Sunday School 6/12/22: Extra Credit

For your Sunday School Extra Credit, I bring you two interviews from Dana Bash in the CNN State of the Union classroom. First up? Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who was involved in the 2nd Trump impeachment, and is also on the January 6th Committee. Here are a few highlights of their conversation.

Bash reminded Raskin about his saying the hearings would blow the roof off of the House, and wondered if "the most explosive testimony" was still to come. He said that they're going to "spell out and unspool" everything that was laid out in the first hearing, and he said

I know that our first hearing pierced the sound barrier. People are paying attention. But Americans need to pay further attention, because the danger is still out there. I mean, there was -- I just read this morning that, in Idaho, there was an LGBTQ Pride Day and a riot planted by domestic violent extremist groups, the same kinds of groups that were mobilized for the assault on the Capitol.

Bash asked if they can "prove that Donald Trump knew he lost, while publicly saying that he won." Raskin said he thinks they can 

prove to any reasonable, open-minded person that Donald Trump absolutely knew, because he was surrounded by lawyers, including the attorney general of the United States, William Barr, telling him in no uncertain terms, in terms that Donald Trump could understand, this is BS. He heard it from the White House counsel. He heard it from all of the lawyers who threatened to resign if he staged his little mini-coup against the Department of Justice.

They also talked about what should happen to Donald Trump; Raskin noted they have statutory authority for criminal referrals for contempt of Congress, which they've used with Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows, but that there's "not a specific statutory provision for just referring crimes" to the DOJ. That said, 

I suppose our entire investigation is a referral of crimes, both to the Department of Justice and to the American people... this is a massive assault on the machinery of American democracy, when you have a sitting president who tries to overthrow the majority in the Electoral College of his opponent, who beat him by more than seven million votes.

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

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

And, AG Garland made it clear the DOJ is paying attention, so there's that. 

Raskin also confirmed that it was "multiple members of Congress, as the vice chair said," that requested pardons. He said the details will come out "all in due time." And, yes, "...everything we're doing is documented by evidence. Unlike the big lie, which is based on nonsense..." 

Finally, on his carrying a copy of Thomas Paine's 'Common Sense' in his pocket, he said 

what we're going to need to get through this struggle in our history is common sense, the sense that we all have in common about what facts are and about what the truth is, and then common sense about how to move forward pragmatically as Americans. That's what we need - not lies, not conspiracy theory, not propaganda and disinformation. 

Next up was Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). Bash asked for her reaction to the video shown in the opening hearing, "especially given" that she had told Bash last year she feared she could have been killed or even raped on January 6th. 

In a long and winding answer, she thought her reaction was probably the same one a lot of people had. She talked about the "disinformation and misinformation campaign that happened" afterwards, and that the messaging came from "right-wing disinformation networks... even from members of Congress...."

And so, I think, especially in the wake of that year of people trying to minimize what had happened, re-watching that footage was, I think, just -- it was like bringing everything from that day back again, not just for myself, but I also know for staff that were there that day, for support staff that were working there, for members of Congress that were there, and for the entire country that -- including many veterans that were watching on television, wondering, how could this be us? And so I think it was an incredibly evocative and physically resonant moment for many of us. 

Bash asked about AOC's tweets calling for Reps. Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Lauren Boebert to say whether they had asked for pardons, and wondered if there was a reason she believed they did. AOC referenced Boebert "actively tweeting the speaker's location" and other "evocative, really provocative statements," which she said "very much, I believe, indicates a side here." She said every member of Congress should be able to answer this "very simple question" whether they had asked for a pardon, and she believes the Committee "would never make an allegation so serious" without evidence.

AOC expressed "disappointment" about the Senate's bipartisan gun legislation framework focusing on "increased criminalization and juvenile criminalization, instead of really having the focus on guns." She said they have to look at all options, "recognizing that the Senate simply right now isn't capable of, I believe, passing the comprehensive legislation in all forms that is needed." The proof will be in the text, which hasn't been disclosed, but she hopes it will be "responsibly put together." She said if they "can get background checks through" she hopes it's something she could vote for.

Moving to the midterms, Bash brought up AOC's support of NY State Sen. Alessandra Biaggi against Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney. And she quoted former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, who said

This is counterproductive. The Supreme Court is about to outlaw abortion. We could lose both houses. So, we are going to focus our time running against each other? Now we're primarying committed progressives, because why? If we lose the House, it's because of dumb stuff like this."

So. what would AOC tell Messina? She pointed out a couple of "electric victories" - Greg Casar in Texas, and Summer Lee in Pennsylvania - saying that

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

She said she doesn't believe getting elected once means you're elected forever; that millennials are "deeply underrepresented in Congress" compared to boomers and Gen Xers "when they were our age."

And, at the end of the day, we need to have a generational shift in the United States Congress in order for us to have a policy shift in the United States Congress.

Finally, on whether she'll support President Biden in 2024, she said 

we will cross that bridge when we get to it. But I think, if the president has a vision, then that's something certainly we're all willing to entertain and examine when the time comes... But, right now, we need to focus on winning a majority, instead of a presidential election.

I definitely agree with her on that last part.  The Dems will have to address the Biden elephant in the room at some point, but winning this November has to be the priority.  

We've got another January 6th hearing tomorrow, and I encourage you to watch. 

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 6/12/22

Let's get your Sunday School lesson rolling, with Sen. Chris Coons (R-DE), who was in the Fox News Sunday classroom with Bret Bair, one of his two appearances today. 

Baier started by asking why the House hadn't taken up the unanimously-passed Senate bill on security for Supreme Court justices, which Coons cosponsored. The House was looking to incorporate protections for SCOTUS staff and their families, Coons said.

And then, he put that bill into the larger picture of January 6th and "politically motivated violence in our country," and said the mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde were a "call to action."

Baier waved that off, saying they were "going to get to both of those other things in a minute," and then he asked whether those protesting at a judge's house should be arrested. Coons talked about having to "strike the right balance" between freedom of speech and ensuring judges and justices are safe. And he added

I do think we need to take stronger action to make sure that our federal judiciary is safe because that's part of making sure our democracy is safe, which really is the core issue of the January 6th hearings, is how do we make sure that the fundamentals of our democracy, the safety and security of Congress, the peaceful transfer of power, and I would also at the safety and security of our federal judiciary is ensured. We should act.

Refusing to change the subject, Baier asked if the AG should arrest the protesters, and said no matter how the Court rules on Roe, it's going to be contentious. Coons said if the opinion matches the draft, it "would be a remarkable act of judicial activism, conservative judicial activism" and there'd be "understandable anger across the nation." 

And he continued, "we need to make sure that all appropriate actions are being taken to ensure the safety of members of our federal judiciary, including Supreme Court justices." Here's how it went after that. 

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

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

Yeah, but...  

Baier said no one's been arrested, and President Biden hasn't mentioned "this specific threat" about Kavanaugh, although "The White House press secretary said a couple of things in a gaggle to reporters that the president condemns violence of any kind. But should the president have said something publicly about this?"

Coons reminded Baier that Biden has "repeatedly spoken out against politically motivated violence in our country, the risk of politically motivated violence," and 

I certainly have denounced this latest threat against Justice Kavanaugh. But it's important that we remember there are threats of political violence of many kinds and types. Folks who are watching this morning who didn't watch the January 6th hearing should take a few moments and review what Congresswoman Liz Cheney, an unimpeachable conservative from Wyoming, had to say in her opening statement. I think there are risks of political violence we should all be speaking out against and acting to ensure we control, manage, and reduce.

Baier again threatened to change the subject, saying, "we're going to talk about January 6th in just a moment." 

But don't you think Democrats and the media would possibly, Senator, be making more about a threat like this, a specific threat, if it was happening to liberal justices?

Oh, my goodness, he's a dog with a bone, isn't he? And Coons? Cool as a cucumber, still.

Well, Bret, you have in front of you the Democratic senator who cosponsored with Senator Cornyn a bill that would provide greater security --

Baier interrupts with "I'm just saying publicly, Senator," and Coons continues

 -- for the families of justices. I don't know how more publicly I can say that I think threats of violence against Supreme Court justices, their families, their clerks are reprehensible, unacceptable, and we should take action to secure the federal judiciary.

In Case You Missed It (v93)

Quite the week the last one was. Here's a recap, in case you missed anything.

I devoted your Sunday School lesson to talks with Sens. Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Pat Toomey (R-PA); they're both involved in the bipartisan talks to come up with legislative changes that could reduce the likelihood of yet another mass shooting occurring. 

Murphy talked with Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union; here's one of the more interesting moments from their discussion.

And what about Tapper's suggestion, that they just take all the laws passed in red-state Florida after the Parkland shooting, and use that as the template? It's a great question. for sure, and Murphy had a good answer, too. Then-Gov. Rick Scott passed the law

because it was the right thing to do, but also because Republican saw it as good politics. And we have to make the case for Republicans that, right now, this is good politics, that, if they want to get reelected, then they cannot stand in the way of the commonsense changes that we're talking about right now.

And, it made sense, Murphy said. It had mental health, school safety, and "some modest but impactful changes in gun laws." That's what he thinks the Senate can pass. And, while he's "more confident than ever" they can get it done this time, he's also "more anxious about failure this time around." 

Toomey talked with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation. Here's a bit of that.

And what about President Biden? Toomey wasn't kind, saying Biden "might have been" a president able to reach across the aisle, but "he's chosen not to take that approach since day one. He has sided with the far left of his party and really not reached out to Republicans."

He gave a speech on this topic where he advocated policies that he knows for sure have no chance of passing the Senate, probably couldn't even get 50 votes, and hold the Democrats, much less get the 60 we would need. 

So, once again, the president is not being very helpful.

I find it so interesting- that the Rs are mad at Biden for suggesting they do something that most Americans have favored - for years - and he's the unhelpful one? I think somehow the Rs have forgotten that, for better or worse, Biden is the president of the country, not merely the president of the whiny, do-nothing Senate Republicans. 

For your Extra Credit, I focused on conversations on the January 6th Committee hearing that aired last Thursday. Brennan talked with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Every Committee Investigating Trump). Regular readers know that I'm not always a fan of his, but at least for this part of their conversation, he was spot on.

Brennan asked if the Committee didn't "run the risk of losing the public's attention" if they fail to "deliver a bombshell" on Thursday. Schiff explained, for Brennan and for the people in the back, that the goal is to "present the narrative of what happened in this country, how close we came to losing our democracy, what led to that violent attack on the 6th."

The roundtable on This Week with George Stephanopoulos also tackled the issue. Here's Chris Christie's response to George's statement that he'd "find it hard to imagine at the end of the hearings that former president Trump is not going to be in a worse position than he is today."

..."the battle right now... is between the truth and lies." Trump has been lying "both affirmatively in terms of whether the election was stolen or not," and by his silence on his own actions on January 6th.

Donald Trump talks about everything. He's willing to talk (about) almost anything... you've never heard him talk about what he was doing on January 6th while this was going on. 

Moving on to my weekly Wondering on Wednesday, I noted it was both the day that the House took testimony from mass shooting survivors, gun reform advocates, and others. And, it was the day that an armed, self-described mentally ill person was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house. 

In response, the Senate's Grim Reaper, Mitch McConnell (R-Someplace Dark and Cold in Kentucky) declared that the House must pass the Supreme Court Security Bill, because the justices need protection now!

He went on to describe, without irony, his frustration at their 'multi-week' delay in passing the bill. Pretty rich from the guy who has the desk where everything that passed the House goes to die, but anyway, this post is about wondering, here I go.  

The guy was arrested, his weapons confiscated, and no one was hurt. And so, I find myself wondering why we need more laws, when we can just enforce the laws we have? 

If that's the answer whenever we talk about trying to make changes to gun laws to protect innocent children, concert-goers, grocery shoppers, prayer groups, church attendees, movie watchers, doctors and nurses and other health care professionals, and more, why isn't that the answer for SCOTUS justices?  

For your TGIF, shared some thoughts on the hearing that aired Thursday night, and some thoughts on the babble from the right. 

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

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

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

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

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

Those are just a few of the questions I had trying to understand how the Dems were responsible for the Republican insurrection. As you might imagine, I declared it was a bad week for the real insurrectionists - and we all know who they are.

This week, I'll have more of the Yes, We Can Do Something series - I haven't forgotten about that, I promise.

And, of course, we'll have our regular weekly features, too. I hope you'll stick around.

TGIF 6/10/22

Good week? Bad week?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They will never entertain facts.

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

And who admitted it was his insurrection.

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday 6/8/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Today was the day that the House Oversight Committee welcomed testimony on guns and mass shootings and murdered children, and kinda sorta welcomed alternative voices, too. 

It was also the day that a California man was apprehended near Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house. Allegedly the man wanted to kill Kavanaugh, was upset about the leak of the Alito draft overturning Roe, and concerned that the Court would loosen gun laws.

In response, the Senate's Grim Reaper, Mitch McConnell (R-Someplace Dark and Cold in Kentucky) declared that the House must pass the Supreme Court Security Bill, because the justices need protection now!

House Democrats have spent weeks blocking the measure that passed here unanimously related to security for Supreme Court justices. That needs to change, and it needs to change right now… No more fiddling around with this… They need to stop their multi-week blockade against the Supreme court security bill and pass it before the sun sets today.

The guy was arrested, his weapons confiscated, and no one was hurt. And so, I find myself wondering why we need more laws, when we can just enforce the laws we have? 

If that's the answer whenever we talk about trying to make changes to gun laws to protect innocent children, concert-goers, grocery shoppers, prayer groups, church attendees, movie watchers, doctors and nurses and other health care professionals, and more, why isn't that the answer for SCOTUS justices?  

And then, there are all those bills that have gone to die in the Senate under McConnell's "leadership." I wonder, how many Americans could have been helped by those, and why they collectively matter so much less than Kavanaugh?

Sunday School 6/5/22: Extra Credit

I'm switching gears from your Sunday School lesson on people trying to do something about gun murders, to people trying to do something about the January 6th insurrection... let's dive into this week's Extra Credit.

Jake Tapper had former Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-VA) in the State of the Union classroom. He worked as an advisor to the House January 6th Committee for several months, leaving at the end of April to focus on helping Ukraine.

Before we get into his interview, the Committee is unhappy with Riggleman's appearances on CNN, as Politico noted last Friday. After one interview last week, the Committee's staff director sent an email regarding an "unauthorized" interview. Per the article, the email said Riggleman's appearance was "in direct contravention to his employment agreement."  And, of course, Riggleman "sharply disagreed" with that portrayal.

So, in the interest of not piling on to the Committee's dismay, I'll limit my excerpts to Riggleman's exuberance and personal opinions, and omit anything that could be remotely sensitive.

He said that the hearings are "going to be very concise," and "very exciting," and

...I think people are going to be absolutely surprised how much was known... And I think that's what's going to be exciting to see the committee. There's some very talented investigators behind the doors, and even with our teams and things like that and what they found, but, again, the investigators going through the thousands of interviews that they have and all the data and the videos.

I think -- I do think they're going to be very successful in those six -- I think in those six hearings.

And, he has hopes for the rest of us.

... the American people have to look at this from the beginning, take their notes, and understand that the committee has to build a case in a very solid, facts-based way. There's not going to be a lot of partisan whining or screaming. The investigators behind the door are nonpartisan individuals. They're going to present this case in a very cogent way. But the American people need to -- they need to take notes.

Tapper pressed on whether there's some kind of orange-haired smoking gun here. The only part I can comfortably repeat is that Riggleman said there were multiple groups looking at more data than he'd ever seen before - "it's absolutely incredible" - and that the Committee has to put it all together and that's what makes it exciting, and the "talent behind the door" made all of this possible, or something.

He agrees with Rep. Liz Cheney (R- stands for Real Republican) that the GOP has become a personality cult, not a party, and said he doesn't consider himself a Republican anymore. What he saw during his time with the Committee

has even pushed me further away, that the party has moved away from conservative principles to this cult of personality that Liz Cheney is talking about. She's absolutely correct. And when you see it behind the door... it's absolutely stunning, that cult of personality, but also the belief systems, that I don't think any real conservative could follow at any point. It's absolutely insane what people have sort of put their arms around. 

I can't agree more with that assessment, even without peeking behind the door. 

Down the hall, Margaret Brennan spoke with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Face the Nation. Schiff, you'll recall, was involved in both Trump impeachments, and is a member of the January 6th Committee. 

On the DOJ not charging Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino, Schiff said it is "very puzzling why these two witnesses would be treated differently than the two" the DOJ decided to prosecute (Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro). 

These witnesses have very relevant testimony to offer in terms of what went into the violence of January 6th, the propagation of the big lie, and the idea that witnesses could simply fail to show up. And when the statute requires the Justice Department to present those cases to the grand jury, they don't, is deeply troubling. We hope to get more insight from the Justice Department, but it's a, I think, a grave disappointment and could impede our work if other witnesses think they can likewise refuse to show up with impunity.

He also said there's plenty of stuff they could have testified about that wouldn't come close to executive privilege - things about the campaign, relevant documents and the like.

None of which is protected by privilege. And the idea that you can simply refuse to show up, rather than show up and say, as to this question I'm going to assert a privilege, that just invites others to be in contempt of Congress or be in contempt of judges around the country in other courtrooms. And I think it's a very dangerous precedent to set.

Schiff said he wouldn't comment on any specific witnesses or testimony, but did say

...one of the themes that we will be fleshing out is the fact that in advance of the 6th, that there was an understanding of the propensity for violence that day, of the participation of white nationalist groups, of the effect that the continued propagation of his big lie to rile up the country and rile up the president's base was likely to lead to violence. 

Sunday School 6/5/22

Ready for your Sunday School lesson?

Let's start with Jake Tapper, host of CNN's State of the Union. He described our state being "angry at the lack of leadership." 

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), one of the folks involved in the Senate negotiations in response to the school shooting in Uvalde), talked with Tapper. 

He says he's "never been part of negotiations as serious as these," noting there are more Rs "at the table talking about changing our gun laws and investing in mental health than at any time since Sandy Hook." And, he admitted, he's seen a lot of failed negotiations, so he's "...sober-minded" that they can get something done.

He said red flag laws, background check changes, and "a handful of other items that will make a difference" are on the table. And while he's not sure they'll be able to meet the 'end of the week' deadline from Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), they're "trying to put a package together,

because I think Republicans realize how scared parents and kids are across this country. I think they realize that the answer this time cannot be nothing, that it's frankly a test of democracy, it's a test of the federal government as to whether we can deliver at a moment of just fierce anxiety amongst the American public. So we're closer than ever before. Let's see if we land it.

Tapper wondered about raising the age for purchasing semi-automatic guns, something supported by a couple hundred or so Texas conservatives in a full-page ad in Sunday's Dallas Morning News, but not mentioned as "being on the table."

What we're talking about is trying to make sure that dangerous or potentially dangerous individuals don't have their hands on weapons. Sen. Cornyn has also talked about his interest in taking a look at how we access juvenile records for these young men who tend to be 18 to 21, committing these mass murders, to make sure that they can't get their hands on a weapon if they have had problems with the law in the past...

He also said what Cornyn's saying is "consistent" with their negotiations. 

Listen, we're not going to do everything I want. We're not going to put a piece of legislation the table that's going to ban assault weapons, or we're not going to pass comprehensive background checks. But, right now, people in this country want us to make progress. They just don't want the status quo to continue for another 30 years.

Murphy said they're trying to get to something that will pass, and said "that's why the red flag law is probably the most important" piece. 

It's actually about helping states implement red flag laws... not just providing incentives for states to pass new laws, but helping fund existing red flag laws, so that more individuals who are contemplating suicides can have their weapons temporarily taken from them to save their lives.

And what about Tapper's suggestion, that they just take all the laws passed in red-state Florida after the Parkland shooting, and use that as the template? It's a great question. for sure, and Murphy had a good answer, too. Then-Gov. Rick Scott passed the law

because it was the right thing to do, but also because Republican saw it as good politics. And we have to make the case for Republicans that, right now, this is good politics, that, if they want to get reelected, then they cannot stand in the way of the commonsense changes that we're talking about right now.

And, it made sense, Murphy said. It had mental health, school safety, and "some modest but impactful changes in gun laws." That's what he thinks the Senate can pass. And, while he's "more confident than ever" they can get it done this time, he's also "more anxious about failure this time around." 

He said when he was home last week, 

I have never seen the look on parents' faces that I did. There's just a deep, deep fear for our children right now, and also a fear that government is so fundamentally broken that it can't put politics aside to guarantee the one thing that matters most to adults in this country, the physical safety of their children. And so, I think the possibility of success is better than ever before. But I think the consequences of failure for our entire democracy are more significant than ever.

In Case You Missed it (v92)

Last week was a busy one here at veritable pastiche. Here's a recap of our seven posts, ICYMI. 

Things kicked off with the Part 1 of my series Yes, We Can Do Something, which I introduced at the end of the week before last. The series is about the things we can do, if we wanted to, about gun safety and gun control.  

Part 1 deals with the first half of the 2nd Amendment, and ways to create the well-regulated militia our founders mentioned. I don't propose banning guns, but I do recommend enhanced background checks, waiting periods, licensing requirements, new excise taxes, and training. 

• Mandatory education and training must be provided before every gun purchase or transfer is completed. The training must be specific to the gun, and include all aspects of gun ownership (carrying, transporting, using, and storing the gun and ammunition, etc.). The training must also include reports of gun owners hurting themselves or others, such as when kids and parents accidentally kill children, and accidental shootings in the leg, in the head, in the head, in the testicles, in the testicles, in the testicles, in the penis, in the foot, taking a selfie, defending a Muslim-free gun store, trying out his new holster, in the girlfriend, in the girlfriend, in the girlfriend, etc. It must also include video impact statements from survivors and from families of victims of mass shootings. Proof of successful completion of the training must be documented as part of the sale or transfer transaction. 

I know it sounds silly, but if we don't teach them the dangers of their toys, they could end up like the people they're going to learn about. 

Next up? Your regular visit to the Sunday School classrooms, where my attention was on the politicians who represent Uvalde, including Valde County Commissioner Ronald Garza; he was with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation. 

He talked about the stuff making the news - the timeline(s), and the confusion on why folks didn't go in. He talked about the families and about the school building itself, where his dad was a teacher. And, there was this part, too.

Garza knows the family of the shooter, and said he has "no indication" as to any motive. He described the family as one that "value(s) church, they value hard work, known them for many years- great grandparents, grandparents, uncles, aunts." He also said what happened shouldn't be a reflection on the family.

You know, we raise our children, and we try to raise them in the right way. But - but sometimes our children have different thoughts, have different attitudes, personalities, but we do the best we can.

His pain was palpable, as should be ours. 

Part 2 of the Yes, We Can Do Something series came next; this part deals with gun crimes and punishment. I included some changes not directly related to school shootings, because Republicans, like Texans Gov. Greg Abbott and Sen. Ted Cruz, like to talk about strict gun laws in Chicago whenever there's a mass shooting in their state. 

In addition to requiring mandatory minimum penalties for using a gun in a crime, which must be served - in full - before the sentence for the overarching crime is service, I proposed the following: 

• Require mandatory prosecution for holding or hiding a gun in order to protect another person from being charged with a gun crime. 

• Require mandatory prosecution when guns are found improperly secured or transported, such as during TSA checks, law enforcement stops, etc.

• Categorize all crimes in which a gun was used as 'non-bailable' federal offenses, and carve gun legislation out of the filibuster.

That last part would be fun, right? Treating gun crimes with the same level of importance as they do SCOTUS justices? 

Moving on to your Sunday School Extra Credit, we caught up with Rep. Dan Crenshaw. He doesn't represent Uvalde in Congress, but he's a Texan, so he got front-and-center treatment in the State of the Union classroom.

They talked about things we can do, such as universal background checks, which he opposes, and closing the gun show loophole, which he denies exists, and opposes, and red flag laws, which he opposes. On a national law 

You know, it's funny... You would think, from the trolls on the Internet, that I'm the number one advocate for red flag laws. That's a bit of a myth perpetuated by my own side. Now, truthfully, I think there's a lot of problems with red flag laws, especially at a national level.

He mentioned that "criminal law" should be decided at the local and state level, but "you have to look at these and wonder what the actual purpose is." 

And what about a red flag law in Texas? Um, that's also a 'no.'

and here's why, because what we are essentially trying to do with a red flag law is enforce the law before the law has been broken. And that's a really difficult thing to do. It's difficult to assess whether somebody is a threat. Now, if they're such a threat they're threatening somebody with a weapon already, well, then they have already broken the law, so why do you need this other law? That's the question that I think critics rightfully ask about these things.

More on Crenshaw in a minute.

In my Wondering on Wednesday musings, I focused on a post that popped up in my social media memories, one in which I compared my gardening to the gardening that Republicans have been doing, for years. 

Look at all the time they've spent - years, when you think about it - sowing seeds. Seeds of doubt. Seeds of hate. Seeds of fear. Seeds of anger. Seeds of rage. Seeds of control. Seeds of division. Seeds of conspiracy...

They're gardeners, carefully tending their crops, nurturing their harvest, and reaping the rewards.

 They're gardeners. Just like me.

Well, not just like me; I tend different crops, as I describe in the post. 

My wondering? Why has so little changed, with me or with them. I'm frustrated, still, and they're entrenched, still, 

And I wonder, is there a master gardener with the skills to guide us out of this mess, and help us achieve a more suitable design? Or, worse - are we stuck here?

Who is that gardener? It's easy to tell who it's not, that's for sure.

Remember Crenshaw and his lead-in to the red flag law conversation? I invited you to belly on up to the Sidebar for a deeper dive into that. Here's what he told Dana Bash.

You would think, from the trolls on the Internet, that I'm the number one advocate for red flag laws. That's a bit of a myth perpetuated by my own side. Now, truthfully, I think there's a lot of problems with red flag laws, especially at a national level.

What's up with his comment about Internet trolls? What would make them think he favors red flag laws? If I had to hazard a guess, it'd be because they found the found the tweets he sent in 2019, after the mass shooting in Dayton, OH, which was just a day after the mass shooting at an El Paso Walmart. Take a look.

"I supported them before I was against them," or something like that.  I also explored the TAPS Act in the post.

And finally, it was TGIF time - and after a lot of heavy lifting during the week, I chose to do an all 'good week' post. Here's one item that made the cut.

Keeping both oars in the water, there's a non-profit that's turning mining pollution into pigments that are used in paint. Rural Action, based in Ohio, works "to create environmental change in rural Appalachian communities." Contaminated water is collected, then a base and oxygen are added, creating pigments that are being used to make paint. You can see some of the artwork created with the paints here. This isn't 'new' news, but it's new to me and it's pretty cool.

I'll be back tomorrow with your Sunday School - we've got some pretty cool stuff of our own to do today. I'll have more for you in the Yes, We Can Do Something series this week, too. 

TGIF 6/3/22

Hip hip hooray - it's Friday, and time for our weekly list making. I'm going to change things up a little, and do every story from the 'good week' side of the ledger, no matter what. Ready to dive in?

This first one's an easy 'good week' entry: goats are clearing brush, weeds, grass, and more in West Sacramento, CA, and it's helping lessen the damage from wildfires. According to the city's public information officer, "About 400 goats can clear two acres a day and get in places mowers can't reach," and they've already protected a housing complex by creating a firebreak. You can watch the goats being herded across a street here. Pretty cool, and much more interesting than brooms and rakes. 

Speaking of brooms, it seems finally the DOJ is cleaning up a desk or something. Former Trump Administration trade guru Peter Navarro, was indicted and charged with contempt of Congress for refusing to comply a request from the House January 6th committee to have a chat and turn over relevant documents. 

Navarro, who wrote a book on overturning the 2020 election, thinks he has executive privilege or something. He's wrong, and it could cost him two years in prison and $200K in fines if he's convicted. Should that happen, he'll probably face a much less significant penalty, but it's nice to dream...

Speaking of dreams, a boat made by New Hampshire middle-schoolers washed ashore in Norway, over 460 days after it was launched. The boat was badly damaged during its 8,000-mile journey, "losing its hull, mast and keel." Sheila Adams, the kids' science teacher, said

This project tapped into so much more than the science curriculum. The students needed to use their writing skills to inform others about their miniboat project, describe our school and town to people of other languages, just in case, and write requests to get the boat deployed."

All that, and I'd say some pretty powerful dreams to help keep their little boat together long enough to make it across the ocean.

Keeping both oars in the water, there's a non-profit that's turning mining pollution into pigments that are used in paint. Rural Action, based in Ohio, works "to create environmental change in rural Appalachian communities." Contaminated water is collected, then a base and oxygen are added, creating pigments that are being used to make paint. You can see some of the artwork created with the paints here. This isn't 'new' news, but it's new to me and it's pretty cool.

This one is new news, and it comes from Lake Tahoe. 

A scuba dive team has completed an extraordinary clean-up of Lake Tahoe after a full year of work, pulling up more than 12 tons of submerged trash. 

Organized by the nonprofit Clean Up The Lake, the team restored every inch of 72 miles of the crystal blue lake’s shoreline and sub-shore, collecting 24,797 pieces of litter weighing a total of 25,281 pounds.

Among the things they team found? Wallets and engagement rings. Which is a really good thing for the people who lost them, who probably never dreamed they'd see their belongings again.

TGIF, everyone.

Sidebar: Sunday School 5/29/22: Extra Credit

In this week's Sunday School Extra Credit lesson, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) was in the guest chair, chatting with Dana Bash in CNN's State of the Union classroom.

I want to focus on a specific part of his conversation with Bash; here's what he said when she first broached the subject of 'red flag' laws, which allow schools, family members, and others to contact law enforcement if they perceive someone to be a threat to themselves or others, and to have guns removed if a threat is confirmed.

You would think, from the trolls on the Internet, that I'm the number one advocate for red flag laws. That's a bit of a myth perpetuated by my own side. Now, truthfully, I think there's a lot of problems with red flag laws, especially at a national level.

Crenshaw would vote against a national 'red flag' law, and on a similar law for his own state, the site of multiple mass shootings. 

What's up with his comment about Internet trolls? What would make them think he favors red flag laws? If I had to hazard a guess, it'd be because they found the found the tweets he sent in 2019, after the mass shooting in Dayton, OH, which was just a day after the mass shooting at an El Paso Walmart. Take a look.

Darn those trolls for thinking he supports these laws, designed to stop potential bad guys from, you know, becoming actual bad guys who slaughter adults and children in schools, churches, and Walmart - in his own state, and others.

And what's that TAPS Act he talked about? According to the bill, it would task Homeland Security to put a task force together; the group would

"provide recommendations to the appropriate committees of Congress...on the development and implementation of a national strategy for preventing targeted violence through behavioral threat assessment and management... "

The bill defines "behavioral threat assessment and management,"  Too. (Note: I'll use BTAM, to make it easier.). BTAM is a

systematic and evidence-based process of (A) identifying individuals who are exhibiting patterns of concerning behavior that indicate an interest, motive, intention, or capability of carrying out an act of violence; (B) investigating and gathering information from multiple sources to assess whether an individual described in subparagraph (A) poses a threat, based on articulable facts: and (C) the subsequent management of such a threat, if necessary.

And who should be involved in developing that process? A group of experts with BTAM experience from non-governmental organizations, local and state BTAM units, local or state prosecutors, and educational institutions. 

In addition, experts from the following federal agencies would also participate: Secret Service, FBI, US Marshals Service, NCIS, Capitol Police, and the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Justice, State, and Veterans Affairs. That's a strong group of experts - I mean, they've got the gang from NCIS and Criminal Minds in there, for Pete's sake. 

And, from the text of the bill, the 'targeted violence' that they want to prevent is defined as

any incident of predatory violence with respect to which an identifiable individual or group focuses an attack on particular target. 

It's in our national security interest to develop best practices and guidelines on how to deal with targeted violence. 

Sounds pretty good, right? And, it also sounds like these are the kinds of things folks who administer red flag laws would need to know, to help them do their jobs. But, not so fast. Here's the Heritage Foundation's take on things; and we know that what Heritage says is what the Rs very often go with.

When law enforcement officers and school officials are properly able to distinguish true threats from nonthreats, they are less likely to pursue inappropriate interventions that wrongly infringe on the rights of people who aren’t dangerous. 

And, Heritage also makes clear this is not creating a red flag law, and of course, they don't like those. 

The TAPS Act does not authorize or fund these types of laws at any level of government. The legislation would, however, ensure that—regardless of whatever laws already exist at a state or local level—law enforcement officers and educators can make better decisions about potential threats to public safety. 

That’s the kind of public safety bill that America actually needs in the wake of tragedies—not extreme gun control measures that largely punish law-abiding, non-dangerous citizens, but training that empowers us to identify and stop specific threats before they turn tragic.

It would seem, according to Crenshaw and the Heritage folks, that the preferred answer is to give law enforcement the training they need to do their job, but not the actual laws that allow them to do it.  

And he thinks the "Internet trolls" are nuts? 

Wondering on Wednesday 6/1/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Tonight's wondering begins one year ago today, when I published some Random Thoughts  on gardening, and politics. The post popped up in my social media 'memories', and honestly, I had forgotten all about this post, which came after a three-week-long spate of writer's block. When I finally got to putting thoughts into words, what flowed was a look at the difference between my garden and the garden that many Republicans are tending. 

Look at all the time they've spent - years, when you think about it - sowing seeds. Seeds of doubt. Seeds of hate. Seeds of fear. Seeds of anger. Seeds of rage. Seeds of control. Seeds of division. Seeds of conspiracy.

They're gardeners, carefully tending their crops, nurturing their harvest, and reaping the rewards.

They are passionate about ripping out plants that are the wrong color, the wrong zone, the wrong fill-in-the-blank. They are passionate about making sure they only nurture the right plants, the ones that will thrive under their particular care. Poor performers? Tossed. They cover their crops with manure, layers deep, and feed them a regular, stringent diet designed to achieve uniformity, nature be damned. And invasive species that dare set foot in the garden? The only method they know is a path of scorched-earth eradication. They've no patience with trying to understand, nurture or rehabilitate; no understanding that one man's weed is another man's flower.

They're gardeners. Just like me.

Well, not just like me; I tend different crops, as I describe in the post. 

What I wonder about, with this, is why things have changed so little in the last year. I feel like I'm in the same place I was then, in my garden, frustrated with the state of things, frustrated with being frustrated, and yet, not willing to turn away from the things that frustrate me. And they certainly seem even more entrenched in their garden than they were, and more gleefully entrenched, if that's possible. And I wonder, is there a master gardener with the skills to guide us out of this mess, and help us achieve a more suitable design? Or, worse - are we stuck here?

What else is on the wondering list?

• When will the last shoe drop in Uvalde? Every day, it seems, another bit of tragedy gets added on - or erased, as was the case with the latest about the teacher who "propped the door open," which it now seems didn't happen. My heart breaks each time the story changes, for the families, and for the entire Uvalde community, struggling with so much. There's a point at which everyone should just stop talking until they know - really know - the details. I'd say we've passed that point already, but I don't think anyone will stop.

• What are the chances we'll have a bipartisan agreement on any kind of legislation to help reduce the chances of another mass shooting like the one in Uvalde, or Buffalo? There's a framework, we're told, which is good, and they're still talking, which is good - but I wonder, in the end, if folks on the right have the stomach for change, and if folks on the left have the stomach for restraint and compromise. 

• Where do the Rs go next, now that the trial of Michael Sussman for allegedly lying to the FBI about working for Hillary Clinton's campaign in the 2016 presidential campaign has ended in an acquittal, where does the Durham investigation go next? There's one more trial set for this fall, but is that it? And will the Former Guy attack him, the way he has attacked everyone else who fails him?

What are you wondering about tonight?