Poll Watch: Impeachment Sentiment

As the full House of Representatives prepares to vote on impeaching president Trump, let's take a look at a couple of recent polls, which may or may not be more reliable than the snarky social media comments I've been seeing.

First, a Fox News poll, which was taken December 8-11. Here's the small print stuff: 1000 registered voters were surveyed via randomly selected landline (221 people) and cellphone (779) numbers which were proportionally distributed across states to align with the number of each state's voters. The margin of error is +/- 3%.

Here's the down and dirty: 89% are following the inquiry closely, and

• 50% believe Trump should be impeached and removed from office; 46% do not. Of those who do not, 82% think he shouldn't be impeached at all, while 9% think impeachment - but not removal from office - is the right thing to do. 

On the president's behavior?

• 53% believe he has abused the powers of his office; 50% believe he has obstructed justice;  48% believe he has obstructed Congress, and 45% believe he has committed bribery;
• 60% do not believe it's appropriate for a president to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival; and.
• 47% believe he held up military aid to Ukraine to pressure them to investigate his political rival, and 58% believe that is not something that presidents typically do.

And, on Congress?

• 49% say the Democrats really believe that Trump did something impeachable, while 43% believe they are simply trying to hurt him politically, while
• 36% say the Republicans really believe Trump didn't do anything impeachable, while 52% believe they are simply trying to protect him politically. 

Next, we have a WaPo-ABC News poll, conducted December 10-15. Small print stuff: This one was also a phone survey, with 1,003 adults responding,  70% of whom were reached via cell and 30% via landline. The margin of error is +/- 3.5%.

In this poll, where 62% of respondents have been following the impeachment inquiry closely,

• 49% say the president should be impeached and removed from office, 46% say no; these are within the margin of error for the survey; and
• regardless of how respondents feel about impeachment, 51% say that Congress should censure him, while 42% say no. 

On the president's behaviors?

• 49% believe he improperly pressured Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son;
• 53% disapprove of how he's handled the impeachment inquiry;
• 49% believe he tried to interfere in the impeachment inquiry; and
• 71% say Trump should allow his top aides to testify in the Senate

And on Congress?

• 49% disapprove of the way the Democrats have handled the inquiry;
• 52% disapprove of the way the Republicans have handled it;
• 55% think the hearings have been fair to the president; and
• 62% believe he will get a fair trial in the Senate 

And, sometime later today, we'll have the answer on the two articles of impeachment from the House, and then if all goes as expected, we'll have a limited, very partisan trial in the Senate come January. 

Oh -- on those social media comments I referenced at the top of the post? From my feeds,a significant majority - I'd peg it at 85% or better -  of the people commenting on impeachment-related posts are more interested in denigrating their fellow Americans than they are in discussing impeachment.  

See you later for Wondering on Wednesday. 

Dear Nancy... Love, Donny

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

December 17, 2019

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Madam Speaker:

I write to express my strongest and most powerful protest against the partisan impeachment crusade being pursued by the Democrats in the House of Representatives. This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history.

The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence. They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses whatsoever. You have cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!

By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy. You dare to invoke the Founding Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification scheme — yet your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for America's founding and your egregious conduct threatens to destroy that which our Founders pledged their very lives to build. Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith by continually saying “I pray for the President,” when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!

Your first claim, “Abuse of Power," is a completely disingenuous, meritless, and baseless invention of your imagination. You know that I had a totally innocent conversation with the President of Ukraine. I then had a second conversation that has been misquoted, mischaracterized, and fraudulently misrepresented. Fortunately, there was a transcript of the conversation taken, and you know from the transcript (which was immediately made available) that the paragraph in question was perfect. I said to President Zelensky: “I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.” I said do us a favor, not me, and our country, not a campaign. I then mentioned the Attorney General of the United States. Every time I talk with a foreign leader, I put America's interests first, just as I did with President Zelensky.

You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an impeachable offense — it is no more legitimate than the Executive Branch charging members of Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative power.

You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars. You know this because Biden bragged about it on video. Biden openly stated: “I said, “I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars'...I looked at them and said: “I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.” Even Joe Biden admitted just days ago in an interview with NPR that it “looked bad.” Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually did.

President Zelensky has repeatedly declared that I did nothing wrong, and that there was No Pressure. He further emphasized that it was a “good phone call,” that “I don't feel pressure," and explicitly stressed that “nobody pushed me." The Ukrainian Foreign Minister stated very clearly: “I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance.” He also said there was “No Pressure.” Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a supporter of Ukraine who met privately with President Zelensky, has said: “At no time during this meeting...was there any mention by Zelensky or any Ukrainian that they were feeling pressure to do anything in return for the military aid.” Many meetings have been held between representatives of Ukraine and our country. Never once did Ukraine complain about pressure being applied — not once! Ambassador Sondland testified that I told him: “No quid pro quo. I want nothing. I want nothing. I want President Zelensky to do the right thing, do what he ran on.”

The second claim, so-called “Obstruction of Congress,” is preposterous and dangerous. House Democrats are trying to impeach the duly elected President of the United States for asserting Constitutionally based privileges that have been asserted on a bipartisan basis by administrations of both political parties throughout our Nation's history. Under that standard, every American president would have been impeached many times over. As liberal law professor Jonathan Turley warned when addressing Congressional Democrats: “I can't emphasize this enough…if you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the President for doing."

Everyone, you included, knows what is really happening. Your chosen candidate lost the election in 2016, in an Electoral College landslide (306-227), and you and your party have never recovered from this defeat. You have developed a full-fledged case of what many in the media call Trump Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it! You are unwilling and unable to accept the verdict issued at the ballot box during the great Election of 2016. So you have spent three straight years attempting to overturn the will of the American people and nullify their votes. You view democracy as your enemy!

Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public forum that your party's impeachment effort has been going on for two and a half years," long before you ever heard about a phone call with Ukraine. Nineteen minutes after I took the oath of office, the Washington Post published a story headlined, “The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun.” Less than three months after my inauguration, Representative Maxine Waters stated, “I'm going to fight every day until he's impeached.” House Democrats introduced the first impeachment resolution against me within months of my inauguration, for what will be regarded as one of our country's best decisions, the firing of James Comey (see Inspector General Reports) — who the world now knows is one of the dirtiest cops our Nation has ever seen. A ranting and raving Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, declared just hours after she was sworn into office, “We're gonna go in there and we're gonna impeach the motherf****r." Representative Al Green said in May, “I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected.” Again, you and your allies said, and did, all of these things long before you ever heard of President Zelensky or anything related to Ukraine. As you know very well, this impeachment drive has nothing to do with Ukraine, or the totally appropriate conversation I had with its new president. It only has to do with your attempt to undo the election of 2016 and steal the election of 2020!

Congressman Adam Schiff cheated and lied all the way up to the present day, even going so far as to fraudulently make up, out of thin air, my conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine and read this fantasy language to Congress as though it were said by me. His shameless lies and deceptions, dating all the way back to the Russia Hoax, is one of the main reasons we are here today.

You and your party are desperate to distract from America's extraordinary economy, incredible jobs boom, record stock market, soaring confidence, and flourishing citizens. Your party simply cannot compete with our record: 7 million new jobs; the lowest-ever unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans; a rebuilt military; a completely reformed VA with Choice and Accountability for our great veterans; more than 170 new federal judges and two Supreme Court Justices; historic tax and regulation cuts; the elimination of the individual mandate; the first decline in prescription drug prices in half a century; the first new branch of the United States Military since 1947, the Space Force; strong protection of the Second Amendment; criminal justice reform; a defeated ISIS caliphate and the killing of the world's number one terrorist leader, al-Baghdadi; the replacement of the disastrous NAFTA trade deal with the wonderful USMCA (Mexico and Canada); a breakthrough Phase One trade deal with China; massive new trade deals with Japan and South Korea; withdrawal from the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal; cancellation of the unfair and costly Paris Climate Accord; becoming the world's top energy producer; recognition of Israel's capital, opening the American Embassy in Jerusalem, and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights; a colossal reduction in illegal border crossings, the ending of Catch-and-Release, and the building of the Southern Border Wall — and that is just the beginning, there is so much more. You cannot defend your extreme policies — open borders, mass migration, high crime, crippling taxes, socialized healthcare, destruction of American energy, late-term taxpayer-funded abortion, elimination of the Second Amendment, radical far-left theories of law and justice, and constant partisan obstruction of both common sense and common good.

There is nothing I would rather do than stop referring to your party as the Do-Nothing Democrats. Unfortunately, I don't know that you will ever give me a chance to do so. After three years of unfair and unwarranted investigations, 45 million dollars spent, 18 angry Democrat prosecutors, the entire force of the FBI, headed by leadership now proven to be totally incompetent and corrupt, you have found NOTHING! Few people in high position could have endured or passed this test. You do not know, nor do you care, the great damage and hurt you have inflicted upon wonderful and loving members of my family. You conducted a fake investigation upon the democratically elected President of the United States, and you are doing it yet again.

There are not many people who could have taken the punishment inflicted during this period of time, and yet done so much for the success of America and its citizens. But instead of putting our country first, you have decided to disgrace our country still further. You completely failed with the Mueller report because there was nothing to find, so you decided to take the next hoax that came along, the phone call with Ukraine — even though it was a perfect call. And by the way, when I speak to foreign countries, there are many people, with permission, listening to the call on both sides of the conversation.

You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the ones subverting America's Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing Justice. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain.

Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt. Against all evidence, and regardless of the truth, you and your deputies claimed that my campaign colluded with the Russians — a grave, malicious, and slanderous lie, a falsehood like no other. You forced our Nation through turmoil and torment over a wholly fabricated story, illegally purchased from a foreign spy by Hillary Clinton and the DNC in order to assault our democracy. Yet, when the monstrous lie was debunked and this Democrat conspiracy dissolved into dust, you did not apologize. You did not recant. You did not ask to be forgiven. You showed no remorse, no capacity for self-reflection. Instead, you pursued your next libelous and vicious crusade-you engineered an attempt to frame and defame an innocent person. All of this was motivated by personal political calculation. Your Speakership and your party are held hostage by your most deranged and radical representatives of the far left. Each one of your members lives in fear of a socialist primary challenger — this is what is driving impeachment. Look at Congressman Nadler's challenger. Look at yourself and others. Do not take our country down with your party.

If you truly cared about freedom and liberty for our Nation, then you would be devoting your vast investigative resources to exposing the full truth concerning the FBI's horrifying abuses of power before, during, and after the 2016 election — including the use of spies against my campaign, the submission of false evidence to a FISA court, and the concealment of exculpatory evidence in order to frame the innocent. The FBI has great and honorable people, but the leadership was inept and corrupt. I would think that you would personally be appalled by these revelations, because in your press conference the day you announced impeachment, you tied the impeachment effort directly to the completely discredited Russia Hoax, declaring twice that “all roads lead to Putin,” when you know that is an abject lie. I have been far tougher on Russia than President Obama ever even thought to be.

Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment — against every shred of truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle — is showing how deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America's Constitutional order. Our Founders feared the tribalization of partisan politics, and you are bringing their worst fears to life.

Worse still, I have been deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam right up until the present. I have been denied the most fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to present evidence, to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses, like the so-called whistleblower who started this entire hoax with a false report of the phone call that bears no relationship to the actual phone call that was made. Once I presented the transcribed call, which surprised and shocked the fraudsters (they never thought that such evidence would be presented), the so-called whistleblower, and the second whistleblower, disappeared because they got caught, their report was a fraud, and they were no longer going to be made available to us. In other words, once the phone call was made public, your whole plot blew up, but that didn't stop you from continuing.

More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.

You and others on your committees have long said impeachment must be bipartisan — it is not. You said it was very divisive — it certainly is, even far more than you ever thought possible — and it will only get worse!

This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting booth. You are not just after me, as President, you are after the entire Republican Party. But because of this colossal injustice, our party is more united than it has ever been before. History will judge you harshly as you proceed with this impeachment charade. Your legacy will be that of turning the House of Representatives from a revered legislative body into a Star Chamber of partisan persecution.

Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity. You apparently have so little respect for the American People that you expect them to believe that you are approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly. No intelligent person believes what you are saying. Since the moment I won the election, the Democrat Party has been possessed by Impeachment Fever. There is no reticence. This is not a somber affair. You are making a mockery of impeachment and you are scarcely concealing your hatred of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of patriotic Americans. The voters are wise, and they are seeing straight through this empty, hollow, and dangerous game you are playing.

I have no doubt the American people will hold you and the Democrats fully responsible in the upcoming 2020 election. They will not soon forgive your perversion of justice and abuse of power.

There is far too much that needs to be done to improve the lives of our citizens. It is time for you and the highly partisan Democrats in Congress to immediately cease this impeachment fantasy and get back to work for the American People. While I have no expectation that you will do so, I write this letter to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.

One hundred years from now, when people look back at this affair, I want them to understand it, and learn from it, so that it can never happen to another President again.

cc:

United States Senate

United States House of Representatives

Sunday School Extra Credit 12/15/19

I want to spend some time with Chris Wallace and former FBI Director James Comey, who chatted in yesterday's Fox News Sunday classroom.

Not surprisingly, much of the conversation related to Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report, which didn't find any political bias in the investigation, but did find that there were a whole mess of errors and mistakes by folks involved in it. What was surprising to me was how Comey reacted to the IG's report. For example, here's what Comey said about the report and 'vindication.'

It is. I mean, the FBI's had to wait two years while the president and his followers lied about the institution. Finally the truth gets told.

And here's Horowitz on whether his report vindicated Comey.

It doesn't vindicate anyone at the FBI who touched this, including the leadership.

Comey suggested the difference between the two takes on vindication drive from how the word is being understood; he's interpreting it as clearing his FBI from the 'nonsense' that was the many accusations from the president and his minions.

What I mean is that the FBI was accused of treason, of illegal spying, of tapping Mr. Trump's wires illegally, of opening an investigation without justification, of being a criminal conspiracy to unseat -- defeat and then unseat a president. All of that was nonsense. I think it's really important that the inspector general looked at that and that the American people, your viewers and all viewers, understand that's true. But he also found things that we were never accused of, which is real sloppiness, and that's concerning. As I've said all along, has to be focused on. If I were director I'd be very concerned about it and diving into it.

Regarding the FISA applications and the resulting warrants - about which Comey had previously expressed "total confidence" both in the process being followed and the case being handled in a "thoughtful, responsible way" by the FBI and DOJ, Horowitz had a different opinion.

We identified significant inaccuracies and omissions in each of the four applications, seven in the first application and a total of 17 by the final renewal application.

Comey expressed some contrition, saying

I was overconfident in the procedures that the FBI and Justice had built over 20 years. I thought they were robust enough. It's incredibly hard to get a FISA. I was overconfident in those. Because he's right. There was real sloppiness, 17 things that either should've been in the applications or at least discussed and characterized differently. It was not acceptable and so he's right. I was wrong. 

Wallace suggested that Comey sounded like a "bystander, an eyewitness" but in fact Comey was in charge of the FBI. I felt the same way as Wallace did about Comey here.

Sure. I'm responsible for it. That's why I'm telling you I was wrong. I was overconfident as director in our procedures and it's important that a leader be accountable and transparent. If I were still director, I'd be saying exactly the same thing that Chris Wray is saying, which is we are going to get to the bottom of this. Because the most important question is, is it systemic? Are there problems in other cases?

Comey and Horowitz also disagreed on the importance of the notorious Steele dossier; while Comey maintained it was "part of a broader mosaic," while Horowitz declared it "played an essential role in establishing probable cause." Wallace talks about the report saying that, if the Steele dossier had not been received, the FBI might never have even submitted a FISA application, but that when they did review the dossier, they did in fact submit the application.  

Comey suggested that he and Horowitz were not far apart on that issue,

What his report says is that the FBI thought it was a close call until they got the Steele report, put that additional information in, and that tipped it over to be probable cause. It's a long FISA application. It includes Steele material and lots of other material. I don't think we're saying different things.

Wallace disagreed. 

Well, I think you are, sir, because he's saying -- you're saying it's part of a broader mosaic; it's just one element. He's saying it was the tipping point. It's what brought it over. That doesn't make it part of a broader mosaic; it makes it the centerpiece of the whole FISA application and the ability to surveil Carter Page.

They had some further back and forth on that, with Comey holding his ground that

It was one of a bunch of different facts that were assembled to apply to the court. It was the one that convinced the lawyers that they had enough now, with that added to the pile, to go forward.

Wallace was disbelieving of that, saying that he appeared to be "minimizing the role of the Steele dossier" while Horowitz was "saying it's a lot more important than you let on."

Okay. If I was, then I'm sorry that I did that. But I meant it was one part of the presentation to the court. It was not a huge part of the presentation to the court, but it was the fact, according to his report, that convinced the lawyers to go forward.

After achieving no real agreement there, Wallace moved on to the IG's issues with whether a source (sub-source?) referenced in the dossier had his statements misinterpreted or exaggerated, but still used to get renewals on the FISA applicant and continued surveillance. Here again, there was little agreement between the two men, with Wallace accusing Comey of mischaracterizing the information in the dossier, and Comey accusing Wallace of mischaracterizing the Horowitz report. 

And they disagreed about how much knowledge Comey should have had about the investigation. Here's Wallace.

You're the FBI Director... This isn't "some investigation," sir. This is an investigation of the campaign of the man who is the president of the United States. You had just been through a firestorm investigating Hillary Clinton. I would think, if I were in your position, I would have been on that, you know, like a junkyard dog. I would have wanted to know everything they were doing investigating the Trump campaign. 

Comey tried to set him straight on how things work, but again, I share Wallace's disbelief on this.

Yeah, that's not the way it works, though. As a director sitting on top of an organization of 38,000 people, you can't run an investigation that's seven layers below you. You have to leave it to the career professionals to do, to the special agents who do this for their lives. And if a director tries to run an investigation, it'll get mucked up in all different kinds of ways, given his or her responsibilities and the impossibility of reaching the work that's being done at the lower level.

On it went, with Comey minimizing or disagreeing with what Horowitz found, including that there was a criminal referral made regarding an attorney who apparently altered emails. Comey seemed to minimize it, saying that there's been no resolution on the referral. Wallace was incredulous.

I mean, you make it sound like it's not much... It's quite a lot. I mean, not a source - 'a source' to 'not a source' is a big deal.

Comey agreed, but added

But remember how we got here. The FBI was accused of criminal misconduct. Remember, I was going to jail, and lots of other people were going to jail. People on this network said it over, and over, and over again. The Inspector General did not find misconduct by FBI personnel, did not find political bias, did not find illegal conduct. The Inspector General found significant mistakes, and that is not something to sneeze at; that's really important. But the American people -- especially your viewers -- need to realize, they were given false information about the FBI. It's honest. It is not political. It is flawed.

In return,  Wallace asked if Comey would "agree that the FISA court was also given false information by the FBI?" Comey agreed. 

I think that's fair. The FBI should have included -- or at least pushed to the lawyers, so they could make a decision -- information that you just said, things like that, that another agency -- not a source relationship, but some kind of contact relationship --.

Blissfully, we are nearing the end of this train wreck of an interview. Wallace played another clip of Horowitz answering a question about how he explains what happened, the significant errors on "one of the FBI's most significant cases..." Wallace said  Horowitz said "it's one of two things, and he can't decide: gross negligence or it was intentional misconduct." Comey claims that in the report Horowitz says

He says, "I -- we are not concluding that there was intentional misconduct by FBI officials."

Seriously?  Wallace tried again, pointing out that Horowitz was asked "How do you explain it?" And he said, "Gross negligence or intentionality." And again, here's Comey tap-dancing.

Yeah. Well, I'm sorry. He doesn't find intentionality, but that doesn't make it any less important. As director, you are responsible for this. I was responsible for this. And if I were still there, I'd be doing what Chris Wray is doing -- is figuring out, "So, how did this happen? And is it systemic?" Because that's the scariest thought, is that --

Wallace interrupted to ask Comey whether he would resign, if he "were still there, and all of this came out, and it turned out it happened on your watch..."

I don't think so. There are mistakes I consider more consequential than this during my tenure, and the important thing is to be transparent about it and then look to fix it, and explain to the American people how you fixed it.

Wallace asked about Snitty Snitty Bill Barr, how he's been "harshly critical" of the FBI, and shared his reaction to the Horowitz report, in which he said the issues "leaves open the possibility to infer bad faith" and Wallace wondered if Barr had a point.

No. He does not have a factual basis as the attorney general of the United States to be speculating that agents acted in bad faith. The facts just aren’t there, full stop. That doesn’t make it any less consequential, any less important, but that’s an irresponsible statement.

And, to rub salt in Comey's wide open wounds, Wallace then shared a clip of the president's reaction.

They’ve destroyed the lives of people that were great people, that are still great people. Their lives have been destroyed by scum, okay? By scum.

Here's his question, after the clip.

I’d like your response to that, and I’d like you specifically -- because you said the other day, “Where does former FBI lawyer Lisa Page go to get her reputation back?” where does Carter Page go -- the target of these FISA warrants and surveillance -- where does he go to get his reputation back?

And, the response from Comey.

It’s a great question. Carter Page was treated unfairly, most significantly by his name being made public. He’s a United States citizen, and it never should have been made public, and that’s an outrage. But that statement is just a continuation of the lies about the FBI. The FBI is an honest, apolitical organization. Remember the treason; remember the spying; remember all of us going to jail. That was false information that your viewers and millions of others were given. My own mother-in-law was worried I was going to jail. I kept telling her, “Look, it’s all made up, it’s all made up. Don’t worry about it.” But I couldn’t say that publicly for two years. Well, now I’m saying it on behalf of the FBI. It was all made up, and I hope people will stare at that and learn about what the FBI is like, human and flawed, but deeply committed to trying to do the right thing.

I'm surprised that Comey went to Fox News for this interview - and I have no idea if he got out the message it seemed he wanted to, that the FBI was deserving of people's respect, even if they've been blasted by the president for the past two years and even if they made some pretty bad mistakes on this investigation.

I hope he did, because it might be his last chance to do so, particularly given the statement by US Attorney John Durham, who was handpicked by Trump's AG to investigate the investigation:

I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff.  However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.  Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened. 

As Comey himself said, "Sure. I'm responsible for it."

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 12/15/19

Let's talk about impeachment, shall we? 

Making the rounds today: Chairmen Jerry Nadler (House Judiciary Cmte) and Adam Schiff (House Intelligence Cmte) on ABC's This Week; Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) on NBC's Meet the Press; Senators Lindsey Graham (R-Trump) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) on CBS' Face the Nation; Senators Rand Paul (R-KY/Canada) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX) on CNN's State of the Union. Let's see how much substance I can fit in today.

From This Week:

• Schiff: It was one thing with the president inviting foreign interference as a candidate, when he couldn't use the power of his office to make it so. It was another when, as president of the United States, he withheld hundreds of millions of dollars to coerce an ally, betray our national security, and try to cheat in the next election. That was not something we could turn away from. But it was one more fact, George, that I think made it inexorable. And that is the fact that it was the day after Bob Mueller testified, the day after Donald Trump felt that he was beyond accountability for his first misconduct, that he was back on the phone, this time with President Zelensky, trying to get that country to help him cheat in the next election.That told me, this president believes he is above the law and accountable to no one, and that this road was necessary. And I think it very much is.

• Nadler: This is a crime in progress against the constitution and against the American democracy. We cannot take the risk  that the next election will be corrupted through foreign interference solicited by the president, which he is clearly trying to do. It goes to the heart of our democracy. It was the heart of what the constitution meant by high crimes and misdemeanors for the president to engage in self-dealing for his own benefit to put himself above the country and to threaten the integrity of our elections, upon which everything else depends. It is a total threat. And we must meet that threat.

• Schiff: I don't think any of us have any question that had Barack Obama engaged in the activity, the conduct which is the subject these articles of impeachment, every one of these Republicans would be voting to impeach him. And you know something, I have to hope to hell, George, if it were Barack Obama, I would vote to impeach him. 

From Meet the Press: 

• Toomey: I think it's appropriate to make sure that the president gets a fair trial here, and I think that's the idea. I think it would be extremely inappropriate to put a bullet in this thing immediately when it comes over. I think we ought to hear what the House impeachment managers have to say, give the president's attorneys an opportunity to make the defense, and then make a decision about whether and to what extent it would go forward from there.

• Coons: The only reason that Speaker Pelosi changed her position and supported moving ahead with an impeachment inquiry was because what Donald Trump is alleged to have done, and all evidence points to him having done it, which is to invite foreign interference in our next election, undermines the very core of our democracy, which is free and fair elections where foreign parties aren't influencing the outcome. If he is ultimately exonerated in the Senate, if the Senate Republican majority refuses to discipline him through impeachment, he will be unbounded. And I am gravely concerned about what else he might do between now and the 2020 election when there are no restrictions on his behavior.

From Face the Nation:

• Graham: Yeah, well, I'd tell the president, if somebody is ready to acquit you, I'd sort of get out of the way. If you start calling the witnesses the president wants and they're are going to start calling Mike Pence, you know, the secretary of State Pompeo, I don't think that's good for the country. I don't think it's good for the Senate. You need 51 votes to get a witness approved. I want to make my decision based on the trial record established in the House as a basis for impeachment. That's just me, one senator. But I think there's a general desire by a lot of senators to not turn this thing into a circus. I understand the president's frustration by being shut out of the house but I need to do what I think is best for the country.

• Durbin: I could just tell you, we-we present the evidence and let the American people follow this trial in the Senate. You know, it isn't a question of political popularity as far as I'm concerned. For the longest time, many of us said which Republican is going to defy the wishes of their political base and come forward and do the right thing for the country? Same thing applies to Democrats. Will we ignore our political base and look at our Constitution? That's what should guide us.

From State of the Union:

• Paul: You know, we have seen the evidence. We're going to hear the evidence repeated, but we're not going to see any new evidence. So I think all of America has seen this. What we have found is, this is a very partisan exercise. There's not going to be any Republicans in the House. In fact, there will be a handful of Democrats who will vote against impeachment in the House. In the Senate, I think all Republicans will vote against the House. And I think two Democrats have a very good chance of voting against impeachment also. So I think what we have seen is, it is just a partisan thing.This is a disagreement. People on the Democrat side don't like President Trump. They don't like his demeanor. And so they have decided to sort of criminalize politics. But I don't think it is a good thing. And I don't think it's a good day for the country. I think it is a sad day, because I hope it doesn't devolve into that every president, like in different parts of Latin America, we either impeach or throw presidents into jail just because we don't like their politics. I think that will really dumb down and destroy the county.

• Brown: I mean, I have very strong feelings about this president. I supported impeachment. He did things that Richard Nixon never did. He solicited a bribe from a foreign leader. But I don't know if it rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, to the level of conviction and removal, until I see the evidence, I hear the prosecution, which is the House managers, until I hear the president's defense. Then you make the decision, based on the evidence. And for the leader of the United States Senate, Mitch McConnell, to say he's coordinating with the White House to make sure he's not convicted and removed is -- I just -- it really is part of this see no evil, hear no evil. It's why I'm so disappointed in my colleagues, this see no evil, hear no evil attitude, that they don't want to look at anything to -- that might disagree with their world view of Republicanism and this president.

• Hurd: The only thing bipartisan about this process is the opposition of impeachment. We're going to have at least two Democrats voting against this.  And my fear is that you weaponize impeachments for political gains in the future, just like now we have budget debates that become weaponized, voting for Supreme Court justices have become weaponized. And, for me, my standard for impeachment has always been a violation of the law. You have 435 folks in the House, 100 senators. That means there's 535 different definitions of impeachment. And I have sat through those hundreds hours of depositions and hearings, and didn't see any evidence presented of bribery and -- or extortion.

I'm going to leave it there, as they say. Coming up in this week's Sunday School Extra Credit, we'll talk about the FBI, and maybe slide a couple of other things in there, too.

See you around campus. 

In Case You Missed It (v14)

There was a lot going on this week, not just out there in TV land, but here at veritable pastiche, too, starting with our Sunday School classroom visits.

California's Rep. Zoe Lofgren talked with George Stephanopoulos about the Clinton impeachment and compared it to the (at that point still potential impeachment of Donald Trump.

Lofgren suggested that "Lying about sex is not an abuse of presidential power, maybe husband power. " And, we had Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) telling Chuck Todd that most assuredly that Ukraine interfered in our election. Take  a look.

Ukraine blatantly interfered in our election. The sitting ambassador from Ukraine wrote an op-ed blasting Donald Trump --  during the election season. --  That is unusual...  and they wanted Hillary Clinton to get elected. 

Circumstances gave us a Sunday School Extra Credit again this week, as Cory Booker was in George's classroom, too. He talked about his friend and colleague Kamala Harris ending her campaign, and also about the quirkiness of Iowa caucus-goers.

Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter -- Barack Obama around this time was about 20 points behind Hillary Clinton. But Iowa voters where you have to come out here and actually meet folks, you see people who are polling at low numbers end up finishing first.

I followed the lead of the president and the GOP and deflected away from impeachment and partisan bickering, instead enjoying some presidential poetry in this OrangeVerse entry, in which the president's words lit up the room like a lightbulb, and the verse flowed much more freely than, well, than water.

We have a situation where we're looking
very strongly at sinks and showers and
other elements of bathrooms when you turn the
faucet on - in areas where there's tremendous amounts
of water where the water rushes out to sea because you could never
handle it - and you don't get any water. 
You turn on the faucet; you don't get any water. 
They take a shower and water comes dripping out.
It's dripping out - very quietly - dripping out. 

I got back on track with the Wondering on Wednesday theme, having missed a couple - and I'm blaming Thanksgiving, politics, or both. Hot topics this week included thoughts about folks at the FBI. 

I wonder, has Christopher Wray been fired yet? I haven't checked Twitter all that much today, but I can't imagine he's going to be the current Director of the FBI for a whole lot longer. 

Then came Thursday, and a new feature, Email of the Week. This replaces my social media experiment with the Democratic presidential candidates. Instead of regaling you with how many requests for money they sent, I'll share one current or former candidate's email each week. Beto O'Rourke had the winner this week, talking about George Washington, Donald Trump, and the place where we find ourselves right now.

Despite his flagrant abuse of the public trust (none of the key facts are in dispute, in part because he has so openly flouted the law and the constitution), Donald Trump has faced no consequences from his own political party. Like a cult of personality, Republican members of Congress have prioritized their leader over their country and their oath to defend the Constitution. 

And happily, I made it to Friday - TGIF and all - where most of good week/bad week stuff was, not surprisingly, related to the impeachment process, with words of wisdom from the Constitution and from Alexander Hamilton.  And, there was of course Greta Thunberg who was named Time's Person of the Year, and there was the child who wasn't.

Greta Thunberg was Time's Person of the Year for 2019, beating out the president and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, among others. Here's why the teenaged climate activist was chosen. Donald Trump, who (a) covets recognition in all forms (say my name, say my name);  and (b) faked and displayed a Time cover of himself at his properties, won in 2016, attacked Thunberg after her victory.

Next week is going to be even more crazy - there'll be governing, and there'll be impeaching, and there'll be Wondering, and a debate, and who knows what else will catch my eye.

Don't want to miss anything? Drop your email address in the Instant Gratification box on the right sidebar, and you'll have posts - nothing more - delivered directly to you.

TGIF 12/13/19

I feel like Santa Claus today, trying to make the critically important decisions on naughty or nice -- and all I'm trying to do is figure out who had a good week and who had a bad one.  I don't know how he does it, but it's sure worth a plate of cookies or two.

To make it easier, let's just cram the the good week stuff and the bad week stuff together, OK?

Greta Thunberg was Time's Person of the Year for 2019, beating out the president and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, among others.
Here's why the teenaged climate activist was chosen. Donald Trump, who (a) covets recognition in all forms (say my name, say my name);  and (b) faked and displayed a Time cover of himself at his properties, won in 2016, attacked Thunberg after her victory.  FYI, the Trump State Department managed to hire a person who had also faked a Time cover - go figure.

The rules of parliamentary procedure had a good week, I guess. The annoying interruptions during the House Judiciary Committee are part of the process, even if they were designed to hinder progress, not improve it. But hey - at least they could agree with the rules and do their best to follow them to the letter.

Truth and honesty had a good week, to the extent that either was allowed to be in the hearing room, or in the press conferences. Sadly, there was less of it than I would have hoped - and there was also a lot less charisma than I would have hoped. I don't know about you, but with few exceptions, I found members of the Judiciary Committee to be unlikeable, in some cases even when I agreed with what they were saying. Chairman Jerry Nadler? Ranking Member Doug Collins? Meh. I'm trying to picture either of them doing a fireside chat... Also, I find it odd that both Nadler and Adam Schiff are both lacking in that regard, given their roles.

The Constitution had a good week. It gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach the president, and to do so upon findings of "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." And while the first two are criminal offenses, "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not. And, it was not the intention of the founding fathers that a legal crime must be committed for impeachment to occur, even though that's what many Republicans are saying as a reason for voting against the Articles of impeachment forwarded to the full House after today's vote.

Here's what Alexander Hamilton had to say in Federalist No. 65.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

And so, I'd say, "the greatest danger" is just around the corner for us - and that's not a good thing. The problem is, of course, that with a president as polarizing as the one we have, and a Republican party that has completely set aside their own well-publicized misgivings about him, and a Democratic party that has not acquitted themselves well in response to his election, his actions, and his words - we don't have much choice other than to succumb to the "comparative strength of the parties" instead of "the real demonstration of innocence or guilt." And for that, we - you and me - had a bad week - and it won't be our last before this is over.

TGIF, everyone.

Email of the Week (v1)

I mentioned in last week's Who Loves Me, Baby? update on the Dem presidential candidate emails that I was going to switch things up a bit, and officially end the social experiment on their emails. I also promised you a recap on all of that:

• In all, I read over 1600 emails from the candidates; there were likely more than that. I'd guess that fully 80% of them included a direct ask for money, with more suggesting that money would be nice. My guess is that fewer than 10% of the emails offered a policy, a position, a reason why they person is running, and so on. 

• The most consistently hopeful? Mayor Pete and Cory Booker. The most consistently negative? Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The most consistent? Amy Klobuchar, hands down. The most mentions of Donald Trump? Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The most desperate? Julian Castro - that was no contest. 

Going forward, I will still keep an eye on the candidates, and will continue sharing the email of the week. Here's this week's winner, from Beto O'Rourke, who dropped out of the race back in November.

There’s a painting that hangs in the Capitol rotunda depicting General George Washington in front of the Continental Congress 236 years ago, resigning his commission as the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army.

The artist, John Trumbull, believed that it illustrated “one of the highest moral lessons ever given to the world.”

Why?

Because here was a man at the height of his powers, a man who had led America to a stunning defeat of the most powerful military on the planet, a man who could have made the case to be commander for life, or even King, a case that would have resonated with many in a young, unstable country still not free from the military threat of Great Britain or foreign interference in our affairs… who nonetheless voluntarily resigned his commission and gave up his power.

He did it for the greater good of this nascent democracy and in support of the idea that no man is above the law or the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

He knew that if this great experiment, this profound idea of America, was going to work, then at this decisive moment he must set the example.

And though he failed abjectly in other defining moral tests — he owned enslaved people, failed to work for the abolition of slavery, and in so doing set a perverse example and standard that would require a civil war to overcome — this precedent that personal ambition would be subjugated to the interests of the republic allowed us to inherit a government, as John Adams described it, “of laws, not of men.”

This precedent also helped to inspire a Constitution that provides protection against those who would put their own interests ahead of the country’s, including provision for impeachment of the commander-in-chief should they abuse the power of their office.

The idea of self-government and the Constitution that guarantees it were fought for and defended by succeeding generations of Americans. The service members who lost their lives in the Civil War, and in the World Wars that followed, paid the ultimate price to see this idea through. So did the civil rights marchers, the freedom riders, the men and women and even children who forced this country to move closer to realizing it for everyone by adopting the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in 1964 and 1965.

We have inherited the service and sacrifice of those who came before us. What we choose to do with this inheritance will define us for future generations and will be the example we pass on to our children and grandchildren.

Which brings us to this moment and the choice we have before us.

Wondering on Wednesday (v191)

Ready... set... wonder! 

• I wonder if anyone at all honestly believes that Republicans are not being exactly as partisan in defending the president as the Democrats are in calling for his impeachment? I mean, if we are supposed to believe that the latter is driven by political ideology and dismay about losing the election, why would any sane person think that the former is anything other than blind allegiance to the winner?

• Was anyone else watching or listening to the House Judiciary Committee's hearing on Monday, wondering how cool it would have been if someone - anyone - had stood up and bellowed "OAR-DURRRRRRR" like the recently retired Speaker of the Commons John Bercow? I mean, seriously - the hearing (the couple of hours I listened to before losing patience) - was a cluster of whining and yelling and posturing and gibberish and predictable voice votes and annoying roll calls -- and worse, there was not a bit of charisma exhibited by any of them, least of all the chairman. I was begging for a Bercow, I really was. 

• I wonder, has Christopher Wray been fired yet? I haven't checked Twitter all that much today, but I can't imagine he's going to be the current Director of the FBI for a whole lot longer. Staying with the same presidential tweet, I have to wonder what the "greatest men and women working there" think of their new-found accolades, having been denigrated by the president throughout his time in office. Maybe that's Trump's way of saying I'm sorry?

• A bit of additional diversity was added to the December Democratic debate, as entrepreneur Andrew Yang has met the qualifications: 4% approval in four approved national polls or 6% in two early-state polls and at least 200,000 unique donors and at least 800 donors in at least 20 states. The qualifiers to date, in alphabetical order (to prevent the Bernie Sanders contingent from freaking out if he's not listed first): Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Sanders,  Tom Steyer, Elizabeth Warren, and Yang. I'm wondering tonight how many of the remaining non-qualifying candidates will continue to stay in the race, especially if this is not the first debate they've missed.

• Folks in the UK go to the polls tomorrow; current polling suggests that the Conservatives, led by Boris Johnson, will prevail against Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, but we've learned on our side of the pond how wrong polls can be. I wonder what will happen if Johnson doesn't prevail, almost as much as I wonder what will happen if he does. Will other countries start making their own moves to leave the EU? And what will our response be, other than tariffs? I mean, there will be tariffs, right?  Trump's still president, after all...

• I know about Black Friday, and Cyber Monday, and Giving Tuesday, and Small Business Saturday, but I had to wonder what Green Monday was all about. I only learned about it when I got more than a dozen emails from retailers (they're still coming today, I might add). In case you're in the dark, as I was, the 2nd Monday of December is apparently the day that lots of retailers kick off their holiday sales

There's more - there's always more... but what are you wondering about today?

OrangeVerse XLVII: An Orange Flush

Ah, a meeting with cameras and the press - it just brings out the poetry in the president, doesn't it? I know it set my free verse-loving heart all a-flutter, that's for sure.

And that's exactly what happened recently when the president, vice president, and some cabinet members and other dignitaries gathered to talk about reducing the regulatory burden on small businesses.

Let's pick up where the poet talks about the administration's battle against California's emissions standards, lightbulbs, and toilets.

Much, Much, Much
We can make cars much less expensive and

much better and much stronger and about the same

from an environmental standpoint. Very close. But then 
when you realize they don't want to buy new cars because

frankly, they don't work very well. But the cars are much safer.

Our cars are much safer. They're much cheaper. They're much better.

And the reason they're safer is because they can be heavier because right 
now the cars are made out of  papier-mâché. (laughter) 
And ours are actually, we allow steel content (laughter)
But just remember: our cars are safer and they are 
much safer, by the way - and they're better. 
They operate better. And in every way 
we think it's going to be terrific. 

The Lightbulb Goes Off
The lightbulb: they got rid of
the lightbulb that people got used to.
The new bulb is many times more expensive 
and I hate to say it, it doesn't make you look as
good. And we’re doing other things. Of course being
a vain person, that’s very important to me. (Laughter.) 
It’s like a - it gives you an orange look. I don't want an
 want an orange look. (Laughter.) Has anyone noticed that? 
(Laughter.) So we’ll have to change those bulbs in at least a
couple of rooms where I am in the White House. (Laughter.)
But we are going back to the - - it’s a double standard. We
have a standard of the new bulbs and we have the old bulbs
And they’re already making the old bulbs. Many people
were complaining that the new bulbs were much much
more expensive. Many times in some cases more
expensive and the other thing they are considered
hazardous waste that because it's largely, a gas
 gas technology, when the bulb is disposed
of you're supposed to bring it to a haz-
ardous waste site. I said how many
people do that? Nobody does it
and you know that's a bad
thing. So you have proba-
bly heard about it You 
probably read about it.
And you'll be able to
to buy lightbulbs that
are better lighting in 
the opinion of many
and I tell you in my
opinion - and for a
lot less money. And
so we're doing that
but you'll also be a-
ble - if you want -
you can buy the
other bulbs also. 
And I'll tell you,
the bulb compa-
nies are - very - 
happy about that.

One Flush Two Flush
We're defending the American
workers we're using common sense.
We have a situation where we're looking
very strongly at sinks and showers and
other elements of bathrooms when you turn the
faucet on - in areas where there's tremendous amounts
of water where the water rushes out to sea because you could never
handle it - and you don't get any water. 
You turn on the faucet; you don't get any water. 
They take a shower and water comes dripping out.
It's dripping out - very quietly - dripping out.
People are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times
as opposed to once they end up using more water.
So the EPA is looking at that very strongly at my suggestion.
You go into a new building or a new house or a 
new home and they have standards.
 "Oh, you don't get water."
 You can't wash your hands, practically, there's so little water
comes out of the faucet. And the end result is you leave
the faucet on and it takes you much longer to wash your
hands you end up using the same amount of water
So we're looking at, very seriously, at opening up
the standard and there may be some areas where we'll
go the other route - desert areas. But for the most part
you have many states where they have so much water
that it comes down - it's called rain (laughter) - that
they don't know - they don't know what to do with it.

Alternative Facts

So we're going to be opening that up I believe and we're looking

looking at changing the standards very soon, and that's a

little bit like the lightbulb where you get a bulb that's

better for much less money, We go back - but you

have the other alternative. And you'll keep the

other alternative with sinks and showers et

cetera too that's been a big problem so

a lot of the things we do are based 

on common sense... In so many -

so many of the things we do

it's based on common sense

like the car the car will

end up with that net

tremendous saving environmentally

when you think of all the cars the

old cars that will come off the road

you'll end up with a very - a better

car and you'll end up environment-

ally it will be ultimately much better.

Sunday School Extra Credit 12/8/19

As promised in yesterday's Sunday School post, here's a recap of NJ Senator Cory Booker's conversation with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week. Booker was the only one of the 2020 Dem presidential candidates making the classroom rounds yesterday.

They started their conversation on Kamala Harris dropping out of the race, with George wondering if Booker could "unpack" his comment about the system not being fair, noting that Harris had

started out with a bang, had 20,000 people at her first rally, raising an awful lot of money early on, performed pretty well in the early debates and only fell back when she stumbled in the campaign.

In response, Booker offered a comparison between Harris and former Secretary of State John Kerry, who has announced his endorsement of former VP Joe Biden.  Kerry followed a very similar path to Harris during his campaign: he pulled out of every state, poured all his resources into Iowa, he had issues in his campaign, he was polling at 4% -- just like Harris.  But then, he loaned his campaign $5M - something Harris couldn't do.

And so, the Democratic Party which makes a right critique that this -- we should be stopping the influence of big money in politics, that Kamala Harris stopped her campaign because of the campaign finance rules and the fact that she couldn't do what we see billionaires doing in this race, which is flooding ads to jack up their poll numbers and get in.

George noted that Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren - they're not wealthy and they're still in the race, and billionaires may be spending, he suggested, but look at Tom Steyer, who's "pretty far back right now."  Booker argued that "Iowa voters should have the right to choose" and they also defy polls "just about every time."

Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter -- Barack Obama around this time was about 20 points behind Hillary Clinton. But Iowa voters where you have to come out here and actually meet folks, you see people who are polling at low numbers end up finishing first. It wasn't just John Kerry that year, John Edwards was polling at 2 percent and number seven and he finished number two in Iowa. So, I’m just at the point, at this point in the campaign, let Iowa voters decide. It goes to the same issue with the debate right now.

And he turned the discussion to his own campaign, and "the system" - requirements for both polling results and individual donors - is hurting him.

You know, we're running a campaign where in Iowa and New Hampshire, we're in the top in endorsements. We have literally one of the top net favorabilities in the race. We're called by local media here in Iowa as one of the top field organizations and they've even -- you had press people coming out in Iowa and saying this is ridiculous. If the pollsters call you, choose Cory Booker because he should be on that debate stage.

So, we’ve been excited. You know, over the last -- since last debate, we've been experiencing our biggest surge in online donations. We have tons of people coming out just yesterday, more elected officials endorsing my campaign and are frustrated that we are putting artificial barriers which often could be overcome by people with money determining who Iowa gets to choose from.

Something is wrong with the system.

George wondered about strategy, especially since Booker will have to be present in the Senate for a likely impeachment trial, and since it looks like, barring some really good polls, Booker will be shut out of the December debate.

Booker said he's going to keep running his campaign, "like a lot of candidates have done in the past that were discounted by national media and press." He expressed gratitude to folks who have been donating and "helping us to overcome a lot of these artificial barriers." He also noted

And as far as being a United States senator, I take my oath very seriously, even if the president's going to violate his. I'm going to be in the Senate and do my job and trust that, here in Iowa, we're going to continue to build on this momentum we're feeling right now. And I'm really grateful that, at this moment in our campaign, we're breaking records in our campaign, because Americans are saying, your voice is important in this race, and we're going to do everything we can to keep you there, because our online small-dollar contributions are going up. And I hope that Americans will continue to support us in this last sprint to Iowa.

Moving to the impeachment inquiry, George asked whether Booker thought Rudy Giuliani should testify, "especially in the wake of his trip to Ukraine this week" and asked if he has a reaction to president Trump's saying that he expects some kind of report from Rudy as a result of his efforts.

Look, this -- this is just a disappointing chapter in American history -- that a president's private lawyer should also be engaging in -- with the president's consent, in foreign policy interference.

And what's going on right now is just unacceptable to anybody who's going to be a fair observer of fact. And the fact that we can't get to the truth of this matter, because Giuliani is not willing to testify, and the president of the United States is holding back witnesses that could give the American people insights into the true breadth and depth of this corruption, is just -- should be frustrating to everyone.

Finally, they talked briefly about the shooting in Pensacola and whether anything should be done, maybe a review, of our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Booker said the US-Saudi relationship is "unacceptable" and cited examples, including of course the "outrageous killing" of Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi.

This is a relationship that has serious problems. And the fact that this president seems, in a very transactional way, doubling down on the relationship, and telling us it's because of just financial interests, is unacceptable. America is best when we lead with our values in a resolute manner. And this is a relationship that needs more than just an examination. In the Senate, we came together in a bipartisan way to rebuke what -- some of the things we have been doing with the Saudis, like the engagement in Yemen. It's unacceptable. And, as president of the United States, I will change it. We will lead with our values again.

That's where they left things, and where I'll leave things as well.

See you around campus.

And please, consider going to corybooker.com or yang2020.com and donating for diversity on the debate stage.