Tag Archives: 2016 election

national news

Comey: friend turns to foe

James Comey continues to make the turn. Hey, he might make a full circle before this drama is finishing playing out.

The former FBI director once was hailed by Donald Trump when Comey revealed he had more information to explore regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use — or misuse — of her personal email account while she was secretary of state.

Eleven days before the 2016 presidential election, Comey tossed the outcome into serious confusion mode with the revelation about the so-called new evidence.

Trump was ecstatic. The GOP nominee bellowed that Comey had done his job well.

Then came the news that Comey said there was nothing more to investigate. Case closed. But the damage well might have been done to Clinton’s campaign.

Then the new president took office. He allegedly sought some assurances and a reported pledge of loyalty from Comey. He didn’t get them.

Then the president fired Comey from his FBI job. Ever since, Comey has been called everything but the Son of Satan.

Ahh, the fortunes do turn dramatically.

Now the ex-FBI boss has written a new book. He told ABC News that Trump “might have” obstructed justice. He called the president “morally unfit” to serve.

And then the Twitter tirade came from the president, who responded with “worst FBI director in history … by far!”, “slime ball,” and “serial liar.”

I don’t know about you, but I intend to hold with both hands for the foreseeable future as this dispute plays out. If it ever does!

national news

‘An attack on our country’?

Let me try to sort this out for a moment. That’s all it will take.

Donald J. Trump calls an FBI “raid” on a lawyer’s office, which it executed legally through court-ordered search warrants, an “attack on our country.” He calls it a “disgrace.” He condemns the FBI in the strongest terms possible.

Meanwhile, what does he say about Russian efforts to manipulate the 2016 election? What condemnation does he level at Russians who hacked into our electoral process and disseminated information intended to influence that election in Trump’s favor? Nothing, man!

OK. So, which is the greater “attack on our country”? The FBI sought records from Trump lawyer Michael Cohen to tie up some loose ends in connection with a relationship the future president of the United States had with a porn actress. The FBI is trying to determine the source of a $130,000 payment that Cohen made to Stormy Daniels to buy her silence related to the alleged relationship.

That is the “attack on our country” but the actual attack, by the Russians during our 2016 presidential election, is not?

What in the name of election collusion am I missing here?

national news

Go ahead, make our day, Mr. President

Donald Trump reportedly “believes” he has the legal authority to fire special counsel Robert Mueller.

A part of me wants to caution the president against doing something so patently stupid and political suicidal. Another part of me wants him to cut his own throat politically by firing the man hired by the Department of Justice to probe “the Russia thing.”

Indeed, several key Republican lawmakers are arguing against doing it. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas says it would be “a mistake”; Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa called it “suicide”; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Mueller “should be allowed to finish his job.”

Will the president heed those words of wisdom? Does he ever listen to anyone with a semblance of common sense?

He might have the “legal authority” to act with profound stupidity. That doesn’t make it the right thing — or the smart thing — to do.

Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein because AG Jeff Sessions had recused himself over his connection to Trump’s campaign and his transition into the presidency. Mueller is supposed to determine whether the Trump campaign “colluded” with Russians who meddled in our 2016 election.

Trump calls the Mueller probe a “witch hunt.” He calls allegations “phony” and a product of “fake news.”

Good grief, Mr. President! If it’s phony, if there’s no “there” there, then let Mueller finish his job and issue a report that declares there’s nothing more to do.

Trump, though, insists on acting as if he’s got something to hide. A summary dismissal of Mueller — a former FBI director and a first-rate, meticulous lawyer — would send a signal all around the world that, yep, we’ve got a smoking gun out there … somewhere!

Wouldn’t it just stink of, oh, obstruction of justice?

As President Ronald Reagan once said — quoting another well-known Republican, Clint Eastwood — “Go ahead. Make my day.”

national news

Keep speaking up, Hillary

Hillary Rodham Clinton has made an excellent point about how she is being treated differently from other candidates who lost their bids to become president of the United States.

Speaking at a Rutgers University event, Clinton was asked to respond to critics who have told her to keep quiet about current issues of the day.

Her response? No one ever told previous losing presidential candidates — all of whom were men — to cease speaking out.

As The Hill reports: “I’m really glad that, you know, Al Gore didn’t stop talking about climate change,” Clinton said to applause.

“And I’m really glad John Kerry went to the Senate and became an excellent secretary of state,” the former first lady continued. “And I’m really glad John McCain kept speaking out and standing up and saying what he had to say. And for heavens sakes, Mitt Romney is running for the Senate,” Clinton said.

What makes her different from those other presidential nominees who have kept their voices active and engaged in policy discussions? Clinton believes it’s her gender.

Hmm. Is there a reason to doubt that?

Yes, I’ve been critical of Clinton’s remarks recently about those who voted for her and who voted for Donald J. Trump in the 2016 election. I’ve never told her to keep quiet.

With that, keep speaking up, Hillary Clinton.

national news

This is a ‘smooth’ legal team?

Chris Ruddy, a friend and political ally of Donald Trump, said the president considers his legal and political apparatus to be a “smooth running machine.”

Really? Yes, really. The president’s self-delusion and lack of self-awareness has presented itself again.

Get a load of this sequence.

He sought out the legal services of former federal prosecutor and Fox News TV “contributor” Joe diGenova and his wife, Victoria Toensing. Then his lead lawyer, the guy who’s representing him in the “Russia thing” probe — John Dowd — quits, claiming that Trump doesn’t listen to his legal advice.

This weekend, moreover, Trump decided that diGenova and Toensing wouldn’t be joining his team after all. It seems they had some “conflict of interest” issues that needed to be resolved.

Oh, but the president said — via Twitter, of course — that he has no shortage of brilliant legal minds begging to join the Trump legal team to defend him against the investigation into collusion with Russians who meddled in our 2016 presidential election.

Oh … really? Honestly, Mr. President?

Who in the name of juris prudence is this guy trying to kid?

He cannot hire a good lawyer to save his life, let alone his political  backside. Nor can the president retain a national security team. He cannot fill important posts within the State Department. Washington is bursting with rumors that if White House chief of staff John Kelly quits, that the president won’t hire a new person to run the executive branch “ship of state”; Trump will do it himself.

There you go. He told the nation at the Republican National Convention that “I, alone” can solve every problem under the sun.

It is beginning to look as though he’ll get a chance to deliver on that bold bit of boastfulness.

Good luck with that, Mr. President, as you handle the controls of your “smooth-running machine.”

International news

Obama congratulated Putin, too? Hold on!

So, critics of the media on the right have become fond in recent days of defending Donald J. Trump’s congratulatory phone call to Vladimir Putin. They’re using an interesting — if nonsensical — argument.

Trump called Putin the other day against the advice of his national security team. He congratulated the Russian strongman on his re-election in what many have called a “sham election.” His soon-to-be-former national security adviser H.R. McMaster said that Trump shouldn’t congratulate Putin because of corollary issues that have clouded U.S.-Russia relations.

The president’s phone call has gotten plenty of criticism. I’ve joined the chorus of critics on this blog.

The push back was immediate. Trump defenders point out that Barack H. Obama congratulated Putin on his re-election in 2012.

Whoa! Hold on here! Let’s examine briefly the situation and how it compares with the here and now.

Vladimir Putin was a bad guy in 2012. I get that. He is worse now. Why? Oh, let’s see. He has meddled in our 2016 presidential election and is likely going to meddle in our midterm election this year, let alone in other countries’ elections; he used nerve gas on a former Soviet spy and his daughter.

President Obama did not have issues such as those on the table when he chatted with Putin in 2012. Donald Trump had a lot of them to toss at Putin when he called him just the other day.

There’s the difference.

International news

Leak complicates an already complicated problem

Donald J. Trump’s congratulatory phone call to Vladimir Putin was bad enough. He shouldn’t have slapped the Russian president on the back for winning a “sham election,” as Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain has described it.

He should have taken Putin down for meddling in our 2016 election and for reports that Russian officials poisoned a former spy and his daughter in the United Kingdom. The president didn’t say a word about either of those things … reportedly!

Now, though, it gets seriously complicated.

Someone inside the West Wing, inside the president’s inner circle, likely leaked to the Washington Post that Trump congratulated Putin against the advice of his national security team.

Let’s roll this one around for a moment.

The president is rightfully furious that someone would leak this information to the media. I understand his anger. Please note that no one is denying the guts of what is being reported. The National Security Council implored Trump to avoid making a call in the first place, but if he were to do so to avoid offering any congratulations.

I don’t know which is worse: that Trump would ignore the advice of his national security team or that someone with access to this kind of highly sensitive information would be so emboldened to leak it to the public.

This poses a couple of key questions. 1. What kind of “extreme vetting” did the president and White House chief of staff John Kelly use to ensure these secrets would be protected? 2. And what in the world is Donald Trump thinking — if he is thinking at all — if he can defy the advice of some smart national security aides who understand how it looks for the president to continue to soft-pedal Russia’s attack on our electoral system?

Trump once boasted he knows more about international terrorists “than the generals, believe me.” Does this guy also know more about how to handle highly complicated bilateral relationships than the “best people” with whom he has surrounded himself — and who implored him to use extreme caution in talking to Vladimir Putin?

This guy, the president of the United States, is out of control.

national news

How do we trust this guy?

Republican and Democratic politicians say the same thing. So do conservative and progressive commentators. Same for the White House.

Their message? Donald J. Trump should not seek the ouster of special counsel Robert Mueller; the White House says the president isn’t considering it, hasn’t mentioned it, he has no intention of giving Mueller the boot.

Here is my concern: We’re dealing with the Liar in Chief, the Serial Prevaricator, the Man With No Guiding Compass.

Mueller is trying to root out the truth behind allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians who meddled in our 2016 electoral process. He is trying to ferret out whether Trump has obstructed justice by firing FBI Director James Comey, pressured former deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. Mueller wants to determine if Trump’s financial dealings in Russia have any connection to this mess.

Technically, the president cannot fire Mueller. He can order Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein — who selected Mueller — to do it. Would he dare? Would the president be willing to precipitate a political earthquake not seen in Washington since the infamous Watergate era?

When I hear a White House press official declare that the president doesn’t “intend” to act foolishly or stupidly, I hear someone say that the president has no intention in the moment, but that could change in the next 45 minutes.

As for the president’s previous statements that he hasn’t discussed firing anyone, let alone someone with the political heft of Robert Mueller, well … I just don’t believe him. He has demonstrated more times than any of us can count a shameless willingness to dissemble and lie.

We have come to this point. Americans have elected someone who cannot be trusted implicitly to tell the truth. He is fully capable, in my mind, of saying anything if his aim is to destroy someone else’s credibility or to provide himself sufficient political cover.

We well might be hurtling toward a serious political crisis — if the president of the United States cannot control his impulse to invite chaos.

national news

McCain speaks truth to … fraud

U.S. Sen. John McCain remains in strong voice and for that I am grateful.

Donald John Trump congratulated Vladimir Putin on his re-election as Russia’s president. The message didn’t go down well with the stricken Republican senator from Arizona, who is battling an aggressive form of brain cancer.

McCain issued a statement that read in part, according to The Hill: In a statement, McCain called Trump’s phone call to Putin an insult to “every Russian citizen who was denied the right to vote in a free and fair election to determine their country’s future.”

“An American president does not lead the Free World by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections,” McCain said.

Did the president discuss with Putin the questions about Russian meddling in our 2016 presidential election? Did he mention a word to him about his support of Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad? Did he bring up the murder of journalists or the poisoning of a former Soviet spy and his daughter?

Oh, no! He wouldn’t go there. Instead, he “congratulated” Putin, despite some serious reporting about election fraud.

McCain said more about Trump’s call to Putin: “And by doing so with Vladimir Putin, President Trump insulted every Russian citizen who was denied the right to vote in a free and fair election to determine their country’s future, including the countless Russian patriots who have risked so much to protest and resist Putin’s regime.”

Trump is so very tough on American law enforcement officials, on critics here at home and even on allies abroad. Yet he soft-pedals his comments on Putin?

Shameful.

national news

Hillary tries to walk it back … good luck with that

Try as she might, Hillary Rodham Clinton is trying to do the impossible. As my late friend and colleague Claude Duncan used to say, “You can’t unhonk the horn.”

Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, went to India and told an audience that those who voted for her came from more economically progressive and advanced states; those who voted for Donald Trump were, um, less progressive and advanced.

Oh, boy. You can’t go there, Hillary Clinton.

She has been criticized roundly for her remarks. I am joining in that criticism. Yes, she received my vote in 2016 and she would get it again were she to run against the guy who beat her.

Her “explanation” rings hollow. She said she didn’t intend to offend anyone with her remarks. Clinton wrote on Facebook: “I meant no disrespect to any individual or group. And I want to look to the future as much as anybody.”

Look to the future? Sure she does. I take that statement to mean she wants to set her remarks aside and doesn’t want to keep explaining herself.

“No, it’s not helpful at all,” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin said on “Fox News Sunday,” when she was asked to comment on Clinton’s comments.  “In fact, my friend Hillary Clinton is wrong.”

According to The Hill: Clinton also implied that women who cast a ballot for Trump did so due to “ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”

“As much as I hate the possibility, and hate saying it, it’s not that crazy when you think about our ongoing struggle to reach gender balance — even within the same household. I did not realize how hard it would hit many who heard it,” Clinton said in her explanation.

Now she realizes it. I’m glad she sought to clarify what she meant to convey. Still, I am having difficulty trying to separate the intent from the spoken word.