Tag Archives: 2016 election

national news

Trump projects his own ‘ineptitude’ on ex-special counsel

Donald Trump has resorted now to calling former special counsel Robert Mueller “inept.” The president is boasting about Mueller’s supposedly poor performance while testifying before two congressional committees.

What I find hilarious is that the Twitter master in chief would stoop to saying Mueller demonstrated “ineptitude” while explaining why he didn’t “exonerate” Trump of obstruction charges. Mueller also repeated his contention that the Russian hacking of our 2016 presidential election should concern “every American.”

Mueller’s performance, while it didn’t deliver the explosive moment some had hoped would occur, was far from how Trump has described it.

Indeed, for this presidential buffoon to criticize Mueller — a former FBI director, career prosecutor and decorated Vietnam War combat Marine — is laughable on its face.

Oh, well. I suppose Donald Trump can stand behind the notion that he is president, after all, and no one else holds the office.

So very sad.

national news

When did GOP surrender its anti-Russia standing?

Those of us who are old enough to remember such things must be wondering: What has become of the Republican Party’s historic animosity toward Russia?

The party of Ike, Nixon and Reagan has become squishier than the Democrats were during those earlier eras. Russia — which once was known as the Soviet Union — attacked our electoral system in 2016. They did with malicious intent to disrupt our process and sow discontent among Americans about the integrity of our voting system.

They have succeeded.

Democrats now are incensed. Republicans? They are silent.

Democrats are pushing for measures in Congress that would strengthen electoral integrity and security. Republican leaders are blocking it.

Former special counsel Robert Mueller III told the nation that Russians not only attacked our 2016 electoral system in “sweeping” and “systematic” fashion, but are in the process of attacking our system at this moment.

The GOP leadership in Congress — and in the White House — are acting as if, “Hey, no big deal!”

History reminds us that in the days of Dwight Eisenhower, we shored up our military to counter the Soviet Union’s aspirations to become he world’s greatest power. Then came Richard Nixon, the noted communist-hater who made no apologies for his hatred and mistrust of the Soviet leadership. After that, the nation heard Ronald Reagan refer to the USSR as the “evil empire” and once joked into an open mic that he had just “outlawed Russia; bombing begins in five minutes.”

These days the equation has been flipped on its ear. Republicans give Russians a pass on the attack they have launched on our electoral system. Democrats have become the hardliners.

I believe this is a manifestation of the Donald Trump Era of national politics. What once was “normal” no longer is normal. Conduct we used to abhor has become part of what we believe is a “new normal.”

Russian attacks on our political system that used to become fodder for Republican politicians’ ire have become reasons for them to zip their lips. They say nothing. Meanwhile, the Democrats have become the hardliners.

What gives?

national news

Why block a bill to make elections more secure?

1 Comment

This one baffles me, man.

Robert Mueller told the world this week that Russian hackers attacked our electoral system in 2016 and are doing so again in advance of the 2020 presidential contest.

Then came legislation in Congress designed to secure our election system against such attacks. What does the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, do? He blocks it! No can do, said McConnell, calling the legislation a too-partisan effort aimed at helping Democrats.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump, the president whose campaign benefited from the Russian attack in 2016, is silent.

Mueller declared categorically that the Russian attack was not the “hoax” that Trump called it. He said “every American” should be concerned deeply about the safety and sanctity of their electoral system. He said the Russians did so specifically to assist Donald Trump’s campaign and to do harm to the campaign of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

A bipartisan measure in Congress has now run into the McConnell buzzsaw, with the majority leader contending it is too political.

Wow! What am I missing?

According to CBS News: “One bill McConnell objected to would have required the use of paper ballots and provided funding for the Election Assistance Commission. He also objected to legislation that would have required campaigns and candidates to report offers of election-related aid from foreign governments.”

Why in the world doesn’t the president simply insist that the majority leader let this bill become law, let it go to the White House so that he could sign it into law?

Wouldn’t those measures, presuming they are built to secure our system against future attacks, help quell the concern? It seems that is the easiest course Trump could take.

But, no-o-o-o! He is insisting on dragging this out, with help from his boy, McConnell.

The chaos continues at full throttle.

national news

In defense of Robert Mueller III

3 Comments

I feel the need to defend Robert S. Mueller III, although he doesn’t need little ol’ me to stand up for him against critics of his daylong testimony before two congressional committees.

Right-wing critics have said the former special counsel sounded lost, almost feeble, not in charge of the facts, he was hard of hearing.

Left-wing critics have expressed disappointment that Mueller didn’t provide them with the “aha moment” they were expecting.

Let’s get a grip here.

Mueller conducted that lengthy investigation into allegations that the Donald Trump presidential campaign conspired to collude with Russian election hackers. He didn’t find enough evidence of collusion. He also looked into whether Trump obstructed justice.

He said in his report and again on Wednesday that he didn’t clear Trump of obstruction. He said that the president committed crimes. He just couldn’t indict him because he happens to be the president of the United States.

I thought Mueller did precisely what he said he would do. He was a reluctant witness. He said in May that the report would stand as his “testimony” were he summoned to appear before Congress. His delivery this week kept faith with what he declared in May.

I thought the ex-special counsel/former FBI director/career prosecutor/decorated Vietnam War combat Marine behaved with decorum and dignity. I should point out that during the two years of his Russia probe he maintained his stone-cold silence in the face of constant harangues, harassment and hassling from Donald Trump and his sympathizers.

Robert Mueller remains, as one of Trump’s former lawyers once called him, “an American hero.”

So what if he didn’t deliver the impeachment goods? He told us weeks ago we should not expect such a thing.

I shall remind everyone, though, of a critical point that Mueller made. It is that the Russians attacked our electoral system in “sweeping and systematic” fashion and are doing so at this moment in advance of the next presidential election.

The villain here is the president who refuses to acknowledge what the rest of the nation already knows. To that end, I want to thank Robert Mueller for reminding us yet again of the danger that Donald Trump poses to this nation.

national news

Mueller set to stand on the world’s center stage

Robert S. Mueller III only thought he was heading back into private life after completing his 22-month-long investigation into whether Donald Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russian election hackers.

He turned his report in to the Department of Justice, then headed for the tall grass. Mueller came out of proverbial “hiding” to deliver a nine-minute statement on what he concluded.

Now he’s heading back to the world’s center stage. The former special counsel is going to speak to two U.S. House of Representatives committees — Judiciary and Intelligence. He will tell committee members what his 448-page report says.

Now, though, we’re hearing from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, who says Mueller is going to produce “substantial evidence” that Trump committed crimes while running for president and while serving in the office. Nadler said on “Fox News Sunday” that Mueller’s report already has unveiled such evidence.

Mueller will get a chance on Wednesday to tell the world what he’s put in writing.

OK, so no we must wonder: Is this the game changer? Is this moment when the bulb will light up in the skulls of recalcitrant Republicans who have given the president a pass on what Democrats have been yammering all along: that Donald Trump is a criminal and should be removed from office?

I don’t know about you, but I am not going to hold my breath that such an event will occur. It goes back to that weird vise grip that Trump has clamped on the Republican Party, on GOP members of Congress and on that base of supporters who continue to cheer for their political hero.

The show will commence early Wednesday. All the broadcast TV networks are going live with it, along with a number of cable TV outlets. I presume they’ll let Mueller’s words speak for themselves, leaving it to the president himself to label the coverage as “fake news.” I wonder, too, if Trump is going to tell millions of Americans that they didn’t really see and hear what they saw and heard.

Is this going to be Robert Mueller’s last act before actually retiring and returning to the weeds? Hah! Not a chance.

Still, the TV viewing promises to be riveting.

national news

Sen. Cruz: 2020 election a ‘toss-up’

So now it’s U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz weighing in on Donald J. Trump’s re-election chances. Has the Cruz Missile discovered something the rest of us don’t know? No. But he’s blathering anyway.

Cruz appeared on PBS’s “Firing Line” and told the host, Margaret Hoover, that the president “absolutely” could lose his re-election bid. Well, duh! Do ya think?

Cruz also said he doesn’t believe Democrats will nominate a centrist, such as, say, former Vice President Joe Biden. They will nominate a lefty in the mold of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Kamala Harris or Sen. Bernie Sanders. He said the far left of the party is calling the shots and will turn away from a candidate deemed to be too, oh, “moderate.”

He also believes the left is so enraged at Trump’s presidency that they’ll turn out in staggering numbers.

None of this is really a big-time flash. Cruz well might be correct that Trump’s chances are a big dicey at the moment. However, we’re talking about the here and now. The future could reveal something quite different.

It pains me terribly to acknowledge this, but Donald Trump was considered a joke when he announced his candidacy prior to the 2016 Republican primary season. Then he knocked off all those challengers one by one; Sen. Cruz was one of them.

Then he got nominated and ran against Hillary Rodham Clinton, a candidate perceived to be infinitely more qualified. Then all hell broke loose. Hillary lost to The Donald.

Ted Cruz’s prognostication today, therefore, means next to nothing.

Still, it is a bit scintillating to ponder that a former Trump antagonist who’s turned into one of the president’s most ardent allies would consider the POTUS to be in some jeopardy.

If only …

national news

Trump’s attack on ‘Squad’ should surprise no one

It is as clear as it can get, given Donald Trump’s history with political opponents.

We shouldn’t be the least bit surprised that the president of the United States would allow a political rally crowd to shout “Send her back, send her back!” when referring to four congresswomen who oppose his views on immigration and a host of other policies.

After all, this is the same individual who let earlier campaign crowds bellow “Lock her up!” when referencing Hillary Clinton’s email problems during the 2016 presidential campaign.

So we fast forward to the present day and crowds are now yelling “Send her back!” Trump’s response? He allows the crowd to shout its displeasure.

This is frightening. The four House members are women of color. The president has targeted them in what I believe are racist Twitter messages, saying they were free to leave the country he said they “hate … with a passion.”

Go back to where they came from? Three of them were born in the United States. The fourth is from Somalia. Yet she emigrated here when she was 12 years of age. Ilhan Omar became a U.S. citizen and then was elected to the House in 2018.

Donald Trump is acting far more like a cult leader than the leader of a nation full of religious, ethnic, racial diversity. For the president to stand silently at a North Carolina campaign rally while a crowd shouts “Send her back!” is despicable on its face.

However, it shouldn’t surprise anyone who has been paying attention to this guy’s modus operandi. 

Yes, this individual’s MO is to sow seeds of fear and division and then feed on the harvest he reaps. “Send her back!” has just replaced “Lock her up!” as the mantra of the moment. Due process? Who needs it?

For the president to say, as he did today, that he disagrees with the chant that his followers yelled is to lie to our faces once again.

national news

Trump: It’s either support me or ‘hate’ for America

Donald Trump is quadrupling — maybe even quintupling — down on this hideous feud he has launched against four freshman members of the House of Representatives.

He told the four congresswomen that they could return to where they came from if they didn’t like the country they were elected to serve in Congress. Most Americans believe the Twitter tirade was racially/ethnically/religiously inspired. Three of the four congresswomen were born in the United States, making them every bit as American as Trump; the fourth came here as a pre-teenager from her native Somalia.

He is not letting up. Trump said Tuesday that the congresswomen “hate” the country. They “hate” American values and want to “destroy” the nation as we’ve known it.

Here is what I heard him suggest: Either you agree with me or you must hate the country.

This is utterly, profoundly, astonishingly ignorant. Donald Trump is suggesting that you either support him wholeheartedly or you want to turn the nation into some sort of socialist enclave.

Wow!

Donald Trump is accusing his critics of doing precisely what he did four years ago when he declared his candidacy for president.

Have the Trump legions been afflicted by acute amnesia? Do they not remember what this carnival barker said about President Obama? Do they not recall the intensely personal criticism he leveled not just at Obama, but also at President George W. Bush, President Clinton?

Indeed, this con artist ran a campaign based virtually exclusively on righting what he called the “stupidity” of previous presidents’ policies. Let’s not forget, too, that he did all this against the backdrop of his fomenting the lie that questioned President Obama’s birthright as a U.S. citizen.

So, for the president to say today that you’re either for him or against our nation is to imply that he, too, hated the country four years ago when he sought to be elected president.

I’ll say it once more: Donald Trump is unfit for the office he occupies.

national news

Ryan speaks out, draws Trump’s rage; imagine that!

Now you tell us, Mr. Speaker.

The former speaker of the U.S. House, Paul Ryan, has revealed why he left public life. He couldn’t stand working with Donald J. Trump.

Ryan is quoted in a new book about his time as speaker during the Trump Era. He says in Tim Alberta’s book, “American Carnage: On the Front Lines of the Republican Civil War and the rise of President Trump,” that he sought to protect the president from his “knee-jerk” policy making instincts.

According to the Washington Post: “We helped him make much better decisions, which were contrary to kind of what his knee-jerk reaction was. Now I think he’s making some of these knee-jerk reactions.”

Of course, Trump’s reaction was his normal way of responding to such criticism. He flew into a Twitter rage. He called Ryan a “lame duck.” He launched a series of tweets calling Ryan an ineffective speaker who lost Republican control of the House.

Again, as the Post reported: “We’ve gotten so numbed by it all,” Ryan said. “Not in government, but where we live our lives, we have a responsibility to try and rebuild. Don’t call a woman a ‘horse face.’ Don’t cheat on your wife. Don’t cheat on anything. Be a good person. Set a good example.”

Yes, that is the kind of individual the nation elected as president. Ryan — a man I do not necessarily support on a policy basis — nonetheless is a man of moral character.

Donald Trump is hardly a “good person,” which I am certain is what rankled Ryan from the outset of the men’s professional relationship.

I guess what makes me angry is that it took Ryan this long to acknowledge what many of us already knew or believed about Trump. He maintained a mostly silent posture while Trump was hurling insults at foes and behaving boorishly on the world’s most public and visible stage.

I’ll give Ryan credit for this, though: He disinvited Trump while the 2016 Republican nominee was campaigning for the presidency in the wake of the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump revealed how would grab women by their “pu***.”

But then Trump got elected. Ryan had to work with the new president. Oh, but it got to be too much, according to what we have learned.

Trump’s reaction to Ryan’s candor seems to validate the former speaker’s frustrations. Imagine that.

national news

Favoring a more centrist alternative to Trump

1 Comment

I am going to declare my belief that the next president of the United States of America need not take the country into the ditch lined with “democratic socialistic” policies.

I want the next election to produce a president who takes a more centrist, mainstream, traditional view of government.

Donald Trump got elected president in 2016 because he managed to appeal to enough voters looking for a radical change in the way a president did business. They got what he promised: radical change. The consequence is that it has produced chaos, confusion, controversy throughout, from top to bottom.

Democrats have lined up a thundering herd of candidates who want to replace Trump in the White House. Some of the loudmouths of the bunch want things like “Medicare for all,” they want to redistribute the wealth, they rail against “income inequality.”

These are the so-called progressives in the Democratic Party.

Among those who are running to be nominated by their party is a group of what I would call “traditional liberal” politicians. They talk about using government to lend a hand when needed. They speak about border security in terms that I can embrace. They want to maintain a strong military establishment, which I also embrace. They seek to shore up our international alliances. They understand the reality that the world is shrinking and that the United States cannot stand alone against the rest of the planet.

I think of Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker and perhaps even Kamala Harris as the candidates I find most appealing even at this early stage of the 2020 campaign. I’m still trying to wrap my head around Beto O’Rourke, Julian Castro, Pete Buttigieg.

I won’t embrace one- or two-issue candidates, such as Jay Inslee, Bernie Sanders, or even Elizabeth Warren.

I want this nation to elect a president with some practical political experience. Does this sound like an endorsement of, say, former Vice President Biden? It might but don’t take it to the bank.

This “experiment” we launched with the election of Donald Trump has proven — to my way of thinking — to be a bust, a loser, a festering pile of bullsh**.

I have expressed my desire for a newcomer to burst onto the scene. I wanted someone to burst out front the way a formerly obscure ex-Georgia governor did in 1976. Jimmy Carter’s election as president produced decidedly mixed results and he got thumped in the 1980 election. That was then. The here and now seemed to call out for another newcomer to upset the race for the White House.

I don’t think that candidate will emerge. We are left with a smattering of centrists who will fight it out for the presidency. That’s all right. I will await someone from that group to emerge as the individual I want to show Donald Trump the door in January 2021.