Monthly Archives: May 2017

media news

Sean Spicer: dead man walking

1 Comment

I guess Sean Spicer won’t be the White House press secretary much longer.

Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle is talking out loud about negotiations she has entered to become the next press flack at the White House.

I find it fascinating to the max that Spicer would be hung out to dry in public by the White House and, presumably, by the president of the United States.

To borrow a phrase from a long time ago — I refer to the Watergate scandal of the 1970s — it suggests that Donald John Trump is making Spicer “twist slowly in the wind.”

In an odd sort of way, Guilfoyle’s public acknowledgement that she’s in the running to replace the press secretary makes me feel a bit of sympathy for Sean Spicer.

He deserves better treatment than what he appears to be getting.

media news

Spare me the gag lines, Mr. President

I’m not sure how I am going to write this blog entry.

I am laughing out loud.

Donald J. Trump has been whining about the coverage he’s been getting from the media, calling it the most unfair in U.S. history.

Here’s how Politico reported what the president told U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduates: “Look at the way I’ve been treated lately,” Trump said, as some in the audience burst into laughter, “especially by the media. No politician in history — and I say this with great surety — has been treated worse or more unfairly.”

A friend of mine noted on social media that Trump, student of history that he is, is absolutely certain of what he said. My friend was joking, of course. Trump is no student of anything, let alone presidential history.

Unfair treatment? Hardly.

Were the media giving kid-glove treatment to, let’s see:

Harry Truman, for relieving Gen. Douglas MacArthur of his command during the Korean War?

John F. Kennedy, for the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba?

Lyndon Johnson, for his prosecution of the Vietnam War?

Richard Nixon, for the Watergate scandal?

Gerald Ford, for his occasional fits of clumsiness?

Jimmy Carter, for his occasional fits of self-righteousness?

Ronald Reagan, for the Iran-Contra debacle?

George H.W. Bush, for reneging on his “read my lips” pledge to never raise taxes?

Bill Clinton, for messing around with that 20-something White House intern — and his subsequent impeachment?

George W. Bush, for failing to find weapons of mass destruction after going to war in Iraq?

Barack Obama, for enduring the “fake news” about his place of birth, which — by the way — was fomented by Donald John Trump?

These men — Democrats and Republicans — have plenty in common. They assumed the presidency knowing full well that the media would be looking carefully at every single thing they do. The media would expose every misstep, mistake, misstatement.

That’s how it goes. That’s a condition of the job to which they were elected or to which they ascended through other means.

However, for Trump to assert that he’s been given the worst treatment in the history of the presidency is — dare I say it candidly? — yet another fabrication.

There. I got through it. I’m proud of myself.

national news, political news

Is Rep. Chaffetz the GOP answer man on impeachment?

Given that I am a red-blooded American male, which means that I am wrong a good bit more than I am right, I will advance this notion with some trepidation.

U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz could emerge as the stand-up congressional Republican who gets his GOP caucus members to see the unvarnished truth behind the president of their party.

Donald J. Trump might be in some serious political trouble with what we’re hearing now about what he allegedly “asked” FBI Director James Comey to do; he reportedly suggested that Comey shut down an investigation into national security adviser Michael Flynn’s ties to Russian government officials.

Obstruction of justice, anyone?

So, where does Chaffetz fit into all of this?

He chairs the House Government and Oversight Committee. He has announced he will not seek re-election to his Utah congressional district seat in 2018. He is a lame duck. He has no more pandering to do to get elected. He need not worry about his “base” of supporters.

Chaffetz said this week he is preparing to ask to see a memo that Comey wrote after meeting with the president shortly after Trump fired Flynn from his national security adviser job. The memo reportedly is part of a meticulous paper trail that Comey has left that details conversations he had with the president.

There could be much more to this than we know about already. Chaffetz might want to see all that Comey wrote down and which now is in the FBI files, presumably locked away somewhere inside the J. Edgar Hoover Building. If the FBI has its former director’s memoranda, then it belongs to the public. Chaffetz, therefore, would seem to be entitled to see them as a representative of a committee charged with examining “government operations.”

Chaffetz is set to chart a new life for himself away from Congress. The timing of these revelations — and of the chairman’s decision to step away from the House — suggest to me that Chaffetz has far less to lose politically than other congressional leaders who have been unable or unwilling to take decisive action against the president.

Mr. Chairman, are you up to the task of rooting out the truth, no matter where it leads?

media news

Oh, and let’s toss reporters into prison, too, shall we?

Amid all the political shrapnel that’s flying around after the latest explosion from inside the White House, we have this little item that went virtually unnoticed.

The president of the United States sat down earlier this year with the FBI director and opened a conversation with a statement about whether the FBI should “imprison reporters” who report on leaked classified information.

Yep, that would be Donald J. Trump telling that to James Comey. I reckon Comey didn’t precisely buy into that line of crap from the president, but I’m just guessing at this point.

What in the world is Donald J. Trump trying to do here?

To my way of thinking, his complete ignorance of the America’s foundational basis is being put on full display.

Mr. President, the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment does not allow the government to do the very thing you suggested should be done. You do not understand that. I am now absolutely certain that at 70 years of age, you never will.

We’ve been caught up in the Big Story of the Week, which is that the president possibly committed a criminal act by asking Comey to shut down an ongoing FBI investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s contacts with Russian government operatives. This is getting serious, folks.

However, we narrowed our focus a bit too hastily. The bigger picture suggests a president infected with paranoia over how the media do their job. It is to report the news. If the news is about those who leak information to the public, then the media have an obligation to perform their duty.

Threats of imprisoning reporters cannot be tolerated.

Just as a refresher, here is what the First Amendment says in its entirety; I will italicize and bold-face a specific point for emphasis:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Are we clear?

legal news, national news

Timing well could spell doom for Trump

James Comey apparently prefers to write memoranda to record important events.

When the then-FBI director met with Donald J. Trump in the White House — and when the president allegedly “asked” Comey to shut down an investigation — Comey wrote it down.

This occurred in February. The Trump administration was just a few days old. Comey was looking into the activities involving the just-fired national security adviser, Michael Flynn.

Fast-forward to this past week. Trump fired Comey from his job as FBI director.

So, is there a connection? Is there linkage between the president’s so-called “request” for Comey to end the Flynn probe and Comey’s dismissal? Are the events tied together?

It looks that way to me. Does it to you? You don’t have to answer.

This is where this latest blockbuster revelation gets its legs. This is how a conversation threatens to swallow the president of the United States.

There are many more dots to connect. What about the former acting attorney general, Sally Yates, who Trump also fired? She warned the president that Flynn could be blackmailed because he had some sort of connection with Russian government officials. Then she’s out! Is there linkage to that dismissal as well to what we are learning today about what the president reportedly sought from the FBI boss?

At this point, absolutely nothing — not a single thing — is going to surprise me as this story continues to evolve.

I will not predict the president is going to pay a hefty political price. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m out of the predicting business.

This story, however, ain’t lookin’ good for the president.

legal news, national news

‘Less than ideal,’ Sen. Rubio?

“Certainly it’s less than ideal, but it is what it is.”

Those words of “wisdom” came from U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican who once battled with Donald John Trump for his party’s presidential nomination.

He got involved in that juvenile and petulant verbal p****** match with the eventual GOP nominee and president.

So now that Trump has become entangled in what is looking more and more like a serious constitutional crisis, his former foe says “it is what it is”? That’s it?

Young man, it’s a lot worse than that!

What we have on our hands, Sen. Rubio, is a situation in which the president of the United States of America reportedly has asked the then-FBI director to back off an investigation of a former national security adviser.

Rubio is too young to remember an earlier constitutional crisis, but Richard Nixon did something quite similar regarding a break-in at the Watergate office and hotel complex. He had it on tape. The Senate got its hands on that tape and, well, that was all she wrote for President Nixon.

I am not about to predict a similar outcome for the current president, but as of this evening, it doesn’t look good.

Does this president have an inherent hatred for his enemies? Or is he just clueless about the consequences of his actions? I am going to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and presume that he just doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing as president of the United States.

Whatever the context or the circumstance, the Senate and the House of Representatives will need to hear from James Comey personally and will need to know precisely what he gleaned from the president’s “request” for him to drop the FBI probe of Michael Flynn.

national news

Can you say ‘obstruction of justice’?

OK, let’s take a quick look at a sequence of some troubling events.

* Donald J. Trump takes the oath of office as president of the United States.

* Twenty-four days later, he fires his national security adviser, Michael Flynn, because Flynn supposedly lied to the vice president about conversations he had with Russian government officials.

* The FBI starts looking at Flynn’s involvement with Russia.

* The president and FBI Director James Comey meet to discuss various matters and Trump then — allegedly — asks Comey to stop the investigation into Flynn, whom Trump describes as “a good guy.”

* Comey doesn’t do as Trump asks.

* Trump fires Comey as FBI director because, according to the president, he was spending too much time on the “Russia thing.”

Let me think. Does that sound like an obstruction of justice? It does to me.

I believe, dear reader, we just might have an impeachable offense on our hands.

legal news

Merrick Garland at FBI? Holy cow, man!

What in the name of political contrition might be happening in Washington, D.C.?

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch “The Obstructionist” McConnell has just endorsed someone for FBI director that he fought tooth and nail to keep off the U.S. Supreme Court.

That would be U.S. District Judge Merrick Garland, whom then-President Barack Obama nominated for the high court in 2016, only to be rebuffed when McConnell refused to let Garland have so much as a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The FBI has a vacancy at the top, thanks to Donald John Trump’s firing of Director James Comey. Now we hear that Garland might be considered for the job. And with McConnell’s blessing to boot!

Is McConnell trying to make nice with someone he stiffed?

According to The Hill: “I think if he picks someone with a deep background in law enforcement, who has no history of political involvement, a genuine expert — and the reason I mention Garland is he’s an example of that — it will serve him well, serve the country well and lead to a more bipartisan approach,” McConnell said.

Sounds like a good choice for the Supreme Court, too, don’t you think?

Whatever. The notion that Merrick Garland would be considered for the FBI director’s job is nearly as shocking as Comey’s firing by Trump. Still, as McConnell noted, Garland does have prosecutorial experience, given that he led the federal government’s case against the late Timothy McVeigh, the monster who blew up the Murrah Federal Courthouse in Oklahoma City in April 1995.

Do I think Garland would be a good pick to lead the FBI? I understand that he happens to be a straight arrow, a Boy Scout, a guy with an impeccable judicial reputation. It seems to me those traits would serve him well as head of the nation’s top federal law enforcement agency.

I am just wondering, though: Does he want the job?

If he does, and the president nominates him, then I believe hell will have frozen over and that the sun will rise the next day above the western horizon.

legal news

Cornyn pulls out of FBI search … good!

John Cornyn issued a statement today that says this: “Now more than ever the country needs a well-credentialed, independent FBI director. I’ve informed the administration that I’m committed to helping them find such an individual, and that the best way I can serve is continuing to fight for a conservative agenda in the U.S. Senate.”

The Republican U.S. senator from Texas had been considered a prime candidate for the FBI directorship. After all, he had served as a trial judge in Bexar County, a justice on the Texas Supreme Court and Texas attorney general before being elected to the Senate.

He would have been a terrible pick for Donald Trump to make to replace the fired FBI boss James Comey. Cornyn is too partisan, too political, too friendly — I only can assume — with the president to be the kind of “well-credentialed, independent FBI director” the agency needs in this critical time.

He has pulled his name out of the running for the FBI job. Good deal.

Many Americans’ hope now is that the president will find someone who fits the description of a tough-minded independent law enforcement official to lead the FBI.

Let’s get busy, Mr. President.

national news

You think you ‘know’ someone …

I have been watching and listening to Leslie Stahl for decades. The CBS News correspondent has filled me with information about the nation and the world.

She’s a regular on “60 Minutes,” where she explores in greater detail the issues of the day and the people who shape them.

You think you know someone in that venue. Then that someone reveals a totally other side. You get smacked in the face with something you’ve known all along, that these news “celebrities” are more than images on a TV screen.

Stahl writes about the joys of grandparenthood. She is speaking directly to me and to my wife.

Here’s the essay she wrote for the Sunday New York Times. Just click on the first three words of the preceding sentence.

Oh, how I relate to all she said.

Stahl, though, has an advantage over my wife and me. She gets to see her grandbaby regularly. I’m going to presume her grandchild lives nearby. We aren’t yet at that stage of grandparenting. Our precious little one lives some distance away from us, so we don’t see her nearly as often as we want.

However, that will change in due course — if you get my drift.

Stahl’s essay touches on so many aspects of grandparenthood to which we are looking so forward to enjoying. I said earlier that Stahl speaks directly to me; I won’t presume to speak for my wife, as she hasn’t seen Stahl’s essay yet. It’s kind of like the way the film “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” spoke to me. The family depicted in the film didn’t resemble my old-country Greek family members precisely. But there was enough symbolic resemblance to laugh hysterically at them in the film.

Stahl notes in her essay how some grandparents don’t want to be called “Grandpa” or “Grandma.” They somehow refuse to acknowledge the obvious, which is that they are aging. Stahl writes: “Given the intensity of grandparent love, I’ve been surprised by how many people cringe at the idea of being identified as a granny or a gramps. There’s fear of a stigma, a penalty to being seen as ‘that old.’”

My own view? Bring it on!

As Stahl writes: “When we grandparents are in the lives of the children, they get adoring, unconditional love, the parents get free child care, and we, the grannies and pops, rather than getting older, feel younger, healthier and happier. Everyone wins.”

Boy, howdy!