Sunday School 5/5/24: Burgum's VP Interview

Jake Tapper chatted with Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND) in the State of the Union classroom. Burgum's one of the folks on the long 'short list' of potential vice presidential candidates for Donald Trump. 

Here's some of the interview, including questions I wish had been asked.

Tapper started by asking if Burgum was "comfortable with" Trump comparing the Biden administration to the Gestapo, referring to a comment Trump made talking to donors. Burgum said Trump talked for a long time, teleprompter-free, on lots of stuff, and it was "largely very upbeat."  More to the point, he said

...I mean, this was a short comment deep into the thing that wasn't really central to what he was talking about. But I understand when -- and I think Americans understand, a majority of Americans feel like the trial that he's in right now is politically motivated. And if it was anybody else, this trial wouldn't even be happening. So I understand that he feels like that he's being unfairly treated. And I think that it's reasonable that someone who's being kept off the campaign trail as the presumptive nominee has got some frustration about that.

Tapper followed up with "So, a public trial with witnesses, a jury, a defense counsel, that's like the Gestapo, the Nazi secret police?"  Oh, that's not what he said, Burgum countered.  Not only that, but

And he wasn't referring to this trial when he made that -- made that comment.

Oh - which trial was he referring to, then? 

But I do think that people understand. I mean, I'm a business guy. This is a business filing case. If it was anybody other than a presidential candidate, this would be a misdemeanor. How it got turned into 34 felonies, when there isn't even a -- the alleged crime, which is -- they haven't even convinced anybody there was a crime. But if it were, it would be a Federal Election Commission crime. And that would be pursued by the federal courts, not by a county DA in New York.

Tapper noted some unspecified polling showing "a plurality of the American people think that President Trump did commit a crime when it comes to this case. And if you add in those who think it was unethical, but not illegal, it's a vast majority." And he asked, "...if Donald Trump becomes a convicted felon because of this case, will that affect your support for him for president?"

Well, if he becomes a convicted felon in this case, that's a -- just a travesty of justice, because, as I just said, when you have got a business filing error that is for something that was -- again, it's not illegal to pay people for nondisclosure agreements.  That happens all the time. I'm sure this network and others have done that. So that's not illegal. And then you have got a -- again, they're trying do this. And the only reason this trial is happening right now, it's the only one that could actually be brought forward. The other four couldn't be brought -- the other three of the four couldn't be brought forward before the election. So,, this one is largely intended to try to achieve a result before the election. And then you can be assured, as Americans would know, that any kind of appeal would be pushed until after the election. So that's why everybody sees this as politically motivated. And, like I said, a filing error is not something that would affect any American people that are trying to put food on the table and gas in the car. It doesn't affect them. And so this is why the outcome of this trial is not going to change a lot of people's minds. It might actually in some ways help President Trump because it reinforces the idea that the Biden administration is willing to use lawfare to try to attack a political opponent.

Um, Governor - the question was, if Donald Trump becomes a convicted felon because of this case, will that affect your support for him for president. Can I get a simple yes or no answer?

There was some pushback by Tapper that Biden has nothing to do with DA Alvin Bragg, and that it's more than a 'business filing error', and the evidence Tapper's seen so far "suggests there at least was some political motivation to this, and they hid it so as to hide that from the public. That's a little bit more than just checking the wrong box on a form. But let's move on..." to the comment Trump made about the Dems basically having a 40% head start because of civil service workers, unions, and "the welfare. And don't underestimate the welfare. They get the welfare to vote."

Tapper asked if the 100,000 folks getting Medicaid in Burgum's state are being paid to vote for Dems.  

No, and I don't think that's the intention that he meant when he said that...

Well, what do you think he did mean when he said that? 

Burgum talked about open borders, and "national security and public safety" and "inflation touches every single American, the wars that are breaking out around the world." And then he talked about student loan debt, which has nothing to do with "the welfare" as anyone describes it.

But then you throw on top of things like the student loan debt, and you start trying to give away hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and it's not even -- it's like we're borrowing to give it away. It's not tax and spend. It's borrow, borrow from the Chinese, and give it away. When you see those, those citizens understand those are like preelection payoffs. Those are like, hey, folks, please vote for us because we're -- we're relieving your debt. So, at what point does it cross over, programs like student debt, to just vote-buying? And I think, again, the people that are working hard and are paying off their debts and aren't getting don't loan relief are saying, hey, this is just isn't fair. And, in America, people want things to be fair, not unfair. And I think it's clear that there's vote-buying going on at a scale like we have never seen before.

Governor, do you believe citizens in your state who have met the requirements of various student loan debt-relief programs should continue to be saddled with debt that was supposed to have been discharged years ago?  

Tapper's comeback was actually quite good, I think - take a look.

 Does that offend you more than Donald Trump telling a room full of donors, wealthy people, millionaires, billionaires, that he's going to cut their taxes? Is that -- is that buying votes any different?

Here's how it went after that. 

DB: Well, first of all, I just reject the whole premise of this idea of wealthy donors. I mean, the room of people that were there yesterday are all people that were job creators. These are -- these are Americans that were -- took risks, that...

 JT: So, they're not wealthy?

DB: ... sometimes risk everything they had to start -- to start a business. Well, they're wealthy now because the American system of capitalism worked for them to create jobs, to help them build their communities. These are among the most generous people in the country. They're the ones that are giving back to their -- to philanthropic efforts and building strong communities. They care about their kids and their grandkids. Because they have been successful and because they have worked hard is not somehow that they should be disparaged. This is what we should be celebrating. These people represent the American dream. And part of the way the American dream works is when we have low taxes and low regulation. And Joe Biden wants to -- he's proposing the largest tax increase in the history of America, and proud of it. 

Here's another easy one that Burgum should have been able to answer, but struggled with. Tapper asked about Trump's comments about what happens if he loses, and whether he'd accept the results or if there'd be violence. In a nutshell, Trump's not promising we'll be spared a repeat of January 6th, and of course, there are his comments that he'd 'spare' (pardon) the J6 rioters.  He wondered if Burgum, who has spoken against the J6 mob, was concerned by Trump's rhetoric.

He started talking about the 1960 election when Nixon conceded to Kennedy. And he talked about 2000 when we had the hanging chads. And then he talked about 2016, and suggested that CNN "challenged" those results. 

And when Tapper tried to get him focused on what might happen next January, not about 60-some-odd years ago or 20-odd-years ago or eight years ago, what happened?

Yes, well, I'm -- I'm looking forward to next January, when Vice President Harris certifies the election for Donald Trump. I mean, the American people are the ones that get to decide these elections. But for both parties and for all Americans, we have got to make sure that every county, every precinct is beyond reproach, and that everybody can be confident in our country... It can be done. It's done all over the nation, except, in some cases, we have got -- we could have a handful of counties that this election could turn on again, and we have just got to make sure that, when it's done, both sides feel good about how it was counted.

And what does that have to do with Trump pardoning J6 rioters, not committing to accepting the results of the '24 election, or promising to not provoke violence like he did in 2020? That would be absolutely nothing. 

Simple question for the governor: Do you disagree or agree with Snitty Snitty Bill Barr that "there was no significant fraud that would have changed the results" of the last election?

DB: Well, again, we're talking about - what are you talking about, what happened before the ballots came in or after they came out? 

JT: I'm talking about the results of the 2020 election.

DB: blah, ditty blah, ditty blah blah blah. We're talking about making sure that the 2024 election is secure. And there's no need to keep relitigating 2020. We got to talk about the policies that are going to help people understand. And again, how do we make America safe? How do we get our economy strong again? How do we secure our borders? President Trump is going to is going to do all those things. And this is a unique point in history, because we haven't -- since Grover Cleveland, we haven't had a former president running against a current president. So, Americans have got a better chance than ever to say, was I better off under President Trump than I am under Biden? And the answer for the majority of people is that they were better off under President Trump.

Governor, is there a reason why you won't just answer the question you're asked? Did someone tell you to do that, or are you doing that on your own?

One last chance for him to do that, with this:  "So, just quickly, if you could, if President Trump asks you to serve as his vice president, will you say yes?" For Burgum, that means dropping 300 words without ever

 Well, I think any of that right now is all speculation. I mean, as you opened the show, talking about the veepstakes and the group of people on stage, you couldn't get it -- if you had had any more on there, they'd have been falling off the stage. And prior to that, he said there was 50. So, I think the short list needs to be modified. Maybe there's a list of 50. If I'm on it, who would know? 

And then, for good measure, he threw in another 2oo-some-odd words, none of which was 'yes'. For all I know, he's still talking. 

Gov. Kristi 'The Hunter' Noem's and Sen. Tim Scott's veep interviews are on the way. 

See you around campus.  

Sunday School 2/18/24: Extra Credit

For this week's Sunday School, I focused on some of the Democrats who were wandering the halls. 

For your Extra Credit, I've got former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Too Sane for MAGA Camp), who talked with Jake Tapper in the State of the Union classroom.

Like most folks, Cheney believes "there's no question" Vladimir Putin is responsible for the death of Alexei Navalny. And that makes it even more important that we "pass the aid bill that the Ukrainians need so urgently to help them continue what they're doing" to defeat the Russians.

And one thing that's really important, Jake, for the viewers to recognize and understand is, one man - one man has the power in his hands to get that done. And that's... Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. It's very unusual actually in American history to be in a situation where one man holds that kind of power who's not the president.

Officially, it's Johnson, but for all practical intents, haven't her former colleagues in the House (and the Senate, too) ceded that power to Donald Trump? 

She added Johnson's got some soul-searching to do on Ukraine; he needs to understand "exactly what's happening," and how the Ukrainians are the front line in the fight for freedom.

And history will look back at this moment and ask, what did Mike Johnson do? He has said, and I take him at his word, that he believes that God has told him that he's called to be Moses. And I think Mike Johnson ought to look at whether or not this is actually that moment, and he ought to help the Ukrainian people.

Tapper mentioned the pressure on Johnson, and the threat that hangs over his head: the ironically-named House 'Freedom' Caucus, which holds the Speakership hostage, could move to boot him from the role. Cheney agrees but says Johnson should understand it'd be worth it to lose the position to do the right thing. She should know, right?

And, again, he's going to have to explain to future generations, to his kids, to his grandkids whether or not he did what was right, whether or not he was a force for good and aided the cause of freedom, or whether he continued down this path of cowardice and doing what Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin want him to do.

Again, like most folks, she's not impressed with Trump not having said anything about his friend Putin taking out a political rival. She also reminded us that Trump has promised retribution, and that retribution is what Putin did to Navalny. Trump needs to be taken seriously, and

We have to take seriously the extent to which you have now got a Putin wing of the Republican Party. I believe the issue this election cycle is making sure the Putin wing of the Republican Party does not take over the west wing of the White House.

She was harsh on Trump's NATO approach, calling it "dangerous," "disgraceful," and "completely uninformed and ignorant," and said what's "so misguided" about people thinking we should just walk away from Ukraine is

if Putin wins in Ukraine, he's telling us... the Baltics are next, Poland is next, NATO member countries will be next. If Putin wins in Ukraine, the security system -- and he knows this -- the security structures that have maintained peace and security and freedom since the end of World War II will begin to unravel.

She thinks "what the Republicans are doing" with our border issues "is really shameful." She strongly blames the Biden administration for its failures there, but "as soon as the agreement was reached" - the tripartisan Sinema/Langford/Murphy bill - she said Trump stepped in again, preferring an issue to run on, rather than movement to solve the problem. And the "contortions from many leading Republicans," aren't fooling anyone, on anything.

I think, again, the American people are too smart to fall for that, and I think that my former colleagues ought to stop the political contortions and realize how significant and serious this national security moment is.

They talked about Trump's legal issues; regarding the E. Jean Carroll case, she said the jury found that Trump actually did what he said he could get away with on the Access Hollywood tape. And she pointed to the common thread with all of the cases: Trump won't follow the law, he won't tell the truth, and he's got a "fundamental lack of character."

 And I think one of the things that is so troubling about this political season is the extent to which you have got people that used to be good and honorable members of Congress, for example, who have simply, apparently, abandoned the need to actually elect people of character and honor, and instead are embracing him.

Tapper was surprised that Sen. Mitt Romney would be "unique" among the Rs in the Senate and House to say, in effect, that he won't vote for someone who's guilty of sexual assault.  Cheney agreed. 

I mean, you would think that anyone with a daughter, sister, a mother would be where Senator Romney is on that issue. 

Tapper noted that Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH YEAH, I'm in the Cult!) and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-You Kidding Me? Of Course I'll be His Veep), both said they would not have certified the election on January 6th, and he wondered whether anyone should be comfortable voting for a Republican ticket with either of them on it. That's a big fat no from Cheney - and, she said, Stefanik should be removed from the board of the National Endowment for Democracy. 

Cheney also didn't think much of Snitty Snitty Bill Barr, who recently said he'd vote for Trump over Biden even though, he also said,

Voting for Trump is playing Russian roulette with the country. Voting for Biden is outright national suicide.

She said he's "absolutely wrong," and even though she hasn't endorsed anyone, she "certainly would never support Donald Trump." Why?

...we know what Donald Trump will do because he's telling us every day. And anybody who has spent any time overseas, who has spent any time studying the history of autocracies and of autocrats knows we have to listen to what Donald Trump's saying. So electing Donald Trump's not Russian roulette. Electing Donald Trump would mean putting in power a man who's committed to unraveling our constitutional framework. So Bill Barr is just wrong on that.

And what about her plans? Tapper tried to get her on the record, on a variety of options.

• Is she running for president? No decision yet, but she'll do whatever it takes to stop Trump. 
• If she didn't run, would she support Biden over Trump if they were the choices? She's "not making any announcements or endorsements," but she'll do whatever it takes to stop Trump.
• If she were a South Carolina voter, he assumed she'd support Nikki Haley in the primary? "Yes; I mean, again, I am not making any endorsements, but I don't think that's a hard call at all."

Cheney was - is - much more conservative than I am; heck, she voted with Trump nearly 93% of the time during her career. But she's one of the few politicians who answers the questions she's asked and is not afraid to speak her mind. I wish all of the folks who sat in the classrooms were as accessible. 

See you around campus.

Sunday School 2/11/24: Extra Credit

Little Marco Rubio (R-Florida Man) was in the State of the Union classroom on Sunday, and Jake Tapper was hosting, so I figured, why not drop in? 

Rubio, who sponsored legislation back in December requiring any American president to get the advice and consent of the Senate, or an Act of Congress, before pulling the US out of NATO or messing with our membership, was asked if he was "comfortable" with Trump's recent comments on Russia, NATO, and us potentially not supporting our allies. Here's his 264-word response.

Well, that's not what happened. And that's not how I view that statement. I mean, he was talking about something, a story that he talked about happened in the past. By the way, Donald Trump was president, and he didn't pull (us out of) NATO. In fact, American troops were stationed throughout Europe. As they are today, they were then as well. But he's telling a story. And, frankly, look, Donald Trump is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He doesn't talk like a traditional politician. And we have already been through this now. You would think people had figured it out by now. What he's basically saying is, if you see the comments, he said NATO was broke or busted until he took over because people weren't paying their dues. And then he told the story about how he used leverage to get people to step up to the plate and become more active in NATO. He's not the first American president. In fact, virtually every American president at some point in some way has complained about other countries in NATO not doing enough. Trump's just the first one to express it in these terms. But I have zero concern, because he's been president before. I know exactly what he has done and will do with the NATO alliance. But there has to be an alliance. It's not America's defense with a bunch of small junior partners. Some of these are big countries with big economies. Many of them are doing more. The Germans are doing a lot right now.

He didn't, but Tapper should have asked why that legislation was so important if Trump's only blowing smoke. He did ask how Rubio'd explain to Israel and Ukraine why he's going to deny them aid. Here's his 333-word explanation; I've broken it into themes for clarity. 

First: "I'd do anything for you, dear, Israel."

I don't oppose giving them the help that they need, especially in the case of Israel. And if you put the Israel thing up to a -- if you put Israel aid up to a vote right now, it would pass. I don't even know -- maybe a couple of people would vote against it. But, basically, it would pass very quickly. The problem is, Israel is being held hostage so they could get Ukraine.

Second: "I'm An American, and I might miss the Super Bowl." 

As far as how do I explain it to them, before I explain anything to them, I have to explain to my constituents, I have to explain to the people of Florida, I have to explain to the American people because I'm a US senator. And my number one obligation is America. If America is not strong, we can't help any of our allies. And I will have to explain to them why the Senate is going to work all through Super Bowl weekend, which is fine with me.

 Third: "We're being invaded!"

We're going to make a big priority, except on something that's critical to this country, which is the invasion that's going on, on our own border, on our own border. We're over -- according to a House committee and the documents and the statistics they put out -- I think these numbers are low, but let's just use them -- 3.3 million people have been released into the country who arrived here illegally. Over 600,000 of them either have criminal convictions or pending criminal charges against them.

And, fourth: "We don't need no stinking bill." 

I mean, this is a huge problem and it has to be addressed and they put out a bill. They can call it whatever they want. It wasn't a border security bill. It wasn't tough. And, frankly, it was negotiated by three people. I don't begrudge it, but I wasn't involved in that negotiation. I didn't even ask for a bill. I asked for the president to reverse the executive orders that created this crisis when he took over in January 2021.

Tapper asked directly if Rubio supported aid to Ukraine. 

I think, if we secure our own border here in the United States, I have said that we should do -- we should help Ukraine. Look, half the money that's going to Ukraine is not going to Ukraine. It's to buy back our own weapons that we gave them to restock our own shelves. And, obviously, Taiwan is included there as well. My problem is this: Before we do these things, we have to make America and Americans a priority again...

Besides, the current migrant crisis, he said, is causing "a crime wave," and

Why are we spending all of this taxpayer money to house migrants, feed migrants, accommodate migrants? We have a bunch of needs in our own country for Americans. How is that not our priority? Americans have to be our priority, and then we can help our allies.

Tapper played a clip of Brandon Judd, the head of the Border Patrol union, saying the bill Rubio helped defeat "absolutely is" better than the status quo, and

Nobody can argue that it's not better than what we currently have. Although it's not perfect, it is a step in the right direction. And I would rather have the step in the right direction than nothing. 

Rubio thinks the union's wrong, saying "It's not better than nothing."

Look, there are some things in that bill that we should do, change the asylum standard and the like. Here's what else the bill did. The bill basically creates an asylum corps, OK? It creates a bunch of -- thousands of bureaucrats, basically agents, asylum agents, that would be empowered right at the border to either allow people into the country with an immediate work permit. Today, they have to wait six months. You give them an immediate work permit, you're going to have more people coming. That's a huge magnet. Or they have the power to immediately release them and grant them asylum, which now puts them on a five-year path to citizenship, which is what a lot of Democrats want. They want to turn a bunch of illegal immigrants into voters, into citizens, into voters, in the hopes that those people will then turn around and vote for them in future elections, grateful because they will know who let them in. That's a huge problem. That doesn't solve the border. It makes it worse.

Tapper argued the bill didn't have a path to citizenship, but Rubio said it did - a green card in a year, and citizenship in four, he said, for people who are granted asylum. And, he added,

And these bureaucrats would have the power to grant you asylum, not even a judge, a bureaucrat.

Tapper pointed out that "immigration judges" aren't judges either, they're immigration attorneys. He also noted the bill is "by far the most conservative border security bill in four decades," according to Sen. Jim Lankford - even more conservative than the bill Rubio helped negotiate in 2013, and that it didn't include much of what the Ds wanted. He asked why this wasn't a win for the Rs.

Rubio's response? Let me count the ways: the president doesn't have to shut down the border; 1,400 migrants still need to be processed during a shutdown; it sunsets in three years; it doesn't touch the 'parole' system; and decisions made by immigration judges can be overruled by the Attorney General, but the decisions made by these new asylum officers can't be. 

Hmm... the AG is an unelected bureaucrat; couldn't he overturn every denied asylum request, to create those brown voters Rubio mentioned? It sure would have been fun if Jake asked that.  

Rubio agreed changing the asylum standard is good, but "it's ultimately going to be applied by an administration that has proven its unwillingness to enforce our immigration laws." No matter what he was asked, his answers were consistent: from his perspective, bad liberals were going to be making bad decisions at the border - period.

Now, in the hands of another administration, perhaps that asylum standard could be applied differently. But, ultimately, once you have this asylum corps hired by Mayorkas, hired by Biden, put at the border, they are going to be -- they will have the power...

Given the whole process that occurs after a bill passes - funding allocations, regulation-writing, job classification, hiring, background checks to complete... does he really think all that would happen before January 20, 2025 - or does he think Biden's going to be re-elected?

Tapper moved on to Trump's bizarre comments about Nikki Haley's 'missing' husband Michael, who's on a year-long deployment with the SC National Guard. Everyone knows that, including Trump, and asked what Rubio thought about that. He thinks "they're part of the increasing nastiness of this campaign and every campaign in American politics."

I mean, they're calling him a grumpy old man. They're attacking Donald Trump.  

"A Grumpy old man?" The horror! He shared other 'nasty' comments and then said

But at the end of the day, I think one of the things I'm not going to do any longer is, like, respond to every comment Donald Trump makes and say, oh, you still support him? I do. And I support him because Joe Biden's a disaster, because Joe Biden is a disaster. He's done tremendous damage to this country. America is less prosperous and the world is less safe because Joe Biden became president.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 1/15/23

There was a lot going on in the classrooms yesterday, with What's-his-name getting lots of credit for "doing his job" on Meet the Press. I'll have more on that, I promise. 

For your Sunday School, I wanted to focus on Jake Tapper's visits with House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chair Rep. James Comer (R-KY) and Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) on CNN's State of the Union.

The new scandal over classified documents was top of mind, and I'll do my best to summarize the key issues Comer raised, or, I should say, the key issue - because at the end of the day, as he puts it, there's only one issue. Here are a few of the ways he brought it up.

We want to know the visitor logs to the residence. We want to know who had access to the Biden Center for Diplomacy...this is the same type of investigation that the Democrats...launched and demanded happened to President Trump...  And we just want equal treatment here with respect to how both former President Trump and current President Biden are being treated with the document issue.

Comer and others, from both sides of the aisle, are concerned by the lack of transparency -and hypocrisy from the administration. Before the election, Biden talked about Trump mishandling documents, apparently knowing he had done the same thing.

So, the hypocrisy here is great. We're very concerned about a lack of transparency. We're very concerned, as I have said many times, about a two-tiered system of justice in America. And we just want equal treatment. 

Comer apparently considers any statements from the administration are nothing but a bunch of malarkey. 

... It seems political here. It seems hypocritical. It seems like a double standard. And that's our concern... We have asked questions about what went on with Mar-a-Lago. Why was Mar-a-Lago raided, but the president's home not?  Why are the president's lawyers still allowed to go rummage through, looking for documents, after a special counsel has been appointed? It doesn't make sense. It's not fair. We just want equal treatment.

Tapper reminded Comer of some key differences between Trump's document-gate and what we know, so far, about Biden's document-gate: the difference in volume, the subpoena, the lawyers saying everything had been turned in when it hadn't been. And then he rolled tape of Comer from last November, talking about the Trump situation.

I don't know much about that. That's not something that -- we have requested information just to see what was going on, because I don't know what documents were at Mar-a-Lago. So, that's something we're just waiting to see what comes out on that. QUESTION: But is it fair to say that investigation won't be a priority? COMER: That will not be a priority. 

His response to the question, "Do you only care about classified documents being mishandled when Democrats do the mishandling?"

Absolutely not. Look, we still don't know what type of documents President Trump had. That's one of the questions we have asked the National Archives. Just because Joe Biden's lawyer said they turned over five documents doesn't mean they just turned over five documents. They could have turned over 500 documents. I'm sorry, but I don't have a lot of confidence in President Biden's personal lawyers...

He also apparently hasn't seen a single news report, or any of the excuses widely publicized by the right, or even had a conversation with a colleague since the Mar-a-Lago raid. And that's good, because he doesn't give a rat about mishandled documents.

My concern is how there's such a discrepancy in how former President Trump was treated... vs. Joe Biden... That's not equal treatment. And we're very concerned. And there's a lack of trust here at the Department of Justice by House Republicans. That's the outrage.

There's all kinds of outrage, here, to be sure. 

Sunday School 10/23/22

For your Sunday School, I started in the Fox News Sunday classroom, where host Shannon Bream chatted with Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) about immigration and more.

Bream mentioned Cuellar's many conversations with the Biden administration on immigration, and asked if he thought the border is secure. Cuellar, who was born and raised in Laredo and represents the city today, was clear. With nearly 5M people crossing illegally in two years, between those we've apprehended and "the getaways,"

No... it's not secured... I started telling the transition team in December of 2020, this is what's going to be happening. You all have to be ready... we can be compassionate at the border, but you've got to enforce the law. And if you don't return people, then this is what you're going to have.

He also provided a great football analogy about immigration.

... look, we can spend all the defense on the one-yard line called the US/Mexico border, but if we don't go to their 20- yard line, work with Guatemala, work with Mexico and - and get them engaged so they can stop those folks from coming in, then they're just going to be at our doorsteps...

And how does he respond to his opponent's accusation that he "can't point to anything concrete" he's done about immigration? After noting she's not from the district, he said he "works very well with her husband" who's a Border Patrol Chief in Del Rio. He's also announcing a new, $165M Border Patrol checkpoint in Laredo. And, he said,

...by the way, Shannon, if you want to stop drugs, drugs are coming in -- over 90% of their drugs come in through ports of entry. So, we've got to support the men and women in green and the men and women in blue also.

Bream asked if Cuellar "had any regrets" about voting for the American Rescue Plan. He said deficit spending under Biden is less than under the Trump administration, but added we need to control "one of the biggest drivers," oil and gas, which supports 40,000 jobs in his district. He said he helped pass "the ban on oil exports" which created more US jobs, and he wants more drilling here.

Bream wondered if there's a place for him with the Ds; some have suggested his policy positions align more closely with the Rs. Cuellar said "surely, I'm a Democrat. I'm a conservative Democrat. I work in a very bipartisan way." And, he continued, 

And I think every party has the extreme. We have the extreme left. We have the extreme right. But some of us are not sent up to Washington to go make political statements. We're sent to Washington to do the hard job, and that is govern... I think there is definitely room for a conservative, moderate Democrat like myself.

Bream's last question was about the FBI raid at his home several months ago, which his opponent has been mentioning on the campaign trail. Cuellar said he is not the target of the investigation, and he's going to keep focusing on the election, and he said this about his opponent.

What I want to know is what she wants to do? You know, she's focusing on negative attacks. And I think people are sick and tired of the negative attacks. What they want to see is, this is a market of ideas. This is what I want to do. This is what she wants to do. Let the people decide. 

Hear, hear to that. 

Sunday School 9/25/22: Extra Credit

Part of what Sen. Joe Manchin was trying to get across to Fox News Sunday host Shannon Bream in yesterday's Sunday School was that people - and the country - are more important than the politics of the day.  It's a message sure to fall on deaf ears, on both sides of the aisle and across the airways and the interwebs, but he's right.

Down the hall in the CNN State of the Union classroom, Jake Tapper had a conversation with two former governors of Tennessee: Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, and Bill Haslam, a Republican. They host a new podcast, You Might Be Right.

Tapper asked Haslam what he'd say to folks who say it's not possible to find common ground "with people who are literally trying to undermine democracy?"  Tapper was referring to the many Rs, including the top leaders in the House, who push the Big Lie and, "in the view of many critics, don't seem to have a real commitment to democracy."

Haslam dodged the meat of the question, the part about the lack of commitment to democracy, by saying that 

most Americans aren't out there watching -- wondering about this or engaging in an argument this way or another. They're living their lives. But they do want to understand it better. What we're trying to do is take difficult issues, show both sides of the problem, so that people can understand, the other side might have a point.

So, Tapper tried again, suggesting "it's difficult to have an argument" about important topics like taxes, foreign policy, abortion and so on "if the other side won't even accept the results of a free and fair election." 

Bredesen took the question this time, pointing out that "if we get stuck on that" there won't be a lot of progress made.

What Bill and I are trying to do is to say, look, there are some issues there that are -- they're very difficult and people are in hard corners, but there's a lot of issues in this country having to do, I mean, with the debt and with the environment and so on, that there are real problems that need solutions. And trying to explore with the public at large, not necessarily with the Congress, but the public at large, as to what some of those common grounds might be, I think, is important.

And, Bredesen said, when you look at both sides you get to better answers than you do if you "just stick to the catechism of one party or the other..."

Haslam was asked about white evangelicals and what role they play in "both the extremism in the Republican party today and also the potential solutions" he and Bredesen discuss. Tapper asked about this because Haslam's been vocal about "how far off-track the church has gone." Haslam said in his experience in office,

believers act just like everyone else when it comes to the political sphere, instead of being different and saying, one of the reasons that you serve in offices like Phil and I did is to actually solve a problem, to make a difference, to -- it's not about making a point. It's about making a difference. And I'm trying to encourage people of faith to say, how can you actually make a difference? Make a difference means actually trying to solve a problem, instead of just yelling at the other side about how horrible they are.

Bredesen added that their backgrounds help other folks understand the importance of actually solving problems and getting things done.

I mean, we both were in the business world before politics. We both were mayors and then governors. I mean, those are all jobs where you actually have to do something Monday morning. If there's a problem out there, you're expected to do something to begin to -- begin to solve it. That's just a very different environment than you have in the Congress, for example, where there's very little problem-solving going on, but there's a lot of posturing going on and working to the base. So, I hope that the combination of experiences of the two of us bring something a little different to the discussions as well.

Tapper asked Bredesen to talk about the root of the cultural canyon he sees between "the so-called cultural elite and folks who know somebody who drives a Ford F-150."  From Bredesen's perspective,

I think we're living in an America which is obviously divided, although my perception is, it's not as divided as you would think by listening to the Congress or listening -- listening to the media. If I walk into the grocery store and see people, probably, I'm sure, on both sides of a lot of these issues, I mean, they're largely the same -- the same people with the same desires in life and the same intentions as to what they do.

He thinks, more than anything, it's an urban-rural divide, one that "may be inevitable" given how the country has moved away from rural areas into cities. 

But I think it's possible to bring it back together again. We were very divided in the '30s, and World War II fixed it. I'm not suggesting that we want another war or something, but there will be some challenge that comes up to the country at some time that I think will help to pull us back together and find our common roots.

And Haslam noted, "we're pretty evenly divided as a country," noting the 50/50 Senate, a handful of votes separating the House, and the fact that we've not had a president elected by a double-digit margin in years.

But the problem is, we have become kind of segregated by our beliefs. And so we think everybody thinks the way we do, and we can't believe anybody would think differently. Part of what we're doing with this podcast... is modeling former Senator Howard Baker saying "always remember, the other person might be right." And that's what's lost in this -- in the discussions we're having today, is this idea of, the goal is to get to the right answer, not to get to my answer. And so we're trying to take hard topics, present people that have two very different perspectives, and then present some potential solutions.

I'm going to check out the podcast, to see how they approach the topics that wish our politicians would talk about, instead of focusing on getting the perfect soundbite. 

Checking back with Manchin, here's how he ended his chat with Bream.

And I sure do put the country first and America. It's all about America, not about Democrats or Republicans.

Tonight, Manchin pulled his permitting reform bill from the funding plan the Senate is considering. In a statement, he said

It is unfortunate that members of the United States Senate are allowing politics to put the energy security of our nation at risk. The last several months, we have seen firsthand the destruction that is possible as Vladimir Putin continues to weaponize energy. A failed vote on something as critical as comprehensive permitting reform only serves to embolden leaders like Putin who wish to see America fail. For that reason and my firmly held belief that we should never come to the brink of a government shutdown over politics, I have asked Majority Leader Schumer to remove the permitting language from the Continuing Resolution we will vote on this evening.

Over the last several weeks there has been broad consensus on the urgent need to address our nation’s flawed permitting system. I stand ready to work with my colleagues to move forward on this critical legislation to meet the challenges of delivering affordable reliable energy Americans desperately need. We should never depend on other countries to supply the energy we need when we can produce it here at home. Accelerating the construction of energy infrastructure is critical to delivering that energy to the American people and our allies around the world. Inaction is not a strategy for energy independence and security.

Is it critical enough to actually do something? Only time will tell...

See you around campus - and be prepared to discuss issues as if "the other person may be right."

Sunday School 9/18/22: Extra Credit

As promised in your Sunday School lesson, here's a longer interview with NYC Mayor Eric Adams, who talked with Jake Tapper in the CNN State of the Union classroom.

Tapper began by noting that "more than 11,000 asylum seekers have passed through New York's shelter system since May, including roughly 2,500 bused to New York from Texas."  Adams has said NYC is "nearing its breaking point" and has even talked about bringing in cruise ships as temporary shelters. With that backdrop, Tapper asked what Adams needs from President Biden and the feds, and "how much longer can New York continue" without additional resources. 

Adams said it's a humanitarian crisis "created by human hands," and that it's one of those moments where everyone is supposed to "come together and coordinate." That means the federal government, and the governors of Texas and Florida. And, he said,

We should not be really treating other cities and municipalities in the manner that we're witnessing now. And so, we need resources for housing, resources to make sure that we can properly give people the medical care, all of the basic necessities that you would give new arrivals that enter a city.

He also said they're not going to run out of resources; they're "going to follow the law... as well as our moral obligations and responsibilities." He said it's already challenging, and will continue to be so, because NYC is a "right-to-shelter" city. And when Tapper asked about his message for DeSantis and Abbott, Adams talked about them "hiding up" their actions on guns, for example, and on a woman's right to choose.

You see, this is their way of covering up when many people have been really concerned about the erosion of basic human rights. We're seeing crisis calls for coordination. We received a minimum of six buses early this morning, over 11,000 individuals, asylum-seeking migrants, have come to the city already. It is time for us to coordinate this humanitarian crisis that our country is facing.

He disagreed when Tapper said "it seems like you agree this is a crisis that needs more attention from the Biden administration," and said it's something that needs more coordination from the whole country, "at the federal level, the state level, and even city-to-city. Tapper tried again, asking if Biden and the Dems in Congress should make immigration a priority, "using their political capital to finally fix this problem," given it's been since Reagan was in office that we last had major immigration reform legislation.

Adams said one of the most important things we can to is allow migrants to work.

They came here to pursue the American dream. I don't think it really is logical to allow people to be here for months without the ability to seek employment, particularly during a time when we are seeking employees on various sectors in our city.

And, from the other side of the aisle - in fact, from the other side of the country - Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) was on next, with immigration one of the topics. Tapper asked if he agrees with the moves by Abbott and DeSantis. Rounds said they're trying to send a message to the rest of the country "about the plight of those individuals that are coming from south of the border." Pointing to the ridiculously high number of border-crossers under the Biden administration - he said it's "about 3.4 million" (and I'm not fact-checking that) coming to our southern states.

What is a governor supposed to do? They're trying to send a message to the rest of the country that this is not acceptable, and that their states can't handle that type of an inflow.

And it's not just the people - it's the drugs, too. He said his state's Native American reservations "have got huge inflows of drug trafficking coming into our state into some of the heaviest poverty areas of the entire country," and South Dakota's 1200 miles from the border.

So, it's affecting all of our states, but the administration is not doing anything about it.

I wish Tapper had said, "I'll have you back to talk about Native American poverty and drug problems," but he didn't. He did ask if there wasn't a "degree of trolling here" and whether he "really have no issue with using human beings, a one-month-old baby, little kids to make a political point like this?"

Rounds said it needs to be put into perspective, "This is every single day thousands of individuals coming across with babies" to our southern states.

And so, yes, I mean, do any of us like the situation that we're in? Absolutely not. Matter of fact, I would suspect that the individuals in the Southern states that are trying to find a way to get the attention of the administration would love to have other alternatives to them. It's been 606 days since Joe Biden took office, and this problem has done nothing except continue to develop. This is a national problem. And yet these governors on -- along the Southern borders are the ones that are faced with trying to address it.

Tapper suggested what we need is "a comprehensive immigration bill" addressing border security and a pathway to citizenship for all the folks who've been here for decades. And, he said

In the more than 20 years I have been in this town, I have seen people like President George W. Bush and Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Marco Rubio trying to get immigration reform done, working with Democrats. Every time, they were defeated by House Republicans, who wouldn't go along with any sort of compromise. Would you support restarting bipartisan negotiations to try and -- try to finally fix this broken immigration system?

Rounds said discussions "are ongoing" in the Senate, and said the last "hard push" was in 2017, when he and Sen. Angus King (I-ME) co-sponsored a bipartisan bill that got 54 votes. It addressed Dreamers, chain migration, a pathway to citizenship, and that "nothing has happened during this administration." 

Tapper didn't interrupt to ask what happened to the 2017 effort, when the Rs had a trifecta: the House, the Senate, and of course, the Trump White House. And he didn't ask what happened to immigration legislation in the next Congress in 2019, when the Rs held a 53-to-45 majority. It would have been interesting to hear Rounds explain why nothing happened. 

Instead, Tapper let Rounds continue.

Yes, would we like to step forward again and try and approach again? Absolutely. Do we have to address it? Yes. Do we have to have border security? Before anything else can happen, we have got to be able to defend that border. We have got to be able to make a border that actually works. Otherwise, why should people pay any attention to the laws that we have gotten? What good would it do to reform them if we're not going to enforce them?

Rounds is right, but he would have had a better case if he had expanded upon the "ongoing" discussions, or if he said he and King were back at it with his bill from 2017, or if he had responded in any way at all to Tapper's comment about House Republicans who refuse to compromise.

Blaming the administration is easy, but it would have been a whole lot more powerful if he had a better story to tell.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 8/21/22

We've got three Congressman in the classrooms today. 

Ed O'Keefe talked with Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, in the Face the Nation classroom. 

On the Mar-a-Lago search, Turner said releasing the affidavit would help explain how the FBI justified "raiding...and spending nine hours in the president's house," when they had other options they could have used. And, he said, "the American public want" the AG focused on things like "human and drug smuggling at the border... Chinese espionage, out-of- control crime in our cities."

He said his committee's concerned about "an allegation of classified documents," and that the DOJ should show them what they went to find, and what the "imminent national security threat" was. He's also concerned about the resources devoted to the search, "when we have real imminent national security threats, like Chinese espionage, the border, issues that -- things that are going on in Ukraine."

And when O'Keefe asked "what use could a former president have for classified or top-secret information once he's left office," Turner was unsure. 

Well, I don't know. I mean, you would have to ask him. But certainly, we all know that every former president has access to their documents. It's how they write their memoirs...

Have any used Top Secret/SCI documents for that, I wonder? Turner seems to doubt the classification of what was found. He said the FBI said "they were identified as marked classified," and, he said, Trump said he declassified them. He thinks the important thing is the "abuse of discretion" on the part of the FBI.

...we have evidence of the FBI abusing that discretion, and of misconduct on behalf of the FBI...There are real questions as, what is the FBI doing here? ...the rank-and-file FBI agents, everybody agrees we support them. We have great faith in them. But the leadership of the FBI, when they undertake a raid against the current president's political rival, you have to ask these questions.

We have "great faith" in the people, but we want to defund or even abolish the organization... And, when is the "real question" ever going to be," what is the former president doing?" Never, it would seem.

In the Meet the Press classroom, What's-his-name talked with Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY), chair of the DCCC; he was asked if it was "fair to say now, there's no moral victory" for the Dems; either they keep the House, or they lose. Maloney agreed, but pointed to what he called "a summer of strength" and said the Ds are "going to buck history by making history." 

Look, we know that we need to get things done. That's the hard path that we've chosen. The other side has had a summer of stumbles, obstructing veterans' health care, ripping away 50 years of reproductive freedom, and now trying to defund the FBI and ignore a serious threat to our national security with Trump's latest scandal. We're going to address real problems. We think that's going to bring it home.

On the laughable question from What's-his-name, on whether the Ds "put party over country" by running ads talking about MAGA candidates, Maloney said "Absolutely not."

The moral imperative right now, Mr. Todd, is to keep the dangerous MAGA Republicans who voted to overturn our election out of power. There were 139 of them who voted against the results of the election back in January 2021...We believe that by running a commercial that called our opponent an extremist who was too conservative for Western Michigan, we teed up the choice in the fall.

Maloney was asked if "cynical moves like this" are why "everybody hates both political parties." He said his job "is to win elections for the Democrats and I take that seriously," again noting the importance of not letting McCarthy become speaker. There will always be "difficult moral questions, philosophical questions about tactics," he said. Indeed.

Finally, we've got Jake Tapper and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) in the State of the Union classroom. Tapper wondered if Crenshaw, a former Navy Seal, is bothered that there was apparently classified information at Mar-a-Lago?

Yes. Well, look, you know me, Jake, and I'm not wanting to withhold criticism, and even make my own side mad. I want to get to the truth...but I will be honest with you here. It -- this -- it's hard to justify what the Department of Justice did here, in my opinion. 

It's not a question that it's bad to have classified material in a non-SCIF environment, right? So, that's a non-secret, compartmentalized infrastructure there. That's wrong. But there's ways to mitigate that. There's ways to resolve that issue. 

Besides, Trump's "been cooperating with them on these issues for a while now, for months." That's why the Rs, even the ones who don't think much of Trump, he said, are coalescing on the issue of the unjustness of the government taking these steps. 

Tapper said skepticism is fine, but there was signoff by a judge, and he wondered if law enforcement isn't innocent until proven guilty. 

Yes, again, people signing off on it doesn't mean it's -- it doesn't -- that it has precedent. It doesn't. This is a very unprecedented measure. And you know that when you're going after an ex-president who may run again, that this is -- this is automatically political. You can't -- you cannot separate the legal aspects of this from the political aspects of it. You can't. And it doesn't seem to me like they have acted responsibly as a result of that. And look, again, why not just ask him? Why not just ask him?

Remember, everything is unprecedented until someone does it. In this case, how many ex-presidents who may run again have allegedly taken TS/SCI and other classified documents with them after losing an election, have lied to the government about it, have paid liars to lie to the government about it, have a record of cavalier handling of national security, including in the very place that was searched, and of destroying documents? 

That Trump is unprecedented doesn't give him a pass, especially since the Rs say this is all about accountability - just not for the guy who had his house searched. Maybe this is one of those "difficult moral questions, philosophical questions" mentioned in the Maloney interview.

I do agree that Marjorie Taylor Greene and AOC "can go join the defund law enforcement club if they want."

See you around campus.

Sunday School 6/5/22: Extra Credit

I'm switching gears from your Sunday School lesson on people trying to do something about gun murders, to people trying to do something about the January 6th insurrection... let's dive into this week's Extra Credit.

Jake Tapper had former Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-VA) in the State of the Union classroom. He worked as an advisor to the House January 6th Committee for several months, leaving at the end of April to focus on helping Ukraine.

Before we get into his interview, the Committee is unhappy with Riggleman's appearances on CNN, as Politico noted last Friday. After one interview last week, the Committee's staff director sent an email regarding an "unauthorized" interview. Per the article, the email said Riggleman's appearance was "in direct contravention to his employment agreement."  And, of course, Riggleman "sharply disagreed" with that portrayal.

So, in the interest of not piling on to the Committee's dismay, I'll limit my excerpts to Riggleman's exuberance and personal opinions, and omit anything that could be remotely sensitive.

He said that the hearings are "going to be very concise," and "very exciting," and

...I think people are going to be absolutely surprised how much was known... And I think that's what's going to be exciting to see the committee. There's some very talented investigators behind the doors, and even with our teams and things like that and what they found, but, again, the investigators going through the thousands of interviews that they have and all the data and the videos.

I think -- I do think they're going to be very successful in those six -- I think in those six hearings.

And, he has hopes for the rest of us.

... the American people have to look at this from the beginning, take their notes, and understand that the committee has to build a case in a very solid, facts-based way. There's not going to be a lot of partisan whining or screaming. The investigators behind the door are nonpartisan individuals. They're going to present this case in a very cogent way. But the American people need to -- they need to take notes.

Tapper pressed on whether there's some kind of orange-haired smoking gun here. The only part I can comfortably repeat is that Riggleman said there were multiple groups looking at more data than he'd ever seen before - "it's absolutely incredible" - and that the Committee has to put it all together and that's what makes it exciting, and the "talent behind the door" made all of this possible, or something.

He agrees with Rep. Liz Cheney (R- stands for Real Republican) that the GOP has become a personality cult, not a party, and said he doesn't consider himself a Republican anymore. What he saw during his time with the Committee

has even pushed me further away, that the party has moved away from conservative principles to this cult of personality that Liz Cheney is talking about. She's absolutely correct. And when you see it behind the door... it's absolutely stunning, that cult of personality, but also the belief systems, that I don't think any real conservative could follow at any point. It's absolutely insane what people have sort of put their arms around. 

I can't agree more with that assessment, even without peeking behind the door. 

Down the hall, Margaret Brennan spoke with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Face the Nation. Schiff, you'll recall, was involved in both Trump impeachments, and is a member of the January 6th Committee. 

On the DOJ not charging Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino, Schiff said it is "very puzzling why these two witnesses would be treated differently than the two" the DOJ decided to prosecute (Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro). 

These witnesses have very relevant testimony to offer in terms of what went into the violence of January 6th, the propagation of the big lie, and the idea that witnesses could simply fail to show up. And when the statute requires the Justice Department to present those cases to the grand jury, they don't, is deeply troubling. We hope to get more insight from the Justice Department, but it's a, I think, a grave disappointment and could impede our work if other witnesses think they can likewise refuse to show up with impunity.

He also said there's plenty of stuff they could have testified about that wouldn't come close to executive privilege - things about the campaign, relevant documents and the like.

None of which is protected by privilege. And the idea that you can simply refuse to show up, rather than show up and say, as to this question I'm going to assert a privilege, that just invites others to be in contempt of Congress or be in contempt of judges around the country in other courtrooms. And I think it's a very dangerous precedent to set.

Schiff said he wouldn't comment on any specific witnesses or testimony, but did say

...one of the themes that we will be fleshing out is the fact that in advance of the 6th, that there was an understanding of the propensity for violence that day, of the participation of white nationalist groups, of the effect that the continued propagation of his big lie to rile up the country and rile up the president's base was likely to lead to violence. 

Sunday School 4/17/22

For this week's Sunday School, I've got three hot topics from three different classrooms. First up? Margaret Brennan, chatting with Sen. Chris Coons (D-Elaware) about COVID relief on Face the Nation. 

Coons said he was "disappointed" that Congress couldn't get their act together and "deliver critically-needed global help," and get vaccines to the three billion or so people who haven't had a single shot yet. He mentioned the kind of sentiment the Senate is up against. 

As we were fighting over this additional payment, this additional funding for Covid relief globally, one of my colleagues memorably said, well, my constituents are done with this pandemic. Margaret, just because we're done with the pandemic doesn't mean it's done with us.

Coons said he respects the goal of finding offsets to pay for this, 

but in a moment when we badly need additional emergency funding to support the Ukrainian military resistance against Russian aggression, to support millions of refugees in Ukraine and around the region, in Europe and throughout the world, and to provide food relief and additional COVID relief, I think we should treat this as emergency spending.

He also thinks that immigration and COVID relief are separate issues, even if some of his party think they should be somehow tied together.

Finally, Brennan pointed to recent comments where Coons said that we need to talk about when we might be willing to send troops to fight in Ukraine, and "if the answer is never, then we are inviting another level of escalation and brutality by Putin." 

She wondered if he thinks Biden was wrong when he said we wouldn't send troops, or if he was looking for Biden to draw a red line somewhere on this issue. Coons feels if Putin is allowed "to commit war crimes throughout Ukraine" without any forceful action by NATO and the West, he thinks we'll see Ukraine "turn into Syria."

The American people cannot turn away from this tragedy in Ukraine. I think the history of the 21st century turns on how fiercely we defend freedom in Ukraine, and that Putin will only stop when we stop him.

Referencing the religious significance of the weekend, he suggested that when so many of us gather to "celebrate the very best in the human spirit: and grieve those we've lost,

we should also be prayerful and mindful of those who are fighting for freedom in Ukraine and how much their heroism and patriotism inspires the rest of us.

Next, we've got Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Tone Deaf in the Mar-a-Lago Tool Shed), who talked with host Mike Emanuel in the Fox News Sunday classroom. Here's what McCarthy said, after being welcomed back to the show. 

Thank you, and happy Easter to all Americans.

Um, I hate to break it to him, but "all Americans" don't celebrate Easter; many celebrate Passover and Ramadan. Many also celebrate chocolate bunnies, colored eggs, or spring. And still others of us don't celebrate a damn thing this weekend. I'm guessing he doesn't care much at all about the non-Easter people.

I almost gave up after that, but decided to hold my nose and keep listening. At some point, the discussion turned to Ukraine, and McCarthy's complaints that President Biden "acted too slowly" on, well, everything. After noting that we've now sent $2.6B in military assistance to Ukraine, Emanuel asked what more Biden should be doing. McCarthy babbled about all of his own efforts to get something done before Russia attacked, and he said

Had we moved the weapons to Ukraine earlier, that they could defend themselves, it would have saved thousands of lives and probably the decision of Putin not to enter.

All that aside, 

...what we need to do is learn from here, provide the weapons to Ukraine, but also look to the future of what China is doing. Taiwan has been waiting more than a year for weapons they've already purchased to defend themselves.

If you know me, you know I can't let a comment like that pass without doing some research. Meaning, I did a really simple search. And yes, it's true: Taiwan is waiting for weapons they've purchased from us. 

According to this article in Defense News,  there's "a backlog in the U.S. delivering $14.2 billion worth of military equipment to Taiwan that the island has purchased since 2019."

Wait - what's that? The backlog existed before Biden even took office? 

However, it remains unclear what — if anything — the United States can do to address the pandemic-related acquisition issues that prompted the backlog. “Our primary issue — and we see this playing out in Ukraine also — is that the industry has been delayed in the development of these systems,” a Republican staffer on the House Foreign Affairs Committee told Defense News. 

And there's nothing the Biden administration can do? And the same issues are hindering our efforts to help Ukraine? Good lord, if I didn't know better, I'd think McCarthy was lying when he blamed Biden.

The staffer also noted the U.S. defense industry has attributed supply chain issues, staff shortages and shipping delays to COVID-19 — problems that have cascaded into broader production troubles. 

Wait, wait, wait. It's the pandemic, the one the Rs took a hands-off approach to mitigating, that's now making a mess of things in democracies like Ukraine and Taiwan? 

“Honestly, the bottom line is there is very little that the government can do at this juncture to address supply chain issues,” Rupert Hammond-Chambers, the president of the US-Taiwan Business Council, told Defense News. 

I'm shocked - completely shocked... (that's a lie, by the way. I'm not shocked at all.) 

McCarthy said the Rs are not over-confident about winning back the House, but he said they need to do more than just criticize, they must commit to making changes and fixing the big problems. Emanuel asked if they could do that - tackle the national debt, for example - with a divided government. 

We need to have sound fiscal policy, stop the irresponsible spending to curve inflation and make America in a stronger path. But it's not just to balance the budget, you have to pay off the debt. And the only way we'll be able to do that is with fiscal responsibility, with Republicans in the majority.

And I laughed and laughed at that, I really did.

Let's close on a positive note, and spend a moment or two with Jake Tapper, who played parts of his exclusive interview with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on CNN's State of the Union. 

Tapper mentioned the politicians who annually express a 'never again' sentiment on Holocaust Remembrance Day - and he wondered if those words rang hollow to Zelenskyy, who lost ancestors in the Holocaust. "When the world says, 'never again,' do they ever mean it?" He doesn't think so, not after what they've seen in his country. Through his translator, said

The only belief there is, is belief in ourselves, in our people, belief in our armed forces, and the belief that countries are going to support us, not just with their words, but with their actions. And that's it. Never again. Really, everybody is talking about this, and yet, as you can see, not everyone has got the guts.

Tapper and Zelenskyy chatted about their kids. Zelenskyy has an 18-year-old daughter and a nine-year-old son. Tapper has a 12-year-old son and a 14-year-old daughter. Zelenskyy said

Girl? So, you understand me, 14-year-old girl. TAPPER: Yes. ZELENSKYY: We understand. TAPPER: Yes. I call my daughter, and she's like: "Can't talk, dad. Very busy." (LAUGHTER) ZELENSKYY: Not now. (LAUGHTER) TAPPER: "I'm very busy." ZELENSKYY: Yes, I know it's -- without knocking the door, I can't speak with my own daughter. TAPPER: Right. Right. ZELENSKYY: That's good.

I chuckled at that; with teenaged girls (I was one once, so I can say this), you don't have to be in a war zone to sometimes feel like you're in one. And I appreciated that Zelenskyy could enjoy a bit of normal, dad-to-dad talk.

On a more serious note, Zelenskyy acknowledged that he might not survive this war. Tapper wondered how he wanted the Ukrainian people, and his children, to remember him.

A human being that lived life to the fullest and loved his family and loved his motherland, definitely not a hero. I want people to take me as I am, a regular human.

And in response to the "not a hero" comment, Tapper wondered who Zelenskyy's heroes were, and where he draws inspiration "during dark days here?" 

Only the people. I believe our people are genuine and unique. And I just can't afford to be worse than them. When, at certain moments, I feel like all of this is dangerous. I understand that all the rest of us are going through this as well, what people are feeling like who are in basements, who lost their children, what our soldiers feel like right now. And I understand I have to be the strongest one in this situation. And this is all. And the most important is the way my children look at me. They have to be proud of me. This is the most important thing. I do everything for this.

Wouldn't it be nice if any of our politicians could articulate that the next election wasn't the most important thing in the world? I'd be willing to vote for anyone who could say that with a straight face, if they could back it up with their record, their policies, and the wear and tear proving they've walked the talk, wouldn't you?

See you around campus.