I have previously written about my dismay over verbal and even physical attacks on politicians, particularly conservatives, in restaurants. Liberal couples and activists believe that they have license to scream and disrupt meals of those with whom they disagree politically. The latest such abuse occurred when Sen. Rand Paul was trying to have lunch at a California restaurant with his staff when a couple began to shout profanities at them.
Below is my column on the ABC interview with Hunter Biden. The interview preceded his father’s debate that day, but former Vice President Joe Biden awkwardly declined to address the issue. As I discussed in another column, there remains a media mantra that there is “no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe or Hunter Biden.” That dismisses the long objections by many of us that these lucrative jobs and contracts for spouses and children are part of an unethical and corrupt practice. Most of us view what Hunter did as clearly “wrong” but the media has adopted a narrow focus on whether criminal charges have been brought as opposed to whether the Ukraine deal was a raw and obvious form of influence peddling.
Ouch. Many of us were surprised when President Donald Trump launched into former US defense secretary James Mattis at his controversial meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Trump referred to him as “the world’s most overrated general” and claimed “I captured ISIS.” Mattis, who has been largely silent after his departure, delivered a body blow of a response as part of the annual Alfred E Smith Memorial Foundation dinner. Using the tradition roast format, Mattis found the perfect venue to hit Trump under the guise of humor. True to his training, the well-delivered lines aimed for critical organs. It could be worse: David Cameron just labeled Boris Johnson the “greased piglet” and meant it as a compliment in getting Brexit through Parliament.
There is another poll showing a significant increase in support for the impeachment and removal of President Donald Trump. What should worry the White House is that among the 52 percent of Americans now supporting impeachment in the Gallup poll is a rising number of key independent voters. These various polls reflect, in my view, a continuing failure of the White House to reframe its impeachment strategy and narrative. It is not working. In the end, impeachment could end with a simple party muscle vote but that is not going to win over key voters like independents. There is clearly damage below the water line for the White House and the control of the Senate could rest in the balance.
President Donald Trump has steadfastly refused to release his tax documents and is continuing litigation in both D.C. and New York despite rulings against him to bar the disclosures of prosecutors or congressional committees. Now, ProPublica has reported that it was able to review tax and loan documents for New York properties that show disturbing major discrepancies in reported expenses and profits.
Over the years, I have been highly critical of the performance of Rudolph W. Giuliani as counsel for President Donald Trump. Nevertheless, I was floored by a story in the Washington Post this morning that Giuliani pressed Trump to transfer an elderly Turkish cleric, Fethullah Gulen, to Turkey where he is widely expected to be tortured and killed by the authoritarian Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. If true, the effort by Giuliani would succeed in reaching a new low in the various scandals swirling around the White House. Notably, former national security adviser Michael Flynn was reportedly working on the same effort, which I previously criticized as one of lowest tasks ever undertaken for profit. The story reminds me of the old joke about why scientists have started to use lawyers rather than rats in experiments because there are certain things that even rats won’t do.
President Donald Trump responded to the release of tapes from CNN this weekend showing a strong anti-Trump bias and agenda at CNN. The tapes were no surprise to many of us who have criticized CNN for its open advocacy against Trump and slanted coverage of political and legal issues. However, Trump again returned to his continuing call for lawsuits against the media over the issue: “Does this sound like a good, or even great, lawsuit?” The answer is no, Mr. President, it does not.
It appears that social justice causes have a strict geographic (and financial) limit — at least for NBA player LeBron James. James, who has defended such protests as the NFL kneelers, ridiculed the tweet by Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey in supporting protesters in Hong Kong fighting for the most basic human rights and democratic power. James said that Morey was “misinformed” and an example of being “not informed about something.” What was Morey misinformed of? The denial of free speech, democratic rights, or basic human rights? How about the threat of Chinese President Xi Jinping to fill the streets with “crushed bodies and shattered bones“? The view of the NBA, and James, appears that Morey was not informed about the billions of dollars to be made in China or the price of supporting people fighting for freedom.
A videotape (shown below) by Trump supporters has horrified Democrats and Republicans alike in depicting Trump savagely murdering his political opponents like Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden while wiping out media figures. It is a take-off of the church massacre scene from the 2014 film Kingsman: The Secret Service with Trump superimposed for one of the main characters, Colin Firth. The delay in denouncing this film is only fueling the recriminations. I have previously criticized Trump for his reckless attacks on American media as “the enemies of the people.” There is no evidence that this video was approved or even known by the Trump campaign. I assume that it would have been taken down immediately if it were known (as it happened when organizers ultimately learned of its screening). However, there is a rising concern that Trump’s over-heated rhetoric against the press has fueled the anger of some supporters.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the media treatment of the Hunter Biden controversy in Ukraine. I continue to marvel at the non sequitur in the mantra that there is “no evidence of wrongdoing” in the contract. What does that mean? Is the sole measure whether the Ukrainians (or even the U.S.) would prosecute a contract as a crime? Wrongdoing would seem to cover any form of corruption or influence peddling — whether or not it constitutes a crime. The fact is that the payment of sweetheart deals to the spouses and siblings is common in both the Ukraine and the United States. Does that make it right? The suggestion is that there is nothing wrong with this contract. Wrongdoing would seemingly include ethical violations and not just what Ukraine would prosecute as a crime (a curious standard for one of the most corrupt countries on Earth). Indeed, many of us have criticized Trump for sometimes suggesting that the criminal code as the measure of presidential conduct. With Biden, Democrats seem to be doing the same thing in dismissing any objections since “it is all perfectly legal.” If that is the case, then most of the criticism of Trump’s conduct can be dismissed as devoid of “evidence of wrongdoing.”
The fact is that there is a great deal wrong with this contract and no one has actually put forward evidence to suggest that the Ukrainians seriously selected Hunter Biden for his energy or business experience. What is left is a raw effort to curry favor with his father with an unjustified and lucrative contract.
I recently wrote a column on the growing taboo in the media over mentioning the actual facts, or even name, of Hunter Biden and his dealings in the Ukraine. Yesterday, former Vice President Joe Biden addressed the issue . . . sort of. Once again, he was not pushed to deal with the specifics of the dealings or the overwhelming view that the contract was a raw effort to influence him through his family. Instead, Biden continued the mantra that there is no proof of wrongdoing and then added that “no one — no one — has asserted my son did a single thing wrong.”
As part of the Turkish Government’s invasion of Syria and attacking of Kurdish border towns–officially known as “Operation Peace Spring”–pro-Ankara mercenary forces began the execution of civilians in Tel Abyad. This included the assassination of a prominent Syrian Kurdish leader and her driver.
Hevrin Khalaf and her driver were “taken out of her car during a Turkish-backed attack and executed by Turkish-backed mercenary factions”, the political arm of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) said in a statement. “This is a clear evidence that the Turkish state is continuing its criminal policy towards unarmed civilians,” it added. Khalaf was the secretary-general of the Future Syria Party.
Why do we as a people accept and permit one occupational group to initiate killings of other human beings on a national scale but nearly all other occupational group members, who might carry animosity against others, are penalized up to the death penalty should they kill only one person? It might sound preposterous, yet that is exactly the duality we accept as normal–that politicians at national levels especially may lay waste to others and that is simply part and parcel of “diplomacy” and the “laws of war”. Yet if an ordinary citizen dislikes his neighbor so bitterly the act of stepping on his property alone may send the citizen to jail. The animosity and will to retaliate is the same, but the domain and system of accountability could not be more vastly divergent.
The stem of this license to instigate homicide at a permissible level by national leadership has been endemic in human history to such a perverse degree, people today have come to regard the killing of others by these leaders as normal human interaction, that wars are inevitable, and that lives and societies will be upheaved.
