Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Note to AG pick: expect a rough ride before Senate inquisitors

Donald J. Trump perhaps selected Jeff Sessions to be the next U.S. attorney general expecting him to get a smooth ride through the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I believe he would be mistaken if that is the case.

Sessions has served in the Senate as a Republican from Alabama. However, he brings some heavy baggage along as he preps for what I think will be a rough confirmation hearing.

You see, he once was rebuffed by the Senate when President Reagan nominated him for a federal judgeship. Why? It seems the then-U.S. attorney had said some highly insensitive things about African-Americans — and about an infamous organization known to hate black people.

Sessions once said he believed the Ku Klux Klan was OK until he learned that one of its leaders “had smoked pot.” Sessions said he was joking. Damn, I haven’t stopped laughing at that one!

The Senate couldn’t abide by what Sessions said so it rejected his nomination to the federal bench.

Voters back home, though, apparently didn’t hold that rejection against Sessions when they elected him to the same Senate that had turned him away from his cherished judgeship.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump%e2%80%99s-pick-for-attorney-general-is-shadowed-by-race-and-history/ar-BBxxdpm?li=BBnb7Kz

As the Washington Post has reported, Sessions’s views are at odds with a lot of mainstream political thought across the nation. For example, according to the Post: “At a 2006 congressional hearing, Sessions said that an entire group of people wouldn’t thrive in America. ‘Fundamentally, almost no one coming from the Dominican Republic to the United States is coming because they have a skill that would benefit us and would indicate their likely success in our society,’ he said.

“In 2009, he voted against a hate crimes bill named after Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming student murdered in 1998, that extended federal hate crime protections to people victimized because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

“As state attorney general in 1995, he argued against a decision by the Alabama Circuit Court to order the state to remedy funding inequities between the poorest school districts, which were heavily black, and their wealthiest, which were predominantly white. He did so on the grounds that taxing and spending power lay with the legislature, not the courts.”

The president-elect could do a lot better than Jeff Sessions in seeking an attorney general. I don’t expect the Senate to reject Sessions.

I do, though, expect senators to demand that the AG-designate answer some direct and probing questions about his views relating to equal treatment for all Americans.

Unity, Mr. President-elect, bring us unity

Donald J. Trump is having the time of his life as he taunts those who oppose his election as president of the United States.

He went on yet another Twitter rant with a message that belies his pledge to be the president “of all Americans.” Imagine that.

He wrote: “Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don’t know what to do. Love!” 

There you go. Such grace. Such class. Such a striving to make good on his promise to “unify” a divided nation.

I guess this latest example strikes right at the heart — in my view — of this guy’s temperamental unfitness for the job to which he has been elected.

He blasts out these tweets, using the social medium to inject himself into the middle of foreign policy discussions being conducted by the individual who still is serving as president and commander in chief.

This latest lack of decorum only serves  to inflame the anger of those who need little reason to be angry that this guy won the election.

The unity you profess to seek, Mr. President-elect, cannot be found in these childish messages.

Trump sides with the bad guy?

How is this supposed to go?

President Barack Obama retaliated against Russian over reports that Russian spooks hacked into the U.S. electoral system.

He kicked out about 30 Russian intelligence operatives and set in motion some economic sanctions to punish the Russians.

What is Donald J. Trump’s response as he prepares to become the next president of the United States? He lavishes praise on Russian strongman Vladimir Putin for his decision to withhold any reaction to the president’s punishment.

Trump called Putin a “smart” man.

No expression of support for our own president’s decision to punish the Russians for something a number of key intelligence agencies have concluded: that their hackers sought to meddle in the U.S. presidential election.

Where in the world are the new president’s loyalties?

Hmmmm?

 

What does Don King bring to the discussion?

I will concede that even presidents-elect are entitled to take some time off from preparing for office.

Donald J. Trump, though, isn’t your normal commander in chief-in-waiting. The guy knows nothing about government; damn little about policy; I truly wonder if he has laid eyes on the U.S. Constitution.

He ought to be spending, therefore, all his waking hours talking to serious experts about the task he is about to assume. He’s going to become president of the United States of America.

Who, then, is he palling around with in Florida? Don King, boxing promoter, convicted criminal, a flim-flam artist extraordinaire.

I cannot help but wonder: What in the name of all that is holy does Don King bring to the president-elect’s stable of experts?

Nothing, man!

Trump’s got just a few more days before he stands on the stage in front of the U.S. Capitol Building and takes a solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Get busy, Mr. President-elect, and learn about the job of governing the greatest nation the world has ever seen.

And yes, sir, we’re still the greatest nation on Earth.

U.S. hits back at Russia; hands off decision, Mr. President-elect

President Barack Obama has done what he promised to do: strike back at Russia over reports that the Russians hacked into our nation’s presidential election system.

Obama kicked out dozens of Russian intelligence operatives. The official reason for their expulsion was because of harassment of U.S. officials in Russia.

Yeah, sure it is.

The individuals expelled are believed to have been involved in cyberactivity relating to the election.

Obama also leveled economic sanctions against two Russian intelligence organizations.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/obama-strikes-back-at-russia-for-election-hacking/ar-BBxHoZz?li=BBnbcA1

What effect will this have? How does it prevent future hacking? How much will it deter other nations from trying what U.S. officials believe the Russians did — whatever it was?

I’m not qualified to answer any of that.

However, I will insist — as will others — that the new president keep his hands off the sanctions that the current president has instituted against Russia.

Donald J. Trump, to his discredit, has dismissed the intelligence analysts’ professional opinion that the Russians meddled in the U.S. election process. To whatever extent the interference determined the election outcome remains to be discovered.

Given Trump’s cavalier dismissal of the CIA and other intelligence organizations’ conclusions about Russian involvement, my strongest hope is that he follows through with what his immediate predecessor has done.

Failure to do so could send a disturbing message about the where new president’s loyalties might lie.

And they talked about Barack Obama’s ‘pals’

What in the world was Don King doing at Donald J. Trump’s posh Florida resort/home?

Don’t you recall how Republicans vilified candidate Barack Obama in 2008 for the “rough crowd” he “palled around with”?

Don King? Let me think: He served prison time for killing someone; he was accused of bilking professional boxers out of millions of dollars in prize money while promoting their fights.

Is that right?

What in the world is the president-elect — who’s supposed to be spending his waking hours boning up on the myriad intricacies of governing the world’s greatest nation — doing in the presence of a clown such as Don King?

Just askin’, man.

This inquiring mind wants to know: What did Russians do?

I don’t doubt that Russian geeks hacked into our nation’s computer grid somehow and did something to influence the U.S. presidential election.

Unlike the president-elect, I am inclined to believe the analyses put forth by some of the best intelligence minds on the planet.

What I remain unclear about, though, is the nature of what the geeks did. What did they do — and I need a precise, detailed  explanation — to possibly tilt the election in Donald J. Trump’s favor.

* Did they put out fake messages that threatened voters in heavily Democratic precincts, decreasing voter turnout?

* Or, did they somehow make ballots cast for Hillary Clinton be logged as votes for Trump?

* Did the Russians float fake news stories about Hillary, telling voters that she is the child of Satan and that a vote for her would be a vote to send the nation straight on the express track to hell?

President Obama vows retaliation against the Russians. It could come as early as Thursday, according to some actual news reports.

But this inquiring mind — the one in my noggin — is anxious to the max to know what precisely the Russians might have done to influence our vote. Was it decisive?

Did we actually elect the wrong person as our next president?

Oh … wait!

We still have only one POTUS at a time

Decorum matters. So does protocol. Say whatever you wish about a politician’s flouting of them both — whether you agree or disagree with him — they matter greatly in the conduct of foreign policy.

It is that backdrop, then, that compels me to say that Donald J. Trump is acting disgracefully during this transition period as he prepares to become the U.S. head of state and head of government.

The president-elect’s continual carping while President Obama conducts the affairs of state serves only to undermine the one president we have in power.

The recent decision by the United States to decline to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel over its building of settlements in the West Bank is the No. 1 example of how Trump doesn’t come close to understanding the meaning of protocol and decorum.

He launches routinely into his Twitter tirades, blasting the president’s decision, saying that Israel will have a true friend when the Trump administration takes over.

Consider, too, that another president-elect, Barack H. Obama, called a press conference shortly after being elected in 2008 to declare his intention to let President Bush conduct his policies the way he saw fit. President-elect Obama said he would wait until Jan. 20, 2009, the day he would take office, before weighing in with his own policy pronouncements. Indeed, presidents-elect going back many decades have honored that tradition.

What about that kind of behavior is lost on Trump? Why doesn’t this guy get it? Why can’t he resist the temptation to meddle in foreign policy before it’s his turn?

Trump has less than a month to go before he takes his oath of office, bids goodbye to his predecessor and then settles into the big chair in the Oval Office. This tweet storm he keeps launching is unbecoming of the office he is about to assume — and it damn sure is disrespectful of the man he is about to succeed.

Decorum and protocol, Mr. President-elect? You’ll learn soon enough how much it really matters.

That’s some non-apology, Carl

I’ve read phony apologies many times over the years.

They usually include the phrase “If I offended anyone ,,.”

Carl Palodino, the New York Republican operative/activist and former GOP candidate for governor, has taken the non-apology to a new level.

He said he wished President Obama would die in the coming year of mad cow disease and said Michelle Obama is really a dude who should live with gorillas in Africa.

Palodino’s explanation? What he said to an alternative newspaper in Buffalo, N.Y., was meant only for his “friends.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carl-paladino-email-apology_us_58629a35e4b0d9a5945920ff?section=politics

What? Huh? Are you kidding me?

This guy has said these kinds of things before. If this latest diatribe isn’t drenched in racist intent, then I have been living in some parallel universe for the past 67 years.

Palodino is a strong ally of Donald J. Trump. To its credit, the president-elect’s transition team has issued a strong statement of condemnation of Palodino’s hate-filled comment, calling it “reprehensible.”

As for this notion that he intended these hideous remarks only for his “friends,” how in the name of all that is holy does this guy’s non-apology make anything right?

What about a ‘consensus candidate’ for high court, GOP?

Americans are going to get a good look — probably fairly soon — at just how duplicitous many of our politicians can be.

Let’s consider the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly early this year while vacationing in Texas. President Obama then had to find someone to nominate to replace the longtime conservative icon. He found a centrist in Federal Judge Merrick Garland.

Republicans said before Garland got the nod that they would block anyone the president nominated. No hearing. No testimony. No vote. Nothing, man.

Throughout the president’s two terms in office, GOP senators had insisted that the Democratic president nominate “consensus” jurists to the nation’s highest court. He managed to get two justices confirmed: Sonja Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Garland was confirmable — had he been given the chance to make his case. Except for one thing: Confirming a centrist such as Garland would change the political balance of power on the Supreme Court, which held a slim conservative majority with Scalia.

A Republican now has been elected president. Will the new man, Donald J. Trump, nominate a “consensus” jurist for the high court? Will he find someone who splits the difference between liberals and conservatives?

Something tells me he’s going to tack to the far right as a sop to those who stood by him on the campaign trail.

Consensus? Who needs consensus when you and your political party control the White House and the Senate.

The upcoming Supreme Court appointment process is going to get ugly. Real ugly.