The Screaming Moderate

I'm no lawyer but...

1/20/2020

The President’s defense team is going to argue that Donald J. Trump not only committed no crime but that abuse of power is not a constitutional violation.

So, no crime and abuse of power is okay.

This would mean the only way to remove a president from power is for him or her to commit a statutory crime.

With his caucus publicly firmly behind him, Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell is counting on keeping the 53 votes he has, which will mean an acquittal for Trump.

No matter your view of Trump, think what those arguments will mean if Trump is acquitted. This President will feel he has the freedom to basically do whatever he wants with his last year in office and his potential four more years in office.

With some guardrails in place, we thought there was some control on the President whoever it is. If those rails are taken away, it’s literally Katie bar the door! Think what that means for future presidents who want to make money rather than maintain the American people’s security. Or are in the pocket of a foreign government that can sway an election his or her way.

I was accepting of the fact that Trump wouldn’t be convicted but that was when I thought his legal arguments would be based on his claimed innocence.

Now, his acquittal would increase his power. There will be no check and balance on the President

Think what a Democratic president, too, can do if he or she feels that he cannot abuse power
This truly makes this trial more than a political trial and one that literally is about the future of this country.

If my non-legal background take is correct as outlined here, this truly can mean the end of the rule of law – and the end of this country – if Trump is acquitted. I do not believe that is overstatement.

We have to let our senators know how we feel as this trial goes on because if we don’t, those 53 senators – fearful of being the target of Trump’s wrath and his voters votes – can do as they please.

This is not about liking or disliking Donald Trump. This is about what we have believed our Constitution says about removing a President from office who has gone rogue on following the law or has sold his soul to an enemy of the country.

0 Comments

Trump thinks he's King (he isn't)

1/14/2020

1 Comment

Typical of President Trump’s style, he is creating his legacy without earning it. Among the things he takes credit for are:

Improvements in cancer survival rates (he actually has cut dollars for cancer research in his budgets)
The biggest tax reduction in history (it isn’t)
The best economy in history (it isn’t)
The leader of another country winning the Nobel Prize (he had nothing to do with it)
Saving “pre-existing conditions” in health care (he did the opposite)
Bailing out farmers hit by trade wars (he instigated those trade wars causing the farmers to lose that money)
Making it okay to say “Merry Christmas” again (he didn’t)

You get the idea.

Like most thing in Trump’s life, he figures if he claims credit often enough, he’ll get credit. (he won’t).

Trump apparently also believes that as President he has a license to kill. His various explanations of why he ordered the assassination of Iran’s top general has floated among several options – from we faced “imminent” attack by Iran to they were about to attack four of our embassies and his latest which can be summed up as “the general deserved to die for all the heinous things he did in his life.”

That is true, but apparently Trump now believes he can kill at will and answer to no one. Let me quickly add: NO ONE BELIEVES THE GENERAL’s DEATH WASN’T JUSTIFIED NOR IS ANYONE TAKING HIS SIDE AND DEFENDING HIS MURDEROUS DEEDS.

It’s just that the United States doesn’t kill without a legitimate justification. And, it’s important that the Congress, or at least the Gang of Eight, is notified.

He even thinks he can tell the Republican-led Senate to just dismiss the impeachment articles about to be sent its way without any kind of a trial (a trial he begged for to show his innocence). Seems if he is innocent, he would allow his people to testify under oath to that fact. No one holds back a witness who can clear his name.

Bottom line: Trump thinks, as we all know, that being President of the United States equals being King/Dictator of the country and he can ignore the Constitution (he can't).

1 Comment

When does the lying end?

1/10/2020

0 Comments

If you thought this was a politically polarized nation before, the killing of Iran's General Quasem Soleimani completed the deal. In the aftermath of the Trump Administration killing what everyone in the West considered a terrorist with American and other blood on his hands, we have seen Republicans pointing fingers at Democrats as the “only ones mourning the general’s killing.”

That’s far from what any Democrat has said but it is one line of attack some Republicans are using, including President Trump. But it doesn’t end with Trump, of course, it begins there. We have seen the formerly respected and former United Nations ambassador, Nikki Haley, go full Trump by being a leader of this chorus.

The woman who, on leaving the Administration, tried to balance keeping Trump on her side but not always agreeing with him, has now decided apparently that her future rests with Donald Trump. She clearly is all in with him.

Another leader in the “Democrats love terrorists” chorus is Rep. Douglas Collins (R-Ga.) who led the Trump defense in the House impeachment hearings and who said, “…they mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our gold star families who are the ones who suffered under Soleimani.” (I won’t go into how Collins’ North Star has treated gold star families when he was a candidate for president).

This line of attack while not being true is beyond disgusting. No Democrats love terrorists. Any more than any Republican loves terrorists.

But this is the depth our rhetoric has sunk to in the opening days of 2020. If you like what January has brought for political debate, just wait until Trump’s State of the Union address in early February which will probably be after the Republican-controlled Senate holds its trial on impeachment and clears Trump of any wrongdoing.

War, or near war, used to be where the political swords were put away in Washington. No more. I don’t believe there has been a President in my lifetime who has notified Congress before going to near-war or war. The timing of such decisions just don’t make it an easy notification to make. But, Congress does have a role (in spite of former Trump spokeswoman Sarah Sanders claiming the Democrats on the Hill’s efforts to “run foreign policy” violate the Constitution. Actually, what they’re trying to do is exactly what the Constitution gives them a role in.)

But, truth matters not a whit to Trump or his people. He lies and he has shown his people a new path in politics – the Politics of Lying. When the facts don’t help, don’t use facts – make them up. (I hear you saying “but all politicians lie.” Truth is, they don’t. And most don’t flat-out like as the President does).

Count me in on those who think the world is a better place without Soleimani. That isn’t the issue. The issue is what role Congress has in determining when the United States goes to war. They have a role. They have a right to information to make their decisions. We pay them as we pay the President, we have a right to know (not all classified information) but enough to know what the heck our tax dollars are going to.

(Tangent: The Treasury Department as we speak is trying to hide expenses for the President and his family when they’re on vacation. This is not how our government is supposed to work. We have the right to know. That's our money they're spending. And, one more thing, we learn more about what the President is doing in meetings with foreign leaders from those foreign leaders. Russia put out details of a Trump phone call before the White House even announced the call. And, Iraq announced it talked to Secretary of State Pompeo about removing our troops from Iraq when the official read out from State never mentioned that little detail.)

As we head toward the end of Trump’s term, you need to look ahead to a possible second term for him. If he has so ignored traditional norms (not that some of them shouldn’t be updated) in his first term, when he does have to face accountability in the form of an election, how much can he ignore or violate in a second term? The punishment for a President committing "high crimes and misdemeanors will mean nothing once the Senate clears Trump of his current charges. He will know he can, as he has throughout his life, beat the rap. Pay no consequences.

Trump sees himself as the all-powerful leader of the United States. He doesn’t seem to understand the Congress’ role in governing the country. He went to a foreign leader(s) seeking help in his re-eleciton campaign which is against the law, his people lie (I’ll explain) to the Congress when they go to brief them on a military action, and a 1000 other things, what will he do in a second term?

His folks lied to Congress when they briefed them on the Soleimani Operation. They apparently claimed that they could not share some of the intelligence with them because of its sensitivity. That is total baloney. The Gang of Eight, the top leadership in the House, is cleared at a very high level. And there are ways to offer information without identifying the source, if that is their concern. Plus, I wonder how much the President has told his cronies (yes you, Lindsay Graham) but won’t tell the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, a man who Trump’s “counselor” called untrustworthy in a TV interview.

Where and when does all this lying end?

0 Comments

When it comes to 2020, it is not a perfect world

12/26/2019

2 Comments

The 2020 presidential election is not one where you should vote with your heart. Vote with your brain.

I hear a lot of friends tell me things like, “I’m voting for Elizabeth Warren because she’ll tax the wealthy and help the little guy.” Or, “I’m with Bernie because he wants health care for all!” And on and on.

Some tell me they’re not supporting Joe Biden because “his time has passed.”

People, if your primary goal in the 2020 election is to defeat Donald Trump, vote with your head, not your heart.

Trump, guaranteed, will try to paint any opponent as a “liberal” and out of the mainstream of American thinking. Hell, when I was working for the Republican Party back in the 80s and early 90s, we won elections on that claim all the time!

That’s why liberals today call themselves “progressives,” so they can shed that liberal label.

I was talking to a friend the other day. He asked me who I was for in the 2020 election. I said I’ve been for Biden all the way. Why? He’s a good guy. He’s prepared to serve from the minute he takes the oath. Will he go down as the best president ever in our entire history? Doubtful. But that’s not what I’m voting for in 2020. I’m voting for the person who can lead AND who can beat Donald Trump.

If you really think Sen. Warren can win, go for her. But I think you’d be fooling yourself. She, and other Democratic hopefuls just cannot win, in my humble opinion. And, many of them will not be able to effectively take on Trump in debates, if he participates in them.

Joe Biden can definitely take him on and be a grown up about it. Remember Marco Rubio last time around? Trump started talking about his manhood and how it’s the biggest manhood the world has ever seen and what did Rubio do? He fell into Trump’s trap and started talking about his manhood. Can you say game over?

Plus, there are many in the Democratic field who will be perfectly fitting as a vice presidential candidate or Cabinet members, getting more experience to maybe some day run again. Biden probably won’t promise he won’t run for a second term, but he’s unlikely to.

If it was a perfect world I would agree. Biden’s time is passed. But because of Donald Trump, Biden’s time may have just arrived.

2 Comments

Lessons learned from the Twitterverse

12/12/2019

1 Comment

The other day I did something I rarely do. I commented on a Twitter tweet posted by a friend/acquaintance. I did it intentionally for one reason. I was, I thought, adding a clarifying fact to his post.

This friend/acquaintance I’ve known for about 30 years. He’s not a friend I’d spent any time with. He is more a professional friend. He, though, has nearly 400,000 followers on Twitter (I have 447 but that’s not the point). And his name isn’t important either because my learned lessons had little to do with him personally.

His tweet pointed out that CNN was not covering the Justice Department’s inspector general hearing live. I realized that CNN was teasing the hearing, but it wasn’t on air at that moment. What CNN did was make the news judgement that the opening statements by members – typically focused solely on partisan points of view – weren’t newsworthy so they didn’t carry them. They did, though, cover the hearing live when it moved on to the testimony.

So, I responded to him that fact. He responded within seconds pointing out that CNN did air the opening statements of the Democratic chairs on the impeachment hearings live but wasn't carrying the Senate's Republican chairman. He instructed me, “don’t defend their double standard.” I said something like, true but I could have lived happily not hearing those Democratic opening statements too. (I’m not exactly sure why he felt the need to instruct me what to do, but that’s not the key point either).

The news judgement was, apparently, that the impeachment hearings and the inspector general hearing on a report are not equal. Thus the opening statements had different import in each case.

Then the “likes” and comments came rolling through from my friend/acquaintance’s nearly 400,000 followers both “liking” his responses to me and, sometimes, adding their own. They said I was missing the point (though I’m not sure I really am. CNN made a news judgement like every other mainstream media outlet – print or broadcast – does all the time. I saw that as a correct judgement, they saw it as evidence of CNN’s bias against President Trump.) But that’s not the point either.

I don’t comment often on other people's Tweets but I do use Twitter as one platform for distributing this blog.

Even though my name on my Twitter account is “B. Jay Cooper” one responder said “perfect initials.” Obviously meaning the “BJ” and the various things (though he clearly had one in mind) that BJ can stand for. Frankly, I hadn’t heard such a brilliant comeback referring to my initials since I was in the fourth grade. (“Brava!” as Sirius Radio DJ Seth Rudetsky would say).

There were, literally, hundreds of “likes” or responses, some agreeing with my comments but the vast majority taking the other side and the other side in this case clearly wasn’t just my friend/acquaintance but President Trump's.

My first thought when I saw the number of responses (and they kept coming in the next morning and still are as I write this) was “do you have lives?” My second more reasonable thought was – the polarization of this country is even worse than I imagined.

Imagine, more than a hundred (I didn’t count them but Twitter apparently stops when it says “so and so and 98 others” responded. The vitriol. The, in some cases, immaturity. All because I pointed out what I (a former reporter) and other former reporters I talked to about it said -- CNN made the correct news judgement.

As Steve Martin used to say: “Well, ex-cuuuuuuse me!”

Folks, no leader is going to come around and fix us. We have to fix ourselves. You needn’t agree with me all the time nor I with you. But the vehemence of the responses needs to be dialed way back. We are no longer even coming close to arguing facts. We simply are have a knee-jerk, partisan reaction. That is no way to run a democratic country.

And I’m not talking just my experience on Twitter. I’m talking the bigger, more important picture. I watched a few minutes of the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the impeachment articles a bit ago. The Republicans were talking only about the Bidens (who have nothing to do with the topic at hand) and the Democrats were falling into the knee-jerk trap of defending Biden. I didn’t hear the name Trump or the country Ukraine at all for the 15 minutes or so I watched.

You may not agree that Trump should be impeached. That’s a legitimate opinion. But can’t this hearing, can’t this decision on Trump be made based on facts and not “facts” about Joe or Hunter Biden, but facts about what President Trump did or didn’t do? That’s the issue.

Imagine if President Trump had put up an honest defense to these allegations from the beginning. If he is innocent such a defense would be the right thing to do.

Now I have my view. It is affected, though, by the fact that Trump has stonewalled the investigation from the beginning. If he’s innocent, he should put his case forward, not hide behind Tweets and pointing fingers at others.

As to my new friends/acquaintances on Twitter. I was only trying to put some facts into the discussion.

My bad.

1 Comment

A new dimension...

12/10/2019

0 Comments

Each day when I wake up and, before I read the papers or listen to the news, I repeat the same mantra:

“You are traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. Your next stop, The Trump Zone!”

And today was another such day. At 9 a.m. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, surrounded by about six committee chairmen, announced two articles of impeachment against President Donald J. Trump.

At 10 a.m., Speaker Pelosi returned to the podium and announced agreement with President Trump on USMCA, the U.S., Mexico, Canada trade agreement.

A slap across the face. Then presentation of something that fulfills one of his campaign promises.

Let’s be honest: Nancy Pelosi is a political genius.

I don’t know if she lucked out on the timing of the USMCA agreement or stalled for the right moment but announcing it right after impeachment is brilliance. No longer can the Republicans make the specious argument that the Democrats are focused solely on impeachment and thus there is a lack of progress in other areas. They can chew gum and spit at the same time, ladies and gentlemen.

The House has sent the Senate about 400 bills that have received no action from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who learned this rope-a-dope style of leadership when he denied President Obama’s Supreme Court choice by simply doing nothing. He is doing nothing again, I assume because he sees that doing nothing drew him praise from his people. And he is proving excellent at doing nothing!

What Pelosi demonstrated though is that indeed our government can work even when we have major issues dividing us. Trump is trying to wrap up approval of many of his campaign promises as he heads into his re-election campaign, a way I assume for him to back up his phony claim that he is the “best President in our history.”

Next up on the impeachment front, the House needs to finish its process of passing articles of impeachment. Then the action shifts to the Senate where Trump wants a long trial so he can stage manage it to his liking. McConnell doesn’t want that, preferring the bare minimum because doing nothing isn't an option in impeachment.

Repeat after me: “You are traveling through another dimension…”

0 Comments

Return of the Oys! Yos!

11/18/2019

0 Comments

The Oy! Yo! awards have been on hiatus. Why? Not sure. But due to demand (don’t ask whose), they are now back!

Oy! to the Democratic presidential field for being, well, a huge meadow! Some are beginning to think the race for the nomination will drag to the convention (though, that always is the fear story when this happens on either side). But there are reasons this field needn’t be as large as it is, and is still growing. First, the vast majority of announced candidates have no chance of winning the nomination or the election. Get out! Your party’s goal is to beat Trump. How does your staying in help that? What keeps them in? Ego, ambition, selfishness, delusions of grandeur. For example, if Sanders alone would endorse Warren, or vice versa, one of them would be significantly ahead, not that I’m saying that’s a good thing but it could help to winnow the field.

Oy! former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a man who is extremely wealthy and has put his wealth to good use for many years. Don’t run! We have enough 70-year-old white men running. Suggestion: spend the money you would have spent on your campaign on doing more good than you actually can do as President – water for Detroit, for one thing, a columnist recently suggested.

Yo! and it’s a huge Yo! to the career bureaucracy in the federal government. Man after woman they are coming forward to testify, in public and under oath, about wrongdoing they witnessed, putting their careers and life’s work at risk. Why? To do the right thing. Sure there are exceptions to the rule (as there are to political appointees) but career employees are what keeps our country moving – no matter the party in charge. They are not the “deep state” that conspiracy theorists theorize. They are men and women dedicated to the Constitution and serving the country. Thank you for your service.

Oy! to President Trump for oh so many reasons but he earns this Oy! for attacking everyone who speaks against him – even those in his government! Great for morale, Mr. Trump, but you only succeed in making the bureaucrats you so despise look better for speaking truth publicly to you, unlike so many of your political appointees who hide behind anonymity to do the same.

While we’re talking about sycophants, another big Oy! to the White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, for so many reasons but most recently for stating the obvious this weekend and saying that while the President had a free weekend, he thought he’d get started on his annual physical a few months early and headed to Walter Reed. Most of his weekends have been free, Ms Grisham, as the schedule that your office puts out shows! An additional Oy! because no one believes he went to the hospital to get head start on physical. Who does that? In fact a third Oy! for contributing to the fact that few believe anything this White House says.

Another Oy! to Sen. Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, who went on TV this weekend to say the whistleblower who spurred the impeachment inquiry, “exposed things that didn’t need to be exposed.” Uh, senator, isn’t that what whistle-blowers do -- expose things that otherwise would not have been exposed? So in addition to your Oy! here’s a Captain Obvious Award to you too. P.S., Johnson also said “If the whistle-blower’s goal is to improve President Trump’s relationship with Ukraine, he utterly failed.” Uh, right, senator, because that wasn’t his or her goal. The goal was to disclose improper and probably illegal behavior by the President.

A joint Oy! to Vice President Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for not having their employees’ backs. Several State Department employees have now testified to the impeachment inquiry about alleged wrongdoing by the President. Pompeo has been silent. As Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Tom Friedman said in the New York Times this morning, “Any story on Pompeo touts that he was number one in his West Point class but he must have flunked all his courses on ethics and leadership. I guess he was really good in math.”

And for the Vice President, Trump has publicly criticized your senior staff member who will publicly testify this week but who testified in private already, saying she was aghast (my word) at the President’s behavior on his “perfect” call with the Ukrainian president. Uh, why is she on your staff if she’s so dishonest? And if she’s there because you respect her counsel, don’t lock her up, as the President would do, but back her up!

A Yo! to much maligned mainstream media who, during the Trump years, have rediscovered journalism and investigated and published stories to expose this Administration. Yes, they have made mistakes – trying to write history before its history kind of forces that. But for the vast majority of their stories, they have proven correct, despite the President’s strategy to tear down the Fourth Estate. The Yo! also is for practicing real journalism now that the White House briefing is gone. You see, you needn’t be “fed” news every day! Yo!, too, to the Fact Checkers major media have invested in who record all the lies or embellishments told by the President, and many others, to keep things somewhat honest.

0 Comments

Impeachment inquiry ... off and runing

11/14/2019

0 Comments

Episode one of the mid-season premiere of “You Bet Your Presidency” began with a significant plot twist in the opening monologue.

Ambassador William B. Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine and an appointee of President Trump’s, testified that one of his aides overhead a phone call between European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland, a top Trump donor and also appointee, and the President. When the call ended the staffer asked Sondland about it. The ambassador said Trump cared more about investigations of his political opponent than about Ukraine, offering the first direct evidence of Trump’s desires when it came to holding up military aid to Ukraine.

That didn’t stop Republicans from arguing that the witnesses never met Trump and therefore, I guess, couldn’t know what they were talking about.

And Season One was off and running!

Enough with "The Apprentice", Trump’s previous reality show, this one has more plot twists, more intrigue, more corruption! Watch it! Because that’s not all…

Yesterday’s first hearing in the impeachment inquiry was not “boring” as the White Hou, called it. It was a primer on foreign policy and Ukraine policy in particular. The two witnesses – Taylor, who is our acting ambassador to Ukraine, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent in charge of Ukraine policy at the State Department, were straight out of central casting.

Serious, sober, focused on answering questions but not offering opinions, like thousands of other career civil servants who dedicate their lives not to making money or policy but to providing United States' citizens with dedicated service. Kent, sporting a bow tie and vest, reminded me of Ducky on NCIS. But I digress…

Democrats, trying to put on their most serious faces because impeachment is indeed a serious business, and Republicans, trying to defend on the edges because they cannot defend Trump’s behavior, had at it from the first moments.

Taylor, in his testimony, explained that the Trump Administration had a regular channel for foreign policy led by the State Department and an irregular channel led by the President’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. The Republican counsel asked Taylor, “This irregular channel of diplomacy, it’s not as outlandish as it could be, is that correct?”

A Republican staffer behind the counsel rolled his eyes and Taylor, chuckling, said “it’s not as outlandish as it could be, I agree.”

Remember, now, that counsel was brought in to lead the questioning so publicity grabbing congressmen didn’t go off in crazy directions, and get off message.

When you don’t have the facts argue the…I don’t whatever you can grab I guess (similar to the President’s strategy toward women), is the Republican strategy toward the hearings.

Taylor and Kent, though, were of the Jack Webb School of Witnesses – just the facts, ma’am. In fact many columnists this morning compared Taylor’s voice and approach to Walter Cronkite’s, further evidencing his just-the-facts approach. As much as the President wants to believe this was an example of the “deep state” in the bureaucracy out to get him, this really was an example of career bureaucrats focused on their jobs and following the laws.

There was, of course, further associated inanity with the day.

Trump said he hadn’t watched a minute of the hearing but his Twitter account issued about 20 impeachment inquiry-focused tweets during the hearing.

And, Trump was also meeting at the same time with Turkey President Tayyip Erdogan in the White House. Erdogan is the leader Trump warned against attacking the Kurds after the U.S., on Trump’s orders, abandoned them mid-war. You may recall shortly after the warning, Turkey attacked the Kurds.

While Trump withheld a White House meeting from Ukraine’s newly elected president to add pressure to get his way, he gave such a meeting to Erdogan who ignored Trump’s “stern warning.” Are you following?

Shoeless Joe Jackson was an early 20th Century baseball player with what became known as the Black Sox Scandal. Jacketless Jim Jordan, a California congressman who doesn’t wear a suit jacket and can’t explain why that is, and Trump’s designated lead defender in the hearings (specially appointed to this position because everyone figured he’d be the best Trump defender), flubbed it when he delivered a long monologue demanding that the legally protected whistleblower whose letter to authorities started the path toward impeachment, be unmasked and brought in to testify!

Jordan launched into an extended monologue about how unjust it was that Democrats weren't allowing the committee to question "the person who started it all," referring to the whistleblower. "We'll never get a chance to question that individual," he said.

Peter Welch, a Democratic congressman from Vermont, retorted, "I'd be glad to have the person who 'started it all' come in and testify." Gesturing toward the witness table he said, "President Trump is welcome to take a seat right there." The chamber erupted in laughter.

This was only the first episode. Binge watching will ensue.

0 Comments

My president right or wrong?

10/30/2019

0 Comments

A couple of weeks ago, the President tweet-ordered Republicans in Congress to be more aggressive in their defense of him as a target of the impeachment inquiry. Like robots, about 30 or so of the Republican House members charged into the classified room being used by the inquiry committees demanding to be heard!

That delayed the hearings by a few hours. Also, about a dozen of those charging Republican elephants were on one of the three committees conducting the inquiry, meaning they already had access to the room. But that’s not my point.

For the last couple of days the President has been Tweeting that Republicans in Congress should stop criticizing the process and start defending him on the substance – meaning defend him against coming impeachment articles of abuse of power among other things, including that call with the Ukrainian president that so many now have testified about, confirming what the whistleblower said.

Here the Republican flock hesitates a bit because they don’t want to defend him on the substance, likely because many believe he has abused his office but they fear him.

This week, a decorated military man who is still serving took to the witness table before the impeachment inquiry testifying to behavior by the President that compromised national security. In response, the President and many in his Republican chorus criticized the colonel (who was criticizing his commander-in-chief - a huge deal). They called him an immigrant and implied his loyalty was to his birth country, Ukraine. He also is Jewish and to many Jews this “loyalty to another country” is a trope used against Jews for years because the anti-semitic trope implies Israel is their home country.

So, there are Republicans taking up the President’s knee-jerk instinct to attack anyone who crosses him.

Will the Republicans defend him on the substance?

Well, likely most will, yes, because they fear they will lose election if they cross Trump. Trump is the mafia boss in this scenario, and you don’t cross a mafia boss, ever.

All presidents, whichever party, want loyalty from their party’s members in the House and Senate. But none to the degree that Trump demands it. Literally blind loyalty because they have to trust he's telling the truth, something he has a bad record on. Cross him and his people find an acolyte to oppose you. Criticize him and you are attacked as an enemy of his.

Look at the record. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham criticized Trump during the 2016 campaign in no uncertain terms. But Graham has come to heel at Trump’s knee. Just as Trump said the ISIS terrorist “died like a dog” that’s also how Trump likes his supporters – heeling at his command like the dogs they are.

The impeachment inquiry is about to enter the next stage -- the stage Trump and his followers have called for – open hearings where the President gets to question witnesses, exactly how the process has been carried out before.

This will be better than the best courtroom drama on TV, watching as witnesses testify to his misdeeds. The president probably will have direct feeds into his supporters' ears so he can orchestrate his defense. Will his defenders want to attack a soldier in uniform who is doing what he thought he could never do – testify against his commander? They already have in a personal, inappropriate way. But will they contest his version of the facts?

The whole situation has gotten very slimy, led by the slimer-in-chief. If any one of his defenders thought he had a soul, they’re about to see he has none. He will attack anyone who attacks him, even a witness who spilled blood for his country.

This from the man who claims to be an admirer and booster of the military. The man who boasted when he took office about “my generals.” The man who has attacked each of his generals as they tried to get the President to do the right things for the country.

Trump’s mission is to win. Not for the country, but for himself.

0 Comments

If it quacks like a duck...

10/23/2019

4 Comments

Yesterday’s testimony by the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine must be a turning point in Republican senators and House members’ blind loyalty – fear, really – of President Trump.

Other than those who believe in conspiracy theories or the existence of a dark state in the government, you had to have heard the testimony not only as another validation of the whistleblower’s report on Trump, but a frightening tale of a President of the United States clearly using his office as a private throne to honor him and only him, and to serve only his selfish and childish needs. Our country is of the people, by the people and for the people. Not for Donald Trump.

He thinks the Russia investigation was a hoax? He thinks the whistleblower is a made up person? He should try believing that President of the United States attempted to extort another country’s leader to help him win an election. Who’d believe that would ever happen?

But, with Donald Trump it’s always “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet,” so I expect we will be hearing even more tales of a man who thinks the presidency is like a mafia boss who’s power is unquestioned and whose orders are followed…or else. Trust me, there is more to the story involving matters other than Ukraine.

If the GOP members of the House and the Senate can just acknowledge that their souls are worth more than being tied to the death with a man with a death wish, we could rid the country of this criminal in the Oval Office. Yes, he is a criminal. If you don’t think extortion of another leader is a quid pro quo, it doesn’t have to be. It clearly is a high crime AND misdemeanor.

I never thought Trump would be impeached by the House AND found guilty by the Senate. But how can you not vote to convict a man who used his office to extort to gain a domestic political advantage. Not to mention deprive an ally of millions of military dollars to defend itself.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said that if he could be shown evidence of a quid pro quo he would change his mind about the President being innocent. Lindsey, is this enough? A 50-year, respected man who has given his entire adult life to this country speaking on the record – does that do it for you? Along with the other evidence already on the table? If not, what the hell will?

And if it’s true that Trump tried to extort the Ukrainian president, what else has he done that we don’t know about? I mean besides getting wealthier by having foreigners stay at his properties? OR trying to award himself a big government contract? He blamed the Democrats and the media for that. No, it was his greed and belief that he is all powerful that did it.

Republicans, hasn’t this gone far enough? This is not a debate over whether we should have conservative or liberal judges. This is not a debate over how big government should be. This is not a debate about free education, or health care.

This is a debate over right or wrong.

Which side are you on?

4 Comments

<<Previous

I'm no lawyer but...

Trump thinks he's King (he isn't)

When does the lying end?

When it comes to 2020, it is not a perfect world

Lessons learned from the Twitterverse

A new dimension...

Return of the Oys! Yos!

Impeachment inquiry ... off and runing

My president right or wrong?

If it quacks like a duck...

Archives

B. Jay Cooper

powered by bjaycooper.com