Donald J. Trump isn’t bashful about condemning groups or people with which he has issues.
* Illegal immigrants? They’re “rapists, murderers, drug dealers. And there’s a few good ones, I’m sure,” he has said.
* Radical Islamic terrorists? He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the country just to be sure that none of those terrorists sneak in.
* “Politically correct” rhetoric? Why, he just cannot stand those who hide behind his version of “political correctness.”
What about racists? White supremacists?
When he was asked about statements from longtime Klansman David Duke that seemed to support the Republican candidate’s views, Trump said he “didn’t know” Duke; he said he didn’t know about white supremacists.
And then, just recently, when the crap hit the fan over an ad that featured a picture of Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, a pile of $100 bills and a symbol that looked to many of us like a Star of David, Trump took the ad down. Critics jumped on the ad as an anti-Semitic statement. Then we learned that the ad first appeared on a white supremacist website.
Trump has yet to condemn Duke — other than to say he “condemns Duke.” And he has yet to issue anything resembling a declaration of condemnation of those groups.
Is the GOP nominee-to-be a flaming racist? I won’t say “yes.”
It is fair and reasonable, though, to wonder just why he doesn’t condemn those individuals and hate groups with the same zeal he condemns others.
The head of the nation’s leading federal investigative agency offers a compelling argument for why he isn’t recommending a criminal indictment against a candidate for president.
And yet there remains doubt over whether the FBI did its job with integrity and professionalism.
FBI Director James Comey offered a detail explanation of his agency’s findings today in determining that it wouldn’t recommend seeking an indictment against Hillary Clinton over her use of a personal e-mail server while she served as secretary of state.
Sure, he has scolded Clinton for being “careless” in her handling of e-mail messages sent from her server. But in his careful language, Comey assures us that no prosecutor worth a damn would find any reasonable cause to seek criminal charges over what transpired during Clinton’s tenure at the State Department.
Moreover, I also accept the declaration that the FBI director did his job with integrity.
As Comey said this morning: “I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.”
I just love social media responses to big news stories.
It’s usually pretty hysterical. Take the announcement today that the FBI will not seek an indictment of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over her use of a personal e-mail server while she was in that highly sensitive public office.
FBI Director James Comey said Clinton was “extremely careless” in her use of the server; he said she did plenty of things wrong, but nothing on which he could seek criminal charges.
It has given social media users all over the nation reason to extol the Democratic presidential candidate’s “guilt” over a variety of transgressions.
They’re saying she “lied,” that she’s “corrupt,” that Comey and the feds were “bought off by Clinton money,” that the Clintons’ privileged status among the political elite bought her leniency that others would have received.
None of that, of course, has been proved. The accusers will say, “Who needs proof? I just know it’s all true!” It all rests in the hearts and minds of those who are disposed to, well, hate the former secretary of state.
What about the rest of us? Folks such as, oh, yours truly?
I’m going to take Comey at his word that his career prosecutors — the individuals who are not political appointees — came up empty in their search for criminal culpability. To my way of thinking, when investigators cannot offer proof to merit a charge of wrongdoing, then that’s the end of the criminal aspect of this on-going controversy.
Oh, but its political element still burns white-hot.
Clinton will have to call a press conference and face the music publicly about the things Comey said about how she conducted herself while leading the State Department.
I know those media confrontations make Clinton uncomfortable. Indeed, one gets the sense she detests reporters generally, although no one has ever asked her directly, in public, for the record about what she thinks of the media.
I also am aware that no matter how forthcoming she is that it won’t quell the critics. They’ll continue to find holes in her public statements; why, they’ll even create holes in them just to foster their own arguments against her presidential candidacy.
We live in the social media age. For better or worse, Americans are forming a lot of their opinions about public figures based on 140-character messages sent out on Twitter, or on messages posted on Facebook or other social media platforms.
Hillary Clinton has known this about our world and I trust she understood it when she decided to seek the nation’s highest office.
It’s tough out there, Mme. Secretary. Deal with it.
Hillary Rodham Clinton won’t be indicted for her use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state.
That’s the conclusion of the pros, the career prosecutors and investigators at the FBI.
So, that’s the end of the controversy, correct? Clinton now can campaign for president of the United States without the sniping, carping and conspiracy-minded criticism leveled by her foes?
No, FBI Director James Comey’s own words today have given the anti-Clinton cadre plenty of ammo to sling at the Democratic candidate for president.
He called her “extremely careless” in her use of the private server. He said he found no “clear evidence” of criminality.
Right there, you’ll see foes translate “careless” into words like “incompetent” and “inept.” No “clear evidence” will be parsed to mean that there’s something smelly, but that the feds just couldn’t find anything with which to hang a criminal charge.
The Clinton campaign, of course, will spin these findings differently. They’ll congratulate the FBI for its professionalism. Indeed, James Comey remains high on most observers’ lists of impartial, hard-nosed and fair-minded law enforcement authorities.
Hillary Clinton no doubt will have steeled herself for the onslaught that awaits. Her enemies will quite naturally suggest or imply that her husband Bill’s meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch in Phoenix played some sort of role in the FBI’s decision to forgo seeking an indictment. That’s how conspiracy theorists work.
What the heck? Hillary and Bill Clinton ought to have developed rhino-hide by now, given all the hideous accusations they have faced dating back to when Bill Clinton was Arkansas governor.
From my perch, I believe James Comey is a pro and that the FBI did its job with due diligence.
He did, though, toss out a couple of red-meat morsels for Clinton’s enemies to chew on — which I believe they’ll do with great gusto.
Gosh, I always thought I knew what the Star of David looked like.
It’s an important symbol of the Jewish faith. I saw it daily while I was touring Israel in May-June 2009. The Israelis fly their national flag proudly and, yep, it has a Star of David on it.
You see, a campaign ad for Donald J. Trump showed up on a tweet that showed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and an image that looked for all the world like a Star of David, along with the words “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever.”
The ad drew immediate criticism from those who complained it was anti-Semitic. Trump’s campaign took it down immediately and then said the star on the ad didn’t portray the Star of David; Trump — the Republican presidential candidate — called it a “sheriff’s star.”
Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, who now works for CNN, said the uproar is nothing more than “political correctness run amok.”
What … ?
Two quick points and then I’m out.
One is that the ad first appeared on a white supremacist website and we all know what many white supremacists think of Jews.
Two, Trump took the ad down right away after criticism arose about its tone and tenor.
If the ad was as innocent as Trump’s campaign says it is, why did the white supremacists run it and why was the campaign so quick to remove it?
If Hillary Rodham Clinton’s e-mail controversy doesn’t result in a federal indictment, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee won’t get a moment’s reprieve from her critics.
The FBI is examining whether Clinton violated any laws when she used her personal e-mail server while she was secretary of state. An indictment would have to come from a federal grand jury on the recommendation of the FBI prosecutors.
There’s that problem, of course, with former President Bill Clinton’s impromptu meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch the other day in Phoenix. Clinton should have stayed away; Lynch should have shooed him off her plane. Why? The investigation looms as a serious problem for the ex-president’s wife — and he should have known better than to go anywhere near the AG, who oversees the FBI.
Hillary Clinton’s headaches won’t end if the FBI decides there’s nothing for which to indict her.
But the way I look at it now, she’s been through enough hell already from those who hate her that she’s likely immune from too much further damage.
Heck, she’s been hectored and harassed since before her husband ran for president in 1992. She’s been examined, grilled and persecuted ever since.
And spare me the canard that the media have been soft on her.
I believe in fair fights and I believe those who win those fights fairly deserve to reap the reward … or the consequence.
Thus, it is my hope that Donald J. Trump goes on to Cleveland in two weeks and is nominated by the Republican Party to run for president of the United States.
Do I want him to win the election this fall? Not in a zillion years!
This Dump Trump/Never Trump/Anyone but Trump movement likely won’t succeed. Trump’s delegates should hold firm and fend off any challenge.
This goofball won the GOP primary battle fairly. He defeated 16 primary opponents over the course of a long slog through several dozen states. He won a solid plurality of popular votes and has secured enough pledged delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot.
The amazing thing is that he did all this while insulting just about every voting demographic that isn’t white, Protestant and born in the United States. He’s done so while failing to assemble anything resembling a traditional grassroots political campaign. He has succeeded despite the efforts of the GOP “establishment” to rally behind another candidate.
So, let the guy have the nomination. Let him then march off to do battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her deep-pocketed Democratic operatives.
I’m not going to heap too many kind words on Trump. You know how I feel about him already.
The fact is, though, the guy has earned a major-party presidential nomination. How in the world he did it is beyond me. But he did.
Tom Cotton is a combative freshman Republican U.S. senator from Arkansas who’s proven to be unafraid to speak his mind on just about anything … or anyone.
But when he was asked to make the case for Donald Trump’s election as the next president of the United States, Sen. Cotton turned strangely quiet.
What gives? This is the young man — an Iraq War veteran — who recently called Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid all kinds of names while condemning his leadership in the upper legislative chamber.
This looks to me like another case of Republican officials finding it hard to articulate why they support the presumptive presidential nominee of their own party.
Cotton’s demurring on that today exemplifies the concern that Trump should be feeling as his nomination draws near.
The way I see it, candidates need vocal and articulate surrogates to speak for them. Whether they’re running for president or county commissioner, candidates depend on the good will of others to push them forward.
Trump keeps trashing not only the Democrats who, naturally, are going oppose him but also Republicans who are reluctant to chime in with words of encouragement.
What did Trump say recently? Line up behind me or just “be quiet.”
Cotton has endorsed Trump. He’s being “quiet,” though, on explaining his reasons for the endorsement.
Have I been asleep at the wheel or has the political punditry class been quiet about comparing this election’s billionaire businessman/candidate with the previous guy who fit that description?
Donald J. Trump is about to become — more than likely — the next Republican nominee for president. He will face a candidate named Clinton, as in Hillary.
Twenty-four years ago another billionaire businessman ran for president against the first Clinton, the one named Bill — and against the Republican president, George H.W. Bush.
Yeah, the 1992 campaign had its quirks, such as when Perot quit the race only to re-enter it later. But it wasn’t nearly as, um, quirky as this one has been so far.
H. Ross Perot ended up winning 19 percent of the popular vote as an independent candidate. Bill Clinton won the presidency with 43 percent of the total, compared to President Bush’s 38 percent. Clinton, though, won the Electoral College vote in a landslide.
I’d like to be one of the few today to say that Perot did not cost Bush the election. Bill Clinton would have won the 1992 race with or without Perot in the mix.
Are there more comparisons to make between Perot and Trump?
Sure. Both men have huge egos. Perot, though, has been married to the same woman for a very long time; Trump is married to Wife No. 3. Perot’s wealth is of the self-made variety; Trump got a y-u-u-u-g-e head start from his dad’s estate.
Here’s another point to make, one that I’d like to concentrate on for just a moment. Trump has zero public service experience; Perot has one significant public service chapter in his lengthy life saga.
In 1983, then-Texas Gov. Mark White appointed Perot to lead a blue-ribbon commission to reform the state’s public education system. Gov. White tapped Perot after the Dallas technology tycoon popped off about how Texas was more interested in producing blue-chip athletes than it was in producing blue-chip scholars.
Perot set about the task of leading the panel to produce some recommendations he hoped would improve student academic performance.
I arrived in Texas in 1984 and as luck would have it, Perot unveiled his commission’s plan for education reform about that time. He then went on a statewide barnstorming tour to pitch his idea to Texans.
He came to Beaumont and that’s where I laid eyes on him for the first time. Perot stood at the podium in a roomful of business executives and sold his formula for academic success. Take it from me, the diminutive dynamo could command a room.
Several of us in the media met later that day with Perot for a question-and-answer session at Lamar University. Believe this, too: The man was in complete command of his facts, details and the process that awaited him.
The Texas Legislature convened a special session later that year and produced House Bill 72. Its record has been mixed. HB 72 mandated standardized testing for students and other reforms.
The point here is that Perot at least delivered the goods while being challenged by the state’s top elected official.
Trump’s public record? It involves a reality TV show, lots of buildings with his name on them, beauty pageants and assorted failed business ventures.
His public service record to date has brought us a string of insults, innuendo and invective.
The similarities? They’re both rich and full of themselves.
CNN is reporting that Hillary Rodham Clinton likely won’t be indicted for any criminal activity relating to the use of her personal e-mail server while she was secretary of state.
That is the good news — more or less — for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
The bad news? The story won’t go away. It might never go away for as long as she’s president, presuming she wins the election this fall.
Why is that? She can thank her chummy husband, the 42nd president of the United States, for that.
Bill Clinton had the very bad form to trot aboard Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s airplane in Phoenix the other day. They talked about small stuff. No mention of the e-mail probe being conducted by the FBI, the agency that Lynch oversees as AG.
Lynch and the ex-president both have expressed “regret” over the chance meeting. It looks to critics as though Bill Clinton sought privately to pressure Lynch to back off in the FBI probe of his wife.
Suppose the reports are correct, that the FBI will find nothing criminal on which to hang an indictment. I can hear the conspiracy theorists now — led by Republican candidate Donald J. Trump — saying the fix is in.
No, the story won’t die if the FBI decides to close the books on the e-mail controversy without an indictment.
It will drag on and on and on.
Kind of like the way Benghazi has gone.
And Whitewater … and Lewinsky … and whatever else Hillary and Bill Clinton have done that they might now regret.
