On Father's Day, at least three of the Sunday morning TV talk programs – Meet the Press, This Week, and Face the Nation – made clear their hopes for an end to the Trump presidency.  Chuck Todd, at Meet the Press, asked: "How serious is the threat to Mr. Trump's presidency?"  Martha Raddatz, at This Week, noted "a new sense of urgency over President Trump's future[.]"  John Dickerson, at Face the Nation, spoke of "[t]he threat of a crippling inquiry into the heart of the presidency[.]"  (Dickerson's remark might have been somewhat insensitive in view of the injuries suffered by Rep. Steve Scalise the past week, allegedly at the hands of an individual who reportedly posted on Facebook, March 22, "Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It's Time to Destroy Trump & Co.")

None of these programs expressed concern about leaks to the media concerning the special counsel investigation – whatever that investigation may be.  None of the programs raised the matter of President Obama's surveillance of the Trump presidential campaign.  None of the programs wondered why the FBI probe into collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians is continuing.  After all, that probe reportedly got underway last July – eleven months ago.  And thus far, apparently, the FBI has come up with no evidence of collusion between President Trump and the Russians.  Is it time to wonder if the duration of the FBI collusion probe puts into question the agency's investigative effectiveness?

And isn't it interesting that the Trump campaign probe apparently got underway just as the Clinton emailgate "matter" was concluding?  Wouldn't it be something if former president Bill Clinton suggested to Attorney General Loretta Lynch: "Now that that matter about my wife is over, how about buzzing Trump and his campaign?"  There is no evidence for such a comment.  But if evidence is not needed to maintain the collusion – and now obstruction – probes, why need evidence to speculate on the left's machinations to overturn the 2016 presidential election?

Over at This Week, it looks as if Martha Raddatz has elevated Rep. Adam Schiff to de facto chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.  There he again was on the program, with no GOP committee counterpart in sight, hurling innuendo on insinuation on partisan muttering, telling Raddatz "there is evidence" of collusion and obstruction, quickly adding: "But in both cases, I would say, whether there is some evidence doesn't mean there is proof beyond reasonable doubt."  What "evidence" is Schiff referring to?  He would not say.  The important thing for Schiff: "we ought to be investigating."  How long?  Ending her chat with Newt Gingrich, earlier on the program, Raddatz remarked: "I'm sure it will be many months of going back and forth."  What does Raddatz know, and how did she come to know it?

One omission from the Father's Day programs: None of the moderators quoted the comments of Hillary Clinton on the wounding of Rep. Scalise, June 13.

On June 19, this Google search – "Hillary Clinton comments on the Scalise shooting" – yielded no results.  Apparently, as of Father's Day, Ms. Clinton had not found the words to comment publicly on an attack on Republicans by a shooter who is alleged to have wanted Trump destroyed – by the way, a sentiment expressed one year ago in a tweet by David Plouffe, who once served as campaign manager for President Obama.  Plouffe's tweet went:

It is not enough to simply beat Trump. He must be destroyed thoroughly. His kind must not rise again.

— David Plouffe (@davidplouffe) June 13, 2016

And that is precisely what the left is working on, isn't it?

Update:

The "politicususa" website reported, June 14, that Hillary Clinton tweeted  "the unifying message message the nation needed after a man opened fire on a group of GOP members of Congress holding baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia."    That message, in pertinent part read:  "My thoughts are with the members of Congress, staff & heroic police."  In my June 20 submission, I noted that this  Google search -- "Hillary Clinton comments on the Scalise shooting"  --brought forth no results.  I continued, "Apparently, as of Father's Day, Ms. Clinton had not found the words to comment publicly on an attack on Republicans by a shooter who is alleged to have wanted Trump destroyed[.]"  

A reader of the Clinton tweet would have no way of knowing what she was referring to.  There is no mention in the tweet that anyone was shot; there is no mention that a Republican congressman was shot; there is no mention that Representative Scalise was shot.  Ms. Clinton  provided an all purpose comment, devoid of feeling,  that could fit any unfortunate situation befalling "members of Congress."    At this point -- to vary her words on a previous occasion -- it very much makes a difference to fail (refuse?) to mention the name and political affiliation of the congressman who was critically wounded, June 13, and who, may God grant him a full recovery, faces  a difficult period of convalescence.