TGIF 4/8/22

Who had a week, and what kind of week was had? 

The House of Representatives referred two more Trump flunkies - Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino - to the DOJ for criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress. A bad week for them is a good week for us.

And let's throw another bad week into the mix: Will Smith, who resigned from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences a week ago, has been banned from attending the Oscars or any other Academy event for ten years. The ban includes both in-person and virtual appearances. 

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will become Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson - a good week for her, and for the rest of us. All 50 Senate Democrats and three reasonable Republicans voted for her elevation to the Supreme Court. Jackson, speaking to a Rose Garden gathering, said in part

In my family, it took just one generation to go from segregation to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Sens. Tom Cotton, Lindsey Graham, and Rand Paul had a bad week. Paul, for not being on time to vote against Jackson; everyone had to wait a reported 25 minutes for him to drag himself to the cloakroom, open the door, and toss a thumb's down before slinking away. The cloakroom vote was necessary because he couldn't trouble himself to put on a tie. Neither could Graham, according to reports, although he was wearing on earlier in the day. As for Cotton, he suggested that Jackson might have defended Nazis at Nuremberg, a comment so nasty that even John Roberts of Fox News challenged it. Cotton's a jerk, with or without a tie. 

Tiger Woods is having a good week; he's playing competitive golf again. Against almost all odds, Woods made the cut in the Masters, a tournament he's won five times. A mere mortal might have been killed in a similar accident, or ended up losing their leg. But Tiger Woods is no mere mortal, is he? 

Russia had a bad week; the Senate voted unanimously to strip the most-favored-nation (MFN) trade status from the country, and to ban imports of Russian oil products. The House also passed both bills, although not unanimously. Voting against the MFN removal? Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, and Matt Gaetz. Let's give them a heartfelt bad week round of applause.

The jury in the trial of four men accused of plotting to kidnap and murder Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer had an interesting week, which caused a bad week for the government and a good week for the four defendants. Two were acquitted; the jury failed to reach a verdict on charges against the others. It sounds like the jury believed the defense theory that the FBI went off the rails on this one; or, maybe the defendants truly had a jury of their peers?

In another high-profile case, a Minneapolis police officer who killed Amir Locke in February won't face charges. Body cam video released this week shows Locke, who was not a subject of the no-knock warrant being executed at his cousin's apartment, holding his legal gun in a manner that led to the officer to shoot him three times, within ten seconds of entering the apartment. To me, this deserves a horrible week mention - there are no winners here, that I can see.

Let's end on a good week note, OK? How about dogs being reunited through pet DNA testing? A Texas woman had adopted one of the pups; an Oregon woman adopted the other. The women had the DNA tests don on their dog and a match was made. The women via social media, and a play date was arranged. There's video - and who doesn't like cute pet videos?

TGIF, everyone. 

Wondering on Wednesday 1/27/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Where to start the wondering tonight? 

Well, there's that happy little domestic terrorism bulletin today, from the Department of Homeland Security. 

The Acting Secretary of Homeland Security has issued a National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) Bulletin due to a heightened threat environment across the United States, which DHS believes will persist in the weeks following the successful Presidential Inauguration. Information suggests that some ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence.

Now, DHS goes on to say that a 'bulletin' only "describes current developments or general trends," so there's no new credible threat - but if anyone doesn't believe there is a general trend here,  I wonder where they've been for the past several months, or if they were paying attention today when one of the guys charged in the plot against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer turned on his co-conspirators and will testify against them.

Ty Garbin, 25, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to the kidnapping conspiracy, marking the first conviction in the bizarre case that made national headlines in October. Fourteen men were accused of plotting to kidnap Whitmer and discussing plans to attack the state Capitol building and a police facility, and possibly take out Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, too. Prosecutors allege the group, which included several militia group members, were frustrated over strict COVID-19 lockdown orders in Democrat-run states

I wonder how many more of these we'll learn about, through the investigations into the insurrection in DC?

And speaking of the insurrection, yesterday members of the Senate were sworn in to do "impartial justice" as jurors in the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. One of them, Kentucky's Sen. Rand Paul, led a failed procedural vote, which is alternately described as a vote to immediately debate the constitutionality of impeaching a president that's already out of office, or declaring that the impeachment is unconstitutional. Either way, 45 Republicans voted with Paul, who declared victory even though his vote failed.  

Also wonder-full was that Mitch McConnell voted with the other Rs on Paul's motion. And, of course, that McConnell was the one who set the schedule for the Senate that precluded them from doing anything with the impeachment until after President Biden's inauguration. I wonder how seriously he wants us to take him for his comments the day before the inauguration. Let's reminisce, shall we? 

The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the president and other powerful people. And they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like. But we pressed on.

"We pressed on." So, let's move on? I guess that what his vote means?

I wonder what House Minority leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy and the #IMPOTUS are going to chat about tomorrow at Mar-a-Lago? Trump is not a Bakersfield, CA resident and so is not one of McCarthy's constituents. And, of course, the former president is just a regular private citizen now, according to Republicans, so what's the need to go and hang with him? 

McCarthy made the news for something else, let's see.  Oh - I remember - an appearance on Fox News - shocking, I know - in which he said that Biden's first week in office (that would be three days, but who's counting) he had done more to benefit Russia and China than the United States. And that 'unity' is what the Rs are working on. Now, there's really nothing there to wonder about - he's being true to form, and Judge Jeannine is also being true to form. 

But the next day, also on Fox, we learn that Biden might be 'upsetting China.'

"Now by putting these more restrictive 'Buy American' policies in place, we are further exacerbating some of the trade problems that we've had," (Brandon Arnold) opined. "It's annoying people to the north, it's annoying other countries."

"We have to tread lightly here," ((host Ainsley) Earhardt agreed. "Because we want companies in America to do well but, also, we need [personal protective equipment] from other countries. Then we don't want to do anything to upset that relationship, maybe with China or someone else -- even though China is such a big threat."

I wonder which one of the shows I should believe? I'm so confused.

Sunday School 1/24/21

For your Sunday School today, I'm going to try and give you four classroom visits, starting with Dana Bash and her CNN State of the Union interview with That Guy from Vermont, Sen Bernie Sanders.  

On the mittens, TGFV is having a much fun as the rest of us are. He also said President Biden is off to a good start, but "what we have got to do is roll up our sleeves and fight for the agenda that working people throughout this country want." He also said they might have to use the 'reconciliation' process to pass the COVID package, and that they've "got to break through this old approach that the Senate takes years and years to do anything."

We have got a crisis right now. We can chew bubblegum and walk at the same time. The American people are hurting. And they want us to act... And we have got to reaffirm the faith of the American people... that we can respond to their pain.

Bash noted that he's criticized the Rs for using reconciliation in the past. 

... I criticized Republicans, yes, for using reconciliation to give tax breaks to billionaires, to create a situation where large profitable corporations now pay zero in federal income taxes... And if they want to criticize me for helping to feed children who are hungry or senior citizens in this country who are isolated and alone and don't have enough food, they can criticize me. 

Finally, Bash asked if the Dems will lose control in the midterms if they don't get stuff done. In a nutshell, he said yes, "that's what history shows us." 

... if we do not respond now, yes, I believe, two years from now, the Republicans will say, hey, you elected these guys, they did nothing, vote for us, and they will win.

Chris Wallace had Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) in the Fox News Sunday classroom; they started with impeachment, about which Rubio said "First, I think the trial is stupid."

Second, then I look back at the time, for example, Richard Nixon, who had clearly committed crimes and wrongdoing, and in hindsight I think we would all agree that President Ford's pardon was important for the country to be able to move forward and history held Richard Nixon quite accountable for what he did as a result. 

He noted that Trump "bears some responsibility for some of what happened," but the "stories are still being written." He just doesn't seem interested in helping write them. 

On whether the GOP is still Trump's party, Rubio mentioned the 50% of Trump supporters who felt like both parties had abandoned them. Hey, Hillary - there's finally an R who got your point! Rubio hopes the GOP can still be the party that "keeps the people who believe we're fighting for them" and can bring back people who couldn't stand Trump. Rubio thinks "that's the future of the Republican Party because, frankly, on that I think depends the future of the country." 

Down the hall in the Meet the Press classroom, Chuck Todd asked Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) how he defines President Biden's call for unity. Rounds said "it begins... by recognizing that there are different points of view about how we move forward with regard to the pandemic." He said everyone has the same goal on that, but "what's the right philosophy?" He said the second thing, when it comes to unity, is how they're going to move things in the Senate.

Are we prepared to actually take and to look at both sides and what's the best of both? Can we sit down and actually work together on issues? 

They've done it before, and maybe infrastructure would be a good thing to try doing it again,  "... find out whether or not we can actually come to a consensus that will last long-term."  I totally agree with him on that, even as I question his two different definitions of unity.  

Todd asked if Biden's 7-million vote margin gave him a mandate on the COVID bill. Rounds says the two sides are "not that far off," particularly on the vaccine stuff. The "real challenge" is if the Dems will give up some things, using the minimum wage increase as an example.

... if you're going to talk about an emergency operation, why would you then include and demand that that be a part of it? I think that's just looking for a way not to get some things done that might very well have to be in the next couple of weeks.

Rounds thinks whether Trump committed an impeachable offense or not is moot - he's no longer the president. He also said, "...for right now, I think there are other things that we'd rather be working on instead."

I know that the Biden administration would love to have more of their cabinet in place. There's a number of Republicans who also feel the same way. We should allow this president the opportunity to form his cabinet and to get that in place as quickly as possible.

Finally, Rounds thinks we need a bipartisan election investigation, noting "probably 50M Americans" have questions about it. Todd said that's because they were lied to, but Rounds said "if you allow for an investigation to actually look, you're going to find that the election was fair." We should show the American people, he said.

Let's point out that -- if there's misinformation out there, which I believe there was, then let's put that out and lay it out so the people can see it... Republicans and Democrats alike should support that... the best way to do it is to work our way through it and... show them publicly how well it was actually run.

Finally, there were fireworks in the This Week classroom. George Stephanopoulos asked Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) if he accepts that this election was not stolen. Paul didn't give a yes or no answer, instead saying "the debate over whether or not there was fraud should occur." And, then it all went downhill. George is normal font; Rand Paul is italic.

I have to stop you there. No election is perfect. But there were 86 challenges filed by President Trump and his allies in court, all were dismissed. Every state certified the results - Chris, not for - after an investigation - Not for - but - count (ph), after investigations - of evidence. They were dismissed - counts and recounts. - for (inaudible). The Department of Justice led by William Barr said there's no widespread evidence of fraud. Can’t you just say the words, this election - No. was not stolen? Well, what I would suggest is - what I would suggest is that if we want greater confidence in our elections, and 75% of Republicans agree with me, is that we do need to look at election integrity and we need to see if we can restore confidence in the elections. Well, 75% of Republicans agree with you because they were fed a big lie by President Trump and his supporters to say the election was stolen. Why can't you say - Well, I think - President Biden won a legitimate, fair election -- I think where you make a mistake in -- hey, George. George. George, where you make a mistake is that people coming from the liberal side like you, you immediately say everything's a lie instead of saying there are two sides to everything. Historically what would happen is if said that I thought that there was fraud, you would interview someone else who said there wasn’t. But now you insert yourself in the middle and say that the absolute -Well -fact is that everything that I’m saying is a lie. Well, because - (Inaudible) fact - Senator, I said what the president said was a lie because - we’re going to - Hold on a second. He said the election was stolen. This election was not stolen.

Paul said he was going to spend "the next two years going around state to state and fixing these problems" and that he "won't be cowed by liberals in the media who say, there's no evidence here and you're a liar if you talk about election fraud." Um, isn't he supposed to be spending the next two years working for the people of Kentucky? 

See you around campus. Wear your mask. Wash your hands. Keep your distance. Do your homework and stuff.

Highlights from the RNC: Day Two

Yep - I'm back, with a few brief  but carefully curated highlights (and commentary) from Day Two of the Republican Convention, starting with Kentucky's junior senator, Rand Paul.

Donald Trump and I met many years ago, before he was running for anything. When I first met him, I recall being struck by how down to earth he was. He seemed like just a normal guy. Okay, a normal guy with his own plane and helicopter, but who’s counting?  A few years later, we were opponents, both running for President. We all know how that turned out. ("The truth telling is bluster, the truth-telling is non-sequitur, self-aggrandizement, but is there really anything substantive coming out of saying that people are fat, people are stupid?"  "The question for conservatives is whether Donald Trump is a real conservative or not. I think he's a fake conservative." "While some people are excited by fat jokes and stupid jokes, there are a lot of people in the general election— independents as well as women voters — are not that entertained by this.What we'll end up with is a reality-TV star as a nominee if we're not careful." "If no one stands up to a bully, a bully will just keep doing what they're doing."  I do believe, Senator Paul, with your help, that's exactly what happened.)

Pam Bondi, Registered Foreign Lobbyist

As a career prosecutor and former Attorney General of Florida, I fought corruption, and I know what it looks like, whether it’s done by people wearing pinstripe suits or orange jumpsuits.  (But not orange hair? Remember when Bondi refused to investigate Trump University for fraud, when other state AGs were doing exactly that, after she received that $25,000 campaign contribution from Trump? Oh, wait - the contribution didn't come from Trump, it came from his charitable foundation - you know, making it illegal, leading to a fine? Yeah, that foundation, which he basically shut down after agreeing not to take any more contributions. And let's not forget the value of having a registered foreign lobbyist - a swamp-dwelling career, if there ever was one - speaking on behalf of the American president.)

Tiffany Trump.

As a recent graduate, I can relate to so many of you who might be looking for a job.(is she looking for a job, or is being a Trump enough of a career?)  People must recognize that our thoughts, our opinions, and even the choice of who we are voting for may, and are being manipulated and visibly coerced by the media and tech giants. If you tune into the media, you get one biased opinion or another, and what you share, if it does not fit into the narrative that they seek to promote, then it is either ignored or deemed a lie, regardless of the truth. This manipulation of what information we receive impedes our freedoms, rather than allowing Americans the right to form our own beliefs, this misinformation system keeps people mentally enslaved to the ideas they deem correct. (And yet, somehow, the freedom-impeded, manipulated-information recipient knew about #blackouttuesday and#justiceforgeorgefloyd, hashtags that were not likely to be used by any other Trump family members.) Oh - a few more things: my father my father my father my dad my father my father. 

Eric Trump. 

My father my father my father my father my father my father my father my father my father my father my father my father Dad I love you.

Mike Pompeo.

I’m speaking to you from beautiful Jerusalem, looking out over the old city. I have a big job. (“Senate-confirmed Presidential appointees may not even attend a political party convention or convention-related event.” “In my case, as a Senate confirmed Department official, I will be sitting on the sidelines of the political process this year, and will not be attending any political events, to include the national conventions.” “Presidential and political appointees ... are subject to significant restrictions on their political activity; they may not engage in any partisan political activity in concert with a partisan campaign, political party, or partisan political group, even on personal time and outside of the federal workplace.“ The secretary of State’s appearance at the Republican convention also comes as he faces an ongoing inspector general’s investigation into whether he and his wife, Susan, have improperly used State Department resources for personal purposes. Pompeo’s successful move to engineer the firing of State Department Inspector General Steve Linick amid this still-ongoing probe has led to more scrutiny about his role as secretary from Democratic lawmakers.)

Melania Trump. 

Like all of you, I have reflected on the racial unrest in our country. It is a harsh reality that we are not proud of parts of our history. I encourage people to focus on our future while still learning from our past. We must remember that today, we are all one community comprised of many races, religions and ethnicities. Our diverse and storied history is what makes our country strong, and yet we still have so much to learn from one another. (Now, if she can convince her husband about our diversity being a strength...)

Night three highlights coming your way tomorrow.

Wondering on Wednesday (v206)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

What's got me wondering tonight? Here's just a sampling.

Do you wonder if Rand Paul and Tucker Carlson got together and decided to tag-team Dr. Fauci, or was it an incredible coinkydink that they both hit out within such a short period of time? Honestly, at any moment I half expected either one of them to shout "You're not the boss of me!" in Fauci's direction, Carlson in particular. 

Now, I realize that things have changed over the course of the pandemic, and what's happening on the ground now is not the same was was happening on the ground back in January; heck, I'd have to wonder about anyone who didn't realize that. The data have changed, the projections have changed, the guidance - and guidelines - have changed, and they'll likely continue to do so. But for Carlson to say that Fauci stuff was 'buffoon-level' was, well, pretty ridiculous, even for someone on Fox. Can't wait to see how the rest of this plays out, and how the other 'buffoon-level' talking heads handle it. 

Speaking of Fox News, I see they've taken Tara Reade off their banner, after she was right there, front and center, for a long time. I wonder why they've moved on?  If you're wondering who or what replaced her, have no fear - I've got you covered.  Here's the old banner, and the new.

What else is going on? 

I wonder if the folks who have been so upset about criminals being released from prison because of the coronavirus  threat are upset about Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, and Michael Avenatti being released for that reason? And, if there is outrage, will those three get the same share of it? 

I listened to a little bit of the Supreme Court hearing on citizen Donald Trump's taxes. I was happy that there were no random toilet-flushing noises when I was listening - and I still wonder whether the flushing that was heard  during one of the earlier virtual sessions was Brett Kavanaugh 'breaking the seal," as it were. I did get to hear Clarence Thomas ask a question, too; I wonder if he likes the cases, or if he likes the format? Thomas, you may know, once went 10 years, three years, and one year without asking any questions from the bench. 

And now, let's close it out with some good news, shall we? Here are two wonderful stories for you.

• A while back - in March, actually - a Kansas farmer sent an N-95 mask to my Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo, with a note asking the gov to make sure the mask got to a doctor or nurse working to treat COVID-19 patients. Cuomo told the story at one of his daily press briefings. As often happens with stories like this, things snowballed, the farmer got some unwanted fame, and ended up having a dream of his lifetime come true. I won't spoil it for you, but it's a good one.   

• We've seen incredible pictures of how the environment is healing as people around the world shelter in place, factories stop kicking up tons of pollution, airlines limit flights, and so on. An Australian diving tour company, normally busy with tourists, has instead been busy planting coral on the Great Barrier Reef since their country shut down tourist activity. 

And let's wonder what else people will be inspired to do, to try, to give to others, as we continue down this crazy road. 

What are you wondering about?

Poll Watch: Ratings Through the Roof!

It seems it's been a while since we looked at any polling data, so I thought it was time to dive in again and share what other people are thinking.

For starters, let's look at a CNN poll from earlier this month. Here's the small print: The study was conducted for CNN via telephone by SSRS, an independent research company. Interviews were conducted from May 7-10, 2020 among a sample of 1,112 respondents. The landline total respondents were 435 and there were 677 cell phone respondents. The margin of sampling error for total respondents is +/- 3.7 at the 95% confidence level.

The survey tracks responses by gender (M/F only); race (white/non-white); age (18-34, 35-49, 50-64, 65+, under 45; 45 and up); college grad (Y/N), and whites by college grad or non-college grad. In addition, there're party affiliation breakdowns (Democrat, Independent/Other, and Republican); leaning Democrat or Republican; politics (liberal, moderate, or conservative); voter registration (Y/N), and sense of the outbreak (worst is behind us, or worst is yet to come).

We know much all politicians, but the president in particular, are driven by public opinion. I mean, who else will spend time while coping with a pandemic to talk about his Facebook ratings? I think he might not be quite happy with this survey, though.  Here are a few quick highlights:

• 45% of respondents approve of how the president's doing his job, while 51% disapprove, giving him a -6 net score. On the plus side? His approval has ticked up 1% since the April survey. Only four of the demographic cohorts show an approval rate of over 50%: non-college educated whites (57%), whites (53%), folks aged 35-49 (53%), and men (51%).
• However, only 42% approve of how he's handling the coronavirus outbreak, with 55% disapproving, for a -13 net score; the approval dropped 3% since last month. And only two cohorts, non-college educated whites (56%) and whites (51%) pass the 50% threshold here.
• And finally, he's way underwater, by -26, on whether people trust the information they get from him on the coronavirus outbreak: 62% do not trust what he says, compared to only 36% that do. 

Let's look a little deeper, starting with the 'trust' question. It's not like we don't trust anybody - although, you might think that looking at social media, where it often seems that no one trusts science, data, or facts. But, according to the survey, we do trust  what Dr. Anthony Fauci (+47), the CDC (+52), and even CNN (+15) tell us. However, as is the case with the president himself, folks don't trust Fox News (-23) when it comes to coronavirus information.

And of course, the folks at Fox News and in the GOP are ramping up their efforts to create doubt in the Fauci. trust metric. For example, yesterday during Fauci's remote appearance at a Senate hearing, Kentucky's Rand Paul said this.

As much as I respect you, Dr. Fauci, I don’t think you’re the end-all. I don’t think you’re the one person that gets to make a decision. We can listen to your advice, but there are people on the other side saying there’s not going to be a surge, that we can safely reopen the economy, and the facts will bear this out.

Fauci's response?

I have never made myself out to be the end-all and only voice in this. I’m a scientist, a physician and a public health official. I give advice according to the best scientific evidence.

And later, there was this, from Tucker Carlson, suggesting that some thought Fauci should be a dictator or something, and that he was a buffoon, and pointing out that he wasn't elected to anything. So, the one thing I can say for sure? The president has seen this survey, and has seen that he's 42 points underwater on trust compared to Fauci (62% don't trust vs 20%) - so now's a good time for the minions to attack.

One more note: demographically, Fauci kills it. Gender, age group, race, education level, income level, voter registration - he has a net positive in every single one of them. Not only that, but more than half of Republicans (61%), Independents (61%), conservatives (56%), people who think the worst is behind us (60%) and even those who think the worst is yet to come (74%) trust him.

What else does the survey show?

• Most people - 60% - don't personally know anyone who's been diagnosed with COVID-19, but the number who do is on the rise. In the survey taken April 3-7, only 22% knew someone who had been diagnosed; in the latest, it's up to 40%. 

• The percentage of folks thinking that the worst of this darn thing is behind us is moving in a positive direction. In April, only 17% thought that, while in the new survey, it's  up to 44%. But still, more than half - 52% - think the worst is yet to come. 

Respondents are not particularly happy with how the federal government is handling things.  

• In the April and May surveys, more than 50% of respondents said the feds are doing a poor job, and over the course of four surveys, the percentage of people who say a good job is being done hasn't reached 50%. 

• Most respondents are at least 'concerned' (with fewer 'afraid') about some specific issues related to the virus. Take a look.

• And, what do folks think about how the government is handling those issues? Not good, as you can see below. With one exception, more people than not think the feds aren't doing enough, and on three of the remaining four issues, more than 55% have that opinion. (Comically, it's pretty much a split decision on cleaning supplies...)

If you were the president, would you be thrilled with these numbers, or would you be trying to deflect, dissuade, and deny that any issues even exist? If you said the latter, you've hit the nail on the head.

You understand his crazy tweetstorms, and why he's talking about the Obama administration, and about the wall, and about nasty questions at press conferences, and about Mother's Day... anything to avoid addressing how unappreciated he and his team's efforts really are, at a time when all he really wants is to be appreciated.

I'll have some more polling data in the next couple of days. 

Wondering on Wednesday (v194)

Ready... Set... Wonder

The impeachment trial continues in earnest today, likely ending before 11PM if all goes well, compared to yesterday's day-into-night-into-morning marathon. Part of me wonders what more the House Managers and the Trump team could possibly say for up to 24 hours that they haven't already said - although, for the president's team, maybe they learned something yesterday and will be better prepared to actually offer a defense? I wonder...

I also wonder who was the rocket scientist who came up with the now-and-hopefully-forever rejected idea of doing any 'horsetrading' on witnesses for the trial. From this Bloomberg article, 

Some Republicans have suggested the could be open to calling witnesses such as acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former National Security Advisor John Bolton if Republicans are allowed to call Joe and Hunter Biden as well as the unidentified intelligence community whistleblower.

While Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said "that trade is not on the table," I honestly wonder why any Democrat would even consider going along with any request to allow people who are completely outside the actions taken by president Trump to testify, no matter what 'trade' they might get in return. 

First-term Indiana Republican Senator Mike Braun said that "the idea of witnesses will not get anywhere if it's not reciprocal" but there is no reciprocity when you're comparing Mulvaney and Bolton - people with direct knowledge of what was going on, according to all of the witnesses who testified in the House - to the Bidens, neither of whom 

• had any direct or indirect dealings with president Trump;
• had any direct or indirect dealings with President Zelensky;
• had any direct or indirect dealings with anyone in the current administration;
• had any direct or indirect involvement with the Ukrainian aid; or
• had any direct or indirect involvement with whatever drug deal Giuliani and Mulvaney were cooking up. 

As Joe Biden pointed out, the impeachment is a "constitutional issue. We're not going to turn it into a farce or political theater." Why is that so hard to understand, I wonder?

Moving on to something more entertaining, there's Kentucky's junior Senator Rand Paul, who said earlier today that there are 45 senators who are willing to dismiss the impeachment charges; the remaining senators are "wanting to hear a little more." this totally contradicts fellow Kentuckian Mitch McConnell, who said last week that there's "little or no sentiment" to dismiss without first hearing the presentations from the House managers. 

But it was his comments on the potential of John Bolton testifying.  Echoing comments from #IMPOTUS himself, Paul pointed to Bolton's tenure and tried to figure out what the right answer would be.

It's unknown. Some people who have talked to him think that he has an axe to grind, that he's angry he was publicly fired by the president. But he also has a history of believing in unlimited powers for the president. 

Which one is the guiding light for John Bolton at this point? Axe to grind and books to sell? Or, be a player and say, 'even if I'm gone, he's doing what I want on Iran and other things?'

Hey, Rand Paul, here's an idea: maybe Bolton is going to be a patriot,  and say, 'even if I'm gone, and even if Trump's doing what I want on Iran and other things, I don't care - and I'm going to do the right thing and tell the truth?'  

Wouldn't that be fun, I wonder? 

Sunday School 11/10/19

Looks like Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar was the only 2020 Dem presidential candidate making the rounds today. She's gotten plenty of Sunday School time recently, so I opted not to sit in with her and instead visit with some other folks in the classrooms.

Let's listen in as Chuck Todd talks with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and Connecticut's Rep. Jim Himes on Meet the Press.

First, the Senator Paul what-about, what-about segment. In response to a question on whether he's been reading the deposition transcripts, the senator said he's been reading reports but not the actual transcripts. He went on to sa (with my emphasis added)

But I guess my impression so far is, I think the American people want fairness. And I don't think they're going to judge fairness, when they're accusing President Trump of the same thing Joe Biden did, threatening the aid, if some kind of corruption's not investigated. And it seems like everybody, both parties, have been threatening aid, if some kind of investigation either doesn't happen or is ended. And so I think, really, what's going to happen is people are going to say, "Oh, they're impeaching President Trump for exactly the same thing that Joe Biden did."

He threatened the aid, if they didn't fire someone. And supposedly, the president did, if they didn't investigate someone. So it sounds exactly like what Joe Biden did. And if they weren't going to impeach Joe Biden, they look like, you know, hypocrites, in a way, for going only after President Trump and having not a word to say about what Joe Biden did.

Todd did not push back on the "Trump and Biden did the same thing" point, but he did try to pin the senator down on whether Trump should have done what's alleged, that he sought a quid pro quo from Ukraine. Paul's response, with some emphasis added:

I think there's a real question whether you think the president should specifically go after one person. But there's a real question whether Joe Biden should've gone after one prosecutor. It's exactly the same scenario. So I think there is a question --  There is a question about that. But if it were me, I wouldn't give them the aid, because we don't have the money. We have to actually borrow the money from China to send it to Ukraine. So I'm against the aid. And I think it's a mistake to do the aid. So I wouldn't have played any of these games. But I think the American people think it's unfair to treat Trump under one standard and Joe Biden under a different standard.

And so, Todd went back again, asking

But is that really -- I understand trying to go back. I go back to, do two wrongs make a right? I want to set that aside because I don't understand why that's always used as a deflection. Does that mean you think it's now okay for the president to act this way? It doesn't matter what we think of Joe Biden, at this point. If it's wrong for this to be done, then it's wrong period. No?

And here's how the senator responded.

Well, it kind of does, it kind of does. But I'll approach it from a different way. Fairness is one angle. And I don't think people are going to think this is fair. But I think the second angle is this. Foreign aid, by law, can only go out to countries that are not corrupt. So if you think that a country is acting in a corrupt way, a president can always withhold aid, until the corruption is fixed. So you're going to have to get into the mind of Trump and his advisers and say, "Well, he didn't really believe that the Bidens were corrupt." I think he absolutely does. I think you could give him a lie detector test and say, "Do you think the Bidens were corrupt? And do you think you were investigating corruption, and that corruption is in the law, that you can't give aid to a country that has corruption?" So there's no way. This ends up being a policy debate and a partisan debate. And it has nothing to do with legality or illegality or impeachment. It's purely a partisan way of trying to overturn the election.

So, fairness is the issue, except that it's not the issue,  it's getting into the head of the president, unless it's not that, it's a partisan attack on the results of the election. OK - fine -- let's go there, then, right Chuck Todd?

Negative on that; the next question had nothing to do with Paul's answer, it had everything to do with giving the president cover. That's right - the question was whether a distinction should be made between Trump asking for a quid pro quo and his administration asking for one. You know, Mulvaney maybe?

You know, I think we've gotten lost in this whole idea of quid pro quo. And I think Senator Kennedy kind of hit the nail on the head. It's that, if you're not allowed to give aid to people who are corrupt, there's always contingencies on aid. Even, even President Obama withheld aid. You know, he was supposed to give lethal aid. Congress said, "Give them $300 million in lethal aid." And he sent them blankets.

So presidents, since the beginning of time, have resisted Congress. And there's been this sort of back-and-forth jockeying over what is sent. But also, presidents have withheld aid before for corruption. So the thing is is I think it's a mistake to say, "Oh, he withheld aid, until he got what he wanted." Well, if it's corruption, and he believes there to be corruption, he has every right to withhold aid. So I think it's a big mistake for anybody to argue quid pro quo. He didn't have quid pro quo.

And then, knowing that he'll be a juror, should articles of impeachment come to the Senate, Paul offered the president a new defense.

And I know that's what the administration's arguing. I wouldn't make that argument. I would make the argument that every politician in Washington, other than me, virtually, is trying to manipulate Ukraine to their purposes. Menendez tried it. Murphy tried it. Biden tried it. Trump's tried it. They're all doing it. They are all trying to manipulate Ukraine to get some kind of investigation, either to end an investigation or start an investigation.

No follow-up on that, no probing on what Paul said, even the part about "every politician" trying to manipulate Ukraine, except Rand Paul. Nope; back to whether an average American should be concerned about the president asking a foreign country to investigate a political rival, and does Paul "understand why some people think...that that is, basically, abusing the office for political gain, to mess with the election?" More from the Senator, more emphasis from me.

I think you're right, Chuck. But I think an equal number of people are upset that Hillary Clinton hired a British spy to hire Russians to get dirt called the Steele Dossier. So here's Hillary Clinton, in the middle of a campaign, hiring a foreign spy agency or a foreign spy-

So, it's not about Joe Biden, now it's about Hillary Clinton? This time, Todd came back.

Alright, you did it again to me. You did it again. You went back and said, "Okay, there's behavior that's bad over here. There's behavior that's bad over there." All that does is condition us for more bad behavior. When do we put a stop to this?

Paul denied the 'what-aboutism, even though that's exactly what it was.

No, but what it says is — no, what I'm asking for is that they be treated equally. And I think the American public's going to say, "If you didn't do anything to Hillary Clinton for hiring a foreign spy, why is it, all of a sudden, wrong for President Trump --

Todd, interrupting: "So two wrongs make a right?"

And Paul:

--to have a country investigate somebody-- well, what I would say is that people want them to be treated fairly. I'm not saying, two wrongs make a right. I'm not even saying I would've done it that way. All I'm saying is, is that you're going to impeach President Trump, and you're going to give Hillary Clinton, you know, let her skate? So then I think people see that as unfair. And so it becomes partisan. That's why no Republicans voted for impeachment.

And, no follow up on that. Which one is it? Is it Biden? Clinton? The Elf on the Shelf?

Final question: Are you an open-minded juror? 

I'm very open minded and fair minded. You'll not meet a person who is more fair than I am. I really do believe that justice should be colorblind, gender blind, you name it. I think justice should. But you know, one of our traditions about justice, about finding justice, is a defense should be able to present their witnesses. So if you can't call Hunter Biden, and you can't call the whistleblower, that's not -- that’s sort of a sham. That's not even really a trial. So I am fair minded. But the trial has to be fair.

So now, we have to call two people, one who has never been involved with Trump in any way, and one with no first-hand knowledge of anything, according to Republicans?  My head spins - it Joe Biden literally spins.

But that's OK, because I'm going to share one bit of the interview Todd had with Rep. Himes, who addresses that point nicely.  Todd asked if there's going to be new information learned once the public hearings kick off on Wednesday.

Himes said there will be new info, and that he suspects "most of the public" hasn't read the transcripts that have been released.  And, he said, we'll hear from "immensely patriotic... articulate people" who'll tell us about a president who "extorted a vulnerable country." And then, he said this.

And Chuck, if you'll, if you’ll grant me one second here, my head is only now decombusting from the exchange you had with Rand Paul. I've spent 11 years in public service defending the press, and when Senator Rand Paul comes on and says that what Donald Trump did -- and the transcript is there -- extorting a foreign government for his personal political gain, and that's exactly the same thing as Joe Biden, "Exactly the same thing," is what he said, as Joe Biden saying that this prosecutor should be released. When Joe Biden is acting in consistency with American foreign policy and back then we had a whole list of things that had to be done and this was American foreign policy, it was European Union policy, it was IMF policy that this prosecutor needed to go.

When Rand Paul says that that's exactly the same thing as the president of the United States saying, "You need to find dirt on my political opponent," and with all due respect, Chuck, when you say, "Well, do two wrongs make a right?" Let's be very clear. The president of the United States demanding, extorting a vulnerable country to do his political bidding, to go after his opponent, has nothing to do with Joe Biden executing the foreign policy of the United States or Hillary Clinton, who is a private citizen, doing opposition research on her - on her presidential opponent. Those are radically different things. What the President did is wrong and impeachable.

See you around campus.  

TGIF 5/11/19

Friday again, already? Let's dive in to our good week/bad week review.

On the bad week side of the ledger, let's took at Rand Paul, the irony-blind junior senator from Kentucky, who's been known to have a battle or two with the Senate leadership, including the other senator from Kentucky, what's his name, the guy who's married to Trump's Transportation Secretary, Elaine Chao? Oh, Mitch McConnell, that's the guy.

The other day, Paul tweeted that his colleague, North Carolina's Richard Burr, must not have gotten the memo that the case is closed on the Mueller investigation per an edict from Mitch McConnell.  Does Paul wish that his colleagues would have sent him a reminder about what McConnell thinks is right? I suspect not, but you never know.

Burr, you see, as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, subpoenaed Donald Trump Jr. to come chat with the Committee. Lots of people are confident that Trump Jr. lied during his testimony to Congress, but you know how things go -- you don't question anything that a Trump does if you value your political future.

And while the Senate Majority Leader had not responded to requests for comment, that's not a problem because if you can't get the Majority Leader himself, you get the next best thing - no, not the Transportation Secretary, you get one of his donors. I kid you not.

But a top McConnell donor, who is also close with the Trump White House, told Breitbart News that McConnell must intervene to end Burr's decision to go rogue. 

"What Burr's doing isn't just a slap in the face to the President and his family, it's a slap in the face to Americans across the country," the top McConnell donor said. "It's incumbent that Leader McConnell steps up to the plate and strips Senator Burr's Chairmanship of the IntelCommittee. If he refuses to do that, then he shoulders just as much blame for this travesty of justice as the Senator from North Carolina. 

To which I say, as an American across the country, "hit me with your best shot" and "thank you sir, may I have another?" And I'll also add that, as McConnell is the least popular senator according to his constituents (34% positive/50% negative), he darn well better listen to whoever this top donor is if he wants to get re-elected, by golly.

Sunday School 10/21/18

Let's do a quick stroll through the classrooms.

First up: Kentucky's junior senator Rand Paul and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich talking with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.

Speaking on the credibility of the statement from the Saudi government that Washington Post writer Jamal Khashoggi was killed in a fistfight or some such nonsense, Paul said the statement was "absolutely" not credible, noting

I think it's insulting to anyone who's analyzing this with any kind of intelligent background to think that oh, a fistfight led to a dismemberment with a bone saw. So, no. 

He went on to suggest putting the attack on Khashoggi into context.

Saudi Arabia has basically over the decades been the largest state sponsor of radical Islam and violent jihad. They sponsor thousands of madrassas that teach hatred of Christians and Jews and Hindus around the world. So, this isn't the first instance. This is just another in the line of long instances of Saudi insults to the civilized world. 

And, in sharp contrast to the president,

I think we really need to discontinue our arms sales to Saudi Arabia and have a long and serious discussion about whether or not they want to be an ally or they want to be an enemy. 

Similarly, Gingrich did not mince words.

First of all, their explanation is insultingly stupid. I mean, the idea that this guy walked in the room with 15 security people, got in to a fight and was accidentally killed and they happened to have apparently an ability to dismember hm and get rid of him... This is just stupid.

Next up, Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate Minority Whip,North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis and former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd.

As did Wallace, Todd asked if there was anything credible in the Saudi's story. Durbin was clear no the lack of credibility, and our next steps:

No, and as a matter of fact, the only person on earth outside of the Saudi Kingdom who appears to accept it is president Donald Trump. Here's what we ought to do, and we ought to do it tomorrow morning. We ought to expel - formally expel the Saudi ambassador from the United States until there is a completion of a third party investigation into this kidnap, murder and God knows what followed that occur ed in Istanbul. We should call on our allies to do the same. 

Tillis was also asked the question.

No, not at this point. I agree with everything Dick Durbin just said. We've, we've got to get to the bottom of it. In Saudi Arabia, you do not do something of this magnitude without having clearance from the top. We need to find out who that is and hold him accountable. 

Todd asked whether or not the US could have a positive relationship with the Saudis if the crown prince was still in the picture.

No, I don't think so.  I think, again, if the facts lead to what we all suspect they will, I think it'll be very problematic for our relationship going forward.

In the interview with Scaramucci, Todd asked how Dems should go after Trump when he insults them. After professing to not want to offer the opposition any information, due to his love for the president, The Mooch opened up a little:

...I think the big mistake they're all making is they go right into the Trump insect Twitter light. And so the minute he shoots at them, they cannot help themselves. And they drive themselves right into that light. And then they get vaporized by him...

The answer, he tells us? Read his book.

And so the incident with Senator Warren, she should really read my book, so she can understand how the president, you have to think about the miracle of what he did. He hijacked the Republican Party to get their nomination. And then he hijacked the base of the other party and moved it over to the Republican party. And I try to write about that in the book. Because I have experience, as a kid that grew up in a blue-collar neighborhood with a blue-collar family. And I think I've seen the whole bandwidth of this sort of stuff. 

Oh wait - that's not really his recommendation, after all.

But my recommendation to people is don't engage him in that area because you're going to lose.

And on that happy note, we'll call it a day. 

See you around campus.

TGIF 8/10/18

How was your week, pretty calm?

I think some folks might have wished that were the case.  Take Omarosa. You remember her, right? The thrice-fired Apprentice, who was also fired by the Trump Administration and was booted from Big Brother, another pseudo-reality TV show, is making the media rounds in advance of her latest book, Unhinged: An Insider Account of the Trump White House.

Why is she having a bad week? Well, for starters, her interviews appear to contradict her book - which is a no-no in the business - and do so on her big bombshell, that there are tapes of then Celebrity Blowhard Donald Trump using the n-word.  And she may have heard the tapes, even though she was only told that he used the n-word, she never heard him actually say it. Or, maybe she did or didn't hear anything at all, who knows.

Actually, what might be more damaging than her missteps on the book tour are the authors she's lumped with in the "people who bought this book also bought" list. Omarosa is in fine company (um, yeah, that's what it is) - see for yourself:

• Jeanine Pirro: Liars, Leakers and Liberals, The Case Against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy
• Gregg Jarrett: The Russia Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump
• Newt Gingrich: Trump's America, The Truth about Our Nation's Greatest Comeback
• Jerome B. Corsi: Killing the Deep State, The Fight to Save president Trump

Whether she's telling the truth either in the interviews or in the book, and even if she's bunched in with an "interesting" group of authors, she still probably had a better week than this guy, Buffalo-area Republican Congressman Chris Collins. 

Collins, you have likely heard, has been charged with insider trading; the charges stem from him being on the board of an Australian pharma company, and him allegedly using information he learned about the failure of one of the company's drugs, which he then allegedly shared with his son (perhaps as he attended a White House gathering, if the timeline is correct), and his son allegedly shared the information with his soon-to-be father-in-law. Collins son and his FIL sold shares of stock in advance of the public announcement of the bad news, and that is bad news for the Congressman. 

Everyone's pleaded not guilty, and Collins plans on staying on the ballot, at least he does for now. This whole thing would be much less interesting, and we'd be hearing much less about it, if Collins hadn't been the first member of Congress to jump on the Trump bandwagon. And it would be much less interesting if, around the time he allegedly called his son to warn him, there was some way he could have protected his daughter, too - because, according to this report, she allegedly lost over a million bucks on her shares in the pharma company.

And speaking of alleged things, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) went to Russia; he had a letter with him that he passed to Putin's people. According to Paul, the letter was from the Trump Administration and contained stuff about important things; in fact, Paul suggested that Trump send the letter. Except that the White House is saying the letter was meant to introduce Paul to Putin, and that's why the Senator wanted the letter. And the contents? Those were Rand Paul's topics of interest, not the presidents. After all, he's allegedly been talking to Putin regularly since the #HELLinHELSINKI2018 summit last month.

Finally, an update on this week's Wondering on Wednesday post, which included a reference to Kris Kobach, the Trump-loving election fraud conspiracy theorist and Kansas Secretary of State who's locked in a tight gubernatorial primary race with the state's current Governor. Kobach had said that he would not recuse himself, should a recount be requested. Kobach has changed his mind since Wednesday, as his already thin lead was cut in half and concerns about discrepancies and about Kobach's guidance to county election officials has been called into question. He has transferred his oversight activities to his top aide. 

TGIF, everyone. 

Sunday School 7/15/18

I spent some time with #FakeNews, as the president calls CNN, today. On the network's State of the Union show, Jake Tapper entertained Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, one of about a dozen or so senators that regularly make the Sunday morning rounds.

First, Tapper asked Paul how much he wanted Trump to hold Putin accountable for Putin's intelligence officers running the hacks on Hillary Clinton and the DNC.

I think we really mistake out response if we think it's about accountability from the Russians. They are another country. They're going to spy on us - they do spy on us. There are going to interfere in our elections. We also do the same. Doug Levin at Carnegie Mellon studied this over about a 50-year period in the last century and found 81 times that the US interfered in other countries' elections. So we all do it.

What we need to do is make sure our electoral process is protected. And I think because this has gotten partisan and it's all about partisan politics, we've forgotten that really the most important thing is the integrity of our elections...

He went on to name some: decentralization, some kind of back-up process that can be used to verify the reported results with the precinct reporting, and then went back to Russia.

Can we restrict the Russians? We might be able to in some ways but I think the bottom line, we wanted the Russians to admit it. They are not going to admit it, the same way we're not going to admit that we were involved in the Ukrainian elections,  or in the Russian elections...

He denied that what we do is morally equivalent to what they do, but we need to understand the Russians would perceive it to be.

I do think they react to our interference in both their elections. They were very -- one of the reasons they really didn't like Hillary Clinton is they found her responsible for some of the activity by the US in their elections under the Obama administration. So I'm not saying it's morally equivalent, I'm not saying it's justified... I'm not saying they're equivalent or morally equivalent but I am saying that this is the way the Russians respond. So if you want to know how we have better diplomacy or better reactions, we have to know their response.

There's more to the 'nationalism' that we're seeing in Russia, according to Paul. We and NATO have crept beyond our promised 'no further' line; we want Ukraine and Georgia to be in NATO, and all of that means they have to have an action as a reaction to our action. Got it?

Moving on to the Mueller investigation, Paul was a good soldier and used the president's chosen terminology.

We have to assume and if we have proof that they did it, which it sounds like we did, we should now spend our time protecting ourselves instead of sort of having this witch hunt on the president. If the president was involved by all means put the information forward. There's no evidence so far of the president's involvement in all of this. So I think we need to be done with this so we can start actually protecting our elections from foreign countries.

So, the Mueller investigation is preventing not only Congress but also the 50 states and the 3,007 counties and even more thousands of smaller election jurisdictions from doing anything to protect the integrity of our electoral process?  What a load of hooey! Heck, we know the Rs are working furiously across the country to restrict voting by minorities and Democrats (one and the same, if you ask the ringleaders), and we had the ill-fated voter fraud commission and everything - so apparently it IS possible to accomplish something even while Mueller does his thing...

But,while Paul does favor indicting the intelligence officers, even if he can't stand special counsels in general, he doesn't look so kindly on NATO.

Tapper asked him about his 'no' vote on a non-binding motion expressing support for the organization and for reaffirming our commitment to it. Tapper asked him directly if he supports NATO.

I think it's sort of chicken and the egg. Which happens first -- either NATO's expansion or Russia pushing back, or vice-versa.I will say that when you look at NATO, what I vote against was an ironclad commitment to defend any nation in NATO and they also said that they want an open door policy to NATO to admit any aspirant. So I think that is very foolhardy to say we're going to defend any country in the world that wants to be in NATO and we're inviting any country that meets the requirements to come into NATO.

That's a recipe for disaster and no thinking foreign policy expert would have voted for this if they realized that we're having an open-ended commitment to whoever wants to join NATO and it's an ironclad commitment.  I think it dilutes the value of NATO...

And while the president is calling for increased in defense spending by all NATO countries in advance of their agreed-upon time table, Paul give us a different take.

But the interesting thing now is that European forces are 13 times bigger than Russian forces. European plus US forces are probably 30 times bigger than Russian forces. So right now there's a disproportionate advantage to the West with NATO... So people need to think through these things before they get so eager to rattle their sabers, about, you know, wanting to have a confrontation with Russia. We spent 70 years trying not to have a confrontation.

Tapper had to respond to all of this.

I just think there are a lot of people out there who would be surprised to hear a sitting United States senator describe Russia vs. NATO in terms of confrontation and expansion as a chicken or egg proposition given that NATO protects sovereign countries while allowing them to remain sovereign, while Russia invades other countries and takes over those countries...

And that is not #fakenews.

See you around campus.