Tag Archives: 2016 election

A full-blown scandal appears to be brewing

As I watch the chaos unfold within the Donald J. Trump White House I am wondering: Are we witnessing the beginning of a serious political crisis … already?

This is breathtaking in scope.

National security adviser Michael Flynn is pushed out of office over concerns that he might have negotiated with a foreign government before the Trump administration took office.

But that’s only the beginning. Now we’re getting questions from Republicans — supposed political allies of the president — about whether Flynn was acting alone or whether he was doing Donald Trump’s bidding.

Then we have this mess over when Flynn came clean to the vice president and whether the president was aware of Flynn’s conduct as it was occurring.

Congressional Democrats are demanding an independent investigation. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer insists that the Justice Department is incapable of doing a thorough probe of where this matter might end up.

Democrats aren’t alone, though. A leading Senate Republican — Lindsey Graham — has asked out loud whether Flynn was acting on orders from the then-president elect.

Many Americans, such as yours truly, are utterly flabbergasted at what appears to be transpiring. Trump has been president for less than a single month and there appears to be some serious concern that the government is unraveling.

What gives here? Trump isn’t talking. White House senior staffers aren’t talking. The vice president appears to be seriously angry over the deception that Flynn pulled on him.

Oh, man. This presidency appears to be careening toward full-blown crisis mode. All because a national security adviser cozied up to Russian government officials before federal law would give him permission to do so.

Moreover, we have the amazing timing of the president’s tweets relating to Russia’s decision not to retaliate against U.S. sanctions relating to Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.

We need some answers. Now!

Hillary won’t run for anything ever again

Matt Latimer is sniffing something weird.

I don’t know the fellow. He’s written an essay for Politico that posits a preposterous notion: Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to run for president of the United States in 2020.

Let’s me be among the many who will say this: No way, no how is Hillary going to run for anything ever again, let alone for president.

Hillary took her best shot and blew it. She was the odd-on favorite to be elected president in 2016. You remember all that, don’t you? A lot of folks — yours truly included — just knew it would be a lead-pipe cinch that she’d win. Not only that, I actually wondered out loud on this blog whether she’d win in historic fashion; I actually suggested we might be looking at a 50-state shutout.

Silly me.

Hillary had her chance. She is now officially damaged irreparably.

The Democratic Party will need to look for someone new. It should start with anyone not named Clinton. That would eliminate Hillary right off the top.

Latimer harbors this goofy notion that Hillary cannot live with the memory of squandering her best chance at making history. She’ll want to erase that memory by being nominated once more by her party. Too old? Latimer said Clinton is the same age — give or take — as the guy who beat; Trump is certain to seek re-election in 2020 … assuming he’s still in office by the end of his first term.

He might face some serious political trouble, but that’s a subject for another blog post.

My intent here is to dispel any notion that Hillary Clinton is going to run once more.

No way, man. None. It won’t happen.

Hey, it just occurs to me that I swore off political predictions. I said Hillary Clinton wouldn’t run for the Senate in 2000 after her time as first lady had expired. I was wrong then.

Oh well. I’m going to stand by this one.

Trump aide sings the boss’s tune

Donald J. Trump clearly has much to learn about being president of the United States.

However, he’s got one task down pat: He has instructed his senior White House staff to utter the same lies the boss does.

Senior policy adviser Stephen Miller was in the dock today, telling TV news talk show hosts the lie Trump keeps spouting about massive voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election.

Miller failed to provide a shred of evidence to prove what he said, which is that vehicle loads of illegal voters were taken to New Hampshire to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The proof? Miller didn’t provide any. “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos sought repeatedly to get Miller to prove what he alleged. Miller came up empty. He offered nothing.

Indeed, a Federal Elections commissioner has demanded that Trump provide evidence of the allegations he has leveled against state and local elections officials.

Miller has promoted the same falsehoods as the boss. He has continued to delegitimize the electoral process by saying things that either (a) are demonstrably false or (b) cannot be proven.

Absent any proof, many of us are left to conclude that none exists.

Meanwhile, the president continues to perform his role of liar in chief — and his lieutenants are following his shameful example.

The Dossier: It’s ba-a-a-a-ck

I am still trying to figure this one out. So, too, are federal and international law enforcement authorities.

Donald J. Trump went ballistic not long after becoming president at media outlets that reported the existence of a “dossier” that allegedly had been compiled on him. The president called out CNN in particular for being a “fake news” outlet because it reported the existence of unsubstantiated reports contained in this dossier.

Now it appears the dossier’s existence might be gaining some credibility among law enforcement spooks.

Some truth is in order. The issue centers on some information reportedly compiled by a British spy alleging that Russian authorities had some negative information regarding Trump’s business dealings in Russia.

The curiousness of all this seems to center on Trump’s dismissal of allegations that Russian government hackers were trying to influence the 2016 presidential election at the time CIA and other intelligence agencies were saying they had proof that such activity was occurring.

The arc of this ongoing story might find its way back to the president’s continued refusal to release his tax returns for public review.

I have no clue where this story will end up. It frightens me that it might produce some ghastly information regarding Trump’s business interests inside of Russia and whether they involved direct dealings with a government that might have tried to manipulate our electoral process.

Trump, of course, denies any business dealings with Russian government authorities. He asks us to believe him, to take him at his word. Sure thing, Mr. President … just like you want us to believe the baloney about “millions of illegal immigrants” voting for Hillary Clinton or the lie you perpetuated about Barack Obama being born in Kenya..

Let’s get to the whole truth.

It’s done; now it’s time to get used to a new era

The deed is done.

Barack Obama handed over the reins of power to Donald J. Trump. The former president and his family jetted off to California. The new president took up some business in the Oval Office before dancing the night away with his wife.

I’ll make yet another confession: I’m not yet ready to embrace fully the notion that Trump is actually, really and truly, certifiably the commander in chief of the world’s greatest military machine.

Yes, I know he is president. I know he won an election that seemingly everyone on the planet thought he’d lose bigly.

I’ve mentioned already that I’ve voted in 12 presidential elections. Five times my candidate has won; seven times he has lost. I know what it’s like to be on the short end of the vote count. Heck, the first election I voted in — that would be 1972 — my guy lost 49 states.

However, in every case I’ve been able to accept fully the outcome and move on … until now.

This one feels strangely different. It has something to do with what I still believe about the president’s unfitness for the office he now occupies. I get that not everyone agrees with me. Many of my friends here in the Texas Panhandle voted for Trump. They’re still my friends.

Still, I ask you to hang with me. I’m likely to come around.

Eventually.

‘American carnage’ becomes Trump’s signature line

It turns out Donald J. Trump found a phrase after all that likely might stick in the minds — and perhaps the craw — of millions of Americans.

“The American carnage is going to stop right now,” the president said in his inaugural speech on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

American carnage.

Wow, man!

I guess the president has chosen to ignore the crime trend in this country, which is that violent crime is at a 40-year low. Sure, some communities have been victimized by evil-intended criminals. Chicago has been torn by waves of violence, as have other large American cities.

Does this portend a nationwide “carnage” that has gripped the nation, a place where all Americans are living in fear of being shot? I’m having difficulty understanding why the brand new president would send this kind of message out across the vast landscape of the nation he leads and around the world that continues to rivet its attention on what occurs in this country.

The president has painted a stark, forbidding and frightening picture of the United States. So help me, I believe he has severely misstated the condition of our great nation and has delivered the same message that fired up the Republican base to nominate him in the first place — and helped carry him to victory in the general election.

The campaign has ended, Mr. President. It is now time to unite the nation. Rhetoric that tells of a fictitious “American carnage” only does more harm.

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.

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!

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.

Graham is correct, Trump is wrong on Russia

I am not inclined generally to speak well of U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, but I want to say a good word or two now about the South Carolina Republican.

He says the president-elect is wrong about Russia and wants him to wake up and smell the coffee before too long about the nation formerly known as the Evil Empire.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/313194-graham-republicans-gleeful-about-russia-election-interference-are

Graham appeared this past Sunday on “Meet the Press” with his good buddy U.S. Sen. John McCain. He said this about his fellow GOP senators, according to The Hill: “Most Republicans are condemning what Russia did. And to those who are gleeful about it — you’re a political hack. You’re not a Republican. You’re not a patriot.”

Trump happens to be one of those Republicans who are “gleeful” about the Russians’ behavior during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Trump continues to question the CIA assessment that Russia sought to influence the election in Donald J. Trump’s favor. The CIA and other intelligence agencies have concluded that Russian spooks were acting on the director orders of Vladimir Putin; they cheered in the Kremlin when Trump was declared the winner of the election.

Graham is rightfully dismayed at the findings of the intelligence community, as is McCain. These two loyal Republicans have joined others within their party — not to mention Democrats — who want a thorough, bipartisan investigation in Congress to get at the root of what the Russians did and to seek solutions to prevent any foreign government from such overt interference in our electoral process.

If only the president-elect would listen to them.