Sunday School Extra Credit

Jake Tapper chatted with Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, on CNN's State of the Union. Schiff, the leader of the impeachment inquiry that initially had us wishing for pizazz, but which this week had some folks riveted by the testimony from the fact witnesses, also checked in with Chuck Todd on MTP.

Schiff agreed with Tapper that EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland's statement that there was a quid pro quo was "the most important moment" of testimony this week. Schiff agree it was, and also mentioned Dr. Fiona Hill's testimony about the 'irregular channel' on Ukraine may have actually been the 'regular' channel. And there was also Sondland's statement that Trump "only cares about the big stuff" - the stuff that's good for Trump, of course.

Tapper wondered if this is it, or if there would be more hearings and more witnesses. Schiff said

We don't foreclose the possibility of more depositions, more hearings. We are in the process of getting more documents all the time. So, that investigative work is going to go on. What we're not prepared to do is wait months and months while the administration plays a game of rope-a-dope in an effort to try to stall... 

And what's more, the evidence is already overwhelming. The remarkable thing about this -- and we have done this with almost -- well, literally no documentary production from the administration -- is, the facts are really not contested. It's really not contested what the president did.

But, Schiff noted,

What is open to question is whether members of Congress are going to do their duty, and whether there will be anyone like Howard Baker, anyone on the Republican side that is willing to put their country, their Constitution above the party, or even the person of this president, because I don't think he really represents at least what the Republican Party used to stand for.

He wouldn't answer Tapper's question on whether Trump should be impeached, saying that he'll wait on a final decision until after he can talk with both his constituents and his colleagues.  However, he said there a "a couple really important things we need to talk about, including whether we think "soliciting foreign interference, conditioning official acts" for political favors is now OK.

Because, if we do, it's basically carte blanche for this president and anyone who comes after him. But are we also prepared to say that Congress will tolerate the complete stonewalling of an impeachment inquiry or our oversight? Because, if we do, it'll mean that the impeachment clause is a complete nullity and, more than that, our oversight ability is really an ability in name only.

Tapper pushed him on his mind not being made up, since he has said things like what they've seen is - quote -- "far more serious than what Nixon did." and asked Schiff to explain how he's still not made up his mind.

Schiff explained that he thinks the evidence "overwhelmingly shows serious misconduct by the president," and he does want to hear from others, the folks back home and in Congress.

But, at the end of the day, this is a decision about whether the founding fathers had in mind this kind of misconduct when they gave Congress this remedy. And I have to think that this is very much central to what they were concerned about. That is, an unethical man or woman takes that office, uses it for their personal political gain, sacrifices the national security to do so. If that wasn't what the founders had in mind, it's hard to imagine what they did.

Tapper asked if "any witnesses testified" that Trump himself linked either a White House meeting or the aid to anything about the investigations - and Schiff said yes.

The president's own chief of staff, the person who meets with the president every day, on live camera admitted exactly that vis-a-vis the most serious, and that is the military aid.

Schiff also said something "every judge tells every jury," about not leaving your common sense at the door. Everyone knows this was about the investigations, he said, or at least the announcement of investigations, even if they were never done.

Tapper turned him back to Mulvaney, noting that the Mulvaney, Pence, Pompeo, Bolton, and even  Giuliani haven't testified,  but "you're not going to go to court to compel them, because you say it's rope-a-dope, it's going to take too much time."  Given all that,

...is that really a principle, the idea that it's just going to take too much time, as opposed to, look, there are three branches of government, here's the legislative branch doing oversight of the executive branch, guess what? The judicial branch gets to weigh in here as well?

Schiff said that they'd love to have these guys testify but "we're not willing to simply allow them to wait us out to stall this proceeding, when the facts are already overwhelming." And he said the investigation will continue, and they'll continue to pursue documents, even after the report is done.

Yes. Oh, yes. The investigation isn't going to end... 

And both the Ukraine part and the obstruction part are clear, and that's a problem.

It means Congress will forever be incapable of doing any oversight. Why should any future president answer a congressional subpoena? The Republicans who take this position today, I guarantee you... will rue the day they did.

Tapper noted that there are folks who are concerned about the timing, about this having an impact on 2020. Schiff said he doesn't "subscribe to those political arguments. I don't think people should be making them, and I don't think people should be thinking of them."

About him potentially being called as a witness, Schiff said that trying to "mollify the president" is not a good enough reason. Tapper tried to suggest he might have info they need, about the whistleblower reaching out, for example, and wondered if Schiff would refuse to testify if asked. 

I don't want to comment on it, except to say that, if they go down this road, it shows a fundamental lack of seriousness, a willingness to try to turn this into a circus, like the president would like. And I hope they don't go there.

Tapper asked about moving forward, "even if it costs you support, Democratic support in the House of Representatives? Ultimately, you could lose the House? Even if it means it actually makes President Trump stronger?"

In response, Schiff reiterated how he got to where he is now, what got him from being opposed to going down the impeachment road to thinking it was necessary, is

..the fact that, the day after Bob Mueller testified about Donald Trump's invitation to the Russians to intervene, his willingness to make use of it in his campaign, the lies that he told about it, and the obstruction of justice in terms of the investigation into it, the day after that, Jake, Donald Trump was back on the phone asking yet another foreign leader, Zelensky, for yet more foreign help in another election.

Tapper's response?

And, once again, it sounds like you're ready to impeach President Trump. But I know you're going to talk to your constituents first.

 I'll leave it there.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 11/24/19

I'm checking in with the panel on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos today, since I haven't spent a lot of time with them over the the past few weeks. We'll check in with some of the other classrooms in our Extra Credit post.

On the panel today were NYY constitutional law professor Melissa Murray; Dan Abrams, the network's chief legal analyst; former Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-VA) who was chief counsel during the Clinton impeachment for the House Government Reform Committee; and Kate Shaw, former legal counsel in the Obama administration and now a constitutional law professor at Yeshiva University's Cardozo Law School.

George wondered if the Dems had made their case that president Trump had committed any impeachable offenses. Abrams said it depends on what their case is.

Did they show that there was a quid pro quo, that aid was being withheld in exchange for an investigation? Yes. they have got those facts on the table, I think it's very hard to dispute that. But that's only the first question. Question two is, was it wrong? I think that they did a pretty good job of demonstrating that it was wrong. 

But question three is the most important one... The question is, is this enough to remove him from office? And that's still yet to be seen.  

Comstock mused that on obstruction they had a lot of witnesses but not a lot of documents. And bribery, which is "an intent crime, that's going to be more difficult." And bringing in other issues, even from the Mueller report? That will contribute to the thinking that the Dems have "just been trying to impeach the president for anything." And, she said

I think it's very much like the Clinton impeachment where a lot of people are going to say this was wrong, as (Texas Rep.) Will Hurd said, 'it was in appropriate, the conversation, but I don't think it's impeachable.' I think that's where some -- you know, most of the Republicans are saying, 'no, it's not wrong. Nothing wrong with the call.'  The president is kind of driving that line, but I do think you're going to see other Republicans take the line that Will Hurd did, sort of the Clinton line of 'it's wrong but let's not impeach over it.' 

George wondered if the argument that even if this is going nowhere in the Senate, the Dems still have to go forward to deter future presidents from acting in a similar way. Murray agreed that was a strong argument - and she also agreed with Comstock about this being a political proceeding, too.

And the way this has played out has really been like a Rorschach test of whether you are a Democrat or a Republicans or whether you are convincible and in that soft middle. 

In response to George's comment about positions of House members having hardened, not softened, Shaw agreed with him, and she agreed that perhaps a Republican defense could be that censure might be warranted, but impeachment may not be. However, she noted

But you have basically seen the opposite, right? The president is insisting he did nothing wrong and his party is sort of coalescing around it, as you said, a little bit inconsistent with sort of public opinion. Most people think this was wrong, but of course 'wrong' is not the constitutional standard. 

Abrams talked about what happens when this gets to the Senate, especially in reference to folks who have refused to comply with House subpoenas to appear, including Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and whether he and the others might be forced to testify in the Senate. They also talked about whether that would hurt or help the Dems, and whether there would even be witnesses; Clinton's impeachment didn't have any.

And they talked about impeachment generally, with Abrams reminding that it's both high crimes (pointing out bribery and treason) and misdemeanors, "high and low" as he described it. The founders, he said

intentionally wanted it to be kind of vague. They wanted to talk about wrongdoing generally. So, when we talk about bribery, it doesn't necessarily have to adhere to the statute, because the statute didn't exist when bribery was put in to the Constitution and talk about impeachment. So it's going to be very interesting as these articles move forward and the word 'bribery' is there potentially. Are they talking about bribery as the Founders thought of it? Which is just kind of pay-offs, kind of improper activity, etc. That's what they were worried about, not the federal statute. 

Murray agreed with George that the founders were worried about foreign intervention in our country,

And that is clearly implicated here. And it's also implicated in the emoluments case which seems like 500 billion years ago. But it's certainly relevant for this....But I don't think they have the opportunity to completely take that (the federal statute) off the table... the have to look at the modern model if only to sort of understand what we're working with today.

Comstock noted that, as divided as we are, we're going to see a divided impeachment; the House will vote to send articles to the Senate, and barring any additional witnesses or something, we'll see the Senate vote to acquit. "And then the public will decide in November."

They also talked about Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who will preside over the Senate trial. Shaw noted Roberts will be able to define his role as he see fits, saying he might take the same position that Chief Justice William Rehnquist took during the Clinton impeachment - more of a "ceremonial and ministerial role." Abrams agreed with Shaw.

I think the idea that somehow Chief Justice Roberts is going to be a hero for the left in there and he's going to force witnesses to testify and the Senate is going to have to overturn, I think it's a pipe dream. The reality is, it's going to be based on Senate votes. 

Murray noted that SCOTUS has a big year ahead of them, even without impeachment.

It's going to be a really explosive year for the Court, I think, and I think that Chief Justice Roberts is at great pains to keep the Court out of the political fray. I think his model, again, is going to be his own justice, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who said of his role in the Clinton impeachment, "I did nothing in particular and I did it very well."

Turning to strategy, George wondered if they thought the Senate was going to move even closer to the president's strategy (discussed above). Comstock thinks so, for many senators, and even though the president seems intent on having lots of witnesses,

I think you're going to see Mitch McConnell will keep a tight rein on this. He wants a short trial. He does not want this to be a circus. I do think the White House probably would like to have a Senate trial very much like the Corey Lewandowski hearing in front of Jerry Nadler that -- that was such a circus. So that's kind of what they're threatening and what they would like.

And she offered some insight into some breaking news from late last week.

But I do think the reason you had, for example, Lindsey Graham come out and say that he's going to do the investigation of the - Hunter Biden and those matters is so that they don't have to deal with that issue on the Senate floor. 

There was some discussion on the House backing off impeachment and moving to censure instead. Abrams said he actually thought about that this morning, for the first time. Comstock said it's more likely that the Senate might do that, but in the end it's hard for any of them to think that the House would back off now. Here's Murray to close things out.

I don't think you unring this bell. I mean, this bell is going to get rung.

And all I can think of is Christopher Walken and Will Ferrell and more cowbell...

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v12)

It was a busy week, I know, what with the impeachment hearings, and the debate, and a spending bill being worked out, and so on - but don't worry, here's our week in review to get you up to day on this week's posts. 

In Sunday School, we focused on the Republicans, including Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, who chatted with Chuck Todd on MTP. In that conversation, Johnson suggested that there was a better way to have handled the aid to Ukraine - to have kept all of it out of the public eye. 

You know, when I was in Ukraine with Senator Murphy, one of the points I was trying to make is, as we left that meeting, let's try and minimize this. Let's talk about this is a timing difference in terms of funding. Senator Murphy's on the Appropriations Committee. We will restore the funding. I came back and I talked to Senator Durbin. He offered an amendment. That same day, the funding was released. So, this would have been far better off if we would have just taken care of this behind the scenes. We have two branches of government.

Our Sunday School Extra Credit post covered conversation with some of the Dems, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, talking about the 'weight' of the president's words with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation.  Speaking in reference to the president's tweet about former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch as she was testifying, Pelosi said that the president and perhaps others at the White House "have to know the words of the president weigh a ton," and that "he should not frivolously throw out insults."  She thinks she knows why Trump does that, too, noting

I think part of it is his own insecurity as an imposter. I think he knows full well that he's in that office way over his head. And so, he has to diminish everyone. 

I suggested that she, too, should be careful about what she says.

I'd say that, while the House Speaker's words may not weigh a ton, they have more weight than say, mine - and as such, the speaker should not frivolously throw out insults.  Unless of course, she didn't think she was being either frivolous or insulting.

In the first of two posts from the Update Desk,  I circled around on the change in Syracuse, NY on redistricting, with updates from an interview with Helen Hudson,the president of the Common Council. 

She also pointed out one of the things that drives people crazy about how districts are drawn: that there are places where multiple councilors represent portions of the same street, making it hard for residents to figure out who represents them - and, I'd add, potentially make it harder for neighborhoods like this have cohesive representation.

Hudson said that the next step is "to engage citizens in public hearings," with the goal of getting input on how the independent commission should be created.

As a disenrolled moderate Democrat, I'm willing to consider center-ish policies from any political party. Except Republicans in New York State, it seems, because they simply cannot get out of their own way, as illustrated in the post outlining My Middle-aged White Lady Perspective on a proposed post-election move suggested, but eventually dropped, by the Republican-majority Monroe County Legislature.

On Election Day, the voters did elect a Democrat county executive. They also returned a Republican majority to the Legislature to serve as the checks and balances for county government. 

In response to the election outcome, the Rs (who have had the majority for years, and the County Executive for nearly 30 years) thought that urgent legislation to limit the new Executive's power before the end of the year. If this makes you think of Wisconsin, and Michigan, and North Carolina, you're in the right place.

This is exactly the kind of thing New York Republicans need to stay away from, if they want to get any of the purple voters, moderates like me, to pay any attention to what they say.

Because of the debate, we didn't have a Wondering on Wednesday post, but I did offer some takeaways from the debate in this post on Thursday. Among my noodling on this?

• I don't understand what -or who - is keeping Tulsi Gabbard on the stage. And no, don't tell me it's Russian bots. 

• For the first time, I felt like paying attention to Tom Steyer, and I'm not sure how that makes me feel. I actually sat up straighter when he mentioned term limits, but then he said something after that which I can't remember now, that made me wonder why I sat up straighter.

And, sticking with the Dems for a bit longer,  the second post from The Update Desk, I made a preemptive strike:

I'm switching things up again this week with my social experiment with the 2020 Dems and their campaign emails.

Going forward, I'm going to limit who I track - and as of this week, I'm dropping Joe Biden and Julian Castro. They have consistently been the most desperate of the candidates, and their email subject lines, especially Castro but more and more Biden, too, sound like bad country songs.

And, wrapping up the week, in TGIF, I put Lindsey Graham on the 'bad week' list. Not for starting an investigation into the Bidens, per se - deserving as that is - but for this particular aspect of what he's looking into.

Graham's letter to Pompeo inexplicably notes that (emphasis added)

...on February 4, 2016, Hunter Biden began "following" then-Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken, a longtime advisor to Vice President Joe Biden, on Twitter, indicating that the two may have initiated conversations regarding Prosecutor General Shokin's investigation into Burisma...

Um, I just added Graham to the group of people I follow on Twitter. I'm pretty sure he doesn't think that he and I have "initiated conversations" about anything...

So, there you have it: another week in the books, another handful-and-a-half of posts, and more to come starting tomorrow with my weekly stroll through the classrooms.

Thanks for sticking around.

TGIF 11/22/19

Here we go again -- the good week/bad week list - and a bountiful week it was!

I'm sure Senator Lindsey Graham (R-Trump) thinks he had a good week. He announced an investigation into his old friend Joe Biden. Graham's letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) requests certain records to determine he "played a role in the termination" of a world-renowned ineffective Ukrainian prosecutor "in an effort to end the investigation of the company that employed his son..."

Anyone know what Lindsey's quid pro quo is?

Graham's letter to Pompeo inexplicably notes that (emphasis added)

...on February 4, 2016, Hunter Biden began "following" then-Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken, a longtime advisor to Vice President Joe Biden, on Twitter, indicating that the two may have initiated conversations regarding Prosecutor General Shokin's investigation into Burisma...

Um, I just added Graham to the group of people I follow on Twitter. I'm pretty sure he doesn't think that he and I have "initiated conversations" about anything. I'm guessing Graham got his understanding of the Interwebs from Rudy Giuliani - and for that reason alone, I'm putting him on the bad week list.

Opening statements had a good and bad week. On the good side? The fact witnesses at the impeachment hearings; whether or not you agree with what they said, or believe them, they stated their cases clearly and for the most part, provided facts as they experienced them, even if that means some of what they had to say would be hearsay in a court of law. Kudos to those who appeared, and a Bronx cheer to those who can't decide on their own what's the right thing to do.

On the bad side? Adam Schiff and Devin Nunes. The former went overboard trying to lay the foundation for the witnesses that were to testify. The latter ridiculously suggesting that the Dems would have impeached George Washington for sending Supreme Court Justice John Jay to negotiate with the British.

If anyone would ever equate these two presidents, their emissaries, or their respective causes - hurting a political rival vs. trying to avoid a war - well, let's just leave it at that.

Questions also had a mixed week. During Wednesday's debate, we heard questions on new topics. For example, Sens. Klobuchar and Harris were asked to defend their family leave plans (three months and six months, respectively). Andrew Yang was asked what he'd do to ease the burden of high child care costs. Several of them got to talk about how they'd address the lack of affordable housing.  There were some silly questions, too -- there always are - but at least they got to talk about real issues faced by real people for a change.

During the impeachment hearings,we heard good and bad questions. We also heard some that, if we were watching a crime show on TV instead of our government in action, a witness could logically ask the Representatives to just say whether or not there was a question at all. But there were also times when the Dems failed to close the deal. Here are just a couple of examples:

• Trump and Zelensky haven't met at the White House, which is what Zelensky wanted as part of the 'deal' with Trump. Sure, they met at the UN, but that's not close to the same thing. The Republicans tried to pretend the UN meeting was an equivalent session, but everyone knows it was not - and none of the Dems pressed that point.

• When Ambassador Sondland testified that Trump wanted Zelensky to "do the right thing," we know that meant investigating Crowdstrike and the Bidens - that was the whole 'favor' part of the second call. The Rs focused on the Latin (no quid pro quo) - the Dems failed to focus on the English (do the right thing).

And finally, I'm going to suggest that the Pres of the U. S. had a bad week. Speaking to the pained group at Fox & Friends this morning, Trump said this  about former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch:

This ambassador, that, you know, everybody says is a wonderful, she wouldn't have my picture in the embassy. Okay she's in charge of the embassy. She wouldn't hang it. It took like  a year and a half or two years for her to get the picture up... This was an Obama person who didn't want to hang my picture in the embassy. It's standard is you put the president of the United States picture in the embassy. This was not an angel, this woman. She's an Obama person.

Never mind that the Washington Post reported on the absence of the portraits in September 2017 and again when they were finally released on Halloween. And never mind that the US Embassy in London also didn't have the president's picture hanging for months, either. Because, according to Lewis Lukens, who was a former acting ambassador to the UK and deputy chief of mission in London from 2016 - 2019, 

It took the White House almost 15 months to get official photos sent to embassies to hang. And we were instructed not to print other photos. 

TGIF everyone -- TGIF. 

The Update Desk: Who Loves Me, Baby? (v11)

I'm switching things up again this week with my social experiment with the 2020 Dems and their campaign emails.

Going forward, I'm going to limit who I track - and as of this week, I'm dropping Joe Biden and Julian Castro. They have consistently been the most desperate of the candidates, and their email subject lines, especially Castro but more and more Biden, too, sound like bad country songs.

Castro didn't qualify for last night's debate, has not yet qualified for next month's debate, and has no real path to the nomination that I can see.  As for Biden, if you're a regular reader you know that I don't believe he should even be in the race, or stay in it. For those reasons, I'm not going to entertain either of them on a regular basis.

So, how'd we do with the remaining 7 of the original top ten? I got 89 emails, with Mayor Pete leading with 17, followed by Amy Klobuchar with 14, Cory Booker and Andrew Yang with 13 each, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren with 11, and Bernie Sanders with 10.

Right off the bat, you know they're going to be talking about money, and you know they're going to be talking about debates, both the November one, which was last night, and the one on December 19th, for which some of the candidates are still working on making the cut.

Before we get to our email of the week, here's what was noticeable in this week's barrage:

• Mayor Pete rolled out his new college/workforce development/lifetime learning plan, which includes tuition-free or subsidized college for 90% of Americans, auto-enrollment in income-driven repayment plans if needed, investments in community colleges, and more.
• Amy Klobuchar started including highlight of articles and editorials along with her requests for donations, including one from the Des Moines Register's editorial board on her ability to take on Donald Trump.
• Andrew Yang introduced four folks who were the recipients of his $1,000 monthly dividend, and he also asked supporters to choose between two ads, one about his family, and one about other people's families.
• Elizabeth Warren hit a couple of billionaires - an old story about meeting Jamie Dimon when she had only been in the Senate for a short time, and the second on her capitalizing on the dismay expressed by Leon Cooperman, the former Goldman Sachs exec, on the prospects of a Warren presidency.

Now, to Kamala Harris. I've not given her a lot of attention, because she hasn't hit me with anything memorable up to this point. But this week, she finally got personal, and that gets her the coveted email of the week designation. Here are excerpts:

I’m running for president because I believe that, in 2020, justice is on the ballot.

When in our country, there is a father anywhere who will be sitting at his kitchen table tonight, trying to figure out how to pay the bills through the end of the month, economic justice is on the ballot. I'm running to enact the largest middle class tax cut our country has had in generations.

When in America, on any given day, there is a mother sitting in the parking lot of the Emergency Room, her child has a raging fever -- and she’s hesitant to go through those doors because she knows she'll be out of pocket a massive deductible. Health care justice is on the ballot. I'm running for president to ensure health care is a right and not just a privilege for those who can afford it.

When in America, our babies have to go to school to endure a drill during which they're taught to hide in a closet from a shooter, justice for our children is on the ballot. I'm running for president to take executive action to curb our country’s gun violence epidemic -- a major difference between me and my friends on the debate stage.

When in America, teachers are working two and three jobs because they can’t afford to follow their calling, educational justice is on the ballot. I am running for president to enact the first federal investment to close the teacher pay gap.

When in America, we have a policy of putting babies in cages, separating them from their parents in the name of border security, justice for immigrants is on the ballot. I'm running for president because I believe that immigrants have made America great -- and they must not be vilified.

Here’s the epitome of what it means when I say justice is on the ballot: nobody is above the law, including the President of the United States. We have a criminal living in the White House, and it’s on us to get him out.

Listen: I've been in this race for about 10 months, so I'm all about real talk. I know that there are a lot of conversations about which candidate voters consider to be "electable."

I've heard this conversation before, and it goes something like this: "I don't know if America is ready for a woman of color to be President of the United States." Or, "It's not your turn," and "It's not your time."

This is not the first time I've heard this conversation. I've heard this conversation in every campaign I’ve won.

I share this with you not to say anything about me, but to say something about you and who I know the American people to be. We have the ability to see what is possible, even when we've never seen it before.

Let's see what comes in next week. I can tell you, my inbox is full of emails sent during last night's debate, and since it ended. 

I can't wait to read them... 

After the Fifth Debate...

Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

... have we learned anything new? Made any new choices? Agreed on winners or losers? Probably not.

In no particular order, here are some takeaways:

• Joe Biden needs to get out of the race. I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone by saying that, but it's clear to me that his ship has sailed, for a number of reasons: he is not on his game; he often sounds like he doesn't even agree with his own policies; his actually laughable comment that he was brought onto the ticket of the first black president because of his connection to the black community; his turning of a #MeToo question into a domestic violence question, which he then punctuated with repeated 'punching' comments; his recent statement that marijuana is a gateway drug, seemingly lifted out of the 40s or 50s; because his presidency will be a mess, if he's elected and the Dems don't also hold the House and take the Senate; and because even today, we're still holding him to a standard of "well, at least he didn't make it any worse." Love you Joe, but it's time to go.

• I don't understand what -or who - is keeping Tulsi Gabbard on the stage. And no, don't tell me it's Russian bots. 

• For the first time, I felt like paying attention to Tom Steyer, and I'm not sure how that makes me feel. I actually sat up straighter when he mentioned term limits, but then he said something after that which I can't remember now, that made me wonder why I sat up straighter.

• Elizabeth Warren had the most time, but I don't really remember what she said other than corruption corruption corruption. Unless that was I Wrote the Damn Bill, I have trouble telling them apart. I still do not believe that the way to fix the country is to burn it down and hope a phoenix rises from the ashes - and I'm honestly not sure that she really thinks that's necessary, either. I think she's going to tack back to the middle if she wins the nomination, and I think that's going to really antagonize people. 

• "I Wrote the Damn Bill" was his usual self. Should he be the nominee, we can be sure he'll stay planted so far out in left field that there'll be nothing he can to do get anything done with Congress. If I were smart, I'd pay more attention to his policies, and I'll try to do that before the next debate. Honest I will.

• Amy Klobuchar continues to impress me with her Midwestern sensibility and her understanding (missed by the left fielders) that we don't need to pay for things like college for rich kids - we really don't, and we really shouldn't. She's made more than a few appearances on the Sunday shows trying to get her message across, and I'm not sure what she'll need to do to really get things to move. Thoughts on that?

• Mayor Pete needs to do better on the 'people of color' thing - he sounded a bit forced, I thought, when he gave his 'from the heart' comments about understanding how discrimination impacts people, but he has to quickly get out of his own way on this. There a few things no voter wants: to be patronized, to be taken for granted, and to be ignored come to mind right off the bat. He needs to go talk with people, not in a 'focus group' setting, and not just visiting a church on a Sunday. He needs to be in the neighborhoods on a weekday, at night, on a Saturday morning, and listen - not talk, listen. Understand. Feel. Hear. And only then, talk. And not about being gay. 

• I'm pretty sure some of the pundits who do debate winners and losers are watching a different debate than I am. 

• I was pleased, generally, with the questioners, who did not grandstand, did not giggle like schoolgirls, and who generally treated the candidates as adults. For the most part, they let questions be answered, and didn't focus so much on the "your name was mentioned so you can respond" stuff that turned the other debates into quagmires. And they got in some questions that we haven't heard before.

• I want to hear more from Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Andrew Yang. That's not likely to happen in these debates, and it's not likely to happen on the Sunday Shows - we need a 'Now for Something Completely Different" moment, I feel. I've shared an idea in the past on how to make the debates more informative, I have yet another idea on how to make the debates more 'debatey' and more valuable.  More on that soon.

One final note? Using Matt Taibbi's  Rolling Stone debate drinking game words, I'm pretty sure I'm still drunk.

My Middle-aged White Lady Perspective: Republican Shenanigans in NYS

As a person with a multi-colored voting record, including support for blue, red, and green candidates,  libertarians, and more, I've long expressed a willingness to vote for the ideas that I find supportable, regardless of where on the ballot the candidate may land.

I've expressed to county and state Republican organizations, directly and in posts such as this one, my frustration that they don't even bother to reach out to people who aren't Republicans, and generally share only the goal of "getting rid of the Democrats," as if that's a policy around which folks like me should rally.

About the only time I hear anything at all about the Republicans is when they pull a boneheaded trick like this one, which comes to us from Monroe County, down the road a piece from me in Syracuse.

According to a story in the Democrat and Chronicle, the Republican-controlled Monroe County Legislature decided it  needed to urgently restrict the power of incoming County Executive Adam Bello, the first Dem in nearly 30 years to lead the county. Here's how things would have changed, under a plan submitted a week after the election, per the D&C story:

A series of last-minute charter amendments released little more than an hour before the Legislature convened, would give the Legislature authority to approve Bello's appointments of his deputy county executive, the county attorney, and not just all department heads and directors but other management staff within those departments. 

He (Bello) would lose his authority to create new positions and adjust salaries. While Dinolfo (the outgoing Exec) can spend up to $20,000 without Legislative approval, Bello's authority would be capped at $5,000, reverting to a limit last in place in 2014. 

His budget would be due a month earlier. The Legislature would also assume oversight of public works contracts and purchasing.

The article pointed out that some of the changes, including the earlier budget due date, have previously been suggested by Democrats, but were rejected. So, you see, that makes all of this OK, right, because the other guys wanted to do this five years ago?

In a letter that went along with the legislation, which was signed by all of the Republicans, the changes were described as needed "to ensure that transparency and accountability are the foundation of Monroe County government." And, the letter noted,

As the legislative branch of county government it is imperative that we identify additional opportunities to provide the checks and balances the taxpayers demand. 

From my middle-aged white lady perspective, this is a sham, plain and simple.

Anyone with any common sense understands that if an executive's power is too great, it's too great whether it's wielded by a Democrat, a Republican, a green, a libertarian, or a unicorn. And anyone with any common sense understands that this has everything to do with the shift in power, not with taxpayer-demanded checks and balances.

We know this, because we've seen this before - it's not unique, at all.  The Republicans have pulled this before, at the state level, in Wisconsin and Michigan in 2018 when Republican governors were voted out, and in North Carolina in 2016.  I'm sure it's being done at the local level elsewhere, too.

Ultimately, we learned from WHAM, an ABC affiliate in Rochester, that this was going nowhere, at least for the immediate future.

The Checks and Balance for Legislative Equity Act (CABLE Act of 2019), a measure which critics argued would limit the power of the Monroe County executive, has been withdrawn by its sponsors in the Monroe County Legislature.

After saying that the Act "ensures" that the two branches of Monroe County government can come together, to infinity and beyond (OK, in 2020 and beyond), Legislature president Joe Carbone says

On Election Day, the voters did elect a Democrat county executive. They also returned a Republican majority to the Legislature to serve as the checks and balances for county government. 

So, the  election installed checks and balances, but we need urgent legislation to install checks and balances, before the "checks and balances" take office? They must think their constituents are stupid.

This is exactly the kind of thing New York Republicans need to stay away from, if they want to get any of the purple voters, moderates like me, to pay any attention to what they say. And comments like this, from Majority Leader Brian Marianetti?

If this ends up being delayed, (if) it needs to be tabled in order to come to some bipartisan - we'd rather have it be bipartisan, of course. Was there a desire, an interest in maybe getting this taken care of at the end of the legislative cycle? Yes. If it doesn't happen, that's okay. 

Yeah, us purple folks see right through this nonsense.

The Update Desk: Fair Redistricting

A couple of updates related to my Grains of Salt post on voters in Syracuse approving a change to the city's Charter to bring us independent, fair redistricting:

First, Syracuse's Common Council President Helen Hudson talked with folks at WAER, our local PBS affiliate, about redistricting in general and what we might expect down the road.

The proposition was approved by a 76% to 23% margin, and Hudson, who says we're long overdue for a redistricting, "appreciates the strong support" the measure received. She gave just one example of  why we need to redraw the maps.

We know within the last twenty years, we've had a really huge influx of new Americans, and most of them are packed into District One, which is overpopulated. So we need to start looking at how we can reshape some of these districts and give people representation.

She also pointed out one of the things that drives people crazy about how districts are drawn: that there are places where multiple councilors represent portions of the same street, making it hard for residents to figure out who represents them - and, I'd add, potentially make it harder for neighborhoods like this have cohesive representation.

Hudson said that the next step is "to engage citizens in public hearings," with the goal of getting input on how the independent commission should be created.

We're going to be looking at civic involvement, how often you voted, demographics, racial makeups... We're going to be looking at a whole gamut of things to ensure that everyone gets the representation they deserve. 

She noted that folks interested in being on the commission will be able to apply, and said that the City Auditor, with no stake in the district maps, would receive resumes in the interest of keeping this process independent. She also noted that our officials are looking to other cities which have already gone this way for guidance, including Austin, Texas.

Also from our friends at WAER, we've learned that we have our first candidate for the DeFrancisco-Antonacci seat in the NY State Senate.

At an announcement held at Syracuse's Schiller Park, John Mannion announced he will run for the seat. Mannion, you'll recall, lost to Antonacci in a close race to fill the seat after DeFrancisco retired.

I've done it before, you know. A lot of the things in the platform are the same; it has to do with the environment, it has to do with the economics of the region, and education is always going to be important to me. We have have a positive change in the teacher evaluation system, but we still don't have a fair funding formula that's working for school districts. 

It's still not known whether there'll be a special election for the seat, but the Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo, seems to be leaning in that direction, according to this report from one of our local TV stations.

The day after the election, when it appeared that Senator Antonacci would likely win one of the three State Supreme Court seats, Cuomo said that his "inclination would be to call a special election" if Antonacci resigns

He's already got another special election to call -- the one to fill the seat vacated when disgraced Congressman Chris Collins resigned and pleaded guilty in his federal insider trading case. And, it's "most cost effective" to have the special election on New York's primary day, Cuomo suggested, since the polls will be open anyway, and it's possible that the open State Senate seat could be handled the same day.

The problem, of course, is that waiting until April 28th would leave parts of Onondaga and Cayuga Counties without representation during the first four months of the legislative session which amounts to around 70% of the 57-day session. Having it sooner - it could happen sometime in March, I guess, based on the typically difficult rules for special elections, but that would be up to the Governor.

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that folks in the district would rather spend the money and have someone representing them, than the alternatives: waiting until the session is almost over, or having someone appointed to fill out the term and letting the parties do their primary thing, with winners to face off in the general election in November.

Sunday School Extra Credit 11/17/19

Sunday School was all about the Republicans; Extra Credit is all about the Dems - well, two of them, anyway: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who chatted with Margaret Brennan on Friday for CBS' Face the Nation, and former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who sat down with Chuck Todd on MTP.  This should be fun, don't you think?

Brennan's conversation started with her asking Pelosi her thoughts on why president Trump was tweeting about Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch as she was testifying before the House Intelligence Committee. Pelosi suggested that  he was trying to undermine Yovanovitch and she also pointed out that,

... the president and perhaps some at the White House have to know the words of the president weigh a ton. They are very significant. And he should not frivolously throw out insults, but that's what he does.

She thinks she knows why Trump does that, too.

I think part of it is his own insecurity as an imposter. I think he knows full well that he's in that office way over his head. And so, he has to diminish everyone. 

I'd say that, while the House Speaker's words may not weigh a ton, they have more weight than say, mine - and as such, the speaker should not frivolously throw out insults.  Unless of course, she didn't think she was being either frivolous or insulting.

The conversation turned to impeachable offenses, and what qualifies as one. Pelosi offered that Trump does a lot of not impeachable things,

But when it comes to violating the Constitution of the United States, as he undermines our national security, jeopardizes the integrity of our elections, dishonors his own oath of office, that's about impeachment.

She wouldn't go out on a limb as to what would be a Trump impeachable offense, pointing out that the inquiry is  about "unfolding the facts." And, as to whether she thinks bribery will be one of the articles of impeachment?

I have no idea. Well, there is not even a decision made to impeach the president. This is a finding of facts, unfolding of the truth. And then a decision will be made and that is a decision that goes beyond me. 

Brennan wondered if it they'd really go through all of this investigating and then not impeach him.

That remains - the facts, if the president has information that demonstrates his innocence, in all of this, which we haven't seen. His transcript of a phone all is tucked away in a highly sensitive, compartmentalized intelligence server so we can't see that... If he has information that is exculpatory, that means 'ex' taking way, 'culpable', blame, then we look forward to seeing it. 

And, she refused to entertain discussion with Brennan about what the Republicans think.

You know what? If - if we could just talk about what we want to do - I really have a real discomfort level of responding to what Republicans say because they are in denial about what has happened in the country. So if you want to ask me about where we're going on this - I"m happy to respond to that.  But I - I find it a waste of my time and yours to be talking about what Republicans say.

She didn't want to respond to what the Rs were saying about the grounds for impeachment.

Let their arguments stand because they are in so much quicksand that I don't even want to have it given any more visibility by my dignifying any of their misrepresentations of what they say... I say to everybody else, I'm not here to talk about what they say because they are not facing the reality of what is happening to our country. And this is about our democracy that is at risk with this president in the White House.

In the rest of the interview, they talked about the timetable for the inquiry and when we might see that conclude (there isn't one);  whether Trump gets to "confront his accuser" (she'll make sure he doesn't intimidate the whistleblower, but he's welcome to come before the committee and tell the truth); that there are still multiple committees looking into things, that "none of us came here to impeach a president."

There's more, too, about the normal day to day stuff we don't hear about, like funding the government, USMCA, and her "being the only woman in the room" with two different presidents.

Sunday School 11/17/19

Deval Patrick is the only Democratic presidential candidate making the rounds today; you can see what he had to say, and also what  a couple of other Dems had to say in this week's Sunday School Extra Credit.

I'm spending  time with some of the Republicans who made the classroom rounds rounds today, including Mike Turner (R-Mixed Emotions), who sat with Jake Tapper on State of the Union; Jim Jordan (R-Casual Friday), who talked with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation; and Senator Ron Johnson (R-America's Dairyland) who spoke with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press. 

First up, Tapper and Turner, who was asked if he was "alarmed" about US folks apparently telling Ukraine folks that if they want the aid money released, they have to announce they're going to investigate the Bidens and the 2016 interference (which has been attributed by the entire US intelligence community to Russia, not Ukraine). 

Well, of course, all of that is alarming, And I have said from the beginning, I think this is - -this is not OK. The president of the United States shouldn't even, in the original phone call, be on the phone with the president of another country and raise his political opponent. So no, this is -- is not OK.

Tapper next asked "Do you really think there were no Ukrainians who were under the impression that they needed to publicly announce these investigations in order to get the White House meeting or the aid, the $400 million, they so desperately need?"

The only two that I can speak to, because I'm obviously not psychic as to what Ukrainians think, but the president of Ukraine and the foreign minister...have both stated that they were not under that impression, they did not believe that it was tied, and they did not believe that there was pressure. 

And Tapper mentioned president Trump's tweet "attacking" Ambassador Yovanovitch as she was testifying, and asked, "Does it concern you at all that a witness found what president Trump tweeted to be intimidating?"

Well, I mean, Jake, I think, along with most people, I find the president's tweets generally unfortunate. But let's say this that I think is very important about all of it. And that is that Adams Schiff has been on a three-year quest to impeach this president. He replaced the staff at the Intelligence Committee with prosecutors, instead of experts in, like, nuclear weapons, terrorism and the like... So it's kind of laughable that, in the middle of the hearing, he reads a witness a tweet that she's up until that point unaware of, and then says 'shazam, eureka, I have another reason to impeach the president.' 

Good on him for that last part. Schiff was nuts to bring that tweet into things, without stating that while, it's not intimidating to Yovanovitch who was currently in the witness chair, having already been smeared by the Orange Menace, it might be intimidating to other potential witnesses who are not interested in having themselves and their families attacked by the president and his minions.

Moving on to Brennan and Jordan, who was asked if the whistleblower complaint on September 9th and the aid being released on the 11th was just the calendar, nothing else.

Well, it did and plus, remember, the aid didn't have to be released until September 30th. So it gets released on the 11th and most importantly, the Ukrainians did nothing to - as far as investigations go, to get the aid released. So there was never this quid pro quo that the Democrats all promise existed before president Trump released the phone call. 

On David Holmes, who said in his deposition that he the overheard the phone call between Ambassador Sondland and the president talking about the Bidens, is he credible?

Well, I mean look, he overheard a conversation - we don't know if the other two people are the table are going to vouch for his story. We'll see because there was four people at the table...

Brennan asked if Jordan thought Gordon Sondland was acting on his own, that 'he says he talks to the president all the time."

He's the Senate-confirmed ambassador to the European Union. Mister Volker is - is the special envoy, distinguished career serving our country in the diplomatic corps... We had Rick Perry. We have Secretary Perry, Senate confirmed, working. This whole - this whole irregular channel I find interesting because they're all Senate confirmed individuals, respected individuals, accomplished individuals working on a diplomatic mission, and somehow that's - that's - that's crazy. I just don't follow. 

Asked if he was "comfortable with the investigation that was requested," that "this is the 2020 election. Does that make you uncomfortable?"

Well, I don't think that's what took place here because there never was an investigation undertaken. There was never an announcement from President Zelensky...it didn't happen. There's - there's all kinds of talk about things, but they - it didn't happen. 

And, here's Chuck Todd and Ron Johnson, who was asked about his reaction to the president's tweet about Ambassador Yovanovitch. First, he talked about the president's comments about his own behavior.

He said, "You know, my behavior is caused by, by you. You know, the constant torment, I mean, the investigations." So, you know, listen, I would prefer he not, you know, provide that type of tweet, but you know, my concern -- and let me start out with something else here, Chuck, because I don't want to argue every point. Something we agree on. As Americans, we all share the same goal. We want a safe, prosperous, secure America. We're compassionate. We compare about each other. And generally, generally, we solve our political differences at the ballot box, not in the streets or through impeachment. I think that is really -- as we talked the other day, that's the divide that is tearing this country apart and that's what I'm primarily concerned about.

He said he had nothing against the Ambassador, that she had hosted him on one of his visits to Ukraine,

 But you know, one thing I want to point out is the damage that is being done to our country through this entire impeachment process. You know, it's going to be very difficult for future presidents to have a candid conversation with a world leader because now we've set the precedent of leaking transcripts. It’s going -- you know, the weakening of executive privilege is not good. And by the way, those individuals that leaked this, you know, if their interest was a stronger relationship with Ukraine, they didn't accomplish it. Having this all come out into public has weakened that relationship, has exposed things that didn't need to be exposed.

You know, when I was in Ukraine with Senator Murphy, one of the points I was trying to make is, as we left that meeting, let's try and minimize this. Let's talk about this is a timing difference in terms of funding. Senator Murphy's on the Appropriations Committee. We will restore the funding. I came back and I talked to Senator Durbin. He offered an amendment. That same day, the funding was released. So, this would have been far better off if we would have just taken care of this behind the scenes. We have two branches of government.

So, let's pretend that nothing's wrong, let's let the executive branch run amok and us good guys in Congress, we'll just fix everything and no one will be the wiser.  That's a plan, I guess. Not sure it's the right one, but at least it's a plan. That's more than the rest of them have put on the table.

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v11)

Ready for this week's recap?  Here we go!

In Sunday School, I spent some time listening in on Kentucky's Rand Paul on Meet the Press explaining what the issue is with the impeachment inquiry. Well, I should say, what the issues are - because he was all over the map on that, and Chuck Todd didn't help. Hearing a few minutes of the senator talking left me a bit confused.

So, fairness is the issue, except that it's not the issue,  it's getting into the head of the president, unless it's not that, it's a partisan attack on the results of the election. OK - fine -- let's go there, then, right Chuck Todd?

Well, let's see what happened. Did Chuck follow up?

Negative on that; the next question had nothing to do with Paul's answer, it had everything to do with giving the president cover. That's right - the question was whether a distinction should be made between Trump asking for a quid pro quo and his administration asking for one. You know, Mulvaney maybe?

It went on like that for a bit longer; fortunately, Connecticut's Rep. Jim Himes was there to add some sense to things. Check the post to see what Himes had to say. 

Monday's visit to the Update Desk closed the loop on a post I had done about Matt Beadnell, the Republican Onondaga County Comptroller and the allegations of  payroll theft (not double-dipping, which is what he called it) against Democratic Elections Commissioner Dustin Czarny.

It turns out that the Beadnell had estimated - grossly overestimated, that is - the hours that Czarny spent driving for Uber and Lyft, and the DA was not going to file any charges, because in some cases, an appearance is not in fact the reality. Beadnell was a bit retrospect in an interview with the local paper in advance of the election, and likely more than a bit disappointed after it. 

Beadnell admitted to the editorial board of the local paper that he was wrong to have notified the party boss about the audit, and said he's "gone back and forth" on whether he erred by not talking to Czarny - but making it look political was worse. He got the endorsement of the paper anyway, but Syracuse City Auditor Marty Masterpole won, becoming "the first Democrat elected to a major countywide office since 1991."

I also talked, in this Grains of Salt post, about the decision by Syracuse voters to have independent redistricting for Common Council districts. While the city was thinking ahead, the County Legislature did not make the same decision when the discussed it earlier this year. According to Legislature chair David Knapp,

We just felt it was adding another bureaucratic commission that really didn't have any teeth, to advise a commission that's already in place. In this really highly charged political environment we're in, finding nonpartisan groups is pretty tough these days. 

On the plus side? Read how most of the county legislators are now on board with this - including Knapp.

On Wednesday, I was considering the opening statements in the impeachment hearings from Committee Chair Adam Schiff in Part 1 and Ranking Member Devin Nunes in Part 2 of my Wondering on Wednesday post.

Schiff was long winded, taking us on a long and winding road to some questions, then landing here:

These are the questions we must ask and answer. Without rancor if we can, without delay regardless, and without party favor or prejudice if we are true to our responsibilities. Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of a country American was to become, "A Republic," he answered, "if you can keep it." The fundamental issue raised by the impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump is: Can we, keep it?

Nunes was equally all over the map, reciting a long list of alleged offenses and misfires and attacks by the Democrats on the president, including this one, asking if we should

forget about them trying to obtain nude pictures of Trump from Russian pranksters who pretended to be Ukrainian officials; 

Fortunately, none have been shown, and we're all the better for it. Nunes and Schiff, the ultimate California odd couple, had a lot more to say; needless to say, so did I.

The Democrats are still hanging in, still sending emails, still desperate for money, still inching ever close to Iowa and New Hampshire, and still fighting folks who are buying their way in. We did, however, have a really good email of the week. Here's an excerpt.

I understand for many folks in both states this is a tradition that they hold very dear, and I have learned first hand that they take their role in vetting candidates seriously. But “this is how it’s always been done” isn’t ever a good reason to keep doing it.The current system does not give enough of a voice to people of color and it's long past time that we as Democrats practice what we preach and fix it. 

To be clear, this isn’t about which candidates voters in these states may choose, or have chosen in the past. This is about who gets to do the choosing. 

You can read who sent that one, as well as get some other news in this post from the Update Desk.

This week's TGIF focused mostly on the impeachment hearings, and the circus that surrounds them. We had gaslighting, lying, grandstanding, arguing, dumb questions, and more - and then we had the media trying to "report" on what was going on. It seems those folks are looking for a little more excitement from the witnesses, because apparently from a reality TV standard, these things are a snooze fest.

And yet Taylor and Kent failed - or perhaps succeeded, given their nonpartisan roles in government and the atypically serious postures struck by lawmakers of both parties - by dropping no bombshells and largely repeating the testimony they gave congressional investigators at depositions previously held behind closed doors.

Those words, from an NBC reporter,  prompted a slow burn.

So, instead, they should have changed their stories, to generate better headlines? Tweeted from their witness chairs to spark controversy? Pounded their shoes on the table, or Nicholsoned or something? Would that have been more 'pizzazzy' for everyone?

NBC wasn't the only offender - Reuters also 'contributed' to the conversation, which you can read in the post, and you can also see who else had a good or bad week.

Next week, we've got more hearings, which means we'll have more shenanigans, and we also have a debate.  Yay us!  

As always, I welcome comments on posts, and encourage you to subscribe so you don't miss anything - just look for the "Instant Gratification" box on the right sidebar. I promise you'll get posts and nothing but posts. 

See you next week.

TGIF 11/15/19

Where to begin with today's good week - bad week list?

How about that Browns/Steelers fight last night? I didn't watch the game and hadn't seen any news before I saw the video, so it was quite the shocker to see before breakfast this morning.  With quarter-million-dollar fines to both teams, player suspensions and fines already announced, I'm thinking this falls squarely in the bad week column.

And then, part of me thought about the people who make those 'cute' videos with images of president Trump's head superimposed on other people's bodies, attacking the media, or his enemies (John McCain and Hillary Clinton, among others) getting hold of this one and having Trump, I don't know, beating Rep. Adam Schiff over the head with a helmet or something. Because I can certainly see that happening.

Continuing in the bad week vein, I'd have to include a few reporters, including Jonathan Allen of NBC, who offered this:

But at a time when Democrats are simultaneously eager to influence public opinion in favor of ousting the president and quietly apprehensive that their hearings could stall of backfire, the first round felt like the dress rehearsal for a serious one-act plan than the opening night of a hit Broadway musical. 

Seriously? I guess maybe the Dems should call Randy Rainbow to come in a do a few beautifully crafted, snarky showtunes?

Allen also offered this, after talking about Ambassador Bill Taylor and diplomat George Kent delivering a 'wide-ranging discourse" on diplomacy and more (emphasis added),

And yet Taylor and Kent failed - or perhaps succeeded, given their nonpartisan roles in government and the atypically serious postures struck by lawmakers of both parties - by dropping no bombshells and largely repeating the testimony they gave congressional investigators at depositions previously held behind closed doors.

So, instead, they should have changed their stories, to generate better headlines? Tweeted from their witness chairs to spark controversy? Pounded their shoes on the table, or Nicholsoned or something?Would that have been more 'pizzazzy' for everyone?

Allen and NBC were not alone - Reuters reporters Jeff Mason and Patricia Zengerle offered this:

Democratic lawmakers tried their hand at reality television with mixed results on Wednesday as they presented arguments to the American public for the impeachment of a former start of the genre, Donald Trump. 

Unlike the best reality TV shows - not to mention the Trump presidency itself - fireworks and explosive moments were scarce, however.  

I'm guessing that Taylor and Kent will likely be making apologies to all Americans, letting us know they didn't realize that appearing under subpoena to provide testimony in an impeachment hearing should have been something done with bells on, or something. Besides, Kent was wearing a bow tie - what more fun can a person have (in contrast to the jacketless Jim Jordan)? Maybe an appearance on Sesame Street or something in the next week or so?

And, of course, I'm sure Rep. Schiff will reach out personally to the president's second son to make amends, because. as Reuters told us,

To the president's son, Eric Trump, it was a big yawn. 

I get that there's a component to this of making impeachment understandable to people, to voters,  just as there was in the Clinton hearings. And I'm sorry that there isn't an ejaculate-stained blue dress this time around. No - I'm really not sorry there's nothing as salacious here, unless of course you count Devin Nunes' opening statement on Wednesday.

Sticking with the impeachment for a little bit longer, I'm sorry that one of New York's own representatives, Elise Stefanik, is willingly participating in the game being played by Nunes and the rest of her party, instead of acting like a reasonable person. During today's hearing, Nunes attempted to yield the floor to Stefanik during what I'll loosely call 'leader time' - both of them knowing that she was not allowed to speak at that time.  Why? Because rules, that's why (emphasis added)

• Extended Questioning by the Chair, Ranking Member, and Committee Counsels. Pursuant to H. Res. 660, the Chair and Ranking Member may conduct at the outset of each open hearing extended rounds of questioning for periods of up to 90 minutes, as determined by the Chair and split evenly between the two sides. As specified in H. Res. 660, the Chair and Ranking Member may not yield time to other Members during these extended question periods, though either may yield time to Majority and Minority Committee Counsels, respectively.

• A similar rule put in place initially by House Republican leadership in 1997 authorized committees to allow extended periods of time for the questioning of witnesses, in excess of traditional five-minute rounds. The 1997 revision also allowed staff to question witnesses at hearings. Under this approach, which was also adopted in subsequent Congresses, staff questioned witnesses during the Clinton impeachment hearings and in numerous other investigative hearings.

• As Chairman, I expect to yield extensive time to Majority Committee Counsel during the extended questioning periods permitted under H. Res. 660. After I announce the conclusion of extended questioning, Committee Members will be recognized for customary five-minute rounds pursuant to House Rule XI. 

I'm sure though, that this will meet the 'pizzazz' threshold for DC reporters, because it looks good that there's some fighting and finger-pointing and all that. What it mostly does, though, is show the willingness of the GOP to do whatever they can to attack the hearings.

Yay, us, or something.

On the good side of the ledger? One name out there: former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who received a standing ovation after her testimony today.  Texas Republican Will Hurd had this to say about her, after reciting a list of her awards and recognitions:

You're tough as nails and you're smart as hell. You're a great example of what our ambassadors should be like. You're an honor to your family, you are an honor to the foreign service, you are an honor to this country, and I thank you for all that you have done and will continue to do on behalf of your country.

I'd add the Roger Stone jury, as well.

The panel of nine women and three men deliberated for less than two days before finding Stone, 67, guilty on all seven counts resulting from his September 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, which was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Kremlin’s efforts to damage Donald Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps Stone will get a Donald Trump tattoo to go with his Richard Nixon tattoo; it might help his efforts to get a pardon.

TGIF, everyone.