Sunday School 3/27/22: Extra Credit

In this week's Sunday School we heard from a Right Winger and a Woke Lefty on issues unrelated to regime change and ethics. For your Extra Credit, we're going to look at the latter, starting with three guests John Dickerson had on Face the Nation. 

First up? Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Dammit, I'm a Republican; Trump is a Menace). The bulk of their conversation was about the Ginni Thomas texts, the January 6th Committee, and the Supreme Court. (Full disclosure: Thomas and her husband, Justice Clarence Thomas, recently received one of my Dirty Snowpile awards.)

Kinzinger wouldn't officially confirm or deny the texts existed, since they were leaked, but he said the Committee's bottom line was to get the facts and share them with us.

We're going to get to the bottom of this. And as we're seeing in Ukraine, people are willing to die for democracy. We at least have to be willing to put careers on the line for the same cause.

He's got a point there...  Sadly, he didn't offer much of value, other than his lack of confidence that Mark Meadows, the recipient of the texts in question, has been fully forthcoming. There's a reason why he's been turned over to the DOJ for a potential contempt prosecution.

I mean, he was cooperating with us for a little bit, and then... to make Donald Trump happy, he stopped cooperating. We gave him plenty of space to come back to resume that. He has not. And, in fact, he's waived executive privilege a thousand times by presenting us what he already has. So, no, I'm not convinced he's handed over everything to us. 

Next up? Bob Woodward (WaPo) and Robert Costa (CBS), who broke the story the texts. Dickerson asked for an explanation on the importance of the messages. Woodward compared them to Watergate, which was tampering on the front end of the election process. This is different because "they come after the election is over." 

Costa noted this "campaign, spearheaded by then-president Trump," crossed all three branches of government "in at least tangential ways." It wasn't just pressuring Pence and Congress to overturn the results, and pressuring the states to invalidate the votes.

... you had the executive branch doing everything possible to have a legal challenge that would maybe go all the way, as Trump said, to the Supreme Court. This was Trump pulling every lever of power. And one of those levers, it appears to be...his own chief of staff at least communicating on legal strategy with the spouse of a justice.

Woodward said that Chief Justice John Roberts "really has grounds for being worried" about the Court being seen as political. He pointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett's "remarkable speech" a few months back, 

She said, I want to prove to you that we are not a bunch of partisan hacks in the Supreme Court. And she said justices - all justices - must be hyper vigilant to make sure they're not letting personal biases creep into their decision since justices and judges are people, too. So, she made it very clear that this hypervigilance should be the condition in which justices operate.

And yet, we have Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows texting about 'war' and 'good vs. evil' and 'not giving up' in their efforts to overturn the election, and Justice Thomas not recusing himself from January 6th-related cases... 

Costa appreciated the Committee's frustration by Meadows and what else he might have, and that includes any texts with Ginni Thomas after the end of November. I agree; it seems weird they would suddenly end. After all, she attended the Stop the Steal rally, until her feet got cold, and allegedly has ties with some of the groups behind the event. 

That said, The Committee has "done hundreds of interviews. They have thousands of pages of documents" from cooperating witnesses,

but they still feel in many ways they do not have enough. Steven Bannon has refused to cooperate. Mark Meadows has now refused to cooperate. So, the question facing ...Kinzinger and others is, where is the John Dean who's going to put the hand in the air and start outlining all of these different facets?

 Woodward said "there are always surprises," so it possible there's a John Dean out there. And

remember, the January 6th committee, in a filing in California, has said they have a good-faith conclusion that Trump and people around him engaged in a full-fledged criminal conspiracy to overturn the election. They rule this as criminal. 

And just yesterday, that judge ruled it was "more likely that not" that Trump "corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021." 

Costa said the "real test" for the Committee is whether they give Thomas a chance to speak voluntarily, or if they subpoena her. And, he said, it's not just about her conversations with Meadows. 

We just don't have the full picture at this point about her relationship with Justice Thomas and his knowledge of her exchanges with the chief of staff.

Ain't that the truth. 

Finally, let's hear just a bit from Sen. Cory Booker (D-No One's Going to Steal My Joy!), who chatted with What's-his-name on Meet the Press.  In addition to talking about the #KBJ hearings, the host brought up the text thing, using former AG Loretta Lynch and the meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton as an example of someone recusing themselves, and asked if Justice Thomas "should follow the Loretta Lynch precedent?" 

Booker ignored that example; instead, he offered a relevant one: Justice Elena Kagan.

Out of 70-some cases, she recused herself over 20 times... not necessarily because she was conflicted, but because she understood that even the appearance of impropriety would delegitimize the Court. And the Court needs that legitimacy in this nation. So clearly, Justice Thomas should have recused himself. That's not even at question here. (Emphasis added.)

He said he's frustrated with the Court "as a whole, that they have not taken better measures to police themselves." That includes holding lower courts to ethics rules that they "don't put upon themselves." And, he gave one my favorite examples of shady ethics: justices giving paid speeches to partisan groups that may have direct matters, or amicus briefs, before the Court.

There are a lot of ethics rules that they do not, have not put upon themselves that are just common sense and ultimately lead to a delegitimized court. And I think that they need to use this Thomas affair as an opportunity to change their ethics rules.

He didn't add "or we'll change the rules for them" - but that possibility is already on the table, as it should be.

See you around campus. Unless you need to recuse yourself for something. 

Sunday School 9/13/20: Extra Credit

For yesterday's Sunday School, I hung out in the MTP classroom. For your Extra Credit, I spent time with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday for his discussion with Steve Cortes, a senior advisor for the Trump campaign. If you have the stomach for it, you can check out Jake Tapper's discussion with Peter Navarro on CNN's State of the Union yourself. It's a doozy, as it usually is whenever Navarro walks into a classroom.

Wallace began his conversation with Cortes by talking about Joe Biden's lead over the president on key issues including the coronavirus, race, and even law and order, while the president leads on the economy, and he said that Trump "hasn't broken through." Cortes said the economy is the most important, and that "the ultimate driver of the electoral decision" for most of us is "who can create prosperity for me, for my family, and for this country going forward." We're going to see a Trump boom 2.0, he said. 

Cortes also said, referencing the coronavirus,

I think - here's the reality: I think unfortunately corporate media has been relatively successful at pushing out a myth that the president mishandled the virus. And I actually when I look at for instance these revelations from Woodward, I think if you look at them in the context of the totality of actions taken by this president, it actually reveals an exemplary record of crisis management.

He said what he means is that "it's very clear that the president, early on during the fog of biological war" (and I can't stop seeing an image of a guy with orange hair fighting off a fog of Agent Orange, or worse, a fog of sexually transmitted diseases - his own personal Vietnam, you'll recall), Trump decided to "reassure the American people. That he was going to be the kind of leader who convinces people that we can persevere through this epidemiological Pearl Harbor" and that meant he had to lie to us. (Cortes didn't actually say that last part, I did.) All of that added up to what he called "a record of superb management actually of the virus."

Since Cortes opened the door, Wallace honed in the Woodward tapes, noting Trump told Woodward that the coronavirus was deadly and much worse than the flu. But he told us we'd be down to zero cases and it's not worse than the flu - so "why not level with the American people, Steve?" 

Steve put on his gas mask and went back to "the fog of war, of biological war..." but Wallace wasn't having it, saying "I'm going to interrupt you right there, because it wasn't the fog of war."

In fact, Wallace went on to explain, just days before the Woodward phone call, both the national security advisor (this is the biggest challenge you're going to face in your entire presidency, he said to Trump) and the deputy national security advisor (immediately comparing it to the Spanish flu) had made it clear "this was a deadly pandemic. There was no fog here."

Cortes played his card again, saying there was "tremendous fog," and went on to talk about stuff Dr. Anthony Fauci was saying at the end of February. And to blame the Chinese Communist Party for lying to the world, leaving us "searching largely in the darkness" to figure out what the facts were. 

Shifting into his Captain Obvious role, Wallace said that Cortes was giving a different explanation than the president did. In the Cortes world, the president doesn't know, it was foggy, the science was foggy - but Trump himself said he did know the science, he just didn't want to "jump up and down" and create a panic.  Cortes insisted it was both.

Wallace said that "one of the reasons that there's a question about that is because of the fact that the president plays the panic card all the time, especially when he's talking about Joe Biden." And after playing a clip of Trump saying "if Biden wins, the mob wins. If Biden wins, the rioters, anarchists, arsonists and flag burners win," Wallace asked "Is that a president who is trying to keep the country calm?"

Cortes tried to explain the difference between the two Trumps.

When the president is talking about legitimate fear of what can happen in America if Joe Biden were to win, and if disrespect for the police were to continue to become the norm in this country, he's trying to exhort the American people to action, to say we can stop this, we can back the police, we can restore order, we can insist on the rule of law. That is sensible to recognize that there is a legitimate fear out there in the country.

What is not helpful is to tell the American people that this virus is out of control... The president's job in a time of crisis is partly to be reassuring to the American people, to convince them that we can and will persevere through this epidemiological Pearl Harbor.

Wallace could have said, at that point, that "the president could have tried to exhort the American people to action, to say 'we can stop this,' we can back the scientists, we can wear masks and practice social distancing, we can insist that everyone follow the guidance of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. That is sensible to recognize that there is a legitimate virus out there in the country." But he didn't. 

Instead, he said 

I got it -- I got your point. The argument would be that there's - it's a false choice you're making. He either plays the rosy scenario or he sets his hair on fire. There is something in the middle, which is just being honest with the American people. And there's a question, Steve, as to whether or not the president is still being honest with the American people...

Pointing to Trump's and Fauci's different messages on how long the virus will be sticking around: we're rounding the turn, per Trump, vs. the end of 2021, from Fauci. Cortes said that Trump has a "far more optimist view right now" than Fauci, and then he dragged in some other doctors who disagree with Fauci. And, Cortes thinks,

The president is now making I think very properly a really optimistic case that we are nearing the end of this, that the trends are going aggressively towards health...

And he added more comments from Fauci saying (on Fox, anyway) that there aren't any discrepancies between Trump and him. To which Wallace pointed out first that Fauci said something different on a different network, and second,

I find it interesting that sometimes you're citing him (Fauci) as an authority and sometimes you're saying he's wrong.

Which was a good call-out, because that's exactly what these folks do, for sure. And if you already knew that, which you should have, you can give yourself a couple of bonus points on top of your extra credit. 

Protect yourself - and others - from the fog of war. Wear a mask and practice social distancing, and I'll see you around the virtual campus.

Wondering on Wednesday (9/9/20)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

• Like many people, I'm wondering when the president will roll out his health care plan, which he promised us weeks ago. In fact, on July 19th he promised us "we're signing a health care plan within two weeks, a full and complete health-care plan." Time flies when you're having fun, I guess... Or, maybe, time flies when you're never delivering a health care plan...

• I wonder what it must have been like to work for PostWrecker General Louis Dejoy before he started 'fixing' the USPS? On the one hand, he really encouraged employees to donate to Republicans, which is typically not my cup of tea, but on the other hand, if you did, you got a nice bonus that not only covered but exceeded the amount of your donation, if what we're being told is true. So, should I sell my soul for a nice payout later, or do I stick to my guns and not fall for the bribe?  Hmm... Actually, there's no wondering on my decision.  I'll pass on the bonus, thanks.

• Is anyone wondering that another whistleblower is coming forward in this administration, or that the issue he's blown the whistle on is Trump's downgrading Russian interference and upgrading Ch-eye-na's and Eye-ran's instead? Because we know that fits the narrative that Trump likes. His minions have made no mistake about that in many appearances in the Sunday classrooms. The experts say Russia, the minions say the other two. The experts say Russia, Trump says the other two. The whistleblower says Russia, and says that Acting DHS Director Chad Wolf says the other two...  I can't help thinking I'm not the only one seeing a pattern here?

• Another thing I'm wondering about? What on earth possessed the president to talk 18 times with Bob Woodward?  Did he really think he'd be able to talk his way into a flattering portrayal this time out? Is he nuts? Is this what he considers "the art of the deal?" I mean, in addition to having to convince us he never said what he could quite believably have said about American veterans, he's also got to convince us that he lied to us about the coronavirus to protect us, and not to make his numbers look good?  What kind of crap is that? Does he think we're stupid, I wonder? Oh wait - silly me - of course he thinks we're stupid.

• Snitty Snitty Bill Barr is expanding the Justice Department's already huge role as Trump's personal law firm, by moving to take over his defense in E. Jean Carroll's defamation lawsuit.  Barr said it's fairly common for this to happen, and blames the political climate for the kerfuffle we're seeing. And, he said, the White House asked for the DOJ to intervene. I certainly don't wonder about that last part - Trump's more a fan of threatening to sue other people than he is paying lawyers to defend him, so having our tax dollars pay for it is a win-win for him, no doubt about that.

• And finally tonight, it's hard to remember all of the wacky things that have happened in this uniquely weird year, so you might have lost track of those mysterious seeds from Ch-eye-na that we were warned not to plant. Well, is it any wonder that we planted them? Or that we ate them?  

I do have to say, the opening line of the article on the seeds are truly words to live by: 

The same rules apply to a package of mysterious seeds found in your mail as do to a bag of fries discovered in a parking lot: As tempting as it is, don't open it, and most certainly do not eat what's inside.

What are you wondering about tonight?