‘Carlos Danger’ pleads guilty; now, goodbye

A part of me wants to feel a bit of compassion for former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner.

Another part of me, though, resists that temptation.

Weiner, aka “Carlos Danger,” today pleaded guilty to sending sexually explicit text messages to a 15-year-old girl.

“Danger” fell off the wagon after he got caught sending messages and obscene videos to women. That earlier scandal forced him to resign from Congress. He went into hiding and then re-emerged in the “sexting” escapade.

The one-time Democratic hot-shot loudmouth — who used the Carlos Danger moniker while sending obscene texts and videos as some sort of disguise — has been disgraced. I hope it’s for the final time. I no longer want to read about this guy, or get lured into commenting in blog posts about him.

He once was married happily to Huma Abedin, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most trusted advisers. Abedin filed for divorce — imagine that! — after the sexting matter became known.

Weiner could have faced a 10-year prison term. His guilty plea likely will result in a lesser sentence. He might not even serve any time behind bars.

I don’t really care if he spends time in the slammer. All I do care about is that he disappears from public view … for good!

What has happened to Trump’s ‘fine-tuned machine’?

We’re at about Day 120 of the Donald J. Trump administration.

The nation passed the 100-day benchmark period with the president proclaiming that he had accomplished more than anyone in the history of his office during that time.

In less than one month since that boastful time, it’s fair to suggest that the wheels have flown off the Trump wagon. His “fine-tuned machine” is on fire. Words like “impeachment” and “criminal investigation,” which once were whispered between friends are now being blurted out in the open.

Dear readers, we are on the verge of a full-blown crisis in our government.

We aren’t yet in full crisis mode. I am beginning to believe that the moment well could be at hand.

The U.S. Justice Department has appointed a special counsel to examine the president’s relationship with Russian government officials who — according to 17 U.S. intelligence agencies — tried to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

Trump has fired the FBI director, James Comey, because he was spending too much time on “the Russia thing.” He reportedly has labeled Comey a “nut case” and “crazy” while meeting in the Oval Office with the Russian foreign minister and that country’s ambassador to the United States.

What’s likely far worse is that the president said that firing Comey relieved him of “pressure” from the FBI probe into that very “Russia thing.”

Does this sound like an obstruction of justice? Does it sound like an impeachable offense? Does it sound like an administration running like a “fine-tuned machine”?

I also believe we are witnessing what many of us said would be a nightmarish political experience with the election of Donald Trump as president.

Many Americans said he is unfit, ill-prepared, unqualified and temperamentally unsuited to become our head of state and government and our commander in chief. To be honest, the speed and the drama associated with what looks like a presidential death spiral is shocking even to the most ardent critics of Donald J. Trump.

You may count me as one of those critics who is astounded at what we appear to be witnessing.

We’re just past the 100-day mark of a brand new presidency and it’s coming apart right before our eyes.

The ‘bombs’ keep exploding inside the White House

James Comey is a “nut job,” he is “crazy” and firing him relieved Donald J. Trump from the “pressure” of an investigation involving the president’s relationship with the Russian government.

That, dear reader, is a summary of what the New York Times is reporting about the president of the United States. It gets even more, um, interesting. The White House is not disputing what the Times has reported.

What does this mean as the president takes wing en route to Saudi Arabia on his first overseas trip as our head of state?

I think it means that the president is digging himself into a deeper hole as Robert Mueller, the newly appointed special counsel, begins his work to uncover the truth about the burgeoning problems that are looking more and more like a full-blown constitutional crisis.

Trump fired the former FBI director, who was in the midst of a probe into whether the president’s campaign colluded with Russian government hackers seeking to influence the 2016 election. Comey wrote a memo that reportedly states that Trump asked him to drop the FBI investigation; Trump denies making that request.

Trump has fired a former acting attorney general, Sally Yates, who warned the White House about former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s exposure to potential blackmail from the Russians; the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, recused himself from anything to do with the Russia probe; then the AG recommends to Trump — in a memo — to fire Comey, which may have violated the terms of his recusal.

Now, what about the vice president, Mike Pence? He said Comey’s dismissal had nothing to do with the Russia probe. The president then contradicts the vice president. Who’s the bigger liar?

I believe this story is getting hotter by the hour.

Special counsel Mueller’s plate is overflowing. The piling on is coming — if you can believe it — from the principal subject of his growing investigation: the president of the United States.

See ya later, Bob Beckel

Bob Beckel’s dismissal from the Fox News Channel isn’t as big a deal as, say, Bill O’Reilly’s firing or that of the late Roger Ailes.

It’s still a big deal, however.

Fox canned Beckel today in connection with racially insensitive remarks he made to a fellow network employee. Beckel was one of the co-hosts of “The Five,” a network news talk show that airs weekday afternoons. He leans to the left politically and usually found himself on the short end of a gang fight with his co-hosts, most of whom lean to the right.

I always found it fascinating that Beckel was seen as a political “expert.” Why the fascination? Well, he shepherded Democratic nominee Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign to a 49-state landslide loss to President Ronald Reagan.

Fox’s quick dismissal of Beckel does suggest to many observers that the network has been sensitized to misbehavior by its on-air personalities. O’Reilly was canned after revelations came out about the sexual harassment settlements to which he agreed; several women accused O’Reilly of harassing them. And then there is Ailes, the network founder who was let go also for sexual harassment claims leveled against him; Ailes died this week at the age of 77.

I won’t miss Beckel. For starters, I don’t generally watch Fox News. When I have tuned in, I have found Beckel’s analysis to be seriously underwhelming.

Kudos go to Fox for its quick action. Heaven knows the network has taken a beating over the way it (mis)handled the sexual harassment matters.

May this firing signal a change in the corporate culture at the “fair and balanced” network.

Get ready for Trump speech on (gulp!) — Islam!

Donald J. Trump is getting ready to climb headfirst into the belly of the beast.

He is planning a speech on Islam. The venue? Saudi Arabia, where two of Islam’s holiest cites are located.

Politico offers a list of do’s and don’ts for the president to follow.

Here it is: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/18/donald-trump-islam-speech-215150

As we know, the president isn’t known for his nuanced approach to foreign policy. He doesn’t seem to have a foreign policy. He doesn’t think strategically. He doesn’t look at the big picture. He speaks in the moment and seems to react to the last person who has his undivided attention.

I feel compelled, though, to remind everyone that he will be speaking to an audience full of people with lengthy memories. I’m quite certain they’re going to remember what candidates Donald Trump said about Muslims way back when, how he intended to impose a blanket ban on “all Muslims” entering the United States “until we figure out what the hell we’re doing.”

He’s backed off of that. He’s tried to impose executive orders banning Muslims from certain countries, only to have the federal judiciary strike them down. Why? They discriminate against people of certain religions, which the U.S. Constitution forbids.

As Politico reports: According to the president’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, “The speech is intended to unite the broader Muslim world against common enemies of all civilization and to demonstrate America’s commitment to our Muslim partners.”

Be very careful, Mr. President.

A new City Council takes charge

It’s done.

Five new Amarillo City Council members have taken their oath of office and have settled in behind the dais at the City Council chambers on the third floor of City Hall.

A new era has begun. Right? Maybe.

I fielded an interesting question today from a friend who asked: Do you think the city will get turned around now? My answer: I am happy with the outcome of the election.

My friend’s question, though, seemed to suggest something with which I disagree. Although I was unhappy with much of the bickering, backbiting and backstabbing that occurred at City Hall during the past two years, I am not going to subscribe to a notion that the city had backslid dramatically since the 2015 municipal election.

Mayor Ginger Nelson declared her intention to ensure that Amarillo is a better place when she leaves office — eventually. “I see two ways to do that,” she said, according to the Amarillo Globe-News. “Everyone works and we work together.”

It  sounds almost cliché, I suppose, for the new mayor to pledge political teamwork. Nelson does present a vigorous image as the new mayor. She spoke often during her campaign about the need for the council to move ahead as a single unit once it makes a policy decision.

I do not want that message to suggest a stifling of differences of opinion among council members. I am quite sure the mayor would resist any such implication.

What I do want, though, is for the council to unite behind a policy decision to ensure consensus and to let those who work in the trenches — and those of us who pay the freight while watching from a distance — that the council is moving forward with a unity of purpose.

The previous council didn’t always project that image. The sense of open dissent perhaps sent a message beyond the city that could be interpreted that Amarillo’s government wasn’t functioning as efficiently as it should.

To the extent that such perceptions turned the city in the “wrong direction,” I’ll accept my friend’s question about the need to turn the city around.

City Hall, though, has functioned well with professional senior staffers who continue to do their job with competence and dedication. I don’t sense that those qualities diminished — even as the city struggled to steady its administrative ship while it sought a new permanent city manager.

A new City Council has taken over. All five of them represent the same at-large citywide constituency. They all earn a whopping $10 per public meeting. They have taken this job on, I am going to presume, because they believe in public service.

I wish them well, good luck and patience as they strive to keep the city moving forward.

Donald Trump, remember Nelson Mandela?

This photo has gone viral. It showed up on my Twitter and Facebook feeds today.

I thought I’d share it here, with a couple of quick comments.

One is that the quote from Donald J. Trump makes no equivocation about how he believes he has been treated. The phrase “No politician in history” excludes no one. It’s the height of hyperbole.

There’s that.

Two, the picture is of the late Nelson Mandela. He is looking out from his prison cell on Robben Island, in South Africa. He was held prisoner there for 27 years before being released in 1990.

His “crime”? Mandela protested his country’s apartheid policies, the law that kept black and white people separate and denied black South Africans the basic rights of citizenship. Things like, oh, voting, home ownership, the freedom to speak their minds in public. Small stuff like that.

The government scrapped its apartheid policies shortly after his release from prison and Mandela later would be elected president of South Africa.

This great man was treated far worse and “unfairly” than Donald J. Trump has been treated.

I just had to get that off my chest.

Does an ‘innocent man’ welcome or resist scrutiny?

The thought keeps popping into my noggin: If Donald John Trump is innocent of what is being alleged against him, why is he resisting so fiercely the effort to find out the truth about those allegations?

The president is now under investigation by a special counsel, Robert Mueller, over questions surrounding whether his campaign had any improper contact with Russian government officials. Mueller also is looking at whether Trump asked former FBI Director James Comey to pull the plug on an investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s relationship with foreign governments.

His reaction? He went quiet for about two days. Then he returned to Twitter to accuse his enemies of conducting a “witch hunt”; he opposed the appointment of a special counsel by the Justice Department; he told Coast Guard Academy graduates that he is the most persecuted politician in history.

He keeps insisting the Russian government didn’t seek to influence the 2016 election, despite what multiple U.S. intelligence agencies have said to the contrary. He also insists that “there was no collusion” between his campaign and Russian hackers.

POTUS keeps blabbing about Russia

I’m just wondering whether someone who’s clean would feel the need to fight back so strongly. Why wouldn’t the president welcome the probe, endorse Mueller’s credentials as a pro, then let the man reach a conclusion that verifies what the president has been saying?

Trump’s overheated reaction just doesn’t sound to me like something that an innocent man would do. Maybe it’s just me. I don’t think I’m alone in wondering about the conduct of a politician who keeps insisting he did nothing wrong.

Liar’s contest is developing

Donald John Trump has denied asking James Comey to pull the plug on an FBI investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

That’s one side of it.

The other side comes from the Washington Post and the New York Times, which have reported that the president did ask the former FBI director to do precisely that very thing.

We haven’t heard from Comey — yet!

Who are you going to believe? Two major newspapers’ reporters who stake their reputations on getting the story right? Or do you believe Donald Trump, a man known to prevaricate, fabricate and dish out lies whenever it suits his purpose?

Let me think. OK. I’ve thought about it.

I’m going to go with the reporters as well as those who know Comey well enough to confirm that he likely did keep a meticulous written record of his meetings with the president of the United States.

We have a liar’s contest developing. Who, then, will “win” this match? If the winner happens to be Comey — and it turns out that Trump did do what’s been reported — I would say it’s lights out for the Trump administration.

Witch hunt, Mr. President? C’mon!

Donald John Trump awoke from his all-too-brief Twitter nap to bang out a few words of “wisdom” this morning about the latest bit of big news.

The president tweeted: “With all of the illegal acts that took place in the Clinton campaign & Obama Administration, there was never a special councel (sic) appointed!”

There was more: “This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!”

Yet another tweet needs to be challenged

Mr. President, I believe I will take issue with you.

Robert Mueller’s appointment this week as special counsel aims to answer some serious questions about the president’s connections with Russian government officials. It also seeks to get to the bottom of whether Trump sought to obstruct justice by “asking” then-FBI Director James Comey to back off his investigation of Michael Flynn, the president’s disgraced former national security adviser and his own ties to foreign governments.

There might be more to uncover.

Witch hunt? The “greatest … in American history!”?

I don’t think so.

Let me cite a couple of recent examples of actual witch hunts that eclipse the examination of the current president.

President Bill Clinton was impeached because he was untruthful about a relationship he had with a White House intern. Did that relationship have any material impact on his duties as head of state and commander in chief? No. But the House of Representatives hounded him incessantly before finally approving articles of impeachment. Clinton went to trial in the Senate and was acquitted. That, Mr. Trump, was a witch hunt.

One more example deserves a look.

President Barack Obama’s legitimacy as commander in chief was questioned by his enemies over a bogus allegation that he was born in Africa and that he wasn’t constitutionally qualified to serve as president. Who led that inquisition? Oh! That would be reality TV celebrity/real estate mogul Donald John Trump. Obama said all along he was born in Hawaii, one of the 50 U.S. states. He produced a birth certificate after badgering by Trump and other arch-enemies of the president. That wasn’t good enough to satisfy them. Finally, while campaigning for the presidency in 2016, Trump said in a single sentence that Obama was “born in the United States.” That was really big of him, don’t you think?

How about knocking off the crap alleging the “greatest witch hunt” in history, Mr. President?

The president clearly is no student of history and doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about — on this or anything else!

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience