Wondering on Wednesday 7/29/26

Ready... Set... Wonder!

There are many days I wonder why I bother watching or reading the news - and today is certainly one of them. Here are a few examples of what's got me scratching my head.

• On the 'eyeball' network's national news tonight, we were treated to footage from the trial of a Massachusetts woman accused of murdering her three children - in January 2023. There was the tortured father, a part of his 911 call, the sobbing mother listening to the tape for the first time, and my favorite, a prosecutor holding up the pajamas of one of the victims. And this was just day two of the trial. Am I the only person wondering why this story, in all its gory detail, is getting precious time on the national news each day? And why the trial is only just getting underway three-and-a-half years later?

• An item from the 'peacock' network crossed my desk, letting me know the person who attacked and slashed author Salman Rushdie in August 2022 was convicted today in federal court on terrorism charges. He had previously been tried, convicted, and sentenced to 25 years in state prison for attempting to murder Rushdie. Are you wondering, too, why we're spending time and money trying the same folks in both state and federal court, even if the charges are different? And if you're OK with both trials, why did it take so long?

• And how can we forget Sen. Bernie Morena (Rude-OH), who quite proudly shouted an f-bomb at Dr. Anthony Fauci today; we got to see that, too - without the sound (but it was deafeningly obvious what he yelled) - on the national news and on the 'family Canidae' network. I can't help wondering what Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, or Gwen Ifill would have had to say about that.

Remember those assaults on so-called drug boats, in which the US government killed dozens of people and destroyed or took control of the drugs on the boats? And how those assaults, part of Operation Southern Spear, were supposed to cut off the flow of coke into the country, make us safer, and cripple the cartels? And how proud a certain Cabinet member was about all of it? 

I'm wondering if anyone's really surprised to see this news?

Despite killing at least 221 people in dozens of U.S. airstrikes targeting alleged drug-trafficking boats in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean, Donald Trump’s administration has reportedly admitted that the attacks haven’t slowed the flow of cocaine into the U.S.

Instead, traffickers are relying on planes hopping across the interior of Central and South America, or using larger boats and sailing close to coastlines where U.S. forces are less likely to strike, according to The Washington Post, citing a previously unreported assessment from the Drug Enforcement Administration.

There's more to wonder about - there always is - but that's enough for one night. What's on your mind?

Sunday School 7/26/26: Extra Credit

For your Sunday School Extra Credit this week, I dropped by the Meet the Press (NBC) classroom to listen in on some talk about the upcoming midterms. 

For the first part of the conversation, host Kristen Welker was joined by NBC's Chief Data Analyst, Steve Kornacki. Here's how Welker set the stage:

Today marks 100 days until the midterm elections. At stake: control of Congress. Will the war in Iran -- and its impact on the economy -- hurt Republicans’ chances of holding onto power? Or can Democrats flip the House and Senate? Even as a fight rages within the party over its future. 

Kornacki dove right into the numbers, putting the landscape in perspective, he said. 

• Trump's approval is at 41% on average across all polls, a little lower than before the 2018 midterms in his first term. 
• In a recent Fox News poll on specific issues, "majority disapprove everywhere. His best mark is 42 on immigration." On Iran, the economy, and inflation, the numbers were apparently much worse.
• In 2022, under Biden, the Dems lost "only a few seats" in the House, and picked up one in the Senate. That's what the Rs are hoping will happen this year, and they "think that their one chance is the image of the Democratic Party."
• A majority of Democrats, in the same Fox poll, "have a favorable view of socialism" but that ends at the party door - socialism is "deeply unpopular" with Independents.
• The Dems need to gain four Senate seats to get control, and they can't lose any seats, either. Their best hopes are in Maine and North Carolina, but where are the other two? Can they come from states that Trump won by double digits - Alaska, Iowa, Ohio, or Texas?
• Iran hangs over the whole mess; in a Politico poll, "65% say the war shouldn't continue, or should continue only if it doesn't make costs worse. And 56% of MAGA share that opinion, compared to several weeks ago when it was 41%.

Later in the lesson, the panel gathered to continue discussing the midterms. Today's crew: New York Times White House correspondent Tyler Pager; Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod; and Lanhee Chen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution. 

Welker asked Pager what he was hearing from his sources about Iran and the mood at the White House. He said for a while folks were optimistic that "the war would be winding down or at least not on the front of voters' minds when they went to the polls, or even after Labor Day." And now? It seems there are some concerns that fluctuating prices and continuing attacks in the war could be "a huge issue for voters."  On the other hand,

...when you talk to Republicans, they point out a few things that make them somewhat optimistic that things could go a little bit better. One, the huge cash advantage that the Republicans have in the committees. Two, the redistricting efforts that have given Republicans a fighting chance in some areas that they didn’t think they would compete in. And lastly, they think they have a message of attack, particularly around the Democratic Socialist candidates that have won, trying to paint them as representatives of the entire Democratic Party. But most voters care about the economy. And that is going to be — continue to be a huge issue for the party as they try to stave off what appears to be a losing hand heading into November.

Welker turned to Chen, asking about Labor Day as a key date, especially when it comes to getting gas prices down. She said, "The economy is always the single biggest issue" for voters considering which party to support, but noted there's some complexity to the picture for the Rs. She pointed to the redistricting efforts in red states making perhaps 10 to 15 seats more competitive, and the progressive Dems who are far to the left of most Americans.

So those are advantages, no question about it. But the challenge Republicans face is what I consider to be an expectations gap. There’s an expectation about the end of the war. There’s an expectation about prices coming down. And the reality hasn’t always met those expectations. So not only are you seeing challenges with independent voters. The bigger issue for Republicans is energy. It’s the energy of the Republican electorate. Are those most loyal Republican voters going to turn out and vote when Donald Trump is not on the ballot? That’s the big question.

And, talking about "the progressive branch of the Democratic Party," Welker noted the energy level there, and how there's a divide playing out in primaries. She talked about Michigan, where there's a primary next month with a progressive battling a moderate for a Senate seat. She asked Elrod to talk about what's at stake. 

In a nutshell? If the Dems want to take back the Senate, they have to hold Michigan, and "we have a much better shot of holding onto Michigan" if the moderate candidate wins. She also thinks that, in terms of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates more generally, it's a challenge for the Ds because some of the primary winners "may not be as appealing to the electorate in the general election.

But so far, we are seeing this relatively isolated to places like New York City, you know, urban areas, and of course that little blue dot in Colorado in Denver with Diana DeGette’s loss. If El-Sayed is successful in Michigan, that will sort of blow that argument. It’ll flop that argument significantly. Because this is a state that is in the Rust Belt. It is a state that is critical to anybody winning in 2028 for the presidential - for the presidency. So if this happens there, then I think Democrats are going to have a bigger challenge.

And on the other side of the aisle, how much of a challenge does the erosion of the MAGA base on Iran pose?  Pager turned back the clock a bit to answer this one, noting that JD Vance endorsed Trump in part because "Trump would not bring the nation to war." And Vance has been "concerned and frankly opposed" to the war (from the beginning, at least according to many reports - ed.)

So obviously that is a huge concern for the base. And that was what Vance was trying to channel in some of his opposition. The other thing as Lanhee said, we have seen the Republican Party struggle when Donald Trump is not on the ballot, particularly with turnout when it relates to the base... some of these voters that are huge Donald Trump supporters, but are not as reliably showing up for the midterm elections. And so without Donald Trump on the ballot, plus this ongoing protracted overseas conflict, that is a problem for Republicans.

Chen noted the concept of "the MAGA base is a little bit misunderstood" - it's not really a 'base' for the Rs.

... what it really is, is it’s Donald Trump’s coalition. It’s a unique coalition that no other politician has been able to replicate in recent American history. When Donald Trump is not on the ballot, as we talked about earlier, it changes the dynamic, the dynamic significantly. The question of course is: does the president want to get more involved? And what does that mean for individual candidates?

She pointed to Susan Collins, running for her *sixth* term (after pledging to only serve two), as an example of the quandary facing some GOP candidates. In Maine, she'll need the so-called MAGA base, but she can't turn off the moderates who wield a lot of power in the bluish-purple state.

... she’s got to be able to turn out that base of Republican voters while still not turning off moderates who might have a different opinion of the president. Her challenge is going to be very different than you might see in other races. So, the question of how far the president gets involved - this is his base. If he wants to turn on his base, if he wants to devote time and energy to getting those people out to vote, it’s going to change the outcome of the election.

Does that make everything clearer, as we enter the push to the midterms? Iran, affordability, DSA, Trump... right now, these are the likely suspects; we'll see if that changes over the coming weeks. 

Thoughts on the midterms? Want to see me tackle something specific? (And yes, I'll be sharing some info on the DSA in an upcoming post.) Drop a comment.

Sunday School 3/1/20

I've got Dem presidential candidates wandering all over the lecture halls today - a couple of them making more than one appearance - and we've also got the COVID-19  Task Force members all over the place, too. 

Per my plan of featuring the candidates front and center, I'll cover them today and the other guys in an Extra Credit post. 

Let's start with Margaret Brennan's conversation with That Guy From Vermont on CBS' Face the Nation. 

On whether South Carolina might be an indicator of his prospects there and whether Papa Joe Biden will pose a real challenge there?

... I think based on the polling, we're doing pretty well in Virginia. I think we've got a shot in North Carolina. All I can say is the issues that we are talking about and that is health care as a human right, raising the minimum wage to a living wage, dealing forcefully with the existential threat of climate change. Those are ideas, Margaret, that I think are resonating all across this country. I think we have an excellent chance to do well on Tuesday and to win the Democratic nomination.

On any advantage he's going to get from his $46M haul in February?

... it is not only the amount of money that we raised, and that is a phenomenal amount, it's how we raised it. We don't have a super PAC like Joe Biden. I don't go to rich people's homes like Joe Biden. I think Joe has contributions for more than 40 billionaires. What we have done is received more campaign contributions from more Americans than any candidate in the history of the United States, averaging eighteen dollars and 50 cents. This is a campaign of working people and by working people... But we have enough money now not only to take us through Super Tuesday, but take us through the entire process fueled by the contributions of working class people all across this country.

On whether he'd really turn down Michael Bloomberg's financial help come the general election?

Well, look, Mr. Bloomberg is free to do anything he can with his 60 billion dollars, and that's legal. All I can say is at this point, we are confident that we can receive the kind of campaign funding that we need from working-class and middle-class people, that we don't have to be beholden to any powerful special interests...he has the right to do anything he wants. Right now, we are confident... based on the fundraising that we are doing, is that we can beat Trump. 

On whether he's the best person, as a Democratic Socialist and someone who is constantly criticizing the Democratic Party and the Democratic establishment, to unify the Dems and beat Trump?

...I'm a member of the Democratic leadership. I've been in the Democratic caucus from...virtually my first day back in Congress 30 years ago ... But we will win because we have an agenda that speaks to independents, to Democrats, and to more than a few Republicans. Look, we are living at a time when the American people are sick and tired of the kind of income and wealth inequality that exists in America. All over this country, Margaret... you got millions of people are working 11, 12 bucks an hour. They can't afford childcare. They can't afford healthcare. They're scared to death about their retirement. They want a government that represents them, not just billionaire campaign contributors. That's how you win. You put together that coalition, multi-generational, multi-racial. That is what we're doing. No campaign out there has a stronger grassroots movement than we do. That's how you beat Trump. 

On the COVID-19 virus and whether it's safe out there in California and can he still hold his rallies?

...I mean, that's a very fair question. And my campaign has spoken to public health officials on that issue. And right now, we are planning to do rallies not only in California, but in Utah, Minnesota and other states around the country.

On there being any political cost to "sparring with" AIPAC (the pro-Israel lobby) and being told he's not welcome in Israel by their ambassador to the UN? 

...they have a lot of money. They have a lot of power. Look, I'm Jewish and I'm very proud of my Jewish heritage... I am not in- anti-Israel. I will do everything I can to protect the independence and the security and the freedom of the Israeli people. But what we need in this country is a foreign policy that not only protects Israel, but deals with the suffering of the Palestinian people as well. You've got 70 percent youth unemployment in Gaza. People can't even leave that district, that area, major, major crises... So, I am pro-Israel. I am pro-Palestinian. I want to bring people together to finally achieve peace in that region.

And on the Taliban deal?  

Well, I don't have enough details... and that peace agreement, needless to say, is going to have to go through the Afghan government. We don't know what's going to happen. One of the difficulties, to be very honest, Margaret, in dealing with Trump, it is very hard to believe anything that he says, whether it's the coronavirus, whether what's going on in Afghanistan... It is my view that we've got to end endless wars, that when we have five hundred thousand people in America sleeping out on the street and people can't afford health care, we got to invest in this country, not in endless wars.

Moving on, let's sit in on Papa Joe Biden's conversation with the eponymous host on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. George didn't waste any time.

On whether the Dems will lose in November if TGFV gets the nomination?

... he'll have great trouble bringing along other senators, keeping the House of Representatives, leading back the Senate and down ballot initiatives. So I -- I think -- I think it is a stark choice. And it's not about whether or not we restore the soul of the Democratic Party, it's about restoring the soul and unite this country, the whole country. And I think -- I think I can do that.

On whether TGFV will likely have a big delegate lead after Super Tuesday?

...he, obviously, is outspending 10-1 or beyond that...but I think it's more -- as much the message in what we stand for and what we're going to do and the idea that, you know, Bernie is going to be able to win these -- he could win California, whoever the Democrat is I think will win California in a general election, but we still have (to) come along and win the Senate. We have to win in North Carolina and we have to win in Georgia, we have to win in Texas, Florida, et cetera. So I think that -- and I do very well in those states as well and I haven't been able to spend the kind of money he has or put together the organization, although we did very well last night. So far this month we've raised -- which for us is a lot of money, about -- I guess it's close to $18 million. We raised $5 million just from the win last night in a 24 hour period overnight. And so I think things are beginning to move.

On where he can win on Tuesday?

... in the upcoming states. I think we can win most of the southern states. We're in contention, including in Texas. It's going to be very hard to make up the ground in California, but I think we can make up a lot of ground in California in three days and -- so I feel good about where it goes. And Super Tuesday's not the end. It's only the beginning. We're about even on delegates right now. We have more popular votes thus far than Sanders does and I feel good about going to places where I've always had significant support from the people who make up the Democratic electorate.

On Rep. Jim Clyburn's comment about changes coming to Biden's campaign, and letting people "mishandle" the campaign?

Well, there's a lot of changes coming. This is, as you know, from your past experience years ago, this is a matter of addition, not subtraction. And so we're attracting more and more people, we're adding more competent people, additional people who are very competent. I feel good about the top part of my campaign. We've had some difficulties across the board in terms of field organization. That's getting better... We can always improve. And I can improve as well. 

On whether not having an endorsement from Barack Obama is hurting, and is it time for Obama to make an endorsement?

No, it isn't hurting me and I don't think it's time...Look -- remember, George, the first thing that everybody said when I announced, the opposition, the Democratic opposition said, "well, Biden feels entitled because he's vice president." Imagine had the president endorsed me, it would have been, "well, Biden's entitled because it -- he think -- he thinks he's entitled because of the president's endorsement." The president and I are close friends. I -- and I have no doubt when I win this nomination he will be out there full bore for me.

On why the candidate with the most pledged delegates come convention time shouldn't be the nominee?

For the same reason he didn't think when Hillary had the most pledged delegates that she should be the nominee. The process is laid out. I find -- you know, don't you find, George, that, you know, that there's not a lot of consistency coming out of some of these campaigns...all of a sudden he's had an epiphany. You know, look, I -- I say what I mean, I mean what I say, I say it and I stay with it. I think the process is laid out. We should go with the process. But I'm not even certain he's going to go into the -- into this convention with the most delegates.

On the argument for him to be the nominee if he's in second place and the superdelegates have to make the decision?

Because I can win and I can bring along Democratic victories up and down the slate... I can win the United States Senate at the top of the ticket...I can increase the number in the House... I can win in places where I don't think Bernie can win in a general election... But most people I know, whether they are -- are -- quote, establishment Democrats or just people concerned about making sure that we not only beat Donald Trump but have enough votes in the House and Senate to pass progressive legislation, like I proposed, know that we have to do better... up and down the ladder in terms of state and local races...(in 2018) I went into 24 states, purple states, for over 65 candidates. They wanted me in...They were asking me to come in. I don't know that they asked Bernie. They may have. I doubt it.

On how the response to the coronavirus would be different if he were president?

It would have been fundamentally different... look, right now you have this president, hasn't allowed his scientists to speak, number one. He has the vice president speaking, not the scientists who know what they're talking about, like Fauci.

Number two, they haven't even prepared a test kit to determine whether or not anybody has the virus. They're not even available. They say now they'll be available in -- in -- by the end of the week or next week. They haven't set up a pattern in how to proceed. They don't -- they -- they've cut the funding for the CDC. They've cut the -- the Centers for Disease Control. They've cut the funding for -- they've tried to cut the funding for NIH, the National Institute of Health. They have eliminated the office we set up -- we set up in the president's office to deal with pandemic diseases. This has been outrageous the way they proceeded. They should let the scientists speak.

... Look, this is about knowing where it is, who has it, and how to deal with it. And I see -- I see no preparedness other than a political talking point, putting someone in charge who is not a scientist and not -- and muzzling the scientist.

And finally, let's check in with Chuck Todd and Mayor Pete on Meet the Press, where the first question was on where his campaign stands now.

We knew South Carolina was going to be a challenging state. We competed hard there, but nothing can take away from Vice President Biden's commanding victory, and I congratulate him on that. I think the most important thing right now is to look at what we can do to make sure that we put forward a campaign that is going to end the Trump presidency because everywhere I go, Americans are focused on ensuring that we not only get better policies, that we turn the page on all of the things that this president is doing and has done to our country, to our democracy, but also that we turn the page on the tone in our politics and that we move on from this divisive and toxic season in American public life...

On whether there's a point where he has to look and say he and Biden have the same message, but Biden's winning?

Well, there's certainly that overlap there. We also, obviously, represent a different style and approach in many ways. But what I'll say is that call to decency, I think, is something that is very strong in our party right now. And it's what we need in our country right now. We cannot go on like this with a politics of being at each other's throats. And part of how I believe our campaign has been able to beat the odds and defy all of the expectations is that our message of belonging is one that has resonated across the country...

On black voters taking a second look at him, and how he continues to struggle with people of color?

...there's no question that the Vice President had a commanding lead with black voters in South Carolina. And that bar of earning the trust of voters of color right now, that bar is high for a reason, especially when you're talking about black voters in the south. That is a hard-won vote,... often, that access was brought about within living memory. I understand why that bar is so high. I'm humbled by the challenge and have continued to focus on making sure I present not just our policy ideas, but what this campaign is about in a way that can reach out to black voters and to voters across the board.

On if he had won the DNC chair, what message would he be giving himself as a candidate about doing what's best for the party? 

...every day I'm getting up, looking at how we can do what's best for the party. It's why we got into this race in the first place, the belief that a different kind of message and a different kind of messenger could rally people together... And every day we're in this campaign is a day that we've reached the conclusion that pushing forward is the best thing that we can do for the country and for the party.

On what 'success' would be on Super Tuesday?

Well, we believe that there are places from coast to coast, in districts across different states, where our message is resonating particularly well. We'll be looking at the math as we continue to push and make the most of the resources that we have... You wouldn't always know it from looking at the outcomes in Washington, but right now the American people are already with us. What's going to be needed is a message, a messenger, and the leadership to make sure that those priorities are met. And I find that true in the reddest of states and on the coast as well.

On whether there's a Super Tuesday result that would change his outlook on the campaign?

Every single day, yes, we do a lot of math on this campaign. And so we'll be assessing at every turn not only what the right answer is for the campaign, but making sure that every step we take is in the best interest of the party and that goal of making sure we defeat Donald Trump because our country can't take four more years of this.

So there you have it -- three of the four remaining men in the race; the two women were not in the classrooms today. 

Also of note? 

• Tom Steyer suspended his campaign Saturday night, seeing no path to victory. 
• Twitter was trending this morning with #DropOutAmy, #DropoutWarren, #WarrenDropOut and #DropOutPete. 
• But the 'drop out' hashtag with the most hits, by far? #DropOutBernie, with over 54K mentions, compared to less than 5K for each of the others.

See you around campus - and if you're in a Super Tuesday state and eligible to vote, please do so. 

TGIF 11/15/19

Where to begin with today's good week - bad week list?

How about that Browns/Steelers fight last night? I didn't watch the game and hadn't seen any news before I saw the video, so it was quite the shocker to see before breakfast this morning.  With quarter-million-dollar fines to both teams, player suspensions and fines already announced, I'm thinking this falls squarely in the bad week column.

And then, part of me thought about the people who make those 'cute' videos with images of president Trump's head superimposed on other people's bodies, attacking the media, or his enemies (John McCain and Hillary Clinton, among others) getting hold of this one and having Trump, I don't know, beating Rep. Adam Schiff over the head with a helmet or something. Because I can certainly see that happening.

Continuing in the bad week vein, I'd have to include a few reporters, including Jonathan Allen of NBC, who offered this:

But at a time when Democrats are simultaneously eager to influence public opinion in favor of ousting the president and quietly apprehensive that their hearings could stall of backfire, the first round felt like the dress rehearsal for a serious one-act plan than the opening night of a hit Broadway musical. 

Seriously? I guess maybe the Dems should call Randy Rainbow to come in a do a few beautifully crafted, snarky showtunes?

Allen also offered this, after talking about Ambassador Bill Taylor and diplomat George Kent delivering a 'wide-ranging discourse" on diplomacy and more (emphasis added),

And yet Taylor and Kent failed - or perhaps succeeded, given their nonpartisan roles in government and the atypically serious postures struck by lawmakers of both parties - by dropping no bombshells and largely repeating the testimony they gave congressional investigators at depositions previously held behind closed doors.

So, instead, they should have changed their stories, to generate better headlines? Tweeted from their witness chairs to spark controversy? Pounded their shoes on the table, or Nicholsoned or something?Would that have been more 'pizzazzy' for everyone?

Allen and NBC were not alone - Reuters reporters Jeff Mason and Patricia Zengerle offered this:

Democratic lawmakers tried their hand at reality television with mixed results on Wednesday as they presented arguments to the American public for the impeachment of a former start of the genre, Donald Trump. 

Unlike the best reality TV shows - not to mention the Trump presidency itself - fireworks and explosive moments were scarce, however.  

I'm guessing that Taylor and Kent will likely be making apologies to all Americans, letting us know they didn't realize that appearing under subpoena to provide testimony in an impeachment hearing should have been something done with bells on, or something. Besides, Kent was wearing a bow tie - what more fun can a person have (in contrast to the jacketless Jim Jordan)? Maybe an appearance on Sesame Street or something in the next week or so?

And, of course, I'm sure Rep. Schiff will reach out personally to the president's second son to make amends, because. as Reuters told us,

To the president's son, Eric Trump, it was a big yawn. 

I get that there's a component to this of making impeachment understandable to people, to voters,  just as there was in the Clinton hearings. And I'm sorry that there isn't an ejaculate-stained blue dress this time around. No - I'm really not sorry there's nothing as salacious here, unless of course you count Devin Nunes' opening statement on Wednesday.

Sticking with the impeachment for a little bit longer, I'm sorry that one of New York's own representatives, Elise Stefanik, is willingly participating in the game being played by Nunes and the rest of her party, instead of acting like a reasonable person. During today's hearing, Nunes attempted to yield the floor to Stefanik during what I'll loosely call 'leader time' - both of them knowing that she was not allowed to speak at that time.  Why? Because rules, that's why (emphasis added)

• Extended Questioning by the Chair, Ranking Member, and Committee Counsels. Pursuant to H. Res. 660, the Chair and Ranking Member may conduct at the outset of each open hearing extended rounds of questioning for periods of up to 90 minutes, as determined by the Chair and split evenly between the two sides. As specified in H. Res. 660, the Chair and Ranking Member may not yield time to other Members during these extended question periods, though either may yield time to Majority and Minority Committee Counsels, respectively.

• A similar rule put in place initially by House Republican leadership in 1997 authorized committees to allow extended periods of time for the questioning of witnesses, in excess of traditional five-minute rounds. The 1997 revision also allowed staff to question witnesses at hearings. Under this approach, which was also adopted in subsequent Congresses, staff questioned witnesses during the Clinton impeachment hearings and in numerous other investigative hearings.

• As Chairman, I expect to yield extensive time to Majority Committee Counsel during the extended questioning periods permitted under H. Res. 660. After I announce the conclusion of extended questioning, Committee Members will be recognized for customary five-minute rounds pursuant to House Rule XI. 

I'm sure though, that this will meet the 'pizzazz' threshold for DC reporters, because it looks good that there's some fighting and finger-pointing and all that. What it mostly does, though, is show the willingness of the GOP to do whatever they can to attack the hearings.

Yay, us, or something.

On the good side of the ledger? One name out there: former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who received a standing ovation after her testimony today.  Texas Republican Will Hurd had this to say about her, after reciting a list of her awards and recognitions:

You're tough as nails and you're smart as hell. You're a great example of what our ambassadors should be like. You're an honor to your family, you are an honor to the foreign service, you are an honor to this country, and I thank you for all that you have done and will continue to do on behalf of your country.

I'd add the Roger Stone jury, as well.

The panel of nine women and three men deliberated for less than two days before finding Stone, 67, guilty on all seven counts resulting from his September 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, which was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Kremlin’s efforts to damage Donald Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps Stone will get a Donald Trump tattoo to go with his Richard Nixon tattoo; it might help his efforts to get a pardon.

TGIF, everyone.

Quick Takes (v38): What I Don't Want to Hear

It's going to be difficult for the debate moderators - Lester Holt, Chuck Todd, Rachel Maddow, Savannah Guthrie and Jose Diaz-Balart - to maintain control over the candidates and get anything accomplished tonight and tomorrow, that much I know.

What's also going to be difficult for them is to maintain control over themselves, and keep focused on things that are important.

These things, in my mind, are NOT important, and I'm hoping that we will not hear any questions related to these issues:

• Elizabeth Warren's DNA
• Beto O'Rourke's childhood writings
• Amy Klobuchar's meanness
• Kamala Harris' father
• Pete Buttigieg's husband
• Cory Booker's girlfriend
• Joe Biden's son
• Bernie Sanders' wife's money

This is not a big version of Meet the Press, it should be an issues-related 'debate'  or conversation, not a personality-based series of interviews.   

Any questions of that nature will clearly show that the press has learned nothing from 2016 - and they honestly had a lot to learn, according to a study on how the press covered the candidates. For example:

Here's another interesting finding, that goes to what was reported. For Trump, a mere 12% of his coverage was about the issues, with 43% of the coverage being negative (particularly after the Muslim ban comments). For Clinton, more than double the amount of coverage was issues-related (still a meager 28%) but the negative coverage was an overwhelming 84%.

Fingers are crossed for tonight - if they bite on the Warren DNA test or anything related to her long-since-addressed family history of Native American ancestry, which is really the most obvious one of the list above to get a hit, we'll know they have learned nothing.

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. 

A Crisis by Design

The national news media has succumbed to the threat of being yelled at by the biggest bully in the whole damn valley, and all of the major networks will give free airtime to the president so he can tell us all about the crisis at the southern border that, frankly, is entirely by design - his design.

Now, don't get me wrong - we have long had an immigration problem, and it needs to be fixed - about that, there should be no question. But, that immigration problem is not defined by the need for a wall, and it won't be fixed by the construction of a wall, whether it's a big beautiful concrete one (about which the president knows more than anyone) or some variation on a theme of steel slats that is equally aesthetically pleasing (about which the president knows more than anyone) or even just concertina wire and chain link fence (about which the president surely knows more than anyone).

Since he announced his candidacy, "Build That Wall" has been the cry around which his supporters will reliably rally, because we are meant to fear the dark skinned people who cross the southern border.

It matters not whether they have crossed legally or illegally really - because just by looking at them, we are unable to tell which is which, just like we can't tell a good black person walking down the street, or shopping in a store, or making a phone call in a hotel lobby, or swimming in a pool, or hailing a cab, or driving down the highway or doing any number of other things that human beings do, from a bad one.

That's the point of fear. And that's the basis of this 'crisis' that the president has created, embraced, and exacerbated, and which he now must trying and convince us is real.

Sunday School 7/8/18

Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!

That's right -- three of the five major Sunday classrooms gave us a big old helping of Rudy Giuliani today. Let's take a look and see how consistent the president's special mouthpiece attorney was in his appearances, shall we?

First up? Rudy and George, on ABC's This Week; here are the highlights:

• regarding former Trump 'fixer' Michael Cohen's interview last week, Rudy said the president shared his opinion, that Cohen should cooperate, there's no reason to believe he did anything wrong, the president did nothing wrong, what happened to Cohen was horrible
• on what Cohen might say to Mueller's team, no concerns there as long as he tells the truth, we're home free
• there have been on discussions of a pardon for Cohen, it would just muddy the waters, and anyway there's no reason to even think about it
• as far as Rudy knows, the president didn't tell Cohen to make the Stormy Daniels payments, he didn't know about it at the beginning, some foggy point down the road he found out
• there's still no timeline for Trump to sit down with Mueller, but he really wants to, and
• they have to consider that the Mueller investigation is unconstitutional because it violates the Appointments clause, according to several people.

On MTP, Rudy and Chuck Todd talked about and around a number of subjects, with these highlights:

• on his previously saying the 4th of July was some kind of important date on the question of whether Trump would talk to Mueller, Rudy says they'll now need to know some factual basis for the investigation, because so far there's no collusion found by Mueller or by anyone else including the Trump team researching the collusion issue
• Trump's admission that he misled the public about writing Donnie's statement was just an incorrect recollection, no big deal mostly because nothing ever came of the meeting
• yes, the president's anxious to sit down with Mueller because he's done nothing wrong, but it's the lawyers like me that are keeping him from doing so, because the investigation is so biased, not Mueller himself, but the investigation is, and someone needs to investigate the people on the team and read their texts, but the president wants to testify if there's any basis for the investigation
• it's OK if Cohen testifies, he's not going to lead Mueller to the president
• there's no problem with Trump sitting down with Putin, he has to, no matter what the Senate report says about Russian interference, and he is ready to regularize things with Putin but Putin will have to meet Trump more than halfway.

And finally, on CNN's State of the Union, Rudy and Dana Bash chatted on similar subjects, leaving us with these highlights:

• even with all of the leaks, no one's found any factual basis for the investigation, but if there is one the president would be happy to sit down with Mueller's team, and I don't mean evidence of a crime, just some suspicion of one would be nice
• the president can't just fire Mueller, even though this is the most illegitimate investigation ever, and biased and what a mess, but if Trump fired him the media (the enemy of the people, as we know) would say Mueller was fired because Trump was guilty
• Comey is the biggest villain in all of this
• There have been leaks, lots of leaks, they leaked reports, they leaked meetings, they leaked about Manafort and Cohen
• The Trump team has seen everything Mueller has, 1.4M documents, they've debriefed everyone important and so they know that Mueller has nothing which is why he's pushing for the interview with Trump
• We're not banking on him not issuing a subpoena, but if he does issue one, we'll quash it because you can't do that unless you have a really good case that the information you're looking for can't be found any other way
• Mueller wants to interview Trump's Chief of Staff General Kelly, that's being handled by some other attorney, we're saying no because hey, let's see the texts from Mueller's team since this is all after the Horowitz report showing how corrupt everything is
• No, I'm not trying to delay the end of this until after the midterms, I want to get it over with, I'm not worried about any political considerations, but Mueller can't indict, there's no basis for that, but impeachment is what everyone's talking about, look at Maxine Waters and I have to listen to what everyone is saying not just the leaders who aren't saying this but how do I know they're not lying?

I love that last part -- how can we possibly know that everyone else isn't lying? - coming from a guy who's boss lies with extraordinary ease, with great conviction and great results.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 6/3/2018

I wandered around the Sunday School classrooms with mixed results today. My mission was to try and get a sense of how each of them were covering the 'she said, she said' of Roseanne Barr and Samantha Bee, and I have to say, things were not entirely as I thought.

Where to start? Well, ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos didn't mention either Barr or Bee, which is interesting given that ABC was the network which fired Barr for her racist comment. 

It was a little different on Fox New Sunday with Chris Wallace, who talked about the vastly different treatment of the comments with his panel. Brit Hume noted that the c-word is right up there with the n-word, "the ugliest words in contemporary parlance" he said. And Hume noted

So, I think the two remarks were basically on par and what's not on par was the disparate treatment by ABC News towards Barr and by TBS toward Samantha Bee. Vast difference and it's pretty hard to argue therefore there's not a double standard.

Juan Williams, who is familiar himself with words, and consequences, disagrees about a double standard.

...when you think about what Roseanne Barr had to say in terms of calling Valerie Jarrett an ape - a black woman - this is something that's very deep and speaks to race in our culture. Dehumanizing people, it speaks to oppression, slavery - I can go on.

Brit Hume asked if calling someone the c-word wasn't dehumanizing.  Williams agreed, but

I think that calling -- two white women having an argument over immigration policy and separating children from parents and the like is, as I was going to say, vulgar and rank and unnecessary. It does not speak to the idea of tearing apart the social fabric around the most central and difficult issue in America, race. And that's what Roseanne Barr did not only in this instance, she had done previously with regard to Susan Rice, another Obama official, and I think --

Wallace interrupted, noting

Well, Samantha Bee has sad all manner of horrible things about all manner of women, yes, white, who were working in the Trump White House.

Williams was not having it.

I'm telling you, one of these items speaks to tearing at the social fabric in a way that can't be undone and puts us all in great danger. And therefore, it's not about team sports in terms of, oh, I'm a Trump supporter and I'm there to support Roseanne Barr, or I'm an Obama supporter, and therefore, you know, support Samantha Bee 

That's really juvenile compared to the seriousness of what's taking place. You think about the NFL players, you think about Charlottesville. I could go on. You understand that they are playing -- separating us as a society. 

On CNN's State of the Union, Dana Bash discussed the issue in the larger context of 'culture wars; and politics.  Linda Chavez, who worked in the Reagan administration, took a shot at liberals.

But I have to tell you, liberals walk right into the trap when they have a Samantha Bee out there not just using the most vile, vulgar word to describe a woman but going after her in such a personal way, going after her relationship with her father. Look, I have not a whole lot of use for Ivanka Trump, I don't think she should be in the White House. But you don't go after somebody in that kind of really nasty vile way, in a way that frankly the word and the fact that it was scripted and, you know, essentially she may have read it from a teleprompter says a world about liberals and their values.

In response, Karine Jean-Pierre, from Moveon.org, mentioned the president as a key figure in the culture war.

But here is the problem. You have the president himself who has used that word. It's been reported that he used the c-word to describe Sally Yates. Here's the thing. It is - it is really bizarre and wild that the president makes himself a victim and - he and his administration makes him a victim when he is the bully in chief. He used the bully pulpit to attack...racism was here before Donald Trump and sadly it will be here after Donald Trump. So that is a fact. But he has -- what he has done is he has normalized, he has given license to people to make it OK... And that is the problem we're in with this culture war, because it's coming from the White House.

On Face the Nation, CBS's Margaret Brennan had the discussion with her group as well. The gist of it there? The new expectation that a business will deal with things like this, whether it's boycotts or firing or accepting an apology - it all comes down to a business decision. The talking heads did note that conservatives who were just up on arms about the White House Correspondents Dinner and how the Trump gang was hammered were too busy calling for an apology to make any comment about what Roseanne had said.

Finally, on Meet the Press, again the round table group talked about the culture wars, and whether there's a double standard.

Katy Tur, a Trump target during the campaign, thought that while we were talking about Samantha Bee "using a word she shouldn't have used" we weren't paying attention to the story she was talking about -- the administration's policy of separating families at the border. Peggy Noonan reminded Tur that what Bee said was an obscene personal attack, and perhaps she wasn't as serious about the border issue, if she herself obscured it by her choice of words.

Joshua Johnson was more worried about something else.

I am more concerned about the fact that the same culture current that gave Roseanne Barr cover to tweet this and Samantha Bee cover to broadcast this is is the one that gave Stephen Colbert the cover to say that the only thing Donald Trump's mouth was good for was being Vladimir Putin's you-know-what holster. I mean, it's the exact same current that the Russians exploited to influence the 2016 election. It's out hate. It's our misgiving. It's our fear. The fault is not in our TV stars but in ourselves. And that's where the problem is. We have the power to change this...

And that's where we'll leave it for this week. 

See you around campus.

Sunday School 5/27/18

I decided to give Chuck Todd and NBC's Meet the Press a visit today - the only classroom I visited on Memorial Day.

You may recall I ignored him last week because they had the non-Democrat from Vermont on the show, so I thought it would be in the spirit of fair play to drop in this week. The main guest today was Lame Duck Arizona Republican Senator Jeff Flake.

Flake talked a little about North Korea (denuclearization may not happen), and a little more about Chinese company ZTE (Flake is against a deal with them), but mostly about the president.

Todd played a portion of Flake's commencement speech to grads of the Harvard Law School - take a look:

How did we arrive at a moment of such peril - wherein a president of the United States publicly threatens - on Fox & Friends, historians will note - to interfere in the administration of justice, and seems to think that the office confers on him the ability to decide who and what gets investigated, and who and what does not? Obviously, ordering investigations is not a legitimate use of presidential power.

The questions to Flake were whether he believed that president Trump was abusing his power, if Congress would get to the point of doing something, and would that lead to an impeachment proceeding.

Well, let me just compliment the Congress in the last couple of days. The president had this diversion tactic, obviously, with so-called Spygate. I don't think any of us were referring to it in that way. But Congress said no. To have a briefing like the president wanted with just one party was not right. And so, it wasn't just some of the Democrats saying that was not proper, a lot of Republicans were saying that as well. So I, i saw the kind of pushback that we need to have. But it needs to happen more often. When the president says things that are totally wrong, it's the responsibility of members of Congress, particularly those in the president's party, to stand up and say "That is not right. Truth is not relative. And there are no alternative facts here. And I have seen instances where we haven't done that well. And we've got to to it better.

Flake also expressed some feeling behind the scenes that Trump might be "laying the groundwork  to move on" Robert Mueller or perhaps Rod Rosenstein, but that there was hesitance on some people's part to address his actions publicly. When asked where the hesitance might come from, Flake's answer was not really all that surprising.

This the president's party. And if you're running in a primary right now, and you stand up to the president, to stand up in some cases for empirical truth, then you have a -- you have trouble in the primaries. And that's no doubt. So i, I I do think that, you know, as we get through the primary season - perhaps, then many of my colleagues will find a voice. But right now, it's difficulty politically.

I don't know about you, but I think the commencement address, the comments on the Rs not pushing back hard enough on the president's lies, and that until the primaries are over, there shouldn't be any high expectations re: the Republicans are all spot on.

There was one last question; Todd wanted to know if Flake had completely ruled out running for president.

It's not in my plans. But I've not ruled anything out. I do hope that somebody runs on the Republican side other than the president, if nothing else, simply to remind Republicans what conservatism is. And what Republicans have traditionally stood for.

I'm going to leave it there. See you around campus.

Sunday School 4/15/18

I only visited one classroom today, ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos -- I just didn't have it in me to go sit through the rest of them. 

If you're interested, here are transcripts for Fox News Sunday (UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and lame duck Congressman Trey Benghazi Gowdy),  Meet the Press (Sen Joni Ernst, former CIA Director John Brennan, and lame duck House Speaker Paul Ryan), Face the Nation (Haley again, former veep candidate Sen. Tim Kaine) and State of the Union (Sen. Angus King, Preet Bharara, and Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniels' attorney).

So why ABC and George?  Mostly because Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was giving an interview, something that doesn't happen all that often. What did she have to say?

On Syria: The mission 100% met its objectives to destroy critical chemical weapons infrastructure, and send the 'red line' message to Russia, Syria and Iran. On 'next steps', she offered

Look, the president has got three big objectives when it comes to the conflict there. He wants to defeat ISIS. He has talked about this relentlessly. We are almost there. We have made extraordinary gains against ISIS...And this president has lead that effort. And he's been successful on that front.  The other things we have to do, we have to contain Iran, We have to make sure that the bad acting that they have been a part of doesn't continue and doesn't grow. Those are big and key points. And then last, we have to stop the spread and the use of mass chemical weapons, and that was one of the things you saw the president take action on, on Friday. Those are big things that the president has been focused on  and we've had some success so far. We're going to continue building on that.

And on James Comey, about whom the president tweeted rudely during their discussion, Sanders gave us this information in response to a handful of questions.

Look, it's been very clear that James Comey is a self-admitted leaker. He lied to Congress. He's been inconsistent...

Look, he said that he opened the Hillary Clinton investigation on its merits, now we're finding out certainly it had something to do with the political landscape. I find it outrageously unbelievable that Jim Comey, the man that takes these copious notes and recollects every detail of every conversation that he had can't remember why he would have specifically opened an investigation into a presidential candidate, particularly somebody he thought would become the president.... I mean, give me a break. The guy knew exactly what he was doing. He thought Hillary Clinton would win. And he thought this would give him some cover. He thought that he made these decisions based on the political landscape and not on the facts of the case.

And when the person that is supposed to lead the highest law enforcement agency in our country starts making decisions based on political environments instead of on what is right and what is wrong, it's a really dangerous position. And I think that's one of the reasons there is such a huge bipartisan consensus that James Comey doesn't have credibility and shouldn't be leading the FBI any longer. 

Regarding the president's pardon of Scooter Libby, former VP Dick Cheney's guy, and whether it was Trump's way of sending a message to Mueller and everyone,

That couldn't be further from the truth. Once again, Adam Schiff barely - rarely bases any comments in reality. Talk about a grandstander. He probably is hook line and sinker buddies with Jim Comey. They both have never found a TV camera they don't love to be in front of.

And finally, Stephanopoulos asked

Is the president actively considering firing Robert Mueller or removing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein from overseeing the investigation?

Sanders' response?

I'm not aware of any plans to make those movements. Look, the president has been extremely cooperative, as have a number of members of the administration. Everything that's been asked of us, we've provided. And we're continuing to be cooperative. But we do have some real concerns with some of the activities and some of the scope that the investigation has gone, but 100% maintain that at this point, after repeating it for nearly a year and a half, there absolutely was no collusion with Russia and that's exactly what they've been investigating.

Not only has the special counsel but a number of different congressional committees have been looking at this for over a year and come up with nothing. I think it really is getting time to move on and I certainly think the American people would appreciate Congress and the rest of the country being able to focus on some of the things that really impact them.

Of course, everyone keeps telling us nothing's going to happen the rest of this year, with the mid-terms and all, so I wish George had pushed her on that one a little.

And Adam Schiff, the Congressman from California who has been a thorn in the Administration's side in his role as ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, had this to say about Sanders.

I don't think she likes me very much, George.

See your around campus. 

Sunday School 3/11/18

The first - and, it turns out - only classroom I entered today was NBC's Meet the Press with Chuck Todd doing his darnedest to look wide awake (more on that in a minute) on this first day of daylight savings time.

Todd opened the show with a little bit about North Korea, and tariffs, and then did a 'that was the week that was' kind of thing.'

Monday was former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg insisting he wouldn't comply with his Mueller subpoena, and then Friday he complied with it. Tuesday was the day Gary Cohn announced his resignation, over the tariffs. Not mentioned here was that Cohn allegedly was going to resign last year when Trump talked about "good people" in the white supremacists movement, but that wasn't enough to push him over the edge. Tariffs apparently were.

Wednesday was Stormy weather day - the restraining order against the porn star with the disclosure agreement, and also the day Mueller cast a shadow over the beautiful Seychelles by making a Russia connection. Thursday, the tariffs were signed, causing retaliation promises from allies. Friday it was North Korea, and "I alone can fix it" Trump, and then the campaign rally in Pennsylvania.

Bottom line, the head-snapping week of screaming headlines and seat-of-the-pants decisions is indeed the presidency Donald Trump promised and the presidency he seems most comfortable with.

So - the stage is set, right?  Lots of things going on this week, some of it important stuff like the tariffs, and North Korea. And the first guest was Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, waking up even earlier on the West Coast to participate.

The conversation started on North Korea, and us being tough now, and the sanctions we've put in place are doing the trick and forced Kim to the table. And they talked over suggestions that this meeting would legitimize the murderous thug and his regime, and about what might derail the meeting, and where it might take place, and so on. And then the conversation  turned to Trump picking on the press when he was in Pennsylvania.

And "sleepy-eyes Chuck Todd, that sleepy son-of-a-bitch" (told you I'd get to that part) was not having the picking on the press part of it.

So, the image of an American president encouraging boos of the American press corps - of the American press corps, and discouraging boos of a dictator from North Korea. Your reaction, sir?

Mnuchin mentioned some "misreporting" about trump, and talked about Trump's policies, and so Todd tried again.

Alright, I understand you wanted to get back on a economic message, but the president of the United States in the past has been a beacon of freedom of the press. Instead last night, he was praising authoritarian figures in China and North Korea and encouraging boos of the American press. Does this mean it is... this American president is no longer going to be preaching about the values of freedom of the press and democracy around the world?

Mnuchin advised that "of course" the president believes the freedom of the press and in democracy, and protecting democracy, and suggested again that the conversation should be focused on those policies.

You keep saying that's what we should be focused on, then why can't the president be...  Would you call last night's speech a focused speech on that?

Mnuchin suggested the press shouldn't focus so much on the campaign rallies. Getting progressively more snitful, Todd did not stop.

So should we stop covering the campaign rallies? Do you think it's a mistake then for us to cover them at all? That it doesn't matter what he say? If it doesn't matter what he says there. If we are to dismiss everything he says at a campaign rally as I think you're trying to imply, then are you saying we shouldn't cover these things?

Mnuchin: you're putting words in my mouth... talk about policies, I came here to talk about his policies...

I wanted to talk about those with you. Obviously, he chose not to do that. Look, final question for you. Many people including myself raise there kids to respect the office of the presidency and the President of the United States. When he uses vulgarity to talk about individuals, what are they supposed to tell their kids?

Mnuchin said he'd be focusing, with his kids, on what the president is doing to protect the country, us, and our economy. And, of course, even though that was supposed to be the final question, there were more.

CT: So he's not a moral - don't worry about his values, don't worry about him as a role model.

SM: I never said that whatsoever. So I don't know why you're putting these words in what I'm trying to say, OK? So again - I am very comfortable with what we're doing, OK? And again, I think you're trying to take this out of perspective, and imply something I'm not saying.

CT: Fair enough, what do you... what are you supposed to say when he's using these vulgarities, to kids?

SM: Again, I think you should be focused on what the policies are. He's using these vulgarities in the context of a campaign rally and obviously, there were a lot of funny moments on, on, in that rally. 

CT: Yeah, they were hilarious. Anyway, Secretary Mnuchin, I appreciate your coming on, again.  I know you had to wake up extra early. That I appreciate. Thank you very much sir.

And finally, FINALLY, it was over.

I gave Mnuchin a lot of credit, I did. The point would have come, I think, where I would have just said "listen, put your big boy panties on and get over it! This president has a love-hate relationship with the media -- that's not a secret, is it?  And he loves getting under people's skin, like he's clearly gotten under yours. You got me up early for THIS? And one more thing - if you need help with parenting, isn't Dr. Phil on your network? Why don't you give him a call?"

Also on the show? Elizabeth Warren, who said she wasn't running for president in 2020.

So look, I am not running for president of the United States. I am running for the United States Senate. 2018. Massachusetts. Whoohoo!

And again.

 I already told you, I have no intention of running for the United States - for president.

And again.

Look, what I'm telling you is that I am in these fights every day. For the people of Massachusetts, and for the people across this country. This government is working better and better and better for a thinner and thinner slice at the top. I am in these fights, and I am in this fight to retain my Senate seat in 2018. That's where I'm focused. That's where I'm going to stay focused. I'm not running for president.

And again.

I am not running for president.

Chuck Todd finally acquiesced.

I know. Duly noted.

And so, you see, I had no energy left for any other classrooms.

See you around campus (and again) I mean, I'll see you around campus (and again) I will (and again) I'll see you around campus.

I. Will. See. You. Around. Campus.

Sunday School 2/4/18

Welcome to the Super Bowl Sunday edition of Sunday School. And no, there isn't a single valid reason to connect the game with this post, other than I'd feel very un-American if I didn't.

The talk today was about The Memo, a topic on which I offered my own very partisan analysis earlier today, before I started wandering the halls.

I started out today visiting Fox News Sunday, where I picked up a couple of nice partisan quotes for you. The first is from Chris Stewart, a Utah Republican who's on the House Intelligence Committee, where the memo originated.

Hillary Clinton and the DNC hired Fusion GPS, who then hired ironically a foreign agent to create this dossier that we know is just political garbage. It's no more credible than a $2 novel. And the FBI used that dossier to surveil a private US citizen who had no accusations against him except for he has associations with the Trump campaign. It's an absolute abuse of power and we just want the American people to know that.

And, in the other corner is  Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat who's also a member of the illustrious Intelligence Committee.

We believe that the memo that the Republicans put out shows not a single abuse, but a willingness to risk our republic to protect the president. So, I hope that Mr. Stewart is sincere when we go back to Washington this week that he would do all he could to protect Bob Mueller and Mr. Rosenstein and support the bipartisan legislation that's out there that would do that. And also that he would support releasing the Democratic memo that puts into context point by point the seriousness of this investigation as well as new, unseen evidence that bolsters the FBI's credibility.

Alrighty, then. Let's head off down the hall and see what's going on at CNN's State of the Union. Representative Brad Wenstrup, the Ohio Republican, feels the memo was about oversight.

My main concern is things like, did the court know that this was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and  I would be curious to ask a judge, did you know who paid for this dossier that's being presented to you, and would it have made a difference? I think it's more looking within the agency, something we have oversight over. They don't have oversight over us, we have oversight over them. That's the way I'm looking at it.

Jim Hines, a Democrat from Connecticut, countered that the other side has proof or something that the Nunes Memo is untruthful.

What we are going to learn when the Democratic -- if and when -- and we certainly hope that it is -- the Democratic memo is released which is sort of counterpoint to the Republican memo, what we will learn is that it is not true that this FISA warrant was awarded solely on the basis of the Steele dossier. We will also learn that the FBI, because they are very careful people, didn't mislead the judge, that the judge had some sense that this information came out of a political context. 

Where to next? This Week with George Stephanopoulos, where Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee presented his opinions.

If this was oversight, the committee members would want to read the underlying documents. They voted it down. I made a motion to bring the FBI in and ask the FBI these questions. You know, why was this included, why was that not included. That's what oversight looks like. That's the oversight we've done for 10 years... They voted against hearing from the FBI. When you do oversight, you haul them in under oath. you say, why was this included, why wasn't that included? The interest wasn't oversight. The interest was a political hit job on the FBI in the service of the president.

Texas Republican Will Hurd wanted to talk about the Russians.

Because ultimately I do believe we're letting the Russians win. The Russians got involved in our elections to erode trust in our democratic institutions. And when the press is criticizing Congress for shining light on issues, when Republicans and Democrats can't agree on stuff must because it was originated by someone in the other party, when there's  perceived friction between the executive branch the legislative branch and federal law enforcement when people think that there shouldn't be oversight, civilian oversight of law enforcement...

Let's see if we can find a good quote from someone to close it out, shall we? Oh -- how about John Brennan, former CIA director? He was on Meet the Press this morning.

I've had fights with the Dems over the years when I was in the Obama administration... But I never, ever saw the Democrats do something like this that was so partisan, so reckless and really just laid waste to the protocols that governed committees. And Devin Nunes, over the past several months, all the way back to the spring of last year I think has been engaged in these tactics purely to defend, make excuses and try to protect Mr. Trump... it really underscores just how partisan Mr. Nunes has been. He has abused the office of the chairmanship of HPCSI. And I don't say that lightly. 

See you around campus.

Sunday School 1/28/18

Just an observation, before we head off down the hall to the classrooms: I thought there were 535 members of Congress - you know, 435 in the House and 100 more in the Senate?

For some reason, it seems like the booking people for our Sunday lectures only know of about 25 or so of them. Maybe we can convince them we'd like to see a little more diversity of opinion on on Sunday mornings?

NBC's Meet the Press had House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin III, and intelligence guru Robert Gates. Topics included the report that Trump wanted to fire Robert Mueller; the Nunes memo; immigration, DACA and the wall; and sexual harassment.

On ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Martha Raddatz hosted Senator Lindsey Graham, Ken Starr and ABC correspondent Dan Abrams, talking about immigration, Trump/Mueller, and Steve Wynn. The more interesting part of the show today was the trip from California to Texas along the border.

Here's a woman who, as a DACA qualifier, went to college and law school:

My mom had heard of the American dream, and she wanted us to experience that. And she knew my dreams wouldn't be fulfilled in the - the place where we were because her dreams weren't fulfilled... My family has been here 30 years paying taxes, contributing with our labor. We have created businesses. We are job creators. I understand that we --we broke the law by being here. And I feel there should be a way for us to become lawful immigrants, to become citizens some day.

Or this one, a Trump supporter who lives a few miles from the border and who thinks Dreamers should be allowed to stay, but also supports the wall:

I think it would stop a lot of them from coming over. I mean, I'm sorry, they need to come over here to take care of their families, I understand that. But most of them come over, and a lot of them earn their money and they're sending it back down there, they're not spending it here. Aren't we supposed to be boosting, or taking care of us first?

And there's this gentleman, a visa overstayer, now married to an American woman.

I think there should be more control of who gets into the country and how they get into the country, because -- we do need low-skill workers to do the jobs that most Americans don't want to do.

Finally, two people who were brought here illegally as kids, one of whom is DACA qualified and studying to be a nurse, talking about the potential for citizenship dangled by the president.

I would love to be able to be a citizen, but I think for me, and for what we see in our own community is that it would be a lot more important to be able to keep our families together.

Raddatz also talked to several border area politicians, too.  All in all, some good stuff in there.

The two best parts of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace had to be South Carolina's Trey Benghazi Gowdy - and yes, I actually said best part and Trey Gowdy in the same sentence - talking about the Mueller investigation, the Nunes memo, and the damage the Republicans are doing to themselves, and Juan Williams reminding everyone that lovers talk to each other.

First, Gowdy. On Mueller's investigation, he had this to say.

And by the way, he's got two -- there are two components to his jurisdiction. There is a criminal component. But there's also a counterintelligence component that no one ever talks about because it's not sexy and interesting. But he's also going to tell us definitively what Russia tried to do in 2016. So the last time you and I were together, I told my Republican colleagues, leave him the hell alone and that's still my advice. 

And while he's not convinced there's 'no there there' with the Nunes memo (also a topic of conversation), on Republicans hurting their own credibility with their "secret societies and palace coups," Gowdy was clear.

Yes, Republicans are the best I've ever seen at taking good facts and overstating them and therefore changing the narrative... I don't know what they meant by secret society...  Republicans are better served by letting the texts speak for themselves... Republicans would be well served, let the texts speak for themselves...quit engaging in hyperbole, which we seem to do a lot.

Williams was fun during the discussion about the text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, the lovebirds who worked on the Clinton and Trump investigations. Strzok was the one removed from the Trump investigation and demoted to Human Resources immediately upon the text messages coming to Mueller's attention, months ago.

Wallace was trying to get things riled up with the group, but Williams wasn't having it.

JW: Come on Chris, they -- people have personal opinions. You and I have personal opinions. I think we come out here and try to do an honest job. 

CW: Wait, wait, you're not at all troubled by those texts?

JW: Well, first of all - no, be -- remember, they're lovers. So this is like pillow talk between two people who  have personal opinions. I don't know that it has impacted their capacity to lead at investigation. What I see here is a repeated effort coming from the right. They throw spitballs at the wall trying to somehow disparage the FBI, discredit Robert Mueller....

 CW: How about then Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are saying, well, let's not go into that Clinton investigation loaded for bear.

JW: Well, wait a second, they're talking. It's like and and me joking and saying, hey Chris, president Trump, we wish, would come on this show and then --

CW: I'm not joking, I'm serious.

JW:  I know. I know. but I'm saying we wish. But I'm saying -- and I say, Chris, well you know what, if you want him to come back, maybe we shouldn't ravage him this time. That's a joke between Juan and Chris. That's not an indication of how you're actually going to conduct the interview.  But this is, again, discredit the FBI because they're worried that Mueller, in fact, is going to find something. That's what going on...

Hear, hear.

Finally, one quick update from the interview with Maine's Susan Collins on CNN's State of the Union. Asked for her reaction to the story about porn star Stormy Daniels and her $130,000 payout from the Trump camp, Collins had this to say.

Well, I don't know the circumstances of it. In some ways, this sounds like an issue that's between president and Mrs. Trump, because it doesn't seem to be a workplace issue, as far as I know.

On that note, see you around campus.