Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

national news, political news

Trump offers his set of ‘alternative facts’ about election

Here we go … again.

The president of the United States invited congressional leaders to the White House today and then offered a patently absurd assertion about why he lost the popular vote to his Democratic opponent.

It was those “illegals,” Donald Trump said, who voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Proof? He didn’t need no stinkin’ proof. He just said it. Therefore it must be true. I mean, the president said it. His press flack, Sean Spicer, said today the administration would never lie to us.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/315791-trump-told-leaders-illegals-cost-him-popular-vote

I want to examine this ridiculousness briefly on a couple of levels.

First, Trump and his Trumpkins keep telling us the popular vote doesn’t matter. Hillary pulled down 2.8 million more of them than Trump. But she lost the Electoral College by a vote of 304-227. It’s a comfortable margin, but it’s not nearly the “landslide” Trump keeps describing it.

If the president and his allies don’t think the popular vote matters, why bring it up today in the White House, where he’s now residing?

Give it up, Mr. President.

Second, the president once again threw out something without offering a shred of proof, documentation or authentication. He said 3 million to 5 million “illegals” voted for Clinton. Had they not voted, he said, he’d have won the popular vote.

Here he is yet again questioning the integrity of the voting process. He is asserting, according to those in attendance, that local elections officials somehow were too lax to check the legality of the ballots being cast.

Is it me, or does anyone else see the irony that the president would make such a damning accusation about U.S. election officials but would remain virtually silent about alleged Russian interference in the very same electoral process?

Or is this the president’s version of “alternative facts”?

International news

How will the president deal with this mass protest?

I am about to state the obvious … which is that Donald Trump’s presidency is off to a rocky start.

He took the oath of office as the 45th president of the United States, gave his inaugural speech, witnessed a parade in his honor, signed an executive order or two in the Oval Office, went to some inaugural balls and then awoke this morning to an entire planet protesting his inauguration.

Millions of women — and men! — hit the streets all over the nation and the world to signal their dissent at his election. It might not end for a while.

White House press flack Sean Spicer held his first news briefing today at the White House. What did he talk about? Not about the protests … oh, no, not at all. He griped about the media’s coverage of inaugural crowd estimates!

I think the president needs to deal with this. Somehow and in some fashion he needs to address the nation about the concerns expressed on streets all across the nation.

Women are concerned about the president’s stated disrespect of women; his admission of sexual assault on women; his disparagement of women; the degrading manner in which he talks about women’s appearance. The litany of insults goes on.

Women now are fearful of what Trump and Congress will do to issues close to their hearts: reproductive rights, women’s health, equal pay, to name just three.

Let’s set aside that Trump was elected in the first place. He won an election he wasn’t supposed to win. Women around the country wanted to see of their own — Hillary Rodham Clinton — make history by becoming the first women elected president. It didn’t happen.

The candidate who did win, Trump, has a record with which he must face his critics.

Will he do it? Will he face his critics? Will he answer their concerns specifically?

I believe a real leader would — and should — stand before the nation and talk specifically about the protests that have been mounted.

national news, political news

Whether to boycott inaugural

I want to open this topic up for discussion after declaring my own view that might ruffle a feather or three.

I’ve been stewing over this notion about boycotting Donald Trump’s inauguration on Friday. Several dozen Democratic lawmakers say they aren’t going to attend the inaugural out of protest over Trump’s election to the presidency.

I’m not comfortable with that notion.

I’m going to launch my own mini-boycott Friday. I’ll watch the new president’s inaugural speech, but I’m going to forgo the rest of it: the parade, the pageantry, the balls, the “first dance.” I am just a schmuck out here in Flyover Country who is not elected to a public office that is part of a federal government that sets laws for everyone to follow.

A Democratic boycott of a Republican president’s inaugural seems, to my way of thinking, to miss the point about what these inaugurals are all about. They aren’t about the individual who is elected president; they are about the office. We salute the office and the principles on which it was founded.

The inaugural is meant to honor democratic tradition, not Democratic politics.

Do I wish someone else had been elected president? Sure I do. But here’s another point: That other person I supported — Hillary Rodham Clinton — is going to attend the inaugural with her husband, the former president. She’ll be on the podium. She’ll stand and applaud when the new president takes the oath. If anyone had reason to boycott, I think it would be her.

Those who detest the president don’t have to applaud. They can keep their hands warm by sticking them in their pockets.

This event Friday isn’t about Donald Trump; it certainly isn’t about those who are boycotting the event. It’s about the presidency, which is going to keep on functioning the moment the chief justice tells Donald J. Trump, “Congratulations, Mr. President.”

***

Let me know what you think. Those of you who see this on Facebook likely will comment on that social medium. Feel free to comment on High Plains Blogger as well.

I don’t think anyone will change my mind. Nor do I think I’ll change anyone else’s mind, either.

national news, political news

Gov. Christie, we hardly knew ye

We’re two weeks and two days into 2017, so why not take a quick look back at the biggest political winners and losers of 2016?

The biggest winner? No question: Donald J. Trump. He’s the next president of the United States. He won an election almost no one thought he’d win. Not me. Not most of the so-called “experts.”

One of my Facebook friends, though, said she called it early on. She knew Trump would win all along. Bully for her.

Enough of that.

The biggest loser? It’s not who you think. I am going to give the Biggest Loser Award to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Sure, Hillary Rodham Clinton lost big in 2016. Christie, though, imploded in a curious way.

He started the year running for the Republican presidential nomination. He was full of bluster, bravado and boastfulness. He was going to kick a** and take names. He was no pushover.

Then he got steamrolled by Trump, who flattened the field of 15 other GOP contenders/pretenders.

Christie then endorsed Trump and became his go-to guy. He would run his transition if Trump got elected.

Then what happened? Trump actually got elected and just like that Christie was removed as transition boss; Trump gave that task to the vice president-elect, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.

Christie, meanwhile, has been fingered in that on-going, never-ending “Bridgegate” scandal emanating from the closure of the George Washington Bridge because Christie was mad at a New Jersey mayor who declined to endorse him for re-election in 2014 … allegedly!

Christie’s poll numbers have tanked. He is coming up for re-election and he now stands a good chance of being thumped.

There you have it. Stand tall, Donald Trump and Chris Christie.

national news, political news

Once again: Trump didn’t win in a ‘landslide’

My head is exploding as I write these words.

The incoming White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, has just said — twice, in fact! — that Donald J. Trump was elected “in a landslide” over Hillary Rodham Clinton on Nov. 8, 2016.

I am about to scream.

Trump was elected with 304 electoral votes; Clinton garnered 227 votes.

Clinton collected 2.8 million more popular votes than Trump.

Read my lips: That is not a landslide victory for the president-elect.

Priebus, appearing on ABC News’s “This Week” program, suffers from a form of selective amnesia. Yes, Trump won 30 of 50 states, as Priebus said; yes, again, he won “more counties” than any presidential winner since President Reagan in 1984.

However, we cannot cherry-pick certain barometers and use them to deliver a message that conflicts with reality.

I don’t question that Trump was elected. He won the states that he needed to win. He won more than enough Electoral College votes to be elected.

But if we’re going to pick and choose which criteria we want to cite, let’s try this: A switch of 175,000 votes in three swing states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — and today we’d be getting ready for the inauguration of President-elect Clinton.

Landslide? Hell no!

national news, political news

IG takes aim at FBI boss

2 Comments

James Comey is under the microscope yet again.

The Justice Department’s inspector general is launching an investigation into the FBI director’s conduct in the days immediately preceding the 2016 presidential election.

At issue is whether Comey’s 11th-hour letter to Congress about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s e-mail controversy had a direct impact on the election outcome.

Clinton believes it did. Donald Trump, who won, is dismissing the impact of the letter. Wow! Imagine that.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dems-outraged-with-comey-after-house-briefing/ar-AAlQa9c?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

What gives this upcoming probe its legs is that the IG works also for the Justice Department, the same agency that employs the FBI director.

Comey’s letter is believed by many to have stalled Clinton’s momentum in the final days of the campaign. Trump’s team contends that their guy was gaining momentum anyway and would have won with our without Comey’s intervention.

Of course, it should be noted that Comey said a few days after announcing he had sent the letter to Congress that his agency determined — as it had done in the summer of 2016 — that Clinton didn’t commit a crime in her handling of the e-mails.

The Clinton team, though, believes the damage had been done.

Comey has drawn intense and angry fire from congressional Democrats who believe his letter — which he revealed 11 days before the election — was directly responsible for Trump’s victory.

My hope for this probe is that Trump will let it go forward. If he calls off the DOJ dogs — or fires Comey — after he takes office, the president-elect will unleash yet another storm of suspicion that he has something to hide.

Let’s answer the question: Did the FBI director act improperly when he injected himself and his agency directly into an intense campaign for the presidency of the United States?

This inquiring mind wants to know. I am quite certain I am not alone.

national news, political news

Hold on, Rep. Lewis!

I have great respect and admiration for John Lewis, one of the most iconic members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

This brave and gallant man who was nearly beaten to death during the civil-rights marches of the 1960s, has not only survived, but he has become one of the great voices of Congress.

But he is getting way ahead of himself when he calls Donald J. Trump an “illegitimate” president.

Why is that? Rep. Lewis is concerned about the Russian involvement in our electoral process and allegations that Russian geeks/spooks sought to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election — in Trump’s favor.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/314234-john-lewis-trump-isnt-a-legitimate-president

Let’s hold on, sir!

I happen to share your distaste of Trump as a president. Believe me, I preferred the other major-party candidate over the Republican nominee. I also am concerned about the Russian involvement as confirmed by U.S. intelligence agencies.

However, nothing at all has been established about whether Russian hackers had any tangible impact on the outcome of the election. No one has proved that Russians tilted significant numbers of Americans to vote for Trump over Clinton.

I’ve never been prone to question the “legitimacy” of presidents elected in a controversial manner. I never once, not for a second, questioned President George W. Bush’s election in 2000 — even with the Supreme Court ruling and the fact that he got fewer popular votes than Al Gore. The U.S. Constitution worked as it was supposed to work in that election and Bush’s presidency was granted its legitimacy at that time.

Donald Trump won more Electoral College votes than Hillary Clinton. He, too, is a “legitimate” president-elect by virtue of collecting enough of the votes that count to be elected.

Unless someone can determine beyond a doubt that Russians — or some mysterious unknown intervener — actually had a tangible impact on the 2016 presidential election, then calling Trump’s presidency “illegitimate” is a major step too far.

Do I wish the outcome had been different? Absolutely! It wasn’t. Too bad for those of us who voted for someone else. I’m going to wait to see how this Russian-hacking probe plays out.

International news, political news

Progress, perhaps, in Trump’s evolution

Let’s consider it a baby step toward Donald J. Trump’s acceptance of reality.

The president-elect today actually acknowledged that Russian spooks hacked into the Democratic National Committee. Are we now getting somewhere in battering down the president-elect’s stubborn resistance to criticize his pals in Russia?

Maybe.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-acknowledges-russian-involvement-in-meddling-in-us-elections/ar-BBya5DE?ocid=spartandhp

Then again, he is continuing to debunk the notion that the Russian hackers sought to influence the 2016 election, sought to discredit Hillary Rodham Clinton and, thus, swing the election in his favor.

He won’t go there. Maybe eventually, just not yet.

Trump’s press conference today was remarkable on a couple of levels. His opening remarks were fascinating in the way he trashed the “mainstream media,” calling reporters “dishonest,” only to then open questions to the very media reps he had just disparaged.

His criticism is centered on the media’s reporting of a two-page addendum to a security briefing that alleges Trump might be involved in some less-than-honorable dealings with Russian businesses and/or government officials.

Trump denied any involvement categorically.

He spoke well of some media representatives, ill of others. He declined to allow a CNN reporter to ask a question. He battled openly with the media while fielding questions from them. It’s a puzzling way to do the public’s business, if you ask me.

However, he did for the first time acknowledge Russian involvement in this hacking story.

I keep thinking that if Trump finally accepts the idea that the Russians hacked into the DNC computers to influence the election in his favor that he’s going to say he thought that all along.

Don’t be surprised at how the president-elect processes this still-developing story.

media news, national news, political news

Parties suffer/enjoy results of presidential election

Is it me or are the media missing one of the critical backstories of the 2016 presidential election?

It goes like this … I believe.

Right up until Election Day, the media were reporting the pending demise of the once-great Republican Party. The GOP, media types reported, was in need of an extreme makeover. Their presidential candidate was about to get creamed by Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Batten down the hatches! A storm was a brewin’ within the Republican Party ranks, they said.

Then a funny thing happened on Nov. 8. The GOP presidential nominee won. Donald J. Trump collected enough Electoral College votes to be elected president of the United States of America.

What the … ?

Now it’s the Democratic Party that’s in need of that makeover.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/07/what-went-wrong-dem-party-contestants-face-tough-questions/96284286/

The candidates for Democratic National Committee chair are facing searing, probing questions about how they intend to lead a party in near-panic.

Clinton lost the election. Democrats failed to win the U.S. Senate majority they anticipated getting; nor did they make any substantial gains in trimming the Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

This remarkable turnaround occurred within a span of, oh, about seven or eight hours the night they were counting the ballots for president.

Polling now suggests that the next Democratic Party presidential nominee should be someone few of us have heard about … another candidate as unknown as, say, Jimmy Carter needs to take the stage.

It well might turn out that Republicans might regret lining up behind a candidate such as Trump, who seems to lack any fundamental core principles that guide him. He once was pro-choice on abortion; now he’s pro-life. He believes gay marriage is now the law of the land; many within the GOP believe quite differently. He thinks free trade is a scam; Republicans embrace free-trade policies. And, oh yes, we have some conflict-of-interest matters to slog through.

I’ll stop there. You get the point.

But, hey. The guy won! Elections have consequences, eh? Oh, brother, do they ever!

International news, national news, political news

Cruz is proving a point about topsy-turvy politics

Oh, that junior U.S. senator of ours.

He is dismissing concerns about possible Russian hacking of the U.S. election process, claiming it’s an effort to “discredit” Donald J. Trump’s election as president.

What might Ted Cruz of Texas say, though, if Hillary Clinton had won amid concerns that the Russians sought to influence her victory? My strong hunch is that the Cruz Missile would be screeching a different set of gripes.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/01/05/cruz-dismisses-concerns-over-russian-role-election/

This is more or less a point I sought to make in an earlier blog post about how the political world has gone all topsy-turvy on us. Republicans historically have stood foursquare behind our intelligence-gathering professionals. Not this time.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2017/01/tables-have-been-turned-upside-down/

They’re standing against their conclusions that Russian hackers sought to tilt the election in Trump’s favor, apparently at the behest of the former head of the KGB who now is Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin.

I get the politics of it all. The GOP’s guy won. They want his election to stand as a “mandate” to do things as president.

For the record — yet again — I don’t believe the Russians’ activities actually tilted the election toward Trump. That’s not the point. The point is that our election system is supposed to be immune from anyone seeking to do some skullduggery, to use our sacred voting process for nefarious purposes.

I don’t believe our election system is as bullet-proof as it should be. It’s also shocking to me that Ted Cruz would be so dismissive of what the CIA spooks have concluded.