Wondering on Wednesday 8/24/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Where do we start tonight's wondering? 

Right here in my neck of the woods - in the Empire State - where I find myself wondering why so many national political reporters are talking today about the Dems losing a prominent House member in New York, when there was literally no possible way that two Dems could survive a primary for the same district? The only question in this one was who would survive:  Rep. Carolyn Maloney, chair of the House Oversight Committee, or Rep. Jerry Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler won easily.

I read an article in a major national newspaper today about the Nadler/Maloney battle, and was not shocked to see many comments complaining about the redistricting process in NY. No one was complaining about efforts by the Dems to gerrymander five seats blue; rather, the complaints were that a judge didn't accept their efforts the way judges seem to accept the bad Republican maps. And I wonder, if you think gerrymandering is wrong, why are you mad when the courts agree with you? 

Another race in NY that's gotten a ridiculous amount of nation attention was the election to see who would fill the remaining months of former Rep. Antonio Delgado's term (he resigned to become our Lt. Governor). Pat Ryan won the "bellwether" race, as multiple media outlets referred to it, campaigning on a woman's right to choose being a national issue, not a state issue, while Marc Molinaro, the Republican, ran on crime and inflation. How much does this matter in the overall scheme of things, I wonder? I'm not convinced it's indicative of anything, really; NY's a pro-choice state; the 19th district's been blue since 2018; and Ryan will be on the ballot again in November, trying to win the seat in the new 18th district. If he wins that, it might mean something. Until then, I don't think so.

I can't help wondering how Rep. Elise Stefanik, the number three RINO in the House is feeling today. (A RINO, in these pages, is a MAGA Republican). Stefanik strongly supported the deplorable Carl Paladino in the primary for NY's new 23rd district; Paladino lost to NYS GOP chair Nick Langworthy. Stefanik also strongly supported Steve Wells in the primary for NY's new 22nd district. Wells lost to Brandon Williams. 

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy might not have had a great morning, after the Paladino loss. It's been reported that McCarthy and Rep. Steve Scalise, his Number Two, weren't happy with Stefanik 'going rogue' with her endorsement. I wonder how today's leadership chat went?

And then we've got President Biden's student loan forgiveness program, announced today. There's lots to dive into on that, and I've got a few bookmarked articles to digest tomorrow. I did wonder, though, at how hard the media worked to find Dem-leaning economists to chime in and say how bad an idea it was - and it wasn't even Larry Summers, the favorite DLE of all.

What's on your wondering minds?

OrangeVerse L: You Know the Game, Right?

Part three of the free-flowing verse from Trump's post-impeachment, post- National Prayer Breakfast victory lap.

It seems I grossly misunderestimated my ability to corral his verse and get it into two parts, and I'm not sure I'll get it done today.

Here are links to It's Always Festivus and I'm So Proud of Myself, the first two poetic masterpieces from the Stable Genius and his remarks to the nation.  You might remember in the first part, he started talking about wanting to thank certain people but ended up airing grievances. In the second part, still threatening to start naming names, he did praise Mitch McConnell, and he did slam those who swore an oath, but most of the rest of it was deadly sin-type stuff.

We're well into his remarks in this part, and finally he starts talking about people other than himself - and that got me thinking about that old childhood game.

Red Rover, Red Rover...

But we have some of

the folks that are going to be leaving

right after this, and they work hard - 

and they did work hard. 

Send Bill Cassidy on Over

Bill Cassidy, Senator.

Stand up Bill. What a guy. Great man

When I need to know about health insurance

and preexisting conditions and

individual mandates, I call Bill or Barrasso.

We get those two guys; they know

more than anybody.

Send Mike Braun on Over

A man who just became

a senator - he's a little bit like me;

we have a couple of them.

A very successful guy in business and he said

"what the hell, I'll run for the Senate" - from Indiana.

And he ran. And I saw him on television...

I said "You know this guy could win" and I got behind him.

And Mike Braun, you have done some great job.

Thank you. Tough. Tough. Thank you.

Send Chuck Grassley on Over

A man who got James Comey

to choke and he was just talking

in his regular voice. He is the

roughest man... actually an unbelievable - 

and I appreciate the letter you sent me today. I got it. 
But he's got this voice scares people. 

You know, people from Iowa 
can be very tough. 
We're doing 
very well in Iowa.

But I'll tell you 
Chuck Grassley... 
Chuck Grassley

is an incredible guy.

Send Josh Hawley on Over

And a man who - you know - he was running

against a tough, smart campaign and we 
learned how good she was, right? 

...And I went to a great place - Missouri - 
and I said "who do you have to beat her?" 

And they said "Well we have four people.
I said "let me see them. I've got to interview... - "

can you imagine?  I'm interviewing people

for the United States Senate. 

This is what I do. 
Where have I gone? 
But I love it...

The first one I met was Josh Hawley.

After about ten minutes I said

"don't show me anybody else." 

You were unbelievable. 

You were tough.

And you are something. 

Send Mitt Romney Donald Trump on Over

And then you have some

that used religion as a crutch.

They never used it before.

An article written today:

"Never heard him use it before."

But today, you know, it's one of those things.

Send Mike Lee on Over

A man who is brilliant,

...comes from a great state,

Utah, where my poll numbers 

have gone through the roof 

and one of the senators'

poll numbers, and not this one, 

went down big.

You saw that. You saw that, Mike? 

But Mike Lee is a brilliant guy. 

He's difficult... Whenever I sign bills - 

you know, we do a lot of legislation

that's - it's big and it's powerful

but it's sort of everybody 

has to approve it. 

And I see 99 to 1 - 99 to 1 - I say

"don't tell me who's the one. Is it Mike?"

And say hello to the people of Utah and tell them

"I'm sorry about Mitt Romney."

Send Jerry Nadler on Over
But we're going to,
we're going to do a job and
we're going to win a lot of seats.
We're going to win a lot of seats.
People are very angry that
Nancy Pelosi and all of these guys -
I mean - Nadler - I know him
much of my life; he's fought me
in New York for 25 years.
I always beat him.
And I had to beat him another time.
And I'll probably have to beat him again.
Because if they find
that I happen to walk across the street
and maybe go against the light or something,
"let's impeach him."
So we'll probably have to do it again
because these people have gone stone-cold
crazy but I've beaten them
all my life and I'll
beat them again
If I have to but
what they're doing is
very unfair very unfair.

There's more -- lots and lots more, which maybe we'll do, and maybe we won't because it might be very unfair, very unfair to put you through it. 

TGIF 1/24/20

Gather around, boys and girls - it's time for this week's TGIF list.

For the good week side, I'm going to put California Rep. Adam Schiff - a man with whom I've had a few bones to pick over the past several months - right on top. By all accounts, even from people who don't agree with what he's saying, he's been doing a good job, an effective job, leading the House impeachment managers as they present their opening arguments to the Senate. Lawyers, judges, pundits, Republicans, goofballs on Twitter and blogs (like me!) tend to agree with how he's handling the task.

Now, that doesn't mean that he hasn't made some goofs, or that his team hasn't made some goofs, or that they haven't talked too much - but it is a rare treat for me to say I approve of Schiff.  Jerry Nadler? Yeah, not so much. I think he's mostly been pissing people off, including Maine's Senator Susan Collins, who says she was the one who had a note sent to Chief Justice John Roberts, the presiding officer, to have him admonish "people on both sides" for their behavior. (Not sure if it was "fine people on both sides" or if it was just politicians...)

Of the other impeachment managers I've heard, I think Rep. Zoe Lofgren has also been doing a good job, better than Rep. Sylvia Garcia, the other one I've heard the most. And yes, that means that like many Senators, I haven't been sitting at my desk paying attention, reading books, playing with my Trump fidget spinner, or swigging milk or water. But, I'm not under oath nor do I have to abide by any rules saying I have to be there - so a big "welcome to the bad week list" to all of the Senators who have skipped out, with a particular hi-dee-ho to Tennessee's Marsha Blackburn, who was live on Fox when she was supposed to have been in the chamber paying attention. And a similar hi-dee-ho to whoever's been taking attendance and not reporting all of these folks to the time-out room.

The president was having a week, flying off to Davos to talk about how great things are, and saying that he's never met Lev Parnas except for maybe some photos, until today when a tape was leaked of Trump talking to Parnas about Masha Yovanovitch, saying "take her out" - like a boss, as they say on the car commercial. Mike Pence thinks the tape is real, so that should be good enough for Trump to stop lying about Parnas. Or, maybe not.

Speaking of Mike Pence, I seem to recall he was a huge supporter of Space Force?  And today, we got to see the new Space Force logo, chosen, we're told, by some important people. But first, let's refresh ourselves on the original draft logos, which were deemed "no good" by professional designers.

And here, is the winner, as announced by the president today. 

To which George Takei - Sulu on Star Trek - said, "Ahem. We are expecting some royalties from this..."

Fun stuff to end this long week.

TGIF, everyone.

Sunday School Extra Credit 1/19/19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rep. Jerry Nadler was on Face the Nation, offering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's Rep. Jason Crow.

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

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

He also said that

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

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

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

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

A couple of notes:

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

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

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

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

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

See you around campus.

Sunday School 12/15/19

Let's talk about impeachment, shall we? 

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

From This Week:

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

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

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

From Meet the Press: 

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

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

From Face the Nation:

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

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

From State of the Union:

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

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

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

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

See you around campus. 

Wondering on Wednesday (v175)

Right off the bat, I'm wondering where the heck summer colds come from, and I'm wondering why they're so much worse than other colds?
Seriously, I've not been able to string together enough words to make a single sentence in four days.

More importantly, though, I want to do some wondering about the president, and women. Now, I'm not going to go back and relive the 'grab them by the pussy' stuff or the porn stars or the creepy beauty pageant owner stuff, because that's so yesterday's news.

I want to wonder about new news, as it were.  News like this, which I found in a fact sheet issued yesterday on the White House website.

Today, the Trump Administration released a Strategy on Women, Peace and Security, which aims to increase women's meaningful leadership in political and civic life. This Strategy implements the Women, Peace and Security Act signed by President Trump in 2017.

Another thing the fact sheet tells us?

The United States will promote the protection of women and support humanitarian assistance efforts that address women's economic security, safety, and dignity. The United States will work with partner countries to remove barriers, laws and regulations that impede women's access to justice and participation in the peace and security process.

So, I wonder, if we are supporting "humanitarian assistance efforts that address women's economic security, safety and dignity," why have we

• gutted funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), including not only their core family planning activities, but also specific services UNFPA is providing in humanitarian crises in Syria, Iraq and Yemen? And yes, we did that - on International Women's Day in 2018.
• expanded the Mexico City Policy to include "nearly all bilateral global health assistance" including maternal and child health, the WASH program (household-level water, sanitation and hygiene, nutrition, HIV under PEPFAR, tuberculosis, malaria, neglected tropical diseases, and global health security, and certain types of research activities?
• dramatically slashed "life-saving financial assistance" in areas of humanitarian crisis around the world?  Trump's 2018 budget, for example, included unprecedented cuts to international humanitarian funding for food, shelter, global health, maternal/child health and international peacekeeping measures, and while funding was restored by Congress, the 2019 budget came back with more cuts for refugees, disaster assistance, food aid, global health programs and more?

How can pretend we are concerned about women's "security, safety and dignity" if we are actively trying to strip away Temporary Protected Status  for folks who were allowed to come to the US from 10 countries, among them El Salvador, Haiti, and Guatemala, to avoid "disease, violence, starvation, the aftermath of natural disasters, and other life-threatening conditions" - including women with American-born children?

And more importantly still, I wonder how it is that we can not just once ($12B), but twice (another $16B), come up with billions of dollars in welfare aid to farmers, in response to a completely manufactured crisis - one caused directly by the president - but we can't figure out a way to finance a fund to take care of 9/11 first responders?

Or, how is it that we can make the United States Postal Service pre-fund decades of benefits - the only agency required to do this, by the way - but we can't figure out a way to finance a fund to take care of 9/11 first responders?

This piece has the long and winding history of getting the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act passed. Zadroga was a NYPD officer and the first whose death was attributed to his exposure to toxins at Ground Zero. The bill only included a little over $4B, and passed despite the best efforts of Republicans who thought it was "too expensive." Funding had been extended only through the end of next year, which is atrocious.

If you didn't see Jon Stewart's testimony yesterday before a congressional subcommittee, you missed a gut-wrenching 10 minutes. It's worth watching, or watching again if you've already seen it.

And it seems that Stewart and the first responders who also went to Washington to plead their case may have made a difference, according to the NY Post.

The bill that permanently authorizes the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund passed out of the House Judiciary Committee unanimously Wednesday...  At the full committee markup Wednesday, a handful of lawmakers were absent, but (Chairman Jerry) Nadler dismissed calls to make the committee vote a roll call vote. 

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), will likely need to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office before it can get a full vote in the House, but it is expected to pass, as the legislation has 313 bipartisan co-sponsors.

Kudos to Stewart, but boy, it's hard to imagine that this needed a hard sell that generated tons of  negative media coverage for Congress as a whole.

I mean, if we can't get this right, who are we?

Sunday School 4/7/19

Today's classroom adventure comes from CBS and Face the Nation, with Margaret Brennan talking with the president's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. Let's see how it went.

On whether Congress and the public have the right to see all of the information in the actual Mueller report, Rudy would like all of the information to go to the House Intelligence Committee, and eventually to the public.

I would like him to get all of the information...everything... But I can't control that and I can't change the law. And the AG has a difficult job, and I didn't appreciate (Jerry Nadler's) suggestion the AG would be biased. I know Bill Barr for many many years. I think people in this town know him, He's a man of the highest integrity. Also everything he's doing is also being done by Rod Rosenstein. That (summary) was put out by Barr and Rosenstein. 

Brennan wondered if the president was waiving all executive privilege, noting that Trump has said he thinks the report should be made public. To answer, Rudy had to invoke the Ghost of Clintons past.

The - the president's cooperation with with investigation it was unprecedented. Bill Clinton fought every single subpoena. And - and it was a knock down drag out battle.

Brennan noted that Clinton did ultimately sit down and do an interview, and noted that Trump had not.

That's why the president didn't have to because they couldn't win in court. They had every piece of information. They couldn't suggest a question they didn't have the answer to because we supplied them with the answers to everything and the president did answer questions in writing.

Brennan asked if any information would be withheld. Giuliani seemed unsure.

I don't know, Margaret. I don't know. The AG has said he's going to put out the maximum amount of information possible. The only thing that will stop him will be legal barriers. I hop there are a few because I don't like what Jerry Nadler just did. Innuendo and there must be more -- look. Jerry Nadler prejudged this case a year ago. He was - he was talking about impeachment. He was overheard on Amtrak talking about impeachment well before the report came out. So when he talks about the AG being biased, my goodness - and on his committee he's got some of the most rabid people that hate Trump. This is - we're not going before a court here, We're going before a political body -- that is highly partisan and has made up its mind. 

There was more - much more.

Sunday School Extra - The Mueller Report, Concluded

Attorney General Bill Barr sent a short and sweet summary of the Mueller Report to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R- WH), Rep. Jerry Nadler (D- NY), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Rep Doug Collins (R-GA) letting them know the principal conclusions in the report.

First, some background: The investigation was exhaustive, involving 19 lawyer (including the 13 or 17 Angry Democrats, I would guess), 40 FBI agents, analysts, accountants, and staffers. In all, there were over 2800 subpoenas, some 500 or so search warrants, interviews with around 500 witnesses, and more.  No further recommendations for indictment were issued, and there are no sealed indictments waiting to be unfurled.

As to Barr's reading of the principle conclusions of the report (we leaned in advance what Rep. Nadler thinks of those):

1. The report outlines how Russia tried to influence the 2016 presidential election; documents crimes committed by people "associated with the Russian government" in the influence effort; explains that a "primary consideration" of the investigation was to determine whether any Americans "joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election" and noted that would be a federal crime had it occurred. And, "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
2. Mueller's investigation found there were two main efforts by the Russians to mess with the election. First, the Internet Research Agency's social media disinformation campaign "designed to so social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election." Even though there was no involvement of Americans in that efforts, there were criminal charges against Russian people and companies. 
3. Second, there was the hacking stuff, with Russians successfully hacking Clinton campaign and DNC emails and then sharing the info (remember Podesta's recipes?) through "intermediaries, including Wiki Leaks." This led to additional indictments against Russian military guys, but that no one from the Trump campaign fell for multiple overtures of assistance. 
4. The part of the report that addressed obstruction of justice by the president spoke of a "thorough factual investigation" which did not lead to "a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction." Rather, Mueller and his team maid the case both for prosecution on the obstruction charges, and for not prosecuting on them, "leaving unresolved what the Special Counsel views as 'difficult issues' of law and fact." Importantly, and contrary to what the president and his minions are saying,  the report "does not conclude that the president committed a crime, (and) it also does not exonerate him." 
5. Barr and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein (another target of the president) determined that Mueller's evidence is "not sufficient to establish" that the president committed a crime, and noted that they didn't take into consideration the constitutional issues around indicting and prosecuting a sitting president. Instead, they relied on Mueller's own information, including that "the evidence does not establish" that Trump was involved in any underlying crime tied to Russian interference, which makes proving obstruction much harder.  So, basically, Barr and Rosenstein did the same thing that James Comey did when he determined that not prosecutor would charge anyone who did what Hillary Clinton did.

Barr had said, in the hearing on his nomination that it was his intention all along to release as much information as he could of Mueller's report, within the confines of the law and Justice Department policies. That's going to take some time, as there's a lot of stuff that needs to be reviewed so as not to violate the confidentiality of grand jury matters, for example, or anything related to the spin-off investigations in New York and Virginia. Mueller is going to assist to make that happen as soon as possible.

In the meantime, we wait, and watch as the House and Senate majorities go their different different ways on all of this. The one thing we know for sure is that there will be investigations, with different targets, unless the leadership in both the House and the Senate can wrangle their respective folks in.

The larger issue, for me at least, is this: at what point do the majority Dems in the House turn their attention to governing, to legislating, to working on the things that have a direct impact on us? You know, taxes and social security and Medicare and voting rights and redistricting and not completely crashing the US and global economies with their Green New Deal, or wiping out the sixth of the economy that is health care and health insurance, and so on.

Those are things that we are just as entitled to as we are the Mueller report. 

Sunday School 3/24/19

Just one classroom this morning - CNN's State of the  Union, with Dana Bash sitting in today for Jake Tapper.  

Guests included former US Attorney Preet Bharara and NY Rep. Jerry Nadler, where we kick things off. 

Focus, of course, was on the delivery of the Mueller Report to AG Bill Barr on Friday, and Barr's promise to get a summary of some kind, the "principal conclusions," to Congress, maybe before the end of the day today.

Nadler and other Dems are very much interested not only in that summary, but also in the full report and its underlying evidence being released to Congress and to the American people. Heck, even most Republicans want the whole report released, confident in its conclusions, I guess. It's against that backdrop that Bash declared the state of our union is "on the edge of our seats."

(As I write this, my phone is blowing up with reports that Congress can expect Barr's summary shortly, so we'll have an update later.)

Anyway -- let's listen to Bash and Nadler for a bit stating with whether Nadler accepts that no additional indictments are coming from Mueller, according to reports, and that no member of Trump's team participated in "that kind of criminal conspiracy" with Russia?. 

Well, I don't know. First of all, we don't know what indictments are forthcoming from other investigations that have been spun out...

Nadler's referring to investigations that were handed off to the Justice Department's Southern District of NY and the Eastern District of Virginia. 

DB: Do you think... he, Mueller, would send that to other parts of the Justice Department?

JN: I don't know. That's one of the things we will have to see when we read the report. And that's one of the reasons that I think it's so crucial that the entire report and the evidence underlying it be released to the public. Transparency is key here. I mean, obviously, we know there -- we know there was some collusion. We know that the president's son and campaign manager were involved in a meeting with the Russians to receive stolen - what they thought was stolen information, stolen by the Russians from the DNC, as part of the Russian government attempt to help Trump in the election...

DB:  But none of what you just said has risen to the level of a criminal indictment by the special counsel.

 JN: No, it hasn't, as far as we know. But we know there was collusion. Why there's been no indictments, we don't know. Let me say further, we know a number of things. We know what I just said. We know that the president pressured the FBI to go easy to stop investigating Flynn and various other people. We know that he fired the FBI director, as he put it - to NBC, to "take care of the Russia thing," in order to stop the investigation of various people associated with him. We know that he concocted the lie about the purpose of that Russian meeting. We know that he - that a lot of his top associates have been indicted and convicted, and we know that he has engaged in a relentless two-year attack against the FBI, various law enforcement agencies. 

DB; So, on that note, Mr. Chairman, what you are describing is evidence to back up what you said before, that the you believe the president has obstructed justice. You still believe that? 

JN: Well, there have been obstructions of justice. Whether they are -- clearly. Whether they are criminal obstruction is another questions. But we have -- the special prosecutor is limited in scope. His job was limited in scope and limited to crimes. What Congress has to do is look at a broader picture. We are in charge -- we have the responsibility of protecting the rule of law, of looking at obstructions of justice, at looking at abuses of power, at corruption, in order to protect the rule of law, so that our democratic institutions are not greatly damaged by this president. And that's what we intend to do.

That led to a  brief discussion about impeachment ("way too early to speculate about that"), but the larger focus was on transparency and letting the American people see the entire document - even, Nadler maintained, if it includes the names of people who were not indicted, which goes against the "don't publicly tarnish someone" thinking that Dems put on the table back during the Clinton investigations. If the FBI wasn't going to indict her, they shouldn't have released all the information they did, according to the Dems. And had all of that not occurred, well... 

But that doesn't matter now, it seems. 

DB: So, why shouldn't allegations that don't reach an indictment threshold - I'm talking not about the president but on everybody else - stay confidential?

 JN: Well, because we need to know what was going on here. And it's not just the question of indictments. It's a question of protecting the rule of law and of obstruction of justice and abuses of power and protecting our government and our whole system.

And that was basically the gist of it. Congress is not the same as the special counsel, different goals, and pretty much no reason for anything to stop. Nadler did say that, if necessary, he'd subpoena to have the report released, and to go all the way to the Supreme Court if he had to, but hoped that they can talk about it and get things squared away. 

On whether he'd "accept at face value" Barr's report of the main conclusions, Nadler wasn't at all convinced. 

Well, we're likely to see what Barr characterizes as the main conclusions of the Mueller report. And we will accept them, but subject to seeing all of the underlying data. We have to make judgments, the American people have to make judgments as to how founded those conclusions are or Barr's summary of the conclusions are. 

He denied saying that he didn't trust Barr's judgment, but that seemed pretty clearly what he was saying, no matter his attempt at spin:

But I am suggesting that people make judgments, and those judgments could be right or wrong, in other words, in making a judgment as to how to characterize an observation.

And on the conclusions drawn by the Mueller team? 

So my expectation is that, yes, I would trust that, but, like any other product of human hands, we have to look at the underlying evidence and make our own judgments as to their judgments.  

I don't know about you, but I honestly can't sit through any more of this. Nadler is giving me a headache, and a stomachache. 

Preet Bharara helped alleviate the nausea a bit. On the lack of any additional indictments from Mueller, here's how he responded to Bash's question about that being a big deal:

It's a big deal politically, I guess. I don't know how big a deal it is otherwise. I mean, the main goal of the Mueller investigation, which people seem to forget, and his mission was not to get someone and not to bring about a particular outcome or result. 

That's not how it works. His job was to be as thorough as possible and as fair as possible and investigate all of the facts, and  if he doesn't come up with something, then so be it...He's made a determination, as prosecutors do, that there's not sufficient evidence to indict someone for that (conspiracy or collusion).

And finally, on the investigations by the SDNY, Bharara's old office, Bash wondered if those were anything the president needs to be concerned about. Remind her that he has no personal knowledge, he noted

I mean look, I think it's very significant and we have to wait. I think that people shouldn't be taking victory laps or jumping off bridges, depending on their political viewpoint, based on the fact that a Mueller report has been concluded and there's no indictments. But Donald Trump is not out of legal jeopardy.

And the Southern District of New York did not have the narrow mission that the special counsel had. And they are aggressive and tough and independent and fair and apolitical. And if there's things that they think are worth pursuing and charging, they will do so. And if that means there's legal jeopardy for people around the president, then we will, I guess have to see. 

And that's where we'll leave it for now.

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 3/3/19

Let's dive in and see who was making the rounds this morning, starting with Meet the Press on NBC.

Here are highlights of Chuck Todd's conversations with Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), of the House Oversight Committee.

Todd wondered what the Senate Intelligence Committee was looking for in their nine hours with Michael Cohen, whether it was focused solely on Russia or if there was more. Warner said some of the "tawdry and inappropriate" stuff did come up, but they're focused in a bipartisan way on counter-intelligence, finding out what did happen in 2016 and making sure if didn't happen again.  On Cohen himself, and his truthfulness:

Well, again this guy does not have a lot of veracity. We need to get documents. We are receiving additional documents from him to prove or disprove. But I'd also say, Donald Trump doesn't exactly have a great record of telling the truth, as well. 

On the subject of collusion or inappropriate behavior, Warner had this to say:

An investigation into the president, and his organization, his campaign, involvement with Russians - a foreign power, a foreign, adversarial power, a power that this president has said nary a negative word about, a Russian despot that he, frankly, kowtowed to in front of the whole word in that hearing - in that public testimony, public hearing in Helsinki, I think that's all inappropriate. And the notion that the president has done everything possible to undermine that investigation, from firing Comey to trying to undermine Mueller, to me, that does not seem appropriate. 

When it was his turn, Rep. Jordan had trouble saying whether or not he believes that Russia meddled.

CT: Do you believe the Russians interfered with the 2016 election?

JJ: Everyone said they thought they were trying to impact the election.

 CT: Do you believe it?

JJ; The question Mueller -

CT: Do you believe it?

 JJ: Yeah, I mean, of course. That's what the intelligence community has told us. 

He went on to say there's no collusion or coordination, except between the Clinton camp and the Russians and Trump has done fabulous things for the country and that's what he's focused on. 

Sunday School 11/11/18

Just one classroom this morning, CNN'S State of the Union with Jake Tapper, who declared us to be in a state of 'honoring our veterans.'

On the show today, among other guests, was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who made it clear he thought the Democrats won the midterms, even though they didn't take the Senate. It was "a great victory for Democrats" he said. And, he added,

For Donald Trump to claim, because he won a Senate race in North Dakota or Indiana or Missouri, states he won by 19, 19 and 36 percent, that shows how weak - I would be very worried if I were Donald Trump and the Republicans about the 2020 elections, if all they can claim is they won in North Dakota.

And, in response to a question about Trump's messaging, and the Kavanaugh hearings, and border security, and Schumer actually said

Well, the bottom line is, the Kavanaugh dispute, I think, helped us more than it hurt us. It's one of the reasons we won the house so decisively. It's one of the reasons we won governorships in so many other states, because suburban voters who are traditionally Republican came to our side. And if the coalition can add suburban voters to it and continue to focus on issues like health care which matter to working-class Americans throughout the country, we're going to win. I think the president lost more votes because of the Kavanaugh issue than he gained throughout the country.

Next, the conversation turned to Florida, and ballot-counting, particularly in Broward County. Schumer's position is that the Rs, including the president, are afraid if all votes are counted the Dems will win.. And while allegations of fraud are flying around, nothing has been proven. He also called for Rick Scott to recuse himself from anything having to do with counting or recounting, since he himself is a party in the events unfolding. Heck, even Brian Kemp recused himself in Georgia.

On protecting Mueller, Schumer said Dems will try get some legislation passed that keeps Whitaker out of it, if he doesn't recuse himself first. Tapper pointed out that Mitch McConnell is on record as saying no legislation is needed, and wondered if the Dems would go so far as to shut down the government.

Look I believe - there will be enough of our Republican colleagues who will join us. There's no reason we shouldn't add this to avoid a constitutional crisis. And so that is our position. If it doesn't happen, we will see what happens down the road. 

They also talked about the legitimacy of the Whitaker appointment; Schumer thinks the lack of advice and consent from the Senate means that he can't serve. Tapper remained skeptical, but Schumer was sure the courts were on his side. He also said protecting Mueller was more important than impeaching Trump.

On healthcare, Schumer says he hasn't signed on with Medicare for All because there are lots of ideas on how to improve healthcare, and that they'll unite on one of them as things move forward. He refused to pick one over another. He also told Tapper the Dems have lots of strong candidates heading into 2020.

My basic philosophy right now is, let 1,000 flowers bloom. Let's get a lot of people out there. The political process, it's a little like sports. It's almost mystical. You never know who's going to emerge on top. And so having candidates out there of various views, all united in the need to change the course of how the presidency is conducted and how we help the middle class, people aspiring to be in the middle class in a much better way the the Republicans have, I think Democrats at the end of the day will be united, will be united on a candidate who can best defeat Trump.

Tapper also talked to Jerry Nadler, who is poised to become the next chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Tapper asked him to describe the first three things he'd do. We didn't get to all three because there was lots of talk about impeachment.

Nadler did say that the first thing they'd do was protect Mueller. He also said that the first person Judiciary Committee would talk to, either by summon or subpoena if necessary, was Mark Whitaker to question him about whether or not he'd interfere in the Mueller investigation.

On impeachment of the president, Nadler's main point was "not yet" but that didn't mean never, and that the report from the Wall Street Journal about Trump's involvement in the payouts to the porn star and the Playboy bunny could rise to the level of an impeachable offense, but that doesn't mean that impeachment would be the outcome. He also said that he was not planning on impeaching Justice Kavanaugh, no matter what that conservative reported said she overheard him say in a private conversation.

On impeachment and Nadler's statements that it couldn't be a partisan thing, Tapper pointed out that recent polling shows 77% of Dems favor impeachment but only 5% of Republicans do, which is clearly a partisan divide. He wondered if that as a concern to Nadler.

Not really, because, as I said, we're far from that. If we get to the question of impeachment, then one of the tests should be - and I have said this repeatedly - is the evidence so strong of misdeeds so terrible that you really believe at the beginning of the process that, by the end of the process, when all this is laid out publicly, a very large fraction of the people who voted for the president will grudgingly acknowledge to themselves and to others that you had no choice but to impeach the president?

That's the test, Nadler said, and he admitted

we're far from it. Well, I see lots of potentials, but we don't know. That's why we're waiting to see what the Special Counsel finds...  I certainly hope that we will not find the necessity for an impeachment. But you can't rule that out. 

On that note we'll wrap this up.

See you around campus.