Tag Archives: obstruction of Congress

national news

What has become of Sen. Graham?

At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I am going to presume there will be a trial in the U.S. Senate over the impeachment of Donald John Trump.

So, assuming the start of such a trial, I am compelled to ask: What in the world has happened to Sen. Lindsey Graham? Who captured this man’s brain and his heart and what have they done with either part of the senator’s body?

You see, Sen. Graham once was a House of Representatives manager sent into the Senate to prosecute another president over obstruction of charges. The House impeached President Clinton in1998 for lying to a grand jury about an affair he was having with a White House intern. Graham was a young House whippersnapper who insisted at the time that there be witnesses called and evidence heard in the Senate.

Then the South Carolina Republican got elected to the Senate. He’s now on the other side of the great partisan divide. A Republican president stands accused of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Graham’s position on witnesses? He doesn’t want to hear anything. He don’t need no stinkin’ witnesses. Nor does he need to hear any other evidence. He’s made up his mind. Done deal. The impeachment is a “sham,” he said, a partisan fishing expedition led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Holy smokes, man! He was right two decades ago in calling for witnesses for Bill Clinton’s trial. He is wrong now in saying witnesses aren’t necessary for Donald Trump’s pending trial.

In the annals of political flip-flops, this one might rank as No. 1 of all time.

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.

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

Biden has reversed himself on the subpoena issue?

Good ever-lovin’ grief, Mr. Vice President.

Joe Biden went from declaring his intention to do what Donald Trump has done by refusing to honor a  Senate subpoena, to “clarifying” his remarks to essentially reversing himself by saying that, yep, he would show up to testify if asked to do during a Senate impeachment trial.

My head is spinning so rapidly I’m coming down with a case of vertigo.

Biden wants to be the next president of the United States. He’s the prohibitive favorite among Democrats still running for the office. However, keeps saying things that fly out of his mouth that require mid-course corrections. The subpoena matter is the latest.

I took him to task initially on this blog for telling a Des Moines Register editorial board that he would refuse to comply with a Senate subpoena; he said such a summons would distract the Senate from the issue at hand, which is Trump’s conduct as president. Republican senators want to question Biden and his son Hunter on their business dealings in Ukraine.

On one score, Biden is right; that is not the issue. At issue is whether Donald Trump abused the power of his office by soliciting a foreign government for a political favor and whether he obstructed Congress by demanding his key aides refuse to answer House subpoenas. To my mind, the answer is “yes” on both matters.

The former VP cannot play the game that Trump has played. So now he says he would comply with a Senate summons … if they ever get that trial started.

Great! Why didn’t he say that the first time?

national news

What is there to hide if the phone call was ‘perfect’?

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

There is so much about Donald Trump defense strategy and the approach taken by his Republican allies in Congress that I do not understand.

The House of Representatives has impeached the current president on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate is supposed to put Trump on trial. Democrats want to call witnesses. Republicans are fighting that push.

All the while, Trump calls the impeachment a sham, a joke, a hoax, that there’s nothing to see, that the operative phone call with Ukraine’s president was “perfect.”

If Trump and Ukrainian President Vlodyrmyr Zelenskiy engaged in that perfect conversation, then why in the world are POTUS and his GOP allies resisting the demands to hear from witnesses in the Senate trial?

If they clear the president of wrongdoing, wouldn’t it make sense to hear them do so? If there is nothing to hide, then why does Donald Trump act and sound like he’s, um, hiding something from public view?

The appearance of a handful of key witnesses, critical White House aides, wouldn’t necessarily drag the trial into the far distant future. They might work in Trump’s favor; or, they might have precisely the opposite effect.

What’s more, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who today is resisting any witnesses in the Trump trial, was all in for witnesses when President Clinton went on trial in 1999 after the House impeached him. Is he driven solely by partisan concerns?

Why, that just can’t be, given McConnell’s criticism of the House impeachment, which he said was fueled by partisan hatred of Donald Trump. Isn’t that what he said?

If the Senate is going to put the current president on trial, then let’s have witnesses. Let’s see the evidence. Let’s then ask senators/jurors to deliberate over what they see and hear and then let’s demand they make their decision based on what has been presented.

With no witnesses or evidence presented at trial, then there’s nothing to consider.

Where I come from, that sounds like a sham.

national news

Trump’s latest ‘worst’ event finally hits bottom … I hope

(Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)

There have been more “worst” moments of Donald Trump’s time as a politician and as president that I cannot keep track of them all.

He denigrated John McCain’s service to the nation; he mocked a New York Times reporter’s physical ailment; he chastised a Gold Star couple; he has issued insults left and right; his incessant lying; he most recently implied that a late congressman might be resting eternally in hell.

Well, the events that occurred in the House of Representatives I believe qualifies as the worst thing to happen to this individual’s presidency. The House voted to impeach Trump on two counts. It was a partisan vote, but it’s a vote nonetheless. Trump’s tenure as president is now marked indelibly with the label of “impeached.”

It could get worse. It likely won’t unless hell freezes over and the Senate actually convicts Trump either of abuse of power or obstruction of Congress.

Trump hit the campaign trail and at the moment the House was impeaching him, he was standing at a podium in Battle Creek, Mich., where he made the idiotic crack about the late John Dingell “looking up” at the world from, um, the depths of hell.

The day of Trump’s impeachment has been called historic, seminal, pivotal, monumental … all of the above and even some more superlative descriptions.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Democrats are motivated purely by “partisan” hatred of Trump. Ironic, yes? This comes from the guy who has perfected partisanship to an art form.

So, what now? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is withholding the articles of impeachment until she learns the rules under which the Senate will conduct its trial. She wants it to be “fair.” Well, duh? My hope is that McConnell agrees to conduct a “fair” trial.

As for the president, he will have the indelible mark of being an “impeached” head of state. It’s a designation he has earned. Of that I have no doubt.

national news

Where was the defense of POTUS’s character?

I might need therapy after today’s impeachment activity. I sat through much of the back-and-forth on the floor of the House of Representatives. I listened to Republicans and Democrats talk past each other.

Then came the vote. The House voted to impeach Donald Trump on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

What I did not hear from any of the Republicans who argued against impeaching the president was a single statement in defense of Trump’s character. No one on the GOP side of the aisle said a single word defending the president against allegations that he extorted a foreign government for a personal political favor; no one argued on behalf of the president against allegations that he obstructed Congress in its pursuit of the truth.

They all attacked the process. They attacked the motives of the president’s critics. They were bizarrely silent on the issue of Trump’s character. No one said Donald Trump would not do these things.

Does that tell you anything at all about the man who now stands impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors? Or does it tell you anything about his standing among those who continue to resist efforts to hold this man accountable for the behavior for which he has been impeached?

national news

It’s done … almost

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee, to no one’s surprise, has just approved two articles of impeachment against Donald John Trump.

The vote was 23-17. All committee Democrats voted “yes.” All of the panel’s Republicans voted “no.”

One count alleges that Trump abused the power of the presidency by asking a foreign government for a political favor. The other count alleges obstruction of Congress, basing that article on Trump’s demand that all key White House aides ignore congressional subpoenas to testify before relevant committees.

Of the two, I consider the obstruction article to be the most serious. That’s just me. I don’t count, given that I am not a member of Congress. I also would have voted to impeach Trump, but you knew that already.

But now the matter goes to the full House. Spoiler alert: The Democratic House majority is likely to have enough stroke to impeach the president. Democrats might even lose a handful of votes from those in their party who represent Trump-leaning constituents back home.

The deed is almost done.

Then the Senate gets the matter. Trump will stand trial in a body controlled by Republicans. The Senate is likely to find Trump not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The 2020 presidential election awaits. That’s when the fun really and truly begins.

Get ready, ladies and gentlemen. The ride is going to be a rockin’ and a rollin’ affair.

national news

Irony awaits impeachment conclusion

There’s a certain sense of irony associated with what is about to happen in the U.S. House of Representatives and then in the U.S. Senate.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delayed an impeachment inquiry for as long as she could, believing that impeaching Donald Trump would divide the nation more than it is already divided.

Then came that infamous phone call of this past July and the request from the president for Ukraine to help him with a personal political favor. Trump wanted to hold up some key military aid to Ukraine — which wanted it to fight the Russian-backed rebels — until Ukraine delivered on the favor; he wanted to find dirt on a potential political foe, former Vice President Joe Biden.

That did it! said Pelosi. We have to impeach the president. More to the point, she said we had to look into whether there are sufficient grounds to impeach him.

To my way of thinking — and to the thinking of millions of other Americans — the House found sufficient reason to impeach him. House members came up with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. It’s as clear to me as the day is long.

Yet, the division remains. Democrats are virtually all in. Republican are virtually all opposed to what Democrats want to do.

So, the House will impeach Trump on two articles of impeachment. The Senate will conduct a trial. As near as anyone can tell, Democrats will have enough votes to send the matter to the Senate. Republicans, though, are in control of the upper chamber, so they’ll find Trump “not guilty.”

You see the irony? Pelosi’s fear of a divided nation is coming true — even in the face of what many of us consider to be overwhelming evidence that Donald Trump should be thrown out of office for putting his personal political fortunes ahead of the national interest.