Wondering on Wednesday 1/11/23

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

I'm wondering today, on a couple of fronts, about Rep. George Santos (Fables 'R' Us). 

On the one hand, the Nassau County Republicans are not pulling any punches in their criticism of him. Calling him "a joke, a disgrace, abnormal and a pathological liar," the GOP officials 

said the newly elected congressman needed to immediately resign, saying he ran a campaign of “deceit and lies.”

And while Santos threw a defiant "na-na-na-boo-boo" to the party bosses back home, he seems to be quite comfortable with the party bosses in DC. According to Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA), Santos "addressed some of the concerns that we've had." Does anyone wonder if that went any further than "do you solemnly swear to go along with us, so help you whoever you believe in?" 

Santos-endorser Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Humiliationville), whose top aide was impersonated by a Santos campaign worker, doesn't appear to have concerns about him sitting in the House chamber, but committees are another issue. 

...McCarthy said Wednesday that embattled freshman GOP Rep. George Santos, who is facing growing calls to resign after admitting to fabricating much of his personal biography, should not be seated on any top committees.

Why, you might be wondering? Well, some think Santos is a national security risk, mostly because of his shady finances. There's chance he might not get any committee assignments; if that's the case, there will be no wondering needed as to why they're keeping him around: 218 votes are way more better than 217. 

Now, I can't help wondering if the reason he's adamant about not resigning is that he feels a responsibility to his former co-workers at Goldman Sachs who may be laid off? The company's letting as many as 3200 people go.

The cuts, totaling about 6.5 percent of Goldman’s workforce, stem from a restructuring plan the investment bank announced in October and the reintroduction of a ritual year-end culling of underperformers that was suspended amid the pandemic, the person said.

I wonder how many of them Santos could help develop kick-ass resumes, find great jobs, start their own companies, or even - dare I say it - run for office? 

I'm investigating wondering if it would be worth wondering if the new House Committee on Investigating the Investigating Bastages that are Investigating Members of the Committee on Investigating the Investigating Bastages that are Investigating Members of the Committee on Investigating the Investigating Bastages that are Investigating Members of the Committee on Investigating - oh, never mind... 

If you're wondering whether the Biden document thing (and the late-breaking new Biden document thing) is the same as the Trump document thing, I'm comfortable saying that the issue - classified documents not being turned over to the National Archives as required - appears to be the same, but much of the rest of it doesn't.  And unless and until we have evidence of Biden 

• ripping up documents and trying to flush them down the toilet, 
• or burning them in the fireplace, 
• or eating them with ketchup, 
• or declassifying them by thinking about them, 
• and ignoring a months-long effort to get documents turned over before he left the VP's office, 
• and saying repeatedly that he had turned all of the documents he had over already, dammit, leave me the hell alone, 
• and after documents were found he argued about giving them back, 
• and that he had his lawyers attest that all the classified documents had been turned over,
• and that the National Archives identified that documents were still missing, 
• and asked to come and get them and he let them into his house but still didn't turn everything over, 
• and that he ignored a subpoena requiring him to turn them over, 
• and then his office was raided, 
• and we still don't know if everything was turned over,  
• and then he buried a relative on the front lawn at his summer home
• and then he claimed attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, and locker room privilege over the documents, 
• and demanded a special master be appointed to review the documents, 
• and had a court limit the review by the special master, 
• and had a court throw out the special master, 
• and then, hoping to forestall any further investigation, he declared himself a candidate for president conveniently just before a special prosecutor was appointed, then nope, it's not the same.

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

Wondering on Wednesday 8/24/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Where do we start tonight's wondering? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's on your wondering minds?

Wondering on Wednesday 6/8/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Today was the day that the House Oversight Committee welcomed testimony on guns and mass shootings and murdered children, and kinda sorta welcomed alternative voices, too. 

It was also the day that a California man was apprehended near Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house. Allegedly the man wanted to kill Kavanaugh, was upset about the leak of the Alito draft overturning Roe, and concerned that the Court would loosen gun laws.

In response, the Senate's Grim Reaper, Mitch McConnell (R-Someplace Dark and Cold in Kentucky) declared that the House must pass the Supreme Court Security Bill, because the justices need protection now!

House Democrats have spent weeks blocking the measure that passed here unanimously related to security for Supreme Court justices. That needs to change, and it needs to change right now… No more fiddling around with this… They need to stop their multi-week blockade against the Supreme court security bill and pass it before the sun sets today.

The guy was arrested, his weapons confiscated, and no one was hurt. And so, I find myself wondering why we need more laws, when we can just enforce the laws we have? 

If that's the answer whenever we talk about trying to make changes to gun laws to protect innocent children, concert-goers, grocery shoppers, prayer groups, church attendees, movie watchers, doctors and nurses and other health care professionals, and more, why isn't that the answer for SCOTUS justices?  

And then, there are all those bills that have gone to die in the Senate under McConnell's "leadership." I wonder, how many Americans could have been helped by those, and why they collectively matter so much less than Kavanaugh?

Sunday School 10/10/21

Right up front, I apologize for not getting your Sunday School posted timely. There was a baseball game, you know, and it took 13 innings for the Good Guys to put away the bad guys, after all. 

That said, let's head right and visit the Fox News Sunday classroom where Chris Wallace attempted to get House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-n't You Glad I'm Still Here -LA) to answer questions. 

For example, Wallace asked him if blocking President Biden's agenda was more important than helping the people of his state - there's $6B for infrastructure in it for them.  

Look, we put together over $450 billion in infrastructure, with roads, ports, waterways, all the things you're talking about. That's not where they want to go. And, oh, by the way, in this package, they have language that tells the Corps of Engineers they can't do projects if it benefits the oil and gas industry. 

That seems to be the opposite of what the bill does, according to Reuters, but I digress. Whatever language Scalise says is in the bill, yes, blocking the Biden agenda is more important than $6B in aid for his constituents. 

The last question? "Do you think the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump?" It came with a follow-up concerning states that are continuing to make that claim: "Do you think that hurts, undermines American democracy?" The answer to those questions was not forthcoming. Oh, sure, he talked about states that "didn't follow their state-passed laws that govern" presidential elections, and "that is what the United States Constitution says," but there was no answer to the simple question at hand. And Wallace tried a couple more times, to no avail.

And after all of that, Wallace closed the interview with a pile of fluff (with some emphasis on top).

Always good to talk with you, and I appreciate the way you step up and answer questions and the way you choose to. Thank you, sir. 

Good grief. 

Moving down the hall to the This Week classroom, George Stephanopoulos talked with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellin. He started the conversation on the debt ceiling, and quoted part of the Grim Reaper's message to Biden:

I will not be a party to any future effort to mitigate the consequences of Democratic mismanagement. Your lieutenants on Capitol Hill now have the time they claimed they lacked to address the debt ceiling through stand-alone reconciliation and all the tools to do it." What are the consequences if he keeps his word?

Yellen stated the obvious: it's necessary that we pay the debts we have run up; it would be disastrous - at home and abroad - if we defaulted; our credit rating would tank; US treasuries are "the world's safest possible asset" and that'd be at risk; there'd likely be a recession and/or a financial crisis.  

That said, George wondered if she'd convinced Biden yet that we should eliminate the debt ceiling, something she personally supports, but "it's really up to Congress and the administration" t0 pay the bills that come from their spending and tax plans. 

And that means we have had deficits for most of the post-war period. And that means raising the debt ceiling. It is a housekeeping chore. There is really -- we should be debating the government's fiscal policy when we decide on those expenditures and taxes...  not when the credit card bill from -- comes due.

They also talked about the 'trillion-dollar coin' which Yellen thinks is a gimmick that "jeopardizes the independence of the Federal Reserve." 

You would be asking to essentially print money to cover the deficit. This is a responsibility. It’s a shared bipartisan responsibility. It’s been raised almost 70 times since 1965, almost always on a bipartisan basis. And no one party is responsible for the need to do this. I believe it should be a shared responsibility, not the responsibility of any one party.

George asked about invoking the 14th Amendment, which states "the validity of the public debt of the United States should not be questioned." Again, Yellen pointed to the Congressional responsibility to pay the bills.

We shouldn't be in a position where we need to consider whether or not the 14th Amendment applies. That's a disastrous situation that the country shouldn't be in. I wouldn't want to see the president or myself faced with the decision about what to do if Congress refuses to let us pay the government's bills. You know what should you pay first? That's not a -- we have to reassure the world that the United States is fiscally responsible, and that they can count on us to pay our bills. And that's Congress' job to do that on a bipartisan basis.

George pushed, suggesting we'll be in the same place in December, and wonders if the 14th should be on the table. Yellen said she can't imagine we'll be at that point, and that she's got confidence in Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer, that they'll "be able to manage this so that we don't face this situation."

It would be completely irresponsible and a self-inflicted wound that would affect businesses and households and the global economy and the status of the U.S. in the world. We shouldn't ever be in that position.

Damn straight, Skippy. 

Good for her for pinning the tail on the donkey - and the elephant. If only the talking heads would focus on that, and the failure of both parties, rather than on their sound-bite generating grandstanding...

See you around campus, if you're vaccinated.

Sunday School 2/21/21

Welcome to Sunday School, where getting kids back in school is just one of the topics we'll be covering.

First up? Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers; she spoke with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press. Weingarten said it's a "myth" that her union doesn't want to be back in school. "Teachers know that in-person education is really important, "she said. The new CDC guidelines, and the money for schools in the Biden COVID package, provide the roadmap,

... the layered mitigation strategies; the testing, so that you can actually see asymptomatic spread; and vaccine prioritization -- not that every single teacher has to be vaccinated before you open any schools, but you should align the vaccine prioritization with the reopening of schools.

She said 85% of her membership "have said that they would be comfortable being in school," with the right protocols in place. It's happening in different places around the country, and

... I think the issue is, if the NFL could figure out how to do this, in terms of testing and the protocols, if schools are that important, let's do it. And my members want it, they just want to be safe.

Weingarten said that unions aren't monoliths, and the locals asking for more than the national is just "...that people are scared." She said they've learned that when teachers are in school with proper protocols in place, they've got greater trust. At the same time, 71% of AFT members are scared they'll bring COVID home to their families. The AFT's been hosting town halls and trying to build trust with their member.

Todd's final question was whether we'd have full reopening without full vaccination. Weingarten said the answer really is in how "full school opening" is defined. In the end, she said, 

What I think we need to do is we need to actually try to get as much in-person as possible right now. Have the mitigation strategies... have a real great summer semester to get kids' mojo back in a voluntary way, and then really be planning for next year.

I think the "really be planning for next year" needs to start now, doesn't it? 

Now, let's check in with the #2 GOP leader, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), who joined Jon Karl in the This Week classroom. Regarding kids in schools, Scalise said that President Biden can "give strong guidance and follow the science." Kids should be the priority, he said, but "that's not the case because right now you can see, as the unions have stepped up and said that they don't want in-classroom learning." 

Our kids can't wait. They need to be in the classroom today. The science says they can be in the classroom today. The question is, is the will there for some politicians in Washington who are bowing to the teachers' unions right now? 

Scalise's main issue is not requiring that schools taking money reopen. That, and there's "over a trillion dollars of money unspent" from previous bipartisan relief bills, Scalise added, and spending more money to "bail out failed states, to raise the minimum wage" doesn't have anything to do with COVID. Besides, it takes money away from our kids.

And his visit with Trump? Scalise said he was "in Florida doing some fund-raising throughout a number of parts of Florida, ended up at Mar-a-Lago, and the president reached out, and we visited." Which sounds like what GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy said about his visit with Trump last month...

Three times, Karl asked about Trump taking responsibility; Scalise never mentioned Trump, instead blaming the people who stormed the Capitol, Senators using 'fighting words,' and Dems who didn't denounce "during the summer, when they were burning down cities, shooting cops, beating people in the streets..." Who "they" are, he didn't say. In the end he landed nowhere near Trump.

... we -- you can rehash the election from 2020 all day long, but there are people concerned about what the next election is going to look like. Are we going to finally get back to the way the rule of law works? And I think that's the biggest frustration many people have, is those states that didn't follow the law, are they going to keep doing that in the future, or are we going to finally get back to what the Constitution calls out for electing our leaders?

I'd like to hear his definition of 'leaders' because if he and McCarthy meet the definition, whatever the processes are, they've failed.

Finally, we're in the State of the Union classroom with Dana Bash and Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who chairs the House progressive caucus. The first topic was the $15 minimum wage, and whether Biden was "fighting hard enough" to get it done as part of the COVID relief package.

Jayapal said Biden's been fairly consistent in supporting it, while acknowledging it might run into trouble in the Senate. But, she said, it

would mean 30 million Americans would get a raise. A million Americans would come out of poverty, and 30 percent of those minimum wage workers are black; 25 percent are Latinx. It is absolutely essential that we do it. And I believe the Senate will do it.

Jayapal said  that if "Republicans could give a $2 trillion tax break to the wealthiest people and stop Arctic drilling, then -- or continue drilling in the Arctic, then I think that Democrats can make sure that 30 million Americans get a raise."

Even in the face of two Senate Dems, Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AC) opposed to it, Jayapal pointed to what happened in her own state, in Seattle.

It is good for communities. It's good for businesses. I know because we were the first major city in Seattle to raise the minimum wage to $15 over a period of years. And, in 2018 and 2019, "Forbes" ranked us the best place in the country for businesses and for careers. We had one of the lowest unemployment numbers in the country.

She thinks the increase will be in the relief package. On direct stimulus payments, she said it "doesn't make any political sense to her" for Biden to give them to fewer people than Trump did, so there's no reason to change who gets them.

On student loan forgiveness, while Biden says it should only be $10K, she said progressives say it should be at least $50K.

...if you cancel that debt, you give a lifeline to millions of people across this country. So, let's work on it together. Obviously, if Congress could do it, that's great. But we believe that the president has the authority to do it. And we have been in conversation with the White House about it...

And, whether Biden is "living up to his promise to be the most progressive president," Jayapal said he came out of the gates strong, and

I think what we need to do is finish strong all the promises that have been made during the campaign to deliver relief to people, to make sure people understand what happens when Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the White House, is, we deliver relief. 

As I said the other day, it's going to take a lot of fortitude on Biden's part to not be dragged away from what he believes in, and what lots of us who voted for him believe in, too.

See you around campus. You better be wearing a mask.

In Case You Missed It (v65)

Here's your recap of last week's posts, in case you missed anything.

For Sunday School, I did my brain a favor and only visited the CNN State of the Union classroom. Jake Tapper had Bill Gates as one of his guests. You know -- Bill Gates the guy who invented the coronavirus with Dr. Fauci so they can make money off the vaccine they're developing, which will have a microchip implanted in your arm so they can track you?  Yeah, no -- not that Bill Gates, the Bill Gates who has devoted many of his billions of dollars to improving public health around the world through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Here's a portion of their discussion.

And, Tapper wondered, what does Gates think about Trump's Executive Order on prioritizing Americans getting the vaccine over folks in other countries?

Well, I think we need to help all of humanity here. You know, we want the world economy be going. We want to minimize the deaths. And, you know, the basic technology is a German company. And so blocking international sharing and cooperation has been disruptive and a mistake during this entire pandemic. So, we need to ramp up the capacity of all the vaccines. There will be some additional ones approved in the months ahead that are easier to scale up the manufacturing. But the U.S. has benefited from other countries' work here, and we shouldn't be entirely selfish in how we go forward.

And, when Tapper asked, "So, in your view, America first, as the president might call it, not the right approach?"

Well, the extreme idea that everybody should die until we have the very last American vaccinated, that's hardly the appropriate response.

For your Extra Credit last week, I dropped in on Chris Wallace and Rep. Steve Scalise (WH via LA), a member of the (ahem) GOP House leadership, in the Fox News Sunday classroom. For this one, I suggested questions I would have asked Scalise; they were not the same as the ones Wallace asked, I can assure you.  For example, Scalise babbled about massive vote swings "in the days and weeks since the election" which is a bunch of hogwash.

At this point, I would have asked Rep. Scalise to name a single state that had a "massive vote swing" in the 'weeks' since the election. Wallace didn't ask that, but he did push back.

But -- but -- but -- but -- but -- but, Congressman Scalise -- Congressman Scalise -- There -- the reason that there were these votes swings was because in a lot of states they weren't able to count the millions of mail-in ballots until election night. And everybody knew that -- and, in fact, it happened in Florida, it went the other way. They were able to count the mail-in ballots early, so it favored Biden early and then it swung to Trump. In Pennsylvania, they had to count the mail-in ballots late, so it started pro-Trump and then it swung to Biden.

Now, that's an opportunity for Scalise to take a deep breath, grab himself by the whatever, and admit that Wallace was right - that yes, everyone knew that the absentee ballots were going to go for Biden and that Election Day voting would favor Trump. Did he do that? Of course he didn't. 

Well, Chris, first of all, look at New York, right? The Claudia Tenney race in New York. She's up by 12 votes. Just the other day they found 55 votes in a desk drawer. You know, this kind of stuff – people look at this and go, what is going on? This is the United States of America, it's not Venezuela. That's what gets people irate. You know, why is this still going on?

"Well, Steve, " I would have said, "what on earth does New York's 22nd Congressional District race have to do with the presidential race, the Electoral College, or the ongoing assault on our country by the Republicans? That's what gets people irate. You know, why is this still going on?" 

I also offered up a Sidebar for Sunday School, which included in full Jake Tapper's closing remarks. Other than Tapper's show, I don't watch CNN. I honestly think only right-wingers watch it, since they seem to know every word uttered - other than Tapper's. It's too bad; they're missing out.  Here's a bit of why Tapper is thanking the outgoing president.

But president Trump made House Republicans go on the record. He made them stand and be counted and 126 of them, including Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy and Republican Whip Steve Scalise, they actually signed their names to this, this unconservative, un-Democratic, un-American mendacious joke of a lawsuit that would disenfranchise millions of their fellow Americans. (I expect very little from most of the Rs; my expectations are usually met, or, as in this case, exceeded - that congressional leaders would find a way to justify this is appalling.)

These House Republicans raised their hands. They said sign me up. The hope that most Republicans in the House were better than this - that has been destroyed. For those of us who believe in standards and norms and the US Constitution, we need to thank President Trump for bringing this fact to light.

After the Electoral College voted last Monday to confirm the Biden-Harris win, the President-elect spoke to the country; here's a bit of that. 

You know, respecting the will of the people is at the heart of our democracy, even we find those results hard to accept. But that's the obligation of those who've taken on a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. Four years ago, when I was the sitting Vice President of the United States, it was my responsibility to announce the tally of the Electoral College votes to the joint session of Congress, had voted to elect Donald Trump. I did my job. And I'm pleased but not surprised by the number of my former colleagues in the Senate who have acknowledged already the results of the Electoral College. I thank them. And I'm convinced we can work together for the good of the nation on many subjects. That's the duty owed to the people, to our Constitution, to our history. 

Last week's Wondering on Wednesday meandered around election-related stuff, and included some polling data from Rasmussen Reports; they're pretty reliable and generally well-liked on the right because they have a slight slant in the red direction. Their polls include likely voters only, rather than just anyone who answers the phone. 

That's why I thought this data is interesting in helping the president understand why he lost the election.  

The president has had only six days with a positive approval rating in the past three months: September 20th (+4), November 9th-12th (+1, +3, +4, +2) and November 17th (+2).  This year, the president's total approval rating has at least 50% only 51 days, and it was never more than 53%.  

On Election Day? 49% total approval, 50% total disapproval, and a -4 difference between his strongly approve and strongly disapprove scores (39% and 43%, respectively). So, as he continues to wonder why he didn't win the election, he can go to Rasmussen and look at the entire year of proof: we don't love him as much as he has convinced himself we love him.

Finally, closing out the week with your TGIF, I offered an incomplete list of things we're thankful for at our house this holiday season like none other. 

We're thankful for our local leaders, who have done everything they can to maintain public health and promote local businesses, who have let data dictate their decisions, who have asked us to do what's right, who have been open with us, who have cried alongside us when community members, our neighbors, were lost.

Today is the last day of Hanukkah; it's a week before Christmas; 8 days until Kwanzaa; five days before Festivus. 

However you celebrate, whatever you celebrate, whenever you celebrate, and even if you don't, warm wishes to you and yours. 

I'll be back later with your Sunday School. 

Sunday School 12/13/20: Extra Credit

For your Extra Credit this week, let's see if we can ask better questions than Chris Wallace did in his Fox News Sunday interview with House Minority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise, who represents the good people of Louisiana. 

Wallace started the interview asking, after the Electoral College votes for the Biden-Harris ticket, "will you stop contesting this election?" Here's Scalise doing his best to not answer.

Well, Chris, look, there has been a lot of contesting of the election in multiple states. The president's done it, other groups have done it too, and that's because of the concerns people had. When you look at massive vote swings days and weeks after the election, millions of people feel very frustrated with this process. And, look, there -- there's going to ultimately be a conclusion to this, but for now I think, if you just discount the fact that millions of people wonder, why is it that in some states Florida, Texas, large states, they had the results by 10:00 that night and then in other states it was days and weeks. And during those days and weeks you saw massive vote swings that just seed a lot of distrust. That's got to get resolved. We've got to start getting back to the point where we can resolve elections on the night.

At this point, I would have asked Rep. Scalise to name a single state that had a "massive vote swing" in the 'weeks' since the election. Wallace didn't ask that, but he did push back.

But -- but -- but -- but -- but -- but, Congressman Scalise -- Congressman Scalise -- There -- the reason that there were these votes swings was because in a lot of states they weren't able to count the millions of mail-in ballots until election night. And everybody knew that -- and, in fact, it happened in Florida, it went the other way. They were able to count the mail-in ballots early, so it favored Biden early and then it swung to Trump. In Pennsylvania, they had to count the mail-in ballots late, so it started pro-Trump and then it swung to Biden.

Now, that's an opportunity for Scalise to take a deep breath, grab himself by the whatever, and admit that Wallace was right - that yes, everyone knew that the absentee ballots were going to go for Biden and that Election Day voting would favor Trump. Did he do that? Of course he didn't. 

Well, Chris, first of all, look at New York, right? The Claudia Tenney race in New York. She's up by 12 votes. Just the other day they found 55 votes in a desk drawer. You know, this kind of stuff – people look at this and go, what is going on? This is the United States of America, it's not Venezuela. That's what gets people irate. You know, why is this still going on?

"Well, Steve, " I would have said, "what on earth does New York's 22nd Congressional District race have to do with the presidential race, the Electoral College, or the ongoing assault on our country by the Republicans? That's what gets people irate. You know, why is this still going on?" 

Wallace waited until after Scalise finished his thought, including bringing in the Georgia runoffs (they all do that, the GOP) in a way that makes no sense. 

Let's have a chain of custody. Let's get back to making sure that everybody can have full confidence in our elections. But just to look the other way and say, hey, look, you know, three weeks later they pulled -- they pulled the corner like -- people are very frustrated with this.

There's still an election in Georgia on January 5th. And three weeks from now, we need to encourage people to go back out, but also to have a system where there's going to be more confidence than what they saw back in November.

"But- but- but- but- but- (I would have said) - Congressman Scalise, wait - wait - what is going to be different in Georgia runoff? Early voting starts tomorrow. There have been hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots requested. Has Georgia changed any rules? What's different now that will give people more confidence in voting again? And what do you say about this tweet from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich?" 

Wallace took a different approach, asking about the "thousands of lawsuits" rejected by state and federal courts, rejected by Trump appointees, and of course the SCOTUS decision to not hear the Texas case. He also noted that Scalise was one of the 125 House Republicans that signed on as 'friends' of the Texas case.

The -- the Supreme Court threw it out without even listening to it. This was a lawsuit that was going to throw out the -- the votes in four swing states, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. I mean you were talking about disenfranchising the 10 million Biden voters who supported the president- elect in those four states. Do feel comfortable throwing out millions of votes of your fellow Americans?

Scalise then pretended he didn't want the outcome he wanted. 

Well, nobody wants any votes thrown out, Chris. And, the fact, the 70 plus million votes that are also at stake for President Trump.

They don't want any votes thrown out, except the ones that went for Biden and not Trump. We know what, and so do they.  Wallace pointed out  "but that's what your lawsuit would have done, sir," even as Scalise tried to pretend that wouldn't be the case.  

Well, no. What -- if you look at the Texas lawsuit, what it was saying if, there are some states that didn't follow the laws that were on their books. The Constitution is very clear that it's state legislatures that set the process for -- for having electors. Some secretary of states changed those rules.

And, he said, the Supremes "don't like getting the the middle of disputes between other branches of government." 

At that point, Wallace went back to his original question, saying

So -- so, bottom line, even though the electors tomorrow are --more than 270 of them are going to say that -- that Joe Biden is the next president of the United States, you're not willing to recognize him as the president-elect, and you're not willing to stop contesting this election?

His response? Let's talk Bush v Gore, and get that wrong.

Well, hold on, Chris. First of all, Joe Biden has been going through a transition that even President Trump supported, while he's also following what the court allows. There are legal challenges allowed. Nobody said back during Bush v Gore, prior to the Supreme Court finally resolving it, and ultimately there -- there was an -- you know, electors met, there was a swearing in. Nobody disputed that. Maybe some of the Democrat side.

But you didn't see people ask prior to that to pass judgment before it was fully resolved. Let the legal process play out. But if you want to restore trust by millions of people who are still very frustrated and angry about what happened, that's why you've got to have the whole system play out. There will be a president sworn in on January 20th, but let's let this legal process play itself out.

I wish at this juncture Wallace had asked Scalise how he'd explain the Supremes ruling in Bush v Gore that no recount could be held in time to satisfy a federal deadline for the selection of state electors - but he didn't. 

They also talked about the fact that AG Bill Barr knew about - but didn't announce - an investigation into Hunter Biden's taxes, because he didn't want to interfere in the election, in accordance with DOJ guidelines. He asked Scalise if that was the right thing to do. No surprise - he went all NY Post and censorship and that the stories that came out were true, and "I think people deserve answers to what really happened here." Which, of course, does not answer the question he was asked, but that's never been a hindrance.

Wallace pointed out that we don't know what truth there is, just that it's being investigated, and then asked "do you trust Joe Biden to  continue this investigation when he becomes president and his attorney general is in charge after January 20th, to continue the investigation of his son?

Well, I'm sure whoever would be put up for attorney general would be heavily scrutinized by the United States Senate. That is the advise and consent role that they would play. But, again, these are concerns that were laid out during the campaign, including yourself, other people in the media expressed concerns about that story and Twitter blocked the distribution of the story and it turns out there's a lot of merit to it. Whether it's completely true or not, we're going to find out, but it's being much -- much more widely reported now after the election and it's another reason that people have real distrust in -- in the mainstream media.

The last question was about California Rep. Eric Swalwell, who we learned had some contact with a woman believed to be a Chinese spy. (Wallace didn't mention that, back in 2015 when the FBI advised him that a fundraiser, Christine Fang, was a "allegedly a Chinese spy," Swalwell immediately severed all contact and fully cooperated with the FBI investigation.)

Referencing comments from House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy saying that Swalwell shouldn't be on the House Intelligence Committee, Wallace asked Scalise if he or McCarthy "have any evidence, hard evidence, that Eric Swalwell gave -- did anything wrong in his relationship with this woman, knew that she was a spy before he was warned about it and ever gave her sensitive information?"

His answer? If you want hard evidence from me, ask him. Ask Swalwell - "these are questions that Eric Swalwell himself needs to answer."

Maybe Wallace can have him on to answer all of the other questions Scalise didn't answer, too.

See you around campus.

TGIF 2/7/20

It's list-making time again.

Religion had a bad week, I think - or maybe it was a good one, I'm not sure. I'm not religious, so it's hard for me to tell on these things.

But we do know the president, The Chosen One, according to a former Cabinet member and countless evangelicals, the guy who alleged to be a member of church but hadn't been seen in it for years, who so loves the Bible he can't even pick  a favorite verse or even say whether he's an Old Testament or New Testament guy, denigrated prayer and religion in general, at the National Prayer Breakfast.

And then went on to laugh about it with some of the same people a few hours later.

Hail to the Chief had a bad week. Sadly, because the president decided to re-celebrate Festivus - actually, every day is Festivus for him - in the East Room at the White House, he was given this ceremonial musical honor before babbling for over an hour in what the White House website refers to as Remarks By President Trump to the Nation. He described it much better himself, I think.

And this is really not a news conference.  It’s not a speech.  It’s not anything. 

Truer words, and whatnot. But he did spend time on the bodies of Steve Scalise and Jim Jordan, so I'd say they had a bad week.

Nancy Pelosi had a bad week, and I'm not going to be convinced otherwise, even given that she was attacked at the breakfast by Trump and responded appropriately, I think, after that. The rest of her week is not wiped away by that.

Susan Collins? Yeah, bad week. I mean, what on earth was she thinking, saying that she believed the president "has learned from" the impeachment? I mean, that's a 'When Harry Met Sally' moment right there - I want whatever the heck she's having, for sure.

Who else is on the list? It's not a person, but payback, the b*tch, is having a very good week. Let's see: Mitt Romney (who had a great week, by the way)? Attacked at the aforementioned prayer breakfast.  Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman?  Removed from the NSC, escorted out of the White House, and transferred to the Department of the Army - as was his brother, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, guilty of being his brother's twin. Gordon Sondland? Recalled as Ambassador to the EU. Expect more of that.

Let's see, what else. Iowa had the worst week ever as the first-in-the-nation vote; results from the caucus were delayed, the app was bad, Republicans supposedly jammed the phone lines (all that took was a Google search to find the number), and the vote is so close, it's almost truly a dead heat. That Guy From Vermont (TGFV) and Mayor Pete 'won', but TGFV 'lost' because he did much more poorly than expected.  The Des Moines Register had to kill their last poll before the caucus, which didn't help. And, really, nobody showed up to vote. Not nobody, really, but way fewer bodies than many (including TGFV) had hoped. That's likely bad for Democrats - not just in Iowa but more broadly.

And speaking of TGFV, there are a number of reports floating around that Republicans are planning on turning out in droves in open primary state, and planning on voting for TGFV - which shows you who the president isn't afraid of (in case you missed that in his SOTU.)

Ah yes, the SOTU, forever stained by the presentation of the presidential Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh.

TGIF everyone - TGIF.

Sunday School Extra Credit: 11/3/19

In yesterday's Sunday School post, we spent time with Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Andrew Yang, consistent with my promise to pay attention to the Democratic presidential candidates when they're making the rounds.

In addition to the candidates, a few key Republicans were also making appearances in the classrooms - House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan; Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway on CNN's State of the Union with Dana Bash. Let's tackle them in order.

Brennan asked about strategy in light of the "damaging detail" that's expected to be shown in testimony likely to be released this week, and she asked who the Rs would like to see testify. There were lots of words, there was lots of interruption, but here's the gist of it. He wants to call Adam Schiff. Brennan seemed a bit incredulous, but McCarthy stuck to his guns.

Yes, I would. Because he is the only person who knows who this whistleblower is. He refers to himself as a Ken Starr, Ken Starr testified. How many times did he meet with the whistleblower? What did he talk to the whistleblower about? Because when the whistleblower even went to the inspector general he never mentioned that he went with Adam Schiff.

Remember what we're talking about today Margaret, the removal of the president of the United States. This should not be taken lightly. We should have all the facts. The public deserves the facts not something that's leaked. We're three weeks since the very first hearing inside there, the deposition. We still do not have the transcripts. You have members of Congress who just voted to justify what has already happened without ever reading one word of what's gone on.

Brennan did not remind him that we have members of Congress who just voted against what has already happened without ever reading one word of what's gone on, and that the vote that was passed allows all of them to see what's gone on. And, of course, that Republican members of Congress are in the room listening to or participating in the depositions and it defies credulity that the Rs don't know exactly what's been said in those traditionally secret depositions.

Brennan also pointed out that the whistleblower's attorneys have offered to have their client answer written questions, under penalty of perjury, directly to Republicans on the Intelligence Committee without going through the Democrats. McCarthy's response?

Well, Margaret, I have never received that offer and I'm the lead Republican in the House.

When Brennan told him the offer was submitted to Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the committee, McCarthy's answer was priceless.

Well, when was it submitted to him? because Devin had not told me about that prior to today.

Brennan said it was submitted Saturday night (not reiterating that was when McCarthy was in New York City attending a UFC event with the president). 

Well, Devin's in California, so let's see how they submitted. 

Right -- he was in California, the same state you represent -- and you were gallivanting around in NYC with the president, the subject of an impeachment that will come to you for a vote. Good to know.  

McCarthy pretended that the 'transcript' of the call is more information than the whistleblower has - which is almost certainly untrue, unless McCarthy has seen the actual transcript, which is on the secure server because it was so frightening? Potentially damaging? Embarrassing?

In the end, McCarthy stood firm on the demand, instigated and pressed by the president, that the whistleblower must come forward in person and show their ever loving whistleblowing face. 

I think democracy is too precious to think that somebody who's not on a phone call, that cannot stand before the American public, and answer the questions, that somehow we would change the course of that? And we're one year away from today. What are they so afraid of? What do they have to hide? Why wouldn't they release one item? 

Apparently, focusing on the whistleblower, instead of on the first-hand testimony provided by people who were on the call is all the strategy Brennan was able to get.

Scalise also toed the party line.

It’s all about reversing the results of the 2016 election. There are no high crimes or misdemeanors.

Stephanopoulos played a video clip of Deputy SecState John Sullivan indicating that "soliciting investigations into a political opponent, I don't think that would be in accord with our values" and asked if Scalise agreed with that statement. He said that wasn't what happened on the call, and there was some back and forth about that, whether it was Crowdstrike or Burisma or Biden. George asked again, "it's just a very simple question, do you think it's appropriate for the president to ask the Ukrainians or the Chinese, which he's also done in public, to investigate his domestic political opponents?"

Well, first of all on that call he was not talking about the 2020 election or political opponents, he was talking about corruption relating to the 2016 elections.

We know that is not correct, because the summary of the call clearly mentions the Bidens. It's right there, on page 4.

So, again, we're supposed to believe what the Republicans call a transcript, except when it doesn't support their position.  Got it.  

Scalise also said he wanted the whistleblower to testify, because

There are many reports out there that the whistleblower actually worked for Joe Biden. That concerns a lot of people. There are also a lot of reports that Adam Schiff and his staff coached the whistleblower prior to the whistleblower report being released.

Ignore, we're basically being told, that the Intelligence Community Inspector General indicated that whatever prior relationship there was did not discount what he reported, and that what was reported presented an urgent risk.

Scalise also repeated the lie that Nixon and Clinton depositions were public. His comments only reinforce how afraid the Republicans are here.

Dare I move on to Conway? Sure, what the heck. Dana Bash announced the state of our union to be "in fighting mode." And right off the bat, we have Conway calling the summary memo of the phone call "the transcript" and right off the bat, I know we're going to have fun with this.

In the interest of time, I'm just going to highlight some of Conway's comments. These are in order, and are in response to different questions Bash asked.

We don't need Ukraine's help to beat Joe Biden, anymore than we needed help to help beat Hillary Clinton.

 Who needs Ukraine's help to beat Joe Biden?

I feel comfortable saying that he never mentioned 2020, quid pro quo, holding up aid, Joe Biden, his political rival.

And but for President Trump, there would be no kind of aid going to Ukraine right now. Under President Obama, he was like the MyPillow guy for Ukraine. He was sending pillows and blankets.

There's no evidence that Donald Trump did anything wrong. 

Why are we about to have public hearings trying to impeach a president rather than voting on the USMCA, reducing drug prices, improving health care for the 28 million...

No no no but you are saying poor Hunter Biden and Joe Biden did nothing wrong. But what did Donald Trump do wrong? 

They have the aid. They're using the aid. 

And they get to the process a bit.

I think - I think if you're going to do, respectfully, what Adam Schiff does, is just come out and cherry-pick the 10 seconds or 10 minutes of 10 hours worth of testimony the - the - we have no access to the full testimony because everything's been done in the dark in secret.

We cannot unscramble the egg, put the toothpaste back in the tube now...

And, back to substance, with this specific question: "Was - was there a time when military aid was held up because the president wanted Ukraine to look into the Bidens?"

I don't know. But I know they've got their aid... Here's what's absolutely, unimpeachably true. Ukraine has that aid. They have more aid than they had under the previous administration.

They are using the aid. The Ukrainian president said he had no idea aid was being held up. He felt no such pressure.  

On and on and on it went, almost like an "I know you are, but what am I?"  Conway herself frequently cherry-picked parts of what has been released that is allegedly helpful to the president, such as the Sondland text that there was no quid pro quo, not mentioning testimony that Trump dictated that message to him and told him to send it.

And, she said

So we have to...make sure people get the full picture. And we've all been deprived. CNN, the White House, we've all been deprived and denied... 

Sh said that public hearings are "too late" and added

What I'm telling you is, Ukraine has the aid. And if we're going to impeach a president over ...different people's - quote - "interpretations" who the last time I checked weren't elected to be the president of the United States and the commander in chief...

Nobody ever thought we'd release the transcript. Ladies and gentlemen, you can all see it. Go read it. Everybody has access to it. What we don't have access to, Dana, is what happened over the last five or six (weeks) (in)...secret.

...Because nothing in this conversation so far resonates to the country, especially in the 17 swing states, that would lead to a high crime or misdemeanor.  

Why don't they admit what this is all about? Stop pretending this is about Ukrainian aid, this is about red hats, red ties and rednecks.

I'm going to stop there, even though there was more, much more.