#194) Watch Out...Here Comes John Bolton

November 24, 2019

Dear Mr. President,

I think my favorite part of the impeachment hearings this past week was when Fiona Hill testified that John Bolton (who was National Security Advisor at the time) told her to report her concerns about Guiliani, Sondland, and Mulvaney to the Security Council's legal team.  He even went so far as to say,  "Tell them I am not a part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up."

It seems fairly obvious to me that John Bolton did not approve of their efforts to circumvent established diplomatic communication channels.  Mr. Bolton left the administration and has recently returned to social media announcing that the White House froze his personal Twitter account when his employment there ended.  Hmmmm.  That's pretty shanksy.  It's almost like there's something that you don't want him to be able to say.  Personally, I would not want to piss off the guy who's testimony could potentially get me removed from office.  But hey, that's just me.

Mr. Bolton's lawyer has stated that Bolton, "stands ready" to testify if a judge rules that Congress has the authority to make him appear.  That judge will be making her decision this week and I will definitely be tuning in. 

Try not to piss off anyone else who might decide to testify against you.  You're already on pretty thin ice.

Sincerely,

Amy Beaton

#193) Put the Fire Out (you idiot)

November 22,2019

Dear Mr. Nunes,

My son is autistic and developmentally delayed but is a visual learner and can grasp really complicated concepts if I explain them to him using highly visual language.  Luckily, after 26 years of constant practice, I can now do the same thing for you.

I've been watching you during the House impeachment hearings, and listening to you rant and rave about the identity and possibly nefarious intentions of the whistleblower is just driving me crazy.  Because you are a smart man and a loyal Republican determined to "do right" by your party and the American people, I just can't understand why your statements are so off base and misguided.  Let's fix that, shall we?

We'll start at the beginning...

The whistleblower is like the person who pulls the fire alarm.  Once that fire alarm is pulled, a series of cascading re-actions are set in motion.  One of the reactions in the chain is that a team of fire fighters shows up at your house to see if there really IS a fire.  These people are trained professionals who deal with fires, big and small, every day. 

You should think of the House Intelligence Committee as the fire department because they respond to the alarm being activated.  They are actually legally obligated to come to check things out and see if there really is a fire and if so, what type of response is indicated.  One truck?  Two trucks?  An ambulance? A hook and ladder crew?  Or maybe it's just a false alarm and we can all get back to business.

Well, good news, bad news I'm afraid:  The bad news is that after careful assessment by the department, it turns out there is a real fire.  You should think of people like Lt. Col. Vindland and Fiona Hill as the fire fighters.  The good news is that managing this type of situation is what they do and they are well trained and prepared to do it. 

So now that you've got a pro team who have assessed the fire first hand and said, "Yup.  That's a fire alright." you should probably stop worrying about who exactly pulled the alarm and what they were thinking when they pulled it because, dude, the fucking house is on fire.

Right now you seem to be focusing your energies on figuring out why the whistleblower pulled the alarm.  Did he smell smoke or see smoke?  Did he actually see fire or did he just hear a crackling sound that reminded him of fire.  Maybe his co-workers were at the water cooler discussing their plans to set a fire?  Maybe they were just chatting about how much they love fires or about how people they know  have experienced a fire.  Was the puller of the alarm a man or a woman and who, exactly, signs their paycheck?  Who knows?  Doesn't really matter.  Moot point.  Because, as I mentioned earlier, it has been determined that the house is actually on fire.

So while an ever expanding team of trained and seasoned professionals addresses the ACTUAL FIRE that is patently obvious to everyone except you, maybe you should stop focusing on who the alarm puller was and why they did it.  Because honestly, most people are grateful that the alarm WAS pulled, alerting us to the calamity in our midst.  Maybe it's time to get on board with the rescue mission so you, you know, don't look like such a horse's ass.

Also, spending time grilling the fire fighters on why they think this is a fire is pretty stupid.  Like maybe they made a mistake?  Maybe they don't actually have the ability to recognize fire when they see it?  How can they really, really know it's a fire if they don't put their hands in the flames and get burned?  Doesn't the President have the power to set fires wherever and whenever he wants? Come on Devin.  You're better than this.

The alarm was pulled.  Get over it.  It's time to strategize and prioritize how to handle the emergency that's right in front of you before it spreads.

Sincerely,

Amy Beaton

#192) I hear...crickets

November 21, 2019

Dear Mr. President,

As a Registered Respiratory Therapist in a 300 bed hospital I get to see a lot of television in very short bursts.  What I mean is that almost every room that I walk into has a TV on and they are all set to different channels.  From patient rooms to waiting rooms to staff rooms and cafeterias, they are everywhere.  And glimpsing such a variety of channels during my 8 hour shift last night gave me tremendous insight into the status of the House's impeachment probe as well as the status of your presidency. 

What I saw is that most news headlines focused on Ambassador Sondland's testimony. And being on the Canadian border with over 100 cable channels I was able to see news from all over the world...literally.  Here are just a few gems.

            "Pentagon official testifies that Ukraine asked about stalled military aid weeks before

            hold was known."

                                                                                                -The Guardian

            "Gordon Sondland's opening testimony is the ballgame - a witness who was supposed

            to be good for Trump has damned him.

                                                                                                -Vox

            "'Everyone was in the loop.'"  Sondland confirms quid pro quo.

                                                                                                -PBS

There were dozens more but you get the general idea.  Ambassador Sondland basically shot down every Republican defense of your actions in a very blunt, no-nonsense way.  It was big news and every media outlet from Burlington to Beijing picked it up.

Now in contrast, here are the timely and gripping headlines that Fox News chose to focus on last night.

            "Wanted teen jumps from plane in failed attempt to outrun police:  SEE IT."

            "The Clinton Foundation is broke.  The money dried up and they are

            bleeding cash."

            "Retired cop says Universal Studios denied him entry over t-shirt."

That these are ridiculous fluff pieces un-deserving of prime time airplay on a major  news network is obvious.  What isn't so obvious is that no one on Fox news was jumping to your defense.  They would rather discuss a teenager running from the cops than address the elephant in the room (aka the biggest news story of the year -  the man who personally paid you to give him an ambassadorship throwing you and your administration under the bus while the whole world watched). 

What Fox News didn't say speaks volumes to me.   Were you tuned in?

Sincerely,

Amy Beaton

P.S.  Not quite sure what Devin Nunes is smoking but his misinformed and misguided rants really aren't helping your case.  Just sayin'

#191) A Public Service Announcment

February 18, 2019

Dear Mr. President,

Just a reminder, in case you forgot, that Congress is a co-equal branch of the US government.  That means that it can override presidential vetoes, can impeach officers of either the executive or judicial branches, can control governmental spending, and a thousand other things that I have neither the time nor inclination to explain to you.   

But the thing to remember is this: the executive branch of our government - the office of the President - is not above the law or the Congress.  You are not a supreme overlord.  You are not a monarch.  You are not an emperor, potentate, or sovereign.  What powers you have have been granted to your office (not actually to you) by the judicial and legislative branches of our government. 

***This public service announcement has been brought to you by

Citizens for Civic Awareness, Common Sense and Reasonableness.

Sincerely,

Amy Beaton

P.S.  You've been divorced enough times to have at least a basic understanding of how co-parenting works, right?  Well the government works on the same principle.  Think of Nancy Pelosi as any of your ex-wives and just make it work.

#190) And The Truth Shall Set You Free

February 7, 2019

Dear Mr. President,

After your state of the union rant about the "crisis" on our southern border it was interesting to see these responses from people who actually live there.

Michelle Lujan Grisham, the Governor of New Mexico (that's a state on the border with Mexico in case you weren't sure) had this to say:

"I reject the federal contention that there exists an overwhelming national security crisis at the southern border, along which are some of the safest communities in the country.  We will support our neighbors where the need for assistance is great, and we will offer a helping hand when we can to those vulnerable people who arrive at our border, but New Mexico will not take part in the President's charade of border fear-mongering by misusing our diligent National Guard troops," Grisham said.

She then recalled the National Guard troops that you sent and said, "We will deploy our men and women in uniform only where there is a need, and where their presence can make a genuine difference in ensuring public safety and an easing of the humanitarian concerns at our southern border."

Uh oh.  That's awkward.

Then El Paso Mayor Dee Margo joined in with this sweet Tweet:

"El Paso was NEVER one of the MOST dangerous cities in the US. We've had a fence for 10 years and it has impacted illegal immigration and curbed criminal activity. It is NOT the sole deterrent. Law enforcement in our community continues to keep us safe #SOTU"

You see he was rather insulted that you called El Paso one of "our nation's most dangerous cities" because it isn't now and never was.  Fact.  Look it up.

Better Luck Next Year (loser),

Amy Beaton

#189) More Gibberish

February 5, 2019

Dear Mr. President (aka Idiot in Chief),

Have you missed me?  I had to stop writing to you for a while there because following you so closely was making we sick with stress, worry, and anger.  But the other day when you were interviewed by CBS's Margaret Brennan the sheer lunacy of your responses to her questions motivated me to write again.

Here's just one gem from the interview...

During the campaign (oh those glory days!) you were very fond of saying that President Obama made strategic mistakes by "telegraphing" his military moves. You were quite adamant about this in fact.  Then you made the decision – unilaterally and against ALL reasonable advice – to pull US troops out of Syria and there was a tremendous and very public response.  (It was actually a global response in case you have forgotten but we won't dwell on that now).   When Ms. Brennan asked you about the hypocrisy of this you said:

            "I'm not telegraphing anything.  No, no, no. There's a difference. When President 

             Obama pulled out of Iraq in theory we had Iraq. In other words, we had Iraq. 

            We never had Syria because President Obama never wanted to violate the red line 

            in the sand. So we never had Syria. I was the one that actually violated the red line

            when I hit Syria with 59 Tomahawk missiles, if you remember. But President 

            Obama chose not to do that. When he chose not to do that, he showed tremendous 

            weakness.  But we didn't have Syria whereas we had Iraq. So when he did what he

            did in Iraq, which was a mistake. Being in Iraq was a mistake. Okay.  Being in 

           Iraq- it was a big mistake to go- one of the greatest mistakes  going into the Middle 

           East that our country has ever made. One of the greatest mistakes that we've ever 

           made—"

Where oh where do I start to untangle this?  This statement A) doesn't answer the question, and B) isn't even coherent. This nonsensical garbage wouldn't be tolerated in my child's homework yet we tolerate it from the President of the United States.  You are an utter embarrassment to this nation.

With Disgust,

Amy Beaton