45th POTUS keeps trying to rewrite the rules

Listen up, Donald John “Smart Person” Trump.

You cannot tell major media organizations which news to cover and which to ignore. The U.S. Constitution — the document with which you are patently unfamiliar — simply doesn’t allow presidents of the United States to coerce a “free press.”

It’s in the First Amendment. The founders had crafted the Constitution with those articles, then they started to amend the government framework. So they started with 10 civil liberties they wanted to protect.

That First Amendment? It protects freedom to worship, freedom to assemble peaceably to protest the government and — yep! — the freedom of the press to report the news.

NBC News believes the Russian hacking story is important enough to cover fully and completely.

It doesn’t please you, Mr. President? That’s tough dookey, sir. It doesn’t matter whether you’re unhappy with the way the television network does its job.

And quit the tweeting, too

You keep blazing away on your Twitter feed with that juvenile nonsense. You act more like a teenager than the leader of the free world. And do you actually believe that NBC News or any media outlet is going to do what you want just because you’re the president and you can say whatever the hell you feel like saying?

That’s not how it works in this country.

Just so you know, I just watched a great PBS special on KLRU-TV, based out of Austin, Texas. It told us plenty about the presidency, the White House and the families who have occupied “the people’s house.”

One of your predecessors, President Lyndon Johnson, was ravaged by protesters during the Vietnam War. What do you suppose the president said at the time. He said he wanted to ensure that presidents always work to preserve the right to dissent, to disagree with decisions made in the Oval Office. “I know all about dissent,” LBJ said.

You are occupying the Oval Office now, Mr. President. The dissent? The disagreement? The occasional anger? Get used to it.

Oh, and quit trying to bully the media.

The Constitution protects them from people like you. Honest. It’s in there. In the First Amendment. You ought to read it.

No one saw this ‘trainwreck’? Not … exactly

Donald J. Trump’s administration has demonstrated with amazing clarity what many of us believed all along: The president does not know how to govern.

The Los Angeles Times has just published the first of a series of editorials in which the newspaper proclaims that no one saw the trainwreck that would occur.

I beg to differ.

Dishonesty reigns in the White House

Here is part of what the Times wrote: “What is most worrisome about Trump is Trump himself. He is a man so unpredictable, so reckless, so petulant, so full of blind self-regard, so untethered to reality that it is impossible to know where his presidency will lead or how much damage he will do to our nation. His obsession with his own fame, wealth and success, his determination to vanquish enemies real and imagined, his craving for adulation — these traits were, of course, at the very heart of his scorched-earth outsider campaign; indeed, some of them helped get him elected. But in a real presidency in which he wields unimaginable power, they are nothing short of disastrous.”

The myriad problems that are plaguing the president — and the presidency — appear to be so much a result of self-inflicted ignorance and hubris.

At some levels, Trump is governing the way he said he would. He boasted that “I alone” can repair what he said was broken.

That is not how the founders structured this government of ours. Then again, the president doesn’t know about that, because he appears to demonstrate no interest in learning about what those great men envisioned for the government they created.

How will the president view the criticism that the LA Times has leveled at him? Oh, he’ll no doubt tweet something about how the paper is “failing,” or how it relies on “fake news,” apparently with no self-awareness that he became the king of fake news when he continued to promote the lie that Barack Obama was born overseas and wasn’t qualified constitutionally to serve as president.

The LA Times — if you’ll allow me to borrow a phrase — is “telling it like it is.”

Hillary’s back? Please, no!

I have terribly mixed feelings about seeing Hillary Rodham Clinton climbing back into the arena.

First of all, she should have been elected president of the United States in 2016. She wasn’t. She squandered every single opportunity that stood before her, starting with the quality of the fellow to whom she lost the election.

Donald J. Trump is unfit for the office he occupies. But he’s occupying it. Not Hillary.

She shouldn’t run again … ever!

“She’s always been someone who gets out there and fights for what she thinks is right,” one former Clinton campaign staffer told The Hill.

“She’s striking an appropriate balance. She still has an appreciation that she’s not the face of the Democratic Party and people don’t want her to be … but having worked for her and having seen how hard she fights, I’d be disappointed if she spent the rest of her career in the woods.”

I get that she isn’t exactly positioning herself for another presidential run. That’s fine. She shouldn’t. She need not run for the highest office ever again.

Can she a voice of some sort? Can she speak on behalf of Americans — most of whom who voted in 2016 cast their ballots for her — who want to resist whatever it is that Trump wants to do? I suppose so.

I happen to subscribe to the prevailing political theory that the Democratic Party needs to find the freshest face it can find in 2020. I’m pretty sure the Democrats will find one.

As for Hillary, well, she has had a hell of a run in a lengthy public service career. First lady of Arkansas, then of the United States; a U.S. senator from New York; a consequential stint as secretary of state; then a major-party presidential nomination.

OK, so she didn’t win the big prize. Time should enable her to look back on her life and give her a chance to relish all that she was able to accomplish.

Maybe there’s more in store for her. I just hope it doesn’t include another run for the presidency.

JP gets shot … and remains quiet? Huh?

An elected public official who gets shot in the shoulder owes the public a full explanation of what the hell happened to him.

Well, Potter County Justice of the Peace Richard Herman? What happened that night in Amarillo’s San Jacinto neighborhood?

Herman has gone dark since he allegedly got involved in some kind of back-alley dispute involving two men who supposedly were assaulting a third individual.

He began blabbing about the encounter on social media and then reported — again on social media — that he was self-treating a gunshot wound to the shoulder. Amarillo Police Department officials heard about it from an out-of-state caller and looked into the matter.

What the … ?

Doesn’t the public deserve to know the truth?

Herman didn’t bother to file a police report. State law would seem to compel him to do so. He’s in violation of the law? Is that correct?

How about telling the public what’s going on?

One doesn’t normally hear about justices of the peace getting involved with neighborhood tussles.

Talk to us, Judge Herman.

Another old-school journo calls it a career

Of all the colleagues with whom I worked during my 37 years in daily journalism, I am hard-pressed to think of anyone who fit the description of “ink-stained wretch” better than a fellow who has just retired from a newspaper where we both once worked.

His name is Dan Wallach. He is a native of New York state. He graduated from the University of Arizona and ended up in Beaumont, Texas, where he worked at the Beaumont Enterprise for more than three decades.

Dan represents — to me — the individual who is committed fully to covering his community, of telling the myriad stories that give that community its life, its personality.

What’s more, he is unafraid to reveal the community’s scars and to press relentlessly the individuals who are responsible for inflicting those wounds.

He has just entered my world … of retirement. I welcome him gladly and wish him well, but I am absolutely certain that journalism as we both understand the craft is going to be a good bit poorer without more people such as Dan pursuing it.

I now want to tell a short story that personifies the kind of tribute that Dan earned from news sources over his many years in print journalism.

In the spring of 1995, just a few months after I had left Beaumont to become editorial page editor of the Amarillo Globe-News, I got a call from then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush’s office. The governor invited me to Austin to meet with him.

I arrived at the State Capitol Building a few days later. Gov. Bush and I  shook hands and he led me to his office. We exchanged a few pleasantries before we got down to brass tacks.

The governor knew I had worked at the Enterprise and he thanked me for the newspaper’s editorial endorsement in the 1994 governor’s race in which Gov. Bush defeated incumbent Democrat Ann Richards.

“It kind of surprised me,” Bush said. “Why is that?” I asked.

He told me about a “reporter you had there who gave me all kinds of trouble” when Bush talked to the media during his campaign stops in the Golden Triangle.

“I can’t remember his name,” he said. I responded, “Oh, you must be thinking of Dan Wallach.”

“Yeah, that’s who it was,” the governor said.

“He was one tough son of a b****.”

We both laughed out loud.

I told Dan not long after that meeting what the governor had said about him. I took it as a statement of high praise and I believe to this very day that’s how George W. Bush intended for it to be taken.

I have wanted for years to tell that story in some public forum. Dan’s retirement has given me that chance.

Well done, Dan.

Happy Trails, Part Seven

AUSTIN, Texas — One of our nieces asked me at dinner: How does it feel?

Retirement? Yes.

Well, I don’t quite know yet. I’m still quite new at it, unlike my wife, who called it a career three years ago. She’s adapted nicely to being fully retired.

I’m still finding my way emotionally.

Don’t misunderstand me. I do not miss the daily grind. Nor do I miss the pressure of meeting deadlines. I damn sure don’t miss coping with the pressure of a changing media environment; I’ll leave that to the young bucks.

My gut tells me it’ll take no time at all to become totally acclimated to full-time retirement. After all, isn’t that what all of us strive to reach, that era of our life when we are free to pursue what we want, to not have to answer to anyone — other than your much better half?

I’ve crossed that threshold.

I cannot yet find the words to describe how I’m supposed to “feel” about retirement. I’ll recognize the words when I hear them in my head.

When I do, I’ll be sure to let you know. For now, I’m deriving too much joy just from awakening each morning when I feel like it.

Uh, Mr. POTUS? Photo ops are meant to convey something

Dear Mr. President,

That was some stunt you pulled today.

You called the media into the White House to watch you sign a couple of executive orders concerning international trade enforcement.

Then one of the reporters fired off a question about Michael Flynn. Your response? You turned tail and ran from the room. Why didn’t you stay long enough to sign the damn EOs?

This was supposed to be a positive photo op for you and your struggling administration. Then someone poses a tricky question — and you provide yet another kind of photo op, one that won’t play nearly as positively as the one you intended.

It was fascinating to watch the vice president acknowledge immediately what was going on and how it would look.

You probably don’t care what I think — given that I live out here in Trump Country, but I have a decidedly different view of the job you’re doing from the neighbors on my street. I’ll tell you anyway.

Every time you perform stunts like the one you performed today, you send chilling messages that there really and truly might be a flame under all the smoke being generated by that Russian hacking story.

We know that you gave Gen. Flynn the boot as your national security adviser because of questions swirling about his Russia relationships. I actually think you made the right call there, despite my belief that Gen. Flynn shouldn’t have held the post in the first place.

You have photo ops and then there are photo ops.

Mr. President, you need to answer the questions. Definitively, with clarity and precision — if you are able to dispel the chilling notion among many of us that there might be something to this Russian “collusion” story.

Pulling for a comeback from Tiger

Call me strange.

But I do enjoy watching pro golf on TV more than pro football. Pro basketball, too, except when the Portland Trail Blazers are on the tube.

Accordingly, I keep hoping for a comeback from a young man named Eldrick “Tiger” Woods, who announced this week he is going to skip next week’s Masters Tournament, an event he has won four times.

Tiger’s back is acting up. He can’t rehab it sufficiently to allow him to play at a competitive level. So, he’s sitting out an event that the great Jack Nicklaus once said he’d win more Masters green jackets than he and the late Arnold Palmer did combined; Jack won six of ’em, Arnie won four.

I’m not entirely sure why I remain drawn to Tiger Woods, the golfer. Tiger the husband turned out to be pretty much of a dirt bag, as he cheated wildly on his gorgeous then-wife, Elin.

It pretty much went to hell after that for Tiger.

Tiger remains on the injured list

He hurt his back. His major championship total stands at 14; he says he wants to surpass the 18 majors owned by Nicklaus.

I don’t know what pro golf’s TV ratings have done since Tiger hit the skids. I’m guessing many TV watchers are like me: They’d prefer to watch Tiger on the course than nearly anyone else.

I want the young man to make a full comeback. Do I care if he breaks the all-time major championship record? Not really. Jack Nicklaus, by all rights, should stand as the greatest of all time.

Tiger Woods belongs on the golf course — and on my TV screen.

Immunity request: Does it signal guilt … or what?

Donald J. Trump once thought requests for immunity from key witnesses implied they were guilty of something.

Now the president of the United States is saying something quite different. Imagine that, if you can.

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn wants congressional committees to grant him immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony on what he knows about Trump’s possible connection with Russian government hackers.

Guilty of something? Or is he trying to avoid what he calls “unfair prosecution”?

Flynn has a story to tell.

Something tells me it might be the former. That means the president’s one-time belief seems to hold up today.

Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general — and an acknowledged brilliant battlefield commander — served as national security honcho for 24 days. Then he was pushed out by the president over questions about meetings he allegedly had with Russian government officials.

Oh, yes. The Russian government has been named by U.S. intelligence agencies as trying to hack into our computer network with the intention of influencing the 2016 presidential election.

Trump’s response? He has disparaged U.S. spooks, comparing them to Nazis. He has said nary a discouraging word about Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Flynn’s role is key here. Does he know something that he cannot tell because he might face criminal charges himself? And, oh by the way, does any of this include the possibility of treason?

I’ve tried to weigh this matter: immunity to protect someone who might have betrayed his nation?

I believe the president — and Flynn, for that matter — were right initially. Immunity requests would seem to imply criminal guilt.

Make Gen. Flynn talk, even at the risk of facing criminal prosecution.