Showing posts with label trust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trust. Show all posts

August 14, 2022

Sunday School 8/14/22

I'm picking and choosing my guests today, starting with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) who talked with Andrea Mitchell in the Meet the Press classroom. Here's a recap of their conversations related to the FBI's Mar-a-Lago search.

Klobuchar said her first reaction to what occurred is "to stand with the men and women of the FBI who are simply doing their jobs," and cautioned even though we know many of the documents recovered were marked some level of classified, we don't know what's in them. She also described the process for senators to view this type of document: special room, no staff, no phone, not even a Fitbit, both because of the information in them, and because we don't want them to fall into enemy hands, in any way. And, she noted, that why they shouldn't be removed from secure spots

And Mar-a-Lago, where you can check out croquet sets and tennis rackets and golf clubs, that's not one of them.

Mitchell asked if maybe there was a different way to get the documents, and Klobuchar reminded her what AG Merrick Garland ("someone of just utmost credibility and integrity") that negotiating hadn't worked. 

But what really happened here was a judge looked at this and said, "Yeah, there's evidence, enough evidence to warrant a search warrant to go in there and retrieve those documents that are of high national security classification." These are the nation's secrets.

She wouldn't play the "should Trump be indicted?" game, other than to say that, in America, "the law is king. The president isn't king. And I would add to that, the former president isn't king. Everyone has to follow the laws." 

And finally, she didn't mince words on the rhetoric from Trump supporters, including elected officials.

...This is the kind of thing that result(s) when you've got a president that attacks law enforcement and attacks the law. I thought in the old days the Republican Party used to stand with law enforcement. And I hope some of them do today because this kind of rhetoric is very dangerous to our country... These are career men and women that are simply doing their job... this is beyond politics. 

Switching to Rounds who, according to Mitchell, "earlier this week" said the search "must be justified" and that he "had serious questions about the integrity of the Justice Department," she wondered if his questions have been answered, given what was found and why they went in. 

Uh, that's a no. He says there's more information to be released; certainly, releasing the affidavit used to get the signed search warrant would help.

At least that would confirm that there was justification for this raid. But remember, this is also a case of where we're going to have more questions as they continue to develop, as they look through the information, the material that they've garnered at Mar-a-Lago. Perhaps they will share some of what their concern was...

He seems to think the AG is not believable when he said they exhausted all other options, saying

... you know, this is a very historic attempt and a challenge really in, with regard to looking at a former president, and whether or not they want to bring any kind of charges against him. This is a change, and this is something that will go down in history, and it will be studied for years to come. 

After sharing pointed, partisan comments from three fellow GOP senators (Graham, Paul, and Tim Scott), Mitchell wondered if what was found justified the search, after "months and months" of trying to get cooperation. Again, Rounds said DOJ needs to prove they did everything they could - but also, he noted, there's "one constitutional issue that has not been talked about" - whether a "president can declassify or classify certain items."

And I think constitutionally back, I believe it was in 1988, there was a Supreme Court decision, U.S. Navy v. Egan, in which they actually talked about whether or not a president could classify and declassify. And it's never really been litigated. But it appears that a president can classify or perhaps declassify information. And if that's the case, then the question would be, and I think it will be litigated as this moves forward, whether or not that was completed while the president was in the White House at that time.

And, of course,  

...there's concern out there. And believe me, Republicans out there are questioning, "Why in the world are you going after a former president right now, but you didn't go after other individuals who clearly had classified documents or information that was sensitive and you did not do that in the previous administrations?"

Again, he raised the trust issue, saying if they (DOJ/Garland) can come forward and put all their cards on the table (even though this is an ongoing investigation), they should, and fast.

...they should do that as quickly as they can, and they should share that with the American people because this is a time in which -- with regard to the institutions in this country -- we want the American people to have faith in their institutions. We want them to see that they're not, that they're not political, and that they're not being politicized, particularly during an election year.

Of course, in the meantime, his fellow Republicans, and the former president himself, will continue sowing thousands of pounds of seeds of distrust with the American people in an election year, because they really don't want us having faith in our institutions. They've shown that, repeatedly, in the past seven years.

I trust I'll see you around campus. 

July 13, 2022

Wondering on Wednesday 7/13/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

So, we had another January 6th Committee hearing this week. I'd love to know if folks are still watching, or if everyone's over it by now? 

I'm not over it yet - not by a long shot, although I was multi-tasking a bit yesterday and missed the part about the "unhinged" meeting with Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Mike "The Traitor" Flynn, and Patrick Byrne, the Overstock.com guy -who, according to something I read today, 'overstocked' on meatballs at the meeting. 

After watching replays today, I can't help wondering how much worse things would have been on January 6th if there hadn't have been any adults in the room on December 18th. 

Another thing I can't stop wondering about is if the Committee's going to do anything about the comments from Rep. Debbie Lasko (R- I Didn't Mean to Say I'd Kill My Grandkids). I don't think it was fully explained how the Committee got hold of the tape, but here's what Lasko said "on the eve of January 6th." 
I also asked leadership to come up with a safety plan for members. I'm actually very concerned about this because we have who knows how many hundreds of thousands of people coming here. We have Antifa. We also have, quite honestly, Trump supporters who actually believe that we are going to overturn the election. And when that doesn't happen, most likely will not happen, they are going to go nuts.
First, I'm wondering who Lasko spoke to. If I had to guess, I'd think it was Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Rep. Steve Scalise, and/or  Rep. Elise Stefanik - they're the top three Republican 'leaders' in the House; but what if it was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, or anyone on her leadership team? 

Second, I'm wondering what response she got from whomever she spoke with, and whether the Committee's spoken with anyone involved in those conversations. 

And finally, I'm definitely wondering about her saying "most likely will not happen." Did she actually think there was a chance all of this nonsense would work??

Much of my wondering is centered on the horrific story about the ten-year-old Ohio girl who had to travel to Indiana to have an abortion because she was a few days too pregnant to get one at home; this was a hot topic  in last week's Sunday School. 

Since the story first hit the headlines, many have suggested it was a fake, something someone made up to get people all riled up for the primaries and the mid-term elections, or just riled up in general. Among the folks saying it was a made-up story? The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.


Here's a tweet with more information from the editorial. 


Reporters at the National Review questioned it. The Washington Post tried to fact-check it, and failed. 

And none other than Ohio's own Rep. Jim Jordan, who also controls the House Judiciary GOP Twitter account, determined it to be fake. Jordan's comment is below. 


I wonder how shocking it must have been for them to find out that, this morning, a man was charged for raping the little girl? And I wonder, too, what would have happened if the media had identified the girl or found our where she lived? Would they have staked out her home? Attacked any males in the house as potential rapists?  Would they have followed her to Indiana? 

I also find myself wondering if we've become so jaded by things like the Jussie Smollett case, and fake Go Fund Me accounts and all the rest, that the first thought when something horrible is reported is that it's not true? 

And if that's the case, I wonder how we recover from that level of distrust?

What are you wondering about tonight?