Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Melania is MIA on her key issue as first lady

Melania Trump made a big speech during her husband’s campaign for the presidency.

She said she wanted to craft a theme as first lady that dealt with cyber bullying. Too many children are being bullied over the Internet and that if Donald Trump were elected president, she would take up the important cause of ending the scourge. She would use her position as first lady as a bully pulpit.

That’s what she said.

Since then? Well, she’s gone missing in action.

Yes, yes. I know about all the snickering and tittering about Mrs. Trump’s first lady theme.

“You need to start at home, Mrs. Trump. Tell that husband of yours to quit using Twitter to insult others,” came some of the response. I took note of the irony, too, in this blog at the time of her declaration.

Setting all that aside, the issue is an important one and the first lady of the United States — whoever she is — maintains a high-level platform to deal squarely and forthrightly with the key issues of our time.

Cyber bullying is one of them.

I’m still waiting to hear about the formation of a task force. Or about high-powered meetings with Internet executives at the White House. To my knowledge, the first lady hasn’t scheduled highly visible meetings with educators about what they are doing in their schools to deal with this crisis.

The first lady has dropped off the grid. She has kept a low profile while her husband continues to make outrageous statements about his political foes, his immediate predecessor, the media and anyone else who says critical things about him.

I am one American who would welcome at least a temporary diversion from all this chaos and madness. The first lady pledged to use her office for a seriously important public cause.

Many of us are still waiting, Mrs. Trump.

McCain: Prove it or drop it, Mr. President

John McCain is demonstrating yet again that he still might be angry at Donald J. Trump’s insulting assertion during the 2016 campaign that the former Navy pilot is a “war hero only because he was captured” by the enemy during the Vietnam War.

Whatever the motive, the Arizona Republican U.S. senator is on point with this declaration: Either provide proof that former President Obama wiretapped your offices during the 2016 campaign or retract it.

The president has done nothing to suggest he has a shred of evidence to back up his scurrilous contention that Obama ordered a wiretap. He has essentially defamed his predecessor by accusing him of committing a felony.

Trump has all the intelligence capabilities available to him to deliver the goods. He hasn’t. Absent any “goods,” he needs to take it all back, admit what many of us know already — that he sought to divert attention from the Russia election-meddling matter.

But, wait! The two things — allegations of Russian meddling and the wiretap allegation — are related!

Can we trust POTUS to tell the truth — ever?

Now that we’ve pretty much established that Donald J. Trump is a serial liar, let’s ponder what this might mean as he talks to other world leaders.

Do they believe him when he pledges the United States to a certain policy? Can they trust that his word is good? Will they be able to conduct their own policies knowing that the U.S. president has their back?

Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that his word is good — until he changes his mind.

He promised to stop using Twitter once he became president; he said millions of illegal immigrants voted in the 2016 election; Trump allegedly witnessed Muslims cheering the fall of the Twin Towers on 9/11; he said he “knows more about ISIS than the generals”; Trump asked several federal prosecutors appointed by his predecessor to stay on the job, then demanded their resignations; he has accused Barack Obama of wiretapping his campaign offices.

He once said “the shows” provide him with all the knowledge he needs to deal with foreign crises. Trump has said he is his own primary adviser, that he has a “great mind.”

There’s more examples to offer. But in all of those, either he told a flat-out lie or has failed to produce a shred of proof to back up anything he has said.

How does the president of the United States take that record of prevarication to the negotiating table with other foreign leaders? And how do they know whether to believe a single thing this individual says?

Ladies and gents, we have elected a patently untrustworthy man as president.

Congress sees spike in approval rating … what gives?

 

Given my occasional fascination with public opinion polls, I want to share an observation about RealClearPolitics’ average of polls.

It is that public approval of Congress has spiked up about 10 percentage points since Donald J. Trump became president.

Why is that? I think it’s a legitimate question. I might have the answer, although I could be coming at this from deep left field.

It well might be that the public sees the president of the United States as the greater threat to the nation’s stability. RCP’s average of polls puts Congress’s approval rating at more than 22 percent. During the eight years that Barack Obama was president, the RCP poll average usually pegged Congress’s approval in the low teens, occasionally dipping into single digits.

Might it be that the public saw Congress less favorably during President Obama’s time because respondents were concerned about the continual obstruction orchestrated by the Republican Party leadership?

Moreover, might it now be that the RCP polling reflects a public view that Congress can act as a check against the current president’s reckless rhetoric and fickle policy pronouncements?

Just thinking out loud, dear reader.

Your thoughts?

Get ready for more impeachment talk

Impeaching a president of the United States isn’t for the faint of heart. It requires a stout gut among those who bring it, not to mention the target of such a drastic action.

The bar must be high. It must have a solid basis on which to make such a move.

Where am I going with this? I have this sinking feeling that the current president well might find himself in the crosshairs of those who want to bring such an action against him.

We’re hearing a growing — but still muted — rumbling in D.C. about the prospect of Donald J. Trump facing impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives. I’m attaching an item from The Hill in which former Labor Secretary Robert Reich — an acknowledged political liberal — has lined out at least four impeachable offense already committed by the president.

Here it is.

Reich says that Trump’s accusation that Barack Obama ordered a wiretap of Trump Tower offices constitutes an impeachable offense, saying the president has recklessly accused his predecessor of committing a felony. He notes that the Constitution prohibits president from taking money from foreign governments; Trump, Reich alleges, has done so by “steering foreign delegations” to hotels he owns. Reich contends that Trump violates the First Amendment’s provision against establishing a state religion by banning travelers from Muslim countries into the United States. Reich also says the First Amendment bans any abridgment of a free press, but Trump has labeled the media the “enemy of the people.”

There’s a fifth potential cause, which Reich has asserted. It involves the possibility that Trump’s campaign colluded with Russian government officials to swing the election in the president’s favor. Reich said such activity, if proven, constitutes “treason.”

Will any of this come to pass? I have no clue.

Think of the politics of it. Trump is a Republican; both congressional chambers are controlled by the GOP. Will the Republican House majority bring articles of impeachment to a vote, no matter how seriousness of whatever charges are considered?

The collusion matter strikes me as the most serious and the most likely to align Republicans along with Democrats in considering whether to impeach the president. I am not suggesting there is, indeed, proof of such collusion.

Remember as well that the GOP-led House managed to impeach a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, in 1998 on three counts relating to his seedy relationship with that White House intern. Conviction in the Senate, though, required a super majority of senators; the GOP fell far short on all three counts. Thus, the president was acquitted.

They based that impeachment on the president’s failure to tell the truth under oath to a federal grand jury that questioned him about the affair. He broke the law, Republicans said. There was your “impeachable offense,” they argued.

My major concern about the Clinton impeachment was whether the president’s offense had a direct impact on his office. It did not. Any of the issues that Secretary Reich lists, however, certainly do have a direct impact on the president’s ability to perform his duties.

The bar for whatever might occur with the current president is set even higher than it was for President Clinton, given that the president and the congressional majorities are of the same party.

You might not believe this, but I do not prefer an impeachment to occur. I do, though, want the unvarnished truth to be revealed about what the president thinks he can do with — and to — the exalted office he occupies.

If the truth is as ugly as some of us fear, then Congress should know how to repair the damage.

No pity for Preet Bharara

Preet Bharara doesn’t need any pity.

Indeed, he needs a hand-clap or two for standing up to the president of the United States.

Here’s what he did.

Bharara served as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, a post to which he was appointed by President Barack Obama. After the 2016 election, Donald J. Trump reportedly asked Bharara to stay on the job. The federal prosecutor agreed.

Trump took the oath of office, then in a stunning reversal, he sought the resignations of all Obama appointees who had stayed on after the former president had left office.

Bharara was one of them. He refused to quit. What did the president do? He fired him today.

This sequence speaks quite directly to the utter aimlessness of the new administration. The president says one thing, does another and then strikes out against those who try to hold him accountable for the statements he makes.

Bharara will land on his feet. He’s a first-rate lawyer. He’ll likely end up in private practice somewhere and will make a handsome living. Or, he might run for public office.

Or, he might go on a speaking tour, where he’ll also make a lot of money telling the nation about the caprice that the current president seems all too willing to demonstrate.

Oh, and it’s interesting too that the president hasn’t denied — via Twitter or any other medium — that he ever asked the prosecutor to stay on the job.

SCOTUS pick gets major boost from ABA

As a firm believer in presidential prerogative, I feel compelled to say that the American Bar Association likely has given Donald J. Trump’s pick for the U.S. Supreme Court the boost he needs to take his seat.

The ABA has declared that U.S. District Judge Neil Gorsuch is “well qualified” to take his seat on the nation’s highest court.

Does this guarantee Gorsuch’s confirmation by the U.S. Senate? No, of course not. The Senate Judiciary Committee has to recommend his approval and the entire Senate has to vote to confirm the judge.

Gorsuch’s nomination is important for a couple of reasons.

First, he would take the seat vacated by the death one year ago of conservative judicial icon Antonin Scalia. The president told us he would select a conservative to the court if he were elected; Trump did what he pledged to do.

Is he my favorite judge? Would I have selected Gorsuch? No. But I am not the president. Neither is anyone else. That title belongs to Donald Trump.

He is qualified, though, to become a member of the Supreme Court.

Second, a Justice Gorsuch would not change the ideological balance on the court — presuming he follows through on his reputation as a “conservative jurist.” The court’s slim conservative majority remains intact with Gorsuch’s confirmation.

“The ABA’s ringing endorsement is no surprise given Judge Gorsuch’s sterling credentials and his distinguished decade-long record on the Tenth Circuit,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said. “Former Chairman [Patrick] Leahy and Minority Leader [Chuck] Schumer have called the ABA’s assessment the ‘gold standard’ in evaluating federal judicial nominations. In light of Judge Gorsuch’s impeccable record, it’s hard to imagine any other result from the ABA’s consideration.”

Every reader of this blog knows how much I detest Donald J. Trump. I cannot stand the sound of his voice, nor can I stand to watch him perform the duties of the office for which I continue to believe he is unfit to occupy. High Plains Blogger readers also know that I was enraged at Senate Republicans’ decision to block Barack Obama’s selection of Merrick Garland to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat.

But Donald Trump is the president of the United States. Just as I have argued for decades in favor of presidential prerogative, I also believe he has made a predictable choice to fill the nation’s high court.

Judge Gorsuch also is well-qualified. If the ABA provides such a decision, that’s good enough for me.

Now, as for Senate critics of Gorsuch, my advice would be for them to save their ammo for the fight that is sure to erupt when one of the liberal justices leaves the Supreme Court.

Trump takes premature credit for job growth?

Donald J. Trump will be able eventually to take credit for job growth.

Just not yet.

It’s interesting to me that some of the chatter today regarding the Labor Department jobs report deals with whether the president should deserve any credit for the big spike in employment.

He doesn’t deserve it. Not this early.

The United States added 235,000 non-farm jobs to payrolls in February. Unemployment ticked downward to 4.7 percent. How did Trump’s economic policies contribute to this trend? They didn’t.

You’ll recall that when Barack Obama took office in 2009, job numbers were plummeting. It took a bit of time for the president’s economic stimulus package to take effect. The former president didn’t deserve blame for falling jobs figures at the beginning of his term.

I also should say he didn’t deserve all the credit for the spectacular job growth that ensued. He deserved some of it.

Eight years later, the nation’s job growth has continued. Joblessness has been cut in half. The annual federal budget deficit has been pared by two-thirds.

Obama handed this economic growth off to Trump. The new president eventually will be able to take some of the credit if the job growth continues well into the first year of his presidency and beyond. I am willing to give him the credit he deserves.

This silly discussion, though, about whether he should crow about job growth during his first full month in office succeeds only in one thing: It rivets attention directly onto the president of the United States, which is all part of the way this guy rolls.

‘Phony’ jobs numbers now become ‘real’

Donald John Trump is demonstrating yet again just why he makes me sick to my stomach.

The U.S. Labor Department today announced that 235,000 non-farm jobs were added to payrolls in February, the first full month of Trump’s presidency; the jobless rate declined to 4.7 percent.

Those are impressive figures. What does the president say?

He declares those numbers are “real” even though he said multiple times during his campaign for the presidency that the Labor Department was cooking the books during Barack Obama’s presidency. He called the job growth registered during President Obama’s time in office “fake”;  he said the numbers were phony; he said the “real jobless rate” was much greater than what the Labor Department was reporting.

As White House press secretary Sean Spicer said today, quoting the president: “They may have been phony in the past but they’re real now.”

Now they’re real?

Trump sickens me for many reasons. At many levels. You name it.

He lies, slings innuendo around, insults his foes, boasts openly about his own prowess.

The Trumpkins lap this crap up, giving this clown license to keep making patently, demonstrably untrue statements.

The job figures are impressive. The president should simply have acknowledged them as progress toward the nation’s continuing economic recovery.

But no-o-o-o! He had to remind millions of us why we detest him.

Meanwhile, there’s this Kellyanne Conway matter

Russia dominates the news. Then we get questions about Donald Trump’s tweets and reckless accusations.

The White House then decides to sweep away complaints about senior policy adviser Kellyanne Conway blurting out a free ad for one of Ivanka Trump’s line of clothing. She did so on TV a few weeks ago, prompting yet another tempest over whether the Trump administration is doing enough to separate itself from its myriad business interests around the world.

Conway well could have broken a federal law that prohibits government officials from promoting private business.

Isn’t that what senior policy adviser Conway did when she took up for Ivanka’s product line after a major department store chain decided to stop selling it?

And … um … isn’t that a violation of federal law?

The Office of Government Ethics reportedly is concerned that the White House has decided against doing anything about Conway’s free ad for Ivanka’s products.

Will that get the president’s attention? Will it prompt him — at the very least — take Conway to the proverbial “woodshed” and give her the scolding she deserves?

OGE director Walter Shaub, moreover, is concerned that the president seems to think White House employees are exempt from those laws.

Um, no Mr. President. Not true.

Someone, somehow, has to get it through the president’s thick skull that ethics rules apply to all government employees. White House staffers all work for you and me and as such they are subject to precisely the same rules as other federal employees.