully, they were.

Roger L. Simon - co-founder and CEO Emeritus of PJ Media - is a novelist and the co-screenwriter of two Holocaust-themed movies:  Enemies, A Love Story(with Paul Mazursky) and Prague Duet (with Sheryl Longin).  

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

Trump’s Triumph at the U.N.


September 25, 2018
Image result for trump speech U.N. september 24 2018President Donald Trump addresses the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly, at U.N. headquarters, Sept. 25, 2018.(AP)
President Trump’s speech at the United Nations on Tuesday is one of the greatest political speeches ever delivered in peacetime.
Maybe you are like those members of the audience seated in the General Assembly who tittered when the president began his speech noting that, “In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.”
The bureaucrats shifting upon their glutei maximi upon the plush receptacles provided by the custodians of the United Nations may have found the president’s frank statement risible. But their hilarity detracts not one iota from the truth of his observation.
What President Trump said was not braggadocio. It was the unvarnished truth.
What Were They Laughing About Again?
In less than two years, the United States has added some $10 trillion in wealth to its economy. Four million new jobs have been created, and unemployment has plummeted to historic lows. Consumer confidence has soared, while tax reform has put more money in the pockets of average Americans and turbocharged American businesses.
Meanwhile, the President’s attention to the United States military has reversed the decay orchestrated by the Obama Administration, upping military spending to $700 billion this year, $716 billion next year. In short, “the United States is stronger, safer, and a richer country than it was when I assumed office less than two years ago.”
Giggle away, ye bureaucrats, giggle away.
So it is with the president’s speech. Barack Obama is reputed to be an impressive orator. But he never gave a speech that, in substance, could hold a candle to President Trump’s speeches at Warsaw, at Riyadh, before the joint session of Congress last year, or indeed his “rocket man” speech at the United Nations. And this topped them all for forcefulness, clarity, and wisdom.
The forcefulness and clarity, I believe, are acknowledged by everyone, even the president’s opponents. Emblematic passages include his description of ISIS “bloodthirsty killers,” his characterization of Iran as a “brutal regime,” the “world’s leading sponsor of terrorism,” whose leaders “sow chaos, death, and destruction” and “plunder the nation’s resources to enrich themselves and to spread mayhem across the Middle East and far beyond.” All this is patently true, but one is not supposed to utter such things on the floor of the General Assembly.
This is not the usual language of diplomacy. It is the frank argot of truth: a tongue rarely heard in the echo-chambers of the United Nations with its squadrons of translators who translate clichés from one language into another swiftly, accurately, and inconsequentially. How refreshing—though admittedly, how startling it must have been to hear someone deliver an entire speech without lying.
Sovereignty Is Key
But I spoke of “wisdom,” too. Again, you may think that the conjunction of the name “Trump” and the virtue of wisdom is odd. But think about it. What, in the end, was this speech about? It was an elaboration of Trump’s chief foreign policy idea, “principled realism.”
“Realism” connotes an accurate and unsentimental appreciation of the metabolism of power. The “principles” in question involve an affirmation of who we are as a people, which turns on our affirmation of national sovereignty.
The president’s articulation of this simple, yet deep, idea is what lifted his speech out of the realm of pedestrian blather and marked it for the history books.
No one who has listened to President Trump talk about his “America First” agenda will have been surprised when he said, “America will always act in [its] national interest,” or “We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy,” or “Moving forward, we are only going to give foreign aid to those who respect us and, frankly, are our friends.”
President Trump has made those points before, though perhaps not always so bluntly.
What was new was his meditation on the importance of sovereignty.
He was right, and in the halls of the United Nations, nearly unique, in pointing out that “responsible nations must defend against threats to sovereignty not just from global governance, but also from other, new forms of coercion and domination.” More can be said—and I trust will be said—about those novel forms of coercion and domination. For now, however, we should pay attention to these key phrases in the president’s speech.
On moving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and our moving our Israeli embassy to Jerusalem. The aim of peace between the Israelis and Palestinians is “advanced, not harmed, by acknowledging the obvious facts,” to wit, the fact that Israel is a sovereign state and, as such, has the right to determine where its capital city should be.
On the immediate implications of a policy of “principled realism,” which means that “we will not be held hostage to old dogmas, discredited ideologies, and so-called experts who have been proven wrong over the years, time and time again. This is true not only in matters of peace, but in matters of prosperity.”
Translation of that last bit: “free trade” is a great desideratum, but trade that is not fair is not free. Henceforth, those who wish to trade with the United States, the world’s largest economy, must abide by the principle that “trade must be fair and reciprocal.”
The Long-Term Solution to the Migration Crisis
Let me touch briefly on one additional theme, migration (which subsumes immigration). “Uncontrolled migration,” President Trump observed, is a direct threat to national sovereignty and hence will not be countenanced by the United States. How stinging to the ears of the assembled bureaucrats must his words have been. “Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens.” Quite right, and worth the price of admission.
The president was also right that, “Ultimately, the only long-term solution to the migration crisis is to help people build more hopeful futures in their home countries. Make their countries great again.”
For those with ears to hear, this speech reminds one why—improbable though it may have seemed—Donald Trump is shaping up to be not just a good but a great president. Few people, least of all me, would have predicted it. But so it is. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the American people like the free, open, unapologetic taste of American success.
We are the richest, most generous country on earth. But we are not, despite the efforts of transnational progressives like Barack Obama, the world’s patsy. Donald Trump understands this. That is why he was elected. It is also why he will go down as one of the most extraordinary leaders this blessed country has ever been vouchsafed.

Hearing the Women, Then and Now


By Mark Steyn
September 25, 2018

Related image

Yesterday I wrote:
One day in the very near future a Republican who has taken the precaution of never having any sexual contact with anyone ever will nevertheless find that's no obstacle to being America's most notorious serial rapist.
I didn't realize the "very near future" would be that evening. Arriving for my appearance with Tucker Carlson, I watched, on the preceding show, Brett Kavanaugh tell Martha MacCallum that he hadn't had sexual intercourse "or anything close to it" in high school or in college. So, just to be precise, Martha made him confirm that he'd been a virgin in high school, and at Yale, and for all I know on the DC Court of Appeals.

And he's still the sex beast that raped America.

A couple of hours later Jimmy Kimmel told late-night viewers that he wouldn't object to Kavanaugh being confirmed for the Supreme Court as long as his penis was cut off in public. One assumes, charitably, that this is a joke, although, upon examination, it doesn't actually have the form of a joke, does it? One might almost think it was designed simply to get a cheer from those who actually would like to chop his penis off.

Also today Bill Cosby was sentenced to three-to-ten years in prison. I note again the difference in treatment extended to his fellow Bill, credibly accused rapist William Jefferson Clinton. No matter who else gets ensnared, #MeToo never extends to him too.

So on Thursday the Senate will hear evidence of what allegedly happened in an upstairs room at an unknown house somewhere near Columbia Country Club, Maryland sometime in the early Eighties. Presumably Judge Kavanaugh will be cross-examined on how close "anything close to it" actually got. This is the pitiful state to which the United States Senate has reduced its "advise and consent" role.

It was different nineteen years ago, when I had the misfortune, briefly, to be living in Washington, DC - just for a few weeks while covering the Clinton impeachment trial. I stayed at the Mayflower Hotel, which my editors kicked up a fuss about until Monica checked in a few doors down the corridor from me and I was the only guy on the inside. Anyway, I wanted to check my recollections of that period, so I looked up the moldering pile of clippings from London's Daily Telegraph, Canada's National Post and the other papers that carried my daily trial diary. Just to set the scene: obviously, nailing Clinton is a lot trickier than Clinton nailing you. The general flavor of the times is caught in this January 22nd 1999 column:
No wonder the Senators have stopped taking notes. For, in this case, words make no sense. Consulting my own notes, I find Clinton attorney Greg Craig's defiant evisceration of the perjury charge: The President "did not deny he had misled his aides"; he said, in fact, he had misled his aides. 
So the President wasn't lying about telling the truth; he was telling the truth about lying. If, instead of telling the truth about not telling the truth, he'd lied about lying, then he wouldn't have been telling the truth. 
But, just as he'd got that cleared up, Greg complicated things: "He never said that he told them only true things." So the President hadn't lied when he said he'd told the truth because, although he lied, he hadn't exclusively lied, so therefore he was telling the truth about telling the truth, although he'd also have been telling the truth if he'd said he'd lied, and, although he'd have been lying if he said he hadn't lied, he'd have been lying if he said he hadn't told the truth.
The House impeachment managers (including current senator Lindsey Graham) did their best to struggle through all this. But what's surprising two decades on is the Democrats' more or less open contempt for the women - the "survivors" (as Senator Blumenthal calls Christine Ford). In 1999, it began with all but one of the Senate Dems moving to end the trial without testimony from Clinton's victims. No, no, no: To hear from these women, to admit them to the precinct of the Senate, would insult the dignity of the world's greatest deliberative body, and we can't have that, can we? From my February 1st trial diary:
Those various Clinton lady friends who testified anonymously in the Paula Jones depositions will not be permitted in the well of the chamber. It'll be a cold day in hell before you hear "Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, meet Jane Doe Number 5" on the Senate floor.
Even Monica could not be admitted:
In public, the Democrats' position is that Monica won't reveal anything new; in private, they worry that, even if she reads out the phone book, just her squealy, girly, giggly girl voice will make the president's conduct way too vivid for public consumption. Of course, his offence pale beside Monica's: Were she to testify, she would threaten the dignity and gravity of this august body.
A week into the trial, Dem senators could barely conceal their boredom. January 23rd.
"We're all sick of this," sneered Minority Whip Harry Reid. "This was jammed down our throats by the House"- a peculiarly vivid image.
So instead Democrats demanded and got strict limitations on the trial. January 30th:
We've always understood that the Framers of the US Constitution created very precise mechanisms that automatically come into play. Instead, they're making it up as they go along: you can have three witnesses, no African-American women, no sex questions, video only, and just for three hours. What clause did that come from? That's not the Framers; that's a frame-up.
By February 1st senators had further shrunk the parameters:
For House impeachment managers, the next three days are a last chance to come up with something new ...but they have to find the "something new" among all the old stuff, as the Senate has forbidden them from introducing anything new in and of itself. So any smoking gun will have to be found among all the previously discharged firearms the Democrats say are only firing blanks.
"It's too late now to get into Kathleen Willey," snaps Republican moderate John Chafee. Doubtless, in moments of rueful reflection late in the evening, the president feels the same way.
Even with a mere three video witnesses to sit through, Senate Democrats could barely stay awake:
"I went to the movies this afternoon," said Louisiana Democrat John Breaux, staggering out of the Senates deposition-video screening room. "Got my box of popcorn and then all I did was watch Monica, Monica, Monica! And I thought, 'you know what? I've seen that movie before.'" 
You wouldn't want to be holed up for the Siege of Leningrad with Mr. Breaux. In American public schools, when a fidgety six-year-old finds it hard to concentrate, they diagnose ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) and pump him full of Ritalin. But ADD has nothing on ADD (Attention Deficit Democrats): You could douse the Capitol in Ritalin and you wouldn't keep these boys awake. 
Perjury, obstruction, witness-tampering, trashing Monica's reputation...Let's face it, it doesn't have the gripping qualities of a Senate appropriations bill with $200 million in funding for the John Breaux Institute of Trial Procedure Studies in Baton Rouge. Blasé is the order of the day, and, as the trial drifts on, Senator Breaux and his fellow Breauxmides are honing their ennui.
You don't have to find the US Senate as risibly self-regarding as I do to think this is a rather odd way to treat a wide range of women - young, old, short, tall, svelte, zaftig - with credible stories of physical assault by the most powerful man in America. Yet in the Clinton era not one of them could catch the Senate's eye. Take the solon of solemnity himself, Dem Klansman Robert C Byrd:
"Sir, it was an honour to be in your presence," Larry King told him a couple of nights back. "Coming up we'll be talking to two of your peers, though a man such as yourself doesn't really have any peers..." Come off it, Larry! Who do you think he is..? Robert Byrd isn't the dean of dignity, he's West Virginia's prince of pork. And a man who votes against hearing Monica testify live on the grounds that it would damage the dignity of the Senate really shouldn't turn up wearing a red bow tie and matching vest. He looked like a busboy at Denny's.
One of the few honest men of the left in Washington that February was Christopher Hitchens. So naturally he wasn't permitted to testify either. From my February 10th column:
I never thought the trial of the President of the United States would dwindle down to... Christopher Hitchens. But, amazingly, it has: Yesterday, in the last few moments before the Senate retired behind closed doors, Republican Arlen Specter introduced a doomed motion to subpoena Mr. Hitchens, Mrs. Hitchens, and any other journalists that White House flack Sidney Blumenthal had peddled his Monica-the-sex-crazed-stalker story to.
That's quite a long list. Through 1998 and early 1999 Clinton and his aides relentlessly trashed Monica and all the rest. On the day of acquittal, I tipped my hat to a few of them:
Hail to the Perp! And farewell, sweet Monica: In the annals of interns, you will stalk forever with all the other "crazy people, uh, troubled people" (Sid Blumenthal.) 
Au revoir, Kathleen Willey, you too-merry widow –"Are you saying she came on to you, Mr. President?" "Well, she was always very friendly..." 
Thank you and good night, Dolly Kyle Browning - prototype Clinton mistress and "an absolute nut" (presidential aide Marsha Scott.) 
And good luck to all those broads savvy enough to keep out of the way because "they've got a lot to lose...and what we do is work on getting material on them to try to induce them not to compromise the president" (Clinton loyalist Betsey Wright). 
All the above quotes come from testimony to a grand jury comprised mainly of African-Americans, but none of it matters because Ken Starr is (altogether now) "out of control" and we don't want a "sex policeman" prying into people's bedrooms, even though Mr. Starr never went anywhere near Mr. Clinton's bedroom, presumably on the grounds that it's the one room in the White House where you can guarantee there's absolutely no sex to pry into.
To be sure, much has changed in the last two decades. But some things don't: Women who accuse Republicans have to be heard and believed because they're "survivors"; women who accuse Democrats are nuts and stalkers who need never be heard.

~Mark will be back on Wednesday evening for a triple-threat midweek:
*First, for Mark Steyn Club members, he'll be reading Part Thirteen of our latest Tale for Our Time - John Buchan's cracking Greenmantle;
*Then he'll be making a rare Wednesday appearance with Tucker Carlson live at 8pm Eastern;
*And immediately after that Mark will be joining Tucker for an hour-long live-streamed book-signing to launch his splendid new bestseller-in-waiting Ship of Fools. That's at 9pm Eastern/6pm Pacific, and you'll be able to ask questions about the book that Mark will put to Tucker. You can watch this one-hour special live right here.
If you're not yet a member of The Mark Steyn Club, we'd love to have you. You can find more details here. Alas, our inaugural Steyn Club Cruise with Mark's special guests has completely sold out - but we'll soon be announcing next year's.

Tuesday, September 25, 2018

RED WAR: A Conversation with Kyle Mills


The Real Book Spy
September 23, 2018
Image result for kyle mills red war
On a breezy end-of-summer afternoon here in Michigan, I connected with author Kyle Mills (after a brief technical difficulty), who has been spending time in Spain with his wife. 
Speaking by phone, Mills took well over an hour to discuss the current state of the Rappverse, a universe he took over in 2013 after the passing of literary icon Vince Flynn, turning in three novels to date, all of which have debuted on the top-three of the New York Times bestsellers list. His fourth,Red War, comes out Tuesday and is already one of the best reviewed Mitch Rapp novels ahead of its release. 
In our last conversation, Mills spoke at length about how his first Rapp novel, The Survivor(2014), was what he calls a “forgery,” meaning that he did everything he could to emulate Flynn’s writing and storytelling style. With each book, he’s put more of himself into the writing, sounding less like Vince, but staying true to the characters Flynn created. To kick things off, I asked him if he’s more comfortable now, as opposed to back when he wrote The Survivor
“Oh yeah, definitely,” said Mills. “I had to become comfortable writing this series. The question was . . . could I write this series comfortably and still please Vince’s fans, or was my comfort level just too far and different from what Vince would have done? I think I’ve gotten comfortable enough writing these books in a way that’s true enough to Vince’s vision that I’m happy, the fans are happy, and I’m able to explore things happening in the world that he never could have imagined.”
When people hear the name Vince Flynn, most think of how he broke onto the thriller scene by tackling radical Islamic terrorism at a time when the rest of the genre was still focusing on the Cold War and looking for the next big threat. Interestingly, though, as Mills noted during our talk, Flynn never even had the chance to hear about ISIS, who has since overtaken al Quaeda as the most feared terror group in recent memory. It’s an interesting anecdote because in just a short period of time, the headlines and news cycles have changed drastically since Flynn, who was so known for beating headlines during his career, passed away. 
Staying true to Vince’s characters is one thing, but I asked Mills about the pressure he feels to try and see the world the way Flynn did, or if he writes things the way he sees it himself. 
“I think the way I see it. It’s hard to say how Vince would have seen the world today. It’s changed so much since he died that it’s impossible to speculate.” 
As far as trying to remain timely and relevant, that’s something Mills works at quite a bit. “In my mind, these are political thrillers. The urgency has to be there,” Mills told me, “and they have to be addressing what people are thinking at that moment.” 
One thing people are surely thinking a lot about right now is the potential threat that Russia poses to the rest of the world, especially the United States, which is a topic that Mills covers at length in Red War
“I’ve always been really fascinated with Russia ever since I grew up on all the Cold War thrillers, and now that they’ve pushed back onto the world stage, obviously, I did that with Order to Kill (2016) to give Mitch Rapp a new challenge and, you know, as Putin keeps kind of rising up on the world stage a little bit, I kept thinking about what could start a war between these two countries. It’s hard because I follow the villains pretty closely in these books and, if you do that, they have to have a pretty clear motivation or it doesn’t feel believable. So, I had to find a way to motivate Russia to attack NATO, and this felt like a very plausible reason because you can follow Krupin and everybody would understand why he would attack a much bigger dog.”
The “plausible reason” Mills mentions here is Maxim Krupin, the Russian president, finding out he has terminal brain cancer in the opening chapter of Mills’ new book. Convinced that his political adversaries, both inside and outside of Russia, will come after him when he’s too weak to defend himself, Krupin takes preemptive measures to wipe out anyone who might mount an attack while he’s still well enough to eliminate them. That list includes his former henchman, Grisha Azarov, who plays a prominent role in both Order to Kill and Enemy of the State (2017). 
“I liked him, but I didn’t have a real plan as for how or when I would bring him back,” said Mills when I asked if he planned to keep Grisha involved following the conclusion of the last book.
“I sort of left it that he was owed a favor, and I always assumed he’d call that in at some point, but I didn’t know when. It could have been multiple books down the line but, because the Russia thing came up, it’s just hard to write about all of that without including Grisha. So, I ended up using him again sooner rather than later.” 
“I like the character, continued Mills. “He compliments Mitch really well in that has approximately the same skill set, but completely different personalities. I think that’s really interesting that two people can accomplish the same thing but from completely different emotional standpoints. In this new book, they have a discussion about it actually, about how they’re motivated by really different things. Having said that, Grisha looks pretty happy with retirement, so we’ll see if he ever returns. I’m not sure.”
In Red War, Mitch Rapp pays back that favor he owed Azarov by showing up just as Krupin’s men storm Grisha’s Costa Rica compound. After barely making it out of the assault alive, both men go after Krupin who, as readers might have noticed in past books, bears a striking resemblance to real-life Russian President Vladimir Putin. It turns out, that’s no accident.
“I really laid out Krupin’s background in Order to Kill, and I basically just took that off Vladimir Putin’s biography,” admitted Mills.
Indeed, the two share a similar history, right down to the now infamous shirtless horseback riding photos of Putin, which Krupin replicates in Red War in an effort to appear healthy while trying to hide his cancer diagnosis. 
“I changed the name, obviously, but Krupin’s backstory with the KGB and how he rose to power is right from Putin. He has such an interesting background, that you don’t have to make one up. What makes these books fun is that they feel really real. I don’t like to use real people, unless they’re dead, in these books because they’re unpredictable. But the closer you get to Putin and the situation with the United States, the better. I think that makes it thrilling.” 
Image result for kyle mills red war
Krupin, as readers will soon find out, proves to be a worthy villain, right on par with past bad guys from earlier in the series. Taking a second to reflect on some of the previous antagonists, Mills and I discussed Vince Flynn’s ability to create such hateable bad guys, something he saw as one of Flynn’s greatest strengths. 
“You bring up an interesting point,” laughed Mills. “Because Vince created such an iconic character in Mitch Rapp, you forget that one of his greatest gifts was creating these bad guys that you really wanted to see suffer. They felt very real, whether they were terrorists or these awful politicians, that propelled a lot of the books. Vince was a double-threat with that for sure.”
The conversation quickly turned back to Grisha, one of the most fascinating new characters to enter Rapp’s world in over a decade. After two books, he’s quickly become a fan-favorite due to his lethal set of skills. I asked Kyle Mills if he believes Rapp needs to always be portrayed as the most lethal character, and how important that is to him. His answer, I think, will make the diehard fans of this series happy moving forward. 
“The short answer,” said Mills, without hesitation, “is yes. Mitch is the alpha in these books. That’s the way they have to be. Grisha, in some ways, was an experiment, and one that I was nervous about. I was actually nervous enough about it to call Vince’s editor and his agent and make sure everybody understood that I was going to create a character that was, to a large extent, Mitch Rapp’s equal. It had never been done before. These books are very much about Mitch’s dominance. They all thought it was a good idea, very interesting, and wanted to see how Mitch would react to something like that.
“So, certainly, he’s the alpha, and even in that battle (during Order to Kill) he won, but it was a hard one.”
In my review of Order to Kill two years ago, I likened Grisha to the Ivan Drago of assassins, complete with a team of mad scientists shooting him full of anabolic steroids and meticulously planning out his physical fitness regimen. Now, though, Azarov is in a different place, and readers might be surprised to find him slightly out of shape, at least to his own standards.
“Going into this book, I had already set up their hierarchy and established that Mitch was a superior fighter, but not by much. Now I felt like Grisha wanted to be gone from that world. He entered it, not because of anger or seeking revenge (like Rapp did), but because he was good at it. He didn’t have a real passion for it, so the idea that he would continue to train at that tempo and take drugs and stuff like that while living in Costa Rica and surfing, I mean, why would he?
“He’d still stay in shape, but not on that level. I think of him as a retired professional athlete. A guy who might have retired from the Tour de France could still go out and pedal his bike around and be the fastest thing you’ve ever seen, and still not be anywhere close to the level they were at one time.”
Hearing Mills talk about Grisha retiring, I couldn’t help but wonder about Rapp’s future and asked him how long he thought Mitch could continue doing what he does at this hight of a level. The good news is, fans shouldn’t expect Rapp to go hanging up his Glock anytime soon. 
He’s got a long time still,” Mills assured me. “Vince aged Mitch realistically. In my mind, Mitch is in his early forties. He was that age when I took over, and he still is in this book. I’m going to leave him that way until I think there’s a reason not to. There’s a lot of stories left for Mitch and I’d hate to see him go by way of Stan Hurley and be out there when he’s eighty, trotting around and trying to leap through windows.”
While readers will no doubt like hearing that about Rapp’s future, another thing sure to please fans is the return of Mitch’s longtime right-hand man, Scott Coleman. For those who didn’t read Order to Kill, the former SEAL takes a beating in that book, which left him sitting on the bench in last year’s Enemy of the State. Now though, Mills gets him back in the game, and I asked him why he thought it was important to do so. 
“I see Coleman as fundamental to the series. To me, you have two really fundamental characters. You’ve got Mitch and Irene Kennedy, and then Scott’s just a little bit lower on the totem pole but still critical and a fundamental character to the series.”
If you’re wondering why Mills left Coleman out of the last book even though he views him as “a fundamental character to the series,” he touched on that too. 
“I’ve always had this real pet peeve about secret agents taking this horrible beating and then, a half hour later, they’re fine. So, after what happened in Order to Kill, I knew he’d basically have to sit out a book because there was no way he was bouncing back from that quickly. But I did know, in the next book after that, he would return.”
Before asking about his next book, which should come out sometime in the fall of 2019, I asked Mills about his writing process, and whether or not he plans out future books in his head while working on the latest one. 
“If I’m working on an outline, I work until I can’t work anymore. It could be an hour, it could be eight hours. That’s purely creative, so it takes a lot of brain power, like, as much as I’ve got. Sometimes you get in there and get all these great ideas out, and it’ll take an hour and then you’re just exhausted and there are no ideas left. I feel really lazy sometimes because I think ‘well, I’ve only worked an hour, but nothing productive is going to happen the rest of the day.'”
“After the outline, though, when I’m actually writing the book, I tend to have a strict schedule that’s based on my deadline, and that’s almost always one chapter a day. As for planning out future books, no. I actually think the opposite is true. I don’t really like to do that at all because it makes me nervous. It splits my focus. I tend to have no idea what I’m going to write next when I finish the book I’m working on.” 
Not only does Mills not plan out or think about the next book while working on his current one, but even when he does turn his attention to the next project, he doesn’t approach it by trying to figure out how to top the book he just finished.
“No, I definitely don’t think in those terms,” he said. “I think I’d go nuts. It’s such a subjective business, you know, what’s a better book than the last one? I think if you try to think in those terms, it would be like trying to go faster. It wouldn’t work for me. I come up with a concept, and then I try to write the best book that I can. That’s what I’ve always done. That’s always been my formula.”
That formula has obviously served him well, as Mills has quickly established himself as one of the most well-rounded and best writers working in the thriller genre today. A diehard fan of Vince Flynn, even I have to admit that Mills has taken this franchise to another level entirely. In fact, I actually prefer his portrayal of Mitch over Vince’s, which feels almost blasphemous to say, even though it’s true. 
Earlier this year, after handing in Red War to his editor, Emily Bestler, Mills began working on the 18th Mitch Rapp book. Though he couldn’t share too many details just yet, the little he did say drops a big hint about the next threat Rapp will face.
“Well, it’s funny,” began M3ills, “because of the political landscape right now, I really wanted to do something non-political. I was even thinking about doing something about Mitch flying over Columbia when his plane crashes and his phone breaks, and he has to fight his way out of a drug area in Columbia. Something not political at all. Instead, that’s not what happened. 
“I actually went the opposite way because that’s what’s happening in the world right now, especially in the United States. There’s a biological threat in the next one, plus a very divisive presidential campaign, and that plays a big role. The guy running for president is a really awful guy who is bad for Irene Kennedy (as the CIA director) and bad for America. That’s all playing out in the background while the guy is manipulated by another country, and ISIS uses his campaign to try and drive Americans apart. To me, that’s what is happening right now so I couldn’t get around it.
“There’s no question that what’s going on politically in the United States, and even culturally, is on everybody’s mind. It’s almost like the elephant in the room. You either, as a writer, have to make a conscious choice to ignore it, or to address it. I tried to ignore it, but it didn’t work. Finally, I realized I had to embrace the elephant or it’s going to be a really scattered book.”
A biological threat is something readers have never seen Mitch Rapp take on, and it’ll be interesting to see how that plays out. As for the political stuff, Mills assured me that he’s going about things carefully so that all fans of this series, regardless of your political beliefs, will enjoy the next installment. 
“With the next book, I’m hoping that there’s still a universal good and bad, though I’m not even sure everyone agrees with that anymore, and this new character is just so bad for America. I don’t touch on any divisive issues, though.” 
It’s a good thing Mills doesn’t stress over topping himself while working on his next book because, honestly, Red War might be the biggest mission of Rapp’s career. Never before have we seen the American assassin go after a more high-profile target than the president of Russia. 
“I don’t know that I ever thought about it that way,” said Mills, laughing, “but you’re right, they don’t really get much bigger than this.The way I thought about it, and the struggle of writing this book . . . I liked the concept of following Krupin and how this would give a clear reason for Russia to go to war with the United States as opposed to just saying ‘Russia is going to war with America, take my word for it,’ and starting the story there. So, I think, then the struggle was that the situation was going out of control on a level that one man cannot control.”
“That’s the thing about a Mitch Rapp thriller, it has to be about Mitch and how he’s going to deal with the problem. Well, now you’ve got a war, I mean there’s submarines and naval battles, things that are going on that are well beyond Mitch’s sphere of influence. How does it all draw back to him? How does he accomplish what needs to be done realistically, and survive?”
To find out those answers, you’ll have to dive into Red War, in stores everywhere tomorrow, Tuesday, September 25th. 
Related:
Review: Red War by Kyle Mills-