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.  

Wondering on Wednesday 4/17/24

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

So far, seven jurors have been seated in former president Donald Trump's election interference trial. 

Trump loves that the media keeps referring to it as a 'hush money' trial instead of an election interference trial, because we all know he's against election interference. And if people thought that's what he was on trial for, they might not want to buy his Bible or something. 

I wonder, though - and not for the first time - why the media constantly plays right into his hands by dumbing everything down and going for clicks. There must be some unwritten rule they follow - and it's all of them, all the time. It does a massive disservice to us, and to their profession. 

Trump loves to attack everyone who opposes him, on everything, and his MAGA Campers fall in line with him on that. Everyone's fair game on the interwebs, especially Stormy Daniels, who was paid to keep quiet about her relationship with Trump. 

I don't think they expected her to fight back, but she does. One of his supporters posted, "Stormy Daniels is a parasite that would sell anything for a dollar," to which she replied, "Not true. I wouldn't sell Bibles."  I'm not really wondering much about this; rather, I'm enjoying picturing a 400-pound guy, wearing golden Trump sneakers and full MAGA regalia, sitting on his bed sulking because a stripper got the best of him.

*****     *****     ***** 

Speaking of trials, the House GOP finally figured out how to get to the Senate chambers, and the eleven managers strolled across the hall with the Articles of Impeachment against DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, kicking off the impeachment process in the Senate. 

So far, they've voted on having a floor debate on why a trial is needed (defeated); a motion to debate the articles in closed session (defeated); amendments to move to closed session (defeated), and to adjourn (defeated); a motion to block a motion to kill the first article (defeated); a vote to kill the first Article (passed); another motion to go to closed session (defeated); and a motion to adjourn (defeated). 

One of the motions to adjourn, made by Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), requested adjournment until "May 1, 2004," which brought a bit of levity to the floor. Kennedy corrected the year to 2024 while allowing that the earlier date was "probably preferable."

After that motion was defeated, another one was put up that would have the Senate adjourn until November 6th - the day after election day. I wonder if anyone will be able to top the stupidity of that.

I think it's safe to say the GOP's effort to 'get Biden' by impeaching one of his Cabinet secretaries is not going to succeed, not that I wondered for a moment that it would. 

*****     *****     *****

Remember when Republicans were all up in arms about states potentially keeping Trump off the ballot? Here's a reminder, featuring New Hampshire Republican Party chairman Chris Ager:

Whatever happened to letting the people decide? Let’s let the people decide, and let’s have a free, fair, open donnybrook of an election, and whoever wins, let’s rally behind them and move the country forward. 

Well, the Ohio GOP seems pretty comfortable with ballot-blocking now. Candidates need to be certified by August 7th. Because the Democratic National Convention isn't until August 19th, the Democrats offered to provisionally certify the Biden/Harris ticket, noting that it had already secured the votes to win the nomination. They used the same argument as the GOP did.

If President Biden and Vice President Harris are not listed on the ballot as the Democratic Party candidates, their supporters in Ohio will be stripped of the opportunity to associate with their preferred candidate.

There's no option for provisional certification, according to the state's Attorney General; the best hope is for legislative action by May 9th, allowing an exemption to the deadline. There's precedent for this - it just happened in 2020, when both parties had late conventions, and the legislature did the right thing. But this is 2024, and the times are very different.

I think it's a Democratic problem, Senate President Matt Huffman, R-Lima, told reporters last week. There should have to be a Democratic solution. That hasn't been proposed to me.

Is it any wonder so many people think our elected officials are hypocritical jerks? 

*****     *****     *****

Speaking of hypocrites, let's look at Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, who seems to have issues with protestors, or at least, with protestors who block traffic while calling for a cease-fire in Gaza. If they were on a bridge in his state, he suggested that civilians should take matters into their own hands and toss them over the side.

He doesn't seem to have the same feelings about the January 6th protestors, though. Cotton was part of a group of GOP Congressmen that filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to throw out the obstruction charge brought against many of those protestors, suggesting that it was too harsh. The charge can result in a 20-year sentence, rather than a kinder, gentler one that would result in a sentence of a year or so, "that is frequently used against most protesters who disrupt Congress."

I can't help wondering how many of those "most protestors" did the same thing as the J6 gang did? How many others have assaulted police officers on their way to 'disrupt Congress,' other than the J6 gang? And I wonder how many other protestors wore body armor and brought bear spray, zip ties, and other assorted goodies in their protest kits? 

*****     *****     *****

Come with me to Arizona, where Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed the so-called "Ten Commandments" bill, which would have allowed teachers and administrators to display and read the Ten Commandments in school buildings. Hobbs said she had concerns about the constitutionality of, and the need for, the bill.

Enter Sen. Anthony Kern (R-MAGA Hypocrite), who said

I'm appalled the state's top elected official is abandoning God and the very foundation our country was built upon by not allowing teachers to expose their students to the morals and ethics outlined in the Ten Commandments... When children are exposed to good, noble, honest, and righteous ideas, they are more prone to being better human beings with sound character, able to navigate life's problems with grace, and have a greater chance of treating each other with respect and dignity throughout life.

Kern was present at the January 6th riot, and "his own social media posts strongly suggest" he "actively encouraged the mob, both before and after the attack..."  He was a fake Trump elector, and he tried to get the state's official slate of electors overturned.

I have to wonder whether he wasn't exposed to "good, noble, honest, and righteous ideas," or if he just failed to learn from them.

What's on your wondering mind tonight? 

Sunday School 3/24/24

For this week's Sunday School, we've got Jon Karl and Sen. Marco Rubio (R- The 'Normal' Florida Man) in the This Week classroom. Here are highlights of their conversation, starting with the Israel-Hamas war.

Rubio says he continues to "do everything" he can to keep US support for Israel from becoming a partisan issue; he does that by suggesting President Biden's foreign policy decisions are colored by his worrying "about losing Minnesota and Michigan," and the pressure "from the pro-Hamas wing" of the party.

I think he's trying to have it both ways, still stick with Israel to some extent, but also do things that signal to these people and try to appease them... 

He disagrees with Trump's statement that "Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion. They hate everything about Israel, and they should be ashamed of themselves because Israel will be destroyed."  He tried to talk his way through all of the ways someone can think about Israel, Netanyahu, and being Jewish, but it didn't really work. In the end, he said this is "an existential battle," and that "anyone who doesn't understand that is, frankly, whether they know it or not, an enemy of Israel." 

Next topic? The vice-presidency. Rubio says anyone in public service "should be honored by the opportunity" to be the VP, and he made it clear he's not talked with Trump, anybody on his team, any family members, or anyone in his inner circle, and that Trump "has plenty of really good people to pick from."

Karl said he asked because well, you know, the "hang Mike Pence" stuff. Rubio's response?

I will tell you this, that when Donald Trump was president of the United States, this country was safer. It was more prosperous. We had -- we had relations, for example, in a part of the world that I care about called the Western Hemisphere that we’re very strong, we had a lot of good things done there.

This has nothing to do with hanging Mike Pence, of course, but he also said it was a better place when Trump was president, and

I would love to see him return to the White House compared to the guy who's there now, Joe Biden, who’s been a disaster economically. Look at the world, every single day we wake up to a new crisis, to a new conflict. Everything has gone on fire since the time Joe Biden took over.

"Everything" being Afghanistan, Ukraine, the Philippines, China, Taiwan, Haiti, "we wake up every single day, terrorist attacks, 9 million people across the border." Karl was incredulous, but Rubio was adamant that it's all Joe Biden's fault, one way or another. 

And when Karl played the classic 2016 clip of Rubio calling Trump "a con artist... he runs on this idea that he is fighting for the little guy, but he has spent his entire career sticking it to the little guy... friends do not let friends vote for con artists," what was the response?

Yes, but so – so why didn't you play the clip of Kamala Harris basically insinuating that Joe Biden was a segregationist on the debate stage and she’s now his vice president?

Because Karl is interviewing Rubio not Harris, maybe?

Karl switched gears to the immunity issue and asked, "You don't agree with that, do you," referring to the "absolute immunity" claim that the Trump team claims.

Well, I don't – so, I don’t think that – on the case of immunity, there's two separate issues here. One is, can the president do anything? Can he go out and basically, you know, kill one of the members of the staff overnight inside the White House? Obviously, that's an absurd outcome and that's a common crime.

That's an argument Trump's attorneys seem to think is fine - that Trump could have SEAL Team 6 take out a political rival. Rubio then wondered about a "legitimate issue" we have to talk about,

especially after what we've seen the last three years and is, do we want to live in a country where basically the opponents of a president can – can – can extort them, can have leverage over them during their entire presidency and say, don’t worry, once you're out of office, we're going to prosecute you, we’re going to come after, we’re going to charge you for this crime, we’re going to charge you for that crime.

He said "we're living in a country now" where a president would have to think about having to be careful about what they do because if they upset someone, they'll get charged with a crime after they leave office. And that everything's a political prosecution and no one else has been treated this way before. 

Of course, we've never had quite this good a con artist in office before, but that's lost on Rubio, it seems. 

Finally, he doesn't think the folks who attacked the Capitol on January 6th are "absolute patriots like Trump says and should be pardoned, " but he sees a difference between the zip-tie guys and the people "who walked in through an open door," and that only the violent people should have been prosecuted. 

... there are people that have been charged, in some cases egregiously charged, for simply walking in. Not – they didn't attack anybody. 

And, by the way, "Why didn't they do that for the people who set all the fires in Portland?" 

And with that, this veep interview was over.

Sunday School 2/4/24

The classrooms were rocking yesterday. Let's dive in, starting with Kristen Welker and her catfight with House Speaker Mike I'm Calling the Shots Here Johnson (R-LA) on Meet the Press.

The two repeated themselves multiple times and often spoke condescendingly to each other; here's what I gleaned from the interview on the hot topics of the day.

Johnson thinks we need to take a Reaganesque/Trumpesque approach with Iran - peace through strength - and he said "We should not be appeasing Iran..."

We need to act to decimate the Iran Central Bank, the assets that they've held there. We need to lean on international banks to seize the assets of Iranian proxies. We need to – to put big-time pressure, maximum pressure, on their oil exports. There's a lot that we could do to Iran to send a message instead of this appeasement strategy. 

We need to 'Soleimani' them, like under Trump, when "we used a drone and three missiles" to take out a single bad guy, instead of "using potentially hundreds of munitions to strike close to 100 targets so far." I guess he thinks we're using too much ammo or something.

The House proposed a separate Israeli funding bill because the Senate isn't doing anything; in fact, HR2, "which is our signature bill right out of the beginning, right out of the block" could have solved the border problem if it hadn't "been sitting on Chuck Schumer's desk collecting dust..." And, if you didn't know, Senate bills are DOA in the House, and vice versa.

Johnson hasn't been briefed by his Senate counterparts, and to date he's only heard the same rumors as everyone else. I get the sense that he thinks the bill doesn't matter. 

But here's the essential point... We documented 64 specific actions that Joe Biden and his agencies have taken to create this catastrophe. They did it intentionally... The American people are done with this. The border has to be secured. The president has the authority right now. He doesn't need another act of Congress. He could do it right now. But he's unwilling to do it.

At some point, I stopped listening, but I perked up when I heard them mention Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and his impeachment. Johnson previously said he's very much against a one-party impeachment, as we saw in a clip. He said three times, "The founders of this country warned against single-party impeachments. 

You guys know why. Because they feared it would bitterly and perhaps irreparably divide our nation.

What they're doing with Mayorkas is not that, and it's not a 'policy disagreement,' either. "It's very different, Kristen, in many ways." Let me mansplain "the many ways."

For one, the House has methodically, slowly, deliberately gone through the impeachment process, impeachment inquiry, impeachment investigation on Mayorkas and – and President Biden himself. We've involved three different committees of jurisdiction: Judiciary, Oversight, Ways and Means. We –we have followed the facts where they have led. Not for political purposes. Not because we take pleasure in this. It's, again, a heavy thing to look at the impeachment of a president or a Cabinet secretary. But these facts require it.

I snickered - I mean, wasn't that the same speech Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi gave? Johnson says his GOP team has done a very careful, methodic, nonpartisan investigation.

And it is exactly the opposite of what the House Democrats did in the previous administration. That is a fact, and we can follow those facts and understand them for what they are.

"And that's the truth," said Edith Ann.  

Moving down the hall, George Stephanopoulos was in the chair for his own show; one of his guests was Sen. JD Vance (R-OH YEAH, I'm in the Cult!). Vance is unofficially campaigning to move into Number One Observatory Circle, but he'll have to outlast dozens of others in the Donald J. Trump VP Hunger Games to get the keys.

George opened the interview by playing a video clip of Vance acting very RINO-y back in 2016 when he said he was "a Never Trump guy." George wanted to know why he had changed his mind. 

When you compare Trump's term and Biden's term, Vance says there's a clear difference, and

... It's hard not to conclude that I was wrong and so many were wrong about Donald Trump back in 2015. He delivered, George, he did a good job. And I think it's why we ought to give him another run at it.

George countered with some positive Bidenomics data, then turned to what's happened since then: Trump's 2020 loss, January 6th, the indictments, and the verdicts in the E. Jean Carroll sexual assault and defamation cases. And he asked if being a Trump supporter means that he's "sanctioning that kind of behavior, sexual assault, and defamation?"

Well, I think it's actually very unfair to the victims of sexual assault, to say that somehow their lives are being worse by electing Donald Trump for president, when what he's trying to do, I think is restore prosperity. So, I think it's insulting to victim -- victims of sexual assault.

Wait, what? What the actual hell?  

Trump is trying to restore prosperity, and damn those pesky sexual assault victims for being insulted that so many people are willing to look past not only how Trump talks about sexually assaulting women, but the actual sexual assault he was found guilty of committing. Can't they just be happy he's trying to make them more prosperous? 

Honestly, that's preposterous, and insulting to pretty much anyone other than a MAGA Camper. Vance went on to say most of the cases are "not about prosecuting Trump for something that he did, it's about throwing him off the ballot because Democrats feel that they can't beat him at the ballot box. And so, they're trying to defeat them in court."

That's exactly what Trump did in 2020, with five-dozen-some-odd losing court cases, his Kraken legal team, and the presser at Four Seasons Total Landscaping. Vance didn't mention those, but he argued that fighting an alleged criminal in the courts isn't the right way to go - we should fight over policy in the election.

When George pointed out that it was juries making the decisions, Vance noted

George, if you look at all of these cases, the through line, two-fold. Number one, they’re funded by Donald Trump’s political opponents, and the goal here is not to help us actually have a real conversation about how to advance the country forward. Their goal is to defeat Trump at the courts because these people know they can’t defeat him at the ballot box. 

There was no second fold in "the through line," and George moved on - or, I should say, moved backward - and asked if Vance would have certified the election had he been VP on January 6th. Vance said it was "such a ridiculous question," which it was. George reiterated he wasn't looking forward, he was looking over his shoulder, which prompted Vance to say

I have to make a point here. You constantly say to people like me, 'why do you talk about January the 6th, why do you talk about the election of 2020,' and then you ask about this multiple times during a six-minute interview.

After listing his concerns with the 2020 election, Vance said there was a "political solution" to the problems, and "litigating which slate of electors were legitimate I think is fundamentally the political solution to the problems that existed in 2020."

And I find it weird, George, that people like you obsess with what I call 'what happened in 2020,' you're so incurious about what actually happened in 2020, which is why so many people mistrust our elections in this country. We’ve got to do better, George.

George pushed the 'you'd do what Trump said' point a few times, while Vance maintained that wasn't why he'd have done it - and he continued to hit on the media's obsession. He thinks what's happened since 2020 - instability, the border, and so on - is more important, and said

We need to litigate the 2024 election about those issues. You guys are obsessed with talking about 2020. I'm happy to answer the questions, but I think it's a disservice to the American people that you're so preoccupied with it.

 Next question? What about this advice Vance has for Trump? Roll tape, George!

... if I was giving him one piece of advice, fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state. Replace them with our people. And when the courts -- because you will get taken to court -- and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did, and say "The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it." 

George asked if Vance really wanted to fire "everyone in the government" and if it was really "OK for the president to defy the Supreme Court?" Vance argued everyone didn't need to be fired, just that Trump should replace "the mid-level bureaucrats with people who aren't responsive to the administration's agenda. That's called democracy."

And then there was a pissing match, with George quoting Vance directly, and Vance trying to clarify that what he meant was

...the president has to be able to run the government as he thinks he should. That's the way the Constitution works...

And, the SCOTUS can make an "illegitimate ruling" and if it did, "the president would have to respond to it."

Eventually, Stephanopoulos said, in effect, "Thanks very much for playing," and closed the interview as Vance was still talking. 

Honestly, I would have sent all of them to after-school detention. 

See you around campus.

January 6, 2024

 

Wondering on Wednesday 2/22/23

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

A pregnant woman, jailed while awaiting trial in Florida, is suing to be released because her unborn child is being illegally detained. When you think of it, she's right, isn't she? If her fetus has personhood under Florida law, how can it be imprisoned when it committed no crime? I have to wonder - did any legislators consider this type of consequence when they rushed to assign personhood to a fetus? 

GOP Congressional leader Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-You Kidding Me?) has suggested we need a national divorce, in which we'd "separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government." She's also suggested that folks from blue states who move to red states should wait five years before being allowed to vote in their new state. Greene sits on the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. I'll let you do your own wondering on this.

2024 presidential candidate Donald Trump, never one to shy away from the cameras, traveled to East Palestine, OH today. The town, the site of this month's chemical-carrying train derailment, was the perfect place for Trump to stand behind a podium with his fundraising banner pasted on the front and tell people he's having plenty of Trump-branded water delivered to them, along with water of "much lesser quality." I couldn't help wondering if he brought any bottles of his swamp water to throw into the crowd; it seems he forgot to do that.

Comically, on the national news tonight, an anchor said that the train derailment in East Palestine "had become political" with Trump's arrival. Why is that comical, you might be wondering? Maybe because the coverage on all the networks and cables has been about the politics of it: what FEMA is doing (or not); what the EPA is doing (or not); what the Transportation Department is doing (or not); what the mayor, governor, senators, and congresspeople asked for (or didn't); what Norfolk Southern, the owner of the train, offered (or didn't) and so on. Throw in the names of Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, and Trump, all once and possibly future presidential candidates, and the politics almost overshadow the derailment and the related health and safety issues it may have caused.

Oh - one more name we need to throw into the politically derailed derailment? Mike Pence. He can't stop talking about it including saying that the Biden economy "derailed the economy of East Palestine long before that train came through...", He also said that he would have gone to East Palestine before he would go to Kyiv. If you're wondering, like I am, if Pence is running in 2024, the answer is yes. If you're wondering, like I was, whether Pence has visited Kyiv or East Palestine, the answer is no.

This last item?  I'm wondering how long it would take for the echo of right-wing screams to die down if Maddow had gotten the entire cache of the January 6th video. And I'm wondering, too, if the American people deserve to see what really happened, as the Congressional MAGAists have said, why the footage was exclusively given to a pundit, not a newsman. To a single network, not to every network. To Tucker Carlson, of all people.

What's on your wondering mind these days?

Wondering on Wednesday 12/28/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

I'm feeling wonderful-ish today... you know, not really wonderful, just kinda wonder-ish, or full-ish, or something like that. 

Like George Santos, the first openly gay non-incumbent Republican to be elected to Congress, or something like that. He's also the first most openly lyingly lying non-incumbent Republican t0 be elected. He made so many lie-ish statements during his campaign I don't know if even he knows what's true, vs. what's true-ish, vs. what's just 'ish.' He went to college-ish; he worked in finance-ish, for Goldman Sachs-ish. He was poor-ish, and then he was an entrepreneur and started a company-ish, but had no income-ish, but managed to loan his campaign $700,000-ish. He had a company in Florida and four of his employees-ish died in the Pulse nightclub shooting, sorta-ish. 

And the best one, of course, is that he was raised Catholic but is Jew-ish, whatever the hell-ish that means. He promised us he had a story to tell, and he told it, and it only made things worse-ish. In a wonder-ish fashion, I await the official response from the GOP in NY, and in DC. I can only think that it'll be about as '-ishy' as anything Santos has said so far. 

Last week, after the Democratic-controlled NYS legislature voted, in a special session, to give themselves an obscene $32,000 raise effective January 1, 2023, and limit their outside income but not until January 1, 2025, I reached out to Gov. Kathy Hochul urging her to veto the bill, even though there are enough Dem votes in both chambers to over-ride the veto. 

At the same time, I reached out to Sen. Rachel May and Assemblymember Pamela Hunter, my representatives, asking for their thoughts or comments on the vote. I haven't heard from any of them, and honestly, I don't expect to. There's nothing really wonder-ish about their lack of response - the gov's been dealing with a once-in-a-lifetime weather event, and it is a holiday-ish week, after all, but since they all know where I stand on the issue, I doubt there'll be a race to try and appease me or change mind. I'll keep you posted on any responses I get. 

Another person I don't expect to hear from? Whoever charged some snooty-ish mountain bike parts using my credit card. Graciously, one of the five or six vendors who got hit with fraudulent charges (nearly $3500 worth all told) texted me to see if I had made the bike parts order with a request to ship it to a different address, which he shared. That's a big no, I told him. 

All of the charges were reversed; fraud investigations ensued. And so did a Christmas card to the address the vendor gave me. I do wonder, a little-ish, if it made whoever read the card feel bad-ish even for a moment. I hope it did.  

I'm seeing lots of stuff on social media citing the January 6th Committee report and transcripts about documents being torn, flushed, eaten, copied and removed, and even set on fire during the waning days of the last administration. 

I'm not surprised, really, by any of that - I mean, given what we've learned about the Trump White House, there's not a lot that will surprise me anymore. One thing I'm wondering, just a little-ish, is whether there was ketchup involved in all of those, or if another condiment was used?

What's on your wondering-ish mind tonight?

Sunday School 11/27/22: Extra Credit

This week's Sunday School was all about the classroom panel discussions. For your Extra Credit, I'll nose around a few of the 'usual suspect' interviews, starting with Dana Bash and Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) on CNN's SOTU.

"A former president, an antisemite, and a white supremacist walk into Mar-a-Lago. There is no punchline." That was Bash's intro to her discussion with Hutchinson - and I love it. Now - on to the recap.

• Hutchinson said he hopes "someday, we won't have to be responding" to stuff Trump has said or done. About the dinner, it "empowers people when you meet with them... you want to diminish their strength, not empower them." He also said "You have got to be absolutely clear in your communication that this is not acceptable dogma, it's not acceptable conversation, it's not acceptable history, and you have to disavow it. it's as simple as that."

• In his upcoming speech at the Reagan Institute, he's going to talk about things that Republicans "historically" don't do: "attack America's democracy...denigrate our political system...undermine confidence in America...attack those institutions that are fundamental to the rule of law." He said the party "is in a good position coming out of the midterms," but his remarks are for "the individual candidates that strayed from" Republican principles.

• He signed a bill banning biological males from competing in women's sports, so he's "comfortable" with Herschel Walker's attack ad about trans athletes just days after the shooting at a LGBTQ+ bar in Colorado Spring. He also passed anti-hate legislation and said "we shouldn't be targeting anyone because of their race or their gender." He closed with, "What happened at that nightclub is a human tragedy... These are challenging issues. And what happened is just simply wrong."

On MTP, What's-his-name (WHN) talked with Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO). Colorado's been the site of several mass shootings over the years. 

• Polis said everyone's voices need to be heard to fix this. "I think what you really need to do if you're serious about reducing these kinds of gun violence events and mass violence events is try to take the best ideas from all sides that work." That means mental health, and gun policy, and dealing with anti-LGBTQ stuff. "We need to, as a society, as political leaders, walk and chew gum at the same time. We need to look at all the evidence and the facts and try to make decisions that lead to a safer country."

• He said it looks like "this would have been a good instance" for the use of Colorado's 'red flag' law. It's been used "several hundred times, but could have been used even more" to prevent mass shootings, self-harm, or suicide." He also said "it's never comfortable" to get involved in someone else's business, particularly when it's a mental health issue, but "it's certainly better than the alternative," which is doing nothing.

• We need a national solution on guns. One example? Colorado has universal background checks, but neighboring states don't. He also was "generally supportive of national efforts towards closing the gun show loophole, towards having a conversation about. having a "process where you need an additional license or background check for some of the most high-powered weapons, I did support that as a member of Congress."

Finally, Jon Karl talked with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) in ABC's This Week classroom. 

• Unbanning Trump from Twitter is "a terrible mistake" and that Elon Musk did it via a user poll "further contradicts Musk and his claimed concern about bots on his own platform."

• Appointing a special counsel for Trump investigations is the right move, and "if the same prosecutors that have been investigating the former president and others can be moved on to the special prosecutor's team, then there is every reason to do it, no reason not to do it..." 

• Yes, we could have a trial of a candidate during a presidential campaign. He thinks the position that you can't indict a sitting president "is flawed as a constitutional matter," and he said DOJ can't now say "you also can't indict a former president who wants to run again."

• He doesn't want to "get ahead of" the decision the January 6th Committee issuing any criminal referrals. "I think the evidence is there to make a referral and we just have to decide whether that's the course we are going to take."

• Similarly, the potential for holding Trump in contempt for ignoring the Committee's subpoenas "is being discussed." He expressed frustration with the DOJ, saying "...even where we have held people in contempt, we're only batting 50 percent with the Justice Department in their willingness to enforce it."

• Kevin McCarthy probably will strip Schiff of his Intelligence Committee seat. "I suspect he will do whatever Marjorie Taylor Greene wants him to do. He is a very weak leader of his conference, meaning that he will adhere to the wishes of the lowest common denominator."

• He said the Ds "continually face a variation of the same question, which is should the Democrats do the right -- do the appropriate thing when Republicans have consistently refused to. I think we maintain the high ground. We follow the law. We follow our responsibilities under the separation of powers," and so yes, they should comply with "appropriate oversight."

• And finally, should now 80-year-old Joe Biden run for re-election? "I think he should. I think he's extremely capable. What he's been able to do in the last two years is an unprecedented level of accomplishment. If he wants to continue, I'm for him."

See you around campus. Chime in if you want - my office door's always open.

In Case You Missed It (v112)

I'm chuckling this morning doing my 'week in review' post - it feels like I missed last week! Only two posts escaped my head, although I had the best of intentions.

 If I had to pin it down, I'd say my ADD and my Maine Coons and our other cats got the best of me after vacation. (As I write this, I've got a MC on my lap, and another on my desk, her head resting against my laptop and her feathery white fur covering the tab, caps lock and shift keys, so this could be fun.)

Anyway - two it was, and here they are. For your Sunday School I focused on a couple of US Senate races - Colorado, where Joe O'Dea (R) and incumbent Michael Bennet (D)  are battling it out, and Utah, where Evan McMullin is mounting an independent bid to oust incumbent Mike Lee (R).  And, it was purely coincidence that Utah and Colorado were the states were I spent my vacation...

First up? Dana Bash in the State of the Union classroom with the candidates for the Colorado seat. O'Dea was pushing a 'tough on crime' message, although the specific message would have made more sense if he was running for a state office, not the US Senate. 

He said Dems in his state are ignoring the laws on the books, that we "need more cops on the street" and to "make sure we're enforcing the laws we have." And, specifically on red flag laws, like the one in Colorado that's focused on mental health? 

Sheriffs tell him it doesn't work, "it puts them at risk. They're not happy with that law," and it needs to be rewritten.

...We need to do more with mental health here to get these people off the street. But we have hundreds of laws on the books. We need to enforce them.  We need more cops on our street right now. If you talk to Chief Pazen here of the city and county of Denver -- he's the chief of police -- he will tell you he's short 250 officers. That's because Democrats across the state of Colorado have defunded, demoralized the police. And we need to do better.

Bash followed up, noting that Colorado's approved 146 applications to take guns away from dangerous people in two years, and asked if that didn't make his state safer.

He said no, citing stats saying it's the "the third worst state for violent crime in the United States," and "they just deemed Denver as one of the most unsafe cities in the nation." He said they have record crime everywhere, cashless bail issues, and again, the laws on the books need to be enforced.

I wish, as I do every Sunday, that the interviews were more about getting questions answered than about getting questions asked.  

Meanwhile, down the hall in the MTP classroom, What's-his-name talked with McMullin. His opponent has said that voting for the independent is "a vote for the Democrats to keep their majority," and W-H-N wondered if that was correct. McMullin said no.

... look, I'm building a coalition of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and members of third parties to better represent Utah and to help lead our country forward. And I'm not going to Washington to join a party or to caucus or to play the party power game. I'm going to represent our coalition. 

... He said he'll maintain his independence, and that would help Utah and give it "an added value of influence." After blasting Lee ("He sits on his hands until it's time to vote no and then he goes and complains about our country on cable news."), he said he thinks we've seen

... that the senators in the chamber who are willing to act with greater independence, serving their constituents, standing up to party bosses, standing up to extremist factions and special interest groups, they have the most influence in the chamber. They're more influential, I think, even than the party bosses. And I want that for Utah. 

I wonder what would happen if we had more unaffiliated members of Congress? 

For your Extra Credit, I spent time with the pundit panels in the MTP and This Week classrooms. Starting with MTP, Amy Walter said the Dems

have known that the crime issue was a challenge for them" from the beginning, and she said "they've been playing defense on this for quite some time.

Maria Teresa Kumar said that "one of the conversations we're not having is that this is an opportunity for the Democrats to own police enforcement... all of a sudden, these Republicans and Republican leadership flipped on it, and said it was an FBI sting job. That is not the party of law enforcement. And if anything, it's undermining a really basic institution." Pat McCrory said he was "shocked the Democrats aren't bringing up guns," but said on "everyday crime, the Democrats are on their heels. And they deserve to be on their heels."

On abortion, 

Daniels said it "was always going to happen" that the Rs would be all over the place on abortion, creating "kind of this hodgepodge of different ideas of what voters might want to hear at that time... People can just pick and choose whatever they want, even within the issue themselves." Walter said how important the issue is depends on where the voter is. "...if you're in a state with abortion restrictions -- you are much more motivated than if you're in a state that doesn't." So, in reliably blue states, it's not that big an issue.

And in George's This Week classroom, the gang talked January 6th and election deniers running for office. 

Donna Brazile said even if Trump shows up to answer his subpoena from the January 6th Committee, he won't say anything. But she wishes he would tell his story, he should be willing to - but he won't, because "he doesn't have the truth on his side." Julie Pace agreed when George said polls aren't showing a bump for Dems as a result of the hearings, and that the Ds aren't pressing this issue. Rather, "Democrats are scrambling to try to figure out how they can form an economic message." 

Maggie Haberman said the election deniers is "the story that is actually not getting a ton of attention" given the crush of information that's out there, and that secretaries of state elected this cycle will be the ones to impact 2024, as they'll be deciding whether to certify the results. 

Chris Christie and Brazile got into it a little bit on the Committee

Chris Christie said the January 6th Committee "was resigned to having a credibility problem because of the membership of the committee and the way that was done." He also said "there's nobody there to argue the other side," to which George said "But there's - there's no other side..." Brazile agreed. Christie said "I think you can question a lot of these witnesses who came up, and test their credibility." 

Brazile pushed back pretty hard, wondering if Christie wanted to test the credibility of Bill Barr, the people who were advising Trump in the Oval, or "of the cops who got their heads smashed in - is that who you're going to test?"

 In the end, they didn't come to blows. Christie said his point was some people are remembering things now that they had no recollection of earlier - which is likely true, but also not uncommon. I mean, just look t the Republican Party. Half of them don't remember what they said, even when they see themselves saying it on television...

So - there you have it: last week's posts, in a nutshell. We'll see how I do this week...

Sunday School 10/16/22: Extra Credit

Your Sunday School lesson covered a couple of key US Senate races; for your Extra Credit, I'm going to see how much punditry I can fit into a single post. We'll start with George and the gang in ABC's This Week classroom: Chris Christie, Donna Brazile (both of ABC News), Julie Pace (AP), and Maggie Haberman (NY Times).

The FPOTUS loomed over part of the conversation. There's the whistleblower report saying he pressured at least one person to give Melania shares in Trump Social. Haberman called that "staggering" and "very hard to explain away," and she cautioned us not to forget about this investigation. 

And what about the person close to Trump allegedly being told to move documents at Mar-a-Lago - after Trump was subpoenaed? George said "that's obstruction." Christie said when it comes to charging a former president, "you can't treat it any differently than any other case, but you have to know that it's going to be 'bang, right between the eyes.' If not, you don't bring a case.

Brazile said even if Trump shows up to answer his subpoena from the January 6th Committee, he won't say anything. But she wishes he would tell his story, he should be willing to - but he won't, because "he doesn't have the truth on his side." Pace agreed when George said polls aren't showing a bump for Dems as a result of the hearings, and that the Ds aren't pressing this issue. Rather, "Democrats are scrambling to try to figure out how they can form an economic message." 

Haberman said the election deniers is "the story that is actually not getting a ton of attention" given the crush of information that's out there, and that secretaries of state elected this cycle will be the ones to impact 2024, as they'll be deciding whether to certify the results. 

Christie said the January 6th Committee "was resigned to having a credibility problem because of the membership of the committee and the way that was done." He also said "there's nobody there to argue the other side," to which George said "But there's - there's no other side..." Brazile agreed. Christie said "I think you can question a lot of these witnesses who came up, and test their credibility." 

Brazile pushed back pretty hard, wondering if Christie wanted to test the credibility of Bill Barr, the people who were advising Trump in the Oval, or "of the cops who got their heads smashed in - is that who you're going to test?" Christie said no, but he also mentioned there are people with "convenient memories" about things now, who didn't have them before. The bigger issue is, Trump's not on the ballot, so it's hard to make the 2022 election about him, or about January 6th.

With three weeks to go, Brazile said "Democrats must understand in the closing weeks they have to put freedom on the ballot... and they have to challenge the assumption that they're afraid to run on their record." Christie said the Rs should be talking about high prices, crime, fentanyl overdoses due to the open border... "if they talk about anything else they're nuts." And while some races are close, he thinks the Rs will have a 15-seat margin in the House.

Pace says the Dems should be worried about Georgia, both the Warnock/Walker Race, and Brian Kemp's expanding lead against Stacey Abrams. And, she said, Kevin McCarthy "has a battle for the speakership on his hands," and while he's "trying to make this case" for his return as Speaker, "the margin, how far he can push it out, that's the crucial metric here."

In the MTP classroom, What's-His-Name and his panel - Amy Walter (Cook Political Report), Eugene Daniels (Politico), former NC Gov. Pat McCrory (NBC), and María Teresa Kumar (NBC) - talked about the midterms, and crime. Walter said the Dems "have known that the crime issue was a challenge for them" from the beginning, and she said "they've been playing defense on this for quite some time."

Kumar said that "one of the conversations we're not having is that this is an opportunity for the Democrats to own police enforcement... all of a sudden, these Republicans and Republican leadership flipped on it, and said it was an FBI sting job. That is not the party of law enforcement. And if anything, it's undermining a really basic institution." McCrory said he was "shocked the Democrats aren't bringing up guns," but said on "everyday crime, the Democrats are on their heels. And they deserve to be on their heels."

Moving on, Daniels said it "was always going to happen" that the Rs would be all over the place on abortion, creating "kind of this hodgepodge of different ideas of what voters might want to hear at that time... People can just pick and choose whatever they want, even within the issue themselves." Walter said how important the issue is depends on where the voter is. "...if you're in a state with abortion restrictions -- you are much more motivated than if you're in a state that doesn't." So, in reliably blue states, it's not that big an issue.

The panel also touched on the FPOTUS; Walter noted "he would like the 2022 election to continue to be about him," while Rs want it to not be about him. And she said the January 6th Committee hearing last week "didn't generate the kind of headlines and the kind of wall-to-wall coverage" people might have wanted. And saying he'd be subpoenaed was nothing like it would have been had they said "we believe he should be indicted." Daniels said it's just too much chaos for the Rs, but they can't say it out loud and risk offending his core supporters.

McCrory said "the Democrats are running away from Biden in this election, too... Democrats don't want Biden or Harris either, and Republicans frankly don't want Trump. And they're the ones trying to consume the TV time." 

Kumar thinks that "with Biden, his challenge is that he hasn't been able to communicate to the American people what he's done. I mean, we can say that the difference between Donald Trump and the difference with Biden is, Biden is a policy president. So, he has – he's going to make fundamental changes for a generation." 

She compared that with Trump, saying "his consequence is not policy. It's his legacy of undermining elections. And it's not just him, it’s not him, but he actually has a cadre of individuals right now seeking office that are election deniers. And that legacy is far more dangerous for a modern-day president than any other thing because it believes in undermining our democracy."

Ain't that the truth. 

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday (9/21/22)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

What's flowing from the wondering tap tonight? Random stuff, like an article in the Daily Star that Google traffic in Russia shows a spike in searches for "how to break your own arm," as folks scramble to avoid conscription into the fight against Ukraine. Those who aren't trying to hurt themselves are "leaving the country in droves," causing massive traffic jams at the Russia/Finland border. 

This comes on the heels of reports from several months ago that Russian were shooting themselves in the leg to get evacuated from the front lines. I'm not wondering a whole lot about why they are (or were) doing this kind of thing; rather, I'm wondering what will happen to them when the Putineers find out how hard they're working to avoid the war.

Let's see, what else? Oh - Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is in the news again, but not for migrants this time. Rather, he's signed an executive order declaring Mexican drug cartels 'terrorists' in the Lone Star State.

Texans are victimized by Mexican cartels that produce and import (fentanyl). So, cartels are terrorists. And it's time that we started treating them that way.

His order directs law enforcement to "identify gangs that are supporting Mexican cartels and work to seize assets as well as disrupt cartel networks." And, he's

also directed Texas agencies to alert the public about the fentanyl crisis, including schools and workplaces through mediums like social media and public service announcements to make clear, that truly one pill can kill."

I don't have a problem with anything he did, including asking the White House to make a similar federal declaration; it's reasonable, and certainly defensible, which some of his recent antics aren't. But here's where the wondering comes in: fentanyl's been killing Americans, including Texans, for years, in rapidly increasing numbers. Abbott said that in Texas last year, nearly 1700 fentanyl-related deaths were reported. So, why did it take him so long to order his government to get the word out?

We can finally stop wondering if the January 6th Committee will have a chat with G-G-G-Ginni-and-the-texts Thomas, wife of SCOTUS scoundrel Clarence. Reuters reported that a deal has been struck that'll allow them to chat "in the coming weeks." In fact, her lawyer says, Thomas is 

eager to answer the Committee's questions to clear up any misconceptions about her work relating to the 2020 election.

 I like that - "her work" relating to the election - how cute!

Speaking of "cute," I think that about sums up the Trump team's court filing in response to the DOJ's appeal of the stay ordered by Judge Aileen Cannon. Here's how the NY Times reported on today's decision in the case.

In a strongly worded 29-page decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit blocked part of an order by a federal judge that had temporarily barred the department from using the classified materials in its inquiry into whether Mr. Trump illegally retained national defense documents and obstructed the government’s repeated efforts to recover them. 

The decision has many tasty comments, if you're interested. Yay for us, yay for justice, and yay for not having to wonder if anyone was going to fall for Judge Cannon's overly generous treatment of Trump.

And finally, let's talk about NY AG Tish James and her $250 million civil suit against Donald, Donny, Ivanka, and Eric. Fraud, she says, when the Trumps overvalued their properties by the tens and hundreds of millions, making themselves look more loan-worthy, avoiding taxes, and so on. Two examples? His gold-plated Trump Tower penthouse was allegedly worth over $300 million (and he declared it three times bigger than it is); and he claimed Mar-a-Lago, his Florida document storage facility, was allegedly worth over $700 million, if you built houses on it, which you cannot. 

She got in a dig or two during her announcement, which is to be expected, even if she appeared much less gleeful taking him down than she did in campaign videos when she ran for election in 2018. The deplorable Donald Trump, Jr. posted a montage on Twitter; it's full of her plans and her rage and her threats against his then-president father. 

So, I'm left wondering why I'm sitting here appreciating a tweet from Donny, something I thought I'd never do, and wondering how Tish James is going to defend herself from the onslaught of clearly-documented 'witch hunt' charges, and wondering why it is that prominent Dems always seem to shoot themselves in the foot.

What're you wondering about tonight?