Tag Archives: impeachment

national news

An ‘innocent’ POTUS keeps acting like a guilty POTUS

Here we are as a most tumultuous year is about to head for the sunset of history.

Donald Trump is going to stand trial eventually in 2020. He says the House of Representatives impeachment of him is a sham, a hoax and a witch hunt. He declares that he has done nothing wrong.

However, he is continuing to deny the Senate any access to witnesses who, it would stand to reason if you believe the president, would offer testimony that is favorable to him.

I keep wondering: Is this the conduct of a man with nothing to hide, nothing to keep from public view, nothing that would change any Republican minds?

The House impeached Trump on charges that he abused the power of his office by seeking political help from a foreign government. He did so in a phone call with the Ukrainian president. The White House released a memo of that phone call. He says it as clear as can be, but he calls the phone call “perfect.”  The House also impeached him on obstruction of Congress. How does one dispute that, given that Trump has demanded that no key White House aides answer congressional subpoenas, denying Congress the ability to do its constitutional duties relating to oversight of the executive branch of government?

The president and his GOP allies say the evidence doesn’t stack up. I disagree with that view but that’s just my view.

I cannot grasp the notion of a president continuing to deny access to key witnesses if he is as innocent of wrongdoing as he insists.

I want this trial to be completed. I do not want a drawn-out extravaganza that will become a sideshow. I do want witnesses to testify. I also want there to be any additional evidence submitted that will enable senators to make a more clear-headed decision on whether the president stays in office.

The president says he’s innocent. The president’s actions are those of a guilty man.

Welcome to another tumultuous year.

national news

Politics runs head first into justice

I wrote once on this blog about how politics is likely to drive a potential impeachment of Donald J. Trump. Well, the House of Representatives impeached the president on a virtual party-line vote and the Senate is now going to put him on trial.

The outcome will be decided, yep, on party lines.

Which brings up this point: Are senators free to vote their “conscience,” to base their decision solely on the evidence they have before them? Or must they worry what the folks back home think of what they are about to do?

I present to you U.S. Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala.

Sen. Jones, who is running for re-election next year after narrowly defeating a Republican opponent, is facing the Mother of All Political Quandaries. Does he vote to convict Trump on obstruction of Congress or on abuse of power and face the wrath of Alabama voters, most of whom support the president? Or does he challenge them by declaring that he has voted to convict based on what he has seen and heard?

I believe Jones wants to keep his Senate seat. I also believe he is, as most pundits have posited, the most vulnerable Senate Democrat facing re-election this year. I don’t know much about Jones. I don’t know what makes him tick. I cannot measure his political courage. I don’t know if he’s a “maverick,” a loyal party guy or someone who wants to cover his own backside at any cost.

This is what I mean when I mention how politics runs head first into the quest for justice in matters of impeaching a president. Politics clearly is keeping Republicans from bucking their own partisan interest; it also is keeping most Democrats in line as well.

We have sticky wickets. Then we have matters such as this.

I believe Sen. Jones is going to lose some sleep over this one.

national news

What might we expect from — gulp! — a 2nd Trump term?

As repugnant and repulsive as the thought rings in my noggin, I feel the need to ponder what we might expect from a second presidential term of Donald J. Trump.

To my way of thinking, it would be far uglier than what we’ve seen already.

An impeached president might even more dangerous than we imagined. Trump is likely to survive the House of Representatives impeachment of him on grounds of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate trial that will commence eventually is likely to clear him of conviction. I hesitate to call it an “acquittal,” as I am waiting to see what the final count would be; there does remain a chance that at least some Republican senators might vote to convict Trump, possibly pushing the total to a simple majority to convict him, but not enough to remove him from office.

If that’s to become a reality, Democrats then have the task of defeating this guy at the ballot box in November 2020. It ain’t a done deal, folks.

The RealClearPolitics poll average puts Trump’s approval rating today at 44.4 percent. The GOP base will be energized. Democrats then must figure out who among them is capable of beating this guy. If they don’t beat him, then we’ll get him for four more years.

Oh, joy!

A second-term of Donald Trump will enable him to take the gloves off. Whatever he has said about his foes to date will pale in comparison to what will fly off his Twitter account. He might get to nominate another Supreme Court justice or two; think of that one for a moment.

There will be more hectoring of our allies. He’ll keep insisting that “Mexico will pay for The Wall” when in fact Mexico won’t shell out a nickel. The president will continue to launch trade battles, sending the markets into spasms of uncertainty.

Will he fill the empty seats in the Cabinet with competent individuals? Hah! He’ll find more sycophants who are unafraid to challenge him at any level.

I feel reasonably certain there will be more questions raised about whether Trump is profiting off his public office. There will be questions, too, about ongoing foreign interference in our electoral cycles. We’ll have another midterm election in 2022 and, oh yes, we’ll elect a new president in 2024. What will the current president do to terminate Russian interference?

Yep, it certainly makes me shudder to think of a second Trump term.

But let’s get real. Who would have thought this guy would have been elected in the first place?

local news

Does he really want to know what I think?

My congressman, Republican Van Taylor of Plano, wants to know what I think of the job Donald Trump is doing as president of the United States.

Hmm. Let me think about this one. My first reaction was to ignore the poll. I am having second thoughts.

I live in the Third Congressional District, which includes much of Collin County. It’s reliably Republican. Collin County voted for Trump in 2016, even though it borders Dallas County, which voted for Hillary Clinton.

Someone at Taylor’s office in Plano knows already how I feel about the president. It’s not good. He or she knows that. Yet the first-year congressman sent me this poll advisory via social media.

I’ll just have to stipulate once again up front: I want Trump defeated at the next election; moreover, I want him convicted in the Senate trial that will convene eventually to determine whether he committed impeachable offenses by abusing is presidential power and by obstructing Congress. I believe he did both things.

I am now thinking about answering the poll survey. I hope it gives me room to offer some commentary on whether I believe Donald Trump is unfit to serve as our head of state and commander in chief.

I believe he is. Unfit, that is.

national news

Looking ahead to third decade of 21st century

We’ve put our Christmas gifts away, finished our dinner, we’re relaxing around the house.

And, by golly, I’m already looking ahead to the next year. It commences the third decade of the 21st century.

Wow! That’s about all I’ve got to say about that specific item.

However, the year coming promises to be one for the books. A U.S. president will stand trial for high crimes and misdemeanors, only the third one in the nation’s history. I shudder to think how the trial will turn out, so I won’t mention it specifically.

Then we’ll have a presidential election. Candidates and assorted politicians always tell us that the next election is “the most important in history.” This one actually might be the most crucial.

Donald Trump’s bid for re-election is fraught with plenty of peril. I don’t want him re-elected; but you knew that already. Another four years of this individual in the White House is bound to produce a volume of drama and chaos that will make the past four years seem like a game of patty-cake. It won’t be fun.

I just want a “normal” politician to take office. I don’t know who that would be, or should be among those seeking to replace Trump.

In a curious sort of way I am looking forward to the campaign. I just hope my sense of anticipation isn’t overtaken by a sense of dread that turns to nausea.

Trump will keep telling the lies about presiding over the greatest economy in human history, how he took over a military that was “decimated” by his immediate predecessor, how he is “making America great again” by stiffing and scolding our international allies.

Why are they lies? Because the economy isn’t doing as well as it did right after World War II; because our military always has been the most powerful such apparatus in world history; and his quest for American greatness has turned us into an international laughingstock.

We need to take stock of what we have gotten from this individual so far and we must decide whether we want more of the same. I do not want an acceleration of what we have experienced.

The new year of 2020 will give us a chance to perform a serious course correction.

national news

Where is the ‘impartiality’?

1 Comment

Oh, how I hate playing the “both sides are wrong” card. I feel I must do so in this instance.

Republican Mitch McConnell, the U.S. Senate’s majority leader, says he is not going to be an “impartial juror” when the Senate commences its trial over the articles impeachment filed against Donald J. Trump.

McConnell’s comments have drawn a rebuke from fellow Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who said she is “disturbed” by his approach to putting the president on trial.

Now comes the view of a senior Democratic senator, Dick Durbin, who criticizes his fellow Democrats for refusing to maintain their own impartiality.

Both sides are guilty? I suppose so.

All 100 senators are going to raise their right hands and take an oath to be impartial jurors when Chief Justice John Roberts administers the pledge. They will say “so help me, God” at the end of the oath, which gives the pledge an air of sanctimony.

Will they be loyal to that sacred oath? Have they made up their minds to convict or acquit Trump? Is there a truly impartial mind among the 100 senators who will sit in judgment of Donald Trump? Or have every one of them pre-determined the president’s guilt or innocence, determining whether he has committed impeachable offenses?

Those of us on the outside have the liberty to make these determinations prior to hearing evidence. We’re not elected public officials. Those folks have the power to remove the president, or to keep him in office. They must maintain their impartiality for as long as they are hearing the case being presented.

I worry now that the trial that’s about to commence — hopefully sooner rather than too much later — will be akin to a sideshow with senators on both sides of the great divide guilty of the same sin.

national news

McConnell seeks to become ‘most hated Republican’

I saw a quotation attributed to Sen. Mitch  McConnell in which he declares himself the nation’s “second most-hated Republican.” I presume he means Republican politician.

It appears to me that the U.S. Senate majority leader is angling to replace the nation’s most “hated” Republican by refusing to do the right thing when the Senate convenes its trial on that most hated GOP politician, Donald Trump. He might not allow any witnesses to be interrogated or any evidence to be introduced when the impeached president stands trial.

What is so astounding to me is that McConnell is engaging in such bald-faced, overt and obvious duplicity.

Twenty years ago the House impeached President Bill Clinton after Clinton lied to a grand jury about an affair he was having with a young White House intern. McConnell was then just another senator, but he was insisting on witnesses, insisting that the Senate hear evidence. Now it’s different. The president is of the same party as McConnell, so the majority leader wants to slam-bang the trial through without the benefit of hearing what witnesses might have to say.

Why, they might provide actual new information for senators to ponder. They might even testify in Trump’s favor. Or … they might testify against him.

That doesn’t matter to McConnell. He says he won’t be “impartial.” He is going to work to clear Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Indeed, that second charge is so remarkable in that the House has accused the president of usurping Congress’s legislative authority by shielding witnesses from testifying before House committees. You’d think that senators would be angry as the dickens at that notion, except that they aren’t.

Will the Senate majority leader overtake Trump as the nation’s most hated Republican? He might, even though Trump seems to have lapped the field … so far.

Hey, we still have a ways to go before this matter gets decided.

national news

Merry Christmas, Mr. President

I had thought about going easy today on Donald J. Trump, given that it’s Christmas and all of that. I am having fun today with my family gathered around. We’re set to have a lot of laughs and good cheer.

Then the president opened his mouth about Democrats, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, impeachment and how much his foes hate him. He said that after he spoke from Mar-a-Lago, Fla., to troops stationed overseas, in harm’s way, fighting to protect us against the evil forces that threaten us and the rest of the world.

OK, I won’t wade too deeply into the weeds with this post. I’ll continue to go easier on Donald Trump than I otherwise might be inclined to do.

I just wish the president could set all that partisan bickering nonsense aside for a day. He can’t do it.

I realize I have allowed myself to get sucked into that nastiness sausage grinder on occasion, even during holy holidays.

I’ll just leave it at that.

Today is a joyful day. I intend to keep a smile on my face all day. I might even keep smiling when the sun comes up in the morning.

Merry Christmas, everyone … and to you as well, Mr. President.

local news

Christmas tinged with a touch of apprehension, but a lot of joy

We will awaken in a few hours to yet another Christmas. We won’t have snow on the ground here in North Texas; indeed, the weather forecasters are telling us we’ll have a warm Christmas this year.

That’s all right with me.

Our family is here. We will enjoy seeing them all. We’ll have plenty of laughs. We’ll unwrap some gifts. We’ll express gratitude in some fashion through the day for the reason we celebrate this particular holiday. It’s a holy time as well as a festive time. We’ll mix it all up into a hodge-podge celebration.

It also will deliver us partially from the tension that is building within the halls of power within our federal government. There is no total escape from what is transpiring in Washington, D.C., and at this moment in the states and congressional districts where our elected representatives have fanned out to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah with their friends and loved ones.

They’re likely to get a gut full from their constituents before they return to work. That’s why we pay ’em the big bucks. It’s a big part of why they rake in 175 grand each year. We pay them to listen to our complaints.

And, yes … presidential impeachment is on many of our minds. Even now. Even while we celebrate holy holiday. Even while we should divorce ourselves from the tribulations that are bedeviling our government and the officials we elect to run it on our behalf.

As for my family and me, we’re going to kick back, chill out, enjoy the holiday, enjoy each other, get hugs from our granddaughter and laugh out loud at what we’re all going to say.

The rest of it will be waiting for us when the season passes. At this moment, late in the day prior to Christmas, I won’t be in any rush to let this joyful time pass.

national news

McConnell sets no bipartisan example

Yeah, this Twitter message from a former U.S. senator — who once wrote jokes for a living — sums it up for me.

The Senate majority leader is lamenting the absence of a quality about which he seems to know next to nothing. Mitch McConnell is angry about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to withhold the articles of impeachment against Donald Trump. He says House Democrats rushed to judgment against the president while impeaching him; then he says he won’t allow any witnesses to testify in the upcoming Senate trial that will determine whether Trump stays in office.

I don’t know whether to laugh or … laugh even more loudly.

McConnell is infamous for the partisan hit job he performed on President Barack Obama after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly in February 2016. Obama wanted to nominate someone to the SCOTUS to succeed Scalia. McConnell slammed the door shut, saying that the president shouldn’t appoint a justice in an election year that would determine who the next president would be.

Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS. McConnell denied Garland a hearing. It was a major-league partisan power play. It worked for McConnell, given that Donald Trump won the 2016 election.

Of course, McConnell has kept up his partisan wrangling during the impeachment saga, declaring that he intends to take his cue from Trump’s legal team and that he is “not an impartial juror.”

So, for the majority leader to gripe about Democrats’ alleged partisanship now is as Al Franken has described it.

Pathetic.