Monthly Archives: August 2018

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.

legal news

Meet with the judge, Senate Democrats

It’s no surprise to anyone who reads this blog regularly that Brett Kavanaugh is not the kind of jurist I would nominate to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, it might surprise regular readers of High Plains Blogger to know that I believe U.S. Senate Democrats are wrong to refuse to meet with Kavanaugh prior to voting “no” against his nomination to the nation’s highest court.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, whose statement is attached to this post, calls the nomination a sham and said he won’t participate in private with Kavanaugh. He is troubled by the conviction of former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort of tax fraud and the guilty plea of former Trump lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen to similar accusations.

Here is what I would do if I were a member of the Senate — and y’all can thank God in heaven, as I have, that I am not a U.S. senator. I would sit down with Kavanaugh and then read him the riot act.

I likely would tell him up front that he won’t have my vote, that his lengthy paper trail of judicial opinions and essays is anathema to my own philosophy and that I cannot in good conscience betray my own values.

Then I would shake his hand in front of the cameras, smile and send him on his way.

The idea that these senators — particularly those who will question Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing — will refuse to meet privately with him is anathema to the kind of decorum and dignity they insist from the president of the United States.

It’s important to remember that presidents have the right under the Constitution to nominate judges to lifetime posts on the federal bench — and that the Senate has the role to “advise and consent” to these nominations.

What is the actual harm in sitting down with this individual and questioning him intently about issues you deem critical — and then voting your conscience?

local news

They work for you, not the other way around

The more I think about it, the more I hope the Amarillo City Council abandons a nutty notion about meeting at 7 in the morning every Tuesday at City Hall’s council chambers.

City Manager Jared Miller has this idea that he can save the city money by avoiding overtime pay for staffers who need to attend council meetings; so he has pitched the idea of meeting at 7 a.m. instead of at 5 p.m., which has been council’s policy for the past few years.

Let’s back up a bit. Miller’s new to the city, so he might need just a bit of perspective to throw into the mix.

The council — formerly known as the City Commission — used to meet at 3 p.m. every Tuesday. Some residents complained because they couldn’t attend council/commission meetings during the middle of a work day. Over time, the council decided it would change its meeting schedule to accommodate more residents’ desire to listen in and to possibly comment to council members if they had a concern that needed the city’s attention.

Sure, the change in schedule came with some cost. The city needed to pay staff members who needed to attend these evening meetings. I reckon the city manager believes it’s too much money.

I get that. I have some sympathy for those who don’t like paying city staffers overtime. But understand: I no longer am one of Amarillo’s taxpaying residents; my wife and I have relocated to the Metroplex.

My feeling all along — and will continue to be — is that elected city officials don’t operate in a vacuum. They answer to the residents/voters who put them into office. In Amarillo, council members work essentially for free: $10 per public meeting, which makes their service a “labor of love,” if you want to call it that.

That doesn’t lessen for an instant their responsibility to ensure that everyone gets a decent chance to attend their public meetings. I keep thinking that 7 a.m. is a tad early to be rousting residents out of the rack if they want to attend a council meeting.

This 7 a.m. “trial” is going to start on Sept. 4. My hope is that they deliver a verdict of “non-starter” and return to a time that is more commensurate with residents’ ability to attend — and to have their voices heard.

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.

environmental news

Beautiful view … if only we could see it

MISSOULA, Mont. — Our drive today from West Yellowstone to Missoula was spectacular — or at least that’s what I’ll presume.

We couldn’t see much of what we understand is breathtaking mountain splendor.

Our 260-mile trek north and west was uneventful in important ways. We had no delays. Our truck performed perfectly. Our fifth wheel recreational vehicle followed along just as it is designed to do.

The obstruction to our sight-seeing while driving comes from smoke. Those wildfires that keep breaking out throughout the western United States are causing considerable havoc to those of us who want to enjoy the splendor the Almighty provides.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not going to bitch and moan about it Why? My inconvenience pales in comparison to the struggle being fought in those mountains, valleys and meadows by the firefighters who are thrusting themselves into harm’s way.

Our latest retirement trek will continue west before we head back home in a few days. I keep hearing about the smoke all along the way. I want it to clear out for totally selfish reasons, but also because — like all Americans — I want the firefighters to return home safely. Their children and spouses need them.

I won’t go too deeply into the climate change debate with this blog post. I’ll only re-state what I’ve believed for a good while: The weather is changing and we can expect more of these fires and more than likely they’ll arrive with increasing ferocity.

Millions more tourists just like my wife and me will be denied the chance to take in the view we know is out there … somewhere.

local news

Council to meet at 7 a.m.? Really?

Let me stipulate that I don’t really have a dog in this fight, given that I no longer live in Amarillo, Texas.

That doesn’t disallow me from speaking out on what I believe is a strange policy shift at City Hall.

The City Council, beginning Sept. 4, is going to start meeting at 7 a.m. Yep, that’s seven bells after midnight. That’s early in the day, man!

Why the change? I guess City Manager Jared Miller is up for a change just because he can change the meeting time at his discretion.

The city is seeking to save money, given that some city staffers have to attend council meetings. So, rather than pay them overtime to attend a 5 p.m. council meeting — which is after hours for staff members — Miller believes that staff members will be on the clock already so they can attend council meetings.

I get that. But what about the constituents who want to attend council meetings? They have children to prepare for school. They have to do their own prep to make themselves presentable at the start of a work day. When does someone roll out of the rack? Five? Six? Can they get ready in an hour before motoring down to City Hall?

The City Council is going to launch this new meeting schedule for a 90-day trial. Good luck with it. I have to agree with the complainers who dislike the 7 a.m. start for City Council meetings.

It’s too early!

media news

Why the mention of ‘Fox News’?

1 Comment

Is it me or do others hear the same thing from our friends and family members who like to invoke the name of “Fox News” whenever they refer to hearing something on the mainstream media.

I keep getting this specific media reference when the person with whom I am speaking about the news of the day.

You know what I’m talking about, yes?

You’re talking to someone about, oh, a particular event. It might have something to do with politics of public policy; or … it might not. The person to whom you are talking will say, “I heard something on Fox News about that … ”

The Fox News reference might be relevant. So many times, though, it is irrelevant. It lends nothing to whatever discussion is taking place. I generally feel no need to mention the source of whatever item I heard on cable or broadcast TV news networks.

But, hey, that’s just me … I guess.

To be candid, this kind of gratuitous mention of “Fox News” is about as relevant as the individual who says: “I was walking down the street and this colored guy waved at me.”

Do you get where I’m going with this?

It’s as if the Fox News devotees are trying to validate something about their broadcast/cable TV watching preferences. Or, it might be that my friends and family members — knowing that I do not watch Fox News — are trying to get under my skin.

I’m not irritated. I’m just, oh, curious.

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.

national news

Mollie Tibbetts’s memory likely to become a political football

Most of us with a heart and soul are heartbroken over the news that a 20-year-old Iowa woman has died at the hands of someone who grabbed her, took her into a field and killed her.

Her name was Mollie Tibbetts. She was jogging along a rural road when she disappeared.

Now we have a suspect — Cristhian Bahena Rivera –who happens to be an undocumented immigrant from Mexico. I am steeling myself for what I expect to be the maximum politicization of this tragic event. The Politicizer in Chief, Donald J. Trump, is likely to lead the “I told you so” chorus that cries out for the immediate arrest and deportation of all such immigrants.

I do not want that to happen. Sadly, I fear that it will occur. Indeed, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott put out a message immediately upon the arrest of the suspect that Texas was correct to out law “sanctuary cities,” where illegal immigrants have been protected against arrest and potential deportation. That’s fine, governor. How about putting a lid on politicking further upon the grief of a stricken family?

Do you think the president of the United States will show discretion? I rather doubt it … strongly!

It’s the nature of the climate in this era of demonization. One man allegedly commits a crime and we are likely now to assign nefarious motives to others just like him who have come into this country without proper documentation.

I prefer simply to grieve for Mollie Tibbetts.

And let the criminal justice system take care of Cristhian Rivera.