Trump started out well at NATO, then …

Donald J. Trump actually knows how to deliver the right message at the right moment.

Such as when the president spoke Thursday at the NATO summit in Brussels of the terrible tragedy that befell the United Kingdom in that massacre in Manchester, England. The president called for a moment of silence and told British Prime Minister Teresa May that the alliance stands foursquare behind her beleaguered nation.

Then, at about the 4:50 mark of this video, the president decided to scold members of our nation’s oldest alliance by reminding them that they need to “pay more” for their defense. And, by golly, he actually cited threats from Russia as a concern with which NATO must deal.

I could not help but notice the looks on the president’s fellow heads of state and government as he reminded them publicly that many member nations aren’t paying what they supposedly have pledged to pay for NATO’s defense. They looked at each other, they looked at their feet, a couple of them seemed to snicker.

I understand that Trump was elected in 2016 on the pledge to “put America first.” He spoke at the NATO meeting of the burden that American taxpayers are bearing  because of so-called deadbeats in Europe who aren’t shouldering their financial obligations.

I am left to wonder: Is that really how one talks to allies — in public?

So much for an upset under the Big Sky

U.S. Rep.-elect Greg Gianforte won a special election last night despite punching out a reporter — allegedly — who had the nerve to ask him a question about health care overhaul legislation.

Democratic activists in Montana might be able to take away some solace — despite the defeat at the hands of the Republican opponent.

Gianforte was elected to Montana’s at-large congressional district. He defeated Democratic opponent Rob Quist by fewer than 7 percentage points in a state that voted for Donald J. Trump by more than 20 percent in the 2016 presidential election. Gianforte and Quist ran for the congressional seat vacated by Ryan Zinke, who became interior secretary in the Trump administration.

There’s another hopeful sign for Democrats. Gianforte will stand for re-election next year, which gives Democrats a better chance to make their case that this guy might be temperamentally unfit to represent Montana in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Ben Jacobs, a reporter for the Guardian newspaper, asked Gianforte to comment about the GOP health care legislation. Gianforte responded by “body slamming” Jacobs; he broke the young reporter’s glasses and inflicted a slight injury to one of his elbows. The sheriff’s department filed misdemeanor assault charges against Gianforte.

Here’s the thing: The incident occurred late in the campaign, just two days before the ballots were counted. Montana also is a vote-by-mail state, which means most of the ballots were cast before Gianforte lost his temper against a reporter doing his job — allegedly.

Do you think politics has gotten coarser during this Age of Donald J. Trump? Yeah, I believe so. The late, great Texas U.S. Sen. Lloyd Bentsen’s adage about politics being a “contact sport” isn’t supposed to be taken literally.

Wouldn’t tax returns answer a lot of Russia questions?

I keep circling back to an issue that just won’t disappear.

Those tax returns that Donald J. Trump insists on keeping secret might answer a lot of questions about the president of the United States and his reluctance to say anything negative about Russia and its president/strongman/killer Vladimir Putin.

Trump won’t release them. He is dismissing a four-decade-old custom for presidential candidates and for presidents. They’ve all released them for public review. Except the current president.

I keep asking: How come? Trump keeps yapping about an “audit.” Two points here: The Internal Revenue Service — which doesn’t comment on specific audits — says an audit does not prevent someone from releasing those returns to the public; furthermore, Trump never has even proved that the IRS is auditing him.

He demanded repeatedly that Barack Obama produce a birth certificate to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president. How about Trump provide a letter from the IRS that declares that he’s being audited?

Amid all this is the swirl of Russia and whether the president has business dealings with Russian oligarchs and government officials. The president says he has none. He expects us to believe him. Sure thing, Mr. President. He also expected us to believe that Barack Obama wiretapped his campaign offices, that millions of illegal immigrants voted for Hillary Clinton and that thousands of Muslims cheered the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Tax returns would reveal whether the president has any business dealings in Russia. If he has been telling us the truth about that matter, then the returns would validate his assertion. Wouldn’t they? If he’s not being truthful, well, the returns would reveal that, too. Am I correct on that?

I am left only to conclude that the tax returns the president refuses to release to the public contain something he doesn’t want us to see. Do they involve Russia, Mr. President? Do they reveal why you won’t speak ill of your pal Vlad Putin?

By all means, yank Kushner’s top-secret clearance

Congressional Democrats are making a reasonable demand of the Trump administration, which is to strip White House adviser Jared Kushner of his top-secret security clearance … at least for the time being.

It’s not a simple task, of course. Kushner happens to be the son-in-law to the president of the United States. He’s also under “scrutiny” by the FBI, which is conducting a wide-ranging investigation into I’ve grown fond of calling the “Russia thing.”

That “thing” involves potential contact between the Trump presidential campaign and the Russian government. Kushner happens to be a principal actor in all that drama.

Trump hired him to be a senior adviser. Kushner doesn’t get paid but he has unfettered access to the president. He does not have any prior government experience. He has zero credentials to deal with foreign government leaders, yet the president considers him “qualified” to be a liaison between the administration and governments in the Middle East.

He’s also known to be a successful businessman. He’s had plenty of exposure to Russian business executive and government officials. Has he crossed any lines that might pose serious trouble for his father-in-law? That’s what the FBI is investigating.

Until the FBI reaches its conclusion, and if that conclusion clears Kushner, he has no business sitting at the president’s side during high-level meetings. He shouldn’t be privy to information reserved for the president and his national security team.

Let’s allow the FBI probe to continue. If the young man skates into the clear, fine. If not … well, then we’ve got a whole set of other problems with which to deal.

Until then, Kushner should be sitting at the kids’ table — in another room away from where national secrets are being discussed.

Don’t choke on texting-ban bill, Gov. Abbott

Listen to me, Gov. Greg Abbott. Read my lips: Sign House Bill 62 into law, the one that makes texting while driving illegal throughout the state of Texas!

Do it! Don’t waffle because of technicalities. The Texas Tribune reports — which I am sure you’ve read already — that you believe texting while driving a motor vehicle poses a grave danger to Texans.

HB 62 is on your desk, as I also am sure you know. It’s there along with a lot of other bills approved by the Legislature.

Your immediate predecessor as governor, Rick Perry, never should have vetoed a similar bill in 2011. Remember how he called it a “government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults.” I mean, good grief, man. If you follow that logic, then such micromanagement means we shouldn’t have laws prohibiting drinking while driving, either; hey, let’s take down all the speed limit signs and let Texas push their pedals to the metal whenever and wherever they feel like it.

I hear you’re concerned that HB 62 doesn’t do enough to pre-empt local ordinances. Your spokesman, John Wittman, told the Tribune: “One thing Governor Abbott wanted in a texting while driving ban was a pre-emption of the patchwork quilt of local regulations across the state, and he’s looking forward to digging into the details of HB 62.”

OK, I get it.

Indeed, a statewide ban would bring much-needed continuity to Texas’ rules of the road. Visitors to the state need to know that operating a hand-held device while driving a motor vehicle is illegal anywhere within the state’s borders. Post signs at every highway entry point into Texas telling motorists to put their texting devices away as they enter the state. Texas residents might not need reminding; visitors from out of state, though, do need it.

Gov. Abbott, you’ve got a chance to exercise some needed executive authority by signing a necessary bill into law. House Bill 62 does something that should have been done when these texting devices became so damn ubiquitous. They’re everywhere, but there ought to be some limitations on when human beings should be allowed to operate them.

Driving a motor vehicle at high speeds through traffic and among pedestrians is one of those instances.

Sign the bill, Gov. Abbott.

Can’t we find a law enforcement pro to lead FBI?

We live in a gigantic country that is full of qualified patriots who are steeped in law enforcement experience.

One of them, somewhere, ought to be able lead the FBI. Don’t you think? One of them ought to be tough enough to withstand the pressure of leading an organization under intense fire at the moment as it probes questions about the president of the United States.

I mention this because a leading politician, former Democratic U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, announced that he no longer wants to be considered for the FBI directorship.

Lieberman had received a lot of pushback from U.S. Senate Democrats who, I reckon, haven’t forgiven him for backing Republican Sen. John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. Lieberman ended up leaving the Democratic Party and served for a time as an independent in the Senate.

In reality, though, Lieberman would have been a terrible choice. Why? He’s a politician. He’s got decades of political experience in Connecticut and in Washington. He’s not a bad guy. He came within just a few votes of being elected vice president in 2000 as Al Gore’s running mate.

The FBI — which has been reeling since Donald J. Trump fired former director James Comey — needs a pro to serve as director. It needs an inherently non-political figure. It needs someone whose integrity cannot be questioned by anyone on either side of the partisan aisle. It needs a director who can withstand the heat that is sure to come as the FBI probe into Donald J. Trump’s Russia connection gets closer to its conclusion.

Who would that person be? I haven’t the faintest idea.

As one of more than 300 million American citizens, I am absolutely certain that someone lives in this great country of ours who fits the bill perfectly.

‘Scrutiny’ brings more pressure to Trump

My handy-dandy American Heritage dictionary defines “scrutiny” this way: A close, careful examination.

So, what does that mean for Donald J. Trump son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is now under “scrutiny” by the FBI?

It means the feds are going to look closely and carefully at what his contacts with the Russian government might have meant to his father-in-law’s presidential campaign and the presidency to which he was elected.

This is a serious development in the still-burgeoning controversies that are threatening to swallow whole the Trump administration.

Media are reporting tonight that the FBI is looking at Kushner’s role in the Trump administration. Does “scrutiny” mean the FBI suspects Kushner of doing something wrong? No. It does mean that the FBI thinks he might have pertinent information to the investigation that is underway at many levels.

The Russia relationship is baffling in the extreme. Donald Trump cannot bring himself to speak negatively of Vladimir Putin. He trashes political foes here at home; he is understandably quick to pull the verbal trigger on assorted international bad guys — such as the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.

Russia and Putin, though, remain ensconced in a no-criticism zone. Kushner appears to be as close to the “Russia thing” as anyone associated with the president’s inner circle.

I would hate to be anyone close to Donald Trump at this moment. He got the news while overseas, where he is the middle of a moderately successful series of meetings with friendly heads of state.

The president is going to come home, though, to a spate of even more bad news. I believe the FBI scrutiny of Jared Kushner is going to keep the president up at night.

Trump shows bad manners at NATO

There’s no need to belabor this particular bit of news from the NATO summit in Brussels.

It’s still worth a mention.

Donald J. Trump was seen shoving aside Dusko Markovic, the prime minister of Montenegro, the newest member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Trump pushed Markovic away while seeking to be photographed along with other leaders.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-shoves-a-fellow-world-leader-at-nato/ar-BBBwCkm

Markovic reportedly seemed a bit surprised by the bull-in-china-shop approach from Trump. Then he smiled and patted the president on the back.

Hey, I get that the United States is the big dog. We’re the world’s greatest nation. But it brings to mind this question: Is this what Trump means by “putting America first”?

Trump runs smack into long memories

Donald J. Trump has now met most of his European colleagues on their turf.

My understanding is that the leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization weren’t exactly opening their arms in a warm embrace of the president of the United States.

They have long memories of the things he said while campaigning for the presidency.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-gets-frosty-greeting-from-eu-leaders/ar-BBBwFBZ?li=BBnb7Kz

Trump called NATO “obsolete,” but has taken it back; he demanded the NATO member nations pay more for their defense; he said he wants to tear up the climate change accord signed this past year in Paris, but now says he United States is still undecided.

I guess I ought to mention, too, that NATO doesn’t trust that big neighbor to its east, Russia, which Trump seems unable to criticize with quite the fervor he expends on the Islamic State and other enemies of the United States.

NATO, which sits at Russia’s front porch, isn’t so, um, tolerant of Vladimir Putin’s motives or the tactics he has employed.

U.S. intelligence agencies already have concluded his government interfered in our election this past year. The Russians have done the same in France and are doing it yet again in Germany. Every leader in Europe knows it; so do our intelligence analysts. The only significant person on Planet Earth who’s denying it — other than Putin and his minions — is the president of the United States.

Is it any wonder that NATO — meeting in Brussels, a city Trump once called a “hellhole” — would be less than chummy with Donald Trump?

Hey, Mr. President. These folks are our allies. They are our friends. They are posted on the front line of defense against Russia, which is neither an ally or a friend.

Trump simply shouldn’t have said what he did about NATO. He might not remember it, or understand the implications of his remarks, but his NATO colleagues damn sure do.

Early voting hazards? I rest my case

Montana voters are casting their ballots today. Many other Big Sky residents, though, have done so already.

At stake? The state’s at-large congressional seat once held by Ryan Zinke, who’s now interior secretary in the Trump administration.

If ever was there a case to be made against early voting, I present to you this one — involving a Republican candidate for the office.

Greg Gianforte just this week decided to take his anger at the media out on a reporter for the Guardian newspaper who had the nerve — the nerve, I tell ya — to ask Gianforte about the Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act.

Gianforte responded to the question by allegedly body-slamming the reporter, Ben Jacobs, to the floor, while yelling “get the hell out of here!” at him.

Early voting in Montana had expired. The ballots were cast. Many voters perhaps at this very moment are regretting their decision to support a candidate for Congress who’s been charged with assault. To be candid, many other Montana voters well might be cheering the guy on.

This case provides the clearest example I have seen in some time of the hazards of casting one’s vote early. You know how I feel about it.

Gianforte’s opponent in this special election is Democrat Rob Quist, who’s been so very quiet about it all in the past 24 hours or so. Hey, there’s no need to say a thing, Mr. Quist.

Early voting carries enormous risk for those who cast their votes before Election Day — and who cannot take them back.

Dear reader, I rest my case.