Tell the whole story about GOP findings, Mr. POTUS

Donald J. Trump keeps leaving out a critical portion of a U.S. House Intelligence Committee report on the ongoing Russia meddling investigation.

This really matters. Honest. It does.

The president once again thanked the Intelligence Committee for concluding “there was no collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives who meddled in our 2016 presidential election.

Except for one little thing. The “exoneration” came from committee Republicans. Intelligence panel Democrats are having none of it. The GOP members drafted the 250-page report all by themselves, with no comment, input or contribution from Democrats who serve on the committee.

According to RealClearPolitics: “No collusion, which I knew anyway. No coordination, no nothing, it is a witch hunt,” the president said. “The report was very powerful, very strong. There was no coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian people.”

“With that all being said, we can get along with Russia. That is a good thing, not a bad thing,” he added.

With that the House Intelligence Committee has wrapped up its work.

However, there’s more work to be done. It’s occurring at the other end of the U.S. Capitol Building, by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Perhaps when the Senate panel finishes its work it will issue a report that includes all its members, not just one side whose only interest is to provide cover for the president.

I should note, too, that former FBI Director James Comey — who’s on a speaking tour promoting his new book — has said that “collusion” isn’t covered specifically by federal statute. If there are indictments to come from, say, special counsel Robert Mueller, they will involve charges of conspiracy or attempts to defraud the government, according to Comey.

Is this investigation nearing an end?

I, um, do not believe that’s the case — no matter what House Intelligence Committee Republicans might think.

Sexual misconduct charges: deal breaker for sure

One of those online “polls” showed up on MSN.com that asked the following: “Do sexual misconduct charges against celebrities affect your entertainment choices.”

Umm. Yep. By all means!

The roster of entertainment casualties keeps growing. What’s interesting, though, about the “poll” question is that the allegations — even those that aren’t yet proven — have doomed many celebrities’ careers.

Kevin Spacey is a goner. Bill Cosby is now a convicted felon. Harvey Weinstein isn’t likely to produce another film ever again. Dustin Hoffman is toast. The list is a lengthy one.

Check it out here.

Indeed, if I know that an actor is involved with a sexual harassment/abuse/assault allegation I am most likely never to spend a dime to watch his work ever again.

The same is true for assorted other controversies. Tom Cruise has made a spectacle of himself over the Scientology controversy that erupted around him years ago. I haven’t paid to see a Cruise film ever since.

Do politics factor in my entertainment decisions? Not in the least. One of my favorite actors is Clint Eastwood, a serious Republican. I do love the man’s art. Same for the late John Wayne, whose films I always enjoyed watching, even though I didn’t care for his political leanings.

But in this era of “Me Too” and “Time’s Up,” I find myself making entertainment choices based on whether the star of the show is caught up in allegations of sexual misconduct.

I also will presume that millions of others are making the same decisions based on the same criteria. That, I will suggest, will hit these low-lifes where it hurts the most.

Kettle, meet pot … yes, Mr. President?

Donald J. Trump took a moment today to condemn the criticism leveled at Dr. Ronny Jackson, whom the president nominated to become secretary of veterans affairs.

Jackson pulled out of the mayhem after allegations surfaced about “hostile work environments,” excessive drinking on the job and over-prescribing of medication.

The president said he told Dr. Jackson — the White House physician — that Washington, D.C., is a mean place. Then he went after Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., who made many of the allegations public.

Trump just couldn’t understand — and get ready for this — all the “name-calling.”

I damn near fell out of my chair!

This, from the guy who coined terms such as: “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz, “Crooked Hillary” Clinton, “Low Energy Jeb” Bush, “Sleepy Eyes” Chuck Todd, Little Rocket Man (Kim Jong Un), “Little Marco” Rubio … and so it goes.

Please, Mr. President. Spare us your faux indignation over “name-calling” of a critical Cabinet pick.

This man, the president, has zero self-awareness, virtually no memory of his own statements and not a scintilla of understanding of the need to find nominees who can pass the simplest test of political fitness.

Why cast aspersions on predecessors?

International statecraft is a nuanced endeavor, but it’s not an entirely complicated matter.

The best practitioners of it look forward and don’t bother looking back, let alone tossing stones at those who came before them in the high office they occupy.

Thus, Donald Trump’s statements today about the pending peace agreement between South and North Korea lacked a sense of nobility one might expect from the president of the United States.

Trump spoke to the media along with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He spoke seriously about the handshake and the historic meeting that occurred overnight between North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and South Korea’s Moon Jae-in. The two men have agreed to strike a peace deal on the Korean Peninsula, ending the official state of war that has existed since the Korean War hostilities ended in 1953.

Then he did that thing that annoys the living daylights out of me. He kept referring to his presidential predecessors’ “mistakes” in dealing with the reclusive North Korean regime.

Holy crap, Mr. President! Enough, already!

I expect fully for Trump take full credit for the deal that awaits the two Koreas. That’s fine. He can take credit if he wishes. But the expected deal came together through a complicated network of international relationships.

I just want the president to look forward from here. Kim Jong Un and Moon Jae-in have taken a huge step toward a long-sought-after peace agreement. It was forged by the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men — roughly 50,000 of whom were Americans — who fought a war that ended in a stalemate.

There is no need — none at all — for the president to re-litigate how his predecessors sought in vain to achieve the noble goal of peace in Korea.

Peace treaty in Korea? Holy cow!

I awoke this morning to an absolute stunner of an announcement.

Kim Jong Un and Moon Jae-in — the presidents of North and South Korea, respectively — have agreed to actually end the Korean War.

End the war? Yes. The Korean War never officially ended with a peace treaty. They stopped the shooting in 1953 after an armistice was signed, ending three years of bloody conflict on the Korean Peninsula.

The Koreas has been functioning with a cease-fire in place. The Demilitarized Zone separating the countries is nothing of the kind: it is the most militarized piece of real estate on Earth.

So, where do we go from here?

Kim and Moon signed an agreement to end the war. The treaty signing will occur later this year, according to the document the men signed.

But there’s more. There now appears some serious movement toward discussions relating to the denuclearization of the peninsula. That’s right. Kim Jong Un has agreed, apparently, to enter serious talks to take down his country’s nuclear ambitions.

Now for a big question: Who gets the credit for this seemingly monumental event? I have a strong hunch that the president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, is going to claim all the credit for himself. He is likely to tell us his tough talk regarding “Little Rocket Man” has brought Kim to his senses.

Well, the president deserves some credit. He needs to share it with the People’s Republic of China, which quite likely also has persuaded Kim to end this ongoing conflict. North Korea has precisely one dependable ally on Earth. It is the PRC. Does anyone believe that Kim would do anything so significant without China signing off?

I am stunned today to hear the news that came out of Korea.

Let us all say a prayer that Kim Jong Un — who is as mercurial and unpredictable as Donald Trump — remains faithful to the signature he has affixed on a document pledging to end the Korean War.

Sixty-five years after the end of the bloodshed, it’s about time!

Now it’s the House chaplain who’s on the hot seat

It’s not every day that the chaplain of the U.S. House of Representatives finds his or her name in the news.

The Rev. Patrick Conroy has just entered a new realm of celebrity status. House Speaker Paul Ryan asked Fr. Conroy to resign — but he hasn’t told the chaplain why he wants him out.

What’s going on here? Why push the House’s spiritual leader out of the way?

Fr. Conroy, a Jesuit priest, has served as chaplain since 2011; then-Speaker John Boehner, selected him.

Boehner left office. Ryan — another Catholic — succeeded him as the Man of the House. Now, Ryan wants Fr. Conroy to hit the road.

The New York Times reports: Father Conroy’s resignation is all the more contentious in Catholic circles because Mr. Ryan is a Catholic conservative, whereas Father Conroy is a Jesuit, a branch that is viewed by some as more liberal.

To his huge credit, Fr. Conroy has declined to engage in that discussion.

I certainly understand that we are functioning in highly contentious times these days. To ask the chaplain of the House, the fellow who opens congressional sessions with an invocation seems to take contentiousness to a new level.

Speaker Ryan not only owes the chaplain an explanation, but he ought to give offer one as well to the rest of us. He doesn’t need reminding, but I’ll do so anyway: The speaker works for us.

Those of us who pay for the People’s House deserve an explanation, too. Come clean, Mr. Speaker.

Secretary Pompeo gets to work

Mike Pompeo’s nomination to be secretary of state cleared the Senate committee vote he needed by the narrowest of margins. It was a single vote.

Then the full U.S. Senate voted today to confirm him. The vote was 57-42; Republican John McCain was absent and unable to vote.

What does this mean for the new secretary? The way I see it, it means he has little bipartisan backing to tackle the difficult tasks of forging a foreign policy that commands the attention and respect of our nation’s allies and, yes, its foes.

Secretaries of state traditionally get huge margins. The only recent secretary of state to be confirmed by a margin comparable to the one that Pompeo earned was, interestingly, Donald J. Trump’s first secretary of state, Rex Tillerson.

The Associated Press reported that every secretary of state dating back to the Carter administration had received at least 85 Senate votes for confirmation.

Why is this important? Foreign policy shouldn’t fall along partisan lines. It shouldn’t reflect the deep divisions within our nation’s partisan political machinery. The United States should speak with a single voice when it deals with foreign policy. That’s long been a tradition. Sadly, that longstanding practice now appears to be buried under the deep and bitter partisan divisions.

It reflects the chasm that separates Republicans and Democrats. It is unhealthy in the extreme, particularly since Secretary Pompeo now must take the lead on preparation for the unprecedented summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un, the mercurial leader of North Korea.

Pompeo and Kim already have met. No one has reported precisely how that first meeting — conducted under the cover of secrecy — produced, other than the president saying something about Pompeo and Kim getting “along well.”

The Senate vote will stand, though, as a message that the new secretary of state doesn’t have the bipartisan support he needs to move forward as the prime spokesman for our foreign policy apparatus.

My hope is that he earns it.

Trump contradicts himself again … imagine that!

When the talk show hosts on the Fox News Channel look nervous while talking to Donald J. Trump, then you know the president is treading where he shouldn’t go.

“Fox & Friends” had the president on the air this morning and Trump took the opportunity to fly off the rails. Take, for instance, what he said about Michael Cohen, his lawyer who now plans to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights regarding Stormy Daniels, the porn star who allegedly had a one-night tryst with the man who would become president.

Trump had denied repeatedly that he knew anything about the $130,000 hush money payment Cohen made to Daniels to keep her quiet about the tryst that Trump denies ever happening.

Today, Trump said that, yep, Cohen represented him on that “crazy Daniels” matter. Huh? Does that mean that Trump knew of the payment, the one where he denied knowledge?

So, where do we stand with the Prevaricator in Chief?

He said he didn’t know about the payment. Cohen said he made it on behalf of his client … that would be the president. Does the president’s lawyer engage in activity without notifying his client? Um, no, not if he is worth a damn as a lawyer.

And did the president today just reverse his prior denials about what Cohen did? It sure looks like it to me.

Therefore, one now understands why the “Fox & Friends” hosts looked so damn nervous while they had their guy, Trump, on the air blathering and bloviating about this and that.

It certainly looked to me as though Trump had come unhinged.

Check it out here.

Simply … amazing.

Trump’s delusion turns to confusion

I saw this headline and couldn’t believe my eyes.

It said that Donald J. Trump wants to get rid of the Electoral College, that he wants the popular vote to decide who gets elected president. Why? Because a popular vote majority, according to the president, is easier to attain.

Eh? Huh? What the … ?

Trump did a phone interview this morning with “Fox & Friends” in which he spun virtually out of control on a number of subjects.

According to Politico: “Remember, we won the election. And we won it easily. You know, a lot of people say ‘Oh, it was close.’ And by the way, they also like to always talk about Electoral College. Well, it’s an election based on the Electoral College. I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign,” Trump said. “It’s as though you’re running — if you’re a runner, you’re practicing for the 100-yard dash as opposed to the 1-mile.”

“The Electoral College is different. I would rather have the popular vote because it’s, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote,” he continued.

If you’re scratching your head over that passage, join the club. So am I. The president — as is usually the case — makes zero sense.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million ballots. Trump was elected legitimately by capturing more than 270 electoral votes he needed to win. He finished with 306 electoral votes, thanks to winning three critical “swing states” — Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — by a total of 77,000 votes among them.

He didn’t win the election “easily,” as he keeps saying. The way I see it, Trump won by a whisker. However, he won according to the rules set forth by the U.S. Constitution.

What baffles me is why he would prefer to toss aside the Electoral College. He parlayed an Electoral College strategy perfectly in 2016, enabling him to win the presidency.

So now he says winning the popular vote would be an easier goal to attain? Who is this clown kidding?

This man’s delusion is downright confusing.

Jury delivers justice to ‘America’s Dad’

Earlier today, a Norristown, Pa., jury of seven men and five women did something many of us a decade ago never would have imagined.

They convicted one of America’s most iconic entertainers of three counts of sexual assault. To be totally candid, I am still trying to process the conviction of Bill Cosby of the crimes he was accused of committing.

Think about this for a moment. There will be no more “alleged” adjective attached to the counts of sexual assault that Cosby committed against Andrea Constand, a one Temple University employee with whom Cosby was acquainted.

Cosby is now a convicted felon who faces the possibility of a lengthy prison term for the three counts of sexual assault. As I understand it, he could be sentenced to 30 years in prison: 10 years for each of the counts.

Now, as an 80-year-old felon, does anyone really expect the judge to throw Cosby in prison for 30 years? I don’t think so.

However, I won’t buy into the canard that Cosby’s age by itself should compel sentencing leniency. As has been noted already, he wasn’t 80 when he attacked Constand; the assault occurred in 2004, meaning Cosby was a “spring chicken” of 66 years of age. As such, he ought to spend a good stretch of time behind bars.

I am left to wonder out loud whether we are witnessing the “Me Too” and “Time’s Up” movements coalescing at just the right moment as it regards Bill Cosby. The jury that heard this retrial convicted the once-revered Cosby after the emergence of the twin movements that arose from accusations of sexual abuse that have leveled high-level entertainers and politicians.

Cosby’s original trial, which ended with a hung jury in 2015, hadn’t yet been overshadowed by the movement that has empowered women around the world to speak out against abuse, harassment and assault.

We have entered a new era. Justice has been delivered to Bill Cosby. The man once known as “America’s Dad” has become “America’s Sexual Predator.”