Sunday School 8/12/18

I visited two classrooms today, CNN's State of the Union with Jake Tapper in the host's seat, and ABC's This Week without George Stephanopoulos; Jonathan Karl sat in today.

Tapper's guests included former Virginia Governor (and hometown Syracuse guy) Terry McAuliffe, and the president's attorney Rudy Giuliani, which is where we'll start.

Among other things, Tapper asked Giuliani about a comment he made on another network about the president asking James Comey to go easy on Michael Flynn. Giuliani denied ever saying that. Except when Tapper rolled the tape of that conversation, he admitted he did say it. Confused yet? If not, this explanation will help  with that.

Yes, I said it. But I also said before it that I'm talking about their version of it.

Look, lawyers argue in the alternative. I know it's complicated, by my goodness, you have been over this long enough that - I mean, why would I say something that - that isn't  true? I mean, that - the president didn't say to him go easy on Flynn or anything about Flynn. He's (Comey) saying that. I am talking about their alternative. I'm saying the conversation never took place, but if it did take place -- and here's the conversation that's alleged - it is not illegal to have said that.  That's what I'm saying. We call it arguing in the alternative. 

Graciously, Tapper didn't laugh out loud. And doesn't that sound like another recent Giuliani comment, that collusion didn't happen, but even if it did, it's not illegal? That's some 'alternative' world he's lawyering in, I dare say.

McAuliffe talked about Charlottesville, and about his record as governor, and about Democrats and the upcoming elections. He noted the Dems should not be talking about 2020 but should be focusing on getting some checks and balances on Trump by winning seats (or control) of the House and Senate, and should also focus on getting more Dems elected as governors (they're down some 18 statehouses to the Republicans). Specifically about 2020, he said he hopes everybody runs - and I do too, frankly. Let's step away from the coronation and have a good ole shootout the way the Rs do.

Moving down the hall, here are two pieces of Jonathan Karl's interview with Kellyanne Conway.  The first is in response to Karl's question about whether she believed Trump's claim that there would be a 'red wave' in November and that the Rs would actually pick up House seats. After suggesting that it's possible and dropping some of her patented lines (Trump makes history, he doesn't repeat it; he makes his own trend, he doesn't follow them; people predicted doom and we've got economic boom, and so on), she raised one very valid point:

Here's what - here's the problem I see for the Democrats.  It's who's in charge of their party? Is it Tom Perez, who they don't respect? Is it, is it the 28 year old socialist? Is it the 70-something-year-old socialist? It is Elizabeth Warren who says that all law enforcement is racist from front to back and forward and backward? Is it - is it Hillary Clinton who still can't get over her loss in 2016? Who is the leader of the party? And what is their message, exactly?

Karl then asked her if Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III would still be Attorney General at the end of the year.

Well, how in the world will I know the answer to that question?

Pressed on what she thought, because, Karl noted, the campaign manager says Session should be fired and Trump says he's MIA...

Excuse me? That's -- I'm not answering questions as to who will be in The White House at the end of the year. That's a crazy question. You just want to roll the tape sometime.

She did, however, point out that Sessions is doing a great job on law enforcement,  but

he has recused himself from this. And the president rightfully wants to -- wants America to see that this Mueller investigation comes to a conclusion in a timely fashion. So far no Russia collusion proven. And you know it. You know I was the campaign manager for the winning part of the campaign. I never talked to anybody in Russia. I talked to people in Macomb County Michigan and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Not Moscow...  You know there's no collusion. Paul Manafort's on trial, has nothing to do with the campaign, Russia, collusion, the judge warned everybody not even to say those words. 

I love her mentioning she ran the 'winning part' of the campaign -- she's used that line before - but who ran the 'losing part' - was that Manafort, or Lewandowski?

Finally - and yes, I absolutely saved the best for last -- here's what table chat guest Ana Navarro had to say when Karl suggested turning to what Omarosa is saying:

Oh God, why??

See you around campus.

Twisted Trumpian Logic

So, I know it's only Tuesday and usually I save the head-scratching for Wednesday, but I've gotta tell you, I'm so confused trying to stick with the president's logic.

You know, logic that says when things are going well, we need tens of billions of dollars but when things are going well, we don't need to do anything at all. Or something - like the two scenarios below.

We have seen significant change at our southern border since Trump was elected. In 2017, arrests for illegal crossings were at a 46-year low, and arrests away from the border are up by 25%. Fewer people are trying to come across illegally, we're told, because they fear they'll be apprehended. And arrests of non-criminal aliens - those whose illegal status is the their only crime - have risen 42% and arrests of MS13 gang members are up 82%. Sounds pretty good, right? And the president, fairly, takes credit for this.

And then there's Russia. The president decided yesterday that there was no need to increase sanctions because things were already going OK, and the law authorizing the sanctions was deterrent enough. Never mind that the bill authorizing the sanctions was passed with only five nays combined in the House and Senate; and pay no attention to the purposefully misunderstanding of the purpose of the legislation, which was to punish Russia for interfering in our election. And further never mind CIA head Mike Pompeo counting on additional Russian interference in future elections.

I haven't seen a significant decrease in their activity. I have every expectation that they will continue to try and do that, but I'm confident that America will be able to have a free and fair election, and that we will push back in a way that is sufficiently robust that the impact they have on our election won't be great.

So, let's recap: the actual deterrent being seen on immigration demands a $25,000,000,000 solution, but actual interference by Russia does not warrant any penalty? One of those things is not like the other. And the president's logic is a load of hooey.

Or, here's another one -- the whole biased/unbiased, conflict/no conflict, ethics/no ethics thing going on with a particular FBI guy.

You know Andrew McCabe, the Deputy Director of the FBI who was pushed out yesterday, after facing the wrath of Trump for months, including, we're told, the president telling McCabe to ask his wife what it felt like to be a loser?  Yeah, seems his wife lost an election in Virginia, even after receiving a boatload of money from a super PAC run by then-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.

Now, you and I might focus on the fact that boatloads of money are available to support a candidate for statewide office, or any office for that matter. But not Trump: he focused on the fact that McAuliffe, in addition to being a former Syracusan, is an FOB - friend of Bill (Clinton) and, of course, an FOH - friend of Hillary, too.

So, you see, it's impossible - IMPOSSIBLE - for McCabe to be impartial in his job, because of  Comey emails Hillary his wife.  It's an automatic disqualifier, don't you see - a bona fide conflict of interest, plain as the orange hair on Trump's head!

As are these many conflicts of interest or ethical challenges, which go unnoticed - or worse, denied - by the Trumpeters, their legal teams, and the current Office of Government Ethics:

• taxpayers enriching the president's coffers by paying higher than market rate rent in Trump Tower 
• taxpayers enriching the president's coffers by Trump properties renting golf carts to the Secret Service for when he's very busy working
• private citizens buying access to and enriching the president's coffers through their membership at Mar-a-Lago, including photo ops with the guy who carries the nuclear football, and pictures of the government in action the public dining room
• citizens and companies (both foreign and domestic), foreign government representatives, and lobbyists enriching the president's coffers and currying favor by staying at his Washington DC hotel, or playing golf at his properties
• Kellyanne Conway promoting Ivanka Trump's clothing line on national TV
• the president promoting "his" winery in Charlottesville VA
• then candidate Trump paying $25K to Florida's Attorney General, at the same time she was contemplating joining a multi-state legal action against him
• Trump using his foundation to pay legal bills, use other people's money to make donations for which he took credit, and more

I could go on (and on and on) with these. And yes, it goes without saying that Democrats aren't immune to the influence of money -- you'll never get an argument from me on that. However, this is about specific situations, many of which are unique to the man currently occupying the Oval Office. 

The absurdity of this president pretending that he and his family, Cabinet members, advisers, and the like are pure as the driven snow, while suggesting that a career FBI guy is compromised because his wife ran for office?

That's a way more bigly bigger load of hooey.