UPDATED

MISOGYNISTIC Djokovic disqualified from US Open after hitting FEMALE line judge with tennis ball IN THE THROAT

HE PULLED IT FROM HIS POCKET IN A PETULANT DISPLAY OF MANBOY ANGER

IT HAPPENED AT THE BILLIE JEAN MEMORIAL TENNIS FIELD ON THE ARTHUR ASHE COURT (ICONIC IRONY)

HE FAILED TO APOLOGIZE

Issued on: 07/09/2020

Novak Djokovic and a tournament official tend to a linesperson who was struck with a ball by Djokovic on September 6, 2020, day seven of the 2020 US Open, in Flushing Meadows, New York, USA. © Danielle Parhizkaran-USA TODAY Sports

SHE IS RIGHTLY TERRIFIED OF HIM AND HIS WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE MEANS HE CAN TOUCH HER WITHOUT PERMISSION WITH A PATRONIZING PAT ON THE BACK, CHIN CHIN OLD MAN AND ALL THAT 

Text by:NEWS WIRES
4 min

Novak Djokovic was sensationally disqualified from the US Open on Sunday after striking a female lines official in the throat with a ball.

The world number one went 5-6 down in the first set to Spain's Pablo Carreno Busta when he pulled a ball out of his pocket and hit it in disgust in the direction of the official.

Djokovic appeared to be looking away from the official at the time, but he hit the ball with considerable force and when it struck her she could be heard gasping and coughing.

The official fell to the floor of the Arthur Ashe court clutching her throat.

Djokovic rushed over to check that she was okay. He put his hand on her shoulder as she appeared to be struggling to catch her breath.

After a few minutes she got up and walked off the court.

Following around ten minutes of discussions with a rules official, during which Djokovic argued his case, the umpire declared that Carreno Busta had won by default.

Djokovic then shook hands with Carreno Busta but not with the official in the umpire's chair as he left the court looking bewildered

This whole situation has left me really sad and empty. I checked on the lines person and the tournament told me that thank God she is feeling ok. I‘m extremely sorry to have caused her such stress. So unintended. So… https://t.co/UL4hWEirWL— Novak Djokovic (@DjokerNole) September 6, 2020

He quickly exited Flushing Meadows without speaking to reporters.

Carreno Busta said he did not see the incident.

"I was celebrating the break with my coach," he told reporters.

"When I heard that the line judge was on the floor I was in shock. I never expected this moment when playing Novak.

Carreno Busta added that the incident was "unintentional."

"I think it was bad luck," he said.

Djokovic is one of only a handful of players to be disqualified from a men's singles tournament at a Grand Slam since John McEnroe was infamously tossed from the Australian Open in 1990.

The United States Tennis Association said he would lose all ranking points and prize money from the tournament.

'Very unlucky'

Rivals and former players reacted with shock after the disqualification.

Germany's Alexander Zverev had words of sympathy for Djokovic, describing the disqualification as "very unfortunate."

"He hit a tennis ball. It's very unfortunate that, you know, he hit the line judge, and especially where it hit her," Zverev said.

"There is a rule in place for it. I think the supervisors and all of them are just doing their job. Very unlucky for Novak.

"He's going to be a little bit upset about it. If he would have hit it anywhere else, if it would have landed anywhere else, we are talking about a few inches, he would have been fine."

Former women's world number one Tracy Austin said the disqualification was justified.

"Right call! Stunning to watch this unfold. Hope lines person ok...#crazyturnofevents," Austin wrote on Twitter.

Right call! Stunning to watch this unfold. Hope lines person ok.🙏@DjokerNole clear favorite to win 18th GS-shrink margin behind Rafa/Roger. Seems only way ND loses. New 1st time MAJOR champion will be crowned. #crazyturnofevents— Tracy Austin (@thetracyaustin) September 6, 2020

And four-time US Open champion Martina Navratilova said officials "had no choice" but to default Djokovic.

Former British No.1 Greg Rusedski described the disqualification as "unbelievable" but said officials had made the "correct decision."

"Novak should have stayed for the press conference & apologise," Rusedski wrote.

"We must take responsibility for our actions no matter how difficult the situation is."

Djokovic had been chasing an 18th Grand Slam title at the Billie Jean King US National Tennis Center.

He was hoping to close the gap on Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, both absent from the tournament, in the race for the all-time men's Slam singles title record.

Djokovic is on 17, with Nadal on 19 and Federer on 20.

(AFP)

 Novak Djokovic hits ball at US Open line judge: How the incident unfolded, what was said and the tennis world's reaction

Djokovic joined the list of players to receive one of the sport's rarest punishments

By Telegraph Sport and Press Association

7 September 2020 • 

Novak Djokovic apologised after being defaulted from the US Open for accidentally hitting a line judge with a ball struck in annoyance.

The top seed and 17-time grand slam champion had just dropped serve to trail Spanish opponent Pablo Carreno Busta 6-5 in the opening set of their fourth-round match on Arthur Ashe Stadium when the incident occurred.

How the incident unfolded

Djokovic, who had missed three set points at 5-4 before hurting his shoulder in a fall, hit a ball behind him without looking that struck a female line judge in the throat.

The line judge collapsed to the court and could be heard gasping for air as Djokovic rushed over to check on her condition.

Djokovic pleaded his case during lengthy discussions with tournament referee Soeren Friemel and grand slam supervisor Andreas Egli, but the officials' mind was made up.

The moment Novak Djokovic's #USOpen came to an end... pic.twitter.com/ptDQxS8DQM— Amazon Prime Video Sport (@primevideosport) September 6, 2020

🚨NOVAK DJOKOVIC DISQUALIFIED 🚨

After losing a point, the world No.1 hits a ball towards the back of the court and strikes a line judge...#USOpen pic.twitter.com/52NYof5jgV

— Amazon Prime Video Sport (@primevideosport) September 6, 2020

"The facts were discussed and explained by the chair umpire and the Grand Slam Supervisor," Friemel said. "In this situation, it is especially important that we are 100 per cent sure what exactly happened. The facts were established, and then I had to speak to Novak Djokovic, [to] give him the chance to state his point of view.

"His point was that he didn't hit the line umpire intentionally... We all agree that he didn't do it on purpose, but the facts are still that he hit the line umpire and that the line umpire was clearly hurt."

"There was no other option," Friemel added. "Intent is part of the discussion, but there are two factors: one is the action and [the other] the result. The action, while there was no intent, the result of hitting the line umpire and [her] clearly being hurt is the essential factor in the decision-making process here."

What the rules say

A statement from tournament organisers read: "In accordance with the Grand Slam rulebook... the US Open tournament referee defaulted Novak Djokovic from the 2020 US Open."

Accrding to the US Open:

There are two ways to be defaulted from a match: through an accumulation of code violations or by a singularly egregious act.

A default is one of tennis' rarest punishments, if only because of the type of on-court actions that are considered a catalyst for it. Tennis matches are adjudicated by a code of conduct, and the punishment for violating the code—through actions such as ball abuse, racquet abuse, unsportsmanlike conduct, and other similar offenses—accumulate typically over the course of a match.

The first code violation is a warning, the second comes with a point penalty, and the third comes with a game penalty—with the offending player subject to default at the referee's discretion at any time should the code be violated again thereafter. However, when a situation such as Sunday's arises in a match, the Point Penalty Schedule may be bypassed in favor of an immediate default. 

Section T of Article III, "On-Site Player Offenses," of the ITF Grand Slam rulebook discusses the procedure of defaulting a player from a match, and also that the decision cannot be changed.

"In all cases of default," it reads, "the decision of the Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Chief of Supervisors shall be final and unappealable."

Also, asper the Grand Slam rules, any player who is defaulted from a tournament loses all points and prize money that they would have gained as a result of completing the event. 

Who else has been defaulted previously

Djokovic is not the first player to be defaulted in similar circumstances, but for it to happen at a grand slam and as the tournament favourite is an extraordinary situation.

Canadian Denis Shapovalov was defaulted during a Davis Cup tie against Great Britain in 2017 after smashing a ball in anger that hit umpire Arnaud Gabas in the eye.

Tim Henman was disqualified from Wimbledon 25 years ago for hitting a ball girl with a ball during a doubles match while David Nalbandian kicked an advertising hoarding during the Queen's final in 2012, injuring a line judge, and was defaulted.

'I apologise to the US Open tournament and everyone associated for my behaviour' - what Djokovic said afterwards

After the premature end to his bid for an 18th Grand Slam, Djokovic left the grounds without attending a press conference - a decision that drew criticism.

The 33-year-old later wrote on Instagram: "This whole situation has left me really sad and empty. I checked on the lines person and the tournament told me that thank God she is feeling OK.

"I'm extremely sorry to have caused her such stress. So unintended. So wrong."

He subsequently accepted the decision, saying in his statement: "As for the disqualification, I need to go back within and work on my disappointment and turn this all into a lesson for my growth and evolution as a player and human being.

"I apologise to the @usopen tournament and everyone associated for my behaviour. I'm very grateful to my team and family for being my rock support, and my fans for always being there with me. Thank you and I'm so sorry."

How the tennis world reacted

'There's no doubt it's the right decision' - Tim Henman

Speaking on Amazon Prime, Henman said: "It's a massive shock. There's no doubt it's the right decision. It's amazing for me to talk about this because it happened to me at Wimbledon in 1995. It was that moment of frustration, hit the ball away when I wasn't looking and I hit a ball girl in the ear."

'I was in shock' - match opponent Carreno Busta

Carreno Busta had sympathy for Djokovic but felt it was the right decision.

He said: "I was in shock. I never expected this moment playing against Novak. So it was a tough moment also for me.

"I don't think that any one of us do this kind of thing intentionally. It's just the moment. The referee and the supervisor do the right thing, but it is not easy."

'It's very unfortunate that he hit the line judge, and especially where it hit her' - Alexander Zverev, fifth seed "It's very unfortunate that he hit the line judge, and especially where it hit her," Zverev told reporters.

"Very unlucky for Novak. I think he's going to be a little bit upset about it. If he would have hit it anywhere else, if it would have landed anywhere else, we are talking about a few inches, he would have been fine.

"I'm a little bit in shock right now."

'Unbelievable' - Martina Navratilova, 18-times Grand Slam singles champion

"Unbelievable what just happened on the court," she wrote on Twitter. "Novak Djokovic defaulted for inadvertently but stupidly hitting a lineswoman in the throat with a ball and the officials had no choice but to default.

"Wow... #sad Glad the woman is ok- we must do better than that."

'The rule is the rule' - Billie Jean King, 12-times Grand Slam singles champion

"I hope the line judge is okay," she wrote on Twitter. "The rule is the rule. It is unfortunate for everyone involved, but in this specific situation the default was the right call."

'You are not allowed to do that' - Mats Wilander, seven-times Grand Slam singles champion

"You are not allowed to do that," he said. "It's as much bad luck as you can have on a tennis court. He didn't just roll the ball back to the ball kid, that's the bottom line.

"He hit it harder than he intended to, obviously a complete accident. It was a sign of frustration, yes. A little bit. But it doesn't matter, you are not allowed to do it."

'They had no other choice' - Alex Corretja, former French Open finalist

"It's amazing how one centimetre can change not only the match, but the future of our sport, the history of our sport," he told Eurosport.

"With the rule as it is, you need to disqualify him. It's obvious they had no other choice, it's a pity..."

'Novak deserved it' - Tim Mayotte, coach and former player

"Almost every high-performance player I train does what Novak did in firing the ball," he posted on Twitter. "I tell them to stop it, and break the habit for this exact reason, they eventually hit someone and it won't be good. Yes, Novak deserved it."

'How many years would I be banned for?' - Nick Kyrgios, Australian tennis player

"Swap me for jokers incident. ‘Accidentally hitting the ball kid in the throat’ how many years would I be banned for? 5? 10? 20?" he wrote on Twitter.

What is next?

Djokovic will have to get used to being the "bad guy", American great John McEnroe has said.

"The pressure just got to him. I think a lot has been going on off the court," McEnroe told ESPN.

"It's obviously affected him and whether he likes it or not, he's going to be the bad guy the rest of his career.

"If he embraces that role, I think he could recover. He's got a lot of things going for him, but this is a stain that he's not going to be able to erase."

Video: Watch what Novak Djokovic did that got him defaulted at the U.S. Open

U.S. Open's No. 1 seed Novak Djokovic was defaulted after angrily hitting a ball that accidentally hit a linesman in the throat. He later apologized on social media

Novak Djokovic, of Serbia, checks a linesman after hitting her with a ball in reaction to losing a point to Pablo Carreno Busta, of Spain, during the fourth round of the US Open tennis championships, Sunday, Sept. 6, 2020, in New York. Djokovic defaulted the match. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

By FRED ROBLEDO | frobledo@scng.com | San Gabriel Valley Tribune
PUBLISHED: September 7, 2020 

Novak Djokovic, the No. 1 men’s tennis player in the world and top seed at the U.S Open, was defaulted on Sunday in the fourth round, sending shockwaves throughout the tennis world.

Top-seeded Novak Djokovic was defaulted from his fourth-round match at the #USOpen after he accidentally hit a line judge with a tennis ball Sunday. pic.twitter.com/TTstxZB2Jw
— ESPN (@espn) September 6, 2020

Djokovic was trailing 5-6 in the first set against Spain’s Pablo Carreño Busta when after losing a point, Djokovic smacked a tennis ball behind him in anger that accidentily hit a line judge.

The line judge was hit in the throat and required medical attention. After a discussion with officials, Djokovic was defaulted, ending his chance to win his 18th major tournament. Here are different video’s of the incident and what social media is saying about the default.

Djokovic took to Twitter and Instagram to apologize later.

This whole situation has left me really sad and empty. I checked on the lines person and the tournament told me that thank God she is feeling ok. I‘m extremely sorry to have caused her such stress. So unintended. So… https://t.co/UL4hWEirWL
— Novak Djokovic (@DjokerNole) September 6, 2020




First his shoulder and now this.@DjokerNole has accidentally hit a line judge.

What will be the punishment?#USOpen pic.twitter.com/PO5mNVo3G6
— Tennis Channel (@TennisChannel) September 6, 2020


Here are my thoughts on the Novak Djokovic default.

First I hope the line judge is okay.
The rule is the rule. It is unfortunate for everyone involved, but in this specific situation the default was the right call. #USOpen
— Billie Jean King (@BillieJeanKing) September 6, 2020


The moment that #1 Novak Djokovic knew that his #USOpen and his undefeated 2020 season were over. pic.twitter.com/uwd5fbXKb1
— Ben Rothenberg (@BenRothenberg) September 6, 2020


Should Novak Djokovic have been defaulted at the U.S. Open for hitting a ball in anger that accidentily hit a linesman?

— Inside SoCal Sports  (@InsideSoCalSpts) September 6, 2020




BREAKING: “Novak Djokovic, the No. 1 seed in the men’s draw, was disqualified from the U.S. Open after accidentally striking a lineswoman with a ball hit in frustration,” reports @nytimes
pic.twitter.com/wsVDKBa0nY
— David Begnaud (@DavidBegnaud) September 6, 2020


Wow. Novak Djokovic has been defaulted from the #USOpen after striking a lineswoman with a ball.
pic.twitter.com/t1zX6lEFxK
— Sacha Pisani (@Sachk0) September 6, 2020

I have to disagree. That is purely accidental, he isn’t looking.
— S̶t̶e̶p̶h̶e̶n̶ Steven Anderson (@SDAUK) September 6, 2020

Not trying to downplay the overall moment ….it appears she was hurt….. but that was not a "hard" hit. You make it sound like he served it at her throat 100mph . Not what occurred.
— Rome Van Lara (@RomeVanLara23) September 6, 2020

Absolutely right call to default @DjokerNole, no intent in his actions but rules are rules. Poor by @usopen to drag the decision out, clearly it was made early on but nerves of the situation set in. Also #novakdjokovic storming out of press and not saying sorry. Bad 2020 for him.

— Jaime Tunstall (Stay at  ) 

(@jaimetunstall) September 6, 2020


Novak Djokovic has been defaulted from his US Open fourth-round match after unintentionally hitting a lineswomen with a ball hit in anger. There will be a first-time major champion on the men’s side. pic.twitter.com/2NhrxsBGbT
— Bryan Armen Graham (@BryanAGraham) September 6, 2020


Novak Djokovic has been defaulted from the U.S. Open after hitting a line judge with a ball pic.twitter.com/ByKxKjXG28
— Bleacher Report (@BleacherReport) September 6, 2020

Who would guessed, the first player to beat Djokovic in 2020 would be…Djokovic
— Jon Wertheim (@jon_wertheim) September 6, 2020

"There's no way Novak Djokovic can possibly look any worse this year"
Djokovic:pic.twitter.com/6tjtMLvP8R
— Ardit Luciano (@Ardit_Luciano_) September 6, 2020




“after he accidentally hit a line judge with a tennis ball”

Ridiculous decision! Stay strong @DjokerNole ! #usopen

 https://t.co/Dhmi3wqJNb

— Bogdan Bogdanovic (@LeaderOfHorde) September 6, 2020




Novak Djokovic quite rightly booted from the @usopen for this pic.twitter.com/EI1DpLR3pn

— Andrew Gourdie (@AndrewGourdie) September 6, 2020




Wow. Wow. No. 1 seed Novak Djokovic has been defaulted from the U.S. Open after hitting a ball in anger that then hit a lineswoman in the throat and she fell to the court.

Djokovic plead his case, but those are the rules.

— Ava Wallace (@avarwallace) September 6, 2020

And just like that, with #1 Novak Djokovic getting himself defaulted, we are guaranteed to have a new Grand Slam champion in men's tennis for the first time in six years.#USOpen

— Ben Rothenberg (@BenRothenberg) September 6, 2020


What Roger Federer thinks of all of all this drama with Novak Djokovic pic.twitter.com/E2aqNCEUUL

— LoveSetMatch   

(@LoveSetMatch_) September 6, 2020


Pretty clear! #zerotolerance pic.twitter.com/wmWgHygYzD
— James Escarcega  

(@James_Escarcega) September 6, 2020


Fred Robledo | sports editor
Fred Robledo is a local sports editor for the Southern California Newspaper Group.

Trump Jr: 

I Know What Poverty Is, I Stood In Communist Bread Lines
YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS SHIT UP DEPT

Screengrab / @Acyn / Twitter
JakeThomas 
5 hours ago
"I waited in those breadlines. I can assure you they are not as glamorous as Bernie and academia...make them out to be."

In this clip, Donald Trump Jr. claims he "grew up" in a communist country and knows what it's like to wait "in breadlines". Junior also suggests that he grew up in "Czechoslovakia", a country that hasn't existed since 1993.

Watch: https://twitter.com/i/status/1227779028012023808

Michael Cohen says Trump once said after meeting evangelical Christians: 'Can you believe people believe that bulls---?'

Ashley Collman

President Donald Trump with a Bible 

HELD UPSIDE DOWN SO ALL THE POWER DRAINS OUT

while visiting St. John's Church across from the White House after agents cleared the area of protesters on June 1. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images

Michael Cohen, the former fixer and lawyer to President Donald Trump, is releasing a memoir on Tuesday called "Disloyal."

In the book, Cohen details how Trump reacted after meeting with evangelical Christians before winning the 2016 election. An excerpt was published by The Washington Post.

According to the excerpt, Cohen says Trump remarked after the meeting: "Can you believe people believe that bulls---?"

Cohen also says it was a "cosmic joke" that Trump had managed to convince working-class people that he cared about them when "the truth was that he couldn't care less."

Evangelicals — who make up one in four Americans — were credited with helping Trump win the White House, with 80% voting for Trump in 2016.


President Donald Trump spoke condescendingly about evangelical Christians after holding a meeting with religious leaders before the 2016 election, his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen has said in a new book.

Cohen, who broke with Trump to cooperate with the special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, is releasing a memoir Tuesday titled "Disloyal: A Memoir: The True Story of the Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump."

The Washington Post, which obtained a copy of the book before its release, reported one passage in which Cohen details what he says happened after Trump met with prominent evangelical leaders at Trump Tower in 2016 before winning the presidency.

After the meeting was over, Cohen says, Trump said: "Can you believe that bulls---? Can you believe people believe that bulls---?"

"The cosmic joke was that Trump convinced a vast swathe of working-class white folks in the Midwest that he cared about their well-being," Cohen added, according to The Post. "The truth was that he couldn't care less."

It's unclear what meeting Cohen was referring to, but Trump did meet with conservative Christian leaders in New York City in June 2016, according to NPR, which was allowed inside the private event.

Though Trump — a self-described Presbyterian — was not known for being religious, evangelical Christians overwhelmingly supported him in 2016, with 80% of the group voting for him over Hillary Clinton.

Evangelical Christians are an important voting bloc. With one in four Americans describing themselves as evangelical, they are the most common religious group in America, according to the Brookings Institution think tank.

This support has mystified many, since Trump's behavior and language can be very un-Christian-like.

In his first term, however, he has pleased evangelical Christians by adding two conservative justices to the Supreme Court, blocking funding to Planned Parenthood, and supporting religious freedom.

Read more:
Trump admires Putin because he is rich and runs Russia like it's his personal company, 

according to Michael Cohen's new bookTrump reportedly took home $750,000 worth of art from the home of the US ambassador to France in 2018 after canceling a World War I cemetery visit

Exclusive: Leaked meeting notes show Boris Johnson said Trump was 'making America great again'

The Prime Minister is quoted telling the US ambassador in August 2017, when foreign secretary, that Mr Trump was doing 'fantastic stuff'

By Ben Riley-Smith,

 US EDITOR

5 September 2020 • 9:38pm

Boris Johnson and Donald Trump

Boris Johnson privately told US diplomats that Donald Trump was “making America great again”, according to a cache of official notes taken during high-level UK-US meetings whose details have leaked to The Telegraph.

The Prime Minister is quoted telling the US ambassador to Britain in August 2017, when he was foreign secretary, that Mr Trump was doing “fantastic stuff” on foreign policy issues like China, Syria and North Korea.

Other records show Mr Johnson claimed the US president was becoming “increasingly popular” in Britain in 2017 and spoke warmly about how under his leadership America was “back and engaged in the world”.

Mr Johnson's praise for Mr Trump in private goes much further than he usually does in public, and is eye-catching given polls consistently show a majority of the British people disapprove of the US president. Its disclosure could see the Prime Minister get dragged into the US election campaign, with the president eager to tout overseas support and Democratic nominee Joe Biden already on-record once calling Mr Johnson a Trump "clone".

The contemporaneous notes were taken by US officials during seven meetings and calls involving either the leader or top foreign minister of Britain or America.

Additionally this newspaper has spoken to more than 20 people who saw the UK-US relationship up-close under Mr Trump, including from senior posts in the White House, Downing Street, Foreign Office and State Department.

Taken together, they paint one of the most detailed pictures to date of how strained the 'special relationship' has been behind closed doors during Mr Trump’s first term.

It can also be reported:

Mr Trump pushed back hard on Theresa May’s pleas to expel Russian diplomats after the Skripal poisoning, saying “I would rather follow than lead”

 

The US president wondered why there was so much “hatred” in Northern Ireland and asked Mrs May during a lunch why Mr Johnson was not prime minister

 

Mr Johnson built close working relationships with Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, and adviser Stephen Miller, while forging ties with the Trump inner circle

 

The president was at times "hectoring" towards Mrs May in "nightmare" phone calls and would ask other world leaders what they thought of her

 

Mr Trump cancelled his planned first visit to Britain as president at the last minute over the schedule and scrapped a call with Mrs May due to a foreign policy clash.​

 

Since taking office in January 2017 Mr Trump has dealt with two prime ministers, first Mrs May until she stood down in July 2019 and then Mr Johnson, her successor.

While his personal relationship with Mrs May was strained at times, he has developed a warmer bond with Mr Johnson, who he has called a friend and “Britain Trump”.

The information leaked to The Telegraph includes details of three conversations Mr Johnson had with senior US officials when foreign secretary, and shows how he praised Mr Trump away from the cameras.

One meeting described in the notes saw Mr Johnson meet Woody Johnson, the then newly appointed US ambassador to the UK, in the Foreign Office on 29 August 2017.

Excellent 1st meeting w/ Sec. @BorisJohnson at the @foreignoffice. The U.S.-UK relationship remains a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. pic.twitter.com/xrTmEnl116

— Ambassador Johnson (@USAmbUK) August 29, 2017

“We were initially anxious about the US foreign policy but Trump has been doing fantastic stuff on Syria, North Korea, China, Afghanistan”, Mr Johnson said, according to the notes. “America is back under Trump”, Mr Johnson is quoted saying at one point. At another he said “we’ll solve problems together”, adding: “The president is making America great again”.

Mr Johnson’s echoing of Mr Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan, Make America Great Again, or MAGA for short, will raise eyebrows given it is the rallying cry for the president’s supporters, who wear red baseball caps bearing the words.

A second conversation was between Mr Trump and Mike Pompeo, the US secretary of state, when they spoke on the phone on June 7 2018, right before the president's trip to Britain.

“The visit’s going to be very important. We’re going to give him a great time,” Mr Johnson said, according to the notes, adding later: “The president is increasingly popular in the UK.” Mr Pompeo is quoted responding: “We’ll put him on a street corner of Piccadilly. He can shake hands with people. That would be great.” Mr Johnson added: “That would be crazy.”

The tone of the last comments described is unknown but appears to be tongue in cheek. It is also unclear whether there was evidence backing up Mr Johnson’s ”increasingly popular" claim.

A poll of Britons conducted by YouGov the week before found 74 per cent of respondents had an unfavourable view of Mr Trump while just 16 per cent had a favourable view. A third meeting involving Mr Johnson came on May 26 2017.

He met Rex Tillerson, then the US secretary of state, at 1 Carlton Gardens, the foreign secretary’s official residence in London. At one point, according to the notes, Mr Johnson said: “It’s great to see America is back and engaged in the world with a different tempo. We think that is going to have an impact, especially on Russia’s thinking.”

Mr Tillerson is quoted responding: “Russia needs to receive a consistent message from everyone. The future is not with Iran and not with Assad [the Syrian dictator].”

In all three meetings Mr Johnson pushed the UK’s foreign policy positions despite differences with the US - something his supporters will likely point to as an advantage of having a good relationship with Mr Trump.

According to the notes Mr Johnson told Ambassador Johnson not to scrap the Iran nuclear deal, pressed Mr Tillerson on the importance of securing peace in Syria and expressed regret to Mr Pompeo that the US could leave the United Nations’s Human Rights Council.

The other four meetings at which notes were taken are a May-Trump lunch in January 2017, a May-Trump call in March 2018 and two briefings Mr Trump got in the White House, one ahead of a call with Mrs May and the other before a UK visit.

Approached for comment, a Number 10 spokesman said: “The Prime Minister is committed to the extremely important relationship between the UK and US and to enhancing the work we do together to ensure the prosperity and security of our citizens.” The White House declined to comment.

The White House lunch 

One of the most eye-catching meetings came in January 2017. Mrs May had jetted out to Washington DC just days after Mr Trump’s inauguration, seeking to put past criticism of the new US president behind her and build a strong working relationship.

Becoming the first world leader to be hosted by Mr Trump in the White House was a diplomatic coup, part of a deliberate strategy to get close to the world’s most powerful politician early and, if possible, shape his thinking.

Now, as the two leaders settled down with a handful of their closest advisers for lunch in the president’s residence on January 27 2017, here was a chance to strike up a rapport away from the more formal policy discussions.

“Isn’t this place great? It’s so great,” Mr Trump began, enthusing about his new home as his guests settled in for the meal. “I’ve been to Buckingham Palace before and that’s greater." Only a few days into the job, Mr Trump was still seething over claims his inauguration had been poorly attended.

He defended the size of the crowd and then compared the anti-Trump Women's March with the anti-abortion March for Life. The president then picked up the theme. “Abortion is such a tough issue”, he said, touching on a topic that has been a dividing line in US politics for decades.

He wanted to know where Mrs May stood. Pro-choice or pro-life?

“Imagine some animal with tattoos raping your daughter and then she gets pregnant”, the president said, according to the notes, graphically outlining the case for allowing abortion.

Mr Trump then pointed at Mike Pence, the US vice president known for being deeply religious. “He’s a really tough one on abortion”, he is quoted saying, before again Mrs May for her view. The then prime minister offered a careful response - “diplomatically threading the needle” according to one source familiar with the conversation - before shifting the discussion back to safer ground.

“We should look at a UK-US trade agreement”, Mrs May said, according to the notes, bringing up something held by Brexiteers as a great prize awaiting Britain once the country left the European Union. The problem, as explained to the president, was that London and Washington could not start negotiating formally until Britain was outside the EU, which could take two years.

“That is so unfair, how can the EU limit you?" Mr Trump is quoted asking. But he was already making preparations. Gary Cohn, the former president of Goldman Sachs who was then Mr Trump’s top economic adviser, would lead talks for the US.

“The guy from our side on trade would be Gary Cohn,” Mr Trump said, according to the notes, name-checking his new hire. “That guy used to pay $175 million in taxes a year and now makes $170,000 a year. Incredible.”

Brexit and Tory scheming

Mr Trump, a longtime critic of the EU, wanted to know if more member countries would quit the block. “No I don’t think so and we don’t want them to,” Mrs May is quoted saying. “It’s better for the EU to stick together but the EU does need reform.”

The president had been a prominent supporter of Brexit and appeared eager to understand better the origins of the referendum. “What about Brexit? Did Cameron make a mistake?” he asked Mrs May, according to the notes. 

“Look, it’s Conservative Party politics”, she is quoted responding, urging Nick Timothy, her joint chief of staff who was present, to explain how Mr Cameron felt forced to call a vote because of Tory splits on the issue.

“Why isn’t Boris Johnson the prime minister? Didn’t he want the job?” Mr Trump then asked, according to the notes, probing about the political career of the man who headed up the Leave campaign and would ultimately play a part in toppling Mrs May.

When Mrs May explained how the Tory leadership race played out - which saw Mr Johnson withdraw after losing the support of Michael Gove - Mr Trump is quoted responding: “Oh, so you were drafted like in baseball. But really I think you were plotting this all along.”

Then came a discussion about how immigration impacted the Brexit vote. Mrs May said it was a factor but “part of a larger issue about borders and sovereignty”.

Once again, the US president picked up a theme and ran with it. “We are going to get tough on immigration,” Mr Trump said, according to the notes. “The Europeans have opened their doors to bad people. We will not have a Paris."

That line appears to be a reference to past terror attacks in the French capital. “Crime is way up in Germany. Women are getting raped all over the place,” Mr Trump is quoted continuing, singling out Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, for criticism. “Merkel will lose her next election.” Mrs May disagreed.

“No, I don’t think she will. She’s the best politician in Europe right now,” the British leader said, according to the notes. Later that year Mrs May was proved right. Mrs Merkel was re-elected.

Northern Ireland 'hatred' 

 

At one point during the lunch Mr Trump wanted to know about Northern Ireland. How it would fare after Brexit, given its position inside the UK but sharing a land border with Ireland, an EU member, was a critical issue in talks.

“What about Northern Ireland?” Mr Trump asked, according to the notes. “There’s such hatred there. I just don’t understand where it comes from." Mr Trump is quoted then jumping to Scotland and calling Alex Salmond a “loser”.

He had a long-running feud with the former Scottish first minister over wind farms construction near one of his golf Scottish courses. As the lunch neared its end the conversation turned to relations with Russia, an issue that hung over Mr Trump’s early presidency given the FBI investigation into Kremlin interference in the election he won.

Mr Trump asked his national security adviser Michael Flynn why he had not been informed of a call from Vladimir Putin, the Russian president - a fact mentioned briefly in the notes but which others present have since called a heated exchange.

Mrs May, a critic of the Russian leader, then offered the US president a warning. “You have to engage with Putin but beware,” she said, according to the notes. “He only respects strength. You have to be tough.” Offering a different opinion that foreshadowed future tensions, Mr Trump waved away her concerns.

“I have to talk to this guy,” the president said. “He has a thousand nukes. This isn’t the Congo.”

The Telegraph read out the notes to two people in the room for the lunch who confirmed their accuracy. A third person who did not attend but is familiar with the US record of the meeting said likewise.

Skripal poisoning clash

One of the most testing times in UK-US relations under Mr Trump came after Sergei Skripal, the former Russian spy who defected to Britain, and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with the nerve agent Novichok in Salisbury.

Mrs May publicly accused the Russian government of being behind the attack and spent much of March 2018, the month of the attack, rallying Western allies to jointly expel Russian spies in retaliation. It was a major test for the new UK-US relationship.

Mrs May was seeking solidarity from the White House over a chemical attack on British soil. But leaked notes from one call between Mr Trump and Mrs May reveal how hard he pushed back. “We really need your leadership on this”, Mrs May said, according to the notes. “No, I would rather follow than lead,” Mr Trump is quoted responding.

The call was in March, though the exact date is unclear. They talked more than once that month. The president is quoted carrying on: “Angela [Merkel] is doing nothing. She is feeding the beast. I have done stuff and the EU has to do something. We are paying for their defence.” Mrs May tried again.

“Three children fell ill after feeding ducks there”, she is quoted saying, referring to the hospitalisation of children who had been in the park where Mr Skripal was found. “Yes, it’s horrible and disgusting”, Mr Trump agreed. “The US and the UK must stand together on this”, Mrs May said, according to the notes.

Mr Trump is quoted countering: “No, all of us have to be together. Germany has to do something. You have to put together a coalition.” According to the notes he went on: “I’m not willing for the US to go first and then have others not to do anything. Germany has to do something.”

The exchange reveals how firmly Mr Trump argued against expelling Russian spies. At a moment of vulnerability for Mrs May, when she sought allies to stand by her side to show solidarity against Russian aggression, Mr Trump demurred.

One US official who listened to the call told a colleague Mrs May got so frustrated her voice cracked and that at two points the person thought she would either "scream or start crying". Former May aides and White House figures have dismissed the idea she came close to tears in any call with Mr Trump, speculating that Mrs May's voice cracking, as it did sometimes regardless of emotion, had been misinterpreted.

Eventually the president agreed to expel 60 Russian diplomats - more than any other country. He was, according to The Washington Post, later infuriated when Germany and France only expelled four each, accusing aides of misleading him.

Eye rolls and cracked voices

Almost every UK and US source who discussed the Trump-May relationship with The Telegraph said the two leaders did not have a natural chemistry and at times their telephone calls could be trying. More than half a dozen people who listened to their calls shared thoughts.

Mr Trump’s tone was at times described as “bullying” and “mansplaining”. He often ignored the agreed topics of discussion, going on long monologues. Mrs May sometimes sounded “bemused” and exasperated, trying to bring Mr Trump back to the issues at hand.

She also stood her ground, sources on both sides say, willing to tell the president he was wrong during policy disagreements. During some calls they had pleasant conversations, such as when he said Mrs May could become the new Winston Churchill if she pulled off Brexit.

Most often they simply “talked past each other”. Occasionally, though, the calls were “nightmarish”.

“It is hectoring, it is relentless, it is forceful, it is difficult to get a word in,” one ex-May adviser who listened in said of Mr Trump's speaking style on the phone. “She would go, ‘yes Donald, Donald, Donald’”, attempting to interrupt.

Advisers heading to the secure room in the Number 10 basement used for Trump calls would pick up non-verbal signs Mrs May knew what was coming. “Every now and then you might get an eye roll”, one said, or a raised eyebrow. Aides called it "the look".

At times advisers would be told to see what Mr Trump had done recently that he viewed as a success so that Mrs May could begin the call with a compliment in an attempt to massage the president’s ego, but it rarely worked. Mr Trump, on the other hand, would ask world leaders for their views on Mrs May.

"He would say to Merkel or Macron about Theresa May 'Well, what do you think now? She's blown it with that election. What do you think about Boris Johnson?'” said a former White House adviser, who stressed he did the same about other leaders too.

The same source said: "He thought she made two big mistakes. Having a general election [in 2017] and losing her majority and not being bold enough to pull off the band aid and go over the cliff on Brexit.”

Cancelled meetings and calls

On December 6 2017 Mr Trump was due to call Mrs May about his decision to move America’s Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, delivering on a campaign promise but risking inflaming tensions in the region.

Told by advisers during a pre-call briefing that Mrs May would likely express opposition to the move, the president abruptly cancelled the appointment, according to the notes.

Mr Trump was due to call Mrs May about his decision to move America’s Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Told by advisers during a pre-call briefing that Mrs May would likely express opposition to the move, the president abruptly cancelled the appointment 

One US official in the room told a colleague Mr Trump had a “hissy fit”. The following month the US president was getting briefed on his upcoming UK trip, the details of which had been largely locked in. It would have been his first visit to Britain since taking office and had been long-awaited.

White House National Security Council officials, running through the itinerary, told Mr Trump he would lead an opening ceremony for the new US embassy, which had moved from Grosvenor Square, in central London, to south of the Thames.

“I don’t want to go," Mr Trump interjected, according to notes of the meeting on January 10 2018. "I hate the new embassy which was a terrible real estate decision. So I will not go and do a ribbon cutting." The sudden about-turn sent officials in the State Department scrambling to work with Downing Street counterparts on a public statement explaining the trip's collapse.

Spinners on both sides agreed to downplay just how far along plans for the visit were. Mr Trump became fixated on the cost of the new embassy, claiming his predecessor Barack Obama had wasted money on it. One May aide recalls the president spending 20 minutes on the phone telling Mrs May why it was such an "idiotic" project. It would be another six months before Mr Trump made it to Britain.

Boris woos team Trump

Away from the more formal channels, Mr Johnson had success getting close to members of Mr Trump’s inner circle, thereby improving his standing and influence with the US president, according to numerous sources on both sides.  

Mr Johnson was one of the first UK government figures to meet Mr Trump’s team after his shock White House victory in November 2016, flying across for meetings in the president-elect’s New York base, Trump Tower, in January 2017.

While Mr Johnson was ordered not to meet Mr Trump during the trip - Mrs May’s top aides were suspicious of Mr Johnson and wanted her to be the first UK minister to meet the president-elect - he did build contacts with key Trump advisers.

One influential figure Mr Johnson has had repeated discussions with is Stephen Miller, the US president’s adviser credited with driving his hardline immigration policy agenda. When Mr Trump announced his so-called “Muslim ban” shortly after taking office, it was Mr Johnson who managed to carve out a British exemption over a frantic weekend that followed.

Some UK and US officials believe it came through talks with Mr Miller. Mr Miller would often see Mr Johnson when he visited. One former White House official recalled Mr Miller describing Mr Johnson as a “friend” and claiming the then foreign secretary had helped him with speeches.

Mr Miller once asked for an internal briefing for what a White House official believed was an “off the books” one-on-one meeting with Mr Johnson, though if it happened numerous UK embassy figures were unaware. The pair did meet in May 2018 when Mr Johnson held a reception at the British ambassador's residence in Washington DC during a visit.

Only around 20 Republican operatives were invited, including Mr Miller, who is aged 35. Mr Miller and Mr Johnson were seen chatting warmly together, discussing plans for Mr Trump’s upcoming trip to Britain. "They were all totally dazzled by him,” said one attendee of the guests and Mr Johnson.

Similarly Mr Johnson struck up a relationship with Jared Kushner, Mr Trump’s son-in-law and a senior White House adviser often credited with influencing the president’s thinking on foreign policy matters, especially the Middle East. Multiple US and UK officials believed the men were in regular text contact.

John Bolton, Mr Trump’s former national security adviser, recalls in his book being surprised to discover Mr Johnson called Mr Kushner, now aged 39, to discuss a potential Syrian air strike. The connections have allowed Mr Johnson, who once called Mr Trump “unfit” to be president over comments made about London’s safety when he was mayor, to be seen not as a 'never Trumper' but a like-minded ally.

“Boris is not Steve Bannon or a Trump ideologist,” one well-placed UK source said. "But Stephen Miller probably thinks that. They believed he was part of their grand world view". It is a belief still held in the White House to this day. 

 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/05/exclusive-leaked-meeting-notes-show-boris-johnson-said-trump/

Review – War in Space: Strategy, Spacepower, Geopolitics
Augusto Dall’Agnol
Sep 5 2020

Image by Edinburgh University Press


War in Space: Strategy, Spacepower, Geopolitics
By Bleddyn E. Bowen
Edinburgh University Press, 2020

Bowen’s newest book, War in Space: Strategy, Spacepower, Geopolitics, is the result of his revised and expanded PhD dissertation and provides an original and compelling theory of spacepower that focuses on the conduct and exercise of military force and space technology. It offers a holistic view of the vast possibilities granted by spacepower. Through seven propositions, Bowen gives solid answers on how to think about what warfare in space looks like and what it means for military planners and strategic thinking. Simply put, his spacepower theory provides useful starting points for space strategy-making as it creates conceptual anchors to investigate the challenges of conducting, understanding and scrutinizing strategy and warfare, an activity that defies excessive prescription and linear war planning.

His spacepower theory embraces the instrumentalisation of violence with space technology, as it positively focuses more on war than on the entirety of relations between actors in space. It covers classic strategic concepts such as commanding a medium, lines of communication, friction, concentration and dispersal into orbit and how those concepts may shift in practice on Earth in light of the diffusion of spacepower. In brief, the book helps to think critically about the use of space systems in warfare – satellites, their infrastructure, methods of attacking them, as well as their influence on modern warfare and strategy.

A Clausewitzian spacepower theory

One of the most significant contributions of Bowen’s book is its Clausewitzian way of thinking about the conduct of war. Besides stating that “space warfare is the continuation of Terran politics by other means” (p.3), his theory is well rooted in a Clausewitzian approach to theorizing war as a political activity. In Bowen’s words, spacepower refers to the use of outer space’s military and economic advantages for strategic ends, whereas a space power would be a country that uses outer space for its political objectives. Bowen also argues that any tactical action “must contribute to something on the strategic level to meet political goals on Earth, otherwise it is a mindless act of wanton violence and destruction” (p.6) and that acts of space warfare “do not suspend political intercourse or change the conduct of politics into something entirely different” (p.6). Such a view aligns with Sheehan’s idea developed on The International Politics of Space in which space and politics have always been inseparably interlinked.


Bowen also advocates against the general idea that controlling space leads to a domination of Earth, mentioning that naval powers did not always dominate the destiny of continents. He warns against an over focus on seeking the destruction of space systems as an axiom for strategists and war planners who often seek the center of gravity of the opponent. The author keeps his Clausewitzian approach throughout the book as he moves away from the Jominian notion of decisive battles and quick victories that often overrun to astrodeterminist approaches available in International Relations and Strategic Studies. Although Bowen recognizes that spacepower influences the conduct of tactics and operations, he mainly focuses on strategy. His theory highlights that spacepower and operations in Earth orbit must be seen as “primarily a supporting force or capability, not a direct war-winning capability or a scene dominated by spectacular battles” (p.7).

Therefore, Bowen defies the hegemonic perception of outer space, or a domination-based thinking, that presumes the ability of an actor to act with practical impunity in a medium at a time of its choosing. For him, the command of a medium is normally in dispute. As an analogy, Bowen mentions that even a hegemon at sea could not unilaterally determine the ultimate fate of land-based states. Hence, “continental powers, being weaker naval powers, took steps to ensure the Royal Navy did not have free reign in their coastal waters in a time of war” (p.33). In sum, the author correctly rejects the idea that the control of Earth orbit by one dominant state will confer dominance over Earth.

Bowen also devotes great attention to the logistical aspects of spacepower. He argues that logistics imply “understanding the effects of celestial lines of communication upon Earth as well as how spacepower depends on terrestrial lines of communication and objectives” (p.142). In short, spacepower logistics must be understood along with terrestrial logistics. By advancing Castex’s argument about coastal defenses, Bowen maintains that the logistical support from celestial lines of communication matters for wars on Earth in a conceptually similar way to how logistical support from sea lines of communication matters for continental wars.

The most innovative contribution of his new vision of spacepower to the field is the idea that Earth orbit resembles a coastal zone and a secondary theatre of operations, rather than a vast ocean. Drawing on authors of the “continental school”, such as Menon’s Maritime Strategy and Continental Wars, Gorshkov’s The Sea Power of the State and Castex’s Strategic Theories, Bowen posits that spacepower would remain inherently geocentric. Bowen’s spacepower theory provides new insights based on the experiences of seapower in continental rather than maritime wars. Hence, the author argues that what flies in orbit is within reach of Earth-based countermeasures, similarly to coastal defenses against naval forces and intrusions. Unlike interplanetary space, Earth orbit would compare to a proximate, crowded and contestable coastline and a littoral environment, rather than a vast, remote, distant and expansive ocean. Such an analogy makes a constructive review of existing spacepower theories, especially bluewater seapower approaches, based on the experiences of island powers who must engage with the seas to project their own power and deflect that of others, as Dolman’s Astropolitik and Klein’s Space Warfare. In short, for Earth-based polities outer space resembles what coastal waters and oceans have been for former continental powers such as Sparta, Carthage, Rome, Russia and India

Bowen’s effort to develop an explicitly pedagogical approach also has great merit. The author promptly acknowledges to the readers that those “seeking a war winning strategy or prophecy of future war from this book will be disappointed” (p.2). Fortunately, the author does not cover space regulatory frameworks or issues related to space governance. Moreover, he avoids a technocentric understanding of spacepower that takes technology away from political contexts. Bowen emphasizes that strategic problems will not be settled with simple space technologies solutions, cautioning the reader against common understandings that view space-based weapons as silver bullets.

Throughout his seven propositions, Bowen assists the reader’s self-education about space, warfare and strategy. His War in Space does not provide policy prescriptions or a winning strategy. Neither does it address only scholars, policy-makers and officers from the United States and its allies. The author reserves a few pages to advance his understanding of a pedagogical theory and how analogical thought about space works. Bowen’s theory clearly stems from the essential elements of Clausewitz’s pedagogical thinking and his seven propositions are organizing principles for critical application and self-education. He describes strategic analogies as “the transposition of a strategic theory or concept derived from any particular case of warfare or strategic dilemma to another” (p.45). The author has consciously avoided an uncritical exercise in analogical reasoning successfully. In sum, Bowen’s strategic analogies are valuable pedagogical tools and he is very cautious in terms of transparency while constructing and using them.

Strategic Studies and spacepower diffusion

Bowen’s War in Space unquestionably settles his spacepower theory within the larger context of International Relations and Strategic Studies. As an example, his theory reinforces Biddle’s contribution on Military Power by assessing the influence of spacepower on modern warfare as a dispersing influence. Bowen makes two compelling arguments that greatly contribute to the field. First, spacepower in Earth orbit resembles the use of seapower by continental states, rather than maritime powers. Second, spacepower is a more subtle, secondary and supporting form of power. While deeply engaging with existing spacepower debates, Bowen also provides a pleasant bonus to the reader by slightly discussing issues such as the diffusion of military power and balance of power in his conclusions.

While Horowitz’s The Diffusion of Military Power masterfully discusses the spread of military innovations, Bowen paves the road to further discussions on the diffusion of spacepower. Since the deployment and use of machines in Earth orbit greatly influences the conduct of modern warfare, it is of the uttermost importance to understand the implications of the diffusion of satellites and anti-satellite capabilities for politics and strategy. As space technologies and space systems diffuse away from the United States and its allies, Earth orbit may become a hostile littoral zone even for the most capable space powers. Moreover, Bowen rightly calls the development and improvement of other states’ ability to undermine or mitigate United States’ command of the commons through the development of counterspace weapons and long-range strike weapons by its name: hard balancing

Despite control measures and efforts by the United States to constrain the spread of sensitive rocket and satellite technologies, Bowen posits that affordable space related technologies will continue to diffuse and that “developing counterspace measures are easier and cheaper than developing space systems” (p.112). This has a direct impact on the international balance of power. Since Bowen’s spacepower theory acknowledges that the command of space refers to those who can control or deny space infrastructure in a time of war to varying degrees, a country only able to deny celestial lines of communication and elaborate space infrastructures “still possesses a degree of the command of space” (p.59). Other authors should not overlook such a statement. Another of Bowen’s analogies is that continental sea powers could achieve several degrees of the command of the sea in coastal regions without using large ocean-going fleets. Therefore, it is worth challenging long-lived balance of power notions in which third countries must possess a carbon copy of all top-platforms and advanced weapons systems of the leading state in order to catch up with it successfully.

Finally, War in Space is unquestionably a must-read book to all those interested in spacepower beyond Netflix’s Space Force series. Through its fluid writing and pedagogical character, the book is certainly accessible to non-experts readers. Nevertheless, the field of Strategic Studies is the one to be benefited the most from Bowen’s masterpiece, although International Relations scholars would also greatly benefit from joining such strategic debate. At first glance, the book’s repeated mentions of Jomini’s, Mahan’s and Dolman’s works may cause some strangeness to a reader waiting for a much-promised Clausewitzian spacepower theory. However, by combining a robust critical view on former spacepower theories with his deep understanding of the “continental school”, Bowen now offers the public a vigorous and brand-new Clausewitzian spacepower theory that definitely establishes itself side by side with previous well-known contributions on the field, such as those of Dolman, Sheehan and Klein