Category Archives: political news

Intelligence panel chair channels Trump with disclosure

Well now …

What in the world is going on here? The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Republican Devin Nunes says someone surveilled Donald J. Trump’s e-mail during the time between the election and when he became president of the United States, which seems at first blush to give a tiny sliver of justification for what the president has alleged about that bogus wiretap assertion.

Not so fast, according to the Intelligence panel’s top-ranking Democrat, Adam Schiff, who says Nunes didn’t follow anything close to proper protocol by making that announcement.

Not surprisingly, Schiff has doubts about what Chairman Nunes has suggested.

Schiff said the information Nunes reportedly has should have been shared with other committee members before he went public with it. Schiff said the committee hasn’t seen anything.

This makes me wonder: Is the chairman channeling Donald Trump, suggesting something out loud without any proof of what he’s saying?

Nunes isn’t saying, to be fair, that what he has discovered gives any credence to the bogus notion that former President Obama ordered a wiretap on Trump’s campaign offices in Trump Tower. Schiff, though, is angry with the chairman for blithely introducing this information without briefing other committee members.

He calls it a “profound irregularity.”

I just hope it doesn’t become a profound cover-up.

GOP rising against Trump’s bogus wiretap claim

Donald Trump needs to take it back. He didn’t mean what he said about Barack Obama allegedly wiretapping his successor as president of the United States.

That’s the word coming from a growing number of Republican members of Congress, both senators and House members. They are feeling shamed by the president’s recklessness, his utter disregard for propriety and his misunderstanding of due process.

Will the president do as his fellow Republicans are demanding? I am not holding my breath. I am not at all confident that the president will issue anything resembling a sincere mea culpa for what he has done.

GOP piles on

What is that? He has essentially defamed his predecessor. He has accused the former president of committing a felony.

He said President Obama ordered a wiretap, which he cannot do under U.S. law. Who’s the authority on that? Oh, let’s see … the director of the FBI, James Comey, who on Monday shattered the president’s assertion about a wiretap that never occurred.

How does this president take it back? It would have to involve an actual apology, something Trump says he’s never done.

The wiretap allegation follows the pattern of lies, deceit and innuendo that Trump has demonstrated repeatedly since the moment he declared his presidential candidacy in the summer of 2015.

Many of us expressed concern from the outset about Trump’s fitness for the presidency. I will submit yet again that the president is not fit for the office he occupies.

Even a retraction of the Twitter tantrum that ignited this firestorm will do little to assuage concerns about his moral fitness to be president.

If it comes — and if the president follows the advice of his fellow Republicans — he damn sure better do a better job of it than when he declared at the end of a lengthy statement about some hotel he had opened that President Barack Obama was in fact born in the United States.

Would a retraction end this discussion? It might end talk of the specific allegation Trump has made against Obama. As for the president’s continual use of Twitter to make ridiculous statements that articulate some form of U.S. policy, well … that’s another matter altogether.

Collusion or not? Let’s wait for the FBI to do its job

FBI Director James Comey today dropped two more live grenades into our laps.

The first one is that the FBI can find no evidence, zero, that President Barack Obama ordered a wiretap of Donald J. Trump’s campaign office in Trump Tower. He cannot locate any indication that any order was given by a federal judge; he cannot find evidence of any sort of surveillance.

So …

The suggestion that the president of the United States essentially defamed his predecessor — when he tweeted the allegation of wiretapping — now has been given some credence.

The bigger grenade might be the second disclosure that Comey made to the U.S. House Intelligence Committee.

It is that the FBI is investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

Comey said FBI policy usually doesn’t allow comment on active investigations. The director made an exception in this case. The public interest is too great to ignore, he said.

What in the world does that mean?

I believe that if the FBI determines there was collusion, that the Trump campaign worked actively with Russian spooks/goons/intelligence officers to torpedo the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton … well, I think we have a certifiable impeachable offense on our hands.

To be fair, there hasn’t been a shred of evidence presented yet to suggest any such collusion. There’s been a lot of chatter, gossip and what might be called charitably “circumstantial evidence.” We cannot go on circumstance, however. We need incontrovertible proof, man!

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Comey told committee members that this probe will require lots of time to complete. It’s complicated and detailed, he said.

Take all the time you need, Mr. FBI Director. I think we can wait for a detailed answer, no matter your conclusion.

Palin? … Palin? … Palin?

I am risking getting some grief from readers of this blog by mentioning it … but where is Sarah Palin?

We all remember the former half-term Alaska governor, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, the former Fox News “contributor,” the former reality TV celebrity.

She was an ardent and vocal critic of the Affordable Care Act. You remember that, too?

She was out there yapping about “death panels” and how bureaucrats would determine who gets to live and who must die.

Palin also was an equally ardent supporter of Donald J. Trump’s candidacy for president and was thought to be a possible selection for veterans affairs secretary when the president was picking his Cabinet.

With all the debate and discussion about “repealing and replacing” the ACA, I keep waiting for Palin to weigh in. I await her pearls of wisdom about the best way to replace the ACA.

Where in the world is she? Has she retreated to Wasilla, Alaska, from where she emerged in 2008 to become U.S. Sen. John McCain’s running mate?

I know what you’re thinking about yours truly: You’ve trashed Palin incessantly; you cannot contain yourself every single time she opens her mouth; you don’t take her seriously. Why do you want to hear from her?

My answer? I don’t know. I just do.

She did become a major political figure, if only for a brief period. Running for VP on a major-party ticket made her a big deal. The McCain-Palin ticket did garner more than 59 million votes in the 2008 election — which ain’t bad, man!

Palin did become a darling of political conservatives, even as she went “rogue.” Her Fox colleagues welcomed her, as did those who watch the cable channel. I am going to presume, moreover, that she retains a considerable fan following among those very conservatives.

I’m not one of her fans. However, she bitched up a storm about the ACA when it was being debated in Congress and then enacted into law.

Here’s your chance, Sarah. Speak up! Tell us how we should provide a better health insurance plan for Americans.

Democrats becoming the new ‘Party of No’

Accuracy is the first rule of journalism.

Fairness, arguably, is the second rule.

I always sought to be accurate and fair during my nearly 37 years toiling in daily print journalism. Therefore, my sense of fairness compels me to suggest that the Democratic Party should refrain from becoming the new Party of No.

Democrats were poised to seize control of the federal government once the ballots were counted during the 2016 presidential election. Then the unthinkable happened: Donald J. Trump defeated Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Senate didn’t flip to Democratic control and the House remained solidly in Republican hands.

Democrats found themselves, quite unexpectedly, in the political wilderness.

I was one of those commentators — using this blog as my forum — to rail, rant and rave against Republicans’ obstruction of every damn thing that Democratic President Barack Obama sought to do. Health care reform, economic stimulus, you name it. If Obama wanted, Republicans were sure to oppose it.

The GOP proved their obstructionist mettle with the president’s nomination of Merrick Garland to join the Supreme Court after Antonin Scalia’s death a year ago.

So, what are Democrats supposed to do?

Do they return the “favor” and become the new Party of No?

I hope not.

Don’t misunderstand me. I detest the idea that Donald Trump is president as much as many millions of other Americans. However, he is the president. He won the Electoral College majority he needed.

Just as I always have believed that “good government” requires compromise and cooperation between the two major parties, I believe that principle still can apply as Democrats do battle with the Republican in the White House and the Republicans who control both chambers of Congress.

Should they sacrifice whatever principles for which they stand? No more than anyone should expect Republicans to sacrifice their own principles.

I understand the anger that many in Washington are feeling right now. Just two months in the presidency of Donald Trump, Democrats still cannot get past the idea that they managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Is that Republicans’ fault? Democratic chieftains need to own it.

They have their agenda, although to be honest, I’m not yet entirely sure what it is. They’ve just elected a new party chairman and they need to get their ducks lined up. They need to dust off their policy books.

They need to argue their point with Republicans. Somehow there needs to be some common ground. Health care overhaul? Federal budgeting? Environmental regulations? The myriad foreign policy trouble spots?

Party of No

It’s not enough to just say “no” to everything Republicans want to do. Good government requires a loyal opposition to perform in a manner that the very term defines: to oppose the party in power, but to be loyal to the government they all take an oath to uphold.

I dislike this Party of No business that’s beginning to take form in Washington. Republicans played the part badly when we had a Democrat in the White House. I don’t envision Democrats doing so with any more grace now that a Republican has taken his seat behind that big desk in the Oval Office.

Rep. Schiff: We’re at the ‘bottom’ of wiretap story

Adam Schiff strikes me as a thoughtful young man.

He’s the ranking Democrat on the U.S. House Intelligence Committee. He and the Republican chairman, Deven Nunes, also of California, have become a sort of tag-team that seeks to get Donald Trump to produce proof of a dangerous allegation he has made about former President Obama.

Today, Schiff said on “Meet the Press” that Congress appears to have reached “the bottom” of the president’s assertion — that Obama ordered a wiretap of Trump’s offices in New York City.

There is no “bottom,” Schiff said. No proof. No evidence. No substantiation. The president, said the congressman, has now introduced a dangerous new standard for recklessness that could have profound impact on any business the United States seeks to conduct at home or abroad.

Indeed, how are our allies going to react to anything that comes from the president’s Twitter account? He’s already dragged the British intelligence network into this tawdry matter, asserting that the Brits had a hand in the alleged wiretap.

He stood with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and sought to lure her into the ongoing matter, suggesting that Obama had wiretapped Merkel and other European allies.

The president is not backing off. He’s offering not a hint of proof. Nor is he offering the scent of contrition.

What in the world is this man — the president of the United States — going to do next? Who else is he going to slander?

We might find out plenty this week when FBI Director James Comey walks onto Capitol Hill to testify about what he knows and whether there was any authorization given to do what Trump has accused the former president of doing.

I would think the FBI boss would know.

If not, well, Rep. Schiff is right. We’ve found the bottom of this story. And as the late Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland, Calif.: We’ve found “there is no there there.”

Government teaches POTUS a stern, necessary lesson

It’s been a lot of fun watching the president of the United States getting the education of his life about how the U.S. government actually works.

It’s not how he wants it to work. Donald J. Trump cannot snap his fingers and make things happen just because, well, he can. Oh no. The system is designed precisely to prevent such things from happening.

Trump got elected while promising to “drain the swamp” and get things done. “I alone” can repair what ails the country, Trump declared at his nominating convention this past summer.

No, sir. You alone can’t do a damn thing!

Which is fine by me. Think of it.

* He seeks to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with something called the American Health Care Act; then he and congressional Republican leaders run smack into the TEA Party caucus within the GOP, which hates the AHCA. Oh, and those damn Democrats hate it, too!

* Trump declared his desire to ban all Muslims from entering the United States. Then after being elected he cobbles together a measure to ban refugees from seven Muslim-majority nations from entering the United States. Who steps in? The courts. No can do, Mr. President. A federal judge in Washington state strikes down the first ban; then the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the judge.

* He tries again. Trump reintroduces what he calls a “watered-down version” of the first ban. The courts strike again. Uh, Mr. President, this order violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the one that says government cannot favor one religion over any other; it’s in the First Amendment, Mr. President. You ought to read it.

* His budget? The president seeks to boost defense spending by $54 billion while cutting myriad programs that help poor Americans. Meals on Wheels … for example? Gone. Congress has declared the president’s proposed budget to be essentially DOA, which is the way it’s done in Washington, Mr. President.

As it’s been said often, sir: The president proposes, while Congress disposes.

He’s getting grief from Americans who are angry because his wife and young son aren’t living in the White House, costing the government many millions of extra dollars to keep them safe while they live in Trump Tower — in New York City!

More grief is coming from those who wonder why the president keeps jetting off seemingly every weekend to his glitzy, decadent resort in Palm Beach, Fla. That’s costing a lot of dough, too.

It’s all not very, um, populist of you, Mr. President.

This business mogul is used to getting things done his way. He is learning that the presidency doesn’t allow that kind of thing.

You see, one cannot govern the United States of America the way you’d run a business. I don’t give a damn what anyone says to the contrary. You see, the founders had it right when they crafted a government full of all kinds of restraints, checks and balances, and assorted roadblocks to prevent an omnipotent presidency.

Welcome to the world of governance, Mr. President.

Now the Brits have tapped Trump? C’mon, Mr. President!

The hits just keep coming.

Donald J. Trump has accused Barack Obama of wiretapping his office. He has no evidence of it. Congressional intelligence committee chairs can’t find it, either. Trump stands by his lie.

Now he’s gone after the United Kingdom. He said the British wiretapped him, too. The president’s source for that whopper? Fox News commentator Andrew Napolitano, a former judge who’s become a right-wing shill for the “fair and balanced” network.

Trump didn’t back off the accusation about the British. He hasn’t backed off his assertion that President Obama tapped his phones.

The British are rightfully quite angry.

Trump’s justification for the British wiretapping allegation is a beaut. He said he wasn’t offering any “opinion” on the matters, just repeating the statement that Napolitano made.

OK, Mr. President. That makes it all better. How silly of me or anyone else to assume you were fomenting a lie by repeating it.

The president is unfit to hold the office he occupies. Unfit, I am telling you!

Secretary of state: vanishing before our eyes?

Here’s something you might not know about the secretary of state: The individual who occupies the office is No. 4 in the line of succession to the presidency.

That means to me that the office oozes importance. If, for some reason, the vice president, the speaker of the House of Representatives or the president pro tem of the Senate cannot succeed the president, the task falls to the secretary of state.

That person, therefore, is quite high on the executive branch of government’s pecking order.

Or one would think.

Then again, the State Department is facing a proposed 29-percent reduction in its budget, which doesn’t seem to bother Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Oh yes! There’s actually someone in the job. He’s been a sort of shadow figure in the Trump administration Cabinet.

He has held zero press conferences since taking office. He took off on an overseas trip and didn’t bring any media representatives along with him. Mexico’s foreign minister recently visited Washington and didn’t even call on the State Department, let alone on Secretary Tillerson.

Why has this individual become so, um, invisible? Donald Trump introduced him as secretary of state after parading a slew of high-profile pols to meet with him. Then came Tillerson, the former ExxonMobil CEO who emerged out of seeming nowhere to get the president’s nod.

One more thing: Tillerson has no deputy secretary of state on hand. There’s no one to assist him with whatever heavy lifting he needs to perform while working to solve the nation’s myriad foreign-policy issues.

Recent secretaries of state seemingly have been everywhere at once, defying the laws of physics. James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry all became the face and the voice of U.S. foreign policy. Their respective impacts were immediate and profound.

Rex Tillerson? Where are you? What are you doing?

Delay from Trump adds to suspicion of a lie

Donald J. Trump’s job as president of the United States gives him direct access to the finest, most professional intelligence-gathering apparatus in the world.

He hasn’t availed himself of that apparatus. Yet, he has fired off that infamous tweet in which he accuses President Barack H. Obama of wiretapping his campaign offices.

Trump could — if he had the proof in hand — deliver it to Americans right now. He has access to it. He is the president … of … the … United … States … of … America, for God’s sake!

He’s not coming forward. The president isn’t producing it. Hmm. Why do you suppose that’s the case? Oh! He doesn’t have it! It’s a lie!

His tweet the other day declared as a “fact” that the former president had broken the law. A fact, man! Facts mean what they mean. It is that the purveyor of that “fact” has the proof of what he has alleged.

Where in the name of prevaricator in chief is the proof, Mr. President?

As some have noted already — so this isn’t an original thought — can you imagine what the Republican-led Congress would do if, say, President Obama had said such a thing about Donald J. Trump?

They would have filed articles of impeachment against him before the final words had left his lips.

Where is the outrage among those in command of the legislative branch of government?