Today’s Edition: Don’t underestimate Madam Speaker

June 30, 2021

          Speaker Nancy Pelosi controlled two important parts of the political narrative on Tuesday. In May, House Republicans voted against a bipartisan commission to investigate the assault on the Capitol on January 6th. On Monday, Speaker Pelosi introduced a bill that would establish a “select committee” to investigate the Insurrection. See NBC News, “Pelosi introduces bill setting framework for Jan. 6th commission.” Unlike the bipartisan commission rejected by Republicans, Pelosi will exercise control over the select committee. It appears that she intends to exercise that control to the fullest extent possible. When asked whether she expected any Republicans to vote in favor of the select committee, Pelosi responded, “I have no idea. Ask them.” (Read: “I don’t care.”)

The thirteen-member committee will include five Republicans, who will be appointed “after consultation with the Minority Leader.” In other words, McCarthy doesn’t have the power of appointment, Pelosi does. Republicans wasted no time in condemning the partisan nature of the select committee, which was the only option left after they rejected the bipartisan commission. Given Pelosi’s tone, I suspect House Republicans will regret their rejection of the evenly split bipartisan commission. It is always a mistake to underestimate Speaker Pelosi.

           Speaking of underestimating Speaker Pelosi, Mitch McConnell made the mistake of trying to pull rank on Pelosi on Tuesday by appealing to the President. McConnell said, “The President cannot let congressional Democrats hold a bipartisan [infrastructure] bill hostage over a separate and partisan [reconciliation] process.”  Joe Biden may have walked-back his remarks linking the two bills, but Speaker Pelosi has not. See The Hill, “Pelosi rebuffs McConnell on infrastructure.”

Pelosi responded to McConnell (through surrogates) that the bills would “move in tandem” through the House, ensuring that the fates of the bills are intertwined, McConnell be damned. Even Biden has conceded that Pelosi is in charge. On the Sunday talk shows, a White House spokesperson said, “the legislative process will be left up to Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer.” That is what Biden should have said in the first instance. Lesson learned.

GOP climate change caucus, heat dome, and Miami condominium collapse.

          Some Republicans are waking up to the fact that they are on the wrong side of history and humanity when it comes to fighting climate change. Last week, Republicans in the House formed a “conservative climate caucus” designed to “give Republicans a seat at the table” in climate change discussions. Of course, the caucus is conflicted from inception, giving lip service to “reducing carbon emissions,” while gutting legislation designed to promote clean energy. See Washington Times, “House Republicans form Conservative Climate Caucus to push back.” (“While Republicans have not ignored the issue outright, they’ve opted for a more nuanced approach . . . generally championing America’s energy resources — oil, coal and natural gas.”)

The caucus chair, GOP Rep. John Curtis, is crowing about the $35 billion for clean energy in the omnibus spending bill passed in December 2020 but has been silent about the fact that Republicans oppose the $350 billion for clean energy in Biden’s original infrastructure bill. Until Republicans actually support legislation to fight climate change, we should assume the “conservative climate change caucus” is a disinformation campaign. Let me know if you disagree. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

          The current heat wave in the northwestern U.S. is caused by a “heat dome,” which is a product of disruptions to the jet stream, which is a product of warmer surface temperatures. See CBS News, “What is a heat dome? Extreme temperatures in the Pacific Northwest, explained. (In the interests of fairness and full disclosure, there is not a scientific consensus on the cause of the jet stream disruptions.) In any event, climate is a complicated, interconnected phenomenon and humans disrupt that process at their peril. The current heat wave in the Northwest is believed to be a “once in a 1,000 years” occurrence in the absence of human contributions to climate change. With human contributions, we can expect to see once-in-a-millenium events on shorter time scales. See op-ed by Michael E. Mann and Susan Joy Hassol in NYTimes, “That Heat Dome? Yeah, It’s Climate Change.” As noted by Mann and Hassol,

          Heat waves now occur three times as often as they did in the 1960s [and] record-breaking hot months are occurring five times more often than would be expected without global warming.

          Few Republicans are pushing back on the notion that climate change is related to the heat dome that is currently parked over the Northwest. But right-wing media has concluded that it is ‘ghoulish” to suggest a connection between climate change and the collapse of the Surfside condominium. To be clear, no one in the administration has made that suggestion (nor am I). But Fox News fabricated a false controversy over that possible connection—presumably as a warning shot to dissuade politicians and climate advocates from suggesting a connection.

          The controversy began when Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm was interviewed on CNN. The host asked Granholm “do you think that climate would have played a role in that building's collapse?” Like politicians everywhere, Granholm did not answer the question posed to her, but instead made a general observation about climate change. Granholm said, “We don’t know fully, but we know that the seas are rising. We know that we're losing inches and inches of beach – not just in Florida, but all around.” That exchange led to a Fox News headline, titled “Outrage after CNN, Granholm suggest climate change could have role in Surfside building collapse: 'Ghoulish',” with the sub-header, “There's nothing that can't be blamed on climate change.” The “outrage” was allegedly expressed by “viewers.” In fact, the “outrage” cited in the Fox article was contained in a handful of comments skimmed from the cesspool of social media. In other words, “There is no there there.”  Fox made up a story based on snarky comments from Twitter trolls.

          The most important aspect of the Fox story is that conservatives are repeating their playbook after mass shootings: “It’s too soon to politicize mass killings by talking about gun control.” By that metric, it is never appropriate to discuss gun control because mass shootings occur weekly in the U.S. The same Catch-22 logic is being used by Fox News as to climate change. Don’t fall for its cynical logic. At the appropriate time, investigators should do everything possible to discover the causes of the collapse of the Surfside condominium. We can’t refuse to consider possible causes because they are inconsistent with Republican orthodoxy that man made climate change is a hoax. We owe it to the victims and their families to learn the truth, whatever that might be.

What’s the big deal if the Trump Organization is indicted but Trump is not?

All signs point to an impending indictment o the Trump Organization on seemingly minor tax evasion charges relating to fringe benefits granted to the CFO of the organization. Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, Jr. has apparently told Trump’s lawyers that the first indictment will not include charges against Trump. Many will be disappointed if the initial charges relate only to tax evasion over fringe benefits. Don’t be.

When an organization is indicted, it can have far reaching consequences. In 2002, the accounting firm Arthur Andersen was indicted on a single count of obstruction of justice for shredding documents relating to Enron. Within a few weeks of its conviction on that single count, Arthur Andersen ceased operations. Ironically, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately reversed the conviction of Arthur Andersen and prosecutors never re-filed the charges.

          When a business organization is indicted or convicted, those events frequently trigger defaults in loan agreements, insurance policies, public and private contracts, and licenses to do business. That is what happened to Arthur Andersen. It went out of business because of the collateral consequences of its conviction. While I am unfamiliar with the licenses, contracts, and lending agreements of the Trump Organization, its status as an accused felon will likely impair many of its business relationships, loans, and licenses.

So, when the media (and Trump’s lawyers) say that an indictment relating to fringe benefits is “Not a big deal,” our response should be, “It’s too soon to tell.” Be patient. An indictment for tax evasion relating to fringe benefits may severely damage Trump’s business over the long term.

Concluding Thoughts.

          After several days of reading stories about Biden’s rocky announcement of his support for the bipartisan infrastructure bill, I am beginning to feel cautiously optimistic that Democrats will deliver two bills to his desk this year. It is beginning to look like Biden does have support from Manchin and Sinema but can’t say that fact out loud. That is why he should leave the difficult task of pushing through a second reconciliation bill to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Biden has done his part; he should now stay above the fray and allow his highly skilled congressional leaders to go to work. Biden’s stumble may have been more of a media event than a legislative setback. And in the short-attention-span-theater of Washington, it may be old news after the 4th of July recess in Congress.

          Talk to you tomorrow!