Category Archives: Donald Trump

Donald Trump, national news

Disinvited to a leading senator’s funeral?

I cannot remember this ever happening: a president of the United States is disinvited to the funeral of a leading political figure … of his own political party at that!

They’ll have a funeral soon for the late Sen. John McCain — and, yes, it’s strange to type the word “late” in front of this man’s name — but the president of the United States, Donald Trump, has been told not to attend. McCain reportedly said he didn’t want the president there.

The two men had serious political differences to be sure. However, Trump took it to a different level. He denigrated the senator’s Vietnam War record; and while McCain was fighting the cancer that killed him, he continued to rail against him for casting a “no” vote that preserved the Affordable Care Act.

McCain had enough. He let it be known he didn’t want Trump at his funeral.

I don’t know what the president will do. His presence will serve as a serious distraction, given all the trouble he is in on so many fronts.

I just hope Sen. McCain will get the farewell he deserves from men and women he respected — and who respected him in return.

Donald Trump

Is the president going to slit his own (political) throat?

How can Donald J. Trump make things worse than they are already?

Here’s a scenario to ponder: He can fire U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions after the midterm elections, nominate a new person to lead the Justice Department, then he can fire special counsel Robert Mueller and hope the Senate confirms a new AG who’ll shut down the investigation that Mueller has been conducting for more than a year.

Can you say “impeachment”?

Read The Hill report here.

The president clearly has no trust in the current AG because of Sessions’s decision to recuse himself from anything to do with the Russia investigation. The special counsel is trying to determine whether there was any conspiracy by the Trump presidential campaign to collude with Russians seeking to influence the 2016 election outcome.

Does he fire the AG? Does he then nominate someone who’ll do the president’s bidding? Does the AG nominee pledge some sort of fealty to the president even if it means he doesn’t follow the law?

Trump, to no one’s surprise, has concocted a phony excuse for his displeasure with Sessions. “Never took control of the Justice Department,” Trump said on “Fox & Friends.”  “And it’s sort of a regrettable thing.”

What utter crap! Sessions’s “mistake” was to recuse himself from the Russia matter. Why? Because the AG couldn’t possibly lead an investigation into a presidential campaign in which he was a major player. So he did the only thing he could do under DOJ rules of conduct.

Is the president capable of turning a bad situation into something so very much worse? You’re damn straight he can.

Donald Trump, legal news, national news, political news

Sessions’s days as AG are counting down?

Donald J. Trump has just made the case for why U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions had no choice but to recuse himself from the investigation into “The Russia Thing.”

Of course, he doesn’t see it that way, because he has no understanding of government ethics or, for that matter, government decency.

Sessions has fired back at another round of criticism from the president. He said, “While I am Attorney General, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations. I demand the highest standards, and where they are not met, I take action.” He added in a Fox News interview: “However, no nation has a more talented, more dedicated group of law enforcement investigators and prosecutors than the United States.”

Trump went yet another tear against Sessions, criticizing him for his recusal. What is his rationale? Get a load of this, as reported by The Hill: “Even my enemies say that, ‘Jeff Sessions should have told you he was going to recuse himself, and then you wouldn’t have put him in,’” Trump said in an interview that aired Thursday.

Trump also said that he only selected Sessions, previously a senator from Alabama, to be his top law enforcement officer because of his “loyalty” during the campaign.

“He was on the campaign. You know, the only reason I gave him the job was because I felt loyalty,” Trump said. “He was an original supporter.”

Jeff Sessions could not be called upon to lead an investigation into a campaign in which he was an integral part. The Department of Justice has deeply rooted codes of conduct that preclude the AG from leading such a probe. Sessions — a man for whom I have little actual regard, mind you — recognized the blatant conflict of interest and pulled himself out of the investigation into whether there was “collusion” between Russian government agents and the Trump campaign.

For the president, moreover, to continue to malign the integrity of the professional team assembled at DOJ is reprehensible on its face.

The attorney general is right to praise the quality of the men and women who do the grunt work for the Department of Justice. The president is dead wrong to disrespect and disparage them.

Donald Trump, national news

Sen. Graham then and now on impeachment

Darn that public domain. Sometimes it can come back and bite public officials in the backside.

Take it away, Sen. Lindsey Graham.

The South Carolina Republican once helped prosecute President Bill Clinton when the 42nd president was being impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. Graham was a House member at the time.

He said way back then, “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” He added, “Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

MSNBC commentator Lawrence O’Donnell dug up Graham’s former view of impeachment. Of course, that was when a Democratic president got into trouble. The GOP lawmaker had a different view about impeachment than he does today.

It seems that Sen. Graham thinks a president must be charged with an actual crime to be impeached.

According to The Hill: Graham said in a statement Tuesday that “the American legal system is working its will” but that “there have yet to be charges or convictions for colluding with the Russian government by any member of the Trump campaign” after another Trump associate, Paul Manafort, was found guilty of eight charges related to financial crimes.

Which is it, Sen. Graham? O’Donnell is imploring reporters to question Graham carefully about his apparent change of heart, mind or whatever.

Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman is now a convicted felon. There well might be much more to come from special counsel Robert Mueller as he continues his probe into Russian involvement in our 2016 presidential election.

As for Graham’s earlier statements about “cleansing” the presidency, I have to agree that the current president has soiled it in many ways. The current president is absolutely lacking in “honor and integrity” at almost any level one can imagine.

I certainly will await Sen. Graham’s explanation on how his view on the basis for impeachment has, um, evolved.

Donald Trump

Is Trump believable at any level? Um, no!

These online polls that show up on MSN.com really knock me out.

The latest one asks whether Paul Manafort’s conviction this week on eight felony counts of tax fraud and money laundering make me less likely to believe Donald J. Trump.

I was astounded to see that 48 percent of respondents said “no”; 47 percent of them said “yes.”

I was among the 47 percent.

Although the more I think about it, I don’t know how the president of the United States can be any less believable at any level.

I do not trust him for one nanosecond. Not for an instant. A New York minute. I trust him as far as I can throw a 239-pound human being.

Do you get my drift? Of course you do!

Trump cannot tell the whole unvarnished truth on anything, at any level, for any reason … or so it appears to me.

Manafort is Trump’s former 2016 campaign chairman, the guy Trump said worked for him “only a little while.” He spoke as if he barely knows the guy. Give me a break, will ya?

Do I believe Trump? Umm, no.

Donald Trump

Trump has the ‘mother of bad days’

So much for “rigged witch hunt.”

Donald J. Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, is now a convicted felon after a Virginia jury today returned guilty verdicts on eight counts of assorted tax and money laundering charges; jurors were deadlocked on 10 more counts, so the judge declared a mistrial on the unresolved accusations.

Then there’s Michael Cohen, the president’s one-time confidant/fixer/personal lawyer who pleaded guilty to tax fraud, bank fraud and campaign law violations. He now is set to tell special counsel Robert Mueller all he knows about his dealings with the president.

Hmmm. I think that constitutes a bad day for the president. As in a really, seriously bad day.

Trump, of course, has lashed out at the criminal justice system, at Mueller, Cohen … whoever.

And make no mistake, Trump said the Manafort conviction had nothing to do with “Russian collusion.” Well, duh. No one said it did. That’s all being looked at separately, Mr. President.

Something tells me we have a president getting into some serious trouble. Here’s the annoying fly in the ointment: Trump has the power — and he might have the inclination — to worsen that trouble by issuing a pardon to Manafort. Hey, he’s got the authority to do it, just as he reminds us.

If he does take that leap, well … let’s just say the fecal matter is going to hit multiple fans all at once.

Donald Trump

How will history judge this presidency?

1 Comment

We’re not yet halfway through Donald J. Trump’s term as president and already I feel compelled to wonder about a critically important historical element.

How in the name of presidential history are historians going to assess the time that Trump served as president of the United States.

Whether this man finishes his term and — God forbid! — wins re-election to a second term in 2020, I feel confident in asserting that historians must toss out all the standard metrics in assessing Trump’s impact on the nation.

He has managed in just less than two years to enrage our allies, give comfort to some of our adversaries, insult politicians around the world and in this country, use Twitter as his primary vehicle to convey U.S. government policy, launch a worldwide trade war, bust the federal budget with a tax cut, enable hate groups to feel more emboldened than they have in decades.

How will historians judge this individual’s presidency?

He took office after campaigning on a pledge (mostly unspoken but understood all the same) to throw out the standard playbook. I would rate that as the campaign pledge to which he has been most faithful.

Accordingly, those who make their living writing tomes and white papers analyzing the historical significance of major political figures will have to toss their own standard operating procedures into the crapper.

There will be plenty of caveats to attach to this guy’s presidency. There will be the nature of his razor-thin victory — which he keeps describing as “historic” and “record-breaking”; there will be the special counsel investigation and whatever findings it produces regarding collusion and obstruction of justice; there will be the extraordinary number of key Trump aides and Cabinet officers who’ve either been indicted, fired or resigned under pressure.

Just as President Bill Clinton’s obituary will include the term “impeachment,” I feel that Donald Trump’s obit will have some mention of all the ethical and potentially legal troubles that have followed him into the White House.

I’m left to wonder, too: Who will portray Donald Trump when they make a movie about this guy’s presidency?

Presidential historians are going to earn their grant money — bigly — when they sit down to write the book on the 45th president.

Donald Trump

Facts are facts, period, Mr. Mayor … really!

Rudy Giuliani seems to have swilled Kellyanne Conway’s potion that allows for the belief in “alternative facts.”

Conway is the White House senior policy adviser to coined the “alternative facts” gem while responding to questions about then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer’s various assertions about this and that.

Now we have Donald Trump’s current personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, telling CNN’s Chris Cuomo that “nowadays … facts are the eyes of the beholder.”

Whoa! Hold on, Mr. Mayor.

From where I come from, facts are facts. There can be disputing the nature of facts. You either tell the truth or you lie.

Giuliani was responding to questions from Cuomo about the president’s harsh words about another former White House aide, Omarosa Manigault Newman.

Giuliani made the “eye of the beholder” crack, to which Cuomo reminded him that there’s no such qualifier involved with “facts.”

As USA Today reported: Whether intended in humor or not, the former New York mayor’s remark feeds into a perception among critics that the Trump administration often rejects objective facts and tries to confuse the public about what is true. 

Trump’s rejection of facts dates back at least to his refusal to accept that former President Barack Obama was a U.S. citizen despite being presented with conclusive evidence.

If all this idiocy didn’t involve the very credibility of our head of state, I would be laughing my behind off.

I’m not laughing now … any more than I laughed at Kellyanne Conway’s “alternative facts” nonsense.

Donald Trump, military news

No parade? Yes! Keep it canceled!

Money does talk. Especially when it represents skyrocketing costs for an event that contributes nothing of significance.

Donald J. Trump wanted to stage a military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue to show the world just how big and strong the United States military is, as if the world doesn’t know it already.

The cost was set initially at $12 million. Oh, but then came some new cost estimates: They hit $92 million.

The president canceled the parade. The Pentagon said it might schedule it a year from now. Is the cost going to decline? I doubt it strongly. “The Department of Defense and White House have been planning a parade to honor America’s military veterans and commemorate the centennial of World War I,” said Col. Rob Manning on Thursday. “We originally targeted November 10, 2018 for this event but have now agreed to explore opportunities in 2019.”

Good grief! You can “honor” the vets in any number of ways without traipsing down Pennsylvania Avenue in a parade!

Of course, the president decided to blame “local politicians” for the cost escalation, which made the event an even greater non-starter than it was when Trump pitched the idea in the first place.

Military parades of the type Trump wanted are intended to allow tinhorn bullies and tyrants a chance to show off their hardware, to deter anyone from messing with ’em. You see these kinds of events in places like, oh, Pyongyang or Moscow, Beijing or Tehran.

Do we really need to see this kind of exhibitionism in Washington, D.C.? Of course not.

I’m all in with what the American Legion said about the parade notion. The money that would be spent to show off our hardware could be spent more productively to help veterans’ care.

“There is only one person who wants this parade,” according to a senior military official.

Ridiculous. As in worthy of ridicule.

Donald Trump

‘Revoke my clearance, too’

William McRaven is an unabashed American patriot. He is a former Navy SEAL, former U.S. Special Operations Force commanding officer, a retired Navy admiral.

He also supervised the May 2011 Navy SEAL/CIA commando operation that killed Osama bin Laden.

He also is critical of the president of the United States, Donald J. Trump.

McRaven, who’s about to leave his current post as University of Texas System chancellor, has dared the president to revoke his security clearance. He said he wants the revocation so that he can stand in solidarity with former CIA Director John Brennan, who had his clearance yanked by the president.

Trump acted in a remarkable and breathtaking fit of pique at Brennan because the former top spook has been harshly critical of the president. Why, Trump just won’t have any of that.

As MSN.com reported: “[Brennan] is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him,” retired Navy Adm. William McRaven wrote in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

“Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency,” he wrote.

I heard some chatter today that Trump supporters are actually questioning McRaven’s love of country because of his criticism of the president.

To think anyone would question this man’s patriotism simply boggles my mind. Or the minds of reasonable people anywhere.