Tag Archives: impeachment

national news

It’s the constant lying that gets in the way

Donald Trump has done what I once thought was the seemingly impossible. He has turned me into a hard-core cynic. How? It’s the lying, man! It is constant. It is gratuitous. It is never-ending.

I cannot believe a single pronouncement that comes from the mouth of the president of the United States of America. I am not proud of this revelation. You see, I’ve resisted the label of cynic. I have batted it away. Even as I worked in daily journalism for all those years I usually sought to believe the best in people, who generally had to do something that would destroy by faith in their basic goodness.

Then along came Donald Trump from the world of reality TV celebrityhood, real estate dealmaking and a glitzy lifestyle about which he was so very proud to boast.

Trump lied when he proclaimed himself to be a self-made zillionaire. It has been demonstrably proven now that he isn’t a self-made anything. He ran for president … and then won!

He has been lying to us daily ever since he took the oath of office.

Here is now faced with the most serious crisis of his tenure as president. I want to believe him when he said he ordered the air strike against the Iranian terrorist/general because of “imminent attack” threats against the United States.

However, I cannot believe him. I cannot accept anything he says about, well, anything.

I have lost count of the lies he has told. The Washington Post has been keeping a running tab on the lies; the paper’s count has exceeded 15,000 whoppers since his inauguration. His lying is accelerating. He is telling more lies daily now than at any time since he became president.

How in name of truth-telling can Americans of any stripe — even those who count themselves as Trump supporters — believe a word that comes from this guy? They can’t. Yet many of them still do. Are they liars, too? I won’t buy into that notion. I only am left to presume that they have been snookered by this guy, who spent his entire adult life searching only to enrich himself. There isn’t a single moment of public service in his pre-political background.

My cynicism is raging at this moment as I watch the president of the United States continue to lie his way through this crisis, through the impeachment file by the House of Representatives and as the Senate prepares to put this individual on trial.

I truly don’t like feeling this way. Donald Trump won’t allow my cynicism to go away.

national news

Listen to this rookie GOP U.S. senator; he’s making sense

Mitt Romney isn’t your average, run-of-the-mill freshman senator from a small state out west. He ran for president as the 2012 Republican nominee; he made a fortune in business; he rescued an Olympic Games effort in Utah; he is a player.

So, when the first-year senator says he wants to hear more from a former national security adviser in the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump, I believe — it is my hope, at least — that other Republican senators will peel off their blinders and endorse the Romney view of evidentiary transparency.

John Bolton says he is ready to testify if the Senate subpoenas him. The former national security adviser has first-hand knowledge of the “perfect” phone call that Trump said he had with Ukrainian President Volodyrmyr Zelenskiy, the one in which Trump asked Zelenskiy for a “favor, though” before he released military aid to Ukraine in its fight against Russian-backed rebels.

Trump doesn’t want his former national security guru to talk, even though he keeps saying the phone call is “perfect.” It makes many of us wonder: Why does a man with nothing to hide seek to prevent someone who could clear him from talking to the Senate?

Romney wants to hear more from Bolton. There might be another GOP moderate senator or three, or maybe more, who could join Romney in the quest for the truth. If they sign on, then the Senate will hear from at least this witness. Maybe more will be summoned.

Then we can have a “fair” trial in the Senate to determine whether Trump committed an abuse of power and obstructed Congress.

national news

Now it’s John Bolton who might hold the key to Trump’s future

(Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

How about that John Bolton?

The former national security adviser to Donald J. Trump once balked at testifying before Congress over whether the president committed impeachable offenses. Now he says he’s all in — if the U.S. Senate subpoenas him for an upcoming trial on whether Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

This is a big deal, ladies and gentlemen.

At issue is whether Trump abused his power by soliciting a foreign government for a political favor and whether he obstructed Congress by blocking key aides from testifying. I believe he has done both things.

Now it’s Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser who has said Trump’s supposedly “perfect phone call” to Ukraine’s president was fraught with peril. He now wants to testify to senators what he heard in real time, in the moment, with his own ears.

Trump doesn’t want him to testify. Why is that? Do you suppose that Bolton might offer testimony that damages the president’s case. Were he to offer exculpatory evidence — which would possibly clear Trump of wrongdoing — the president would be all in favor of Bolton speaking out. Isn’t that right? Um, yep. I believe it is!

Now comes the Big Question: If the Senate agrees to allow Bolton’s testimony, might he offer testimony that persuades moderate Senate Republicans to swing from clearing Trump to convicting him? Some observers think it’s possible. I am not so sure of that. The GOP fealty to Trump is so ingrained in its talking points that there might be no way for them to turn away from the president.

Oh, man, I hope I am wrong on that one.

However, it is beyond vital that we get the former national security adviser — the man with first-hand knowledge of what Trump said to Ukrainian officials — to tell the Senate what he knows.

Is this the game changer? Let John Bolton speak for the record and then we’ll know.

International news

Some way to change the subject

I don’t know for certain why Donald Trump chose this particular moment to kill an Iranian terrorist leader, but it certainly has yanked the nation’s attention away from the other big story on a lot of Americans’ minds.

That would be the pending impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate. Yeah, we still have that matter to settle, too, but back to the crisis of the moment.

The president ordered the air strike that killed Qassem Sulemaini, head of the Revolutionary Guard. The Iranian government is angry. As in fiercely angry, you know? Who can blame ’em? Imagine some hostile power launching an air strike that killed, say, our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Sulemaini was, I suppose, the equivalent in Iran. Except that he was a hostile enemy combatant. He was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. service personnel and thousands of others. Therefore, his death is nothing approaching an “assassination.”

However, it has steered our attention away from impeachment. I suppose that’s — politically speaking — good for Trump. He is now dealing with the potential after effects of this surprise hit.

I’ll be candid on this point: Given the stakes involved with a potential Iranian response to Sulemaini’s killing, public discussion about impeachment juxtaposed with the dire peril that might be lurking will seem even more like a partisan exercise than it is already.

I guess my sincere hope at this moment is that the Donald Trump administration is pulling out all the diplomatic stops in an effort to prevent war with Iran. Trump says such an event would be over quickly, and that Iran wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of firepower from the world’s pre-eminent military power. Remember, though, the Bush administration said as much about going to war with Iraq; it didn’t work out that way.

The president did say the other evening that he prefers peace over war. Uh, so do the rest of us, Mr. President. The sooner we can resolve this Iran crisis the sooner we turn our attention to pondering that impeachment trial.

Uncategorized

No on dismissal; proceed to a Senate trial

My goodness. We’ve traveled a great distance already down this road, and now a member of the U.S. Senate wants to dismiss the impeachment charges leveled against Donald J. Trump?

Republican Josh Hawley of Missouri, are you serious? Show me the reasons why, if you dare.

Hawley is arguing that the delay in sending impeachment articles from the House of Representatives to the Senate has negated the charges filed by the House. I don’t believe it has done anything of the sort.

The House impeached Trump on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants the Senate to conduct a thorough trial, with witnesses brought before the upper chamber. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell so far isn’t budging; he’s pushing for a quick trial with no witnesses.

Sen. Hawley says he’ll file a motion to dismiss the charges. No trial, said Hawley. He needs 51 Senate votes to dismiss it; he isn’t likely to get them. Nor should he.

The House traveled a lengthy road to file the impeachment charges. The case needs to be decided by the Senate.

You may count me as one American who wants to McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer to find some common ground. Settle on the rules for the trial, enabling Pelosi to transmit the articles of impeachment.

Let this case proceed … with witnesses.

national news

Waiting to hear GOP condemnation of Trump’s conduct

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

This much is becoming clear: Donald Trump will not be convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors in an upcoming U.S. Senate trial.

So is this much: Senate Republicans who are standing behind the president are remaining shamefully silent on what they think about the allegations that have been leveled against the president.

They aren’t arguing against the evidence. They aren’t saying the allegations that Trump are false, that he’d never do such a thing.

So, if they believe the allegations to be credible, why don’t they speak out against such conduct? They ought to declare that presidents shouldn’t solicit a foreign government for political help; that they shouldn’t withhold military aid until they get a “favor” from the foreign government; that they shouldn’t usurp congressional authority to conduct oversight of the executive branch by barring White House aides from answering congressional subpoenas to testify.

Nope. We’re getting none of that.

A generation ago, another president, Bill Clinton, got impeached because of an affair he was having with a White House intern. He lied to a grand jury about that relationship. He handed congressional Republicans a gift-wrapped reason to impeach him.

President Clinton also received plenty of condemnation from his fellow Democrats, who were ashamed and aghast at his conduct. They said out loud that Clinton had besmirched the office with his affair. They also said the conduct didn’t rise to the level of a Senate conviction.

This time? Republicans are keeping their lips zipped.

It makes me wonder whether they are so frightened of what this president do, how he might react that they are cowed to remaining silent when they ought to speak out against his conduct.

Is it true, therefore, that Donald Trump has seized the Republican Party by the throat and is strangling it … possibly to death?

national news

Stop pandering to GOP, Mr. Former VP

Joe Biden now says he might consider asking a Republican to join him on a ticket to run against Donald J. Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

Hold the phone! C’mon! The presumed Democratic primary frontrunner need not go there, at least not yet.

First of all, he doesn’t have the nomination locked up. On the contrary, many of us out here who might be inclined to support the former vice president are still anguishing over his continual verbal missteps, gaffes and need for “clarification.”

Second of all, who among the nation’s leading Republicans would he consider at this moment? None of them is speaking up against Trump. They’re exhibiting supreme political cowardice by enabling the president to continue to embarrass the nation and the office he occupies. Trump takes their silence as a tacit endorsement of his conduct, which has gotten him impeached by the House for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Biden’s suggestion that he’d consider a GOP running mate came in response to a question in New Hampshire. It sounds to me like so much pandering to a potential Republican voting bloc that might be inclined to vote for a Democrat over a GOP president they consider to be an embarrassment.

Many of us are still waiting for a prominent Republican politician to offer a full-throated condemnation of Donald Trump. If one shows the guts to do such a thing, then we ought to talk about adding that individual to a Democratic ticket.

national news

Chief justice delivers message worth heeding

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is a champion of an independent federal judiciary and seeks to instill a civics awareness in the nation he serves.

So it is that the chief justice has delivered in his annual state of the judiciary message a stern warning that needs to be taken to heart.

Roberts said the nation must be more aware of government, of civics and should beware of “fake news,” especially those who deliver it under the guise of “information.”

The chief justice is about to assume a most remarkably high profile post as the presiding judge in the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump. On the eve of that historic event, he is seeking to deliver the nation from the dangers of false narratives, bogus news reporting and the “fake news” that the president himself is so adept at delivering.

As Politico reported: “In our age, when social media can instantly spread rumor and false information on a grand scale, the public’s need to understand our government and the protection it provides is ever more vital,” Roberts said in his annual New Year’s Eve message summing up the work of the federal judiciary.

Some critics have taken Roberts’ message as a direct criticism of Trump. Hmm. I won’t march precisely down that path. However, I do believe that the president has fed our social media fascination with much of the fiery rhetoric he spouts.

Trump has, for instance, insisted that the federal judiciary is politically biased when it doesn’t rule the way he prefers. Roberts did issue a stern rebuke of that notion a year ago when he declared: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” 

The chief justice is seeking to restore dignity to the discussion of the federal courts. I wish him well. If only the public that feeds at the trough of innuendo and insult will listen.

national news

Why not witnesses now, Mr. Leader?

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Mitch McConnell’s duplicity, double-dealing, hypocrisy make me want to pull my out by its roots.

The Senate majority leader says the Senate that will put Donald Trump on trial for obstruction of Congress and abuse of power doesn’t need to hear witnesses. Democrats don’t need to call witnesses to testify before the body of 100 senators.

He wants the trial to come to a quick and predictable end. He wants the president to be acquitted of impeachment charges filed by the House of Representatives. No need to hear any more evidence, or hear from those who might have something new to add.

The double speak, duplicity and hypocrisy? In 1999, when the Senate put President Clinton on trial for obstruction of justice McConnell insisted on hearing from witnesses. Why, he was all over that one! The Senate needs to hear more evidence, said McConnell.

Hey, I don’t want a lengthy trial, either. However, the trial need not drag on too long if we can hear from a half-dozen or so key witnesses who have first-hand knowledge of Donald Trump asking Ukrainians for political help in exchange for military hardware.

It might not happen, if the majority leader has his newfound way.

Such hypocrisy.

national news, political news

Welcome to the ‘most consequential election’ year; really … it is!

Welcome to 2020. We’re going to elect a president near the end of the year.

I know what you might be thinking. We go through this every four years and every single time some pundit or politician calls it the “most consequential election” in, take your pick: our lifetime, U.S. history, all of human history.

You know what? The 2020 presidential election might fall into all of those categories. This is the real thing, ladies and gentlemen.

America exhibited some amazingly bad form — and this is just my humble view — in 2016 when it elected Donald John Trump as our 45th president. He won a majority in the Electoral College, while losing the “actual” vote by nearly 3 million ballots.

He snookered just enough people in the appropriate states to edge out an infinitely more qualified opponent to win the presidency.

In my mind, Trump has made an absolute mess of the high office he occupies. The task awaiting voters in 2020 is to make amends for the mistake they made four years earlier.

Donald Trump promised to make history as president. He’s done it! He is the third president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. He is likely to be the first president to run for re-election as an impeached president.

Yes, the economy is going strong. The labor force has added millions of jobs during Trump’s tenure as president; joblessness is at historic lows. The president is taking all the credit for it. Fine! Let him take whatever credit he wants to scarf up.

However, a lot of other matters need our attention.

Trump has trashed our alliances; he has cozied up to strongmen abroad; he has thrown bouquets at the feet of North Korean killer/despot Kim Jong Un and Russian spymaster/strongman Vladimir Putin; he has denigrated our intelligence agencies’ assessment that Russia attacked our electoral system; he has disparaged an American war hero.

Trump promised to stay off the golf course, only to spend more time on the links than any president in history; he runs an executive government branch that only is about two-thirds full, with key offices lacking anyone in charge; he relies on his unqualified son-in-law to look for Middle East peace.

Trump conducts public policy via Twitter; he fired the FBI director because he was doing his job; he fired an attorney general because the AG determined he could expose himself to conflict of interest.

Trump solicited a foreign government for personal political favors and blocked all key aides from testifying before Congress … two actions that led to his impeachment.

The president likely will survive a Senate trial. Then he’ll run for re-election. The task awaiting voters is to determine whether the president — who has set an unofficial record for lying — deserves another four years as our head of state and commander in chief.

We need to elect a president who understands the limitations of his office, who recognizes tradition and decorum, who can rebuild the alliances that have been tattered and torn, who puts the public interest ahead of his or her personal interest.

By golly, this upcoming election looks to me to be the most consequential in my lifetime. We might even be able to expand the superlative before it’s over.