Tag Archives: 2016 election

POTUS ratchets up war with Mueller

Here we go.

Donald Trump has accused the FBI of improper surveillance of his 2016 presidential campaign and has “demanded” that the Justice Department launch a probe into it.

DOJ has responded by asking its inspector general to conduct a thorough investigation into whether anything improper occurred with regard to the Russian meddling in our 2016 election.

“If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriate action,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said in a statement.

OK, where do we stand?

It looks to me as though the president has pulled out all the stops in his strategy to discredit, disparage and disqualify the serious probe being conducted by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Mueller has been given the authority to determine to what extent if any the president’s campaign cooperated with Russians who meddled in our electoral process. What’s more, Mueller’s team is examining a whole range of related issues, such as potential obstruction of justice and possible Trump Organization business ties with Russians involved in the meddling.

Trump’s allegation, as he has done with other such accusations, comes with no evidence up front. The president just, um, said it.

Rosenstein’s decision is the right call. If what the president alleges proves true, then we have a serious problem on our hands. I am going to rely on the IG’s ability to conduct the kind of thorough investigation that doesn’t presume guilt, but instead examines what — if any — evidence exists to lend credence to what the president has alleged.

If the IG finds nothing, well, then we have a problem of an entirely different nature.

And it is just as serious as the first one.

Presidents don’t ‘demand’ things

I am not inclined usually to endorse thoughts expressed by William Kristol, publisher of the conservative publication The Weekly Standard.

I’ll make an exception by backing a tweet he put out regarding Donald J. Trump Sr.: In America, a president can order that a thing be done if he’s executing a law or acting within his discretion. And a president can urge or request something be done. But an American president doesn’t “demand” a thing be done. Demands are the way of autocrats, thugs and children.

Now I shall stipulate that Kristol is an ardent anti-Trump fellow. He opposed his election as president in 2016 and hasn’t let up since Trump took the oath of office.

The president has “demanded” that the Department of Justice launch a probe into whether the FBI spied on Trump’s 2016 campaign. Trump is looking for some affirmation of the allegation he has leveled against the FBI — again with no evidence — that it launched surveillance on his campaign in an effort to do harm to it.

Kristol, I shall remind you, once served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle from 1989 to 1993. Thus, he has government experience. He served quite close to the center of federal executive power.

His view of Trump’s demand, that it is the “way of autocrats, thugs and children” points out one of the many fundamental flaws in the manner that Trump seeks to govern.

He continues to misconstrue a truth about the president and the presidency, which is that the office isn’t his to act as he pleases. It carries two-plus centuries of tradition and custom. President John F. Kennedy once lamented shortly after taking office in 1961 how difficult it was to get anything done simply by presidential edict.

Donald Trump hasn’t yet made that discovery. I doubt he will. He has no knowledge of how government works, only some internal notion of how he wants it to work.

William Kristol, to borrow a phrase, has told it like it is.

Why, indeed, did POTUS fire Comey?

Matthew Yglesias asks a perfectly legitimate question in his article posted online by Vox.com: Why did Donald J. Trump fire James Comey as head of the FBI?

We haven’t heard anything specific about why in May 2017 the president tweeted his decision to fire Comey, which the FBI boss heard about as he was preparing to deliver remarks in California to a group of federal agents.

Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has said that Trump is under no obligation to explain himself, that he can fire anyone he wants whenever he wants for whatever reason he wants.

But as Yglesias points out in his article, Trump is no longer just a CEO of a business empire, he’s an “elected president of the United States” who is answerable — according to the U.S. Constitution he took an oath to uphold — to the people of this country.

Trump indeed is obligated to explain his actions with regard to Comey.

The Vox article points out that in its 80-plus years of existence, the FBI has had eight directors. Only one other director, William Sessions, was fired. Sessions got canned after a thorough ethics investigation into allegations of spending irregularities; he had been appointed by President George H.W. Bush, but President Clinton gave Sessions the boot when he took office in 1993. The president was clear at the time, in the moment, about why he let Sessions go.

Therefore, the current president needs to explain to the people in a voice loud enough for special counsel Robert Mueller to hear him why he decided James Comey no longer was doing the job he signed on to do. Was it the “Russia thing,” or was it something else?

If it was based on the investigation into whether Russians meddled in our 2016 election, well, then we need to hear it. Yes? Yes!

If it’s something else, then tell us what spurred the sudden dismissal, Mr. President. Millions of your bosses out here want to know.

Talk to us. Now!

Not even POTUS is above the law

The chatter is building around the Russia probe being conducted by special counsel Robert Mueller.

It involves some aspects about whether the president of the United States can be compelled to do things the rest of us would have to do under threat of arrest and imprisonment.

We all have heard it said that “no one is above the law” and that “we are a nation of laws and not of men.”

Mueller’s probe into Donald Trump’s campaign and whether there was “collusion” with Russians who interfered in our 2016 presidential election appears headed down some new territory. There also are questions about whether the president might have obstructed justice by firing FBI Director James Comey, who was conducting an investigation of his own.

The special counsel has reportedly prepared a few dozen questions he wants to ask the president.

Mueller reportedly has told the president’s legal team he might subpoena Trump to appear before a grand jury. There is some arguments being offered that president’s cannot be forced to testify.

There even has been some talk that presidents are shielded against indictment.

This leads me back to a premise I noted early in this blog post.

If presidents are subject to the same laws as the rest of us, then Donald Trump should be compelled to testify before a grand jury. If the special counsel finds an offense that rises to the level of an indictment, then the president should be held accountable if the criminal complaint involves an act committed — allegedly — by the nation’s head of state.

The idea that we are a nation of laws and that no one is above the law isn’t a quaint notion that has become obsolete in the 21st century.

I am not going to suggest that Donald Trump is guilty of anything. I merely want the process to conclude in a manner that examines everyone’s involvement — and that includes the president of the United States of America.

The carousel keeps spinning in Trump World

My head is spinning. I’m suffering from motion sickness. I might throw up.

Ty Cobb has left Donald J. Trump’s legal team. The president reportedly has hired a new personal legal eagle: Emmet Flood who — and this is rich — served on President Bill Clinton’s team that defended him against impeachment in 1998.

We have Rudy Giuliani on the team. Rudy is the former New York mayor, former federal prosecutor, former presidential candidate, current Trump cheerleader. Giuliani’s task reportedly is to persuade special counsel Robert Mueller to bring his Russia investigation to a speedy close. Good luck with that, Mr. Mayor.

John Dowd bailed from the president’s legal team. Why? His client, Donald Trump, wasn’t listening to any legal advice he was getting. Why serve someone who doesn’t heed the best legal advice he can find?

The Hill reported: “Emmet Flood will be joining the White House staff to represent the president and the administration against the Russia witch hunt,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. “Ty Cobb, a friend of the president, who has done a terrific job, will be retiring at the end of the month.”

I find it interesting that Cobb would “be retiring” at this critical time. With so much work apparently left to do and with Trump’s tenure as president appearing to be in growing peril, now this “friend of the president” has decided to ride off into the sunset?

Mueller’s investigation continues to gather steam. The special counsel reportedly has drafted a lengthy list of questions he wants to ask the president. He also reportedly is considering whether to subpoena the commander in chief if Trump doesn’t appear voluntarily before a federal grand jury that Mueller has impaneled.

Meanwhile, the president continues to undermine and undercut Mueller’s investigation. Yes, he’s doing so even though he insists there’s “no collusion” with Russians.

I’m still about to throw up.

Trump dictated his doc’s statement? No-o-o-o!

Someone will have to persuade me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Donald J. Trump didn’t do what his former physician says he did.

Dr. Harold Bornstein has said that the future president of the United States “dictated” a letter that went public over the doc’s name proclaiming that Trump would be the healthiest president in the history of the Republic.

“He dictated that whole letter. I didn’t write that letter,” Bornstein told CNN. “I just made it up as I went along.”

Let me refresh your memory.

Borstein examined the future president and released a letter that said Trump’s health was beyond belief. He would be the healthiest individual ever to serve as president.

According to The Hill: “His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary,” read the letter, which Bornstein had initially said he wrote himself. “If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.”

Hmm. Shades of Trump allegedly dictating Don Jr.’s statement about that meeting with Russian operatives dealing with the “adoption of orphans.”

OK, this so-called dictation isn’t as dire as the Don Jr. matter, but it does demonstrate — if it proves to be true — a consistent pattern that the country has witnessed ever since Donald Trump entered the political arena.

Hey, how about the reports that Trump phoned a TV show pretending to be someone else touting the virtues of the hotel magnate-billionaire?

All of this stuff just seems to demonstrate what Mitt Romney said about Trump during the middle of the 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump sure sounds like a “fraud” and a “phony” to me.

Obstruction of justice, anyone?

The news of the long list of questions special counsel Robert Mueller wants to ask Donald J. Trump hits me hard at two levels.

First things first.

Mueller appears loaded for a deep probe into obstruction of justice, according to the questions obtained by the New York Times. From what I’ve read of the NY Times account of the inquiry, Mueller isn’t looking too carefully into collusion, given that there appears to be no federal statute that covers whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russian government officials who meddled in our 2016 presidential election.

He is zeroing in on obstruction and whether the president sought to derail the investigation by pressuring the Justice Department, and former FBI Director James Comey to back off their probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s role in those meetings with the Russians.

The Times also reports that Mueller is looking at the Trump family’s business dealings and whether there is any link between that aspect of the president’s other life and the one he inherited by getting elected president of the United States.

Mueller is known to be a meticulous lawyer. He dots all the “i’s” and crosses all the “t’s” before proceeding.

I hope he is allowed to continue this probe to its conclusion.

The second part of this story is the troubling aspect of the leak that apparently allowed the Times to obtain the questions in the first place.

I am forced to ask: Did someone within the Mueller legal team leak these questions to the media and possibly undermine its integrity?

I hope that’s not the case.

Wolf controversy overshadows media’s good work

It’s a shame that a foul-mouthed comedian’s performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner has overshadowed much of what the crowd was there to do.

They came to honor those who work in the media, who cover the news and report to the public the happenings of the federal government, its elected officials and appointed staff.

The media are not, in the words of Donald J. Trump — who skipped the dinner for the second consecutive year — the “enemy of the American people.” Far from it. They are the protectors of transparency, accountability and government integrity.

Many media outlets were honored. CNN, for example, received a high honor for its work reporting on the dossier that emerged revealing potential connections between the Trump presidential campaign and Russian government operatives seeking to meddle in our 2016 presidential election.

The correspondents dinner focus should be on those individuals and organizations. Instead, we’re arguing from coast to coast over whether comedian Michelle Wolf crossed the line of decency in her scathing criticism of the president and his senior staff members.

For the record … she did.

The media, though, are doing the job the U.S. Constitution empowers them to do — without government interference, bullying, intimidation or threats.

I hope to be done with the Michelle Wolf travesty.

The media that are reporting on the presidency and the rest of the government will continue to earn my undying pride and praise when they do well.

Cruz was right about Trump the first time

A longtime friend of mine has dug up an interesting body of remarks from one Republican U.S. senator about a man, a fellow Republican, who was running for the presidency.

The senator is Ted Cruz of Texas; the presidential candidate is Donald J. Trump.

My friend, Beaumont Enterprise editorial page editor Tom Taschinger, took note of how Cruz’s tone toward Trump has changed since he ran against the president for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

Here is what Cruz said two years about the guy who defeated a large GOP field to win the nomination and ultimately the presidency; I encourage you to read it carefully:

“This man is a pathological liar. … He lies practically every word that comes out of his mouth. And in a pattern that I think is straight out of a psychology textbook, his response is to accuse everyone else of lying. … The man cannot tell the truth, but he combines it with being a narcissist. A narcissist at a level I don’t think this country has ever seen. Donald Trump is such a narcissist that Barack Obama looks at him and goes, ‘Dude, what’s your problem?’ … If you hooked him up to a lie detector test, he could say one thing in the morning, one thing at noon and one thing in the evening, all contradictory, and he’d pass the lie detector test each time. Whatever lie he’s telling, at that minute he believes it. … He is proud of being a serial philanderer. … He describes his own battles with venereal diseases as his own personal Vietnam.”

Wow, eh? Sure thing.

Has the president changed fundamentally since then? Heavens no! A 70-something-year-old man doesn’t turn miraculously from what the Cruz Missile described above into a paragon of virtue.

I get that Cruz was running for the same office that Trump eventually won when he offered the blistering critique. Still, Sen. Cruz was right the first time. To think this guy — Trump — got elected president of the United States of America.

Ugghh!

Pompeo to become diplomat with thin backing

Mike Pompeo is likely to be confirmed as the nation’s next secretary of state, but he’ll take strange route on his way to leading the nation’s diplomatic corps.

Pompeo is the CIA director whom Donald Trump selected to succeed Rex Tillerson at the State Department. He has run into trouble on his way to confirmation: Pompeo won’t have the blessing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which conducted confirmation hearings on Pompeo’s nomination.

A Republican committee member, Rand Paul of Kentucky, is going to vote against Pompeo’s nomination. That will result more than likely in a vote of no confidence from the panel.

That won’t derail his confirmation. The full Senate will get to vote on it, but Pompeo will gain the support of Senate Democrats who might be in trouble in states that Trump carried in the 2016 presidential election. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe  Manchin of West Virginia come to mind; let’s toss in Bill Nelson of Florida while we’re at it. They’re all running for re-election, which seems to give Pompeo a leg up in this strange journey toward confirmation.

Actually, I hope Pompeo does get confirmed. The State Department needs a steady hand and I think Pompeo can provide it … if only the president will allow him to lead the agency.

Tillerson had to fight the occasional battle against being undercut by the president. Tillerson would make a pronouncement and then Trump would countermand him. I don’t want that to happen with the new secretary of state, who’s got a big job awaiting him immediately — which happens to be the preparation for the planned summit between Donald Trump and North Korean despot Kim Jong Un.

What’s more, as head of the CIA, Pompeo has joined other U.S. intelligence officials in confirming the obvious: that the Russians meddled in our 2016 election.

This man needs to be our secretary of state.