Sunday School 1/28/24

For your Sunday School this week, I'm focusing on the immigration conversations in the classrooms.

Donald Trump doesn't want Senate Republicans to help get a bill to the House, and he doesn't want the House to pass a bill if one makes it to them. We know that because Mitch McConnell said the first part, and Trump himself has made the second part clear. 

We'll start with Face the Nation where Margaret Brennan (Interrupter-in-Chief, CBS) talked with Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), one of the negotiators of the Senate bill. Lankford said they've been working on the bill for "about four months" and they're trying to get it wrapped up so they can get into people's hands and put false rumors to bed.

So people want to be able to just see it, read it and go through it, and to be able to see the dramatic change that this really makes in how we handle our immigration system and how we work to be able to secure our border completely. That's been the simple request of Americans, whether you're Republican, Democrat, or independent. People just want a secure border, where we have legal immigration, but we're not promoting illegal immigration. And that's what we've seen in the last three years.

He said some of the language is similar to our pandemic-era Title 42, which allowed the border to be closed when we couldn't process the number of people who were crossing. Right now, he said, when we can't process them, they're just being released into the country.

That's what's driving the mayors in Denver, in Chicago, in New York City, and other places around the country crazy to say, when the border gets crowded, you just release them to our cities, and it causes all the chaos... 

With this bill, we can "turn those folks back around to Mexico," he said, which "gives the authority to the United States and to law enforcement, rather than...the criminal cartels." He said 'humanitarian parole' remains an issue, because it's "attracting more people" here, and we end up turning them loose without knowing if they even qualify for asylum.

Brennan wondered if the bill would pass without Trump's support. Lankford said he's looking forward to Trump being able to read the bill before he makes a decision, adding

... there is no question, no matter what your political persuasion is, we would not have had the immigration crisis we're experiencing right now if President Trump would have been president the last three years...

But even Trump wanted more authority on immigration, and what "he was specifically asking Congress to change" on asylum, and deportation funding, are included in the bill. 

 So, if he were to be president, this would be new authorities that he had actually asked for when he was president before.

Eventually, the interview turned to the obligatory talk of endorsing Trump. I believe there's a rule - think I saw it on Walter Cronkite's Facebook page - that every Republican must be asked the question.  

Lankford said he hasn't endorsed anyone, but Trump would "be a much better president than what we're dealing with right now, definitely on national security." Brennan asked if the $83M verdict in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case gives him "any pause about (Trump) returning to office?" Nope.

I don't want to jump in the middle of a legal case. It's been interesting the number of legal cases that have come up against President Trump and then have failed and have been dropped or have been kicked out of the courts on it. This one has actually went through. He's already said he's going to challenge it. So let the courts actually make their decisions and let the American people make their decisions.

And then, of course, because he couldn't help himself, he added

We got states like Colorado that are trying to be able to block the people of Colorado from being able to choose who they vote for. Let the American people decide this in November.

Brennan didn't mention the 60-odd election fraud cases that Trump lost or that were tossed, but she did point out that the Supremes might be making the decision on the ballot case.

Next up? Dana Bash and her State of the Union classroom conversation with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), another senator crafting the bill She asked Murphy if they have a deal. He said the same as Lankford: there's a bipartisan deal, they're working on the text, and

the question is whether Republicans are going to listen to Donald Trump, who wants to preserve chaos at the border because he thinks that it's a winning political issue for him, or whether we are going to pass legislation which would be the biggest bipartisan reform of our border immigration laws in 40 years.

He said the bill gives whoever is president "new, important power to be able to better manage the flow" of people crossing the border. He's glad Biden came out "forcefully in favor" of the bill, and noted that "Republicans have said they will let - they will let Vladimir Putin march his army in and through Ukraine if we don't pass a bill that includes border provisions and Ukraine funding."

That would be "catastrophic" not just for the US but for the "whole world." The stakes are high, and

The consequences of failure are enormous. And I do have confidence that enough Republicans in the Senate are going to join us to pass this bipartisan legislation, potentially as early as the next week or two, and we can show that Washington can still stand up and work on these big problems, even if Donald Trump is rooting for chaos.

He confirmed some of the bill's provisions, including the ability to temporarily close the border when crossings "reach catastrophically high levels." It also shortens the timeframe for hearing asylum cases from "sometimes five to ten years" to "six months in some cases." It also speeds up the process for getting people work permits.

Murphy disagrees that Biden already has the necessary authority, calling that "a political talking point." The people who say that are the people who introduced those same tools in HR2, their "massive border reform bill." And now?

...they want to keep the border in a chaotic situation for political purposes. Remember, Donald Trump didn't do a much better job. Presentations reached a 10-year high ... The only reason that fewer people started to show up was because COVID hit... So, when Donald Trump says,' I didn't need any new powers,' that's just not true. 

Also in the classroom with Bash? Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD but I really want to be VP). Noem thinks Texas should defy the Supreme Court's ruling that the federal government can cut down Gov. Greg Abbott's razor wire, and enforce their state rights to control their border.

She told a story she heard when she was in Texas, about a mom from Nicaragua who "had been told that America is open, please come." 

She brought her daughter, her 6-year-old daughter, and was facilitated through by cartels and said where she was so mistreated was in Mexico, that she sat in Mexico for three months and was put through horrific work conditions and terrible conditions for her and her daughter for three months before they then brought her across the river and forced her across into a dangerous situation.

Later in the interview, though, here's what she said about keeping people in Mexico.

Why doesn't President Biden take action today? I mean, today can be 'day one'. He can immediately announce that he's reinstating the stay-in-Mexico policy...We have a president that has all the tools that he needs to protect our country today, and he's refusing to do that.

So, do we make them stay in Mexico, or no? I'm so confused. 

And what does Noem think of some of the comments in a video Bash played?

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): The question is, do you want to get something that will help us stem the tide of humanity coming across the border and drugs, or do you want to get nothing? SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): I just reject the idea that we should reserve a crisis for a better time to solve it. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I think the best thing for the Republican Party to do right now is try to work with Democrats. 

Noem thumped her chest and accused the senators of "casting aspersions that they do not have the knowledge and the facts to speak to." 

Because they weren't around when Trump was president? Because they didn't support his border policies? Because she wants to be Trump's VP so badly, she can taste it? 

She also this about the esteemed Republicans:

So you can say a lot of things and talk a lot of talk. And U.S. senators are really good at spinning a story to make themselves look good. 

Not that job-hunting governors would ever do that.

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v93)

Quite the week the last one was. Here's a recap, in case you missed anything.

I devoted your Sunday School lesson to talks with Sens. Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Pat Toomey (R-PA); they're both involved in the bipartisan talks to come up with legislative changes that could reduce the likelihood of yet another mass shooting occurring. 

Murphy talked with Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union; here's one of the more interesting moments from their discussion.

And what about Tapper's suggestion, that they just take all the laws passed in red-state Florida after the Parkland shooting, and use that as the template? It's a great question. for sure, and Murphy had a good answer, too. Then-Gov. Rick Scott passed the law

because it was the right thing to do, but also because Republican saw it as good politics. And we have to make the case for Republicans that, right now, this is good politics, that, if they want to get reelected, then they cannot stand in the way of the commonsense changes that we're talking about right now.

And, it made sense, Murphy said. It had mental health, school safety, and "some modest but impactful changes in gun laws." That's what he thinks the Senate can pass. And, while he's "more confident than ever" they can get it done this time, he's also "more anxious about failure this time around." 

Toomey talked with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation. Here's a bit of that.

And what about President Biden? Toomey wasn't kind, saying Biden "might have been" a president able to reach across the aisle, but "he's chosen not to take that approach since day one. He has sided with the far left of his party and really not reached out to Republicans."

He gave a speech on this topic where he advocated policies that he knows for sure have no chance of passing the Senate, probably couldn't even get 50 votes, and hold the Democrats, much less get the 60 we would need. 

So, once again, the president is not being very helpful.

I find it so interesting- that the Rs are mad at Biden for suggesting they do something that most Americans have favored - for years - and he's the unhelpful one? I think somehow the Rs have forgotten that, for better or worse, Biden is the president of the country, not merely the president of the whiny, do-nothing Senate Republicans. 

For your Extra Credit, I focused on conversations on the January 6th Committee hearing that aired last Thursday. Brennan talked with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Every Committee Investigating Trump). Regular readers know that I'm not always a fan of his, but at least for this part of their conversation, he was spot on.

Brennan asked if the Committee didn't "run the risk of losing the public's attention" if they fail to "deliver a bombshell" on Thursday. Schiff explained, for Brennan and for the people in the back, that the goal is to "present the narrative of what happened in this country, how close we came to losing our democracy, what led to that violent attack on the 6th."

The roundtable on This Week with George Stephanopoulos also tackled the issue. Here's Chris Christie's response to George's statement that he'd "find it hard to imagine at the end of the hearings that former president Trump is not going to be in a worse position than he is today."

..."the battle right now... is between the truth and lies." Trump has been lying "both affirmatively in terms of whether the election was stolen or not," and by his silence on his own actions on January 6th.

Donald Trump talks about everything. He's willing to talk (about) almost anything... you've never heard him talk about what he was doing on January 6th while this was going on. 

Moving on to my weekly Wondering on Wednesday, I noted it was both the day that the House took testimony from mass shooting survivors, gun reform advocates, and others. And, it was the day that an armed, self-described mentally ill person was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house. 

In response, the Senate's Grim Reaper, Mitch McConnell (R-Someplace Dark and Cold in Kentucky) declared that the House must pass the Supreme Court Security Bill, because the justices need protection now!

He went on to describe, without irony, his frustration at their 'multi-week' delay in passing the bill. Pretty rich from the guy who has the desk where everything that passed the House goes to die, but anyway, this post is about wondering, here I go.  

The guy was arrested, his weapons confiscated, and no one was hurt. And so, I find myself wondering why we need more laws, when we can just enforce the laws we have? 

If that's the answer whenever we talk about trying to make changes to gun laws to protect innocent children, concert-goers, grocery shoppers, prayer groups, church attendees, movie watchers, doctors and nurses and other health care professionals, and more, why isn't that the answer for SCOTUS justices?  

For your TGIF, shared some thoughts on the hearing that aired Thursday night, and some thoughts on the babble from the right. 

Now, for some specifics: On TNN, Sean Hannity said "the one person who looks good is Donald Trump." Meanwhile, this morning there's a boatload of tweeting about the "FACT" that Nancy Pelosi and the FBI were behind the insurrection.

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, why in the world did Trump tell the insurrectionists that they were very special and he loved them?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, would Trump be complaining about how the media didn't fairly report the size of the crowd?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, would any of the alleged Republicans be asking Trump for pardons?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, would Steve Bannon have said all hell is going to break loose on January 6th? How would he know?

Those are just a few of the questions I had trying to understand how the Dems were responsible for the Republican insurrection. As you might imagine, I declared it was a bad week for the real insurrectionists - and we all know who they are.

This week, I'll have more of the Yes, We Can Do Something series - I haven't forgotten about that, I promise.

And, of course, we'll have our regular weekly features, too. I hope you'll stick around.

Sunday School 6/5/22

Ready for your Sunday School lesson?

Let's start with Jake Tapper, host of CNN's State of the Union. He described our state being "angry at the lack of leadership." 

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), one of the folks involved in the Senate negotiations in response to the school shooting in Uvalde), talked with Tapper. 

He says he's "never been part of negotiations as serious as these," noting there are more Rs "at the table talking about changing our gun laws and investing in mental health than at any time since Sandy Hook." And, he admitted, he's seen a lot of failed negotiations, so he's "...sober-minded" that they can get something done.

He said red flag laws, background check changes, and "a handful of other items that will make a difference" are on the table. And while he's not sure they'll be able to meet the 'end of the week' deadline from Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), they're "trying to put a package together,

because I think Republicans realize how scared parents and kids are across this country. I think they realize that the answer this time cannot be nothing, that it's frankly a test of democracy, it's a test of the federal government as to whether we can deliver at a moment of just fierce anxiety amongst the American public. So we're closer than ever before. Let's see if we land it.

Tapper wondered about raising the age for purchasing semi-automatic guns, something supported by a couple hundred or so Texas conservatives in a full-page ad in Sunday's Dallas Morning News, but not mentioned as "being on the table."

What we're talking about is trying to make sure that dangerous or potentially dangerous individuals don't have their hands on weapons. Sen. Cornyn has also talked about his interest in taking a look at how we access juvenile records for these young men who tend to be 18 to 21, committing these mass murders, to make sure that they can't get their hands on a weapon if they have had problems with the law in the past...

He also said what Cornyn's saying is "consistent" with their negotiations. 

Listen, we're not going to do everything I want. We're not going to put a piece of legislation the table that's going to ban assault weapons, or we're not going to pass comprehensive background checks. But, right now, people in this country want us to make progress. They just don't want the status quo to continue for another 30 years.

Murphy said they're trying to get to something that will pass, and said "that's why the red flag law is probably the most important" piece. 

It's actually about helping states implement red flag laws... not just providing incentives for states to pass new laws, but helping fund existing red flag laws, so that more individuals who are contemplating suicides can have their weapons temporarily taken from them to save their lives.

And what about Tapper's suggestion, that they just take all the laws passed in red-state Florida after the Parkland shooting, and use that as the template? It's a great question. for sure, and Murphy had a good answer, too. Then-Gov. Rick Scott passed the law

because it was the right thing to do, but also because Republican saw it as good politics. And we have to make the case for Republicans that, right now, this is good politics, that, if they want to get reelected, then they cannot stand in the way of the commonsense changes that we're talking about right now.

And, it made sense, Murphy said. It had mental health, school safety, and "some modest but impactful changes in gun laws." That's what he thinks the Senate can pass. And, while he's "more confident than ever" they can get it done this time, he's also "more anxious about failure this time around." 

He said when he was home last week, 

I have never seen the look on parents' faces that I did. There's just a deep, deep fear for our children right now, and also a fear that government is so fundamentally broken that it can't put politics aside to guarantee the one thing that matters most to adults in this country, the physical safety of their children. And so, I think the possibility of success is better than ever before. But I think the consequences of failure for our entire democracy are more significant than ever.

Sunday School 12/9/18

I only had time for one classroom today, and it was ABC's This Week, with Martha Raddatz in for George Stephanopoulos.

Not surprisingly, most of the conversation had to do with the reports from the Mueller investigation last week, including information about multiple contacts between Russians and people close to the president during the campaign.

Joining Raddatz today were Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT).

Rubio, in response to a question on whether Trump was lying when he said there was no contact between anyone on his campaign and Russians was all over the map. Basically, we know more now than we did but we don't know everything and I support the investigation and always have, you know but we need the truth and all of the facts and did I tell you I support the investigation? And, oh by the way, the Senate Intelligence Committee is also great, and working bipartisanly hard on stuff but everyone needs all the facts. And so on. And so on. And so on.

Raddatz pressed him after the rambling non-response, noting there were at least five people who were 'receptive' to Russian outreach: Cohen and Manafort, Flynn and Papadopoulos, and Donny Jr., and could all of that really be coincidence?

Look... there's no way to spin this... this has not been a positive development for the people that are involved in this. But I just think, and we have learned over time, that it is important for all of this to be out there before us, within full context, compared to other information, before we begin to make political judgments. 

He added that no one's above the law and stuff, but political judgments are different, and we need all of the info, and so on. And so on. .

Raddatz tried to get Rubio to say whether he agreed with the president or Mueller's team on Michael Cohen's statements; there was more call for more information, including about corroboration, but that:

 And now you have the testimony of a witness who is facing criminal charges and looking for leniency vs. someone who denied that it occurred the way they said it occurred.

It was at this point that I wondered why he was booked on so many shows today - and then, I found out. He did offer an opinion -- alert the media! -- on whether Trump should pardon Paul Manafort.

I think it would be a terrible mistake if he did that, I do. I believe it would be a terrible mistake. You know, pardons should be used judiciously. They're used for cases with extraordinary circumstances... I don't believe that any pardon should be used with relation to these particular cases. Frankly, not only does it not pass the smell test, I just -- I think it undermines the reason why we have presidential pardons in the first place. And it think, in fact, if something like that were to happen it could trigger a debate about whether the pardon powers should be amended given these circumstances. 

Moving on to Sen.Murphy, he wouldn't say whether impeachment was the right path, as was suggested by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), but that

We  have reached a new level in the investigation. The special counsel is starting to show his cards, and these are very serious allegations. This is a president who is now named as an unindicted co-conspirator, the allegation is he committed at least two felonies to manipulate the 2016 elections.

But, he also noted, Rubio is not wrong that all of the facts need to come out. He just got there a whole lot more quickly, and with a whole lot more clarity.  As to the question if there are any impeachable offenses,

So listen, I think you are beyond the stage that led to impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, whether or not you think that was worthy of impeachment or not. I still think it's important for Congress to get all of the underlying facts and data and evidence that the Special Counsel has before we make that determination.

He also suggested that all of those facts that he and Rubio were talking about need to come, and soon.

I mean I think it's important for the special investigator to give Congress what he has sometime early in 2019 so that Congress can make a determination. If the president did, in fact, collude with Michael Cohen, it doesn't really make sense for Congress to get that report from the special investigator in 2020, we need that next year. We need that as soon as possible.

Raddatz asked if Murphy still felt that Mueller's investigation needs 'protection' and if he would consider holding up a budget vote in order to pass such a protection bill.

You know, I am certainly going to look at all of our options to try and force a vote on legislation that would protect the special counsel. I'm also worried about General Kelly leaving the White House. I imagine that he was one of the people that was attempting to convince the president not to fire Mueller, to not issue pardons as a means of trying to influence the investigation

And who replaces Kelly, Murphy says, is important and potentially makes his legislation more important too, as Mueller could be at increased risk. He also thinks things have moved into a new phase, and

...this investigation is now starting to put the president in serious legal cross hairs, and he should be worried and the whole country should be worried... Listen, nobody's rooting for the president to go down in this manner. This isn't good for democracy but this investigation may ultimately lead to Congress taking action.

Murphy had previously said he wasn't planning on running for president in 2020; Raddatz wanted to know if that was still true. He was sort of non-committal, talking generally about 2020 but about himself saying only

...we need a candidate who's 100% authentic, who is tough and can challenge this president on both domestic policy and foreign policy and I'm simply going to make sure that we have a candidate that fits that bill.

 He  Rubio'd on any of the potential candidates Raddatz mentioned - Biden, Sanders, Warren, Booker -  but said a big field is good and that there "a lot of different models that would eventually work," whatever that means.

See you around campus.