By now you’ve probably heard the Washington Post report that Alternative President Donald J. Trump revealed
highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and an ambassador
during a White House meeting last week. The article quotes “current and former
U.S. officials” who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of
intelligence on the Islamic State.
Shortly thereafter, Trump trotted out his National Security
Advisor, H. R. McMaster, to deny that intelligence sources and methods were discussed,
or that Trump disclosed any military operations that weren't already publicly
known. “I was in the room,” McMaster said. “It didn't happen.”
The problem is, McMaster denied something that wasn’t even
reported in the Post (oh look, another shiny object). He might as
well have denied that Trump was the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll, or that
he sabotaged the Hindenburg, because the newspaper didn’t report those charges,
either.
When I first heard this story, the first words out of my mouth
were, literally, “For the love of god. How many articles of impeachment do you
need?” The other question – now and for the next few news cycles – will be who
do you believe, Donald Trump or what he calls the “fake news” Washington Post?
I became a newspaper reporter in 1972 – the same year that five
“plumbers” under the direction of Richard M. Nixon were arrested while burglarizing
and bugging the Democratic National Committee offices at the Watergate. The Washington Post first reported the
story, was first to recognize its significance and was first with virtually
every new angle over the next two years until Nixon was forced to resign on August
8, 1974. They don’t report stories like this without solid sourcing.
Donald J. Trump, on the other hand, is a pathological liar
who has invented his own reality and is trying to live inside it. He lies with such
ease and frequency that it boggles the mind, and frankly, if he came to my house
and told me to my face that he wasn’t on the Grassy Knoll, I’m not sure I’d
believe him.
So I’m putting my money on the Post, and that brings me back to the question: How many articles of
impeachment do you need?
It’s bad enough that Trump and his children have turned the
White House into a profit center to enhance their personal wealth, in violation
of anybody’s reasonable standard for conflict of interest, or that the man who
mocked Barack Obama for an occasional golf trip spends about 30 percent of his
time as president on the links – at our expense.
It’s even worse that Trump openly admitted to obstruction of
justice in a TV interview regarding his firing of FBI Director James Comey,
supposedly to halt an FBI investigation into the Trump campaign’s collusion
with Russia to influence the 2016 election. It’s worse still that Trump followed
the firing by making threats against Comey and claiming to have secret tape
recordings of his White House meetings, which is very possibly a violation of
state and federal wiretapping statutes – wiretapping being something Trump
claims to know something about.
Now Trump is accused of sharing classified information with
Russia. The irony of that – given the way Trump rode the whole Hillary Clinton
email issue during the campaign and right up to this day – is w-a-a-a-y off the
charts.
So I ask one last time: How many impeachable offenses do we
need before the House of Representatives puts its party aside and takes action
for the good of our democracy? How many more before at least 23 Congressmen grow
a set of balls and join the Democrats in bringing down this buffoon of a
president?
Forty-six testicles it all it will take – and even fewer if
some women want to get on board.
Mr. Speaker, it’s time to put the orange back in the crate,
to give that hair and those neckties a day off, to pull down the gilded
draperies and reunite The Donald with his rental son and his mail-order bride, and
to finally park the Trump train back in its garage. C’mon, boys and girls, it's going to be a lot of fun. Who’s
with me?
No comments:
Post a Comment