Tag Archives: impeachment

national news

Husband of key Trump aide brings it!

Oh, to be a fly on the wall in George and Kellyanne Conway’s dining room.

George Conway is a noted lawyer and a vocal critic of Donald J. Trump. Kellyanne Conway is the former Trump 2016 campaign manager who now serves as a senior policy adviser to the president of the United States.

Trump is in the midst of a fight over whether he should be impeached in connection with allegations that he sought a political favor from a foreign government, an action that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now refers to as “bribery.”

As I watch this impeachment inquiry proceed, I am struck by the same question that George Conway has posted in this Twitter message. Many of Trump’s defenders are — in other contexts — honorable men and women who are going to the mat for a man who does not share their basic values of decency and morality. I know a number of individuals for whom I harbor personal affection even though they continue to stand with this president.

I am baffled and amazed at the level to which so many of these individuals continue to “defend” this guy. I want to qualify the word “defend,” because what we hear from these Trump allies doesn’t constitute a defense of Trump’s character, his own morality or his own values. Their “defense” has been a full frontal assault on the motives of Trump’s accusers and the process by which they are bringing their complaints.

We watched much of that strategy play out during the first round of public hearings in the House impeachment inquiry earlier this week. It is a sorry continuation of what has been done ever since former Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation and the Justice Department hired Robert Mueller III to become the special counsel who would examine whether Trump’s campaign “colluded” with Russians who attacked our electoral system.

George Conway speaks for many millions of Americans — such as me — who cannot fathom the extent to which otherwise straitlaced Americans keep casting their lot with the charlatan masquerading as president of the United States.

national news

Speaker ups the ante; now it’s ‘bribery’

Oh, brother. Here we go. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now is tossing out the “b” word in connection with the impeachment inquiry under way in the House of Representatives.

She believes Donald Trump has committed an act of “bribery,” one of two crimes mentioned specifically in the U.S. Constitutions as grounds for removing the president from office; the other crime is “treason.”

So, where do we stand? Pelosi has stated out loud that Trump’s attempt to obtain a political favor from Ukraine in exchange for sending weapons to Ukrainians who are fighting Russia-backed aggressors is a bribe.

I am left to say, um, wow!

The Constitution states that the president “shall be removed from office on impeachment for conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

OK. You got that? What does the handy-dandy American Heritage Dictionary say about what constitutes a bribe? “Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to induce or influence a person to act dishonestly.” 

As I try to connect these dots, I conclude the following: Donald Trump’s asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenksiy for a “favor, though” falls directly into the definition of a bribe. He wanted dirt on Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; in return for the dirt, the president would release weapons slated to go to Ukraine.

Hmm. Is that a bribe? I believe it is.

The more troublesome question rests with how congressional Republicans are going to act on this conclusion. I fear they won’t consider it a bribe. They likely will insist that it’s done “all the time.”

But … is it?

I often have written about how “elections have consequences.” Well, consider this little observation: We are now reaping the consequence of electing someone with zero understanding of what the United States Constitution allows and prohibits.

national news

Trying to grasp logic of POTUS’s resistance to inquiry

So help me, I am trying like the dickens to grasp the logic behind Donald Trump’s strategy in resisting the impeachment inquiry launched by the U.S. House of Representatives.

The president says he has done not a thing wrong; his phone call with the Ukrainian president was “perfect”; he calls the inquiry a sham, a hoax and a the worst witch hunt in U.S. history.

OK, then why in the world does he obstruct Congress’s efforts to question his key aides, former Cabinet officials, former legal counsel?

The president has employed the same strategy that he used in resisting Robert Mueller III’s probe into alleged Russian “collusion” involving the attack on our electoral system during the 2016 election. He said there was “no collusion, no obstruction,” yet he fought Mueller every step of the way.

Mueller determined that that was no provable conspiracy to collude with the Russians, but left the door open on the obstruction of justice matter.

So, here we are. The House Democratic caucus believes there’s reason to launch an inquiry into whether Trump sought foreign government help to promote his re-election. The House is inquiring into whether impeach Trump. The president says the House is on a fixing expedition. He says there’s nothing to expose.

Why, then, does he keep obstructing Congress? I must be missing something. Help me!

national news

Day One proved more eventful than some of us expected

The first day of public hearings into the Donald Trump impeachment inquiry could have turned into a snoozer.

It didn’t. Far from it. The daylong testimony was riveting on a couple of levels.

On one level we got to hear from the mouths directly of two career public servants about the things they said in private to the House Intelligence Committee. Their public testimony was as damaging as what we were led to believe their private testimony had been.

William Taylor is the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine; George West is a deputy secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. They were strong. They were forthright. I believe they told the truth.

They told us that Trump sought political favors from a foreign government. They said the president was more interested in digging up dirt on Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, than in rooting out corruption in Ukraine.

I believe they helped shore up the belief among many Americans that Trump has committed at least one impeachable offense. There might even be a bribery count thrown into the impeachment mix once the House of Representatives votes on the issue.

With several more days of hearings to go, the other aspect of this spectacle deals with how the Republicans on the committee and elsewhere in Congress are going to respond.

I will acknowledge my bias, but to my eyes and ears, the GOP didn’t fare as well as their Democratic colleagues. They struck out hard against Democratic motives and challenged what the witnesses saw and heard. Stunningly, they didn’t say a single word — that I heard — in defense of Donald Trump’s character. Which makes me wonder: How are they going to defend Trump against this impeachment tide?

They won’t defend their political main man. They will continue to attack, which will seek to divert our attention from the issue at hand: whether the president broke the law while violating his oath of office.

There will be more to come. This serious matter is likely to demonstrate — no matter how this drama concludes — that our Constitution does work.

national news

Both sides are digging in deeply

My aversion to making political predictions remains rock-solid, given my abysmal record in making them.

That said, this isn’t exactly a flash, but it seems more likely than ever that Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill aren’t going to change each other’s minds regarding the pending impeachment of Donald Trump.

We got a good look today at the intransigence on both sides. However, I am going steer clear of the “both siderism” argument here by declaring that congressional Republicans are those who need to have their heads examined.

William Taylor and George Kent sat before the House Intelligence Committee for about nine hours today. They answered questions from lawmakers on both sides. To my mind, they painted a clear picture of a president who sought foreign government assistance in helping his political future. He abused the power of his office. He has violated his oath of office. Donald Trump has committed an impeachable offense.

Republicans don’t see it that way. They say that even though what the president did was wrong, they don’t see his actions as impeachable. They are wrong. I believe the president deserves to be booted from office.

He likely won’t get the boot. The House impeachment will send this matter to the Senate. Republicans control the upper chamber. To convict the president of a crime against the Constitution would require a flip of 20 GOP senators. Most of them won’t budge.

Therefore, we are entering a most frustrating element in this process. It is that both sides are digging in. They both think they’re right. However, in this debate there only can be one correct side.

In my view, the winning argument belongs to the Democrats.

national news

Envoy tosses a live grenade at Oval Office

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

William Taylor said he would not offer an opinion on what he delivered today to the U.S. House Intelligence Committee.

He didn’t need to offer that qualifier. What he delivered was the rhetorical equivalent of a live hand grenade straight into the Oval Office.

The longtime diplomat, a career public servant, today revealed that Donald Trump was more interested in finding dirt on Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, than he was in rooting out corruption in Ukraine.

Yep, Taylor told the panel that there was a quid pro quo, that the president of the United States wanted the goods on the Bidens exclusively to help his upcoming campaign for re-election, which he well could wage against Joe Biden, the former vice president of the United States.

So … what now?

We’re going to hear from some more witnesses on Friday. Then some more next week. Maybe even more than that.

I listened to a lot of what Taylor and longtime State Department aide George Kent told the Intelligence panel.

I collected a couple of takeaways from this remarkable day of testimony … under oath.

  • One is that nothing that Taylor and Kent said is likely to shake any of Trump’s Republican allies out of their fealty to the president. The GOP members of the Intel committee today didn’t defend Trump’s character. They didn’t say that Donald Trump would never do what has been alleged. Instead, they homed in on Democrats’ motives and on the Bidens’ activities in Ukraine. They defended Trump by attacking his critics.
  • The second takeaway was that Taylor and Kent are as polished, sophisticated and dedicated to the nation as had been advertised. They were unflappable in the face of the aggression exerted by GOP questioners.

The hearings will continue. There well might be more rhetorical grenades tossed into the White House. Will there be any signal that GOP devotion to Trump will falter? I am not holding my breath.

national news

Hoping for the truth; fearing that we’ll get a circus

I have every intention of watching as much as I can of the public hearing on whether the U.S. House of Representatives should impeach Donald J. Trump. The hearing will convene Wednesday morning.

Believe it or not, I am going to keep an open mind. Yes, I believe the president has committed impeachable offenses. However, I want to hear from the principal witnesses themselves what they knew, what they heard and saw and whether they — as men and women who are closest to the situation — have drawn any conclusions about what the president has done to deserve impeachment.

OK. That all said, I have a fear that some House Intelligence Committee members will have another agenda. They will seek to destroy the credibility of these witnesses. I am referring to Republicans on the panel. Their strategy is shaping up: attack the critics and do not seek to defend the president as a man of high honor and integrity, as someone who would never do the things that have been alleged.

And what has been alleged? As I understand it, there are allegations that Trump sought a political favor from the president of Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy sought weapons from the United States to help him fight Russia-backed rebels; Trump said he wanted a “favor, though” before he would send the weapons to Ukraine. The “favor” involved obtaining critical information about Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; Biden is running for president and might oppose Trump in 2020.

Abuse of power? Violation of the presidential oath? Obstruction of justice? It’s all on the table.

I am hoping to hear from these individuals who were “on the call” to tell the world what they heard. These individuals are patriots, career diplomats, military personnel. They, too, take oaths to defend the nation and to serve the Constitution.

Intelligence Committee Republicans, though, seem hell bent on destroying their credibility.

I want some discernment to come from these public hearings. Republicans have clamored for public testimony. The impeachment inquiry has gone according to rules established by GOP House leadership. So now the hearings are going to unveiled in full public view.

I fear the worst, which is that the hearings could become a sideshow.

I will hope for the best, which will be that dedicated public servants will be able to clear out all the rhetorical underbrush and reveal what we need to know.

I am all ears for as long as it takes.

national news

Beware of social media lie: Pelosi didn’t rob SSI fund

Social media can be fun if it isn’t abused. When abuse occurs, it becomes a deadly toxin.

A social media lie has been making the rounds about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and this idiotic notion that she grabbed $2.4 billion from a Social Security fund to pay for the impeachment inquiry under way in the House of Representatives.

It ain’t true. Yet it’s gone viral.

My gut reaction when I first heard of it was: Wait a second; the speaker doesn’t have that kind of authority. The speaker cannot move money around unilaterally.

Fact-checkers have debunked the notion. Pelosi is too smart a politician, too adroit and too shrewd to even consider doing something such as that.

This, therefore, presents a profound example of how social media can be weaponized. Let us take greater care when reading this nonsense.

Factcheck.org lays it out here.

How about we all just settle down and let this process play out?

national news

Trump is ‘truthful,’ says ex-UN envoy … wow!

Photo by John Lamparski/Getty Images

I suppose it’s all right to have different points of view on important people, depending on your persuasion or perhaps even depending on how you are tracking your own political future.

What does one make of former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley declaring that Donald Trump is a “truthful” individual?

That’s a serious head-scratcher. Then again, Nikki Haley is believed to be seeking to run for president one day and just might be positing some notions that will put her in the good graces of the man who holds the office at this moment.

Haley is pushing back on calls to impeach the president. She told the “Today” show that Trump has been truthful in his dealings with her. Haley said Trump always “listened” when the two of them spoke and that he was good to work with.

Well, OK. Whatever you say, Mme. Ambassador.

I just cannot get past the countless examples of what I call gratuitous lying on Trump’s part. You know, when he lies when he doesn’t need to lie. He just makes things up. Says whatever rests in that noggin of his. It’s big stuff and dumb stuff.

The big stuff? How about when he said he lost “many friends” on 9/11 when he never attended a single funeral in the wake of that tragedy. The dumb stuff? Let’s look at when he said his father was born in Germany, when he was born in New York City.

This president is “truthful”? Hardly.

local news, national news

‘Inappropriate’ but not ‘impeachable’?

I long have thought that Mac Thornberry was a smart man, even though I have harbored some deep personal — and largely private — objections to many of the public policy positions he has taken.

However, the Clarendon, Texas, Republican member of Congress has, um, inflicted some damage to my longstanding view of his intelligence.

Thornberry went on national TV Sunday and said that it is “inappropriate” for a president to “ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival,” But … then he said it is not “impeachable.”

Allow me to split a hair or two here.

The term “inappropriate” doesn’t necessarily equal “illegal.” However, presidents can be impeached for “inappropriate” behavior. I happen to believe, though, that Donald Trump broke the law when he sought foreign government help in investigating a political rival, Joe Biden.

I’ll stipulate that I am not a lawyer. Thornberry did earn a law degree from the University of Texas; he has called himself a “recovering lawyer.” However, I have read the Constitution, as I am sure has Thornberry. I interpret the Constitution as declaring that presidents cannot solicit foreign governments for political help. Donald Trump did that very thing in that infamous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

So, has the president abused the power of his office? Did he commit an actual crime? I believe he has done both things. Abusing of power is impeachable; violating the law, not to mention his oath of office, certainly is impeachable.

That makes it far worse than “inappropriate,” as Thornberry has described it.

My disappointment in Thornberry is palpable. He was my congressman for more than 20 years when my wife and I lived in Amarillo. He took office the same week I arrived in Amarillo to begin my tenure as editorial page editor of the Globe-News. I had a good professional relationship with him and his staff.

He has announced he won’t seek re-election in 2020. What he does after he leaves office is a mystery to me. I wish him well. I only wish he would interpret Donald Trump’s egregious misbehavior differently than what he has expressed.

It’s clearly possible, as Thornberry has demonstrated, that people can reach vastly different conclusions while witnessing the same act. Rep. Thornberry has determined that Trump’s actions were “inappropriate,” but not “impeachable.” I believe Trump broke the law and, therefore, earned an early exit from the White House.