Monthly Archives: June 2019

military news

Actually, Mr. Acting WH CoS, it is a big deal

The acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, went on the record this morning by declaring that the kerfuffle over the USS John McCain is “much ado about nothing.”

It’s not a big deal, he told “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd.

OK, actually it is a big deal, sir. It’s not the stuff of political cataclysms. But it’s a big enough deal for the Pentagon to implore the White House to stop politicizing the military.

You know the story. Donald Trump traveled to Japan for a state visit. The U.S. Navy, it has been confirmed, issued an order to hide the name of a U.S. destroyer, the USS John McCain, from the president’s view. Trump and the late senator from Arizona, Republican John McCain, were political adversaries. They had said some nasty things about each other. Trump once denigrated McCain’s heroic service as a Vietnam War prisoner by saying he was a hero “only because he was captured.”

The idea that the Navy — where McCain served with distinction until he entered politics in the early 1980s — would be used as a cudgel to beat on the namesake of a warship is an act of cheap politics. It has no place in the military.

The White House has said that Trump played no role in the shielding of the name. The president has said he “wouldn’t do that.” I’ll accept the denials of direct presidential involvement.

However, the matter is a big deal insofar as it dragged the military into a political dispute.

Once more, with extreme vigor: The men and women who serve in all branches of the military do not act as tools in political struggles; they take an oath to protect the rest of us from foreign adversaries.

Thus, the political directive that drags the military into the midst of a domestic dispute is a big deal.

national news

Trump changes rules of political engagement

Some of the news shows and their pundits I’ve been watching lately are pondering the question: What if Barack Obama had done this?

  • What if the former president had said he trusts North Korean dictator/tyrant/madman Kim Jong Un to do the right thing?
  • What if he had failed to show up at Arlington National Cemetery to honor our war dead on Memorial Day?
  • What if Obama had failed to attend a ceremony at a cemetery in France to honor our fallen heroes in World War II, citing a heavy rainfall as the reason?
  • What if Obama took up for the Russian president and accepted his phony denial that his government interfered in our electoral process?

Republicans in both congressional chambers would be filing impeachment proceedings in a heartbeat. Oh, sure, Democrats would resist.

I ask the question because of Republican resistance to at least launching an “inquiry” into whether a GOP president has obstructed justice. Donald Trump likely committed some sort of crime by seeking to block a Justice Department probe into alleged collusion with Russians who attacked our election in 2016.

Democrats are split. Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to wait; some of her more fervent partisans want to launch impeachment hearings now. Republicans, meanwhile, are seeking to undermine the findings of the former special counsel.

What if President Obama had done any of this?  I shudder to think what might be the consequence.

national news

Unable to find constitutional reference to POTUS indictment

1 Comment

It’s been three days since Robert S. Mueller III issued his extraordinary statement about why he reached certain conclusions about Donald Trump’s alleged collusion and obstruction of justice.

I want to focus briefly on a particular point that the former special counsel made in his nine-minute recitation before the nation.

It’s the part where he said that he and his legal team looking into the Russian attack on our electoral process in 2016 could not indict the president because of a Department of Justice policy that prohibits indicting a sitting president.

Then he said such an indictment would violate the U.S. Constitution.

I believe my eyebrows raised just a bit the moment I heard Mueller make that assertion.

I have a copy of the nation’s governing document on my desk. I have been poring over it. I have looked through Article I, which lays out congressional authority and through Article II, which spells out presidential authority. I have looked through all the other original articles in the Constitution, all the way to Article VII.

I cannot find a single reference that protects the president of the United States from indictment. I cannot locate anything at all that speaks even tangentially about the issue.

I am not going to quibble and quarrel with Robert Mueller, a fine lawyer and a former FBI director. He’s a great man with impeccable integrity. I honor the work he did while compiling his report to the nation and I certainly honor his decades of public service.

Moreover, I understand how DOJ policy could prohibit an indictment. However, a policy is much less binding than anything codified in the U.S. Constitution. Policies can be rescinded. Agencies that enact policies can change them. The Constitution is a different sort of creature. To amend anything, you need a bill to come out of Congress and you then need a super-majority of states to ratify the law.

So I am asking: Can anyone find a constitutional reference that declares that presidents cannot be indicted?

International news

Here we go again: Trump manages to ruffle ’em in the UK

I am slapping myself silly over the president of the United States’ inability to conduct himself with anything approaching the dignity his high office would demand.

Donald Trump is getting set for a state visit to the United Kingdom. He’ll meet with Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles and many other dignitaries. State visits compel him to meet with the high and mighty among his hosts.

But what in the world is this guy trying to do?

Prime Minister Teresa May has announced her resignation. Trump then weighed in with a virtual endorsement of Boris Johnson as May’s possible successor. Labor Party officials say that a U.S. president should meddle in a British election; one of them called Trump’s near-endorsement to be “unacceptable.”

Oh, and then there’s the dust-up over the Duchess of Sussex, the American-born wife of Prince Harry, Meghan Markle, who said in 2016 that she might consider moving out of the country if Trump were elected president.

Trump responded by saying something about Markle being “nasty,” but then said he believed she would do well as a member of the British royal family.

White House officials say that Trump’s remarks were taken “out of context.” OK. Whatever.

If only the president of the United States would understand — let alone follow — the rules of diplomatic decorum.

He shouldn’t offer any public opinion on who should become the head of government of an allied nation in the midst of enormous economic and political turmoil.

Nor should he pop off about a beloved member of the royal family, tossing around the “nasty” epithet just because she — as an American citizen — was offering a political statement, which she is entitled to do.

It’s always something with this guy.

national news

AG proving to be a major disappointment

Oh, how I wanted William Barr to be the right remedy for a Justice Department under siege from the president of the United States.

The attorney general took office after a contentious confirmation hearing. It is the AG’s second tour of duty at DOJ. He’s an experienced hand and reportedly a fine lawyer with a steel-trap legal mind.

He has been a disappointment to me. Yes, I am a fervent critic of the guy who nominated William Barr to lead the Justice Department. Donald Trump had savaged Barr’s predecessor as attorney general. Why? Because Jeff Sessions did the right thing by recusing himself from the Russia probe.

Barr stepped in and has — according to his critics — acted more like Trump’s lawyer than the nation’s top law enforcement official.

Now we hear from former FBI director James Comey, another damn good lawyer, who has weighed in with scorching criticism of Barr.

Comey said Barr is “echoing conspiracy theories” about the origins of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s exhaustive investigation into alleged collusion with the Russians. Barr, according to Comey, needs to present facts along with his assertions. “This is what Justice is about,” Comey said via Twitter.

Barr also has been critical of Mueller for declining to conclude whether Donald Trump obstructed justice. But … why? Mueller reiterated this week what he wrote in his lengthy report that he couldn’t indict Trump because of Justice Department policy that prohibits charging a president with a crime. So, he said his team couldn’t exonerate Trump, which to my way of thinking is the same thing as saying that the president committed a crime. That sounds as though Mueller drew a conclusion.

I truly wanted William Barr to step up, to steady the DOJ ship and guide the Justice Department into carrying its role as an impartial administrator of justice.

That doesn’t appear to be happening. Thus, the chaos continues in a federal agency that demands calm, firm and steady leadership.

national news

Why the praise for this lawyer?

Emmet Flood is leaving the White House later this month.

Donald Trump is praising the lawyer he brought aboard to help with his battle against former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russians who attacked our electoral process.

The president called Flood a “great friend” who did a great job.

Trump tweeted “no collusion, no obstruction.”

Whoa! Hold on a second, Mr. POTUS.

Mueller has said there was “no collusion.” I get that. We all get it, OK? He did not clear the president of obstruction. How many times do we have to say it? Mueller did not exonerate the president. He said so in his 448-page report. He repeated it in that extraordinary nine-minute spiel this week.

Still, the president keeps harping on a known falsehood.

Here’s the deal, though: The more Donald Trump says it the more it sinks into the thick skulls of those who continue to believe the lies this guy gets away with telling.

Weird.

national news

What about ‘gun-free zones’?

We have entered a zone that requires a good bit of rational thought and a decided absence of hysteria.

A gunman opened fire Friday in a municipal building in Virginia Beach, Va., killing 12 people and injuring five or six others. He was killed in a fire fight with police.

I don’t know this yet to be fact, but I am going to presume the government building and its surroundings are deemed to be “gun-free zones.” That means you must be unarmed if you are to enter the building. You can’t be packing heat under your jacket, or in an ankle holster.

Now, here’s the question: Do we take down gun-free zones to enable heat-packing bystanders to open fire when someone starts blasting away in the manner that occurred in Virginia Beach?

For that matter, what about in church sanctuaries or in any number of schools that have been the scenes of despicable gun violence?

Dear reader, we have a serious conundrum on our hands — and in our hearts and heads — as we reignite the debate over how to deal with senseless gun violence.

I understand why governments impose gun-free zones. They want there to be an absence of dangerous weapons in what could be called “soft target” areas. You know, places such as public government buildings, or schools, houses of worship.

The debate that no doubt will ensue in the wake of the Virginia Beach massacre is clearly headed toward some further discussion of the value of gun-free zones and whether they make those zones less safe from madmen like the one who opened fire in Virginia Beach.

My first instinct is to say that gun-free zones should remain. We shouldn’t expose children, or worshipers, or government employees to more firearms in the workplace, in our church sanctuaries or in our classrooms.

I am going to implore us all to wage this debate with seriousness and caution.

So help me, this is the kind of issue that gives me serious heartburn.

national news

Chief is spot on in his refusal to ID the killer

Virginia Beach, Va., Police Chief James Cervera and I are on virtually the same page in one respect relating to the tragedy that erupted Friday in his city.

The chief will refuse to refer to a lunatic killer by name. Yes, he has vowed to do so only one time. After that initial identification, Chief Cervera said he will refer to the individual as “the suspect,” who is responsible for the deaths of 12 innocent victims and the injuring of six others.

I have followed that doctrine for some time on this blog. I refuse to identify the individuals who commit these acts of insanity against human beings. Hell, I have difficulty writing the words “fellow human beings,” because that suggests the killers have a semblance of humanity. They do not.

Yes, this blog has identified some of history’s most notorious killers by name; individuals such as Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray come to mind. Their victims were public figures known around the world.

As for other mass murderers, such as the guy who blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in April 1995, he joined the ranks of infamous monsters long before I started writing this blog. So, yes, I have ID’d that individual as well over the years.

The monsters who do things such as open fire on municipal employees at a government complex in a coastal Virginia city, though, are simply seeking their 15 seconds of fame. I won’t contribute to that demented desire here.

With that, I want to salute the Virginia Beach chief of police for relegating the gun-toting moron to the world of anonymity.

As the chief said, the focus now should be on honoring the victims, helping the wounded among them heal and lend love and comfort to the loved ones of those who were lost.

International news

POTUS cherishes friendship with murderous tyrant

What in the world … ?

Donald Trump said in the wake of the failed Hanoi summit with North Korean tyrant Kim Jong Un that he respects the murderer who runs that country. He anticipates building a wonderful friendship with North Korea and with Kim Jong Un.

Now we hear from South Korean media that Kim ordered the execution of North Korea’s special envoy to the United States. He accused the diplomat of spying for the United States. This was the fellow, by the way, who masterminded the Hanoi summit that ended suddenly when Trump walked away without obtaining a nuclear arms agreement with North Korea.

So, is the president of the United States really and truly serious about forging a friendship with this murderous madman?

Someone needs to splash me with some cold water. I am utterly astonished that this clown serves as president of the United States of America.

economic news, national security

Tariffs punish U.S. consumers, won’t curb migration

Do I have this straight?

Donald Trump wants to impose tariffs on goods coming to the United States from Mexico until our southern neighbor ends illegal immigration from Mexico into the United States.

Is that what he wants to do?

Well, why is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, other business groups friendly to Republican politicians (such as the president), and GOP politicians (such as U.S. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas) so angry with Trump over the tariff threat?

Earth to POTUS: Tariffs don’t punish the countries that send goods into this country; they punish U.S. consumers who will pay more for those goods to cover the cost of the tariff.

The stock market took a header today. My retirement fund — not to mention the funds of millions of other Americans — also took a hit. Will it come back? I certainly hope so.

This tariff notion once again flies in the face of whatever passes for economic policy that emanates from the White House.

Donald Trump is conflating immigration policy with economic policy. He is seeking to damage one of this nation’s pre-eminent trading partners. Mexico clearly doesn’t want the tariff imposed, particularly since Mexico, the United States and Canada are supposedly set to agree to a new “free trade agreement” among the three nations.

It’s called the United States/Mexico/Canada Agreement, aka USMCA. It replaces the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Trump called one of the worst trade deals in human history … or words to that effect.

How in the world does this tariff play in the context of the pending USMCA?

My view? It doesn’t play well at all!

Meanwhile, U.S. consumers are going to be the primary victims of yet another scatter-shot presidential economic policy.

This is not how you “put America first,” Mr. President.