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....

Sunday School 10/13/19

Two of the candidates running to be the blue party's nominee were in the classrooms today - Democrat Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who talked with Jake Tapper for CNN's State of the Union, and Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who chatted with Jonathan Karl for This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

Earlier, I guessed that chances were less than 10% that either of the candidates would be asked about anything other than president Trump, impeachment, and Ukraine.  Let's see what happened - Mayor Pete's up first.

First question? Tapper wondered how Buttigieg would handle getting our troops out of Syria, if it were up to him, and how we would also protect our allies, such as the Kurds. He responded that ending endless wards doesn't mean we stop participating and engaging. 

Look at what's happened here. This isn't even a strategy or a policy, it is the president systematically destroying American alliances and American values. And that makes America worse off. 

He went on to say "these kinds of messy, asymmetric conflicts" are going to be going on, and we need to not only defend our interests but also to "live up to our obligations to our allies." And of course, we're not doing that now, he said. And when he hears our soldiers saying they've "lost their honor over this" and they can't look our allies in the eye, it's disturbing to him as a veteran.

And if you take away a soldier's honor, you might as well go after their body armor next. That's what the commander in chief is doing right now.

So, yes, if we need to keep US personnel in Syria, that's what he'd do. Tapper wondered if he'd be willing to threaten or use force against Turkey, a NATO ally, to protect the Kurds. Buttigieg said if he was president, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place; we would use our leverage as an ally, and we could have stopped this, absent Trump's "reckless choice."

Under this president, America is being turned in to just another country, just another country out there scrapping for advantage, not showing leadership, not in an exceptional position to shape outcomes around the world. 

Enough of that, let's go to impeachment. Tapper mentioned a poll showing nearly 6 in 10 Trump's fate should be left up to voters, and wondered why they shouldn't be the ones to decide. Buttigieg pointed out that a majority of Americans in other polls think he should not only be impeached but removed from office, but that polls are not the way to decide this. And, he added.

It's not just about holding Donald Trump accountable... It's about making sure that a future president, 10 years or 100 years from now looks back at this moment and draws the lesson that nobody is above the law. And in a moment like that, public opinion is just going to have to follow the lead of the Constitution, instead of the other way around.

And then, moving to the Biden Issue. And Tapper wondered if Hunter Biden's announcement that he would end foreign business activities if Joe got elected was an acknowledgement of at least an appearance of a conflict of interest. And while I wish Mayor Pete had refused to answer the question,  here's what he said:

I think it demonstrates the difference in standards relative to the White House. I mean... the president of the United States is a walking conflict of interest. You've got family members - you want to talk about family members? In the White House right now, you've got Ivanka Trump benefiting from patents from the Chinese. You've got the president's son-in-law texting with Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, while, meanwhile, the president's sons go around the world pretending like the fact that their father is the president of the United States has no impact on the international business dealings that they do.

We don't even know whether Trump financial interests in Turkey contributed to the decision to betray American allies and American values. And they want to talk about conflicts of interest? It's a radically different standard.

Honestly, if you've got to answer the question because the talking heads can't help asking Candidate A about Candidate B's singular problem, I really like that answer.

Moving quickly to LGBTQ issues, he was asked if he agreed with Beto O'Rourke's statement that religious institutions should lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to hire or provide services to LGBTQ folks.  Again, not his position, but what the heck, might as well answer, I guess. He agreed that the anti-discrimination laws should be applied to all institutions, but added

...the idea that you're going to strip churches of their tax-exempt status if they haven't found their way toward blessing same-sex marriage, I'm not sure he understood the implication of what he was saying. I mean, that means going to war, not only with churches but I would think with mosques and a lot of organizations that may not have the same view of various religious principles that I do...

 He believes this kind of approach

is just going to deepen the divisions that we're already experiencing, at moment when we're actually seeing more and more people, motivated often by compassion and by people they love, moving in the right direction on LGBTQ rights, which is obviously extremely important to me personally. 

And, that was it - interview over.

Meanwhile, back in Vermont, here's what Sanders and Jon Karl were talking about, starting with his health and his return to the campaign trail. He said he looks forward to going back to a "very vigorous campaign." Karl asked if his docs were good with that. 

Well, let me be very clear and backtrack, and tell you that, probably, there’s nobody who has run a more vigorous campaign than I did. And we’re talking about three or four rallies a day and town meetings and so forth and so on, but I think after a short period of time, we’ll probably be able to return to that. Not the first day back.

And yes, the doctors are OK with that, and yes, he's going to release his medical records, "as soon as we can." Which led Karl to as if  all of the candidates should release theirs. Sanders said it should be the standard that all candidates do that (although I'm sure he's referring to legitimate records, not ones that the candidate may write on their own.)

There were several other questions on his health, and Sanders noted that having stents put in is a fairly common procedure, one that's done hundreds of thousands of times a year, and that he should have put two and two together and realized that he wasn't just tired from campaigning, but that something more serious was wrong. And now, he's ready to get back to work.

Karl wondered if he' drop out if something significant occurred; Sanders didn't bite, refusing to speculate on that but hey, he had good insurance and lots of people don't, so don't go to the hospital when they should or leave with tons of medical debt.

So maybe one of the lessons that I have to tell you I learned is that I'm going to fight even harder than I have for Medicare for All. I am more committed to the struggle than I was a few weeks ago. 

Next, Karl moved to talk about Elizabeth Warren, who's a few years younger than Bernie, and has "pretty close to identical positions" as Sanders. Karl wondered how Sanders would respond to people who would pick her because she didn't just have a heart attack.

Well look, everybody, every American is going to make his or her own choice about the candidate that they want... Elizabeth I think, as you know, has said that she is a capitalist through her bones. I’m not. I think the situation today that we face in this country of the greed and the corruption that is existing in Washington, that is existing at the corporate elite level...

He referenced drug companies, no guarantee of healthcare to all, fossil fuel companies destroying the planet, before continuing

And I think business as usual, and doing it the old fashioned way is not good enough. It’s not regulation. Now what we need is, in fact, I don't want to get people too nervous, we need a political revolution. I am, I believe, the only candidate who's going to say to the ruling class of this country, the corporate elite, enough, enough with your greed and with your corruption. We need real change in this country.

And when Karl pushed on whether that was what Warren was saying, Sanders basically told him to ask her what her position is, he's here to talk about his position, reiterating that he is not a capitalist -  and she is.

Karl then talked about Warren having a plan for everything, but not yet one for healthcare.

Again, Elizabeth is a friend of mine. Talk to her. I have put out a healthcare plan. It's called Medicare for All. We're going to tell the insurance companies and the drug companies that we will not continue this current dysfunctional and cruel system. 

Moving to Syria, Karl noted that Sanders was "very critical" of Trump's decision to pull out troops.

It's an outrage...what does it say to the entire world that you have a president who gets off the phone with Erdogan of Turkey... We're deserting these people who have put their lives on the line to work with us in fighting against some of the worst terrorists in the world, Send a message to the entire world, you cannot trust the United States of America anymore in foreign affairs.

Doesn't matter what the president says, because tomorrow he may reverse himself. It is outrageous. 

He also noted that figuring out how to deal with Turkey is a whole nother issue, and that he is a "strong opponent" of endless wars.  Karl noted that Trump, too, is not a fan of endless wars.

Yes...But the difference between Trump and me is he lies. And, again, you don't turn your back on an ally that lost 11,000 troops fighting against terrorism through a tweet and a discussion with Erdogan.

Moving to impeachment, Sanders is not concerned that Nancy Pelosi didn't have a vote before moving ahead, and he's glad that the inquiry is moving forward. And?

And I think it's proper that it's going forward. I want it to go forward as expeditiously as it possibly can. I think at the end of the day the evidence is there to impeach Trump. 

And that's not all. Sanders is concerned about what happens if the House sends articles of impeachment to the Senate.  Mitch McConnell is an unknown, it seems.

Will Mitch McConnell do the right thing? Will he have a full trial, where the American people, and Senators...can hear the evidence regarding what Trump did? I am nervous that McConnell will put party in front of country and not do that. 

Either way, if it does get that far, Trump will have strong support for an innocent path and strong evidence for a guilty path in the Senate, Sanders says.

And the Senate will make its decision. It will make its decision as will the American people. That has to take place. 

Yes - that has to take place.

See you around campus.