Sunday School 7/26/26

For your Sunday School lesson this week, I spent time in CNN's State of the Union classroom, which was in a New York State of mind.

First up for host Dana Bash was House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). Bash noted the Dems are launching something called '100 Days Out Weekend of Action,' a sprint to the midterms, by hosting over 400 events across the country. At the same time, they have to figure out how to regain the majority either through the center or through the "activist left." Noting the latter group wants to "defund the police, abolish ICE, aid to Israel, open borders," she asked Jeffries if he was planning on moving on any of those issues if they win in November. 

Rather than answer her question, he said the Ds would focus on what unites them, and that's "a focus on fighting for an affordable America" because "life in this country is far too expensive," and that's something the whole party agrees on.

Too many people are working hard, they're playing by the rules, but they can't thrive and they can barely survive, not enough food on the table, not enough gas in the tank, unable to actually regularly and consistently afford to pay the rent or pay the mortgage. We want to drive down the cost of groceries, drive down and lower the cost of gasoline, drive down the cost of housing, and also make sure that health care is affordable for every single American. 

Bash tried again, asking whether the party's policy proposals will "be in line with" what some recent progressive winners want, or if they'll move towards "the moderate area" if they win the swing states.  Again, rather than answering the question, he chose bumper stickers: push back against the "one big ugly bill" and its Medicaid cuts, extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies, stop the "reckless and costly war of choice," and stop Trump's tariffs.

After two non-answers, Bash took a more direct approach, noting Jeffries has reportedly "clashed" with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who's campaigning for progressives, even those challenging incumbents, "including members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)." She asked if Sanders and others are making it harder for the Ds to win, and if that's what led to the clash. 

Jeffries said it wasn't a clash so much as a "candid conversation" with Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), chair of the CBC PAC, and it was about a single North Carolina primary. He added that he thinks Sanders and House and Senate Dems "understand the stakes" - taking control of Congress,

so we can end this MAGA extremism that has been unleashed on the American people that is actively hurting hardworking American taxpayers, and actually commit to making life more affordable for the American people.

She gave him one last chance to explain how he'll handle the progressives; according to him, "not a single person" among the incoming members has raised any of the issues Bash mentioned, other than how Dems are pushing back against the administration's immigration policies, including ICE.

The last question was about New Jersey's non-citizen voting disclosure; Bash, noting that Dems say this "doesn't happen," wondered if the discovery causes a problem for the Dems.

I think that I continue to have confidence in state and local authorities in making sure that there's going to be a free and fair election in November, and, if modest or minor challenges emerge, such as the one that was disclosed voluntarily by the authorities in New Jersey, that it is immediately corrected. And that's what I expect will continue to happen. 

And then? Back to the bumper stickers: Trump and the Rs and voter suppression, their failure to lower prices, the war, skyrocketing gas prices, and Medicaid cuts, before saying this:

They have nothing to run on. We're going to run on fighting for an affordable America.

The next New Yorker in the classroom was Border Czar Tom Homan; he's a North Country native who maintains a home in Sackets Harbor, where protestors have made their views on ICE known.

Bash led with asking if he knows "specifically" what's going on with the ICE officers who were involved in the shootings in Texas and Maine, and whether they'd been reassigned or placed on leave. Homan said he hadn't been involved in the investigations and didn't know the officers' status, but said that the policy is that they'd be put on leave during the investigation. Bash seemed surprised that, "as border czar involved in this," he didn't know for sure what had happened to the agents. He made it clear that ICE reports to Markwayne Mullin, and said

I've said from day one I won't comment on an investigation, but I can tell you I haven't specifically tracked these cases, but I can tell you, per policy, they're usually put on administrative leave pending the investigation, pending sworn statements, internal affairs interviews and the entire investigation. They usually will not be put back on duty until the investigation is over and either have been cleared or, if they've got problems, then they may not go back at all.

That last comment opened the door for Bash to bring up the domestic violence allegations against the officer in Maine (which the officer has denied). According to court documents, one of his ex-wives said that "she experienced severe domestic violence in her marriage and that he always displayed violent behavior, and even that, if anything ever happened to her, he'd be the one to look at." She wondered whether someone "with those issues" should be an ICE agent. 

No, if those of those are facts, he -- I don't think he should ever have cleared vetting. When they hire somebody, they put them through a vetting process and look at all that stuff. So, I know, based on that information -- that's part of the ongoing investigation... -- did the vetting process fail? Was that information not available? Did they not know? So, there's a separate administrative investigation on what happened here.... But the vetting process, I -- if that was factual, he would have an almost impossible time to pass vetting.

Homan said all ICE employees (some 30,000 of them) go through vetting and "this is a kind of a rare instance." And this is just one aspect of the ongoing review.

So, the training is under review. I know this specific case, as far as the vetting, is under review by the internal affairs section. So we will see where it lies. But, certainly, if this person had that type of history, it would have been a vetting issue, and it should have been brought to the attention of those who makes those decisions.

That led to Bash questioning the training, as she did the vetting, pointing to the race to "find as many undocumented immigrants as possible to deport." Homan disagreed with that premise, noting that every law enforcement agency reassesses training protocols and makes changes as needed; he even did that when he was the ICE director. And, he pointed to what Todd Lyons, ICE director last year, told Congress - that while training has changed, the amount of training did not.

They just stopped the duplication. Now it's being reviewed and... look, can we add additional training?  I think Markwayne Mullin made the decision, well, let's do a temporary pause and make sure we -- the officers have what they need to be safe and do the most safe, secure arrests possible. And that review was done pretty quickly.  

Yeah, that 'pause' is a thing, right? Here's Bash:

...during what ended up being a very brief pause, like a day, the homeland security secretary, Markwayne Mullin, said that vehicle stops would be paused, and then the president very quickly overturned that directive. But while the pause was in place, you did say it was done for the safety of the officers and whether something could have been done... my question for you is, how is it possible that all of that got accomplished in just the one day that the pause existed?

Homan pointed to some immediate changes, including at least one officer with a body camera to record all stops, and a journeyman agent assigned to them, as well. 

... (Acting ICE director) David Venturella sent an instruction out that he wants at least one body camera on those vehicle stops, so we have everything on video. So, whether the officer did something right or did something wrong, whether the alien did something right or wrong, it's on video. And I'm a big supporter of video cameras. I'm a big supporter, because I want the American people to see what that officer saw when he took whatever action they took.

Frankly, everyone wants that - the public has wanted that for months. 

Moving on to the panel discussion, we've got three more New Yorkers in the game: Congressmen Tom Suozzi (D), who represents part of the North Shore of Long Island and Mike Lawler (R), who represents folks in Rockland and Putnam Counties, and Syracuse native Maya Willey, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. GOP analyst Alyssa Farah Griffin, a native Californian, was also in the mix.

Bash, herself a native New Yorker, opened with a clip from Trump's hour-long rally/WHCA dinner speech.

What do we do here? Is this supposed to be fun? I hate some people. I shouldn't say this. I'm president. I'm not supposed to hate. I'm supposed to love everybody. Sloppy Chris Christie, one of the sloppiest human beings you will ever meet.

Ilhan Omar, one of my favorites. She ought to get the hell out of our country. She shouldn't be here. She shouldn't be in our country. You can't call J.B. Pritzker a fat pig, please.

Briefly, here's what the panel thought:

• Fara Griffin: Listen, he bombed, but the most offensive thing about it was that it wasn't funny...   and President Trump, by the way, can be funny... That did not show up...  I asked myself at the end of what felt like 90 minutes we will never get back of our lives, what was the point of that? It didn't unify him with the press, it didn't ingratiate him more, and he didn't really seem to have any goal. We're talking about Czech crystal, and then we're insulting, kind of going through the greatest hits... I'm not sure why he was there, to be honest. 

• Suozzi: It was just mean. I thought it was just mean-spirited. It wasn't funny. It's supposed to be an entertaining, fun night, and it was just, I thought, mean-spirited.

• Lawler: ... I think it was important for the president to go... from that standpoint, it was a positive... I think he could have been a lot funnier... Frankly, some of the stuff that is said on CNN about the president in real time is a lot harsher than anything he threw on Friday night... I definitely think the president could have brought a little more levity to it than he did

• Willey: Unfunny, mean, all of the above...  one of the points of (the dinner) is to celebrate the First Amendment and free speech... we saw not only a refusal to allow any political satire, in the form of having a comedian there. We also saw a president attacking journalists because they won awards on topics that he didn't like...

Shifting gears to the midterms and a CBS/YouGov poll showing that 78% said the administration is not focusing enough on lowering prices, Lawler was up first; he touted his own record of focusing "almost exclusively" on affordability, including pushing the SALT limit increase and the bipartisan housing bill (enacted by 'executive indifference'), and noted

...it was a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican White House that worked together to get it done. It was bipartisan. There were a number of Democrat initiatives in there as well. But this will actually increase supply, lower prices, create greater access to capital. These are the things the American people want us to focus on, and that's what I have been focused on.

Suozzi, on the other hand, reminded Lawler that they were both at the Inauguration last January, when we were all promised prices would come down fast. And he pointed to "five specific points directly related to this administration that are raising prices."  (I count four, but who's counting?)

Everybody knows the tariffs increase people's prices, make your food more expensive every day, make your business more expensive. Everybody knows that the war is causing an increase of gas prices at the gas pump. Everybody knows this is the biggest deficit in the history of the United States of America, which causes upward pressure on interest rates, make it impossible to buy a house, to lease a car, to pay for your credit card. Everybody knows that they have cut health care premium tax credits. You and I worked together to try and save the premium tax credits...

Farah Griffin said the Rs are looking to the White House to "please get this president on message" about bringing down prices, but there's "not a great story to tell right now."

With the Iran war going -- continuing to go on, gas prices are not coming down the way that we hoped they would. The ongoing tariff regime, which we seem to announce more tariffs day in and day out, Mexico, Canada, what is next? And this is -- this is where you have got to have sound advisers around him. I imagine Susie Wiles is in his ear saying, 'you have got to get on message ahead of these midterms,' because to -- if you're the president, investigations come, accountability comes if you lose the House and potentially the Senate.

She also said they missed the boat and he should have held a big event for the housing bill, saying

... he completely missed the opportunity there. It's remarkable the inability to see what the American people voted for him to do and then deliver on it.

Willey gets the last word, noting that the messaging is not enough, and furthermore, 

... the truth is, these are self-inflicted wounds. These are not natural occurrences in high prices. These are the creation of decisions this administration has made, the Iran war being a really big and obvious one lost on no one.

And that's a wrap. Did you learn anything? Did the New Yorkers represent the state well? Drop a comment!

Sunday School 1/8/23

The Sunday School classrooms were full of House members: I counted three Ds and eight Rs - there may have been more.

We'll hear from three of them, starting with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who earned unanimous support from his caucus during the Speaker vote-a-rama. He stopped by the MTP classroom, where he said his concern with the 'dysfunction' of last week is that it's just the beginning. 

Holding Congress captive is one thing; it's something else entirely doing that to the American people. He said that "the extreme MAGA Republican agenda that apparently has been negotiated into the House rules" could jeopardize our "health, safety, and general well-being," and

(i)t may undermine national security and a robust defense, and undermine our ability to actually advance an agenda that is anchored in kitchen table, pocketbook issues and not extremism.

He's "going to extend the hand of partnership" to the Rs, and look for common ground whenever and wherever possible - but that can't be one-sided. 

We will oppose extremism, of course, whenever necessary. And there are Republicans who are interested in governing. And they're going to have to break from the extreme wings of their party at times around some important issues. And we'll see how that all unfolds.

He and McCarthy "have had some positive, forward-looking conversations" recently, and he hopes they can "agree to disagree without being disagreeable." That's similar to McCarthy's comments upon receiving the gavel. 

Finally, on the historical aspect of his leadership role, Jeffries said, in part, 

... I do think that it is another data point on the journey in America, which is we are a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And that means that folks from a working-class neighborhood in central Brooklyn like myself should have an opportunity to participate in American governance, particularly in the House of Representatives, which is the institution designed to be the closest to the people.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) - not one of the "MAGA Republicans" Jeffries mentioned - chatted with Jake Tapper on CNN's SOTU. 

He talked about last week's activities and his disagreement with the 'anti-Kevin' folks he referred to as 'terrorists.' He apologized anyone he offended, even as he was surprised at how sensitive they were. Crenshaw provided some transparency into why the rest of the caucus was upset.

...before we had taken a single vote in a conference with everyone there, Kevin McCarthy had asked one of the leaders of this group, what else do you want? Let's make this work. What else do you want? And they couldn't answer in that moment. And that was a real turning point for a lot of people. That was what created all of that animosity...

He also said there was no reason to keep voting throughout the week if they didn't have the agreement they wanted.  

There was no reason for us to keep voting... keep allowing these speeches that just degraded and diminished and insulted Kevin McCarthy. We didn't have to keep doing that. We could have just adjourned for the whole week and just kept negotiating...  And it seemed very, very pointless.

Based on what he knows, Crenshaw agrees with the upcoming rules changes, and said no matter what people might thing, there's not a lot of disagreement on them. He said the changes to start with a budget and build the 12 appropriation bills from there is the right way to do it. He also agrees with members being able to bring amendments to the floor. The process will be "messy. It will be time-consuming..." but it will make all members feel as if their voice matters. 

Now, let's hear from Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA); he talked with George on This Week, and said all the shenanigans last week were about power for the American people. 

You know, the American people are very, very tired of this gang of seven, gang of eight, literally seven or eight people, or just a few people in Washington, DC, running all of the policy for the American people. So, when we had a framework of an agreement where the American people can be in charge, when their representatives can actually bring amendments to the floor in good faith, I said, sure, if we can do that, then I'm all in.

What else was included in the "framework of an agreement" they worked out? Accountability, and a budget "that doesn't just continually increase spending," and "single-subject bills."

George, the American people, among other things, are tired of these Christmas tree bills with all these ornaments on them coming for -- in the middle of night, 4,000 pages, $1.7 trillion, 7,200 earmarks. Everything works perfectly for Washington, D.C., but there’s no presents under the tree for the American people... restraining those things and getting those things in order, it's an entire package. It’s not just one thing.  

I'm not sure who he thinks those 7.200 earmarks are for - are they just to keep Perry and the rest of them getting elected?

He said they want a debt limit that works to limit our debt; "(w)e can't just keep doing the same thing under the same conditions with the same management and expect different outcomes." Perry said since he's been in Congress - ten years now - the debt has doubled from around $15T to $31.5T. 

Finally, Perry doesn't think he should have to forego participating on a committee to "investigate the investigations," as George called it, simply because he's part of the investigation into the insurrection. He asked 

why should anybody be limited just because someone has made an accusation? Everybody in America is innocent until proven otherwise. And I would say this, the American people are really, really tired of the persecution and the instruments of federal power being used against them...

I'm suddenly feeling very sleepy, after listening to Perry tell me how exhausted I am. 

See you around campus. 

Mr. Speaker

Finally, the long first week of the new year is over, and we have a Speaker of the House. He may be missing some pieces of soul, or body parts, but he got the votes, and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Trump) is the guy who'll be wielding the gavel. 

I went to bed after he lost the 14th vote, the one about which McCarthy was sure he'd win, because he had counted the votes. 

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Blecch) had a different idea, and prevented the victory. It was at that point that the majority of the Republican caucus wanted to punch Gaetz in his smirking fact, and one of them - Alabama's Rep. Mike Rogers - almost did. That would have been a horribly popcorn-worthy moment, for sure. 

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) garnered the most votes during the week, as the Dems stayed united and gave him all of their votes every time. It didn't matter, really, other than to show that even though they're also a fractured caucus, they know how - and when - to stand together.  

In the end, though, what mattered was that all the Rs were sick of the handful that were holding things up, after all of the concessions that were made, and managed to convince them that that voting 'present' - in effect, voting for no one - was better than voting for someone other than McCarthy. After a planned vote to adjourn until Monday was rejected, the 15th round ended the fight. 

There's lots to digest - oh, excuse me, a lot to unpack, in pundit-speak - including the possibility that many representatives from both sides of the aisle are probably secretly happy with some of the rumored rules changes: being able to offer amendments from the floor, having 72 hours to read bills before a vote, and a 'germane' rule that should help ensure that a bill on ice fishing in Lake Ontario, for example, won't include something ridiculously unrelated, like funding flame-throwing drones for Taiwan... you get the drift. 

There's even a promised vote on term limits; I'm definitely looking forward to that. 

So, while I enjoyed the comedy that came from this week, and watching the Rs attack each other, the Dems enjoy a week of unity, the reading clerks Susan Cole and Tylease Alli deftly handle the voting roll calls, and House Clerk Cheryl Johnson maintain control over an often-unruly crowd, there's some really interesting stuff coming down the pike. 

And, of course, there's some really dumb stuff coming down the pike, too - and it isn't going to take long, according to the new Speaker.

I know the night is late, but when we come back, our very first bill will repeal the funding for 87,000 IRS agents. You see, we believe government should be to help you, not go after you.

And there's more.

Now speaking of committees, we will hold the swamp accountable for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, to the origins of COVID and to the weaponization of the FBI. 

We didn't hear Hunter Biden's name mentioned, but we can be sure that those investigations can't be too far off.

We also heard McCarthy and his allies talk about the importance of Donald Trump in securing the win, so it seems pretty clear that any hope of Trump not being a factor can be tossed out the window, at least at this juncture.

Much more to come as the Rs take control, with the newly empowered gang of 20 getting their rewards, and McCarthy hammering away with the smaller-than-usual gavel. 

Sunday School 12/4/22

I spent time with George in ABC's This Week classroom for Sunday School lesson. 

First up? Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who'll be the new House Minority Leader come January. He outlined the D's mission: "to find ways to work with Republicans whenever possible to get things done for the American people."

And I hope that Republicans will look for common ground with us, but we will also oppose them when we must, particularly as it relates to any effort to go down this rabbit hole of unnecessary, unconscionable, unacceptable investigations of the administration.

Asked for some specifics where the Ds and Rs could cooperate, he spoke generically about the "American middle class and those who aspire to be a part of it" having "been under assault for decades" by things like globalization, outsourcing American jobs, and increased automation, which have "made it difficult for folks to pursue the American dream..." You solve for that by building upon what's already been accomplished - the Inflation Reduction Act, infrastructure bills, the CHIPS and Science Act - and "to find common ground to look for other ways to build upon that great work." He hasn't had any conversations with his Republican counterparts yet, but he looks forward to doing that "soon."

They also talked about who'll replace Nancy Pelosi, who will remain in the House but not in the Speaker role. Jeffries said it's up to the Rs to figure out if Kevin McCarty will be their guy. George wondered if it might come down to an agreement between moderate Rs and Ds on someone who could get enough bipartisan votes. Jeffries dodged the question the first time, then closed the door. The Dems, he said

are preparing... as we transition temporarily from the majority into the minority, continuing to work with the Biden administration, with Democrats in the Senate, building upon the great work led by Speaker Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn that has been done over the last few Congresses when we've been in majority. And then let’s see what happens on the other side of the aisle.

George pressed again on bipartisanship and compromise, and said if they could get a GOP speaker who's willing to do that, "wouldn't that be good for Democrats? Wouldn't that advance your mission?" 

Jeffries said he's "actually worked together" with his Republican counterparts, as if that were a miracle or something. Heck, he said, "I've even worked with the Trump administration in the past..." But working together to get a moderate elected House Speaker? That seems a bridge too far. 

The question on the other side of the aisle is, what will Republicans do? Are they going to double and triple down on the extremism that we've seen from people like Marjorie Taylor Greene? That would be unfortunate. And if that happens, then there’s not going to be real meaningful opportunities --.

What do you think - is he missing an opportunity here?

Next up, a Republican with whom Jeffries has worked, Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH); he's chair of the Republican Governance Group, which, Joyce describes as "dealmakers hell-bent on breaking through Washington's dysfunction." I'm thinking it might have to kick Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-Trump) out, but I digress. 

George wondered how much leverage the group has, and how it'll use it. Joyce said they're "basically focused on making government work." They know what the problems are, because they hear them from constituents. 

And we're not the people who you see on TV every week talking about issues that aren’t germane to what the people are feeling at home... you see all this fighting and you see all this kabuki theater taking place in DC, but what is that doing to lower the price of gas? What is that doing to lower the groceries? How do we start fixing the problems that we have with our educational system?

He said if they can deal with those problems, and "show that we can govern, then perhaps we'll be respected and given the majority back." 

George asked about opportunities to work with Jeffries and the Dems. Joyce mentioned setting a budget, reducing spending across all twelve appropriations bills, and getting 218 votes in the House to pass them - none of which seem interesting to many Dems.

And what about the GOP's idea of not extending the debt ceiling unless there are major program spending cuts, with Medicare and Social Security potentially included? Joyce's response was interesting, more for what he didn't say than what he did.

...obviously, the debt limit is an issue, and it’s going to be times where I hope that we don't get in a position like we did with that failed experiment in October 2013 where we shut down the government for a long period of time, because in the words of a great philosopher, Lebowski, that didn't end too well for us.

The October 2013 shutdown, during Barack Obama's second term, lasted 16 days. The longest one ever? That would be Donald Trump's shutdown, lasting 35 days in 2019. Maybe that one's all a blur, compared to the one under Obama?

Joyce thinks there's enough good guys in his group, and enough Dems who want government to work, to keep the government open. He knows they won't agree on everything, but they have to focus on what they can agree on.

...when you focus on those things, like keeping the government open, keeping the budget that’s specifically low so that people understand what the cost and expenses of running their government is. And if you look at what we've done over a ten-year span with discretionary spending, we’ve actually kept the cost of running the government down. It’s the mandatory spending that’s driving us into the $31 trillion -- as well as the excess spending in the last year.

And if the Dems passed a lame-duck extension of the debt limit, something Joyce says makes perfect sense politically for them, would he vote for it? He's a numbers guy, he said, but he also said "I don't deal in hypotheticals, George." He'd look at the numbers, if it comes to that, and vote accordingly.

Also, speaking of numbers, what about Kevin McCarthy as Speaker? He said folks are talking about not voting for him, but

Well, then who then? I mean, Kevin deserves the opportunity. And he has done the hard work that was necessary to bring together the majority... And we were given this opportunity to do that and he deserves the chance to lead us. And he deserves the chance to lead for two years.

He also said he's "not a fan of a motion to vacate," which has been suggested by some in the Freedom Caucus. If that happened, whoever was Speaker would have to step down.

And what these people got to get used to is that if a majority of our conference agree to something, then that's how you move the ball forward. And just because five or six people don’t like it doesn’t mean that we should hold up the whole thing.

Finally, George mentioned the former president's statement about suspending the Constitution so he could be reinstated as president; he asked Joyce, who voted for Trump twice, if he could support a candidate in 2024 that's in favor of suspending the Constitution.

Well, again, it’s early. I think there’s going to be a lot of people in the primary. I think, at the end of the day, you will -- whoever the Republicans end up pick, I'll fall in behind because that’s –

Even if it's Trump? George asked. Joyce he'd support whoever the Rs nominate - but it won't likely be Trump. Besides, he has more to worry about than what Trump says.

I have to worry about making sure this Republican Governance Group and the Republican majority, that we make things work for the American people... We're moving forward and we're going to continue to move forward as a Republican majority and as a Republican conference.

Whether they were really out of time or not, that was the end of the interview.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 5/22/22: Extra Credit

In a changeup from this week's Sunday School  which was about foreign policy and the economy, the focus of your Extra Credit is the November elections.

We'll start with Margaret Brennan and her chat with Sen. Rick Scott (R-Darn Right I Want to Raise Taxes on the Poor!) in the Face the Nation classroom. Scott leads the effort to get more Republicans elected. As he's done in other interviews, he jumped right in with an opinion without waiting for a question. His target? Numbers from a new CBS poll Brennan mentioned in her lead-in.

I think those numbers are consistent with what we've seen, that inflation is still the number one issue in the country... I think the election this fall is going to be about inflation... And I think it bodes well for Republicans.

Brennan noted only 51% polled say they trust the GOP more than the Dems on inflation, while 49% trust the Dems; she wondered how Scott and the Rs will change that. 

So, I think we have to talk about the things that we're going to do to make it better for people. But, if you go and look at the races around the country, Biden's numbers are really, really bad. And he's -- he is the face of the Democrat Party right now.

Brennan's next question was a good one: basically, if inflation is the big issue, why do Rs keep "relitigating 2020." Scott said people care that this election will be '"fair and their votes are not going to be diluted," and hope the Rs will make that happen. He also said that people "want to know what happened, why it happened" in 2020.

Well, they want to know -- they want to know that -- exactly what happened, if -- were there problems, exactly what happened. They'd like to know that. But, also, they're -- you know, they also want to make sure we win in '22. So, they -- they want to make sure that we're going to make sure their vote's not diluted. So, I think you have to -- you have to talk about making sure people understand what happened in 2020, but also make sure you know -- they know that you're going to focus on making sure that 2022 is a -- is a fair election.

Got it? It's all about making sure things are surely made sure by making sure of being sure. That's what they want. Without saying a darn thing. As long as you're talking about 2020, I guess. But not about all the fraud committed by Rs. Don't mention that. They surely don't want to know anything about that, for sure.

After some discussion on Scott's plan that is not the GOP plan, Brennan asked about white supremacy. The polling data show only 23% of Rs say condemning that kind of hatred is very important, while 75% of Ds think it is. She asked him why there's such a gap there.

Well, clearly, we ought to all condemn any hatred. We ought to condemn any white supremacy. We -- I mean, we've got to figure out how to come together. I believe we got to stop all this racial politics.... So, we've got to figure out how to bring people together.

Brennan then asked, "So, you would tell all Senate Republicans running for election that they need to, each and every one of them, condemn white nationalism?" Surely, no. No way.

Well, I tell people what I believe. And every -- every Senate candidate on both sides is going to decide what is important to them and what is important to the citizens of their state...  if they asked me, I would say, 'be clear. Be clear.' I mean, we do not believe, none of us -- I don't think any American should believe in white supremacy or hatred of any kind. I mean, it's wrong.

But, as he said, "they want to make sure we win in '22," so, just go with the flow in your neck of the woods - even if that means promoting white supremacy. The tent is big enough, I guess.

Her next guest was Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who's chair of the House Democratic Caucus. Brennan noted poll findings that "young people, Hispanics and half of Black Americans say the president has been too slow to react." And, his 'effectiveness' and 'competency' ratings are low. Add in a majority of Dems saying the economy is 'bad,' and Brennan wondered how the Dems will hold their majority.

Jeffries said he's "very confident" they'll hold on, saying President Biden "has done a very good job under incredibly difficult circumstances." He pointed to several things that are out there causing an "unsettled" electorate, as people are

experiencing COVID fatigue, inflationary pressures, high gas prices, a war in Ukraine, a radical, extreme Republican Party that doesn't appear to believe in democracy any longer. And so this is a tough moment for our country.

He said Biden has been a "decisive" leader, starting with the American Rescue Plan, noting 

We rescued the economy, put shots in arms and money in pockets, kids back in school, laid the foundation for a robust economic recovery that has led to more than eight million good-paying jobs being created and unemployment at 3.6% That's a tremendous start. Of course, there's more that needs to be done.

Brennan focused on the 'slow to react' metric, using police reform as an example. Two years after the death of George Floyd, she said Biden's been "looking at an executive order on police reform for months now, continues to say it's coming." She asked Jeffries if Biden needed to act on something like that before November.

Well, it's my hope and expectation that we will see some further decisive action from the administration. It's unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position because Senator Tim Scott decided to walk away from negotiations that were bipartisan in nature...

Brennan said it was the Dems who walked away, not the Rs, and asked if the urgency on police reform was "fading." Jeffries said they're going to "lean into public safety," and recited a list of issues that are important, but he didn't really address the 'urgency' question. 

Today, I can: this afternoon, news is breaking that Biden will sign his long-awaited executive order Wednesday, on the anniversary of George Floyd's death.

Another hit from the poll? She said more than a third of Dems "call their own party weak" - and 41% of young people think that, which "could hurt your turnout." She asked if it was time for a change in Congressional leadership. Jeffries was firm that, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, "we've been acting decisively." And, he continued, 

But I think we do have to crystallize the differences between what we're about and what Republicans are all about. It's clear that Washington Republicans want to raise taxes on everyday Americans, on police officers, on firefighters, on nurses, on factory workers, on grocery store clerks. And we are trying to provide them with relief. The Republicans, including your prior guest, actually want to end Social Security and Medicare as we know it in five years, forcing it to sunset. Those are serious differences between the two parties. And I think, once the voters understand that dynamic, the choice will be as clear as a sunny day in San Diego. 

Finally, Brennan wondered if "Democrats put their own communities at risk" in New York by their asinine gerrymandering (my word, not Brennan's). Jeffries did his best to blame the Republican judge, and the special master, and the Court of Appeals - but not the Dems, at the feet of whom all the blame lies.

Well, the process, unfortunately, was hijacked by the Court of Appeals. A bad process has now led to a bad result. You're talking about five different congressional districts where the Black and Latino population was degraded. The only -- most significant Jewish district in the country has been detonated, for no good reason...

That said, Jeffries stated, 

...here's what's most important. We're going to remain united, because we believe in a very simple vision for America. Work hard, play by the rules, you should be able to provide a comfortable living for yourself and for your family... educate your children, purchase a home, and retire with grace and dignity.

"Play by the rules."  Four words we don't hear, or see in action all that much from either party. 

See you around campus.  

Sunday School 6/21/20

Happy Father's Day, everyone.  Ready to dive in to the classrooms?  

CNN's State of the Union and Jake Tapper's conversation with Preet Bharara, CNN Senior Legal Analyst and former US Attorney from the Southern District of NY.

Bharara was there to talk about the firing of Geoffrey Berman, the most recent US Attorney for the SDNY. First off, he said he doesn't know if Berman will testify before any Congressional committees. Reflecting on his own experience after he was fired by Trump, he said that lots of folks wanted to hear from him, but the standard operating procedure is not to talk about ongoing investigations, even when you're no longer in office. 

And about impeaching Barr? He'll leave that up to Congress, but did say 

...the attorney general of the United States made a public misrepresentation about whether or not Geoff Berman as stepping down from office.  It was clearly not the case. It was clearly a falsehood... and I think that conduct alone shows there's some sort of unfitness for office... I know it's not the biggest thing in the world... but you make a representation that's not true, that's a problem for most people in any profession. It's a particular problem if you're the attorney general of the United States of America.

And Bharara said all of this probably stems from the president wanting Berman gone, and that it wasn't a case of the department losing confidence in Berman, since he was offered other positions within the DOJ.  And, 

Given that fact, and the weirdness of it, and all the other evidence that the president wasn't happy with how things were going in the Southern District, and wanting to make sure that they were stayed and they kept their place, stayed in their lane, that lane being loyalty to the president, I think it's a reasonable conclusion that the decision to get rid of Geoff Berman was not done in good faith.

Hard to disagree with him on that.

Chuck Todd had Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Meet the Press.  Schiff said he can't accept the explanation that Trump was "just trying to do a favor for a golfing buddy" by moving him to the US Attorney position in New York City,

given the pattern and practice of the president in seeking to use the justice system to reward friends, punish enemies, protest people he likes, and Bill Barr's willingness to carry that water for the president.

Schiff, like Rep. Jerry Nadler, who talked with Jake Tapper, said he hopes that Berman will testify before Congress. He also said 

It's, you know, I think, the most disastrous mismanagement of the Justice Department in modern memory. And like so much of what we have seen (with) this administration, it doesn't come as a surprise anymore. But yet, it's completely demoralizing to the people in the Department and dangerous to the rule of law. 

Moving on to Bolton, Schiff said he's seen the excerpts of the book, but hasn't read it yet - and "there's a tremendous amount to be disturbed about the substance of" the excerpts.

... we warned during the (impeachment) trial that you could only count on Donald trump to do what's right for him, not what's right for the country. And John Bolton says that is exactly this president's pattern and practice...

Todd reflected back on a pre-impeachment conversation he had with Schiff, about Bolton and not forcing him to testify, and he wondered if Schiff regretted not having fought harder to get Bolton's testimony in the House before voting on the Articles of Impeachment. Schiff said no.

I think, indeed, our decision has been vindicated by the fact that we are still in court now over a year later trying to get (Don) McGahn to testify. Bolton said he would sue us if we subpoenaed him. We would still be trying to get John Bolton's testimony today. 

And, he said, the House "made the case" when they urged the Senate to call Bolton during the trial, that "the senators would one day have to explain why they didn't want to hear from him when they had the opportunity. " 

He also said Bolton lacked the "basic courage and patriotism" and that it was "only greed that made him come forward in this book..."  It's hard to disagree with Schiff, too.

Finally, a quick check-in with Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who talked with Jon Karl on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Here, too, the conversation started out with the Geoffrey Berman thing.  

Karl wondered if he thought that Berman would actually testify. Jeffries said he hoped at some point the Judiciary Committee would hear from him,

because I think he has a lot to say about a continuing pattern of chaos, crisis and corruption that we have seen from the Trump administration from the very beginning until this very day.

Karl pointed out that the president "gets to hire, gets to choose, nominate, appoint, in the case of acting US attorneys" - so doesn't he also have the right to fire them?  Jeffries pointed to the "long tradition...of there being no political interference" between the executive and the DOJ,

which is the primary vehicle at the federal level for ensuring that there's equal protection under the law, liberty and justice for all, anchored in the principle that we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, not a government of a dictator or a monarch or a king.

He added that Nadler has the "full support" of the Speaker on wanting to have a hearing on this type of interference between the White House and Justice. 

Karl then asked whether John Bolton was right in his criticism about how the House handled the impeachment, keeping it so narrowly focused. That's a no.

Not at all. John Bolton is a political opportunist and a profiteer. He had the opportunity to step forward and participate in the House impeachment inquiry and share any information he had about wrongdoing by president Trump and other members of his administration, and he declined. 

And, he said, it was the Senate that committed malpractice in terms of acquitting Trump, and "now it's in the hands of the American people.

Karl's final question: If the Dems retain the House, should Nancy Pelosi step aside so there could be a black Speaker of the House? 

Not at all. Nancy Pelosi has done a phenomenal job as speaker leading our 'for the people' agenda... She has been a legendary speaker working with a historically diverse caucus, leading us forward. And I look forward to her continuing to do so in the next Congress.

See you around campus, in accordance with all applicable CDC guidelines, of course. 

Sunday School Extra Credit 1/19/19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rep. Jerry Nadler was on Face the Nation, offering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's Rep. Jason Crow.

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

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

He also said that

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

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

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

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

A couple of notes:

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

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

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

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

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

See you around campus.