There is always positive momentum every time a major piece of legislation passes. It takes so long to get those things done. You have to corral your own caucus and make sure everyone gets what they need out of it. Then, you have to overcome the filibuster on the other side. I think you get the idea.

Congress passes legislation all the time. We often refer to Congress as a “do nothing” Congress and somehow assume they can only do one thing at a time. I think deep down we know this isn’t true, but when it comes to major issues this is certainly true. Now, the Democrats in Congress and the Justice Department have a choice they have to make.

How do they use this momentum? The positive feelings from passing a major piece of legislation like the infrastructure bill probably buys you only so much. You can push one thing forward and time is running out. The closer we get to the 2022 midterm elections the less that’s going to get done. We probably have time for them to do one other great thing.

As Yogi Berra once said, “when you reach a fork in the road. Take it.” Naturally, many of you are wondering what our choices are. We can certainly add to the economic impact of the infrastructure bill with items that were left out. Democrats initially wanted a much bigger package. They could damn the torpedoes and go for that.

The Democrats could take the momentum and go after the voting rights bill. I think this is the legislative direction most people want to go. If such a bill passed it would nullify the voter suppression bills passed in individual states and would add protections that could safeguard our democracy moving forward.

The last possibility involves the Justice Department. Congress has subpoenaed numerous officials from the Trump administration to answer for the big lie and the January 6th insurrection. How much did they plan? How much did they incite with their rhetoric? Can we prove they helped plan that event and that they knew the big lie was obviously false?

If they appear the simple answer would appear to be yes on all counts. We get two divergent questions from this point forward. The first question is how hard we pursue them to compel them to appear? The current strategy appears to be for them to just skip the appearances and let Congress and the Justice Department pursue them. If you play their game you could end up spending that entire momentum on getting them to admit what most rational people already know.

The second question is what to do once they admit what we already know. Do you throw them in jail? Do you simply use the material in campaigns moving forward? Do we make a huge effort to educate the public? All of this involves using pretty much all of that momentum we described earlier.

The upshot is that as long as the Democrats make a choice they will create some positive synergy for the next election cycle. Some choices are better than others, but the key is to get off the pot and make one. The alternative is paralysis by analysis. Factions bicker about what to do and you look up and it’s November 2022. The unfortunate part of opportunity costs is that you have to choose something. The clock is ticking.

Rage is an emotion I rarely ever feel. I’m thankful that it doesn’t happen very often. When rage hits I have to take a step back and collect my thoughts. That happened last night when El Jefe reported the ruling of the judge in the Jacob Rittenhouse case here.

I wanted to check myself and go to the source. However, I know Twitter is not the best source for news either. So, I decided to go to a reputable source like NPR and saw the same story again. I still couldn’t believe what I was reading. It was like we had gone down some sort of worm hole in time into a different universe. I certainly wasn’t capable of intelligent commentary.

Let’s start with the obvious. Does this judge have proof that those particular individuals were participating in looting, arson, and rioting? Moreover, did Rittenhouse absolutely know which of his victims (oops) were guilty of those things? Firing indiscriminately into a crowd would seem to show a lack of discerning on his part, but that’s probably my fault for using big words like discerning.

How is anyone (let alone a judge) allowed to refer to anyone in public as a looter, rioter, or arsonist unless we know for a fact that they were doing those things? In one flail swoop, the judge has managed to not only render a ruling that makes the case for an appeal a slam dunk, he’s opened himself up to class action lawsuit for defamation of character.

However, let’s forget all of that for the moment. Do we want to live in a society where that even matters? Do we want to live in a society where a teenage boy gets to decide what crosses the line between peaceful protests and rioting? Do we want an adolescent deciding when someone has crossed the line into looting? Do we want someone without a fully developed frontal lobe getting to decide the fate of someone even if they have been caught committing an act of arson? Hell, are any of those actions things that anyone should be killed over?

I’m not qualified to make that decision and I’m a grown ass man. Besides, I don’t want to live in a world where individuals on the street get to decide whether my actions somehow call for me to be the victim of state sanctioned murder. The whole concept is so morally repugnant that I can’t even entertain it. This didn’t come from a high school buddy or some stranger down the street. Apparently, this thinking came from a judge in a court of law.

So, one decision collectively demonstrates where we have gone wrong. This decision just told the families of those VICTIMS that it was their fault for protesting in the wrong place at the wrong time. This decision told the families of the VICTIMS that their loved ones will forever be branded as criminals or miscreants. This decision white washed a young kid’s decision to take the law into his own hands and become judge, jury, and executioner. This decision turned the American justice system (if even temporarily) into a lynch mob. May God have mercy on our soul if we allow this to happen.

Donald Rumsfeld is dead. That’s the major news item of the day. That is until the indictments come down on the Trump organization. Oddly enough, those two stories are related. Oddly enough, Rumsfeld’s death is an uneasy reminder that I was wrong. I know. Everyone is shocked.

One of the things I was taught growing up was that almost everyone in our politics was operating from an understanding that everyone in our politics wanted what was best for America. So, even poor decisions were done with the best interest of America in mind. Occasionally, the lines of legality get blurred or outright erased. Even then, it is done with the best interest of America in mind.

When that happens you are given a choice. You can accept that as a part of politics. You can use it to defeat your opponent, defeat them, and then move on. You can also use political capital to punish them for their crimes. However, if you go with the second option you run the very real risk that the court system becomes a weapon in politics. It’s not an easy decision.

I grew up believing that the pardon of Nixon was on balance a good thing. I grew up believing that moving on from Iran-Contra was a good thing. I then came to believe that moving on from the possible crimes of the second Bush administration was a good thing. I’m a big believer in history and I figured history would treat them harshly enough. I figured people would remember. I figured a lot of things.

I was wrong. The Bush administration isn’t remembered as crooks. History has taught us something else entirely. The Nixon administration did what it did because administrations before had literally gotten away with murder. The Reagan administration did more because Nixon went unpunished. The Bush administration did more because the Reagan administration went unpunished.

Now, we get to the point where the people in power were no longer in it for the best interests of the United States. They were in it for themselves. Suddenly, Bush didn’t look so bad. Suddenly, Rumsfeld doesn’t look so bad. You could even catch the occasional progressive longing for the dark days of the Bush administration before Biden took over. At least you had a patriotic American possibly breaking the law to achieve his view of American interests. It sure beat a narcissistic jackass out to line his own pockets.

Now, I understand the lay of the land. There are two distinct historical trends at work here. First, Republicans tend to be corrupt. At least the ones in the White House tend to be that way. Secondly, when you don’t punish bad behavior it gets worse. Basic parenting should have taught me that, but I thought politicizing justice was wrong. It’s still distasteful, but it’s necessary. The humanization of Donald Rumsfeld should teach us that much.

Ya’ll remember James Comey, that really nice FBI director who’s letter to Congress about Hillary’s emails 11 days before the election hung over her campaign like a fart in church?  (sorry, Momma) Then remember how he said, “NNNNEEEEVVVVEERRRRR MMMIIIINNNDDDD” several days later? Well.  Looks like Mr. Letter Writer might just get his.  He’s being investigated by the Justice Department for possible political motivation (oh, say it ain’t so, Joe; say it ain’t so); AND, it turns out that his deputy director is also in deep doo-doo because, as he was investigating Hillary, his wife was running for Virginia State Senate.  Apparently he should have recused himself.  They’re also investigating whether someone leaked the info to Hillary’s campaign.  I wonder if they’re going to investigate why Rudy Giuliani knew about the email letter weeks before it hit?