Showing posts with label Andrea Mitchell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrea Mitchell. Show all posts

August 14, 2022

Sunday School 8/14/22

I'm picking and choosing my guests today, starting with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) who talked with Andrea Mitchell in the Meet the Press classroom. Here's a recap of their conversations related to the FBI's Mar-a-Lago search.

Klobuchar said her first reaction to what occurred is "to stand with the men and women of the FBI who are simply doing their jobs," and cautioned even though we know many of the documents recovered were marked some level of classified, we don't know what's in them. She also described the process for senators to view this type of document: special room, no staff, no phone, not even a Fitbit, both because of the information in them, and because we don't want them to fall into enemy hands, in any way. And, she noted, that why they shouldn't be removed from secure spots

And Mar-a-Lago, where you can check out croquet sets and tennis rackets and golf clubs, that's not one of them.

Mitchell asked if maybe there was a different way to get the documents, and Klobuchar reminded her what AG Merrick Garland ("someone of just utmost credibility and integrity") that negotiating hadn't worked. 

But what really happened here was a judge looked at this and said, "Yeah, there's evidence, enough evidence to warrant a search warrant to go in there and retrieve those documents that are of high national security classification." These are the nation's secrets.

She wouldn't play the "should Trump be indicted?" game, other than to say that, in America, "the law is king. The president isn't king. And I would add to that, the former president isn't king. Everyone has to follow the laws." 

And finally, she didn't mince words on the rhetoric from Trump supporters, including elected officials.

...This is the kind of thing that result(s) when you've got a president that attacks law enforcement and attacks the law. I thought in the old days the Republican Party used to stand with law enforcement. And I hope some of them do today because this kind of rhetoric is very dangerous to our country... These are career men and women that are simply doing their job... this is beyond politics. 

Switching to Rounds who, according to Mitchell, "earlier this week" said the search "must be justified" and that he "had serious questions about the integrity of the Justice Department," she wondered if his questions have been answered, given what was found and why they went in. 

Uh, that's a no. He says there's more information to be released; certainly, releasing the affidavit used to get the signed search warrant would help.

At least that would confirm that there was justification for this raid. But remember, this is also a case of where we're going to have more questions as they continue to develop, as they look through the information, the material that they've garnered at Mar-a-Lago. Perhaps they will share some of what their concern was...

He seems to think the AG is not believable when he said they exhausted all other options, saying

... you know, this is a very historic attempt and a challenge really in, with regard to looking at a former president, and whether or not they want to bring any kind of charges against him. This is a change, and this is something that will go down in history, and it will be studied for years to come. 

After sharing pointed, partisan comments from three fellow GOP senators (Graham, Paul, and Tim Scott), Mitchell wondered if what was found justified the search, after "months and months" of trying to get cooperation. Again, Rounds said DOJ needs to prove they did everything they could - but also, he noted, there's "one constitutional issue that has not been talked about" - whether a "president can declassify or classify certain items."

And I think constitutionally back, I believe it was in 1988, there was a Supreme Court decision, U.S. Navy v. Egan, in which they actually talked about whether or not a president could classify and declassify. And it's never really been litigated. But it appears that a president can classify or perhaps declassify information. And if that's the case, then the question would be, and I think it will be litigated as this moves forward, whether or not that was completed while the president was in the White House at that time.

And, of course,  

...there's concern out there. And believe me, Republicans out there are questioning, "Why in the world are you going after a former president right now, but you didn't go after other individuals who clearly had classified documents or information that was sensitive and you did not do that in the previous administrations?"

Again, he raised the trust issue, saying if they (DOJ/Garland) can come forward and put all their cards on the table (even though this is an ongoing investigation), they should, and fast.

...they should do that as quickly as they can, and they should share that with the American people because this is a time in which -- with regard to the institutions in this country -- we want the American people to have faith in their institutions. We want them to see that they're not, that they're not political, and that they're not being politicized, particularly during an election year.

Of course, in the meantime, his fellow Republicans, and the former president himself, will continue sowing thousands of pounds of seeds of distrust with the American people in an election year, because they really don't want us having faith in our institutions. They've shown that, repeatedly, in the past seven years.

I trust I'll see you around campus. 

October 25, 2021

Sunday School 10/24/21

Perhaps I'm crazy, but I decided to spend my Sunday School time yesterday with Andrea Mitchell in the Meet the Press classroom. What a frustrating adventure that was. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-etiring at the End of This Term and Never Looking Back) of Missouri. 

Mitchell mentioned comments made by the Former Guy, which I won't repeat, and she asked if Election Day was an insurrection. Blunt's taken a bit of heat for the first sentence of his answer: "You know, I think the election was what it was." Here's the rest of his response.

There's a process you go through that determines whether or not the early reports were the right reports. And we went through that process. And I'm of the view that the best thing that president Trump could do to help us win majorities in 2022 is talk about the future. And he can be an important part of that, this '22 effort. But I think, better off to talk about the future than to focus on the past in every election. Every election should be about the future, and I think that's what this next one's going to be about.

Mitchell gave #TFG more free airtime, mentioning additional comments he made about Arizona and President Biden. And here's how the conversation evolved.

AM:  So he's still talking about the past. And a lot of Republicans, a lot of Republican leaders in the House, other members of the Senate are standing with him on this. Doesn't the party have to disavow the challenge to the election in order to, you know, go forward?

RB: You know, I think President Biden and the Democrats are giving us plenty of things to talk about. We don't need to keep focusing on the past --

AM: But Republicans are. Republicans keep talking about that --

RB: Well, I'm not. And I don't think --

AM: -- and incorrectly.

RB: I don't think many Republicans in the Senate are. I think we're talking about bad tax policies, bad environmental policies, bad national takeover of the election process. There are plenty of things for us to talk about, and I think we're talking about them. I'm there every day, and I hear Republicans concerned, as they should be, about this -- the process that the Democrats are going through right now --

AM: But they're also denying the reality of January 6th. Republicans refusing the commission, not joining the House Select Committee. Steve Bannon, only nine Republican House votes to punish him for violating a House subpoena.

RB: Well, you know, I think a lot of this discussion is obviously driven by the media, just like this is here today. We could be talking about Senate rules. We could be talking about tax policy.

AM: Well, if Republicans were --

RB: We could be talking about --

AM: -- accepting the reality --

RB: -- these new entitlement policies.

AM: It's not the media that's, you know, going against the reality of what happened on January 6th. It was the worst attack on our government, on our democracy since the Civil War.

RB: Oh, I agree with that. In fact, on January the 20th, I was at the podium at the Capitol chairing the inauguration. And that peaceful transition of power that we saw that day is one of the most important things we do. And I was able to chair the inauguration four years earlier. And four years later, it was the same important message we sent to the world. And I think we effectively did that.

AM: Well, to that point, if the former president keeps denying the reality of the election and of Joe Biden being the president, should that disqualify him from being a candidate, as he suggests he wants to be, in 2024?

RB: Well, you know, there are constitutional provisions about being a candidate. And having opinions that other people may not agree with is not one of those provisions. He can be a candidate if he wants to be. But, again, I think what President Trump could do that would be most helpful right now would be focus on the policies that aren't working. You know, his policies at the border were working. His regulatory policies were --

AM: But if he --

RB: -- were working. His tax policies were working. But we see that those policies for Democrats with these narrow majorities they have aren't working. I hope that's where he focuses. But, you know, I don't manage his time --

AM: I know. But if he doesn't --

RB:  -- or his comments.

AM: -- concede the election, would you support him in 2024?

RB: Well, the election for 2020 is over. I'm focused on 2022, and it's a long time between now and 2024.

There was more - focused on #TFG and Liz Cheney and voting rights - finally, a policy question! - and Joe Manchin (who wasn't in the classroom, but he was clearly in Mitchell's head) but really, it was pretty clear she didn't give a hoot about Blunt's answers, or if she did, it was a much smaller hoot than she gave to her own questions and endless interruptions. 

It's seriously time for Meet the Press to have a total reboot - and to boot both Chuck Todd and Mitchell and try something else. This - whatever it's supposed to be - is not working.

See you around campus.