January 6, 2024

 

Wondering on Wednesday 1/3/24

It's been a minute since I last 'officially' wondered on a Wednesday, but there's no time like a new year to jump back into the fray. 

Perhaps today, maybe even before I finish this post, part or all of Jeffrey Epstein's 'list' will be released.  The list contains names that were included but redacted in court documents. Among the folks whose names are expected? Former President Bill Clinton, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Britain's Prince Andrew, former president Donald Trump, and one-time Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz, if media reports are correct. 

To my knowledge, only one of those folks has suggested that he'd date his daughter, if only she weren't his daughter, and was accused of raping a thirteen-year-old child. But he's not the one who's getting the most attention here... I wonder why that is?

Also rumored to be on the list? Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, according to noted conspiracy theorist Aaron Rodgers. I'm not exactly sure where Rodgers got his information, and Kimmel has vigorously denied the accusation. When I think of Rogers and conspiracy theories, the one I've wondered about is how he managed to get hurt on the first play of his first game with the NY Jets, and still collect his full salary. 

Harvard president Claudine Gay has tendered her resignation, making her the shortest-tenured president in the school's history. She's had a tough go of it since Rep. Elise Stefanik (MAGA-NY) attacked Gay and two other female college presidents over allegations that they did not sufficiently protect Jewish students from anti-Semitism in the aftermath of the horrific Hamas terrorist attack in Israel last October. Gay is the second to resign; Penn's Liz Magill did so in December. 

Stefanik, a Harvard alum, seems an odd choice to lead the attack on this issue, given her use of 'replacement theory' rhetoric in campaign ads, and her strong support of Trump, who recently spoke of immigrants poisoning the blood of our country. Both of those themes, of course, can be tied back to Nazi Germany. I have to wonder how she ignores that connection, and then attacks others for not doing enough to protect Jews.

Speaking of ignoring things, there was lots of chatter about Ambassagov Nikki Haley (Running in 5-inch heels -SC) and her 'gaffe' at a town hall in New Hampshire, where she said that the cause of the Civil War

was basically how government was going to run. The freedoms and what people could and couldn't do. 

This was after she took a deep breath and suggested that it wasn't an easy question. But here's the thing many in the media missed, which is what I'm wondering about:  this is not the first time she's given this kind of answer. Back in 2010, when she was running for governor of the first state to secede from the Union, she said one side was fighting for tradition and the other side was fighting for change.  

Folks, that's not a gaffe - it's a mindset. And it's perfectly OK for the media to call a spade a spade, especially when a person's standing in a garden holding one by the handle.

Finally, wonder with me as I meander through some of the reasons states shouldn't be allowed to keep Donald Trump off the ballot. 

• There's the argument that, while an insurrectionist is not qualified to hold office, there's no reason why an insurrectionist can't run and win. Now, I don't know for sure why anyone would want to allow a candidate who's not eligible to serve to participate. I mean, Trump himself went to great lengths to convince Americans that Barack Obama was not eligible to be president due to him having a funny name not being a natural-born American... can you imagine Trump allowing an insurrectionist Obama to be on any ballot? 

• There's the argument that the 14th Amendment's Section 3 - the 'Disqualification Clause' - was put in because we needed to keep secessionists out of office, and it "hasn't been used since then," so why would it apply now since the Civil War has nothing to do with what's happening today?  I'm sure folks would be shocked - shocked, I say - to learn that in 2022, a New Mexico judge removed one of the state's county commissioners for participating in the January 6th attack on the US Capitol. 

• There's the argument that Trump hasn't been charged, tried, or convicted of insurrection, so you can't disqualify him. Except that the disqualification clause doesn't require charges, a trial, or a conviction. We certainly shouldn't be putting words into the mouths of the folks who wrote the Amendment, should we? And, there's the little matter of a Colorado district court judge who determined that Trump incited an insurrection on January 6th. That judge stopped short of banning Trump from the ballot, and the state's Supreme Court overturned that part of his decision. 

• Finally, there's the argument that Trump can't be held accountable because we need to prevent a civil war - what a bunch of hooey! We cannot use the threat of danger - especially when that threat has been suggested by you-know-who and his MAGA minions - to allow the Constitution to be tossed aside. And if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself what Trump would be saying right now if any of his opponents had done what he did and were trying to stay on the ballot. There's no need to wonder about that, at all - he'd be suing to block them from every ballot in the country. 

I'd forgotten how good it felt to get this stuff out of my head... what are you wondering about?

TGIF 7/22/22

Let's do an all good-week list today - you up for that?

Here are just a few of the notables who made this a good week, in my opinion.

The jury in Steve Bannon's contempt of Congress trial. 

They took about two hours to reach a verdict and it was the right one.

Steve Bannon, ex-White House strategist and adviser to former President Donald Trump, was found guilty by a jury Friday of criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to appear before the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol. 

Bannon was found guilty of two counts of criminal contempt — one for refusing to appear for a deposition before the panel and the other for refusing to produce requested documents. Each count carries a minimum potential sentence of 30 days and a maximum of one year in jail, as well as a fine of $100 to $1,000.

Naturally, he plans on appealing, but I don't care. I'm going to relish his conviction for as long as I can.

The tech team for the January 6th Committee. 

Last night's hearing was very well put together, and the video clips that were shared were carefully chosen and fit the moment perfectly. Among the highlights: Trump's Rose Garden message on the sixth, and the taping of his message on the seventh; the matching up of video from the Capitol and other testimony from the same time period, and the clips from Fox News and Fox personalities. And yes, the Josh Hawley clips - the fist pump, and the running clips, in full speed and slow motion, too. 

Mallory Nees (@The_Mal_Gallery on Twitter), who was the creative user behind several Josh Hawley running-to-music clips. 

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) may have broken a Guinness World Record on Thursday — if there’s one for guest starring in the most movies and music videos in a single night...

But the footage of Hawley was all the same: two clips that aired in prime time during the most recent hearing of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Both showed Hawley running from rioters as they poured into the building, according to the committee.

Rep. Liz Cheney, vice chair of the January 6th Committee. 

Her closing remarks at the end of last night's hearing? I don't think I'd change a single word. There were many quotable parts, certainly; here are a couple of the most meaningful. 

Here is the worst part. Donald Trump knows that millions of Americans who supported him would stand up and defend our nation were it threatened. They would put their lives and their freedom at stake to protect her. And he is preying on their patriotism. He is preying on their sense of justice. And on January 6th, Donald Trump turned their love of country into a weapon against our Capitol and our Constitution. 

And, perhaps the most important of all: the Thatcher quote. 

This room is full of history, and we on this Committee know we have a solemn obligation not to idly squander what so many Americans have fought and died for. Ronald Reagan’s great ally, Margaret Thatcher, said this: “Let it never be said that the dedication of those who love freedom is less than the determination of those who would destroy it.”  

The many Republicans who have testified including the two we met last night.

Among the Rs testifying in person? 

• State officials from Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. 
• A retired, highly respected conservative judge. 
• Multiple lawyers. 
• Former staffers for Trump and Mike Pence. 
• A disillusioned Capitol rioter.
• A former spokesperson for the Oath Keepers.

And, from taped testimony or news reports?

• The contemptuous Steve Bannon. 
• More lawyers, more staffers.
• Members of Trump's family.
• The House Minority Leader.
• The Senate Minority Leader.

The case against Trump is being shared by a mostly-Democratic committee, but it's being made by the Republicans. Nothing here is meant to relieve them of their complicity or their acquiescence. And, certainly, nothing forgives them for quickly dropping their facades, their anger or frustration, and traipsing off to Mar-A-Lago to kiss the ring of the man they all fear.

But without the Republicans - Cheney, and Rep. Adam Kinzinger, of course - and all who we've heard from, we wouldn't know what we know. 

TGIF, everyone.

TGIF 7/15/22

I'm sure there'll be more weeks like this one, when members of the Red Team make total fools of themselves on the issue of abortion. 

I mentioned a few in my Wondering on Wednesday post, including Rep. Jim Jordan, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, and Ohio AG David Yost. 

And let's take James Bopp Jr. According to this Alternet article, Mr. Bopp is "the top attorney" for the National Right to Life Committee," and he's on the bad week list for his grossly inconsiderate and tone-deaf comments about the 10-year old Ohio child who had a legal abortion in Indiana. Under legislation Bopp's promoting, a child rape victim would be banned from having an abortion.

She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child. 

Seriously? What "reason and ultimately the benefit" is there for a ten-year-old, traumatized, raped child to bear a child of her own? 

And there's Indiana's AG Todd Rokita, who stuck his landing on the bad week list, for going public with efforts to find out of the doctor who performed the child's medical abortion had timely filed the appropriate paperwork. From a Politico article,

...Rokita is threatening criminal charges against the doctor who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape survivor from Ohio — a major escalation in the ongoing saga that has put the midwestern state on the frontlines of the post-Roe war.

In a letter dated July 13th, Rokita asked Gov. Eric Holcomb for help in getting info on the case. Here's what he's looking for, and the inflated urgency associated with his request:

In this case, the paperwork was filed - on time - and now the doctor's lawyer, Kathleen DeLaney, is speaking her mind, planted firmly on the good week side of the ledger. Her client

took every appropriate and proper action in accordance with the law and both her medical and ethical training as a physician. She followed all relevant policies, procedures, and regulations in this case... She has not violated any law, including patient privacy laws, and she has not been disciplined by her employer. We are considering legal action against those who have smeared my client.

Good for her, and for the doctor for stepping up.

Another good week representative? Attorney and podcast host Ken White was quoted in the Alternet article above about the danger of relying on "the exception to protect the life of the mother." He thinks it's "a grave risk for anyone involved in the abortion," as doctors will be dealing with frequently politically-motivated District Attorneys in these cases.

Speaking of the risk of prosecutorial bad judgment, it seems some hospitals in Texas are also not willing to take a chance they'll run up against one of those prosecutors. According to this AP article,

Some hospitals in Texas have reportedly refused to treat patients with major pregnancy complications for fear of violating the state’s abortion ban, the Texas Medical Association said in a letter this week. 

The association did not name the hospitals but said it’s received complaints that hospitals, administrators and their attorneys may be prohibiting doctors from providing medically appropriate care in some situations, The Dallas Morning News reported. 

In one case, a doctor was reportedly told not to treat a woman with an ectopic pregnancy "until it ruptured." This type of action "...creates a substantial risk for the patient’s future reproductive ability and poses serious risk to the patient’s immediate physical wellbeing." Immediate, as in, she could die. 

Why the fear to act, you ask? Here it is, in two parts: first the good week part, and then the bad week part. 

The Biden administration issued guidance this week that said hospitals must provide abortion services if the life of the mother is at risk. Texas sued Thursday over that guidance, arguing that the federal government isn’t authorized to require emergency healthcare providers to perform abortions. 

Also having a bad week? Efforts to positively impact climate change, as WV Sen. Joe Manchin (D-Yeah? Make Me!) announced another delay in his willingness to consider a big ugly bill covering climate change, among other things.

Democrats have struggled for months to pass a slimmed-down climate and energy package as part of a budget reconciliation bill that would require the support of all 50 Senate Democrats, including Manchin. He had previously said he could reach agreement on climate if legislation included elements helping both renewables and fossil fuels. 

But Manchin informed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Thursday that he wouldn’t support the investments in climate and energy ahead of the August recess, and his office pointed to his concerns about stoking inflation in a statement. 

Manchin said he hadn't walked away, he just wanted to wait for July's inflation numbers. 

Let's give Manchin a bad week mention, while we're at it, and a good week mention to Sam Ricketts of Evergreen Action, who said, after Manchin's decision broke, who said he struggled to think of a "single elected official in American history" who'll cause "more massive suffering."

...if you want to look decades out from now, this decision by this one senator from West Virginia is going to have repercussions that affect millions, if not billions. 

Speaking of millions and billions  - dollars, not people - there's this bad week list entry, brought to us by the Defense Department and its first mandatory report on Congressional defense appropriations: Congress "funded more than $58 billion worth of military projects that the administration did not request..."   

Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-MI, wrote the bill which requires the report, and gets a good week mention for that. And her fellow lawmakers in the House and Senate who added all this junk to the bill get the bad week mention. Some of it was 'reasonable' in some eyes - disaster aid, funding for Ukraine, and what not, but a lot of it was pork - pure pork, such as

more than $4 billion worth of unrequested warships, many of them built by the constituents of senior appropriators. 

And, the article notes, "a substantial portion of the money goes for programs of arguable utility to the US military, critics say."  There are examples included in the article, if you want to check them out. 

The upcoming fiscal year's NDAA is being debated now; it "would add $37 billion to the amount the president requested for all national defense programs..." And there's this.

On Wednesday, the House rejected an amendment by California Democrat Barbara Lee to subtract that $37 billion. And the House soundly defeated another Lee proposal to take away $100 billion from the authorized level... The House also rejected an amendment by Washington Democrat Pramila Jayapal to make the unfunded priorities lists optional, not mandatory. 

Yay, us, or something.  

Finally, a resounding bad week to those Secret Service employees and others in the Department of Homeland Security who are actively thwarting investigations by the Inspectors General of DHS departments. 

You're likely aware of the deleted Secret Service texts from around the insurrection. Some have said this was intentional (to protect pro-Trump folks, for example). Others say the deletions were part of a transition to different equipment. Yeah, right.

The Intercept is reporting some stonewalling on other investigations, not just on the insurrection. From the article, we learn that it's "not uncommon" for IGs, to face resistance. "Tasked with rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse, inspectors general are not always welcomed."  And, on that last part, there's a scoop. A Customs and Border Protection official shared some info with the reporters.

A briefing memo produced by the agency for a leadership meeting with the DHS Office of Inspector General on July 7 instructs participants on how to push back against what it calls the inspector general’s “persistent” request for “direct, unfettered access to CBP systems,” as part of its “high number of OIG audits covering a variety of CBP program areas.” 

Again, yay us, or something...

Why do I feel like we're all having a bad week, courtesy of the folks who are supposed to be working in our best interests? 

TGIF, everyone.

In Case You Missed It (v94)

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

I sat in on Bret Baier's Fox News Sunday interview with Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) for Sunday School. Most of the time, the two circled around each other, with Coons wanting to talk about January 6ht and Baier doing everything he could to avoid it. 

Baier was  interested in talking about security for Supreme Court justices, particularly whether protestors outside justices' homes should be arrested, under a title in the federal code. Coons, who co-sponsored a bill to address the issue, didn't say yes or no, but he did say

we need to make sure that all appropriate actions are being taken to ensure the safety of members of our federal judiciary, including Supreme Court justices.

Here's what happened next. 

Baier: Okay, so don't arrest the protesters based on the title, I got it. That's what you're saying. The president this --

Coons: Bret, let's be clear. I didn't say don't arrest protesters. I'm simply saying that all appropriate action should be taken to ensure the safety of the Supreme Court justices. And I'm not going to say this protester or that protester ought to be arrested. I just think that that's a judgment call to be made by law enforcement, not by a senator on a Sunday show.

Boy, I miss Chris Wallace - how about you?

For your Extra Credit I sat in on two of Dana Bash's interviews on CNN. The first was with Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a member of the January 6th Committee. When asked if president Trump should be indicted, 

Raskin pointed out that "respect by politicians for the independence of the law enforcement function" was one of the things that was "crushed" during the Trump years, and he wasn't going to participate in that. He also noted that Merrick Garland is a constituent, and

I don't browbeat my constituents. I think that he knows, his staff knows, the US attorneys know what's at stake here. They know the importance of it. But I think they're rightfully paying close attention to precedent and history, as well as the facts of this case. 

The other interview was with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Ortiz (D-NY). Bash noted AOC's support of State Sen. Alessandra Biaggi against Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Many folks think that's a bad idea, including President Obama's campaign manager, Jim Messina, who said "if we lost the House, it's because of dumb stuff like this."

AOC's response to that criticism?

when we are able to elect representatives that excite the Democratic base, that excite young people, that excite a multiclass, multiracial coalition, then that puts us in an even better position to win in November. I think, right now, there are a lot of voters at home that have quite a bit of anxiety about the enthusiasm right now in terms of turnout for the Democratic Party. And I think one of the best things that we can do is elect people with a proven record of being able to excite a base and turn it out.

If, as seems likely, the Ds lose the House in November, people might want to remember this interview. 

Baier's interview with Sen. Coons prompted an item in last week's Wondering on Wednesday. The folks at Fox are not only concerned about SCOTUS security, they're also focusing outrage on media coverage of the assassination plot against Justice Kavanaugh, and how different they insist it would have been if one of the liberal justices had been targeted.

That got me wondering how the network covered the 'workup' on Justice Sonia Sotomayor the FBI found when investigating Roy Den Hollander, the man who killed the son of a federal judge in New Jersey a while back in 2020. 

Would you be surprised that I found only one article about that threat, which is the same number of articles as there were about Justice Sotomayor's children's book, and about her mangled pronunciation of the vice president's name? You shouldn't be. 

I reposted a Sidebar from 2017 as a #tbt post. Coming after Rep. Steve Scalise was shot at the baseball practice, the post focused on how words matter - except, of course, when they don't.

This hand-wringing about the words we use and how we use them, would not be occurring to this degree had the gunman not targeted members of Congress. It does not occur, as I noted in my post, when extreme words about abortion lead to murder.

I gave several other examples of where hands were not wrung. It seems we care, deeply, about the words people use, when we care deeply about whatever it is we're talking about. Otherwise? Not so much.

Thursday was the 50th anniversary of the Watergate break-in; I took the opportunity to point out the many similarities between  that scandal and Trump's current scandal. For example,

• Nixon's secretary, Rosemary Woods, destroyed White House documents; Donald Trump has allegedly destroyed White House documents. 

• Nixon had the 'plumbers'; Trump was full of crap with his ideas of a stolen election.

• Nixon was overwhelmingly re-elected after the scandal; Trump continues to maintain that he overwhelmingly won an election he overwhelmingly lost. 

There were several more in the post. 

 I struggled a bit with some of the good week/bad week list-making in the TGIF entry. A story about John Hinckley and redemption was one; here's another.

The EU "gave its blessing" for Ukraine to become a candidate to join it. That's just the first step - becoming a member can take years, as the article pointed out - and there's no guarantee.

...there are 35 "chapters of the acquis" setting out standards to meet in areas from judicial policy and financial services to food safety...talks have been stalled for years with Turkey, a candidate since 1999.

If nothing else, it's a symbolic step for the Ukrainians, still caught in the very ugly war with Russia, but it's hard not wondering how much of a Ukraine will be left to try and meet the onerous requirements. Does that make this news, like the Hinckley story, a candidate for both lists? 

 What list did you end up on last week? Drop a comment or a message if you want. 

I'll be back later.

Happy 50th Anniversary, Watergate

Today is the 50th anniversary of Watergate, the scandal that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. 

And I can't help drawing comparisons between that crisis and the one in which our most recent former president finds himself knee deep.

 For example, 

• Richard Nixon had a CREEP - the Committee for the Re-Election of the President; Donald Trump is a creep. 

• Nixon had criminals acting on his behalf; Trump had hundreds of criminals acting on his behalf.

• Nixon's scandal came to light with a break-in at the Watergate Hotel, a building in DC; Trump's came to light with the break-in at the US Capitol, a building in DC. 

• The Watergate scandal had Deep Throat, the long-anonymous source who fed reporters information they published in real time; the Trump scandal has deep voices: the dozens of reporters and former staffers who have written about his administration. 

• Nixon had the Saturday Night Massacre, in which DOJ folks quit so they wouldn't have to fire the special prosecutor investigating the scandal; Trump conspired to fire DOJ staff, and had a legion of people threaten to quit. 

• Nixon's secretary, Rosemary Woods, destroyed White House documents; Donald Trump has allegedly destroyed White House documents. 

• Nixon had the 'plumbers'; Trump was full of crap with his ideas of a stolen election.

• Nixon was overwhelmingly re-elected after the scandal; Trump continues to maintain that he overwhelmingly won an election he overwhelmingly lost. 

• Gerald Ford declared "our long national nightmare" to be over when Nixon resigned; Mike Pence prevented a constitutional crisis when he refused to follow Trump's directive that he not certify the election. 

• Nixon dealt with shady characters in support of his winning re-election effort; Trump had Rudy Giuliani, Steven Bannon, and countless others helping him try to steal back an election he lost. 

• It took a long time for Republicans to turn against Nixon; it's taking Republicans a long time to turn against Trump.

• Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon; Trump pardoned just about everyone.

• Richard Nixon famously said he was not a crook; Donald Trump said "No way we lost this election!"

Let's all raise a glass to the Republican who had the good sense to quit, shall we? 

TGIF 6/10/22

Good week? Bad week?

If you watched TV last night, you probably have an opinion on whether America was well served by last night's opening session of the January 6th Committee's public proceedings.

Me? I'm torn. It was gut-wrenching to watch the new video, it was appalling to hear some of the testimony, and it was reaffirming, I guess, to have my impressions of certain people proven correct.

It was horrifying to see, again, what the danger of allegiance to a cult leader can do to our country. And the comments from the alleged Republicans - before, during and after - reinforced that danger, to the nth degree.

Now, for some specifics: On TNN, Sean Hannity said "the one person who looks good is Donald Trump." Meanwhile, this morning there's a boatload of tweeting about the "FACT" that Nancy Pelosi and the FBI were behind the insurrection.

I'll get to Hannity in a minute - first, that FACT about Pelosi.

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, the alleged Republicans in the House and Senate would have been orgasmically calling for an investigation, instead of working so hard to prevent one, and would not give up until there was one. Hell, we all know they would have had their own investigation, with no Dems participating, and held it live, with Kevin McCarthy trying to beat his own record for the longest blowhard speech on the floor of the House - before noon - every single day.

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, she'd be the last person to call for an investigation, although I do have to give her props for calling for her own head, and for having Lorena Boebert tweet her location during the tourist visit - good bipartisan collaboration on that, don't you think?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, would all the Rs have rushed to Trump's defense, or traipse off to Mar-a-Lago and kiss the ring or whatever it is they do there?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, would Kevin McCarthy have made all those phone calls?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, how come it was Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, and not a teeming horde of progressives who insurrected?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, explain why she'd be trying to stop the certification of an election her party's candidate won?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, why were so many notable Republicans at the Stop the Steal rally, egging people on to go to the Capitol and "stop the steal"?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, why are so many right-wingers pleading guilty and blaming Trump?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, why didn't Trump play the hero and call in the National Guard? He didn't - Pence did. Trump was not in control of anything other than the TV remote and the hamburders after his rally.

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, don't you think Trump would have been out on the stump, every single day, all day, blaming her and them, instead of merely telling The Big Lie over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, why in the world did Trump tell the insurrectionists that they were very special and he loved them?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, would Trump be complaining about how the media didn't fairly report the size of the crowd?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, would any of the alleged Republicans be asking Trump for pardons?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, would Steve Bannon have said all hell is going to break loose on January 6th? How would he know?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, would Donny Jr and Laura Ingraham have sent the texts they did, to Meadows and others? Or would they have been texting and tweeting about Pelosi?

And finally, circling back around to Hannity: If it was Nancy Pelosi and the FBI behind all of this, would he have sent the texts he did? You know, the ones to Mark Meadows, and Kayleigh ImaNinny?

Of course the hell not. He would have been texting Kevin McCarthy and laying out a plan to take over the House, NOW, without further ado, instead of talking about his bad feelings about what was going to happen on January 6th, and how it wouldn't go the way Trump thought it would, and saying that Trump should never mention the election again (nice try, Sean) and laying out a plan for Meadows and ImaNinny to try and save Trump's fanny.

I could keep going here, but there's no point - because if people actually believe that it was Nancy Pelosi and the FBI, they will never entertain another option.

They will never entertain facts.

They will never believe anything ill of the man who, today, attacked his own daughter and the AG who saved his presidency.

And who admitted it was his insurrection.

TGIF, everyone.

Sunday School 5/1/22

Lots happening in yesterday's classrooms, including multiple appearances by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. I'll address those in your Extra Credit.

For Sunday School, we'll listen in on a Congressman, a Governor, and a Senator, which is where we'll start. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chatted with What's-His-Name on Meet the Press, who asked if we needed to change our posture if the Russia expands beyond Ukraine into Moldova. Menendez said it wasn't going to "change our calculus" about direct engagement.

We need to keep our eye on the ball. And that is about helping Ukraine and Ukrainians ultimately be able to defeat the butcher of Moscow. And if we do that, the world will be safer... and others who are looking at what is happening in Ukraine will have to think twice. 

And, whether there's "a limit in how much support we're going to give" Ukraine, Menendez thinks we'll do whatever it takes, because it's not just about Ukraine. 

If Ukraine does not win, if Putin can ultimately not only succeed in the Donbass but then be emboldened maybe to go further, if he strikes a country under NATO, under our treaty obligations with NATO, then we would be directly engaged.

Stopping that from happening is critical, Menendez says,

so that we don't have to send our sons and daughters into battle. And I think that ability not to have to send our sons and daughters into battle is priceless.

Moving down the hall to the State of the Union classroom, Dana Bash talked with term-limited Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR), who said that the lack of growth in the last quarter, coupled with other issues, could be a sign of a coming recession.

Whenever you have high inflationary pressures, whenever you have interest rates going up to slow the economy down, these are stressors on it. You add that to the supply chain woes that we have, we have got challenges...this administration needs to address those. And they need to do it quickly.

He said that cancelling student debt is a bad idea. Bash asked if doing that wouldn't be helpful to Arkansas families that are hurting now, even though he said his state is generally doing OK. 

Well, sure it'd be helpful to them. It would be helpful to cancel rent for them. It'd be helpful to pay all their utility bills. It'd be helpful to help on mortgage payments. But the question is, what is the right solution?

He said his approach is different. 

... we're looking at not providing more relief, but trying to return more of what we're collecting in terms of taxes back to the taxpayers. That will help them. And it's a more long-term solution as well.

Here are his thoughts on other hot topics. 

• Kevin McCarthy (R-So What if I'm a Liar? I'm YOUR Liar!) will have some work to do if the Rs win and he wants to be Speaker. Hutchinson, a former Congressman, said "it all depends upon who the alternative is" when asked if he would vote for McCarthy if he had the chance.

• He feels the "tone has changed" in the GOP, from where people stood right after the insurrection to where they are now; he believes "that's an error." It won't be helpful for the folks who have "diminished the significance of that event," when we start having public hearings on it this summer.

• He thinks Disney handled the "Don't Say Gay" bill situation "very poorly." And, while he thinks we shouldn't be "teaching sexual orientation" in the lower grades, he doesn't buy into the government being "punitive against private businesses because we disagree with them." It's fine to debate special tax deals, but going after businesses is principled Republican behavior. 

And, the big question, "Are you seriously considering running for president?" He said yes, "that's an option that's on the table."

That's why he went to New Hampshire, and why he plans on being engaged this year in the national conversation, not just on the economy but on border security, going after the cartels, helping the states, and so on. And, what Trump does or doesn't do has no impact on Hutchinson. 

I have made it clear I think we ought to have a different direction in the future. And so, I'm not aligned with him on some of his endorsements, but also the direction he wants to take our country. I think he did a lot of good things for our country, but we need to go in a different direction. And so, that's not a factor in my decision-making process.

Finally, a recap of a Face the Nation conversation Margaret Brennan had with Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Stands for REAL Republican) about the January 6th Committee, and more.

• He expects we'll hear new information once the public hearings get under way. He made it clear the DOJ will make decisions on the legality of things; it'll be up to us "to take the work (the Committee has) done and decide what they want to do with it or what they want to believe after that."

• He'd love to talk to everyone they've asked to testify, but didn't offer anything specific on additional subpoenas, calling that "both a strategic, tactical decision and a question of whether or not, you know, we can do that and get the information in time." 

• If some of the, um, interesting candidates Trump has endorsed end up winning, he agrees "it would be a sign" of Trump's continued hold on the party (Brennan used the term "still the leader and kingmaker within the party"). 

• He said his organization, Country1st.com, is focused on "playing in some of those primaries to bring at least reasonable people to the forefront" and encouraging people - particularly if they're in a guaranteed red district -  to vote (and vote against the Trump people, of course).

• He also reminded us of Trump's tactics: "If somebody starts falling behind in the polls, he always finds a reason to un-endorse them, because he doesn't like having a losing track record." That's important to keep an eye on.

• He supports the $33B Ukrainian aid package, and hopes it'll pass. He's introduced an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) which would give President Biden "congressional leverage or permission to use it if WMDs, nuclear, biological or chemical are used in Ukraine." He said "also, it is a deterrent to Vladimir Putin." 

The all-Mayorkas Extra Credit should be fun - look for that later.

See you around campus.

OrangeVerse LX: The World According to Me

When you're a twice-impeached former president searching for relevance, you can always find willing accomplices in the media. There's your Most Favored Networks, of course and there's the always-willing ears working for other media outlets. 

You know, like the Washington Post, which published a recap of an interview just this week. 

And there's people like me, who transform those boring interviews into something much more, I don't know, literarily significant. Poetry, that is. Purely orange poetic gold, or something.

Here's the latest, from the WaPo interview, starting with his take on the attack on the Capitol.

Too Blind to See

I thought it was a shame, 

and I kept asking 

why isn’t she doing 

something about it? 

Why isn’t Nancy Pelosi 

doing something about it? 

And the mayor of DC also. 

The mayor of DC and Nancy Pelosi

 are in charge. 

I hated seeing it. 

I hated seeing it. 

And I said, it's

got to be taken care of, 

and I assumed they were

taking care of it.

Others were supposed to take care of his mess - and a bigly mess it was.

January 2017 Was Big, But...

The crowd was far bigger 

than I even thought. I believe it was the

 largest crowd I’ve ever spoken to. 

I don’t know what that means

but you see very few pictures.

They don’t want to show pictures, 

the fake news doesn’t want 

to show pictures.

But this was a 

tremendous 

crowd.

About that gap in the White House call logs, when the gals were  in charge?

Phone Calls? Who Cares?

From the standpoint of 

telephone calls, I don’t 

remember getting very 

many. Why would I care 

about  who called me? 

If congressmen were 

calling me, what 

difference did it make? 

There was nothing 

secretive about it. 

There was no secret.

Let's move on to foreign policy stuff...

People, People Thinking NATO

A lot of people 

are a little bit surprised,

I think they’re 

very impressed with Ukraine, 

but they’re not impressed

 with what NATO is doing, 

because a lot of people

 think NATO 

could be doing more.

Volodymyr, My Dear

I liked Zelenskyy 

from the beginning for 

one reason. When we

had the impeachment 

hoax, based on a perfect 

phone call, he totally backed 

me up, and I didn’t ask 

him to do that. They asked him, 

and he said, he absolutely did 

nothing wrong. He said there 

was no quid pro quo. 

He didn’t even know what 

his people were talking about. 

He thought they were crazy...

 So I gained great respect for him there.

And there was the part about the stolen election.

 

I'm the Diamond; Put Me Back

But I believe when you

 see massive election fraud, 

I can’t imagine that somebody 

who won the election based on fraud,

 that something doesn’t happen? 

How has it not happened? 

If you are a bank robber, 

or you’re a jewelry store robber,

 and you go into Tiffany’s and

 you steal their diamonds

 and get caught, 

you have to

give the 

diamonds 

back.

In what I think is a first for a former American president, Trump has expanded his reach to endorsing foreign candidates, including Hungary's Viktor Orban.

All Hail the King

After I endorsed him

he went up like

a rocket ship.

These other leaders

they want endorsements.

I'm the king of endorsements. 
It's more than just this country

It's other countries.

You'll see. 

Finally, what does he see when he looks in his crystal golf ball?

No Doubt

If I ran, 

I can’t imagine 

they’d want to run. 

Some out of loyalty would have 

had a hard time running. 

I think that most of 

those people, 

and almost every 

name you mentioned, 

is there because of me. 

In some cases, 

because I backed 

them and endorsed them. 

You know Ron was at 3 percent, 

and the day I endorsed him, 

he won the race.

As soon as I endorsed 

him, the race was over.

I have a good relationship 

with Ron, I have a good relationship 

with all the names you mentioned. 

Would they run against me? 

I doubt they would run 

against me. I doubt it.

I don't want to comment

on running, but I

think a lot of people

are going to be very

happy with my decision.

Because it's a little boring now.

Nobody likes 'boring,' do they?