When a known liar calls someone else a liar

Call me a crazy, but I have a few stupid questions.

– When a known liar calls someone else a liar, whom should you believe?

– When a known liar says everyone is against him, including the media, the deep state, and those who just don’t like him, whom should you believe?

– When a known liar has to consistently adjust his story or tell you what has been recorded was never said, whom should you believe?

– When a known liar consistently says things without factual basis, to the extent the media is obligated to report it as such, whom should you believe?

– When a known liar parrots conspiracy stories that come from highly dubious sources, then echoes them as a true, when other sources repeat what he said, whom should you believe?

– When a known liar, whose history includes suing people and entities or sending cease and desist letters under the threat of lawsuit when they have unflattering information, sues to stop the release of a book being published, whom should you believe?

This person has said the author of an unflattering book “is a liar.” Yet, this author corroborates sworn testimony by very reputable diplomats under oath, who testified at a great risk. This author added the sworn testimony and impeachment hearings did not go far enough, as the same modus operandi was used with other countries.

Whom should you believe? The person whose fixer attorney called “a racist, a con-artist, and a cheat” under oath or the one whose book that person does not want you to read?

Help me define the best (or worst in this case) metaphor of the Trump presidency

After the most recent incredulous statement by the US president about ingesting disinfectant as a possible cure for COVID-19, I felt this Marie Antoinette moment might be a metaphor for his presidency. Yet, there are truly many contenders for such a distinction.

Below are twelve top of mind statements or actions that could be considered. Sadly, there are more to choose from. So, readers please let me know your top three, including others I may have overlooked.

1. Ingesting disinfectant – he has to tried to explain this away as sarcasm, but to see Dr. Birx trying to avoid eye contact when he asked her what she thought is telling.

2. Sharpie gate – this is when the president played meterologist and scared the state of Alabama by drawing on the map the hurricane may hit them. This was an unforced error thst aides spent a week trying to diffuse.

3. Firing Comey without telling him – for a person who liked to say “You’re fired” on TV, the president cannot bring himself to fire soneone in person. James Comey found out he was fired via TV news. But, Trump failed to tell his Communication team, so Sean Spicer was hiding in the White House bushes with staff to plan what to say.

4. First travel ban – Trump likes to use the word disaster to define anything he did not do. The first travel ban was so disastrous, it waa pulled after two days. The president failed to vet the change with various stakeholders including the people who would need to conduct the ban. So, people did not know what to do and the lines were long.

5. India/ Pakistan brokering peace deal – this faux pas did not get much air time, but the president announced in front of the Pakistani leader the India prime minister asked him to broker a peace deal between the two countries over the Kashmir conflict. Within the hour, India put out a press release saying no such request was made.

6. Tariffs paid by China – the president has said this at least a dozen times, so it may be a good candidate because of its staying power. Trump likes to say China is paying the tariffs. Economists correct him each time saying US importers pay the tariffs which are passed onto the consumers. So, we pay the tariffs.

7. Extorting Ukraine – after watching a parade of reputable public servants testify under oath at a great risk with such a vindictive president, Trump was impeached over extorting Ukraine for personal gain. He likes to focus on one phone call, but if that call was so “perfect,” why did his staff try to bury it?

8. Siding with Putin over CIA – in Helsinki, standing side by side with a man who is KGB trained on disinformation, Trump sided with Putin over the advice of his intelligence people. Senator John McCain wrote an op-ed piece to blast the president’s words as “traiterous.”

9. Pulling out of Paris Climate Change Accord – the president’s stance on climate change was my worst fear going in. So, he announced pulling out of the Paris accord on June 1, 2017, the day following Exxon shareholders voting for management to tell them what Exxon is doing to address climate change. When we exit, the US will stand alone in the world.

10. Transgender in military – the announcement to ban new transgender people in the military got the press, but the decision process is the metaphor. Per the book “Fear” by two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Bob Woodward, the president announced his decision by two tweets around 10:05 one morning saying the Joint Chiefs of Staff and he had decided to do this. Problem is they had not. The time is important as the Joint Chiefs waited downstairs to meet with the president to go over four options and the pros/ cons of each. The president was told of this and asked when would be a good time to meet. This is a key reason DOD James Mattis abruptly said that a tweet is not an order.

11. Wandering alone at G20 – this was a sad to watch as the president wandered the tables looking for someone to talk with after dinner at a G20 meeting. He finally wandered over to meet with Vladimir Putin alone, a very scary situation with a very informed leader and Trump, who does not study history or issues. Plus, it is a metaphor that he would gravitate to Putin’s table rather than an ally of our country.

12. Bragging on fixing the economy – this is the most relentless of topics and, until the virus hit, was his claim to fame. The problem is he did not fix the economy. Yes, economic growth continued under his watch, but when he was sworn in on January 20, 2017, the US GDP was in its 91st consecutive month of economic growth (that is seven plus years), the stock market had more than doubled under Obama, and unemployment was under 5%. Presidents get too much credit and blame for the economy, but for Trump to say he fixed the economy is untrue – it was not broken He has added both short term tailwinds and long term headwinds.

So, that is a dirty dozen, so to speak. I wanted to limit them twelve, so leaving off Charlottesville, his rallies, his ignoring the early warnings on COVID-19, or just his litany of routine, daily untruthfulness or beating up on the press, etc. proved difficult. Let me know your top three choices. Please feel free to add any others. It is funny, depending on how I want to focus my attention, I could pick a different three – is impact, continuity, or inanity the best measure?

Witnesses would help – draft plea to Senators and press

In addition to hearing from John Bolton, it would also be interesting to hear why Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats submitted his resignation on July 28, 2019 and why his well-respected right hand Sue Gordon was forced out in August, 2019. The timing of their departures is concerning and reinforces my concerns over the heightened national security risk by the alleged White House actions in Ukraine.

This independent and former GOP voter would also like to hear from Rudy Giuliani, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence and his aide whose testimony was denied. We need to get to the bottom of this regardless of whose party is in the White House.

We cannot have a president acting the way the incumbent does and is alleged of doing. The nonpartisan GAO determined the withholding aid to Ukraine is illegal. Plus, 63% of Europeans find the US president untrustworthy, a worse ranking than that of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jingpeng. What does that say about us if we did not hold the president to account?

A few why questions – sample letter

The following is a draft letter I forwarded to my newspaper. It is short and sweet given their word limitations. I hope they will print it. Please feel free to adapt and use if you like the concept:

I am troubled by a few why questions:

– why did White House staff try to hide the president’s so called perfect call?
– why would Ukraine leaders meet with Lev Parnas if he did not have the “juice?”
– why would real diplomats be kept in the dark by the Giuilani/Trump shadow diplomacy?
– why did Rep. Devin Nunes not recuse himself if his name appeared in the Parnas documents?
– why do 63% of Europeans feel the US president is untrustworthy (per a recent Pew survey)?

Please feel free to share any success or sample letters that you have gotten printed or sent to Senators and Congressional representatives.

Parnas evidence, GAO assessment on Ukraine funding and Yovanovitch intimidation

As the Donald J. Trump impeachment trial started out with the serious and sober presentation of the articles of impeachment and swearing in by the Chief Justice, two news bullets of the last two days are shaping the trial. With the evidence from Lev Parnas, who is one of Rudy Giuliani’s henchmen, and his interview that notes “of course Trump knew” what Parnas was up to, coupled with the non-partisan GAO stating Trump’s withholding of funding of Ukraine broke the law, the president and those close to him have questions to answer.

As an independent and former Republican voter, I have been asking Senators for some time to call witnesses as we need to get to the bottom of this. I want to hear from Messers. Bolton, Pompeo, Giuliani, and Pence among others. Rep. Adam Schiff noted nine witnesses that Trump denied access to obstructing Congress. Having watched these honorable diplomats and public servants testify under oath and at great risk, having watched Rep. Devin Nunes not recuse himself from the questioning since his name shows up in the dirt gathering, and seeing the president’s people try to hide the “perfect phone call” from view, I have concerns about the president as a national security risk.

I am also concerned about the treatment to defame and intimidate an honorable diplomat named Marie Yovanovitch as she would not play ball with the Giuiliani and Trump narrative. This is beyond bad behavior and could be criminal. But, there is one thing I am very clear of as he did it out in the open – the president obstructed Congress. How any reasonable person could say otherwise is beyond me. We are not a kingdom – we are a Republic with three equal branches of government.

Politico published the attached piece called “Parnas and Ukraine bombshells jolt impeachment trial” yesterday. Please click the link below and read the article. It is important. It is up to Americans to demand the Senate to remember their oaths to the Constitution and that oath they just took with the Chief Justice.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/parnas-and-ukraine-aid-bombshells-jolt-impeachment-trial/ar-BBZ1PJl?ocid=spartandhp

There is a reason the US president does not want people reading evidence

In an editorial by Neal Katyal and Joshua Geltzer yesterday in The Washington Post called “Lev Parnas and Rudy Giuliani have demolished Trump’s claims of innocence” (see link below), it lays bare false reasons of the US president using strong-arm tactics in Ukraine. Per the editorial:

“Americans who have been wondering why President Trump has taken the extraordinary step of trying to block every document from being released to Congress in his impeachment inquiry need wonder no longer. The new documents released Tuesday evening by the House Intelligence Committee were devastating to Trump’s continuing — if shifting — defense of his Ukraine extortion scandal, just days before his impeachment trial is likely to begin in the Senate. These new documents demolish at least three key defenses to which Trump and his allies have been clinging: that he was really fighting corruption when he pressured Ukraine on matters related to the Biden family; that Hunter Biden should be called as a witness at the Senate impeachment trial; and that there’s no need for a real, honest-to-goodness trial in the Senate.

The most basic principles of constitutional law require relevant information, including documents and executive branch witnesses, to be turned over to Congress in an impeachment proceeding. Particularly because sitting presidents cannot be indicted, impeachment is the only immediate remedy we the people have against a lawless president. For that remedy to have any teeth, relevant information has to be provided. That’s why President James Polk said that, during impeachment, Congress could ‘penetrate into the most secret recesses of the Executive Departments … command the attendance of any and every agent of the Government, and compel them to produce all papers, public or private, official or unofficial.’ No president, not even Richard Nixon, thought he could just say ‘no’ to impeachment. That’s why the House added Article II to Trump’s impeachment: ‘Obstruction of Congress.’ It was a response to an unprecedented attempt by a president to hide the truth.

The documents released Tuesday show what Trump has been so afraid of. For starters, they prove that his already-eyebrow-raising claim to have been fighting corruption in Ukraine was bogus. Notes taken by Lev Parnas — who is an associate of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and is now facing federal criminal charges — show what his and Giuliani’s mission was when they got in touch with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky: “get Zalensky to Announce that the Biden case will Be Investigated.” Look hard at the real goal here: not to prompt an investigation of Hunter Biden, but to score an announcement of a Biden investigation. Pursuing an announcement, rather than an investigation, makes sense only if Trump’s objective was to dirty the reputation of Joe Biden, a leading political rival.”

There is not much to add as this article and the above three paragraphs speak volumes. In a nutshell, it is yet one more example of why taking Donald J. Trump at his word is a fool’s errand. It is also is more evidence as to why Trump is the most corrupt and untruthful president in my lifetime, including Richard Nixon, who incorrectly said he was not a crook.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinions-lev-parnas-and-rudy-giuliani-have-demolished-trumps-claims-of-innocence/ar-BBYYE1P?ocid=spartandhp

The obvious answer

The US president wants people to testify in a Senate trial, but not those who may know more about what he did. Yesterday, he tweeted he wanted Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff to testify.

The answer is obvious. Pelosi should say “I will gladly testify if you will as well, Mr. president.” And, Schiff could say “I will gladly testify if Rudy Giuliani or John Bolton will.”

To be frank, I would like to see the following people testify in addition to Trump, Giuliani and Bolton, given their knowledge of what was happening:

– Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
– Vice President Mike Pence
– Pence’s aide he keeps blocking from testifying
– Former White House Counsel Don McGahn
– Former Dir of Intelligence Dan Coates
– Former Deputy Director Sue Gordon

The departure over Coates and Gordon is not mentioned, but their being asked to leave happened around the time Bolton left and before the public awareness of the infamous phone call.

Call me crazy, but I find it interesting that McConnell does not want people to testify. And, per his history, the president is the last person that should testify given his untruthful bent.

Three why questions

Tell me why, three why questions have not sunk into more people’s minds about the Ukraine mess caused by the US president?

– Why did people who heard the “perfect” phone call try to hide it?

– Why does the US president want witnesses called, but prevents those in the know from testifying?

– Why don’t more people believe hard working, honorable public servants who testified under oath at great risk instead of a person who is known to be cavalier with the truth?

I would like to hear some answers to these three why questions starting with people named McConnell, Graham and Barr. This American would like to hear from folks like Mulvaney, Pompeo, Giuliani, and Pence under oath. Tell me why I should not be able to do so?

Two powerful quotes

Two quotes. One from Carl Sandburg, the other from Samuel Clemens, or Mark Twain, as he is better known.

I was reminded this weekend of the quote from Sandburg in an editorial by Ned Barnett of the Raleigh News and Observer. The context for the editorial which included the quote, is the receved death threats toward Michael Gerhardt, an impeachment expert after he testified that Trump should be impeached.

Referencing the “histrionics of the Republican members,” Gerhardt cited Sandburg, “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”

I have cited the Twain quote several times. It defines the difficulty in changing the impressions of Trump supporters. Twain said “It is easier to fool someone, than to convince them they have been fooled.” Sadly, this quote needs an addendum to update it for modern social media and biased news sources.

The addendum is “It is even harder when the person doing the fooling controls the sources of information of those fooled.”

Per Trump, the impeachment document is filled with “fake news.” As I have said countless times, the biggest purveyor of fake news in America is Donald J. Trump and it is not even close. Sadly, his sycophants are oblivious to this observation. As Thomas Wells, an attorney who worked for Trump for years, wrote before the election, “Donald Trump lies everyday, even about things of no consequence.”

Think about this third quote as you ponder the more famous two.

Christianity Today editor advocates for removal of Trump

Per Politico, in article called “Top Evangelical magazine calls for Trump’s removal” by Eli Okun:

“The impeachment — and removal from office — of President Donald Trump gained an unlikely supporter Thursday: the country’s top evangelical Christian magazine.

Christianity Today editor-in-chief Mark Galli wrote in an editorial that ‘the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.’”

Maybe the ice is beginning to crack on the control Trump has on his fervent base. Maybe, if it cracks more, the Republican legislators who are bending over backwards to rationalize the corrupt and untruthful behavior of the president will recognize the negative force of the dark side.

Please help promote the voices of these dissenting folks from within his base. This is the only way to help crack that ice.