Sunday School 1/22/23

The classrooms were full of talk about documents, even before Mike Pence found some at his house, but I did find some folks discussing the debt ceiling.  

We'll start with Dana Bash and her guests on CNN's State of the Union. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) thinks President Biden shouldn't negotiate with the Republicans. 

...the MAGA Republicans should note one important fact. Almost 25 percent of all of the national debt accumulated over the history of the United States, 230 years, was accumulated during the four years of Donald Trump.

He says they need to accept responsibility for paying for the debt, and they need to understand the consequences of not doing that.

And if we play games with this, if we delay this, if we have short-term extensions of the national debt, we run the very risk of a recession in this economy, millions of Americans out of work and interest rates going even higher, denying people an opportunity to buy a home or a car. And this economy will be stalled. We shouldn't play games with the national debt.

Bash recalled when Senator Biden was "the lead negotiator" on spending cuts in exchange for a debt limit; Durbin thinks it's different now, because of "the Trump years" and the "15 ballots to choose the speaker."

... he gave the authority to each member of the House to initiate a vote of no confidence on a daily basis. I mean, this is a House of Representatives which is under control of the MAGA Republicans at this point. And I'm fearful that very few constructive things will emerge.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), who disagrees with Durbin, thinks not negotiating is a "mistake." 

...we should be able to talk and find out where our differences are. And if they are irreconcilable, then you have to move on from there and let the people make their decisions. Using the debt ceiling and holding it hostage hasn't worked in the past, OK? And anyone who wants to look at what happened in 2011 and 2013, then go ahead. It didn't work out well. 

Bash asked who was holding it hostage; sounds like the GOP. He said 60% of retirees in West Virginia are on Social Security and Medicare, and he doesn't like people scaring "the bejesus out of them" by putting cuts on the table. Rather, they need to "set a target" and look for wasteful spending that can be cut. 

Everybody believes -- I mean, my goodness, when you have $31.4 trillion, and we have thrown caution to the wind, and to blame the Republicans, Republicans to blame the Democrats, who's at fault? Everybody's at fault. We don't have a process. I have been there 12 years, no budget.

He thinks that's wrong. After all

...every American has to live within a budget. If they don't, they're in trouble financially. Every business that is successful has to live within a budget. Every state has to live within a budget. Shouldn't the federal government have some guardrails that say, hey, guys, you're getting over -- you're overreaching here and you're overspending? 

He says we have to pick the priorities, including "the security of our country, opportunities for people and taking care of the most vulnerable, and making sure the people that have earned it through basically their Social Security and Medicare are protected."

He doesn't want cuts to benefits; rather, raising the income cap for the FICA tax is "the easiest and quickest thing" they can do. And the last thing we need is a committee to look at this stuff; he agrees with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on that. 

Can't you look and find out in government where you can be more efficient, more basically prudent with the taxpayers' money and quit wasting it, don't you think? And we all talk about waste, fraud and abuse. That's an easy thing to do. But no one looks at it.

Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX), who voted to raise the debt ceiling three times since '17, says if they don't do it again, there'd be "catastrophic economic consequences." And, we don't have any time to waste.

The fact is, we should be having these conversations right now. We know that Secretary Yellen is going to put -- she can put this off until June. June's going to be the target month. But the speaker of the House is willing to sit down today with the president of the United States and try to work this out. And I would encourage him to do that.

In the Face the Nation classroom, Margaret Brennan asked Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) if it's a mistake for the White House not to negotiate with the Rs. 

We should have a "clean lift of the debt ceiling," he said, and he doesn't think anyone should "flirt with not paying" our credit card. The Republicans should come out with what they want to cut.

Is it the cutting Social Security and Medicare that Rick Scott wanted to, is it cutting aid to Ukraine in the middle of a war between a democracy and an illegally invading dictator? Let them put on the table what they want to cut so that the American public can see what their priorities are.

Kaine and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) have sponsored the Protect Our Credit Act; it says

the president has got to cover the debts of the United States. And if that includes raising the debt ceiling, the president can do that. But if Congress disapproves, then you can have an expedited up or down vote in Congress.

It's similar to an Obama-era move by Sen. Mitch McConnell back in the day, Kaine said. Maybe that means it'll get bipartisan support?

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 3/20/22: Extra Credit

This week's Sunday School lesson focused mostly on the war in Ukraine, so I'm going to share some of the other stuff that made the list.  

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) was a guest in ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos classroom, where he was asked by the host about China, and its support for Russia. Durbin said China's president 

has to decide his place in history and China's place in the world. If they are going to be part of Putin and his barbaric conduct in Ukraine, he's going to run the risk of discrediting his own nation. He has to think twice about that.

George, like all the other pundits in the universe, was unable to resist talking about "inflation, higher gas prices across the board." He played a clip of Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), who was also on the show, saying

Biden would rather turn to dictators like those in Iran and those in Venezuela rather than turn against the climate elitists who dictate the energy policy of that Democratic Party and of his presidency. So now he's trying to pass the buck to Vladimir Putin.

Durbin said it was "hard to deny" that our cutting off Russian oil has impacted Americans, and he mentioned some of the steps being taken to help alleviate that. And, about Barrasso's comments?

We’ve got to make sure that we’re sensible not only about Putin, the war, and these Russian oil supplies, but also sensible in what my friend John Barrasso calls these 'climate elitists.' We are fighting and waging a war against climate change. It is a war which will decide what... the world looks like for the next generation. Let’s take both of these very seriously.

George wondered about the tone of attacks on Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, specifically mentioning those of Sen. Josh Hawley (R- Insurrection Lunatic Fringe). Durbin said 

Judge Jackson has been scrutinized more than any person I can think of. This is her fourth time before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In three previous times, she came through with flying colors and bipartisan support, the last time as soon as just last year.

As to the accusations, "there's no truth to what he says." And, to Hawley himself?

... he's part of the fringe within the Republican Party. This was a man who was fist-bumping the murderous mob that descended on the Capitol on January 6th of the last year. He doesn't have the credibility he thinks he does.

George picked up with Sen. Barrasso where he left off with Durbin, asking if Hawley was engaging in what Barrasso specifically said should not happen with Jackson: "a process of character assassination." Barrasso said "the whole process is going to be fair, respectful, and thorough." And he offered an attack on Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

I’m less concerned about her statements than I am about Chuck Schumer's statements. He said she's going to rule with empathy. A judge ought to be making decisions based on the law as written, not the way they feel about it. So, he also said check her record. And going through the record, there are some concerns that people have about her being perceived as soft on crime. That's all going to come out with the hearings but they're going to be respectful, they’re going to be thorough and they’re going to be fair, George.

On the fairness of Hawley's attacks, Barrasso was about as forthcoming as then Judge Brett Kavanaugh in his hearing before the same committee. 

Well, he's going to have his opportunity to question the judge as will all the members of the committee. The last time we had a hearing with Kavanaugh, he was accused of being a serial rapist with no evidence whatsoever. So, I think we're going to have a fair process and a respectful process, unlike what the Democrats did to Justice Kavanaugh.

Back to gas-passing we went; Barrasso was asked about Durbin agreeing with the so-called "climate elitists" that we must take climate change seriously. Here's his, um, "response."

Well, Joe Biden can't hide from the fact that he is the president of high gas prices. And they're looking for anyone to blame, whether it's Putin, whether it's Republicans, whether it's the energy companies, whether it's COVID. The Democrats have a very big problem with 40-year high inflation, highest gas prices ever. When Joe Biden came into office, it was $2.38 a gallon for gasoline. Americans paid $1,000 more for energy last year than the year before. And on polling last week, 70% of Americans say more American oil and gas, and less emphasis on climate.

"Good answer, good answer!" said the GOP Family Feud fans.

George finished the interview by offering Barrasso the opportunity to spell out the "three specific things" President Biden needs to do if he wants to lead from the front.

Well, number one is, he needs to tell NATO that we collectively are going to supply the people of Ukraine things that they know how to use, whether it's drones, planes, missile systems.

Number two, he has to say that he is going to go from Brussels to the eastern front of NATO to show the resolve of NATO and the United States' commitment as well.

And, third, he needs to say to the people of Europe who are really in a tough situation with regard to energy and the dependence that they have on Russian energy, that we are going to increase the exporting of liquified natural gas from America to them.

"Even Germany," he said, realizes that "energy security is much more important than climate zealotry." And, Barrasso said, he's got bipartisan legislation to make this happen. 

Truth be told, the gentleman from Wyoming has been introducing variations of his bill at least since 2013. For those in the back of the room, that's years before Biden started "leading from behind." And, of course, all this happens because his state has a boatload and a half of natural gas buried within its borders, not for any altruistic reason whatsoever. 

One final note: as I write this, a screeching Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-?????) has stormed off the dais shortly after his first few minutes of questioning in Judge Jackson's hearing were over. Several of his questions pertained to his choice, Judge Michelle Childs, not being the person sitting at the table in front of him. I think we can take that "fair and respectful process" idea with a grain of salt. 

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 8/8/21

Let's begin this week's Sunday School with Dana Bash in the CNN State of the Union classroom, where she talked with Senators Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL). Here are some highlights, starting with Cassidy, who's also a doctor. 

He was clear that there are ways to get out of the COVID mess his state, and others are in: get vaccinated or wear a mask.

If you have a large percentage of your population which is not vaccinated, and your infection rate is going up, you have got one or two choices. If you're inside, either you're vaccinated or you have to wear a mask. Otherwise, you're at too great a risk to further spread infection, to further pack those emergency rooms, to further prevent people who have terrible accidents from getting cared for because the hospital is full of COVID. And there is a choice. On the other hand, if we don't want mask mandates, get vaccinated, the infection rate goes down, and you don't have a mandate.

And, he says, it's a "conservative principle" to have local officials making decisions on thinks like mask mandates for schools - so he's not a fan of what Gov. Ron DeSantis is doing in Florida.

On the infrastructure bill, on which he's been a key negotiator for the Rs, he said 50% of it will be scored as 'paid for' by the Congressional Budget Office, and the other half will have a lot of paid for items, given they're taking already appropriated COVID package monies that haven't been used and applying them to the infrastructure bill. And, he said, the Rs have some 'splaining to do if they're complaining about the pay-for or deficit aspects now, when they didn't before.

I will point out that president Trump proposed a $1.5 trillion package, which most Republicans were all for, and only 5 percent of it was paid for. We have $550 billion of new spending, of which we can reasonably say is paid for, but certainly one-half by CBO score. And now folks are saying, oh, can't vote for that... OK, well, that's OK. But, on the other hand, we're creating jobs. We're creating bridges. We're protecting people from flooding. Hopefully, they change their mind.

 And he suggested that with the Problem Solvers Caucus on board, they should have a path for getting the traditional infrastructure bill done in the House without having it held hostage for the gigunda human infrastructure bill that the progressives want. Speaker Pelosi, he said,

doesn't need a radical left wing. She can pass the infrastructure package with just that committed group of American congressmen and women who want to see our country get better, to have the $110 billion for the roads and bridges and highways, etc., and the new jobs. They can pass the infrastructure package without having the radical left. And that, I think, opens a pathway. 

Let's hope that's what happens when the House gets back to work.

Next up was Durbin, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. He talked mostly about the DOJ and the attempt by Former Guy to have the DOJ interfere in the 2020 election. Durbin noted that

...what was going on in the Department of Justice was frightening, from a constitutional point of view, to think that Bill Barr left, resigned after he had announced he didn't see irregularities in the election, and then his replacement was under extraordinary pressure from the president the United States, even to the point where they were talking about replacing him. 

He didn't provide any juicy details, but he did say that president Trump asked Jeffrey Rosen, the acting Attorney General after Bill Barr resigned, "to do certain things related to states' election returns, which he refused to do," regarding the 2020 election. Rosen was being asked "by the White House, the leadership in the White House, to meet with certain people who had these wild, bizarre theories of why that election wasn't valid, and he refused to do it." History will be kind to Rosen, Durbin said - and that was not what he would have thought when Rosen was appointed. 

We'll close with his reflection on what they've learned so far in the investigation; emphasis on the last sentence is mine, for the people in the back of the room. 

I guess the thought that we have come to accept that this president and his bizarre conduct, we came to accept over four years as normal. It's outrageous. When you look back on the Richard Nixon episode and the Saturday Night Massacre, people out of principle were turning around and threatening to resign. The same thing happened here, incidentally, within the Department of Justice. There was a point where virtually everyone in the authority in the Department of Justice was going to walk if the president had his way. I mean, these are moments in history which you would never want to see repeated. And, with Donald Trump, they were.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) was in the Fox News Sunday classroom with Brett Bair sitting in for Chris Wallace. He's not a fan of the infrastructure bill, because it's not paid for, and "we've got to start doing things responsibly." He likes road, bridges, airports, and seaports - stuff he did when he was Florida's governor, but "less than half this bill... had anything to do with roads, bridges, airports, and seaports."

Even though his state has a 'C' on its infrastructure scorecard, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, he's not interested in adding to the debt by borrowing money to pay for it. Even though, of course, that wasn't the case when that other guy was president, Bair pointed out. 

In fact, if you look at the numbers, the debt went up at the end of fiscal 2020, $26.9 trillion. The Trump administration and Republicans added $6.7trillion to the debt. That was since President Obama's last budget, a 33 percent increase. Understanding COVID had a big role in that, but there's not a great track record for Republicans recently to tout themselves as deficit debt hawks and now to be doing it here.

That's different now, Scott said. The Rs

had a caucus meeting where we said, we're not going to raise the debt ceiling without -- all Republican senators said, we will not raise the debt ceiling without structural change. That's what we all agreed to do.

On COVID, in a nutshell, everyone should be able to make up their own minds, to make good decisions, if the government would just tell them what they need to know. 

Here's what I believe we ought to do at every level of government. Let's be honest. If you feel comfortable, get the vaccine. If you don't, figure out how you're going to keep yourself safe. I mean that's what I believe we ought to be doing. And I'm going to -- I'm going to do everything I can to tell people, you know, that, you know, I've -- I've been comfortable with the vaccine. I had COVID. I don't want anybody to get COVID.

He also said

This is -- you know, this is not a country where we need people telling us what to do. I love my mom. I hate her telling me what to do. Give me good information. I'll make a good decision.

We'll make "good decisions," he said? Yeah, maybe, maybe not: around 400,000 people at Lollapalooza, with widespread reporting of vaccine and negative COVID test documentation being ignored by security, and requests from public health officials urging attendees to get tested... 400 at Barack Obama's birthday part... 700,000 expected at Sturgis... 

Finally, in response to Baier's last question on whether Former Guy is the leader of the GOP, Scott thinks not.

I was able to win because I went and I told people what I thought they -- I -- they wanted somebody to do. That's who's going to win. The -- in the next election, the '22 election, the '24 election is, who's got the right message and right background for that time. And that's who's going to be -- that's -- but the voters are the leader of the party. 

That's an interesting concept, isn't it?

See you around campus. Make good decisions. Get vaccinated if you're able, and wear a mask when it makes sense to do so.

In Case You Missed It (v49)

Grab your cuppa and settle down for our review of last week's posts. It was kind of a tough week, I have to tell you, so be warned.

For Sunday School, I took one for the team,  I really did. I mean, Nancy Pelosi. Chuck Schumer. Steve Mnuchin. These three are not great interviews, especially when they are all pushing their agendas. I find it difficult to listen to each of them, much less all three of them in the same classroom session. But I did it, for you.

One of the best lines of the day? Mnuchin, talking about aid to states and municipalities. He of course used the White House talking points about "poorly managed" states and local governments.

But, he said,

We can deal with in January, if there's ongoing issues, we can pass more legislation. This will be the fifth bill. We don't have to get everything done at once. What we should do is get things done for the American public now, come back for another bill afterwards.

Seems he's planning on being around for a while. Anyone up for helping make that not happen?

I tried to find something more palatable for your Extra Credit, and even though I did devote quite a bit of time to Larry 'I Find it Hard to Understand Something Called Systemic Racism Because Lots of White People Voted for Barack Obama' Kudlow trying to do math with Dana Bash (who deserves a medal for putting up with him, I might add), I also spent some time in the Meet the Press classroom (again, taking one for the team) with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).

Like Mnuchin the day before, Durbin hit the party line, saying that the Dems had dropped a trillion dollars from their plan, so the Rs should add a trillion to theirs - meeting in the middle, as it were.  There was more, too, including scathing remarks about

"this urban legend, which I say is an urban lie, about people sitting at home bingeing on Netflix and eating chocolate-covered cherries," simply is not happening 

And another thing?

Durbin argued that actually "doing something directly about the coronavirus" is more important than unemployment. 

...this notion that you're going to have the same instant results of testing that (the president) does with his White House visitors or Major League Baseball does overnight, that isn't the real world out here. The people are waiting in line for testing, and they're waiting for results from 5-12 days, which makes them almost pointless. That is a priority for us. Testing to deal with coronavirus is key to opening the economy and opening our schools.

Moving on, I believe my inclusion of the information below in my Wondering on Wednesday post may have been the reason why I had so many hits from Russian IP addresses in the second half of the week. We'll see if that's true with this re-post.

Moving on to QAnon - something I honestly NEVER anticipated typing - it seems we'll have an honest to goodness supporter of the conspiracy theorists in the House come January. As noted in this NPR story,

Marjorie Taylor Greene, a construction executive, won 57% of the vote in Georgia's heavily-Republican 14th Congressional District, handily defeating neurosurgeon John Cowan, who had pitched himself as, "All of the conservative, none of the embarrassment."

I did like Cowan's campaign slogan; there are actually loads of Rs who could probably use that, if they were willing to distance themselves from you know who.  And he, of course, was not able to distance himself from Ms. Greene.

President Trump congratulated Greene on Wednesday morning, calling her a "future Republican Star" who is "strong on everything."

Shocked, I amn't.

I was a little shocked, however, by the fervor with which the NRA's Wayne LaPierre tried to woo me over to his side, now that the lobbying organization has been hit with a lawsuit by NY's Attorney General Tish James (something I wasn't thrilled about).

And while LaPierre's love letter was the winner of the coveted Email of the Week, it didn't win me over.  He started out all lovey-dovey, with gentle tugs on my heart-strings, telling me about the "radical fringe of our country."

And here's how it was at the end, all capitalized and throbbing, or something.

This isn’t simply a fight for the continued existence of the NRA. It’s a fight for the continued existence of American freedom as we know it.

This is a fight for the Right-to-Carry permit in your pocket that you’re sure to lose if and when NRA goes out of business.

This is a fight for the guns in your safe that are certain to be banned and confiscated if NRA is forced to shut down.

And this is a fight for your God-given right to protect your life and your loved ones against violent criminals – who will still have their illegal guns long after you hear that knock at your door.

So please, join NRA today. Add your VOICE, your VOTE, and your MEMBERSHIP to our FIGHT.

Yeah, no - but thanks for trying.

And, blissfully, it was TGIF time, even though it wasn't the best week ever.

Now, why would I say something like that? Maybe because we're having to deal with this...

How about the new birther attacks, suggesting that Kamala Harris is not eligible to be Joe Biden's VP because, you know, she was born in the USA.  Does that sound familiar to anyone, maybe from a few years ago? And now, maybe trying to keep another person of color out of the White House? This is a tried and true tactic of the Trump squad; you can hear Tamara Keith's reporting that it's playing out in living color - again from tonight's All Things Considered.

So - your cuppa should be at least cold, if not empty, if checked out all of these posts - but at least you're up-to-date on the full and veritable pastiche from last week.

I'll be back later with Sunday School.  Word has it Jared's making a classroom appearance, and I know you'll not want me to miss that.

Sunday School 8/9/20: Extra Credit

Yesterday, in Sunday School, we heard from three of the key negotiators who were unable or unwilling to come up with another COVID-19 stimulus plan: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and Senate Minority Leader.

Also wandering around the lecture hall? Peter Navarro and Larry Kudlow, two cheerleaders for the Trump team. I refuse to cover Navarro anymore, and am on the kusp of kicking Kudlow to the kurb, but I bit the bullet one more time on him. But first, the Senate's #2 Dem, Dick Durbin, talked with Chuck Todd on MTP. Let's listen in.

Todd asked if there's any potential progress, including the possibility that the White House would "move to the middle" on anything. Durbin said that the Dems have already done that, coming down from $3.4T requested in the HEROES Act to around $2T now, so the Rs should do the same and come up to $2T from their original $1T. 

The legality of the president's executive orders, Durbin said, is a "moral dilemma."

We want unemployed people to receive benefits. We never wanted them cut off at all. So, I'm not going to suggest that we run out to court at this point... There'll be some challenges. This country club fix suggested by the president is going to be a cut in the unemployment benefits for 30 million Americans. It's either going to be cut from 600 to 400 or from 600 to zero, where it is right now, if the president's executive orders don't stand. You know, the bottom line is this: These people are not lazy people. We have five unemployed Americans for every available job.

And he said "this urban legend, which I say is an urban lie, about people sitting at home bingeing on Netflix and eating chocolate-covered cherries," simply is not happening He's talked with these folks, who he described as "desperate to get back to work." He noted that 70% of folks who have gone back to work have done so with wages less than unemployment was paying.

So, this notion that they're lazy and if they tried a little harder, they'd find jobs just doesn't work.

Durbin also pointed out that there are "20 Republican senators" who won't go for even a penny at this point, and that he sees a leadership gap there.

And we have Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, who is not even attending negotiating sessions. He's stayed out. His chair is empty. Same thing with Kevin McCarthy, the House Republicans’ (leader).

Durbin argued that actually "doing something directly about the coronavirus" is more important than unemployment. 

...this notion that you're going to have the same instant results of testing that (the president) does with his White House visitors or Major League Baseball does overnight, that isn't the real world out here. The people are waiting in line for testing, and they're waiting for results from 5-12 days, which makes them almost pointless. That is a priority for us. Testing to deal with coronavirus is key to opening the economy and opening our schools.

That's the part that seems to be missing from what's being delivered, or considered: people want a way to safely return to work, to get kids back in school, to shop, to dine out - in effect, to really reopen the country.

Sunday School 12/15/19

Let's talk about impeachment, shall we? 

Making the rounds today: Chairmen Jerry Nadler (House Judiciary Cmte) and Adam Schiff (House Intelligence Cmte) on ABC's This Week; Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) on NBC's Meet the Press; Senators Lindsey Graham (R-Trump) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) on CBS' Face the Nation; Senators Rand Paul (R-KY/Canada) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX) on CNN's State of the Union. Let's see how much substance I can fit in today.

From This Week:

• Schiff: It was one thing with the president inviting foreign interference as a candidate, when he couldn't use the power of his office to make it so. It was another when, as president of the United States, he withheld hundreds of millions of dollars to coerce an ally, betray our national security, and try to cheat in the next election. That was not something we could turn away from. But it was one more fact, George, that I think made it inexorable. And that is the fact that it was the day after Bob Mueller testified, the day after Donald Trump felt that he was beyond accountability for his first misconduct, that he was back on the phone, this time with President Zelensky, trying to get that country to help him cheat in the next election.That told me, this president believes he is above the law and accountable to no one, and that this road was necessary. And I think it very much is.

• Nadler: This is a crime in progress against the constitution and against the American democracy. We cannot take the risk  that the next election will be corrupted through foreign interference solicited by the president, which he is clearly trying to do. It goes to the heart of our democracy. It was the heart of what the constitution meant by high crimes and misdemeanors for the president to engage in self-dealing for his own benefit to put himself above the country and to threaten the integrity of our elections, upon which everything else depends. It is a total threat. And we must meet that threat.

• Schiff: I don't think any of us have any question that had Barack Obama engaged in the activity, the conduct which is the subject these articles of impeachment, every one of these Republicans would be voting to impeach him. And you know something, I have to hope to hell, George, if it were Barack Obama, I would vote to impeach him. 

From Meet the Press: 

• Toomey: I think it's appropriate to make sure that the president gets a fair trial here, and I think that's the idea. I think it would be extremely inappropriate to put a bullet in this thing immediately when it comes over. I think we ought to hear what the House impeachment managers have to say, give the president's attorneys an opportunity to make the defense, and then make a decision about whether and to what extent it would go forward from there.

• Coons: The only reason that Speaker Pelosi changed her position and supported moving ahead with an impeachment inquiry was because what Donald Trump is alleged to have done, and all evidence points to him having done it, which is to invite foreign interference in our next election, undermines the very core of our democracy, which is free and fair elections where foreign parties aren't influencing the outcome. If he is ultimately exonerated in the Senate, if the Senate Republican majority refuses to discipline him through impeachment, he will be unbounded. And I am gravely concerned about what else he might do between now and the 2020 election when there are no restrictions on his behavior.

From Face the Nation:

• Graham: Yeah, well, I'd tell the president, if somebody is ready to acquit you, I'd sort of get out of the way. If you start calling the witnesses the president wants and they're are going to start calling Mike Pence, you know, the secretary of State Pompeo, I don't think that's good for the country. I don't think it's good for the Senate. You need 51 votes to get a witness approved. I want to make my decision based on the trial record established in the House as a basis for impeachment. That's just me, one senator. But I think there's a general desire by a lot of senators to not turn this thing into a circus. I understand the president's frustration by being shut out of the house but I need to do what I think is best for the country.

• Durbin: I could just tell you, we-we present the evidence and let the American people follow this trial in the Senate. You know, it isn't a question of political popularity as far as I'm concerned. For the longest time, many of us said which Republican is going to defy the wishes of their political base and come forward and do the right thing for the country? Same thing applies to Democrats. Will we ignore our political base and look at our Constitution? That's what should guide us.

From State of the Union:

• Paul: You know, we have seen the evidence. We're going to hear the evidence repeated, but we're not going to see any new evidence. So I think all of America has seen this. What we have found is, this is a very partisan exercise. There's not going to be any Republicans in the House. In fact, there will be a handful of Democrats who will vote against impeachment in the House. In the Senate, I think all Republicans will vote against the House. And I think two Democrats have a very good chance of voting against impeachment also. So I think what we have seen is, it is just a partisan thing.This is a disagreement. People on the Democrat side don't like President Trump. They don't like his demeanor. And so they have decided to sort of criminalize politics. But I don't think it is a good thing. And I don't think it's a good day for the country. I think it is a sad day, because I hope it doesn't devolve into that every president, like in different parts of Latin America, we either impeach or throw presidents into jail just because we don't like their politics. I think that will really dumb down and destroy the county.

• Brown: I mean, I have very strong feelings about this president. I supported impeachment. He did things that Richard Nixon never did. He solicited a bribe from a foreign leader. But I don't know if it rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, to the level of conviction and removal, until I see the evidence, I hear the prosecution, which is the House managers, until I hear the president's defense. Then you make the decision, based on the evidence. And for the leader of the United States Senate, Mitch McConnell, to say he's coordinating with the White House to make sure he's not convicted and removed is -- I just -- it really is part of this see no evil, hear no evil. It's why I'm so disappointed in my colleagues, this see no evil, hear no evil attitude, that they don't want to look at anything to -- that might disagree with their world view of Republicanism and this president.

• Hurd: The only thing bipartisan about this process is the opposition of impeachment. We're going to have at least two Democrats voting against this.  And my fear is that you weaponize impeachments for political gains in the future, just like now we have budget debates that become weaponized, voting for Supreme Court justices have become weaponized. And, for me, my standard for impeachment has always been a violation of the law. You have 435 folks in the House, 100 senators. That means there's 535 different definitions of impeachment. And I have sat through those hundreds hours of depositions and hearings, and didn't see any evidence presented of bribery and -- or extortion.

I'm going to leave it there, as they say. Coming up in this week's Sunday School Extra Credit, we'll talk about the FBI, and maybe slide a couple of other things in there, too.

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 10/21/18

Let's do a quick stroll through the classrooms.

First up: Kentucky's junior senator Rand Paul and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich talking with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.

Speaking on the credibility of the statement from the Saudi government that Washington Post writer Jamal Khashoggi was killed in a fistfight or some such nonsense, Paul said the statement was "absolutely" not credible, noting

I think it's insulting to anyone who's analyzing this with any kind of intelligent background to think that oh, a fistfight led to a dismemberment with a bone saw. So, no. 

He went on to suggest putting the attack on Khashoggi into context.

Saudi Arabia has basically over the decades been the largest state sponsor of radical Islam and violent jihad. They sponsor thousands of madrassas that teach hatred of Christians and Jews and Hindus around the world. So, this isn't the first instance. This is just another in the line of long instances of Saudi insults to the civilized world. 

And, in sharp contrast to the president,

I think we really need to discontinue our arms sales to Saudi Arabia and have a long and serious discussion about whether or not they want to be an ally or they want to be an enemy. 

Similarly, Gingrich did not mince words.

First of all, their explanation is insultingly stupid. I mean, the idea that this guy walked in the room with 15 security people, got in to a fight and was accidentally killed and they happened to have apparently an ability to dismember hm and get rid of him... This is just stupid.

Next up, Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate Minority Whip,North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis and former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd.

As did Wallace, Todd asked if there was anything credible in the Saudi's story. Durbin was clear no the lack of credibility, and our next steps:

No, and as a matter of fact, the only person on earth outside of the Saudi Kingdom who appears to accept it is president Donald Trump. Here's what we ought to do, and we ought to do it tomorrow morning. We ought to expel - formally expel the Saudi ambassador from the United States until there is a completion of a third party investigation into this kidnap, murder and God knows what followed that occur ed in Istanbul. We should call on our allies to do the same. 

Tillis was also asked the question.

No, not at this point. I agree with everything Dick Durbin just said. We've, we've got to get to the bottom of it. In Saudi Arabia, you do not do something of this magnitude without having clearance from the top. We need to find out who that is and hold him accountable. 

Todd asked whether or not the US could have a positive relationship with the Saudis if the crown prince was still in the picture.

No, I don't think so.  I think, again, if the facts lead to what we all suspect they will, I think it'll be very problematic for our relationship going forward.

In the interview with Scaramucci, Todd asked how Dems should go after Trump when he insults them. After professing to not want to offer the opposition any information, due to his love for the president, The Mooch opened up a little:

...I think the big mistake they're all making is they go right into the Trump insect Twitter light. And so the minute he shoots at them, they cannot help themselves. And they drive themselves right into that light. And then they get vaporized by him...

The answer, he tells us? Read his book.

And so the incident with Senator Warren, she should really read my book, so she can understand how the president, you have to think about the miracle of what he did. He hijacked the Republican Party to get their nomination. And then he hijacked the base of the other party and moved it over to the Republican party. And I try to write about that in the book. Because I have experience, as a kid that grew up in a blue-collar neighborhood with a blue-collar family. And I think I've seen the whole bandwidth of this sort of stuff. 

Oh wait - that's not really his recommendation, after all.

But my recommendation to people is don't engage him in that area because you're going to lose.

And on that happy note, we'll call it a day. 

See you around campus.

Sunday School 12/10/17

We're back to our regular Sunday School programming, after last week's look at religion and politics.

Today, I dropped in on Face the Nation on CBS. One of John Dickerson's guests was Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), who talked about Roy Moore, Al Franken, and funding the government.

Durbin followed Susan Collins (R-ME) on the show, so some of his questions drive from her answers. You know how that goes.

On the Roy Moore issue, Dickerson asked Durbin whether the Senate has any business overturning the will of the people, if they do in fact elect Moore this week.

Well, John, I can tell you this. First, the decision is to be made by the voters in Alabama on Tuesday. And I hope they will do the right thing in terms of defining their standards and values when it comes to people representing them in Washington. But we have heard from Republican senators first who have suggested that if Roy Moore ends up being elected to the Senate, he would face close scrutiny, investigation, even removal from the Senate once he arrives.

I agree with Senator Collins; it's a complicated issue. (Note: Collins described it as a very tough decision.) But I tell you this. We faced the reality this past week. I've known Al Franken for over 20 years. He is my friend. He was on the floor of the Senate announcing his resignation; I sat just a few feet away from him. He said it was the worst day in his political life. It was a somber feeling. It was a reality. And I hope the voters of Alabama appreciate that reality when they make their decision on Tuesday.

After Moore and Franken, the conversation turned to taxes. Dickerson wondered what the Democrats could do to change the bill, since it was moving to the conference committee with enough Republican votes to pass.

...Susan Collins made it clear she's still waiting before she makes her final decision. I think others are in the same position. Jeff Flake, for example, from Arizona made it clear that bringing up this issue about DACA and DREAMers is critical to his vote when it comes to tax. So I can't assume where the Republicans will end. But they have an awful lot to accomplish in a very short period of time.

Dickerson asked if getting a deal on DACA would be worth shutting down the government.

Well, I can tell you this. We don't want to see the government shut down. We want to move forward in a bipartisan fashion to solve our problems. We believe that DACA is central; the president is the one who made this the issue. September the 5th he eliminated the DACA program and put in doubt the future of over 780,000 people in America. And we want to get this done and accomplished.

34 Republicans in the House came out last week and said, "Do it before the end of the year." The Senate Republicans have said the same thing. Lisa Murkowski yesterday tweeted that her Christmas wish - her greatest Christmas wish is to see this done, DACA and the DREAMer issue resolved, this calendar year. It is within the power of the Republicans to get this done and to put together a package we can pass. We want to stand by them, work with them, and get that done. 

And, there's the Children's Health Insurance program, too, that needs to be dealt with. Dickerson reminded Durbin about a statement he made

I'm not prepared to go home for the holidays until we get our work done.

Was that still the case, Dickerson wondered?

Well, I feel very strongly about it...DACA to me personally and the DREAM Act are very personal and mean an awful lot. But when we're talking about funding our government, providing the resources and programs that many middle income families use across America, dealing with the opioid crisis, making certain that we take care of our veterans, making certain that we have the money for biomedical research, these are part of the conversation and part of the dialogue as we close down this budget. It is up to the Republicans to make a decision about what we will do. I think we can get this done. 

That's a nice dose of optimism there, and a good way to start the week.

See you around campus.