Tag Archives: impeachment

national news

Just not feelin’ ‘The Bern’

Allow me a moment or two to vent on what I see possibly transpiring within the fight for the Democratic Party presidential primary campaign.

It is that I am baffled at the support that Sen. Bernie Sanders continues to draw among those who want to defeat Donald John Trump, the nation’s current president.

Sanders is an independent from Vermont who is running in a party to which he does not belong. He is an avowed “democratic socialist,” a fellow who wants to redistribute the nation’s wealth. He wants to take money away from the “top 1 percent” who he says control everything in this great country.

He wants to make college education free for every American and favors something called “Medicare for All,” which in my mind is unaffordable.

He cannot campaign without lacing his rhetoric with the notes he pulls from that song sheet.

Sen. Sanders has lost me. I cannot back this guy. Yet he enjoys amazing support in Iowa, New Hampshire and possibly in Nevada … three of the early-primary states.

He is focusing more attention now on Texas, which has a March 3 primary on what is being billed as Super Tuesday.

Being more of a center-left kind of voter, I am inclined to look more seriously at candidates who seek to straddle the stripe that divides liberals and conservatives. I continue to long for a more compromising environment in the federal government.

It is clear to me that Donald John Trump isn’t the individual who can unite this country. He is campaigning to his base, firing ’em up at rallies and firing off epithets at his foes.

Bernie Sanders isn’t going to unite this country, either. He’s now making ad buys in Texas, seeking to elevate his profile here. Will the young folks who have glommed onto this fellow’s message now put him among the Democratic Party leaders in Texas?

I am among those voters who want to defeat Trump, who still appears all but certain to survive the impeachment trial under way in the U.S. Senate. I just cannot buy into the notion that Bernie Sanders is the guy who can do it.

national news

What do you mean, Mr. POTUS, about Schiff paying ‘a price’?

Donald John Trump’s Twitter digits are working overtime. Indeed, they have been doing so for, oh, the past three-plus years!

Now he says U.S. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who is serving as lead manager in the Senate impeachment trial of Trump, will “pay a price” for damaging the country.

Many folks are concerned about the chilling implication. “Pay a price?” What does that mean, Mr. President?

I guess he means voters in Schiff’s California congressional district will boot him out of office later this year. But he didn’t say what he meant specifically.

Others have suggested a potential “death threat.” Trump’s allies are defending him, saying no one should ascribe such dire consequence in something the president fires off on Twitter.

I am just one American who wishes — but long ago quit expecting — Donald Trump to cease the Twitter tantrums/tirades/tempests.

He is on trial in the Senate on allegations that he abused his power and obstructed Congress’s effort to get to the bottom of his abuse of power. It’s all about the Ukraine thing, asking that government for a political favor and withholding military aid until it delivered on the favor, which was an investigation into Joe Biden, a potential 2020 foe of Trump.

Schiff’s committee took the lead in investigating the allegation. Now he is leading the House managers in prosecuting that case in the Senate.

It’s all being done constitutionally, legally, according to custom.

However, Donald Trump is issuing a veiled threat? Via Twitter?

Knock … it … off!

national news

Is this the ‘smoking gun’? Uhh, probably … not

Former national security adviser John Bolton has just tossed a proverbial live grenade into Donald John Trump’s defense team’s lap.

You see, he has this book coming out that alleges that the current president of the United States conditioned specifically the withholding of military aid to Ukraine on the launching of an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden.

Bingo! Ba-da-boom! There’s your so-called “smoking gun.”

Democrats now are insisting in even more vigorous terms that Bolton be summoned to testify before the Senate trial that is underway to determine whether Trump should be kicked out of office. The House has impeached him on grounds of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

If Bolton gets to talk openly and under oath to senators, then some folks believe this might be the testimony that could pry Republicans loose from their loyal support of Donald Trump. I wish I could join them in believing as much. I am afraid that Trump’s death grip on the GOP is as tight as ever.

It is an amazing transformation of a once-great political party.

If Bolton’s testimony is somehow kept out of the Senate record, then he will be able to publish his book, share to the world what he reportedly has written. Donald Trump will continue to deny that he said what Bolton has alleged … although I am unwilling to believe a single word that comes out of POTUS’s mouth.

I do agree, though, that Bolton has detonated a bomb.

It remains to be seen, though, whether it inflicts any serious damage to the man who is defending himself against those who have accused him of high crimes and misdemeanors.

national news

Trump is still a ‘phony’ and a ‘fraud’

I didn’t vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 when he ran for president against Barack H. Obama. I felt at the time — and I do at this moment — that the incumbent president was better for this country than his Republican opponent.

But then Mitt had to make a speech in 2016 that spoke for many millions of his fellow Americans. Here it is …

He called the then-prospective GOP nominee a “phony” and a “fraud.” He was right then. He would be right today — were he to muster the nerve to say it about the fraudulent politician who went on to be elected president of the United States.

I just want to share this video once again to offer a glimmer of hope that now Sen. Romney, of Utah, will muster up some guts to break ranks with his Republican Senate colleagues.

Sen. Romney says he wants former national security adviser John Bolton to testify in the ongoing Senate trial of Donald John Trump. Bolton heard Trump’s infamous phone call to Ukraine’s president in which he asked the foreign government for a political favor. Bolton reportedly was alarmed at what he heard.

The House has impeached Trump on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Trump’s legal team has begun its defense of the president. No one in the Senate or the House who purports to support Trump has stood up for the man’s character.

Sen. Romney damn sure isn’t.

The speech attached to this blog post speaks volumes — and it speaks them loudly — to the essence of the man who sought the presidency in 2016 and who has abused the power of his office ever since he swore an oath to defend the Constitution.

International news

Russia, Ukraine … which one attacked us in 2016?

1 Comment

Donald John Trump’s defense team today introduced, albeit gently, the notion that Ukraine might have joined its mortal enemy Russia in attacking our 2016 presidential election.

Trump is on trial for his job in the U.S. Senate. The House of Reps’ managers gave it their best shot in their opening argument. Now it’s Trump’s turn.

So what did the legal eagles representing the current president offer? They suggested that Ukraine might have attacked the U.S. election in 2016. But wait!

Russia and Ukraine are at war. Russia re-annexed Crimea, a part of Ukraine. Russia-backed rebels are fighting Ukraine government forces. Thousands of people have been killed.

An alleged Ukrainian attack on our election, of course, is a Russian propaganda talking point, which Republicans in the Senate and House have been parroting. Moreover, U.S. intelligence experts have concluded unanimously that Russia acted alone in attacking our system in 2016, even though Donald Trump keeps denying their findings and disparaging their expertise.

I have to ask: Does it make any semblance of sense for Ukraine and Russia to — and pardon the expression — “collude” to interfere together to influence the outcome of a U.S. presidential election?

My head is spinning.

national news

Should Democratic candidates recuse themselves?

My quest for fairness compels me to wonder aloud: Given that this blog — published by me — has insisted that U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is unfit to sit as a “juror” in the trial of Donald John Trump, might there be a case to be made against the four Democratic senators who are running for president?

McConnell has said he won’t be an “impartial” juror, even though he took an oath to deliver impartial justice in the Senate impeachment trial of the current president of the United States.

What about the individuals who are running for their party’s nomination to oppose Trump in the November election? Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bennett have made up their minds on how they intend to vote when they get the order to cast their vote. They will vote to convict Trump. Period.

I can think of a few other Republicans as well who’ve said they have made up their minds, that they don’t need no witness testimony or evidentiary documents. Lindsey Graham? Ted Cruz? John Kennedy? Give me a break.

However, this pre-judging disease spreads across the aisle.

The four Democrats have staked out their views already. Sure, they insist on witnesses and documents. It remains to be seen whether they’ll get ’em. It’s beginning to look to me as though the fix is in. Republicans who comprise most of the 100 Senate seats aren’t likely to admit witnesses, even though they have plenty to offer.

The four contenders for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, though, need to think long and hard whether they are any more qualified to serve with impartiality than the Senate majority leader who’s admitted he will do nothing of the sort.

Hey, fair is fair … right?

national news

Dershowitz needs to explain his change of mind on abuse of power

Alan Dershowitz has been recruited by Donald John Trump to join his defense team that will fight to stave off the current president’s potential conviction and removal from office.

The U.S. House of Representatives impeached Trump on two articles: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. To my mind, the House impeachment managers have made the case. He abused his power by asking Ukraine to interfere in our 2020 presidential election and obstructed justice by blocking all White House officials from answering congressional subpoenas.

The president’s team will seek to rebut them.

Dershowitz, though, is going to argue — as I understand it — that the impeachment articles somehow violate constitutional precepts, that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense.

I hate to disagree with an esteemed law professor emeritus at Harvard University … but I think I will.

Moreover, Dershowitz said precisely the opposite in 1998 when the House was impeaching President Bill Clinton. Twenty-two years ago, Dershowitz said an abuse of power was impeachable, but now he says it isn’t? What’s changed between then and now?

We all know the answer. Nothing has changed!

It’s too bad senators are required to sit there silently in the Senate chamber. None of them is allowed to object to what they might hear.

Indeed, I would find it highly objectionable for esteemed professor Dershowitz to say out loud that a president cannot be impeached for abusing the power of his office when, truth be told, he most certainly can.

I am so-o-o-o-o looking forward to hearing how Donald Trump’s team seeks to defend him.

national news

Planning to listen intently to POTUS’s defense

Now that the Democratic impeachment managers are getting set to wrap up their arguments to toss Donald John Trump out of office, I want to declare my sincere intention for the next phase of this historic event.

The current president’s defense team is going to take the U.S. Senate floor Saturday to begin its effort to persuade senators that they should acquit Trump of the allegations that have been leveled by the House of Representatives.

I want to listen to every bit of it live, in real time, to the extent that I can. My wife and I are otherwise busy the next couple of days, but my intention is to devote as much time as I can to hearing how Trump’s defense team plans to defend this guy.

The House impeached Trump on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, stemming from that infamous July 25 phone call in which Trump asked Ukraine for political help, asking the Ukrainians to help him cheat his way to re-election later this year. He wanted them to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and withheld duly appropriated military aid to Ukraine.

The House managers have made a compelling case that Trump put his personal political interest over the interests of the nation and then blocked Congress’s efforts to get to the heart of the matter.

How are Trump’s team planning to defend him?

I am going to wait with bated breath for someone — anyone! — on Trump’s team to say the following: Donald John Trump never would do the things he has been accused of doing.

I am going to wait for them to defend the president’s character. I want to know if they dare say such a thing about a president who they likely know did what has been alleged in the articles of impeachment. If such a defense is not forthcoming, then what is the Trump team’s next available option?

Will they continue to attack the motives of those who want him removed from office? Will they insist that the Trump foes are so filled with hate of the man that they are willing to subject the country to the sickening drama that is unfolding? Will they keep insisting that Trump was looking to root out corruption, even though the managers have proven that the president exhibited zero interest in Ukraine’s government until after Joe Biden decided to run for president?

I do not shy away from my own bias. However, I am ready to hear Donald John Trump’s team make their case. I am even more ready to hear someone on that team stand up for the president’s character, proving to us that this man never would put his personal political benefit above the oath he took to defend the Constitution.

I’m all ears.

national news

How can the Senate acquit this guy?

I am sitting far from the action, way out here in Trump Country, in the Peanut Gallery. I have been watching much of the Senate trial of Donald John Trump — maybe too much of it — and I have come away so far with this conclusion.

Based on what I have heard, I am finding it impossible to believe how a senator can vote to acquit the current president of the United States.

The House of Reps has impeached him on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The House managers who have presented their case have done so with clarity, purpose and passion. They have the facts and evidence on their side.

Very soon, Donald Trump’s legal team will suit up and make its case to keep him.

I am waiting to hear one thing from the president’s team. It is that they must say that Donald Trump “never would do the things that the House managers have alleged.” 

So far the president’s defenders have not stood up for Trump’s character. They haven’t argued on behalf of the man’s love of country, his commitment to all Americans. They haven’t yet produced any evidence to support his contention that he is driven to root out corruption in a foreign government and that Joe and Hunter Biden just happen to be in the way.

Oh, the 2020 election and Joe Biden’s candidacy to seek to run against him? What about that?

If the president’s team is able to disprove all of it, then I am willing to accept that. But so far they have attacked the process. They have attacked the motives of Trump’s accusers.

The House managers and Trump’s defenders are talking past each other. The prosecutors are arguing the facts and evidence; the defenders are arguing motives and process.

Out here in the Peanut Gallery, I am at this moment sticking with the prosecutors. They are making the case for Trump’s conviction and removal from office.

national news

How will POTUS leave office, gracefully or clumsily?

I have good news regarding Donald John Trump: This man will not be president forever. There is an end — if you’ll pardon the phrase — to our “long national nightmare.”

It might come in one of three ways: The U.S. Senate could convict Trump of the impeachment charges it is considering, he could lose his re-election bid this coming November or — and perish the thought — he will walk out of the Oval Office for the final time on Jan. 20, 2025.

Let’s be real: Conviction by the Senate isn’t likely to happen, no matter how many facts senators hear about Trump’s effort to pervert the oath he took to defend the Constitution. Then we have the election in November. I am not going to even venture a wild-a** guess about how that will turn out. I mean, I never thought this guy would be elected in the first place. The end of a second term almost is too hideous to ponder.

My thoughts, however, turn to how the president is going to leave office. Will he pledge a smooth transition with whomever will succeed him? Will he commit his staff to working hand-in-glove with his successor’s staff? Or … will he yammer about a “rigged election” if the successor happens to be from the Democratic Party? Will he order his staff to turn their backs on successor’s staff members who need help and counsel as they seek to assemble their own governing team?

You might laugh at the last scenario. I feel the need to remind you that Trump has obstructed his staff already to ignore congressional subpoenas, held back key documents and, yes, obstructed Congress in its effort to perform its constitutionally mandated right to conduct oversight of the executive branch.

The sooner he’s out of there, the better. You know that’s how I feel already. By the time the end of a second Trump term arrives, though, it likely will seem like a countless number of lifetimes has passed.

Just remember: There is an end to this madness.