Tag Archives: Barack Obama

International news

When did Flynn talk … and to whom?

Tick, tick, tick.

That might either be the sound of time running out on Donald J. Trump’s national security adviser — or the sound of a bomb about to explode in Gen. Michael Flynn’s face.

Flynn might be working for Trump on borrowed time, owing to his alleged conversation with Russian foreign ministry officials prior to the president taking office.

What’s worse is that Flynn, the retired Army lieutenant general who advises the president on national security matters, allegedly lied to Vice President Mike Pence about what he might have told Russian officials.

The crux of this controversy is that Flynn’s alleged conversation dealt with sanctions that President Barack Obama had leveled against Russia concerning reports that Russians hacked into our electoral process and sought to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

Did he speak out of turn to Russian officials?

The question is whether Flynn negotiated with Russians about those sanctions before President Obama turned the levers of power over to Donald Trump. If that’s the case, then we could be talking about a violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits unauthorized individuals from negotiating with foreign governments.

Add to that the idea that Flynn might have lied to the vice president, well, then you have a serious breach of protocol … not to mention a violation of federal law.

Reports are now circulating that Trump is looking for a suitable replacement. I hope they find one and I hope the replacement is more of a mainstream individual who won’t label Islam to be a “cancer” that must be eradicated.

I already have declared my desire to see Flynn kicked out of Trump’s national security advisory post. If it can be determined that he had that pre-Trump administration conversation regarding U.S. sanctions against Russia, then he has broken the law.

If that’s the case, a resignation might not be enough. There well might be grounds to prosecute this fellow for criminal misconduct.

national news

No criticism of Trump golf outings

I hereby make a solemn vow: I will not criticize Donald J. Trump for playing golf while he serves as president of the United States of America.

Obama’s immediate predecessor, Barack Obama, took some unfair hits from critics who bitched about his golf outings. Why, they couldn’t understand why the president was playing golf while the world was spinning out of control all around him.

I defended Obama. He is never not the president, I said.

I’ll say the same thing about the guy who succeeded him. Trump took Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to his Florida estate for a round of golf, a few laughs — and maybe even some high-level diplomacy.

Trump might get criticized by some. Not from me.

Hey, fair is fair.

Presidents deserve time off away from the hustle and bustle of the Oval Office. Even this one.

International news, political news

The Dossier: It’s ba-a-a-a-ck

2 Comments

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.

International news, legal news

9/11 mastermind tells the Mother of all Lies

Khalid Sheik Mohammed blames the United States of America for the terrorist attacks that killed roughly 3,000 innocent victims on Sept. 11, 2001.

Imagine that.

The 9/11 mastermind says it’s our fault.

We are to blame because 19 madmen boarded jetliners and flew them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon — and struggled with passengers before crashing a third plane into a Pennsylvania field.

Mohammed wrote this fantasy in a length letter to President Barack Obama.

According to the Miami Herald: “‘I will be happy to be alone in my cell to worship Allah the rest of my life and repent to Him all my sins and misdeeds,’ he says in the letter that he wrote at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“‘And if your court sentences me to death, I will be even happier to meet Allah and the prophets and see my best friends whom you killed unjustly all around the world and to see sheik Osama bin Laden.'”

They’ll both rot in hell.

He said in his letter that U.S. “tyrants” have brought death to the Middle East. The letter had been hidden from the public until just this week.

In truth, Mohammed’s case is another one of those that tests my opposition to capital punishment.

This guy isn’t a U.S. citizen. He’ll go on trial — eventually! — for the plot he concocted and the terrible act of war he committed against this country.

I’d be willing to bet my last dollar that he’ll get a one-way ticket to the death chamber whenever a jury gets around to convicting him.

Yes, I still oppose capital punishment — even for monsters such as this one. When Mohammed checks out of this world, though, I won’t shed a tear.

If only our nation’s judicial system would get busy and dispose of this heinous killer.

military news

Mullen is right about Bannon: He doesn’t belong on NSC

Michael Mullen knows a thing or three about national security.

He’s a retired Navy admiral who served as Joint Chiefs chairman under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Mullen also believes that Donald Trump’s chief political adviser — Steve Bannon — should not be on the principals committee of the National Security Council.

My reaction? No-o-o-o-o!

Mullen has written his feelings in an op-ed published by the New York Times.

Mullen made his point clear. Bannon is a political hand. He is not a national security expert. Indeed, Trump demoted the current Joint Chiefs chair and the director of national intelligence to make room for the former Brietbart.com editor, and a guy believed to harbor dangerous views about white supremacy.

“Every president has the right and the responsibility to shape the security council as he sees fit,” Mullen added. “But partisan politics has no place at that table. And neither does Mr. Bannon.”

The NSC is a place where experts share their knowledge about imminent national security threats and make recommendations to the president on how to deal with them.

What in the world does Bannon bring to that discussion? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

legal news, national news, political news

Catfight over Gorsuch? Wait until the next justice leaves the court

“So, are you ready for the catfight that’s going to erupt over this guy Trump has picked for the Supreme Court?”

That was the question posed to me today by a colleague of mine.

The reference, of course, was to Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the highest court in the land.

“Catfight? Over this? Naw. The earth is going to open up and quake when the next justice leaves the court,” I said, referring to the possibility that either Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer or Anthony Kennedy might leave the court.

That, I said, will produce the “mother of all catfights.”

Gorsuch’s nomination doesn’t change a thing on the court. The president is seeking to place a judicial conservative on the court to replace another conservative’s seat, that of the late Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016.

Yes, Senate Democrats are enraged. Not at the selection of Gorsuch, necessarily, but over the treatment that President Obama got when he nominated Merrick Garland this past year to succeed Scalia.

My own thought is that Gorsuch is likely to be as good a choice as Democrats are going to get, given Trump’s insistence on picking a conservative judge.

No, the real donnybrook will occur when one of the liberals or swing justices decides to leave … or is unable to serve.

My own advice to Democrats would be to pick their fights carefully. Sure, they battle Gorsuch’s nomination. They’ll insist on keeping the 60-vote majority required to approve a Supreme Court nomination. Republicans might decide to invoke the “nuclear option” and allow a 51-vote majority.

I have no real clue as to which way this fight will go.

It might serve Democrats better to hold their fire for the next vacancy when — or if — it occurs during Trump’s time in office.

Given the tenuous ideological balance of the court, with its slim conservative majority, I sincerely doubt that Justices Ginsburg and Breyer — both picked by President Clinton in the 1990s — are going to resign amid the political climate that has fallen over Washington.

As for Justice Kennedy, one of President Reagan’s picks, well, that might be another matter.

Whatever happens, the serious political bloodletting is yet to occur.

International news

Obama disagrees with Trump refugee ban? No kidding!

It didn’t take Barack Obama long at all to weigh in against a policy pronouncement by his presidential successor, Donald Trump.

“The President fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion,” said the former president’s spokesman, Kevin Lewis.

I’m going to take another gulp of air now and say this: I wish the former president would have stayed quiet on this one … for two reasons.

First, it should surprise no one that the ex-president opposes Trump’s idiotic refugee ban targeting those coming to the United States from Muslim-majority nations. President Obama made that point abundantly clear during his two terms in office, that the United States must not discriminate against anyone because of their religion as we fight this war against international terrorism.

The second reason is that I continue to endorse the George W./George H.W. Bush view of former presidents criticizing their successors. Bush 43 was essentially quiet during the Obama presidency; Bush 41 also kept quiet during the two terms of Bill Clinton’s presidency. They both adhered to the same principle: We had our time in the arena; that time is up and the men who followed them are entitled to conduct foreign and domestic policy without being sniped at by their predecessor.

Indeed, I was critical former Vice President Dick Cheney’s continual carping about Obama’s conduct of the office.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/05/button-it-up-mr-vp/

Don’t misunderstand me. I endorse Barack Obama’s opinion of Trump’s ban on refugees. It was poorly conceived and even more poorly executed. Several state attorneys general have filed lawsuits challenging its constitutionality.

However, Barack Obama need tell us what we already know about what he thinks about a particular Trump policy.

legal news, national news, political news

Principle pushes against politics

I just hate it when principle runs smack head-on into real-time politics.

The nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court has created just such a conundrum — at least for me.

The principle involves whether to fill the ninth seat on the nation’s highest court, an argument I made when President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

It wasn’t to be for the Garland and the president; Senate Republicans threw up their roadblock and obstructed the nomination by refusing even to consider it.

They were wrong!

Now a new president has nominated Gorsuch to Scalia’s vacant seat. Senate Democrats are threatening to do all they can to obstruct it, to block Donald Trump’s nominee from taking his seat on the bench.

I’m swallowing real hard as I write this, but it is just as wrong for Democrats to obstruct this nominee as it was for Republicans to obstruct Merrick Garland.

The principle of presidential prerogative stands firm in my view.

So does the need for the Supreme Court to be whole. It needs nine seats occupied to avoid tie votes that in effect send important cases back to lower-court rulings.

At one level, I sympathize with Democrats’ rage at the way their GOP “friends” played raw politics with Garland’s nomination. The GOP leadership took a huge gamble on the hope that a Republican would be elected president. The odds of that gamble paying off seemed to lengthen considerably when Donald Trump won the GOP presidential nomination this past summer.

Trump fooled a lot of us by defeating Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Now it’s Donald Trump’s turn to nominate people to become justices on the highest court in America.

By all accounts, Gorsuch is qualified. He’s not my ideal justice candidate. To be candid, given Trump’s seeming lack of ideological conviction, I’m not at all certain he even fits whatever core values inform the president’s thinking.

The fundamental point, though, is whether it is right for Democrats to threaten to keep the seat vacant for another year — or perhaps for the entire length of time a Republican president is recommending potential justices.

It is not right!

Judge Gorsuch deserves a Senate committee hearing and a full vote in the Senate — just as Judge Garland did.

Principle ought to matter more than politics — even when one’s political sensibilities are being trampled.

legal news

GOP’s amnesia surely must be cured

I cannot believe a Republican U.S. senator from Pennsylvania actually said this. But he did.

“We did not inflict this kind of obstructionism on President Obama.”

That came from Patrick Toomey.

It takes my breath away. I might need some smelling salts before I get done with this blog post.

Oh … yes you did, senator!

I get that Donald Trump’s selection of Neil Gorsuch as the next Supreme Court justice has angered Democrats. I also get that the president is entitled to nominate someone of his choosing.

What I do not get is the crass, brassy and classless argument from Senate Republicans — namely Sen. Toomey — that they didn’t obstruct President Barack Obama’s efforts to govern.

Good grief, dude! You made it your top priority!

The hands-down example of obstruction occurred after Antonin Scalia died suddenly while vacationing nearly a year ago in Texas. The Supreme Court justice’s corpse was still warm when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared that the Senate GOP would block anyone selected by the then-president to succeed Scalia.

President Obama unveiled Merrick Garland as his nominee to the Supreme Court. McConnell held firm on his pledge. He blocked the nomination. He obstructed the president from fulfilling his constitutional duty to nominate a candidate for a federal judgeship.

Then, as if he had forgotten what he had done, McConnell accused the president and Senate Democrats of “playing politics.”

Are you bleeping kidding me, Mr. Majority Leader?

So here we are. Another president has picked another judge to the highest court. Democrats are furious at the treatment an earlier nominee got from their Republican colleagues.

And Republicans now are saying out loud — and apparently without a hint of shame — that, by golly, they didn’t obstruct a president from the opposing party.

They need treatment for their selective amnesia.

legal news, national news, political news

Hold on! Court balance won’t change

1 Comment

All this hyperventilating over Donald Trump’s choice for the U.S. Supreme Court is making me dizzy.

The president tonight brought out Neil Gorsuch, a judge on the 10th Circuit of Appeals, as his nominee for the nation’s highest court.

He’s a conservative, just as Trump promised. He is a “strict constitutional constructionist,” again as Trump vowed. He’s also a disciple of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, as Trump pledged.

Now we’re hearing talk about the “nuclear option” that Senate Democrats might employ to stop Gorsuch’s confirmation. They’ll oppose this fellow, seemingly as payback for the shabby treatment Senate Republicans leveled against President Obama’s choice to succeed Obama. Remember that? Senate GOPers said within hours of Scalia’s death that they would block anyone the president nominated. Obama selected Merrick Garland and the Senate didn’t even give him a hearing and a vote.

Let’s take a deep breath here.

I want to make a couple of points.

One, I detest the notion of Donald Trump nominating anyone to the court. But he won the presidency without my vote. He won enough electoral votes to take the oath of office. Thus, he earned the right to choose anyone he wants.

Gorsuch isn’t my kind of justice. But someone else is the president.

Two, the ideological balance of the U.S. Supreme Court is not going to change when — or if — Gorsuch is confirmed. Scalia was a conservative icon. He was a heroic figure among political conservatives. Placing another judicial conservative on the high court restores the court’s narrow 5-4 conservative bent.

I feel compelled to note that the court — with that narrow conservative majority — made two decisions that riled conservatives, um, bigly. It upheld the Affordable Care Act and it declared same-sex marriage to be legal under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

Would a Justice Gorsuch change that equation? I don’t see it. A nominee to succeed, say, one of the liberals on the court would most assuredly prompt a titanic political battle … as it should.

None of this will matter, of course, to Senate Democrats who are enraged at the president over many — seemingly countless — issues. His behavior in the first 10 days of his presidency, culminating with his firing of an acting attorney general over her refusal to defend Trump’s paranoid refugee ban, has angered Democrats to their core.

Thus, the fight is on.

It pains me to acknowledge it, but I must. Donald Trump vowed to nominate someone from a list of 20 or so jurists he revealed during his campaign. He has delivered on his pledge.

Judge Gorsuch isn’t to my liking. Moreover, my candidate lost. The other guy won. As they say, elections do have consequences.