Sunday School 10/20/19

Chris Wallace had an exclusive interview with Mick Mulvaney today (you can read about that in our Extra Credit entry) as well as an interview with Pete Buttigieg, one of the top 2020 Dems.

Mayor Pete also talked with Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union, and with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press. I'm guessing he and Senator Amy Klobuchar, who also talked with Tapper, were attractive guests because of their performances in last Tuesday's debate. (Klobuchar's interview will also be recapped in the Extra Credit post).

So, for the Buttigieg interviews, I'm going to try and highlight the different topics that were discussed in the three sets of discussions, starting with Fox News.

Chris Wallace wondered if Butigieg needed to finish in the top two or three in Iowa in order to remain in the race, as a candidate from the Midwest and one who seems sort of stuck in fourth place in most polls.  Buttigieg agreed that a strong performance in Iowa is necessary, and that he's got around two dozen field offices and lots of organizers.  And, he said,

You know, Democrats there...want to know that we can defeat and replace president Trump, also want to know how the policies we're putting forward are going to impact their lives.... we've got our work cut out for us to close the deal between now and the caucuses. 

Wallace wondered if his more aggressive stance in the debate was a "conscious effort to jump start (his) campaign?"

This is the season for us to lay out what we care about, what we're passionate about, and what's different among each of the candidates. And I want to make sure there's no question in any voter's mind how their life would be different under my presidency than if any of the others were to be elected. 

Buttigieg also reminded everyone watching that, while the Dems have a chance to "build an American majority around bold action" they "could wreck that majority through purity tests" (such as the M4A and gun conversations during the debates which Wallace highlighted in video clips).

The good news is, we can govern in a very bold and forward-leaning direction but we've got to make sure we do it in a way that moves toward unifying rather than further polarizing by the American people. 

They talked about campaign contributions, grassroots donors, and not taking corporate money, which is another one of those purity tests.  Regarding comments from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who seems to have a larger-than-life role in the 2020 election), he said

What I'm trying to say is that we can't go into this fight against Donald Trump with one hand tied behind our back. Look, the president and his allies just raised $125 million. They will pull out all of the stops to stay in power. And I think we have a responsibility to the country to make sure we go into this fight, as Democrats, with everything that we've got, and not unilaterally disarming. We indeed need to end the era of big money in politics.. and it will never happen as long as the folks currently in charge stay there.

On his lack of support from African-Americans (most of whom are solidly behind Joe Biden, it seems from recent polls), he said he's focusing on the substance of what he has to offer that community, what his agenda is for them. He said it's comprehensive,

it's everything from empowering black entrepreneurs and fueling business development, to making sure we deal with discrimination in housing and in health, to cutting incarceration in this country by 50%... we need to continue making the case... and our job is to do that in a very short period of time.

In his discussion with Jake Tapper, they talked about Trump's use of language like "ultimate solution and the Turks having to "have it cleaned out" referencing the Kurds.  He asked Buttigieg for his reaction.

My reaction is that those kinds of phrases have the darkest rhymes in world history. We don't talk about cleaning out people, especially when there is an ethnic minority that has faced atrocities and appears to be facing crimes against humanity and atrocities, perhaps beginning right now.

And he talked about the consequences here in America too, not just in Syria to the Kurds.

...when an American president talks like that, when an American president pulls the rug out from under people who trusted us with their lives, that's going to have implications for American interests all over the world. Any place in the world where we need someone to trust us, to go out on a limb, to fight alongside our troops, it's going to be harder. And that could last for decades and will make America less safe.

The also talked about M4A, Warren's plan, and Hillary Clinton's attack on Tulsi Gabbard, which was also addressed in his interview with Chuck Todd. First, though, what would Buttigieg do as president with Turkey, Northern Syria, the Kurds.

We know that we need to promote stability, that we need to stand by our allies and that there will be legitimate Turkish security concerns that will also be part of the equation. But right now what's happening is the future over there is being decided by everybody but the United States... because American leadership has been withdrawn.

Todd wondered if Turkey belongs in NATO. Buttigieg suggested there'd need to be consequences if Turkey continued to act badly, but that we have to engage them as an ally.

I served alongside Turkish troops in Afghanistan. That alliance is important. And it's leverage for us to make sure we use our influence to prevent bad outcomes like the one Donald Trump just green lighted that they're doing right now. If they don't act like an ally in the long run, that's going to have consequences.

There was also talk about Afghanistan, and what we do with our troops there. An article accused Buttigieg and other Dems of pushing a "unilateral, non-negotiated withdrawal" from that country, and Todd wondered what the lesson was from Syria and how that impacts what we do in Afghanistan. Buttigieg said what he's proposing in Afghanistan does have negotiations, the article's statement was not correct.

What we need to do in Afghanistan is get to where we have a light footprint presence of counter-terrorism, specialized, special operations troops and whatever intelligence capabilities we need to protect the homeland, and no more.

So no, we would not be pulling out all of our people, and yes, we would maintain a small force for the foreseeable future, "making it possible to prevent the descent into chaos we're seeing now."

They also discussed the debate, M4A and how to pay for it, and so on, before turning to the Clinton-Gabbard fight. Todd was curious about Buttigieg's reaction, if any, to Clinton saying Gabbard might be a Russian asset.

Buttigieg tried to stay above the fray, saying he wasn't going to get in their dispute, and as to whether it was appropriate for Clinton to have said it,

Well, I suppose when you become a private citizen you can say whatever you want, but... I certainly honor her service. As we saw in the debate I also have strong disagreements with her on topics like Syria. But the bigger issue here is Russia is working to interfere in our elections right now. And we know a big part of how they're going to do it is exploiting divisions among the American people... We've got to become a harder target... 

Todd pressed him on the having an accusation thrown out there like Clinton did, calling it a "Trumpian move." Again, Buttigieg said focus has to be on what's important, which is ending the Trump presidency. So Todd pushed - again - asking, "so, you're comfortable with Hillary Clinton's critique of Tulsi Gabbard and how she went about it?"

No, I'm not. I'm also not going to get in the middle of it because, we, as a party, and as a country, have to focus on the future. 

Of all the topics they covered, I think Mayor Pete handled this the worst. The immediate answer should have been, No, I don't think what Secretary Clinton said was appropriate in the least, and I wish she hadn't said it - and then gone into his 'focus on the future' aspects.  That it took comparing it to stuff Trump says (Chris Wallace also went in that direction, although not quite as bluntly) for him to say he wasn't comfortable, hurt him in my opinion.  Your thoughts?

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed it (v7)

It was a short week for the blog, as life happily interrupted things a couple of times. That said, there was still plenty going on. Here's a recap.

Sunday School  brought us a couple of 2020 presidential candidates, Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders. Here's part of Mayor Pete's conversation with Jake Tapper (CNN's State of the Union) on impeachment.

It's about making sure that a future president, 10 years or 100 years from now looks back at this moment and draws the lesson that nobody is above the law. And in a moment like that, public opinion is just going to have to follow the lead of the Constitution, instead of the other way around.

Sanders talked with Jonathan Karl (ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos) on his and the president's dislike for endless wars, although Sanders said he and Trump are not completely on the same page.

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

Monday brought us another installment of Poll Watch, this time focusing primarily on impeachment. We know that a number of polls have shown that Americans are in favor of the impeachment inquiry, and we know, from the polls included in the post, that many are in favor of seeing the president not just impeached, but removed from office.

We also learned that the Dems and how they're handling the whole thing that is the impeachment inquiry are perceived more favorably than the Republicans and their shenanigans.

Looking at Congress,

• 49% approve of how the Democrats are handling it, while 44% disapprove.

• 56% disapprove of how the Republicans are handling it, while only 33% approve. 

Wednesday's Wondering was all about the winners and losers from Tuesday's debate. Experts picked their winners and losers, and so did I. We disagreed on some of winners, but were pretty much in sync on the losers, and those who didn't do enough to make a difference.

Kamala Harris did not have a good night (again), nor did Julian Castro (again) or Beto O'Rourke (again), and Cory Booker was middle-of-the-pack safe (again). I don't see a future for the latter three, and I'm wondering how much longer Harris will - or should - stick around, too.

I did another report from the Update Desk on my social experiment involving the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination, and again wondered how much longer I'm going to keep all of them in the mix. I expect there'll be some herd-culling after next week's report, but we'll see.

Here's how a few of them talked about the president.

Biden continued to focus on Trump, including a demand that the president produce his income taxes "or shut up" - a more strident approach then any of the others took. O'Rourke planned a protest rally during Trump's Texas visit, and also pointed out that Trump is a symptom, not the problem; Mayor Pete focused on his 'day after the Trump presidency' messaging, and Klobuchar said Trump could come to Minnesota as often as he wanted, but he wasn't going to win.

And yesterday brought our regular weekly feature, TGIF. Trying to keep track of all the folks having bad weeks, and finding any who had good weeks, is getting harder and harder these days. On the bad week side of the ledger, one current and one former presidential candidate were spotlighted.

Joe Biden had another bad week, I think we'd all agree, and in my eyes so did the winner of the popular vote in 2016.

And finally, I've said this before and I'll keep saying it as many times as I have to. Hillary Clinton, sit down. And please, stay out of the fray. We don't need you interjecting yourself into the 2020 campaign. Go sell books or something.

There you have it -- this week, in review. Check ou these posts, and be sure to come back next week to see what's going on. 

TGIF 10/18/19

Remember when the president said he liked having 'acting' officials in his administration?

Here's what he said in an interview this past spring: “I like acting because I can move so quickly. It gives me more flexibility.” 

Mick Mulvaney, the president's acting Chief of Staff  and the guy who said on camera that there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine and the aid that Congress had appropriated for them might be experiencing some of Trump's famous 'flexibility' soon. I don't know what the rest of you think, but if you're the guy who blew the president's defense in an impeachment inquiry, it might make sense to keep a close eye on a certain Twitter feed and to watch for fast-moving buses.

Rick Perry, the guy who got to be head of a department he wanted to eliminate, has decided he's had enough fun and will be leaving by the end of the year. The official announcement was kind of a let-down, since it had been reported a couple of weeks ago that he was going to be making this move. Perry's time in the Trump administration will be remembered for "freedom gas" as well as for helping to advance our energy dominance, and of course for his role in the Ukraine mess. And speaking of that mess, Perry missed a subpoena deadline this week.

Also not having a good week? Joe Biden. Everyone - experts and amateurs like me included - said he lost the debate this week, and of course, he and his son Hunter are under almost continuous deflecting attacks by the president and his minions. And now, there's a report out that flags were raised back in 2015 that Hunter's job on the Burisma board was a concern, and that it sent the wrong message to Ukraine on why rooting out corruption was important. That Biden doesn't recognize this - or refuses to recognize it - and that it's going to drag down his campaign and the Democrats as a whole, is both sad and inexcusable.

And finally, I've said this before and I'll keep saying it as many times as I have to. Hillary Clinton, sit down. And please, stay out of the fray. We don't need you interjecting yourself into the 2020 campaign. Go sell books or something.

And on the good side of the ledger?

NASA finally was able to have an all-female space walk, after solving the wardrobe problem that delayed it a while back. Flight Engineers Christina Koch and Jessica Meir spent over seven hours replacing a device that helps distribute solar power to the space station, and also got a jump on some other work.

And former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch had a good week, it seems, by testifying before Congress in defiance of the State Department (and the White House). Kudos to her for appearing and for shedding light on the damage being done at State by Rudy Giuliani and others who are making a royal mess of things. And kudos as well to Gordon Sondland, our ambassador to the European Union, who also testified this week.

Here's hoping others will come forward and share what they know about what the heck is going on in the White House.

TGIF, everyone.

The Update Desk: Who Loves Me, Baby? (7)

It's that time again - another Thursday spent reading emails from the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. Well, the top 10 of them, that is. I won't be adding anyone to my social experiment, so Tulsi Gabbard and Tom Steyer and the rest of them who are still in the race but not making it to the debates? Yeah, our relationship is going nowhere.

For the ten contenders, if that's the right word to use, I'm close to cutting a few of you loose, if you don't cut yourselves loose first. Just being honest, and we all know honesty is the best policy - even better than Medicare for All.

I'm changing things up again a little, because it's been made very clear throughout the course of the social experiment that the majority the emails the candidates are sending are requests for money. Sure, sometimes there's a hint of policy, or news, but for the most part they are sending bald-faced money requests, so I'm not going to focus on that anymore. Instead, I'm going to focus on what they are talking about, in addition to money.

First, the numbers: I received 178 emails before this week's deadline. Because we had the debate on Tuesday, I bucketed the emails into those received by midnight on the 14th, the day before the debate, and emails received on debate day or later. 110 emails made it into the first bucket, with another 68 in the second one.  Here's the breakdown by candidate.

Diving a little deeper into the candidate's emails, here are some trends: 

• There was a lot of concern about not only their appearances at this weeks' debate, but also viability for the next one, and there were of course a number of post-debate emails celebrating individual performances.This was consistent across all candidates, whether (in my opinion) there was anything to celebrate from the debate, or not. 
• Several candidates tied emails to both pre-debate and post-debate fundraising goals; Kamala Harris had a fundraising email during the debate. Goals ranged from $100,000 (Castro) to $1,000,000 (Mayor Pete) to $2,000,000 in six weeks (O'Rourke), so you can see expectations are vastly different among the candidates. 
• It seemed the candidates asking for money the most were Harris and Warren - or at least, they were the most desperate.
• Surveys were common, as were merch rollouts; this is a continuing trend from the very beginning. Andrew Yang's campaign has a cool new scarf, while Bernie Sanders  is continuing his "Billionaires Should Not Exist" campaign, with a bumper sticker you can put on your neighbor's car or something. 
• Biden continued to focus on Trump, including a demand that the president produce his income taxes "or shut up" - a more strident approach then any of the others took. O'Rourke planned a protest rally during Trump's Texas visit, and also pointed out that Trump is a symptom, not the problem; Mayor Pete focused on his 'day after the Trump presidency' messaging, and Klobuchar said Trump could come to Minnesota as often as he wanted, but he wasn't going to win, 
• Harris had whole litany of things to talk about, including LGBTQ issues, which the other candidates got in before last week's deadline; electability; Don Junior's tweet about her laugh, which she milked for three emails alone, and reproductive rights.
• For her part, Warren clarified her position on who she'd take money from, and her plan for getting money out of politics should she win.
• Klobuchar focused on what's she's been doing in Iowa, her new ads, polls, and the debates; Yang focused on similar subjects, including having set and met goals already, as he continues to do well. 

All in all, they worked pretty hard this week. Booker had the most eclectic set of emails, including one asking for money for wildfire relief, and one from his girlfriend, Rosario Dawson, which was in the running for email of the week. 

But the winner there, hands down, was Julian Castro. Take a look:

BREAKING: After uproar when SNL failed to represent Julián Castro, the only Latino candidate running for President, SNL reverses course. WATCH THE SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE CLIP: See Hamilton’s Lin-Manuel Miranda’s hilarious impression of Julián. After Julián was left out of SNL, there was an uproar. Activists all over the country wrote in to SNL, called them out on social media, and called NBC in protest.  And your activism worked -- after erasing the only Latino from the debate stage, this weekend SNL had none other than Lin-Manuel Miranda from Hamilton play Julián. Thanks for the laughs, Lin-Manuel! And thank you for your activism. -Team Julián

So - another week in the books. We saw humor, we saw desperation, we saw hope, and we saw personality.

I'll take it. 

Wondering on Wednesday (v186)

This is the 'CNN/NY Times debate winners and losers' version of our weekly wondering.

I know lots of people are not paying attention to the debates, and I kind of get it - there's lots of candidates, it's too early, the debates are too long, and so on - but that's frustrating. Because, after watching the debate (I'm four for four now) and then reading what the experts had to say, I'm not thrilled that the experts in the media (and those not in the media) will be picking the winner for us.

And that's what's going to happen, right? Just like always, they'll spend their time on the front-runners, who are the front runners because of the media attention they have already gotten, and by the time people start voting in the big states, the herd will have been culled through a combination of misdirected media attention and potential voter apathy.

Anyway - enough of that. The experts I checked in with were CNN and the NY Times Opinion gang; Vox; the Washington Post; Fox News; and the BBC. Here's a chart showing who they chose as winners and losers - so, without further ado, let the wondering begin.

I'm not a Bernie Sanders fan. But even if I was, I'd have to wonder how simply being on the stage makes you a debate winner?

I know that sounds horrible, but Sanders himself noted that the procedure he had after his minor heart attack is done thousands and thousands of times a year; it's a common procedure, even if it's uncommon for a presidential candidate. I'm happy he bounced back from it, and that he was his usual grumpy self - pretty sure he wrote the damn bill on that -  but I just don't see how that makes him the winningest of all the candidates.

I also wonder how it's a 'wow' moment when 'The Squad'  - the most very progressive freshmen Dems in the House - goes way out on a one-inch-long limb to endorse the Democratic Socialist? There's no 'news' here;  there's no 'there' there. It would have been news if AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib had decided to endorse Joe Biden, but that they endorse Sanders? How does that make contribute to Bernie being the debate winner?

Elizabeth Warren got kudos for being the front runner and standing up to 'attacks' from her opponents without folding, which proved that she's tough and strong and a worthy candidate to go up against Trump, the experts said. I agree she stood her ground, but what she faced from her counterparts on the stage is nothing remotely like what she's going to get hit with by Trump, should she be the survivor. I wonder if there's anything that will prepare any of these candidates for that?

I'm happy to see both Buttigieg and Klobuchar ranking high on the winner's side. I find their arguments for moderation compelling, and thought each of them made the case for that. For example, here's Klobuchar on Medicare for All, but her point is true for much of the progressive agenda.

...I appreciate Elizabeth's work. But, again, the difference between a plan and a pipe dream is something that you can actually get done.

Buttigieg made a similar point, noting that the day after a Trump presidency is going to be a particular type of challenge. After pointing out his disagreement that Trump was an aberration and that we can get back to normal, he continued

But I also don't agree with Senator Warren that the only way forward is infinite partisan combat. Yes, we have to fight - absolutely, we have to fight for the big changes at hand but it's going to take more than fighting. Once again, I take you back to that day after Trump has stopped being president. Think about what the president can do to unify a new American majority for some of the boldest things we've attempted in my lifetime...

He listed several of his positions, many of which are also held by a majority of Americans, according to recent polling. So what I'm wondering is, how do Klobuchar and Buttigieg get attention from the media?

Do they have to shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue?

I also wonder how Andrew Yang can get more attention, to something other than his MATH pin, which isn't about 'math' per se - it's about Making America Think Harder. His Freedom Dividend is an outside the box proposal, but it's being tested on a small scale, most notably in California, in Stockton. And people belittle this idea without paying attention to why Yang thinks it's important. He, too, deserves more attention for his ideas of empowering Americans, and for why he believes that's so necessary.

Do I agree, at all, with the experts, you might be wondering? Yep - Joe Biden lost the debate, as I believe he has other debates. You'll remember I didn't want him to run - and that was before the Biden Issue crap hit the fan. I'm even more convinced that he's not the right one to move us forward than I was before. Yes, he was feisty during the debate - as was Sanders - but it's not enough.

Kamala Harris did not have a good night (again), nor did Julian Castro (again) or Beto O'Rourke (again), and Cory Booker was middle-of-the-pack safe (again). I don't see a future for the latter three, and I'm wondering how much longer Harris will - or should - stick around, too.

Here's a transcript of the debate, and here's the full video, all three hours of it. I encourage you to take a look at one or both.

After all, if we can binge watch Seinfeld, the show about nothing, shouldn't we be able to binge watch the a debate, the show about our future?

Poll Watch: Impeachment and Whatnot

So. when it comes to impeachment and whatnot, we've heard a lot about what the politicians think Americans think. Let's look at some recent polls to see what we actually think.

First, a Washington Post/Schar School poll. The Schar School, if you're unfamiliar, is part of George Mason University. First, the small print: the poll was conducted via phone 10/1 - 10/6 from among a random national sample of 1007 adults. 69% were reached via cell and 31% via land line. The margin of error is 3.5%. On to the questions.

Only 35% of respondents think that president Trump upholds adequate ethical standards; 65% do not, and 5% don't know. Looking at Joe Biden,  47% think he would uphold adequate ethical standards, while 38% think he wouldn't and 15% don't know. And this is even with daily attacks, sometimes multiple attacks, from Trump and his minions about Biden and his son Hunter.

On whether Congress should have begun an impeachment inquiry, 58% agree it should have, with 43% strongly agreeing with the inquiry. On the flip side, 38% disagree with the inquiry, (29% strongly). In a follow-up for those who agree with the impeachment inquiry, 49% say he should be impeached and removed from office, while 9% say impeachment is OK, but removal is not.

Looking at Congress,

• 49% approve of how the Democrats are handling it, while 44% disapprove.
• 56% disapprove of how the Republicans are handling it, while only 33% approve. 
• For both parties, 11% have no opinion.

On the Democrats specifically, since they're in charge,

• 53% feel Democrats are acting to uphold their constitutional duties; 42% disagree.
• 61% believe the Dems are making a necessary stand against Trump's actions; 35% disagree.
• 50% believe Dems are distracting Congress from more important issues; 36% disagree.
• 41% think the Dems are overreacting, while 55% disagree. 

And now, let's look at a Fox News Poll, with interviews conducted 10/6 - 10/8 from a national random sample of 1,003 registered voters. 229 were via land line, 774 via cellphone. Phone numbers were randomly selected using logic making the phone numbers for each state proportional to the number of voters in each state. That's the small print.

Should president Trump be impeached and removed from office? 51% said yes, 43% said no. Of the 43% who said he shouldn't be, 8% say he should be impeached but not removed, and 82% say he shouldn't be impeached at all.

Here are the top five reasons given for not impeaching him:

• it's political/a witch hunt; 30%
• he did nothing wrong: 21%
• there's a lack of evidence/need more facts: 15%
• I approve of his job performance: 11%
• no impeachable offenses have been committed: 10%

Respondents weren't very impressed with Trump's call with Zelensky; 43% say it was 'best described' as an impeachable offense, while another 27% said it was inappropriate but not impeachable. Only 17% thought it was appropriate. And, overwhelmingly people think it's inappropriate to ask a foreign country to investigate political opponents, by a 41-point margin (66% to 25%).

The survey also asked respondents about motivation, specifically the motivation of Democrats and Republicans in this process. For example

• 48% of respondents say the Democrats really think Trump committed an impeachable offense, but 45% think the Dems are just trying to hurt Trump politically.
• 32% say the Republicans really think he didn't commit an impeachable offense, while 55% think the Rs are just trying to protect him. 

And, we'll close with a couple of interesting opinions:

• 48% think Trump is getting what he deserves with impeachment; 37% think people are out to get him.
• 55% think what matters to Trump is doing what's best for him, compared to 39% who think what matters is doing what's best for the country.

There are two or three other polls out recently where a majority of respondents believe that impeachment is the right step to take. I had heard there were some questions with the analysis of the Fox Survey, but again, there are several others showing Americans favor going through the constitutional process. 

The politicians should listen to us, for a change, don't you think?

Sunday School 10/13/19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 He believes this kind of approach

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

And, that was it - interview over.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes - that has to take place.

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed it (v6)

Another week in the books. Another handful of posts you might not have had the chance to see... Here's a recap for you.

Sunday School brought us a chance to hear from not only a Dem running for president, but two Republicans doing the same:  former Representatives Mark Sanford and Joe Walsh. They're of two different minds when it comes to president Trump and to impeachment, with Wash taking a much harder line, as he did here, posing a question to Sanford.

... Either the Republican party stands up now and says, we oppose this, we oppose collusion, we oppose foreign governments interfering in our election, either we stand up with one unifying voice with that right now, Mark, and we don't get involved in the gobbledygook of censure or impeachment or is it politically prudent. How about we Republicans do what is right, sir?

It was interesting to hear them, and to see one of the Sunday classrooms have a multi-person interview - or, in this case, to have a Republican debate, something we might not see if the president and the RNC have their way.

On Monday, I switched gears a little. I figure everyone now and then someone might get tired of my words, and so I let the president's own words flow, unimpeded, in free (and very shapely) OrangeVerse (and yes, it actually does flow orangely, in case you haven't seen any of his poetry before).

I dropped a Sunday School Extra Credit piece on Tuesday, which was all about interviewers and their subjects - or, more accurately, about interviewers trying to get their subjects to answer questions - featuring Chuck Todd of Meet the Press and Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday. While Wallace tried valiantly to get an answer using the old 'repeat the question' method, Todd took the 'yell at your guest' approach, and became the darling of social media folks all over the left hand side of the dial. Me? Not really all that impressed.

While some are applauding Todd for his efforts, others suggest that giving him kudos for doing his job is kind of like giving everyone a participation trophy or something. And, of course there's the whole other point that this is way too little, way too late. Had he or any other journalists done this back in 2015, beginning with the escalator ride, we might not be sitting here having an impeachment investigation of the president. Why? Because Trump would not have been the nominee, had he faced even the slightest real scrutiny in the beginning - or even the middle - of his campaign. By the time most media outlets started to take him seriously, it was way too late.

We're apt to fall into the same thing again this year, the way coverage is going. Tuesday's debate will be a real test for the moderators, if not for the candidates.

I was Wondering on Wednesday among other things, about how the president is reacting to the whole impeachment thing.

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

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

Thursday's message from the Update Desk showed us that even though the third quarter fundraising rush was completely over, there's no end to the hustle to get campaign contributions. And, there's little start to policy discussions, generally, although there was a glimmer of hope. 

This week saw only one email related to guns - and it wasn't Beto this time, it was Biden. Bernie mentioned Medicare for All, pointing out that everyone should be entitled to the same great health care he received after suffering his heart attack.  

On other issues, we saw new plans from Warren, who introduced a new worker's rights plan, and Sanders, who rolled out his 'Money isn't Speech' plan.  And, both Buttigieg and Warren released plans for LGBTQ equality.

All of the candidates are talking about the upcoming debate, which will have Tulsi Gabbard and Tom Steyer joining the top ten on stage - I can only imagine, and will start pumping energy drinks tomorrow to make sure I'm ready for the live stream on the veritable pastiche Facebook page.  

And finally, blissfully, TGIF! I was in a funk, I admit, and it was my own fault for watching clips of Trump's rally in Minnesota. I really should know better.

I see a man unhinged, unglued, unsafe, unsound, and unfamiliar with what America means or stands for. I see young people in the audience behind him, and except for the couple times when the teens appeared shocked at what Trump was saying, it was disheartening to say the least. 

I really should know better.

Next week?  I know for sure I'll have something to say about the debate, as well as a number of our regular features.  Stop by to see what else bubbles to the top.

TGIF 10/11/19

I got nothin' (cute liddle hyphen notwithstanding).

I foolishly watched clips of the president's rally in 

Minnesota last night, and I don't even know what to say.  

I see a man unhinged, unglued, unsafe, unsound, and unfamiliar with 

what America means or stands for. I see young people in the audience

behind him, and except for the couple times when the teens appeared 

shocked at what Trump was saying, it was disheartening to say the least. 

It's all disheartening, but there is light.

There's always light, right? 

People will resign, right? 

Not just Shep Smith, or the one guy at State. 

People will have to resign, they will leave the sinking ship,

they will find their lost selves again, and they'll do the right thing.

Yovanovitch defied the State Department.

Sondland says he'll testify - no documents,  but at least he'll testify. 

And Rudy's goons were arrested. 

Donny Jr and his girlfriend earned $50K of college kid money

for doing a speech, but that's not profiting from Daddy's position - 

that's patriotism, I think they call it? 

And we know who they are, right? 

They're the ones who play God Bless the USA 

at their rallies, and other songs they've stolen. 

They're the ones that tell us how righteous they are,

as they pass around the hate, and bile, and discrimination. 

tied up with a redwhiteandblue ribbon

We know who they are. 

They are not us.

TGIF, everyone.

The Update Desk: Who Loves Me, Baby? (6)

This is the sixth update on my social experiment with the top ten 2020 Democratic presidential candidates and how they communicate with prospective supporters. (You can read the original post that started all of this silliness here, and prior updates here, here, here , here and here.)

Things slowed quite a bit this week, now that we're past the Q3 deadline. Here's this week's tally:

• 118 emails received, a drop of 76 compared to last week (and can I tell you, I appreciated that?);
• 83 (70.3%) were primarily requests for donations, even though there may have been some kind of underlying message;
• 30 of the emails were in the general/miscellaneous category; as with past weeks, the focus for these tended to be surveys, those darn sticker, merch, and so on. This week, several candidates mentioned LGBTQ rights because of the Supreme Court activity;  and 
• 5 emails were directly related to the October 15th debate; now that they've all qualified, the emails were looking for issues to focus on, or hosting debate watch parties. 

In order, the top five asking for money the most were Kamala Harris (84.6%), Cory Booker (78.6%), Julian Castro (77.8%), Elizabeth Warren (76.9%) and  Andrew Yang (70%). The other candidates, in descending order:  Amy Klobuchar (66.7%), Bernie Sanders (63.6%), Joe Biden (63.2%), Pete Buttigieg (60%), and Beto O'Rourke (57.1%). 

This week saw only one email related to guns - and it wasn't Beto this time, it was Biden. Bernie mentioned Medicare for All, pointing out that everyone should be entitled to the same great health care he received after suffering his heart attack.  

On other issues, we saw new plans from Warren, who introduced a new worker's rights plan, and Sanders, who rolled out his 'Money isn't Speech' plan.  And, both Buttigieg and Warren released plans for LGBTQ equality.

Not surprisingly, Joe Biden spent a lot of time talking about Donald Trump, including announcing (later than several of his counterparts) that the president should be impeached. 

Andrew Yang, who had a really good Q3 from a fundraising perspective, devoted some time to pointing out media bias, including leaving him out of graphics showing the top money raisers (Booker, who raised a couple million less than Yang, made the list) and how he and his plans are not getting the attention they deserve given his support. Honestly, I don't blame him.

Warren made mention of pregnancy discrimination, reiterating her story of  "being shown the door" when she was a young, visibly pregnant teacher, which has recently come under scrutiny. She asked women to share their stories with her, and if it goes as it has for many news outlets that asked the same question, she's going to get a lot of them.

And finally, our email of the week. I was intrigued by one from the Harris campaign that referenced an app called TikTok and cow videos, but in the end, I chose this one from Mayor Pete's campaign for the win.  

Hi there,

We’re running a massive weekend of outreach this weekend -- we’re calling it “Boot-Pledge-Pledge.”

All across the country, members of Team Pete (that’s you!) are gathering to knock on doors, make phone calls, reach out to your friends and family, and in some cases, collect signatures to help get Pete on the ballot. We’re asking people to pledge their support for Pete. (See what we did there?)

Will you sign up to make calls this Boot-Pledge-Pledge weekend?

We’re making calls all weekend into the early states to identify Pete supporters, and we’d love for you to join. Click here to sign up to share Pete’s bold vision for the future, and we'll be in touch with all the information you need to get started.

We’re so excited for this Boot-Pledge-Pledge weekend, and really hope you can join us.

See you soon, and thanks!!

Yes, I saw what you did there.

Wondering on Wednesday (v185)

What a great day to be wondering...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, for saying things like this.

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

Or this.

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

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

Sunday School Extra Credit: 10/6/19

There was a lot going on yesterday, mostly about impeachment on the talk shows, but today the talk was all about MTP's Chuck Todd and Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace and how they're pushing their guests to answer questions more than they have in the past.

Here's a link to video of a portion of Todd's interview with Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, where the question on the table is why Johnson 'winced' when he heard that the aid to Ukraine was being held up because Trump wanted the Bidens, and the DNC, investigated.

While some are applauding Todd for his efforts, others suggest that giving him kudos for doing his job is kind of like giving everyone a participation trophy or something. And, of course there's the whole other point that this is way too little, way too late. Had he or any other journalists done this back in 2015, beginning with the escalator ride, we might not be sitting here having an impeachment investigation of the president. Why? Because Trump would not have been the nominee, had he faced even the slightest real scrutiny in the beginning - or even the middle - of his campaign. By the time most media outlets started to take him seriously, it was way too late.

I think there's a respectful way to get questions answered, and this was not that, but I do understand the frustration - I just don't know that it needs to be applauded. I mean, you can always just end the interview, can't you? "I'm sorry, sir, but clearly we're on different missions today. Thanks for coming in."

Meanwhile, here's Chris Wallace interviewing Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah.

Wallace started by asking Stewart whether he's concerned that a second whistleblower had come forward, with firsthand corroborating knowledge. Stewart said he wasn't concerned at all, since they've known "a little bit" that someone else was likely to come forward. And,

...one of our concerns has always been there hasn't been firsthand knowledge of this. The first whistleblower, virtually everything that he accused was second and third hand knowledge. But, Chris, it does not matter. This person is going to come forward and say, yes, the president had this phone call and, yes, that's the transcript. I mean why should I care at all what his perspective or his opinion and judgment of this transcript is? You and I can read it.

Um, we can't read the transcript, because what was released is specifically NOT a transcript of the call. And if Republicans were concerned about there not being firsthand information, - meaning, as they've been saying, the stuff was made up, completely unreliable or both - why aren't they concerned that there's now firsthand information?

If Wallace had been pushing, that should have been the question he asked. But he moved on to talking about corroboration of the allegations in the first whistleblower's complaint, saying that "it's more than just a phone call." Stewart disagreed.

But, Chris, that's just not true. I mean all of these accusations he makes about linkage after he just pulled from "The New York Times" and from "The Washington Post." There's no classified or secret information in that. It all comes down to this one thing. It comes down to one sentence in one phone call. And when you read that in its entirety, it's very clear, he doesn't ever link it to military aid. It's never even mentioned. He doesn't ever offer a quid pro quo. He never even mentions the upcoming election. He talks about one thing, we want to investigate corruption. And I think that's a reasonable thing for him to ask. And these other assumptions are things that some people, in their judgment, are concerning, but it's simply not found in this phone call

Again, Stewart said "anyone can read it" and again, that's a lie. People in the government can't even read the transcript of this call, and others, we're told, because it's on a secure server to protect the president, the country, and our allies. So again, Wallace could have pressed on that issue.

Instead, he showed a clip of Trump talking about not only Ukraine but also asking China to investigate allegations against Biden, and asked Stewart

Congressman, can you tell me of any other instance during the time President Trump has been in office where he asked a foreign leader to investigate a specific American on the issue of corruption?

Stewart's answer? "You bet. Attorney General Barr is doing it right now." Except that Snitty Snitty Bill Barr is not Donald Trump, and so Wallace did push back.

No, no, no. I asked -- I - forgive me. I said President Trump -- can you tell me of another instance where President Trump, on a conversation, a call, has publicly or privately asked for a foreign leader to investigate a specific American.

And again, here's Stewart pretending to answer.

Yes. Absolutely. Now look, he may have done it personally, but it doesn't matter, Chris, there's no difference between the president making the call or the president saying to Attorney General Barr or other of his subordinates, you make the call and investigate this. And he's been very clear on that. 

Wallace took that to mean that Stewart cannot give another example, and pushed again.

You -- I mean -- I don't mean to interrupt, but you can't tell me of another case where we have a record of the president specifically asking for  foreign leader to investigate a specific American? 

Stewart again pointed to Barr.

I'm saying he's -- he's willingly and -- and acknowledged that he's doing that through his attorney general. 

 Wallace, again, pushing:

And - and other than Joe Biden, can you tell me of another - I mean there are millions of Americans who do business overseas, all kinds of activities.

 Stewart agreed - "yes" - so Wallace tried again.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that the one person that he has asked for a foreign leader to investigate, specifically by name, "investigate this person," just happens to be his chief rival for the 2020 campaign?

Stewart's answer is a thing of beauty.

But - but, Chris, you're missing the whole reason for why. He did that because he has knowledge of possible corruption. I mean Vice President Biden and his son -- he was dragging his son to the two countries that the vice president had primary responsibility for, Ukraine and China. And he's taking his son to those two countries with him.

And while he's doing official business, his son is signing, in some cases, $1.5B deals. And I think that a lot of people when they -- Americans, when they hear that, they think, you know what, that doesn't sound right to me. Maybe it's worth asking a few questions about that. That's all the president is doing here. 

Instead of going all Chuck Todd on Stewart, Wallace just asked the question again, with the added facts that there have been no crimes alleged against either of the Bidens.

And you think it's just a coincidence that -- I mean there are a lot of businessmen doing a lot of business a lot bigger than a billion dollars and the only person that he asked for - incidentally, we should point out, there has never, never been a specific allegation of any crime committed - does it look bad? Of course it does. But there's never been an allegation of a specific crime that Joe Biden or Hunter Biden committed. 

 And - and - neither in China nor in Ukraine. You think that it's just a coincidence that he's talking about Joe Biden?

Stewart, again, does his best to defend the president, no matter what.

Well, but Chris, you keep using that word 'coincidence.' It's not a coincidence at all. It is just that those are the facts presented to him and he's responding to those facts. If someone else brought other accusations against other Americans and - and they had reason to investigate that, I -- I'm sure the president would as well. But these were the facts that were brought to him and these were the individuals that were associated with those facts. 

At that point, Wallace turned the conversation to the Congressional hearings, and things wrapped up a few questions later.

And speaking of questions, I have a few of my own, about the Sunday Shows:

• Do you see a difference in how Chuck Todd handled his interview and how Wallace handled his, and do you have a preference?  
• Do you think there should be more of this type of questioning, this probing to get an answer, or is it a waste of time?

See you around campus.