Tag Archives: abuse of power

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

Let’s quit the theater and get down to brass tacks

U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler angered his Republican colleagues last night by delaying the vote to impeach Donald J. Trump until this morning.

The GOP side went ballistic. Nadler’s stated reason was to allow committee members to sleep on it, to think carefully about what they intend to do. The GOP was having none of it. They called it “bush league,” they couldn’t tolerate delaying the vote, accusing Democrats of wanting to make a show of it in full daylight.

This isn’t an original thought from me, but it strikes me as idiotic that the GOP would bitch about delaying a vote. I am imagining the minority’s reaction had Nadler proceeded with a late-night vote. There would have been accusations of Democrats sneaking the vote past us all .

Let’s quit the feigned outrage, shall we?

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.

national news

Absent an argument over the facts, then where do we stand?

Congressional Republicans have laid down their marker: They are not going to argue the facts surrounding the impeachment of Donald J. Trump.

Congressional Democrats are arguing that the facts are beyond dispute. They are acknowledged as being true.

So what is left, then, for Congress to consider? I am left to conclude only that the facts as presented either are impeachable or they are not. That’s what I get from all of this.

I happen to believe that a president who invites foreign involvement in our election has committed an impeachable offense. It is an abuse of the immense power of his office. Trump allies, I am presuming, believe otherwise. If that is their belief, then why are we not hearing them argue that point?

Moreover, I also believe that obstruction of Congress also is an impeachable offense. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress all the authority it needs to conduct an investigation into executive branch behavior. When a president orders all key witnesses to ignore congressional subpoenas, I believe that constitutes an impeachable offense.

What do congressional Republicans use to justify their resistance to these two articles of impeachment that are heading inexorably to a vote in the House Judiciary Committee and then to the full House of Representatives?

I am just a voter, a patriot and someone with a deep interest in our government. I believe the president has violated his oath of office. Believe me or not, but I am waiting to hear someone on the GOP side speak to the facts at hand.

That specific defense is not forthcoming, or so it appears as we hurtle toward impeachment.

So we’re left with one side arguing that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are impeachable offenses. The other side seems to believe they are not impeachable.

What is the rationale of those who cannot defend the indefensible?

legal news

Former acting AG: ‘Abuse of power is not a crime’

I am not a lawyer; nor do I portray one on TV.

However, I have read the U.S. Constitution. I have been following the Donald Trump impeachment saga with considerable interest. So, when a former U.S. attorney general says “Abuse of power is not a crime,” I am left to scratch my noggin and wonder: How did this guy become — if only briefly — the nation’s top law enforcement official?

Matthew Whitaker, a staunch defender of Donald J. Trump, said in public that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t specify that abuse of power is a crime. Therefore, according to Whitaker, the grounds for impeaching Trump are, um, without basis.

According to Salon: Invoking the Constitution, former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker claimed that “abuse of power is not a crime” as he rushed to President Donald Trump’s defense after the nation’s top envoy to Ukraine testified to Congress that Trump had withheld military aid in order to pressure Ukraine to investigating his political opponents.

“I’m a former prosecutor and what I know is this is a perfect time for preliminary hearings where you would say show us your evidence,” he told (talk show host Laura) Ingraham. “What evidence of a crime do you have? So the Constitution — abuse of power is not a crime.”

Oh, my. Yes, it’s a crime.

Salon points out the obvious fact of history, which is that President Nixon would have been impeached on an abuse of power count; except that he resigned before the House could impeach him. Moreover, one of the House’s counts against President Clinton, who it did impeach, included, um, abuse of power.

So, how does this “former prosecutor” assert that abuse of power is not a crime and, therefore, is not an impeachable offense?

Donald Trump has abused the power of his office by seeking foreign government help in his re-election bid. He has abused the power of his office by firing an FBI director because he was conducting an investigation into the “Russia thing.”

I don’t have a legal background. However, I know a crime when I see one. I believe Donald Trump’s abuse of power is a crime for which he can be impeached and, by all means, removed from office.

legal news, political news, State news

Respect this opinion … while disagreeing with it

IMG_8989_jpg_800x1000_q100

Rick Perry is free at last!

Free of the indictment that he said was politically motivated. Free of the cloud that threatened to rain buckets of trouble all over him. Free of the snickering from his foes.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state’s highest criminal appellate court, has dismissed the indictment that charged the former governor with abuse of power. A lower court had tossed out another indictment that charged Perry with coercion of a public official.

This is one of the decisions that one can respect while disagreeing with the findings.

Texas Tribune story.

The system did its job.

A Travis County grand jury indicted Perry on charges of abuse of power over his veto of money for the Public Integrity Unit run out of the Travis County district attorney’s office. The DA, Rosemary Lehmberg, had pleaded guilty to drunken driving and served some time in jail. Perry said she should resign and if she didn’t he would veto money for the Public Integrity Unit, which is charged with investigating wrongdoing among public officials.

Lehmberg should have quit. But she didn’t. So Perry followed through on his threat and vetoed the money. I must add here that Lehmberg is a Democrat, while Perry is a Republican.

So, the grand jury indicted him — while Perry was finishing up his stint as governor and preparing to run for president of the United States. Perry accused the grand jury of playing politics. Travis County is a Democratic bastion; Perry, of course, is a Republican. I’ll point out, too, that the special prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury also is a Republican.

I actually thought the lesser of the charges — the coercion part — had more staying power. Silly me. I didn’t expect a lower court to toss that one first.

I never liked the idea of a governor telling an elected county official to quit. That wasn’t his call to make, given that the district attorney is answerable only to the people who elected her. Gov. Perry tried to bully Lehmberg into doing his bidding and that — to my way of thinking — is fundamentally wrong.

As for the veto itself, the governor could have — should have — simply vetoed the money appropriated for the integrity unit without the fanfare he attached to it. That’s not the Perry modus operandi, however. He sought to make a show of it, which also is wrong — but not illegal, according to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

As for the politics of this case … if the governor alleged that the grand jury indictment was motivated by politics because Travis County comprises mostly Democrats, is it fair to wonder whether the top appellate court dismissal occurred because all its members are Republicans?

Hey, I’m just thinking out loud.

So, the case is over.

Now we can all turn our attention to the Greatest Show on Earth, which would be the Republican Party presidential primary campaign. Let’s bring out the clowns!

national news, political news, State news

Perry faces big hurdles

Ross Ramsey is about as smart a Texas political analyst as there is, and he’s laid out three things Rick Perry must do to wage an effective campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

Ramsey, writing for the Texas Tribune, listed them in this order: (1) stay the course while the field thins out; (2) get rid of the prosecutor who’s trying to convict him of abuse of power; (3) do well in the debates.

If Ramsey was listing them in order of importance, I’d flip the first and second points.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/04/analysis-three-steps-perrys-comeback-trail/

Those “pesky prosecutors” represent every possible stumbling block for the former Texas governor.

Perry, who today went to Addison to announce his candidacy, appears to the be the first major candidate ever to run for president while facing felony indictment. A Travis County grand jury indicted him for abuse of power and coercion of a public official in 2014.

The history is out there. Ramsey goes through it in the link attached here.

If Perry cannot shake those prosecutors, then it’s game over.

And by “shaking” them, he must get the indictments tossed out.

As Ramsey notes: “Perry and his legal team have argued that the case is a political one brought by liberal prosecutors in a liberal county to a liberal grand jury, that his veto was legal, and that the whole thing was designed to spoil his political future.”

The veto might have been legal, but it also was done with considerable public-relations fanfare, which is why — in my view — the coercion charge might be the one that sticks more stubbornly than the abuse of power allegation.

All the then-governor had to do was veto the money appropriated to the Public Integrity Unit without making such a public case about the district attorney’s arrest for drunken driving and his public threat to veto the money if she didn’t quit her job as Travis County DA.

Was it legal? Sure. Was it a matter of coercion? Yes to that, too … allegedly.

Ramsey is correct on this other point: “The better (Perry) does, the bigger the indictment obstacle becomes. It’s a bother now. It’s a potential deal-breaker if he becomes a real contender.”

 

national news, political news

DOJ to go after Democratic senator

Lets hand it to the U.S. Department of Justice.

It’s an equal-opportunity pursuer of corruption in government.

DOJ’s target is a Democratic senator from New Jersey, Bob Menendez, who’s been accuse of using his public office to enrich private donors.

Ouch … and double ouch!

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/bob-menendez-federal-corruption-charges-115834.html?hp=t1_r

The DOJ has been accused of being too partisan, whether it’s run by a Democrat or a Republican. The current Justice Department is under the purview of a Democratic administration, so it stands to reason that it would let allegations of misdeeds against a fellow Democrat to pass, right? Wrong!

As Politico reported: “A federal grand jury in New Jersey has for months been investigating Menendez’s interactions with Salomon Melgen, a close friend and financial backer of the senator, prompting Menendez to rack up hundreds of thousands in legal bills as the probe intensified. A New Jersey newspaper reported this week that several Menendez aides declined to answer questions before the grand jury, citing a constitutional privilege that covers the New Jersey Democrat and other lawmakers and staff.”

I’ve got to hand it to the Justice Department, not that I think necessarily that Menendez is guilty of anything. Heck, I live way out here in Flyover Country and I haven’t been following the Menendez case carefully.

My salute is to DOJ for going ahead with an investigation it could have swept away, citing “insufficient evidence” as a reason not to pursue a criminal probe.

Make no mistake, justice departments of both parties have used that dodge with particular effectiveness.

Not this one. Not this time.

“Let me be very clear, very clear. I have always conducted myself appropriately and in accordance with the law,” Menendez said. “I am not going anywhere.”

We’ll see about that.