Don McGhan: Patriot or Trump Enabler?

In the pantheon of American patriots who sacrificed position to preserve the republic and avoid a constitutional crisis, how would you rank former White House counsel Don McGahn?  

Is he worthy of adulation for thwarting the worst impulses of a petty president? Should we laud him for ignoring the rants of Donald Trump, the commands of a megalomaniac, the wanton dictates of a wannabe autocrat? For surely on more than one occasion, according to his own testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller, McGhan saved Trump’s presidency by not executing his orders. 

So where do you stand on McGhan? Patriot or enabler of tyranny for keeping Trump in the White House?

Before you respond, here’s a thought to muddle your thinking: Along with Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, McGhan is responsible for a decades’ long turn to the right in our federal judiciary. He managed the selections and confirmations of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and dozens of lower court judges appointed for life. 

Now what do you say? Is McGhan to be praised or reviled? Trump has him tops on his most current “s— list” because he has revealed the nakedness of Trump’s intellect and disdain for the Constitution. He spilled the beans—on the record—on the dysfunction in the Oval Office. He corroborated previously reported stories, based on sources, that Trump’s aides ignored his directives and assiduously worked to keep him from violating the law or corroding the government. 

Naturally, the denier-in-chief rejected the idea that anyone stifled his impulses, but testimony under oath to the contrary is difficult to rebut, especially since it came from several officials.

Yet, there are those judges McGhan put on the bench. Would America be better off if McGhan had resigned rather than helped Trump stay in office? 

Probably not. Because Mike Pence as a replacement president would have nominated those same judges, if not more conservative jurists. Liberal values were screwed no matter who served as president or counsel to the president as long as Republicans held a majority in the Senate. 

Ideology aside, it may be argued McGhan acted in the best interests of the nation. He forestalled a constitutional crisis. It will be interesting to observe how he reacts and responds to the subpoena Congress just extended to him. 

Attorney General William Barr, on the other hand, has openly displayed his bias. Rather than be the people’s attorney, Barr has shown himself to be Trump’s best defense lawyer. His repeated use of Trump’s catch-phrase “no collusion” was an open acknowledgment that he was conspiring with Trump to undermine the findings of the Mueller report. 

Collusion is not a legal term to be used in the context of the Mueller probe. Mueller found insufficient evidence to say there was a conspiracy with Russia to sway the election. He did not make a judgment on the question of obstruction of justice. Barr did, saying no obstruction occurred. But Mueller’s report provided numerous instances where Trump interfered with the investigation or its legitimacy. 

An unbiased attorney general would have let Congress decide the matter. He would not have pre-judged the question. Unlike McGhan, Barr added fuel to the fire of possible impeachment and constitutional crisis. 

A Poster Boy for the Supreme Court, But Will He Follow Kennedy's Lead To Protect Rights

If you could judge a judge nominated to be a justice of the Supreme Court merely from his public acceptance speech Brett Kavanaugh would be confirmed in a heartbeat. Unanimously. 

Sure, he spoke in hyperbole when he proclaimed Donald Trump’s “appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary. No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.” 

Donald Trump sought out the most diverse input before making a selection? Really!?! 

Just how many progressive voices did the divider-in-chief invite to the White House or to one of his golf or resort properties to discuss the qualities he should look for in a justice for life? No doubt he talked to gun lobbyists, and big business lobbyists, and anti-abortion lobbyists, and anti-immigration lobbyists, and anti-environment lobbyists. By lobbyists I am including elected Republican officials for they have, in effect, become part of the partisan network, rather than staying independent in their evaluation of issues and candidates. 

Let’s call it the Trump Effect. It is difficult to cite any action his administration has taken that has not rolled back advances in the quality of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans and peoples of the world. Even as he espoused his dedication to life Trump pursued a measure at the World Health Organization that would undercut the health of newborns by advocating feeding them infant formula rather than breast milk which is universally considered the best food they could consume. 

Judge Kavanaugh outwardly seems like a nice, all-American guy. A little shy and awestruck at the podium, gushing over his parents, daughters and wife. Young enough to coach his daughter’s basketball team. Not ramrod straight like Neil Gorsuch but someone fluid enough to tease his younger daughter about her incessant talking and have her be okay with it in front of a national audience. 

Just irresistible. Who wouldn’t want this dad to parse legal conflict for us all? (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-announcing-judge-brett-m-kavanaugh-nominee-associate-jus)

Kavanaugh clerked for his predecessor Justice Anthony Kennedy, as did Gorsuch. It has been said that Kennedy opted for retirement at this moment so a Republican president and GOP-majority Senate could pick and confirm a successor in his image.  

One wonders if Kavanaugh absorbed Kennedy’s compassion for the privacy rights of women and gay communities. Gorsuch apparently didn’t. He seems to be more in line with the originalist doctrines of Antonin Scalia whose seat he now occupies because Republicans blocked the centrist jurist Merrick Garland nominated by Barack Obama.

It will be up to Kavanaugh to sustain rights Kennedy protected. As Gorsuch has shown, clerks do not always agree with their bosses. 

If you didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton, or if you wasted your vote on a symbolic alternative candidate like Jill Stein, you relinquished the right to complain about Trump’s selection of his second Supreme Court justice and the near hundred lower court federal judges who will shape the direction of the country for decades. 

Forget about protesting or expecting Democrats to thwart his nominations. They don’t have the votes, not in the Senate now and, thanks to you and likeminded fools, not in November 2016. 

Fasten Your Seatbelts for Another Bruising Court Nomination Battle

There is no relief in sight. I’m not talking about the weather, which, depending on what part of the country you are in, continues to assault living creatures with floods, fires, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, mudslides, hail storms and excessive heat. 

No, I’m talking about nonstop big news events, some thrust upon us by Mother Nature, others part of the natural course of daily life, and still more by the actions, pettiness and peculiarities of Donald Trump (notice I didn’t mention principles as I do not believe he has any. And neither does he. How many remember a statement Trump made in the Oval Office to John Dickerson of CBS News last year? When pressed by Dickerson for his position on an issue, Trump demurred, saying, “I don’t stand for anything”).

It has been an eventful 18 months: Paris Climate Accords; NAFTA; Trans-Pacific Partnership; NATO; Russia Election Meddling; Neil Gorsuch; Iran Nuclear Deal; Jerusalem Embassy; Wedding Cakes for Gay Marriages; Muslim Travel Ban; Zero-Tolerance Border Policy.

Tweet after tweet on matters consequential and not. 

It will be up to late night TV talk-show hosts to get us through the coming travails.

Brace yourself for another bruising, months-long battle, the choice of a successor to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who announced his retirement Wednesday. Apart from the selection of a new member of the high court, bound to be hailed by Republicans, trashed by Democrats, the fiercest part of the confirmation debate may well be over timing—Senate Republicans will want to nominate and confirm prior to the midterm elections in November.

Democrats will be fighting to delay, delay, delay a vote. They will be using the court vacancy as another example of why citizens must register and vote in November so there can be a definitive counterbalance to the administration’s conservative tilt.  

But even if Republicans should lose their majority, newly elected senators would not take office until January, giving Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his caucus eight additional weeks to approve Trump’s choice. 

Keep in mind that just 51 ayes, not 60, are now required to end debate on Supreme Court nominations, a McConnell legacy from the Gorsuch confirmation process.

Minority Leader Charles Schumer will be tested to try and contain the process. Doubtful he will be able to succeed any better than the Gorsuch experience. 

Kennedy’s retirement also will place greater pressure on Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both in their 80s, to do all in their power to delay leaving the bench as long as possible, at least through the 2020 inauguration of what they hope would be a Democratic president. 

Pundit Hits It: Chris Hayes of MSNBC characterized Trump’s actions thusly: He treats those fleeing ISIS as if they are ISIS, those fleeing MS-13 as though they are MS-13. 

How sad that under Trump our nation has closed its shores to refugees. Did we not learn anything from our heartless response in the 1930s and 1940s to Jews seeking asylum from Nazis and the Holocaust?

Carson Was Prescient: Trump has tweeted his displeasure with late night TV comedians, specifically Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers, Jimmy Fallon and “that guy on CBS.” 

That guy is Stephen Colbert. Noting that Trump said they lacked the talent Johnny Carson had on The Tonight Show, Colbert Tuesday night agreed Carson had talent. And he played a January 31, 1992, Tonight Show clip proving he was a legend ahead of his time:. https://youtu.be/994SI2rT5JA (the clip is just 31 seconds long—worth the link. For those not familiar with Gennifer Flowers, she alleged having an affair with Bill Clinton while he was governor of Arkansas.)

Kasich Is All Cuddly But at Heart a Conservative

You have to hand it to John Kasich, the governor of Ohio, who failed in his attempt to secure the Republican Party presidential nomination but who continues to try to present himself as a reasonable, humane, thoughtful, non divisive alternative to Donald Trump should there be a vacancy, for any reason, at the top of the 2020 GOP ticket. 

Kasich appeared on Late Night with Seth Meyers a day before Trump delivered his State of the Union address Tuesday. He sounded soooo normal. And Meyers, usually a sharp observer of the political landscape, fell into the trap Kasich set. 

You see, Kasich is a conservative. His tone might be different, more pleasing, than Trump’s, but his substance, the outcome of his actions, were he to inhabit the White House, would not be materially different.

Like an old sweater one wears around the house, Meyers felt comfortable talking kumbaya with Kasich. (Here are two clips encompassing the totality of the interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ4sZY_RowM

and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnd-dyL5SIE) 

But Meyers never asked him any nitty gritty questions about what the Trump administration has done and if he would have done the same or acted differently.

What, for example, is Kasich’s position on coal? Is he in favor of softening environmental regulations on coal mining and burning? What’s his position on alternative energy sources? Would he permit oil and gas exploration along our coastlines?

Would he have nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court? In general, what criteria would he use in selecting federal judges?

How would he have fixed Obamacare? 

What are his beliefs on abortion and funding of Planned Parenthood for non abortion related activity?

What are his positions on NAFTA, the Paris climate accords, NATO, the Keystone Pipeline, the Trans Pacific Trade Pact, the United Nations, Jerusalem as the location of our embassy in Israel, the prison at Guantanamo Bay, the Iran nuclear deal?

How would he resolve differing views on the Dreamers? Would he build a southern border wall? What, if any, changes would he like to see in our immigration policy?

Does he believe Russia interfered in our 2016 election? 

Is he comfortable with the influence the religious right is having on government? 

Is the new tax plan acceptable to him?

Many of these questions can be answered by looking at Kasich’s Web site (https://www.johnkasich.com). For example, Kasich champions his opposition to abortion and funding of Planned Parenthood. 

We live today in a sound bite world. For Meyers (and, to be honest, lots of other TV hosts) to give Kasich and other politicians a soapbox to sound statesmanlike without providing specifics would result in saddling us with another Trump, albeit with a more teddy bear demeanor.

We would be shaking our heads and wondering how we got duped again. Meyers is an entertainer. I get that. But he has injected himself five nights a week into the political dialogue so he needs to step up from one dimensional attacks on Trump’s behavior to offer constructive alternatives. 

Have more respect for, and confidence in, his audience, that viewers want not just jokes but hard information when interviewing Kasich et al, as he has done with his Closer Look segments. 

Alternative Universe: What alternative universe does Donald Trump live in? Prior to delivering his State of the Union speech he said his goal would be to end the divisiveness that has existed in the country for many years. 

It’s a laudable objective but does he not recognize that he is a prime reason we are a polarized society? 

From his despicable advocacy of the birther movement questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency to his abusive comments, delivered live and in tweets, mostly about women but also about anyone who disagrees with him, to his embrace of neo-Nazi and alt-right leaders and members, to his denigration of national organizations such as the FBI and the CIA, Trump has done more to divide our country than any president of the last century. 

It’s no wonder that Kasich thinks being a “good guy” might be enough to propel him forward. 

Lessons We've Learned in 100 Days, Just 7% of a Presidency

What’s the betting line on Donald Trump hoping, wishing, praying that TV writers go on strike May 2, thus silencing his many late night television critics including Samantha Bee, Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers, John Oliver and Trevor Noah? 

The last strike, from Nov. 5, 2007, to Feb. 12, 2008, gave President George W. Bush a little breathing room, a 100-day respite from nightly deprecation, disdain, ridicule and humiliation.

100 days. Hmmmm.  Where have I heard that time span before?  Oh, yeah—100 days, as in the first 100 days of a new presidency.

The obsession with Donald Trump’s first 100 days sitting behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office is suffocating. The media, naturally, have a stake in advancing this obsession. It makes for good copy. Strong ratings. But let’s not give the bloviator-in-chief a pass. He, after all, last October at Gettysburg outlined in detail what he would accomplish during his first 100 days as president. He even issued a contract with the American voter.

Given that Republicans have tricameral control of the government—the White House and both chambers of Congress (actually, now that Neil Gorsuch has donned his supreme black robe the GOP has quatracameral control)—I would rate Trump’s tenure in office a solid B, not for achievement, but rather for the learning experience it has accorded us.

Let’s face it. Any Republican elected president was going to nominate a conservative justice to the Supreme Court. As well, a GOP president would cut funding to Planned Parenthood and international abortion providers/counselors, as Reagan and Bush I and Bush II did. And he (a she is still not possible) would be dismissive of climate change, though probably not as ignorant as Trump is. And he’d suck up to the NRA.

What Trump has provided is a civics lesson on checks and balances as intended by the Constitution. Moreover, he and his cadre of acolytes have shown us what autocracy and dictatorship can sound like, as when Stephen Miller said the president can do what he wants, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions denigrated a state (Hawaii) and a judge for thwarting the administration’s plans to punish sanctuary cities. 

It was reprehensible during the campaign when Trump maligned a federal judge involved in a lawsuit alleging fraud at Trump University. Trump is not a lawyer. He reacted tempestuously, as he does whenever confronted. But Sessions is a lawyer; he’s supposed to be the nation’s top lawyer. For him to question the checks and balances role of the judiciary as defined by the Constitution is a clear reflection on what the Trump administration thinks.

We also cannot ignore the lesson we have been given on the Holocaust, first by Trump not including any mention of the six million Jews killed by Nazi Germany in his statement on Holocaust Memorial Day, but also by Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s outrageously inept explanation of why Bashar al-Assad’s chemical warfare attack on his people was worse than what Hitler did during World War II. 

Trump and family and his appointments are a continuing lesson in conflict of interest examples. Be honest—had you ever heard the word “emoluments” before Trump? 

We’ve also come to appreciate the insidious actions Vladimir Putin and Russia have inflicted on our democracy and other elected governments around the world.

For his part, Trump’s near 100-day tenure has enlightened him to the complexity of government, from his difficulty getting Obamacare repealed and replaced to the layered relationship between China and North Korea. It’s not as easy as he thought, he has admitted. Too, while he criticized President Obama for issuing executive orders instead of working with Congress to pass legislation, and for excessive golfing outings, Trump has fallen into the same trap. But unlike Obama, his party controls both houses of Congress.

Populism helped transport Trump to Washington. Populism also is behind resistance to Trump, though maintaining a high level of involvement will be difficult to sustain for four years, or even 18 more months until the next congressional election cycle.  

Perhaps the saddest lesson of Trump’s nascent presidency is the susceptibility of a vast segment of the public to fake news. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found slightly more than half of Republicans (52%) believe Obama wiretapped Trump Tower despite there being no evidence it happened and numerous statements by heads of intelligence and law enforcement agencies that it didn’t happen. They believe it because Trump repeatedly said it did. 

It’s the “big-lie-repeated-often-enough-becomes-truth” syndrome. How sad that the American public has lost faith in traditional media to expose falsehoods. How sad that the American public has become so bifurcated that extremists on both sides of the divide set the national dialogue. How sad that “compromise” has become anathema to politicians. How sad that gerrymandering has negated the need to compromise. Perhaps not since the Civil War have families been so divided on the outlook for domestic tranquility.

It may seem longer, but Trump’s first 100 days is just 7% of his term of office (assuming, he’s not re-elected). How much damage could he do? David Brooks of The New York Times ended his Friday column calling Trump a “political pond skater—one of those little creatures that flit across the surface, sort of fascinating to watch, but have little effect as they go.”

I disagree. Trump will have an effect that may not be reparable in four or eight years on the global environment, on domestic clean air and water, on America’s standing in the community of nations, on our internal ability to work together as a people toward a common good. 

If ever we needed the escape of political satire to get us through the next 100 days and beyond it is now, so please, let’s not have a TV writers strike.

Flynn Debacle Reveals There's No Security Without a Confirmation Process

The country is nearing completion of a mostly bruising confirmation hearing process for Donald Trump’s cabinet, a prelude to what no doubt will be an even more debilitating and exhaustive fight over the Supreme Court nomination of Neil Gorsuch.

Even before we get to that high drama, we will be engaged in the possible resignation or dismissal dance of Trump’s national security advisor. The choice of retired general Michael Flynn was controversial from the get-go, but it could not be stopped as the position did not require congressional vetting or confirmation. 

But Flynn, whose reputation as a loose cannon preceded his selection, has apparently provided an audible example of his undisciplined howitzer-like disposition. Secret tapes of his conversations with the Russian ambassador prior to Trump taking office reportedly reveal he talked about the possibility of lifting the sanctions President Obama imposed on Russia. It would have been a violation of the Logan Act for a then private citizen Flynn to have done so. Moreover, he denied such conversations to Vice President-elect Mike Pence who proceeded to tell the American public no such dialogue occurred. 

Washington is a city where politics is a blood sport. Any hint of impropriety can, and usually does, mortally damage an official (just ask Hillary Clinton about her email server or Benghazi experience), especially someone entrusted with the nation’s security.

Of course, we’re dealing with Donald Trump here, a man who never likes to retreat, so he may well excuse Flynn’s misconduct as he did last week with Kellyanne Conway’s shilling of his daughter Ivanka’s apparel line on Fox News, a violation of federal law.

Back to the confirmation process. Mostly, so far it has been what might indelicately be called a “circle jerk.” Even Betsy DeVos, who provided eminent evidence that she lacked essential knowledge of the department she would oversee, passed the low hurdle Republicans have set for the people to whom they are willing to commend our nation’s future.

Chalk it up to politics. Get used to it, at least for the next two years, probably four and, god forbid, six or eight.

But as disheartening as the process has been in having a cabinet chosen and consented to by the Senate, at least there was some vetting, some disclosure of the thinking that informs and propels the men and women who will have the president’s trust and ear.

Nothing of that confidence and assurance has been afforded the public for the individual who has Trump’s most immediate access (and I’m not referring to Melania). What do we really know about Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, other than his employment history at Goldman Sachs and most recently the alt-right media site, Breitbart News?

For sheer terror-of-an-answer read the following Huffington Post analysis of Bannon’s apocalyptic thinking. Read it and wonder how it is possible that our laws do not require public inspection of the chief strategist to a president and to anyone named to a president’s National Security Council, as Bannon most recently was. Read it and cower under your blanket: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5898f02ee4b040613138a951?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Steve+Bannon+Believes+The+Apocalypse+Is+Coming+And+War+Is+Inevitable&utm_content=Steve+Bannon+Believes+The+Apocalypse+Is+Coming+And+War+Is+Inevitable+CID_df955470d3be4aaf6b5fb08f4740df70&utm_source=Email+marketing+software&utm_term=Read+More&