Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Puzder pulls out, thanks to ex-wife’s interview

Andrew Puzder shouldn’t have been nominated as labor secretary in the first place.

He favors automation; he opposes the minimum wage; he is no friend of the working man and woman.

None of that doomed his nomination. Oh, no! The death knell was rung when a decades-old videotape surfaced that shows Puzder’s former wife telling Oprah Winfrey that Puzder abused her. He threatened her, bullied her.

Puzder — a fast-food restaurant mogul — then pulled out.

Vetting, anyone?

I have blogged already about Donald Trump’s lack of vetting as he has looked for Cabinet officers. I thought the worry was overblown.

But here we are. A labor secretary who apparently hadn’t been vetted properly being done in by an old videotaped interview.

It appears that a lot more careful vetting of Puzder’s history could have prevented the president from suffering this embarrassing end to one of his Cabinet selections.

That presumes, of course, that Donald Trump would be embarrassed.

What about anti-Semitism, Mr. President?

An Israeli reporter today posed what I thought was a direct question for Donald Trump.

How would the president deal with increases in anti-Semitic rhetoric in the United States since his election? That’s the crux of the question directed at Trump.

The president’s response? Suffice to say it was way off the mark. He began by boasting about his electoral victory.

The answer made no sense.

He mentioned something about his son-in-law, who is Jewish, as is his daughter. He talked about all the “love” he is going to produce and said he intends to stop racism.

The president didn’t condemn anti-Semitism, which drew a rebuke from the Anti-Defamation League.

I am still shaking my head.

Sen. Paul backs off on investigations … seriously?

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul said the following on Fox News Radio. Pay attention, please.

“I think that might be excessive. I think it looks like the President has handled the situation and unless there’s some kind of other evidence of malfeasance, this sounds like something that was internal White House politics and it looks like the President’s handled it. … I just don’t think it’s useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party. We’ll never even get started with doing the things we need to do like repealing Obamacare if we’re spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense.”

The Kentucky Republican is talking about whether Congress needs to investigate allegations that former national security adviser Michael Flynn met with Russian intelligence officials during the 2016 presidential campaign. These meetings lie at the heart of the swirling controversy that threatens to engulf the Trump administration.

Republicans who run Congress do not need to investigate the Republican president, Sen. Paul said.

Investigations take up too much time he said, distracting lawmakers from more important matters.

Wow! I guess he forgot about all the Benghazi hearings involving former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that, um, turned up nothing. Zero!

Oh, wait! It’s OK for Congress to launch interminable investigations looking for dirt on someone from the other party.

Is that correct, Sen. Paul? Well … Senator?

Here comes another ‘gate’ scandal

The “gate” suffix no doubt is going to be attached to the brewing controversy boiling up out of the Trump administration.

Russiagate? Flynngate? Hackinggate?

I grew annoyed long ago at this media concoction to put the “gate” suffix at the end of every scandal that comes down the pike.

The Watergate scandal that brought down a president in August 1974 stands alone. It began with a “third-rate burglary” at the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate office complex. It morphed into something, well, much bigger than the metro desk crime story that the Washington Post considered it initially.

However, the controversy involving Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and his alleged contacts with Russian government officials smells like a story that could rival Watergate in its gravity.

Some veteran journalists who covered the Watergate scandal are beginning to pick up the scent of something quite serious. Flynn’s contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign could involve collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin to, um, influence the election.

We’re a long way from drawing such conclusions. There needs to be a thorough, aggressive and independent investigation into what Flynn did and what he told those Russians. Congressional Republicans have joined their Democratic colleagues in calling for such a probe.

Let it commence, but please — no “gate” references.

Trump: Who needs a ‘two-state solution’?

Donald J. Trump has performed yet another amazing diplomatic deed.

While visiting today with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump managed to pull back from the United States’ traditional support for a “two-state solution” in the search for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Trump now all but indicated he’d support a “one-state solution” that doesn’t allow a Palestinian state that could live peacefully with Israel.

Ugghhh!

I’ve long sought to give Netanyahu support in his fight against terrorists who keep bringing violence to Israel. I believe the Israelis deserve to protect themselves using any means necessary to defeat the forces of evil that seek to destroy their nation.

However, U.S. presidents of both political parties have been correct for decades in seeking a peace agreement that sets up an independent Palestinian state that would function alongside Israel.

I understand fully the difficulty facing Israel and the Palestinians in achieving a full-fledged peace. Terrorist groups operating in Gaza, which is run by the Palestinians, keep launching rockets and other ordnance against Israel. West Bank operatives keep bringing havoc as well.

However, to deny the Palestinians an opportunity to have their own state is an utterly insane strategy. It is counterproductive in the extreme. It would inflame the terrorists and it would result in continued violence, death, mayhem and heartache.

How do the two sides reach a “two-state accord”? I have no idea. Neither do the principals. However, they must continue the effort.

For the president of the United States — as the premier broker in seeking a lasting peace agreement — to forgo the search for such an agreement is irresponsible to a maximum degree.

Russia story growing more legs

My head is about to explode as I continue to consume information regarding Russia’s government, its relationship with Donald Trump and whether there might be some serious violations of federal law leading up to the 2016 presidential campaign.

National security adviser Michael Flynn has left office after less than month on the job. Did he talk out of school to Russian officials about sanctions leveled by President Obama? Did he violate the Logan Act, which prohibits such activity?

Reporting now suggests that Trump campaign officials had numerous contacts with Russian intelligence officials — while Trump was seeking to be elected president. I believe that’s against the law, too.

Did the president know about these contacts? Did he tell Flynn to negotiate with Russians about loosening the sanctions?

What in the name of God in heaven did the president know and when did he know it?

Democrats want an independent investigation. Republicans aren’t yet willing to take that leap. Imagine that.

Not all Republicans, though, are swallowing the party line. Sen. John McCain is emerging as a serious critic of the GOP president. He, too, is demanding answers. He wants to know when Flynn allegedly “lied” to Vice President Mike Pence regarding the conversations he held with Russian government officials.

So help me, I cannot fathom how this brand new administration has gotten off to this terrible start. It’s riddled with chaos, questions and controversy at virtually every level.

Trump’s response to all of this? That, too, is mind-boggling. He’s now attacking what he calls “fake media” which he said have treated Flynn “unfairly.” Good grief, man!

Why doesn’t the president of the United States demand a full accounting of all these questions? Why can’t the guy take ownership of the confusion that has erupted all around him?

Trump touted his business acumen. He bragged incessantly during the campaign about how he had built his business into a multibillion-dollar empire. Most successful billionaires, therefore, are able to run their empires with an iron hand and demand answers when matters go awry.

Trump has tossed all that aside as he has taken command of the executive branch of the U.S. government.

Any failure to deal with this stuff, to seek answers and to right a ship that is listing badly falls directly on the president.

That is, of course, unless the president is a big part of the problem.

It is incumbent, then, for an independent investigation to get to the bottom of this burgeoning crisis.

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!

Chaos need not be the new White House norm

As I watch Donald J. Trump’s chaotic first few weeks as president of the United States, I have to keep reminding myself: Does it really need to be this way?

Of course it doesn’t. We’re watching Trump stumble-bum his way through controversy after controversy and his ridiculous rants and riffs with foreign leaders.

Now we’re watching an potentially unfolding major-league scandal involving the president’s former national security adviser, who quit this week in the wake of reports that he had inappropriate — and possibly illegal — discussions with Russian government officials prior to Trump taking office.

Two presidents in my lifetime have taken office amid terrible tragedy and tumult. In both cases, these men grabbed the reins of power and assumed the role of president as if they’d been there all along.

Example one: Lyndon Baines Johnson took the oath of office on a jetliner sitting on a tarmac at Love Field in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. His predecessor’s body was in a casket in the back of the plane and the nation was in utter shock over what had happened earlier that day when a gunman murdered President John F. Kennedy.

LBJ flew back to Washington and asked the nation to pray for him. We did. He convened his team and got to work immediately.

The nation buried JFK a few days later, President Johnson went to Congress and declared “all that I have I would surrender” to avoid standing before the nation in that moment.

The nation marched forward.

Example two: Gerald Rudolph Ford became president on Aug. 9, 1974 as his predecessor resigned in disgrace. The House of Representatives stood poised to impeach Richard Nixon for high crimes and misdemeanors relating to the Watergate scandal. It took a stalwart Republican U.S. senator, Barry Goldwater, to tell the president his time was up. He had no support in the Senate, where he would stand trial after the House impeached him.

President Nixon quit. President Ford took the oath and then told us, “Our long national nightmare is over.” He told us he was “acutely aware” he hadn’t been elected vice president or president. But he was the right man for the job.

He, too, called his team together and instructed them to get back to work.

President Ford would lose his election battle in 1976 to Jimmy Carter. It was Carter who, upon taking the oath of office in January 1977, would turn to his predecessor and begin his inaugural speech by thanking the former president for “all he had done to heal our country.”

Presidents Johnson and Ford had something in common: they both had extensive government experience prior to assuming their high office. They knew how the government worked. LBJ had served as Senate majority leader before becoming vice president in 1961 and had many friends on both sides of the partisan divide. Ford had served as minority leader in the House of Representatives before Nixon tapped him to be vice president in 1973 after Spiro Agnew quit after pleading no contest to a corruption charge. Ford also had many friends on both sides of the aisle.

These men assumed the presidency under far more trying circumstances than Trump did, yet they made the transition with relative ease … compared to the madness we’re witnessing these days with the 45th president.

We are witnessing in real time, I submit, the consequences of electing someone who brought zero public service experience to the most difficult and complicated job on Planet Earth.

Resigned, fired; tomato, tom-ah-to

The “resignation” of national security adviser Michael Flynn has taken a curious turn.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said today that Donald J. Trump’s trust in Flynn had been waning. Therefore, when questions arose about Flynn’s supposed conversations with Russian government officials, the decline in the president’s trust in Flynn accelerated.

Spicer said the president asked for and received Flynn’s resignation.

Asked for and received …

That tells me Flynn essentially was canned, booted, tossed, fired from his job.

Why be coy about this? Does the president not want to force Flynn to put “fired from national security adviser post” on his resume, as if a future employer won’t know the circumstances of his departure from a job he held for less than a month?

It’s a rhetorical game they play at this level of government.

Whatever the case, this matter isn’t over. We still have some questions to resolve.

Did Flynn tell the president about the conversations with the Russians as he was having them? Did the president dispatch Flynn to talk to the Russians about those pesky sanctions the Obama administration had imposed? Did the ex-adviser lie to the vice president? Did the VP know about the lie and did he inform the president — at the time?

OK, so the president sought Flynn’s resignation. I am going to presume there was an “or else” attached to the request.

Trump needs to get out more

I am going to make a request of the president of the United States.

Mr. President, you need to take wing in that big jet of ours and visit the nation you are trying to govern. And no, sir, I don’t mean just those states you won. You need to go to those places you lost bigly to Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016.

I’ve griped in the past about previous presidents’ failure to reach out to those parts of the country that backed the other guy.

The only time Barack Obama ever came to Texas, for example, was to attend those private, high-end fundraisers. He didn’t visit the Panhandle, which voted twice for his Republican opponents by, oh, significant margins. We have concerns, too, that the president should have addressed. Farm policy is a big deal around here, you know?

So it is with Trump. He spent a good bit of the transition period visiting those deep-red states he won in 2016. It was that so-called “thank you tour” in which he seemingly continued harping on the campaign themes that helped him win the election in the first place. He kept chiding Clinton for failing to visit states such as Wisconsin in the final weeks of the campaign. He talked about his “massive landslide” victory, which of course it wasn’t.

Trump promised to be every American’s president. He vowed to unify the country. He has pledged to work for the common man and woman.

Well, he gets to fly on that big Boeing 747 that we pay for and maintain. It’s not his plane, but it’s ours. I am more than willing to foot the bill for it as long as the president puts it to good use.

The way I see it, flying that bird to places like San Francisco, Boston, Portland, Seattle, Albuquerque and Denver is a pretty good use of the plane. He even ought to visit some liberal enclaves in those red states, too. You’ve heard of Austin, right, Mr. President?

Sure, he’ll get some protestors. That goes with the territory.

He jets back and forth between Washington and his posh estate in South Florida. I believe he’s been there three weekends in a row. Hey, he knows they love him there.

We’ve got a great big country out here full of citizens who cast ballots for the other candidate. Pay them a visit, too, Mr. President. Tell them how you plan to “make America great again.”

They’re all ears. As am I.