Sunday School 10/27/19

Today's classrooms were all abuzz with the announcement from the president that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed (well, committed suicide) last night during a raid in Idlib province in northwest Syria.

We'll get to that, but as always, I look first to see if any of the 2020 presidential candidates are making the rounds. Andrew Yang was supposed to have been on with Chuck Todd, but that's been postponed until next week, but Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar was on with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation. Let's look in.

They started the conversation with the takedown of al-Baghdadi, and Klobuchar was grateful for the  folks who "put themselves in danger" in the mission, and that it was a good decision to go after him. She reminded us, however, that this doesn't mean that ISIS is dead. First of all, there are 100 or so of them who escaped during Turkey's raid on the Kurds, and that it's unclear who's going to be guarding the ones who are still being held. And she noted that the Kurds helped with this, even though we left them "for slaughter."

Calling the raid a political win for the president, Brennan wondered, "Isn't this going to make it harder to run against him when he can say he's the guy who got Baghdadi?"

Look, I have in the past, for instance, when the president made the decision to respond to Assad's use of Sarin gas, I commended him for that decision. But just because you make some decisions for the security of this country doesn't - doesn't mean that his foreign policy overall hasn't been a disaster.  

Mentioning as examples of Trump's disastrous policies the decision to get out of the Iranian nuclear agreement, the Russian nuclear weapons agreement, and the climate change agreement, Klobuchar said those were "very bad decisions." Brennan asked if Klobuchar, "unlike other Democratic candidates," would pledge to keep the US military in Syria. The Senator would not have removed them, she would have kept them there. And now, she said, we have to use whatever leverage we have left to continue the fight against ISIS, for humanitarian aid, and to help the Kurds.

Next question: should the ISIS leaders be extradited here for prosecution? Yes, she said, we should go after them,

But the point of this is not really exactly what we're going to do now. The question is what do we do going forward when the American people have a decision to make? Do they want to keep a president in that has been so divisive in this moment - where this morning, we are unified behind getting rid of terrorists, that's for sure, but every morning, probably tomorrow and the next day he wakes up and he starts...dividing people... So I think the American people can come together say, "yes we want to defeat a terrorist," but then they look at what he does every single day to this country and they want new leadership.

They moved to education and paying for stuff like her plan for free two-year college and technical schools, which will cost $500B. She's focused on those issues specifically because "those are the fastest rising degrees right now in terms of number of jobs we're gonna have," citing a need for 74K electricians and similar numbers for plumbers, med techs, home care workers and so on.

Here's how she'd pay for it (and yes, she admitted, taxes are going to go up for folks making around $400K a year).

...by taking the capital gains rate, which (has) been a ripoff for average Americans, and changing that to the personal income rate. I have shown everything, Margaret, how I'm going to pay for it...I want to make college more affordable. Double the Pell Grants, and do this in a smart way, instead of paying for rich kids to go to college, which is sadly what my opponents' plans do. 

They shifted gears to impeachment, with Brennan questioning whether Klobuchar thinks the whistleblower should testify. It would be good, she said, but maybe not necessary, because people with first-hand knowledge are testifying.

I think what's most important, is to keep getting the testimony of people that were actually there on the scene. That Ambassador Taylor testimony was devastating. It showed that this was not just one phone call, that this had been a plan for a long time, for the president to put the interests of America behind his own personal interests to get dirt on an opponent. It's a pattern. He does it for his business. He does it for his partisan interests. He does it every single day.

And that's where they left it, as they were out of time.

Wondering on Wednesday (v187)

Anyone else out there wondering about stuff tonight?

For example, do you wonder whether president Trump dangled a little quid pro quo in front of Florida's Rep. Matt Gaetz if he tried to break into the room where other members of Congress, including Republicans, were meeting behind closed doors hearing testimony in Trump's impeachment inquiry? You know, maybe there's a job for Gaetz in the administration or on Trump's campaign if he continues to act like an idiot on the president's behalf?

Gaetz was the one who led the charge to the basement of the building where the committee hearings were being held behind closed doors.  And seriously, it's not like there are no Republicans in the room, and it's not like every single Democrat in the House is in the room, right?  The people in the room are the ones who sit on the committees who are charged with the investigation -- and I think if nothing else, Gaetz et al made it clear why they are not on those committees.

I also wonder why it is that politicians, in this day and age in particular, that are guaranteed to inflame things? I'm referring of course to the president's declaration that the impeachment investigation is a lynching. The president's tweet is at right.

And of course, while there were many folks who disavowed what he said, and there were many who found other politicians (Joe Biden among them - he apologized today for his comment in 1998) who have made similar comments over the years, there were others who appear to think that what Trump said is not only not offensive, but also true.  Need an example? 

This is a lynching in every sense. This is un-American.

Yep, that's what Lindsey Graham, (R- Trump Organization) had to say about it. And being from South Carolina, where there were over 160 lynchings, I guess he'd know.

Seriously, this is nothing like a lynching, by any definition. It's not a death row trial, it's not an extra-judicial action by a mob, it's a Constitutional procedure being played out the way it should be, whether the president likes it or not, whether his defenders like it or not. And we know, with absolute certainty, that if the shoe were on the other foot and it was President Obama who had been accused of doing what president Trump is accused of (and has basically admitted to) the Republicans would be doing exactly the same thing, and they'd be doing it behind closed doors.

Why? No need to wonder, let's ask Trey Gowdy, the star of the BENGHAZI!!! hearings, of Fox News, and almost of the president's impeachment team, speaking back in March about former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's upcoming closed-door appearance:

Well, I think what we learned this past week is how utterly useless public Congressional hearings are. And this notion that you can unlock important information in five minute increments?

Yeah, nothing to wonder about in that statement is there? And of course, the Dems are trying to prevent any testimonial collaboration, since the folks they're interviewing could be considered to be hostile witnesses. I also wonder, with so many folks in Congress who are lawyers, why they would think that the investigation should be done in public? When was the last time a grand jury proceeding was held in public, the twelfth of never?

I'm also wondering how long the NY Times will be able to survive? I mean, the president is threatening to cancel  its subscription, according to his interview with presidential advisor Sean Hannity (R-Fox)

All these people for doing it from the New York Times, which is a fake newspaper — we don’t even want it in the White House anymore. We’re going to probably terminate that and The Washington Post. They’re fake.

And then, of course, there's the much more serious issue with the paper's role in the Hillary Clinton-Tulsi Gabbard kerfuffle. Here's how Raw Story explained things.

 The original piece quoted Clinton saying Russians have "got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. 

In fact,  the actual think Clinton said was that Republicans were grooming Gabbard to be a third-party spoiler candidate in 2020.

"Hillary Clinton waded into the Democratic primary by suggesting that Russia was backing Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii for president and that Republicans were 'grooming' her as a third-party candidate, the Times said in a correct report.

This kind of thing is unacceptable. I mean, is there any wonder whether what Clinton really says can be damaging enough (hint: deplorables, anyone?), without her words being completely misinterpreted?

One more for tonight - a quick one. We learned that Anonymous, one of the adults in the room with the child-man that is Donald Trump who wrote a NY Times op-ed last year, has written a book titled A Warning.  Here's a refresher on what happened last September:

Trump lashed out at the anonymous author after the column’s publication. The president questioned both whether the author existed and whether the author had committed treason. He also demanded on Twitter that the Times turn over “the GUTLESS anonymous person” to the government “at once.” The Times did not.

So - the book will be out on November 12th, and between now and there'll be furious speculation on which senior White House official is Anonymous, and the wondering has begun anew that  Kellyanne Conway is high on the list of likely suspects. 

I wonder....

Wondering on Wednesday (v185)

What a great day to be wondering...

In last week's Wondering, for example, I suggested that we didn't need Hillary Clinton talking about anything other than her new book, and that she should ignore questions about the president, about impeachment, about 2016 and related topics, or she should defer to the 2020 candidates because their opinions matter, during this primary season, while Clinton's do not. That didn't happen last night in an interview on the PBS Newshour, or on her own Twitter account, where she's been quoted on any number of subjects. Meanwhile, actual 2020 candidates are starving for air time. What is that, I wonder?

I also wonder, how does the president pretend that he has anything to say about what Turkey does or doesn't do in Syria? First, he takes a mysterious call with Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, (I say mysterious because we haven't seen the readout of the call on the White House web page, and we don't know whether it's on the 'regular' server or the "dear God, don't let this crap see the light of day" server), and then we pull out our troops leaving the Kurds in the lurch, and then he says they weren't ever our allies, we paid them well for the job they did, and then he binge-tweets about impeachment but then circles back around to let us know about his great and unmatched wisdom at which point we heard the world laughing, and wondering #whattheactualhelliswrongwithUS and stuff.

I'm also wondering, thinking about his impeachment binge-tweeting, whether he's really mad that Mueller didn't find any collusion, and so he's been trying to show that he is, in fact, able to successfully collude with another country to interfere in our elections?

Similarly, he's got the Mueller report showing multiple acts of obstruction of justice, for which he's been told he cannot be charged, and so now he's just boldly obstructing everything, including the impeachment inquiry?

Today, on behalf of President Donald J. Trump, Pat Cipollone, Counsel to the President, sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Chairmen Engel, Chaff, and Cummings.  The letter demonstrates that the Democrats’ inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, and even the most elementary due process protections.  Democrats are pursuing purely partisan goals, including influencing the upcoming 2020 election.  In the process, they are violating civil liberties and the separation of powers, threatening Executive Branch officials with punishment simply for exercising their constitutional rights and prerogatives.  All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent.  For these reasons, the Executive Branch cannot be expected to, and will not participate in, this exercise of partisan political theater.

Acting with impunity sounds a lot like having immunity, right?

There was lots of wondering yesterday about the status of former South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy and whether he had actually joined the Trump impeachment legal team, or not. First it was reported that he had declined, and then it was reported that he had in fact joined the team.

Where it stands: As the president faces an impeachment inquiry, Gowdy can offer Trump another opinion on where legal theory meets political reality, a person familiar told Axios' Margaret Talev, adding that his Benghazi experience is seen as an asset. Gowdy is expected to advise the White House behind the scenes and appear on TV to advocate on behalf of the president.

If your wondering, this should be a LOT of fun when Gowdy goes on TV on behalf of Trump. He made his name, you'll remember, getting stymied by Clinton in the multi-million-dollar BENGHAZI! investigations, and for getting stymied by Peter Strzok in the House FBI Conspiracy Theory hearings. And, of course, by saying things like this.

The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you’re the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles.”

And, for saying things like this.

Too often, things seem to be a vicious cycle where very little is accomplished and a lot of folks are negatively impacted, reputations are tarnished, and that's just hard to be part of.

Or this.

The fact that someone disagrees with me does not make me challenge their love of the country. It doesn’t make me believe they are corrupt. I don’t think the end justifies the means.

Which makes his going to work for Trump well worth the wondering, don't you think?

Sunday School 11/25/18

I spent some time with the gang on Face the Nation this morning.

Joining Margaret Brennan were lame duck House Benghazi Hunter Troy Gowdy (R-SC), Maine's Independent Senator Angus King, and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I-D-DS-S-OS). Here's what was on their minds.

Gowdy spoke about the subpoena issued to former FBI Director James Comey inviting him to a closed-door session and Comey's objection to that, due to the selective leaking that occurs. Gowdy himself had previously noted that Congressional investigations "leak like the Gossip Girls" and Brennan wanted to know whether Comey was right to object to the closed-door hearing.

You know, Margaret, I don't get a chance to say this very often, but I do think Jim Comey is right. Leaks are counter productive whether Jim Comey is doing it, the FBI is doing it or Congress is doing it... 

But the remedy is not a public hearing, Gowdy said; it's videotaping closed door hearings and releasing the video and transcript to the public after removing anything classified. He also noted that

...people act differently where there aren't cameras in the room. Trust me when I say that. 

To which I say, by all means, trust him when he says that.  I mean, really - trust him when he says that.

He also talked about Ivanka's emails (we need to ensure the Presidential Records Act is being followed) and about the politicization of the judiciary. I do have to agree with him that politicians, pundits and the media in general label the SCOTUS justices, either on ideology or on who appointed them and that

I wish everyone would stop, including the media, referring to judges based on who put them in office.

King was there to talk about the military being on the border, what they can and can't do because of posse comitatus restrictions on soldiers acting in a law enforcement role, and that the Armed Services Committee would like to get some questions answered. And, he talked about the administration's response to the CIA's report on murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

Well, my first response to that is the CIA doesn't do 'feelings.' They do assessments and they do assessments based on intelligence from all sources... I cannot talk about what happened in (the CIA) briefing... And you know we're not going to find an email that says "don't forget the bone saw" but it was pretty clear...

To everyone but the president, I guess.

Sanders was there, ostensibly to talk about his book, but Brennan asked about other things, including the post-Thanksgiving Friday afternoon drop of the administration's dire climate change report. Sanders noted how Americans need to come together and move away from fossil fuels towards sustainable and renewable energy sources That would drive jobs, he says, and show leadership to the world, as well as leaving a healthier planet for future generations.

Brennan also questioned him about his call for Dems "to launch a kind of new contract with America" but with left-leaning provisions. She wondered whether it was a legislative agenda or a platform for his presidential run in 2020.

It's a legislative agenda, Margaret...back in 1994 Newt Gingrich, who I disagree with on everything, really had a bold right wing agenda, and I think we should learn from that. This is what the American people want. And we should do it. 

What we want, he said, is a living wage (he thinks fifteen bucks an hour), pay equity for women; Medicare for all; tuition free public colleges and universities; and dealing with climate change, our broken criminal justice system and immigration reform.

And the question is whether Congress has the guts to stand up to the big money interests who want more tax breaks for the rich, who want to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Or we stand up for the shrinking middle class and we demand a government that represents all of us and legislation which represents the working families of this country.

Brennan's pundit panel was unanimous that while Sanders says this is a legislative agenda, he's definitely running in 2020. They also agreed that his path to victory will be difficult, even if they didn't fully agree on the reasons why.

See you around campus.

TGIF 7/13/18

It's FRIDAY!!!

I'm thinking Trey Gowdy, Bob Goodlatte and the rest of the Republicans involved in the Peter Strzok hearings are probably glad the weekend's here, would you agree?

Having made their obligatory appearances on the Trump News Network in attempts to snatch any victory, no matter how small, from the jaws of their defeat, they can co home, have a beer or three, and lick their collective wounds inflicted by FBI guy Peter Strzok at the GOP Gonna Beat You Down, Oh No You Don't, Not So Fast Skippy hearings we had both the pleasure and dismay of seeing yesterday. Regarding Strzok's responses to the attacks from the Rs, one of them actually garnered applause from people in the room.

My favorite moment from the hearings so far -- I confess I've yet to watch the full 10 hours - had to Maryland's Jamie Raskin talking about members of Trump's party who have said equal or worse things about Trump than Strzok did. And they said them in public, not in private text messages.  After reading the names of a bunch of Republicans who are involved in the Russia investigation that Strzok supposedly allowed his bias to interfere in (or something), Raskin reminded us who's said what about the president.

So I'm looking for evidence of the Republican conspiracy and all I could find were the kinds of statements that you have been arraigned on today. I want to ask you about those statements. 

In the spring of 2016, Senator Ted Cruz called Donald Trump a snivelling coward, a pathological liar and a serial philanderer...

Senator Marco Rubio said Trump was unworthy of being our president...

In October of 2016, Speaker Paul Ryan said I am not going to defend Donald Trump - not now, not in the future.

After each revelation, he asked if these were related to a conspiracy that Strzok led; the answer, of course, was no. And then he quoted Trump's current or former cabinet members, who had used terms like moron, a child, a kindergartner, a dope and an idiot, again asking about a conspiracy that Strzok must have been leading.  It was theater, it was poetry, it was bad ass.  As I said, I think they all need a beer and some mutual wound-licking.

The president might also be glad it's Friday, so he can go butcher a round of golf or two at his resorts in Scotland. He had a whirlwind couple of days in Europe, to be sure, mocking our allies, threatening them, and being quite belligerent even before breakfast. He gave a scathing interview to the  British press, denied what he said, called his own interview fake news, and then he was late to meet the Queen.

Oh, and a quarter million or so people showed up to protest against him.

And finally, I'm thinking, British Prime Minister Theresa May is probably extremely glad it's Friday, too.  For so many reasons, not the least of which is that she won't have to let Trump hold her hand again for a long time.

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday (v134)

What are you wondering about tonight?

Maybe you're wondering why president Trump just doesn't fire his Attorney General, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III?  You know, deal with the problem, rather than letting it fester or whatever it is he's doing?  And rather than letting Lame Duck South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy do his dirty work for him?

Or, maybe you're wondering why the president was so happy to tweet Gowdy's comments about Sessions, on the same day that Gowdy said the FBI did exactly what Americans would have wanted them to do  when they got information they got? And that there was no 'spy' and, by extension, no 'gate' either?

You might be wondering why people who are appalled by football players kneeling during the National Anthem can so quickly defend Rosanne for her racist comments, while simultaneously forgetting that they should be appalled that she was even on TV in the first place, given her performance of the anthem? 

Perhaps you're wondering why so many people could have actually thought that Whoopi Goldberg wore a shirt with a picture of the president being shot in the head? Believed, without question, that it must be so because there was a picture of it on social media?

If you're wondering that, are you also wondering how it's possible that so many people believed, without a shadow of a doubt, that a bunch of people at a Trump rally were wearing Make America White Again t-shirts?

Both of these are believable, because we are that polarized, and because what we know has been said is not really all that far removed from what we believe people might have said. And because we know there are people out there in the world who would say these things, or wear these shirts. Heck, some of these folks are family, friends, coworkers -- so why would we even wonder if the pictures are real?

And does that make you wonder if you've ever fallen for any of those Russian bot campaigns on social media?

And, have you wondered which is worse - falling for a Russian bot, or falling for an American politician, comedian, actor, media star -- or an American anything else?

Sunday School 3/18/18

Busy busy busy day today - lots of Republicans were making the rounds this morning, and I tried to keep track of them as best as I could.

Let's start with Fox News Sunday, where Chris Wallace talked with Trey Gowdy, the lame duck South Carolina congressman. He and Wallace talked about one of Trump's lawyers calling for Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to shut down the Mueller investigation. Gowdy is not a fan.

I don't (support that) and I think the president's attorney frankly does him a disservice when he says that and when he frames the investigation that way. Chris, if you look at the jurisdiction for Robert Mueller, first and foremost, what did Russia do to this country in 2016? That is supremely important, and has nothing to do with collusion So, to suggest that (Rosenstein) should shut down and all that is he is looking at is collusion, if you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act like it.

Russia attacked our country. Let special counsel Mueller figure that out. And if you believe as we have found, there's no evidence of collusion, you should want special counsel Mueller to take all the time, and have all the independence he needs to do his job. 

Wallace noted that John Dowd, the lawyer they're talking about, doesn't appear to be "freelancing... going off by himself here" (in contrast to, say, Michael Cohen, the Trump attorney who 'freelanced' to the tune of $130K in the Stormy Daniels deal), mentioning Trump's embarrassing tweet storm. Gowdy repeated his comment about acting like an innocent man, if in fact you are one.

On CBS's Face the Nation, Margaret Brennan talked with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who has already announced he won't vote for Mike Pompeo, Trump's choice to replace Rex Tillerson as Sec State, or for Gina Haspel, his pick to replace Pompeo as CIA director. The senator also visited at least one other classroom himself this morning.  Brennan asked him about his position on Pompeo and Haspel.

I have been very supportive of the president on taxes, regulation, the judiciary. But when it comes to foreign policy, the thing I liked about president Trump was his opposition to the Iraq War. I guess what I'm perplexed by is that he keeps nominating people around him on foreign policy who actually thought the Iraq War was so good that they want to have an Iran War now. And so I think the lesson of the Iraq war was that there are unintended consequences from regime change and so I don't think somebody being the head of - being Secretary of State who wants regime change in Iran is a good thing, or who wants regime change in North Korea.

 On Haspel, my main concern about her is that she oversaw an illegal black ops operation in Thailand that included torture and I don't think torture is what America is about...

In fact, her colleagues have said that she was an enthusiastic supporter of this enhanced interrogation, or water boarding, or torture, as most of have come to believe it. There is also evidence that she signed a cable to destroy the evidence. There were videotapes, which I'm sure were ghastly, of the simulated drowning. And these were destroyed with her support and advocacy when the returned home to Washington. So, I think there's got to be plenty of good people at the CIA who weren't involved with torture. And, really, we're supposed to e the symbol of hope for the world. And people who want freedom from totalitarianism, they want freedom from torture. They don't want freedom to torture. And so I think this sets a terrible - this sets a terrible example for the world. 

I don't always agree with Senator Paul, but in this case, I do.

Who else was making the rounds today?

Weekly favorite Republican senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina (I ignored him today) and Jeff  Flake, the lame duck from Arizona, were both on CNN's State of the Union, where Jake Tapper opened with "the state of our union is waiting to see who might be fired next." Tapper's questions were similar to what was being asked on the other shows, except for when he asked Flake if he had any idea when he'd make his decision whether to run against Trump in 2020.

Well, all I can say is, I hope that somebody does challenge the president.

I think that -- and what I have seen out there, what I experienced on Friday in New Hampshire and what I'm seeing is that there is a crying need out there for some Republicans to stand up and say, this is not normal, this is not right. 

We want Republicans who will take higher ground, and to see what's going on right now in terms of the chaos and these actions that clearly are not conservative on tariffs and whatnot. So it's not just the policies, but the behavior as well. 

People want to remember the Republican Party as the decent party. And it is not right now. And so what I'm seeing is, there's a crying need for that. I don't know who will step up in the end. I hope somebody does. I'm not ruling it out, but certainly I am - I think the odds are long that I would do it.

Last, and least, Texas Congressman Mike Conaway who led the Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation, made his first appearance, and perhaps simultaneously his last, on the Sunday shows, visiting with Chuck Todd on NBC's Meet the Press.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 1/28/18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hear, hear.

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

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

On that note, see you around campus.