Sam Donaldson Live

For some time now, I’ve stopped trying to figure out Donald J Trump. We’ve got him cold. We know who he is, how he acts and will act, what single objective motivates him (total selfishness) and how devoid there is in him any sense of common community or decency toward others.

Instead I’ve concentrated on trying to figure out his supporters, our fellow Americans who see in him the “strong man” Richard Rorty famously predicted in 1998, would come to power on the backs of resentment of educated “elitists.”

Blogs I have written reflect my changing view of his primary supporters.

I bought the idea as reflected in their own 2016, voting booth exit interviews that much of it was based on the loss of jobs, earnings, downsizing of middle class economic opportunities and the like. I thought we ought to redouble efforts to help those people quoting Lincoln’s two Inaugural addresses – we are brothers and must not be enemies.

But as time passed and nothing Trump did that offended traditional American values and worked against our Countries ability to continue as a World leader reduced the ranks of his supporters, I swung toward the belief that his hard core supporters can not be redeemed through economic help, that their grievances are based on fear of and bigotry toward “others” (ethnic, religious, class). I believe these fellow Americans whose support fuels Trump’s ability to destroy our Country as we have known it must not only be resisted, they must be defeated.

There is a review in the Washington Post this morning of three books that explore all this. I commend it to you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2018/11/01/feature/trump-didnt-invent-american-bigotry-but-new-books-argue-that-he-released-it-and-he-has-no-incentive-to-extinguish-it/

The next test of Trump vs the Rest of Us comes on Tuesday.

I do not myself have confidence in the broad outcome of the elections. The political analyst consensus is a “likelihood” that the Democrats win Majority in the House but the Republicans retain and even strengthen their Majority in the Senate. Democratic control of the House would reduce Trump/GOP “bloodletting” but the Senate’s ability to confirm future SCOTUS nominees (and lower court judges) would remain unchecked.

But what happens if the election returns do show a razor-thin Democratic victory in the House? Will Trump and his supporters accept it, abide by the rules of Majority control?

I’m not talking about violence in the streets, I’m talking about a refusal to participate in ordinary rules of parliamentary business. I was amazed in 1995, after its Victory in seizing control of Congress that the GOP (Gingrich & Company) moved to shut down the U S Government if they didn’t get their way. Fortunately, Clinton and  the majority of Americans pushed back successfully…although the GOP has returned time and time again to brandishing the “shutdown” tactic – my way or a broken highway. If next January a defeated House GOP simply boycotts the legislative process, what then would be the possibility of violence in the streets?

On the other hand, how should we conduct ourselves if the GOP retains both Houses after Tuesday? There are no “moderates” left in the top ranks of the GOP and instead of working across the aisle in the spirit of compromise I think we would see a flood of new selfish, hateful actions and a resulting increase in the bigoted actions of Trump’s supporters.

As to my question of how we should conduct ourselves if the GOP retains both Houses, I’m not sure just now about tactics but I am sure we must resist vigorously.

History shows that compliance with an evil brings no safety. Hoping that time will moderate the damage is an illusion.

In a fight to retain the America we knew, there is no substitute for victory.

Brett Cavanaugh is now an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

This appears to solidify a Conservative Court Majority to read the Constitution in  ways that threaten:

-A woman’s right to choose whether to have a legal abortion

-The GLBTQ community’s right to the protection of Constitutional and legal safeguards enjoyed by others

-Efforts to act on  the necessity to place environmental safeguards above profits

-The right of workers to join Unions which can bargain for wages and conditions on an equal footing with employers.

-Sensible restrictions on the use of firearms

-The right to vote without having to meet unnecessary voting tests and the fair drawing of district voting lines

-And the list goes on.

President Trump, Senator McConnell and the new Republican Party have won the Confirmation Fight to seat Brett Kavanaugh on the High Court.

But their victory may turn out to be Ashes In Their Mouths (see Genesis 18:27 – Job 30:19 -JFK Cuba Missile Crisis Speech).

Some “victories” turn out to be defeats in that the long term outcome is disastrous and the “victory” turns out to have been a colossal mistake.

This Country of ours was on a path toward the Light, toward better lives for all our citizens and those who come to us seeking haven from violence and oppression.

We have been making progress in “fits and starts” toward ensuring civil rights and equal treatment for those within our shores. And, notably, after defeating the enemies of Democracy in World War II, we became a leader in establishing an Order among nations that worked toward  universal peace and security.

The English poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson wrote in 1835, of a future time when “..the  war-drum throbb’d no longer, and the battle-flags were furl’d

In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world…And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law.”

A Dream, perhaps, but one worth working toward.

And suddenly it came to a halt with the election of Donald J Trump and his merry band of selfish enablers. But Trump was not the cause of our present despair, he was merely the willing agent who cashed the check that resulted from years of neglect for people who were being left behind, marginalized and more and more considered unworthy and unwanted inhabitants of their own Country.

 

 

The Democrats at last are wielding a big knife in the back alley fight of modern day American politics.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh has become a target in his quest for a seat on the United States Supreme Court and  is caught in a new dance, one in which  two are “tangoing,” not just one.

In 1988, the Republicans swung a butcher knife to savage poor Mike Dukakis with their soft on crime “Willie Horton” campaign and the Democrats never lifted even a pen knife  to gut them back.

In 2004, the Republicans swung a Bowie knife at poor John Kerry with their “swift boat” denial of his Vietnam heroism and the Democrats never lifted even a paring knife to stick it in the GOP gizzard.

In 2016, the Republicans took  a Guillotine to the job of “criminalizing” poor Hillary Clinton over the use of a personal email account and the Democrats couldn’t even find little George Washington’s hatchet with which to strike them down.

But now when an opportunity has fallen into their hands  to defeat the Kavanaugh nomination, Democrats are using a huge Samurai sword with a skill and savagery heretofore not seen in the party of the Donkey.

Let us see how, forsaking the pristine Marquis of Queensberry rules, they are cutting and slashing with effect.

Senator Diane Feinstein is handed a letter weeks ago with a potentially explosive charge against Kavanaugh and what, she just sits on it? Until almost the “last minute” when she turns it over to the FBI asking for an investigation.

Had she not had sense enough to raise the subject  immediately  the idea of an investigation could have been thoroughly argued and perhaps even done by this time.

But the “last minute” now throws the Republican time table requiring a favorable vote before the mid-term elections into doubt, possibly derailing it.

Kindly have the grace to wipe the blood off your knife in private, Diane.

Now the Republicans realize the problem and, believe it or not, do the best thing they can. Seem sympathetic to the need for a hearing of the charges (smart enough not to cavalierly degrade and dismiss the accuser today as they could  back in the the good old days of Clarence  Thomas).  And, at the same time, gag their “man child” into keeping his mouth shut and not as is his habit speaking stupidly and screwing everything up.

Yes, say the Republicans, the accuser can come and testify before the Committee. Next Monday will do nicely and by the way no other witnesses will be heard. The accuser can accuse and Kavanaugh can deny and the Republicans can, having fairly heard from both sides, deliberate this “she says, he says” quandary, then vote to confirm.

Neat, don’t you think.

But wait, the accuser, seizing the Democrat’s shiny new big knife, says she will not testify before the Committee until the  impartial FBI investigation that Senator Feinstein requested has been conducted.

Hah!

What will the Republicans do? Cave to the growing surge of outrage by women – and men – and agree to an investigation? At best that would mean a delay, perhaps past the mid-term elections. If those elections go badly, surviving Republicans sensing the climate for their own next election may vote against Kavanaugh.

And at worst should an investigation turn up evidence that supports the accuser’s story  the nomination is “cooked,” period.

So, perhaps the Republicans will decide to reject an investigation and bull it through. If the accuser doesn’t agree to testify, just say she had her chance and vote to confirm. If she does come the Committee will hear the accusation, hear Kavanaugh’s denial,  then vote to confirm.

It’s up to  Mitch McConnell. McConnell wielded the big knife in 2017, to deny even a hearing on the Garland nomination and his gamble paid off. He might decide “Damn the (mid term election) torpedoes, let’s just go for it and accept the political consequences for the sake of nailing down a conservative Supreme Court.

But either way, two things have changed.

Donald J Trump is not calling the shots on this one. The old Republican party will decide what to do by and for itself.

And now in that rat infested dark alley of modern American politics which the Republicans organized and played so well alone for years, they must  know that the other fellow is going to come at them with a big knife also.

Neat, or don’t you  think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paul Manafort has “flipped.”

The man whom Donald J Trump called a “brave man” just days ago because Trump said he would never break under pressure. While others might “rat” on him, not Paul.

Manafort weighed the options – Take a jail cell for ten to twenty years for the Donald and see his family suffer incalculable hardships  (never mind him).

Or, make the Deal.

And to his credit (there is always time as long as you draw breathe to do the right thing), Paul “flipped” in D C District Court before Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

The prosecutor (Mueller’s team) Andrew Weissmann, laid before the Judge the details of Manafort’s crimes  (for which he has been convicted)  and the fact of Manafort’s “plea bargain.”

Here’s the way the Washington Post reported it:

“Before Manafort pleaded guilty, Weissmann spent about 40 minutes describing in detail Manafort’s criminal conduct — from a 10-year scheme to act as an unregistered agent of a foreign government, to hiding millions of dollars he earned from that work, and then, when investigators were on his trail, trying to tamper with witnesses in the case.

After a year of denying the charges and fighting them at every stage of the investigation, Manafort admitted Friday that he did what prosecutors had long said — cheat the IRS out of $15 million and lie repeatedly to try to cover his tracks. While he pleaded guilty to just two of the seven charges he faced at trial, prosecutors forced him to admit to the broad scope of his financial and secret lobbying schemes.

“I believe it’s fair to say that’s probably the longest and most detailed summary that ever preceded this question, but is what the prosecutor said a true and accurate description of what you did in this case?” Jackson asked Manafort.

“I did. It is,” Manafort said, resting both hands on the lectern before him.

Jackson noted Manafort had agreed to cooperate “fully and truthfully” with the investigation conducted by the office of special counsel, including participating in interviews and debriefings, producing documents in his control, testifying and agreeing to delay  sentencing until a time set by the government.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders issued a brief statement after the announcement. “This had absolutely nothing to do with the President or his victorious 2016 Presidential campaign” she said. “It is totally unrelated.”

In a Pig’s eye!

The Gospel According to (Saint) Paul may have everything to do with the President and it may be devastating.

Flipping Manafort, as Joe Biden once said to Barrack Obama on the passage of the Affordable  Care act (he thought off mike), is a “Big FXXXXXX Deal!”

Manafort was The Donald’s campaign chairman during a crucial time in 2016, when the question of collusion , conspiracy if you will, with Vladimir Putin and the Russians is being investigated. He was present at the famous “Trump Tower Meeting” with three persons who had ties to the Kremlin along with  Donald Trump, Jr., who had emailed in advance that if he was going to be given information detrimental to Hillary Clinton he would “love it.”

And who knows what Manafort knows?

Robert Mueller knows.

Before the Government agrees to a Deal as part of a Plea Bargain, the subject must tell the Government what he/she is prepared to testify to,  tell what it is he/she knows that the Government finds helpful in pursuing the question of others involvement in criminal activity. And having persuaded Mueller that he has pertinent information that would aide Muller’s investigation, should he renege and refuse to testify accordingly, then he goes to jail big time.

Oh yes, one last thing.

Forget the Pardon, Paul.

It  probably wouldn’t have happened anyway. Loyalty to Donald J Trump is a one way street and no one other than him gets to drive on it.

“Treason,” tweeted Donald J Trump, as he reportedly raged in white-hot fury, demanding that the  anonymous author of the incendiary New York Times op-ed article be found and punished. The Times identified the author only as a “Senior Administration Official.”

At one point the man-child who is President of the United States demanded that the Times turn the author “over to the government, ” meaning what – for a public flogging in Lafayette square? Perhaps a firing squad (al paradon) against the wall of the Treasury Department building?

So, now we have senior administration officials beginning with Vice President Pence feeling the necessity to publicly deny it was they who threw a literary can of gasoline  on the fire already burning as a result of Bob Woodward’s devastating account of Trump’s unfitness for the presidency (a proposition previously tendered and since confirmed by a continuing stream of examples delivered by our man child).

Pence was well-advised to declare his innocence. The sleuths are hard at work examining the clues in the style and wording of the document and it has been pointed out that the author used the  word “lodestar,” an un-common word but one that Pence has used publicly on several occasions.

In a blog yesterday, I speculated that clues in the document might have been deliberately planted to throw sleuths off the trail. Do you suppose the anonymous author did that in using a word which pointed  toward Pence? Or is Spence the true author and used the word knowing it would point to him but that a  sleuth would conclude that Spence wouldn’t be that dumb so it must not be him.

The plot thickens!

Yesterday at my regular monthly luncheon group I asked whether a senior official in Trump’s administration feeling as this one does should resign in disgust or stay to do what he or she could to contain the man child’s damage to the rest of us.

Unanimously they and I agreed the person should stay. I failed to ask the second question – should such a person write for publication the op-ed piece the Times published?

My view is the author was unwise in doing so. Why throw gasoline on the firestorm Woodward created. It was sure to burn brightly as it is without help. And why chance discovery which would result in dismissal at the least and thus an end to usefulness as someone checking the damage?

One account says the article was written before the Woodward book was set for publication…but that makes no difference. Surely the author knew of Woodward’s forthcoming book (perhaps is one of Bob’s sources) and thus knew that this anonymous accounting was in no way necessary but would simply act as a validation of the portrait of  chaos the book so ably describes.

Which brings us to another question. If the article was unnecessary, did the fact of its publication help or hurt the cause of ridding us of Donald J Trump as our president?

I think it hurt to the extent that the “hunt” for the miscreant adds to the chaos but more importantly allows Trump supporters to point with some justification to the “disloyalty” of the person Trump has branded “gutless” who hides behind a cloak of anonymity to throw spitballs at his/her sovereign.

Further, by declaring there is, indeed, a network of administration officials who actively work to thwart Trump’s ability to use the power the Constitution gives him, it allows his defenders to push the idea that some insidious “deep state” exists to wrongly depose a person fairly elected to the office (whether “fairly” is another debate at this point as a different set of sleuths search for evidence on that point).

My bottom line is that it would have been better not to speak out anonymously. If the author felt compelled to tell the world what is really going on, he or she should have stepped forward in the daylight and said here I am, you know me, and this is what I have personally witnessed and can no longer in good conscience be part of for any reason.

Yes, Trump and his defenders would shout “Treason” but the author, while suffering insult and possible assault from certain quarters could take pride in having followed the example set by Patrick Henry, who in the Spring of 1765, in his maiden speech as a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses rose to complain about King George III’s treatment of  England’s American colonies.

Said Henry, “Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell and George the Third — At that point he was interrupted by cries of “Treason!” from delegates who easily recognized the reference to assassinated leaders. Henry paused briefly, then calmly finished his sentence: “…may profit by their example.

If this be treason make the most of it.”

Good on you, Bob!

Once again, through  “shoe leather” research, through pain staking insistence on multiple sources, through a compilation aimed at accuracy and therefore fairness you have shown a light on the dark shadow lurking in the Oval office whose existence there threatens not only us but the whole world.

But we knew that.

Woodward’s portrait of a man-child, ignorant, self centered, vulgar, cruel and incompetent whose staff works frantically to suppress his dangerous instincts and wild schemes is a picture that has emerged for all to see  from the day Donald J Trump  swore an oath he did not understand and certainly has not upheld.

Still, the new detail Woodward has assembled is fascinating. A sample:

-Defense Secretary Mattis says Trump has “the understanding of a fifth or sixth grader.”

-Chief of Staff Kelly says Trump is “an idiot. It’s pointless to try to convince him of anything. He’s gone off the rails. We’re in Crazytown.”

-Former Economic Advisor Cohn says he stole a memo from Trump’s desk to keep Trump from acting on it in the name of the Nation’s security.

-Former Trump personal lawyer Dowd told Special Counsel Mueller that Trump could not sit down for an interview with Mueller because Trump would lie.

-Trump calls Attorney General Sessions “mentally retarded…a Dumb Southerner.”

Would that all this – and more since these are only a few highlights of a book yet to be read – make a difference. The White House can and already has branded Woodward’s account inaccurate but the author’s reputation, earned in the Watergate trenches and burnished through years of reporting on the powerful makes it difficult to dismiss it as “fake news.”

The truth is, the real Donald J Trump has been on display from day one for all to see but apparently nothing, no outrageous action, no ignorant move, no cruelty will sway about thirty two to thirty five percent of our nation’s population from blindly following and supporting him.

Woodard’s book will not change that.

I have come to believe (reluctantly, sadly) that Trump’s so-called “hard core base” is unredeemable.

The damage they and the spineless, selfish Republicans in Congress are doing our Country is, truly, “deplorable.”

The majority of Americans must stop them. Years ago when the hard right wing’s slogan was “Take Back Our Country” I said this  was not just their Country, it belongs to all of us.

Today, I say this Country belongs to any  who would follow the ideals laid down by our Founders, who would attempt to live up to the “better angels of our nature,” who would attempt to live by the “Golden Rule” and with obedience to the law treat others with understanding, civility and kindness.

We cannot stand aside in the name of “letting all flowers bloom” while weeds among us threaten to choke out the great blossoms of liberty and justice.

So, we must fight Trump’s “base” and check their ability to enable him to wreak his damage. We must fight them in the public square and at the ballot box. We must be relentless and unswerving in our resolve to destroy Trumpism and preserve the America we know.

When he heard Woodward was finishing a book about him, Trump called Woodward and said he would have talked to him if he had only known about it.

When Woodward detailed the many unsuccessful attempts he had made to get an interview Trump at first denied that anyone had told him Bob wanted to talk to him, then conceded perhaps Senator Lindsey Graham had mentioned it to him.

Here is a transcript of that exchange toward the end of the phone conversation.

“Trump: I’m just hearing about it. And I heard — I did hear from Lindsey, but I’m just hearing about it. So we’re going to have a very inaccurate book, and that’s too bad. But I don’t blame you entirely.

BW: No, it’s [?] — it’s going to be accurate, I promise.

Trump: Yeah, okay. Well, accurate is that nobody’s ever done a better job than I’m doing as president. That I can tell you. So that’s . . . And that’s the way a lot of people feel that know what’s going on, and you’ll see that over the years.”

And what about the stinging, contemptuous rebukes from Defense Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff Kelley, who clearly are among those who “know what’s going on,” as reported by Woodward?

Both men deny having said such things and in a tweet Trump claimed “Their quotes were made up frauds, a con on the public.”

Which reminds me of the time someone said President Reagan had “taken leave of his senses” to which Mr. Reagan replied “It takes one to know one.”

There’s not a lot more for me to say – in at least two pervious blogs (look them up if you will) I spoke my piece about this great American.

When Lincoln died, Stanton said “Now he belongs to the ages” or perhaps he said “Now he belongs to the angels,” either way expresses  both the depth and the profound greatness of the loss.

So it is with John  McCain, a patriot, a  hero and a good man. He belongs to us all to remember and to hold up to future generations as an example of what it means to have a “life worth living.” .

When the news came of his death I instantly thought of Shakespeare who said so many things better than anyone.

I had used Shakespeare’s line once before in a blog I wrote last September which was entitled “The Coward vs. the Hero.”

“A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once.”

Go in peace, John McCain.

 

Special Counsel Robert Mueller appears to be assembling a strong cast of witnesses for the case of Donald J Trump vs. the United States of America. And Signs are the play is about to begin.

The growing talk whipped up by Trump and his loyal acolytes, broadcast by  Fox Cable News and other “lap dog” outlets, that the Mueller Investigation is bogging down, going nowhere and must be ended is suddenly quieted by the conviction of Paul Manafort on eight counts of felonias action. A verdict that has strengthened Robert Mueller’s hand.

Why one juror, just one, prevented conviction on the other ten counts is not important – a Trump supporter, a personal grievance against the prosecution’s presentation and appearance, unable to understand the overwhelming evidence of guilt (aka “not very smart”) – does not detract in any material sense from a Mueller victory that further buttresses the fact that this investigation is legitimate, necessary and proceeding in a most workmanlike fashion.

Mueller’s list of witnesses, seen and perhaps waiting in the wings for starring roles, is impressive.

In addition to James Comey and other actors who encountered Trump from  outside of his orbit, let us consider some of the original Trump loyalists we know Mueller has assembled and some we suspect may join his cast.

Begin with Michael Flynn (former National Security Advisor) and George Papadopoulos (former Trump campaign advisor) who both pleaded guilty to criminal conduct and pledged to co-operate with Mueller. It is now said Papadopoulos is trying to find ways to break his bargain with Mueller which, I suppose, would be an unusual sight of a rat running up the hawser from a sinking ship.

But a truly starring witness has emerged in the name of Michael Cohen, Trump’s long time lawyer who once said he would take a bullet for Trump but who now is co-operating with Mueller in turning the gun around. Whereas others may provide Mueller with a drop of water on Trump’s forehead, Cohen is in a position to loose a Niagara Falls on the Donald.

And there are others,  including such former friends as David Pecker, the chairman of American Media, Inc., which publishes the National Enquirer.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Pecker has been granted immunity in exchange for giving prosecutors information about  Trump’s knowledge of  payments to two women who say they had intimate relations with Trump. Before Pecker switched friendships from Trump to Mueller he famously had the Enquirer pay one of the women, Stormy Daniels, a hundred and fifty thousand dollars for exclusive rights to her story so that it would not be published in the Journal or anywhere else.

“Bait and catch,” the technique of buying and thus burying a story is called. But Pecker finds that in his case it is a technique that has caught him.

However, all these other witnesses aside, there are three people I’m particularly interested in just now.

The first is Paul Manafort, convicted, yes, but praised by Trump because so far Manafort does not appear to be co-operating with Mueller.

It is said he is counting on a pardon from Trump. Silly boy. Donald J Trump is not loyal, will not keep his word with anybody, will do only what at the moment his cunning (if ignorant) mind tells him is in his own best interest.

And if it comes to pass that Manafort figures out his hole card is really a worthless Deuce and not the get-out-of-jail free Ace he thinks he has  he will flip, he will flip.

The second person I’m interested in is Donald McGann, Trump’s White House Counsel. What did McGann tell Mueller’s team in thirty hours (count them, thirty) of being interviewed beginning last November?

McGann’s personal attorney says McGann did not “incriminate” Trump in his answers to the questions asked. How could that be true?  MCGann was in on lots of stuff; the truth of the “goings on”  he witnessed may well show Trump to have broken multiple laws?

Did McGann lie under oath? If not, can those two propositions – He saw a lot but nothing he said incriminates Trump – both be true.

Yes.

McGann can testify to what he personally heard Trump say and what he saw Trump do. And when his testimony is weighed against other evidence of what Trump said and did, the contradictions – or support for a case of wrongdoing, even if unintended – may well be damming.

McGann doesn’t have to incriminate Trump directly in so many words but what he said under oath may well reinforce a case that Donald J Trump is, indeed, a “crook.”

My third “person of interest” as the cops say, is Attorney General Jeff Sessions who has pushed back forcefully and publicly against Trump’s latest assault on him. Sessions has “rolled over” time and time again when Trump  attacked and disparaged him publicly for  recusing himself from overseeing Mueller’s investigation because of his own involvement in the matter.

But now, well, here is a portion of the Washington Post’s account of Trump’s latest attack on Sessions and how Sessions responded

“Trump, speaking to Fox News Channel, said that Sessions “never took control of the Justice Department” and again faulted him for recusing himself from the ongoing investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. “What kind of man is this?” the president asked.

Sessions pushed back hours after Trump spoke, saying the Justice Department will not be “improperly influenced by political considerations. I took control of the Department of Justice the day I was sworn in, which is why we have had unprecedented success at effectuating the President’s agenda….,” said Sessions.

Whoa, horse, could Sessions have had enough?

“Ridden hard” and constantly being “put away wet,” is it possible that Trump’s original war horse would decide to tell Mueller everything he knows? Even at the risk of his own legal jeopardy?

As Sessions surveys his situation he also sees that his Republican “friends” in the Senate who have previously warned Trump not to fire him are beginning to sing a different tune.

Senator Lyndsey Graham says he won’t be surprised if Trump fires Sessions after the fall election since Trump “doesn’t feel comfortable with him” and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, who once pointedly told Trump his Committee would not be able to find time to confirm a new Attorney General, says, in fact. he would have time to do it later this year. Just stating a fact, not giving an opinion on what Trump should do, Grassley  said.

Ha!

Keep pushing and humiliating Sessions, President Trump, please keep riding him hard for not protecting you against the law, against your enemies as you believe any loyal servant of yours should.

Of course, the last Attorneys General who did that – John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst – were convicted of crimes in the service of their boss.

Richard M Nixon.

Mitchell was convicted of multiple crimes and spent nineteen months in prison. Kleindienst was convicted of refusing to testify accurately before the Senate (what a break in charging when the charge could have been perjury). He paid a hundred dollar fine and was given a suspended sentence of thirty days in jail.

Now, Trump asks contemptuously of his Attorney General “what kind of a man is this?”

Perhaps, Mr. President, you really don’t want to find out.

Yes, the actors for this play are assembling; the producer carefully writing a libretto of devastating impact for the audience of Americans who love their Country and want to see it “Restored Again.”

Curtain about to go up!

Rudy Giuliani (America’s Mayor?), now in the service of Donald J Trump,  explained on NBC’s Meet the Press why his client should not submit to an interview with Special Council Robet Mueller.

He said that  Trump might be falling into a “perjury trap” since, quote, “the Truth  is not the Truth,” explaining that someone’s statement of what is true may not be someone else’s  statement of what is true. Who , then, is to say what is the truth with such conflicting asssertions of the same thing?”

Such as if Trump says one thing and his accusor says another thing, for Trump to testify makes him liable to committing perjury if the other fellow’s statement is accepted over Trump’s by the Special Council.

Here is the link to the exchange with MTP host Chuch Todd:

Breathtakng. Truth is not the Truth?  Is America’s Mayor Crazy?

Like a Fox!

We are in the “end game” phase of all this and Donald J Trump and his band of selfish enablers know the vise is closing. Their last, great hope is to “muddy” the waters to the extent that the Amerian majority will somehow  not accept the findings of the Special Counsel.

So why not suggest there are “alternative” truths  – Trump’s and the Special Counsel’s?

Now really, consider: Did I rob the bank yesterday? I say I didn’t, the police say I did. Are these equal “truth’s” and if I give mine am I ipso facto in a “perjury trap?”

No, the evidence will show that I did or I didn’t, which “truth”  is backed up or not by the facts? And if I comitted perjury in saying I didn’t when the facts show that I did, was that a trap? No, the facts and my own lying tongue tripped me up, not a prosecutor’s “trap.”

And that is what the Trumpsters are so desperately afraid of, that the  facts as shown by evidence will pin Donald J Trump to the “Wall of Justice.” That is why Rudy Giuliani spews nonsense in the desperate hope that enough people will believe it.

Forgedda about it, Rudy. Give it up. You can’t win.

Emil Zola said it best in defending French Army Captain Alfred Dreyfus, who was falsely charged with treason. As a jew , Dreyfus had become a target in a time of extreme anti semitism.

Pointing to the mounting evidence of Dreyfus’s innocence, Zola said:

“Truth is on the march. And nothing can stop it.”

Dreyfus  was exonerated. And you, Donald J Trump, what will the unstoppable truth do to you?

We are no longer amazed when, after months and months of outrageous conduct, Donald J Trump sinks to a new low.

But it never occured to me that in a “fit” of anger he would have the audacity, really the supidity to move to revoke or threaten to revoke the security clearances of some of our Country’s most fervent patriots who have guarded us and our secrets so ably because they have openly criticized him and his policies.

This isn’t just another example of his “thin skin.” Or his stupidity. It is taking an action that hurts our Country and its standards of fairness, one that says citizens do not have a 1st amendment right to critcize him free from punishment.

Plato said Justice is giving each man his due. John Brennan’s “due” was not to have his security clearance revoked in a moment of narcisstic “fit,” but to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his service as CIA Director and in other important government posts.

Retired Admiral William McRaven, the officer who oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden,  has written a letter  to Trump which was also posted in the Washington Post.

He told Trump what he thought of Brennan and made a fierce, personal  request:

“He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.

Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.”

Here is the link to Admiral McRaven’s full article.

https://wapo.st/2OG8gCS?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.af27662d4a0

Of course, there are some who disagree with Admiral McRaven. One is Senator John Kennedy, Republican from Louisiana, not to be confused with the president who bore the same name.

This Kennedy, upon learning of Trump’s “fit,” called Brennan a “butthead” who doesn’t need the clearance.

I invite you to google Senator John N. Kennedy and upon reading of his latest antic in attempting to derail prison reform decide who it is that deserves the noble slam of “butthead.”

So, let me join Admiral McRaven and ask that my security clearances be revoked. There was a minor one when I was an officer on active duty in the U S Army for two and a half years in the mid-fifties. And there was another minor one when I held a White House press pass in the seventies, eighties and nineties.

I’m sure my clearances were revoked routinely long ago but if not, kindly add my name  to the list of those who would join McRaven in his protest over Brennan’s loss.

Lord knows I’ve criticzed and will continue to criticize Donald J Trump enough to qualify for his wrath.

When I contemplate what has been done to Brennan in this instance and to so many others through cruel and hateful actions and policies and by whom, a line from the movie Quo Vadis comes to mind (you know how I love old movies).

The scene takes place  in the time of the Emperor Nero – an insane ruler who not only burned Rome but murdered his mother. A Roman Senator who opposes Nero is about to take his own life in order to deprive Nero of the pleasure of killing him.

The senator dictates a letter to Nero letting him know how he feels about him as tbe “physician” cuts a vein in his arm.

And the line I like best is this one: “To be born in your reign is a miscalculation; but to die in it is a joy.”