Email of the Week (v8)

Thursday is 'Email of the Week' day, when I plow through a hundred or so emails from the handful of Democratic presidential candidates I'm following to see what's going on.

So, after having added Tom Steyer, Deval Patrick and Mike Bloomberg to the rolls, I got 156 emails, but the newcomers only accounted for 15 of them. Mayor Pete continues to lead the pack in terms of emails sent, with Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar not far behind. Tom Steyer has yet to ask me for anything.

As we're nearing the end of the month, and the candidates are now facing monthly FEC disclosures, a couple of them told me, and because the Iowa caucuses are next week, it's hot and heavy in the money grab category.  

What's interesting is that the candidates are all setting ridiculous goals - a million by Friday, three million by the end of the week, that kind of thing -  and some are having trouble meeting them - so I wonder about this whole 'shooting yourself in the foot to keep up with the Joneses' thing.

So, what was noteworthy this week? 

• Sanders threw three of the Squad members at us in one email, and he's already focused on NY's April primary; 
• Mayor Pete went on Fox News for a town hall, the only one to do so, I guess;
• Deval Patrick got an endorsement from a NH State Senator; and
• Andrew Yang qualified for the February debate, after missing the January one - maybe the best news of the week.

There were a few emails that were in the running for this weeks' prize, including one from Mayor Pete touting polls showing while he's running slightly behind That Guy From Vermont in New Hampshire, he beats Trump by a larger margin than any of the rest of them. 

Amy Klobuchar is gaining momentum and endorsements, and she told us she's the only debate-worthy candidate who has visited every one of Iowa's 99 counties. 

But this week, because I'm feeling frisky, I'm going with Bloomberg. 

I know -- he's poison, he's killing the process, he's doing it all wrong: I get that. But I'm going to give it to him, anyway - because he's willing to put his own money where his mouth is - even if no one likes that he's doing it - and because I'm curious about how he's doing what he's doing.  Skipping the early states, particularly the two very non-diverse, small states that have always had an outsized impact on who gets elected, is an intriguing approach, and one that's different from Steyer, the other billionaire in the race. 

So, here it is, our coveted Email of the Week.

See you  next week. 

Wondering on Wednesday (v195)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Oh yes, it's that time again!  I wonder, right off the bat, what Chief Justice John Roberts is thinking with the questions he's getting from senators? After all, he's the one who reminded us - and them - that they were the world's greatest deliberative body... and today he's reading questions about hypothetical Obama examples of corruption, and about grabbing things, if you know what I mean. And he's a lawyer, too - so what must he think of the arguments being made the the lawyers on both sides of the aisle?  What a book he could write on this...

And speaking of books, there appears to be a move underfoot to allow Senators from both parties (at least, I assume it's from both parties) to slink off to a bunker and read the manuscript of John Bolton's book. Now, we all know that doing anything in secure room is anathema to baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet, at least if Democrats do it, but what the heck?  Are they afraid of what John Bolton will say to their faces, I wonder?  

Remember, whatever he said in the book is a lie, the president told us - and there's nothing better than putting a person on the stand and making them lie under oath, or to try and prove that they're not. Well, nothing better than that - except hiding in a secure bunker, out of sight from the press and from your constituents...

One of the most interesting things I heard today was actually from Adam Schiff, who noted that it's kind of odd that various outlets filing FOIA requests are able to get documents that the House was blocked from receiving. I wonder how that happens, and how it's defensible? And I wonder if, going forward, the House will resort to that tactic to get information they need, instead of going the subpoena route? 

I also wonder how arguing whether president Trump is a better president vis-a-vis Ukraine than President Obama was is relevant here? The issue is that Trump asked a foreign country to interfere in our election by investigating a political rival - not who gave more money... And not only that, but if this article is correct, the big whoop-de-do about the Javelin missiles is really kind of a moot point, because the Trump administration makes Ukraine store the missiles away from the Russian front.

But a U.S. condition of these sales was that the Javelins couldn’t actually be used in the fight with Russia and had to be stored away from the battlefield, which means they’ve effectively had only a symbolic deterrent effect. 

It has nothing to do with who had bigger hands, or who had bigger crowd, or who has bigger anything else - except that with the current president, size ALWAYS matters.

And I wonder why, at times, Schiff fails to keep is eye on the prize? He was given an absurd series of questions from Ted Cruz and others about the whistleblower's bias, which the Intelligence Community Inspector General identified: did he work for Biden, did he work for Biden on Ukraine issues, and so on. Schiff spent more of his time defending his staff and whistleblowers in general, instead of simply quoting the ICIG directly. 

Michael Atkinson, the inspector general, said his review of the whistleblower complaint "identified some incidia of bias, of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate... such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern appears credible particularly given the other information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review.

There will be lots of time to defend his staff, and his Committee's staff, and the witnesses, after this is all over. Heck, he can even give them pens if he wants. But it's not relevant to the question, or to the inquiry.  FOCUS, people.

And one last point of wonderment: why is so much of the president defense based on reports from the "enemy of the people" the lying failing, lying, biased, traitorous, lying, #fakenews media?  For someone who's spent years trying to get us to believe that EVERYTHING the media tells us is a lie, his lawyers sure are making a lot of references to what the lying liars have reported. I wonder who am I to believe? The lying president, his lying defense team, or the truthful media?  This is SO confusing.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v37)

Sonofa Gov Poster

Andrew Cuomo, New York's Sonova Gov, recently helped save a man who was trapped in an overturned vehicle on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway.  A few days later, he visited Puerto Rico after the recent earthquakes.

Meanwhile, Back in Albany between those two early-January activities, he delivered his tenth State of the State address - and, I should note, he was the creative force behind the poster you see here.

Our ship of state is stronger than it has been in decades. But the ocean we navigate is as tempest tossed as we have seen. Waves of anxiety, injustice and frustration are being fanned by winds of anger and division, creating a political and social superstorm.

That 'superstorm' includes school shootings, synagogue massacres, swastikas, turmoil on university campuses, homophobia, the increase in hate crimes... And it's going to get worse, he said, because of impeachment proceedings, divisive campaigns, and increasing global conflict. And those folks in DC? They're making it worse. 

We have a divided nation and a polarized Federal government. Everyone is pointing fingers, but no one is pointing forward and no one is pointing up.

He then recounted how New York has been a leader in the progressive movement, described as "the advancement of social, racial and economic justice, in an effective manner, to bring about meaningful improvement in the lives of aggrieved people and to further the collective interest." He outlined successes including gun safety, marriage equality, minimum wage, paid family leave, infrastructure, pro-union policies, and more.

Taxes went down for the middle class and corporations, and we've limited government spending to a 2% cap. We did all of that already, so what's left?

• Climate change: be ready to handle emergency situations, accelerate the transition to renewables, focusing on upstate opportunities; new transmission lines to get power from upstate to downstate; banning Styrofoam; funding national restoration/resilience programs, and more
• Green economy: expanding electric vehicles, attracting green industry, and putting a Nobel laureate to lead the way
• Taxes: continue growth by cutting small business taxes by 2.5%, cut 'middle class' taxes for individuals making up to $300K a year
• Upstate: continue REDC and DRI funding for economic growth; expand infrastructure investment; move on a host of regional projects from Buffalo to the Mohawk Valley and the Adirondacks; additional airport improvements; and more
• Downstate: continue investing in the MTA and Long Island Railroad; banning repeat sex offenders from the MTA; parks and housing initiatives. 

And, there's more:

• ensuring adequate cell service for the entire state; changing how the gig economy classifies workers; expanding paid leave; ensuring banks do business with everyone, or they won't do business with anyone; coordinating with neighboring states on legal marijuana; creating a global cannabis and hemp research center; ending the 'pink tax,' changing rape laws specifically where alcohol is involved
• legalizing 'gestational surrogacy' for same sex couples; expanding the Empire Child Care Tax Credit to include children under four; increased funding for affordable housing, with a demand for a 'higher level of competence, skill and professionalism' from local governments so the money won't be wasted 
• Not allowing guns purchase by people with a deniable conviction in another state; ending school funding disparities; free college tuition for families earning up to $150,000 a year; expanding workforce training programs
• Restricting the sales of all flavored e-cigarettes, restricting advertising on these products, and banning 'dangerous chemicals and products' as well as all variations of Fentanyl and synthetic drugs; expanding access to medication and assisted treatment; funding and other steps to ensure every New Yorker is counted in the upcoming census, and overturning the SALT limitation in the Trump tax code
• Speaking of taxes, all elected officials making over $100K annually must release their New York State taxes; prescription drug reform, medical transparency; passing the ERA; veterans assistance; e-bike laws; voting and election reform; and more.

Now, about that $6B budget gap, what did he have to say? All I can find is this:

• shifting more of the Medicaid burden to municipalities, which has been frozen for six years; and adding more accountability on the municipalities to keep costs down.

He challenged us to end the "American cancer" that is hatred, regardless of who it's against.

 Racism and discrimination are not new... It is this country consuming itself from within. And if we do not confront it, and if we do not defeat it, it will defeat us — there is no nation on this globe that can beat this nation, but this nation can defeat itself. 

New York must be the antidote. 

He said hate crimes would be subject to the "first-in-the-nation domestic terrorism law" and there'd be funding to expand the capacity of the Hate Crimes Task Force and for security grants to schools and places of worship. And, he wants schools to teach civic values and our history on diversity, as well as how immigration was driven by religious freedom, and

How Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity all teach one premise: that the strongest four-letter word is not hate, its love. 

There's also a call to expand the Jewish Museum on the Holocaust to allow it to "host school children all across the state" and make visiting there

part of a rounded education because to know the history of the Jewish people, is to know the history of love and connection, because New York would not be New York without the Jewish community, period.

Finally, he spoke of unity, saying that we should learn from the Pledge of Allegiance.

 It says, "One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all." Justice for all. Not justice for some, not justice for the wealthy, not justice for the well-off, not justice for the well-bred. Justice for all. That's what it says.

To demonstrate what that means to New Yorkers, he wants to add E Pluribus Unum to our state flag.

And then, the closing:

And hear me today, loud and clear. There is no place for hate in our state... When someone attacks one of us, they attack each of us and all of us.

When they attack Muslims, they attack me, and they attack you. When they attack the LGBTQ community, they attack me, and they attack you. When they attack Latinos, they attack me, and they attack you. When they attack Asian Americans, they attack me, and they attack you. When they attack African Americans, they're attacking me, and they're attacking you. When they're attacking Italian Americans, they're attacking me, and they're attacking you. When they're attacking Puerto Ricans, they're attacking me, and they're attacking you. And when they attack Orthodox Jewish people on the seventh night of Hanukkah, in Monsey, in Rockland, in the home of Rabbi Rottenberg, they attack me and they attack you! 

And when you try to divide the great State of New York, we will stand up tall. We will stand up unified. We will stand up and we will fight and we will win! Because we are right! And that is the New York way! Excelsior! Thank you, and God bless you!

And, lest you're wondering, he's not running for president in 2024. At least not yet.

Sunday School 1/26/20

Two of the Democratic presidential candidates - Amy Klobuchar  (Meet the Press and This Week with George) and Andrew Yang (Fox News Sunday)- were in the classrooms this morning, and that's where I spent my time.

The Klobuchar interviews were very similar. We'll start with MTP, where Chuck asked about impeachment. She said she thought the House managers made the case for witnesses, and about

looking over at colleagues and thinking, "you want to get to the truth. You know, you got elected to do this job not to serve at the pleasure of the president, but to represent the people." And I don't know how they can cut out facts and evidence... No matter how they vote on impeachment in the end, Americans want a fair trial. The polls show, overwhelmingly, people want to hear from the witnesses. So that's what I keep thinking when I hear the back and forth. Let's just get this done, hear the witnesses...

Asked about her efforts to get others on board, and whether she shares the "pessimism" of other Dems, she referenced "moments of courage" that Republicans have demonstrated in the past

You know, John McCain with that arm of his that, because of torture, he could hardly move it and lift it, when he voted no against repealing the Affordable Care Act... Lisa Murkowski, along with my friends Heidi Heitkamp and Claire McCaskill, when they just didn't have the stomach to vote for then-Judge Kavanaugh...

Those votes, she said, people voted against their own "immediate political interests. But they did things for the country."

She anticipates she'll still be running against Donald Trump in the fall. She refers to voters as 'jurors' in the primaries and the general election, and says

...this is a decency check in addition to an economic check on this president. And if we want to win, we have to bring people with us that don't agree with everything that's said on the debate stage. 

And, she agreed, "quickly" but not right away, the Dems will have to unify behind one candidate, even if it's not her.  At the same time, though,

I think Senator Sanders' idea of kicking 149 million Americans off their current health insurance in four years is wrong. That's why I don't think he should be leading the ticket. I think I should be leading the ticket because my ideas are much more in sync with bold ways of getting things done... and the experience of getting things done. 

And yes, Chuck, she's OK with having to be in DC doing her constitutional duty, even if it means she'll won't be in Iowa on caucus night.

I've always believed that obstacles on the path aren't obstacles, they are the path. If that happens, I think the people of this state and all of the four early states, if it goes on that long, they get that we have a constitutional job to do. And that is what I'll be doing. 

On This Week, she echoed her comment about That Guy From Vermont kicking 149 million people off their health insurance, and said

...you've got people out there that are interested in having a candidate that has a history like I do, that brings the receipts to the race of actually winning in very red and very purple suburban districts and doing that by bringing along with her a fired-up Democratic base, as well as independents and moderate Republicans. What matters most... is winning and uniting our party and I'm someone who can do that. I think that's where the country is, George.

George asked if she's going to NH, since she's only fifth in Iowa right now. She made it clear that's the plan, and touted her Iowa endorsements and her strong grassroots operation. She acknowledged she doesn't have the same name recognition as some of her competitors, or "billions of dollars" like two of her opponents, but said she's got grit, referencing her blizzard announcement, and

a lot of people have gotten out of this race, but I'm still standing....  And I'm only one of two candidates left from the middle of the country, the very, very part of the country that we need to win.

They talked about how she can pick up ground in Iowa before the caucuses on the 3rd while she's in DC for the impeachment trial. Tele-town halls - they have 12,000 people on one last week - and surrogates, and being there as much as the trial schedule allows, she said, noting

And the fact that I have this real job and that I'm in the arena and that I'm actually taking on the Trump administration and all of their shenanigans and behavior, I think that's actually a good thing.

She said impeachment is not only a decency check, but that it's "a patriotism check for our nation." And, finally, when George asked if the Senate should move to censure or at least try to censure Trump it he's acquitted, she suggested it's too early for that.

Right now, what I want my colleagues to do is join us in getting the witnesses... I want to hear from the men in the room where it happened. That is people like Mr. Bolton and Mick Mulvaney... All we are asking for right now is four witnesses. Zero witnesses plus zero evidence equals zero justice...

About her colleagues, she said

However they vote, whatever they choose to do when the evidence comes in, they cannot go down in history as the people that blocked the truth from coming forward, because eventually it will come forward. 

And "eventually" may be sooner than they think, if what we're hearing tonight is true.

Moving down the hall to the Fox classroom, Chris Wallace started his chat with Andrew Yang talking about the 'cost-benefit analysis' of his efforts in Iowa and the polls, which show him still lagging behind at 3% after doing over 150 events and spending $5M on ads. Yang said that the most recent poll shows him doing better - and improving, and suggests

We're going to surprise a lot of people on caucus night on February 3rd, I can guarantee you that.

Wallace then moved from the heartland to New Hampshire, noting Yang has spent similar time and money there - and asked Yang if it's time to drop out if he fails to finish in the top three or four in either Iowa or NH. Yang's answer? Um, that would be a 'no.'

Well, you know, Chris, and many people who have been paying attention to this race know, that we've been growing faster than any other candidate in a campaign. We have resilient grassroots support and we're going to be competing all the way through Super Tuesday and into the spring...

Wallace then moved to talking about policy, starting with Yang's freedom dividend, the $1K universal basic income that's the heart of his policy - and referenced AOC who says it's "regressive" and not enough to make up for income inequality. Yang, dismissing the Squad Leader, said that

Americans know instinctively that if you put a thousand dollars a month into our hands, it would find its way right back into our main street economies, make our families stronger, healthier, mentally healthier. It would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. It would improve the buying power, increase the buying power of over 90% of Americans.

Iowans, he said, can see their stores closing, can see tech companies (like Amazon, natch) "soaking up $20B in value a year and not paying a dime in taxes." It's not working for people, and that's why "we need the freedom dividend to actually put buying power directly into our citizens' hands." 

Wallace asked Yang how he talks about the freedom dividend potentially taking the place of existing welfare programs, instead of being an added benefit. He mentioned Yang's spokesman said that the freedom dividend is meant to be an alternative to programs like food stamps or vouchers for housing.

Yang noted that the better a family does, the less they get in benefits, and that's not working for them,

So, with the freedom dividend if you get this $1K and you start working and doing better, then you get to keep everything you make. This way the incentives are aligned with both the family and our country... We have to be able to improve on what we have in a way that will actually boost both families and the economy.

Next, Yang described his emotions when she told him that it had happened and, in answer to Wallace's question about what women and men should take away from her story, Yang first reminded us that his wife is not alone, and added

And so what we have to do as a country is acknowledge that these situations happen more often than we'd like to believe and that institutions, instead of protecting the doctor in this case, should be doing what they can to protect ourselves, our wives, our daughters, our mothers, We can do better than this as a country. And the gratitude and support that Evelyn has received over the last number of days has been really inspiring that we can do better. 

To end the interview, Wallace asked about Yang's saying the DNC made a big booboo saying they wouldn't hold any debates on Fox, and he wondered why Yang said it and what, if any reaction the DNC had. Yang said it came up at one of his Iowa events when someone asked how we were going to bring the country together, and

I thought, well, if you're going to bring the country together, you have to start by talking to Americans. And I pointed out this example of where the DNC decided not to have any of the presidential debates on Fox, which I thought was a mistake.

He hasn't had any "direct conversation" with the DNC, but they have talked to his people. 

I think it's this common sense, you know, to me, hopefully the DNC will adopt a different approach in the future because we have to bring the entire country together.

The problems that face us affect all of us and we need to -- to come together as a country to solve them.

 He's right. He's absolutely right.

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v20)

Another busy week for news watchers (and news avoiders), so here's a recap in case you missed any of this week's posts.  

The week started with news from the Update Desk - we had another update on the long, sad saga of Rep. Chris Collins, who last Friday was given a 26-month sentence stemming from his guilty plea on insider trading and other charges.

Saying that he believes "there is a need to both show respect for the law and to inflict just punishment," Judge Broderick added a $200,000 fine and a year of supervised release to the prison time, ending what the paper called "an unusually long three-hour sentencing hearing" which included a very emotional statement from Collins in which he said, among other things,

I violated my core values...  People feel sorry for me. They shouldn't. I did what I did. 

For this week's Sunday School, I sat in on an economics lesson, given by former Trump director of the National Economic Council. In addition to telling us he's not worried about a recession and he doesn't like tariffs, he also talked about some Democrats and their gimmicky policy proposals on raising revenue. And, for a while there, he sounded a lot like me.

You know, we look at spending and we look at revenue and we don't talk about them in the same sentence. We collect taxes and we spend. And Congress never thinks about how much money they have to spend. They just go spend... you wouldn't run your household like that. I wouldn't run my household like that. 

In the Extra Credit post, I looked at what some of the House Managers had to say; and there was Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Trump), who came in from the golf course to chat with Chris Wallace. Graham actually agreed with managers Hakeem Jeffries and Jerry Nadler, the letter who said about Hunter Biden testifying, that Biden

"has no knowledge of the accusations against the president," which is true. Anyone on the Senate side suggesting he be called would be absurd. Jeffries echoed that thinking, saying that the standard for calling witnesses is "relevance to the central allegation in this case," that being Trump pressuring Ukraine. 

Graham himself said

Hunter Biden and Joe Biden and the whistleblower, we can look at those allegations of misconduct outside of impeachment." 

I hope he remembers that exchange, since later in the week he seemed to be changing his tune on that.

Following an op-ed by Greta Van Susteren, I went back and looked at my posts related to Making Political Debates Better, and compared them with that Van Susteren said. She and I have very similar positions on this, aiming to put educating voters front and center in the debates. We focus on driving one-liners, sound bites, and pitting the candidates against each other, instead of allowing for a nuanced discussion on key issues, some of which have been around, unsolved or unaddressed, for years.  As Van Susteren said,

... If we don’t want the Oval Office to operate like Twitter, why do we test our candidates as if it does? 

Turning to my weekly Wondering on Wednesday, I spend some time wondering about things Rand Paul was saying about John Bolton, and what he might say if he were called to testify in the impeachment trial.

Which one is the guiding light for John Bolton at this point? Axe to grind and books to sell? Or, be a player and say, 'even if I'm gone, he's doing what I want on Iran and other things?'

To which I responded, 

Hey, Rand Paul, here's an idea: maybe Bolton is going to be a patriot, and say, 'even if I'm gone, and even if Trump's doing what I want on Iran and other things, I don't care - and I'm going to do the right thing and tell the truth?'  

On Thursday, in addition to the Email of the Week from one of the Dem presidential candidates - this week's winner was That Guy From Vermont - I re-opened the Trump in Transition theme to consider what would happen in a post-Trump administration if a Democratic president had the full and unfettered power of the presidency, unlimited either by criminal statute or Constitutional power.

... picture a President Sanders asking a foreign country to investigate an opponent of 'Democratic Socialism' or a President Biden having a friendly foreign government dig up dirt on all of the nepotism hires in the government, or a President Buttigieg having an equality-centric foreign country go after anti-gay politicians and their families, or a President Warren asking another country for help in digging around in DNA databases for dirt on political opponents... 

I'm pretty sure we all can picture the look on the Republicans' faces under those circumstances, can't we?

For this week's TGIF, in addition to some thoughts on impeachment, we had fun with the new Space Force logo (and the old ones, which were even more fun when introduced to help raise money for the Trump/Pence gang).  Here's how I closed the post.

To which George Takei - Sulu on Star Trek - said, "Ahem. We are expecting some royalties from this..."

So, there you go - you're up to date on the veritable pastiche for the week. If you'd rather stay up to date on posts when they happen, drop your email in the Instant Gratification box on the right sidebar on the blog.

See you tomorrow for Sunday School.

TGIF 1/24/20

Gather around, boys and girls - it's time for this week's TGIF list.

For the good week side, I'm going to put California Rep. Adam Schiff - a man with whom I've had a few bones to pick over the past several months - right on top. By all accounts, even from people who don't agree with what he's saying, he's been doing a good job, an effective job, leading the House impeachment managers as they present their opening arguments to the Senate. Lawyers, judges, pundits, Republicans, goofballs on Twitter and blogs (like me!) tend to agree with how he's handling the task.

Now, that doesn't mean that he hasn't made some goofs, or that his team hasn't made some goofs, or that they haven't talked too much - but it is a rare treat for me to say I approve of Schiff.  Jerry Nadler? Yeah, not so much. I think he's mostly been pissing people off, including Maine's Senator Susan Collins, who says she was the one who had a note sent to Chief Justice John Roberts, the presiding officer, to have him admonish "people on both sides" for their behavior. (Not sure if it was "fine people on both sides" or if it was just politicians...)

Of the other impeachment managers I've heard, I think Rep. Zoe Lofgren has also been doing a good job, better than Rep. Sylvia Garcia, the other one I've heard the most. And yes, that means that like many Senators, I haven't been sitting at my desk paying attention, reading books, playing with my Trump fidget spinner, or swigging milk or water. But, I'm not under oath nor do I have to abide by any rules saying I have to be there - so a big "welcome to the bad week list" to all of the Senators who have skipped out, with a particular hi-dee-ho to Tennessee's Marsha Blackburn, who was live on Fox when she was supposed to have been in the chamber paying attention. And a similar hi-dee-ho to whoever's been taking attendance and not reporting all of these folks to the time-out room.

The president was having a week, flying off to Davos to talk about how great things are, and saying that he's never met Lev Parnas except for maybe some photos, until today when a tape was leaked of Trump talking to Parnas about Masha Yovanovitch, saying "take her out" - like a boss, as they say on the car commercial. Mike Pence thinks the tape is real, so that should be good enough for Trump to stop lying about Parnas. Or, maybe not.

Speaking of Mike Pence, I seem to recall he was a huge supporter of Space Force?  And today, we got to see the new Space Force logo, chosen, we're told, by some important people. But first, let's refresh ourselves on the original draft logos, which were deemed "no good" by professional designers.

And here, is the winner, as announced by the president today. 

To which George Takei - Sulu on Star Trek - said, "Ahem. We are expecting some royalties from this..."

Fun stuff to end this long week.

TGIF, everyone.

Email of the Week (v7)

Thursday is 'Email of the Week' day, when I plow through a hundred or so emails from the handful of Democratic presidential candidates I'm following to see what's going on.

So, what was in my inbox? 116 emails from the candidates I'm following: Mayor Pete, Amy Klobuchar, That Guy From Vermont (TGFV), Elizabeth Warren, and Andrew Yang. I promised you I'd add Tom Steyer - and I did that, but just today. I also added both Deval Patrick and Mike Bloomberg. I can tell you that Steyer is now looking to get himself 250K donors so that he can be on stage in the February debate - I've seen a number of Facebook ads looking for just a dollar from me to help. 

Most of the emails were about the Iowa caucus, donations, and various fundraising deadlines (some met, some missed). We also learned of endorsements; Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren were both endorsed by the NY Times, and Klobuchar picked up the endorsement of the Quad-City Times.  Mayor Pete got a couple - former Obama Economic Advisors Council chair Austan Goolsbee, and actress Sharon Stone, who let us know that

Pete is a stark contrast to the typical Washington mindset that we're used to -- one full of anger and political warfare. He reminds me of why I became politically active as a young teen and fell so deeply in love with this democracy.

Elizabeth Warren let us know she'd gotten Megan Rapinoe's endorsement. Rapinoe, you'll recall, was the heroine of the USA women's World Cup championship. She's also a noted activist.

Every day, Megan is fighting for big, structural change, and we could not be more excited to welcome her on to Team Warren.

All of the candidates - with the customary exception of TGFV who has ignored all of the easy-peasy opportunities (Thanksgiving, Christmas, Hanukkah, New Year's) - sent messages commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. 

Andrew Yang spoke of King's championing of a "guaranteed income that would give those struggling a floor to stand on..." and of King's desire to eradicate poverty, noting

We are still fighting this fight. We are working to empower people to live their lives without scarcity, to be able to breathe easier, and to feel some relief from daily struggles.

Senator Klobuchar's message was simple and direct.

At a time of blistering rhetoric and divisiveness, I believe there is still more that unites us as Americans than divides us. We must heed the words of Dr. King, that we are all “tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

Senator Warren said, in part, we honor "His struggles and his triumphs, his courage and his conviction." And, she said,

Dr. King was the heart and hope of the civil rights movement. His dream shocked the conscience of our nation and challenged us to live up to our highest ideals... As I've traveled the country on this campaign, I have seen first-hand the dream that Dr. King imagined so many years ago... 

And Mayor Pete noted, in the longest email, that

In 1967, Dr. King created the Poor People’s Campaign, calling on the country and the American people to bridge race, class, and faith to live up to the teaching: “I was hungry and you fed me. I was a stranger, and you welcomed me.”  

And strange as it may seem right now, what I have seen in my life and my travels around this country fills me with hope. 

But the coveted Email of the Week goes to TGFV, who on MLK Day shared a vision not of the past, or of today, or next year, or even the year after that. Nope: he shared a utopian vision of four years from now.

Friends - 

Imagine four years from now. President Bernie Sanders - having passed Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and canceled all student debt - will be gearing up for a re-election campaign to continue our incredible progress transforming our country. 

Imagine college for all. Imagine health care guaranteed as a right. Imagine all that we can do for working people. It CAN happen. And when it does, we will look back to right now. 

Sixteen days from today is the Iowa caucus. If we win Iowa, it will set us up to do VERY well in the rest of the primaries, no matter what the corporate media and political establishment throw at us. Victory is in sight.

It starts with as many Bernie supporters as possible making a contribution to our campaign today. 

Can Bernie count on you for a $2.70 contribution to our campaign today? Every donation puts us on the path to a future with President Bernie Sanders.

Our donations we make to Bernie add up very quickly. All of sudden, it's ten more organizers, and then another day of advertising in a key state. And then we win - and get to the business of transforming our country.

Thanks for all you do for our campaign. 

I'm not sure I'm ready for utopia - his version, or anyone else's - but I guess you've got to give his team credit for putting this out there.

See you next week.

Trump in Transition (42): We're Not Done Yet

I thought that I was done with Trump in Transition posts, but I felt compelled to do one more, because of the threat a potential acquittal in the impeachment trial will pose.

I encourage you to read and thoughtfully consider this editorial in the Washington Post today, and understand what this impeachment is really all about and what it means if it is ignored.

The editorial notes, referencing the president's legal team, that

The defense brief they filed Monday argues that the president “did absolutely nothing wrong” when he pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch investigations of Joe Biden and a Russian-promoted conspiracy theory about the 2016 election. It further contends that Mr. Trump was entirely within his rights when he refused all cooperation with the House impeachment inquiry, including rejecting subpoenas for testimony and documents. It says he cannot be impeached because he violated no law.

Think about that last sentence, and think about this:

• Snitty Snitty Bill Barr, the United States Attorney General, believes that a US Attorney or Special prosecutor can determine that a that a president has committed a crime, but that a sitting president cannot be charged with the crime that the prosecutor identified.
• president Trump's attorneys have argued in federal court that the president could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in New York City and be immune from prosecution, significantly expanding on the initial point of this scenario, which is that even if Trump did that, he wouldn't lose any votes.

The editorial continues by noting that asking for an acquittal on that basis, Trump's lawyers (again, emphasis added)

are, in effect, seeking consent for an extraordinary expansion of his powers. An acquittal vote would confirm to Mr. Trump that he is free to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election and to withhold congressionally appropriated aid to induce such interference. It would suggest that he can press foreign leaders to launch a criminal investigation of any American citizen he designates, even in the absence of a preexisting U.S. probe, or any evidence.

I'm not sure any Senator who goes along with that line of thinking really wants that to happen, especially if they consider the personal impacts on them. Pretend, for instance, that a spine miraculously appears and a Senator decides to go against the president on something he feels strongly about (other than not being impeached, of course). Say one of them decides to

• vote against his insane buildup of our military, on which we already spend more than then next seven highest-spending countries combined, and more than the rest of the world, another 140+ countries, combined?
• vote against his stealing appropriated money and putting it on the border wall?
• vote against his vast expansion of welfare for paid leave, child care and all the rest?
• vote against an environmental regulatory repeal that will jeopardize his or her constituents should a heinous failure of an energy company occur? (You know, a burst pipeline, or a coal mine collapse, poisoned water from a pig farm, or a few thousand fracking earthquakes...)

They already know that going against him now may lead to the threat that he'll withhold his "full and complete endorsement" - but if they were to cross the un-indictable and unimpeachable asterisk president? Who knows which country he'll call upon to dig up dirt on them? I'm thinking Senators might want to check their junket itineraries for their entire time in office to see what they're up against...

And, think about the consequences of allowing this expansion of power should someone else get elected this fall: picture a President Sanders asking a foreign country to investigate an opponent of 'Democratic Socialism' or a President Biden having a friendly foreign government dig up dirt on all of the nepotism hires in the government, or a President Buttigieg having an equality-centric foreign country go after anti-gay politicians and their families, or a President Warren asking another country for help in digging around in DNA databases for dirt on political opponents... 

Those investigations would need no evidence of a crime; they could be done merely to satisfy the whims of a petulant, thin-skinned president acting like - well, acting like the current president. 

Now, the likelihood that any of the leading Dems would resort to that kind of nonsense is pretty darn low, but ignoring the actions for which the president was impeached and focusing on who is bringing the charges, or on the process under which the issues were investigated, voted on and approved presents a huge personal risk to all current and future politicians. Because none of those actions could be considered an abuse of power, and all of them would be perfectly acceptable in the world the president's defense contemplates.

And it's also dangerous for regular folks like me. I mean, I've slammed Trump on Twitter, on this blog, on Facebook, in bars and restaurants, in letters to my Congressman, while walking down the street with my husband, while talking to myself as I worked in my garden; I curse a cardboard cutout of him, I shake my fist at him when I watch news clips of him telling bald-faced lies - and I'm not the only person who'll read this who does that.

Any number of people have done the same, some with different targets: Clinton. Obama. Sanders. Biden. Buttigieg. Warren. Pelosi. Schiff. Nadler. AOC. Ilhan Omar. Rashida Tlaib. Maxine Waters. The list is endless, on both sides. Do you really want a president to be able to investigate me, or you, or your family members, just because said president has his or her panties in a knot?

Lots of people with much larger audiences than mine criticize and castigate and challenge this president, every single day - many of them members of the media, or as the asterisk president calls them, the "enemy of the people." Do we even know which reporters he has had investigated, or is having investigated right now for the simple offense of telling the truth, calling out one of his lies, or spouting an opinion? No - we don't.

We honestly have no idea how far astray

his anger, his thin skin, and his unfettered pride have taken him -
or will take him in the future.

Beyond that, the editorial also notes that under his defense scheme, a president could "flatly refuse all cooperation with any Congressional inquiry" in total disregard of the United States Constitution, which gives the House the power to impeach the executive. And,

it would establish that no president may be impeached unless he or she could be convicted of violating a federal statute - no matter the abuse of power. Those are principles that Republicans will regret if they conclude that a Democratic executive has violated his or her oath of office.

If they can't selfishly protect themselves and their own longevity, and they aren't willing to selflessly protect you and me, is it too much to ask that they simply uphold their oaths and protect the Constitution?

We'll see - we surely will - and we may not have to wait all that long to find out.

Wondering on Wednesday (v194)

Ready... Set... Wonder

The impeachment trial continues in earnest today, likely ending before 11PM if all goes well, compared to yesterday's day-into-night-into-morning marathon. Part of me wonders what more the House Managers and the Trump team could possibly say for up to 24 hours that they haven't already said - although, for the president's team, maybe they learned something yesterday and will be better prepared to actually offer a defense? I wonder...

I also wonder who was the rocket scientist who came up with the now-and-hopefully-forever rejected idea of doing any 'horsetrading' on witnesses for the trial. From this Bloomberg article, 

Some Republicans have suggested the could be open to calling witnesses such as acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former National Security Advisor John Bolton if Republicans are allowed to call Joe and Hunter Biden as well as the unidentified intelligence community whistleblower.

While Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said "that trade is not on the table," I honestly wonder why any Democrat would even consider going along with any request to allow people who are completely outside the actions taken by president Trump to testify, no matter what 'trade' they might get in return. 

First-term Indiana Republican Senator Mike Braun said that "the idea of witnesses will not get anywhere if it's not reciprocal" but there is no reciprocity when you're comparing Mulvaney and Bolton - people with direct knowledge of what was going on, according to all of the witnesses who testified in the House - to the Bidens, neither of whom 

• had any direct or indirect dealings with president Trump;
• had any direct or indirect dealings with President Zelensky;
• had any direct or indirect dealings with anyone in the current administration;
• had any direct or indirect involvement with the Ukrainian aid; or
• had any direct or indirect involvement with whatever drug deal Giuliani and Mulvaney were cooking up. 

As Joe Biden pointed out, the impeachment is a "constitutional issue. We're not going to turn it into a farce or political theater." Why is that so hard to understand, I wonder?

Moving on to something more entertaining, there's Kentucky's junior Senator Rand Paul, who said earlier today that there are 45 senators who are willing to dismiss the impeachment charges; the remaining senators are "wanting to hear a little more." this totally contradicts fellow Kentuckian Mitch McConnell, who said last week that there's "little or no sentiment" to dismiss without first hearing the presentations from the House managers. 

But it was his comments on the potential of John Bolton testifying.  Echoing comments from #IMPOTUS himself, Paul pointed to Bolton's tenure and tried to figure out what the right answer would be.

It's unknown. Some people who have talked to him think that he has an axe to grind, that he's angry he was publicly fired by the president. But he also has a history of believing in unlimited powers for the president. 

Which one is the guiding light for John Bolton at this point? Axe to grind and books to sell? Or, be a player and say, 'even if I'm gone, he's doing what I want on Iran and other things?'

Hey, Rand Paul, here's an idea: maybe Bolton is going to be a patriot,  and say, 'even if I'm gone, and even if Trump's doing what I want on Iran and other things, I don't care - and I'm going to do the right thing and tell the truth?'  

Wouldn't that be fun, I wonder? 

Making Political Debates Better

I stumbled upon this WaPo opinion piece while I was cleaning out my inbox, and I was delighted to see it. Why?  Because Greta Van Susteren, a person with a much larger audience than I have, pretty much agrees with me on what we need to do to make political debates more meaningful, and more valuable to voters. 

First, here's my perspective, told through three blog posts. The first, titled The Comic Book Debate, painfully re-lived one of the 2015 Republican presidential debates. After noting how rare it is for me to agree with a bunch of Rs, I said

...according to CNBC, this debate featured "the best team in business" and it was "the first debate focused on Your Money, Your Vote" - you know, tough economic issues like the shrinking global economy, growing national debt, beaten-down middle class and all that...

Got it -- great team of moderators, great topic. And then, the first question.

This series of debates is essentially a job interview with the American people. And in any job interview, you know this: you get asked "what's your biggest weakness?" So in 30 seconds, without telling us that you try to hard or that you're a perfectionist (cue the giggles), what's your biggest weakness and what are you doing to address it?

The second question ended with "Let's be honest. Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?" It got worse, leaving me at the end to note

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- we deserve so much more... and so much better. 

About a year later, I addressed a post to the Commission on Presidential Debates, suggesting that It's Not Too Late to Fix Things. My concerns were not a whole lot different this time.

While I appreciate to some extent the benefits of having a famous name and face or two sitting at the moderator's desk for the Presidential debates... we have seen this year a continuation of the moderators getting in the way, interjecting themselves and their interest in 'getting a story' into the debates, rather than facilitating the conversation in an objective manner.

I acknowledged that Donald Trump had been treated badly by the moderators (and I'll add today, that helped him win the election). I also said

It's clear that we have no opportunity to fix the candidates our political parties bestowed upon us this year, but we do have an opportunity to fix the debates so that they are more effective in educating the voting public on where the candidates stand on important issues, and significantly less focused... on sharing the candidates' respective baggage. 

I had a bunch of ideas to make it better. In addition to obvious stuff like using trained debate moderators, not media talking heads; shutting off microphones when the candidates go beyond their allotted time, etc., candidates would be forced to talk about their own policies, not the other guy's or the other gal's. I even suggested that fully-vetted minor party candidates - those offering the breadth and depth of policy positions that we'd expect from the major party candidates - also be allowed to participate. Crazy stuff, I know. 

My frustration grew last year watching the Dem debates, leading to another post focusing on Immigration Questions I Wish I Had Heard.  Here's the problem with the debate I had watched,  which covered a lot of topics, but not well. Mostly, having the candidates attack each other's positions and statements

makes for good theater, and it gives pundits a whole lot of material to work with, but does it help a voter understand where the candidates stand? Can we ever learn that, when they have one minute to not only respond to the question, but to get in  how their own stance differs from the one that drove the initial question? And to deliver a notable quotable, if they've got one handy?

 And here's what I proposed as a possible solution.

I would much rather hear real discussion on key topics, with 30 minutes or more set aside to have a real debate about the issues that matter. The candidates can be made aware of the topics in advance, but obviously not the questions, so everyone can be prepared for a robust discussion. That's right, a discussion - not an argument or dissection of resumes.

I outlined very specific questions on immigration that would have allowed us to understand where each of the candidates stand on key issues, including DREAMers, a border barrier, the e-Verify system, and more. The benefits of this go beyond helping us understand where the Dems stand, though.

... it will give everyone a chance to see, with their own eyes, that what the president says the Democrats want, and what they really want, are likely very different animals entirely.  

I think this is one of the only ways they will be able to counter his insane tweets and blatant lies. It will also give pollsters a chance to craft good questions for people, and see where the country really stands.

So, now you know where I'm coming from on this issue; here's Van Susteren's take on things.

Presidential debates are supposed to provide voters with a better understanding of a candidate’s views and how he or she would likely govern. Of course, if you think the job of the president is to make short, snappy decisions without consulting others and without examining all the pros and cons, then the existing debate format probably suits you. If, on the other hand, you think the job of the president is problem-solving, then the debate ought to be exactly that — a problem-solving test.

... If we don’t want the Oval Office to operate like Twitter, why do we test our candidates as if it does? (emphasis added)

YAY! A kindred spirit, even if she's from the other side of the aisle! Her approach is very similar to mine but goes further. I suggested giving the candidates the topics, and allowing them to prepare - but she takes it even a little bit further. Here's how she'd handle moderator duty.

...three days in advance, I would supply the candidates with a series of identical, fact-based problem scenarios. These scenarios would relate to real issues facing the United States — such as health care, infrastructure, Iran, North Korea, climate change or cyber warfare. Candidates would consider how to respond to the scenarios; they could consult with advisers and arrive at the debate with a (hopefully) workable solution.

She notes that we could still get canned answers, but I think we'd know spot them right away, compared to others who were taking this format seriously. She also points out that being able to consult with their teams would be a good thing, not a bad thing.

...what would look like “cheating” in the context of a take-home exam is akin to real-life governing. No one wants a president who acts without the benefit of being surrounded by subject-matter experts and trusted advisers. 

Van Susteren notes, as did I, the benefits of hearing the candidates answer the same detailed question, and

because the questions would not flit from subject to subject, there would be more ability to test the quality of candidates’ thinking. The presidential hopefuls would be required to describe how they had arrived at their approach, explain how it might be achieved and outline the potential consequences.

Moderators would be there to "...press the participants, politely but repeatedly, on the feasibility of their proposals." Getting things done if there's a divided Congress, or concerns about our allies and whether they'll go along with us are just a couple of probing questions she suggested could be asked.

The reasoning behind her plan is perfectly valid, even if it does attack the Dems on policy.

This format would inhibit a candidate’s ability to promise free college, Medicare-for-all and a tax increase only on billionaires — all to be magically approved by a Republican-controlled Senate — then have the time clock go off and everyone move on to trade policy....

Admitting, as I did, that there's more one way to make debates better, her bottom line and mine are the same:

If we want better outcomes in Washington, we must change the vetting process for how our presidents get there.

 Hear, hear. Maybe we can figure this out by the time we come out of the nomination conventions...

Sunday School Extra Credit 1/19/19

All impeachment, nothing but impeachment, in our Extra Credit.

Let's dive right in, shall we, starting with Rep. Adam Schiff who spoke with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week.

We subpoenaed many of these witnesses. And because of the president's obstruction, they ignored those lawful subpoenas.

If you argue that, well, the House needed to go through endless months or even years of litigation before bringing about an impeachment, you effectively nullify the impeachment clause. You allow the president of the United States by delay, by playing rope a dope in the courts, to defeat the power of the impeachment clause.

The framers gave the House the sole power of impeachment. It didn't say that was given to judges who at their leisure may or may not decide cases and allow the House to proceed. So that is not the structure that the framers intended.

And I'll make one other point, George, which I think is a powerful one, and that is Donald Trump's Justice Department is in court saying the House cannot go to court to enforce its subpoenas. Well, they can't have it both ways, and neither should the senators accept it both ways.

The reality is, because what the president is threatening to do is cheat in the next election, you cannot wait months and years to be able to remove that threat from office.

Alan Dershowitz was also in the classroom; here's his main point.

Andrew Johnson was impeached in part for non-criminal conduct. And Curtis, who was the dissenting judge in the Dred Scott case and one of the most eminent jurists in American history, made the argument that has been called absurdist, namely that when you read the text of the Constitution -- bribery, treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors -- other really means that crimes and misdemeanors must be of kin -- akin to treason and bribery.

And he argued, very successfully, winning the case, that you needed proof of an actual crime. It needn't be a statutory crime, but it has to be criminal behavior, criminal in nature. And the allegations in the Johnson case were much akin to the allegations here -- abusive conduct, obstructive conduct -- and that lost.

So I am making an argument much like the argument made by the great Justice Curtis. And to call them absurdist is to, you know, insult one of the greatest jurists in American history. The argument is a strong one. The Senate should hear it. I'm privileged to be able to make it. I have a limited role in the case. I'm only in the case as of counsel on the constitutional criteria for impeachment. I'm not involved in the strategic decisions about witnesses or facts.

But I will make a strong argument that Justice Curtis was correct and that Congress was wrong in impeaching for these two articles.

Rep. Jerry Nadler was on Face the Nation, offering

There is ample evidence, overwhelming evidence. Any jury would convict in three minutes flat that the president betrayed his country by breaking the law. The GAO, the General Accountability Office, just came out this week and pointed out that withholding money from Uk- from Ukraine that Congress had appropriated is against the law. But we didn't need them to tell us that.

And the reason he did that was in order to extort a foreign government to- to smear his political opponents for his personal benefits and to help try to rig the 2020 election as he worked with the Russians to try to rig the 2016 election. The same pattern. So, there is no question that working with a foreign- working with a foreign power, trying to extort a foreign power to interfere in our election is about as bad as you can imagine.

The main fear the framers of the Constitution had, why they put the impeachment clause in the Constitution, was they were afraid of foreign interference in- in our domestic affairs. The second thing they say that he broke no law is absurd. Abuse of power is the central reason for the impeachment clause in the Constitution. It's all over the Federalist Papers. It's all over the debates in the constitutional convention. There is no question about it. 

Dershowitz also visited CNN's State of the Union, as did Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, one of the House impeachment managers. First, Dershowitz.

If my argument succeeds, there's no need for witnesses. Indeed, there's no need for even arguments, any further arguments. If the House charges do not include impeachable offenses, that's really the end of the matter, and the Senate should vote to acquit, or even to dismiss.

Now, that motion is not going to be made. It was made in the Clinton case. Remember, I was involved in the Clinton case. I was a witness for Clinton. I consulted with the Clinton team.

I was also -- expressed very strong views about the Nixon impeachment. I had been consistent in my views on impeachment since the 1970s. That's more than I can say for some of my other academic colleagues, who seem to be making their arguments based on partisan considerations.

I'm a liberal Democrat who -- making this argument in a nonpartisan way.

Here's Rep. Jason Crow.

I have always had a fantastic relationship with Speaker Pelosi, and she has done a really great job over the past year navigating the House through a very difficult, very challenging time. She has led in a very thoughtful way.

And I think what the selection of these managers show is that politics doesn't play a part. The speaker has wanted to put a team together that represents the diversity of this country, the diversity of the caucus who can bring the case, make the case regarding national security, abuse of power and all of the things that the president did and make the case in a good way.

He also said that

We can talk about the hypotheticals all day long, about which witnesses to call, when to call them, whether or not to they have witnesses or documents or documents that corroborate the witness, and all of the hypotheticals, but all of it is going back to the Senate allowing witnesses and a Senate allowing documents. That is the Senate's decision, because the jurors in this case, the senators are both the trier of fact, but they also establish the rules. So it is time for them to establish fair rules.

We'll close with Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, who visited the Fox News Sunday classroom.

There is the impeachment process and then, of course, there's the removal trial that takes place in the Senate. And Speaker Pelosi's decision, which was the right one, to temporarily, for a short period of time, hold those Articles of Impeachment, have created the space for us to have a discussion about a fair trial.  And in that space, what we've seen is John Bolton has come forward to say he's willing to testify before the Senate. Lev Parnas has come forward to say he is willing to testify before the Senate.

We've acquired additional information in terms of correspondence between the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense, which says that the president was the one who directed the aid be withheld from Ukraine. We've had five Republican senators say that a fair trial should involve hearing from witnesses. And we've also seen that the non-partisan Government Accountability Office has concluded that the White House broke the law. That's additional information that I would think senators who believe in a fair trial would want to hear.

A couple of notes:

• Chris Wallace called out Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her pen-handing-out ceremony and smiling faces of people who received one of the darn things as not being in keeping with what Pelosi has said was her approach - solemn, sober, and without joy. He's right to do that, and this was just one more example of the tone-deafness of the leadership of the House.

• Nadler correctly mentioned, in reference to a question about Hunter Biden being called, that Biden "has no knowledge of the accusations against the president," which is true. Anyone on the Senate side suggesting he be called would be absurd. Jeffries echoed that thinking, saying that the standard for calling witnesses is "relevance to the central allegation in this case," that being Trump pressuring Ukraine. 

• Lindsey Graham (R-Trump) says "Hunter Biden and Joe Biden and the whistleblower, we can look at those allegations of misconduct outside of impeachment." Not sure exactly what he's going to be looking at there, particularly with Hunter Biden's job, and the whistleblower doing his job, whether or not he every worked with or for Joe Biden - because as far as I can tell, no one has yet proven that anything the whistleblower said was untrue or a violation of any rules of conduct. 

• There were a couple of references to potential rules that the Senate hearings will run twelve hours a day, from 1PM to 1AM, with each side allowed two days - 24 hours - to make their respective cases. To that, I can only ask, what the hell is Mitch McConnell afraid of, that he thinks the trial should be held when no one's watching? I can only wonder if he's trying to exhaust the Senate into voting to end this quickly...   

• Add in what appears to be extremely restrictive rules for the media, including not even allowing CSPAN cameras to broadcast the hearings, are only adding to the sense that this is not at all about making sure history is documented for posterity, it's about allowing one person -- the impeached one - all the access he needs, the hell with "the enemy of the people" and the people themselves. Again: what are they afraid of?

See you around campus.