Tag Archives: NBC News

International news, political news

Trump remains in Russia-meddling denial

Donald J. Trump got the question straight up and directly: Does he believe the Russians meddled in the 2016 presidential election?

How did the president respond to the question from NBC News’s Hallie Jackson today on the eve of the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany? Sure, Russia meddled, but so did other nations, according to Trump. He couldn’t say which nations. They’ve all been doing it for a long time, the president said.

Then he sailed off into what’s becoming the classic Trump tactic: diversion, deflection and denial. He then blamed President Barack Obama’s administration for failing to do anything about Russia when it knew in July of 2016 about reports of meddling. He mentioned that the election didn’t occur until November and then asked, rhetorically of course, “Why didn’t the Obama administration do anything about it?”

Good grief, Mr. President. That’s not the question. The reporter asked about what he believes occurred and whether he stands with the U.S. intelligence agencies’ assessment that Russia acted alone in seeking to corrupt the U.S. electoral process.

Oh, I fear this bodes poorly for the president’s meeting Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin and whether Trump is going to confront Putin directly on what seemingly the rest of the world apparently knows: that Russia got its hands quite dirty while interfering in the election of the president of the United States.

national news, political news

Is the ‘Russia thing’ a scandal? Not just yet

Some of my lefty friends — OK, maybe more than some of them — are going to dislike this blog post.

Too bad.

I’m struggling with a word I keep seeing in print and hearing on TV and radio. It’s the word “scandal” being used to describe what I like to call “the Russia thing.”

My sense is that “Russia” hasn’t yet risen to the level of scandal. It fits a list of potentially pejorative descriptions: controversy, tempest, tumult. Scandal? I’m not yet ready to go there.

The “Russia thing” is what Donald J. Trump called it when he told NBC News anchor Lester Holt about his reasons for firing former FBI director James Comey. It was “the Russia thing” that caused the president to fire Comey.

We have a special counsel assembling a legal team to investigate whether the Trump 2016 presidential campaign colluded with Russian hackers to disrupt and influence the election outcome. At least one former aide, Michael Flynn, has been linked tightly to the Russian government.

The Senate Intelligence Committee is looking, too, at the Russia matter. Not so with the House Intelligence Committee, whose new chairman — Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. — said his panel is keeping its hands off this investigation.

Yes, I’ve seen a whole lot of smoke. There’s even a boatload of circumstantial evidence that appears to be piling up.

Do we have a scandal on our hands? Is the president now been tied up in a “public disgrace,” as the dictionary defines the term “scandal”? Well, I can think of a lot of ways that Trump has disgraced his office; they generally involve his use of Twitter to blast out those idiotic and moronic statements.

Special counsel Robert Mueller, though, is likely going to be the determining factor in whether all this “Russia thing” stuff drags the president and his administration straight into scandal territory.

I’ve sought to avoid using the “s-word” on this blog. I’ll continue to do so — until we all hear from the myriad investigative teams seeking to determine what in the hell happened during the 2016 election.

media news, national news

Why give Alex Jones a platform?

People such as Alex Jones give me heartburn.

I happen to be a First Amendment purist. I believe in the amendment’s guarantee of free speech and I do not want it watered down.

Then along comes people like Jones, the radio talk show blowhard who’s been thrust into the news yet again. Broadcast journalist Megyn Kelly has booked him on her NBC News show and snippets of her interview with Jones have enraged some survivors of one of the nation’s worst tragedies.

Jones has spoken infamously about how the 9/11 attacks against the United States were an “inside job” and then — and this goes way beyond anything resembling human decency — he has alleged that the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut was staged; he says the children who were slain were “actors.”

Kelly is giving this guy’s moronic views a platform.

Should he be allowed to spout that trash? Should he be given air time on a major broadcast network? That pesky First Amendment says “yes.” Tenets of good judgment and basic humanity suggest that this guy shouldn’t be given a platform to spout the filth that pours out of his pie hole.

Kelly deserves the criticism she is getting from at least one of the Sandy Hook parents who lost a child in that hideous act of cruelty.

And that damn heartburn continues to churn in my gut.

media news

45th POTUS keeps trying to rewrite the rules

1 Comment

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.

media news, national news, political news

Moderators should, uh, moderate

NBC NEWS - EVENTS -- Decision 2012 -- Pictured: Lester Holt -- (Photo by: Michele Leroy/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty Images)

Call me an old-school fuddy-duddy.

Lester Holt of NBC News has a big task ahead of him Monday night. He gets to moderate the joint appearance between Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

I liken his role to that of an athletic event referee. The best officiating jobs are done by those you don’t notice.

Accordingly, some of the chatter leading up to the event has been whether the moderator should correct candidates’ misstatements.

I’ve thought about this for about the past four years and I’ve concluded that Holt should not interfere. He should not interject himself into the storyline. He shouldn’t become part of the story … as CNN’s Candy Crowley did in 2012 when she corrected a statement that Mitt Romney made about whether President Obama had declared the fire fight at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya to be a terrorist attack.

That wasn’t Crowley’s job.

Her job then — and Holt’s will be Monday — was to ask questions of the candidates and to let them correct each other if and when the need arose.

If the moderators were to correct the candidates, then how do they determine which misstatements they let pass and which ones do they correct?

I prefer that they not make the call.

Of course, given the nature of social media these days, a non-call also would become “news.” Commentators no doubt would make them have to answer for their decision to let the candidates’ statements go unchallenged.

Sigh …

Still, my old-school tendency leads me to believe the moderator’s job isn’t to become a fact-checker. It is to be a referee. The best refs are those we don’t notice during a competitive event.

media news, national news, political news

Clinton v. Trump: made for television

politics-word-cloud

Americans who care about the election that will choose the next president of the United States are going to tune in to what is shaping up as the perfect made-for-television event.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald J. Trump — Democratic and Republican presidential nominees, respectively — are going to face off in the first of three televised joint appearances.

I don’t know about you, but I’m intending to watch every second of it.

This might be the ballgame. Or, it might throw the whole contest into yet another cocked hat.

You know my bias already. I detest Trump. I am not enamored of Clinton. It’s a grim choice we all face. One of them, though, is going to win this election on Nov. 8.

To get there they have to prove how nimble they are. They have to show us who is better equipped to deal with the myriad challenges facing the country. This isn’t a time for cheap, easy, throwaway solutions. We need some detail here, folks.

Who between them will provide the detail and depth we ought to be seeking? Well, my money will be on Clinton.

They’ll have 90 minutes to make the case.

I remain hesitant to call this a “debate.” I’m not privy to the format established. The moderator, NBC News anchor Lester Holt, will pose the questions. The candidates will answer him. They won’t debate each other in the classic sense.

Hey, let’s not quibble. These events aren’t set up to be pristine debates. They are created to allow us — the voter — to size up both candidates.

Given the enormously unconventional nature of this election cycle, it might be unwise to suggest that a major gaffe by Trump — who’s committed untold numbers of them already — will doom his campaign. This clown has demonstrated that he’s so far been virtually bullet-proof. He fires off a stream-of-consciousness riff about an opponent that causes millions of Americans to groan in disbelief; but his supporters cheer him on, demanding more of the same.

Yes, there’ll be an audience. They’ll cheer for their candidate. Maybe they’ll boo the other one. It’s TV, folks.

It’ll be a big night in what is shaping up as one of the more bizarre elections any of us can remember.

I keep hearing about the expected huge viewership expected for this event. How does it square with the lack of enthusiasm for these major-party nominees and the incredible negative ratings that burden them both?

Whatever. I’ll be watching.

And you?

International news, national news, political news

Putin gets high praise — again! — from Trump

Putin-and-Trump-800x430

I’m  trying to imagine the outcry — indeed, the outrage! — we would hear if, say, a young U.S. senator from Illinois running for president in 2008 had denigrated the quality of leadership provided by an American president while praising a ham-handed dictator’s leadership style.

What would be the Republican reaction if Barack Obama had done that? What might the GOP establishment think of a candidate for the U.S. presidency holding up someone such as Russian strongman Vladimir Putin?

The current GOP nominee, Donald J. Trump, did as much Wednesday night while taking part in that commander in chief forum sponsored by NBC News.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37303057

Trump told NBC’s Matt Lauer that Putin is a better leader than President Obama.

I am trying to fathom that context.

He talked about the “great control” Putin has over his country. Really?

He said Putin enjoys an 82 percent approval rating in Russia. Seriously?

Trump said he takes Putin’s lavish praise of the real estate mogul as “a compliment, OK?” Give me a break.

Aren’t the Russians supposed to be a major world adversary, if not an outright enemy? And this clown — Trump, I mean — thinks Putin’s leadership style is worthy of praise?

I’m trying to catch my breath.

media news, national news, political news

How would Tim Russert react to today’s politics?

imrs.wdp

Tim Russert died eight years ago today.

Do I still miss him? You bet I do.

So does Chris Cillizza, a columnist for the Washington Post, who reposted a piece he wrote three years ago to commemorate the fifth anniversary of Russert’s sudden and shocking death from a heart attack.

Here it is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/06/13/remembering-tim-russert-5-years-later/?tid=sm_tw_pp&wprss=rss_the-fix

Cillizza wonders what Russert would think of today’s political climate and particularly what he’d think of Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

I think I know the answer.

He’d be appalled at both things.

Russert came from the political world into the world of broadcast journalism. He worked for U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who during his years in the Senate was many Republicans’ favorite Democrat. He also worked for New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, who didn’t have as many friends in the GOP. But still, Russert knew his way around politicians.

He joined NBC News and stumbled onto the “Meet the Press” moderator gig while filling in one Sunday.

He did so well, proved to be so comfortable, that the NBC News brass made him the permanent moderator.

What set Russert apart from so many of his peers and those who came along after him was his preparation. He knew all there was to know about the people who sat in front of him. Russert was an expert at making politicians account for the very things they said in public.

“You said this, senator,” he would say, “How do you explain that?”

He was an equal-opportunity afflicter. Democrats and Republicans all had to bring their “A game” to a session on “Meet the Press” when facing Tim Russert.

What would he think of Trump? He’d no doubt be aghast, but he’d keep it to himself. One can rest assured, too, that he’d give Hillary Rodham Clinton just as stern a grilling.

 

national news, political news

Political tradition may be in jeopardy

The American political system produces many memorable traditions.

One of them involves an event in which the candidates for president of the United States gather in New York to honor a memorial fund established in memory of the late New York Gov. Alfred E. Smith.

The candidates poke fun at each other, and at themselves.

These two clips are from the 2012 event featuring President Obama, the Democratic nominee, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for president.

It is absolutely hilarious! As is the 2008 event with U.S. Sens. Obama and John McCain.

My question today is this: Is this tradition in jeopardy in light of the obvious disdain that the current presumptive nominees — Republican Donald J. Trump and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton — have for each other?

I’m trying to imagine Trump shrugging off “good-natured” barbs being thrown at him by Clinton. I’m also having difficulty imagining Trump being able to muster up the kind of delivery it takes to sling a zinger at Clinton, who then would laugh out loud.

I’ve noted already what NBC News political director Chuck Todd has observed, that neither Clinton or Trump offered words of congratulations to each other the other night after they secured their respective parties’ nominations.

That omission speaks to what looks to a lot of us as a precursor to the kind of campaign no one wants to see.

One of the beauties of our political system — and the people who participate in it — is that they’ve always found time to put the daggers back in the scabbard long enough to speak with good humor to some common good.

Is that tradition in jeopardy this year?

 

national news, political news

Yep, here comes the negativity

1 Comment

clinton trump

NBC News anchor Lester Holt asked a straightforward question.

“Are you going to campaign insult for insult against Donald Trump?” Holt asked presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

“No,” she answered, “He can run a campaign on insults. We’re going to campaign on the issues.”

What, pretell, are those issues? She said she’s going to keep reminding voters that Trump is “temperamentally unfit to be commander in chief.”

Sigh.

There you have it. Clinton said she’s going to campaign “on the issues,” and then spoke candidly about her presumptive Republican opponent’s temperament.

Is that an “issue”? Yes.

The question now facing the Republican Party brass that is gritting its teeth over whether Trump is capable of keeping his cool is: How is he going to respond?

They fear — with good reason — that Trump is fully capable of flying off the rails. He’s shown that propensity all along the campaign trail so far.

Here’s a scenario that could repeat itself. Longtime observers of Texas politics will remember when this happened.

The year was 1990. Democratic gubernatorial nominee Ann Richards was campaigning against Republican nominee Clayton Williams.

The two of them shared a dais at an event late in the campaign. They each spoke to the crowd. Then as the event drew to a close, Richards walked over to Williams and extended her hand.

Williams refused to shake it. He called Richards a “liar.”

News photographers and TV cameras picked up the snub and reported all over Texas. How did the optics play? Not well … at all!

Williams’s refusal to “shake the hand of a lady” insulted a lot of Texans vicariously.

Richards defeated Williams to become the state’s governor.

Something tells me — if Clinton keeps talking “issues” relating to Trump’s temperamental fitness — that Donald Trump is fully capable of repeating Claytie’s mistake.