Wondering on Wednesday 4/6/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

What's going on out there in Wonderland tonight? Well...

ABC News is reporting that Hunter Biden, the son of the president, is living in a four-bedroom mansion in Malibu, costing someone around $20K per month, and the Secret Service is renting, at around $30K/month, a nearby mansion as their command center.  

Now, I complained about the costs of protecting the adult Trump children, at their homes and on their vacations, and I complained loudly about the former president making money by renting properties to the Secret Service. I mean, the Trump are at least millionaires; Jared and Ivanka are hundred-millionaires, and of course their father is allegedly a billionaire - but that might include the money in his campaign accounts, I'm not sure. 

So, what's the wondering about Hunter and his arrangement? One, he's living in Malibu - can't he find someplace a little cheaper, or is the light really that much better for his painting there? Two, why doesn't he open his mansion to the Secret Service? And three, are they really protecting him, or are they just keeping an eye on him and sending info to the prosecutors in Delaware? 

Speaking of the alleged billionaire, he recently did a video interview, which was published in The Atlantic. In the interview, he talked about January 6th in a way that, um, puts things in a different light than what most of us have been hearing over the past 15 months. Here's some of how the former president chooses to remember things, as recapped by AlterNet.

When Congress met to certify the Electoral College results, Trump told us, there had been a 'peaceful rally,' more than a 'million people' who were full of 'tremendous love' and believed the election was 'rigged' and 'robbed' and 'stolen.' He made a 'very modest' and 'very peaceful' speech, a 'presidential speech.' The throng at the Capitol was a 'massive' and 'tremendous' group of people. The day was marred by a small group of left-wing Antifa and Black Lives Matter activists who 'infiltrated' them and who were not stopped, because of poor decisions by the U.S. Capitol Police when some 'bad things happened.'

So, what am I wondering? Only this: If I want to have what he's having - whatever it is that gives him such confidence in this altered reality - where do I get it, how much does it cost, and is it legal? 

Speaking of 'bad things happening' - and yes, that's at least partly unfair - there's news about the CDC. Here's how the NY Post reported the story. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced Monday it plans to undergo a month-long “revamp” as it faces a credibility crisis more than two years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a report.

Pretty much everyone I know, at one point or another during the pandemic, wondered what was going on at the CDC, or what was going through their heads with the many varied twists and turns, and the number of people who were speaking on behalf of, or instead of, or over the top of, the CDC experts. I'm not wondering why they're doing the review and the revamp - I'm just wondering if shutting up all the extra voices is going to be part of the change.

And speaking of public health and whatnot, there's an optical illusion of a running man; it's said that if you see the man running towards you, you have a 'male' brain. If you see him running away, you have a female brain. I don't know if I believe the science of the study, but I do know Republicans believe there are women and men and that's all there is. 

I wonder, if a Republican man looking at the image perceives the man running away, can he really be a Republican - or a man?

Circling back around to alleged billionaires, and Republicans, and men, and women, there was a time when the alleged billionaire went out on a limb and said that a woman who has an abortion should be punished. 

Trump stated that if abortion was banned and made illegal, there "would have to be some kind of punishment" if a woman got one anyway. Matthews, to his credit, did not have a heart attack, or even jump up and down doing a happy dance that he had finally asked the question that might take Trump down.

Instead, he pressed, and pressed, and pressed, trying to get Trump to commit. to a specific punishment. Ten cents? Ten years? Trump answered probably a dozen times that the punishment would have to be determined. And so it went, until the actual exchange was pushed off the air by the comments from everyone else.

And here we are: in Oklahoma, a new bill that makes performing an abortion a felony absent a need to save the life of the woman in a medical emergency.

Any person convicted of performing or attempting to perform an abortion is guilty of a felony punishable by a fine not to exceed $100,000.00 or a maximum sentence of imprisonment of 10 years, or both. 

Gov. Kevin Stitt will sign the bill, gleefully I imagine, when it lands on his desk, as he'll sign all the other abortion bills that are heading his way, including one that mirrors the 'blow in your neighbors' language from Texas. 

Six years and a month ago, in the post about Trump's punish-the-woman comments, I opined that

If the Right wants to be tough on crime, and tough on legal abortion, then they should be standing up in support of Trump's comment, instead of running from it. They should be shouting it from the rooftops, rather than shouting at Trump for saying what he did. They should be castigating him for walking it back, as he did, instead of castigating him for saying it in the first place.

If not, their convictions are without courage, and conversely.

And I wonder, tonight, if anyone thinks I'm wrong on that. 

Sunday School 4/3/22

There were some interesting conversations in the classrooms yesterday, including the one between Margaret Brennan and NYC Mayor Eric Adams on Face the Nation. 

Brennan seemed hell-bent on hitting him from both the left and the right on crime. Noting NY has "some of the toughest gun laws in the country," she first asked "where are the guns coming from?" Her next question, such as it was? 

But you know that acknowledging that and having some of the toughest gun laws in the country will have critics say, well, look, it makes no difference if you have tight gun laws.

That was followed up by "So why aren't the laws working?" and, finally, "It sounds like you're expecting more executive actions or orders from the president to do this because none of it's going to get through Congress."

I think Adams, a 22-year veteran of the NYPD, did a poor job with her questions. He didn't mention the Iron Pipeline, which is how illegal guns get to NYC and the rest of New York. He said his anti-gun team had "removed over 20-something guns off the street," while other reports show 85 'ghost guns' alone - not counting other illegal guns - had been recovered by early March. 

Worse than that, he didn't push back at all on her ridiculous suggestion that gun laws weren't working. He said "We need to stop criticizing good, proper law enforcement with the proper proactive things to keep guns out of the hands of young people..." But what he didn't say - and what no one else says, either - spoke louder than what he did say. 

This is how people must answer this question, every time it's asked.

Show me a single law that is 100% effective. Laws against voter fraud, DWI, white collar crimes, child abuse, drug possession, motor vehicle laws, rape and murder, insurrection, other violent crimes... no law is 100% effective - but they still work, either as a deterrent to prevent crimes, or to get criminals off the streets. Critics should imagine a world without any of these "ineffective" laws, and tell us how much they'd like living in it.

He also failed to call out Congress for their inaction, another opportunity missed. 

George Stephanopoulos talked with Ron Klain, President Biden's chief of staff, on This Week. Crime came up in that classroom, too. Here's the bizarre first question on this topic. 

How did Democrats get on the wrong side of the crime issue that's coming up right now, especially in the wake overnight another killing in Sacramento, at least six dead in a mass shooting?

Hmm... Do we even know the party affiliation of the perps, or the victims, in this shooting? And is there a specific policy that got the Dems "on the wrong side" of this crime? George didn't elaborate on any of that, so we may never know. 

Klain doesn't think Dems are on the wrong side of it; he pointed to Biden's plans for "for robust funding of police," part of which was in the omnibus bill Congress passed last month.

We also want to make sure we have in place police reform and community violent intervention to help reduce crime. We have a plan to fight crime. Congress is making progress on that.

He also said the administration's 

working very hard to be at the forefront of efforts to both control crime and have balanced and sensible policing. We think we can do both. That's what we stand for. And that's the plans we put forward to the Congress.

On crime of a different type, George asked if a NY Times report saying "Mr. Biden confided in his inner circle that he believed former president Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted. He has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor" was true.

Klain said he's never heard Biden say that, or "advocate the prosecution of any person." And, he reminded George that that Biden promised decisions on who gets prosecuted would not be handled in the White House.

Only Richard Nixon and Donald Trump, in the modern era, believed that prosecution decisions should be made in the Oval Office... We have returned the practice that every other president, Democratic and Republican, has had since Watergate, other than Trump, to let those decisions be made at the Justice Department. The president has confidence in the attorney general to make those decisions, and that's where those decisions should be made.

When asked, Klain confirmed that POTUS: hasn't had any contact with DOJ on the Hunter Biden investigation, was "confident Hunter Biden didn't break the law" and was "confident his family didn't cross any ethical lines." 

Finally on G-G-G-Ginni and the Texts, any pending legislation on ethics for the Supreme Court, and whether Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from January 6th-related cases, Klain said he wasn't familiar with the specific legislation; the administration's position continues to be that the January 6th Committee and DOJ are the right places for exploring the insurrection and should be allowed to do their work; and that it's not the White House's place to stick its nose into what the Supremes do.

What's-his-name talked with Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press. The only 'crime' they talked about was Crimea. I was kind of surprised; after all, she's a Dem, and part of a major international child sex trafficking crime syndicate, and she and Bill have had all those people killed over the years.

Asked about the "moment" the Dems are having, on "what the party stands for," and where it stands - to the left, to the left, or closer to the center, Clinton said the hand-wringing "was in their DNA" and that it happens whether they're in power or not.

She thinks Biden is doing a good job, and said she's

not quite sure what the disconnect is between the accomplishments of the administration and this Congress and the understanding of what's been done and the impact it will have on the American public, and some of the polling and the ongoing hand-wringing. I've always thought that the best politics is doing the best job you can do. And there's a lot that Democrats can talk about in this upcoming midterm.

Of course, she's "well aware that midterms are obviously always difficult for the party in power." But, 

we've got a great story to tell. And we need to get out there and do a better job of telling it. And for those who, you know, say it hasn't gone far enough, that's always the chorus in Democratic Party politics. But I would add that in Republican Party politics, you have an even greater disconnect. Unfortunately, most of that party has now gone to the, you know, to the extreme and are saying and doing things that have no basis in reality. So, we've got a good case to make if we get our focus in the right place to do it.

They surely do need to get out there and tell the story! And, there was another thing the Dems need to do. 

And, frankly, standing up to the other side with their craziness and their calls for impunity and nuttiness that we hear coming from them, I don't think the average American, frankly, wants to be governed by people who live in a totally different reality.

If only...

See you around campus. 

In Case You Missed It (v83)

Lots going on out there, right? In case you missed anything, here's a stroll through last week's posts. 

Sunday was the night Will Smith killed his career and won an Oscar, in that order. It was also the night I resurrected an old theme: the Dirty Snowpile Awards. Unlike the Oscars, there aren't any defined categories for the DSAs - it's whatever strikes me when I look at the filthy things. 

Here's one of this year's winners. 

 The My Snowpile's So Small It Fits on this T-shirt award goes to the thousands of politicians, their advisors, or whoever it is that decided we should have a government of the t-shirt, by the t-shirt and for the t-shirt. You know what I'm talking about, right? Policies and positions that fit on a t-shirt are great; anything else, we don't give a hoot about. And don't forget how those slogans get twisted and turned into opposition missiles, either.

I gave a few examples; My Body My Choice came immediately to mind (that'll make sense when you see one of other awards), and there were many others I'm sure would be familiar to you. And I would have been remiss had I not mentioned this last part. 

Sadly, one of the most important things with all this 'governing by slogan' stuff is that you buy the t-shirt, literally or figuratively.

Your Sunday School included highlights of a Fox News Sunday interview host John Roberts had with Sen. Rick Scott (R-Florida Man). One of the questions Roberts asked was why Scott included a requirement that all legislation sunset after five years in his 'plan to rescue America' during an election year.

Scott complained that Roberts was just dishing out "Democrat talking points," but that's not the case. Roberts said that was in the plan, he's right. Scott tried to deflect, saying 

Also in the plan, it says we ought to, every year, talk about exactly how we're going to fix Medicare and Social Security... No one that I know of wants to sunset Medicare or Social Security, but what we're doing is we don't even talk about it. Medicare goes bankrupt in four years. Social Security goes bankrupt in 12 years. I think we ought to figure out how we preserve those programs. Every program that we care about, we ought to stop and take the time to preserve those programs.

I added the emphasis to Scott's answer; find out why in the post.

It was nice to spend some Extra Credit time with Sen. Cory Booker (D-No One's Going to Steal My Joy!), who chatted with What's-his-name on Meet the Press. They talked about the #KBJ hearings, and about G-G-G-Ginni and The Texts. 

What's-his-name talked about former AG Loretta Lynch, who recused herself from involvement with any Hillary Clinton investigations after her meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton, and he asked Booker if Justice Thomas "should follow the Loretta Lynch precedent?" 

Booker ignored that example; instead, he offered a relevant one: Justice Elena Kagan.

Out of 70-some cases, she recused herself over 20 times... not necessarily because she was conflicted, but because she understood that even the appearance of impropriety would delegitimize the Court. And the Court needs that legitimacy in this nation. So clearly, Justice Thomas should have recused himself. That's not even at question here. (Emphasis added.)

I wonder why What's-his-name is still hosing the show, I really do.

Speaking of wondering, I did plenty of that on Wednesday, including some about the document-challenged Trump administration and the "bigly gap" in the phone logs on January 6th. 

How bigly, you're wondering? Here's what CBS News is reporting.

The lack of an official White House notation of any calls placed to or by Trump for 457 minutes — from 11:17 a.m. to 6:54 p.m. — on Jan. 6, 2021 means there is no record of the calls made by Trump as his supporters descended on the U.S. Capitol...

I also did some calculations to help you understand what the gap means in yoga pose terms, in case you wondered about that, like I did.

And almost before I realized it, it was TGIF time again. And surprisingly, I had Hillary Clinton in the second post of the week. Hard to believe, right? She

...had a teeny little bit of a bad week, after she was fined $8000 by the Federal Elections Commission for funding the Steele dossier back in 2016. The DNC was fined $105,000 as well. The fines resulted from a 2018 lawsuit filed by the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, a 501 (c)3 organization with the flimsiest website I've ever seen for this type of group. I'd be surprised if they could even pay for the filing fee for the lawsuit. 

Pretty sad when that's what the FEC is focused on these days. It would seem there's a whole lot more current stuff happening, but that's a story for another day. 

TGIF 4/1/22

Lots of 'week' stuff for you tonight, for people and corporations - because they're people too, of course. 

I'd have to say President Biden had a good week, Oh sure, there's still fallout from him not using his inside voice saying that Putin needs to be removed from power, but there was another good jobs report. And we know that presidents (and their daughters) create jobs. The latest figures? 

U.S. employers added 431,000 jobs in March on a seasonally adjusted basis, the Labor Department said Friday. The figure was just shy of forecasts, and there was an upward revision of 95,000 for the previous two months of this year.

The unemployment rate was 3.6 percent, down from 3.8 percent a month earlier and just a touch higher than its levels right before the pandemic.

We'll have to see what the pundits do with this news in the classrooms on Sunday. 

Speaking of pundits and the media and whatnot, I'm confident in saying that both Fox News and CBS News had bad weeks. 

The folks at Fox hired Caitlyn Jenner, saying in a press release

Caitlyn's story is an inspiration to us all. She is a trailblazer in the LGBTQ+ community and her illustrious career spans a variety of fields that will be a tremendous asset for our audience.

That's quite a contrast with how the network's shows covered Jenner when her Vanity Fair cover hit the Internet, but as we know, times change and opinions evolve. Well, some do; - it'll be fun to see what happens if Jenner and Tucker Carlson get together for a chat.

For their part, CBS decided to hire former Trump guy Mick Mulvaney. Reaction, as they say was swift. Vanity Fair's Charlotte Klein noted that "the backlash is rooted in a litany of stains on Mulvaney’s track record that hang over whatever analysis or expertise CBS is now paying him to provide." 

Also not impressed? CBS staffers who are "embarrassed" and "baffled" at the decision, and Stephen Colbert, who was more vocal in making Mulvaney '"welcome."

I for one can't wait to hear Mulvaney's trenchant and objective political analysis, given his calling COVID-19 a media "hoax," telling everyone to "get over it" after Trump extorted Ukraine for political gain, and predicting Trump would accept his 2020 loss gracefully. Is Mick Mulvaney psychic? Get this man to Vegas! He's Nostradumbass.

Obviously, I'm just joking, but why would the Tiffany network's venerable news division put this craven toady-to-a-tyrant on their payroll?

Because the Rs are going to win the midterms, Stephen, you silly goose.

Who else had a week? Jared Kushner, the WhatsApp-wielding son-in-law of the former president. Rep. Elaine Luria (D-NC) said "it was really valuable" that he talked with the January 6th Committee, for six hours or so. Not sure whether he had a good week or a bad one, since it was the Biden administration's refusal to extend executive privilege to him that allowed his testimony, but since he did testify, and Ivanka will as well, I'll give them both a luke-warm good week.

Moving away from the luke warm power couple, let's give a red-hot good week recognition to corporate profits! According to an Axios article, 

...Companies complained loudly about rising costs for raw materials and labor for most of 2021, but data released yesterday...show they passed those costs along — and then some. For the full year 2021, pre-tax profits rose 25% to roughly $2.81 trillion, handily outpacing the 7% rise in consumer prices over the same stretch. (Emphasis added.)

And to lobbyists! The Washington Post tells us

The lobbying industry had a record year in 2021, taking in $3.7 billion in revenue as companies, associations and other organizations pressed Congress and the Biden administration over trillions of dollars in new pandemic spending... (Emphasis added.)

And to stock buybacks! Here's what the folks at The Street have to say on that.

...buybacks reduce a company's shares outstanding, pushing its profit-per-share figure higher. Buybacks also can signal that a company has strong finances...So perhaps it’s no great surprise that companies are ratcheting up buybacks this year, after a record total in 2021. (Emphasis added.)

And don't forget dividends! From an Insider Monkey article a while back, we learned that

In the United States, common dividends in 2021 increased to $78.6 billion, up 89.7% from $41.4 billion in 2020. Higher earnings, sales, and improving margins have enabled companies to start returning shareholder wealth...(Emphasis added.)

All that red hotness has me feeling all patriotic and everything, which is why I have to say that our astronaut Mark Vande Hei had a good week, for sure. He's returned safely to Earth, along with a couple of Russian cosmonauts. after spending 355 days in space, an American record for a single trip. The head of Russia's space agency had seemingly threatened to leave him behind because our response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, so him getting back in one piece was welcomed news. 

Hillary Clinton had a teeny little bit of a bad week, after she was fined $8000 by the Federal Elections Commission for funding the Steele dossier back in 2016. The DNC was fined $105,000 as well. The fines resulted from a 2018 lawsuit filed by the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, a 501 (c)3 organization with the flimsiest website I've ever seen for this type of group. I'd be surprised if they could even pay for the filing fee for the lawsuit. 

And speaking of lawyers, I'm giving a giant good week to folks involved in teaching law to students at the University of North Carolina. First-year law student Jess Errico filed for an extension on a project for her Research, Reasoning, Writing and Advocacy course, so she and her classmates could watch the Tarheels play the 'Dook' Blue Devils in the Final Four. A 'court' of eight professors and the associate dean for academic affairs granted her request - and added a day, on the hope that the Tarheels end up playing for the championship.

I love everything about this!  Except, of course for all the people who think this is some sort of miscarriage of justice, or that the professors should be fired, and all the rest. That's a whole lot of bad week, self-inflicted misery right there.  

TGIF, everyone. And Go, Blue Devils! Beat Carolina!

Wondering on Wednesday 3/30/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Let's dive into the wonderment, shall we? 

Right off the bat, I have to wonder why Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R- I Lied About Why I Didn't Get In To The US Naval Academy But They Elected Me Anyway) would actually think anyone in DC political circles wanted him to attend their orgies? I mean, seriously, he's among the most obnoxious people I've never had the pleasure of meeting. And, frankly, the words 'pleasure' and 'Madison Cawthorn' go together about as well as 'delicious' and 'bird poop.'

And I wonder, who's going to get to him first: Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Mar-a-Lago's Tool Shed), or the folks who invited him to the orgies? Or, maybe it's going to be the other folks he knows, the politicians who do all that coke?

I also wonder if McCarthy or anyone else is going to require him to name names - otherwise, how will the Rs know who to put on key committees when they regain the majority in November?

The other day I gave US Attorney General Merrick Garland the We May Never Find the Poop Under this Snowpile award for moving oh-so-slowly in deciding whether to do anything any time soon. About anything. The House January 6th Committee asked for contempt of Congress charges against Mark 'One Man's Rusty Trailer is Another Man's Castle' Meadows. To his credit, Garland's folks did charge Steve 'Does Hanging Out On This Chinese Yacht Make My Podcast Sound Stupid?' Bannon, but still no word on Meadows. 

With former Trump administration goofballs Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro now facing a vote by the full House to refer their contempt charges to DOJ, it's past time for Garland to act on the Meadows referral, or explain why he won't act.  And the only wondering here is this: How long will it take Garland to decide whether he'll decide to make a decision?

Former president Donald Trump's White House call logs apparently have a bigly gap on January 6th. How bigly, you're wondering? Here's what CBS News is reporting.

The lack of an official White House notation of any calls placed to or by Trump for 457 minutes — from 11:17 a.m. to 6:54 p.m. — on Jan. 6, 2021 means there is no record of the calls made by Trump as his supporters descended on the U.S. Capitol, battled overwhelmed police and forcibly entered the building, prompting lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence to flee for safety.

In case you wondered, as I did, it would take nearly 25 separate Rosemary Woods yoga poses, demonstrated in this AP photo, to create a chasm that big. And I can't believe he didn't take or receive a single call during that time - especially since we know he talked with several members of Congress, by their own admission.

Sticking with the former president, I'm sure you're all familiar his enthusiastic endorsements of MAGAesque candidates - including Madison Cawthorn, it turns out. Trump also endorsed Rep. Mo 'I Tried to Stop the Steal' Brooks, who's in the hunt for the open Alabama Senate seat. After getting Trump's support, Brooks started talking about looking ahead to 2022 and 2024 - he 'went woke' according to Trump, who pulled his endorsement last week. 

Now, what makes this all so very wonderful and interesting? Brooks pulled no punches in responding to the lost endorsement. After blaming Trump for going along with Mitch McConnell - unlikely, at best - he said

President Trump asked me to rescind the 2020 elections, immediately remove Joe Biden from the White House, immediately put President Trump back in the White House, and hold a new special election for the presidency. As a lawyer, I've repeatedly advised President Trump that January 6 was the final election contest verdict and neither the U.S. Constitution nor the U.S. Code permit what President Trump asks. Period."

I don't wonder for a second whether Trump did what Brooks says he did; at the same time, I don't doubt for a second that Brooks would say just about anything to try and stay in the game.

What's got you wondering tonight?

Sunday School 3/27/22: Extra Credit

In this week's Sunday School we heard from a Right Winger and a Woke Lefty on issues unrelated to regime change and ethics. For your Extra Credit, we're going to look at the latter, starting with three guests John Dickerson had on Face the Nation. 

First up? Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Dammit, I'm a Republican; Trump is a Menace). The bulk of their conversation was about the Ginni Thomas texts, the January 6th Committee, and the Supreme Court. (Full disclosure: Thomas and her husband, Justice Clarence Thomas, recently received one of my Dirty Snowpile awards.)

Kinzinger wouldn't officially confirm or deny the texts existed, since they were leaked, but he said the Committee's bottom line was to get the facts and share them with us.

We're going to get to the bottom of this. And as we're seeing in Ukraine, people are willing to die for democracy. We at least have to be willing to put careers on the line for the same cause.

He's got a point there...  Sadly, he didn't offer much of value, other than his lack of confidence that Mark Meadows, the recipient of the texts in question, has been fully forthcoming. There's a reason why he's been turned over to the DOJ for a potential contempt prosecution.

I mean, he was cooperating with us for a little bit, and then... to make Donald Trump happy, he stopped cooperating. We gave him plenty of space to come back to resume that. He has not. And, in fact, he's waived executive privilege a thousand times by presenting us what he already has. So, no, I'm not convinced he's handed over everything to us. 

Next up? Bob Woodward (WaPo) and Robert Costa (CBS), who broke the story the texts. Dickerson asked for an explanation on the importance of the messages. Woodward compared them to Watergate, which was tampering on the front end of the election process. This is different because "they come after the election is over." 

Costa noted this "campaign, spearheaded by then-president Trump," crossed all three branches of government "in at least tangential ways." It wasn't just pressuring Pence and Congress to overturn the results, and pressuring the states to invalidate the votes.

... you had the executive branch doing everything possible to have a legal challenge that would maybe go all the way, as Trump said, to the Supreme Court. This was Trump pulling every lever of power. And one of those levers, it appears to be...his own chief of staff at least communicating on legal strategy with the spouse of a justice.

Woodward said that Chief Justice John Roberts "really has grounds for being worried" about the Court being seen as political. He pointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett's "remarkable speech" a few months back, 

She said, I want to prove to you that we are not a bunch of partisan hacks in the Supreme Court. And she said justices - all justices - must be hyper vigilant to make sure they're not letting personal biases creep into their decision since justices and judges are people, too. So, she made it very clear that this hypervigilance should be the condition in which justices operate.

And yet, we have Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows texting about 'war' and 'good vs. evil' and 'not giving up' in their efforts to overturn the election, and Justice Thomas not recusing himself from January 6th-related cases... 

Costa appreciated the Committee's frustration by Meadows and what else he might have, and that includes any texts with Ginni Thomas after the end of November. I agree; it seems weird they would suddenly end. After all, she attended the Stop the Steal rally, until her feet got cold, and allegedly has ties with some of the groups behind the event. 

That said, The Committee has "done hundreds of interviews. They have thousands of pages of documents" from cooperating witnesses,

but they still feel in many ways they do not have enough. Steven Bannon has refused to cooperate. Mark Meadows has now refused to cooperate. So, the question facing ...Kinzinger and others is, where is the John Dean who's going to put the hand in the air and start outlining all of these different facets?

 Woodward said "there are always surprises," so it possible there's a John Dean out there. And

remember, the January 6th committee, in a filing in California, has said they have a good-faith conclusion that Trump and people around him engaged in a full-fledged criminal conspiracy to overturn the election. They rule this as criminal. 

And just yesterday, that judge ruled it was "more likely that not" that Trump "corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021." 

Costa said the "real test" for the Committee is whether they give Thomas a chance to speak voluntarily, or if they subpoena her. And, he said, it's not just about her conversations with Meadows. 

We just don't have the full picture at this point about her relationship with Justice Thomas and his knowledge of her exchanges with the chief of staff.

Ain't that the truth. 

Finally, let's hear just a bit from Sen. Cory Booker (D-No One's Going to Steal My Joy!), who chatted with What's-his-name on Meet the Press.  In addition to talking about the #KBJ hearings, the host brought up the text thing, using former AG Loretta Lynch and the meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton as an example of someone recusing themselves, and asked if Justice Thomas "should follow the Loretta Lynch precedent?" 

Booker ignored that example; instead, he offered a relevant one: Justice Elena Kagan.

Out of 70-some cases, she recused herself over 20 times... not necessarily because she was conflicted, but because she understood that even the appearance of impropriety would delegitimize the Court. And the Court needs that legitimacy in this nation. So clearly, Justice Thomas should have recused himself. That's not even at question here. (Emphasis added.)

He said he's frustrated with the Court "as a whole, that they have not taken better measures to police themselves." That includes holding lower courts to ethics rules that they "don't put upon themselves." And, he gave one my favorite examples of shady ethics: justices giving paid speeches to partisan groups that may have direct matters, or amicus briefs, before the Court.

There are a lot of ethics rules that they do not, have not put upon themselves that are just common sense and ultimately lead to a delegitimized court. And I think that they need to use this Thomas affair as an opportunity to change their ethics rules.

He didn't add "or we'll change the rules for them" - but that possibility is already on the table, as it should be.

See you around campus. Unless you need to recuse yourself for something. 

Sunday School 3/27/22

Every classroom I visited yesterday was all abuzz about the off-script statement from President Joe Biden about Russian President Vladimir Putin. It was a classic Biden gaffe, a classic Biden ad-lib, a classic Biden throw-away line. It was classic Biden. 

Like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Shrieking in the Hearing Room), saying someone needed to 'take Putin out', Biden said out loud what many people say quietly to themselves, or to a higher power in their prayers at night. 

In case you missed it, here's the video.

Since we know how that played out, with all the administration folks quickly moonwalking back the comment, I'm going to move on to other things, like these Fox News Sunday interviews, starting with Sen. Rick Scott (R-Florida Man). 

The chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), Scott didn't even wait for a question to dive right in.

It's nice seeing you, John. I think we're going to have a great year. We've got great candidates running around the country. We've got some primaries. The Democrats have primaries. In their primaries, I think Bernie Sanders type candidates are going to come out. The Biden agenda is very, very unpopular. So, as long as we raise our money, as long as we, you know, focus on big, bold ideas, I think we're going to have a great November.

The 'John' mentioned was host John Roberts, who asked about Russia and Ukraine. Scott said we should be doing more.

 ... don't play to tie, you play to win. You give them every resource you can and you do it every second. You're thinking, every second, what else can we do to put Putin back on his heels and have him take his troops back into Russia? That's what we should be doing every second. We have got to win this.

Scott also said that Biden has "been pretty weak" and that he had done more, "Putin wouldn't have invaded."

Roberts had some questions on two items in Scott's "11-point plan to rescue America." First, that all Americans should pay income taxes so they "have skin in the game," and second, that  all federal legislation will sunset in five years - which could potentially lead to the end of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. 

He wondered why Scott would propose that kind of thing in an election year. Scott said those were "Democrat talking points," but Roberts insisted they were in the plan - and he's right. In his defense, Scott said

Also in the plan, it says we ought to, every year, talk about exactly how we're going to fix Medicare and Social Security... No one that I know of wants to sunset Medicare or Social Security, but what we're doing is we don't even talk about it. Medicare goes bankrupt in four years. Social Security goes bankrupt in 12 years. I think we ought to figure out how we preserve those programs. Every program that we care about, we ought to stop and take the time to preserve those programs.

That italicized part? I searched the plan for 'Social Security' and there's only one reference:

Force Congress to issue a report every year telling the public what they plan to do when Social Security and Medicare go bankrupt. 

That's not the quite the same thing as talking every year about fixing these programs. And, on the other point, the tax thing? 

...here's what's unfair. We have people that don't -- that could go to work and have figured out how to have government pay their way. That's not right. They ought to have some skin in the game. I don't care if it's a dollar. We ought to all be in this together. I'm going to focus, continue to focus on reducing taxes. 

Just once, I'd love a politician to name one of these freeloaders, or one of the lobster-and-steak-eating welfare queens 0r whatever they call them. If they can't name one, do they even exist? 

Scott said he's only been in DC for a short while - three years - but he went there "to change this country.

Look at where we are now. The woke left controls, you know, the executive branch. They control a lot of our government. They control academia. They control Hollywood.

My goodness - they control Hollywood!  

To his credit, Roberts suggested most of his Republican colleagues "want to focus on Joe Biden," not on coming up with some plan they have to try and sell to the American public. And I'm pretty sure he's right about that.

And, speaking of the woke left, the next guest was Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Silicon Valley is Nowhere Near Hollywood); he's one of the Deputy Whips of the Congressional Woke Left Caucus. 

They talked a bit about Ukraine, and the Iran nuclear deal, and where India gets military equipment. And then Roberts shifted to politics and stuff that's more wokey-lefty: how Biden "keeps talking about, 'we've got to move toward the green agenda,' That's fine,  

if you do it over the course of decades. Even if you gave everybody in the country an electric vehicle for free and you convert every home to electric heat, the grid wouldn't stand it. So, you've got to update the grid as well. I mean, is it a time to put a pause on the push toward the green agenda and say, look, for the meantime, we've got to pump more oil, we've got to help out our European allies, we've got to get prices down?

Damn - that's an unwoke righty comment right there. Khanna suggested it's possible to walk and chew green gum at the same time, or something. He called it 'common sense.'

Short term, increase production. Here's one way to do it: the federal government can buy back what we're using in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and provide a floor price. That's a bipartisan proposal. Let's pass it.

Long-term, let's have a moonshot on clean technology. If John F. Kennedy said that we need to go to the moon to defeat the Soviets, you want to defeat the petrol states of Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, let's have a moonshot on renewable energy.

Remarkably, Roberts' head did not explode after Khanna's answer. He moved to Queen Work Lefty AOC and her recent NY1 interview, and her thinking that "the Democratic Party is in trouble because of the president." He played this clip, and asked Khanna if she's right.

This is really about the collapse in support among young people, among the Democratic base, feeling like they are not -- that they worked overtime to get this president elected and they aren't necessarily being seen. 

Khanna outlined Biden's accomplishments (American Rescue Plan, the infrastructure bill, and more) and said "of course there are other things we ought to do. But this president has met the moment in very difficult circumstances." That led Roberts to suggest "Americans might disagree with you," pointing to the president's 40% approval rating.

Finally, Roberts had a question about Khanna's book, which talks about technology and how we can make it work better for us. 

... the political discourse in this country has sunk to new lows. Everybody's yelling at each other. And much of the reason why they're yelling at each other is because of social media. Is social media ruining this country?

He said no, but "social media needs to do better." 

They ought not to have incitement of violence. They ought not to discriminate against viewpoints, allow for free speech, and they ought to make sure that teenagers aren't getting manipulated in ways that are causing depression and suicide. So, absolutely, there need to be more smarter regulations on social media.

Speaking of social media, remember Truth Social, former president Trump's new platform? No surprise if you don't - it's been a dud, it seems. This article in The Guardian says  

...nearly a month after its launch, Truth Social has become a laughingstock, marked by a botched rollout, a share price collapse and, in Trump, a figurehead who doesn’t actually post much to his own social media platform...

And almost a month after the launch, Trump has so far shared only one thought to the platform; a boilerplate message in mid-February urging people to “Get ready!”

 See you around campus.

And the Winners Are...

Here in Central New York, we're familiar with massive piles of snow, which go through cycles of looking pretty, and looking pretty disgusting, like the one shown here.

It's been a while since I've handed out any Dirty Snowpile Awards, given for particularly bad acts on the part of local, state, and federal politicians.

It wasn't for a lack of trying, I assure you. During the Obama years, I attempted to hand some out, but I never managed to get them done during awards season. And, of course, the Trump years were one giant dirty snowpile, from so many perspectives; it seemed silly to single anyone out. 

Tonight, folks are gathering for the Oscars, and I can't think of a better time to get some other well-deserved recognition out there. 

> The We May Never Find the Poop Under this Snowpile award goes to US Attorney General Merrick Garland. Garland moves at a very deliberate pace, it seems, and he's hardly an emphatic speaker. We know things are moving forward on the insurrection, and hate crimes, and such, but sometimes all we know is that things are moving s-l-o-w-l-y. There have been accomplishments, of course, and we know that his goal is to leave no snowpile unturned, at this pace by the time he finds the poop under all that snow, we'll forget which dog left it there. 

> Speaking of poop, former NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo has earned the Just When You Thought Winter Was Over award. Cuomo, as you know, resigned in the face of multiple sexual harassment allegations, for which he offered the Italian defense, and blamed his alleged victims and his political opponents. But now, like snow in April and May, he's back. That's right- the Sonofa Gov is campaigning to get his reputation back, and, if that weren't enough, he's been teasing a return to politics. 

Cuomo meandered back and forth across the ethical aisle for a long time. He was one of the three amigos back in the day; the other two were convicted of crimes. There were the economic development issues, with several people very close to Cuomo charged (and convicted). There were previous allegations of sexual harassment in his  administration; and of course, there was the Moreland Commission mess. 

The bottom line? Cuomo's just one more in a long line of NY pols who've behaved badly and tried to make us think they didn't. And, like late season snow, we don't like it, we don't need it, and we're sick of it. 

> The Does this Snowpile Make My Uterus Look Big award, given collectively to Republicans for their attacks on women and our bodies. Remember their, um, erudite conversations on rape? A few of those are captured here. And, of course, there are the new anti-abortion laws, some of which defy both logic and science. And in their zeal to see Roe v. Wade overturned, they're salivating at the possible end of Griswold v. Connecticut, which afforded privacy protections to married women and their birth control decisions. Considering the Rs are the party of small government and individual freedom, they're sure spending a lot of time trying to control my lady parts.

> The My Snowpile's So Small It Fits on this T-shirt award goes to the thousands of politicians, their advisors, or whoever it is that decided we should have a government of the t-shirt, by the t-shirt and for the t-shirt. You know what I'm talking about, right? Policies and positions that fit on a t-shirt are great; anything else, we don't give a hoot about. And don't forget how those slogans get twisted and turned into opposition missiles, either.

Need some examples? Well, off the top of my head, and in keeping with what we just talked about, My Body My Choice. And these: Make America Great Again; Build Back Better; Back the Blue; Defund the Police; Race to the Top; Read My Lips - No New Taxes; Drill, Baby, Drill; the Green New Deal... There must be a political slogan factory somewhere, I swear - and there are days I want to work there.

Sadly, one of the most important things with all this 'governing by slogan' stuff is that you buy the t-shirt, literally or figuratively.

> My frustration with progressives in the Democratic Party is no secret, so it should come as no surprise that they win the With Friends Like These Who Needs Enemies award. They think nothing of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory; it's never good enough to get something you've been fighting for, if you can't get everything you've been fighting for, and - of course - nothing is more important than what they want. This year, the progressives had a response to their own president's State of the Union address, for Pete's sake. 

> This year's The Couple That Shovels Together Stays Together award goes to the Thomases, Clarence and Ginni. Her work is hers, and his is his, and never the twain shall meet, except when the twain is all twisted up in an ugly ethical hairball, even without those text messages. And don't forget, Clarence has some issues separate from his wife's texts; here's one example; here's another one. 

That's all for this year's awards; I'd love to give out more, but I've got to go out and shovel one last time.

ICYMI (v82)

 Time to recap last week's posts, in case you missed anything.

The week started with a visit to the Sunday School classrooms, where we heard from The Grim Reaper himself, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. He offered some thoughts to Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation on Putin's war, including that

The Ukrainians have killed more Russians in three weeks than we lost in Afghanistan and Iraq in 20 years. 

Given how well the Ukrainians are doing, he suggested an open purse - and an attitude adjustment - might be helpful. 

If Ukraine needs more aid, on top of the $13.6B that was just approved, "we ought to give them more." And,

Look, I think we need to change our attitude here. The Ukrainians could actually win this thing and that's - the attitude we ought to have, that we're in it to help them win.

I also covered UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who joined Jake Tapper in the State of the Union classroom.

For your Sunday School Extra Credit I wandered into the host's chat with Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) in ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos classroom. Barrasso and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) traded a few barbs separately, including on the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to move up to the Supreme Court.

George picked up with Sen. Barrasso where he left off with Durbin, asking if Hawley was engaging in what Barrasso specifically said should not happen with Jackson: "a process of character assassination." Barrasso said "the whole process is going to be fair, respectful, and thorough." And he offered an attack on Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

I’m less concerned about her statements than I am about Chuck Schumer's statements. He said she's going to rule with empathy. A judge ought to be making decisions based on the law as written, not the way they feel about it. So, he also said check her record. And going through the record, there are some concerns that people have about her being perceived as soft on crime. That's all going to come out with the hearings but they're going to be respectful, they’re going to be thorough and they’re going to be fair, George.

We now know what happened on the 'respectful' part, don't we?

I was Wondering on Wednesday about the KBJ hearings, and the approach the Rs took in their questioning, much of it focused on Judge Jackson's sentencing of child pornography defendants. For some reason, this is a GOP Most Favored Topic - remember Pizzagate? Anyway.

And I wonder why these child-porn-focused Republican senators are now asking to receive additional information on these cases, including pre-sentencing reports? And why is Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin withholding information from the Republicans, if in fact that's happening here?

Truth be told, there's a simple way to resolve that conflict, and I wonder why no one has suggested it yet: have the FBI urgently investigate, like it did with the sexual harassment allegations against Brett 'I Really Like Beer' Kavanaugh, and then the senators can all go into a SCIF or something and have the report read to them. Oh wait - we all remember how that went.

That didn't happen, of course. We know they didn't really want to see the reports; they just wanted their moment in the spotlight, to pound their chests and scratch themselves and pick bugs off each other... 

Interestingly, that whole "moment in the spotlight" stuff came up in my TGIF entry. In a blitz of mostly bad week items from the hearings, I dropped this kudo.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) had a good week, for calling out the bad behavior of his colleagues - and not just the ones making fools of themselves in these hearings. While explaining why he doesn't want cameras in SCOTUS proceedings, he offered this bit of wisdom, with which I can't argue. 

I think we should recognize the jack-assery we often see around here is partly because of people mugging for short-term camera opportunities.

And later, after my  post was published, we learned that he was going to vote 'no' on Jackson, even though there'll be no change in the balance of the Court. 

Sasse can't vote for an "extraordinary person with an extraordinary American story" who "love(s) this country" and who has "impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law..." because she's not an 'originalist.' 

But boy, she's damn qualified., isn't she?

I'll be back with a special post for this special day - stand back and stand down, or something.