Tag Archives: POTUS

Should Democratic candidates recuse themselves?

My quest for fairness compels me to wonder aloud: Given that this blog — published by me — has insisted that U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is unfit to sit as a “juror” in the trial of Donald John Trump, might there be a case to be made against the four Democratic senators who are running for president?

McConnell has said he won’t be an “impartial” juror, even though he took an oath to deliver impartial justice in the Senate impeachment trial of the current president of the United States.

What about the individuals who are running for their party’s nomination to oppose Trump in the November election? Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bennett have made up their minds on how they intend to vote when they get the order to cast their vote. They will vote to convict Trump. Period.

I can think of a few other Republicans as well who’ve said they have made up their minds, that they don’t need no witness testimony or evidentiary documents. Lindsey Graham? Ted Cruz? John Kennedy? Give me a break.

However, this pre-judging disease spreads across the aisle.

The four Democrats have staked out their views already. Sure, they insist on witnesses and documents. It remains to be seen whether they’ll get ’em. It’s beginning to look to me as though the fix is in. Republicans who comprise most of the 100 Senate seats aren’t likely to admit witnesses, even though they have plenty to offer.

The four contenders for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, though, need to think long and hard whether they are any more qualified to serve with impartiality than the Senate majority leader who’s admitted he will do nothing of the sort.

Hey, fair is fair … right?

How will POTUS leave office, gracefully or clumsily?

I have good news regarding Donald John Trump: This man will not be president forever. There is an end — if you’ll pardon the phrase — to our “long national nightmare.”

It might come in one of three ways: The U.S. Senate could convict Trump of the impeachment charges it is considering, he could lose his re-election bid this coming November or — and perish the thought — he will walk out of the Oval Office for the final time on Jan. 20, 2025.

Let’s be real: Conviction by the Senate isn’t likely to happen, no matter how many facts senators hear about Trump’s effort to pervert the oath he took to defend the Constitution. Then we have the election in November. I am not going to even venture a wild-a** guess about how that will turn out. I mean, I never thought this guy would be elected in the first place. The end of a second term almost is too hideous to ponder.

My thoughts, however, turn to how the president is going to leave office. Will he pledge a smooth transition with whomever will succeed him? Will he commit his staff to working hand-in-glove with his successor’s staff? Or … will he yammer about a “rigged election” if the successor happens to be from the Democratic Party? Will he order his staff to turn their backs on successor’s staff members who need help and counsel as they seek to assemble their own governing team?

You might laugh at the last scenario. I feel the need to remind you that Trump has obstructed his staff already to ignore congressional subpoenas, held back key documents and, yes, obstructed Congress in its effort to perform its constitutionally mandated right to conduct oversight of the executive branch.

The sooner he’s out of there, the better. You know that’s how I feel already. By the time the end of a second Trump term arrives, though, it likely will seem like a countless number of lifetimes has passed.

Just remember: There is an end to this madness.

Worst fears of POTUS have come true

I sought repeatedly during the 2016 presidential campaign and thereafter to drive home a fundamental point about Donald John Trump.

It is that the current president of the United States had contributed not a single moment of his adult life to public service, that his entire mission in life was focused solely on self-enrichment, self-aggrandizement, self-promotion.

I am saddened to declare that I believe many millions of Americans’ worst fears about this president have come true.

A new book, “Very Stable Genius,” appears to confirm what this blog has sought to put forth. Donald Trump’s presidency is built on one premise: to do whatever is necessary to boost the fortunes of the president of the United States.

I’ve read a few excerpts of the book, written by Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker. I plan to purchase it when it goes on sale this week.

The book reportedly bristles with reporting about examples of the president dismissing the advice and counsel of his key advisers. He ignores and disparages the military commanders who surround him. He handles his own communications operation. He listens to no one. Trump relies only on his own instincts.

The president’s attention span is reportedly comparable to that of a gnat. He doesn’t read. He doesn’t study. He doesn’t learn. Donald Trump doesn’t ask probing questions.

As I have sought to lay out there from this platform, the man elected three years ago to the only public office he has ever sought has not grown into the office. Trump hasn’t learned anything about governance.

Leonnig and Rucker reportedly have revealed what many of us have believed all along. I am not going to say “I told you so,” but by golly, the temptation to do so surely exists.

Oh well. I guess I just did.

POTUS turns salute to football champs into a campaign event

Donald John Trump, the current president of the United States, just cannot help himself.

The Louisiana State University Tigers showed up at the White House ostensibly to receive a salute from Trump for the Tigers winning the college football championship. Hey, LSU whipped Clemson by a score of 42-25.

So, Trump invited them to the White House, per the customary reception given to sports champs.

What does the president do? He turns the event into a campaign event. He yapped and yammered about the impeachment, saying that despite the great economy they want to “impeach the son of a bi***.”

Yep, that’s the language that flew out of the mouth — at the White House — of the evangelical Christian movement’s favorite politician. He makes me so (not) proud of the president.

He blathered some more about how he has supposedly rebuilt the military, brought justice to terrorist leaders.

This is what we get when we have an impeached president who also is running for re-election. Indeed, this also is what we get when we have a president who cannot separate his own political fortunes from events — such as a ceremony to salute a college football team — that have nothing to do with those political fortunes.

Donald Trump clearly is obsessed with this impeachment trial. He also is obsessed — to the nth degree — with his political standing. Trump takes every opportunity he can find to further buttress his status.

Even when such politicking has no place in an unrelated event.

Weird.

Waiting for a POTUS who can act — and look — like one

(AP Photo/Jeffrey Phelps)

I don’t have too much to say with this brief blog post, other than to call your attention to this picture of the current president of the United States.

Donald John Trump was speaking earlier this week to a political rally crowd in Milwaukee. I don’t know what in the world he was talking about when the photographer snapped this picture of him. I’ll take a guess and suggest he might have been in the midst of one of those idiotic riffs into which he launches. He might have been seeking at this moment to put words into a critic’s mouth. You know how that goes, right?

I am longing for a return to a time when we could expect our president to comport himself — or herself — with dignity. Donald Trump purports to be in his element when he stands before a friendly crowd and behaves in the manner that he does.

That behavior so very often — too often, in fact — produces images such as this. They are flashed around the world. They draw laughter from those who, like me, expect much better from the leader of the world’s most indispensable nation.

Oh … my. This guy has got to go.

Time for a vow on Trump posts

I have struggled a bit with this, but I am going to make a vow that I hope I’ll be able to keep as it regards future blog posts on Donald J. Trump.

It is that I need to stop making specific reference to my view of Trump’s complete, absolute and abject unfitness for the office he has occupied for nearly three years.

It is abundantly clear to me — it has been clear for some time, actually — that I ain’t changing the minds of those who disagree with me. Those who continue to support Trump are likely to keep doing so until hell freezes over. Even then, I am not entirely certain their minds will be swayed.

Trump once boasted he could “shoot someone on Fifth Avenue” and he wouldn’t lose any votes. Those of us who weren’t stunned speechless at such idiocy laughed out loud. “Yeah, you tell ’em, Donald!” they said between guffaws.

So … I have decided to throw in the towel on that particular score. This blog will continue to look critically at Trump’s performance as president and at his conduct on the re-election campaign trail — presuming, of course, that his presidency survives the upcoming trial in the Senate on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

It’s just that I have grown weary of stating what I consider to be the obvious about his suitability as president. I am preaching to the proverbial choir to those who agree with me. To others, well, they are ignoring my angry rants. That’s their call.

If I ain’t gonna persuade ’em to what I believe is true, then I am no longer gonna try.

I intend to keep using this forum to make the case that we need to elect someone other than the incumbent to the nation’s highest office.

Hyperbole ignores serious questions

Here comes the hyperbole.

Conservative media have begun the counterattack against those who are questioning the wisdom of Donald Trump’s decision to kill the Iranian Revolutionary Guard leader. They are saying that liberals want to coddle terrorists. Why? Because they wonder whether the commander in chief is steady enough to handle what many fear is the inevitable response from Iran over the air strike.

Qassem Sulemaini is dead. I haven’t heard a single skeptic say that the revered Iranian military leader should still be alive. I, too, believe the guy needed to die and I am glad our forces struck down the leader of forces responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American service personnel.

However, there is legitimate concern about whether the commander in chief has given thorough consideration about how he intends to respond to the retaliation that many fear is coming from Iran. Such concern does not suggest any softening of U.S. resolve in the fight against international terrorist organization. It speaks instead to concern about the preparation at the highest level of our military command for what comes next.

By “highest level,” I refer to the individual in charge of it all, the current president of the United States.

We all have witnessed too many instances of acting on impulse. Trump orders military action without consulting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff or with his national security adviser. He makes decisions based on phone chats with hostile foreign leaders.

None of us knows the pre-strike planning that went into this raid. I happen to be glad that Suleimani is dead. Many of us have legitimate concern about whether we’re prepared for how the Iranians will respond. That does not mean anyone is more concerned about the bad guys than they are about protecting American lives.

Where was the defense of POTUS’s character?

I might need therapy after today’s impeachment activity. I sat through much of the back-and-forth on the floor of the House of Representatives. I listened to Republicans and Democrats talk past each other.

Then came the vote. The House voted to impeach Donald Trump on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

What I did not hear from any of the Republicans who argued against impeaching the president was a single statement in defense of Trump’s character. No one on the GOP side of the aisle said a single word defending the president against allegations that he extorted a foreign government for a personal political favor; no one argued on behalf of the president against allegations that he obstructed Congress in its pursuit of the truth.

They all attacked the process. They attacked the motives of the president’s critics. They were bizarrely silent on the issue of Trump’s character. No one said Donald Trump would not do these things.

Does that tell you anything at all about the man who now stands impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors? Or does it tell you anything about his standing among those who continue to resist efforts to hold this man accountable for the behavior for which he has been impeached?

Melania takes cheap shot at Person of the Year

It’s understandable that someone would want to defend his or her spouse against criticism — even if the criticism is deserved.

However, for first lady Melania Trump to level a veiled shot against a teenager who was awarded Time magazine’s coveted “Person of the Year” seems to me to be in poor taste.

Donald Trump saw fit to fire off a Twitter message aimed at 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, a climate change activist. He told her to “chill,” that she needs to curb her anger. The president of the United States ought to commit to more constructive pursuits than to insult a girl who won an award that damn near everyone would love to win.

The pushback against Trump was understandable.

Then the first lady weighed in, saying that Greta is an “activist” who “makes speeches.” Therefore, she seems to imply, Greta is fair game.

Good grief, Melania. The point of her criticism of Greta was in response to critics of an impeachment witness who mentioned the Trumps’ 13-year-old son, Barron, during her testimony. Mrs. Trump said Barron “is not an activist who travels the globe” speaking out against climate change.

I suppose Greta Thunberg’s activism does expose her to criticism. But from the president of the United States? Really?

If only POTUS had kept his Twitter device under wraps.

It’s done … almost

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee, to no one’s surprise, has just approved two articles of impeachment against Donald John Trump.

The vote was 23-17. All committee Democrats voted “yes.” All of the panel’s Republicans voted “no.”

One count alleges that Trump abused the power of the presidency by asking a foreign government for a political favor. The other count alleges obstruction of Congress, basing that article on Trump’s demand that all key White House aides ignore congressional subpoenas to testify before relevant committees.

Of the two, I consider the obstruction article to be the most serious. That’s just me. I don’t count, given that I am not a member of Congress. I also would have voted to impeach Trump, but you knew that already.

But now the matter goes to the full House. Spoiler alert: The Democratic House majority is likely to have enough stroke to impeach the president. Democrats might even lose a handful of votes from those in their party who represent Trump-leaning constituents back home.

The deed is almost done.

Then the Senate gets the matter. Trump will stand trial in a body controlled by Republicans. The Senate is likely to find Trump not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The 2020 presidential election awaits. That’s when the fun really and truly begins.

Get ready, ladies and gentlemen. The ride is going to be a rockin’ and a rollin’ affair.