On September 27, 1995 I had the honor and privilege to be invited by President and Mrs. Clinton to a black-tie dinner at The White House. It was an evening to celebrate the generosity of major philanthropists who had supported the leading children’s hospitals in North America. I was asked to bring along to be recognized our hospital’s largest donor, David Packard, founder of Hewlett-Packard, whose contribution dedicated the new hospital for his late wife, Lucile. During the cocktail reception I sat with Mr. Packard and we chatted for a while about the evening. I told him that I knew of course that he had served in the Nixon administration as U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense and that he no doubt had been to The White House for countless dinners. As a life-long Republican and no stranger to The White House I asked Mr. Packard why at his advanced age and with obvious physical difficulty getting around had he decided to travel from California to Washington for a dinner at the Clinton White House. I assumed that because of his obvious political differences with Clinton that he would have declined the invitation. Packard told me that indeed he had been to more black-tie dinners at The White House than he could count and that yes, he was also not a fan of Bill Clinton’s politics. But, he told me, I have reverence for the Office of the President. And when the President invites you to dinner you set your political differences aside and accept the invitation out of deep respect for the Office. I’ve never forgotten that lesson from Mr. Packard.
And yet, while I too revere the Office of the President, I don’t think that the worst of its previous occupants have so stained and shamed the office in such a short period of time as Donald Trump. Clearly I will never be invited to dinner at the Trump White House but even if that were to happen I would respectfully ignore the lesson David Packard taught me and never cross the threshold at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue while Trump was in residence and while he occupied the Oval Office. There are just too many smells there that even a pinched nose prevent you from breathing. The rot that is underway by the current President is a stench I just could not stomach.
The Washington Post’s coverage of Donald Trump’s Tweetstorm in which he accuses Barack Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower is a comprehensive account of Trump’s most recent and bizarre child-like meltdown: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/03/04/trump-accuses-obama-of-nixonwatergate-plot-to-wire-tap-trump-tower/?utm_term=.c01cf19816cf
Dan Rather’s commentary http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/03/04/dan-rather-just-said-thinking-trumps-wiretap-scandal/ seems to sum things up on what I thought could not be yet another colossal embarrassment by Trump. But I was wrong. He never fails to plumb new depths of self-humiliating, paranoid, and disgusting comments. Read Rather’s commentary and see if it resonates with your own thoughts about today’s pre-dawn Tweets from Trump.
And then, read this commentary by Robert Reich:
This morning Trump went berserk, tweeting a series of bizarre accusations charging that former president Barack Obama orchestrated a “Nixon/Watergate” plot to tap the phones at his Trump Tower headquarters last fall in the run-up to the election. Citing no evidence, he said the former president was a “Bad (or sick) guy!”
Folks, we’ve got a huge problem on our hands. Either:
1. Trump is more nuts than we suspected — a true paranoid.
2. Or he’s correct, in which case there’s probable cause that he committed treason. No president can order a wiretap. For federal agents to obtain a wiretap on Trump’s phone conversations, the Justice Department would first have had to convince a federal judge that it had gathered sufficient evidence that there was probable cause to believe that Trump had committed a serious crime or was an agent of a foreign power, depending on whether it was a criminal or foreign intelligence wiretap.
3. Or Trump’s outburst was triggered by a commentary on Breitbart News reporting an assertion Thursday night by rightwing talk-radio host Mark Levin suggesting Obama and his administration used “police state” tactics last fall to monitor the Trump team’s dealings with Russian operatives. If this was the source of Trump’s ravings this morning, we’ve got a president willing to put the prestige and power of his office behind a baseless claim emanating from rightwing purveyors of lies.
So there you have it — either he’s paranoid, he likely committed treason, or he’s making judgments based on rightwing crackpots. Each of them is as worrying as the other.
What do you think?
Either:
1. Trump is more nuts than we suspected — a true paranoid.
2. Or he’s correct, in which case there’s probable cause that he committed treason. No president can order a wiretap. For federal agents to obtain a wiretap on Trump’s phone conversations, the Justice Department would first have had to convince a federal judge that it had gathered sufficient evidence that there was probable cause to believe that Trump had committed a serious crime or was an agent of a foreign power, depending on whether it was a criminal or foreign intelligence wiretap.
3. Or Trump’s outburst was triggered by a commentary on Breitbart News reporting an assertion Thursday night by rightwing talk-radio host Mark Levin suggesting Obama and his administration used “police state” tactics last fall to monitor the Trump team’s dealings with Russian operatives. If this was the source of Trump’s ravings this morning, we’ve got a president willing to put the prestige and power of his office behind a baseless claim emanating from rightwing purveyors of lies.
The stain and stink on the Presidency created by Donald Trump will last for generations just as Richard Nixon’s desecration of the Office of the President created by Watergate. Nixon and Trump have and will have soiled the Presidency. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I hope Americans will learn a painful lesson from the behavior of this current President and will never be duped again.
I wish I could look at the current President the same way David Packard looked at Bill Clinton in violent disagreement with him politically but with respect for the Office. But for me, that’s just a bridge too far so I’ll have to wait until the next occupant of the Office of President comes along before I can look at the Presidency again with respect and admiration even though I may not care for or agree with the holder of that sacred office.
For more commentaries by Stu Turgel go to: https://thephoenixfile.net/commentaries/
The Phoenix File 