Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

CEO’s newfound concern for democracy is bunk

The sudden lurch from Trump to Biden is generating vertigo all over Washington, including the so-called fourth branch of government – CEOs and their army of lobbyists.

Notwithstanding Biden’s ambitious agenda, dozens of giant corporations have said they will not donate to the 147 members of Congress who objected to the certification of Biden electors on the basis of Trump’s lies about widespread fraud, which rules out most Republicans on the Hill.  

After locking down Trump’s account, social media giants like Twitter and Facebook are policing against instigators of violence and hate, which hobbles Republican lawmakers trying to appeal to Trump voters. 

As a result of moves like these, CEOs are being hailed – and hailing themselves – as guardians of democracy. The New York Times praises business leaders for seeking “stability and national unity.” Ed Bastian, CEO of Delta Airlines, says “our voice is seen as more important than ever.” A recent study by Edelman finds the public now trusts business more than nonprofit organizations, the government or the media.

Give me a break. For years, big corporations have been assaulting democracy with big money, drowning out the voices and needs of ordinary Americans and fueling much of the anger and cynicism that opened the door to Trump in the first place.

Their assault hasn’t been as dramatic as the Trump thugs who stormed the Capitol, and it’s entirely legal – although more damaging over the long term. 

study published a few years ago by two of America’s most respected political scientists, Princeton professor Martin Gilens and Northwestern’s Benjamin Page, concluded that the preferences of the average American “have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically nonsignificant impact upon public policy.” Instead, lawmakers respond almost exclusively to the moneyed interests – those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns.

The capture of government by big business over the last several decades has infuriated average Americans whose paychecks have gone nowhere even as the stock market has soared. 

The populist movements that fueled both Bernie Sanders and Trump began in the 2008 financial crisis when Wall Street got bailed out and no major bank executive went to jail, although millions of ordinary people lost their jobs, savings and homes. 

So now, in wake of Trump’s calamitous exit and Biden’s ascension, we’re to believe CEOs care about democracy? 

“No one thought they were giving money to people who supported sedition,” explained Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase and chairman of the Business Roundtable, referring to the disgraced Republicans.

Yet Dimon has been a leader of the more insidious form of sedition. He piloted the corporate lobbying campaign for the Trump tax cut, deploying a vast war chest of corporate donations. 

For more than a decade Dimon has driven Wall Street’s charge against stricter bank regulation, opening bipartisan doors in the Capitol with generous gifts from the Street. (Dimon calls himself a Democrat.)

When Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg shut Trump’s Facebook account, he declared “you just can’t have a functioning democracy without a peaceful transition of power.” 

Where was Zuckerberg’s concern for a “functioning democracy” when he amplified Trump’s lies for four years? 

After taking down Trump’s Twitter account, CEO Jack Dorsey expressed discomfort about “the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.” 

Spare me. Dorsey has fought off all attempts to limit Twitter’s power over the “global conversation.” He shuttered Trump only after Democrats secured the presidency and control of the Senate.

Look, I’m glad CEOs are penalizing the 147 Republican seditionists and that Big Tech is starting to police social media content.

But don’t confuse the avowed concerns of these CEOs about democracy with democracy itself. They aren’t answerable to democracy. At most, they’re accountable to big shareholders and institutional investors who don’t give a fig as long as profits keep rolling in. 

If they were committed to democracy, CEOs of big corporations would permanently cease corporate donations to all candidates, close their PACs, stop giving to secretive “dark money” groups, and discourage donations by their executives.

They’d stop placing ads in media that have weaponized disinformation – including Fox News, Infowars, Newsmax and websites affiliated with right-wing pundits. Social media giants would start acting like publishers and take responsibility for what they promulgate.  

If corporate America were serious about democracy it would throw its weight behind the “For the People Act,” the first bills of the new Congress, offering public financing of elections among other reforms. 

Don’t hold your breath.

Joe Biden intends to raise corporate taxes, increase the minimum wage, break up Big Tech, and strengthen labor unions. 

The fourth branch is already amassing a war chest for the fight.

Trump’s horror show isn’t nearly over: The coup wasn’t defeated, only slowed down

Monsters are real. One does not defeat them by hiding. They are not defeated by denying that they exist. Throwing them down the memory hole offers little if any safety. To vanquish the monsters of this world requires hard work and eternal vigilance.

Donald Trump proved himself to be one of the worst presidents in American history — if not the very worst. His “movement” was and remains a force of prodigious civic evil. To call Trump’s political cult “deplorable” is, quite honestly, to elevate it above its real standing.

Last week, Joe Biden finally became president of the United States and the Democrats, at least on paper, maintain a tenuous hold on both houses of Congress.

But despite the historical verdict of the 81 million Americans who voted for Biden and the Democrats, Trump is likely to remain a fixture in American life and politics for years to come. Trump’s followers do not understand that they were beaten in the November election, and quite likely will never accept that. The Republican Party and its voters remain in thrall to Donald Trump. Ultimately, a force that does not know it has been defeated will not stop fighting.

Writing at the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland previews the next chapter in the Age of Trump:

If this were a horror flick — and, Lord knows, these past four years have felt like one — we know what would come next. We’d be at that stage of the movie where the monster has apparently been slain, when the hero stands amid the rubble and the ruin consoling those who have survived, calm seemingly restored — only for the audience to gasp as the demon stirs back to life, rising from the dead to inflict one last blow.

Joe Biden is certainly well cast as the steadying presence come to clean up the mess. But the fear persists that the villain who created it will return. Donald Trump threatened as much in his last public statement as president, uttering the chilling words: “We will be back in some form.”

We now have a better sense of what Trump’s return looks like.

He is determined to be a shadow president who harasses and disrupts Biden and the Democrats’ uncertain but well-intentioned plans to help the American people recover from the political, social and economic damage they suffered during the last four years. In his role as national saboteur and destroyer, on Monday Trump announced the creation of the “Office of the Former President.” He was mocked and belittled on social media and elsewhere for this. But in reality, that laughter and mockery only serve to distract the American people from imminent danger.

Trump’s pseudo-presidential office is something unprecedented in American history: Almost universally, ex-presidents quietly remove themselves from public life and adopt the role of apolitical statesman or philanthropist, or perhaps even kingmaker, at some later date. Trump’s new office is but more evidence that he yearns to be an authoritarian strongman, and like a supervillain in a Hollywood movie is plotting his return.

Donald Trump is still the de facto leader of the Republican Party. In that role, he will command his followers to punish any Republican senator or other elected official who rejects him, or who dares to support his impeachment and conviction for inciting the Jan. 6 violent insurrection and assault on the Capitol.

Most Republicans are obedient: On Tuesday, 45 of the 50 Republican U.S. senators voted against putting Trump on trial after his impeachment by the House. It is once again obvious that for Republicans, Trump is effectively above the law and  will not be convicted for his obvious crimes. (It is the consensus of serious legal scholars that former presidents can absolutely be impeached and convicted.)

Donald Trump’s followers still worship him. Public opinion polls make clear that they believe the 2020 election was stolen and that Joe Biden is an illegitimate president. Republican elected officials may privately recognize reality, but are literally terrified for their lives, afraid that Trump’s followers may kill them and their families for “disloyalty.” Believers in the preposterous QAnon conspiracy theory (which in many ways is best described as a Trumpian political religion) have largely not abandoned their faith in Trump: They believe that he will somehow return to power.

Whether or not he runs for president again, Donald Trump is now the Republican Party. His brand of neofascism, authoritarianism, greed, cruelty and Christian nationalist white supremacist grievance politics are no longer an outlier or aberration within the right-wing movement. Rather, they are its core values and operating system.

Because it has embraced naked fascism and authoritarianism, the post-Trump Republican Party will rally around a narrative of “betrayal” and “revenge.” His will be the new Lost Cause, one embracing red-hat MAGA true believers instead of Confederate soldiers, fighting to keep Black people as human property.

On Jan. 6, Donald Trump and the broader right wing’s embrace of political violence and use of stochastic terrorism blossomed horribly in the form of a coup attack on the Capitol. But that moment was not spontaneous: It was the result of years and decades of indoctrination into political extremism and violence by the Republican Party and the “conservative” echo chamber.

In a recent essay for the Bulwark, Richard North Patterson, bestselling author and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, highlighted the dangers represented by Trump’s Republican Party:

The dangerous myth of political dispossession is now embedded in the Republican narrative.

Its implications are grave indeed; if most Republicans disbelieve in democracy, they will support its subversion by electoral chicanery — if not worse. The attack on Congress created a beachhead for anti-democratic violence: Polling shows that a full one-third of Trump supporters feel that the mob represented their grievances. More broadly, half of the party’s electorate believes that GOP lawmakers did not go far enough in attempting to overturn the election. …

It is far too little to say that the GOP has lost its way. Quite deliberately, it has become American democracy’s most dangerous enemy.

To wit: the Trumpists and others of their ilk who overran the U.S. Capitol were smiling, taking selfies and posting them online, with no evident shame or concern that they may be arrested and then punished for participating in a treasonous riot and attack on democracy. Why? They believed themselves to be “patriots” who were performing a noble mission at the command of “their president.”

Experts on domestic terrorism warn that the coup attack on the Capitol was not the crescendo of right-wing violence in the United States, and that the threat will not rapidly dissipate because Donald Trump is no longer president. Instead, they predict that the Capitol attack must be understood as but one more act of political violence in a rising spiral and escalation of right-wing terrorism in the United States. Moreover, these experts are also warning that the symbolic power of Jan. 6 is inspiring right-wing extremists and terrorists in Europe and elsewhere in the world to launch their own attacks.

On the threat to American democracy and society embodied by Trumpism and its adherents, Patterson offers this caution in the Bulwark essay cited above:

To repel that as-yet-faceless threat will require deeper work than a simple vote in the Senate. And it will demand more than a mere return to the relative tranquility of the Obama era. It will mean turning over the soil in which Trumpism grew, making it inhospitable to a new variety of that same, poisonous plant. This is the central challenge that now confronts President Biden.

Donald Trump, his fascist authoritarian movement, and those committed to it are not going away. They are both a symptom and a contributing cause of the deep structural problems within America’s political institutions and culture. It is childish to ignore those perils because Joe Biden is president and we hope that things will somehow be “normal” again. Protecting and improving democracy takes hard work. To do that work, the American people must give up childish ways of thinking and being and embrace a spirit of civic responsibility and accountability. The country’s leaders must be role models and exemplars of such behavior. To do anything less is almost to guarantee that Donald Trump will return — either as himself or in a new and even more dangerous version — and sooner than we think.

Trump named Capitol riot lawyer to federal board — as one of his final acts

An Alabama attorney who now represents the family of Kevin Greeson, one of the rioters killed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, was appointed to a prominent agricultural board by former President Trump two days before he left office. The lawyer is also close friends with Rep. Mo Brooks, an Alabama Republican whose role in the events surrounding the riots has come under increasing scrutiny, and who personally announced the last-minute appointment.

Mark McDaniel, a politically connected trial lawyer from Huntsville, exceeded the legal limit in campaign contributions to Brooks in this election cycle, according to a notice the Federal Election Commission sent the campaign on Monday. McDaniel’s financial support for Brooks’ federal efforts traces back to 2009. In December, he publicly defended Brooks’ right to challenge the election results.

“Not only does Congressman Brooks have a right to do it, he has a duty to do it. If he feels there is a problem with the election, then he should raise objections to it,” McDaniel told Huntsville’s News19 in December. “And I know there will be a number of other members of the House of Representatives that will probably go along with Congressman Brooks on this.”

Brooks, who spoke at the Jan. 6 rally, has since tried to distance himself from the ensuing insurrection, despite being named along with other Republican House members as an early collaborator by one of the event’s architects, convicted felon Ali Alexander. 

“We four schemed up of putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting,” Alexander said in a since-deleted Periscope video, referring to Brooks along with himself and Reps. Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar, a pair of Arizona Republicans. Their goal, Alexander said, was to “change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body [Congress], hearing our loud roar from outside.”

In a statement to the Washington Post after the attack, Brooks’ office said that the congressman has “no recollection” of any communications with “whoever Ali Alexander is.”

At a Dec. 19 “Stop the Steal” rally in Phoenix that featured Alexander, however, Biggs mentioned Brooks by name: “When it comes to Jan. 6, I will be right down there in the well of the House with my friend from Alabama, Rep. Mo Brooks.”

At the same event, Alexander told the crowd, “We will not go quietly. We’ll shut down this country if we have to.” He later led a chant of “1776,” an insider reference often employed by QAnon conspiracy theorists or other believers in violent revolution. Alexander tweeted Biggs’ remarks about Brooks, and was retweeted by Trump on Dec. 26.

The Jan. 6 rally and subsequent assault on Congress left six people dead, among them two Capitol Police officers and Kevin Greeson, whose family McDaniel represents. In an interview with ProPublica published on Jan. 15, McDaniel described Greeson, who reportedly died of cardiac arrest shortly before rioters first breached the Capitol, as an Obama supporter who “got interested” in Trump as a businessman.

“He was a vice president at the union, and he was an Obama supporter,” McDaniel said. “He got interested in Trump because he felt he was more business-minded, and as the economy kept getting better, he kept getting more interested in Trump.”

The ProPublica report on Greeson, entitled “The Radicalization of Kevin Greeson,” says little is known about what he did during the last hours before his death. McDaniel claims that Greeson had a fatal heart attack while talking on the phone with his wife. In a press statement, his wife said that Greeson “had a history of high blood pressure, and in the midst of the excitement, suffered a heart attack.”

According to McDaniel’s account, Greeson abandoned mainstream news outlets after the November election, lurching toward pro-Trump media such as Newsmax and engaging with right-wing conspiracy theorists about the “coup” against Trump in increasingly violent posts on the alternative social media platform Parler (which is now defunct).

“Stand the [expletive] up! Our President is being took out of office in [a] coup and you [expletive] do nothing!! It might take a few years but Trump and the American people will take you [expletive] out of your office,” Greeson posted in late November, according to the ProPublica report. Weeks later, he wrote: “Let’s take this [expletive] Country BACK!! Load your guns and take to the streets!”

McDaniel told ProPublica that “despite Greeson’s menacing online rhetoric, his wife does not believe he had any intention of committing violence” at the Capitol. Law enforcement have not accused Greeson of committing any crime.

“I think that he looked at social media as something where he was just talking to friends,” McDaniel said. “Nothing in this man’s life would lead anyone to believe that he was headed up there to do anything bad or anything sinister. According to [his wife], he was just a really big Trump supporter, and he wanted to go up there and show his support and live the experience.”

“He was talking to her on the phone and he quit talking,” McDaniel said. “She was upset because she thought he had hung up on her.”

Three days after ProPublica published the Greeson profile, Trump, in one of his final acts as president, appointed McDaniel to the Board of International Food and Agricultural Development. Founded in 1975, that little-known but distinguished collective advises the United States Agency for International Development on agriculture projects and education in developing nations.

“America needs strong leaders in every aspect of federal government,” Brooks said in the Jan. 18 BIFAD announcement. “My friend, Mark McDaniel, has proven time and again to be a constructive and productive advisory board member — particularly on NASA’s Advisory Council. With Mark’s appointment, the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development has gained a thoughtful and hardworking member.” The year before, McDaniel had been appointed to NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Advisory Committee, which was also announced by Brooks.

McDaniel has run his Huntsville-based firm with his wife since the 1970s. In 2019, he represented the family of a slain police officer, advocating for the death penalty against the killer.

“Every time there’s a court appearance, every time there’s a motion hearing, every time there’s something about this case this family will go through this tragedy again,” McDaniels said at the time. “This community will go through this tragedy again.”

Neither Brooks nor McDaniel replied to Salon’s request for comment.

The FBI, terrorism and the progressive left: This is a job for Kamala Harris

As Joe Biden and Kamala Harris took their oaths of office last week, it was revealed that FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich will be retiring soon. Paul Abbate, the FBI No. 3, will be promoted from associate deputy director to Bowdich’s post.

At least for the moment, Joe Biden has left Christopher Wray as FBI chief — partly in deference to the bureau’s supposed independence, and also because on the face of it Wray doesn’t look like a Trump guy. Both before and after the election, Donald Trump was said many times to be on the verge of firing Wray. But that was only because the FBI director did not yield to the outgoing president’s most extreme, extravagant and baseless requests — such as indicting Barack Obama and Biden over absolutely nothing — and doesn’t mean Wray should stay on.

Bowdich’s early retirement and departure is likely linked to the Capitol events and the perception of FBI inaction toward far-right terrorism, an issue I have raised in more general terms in a previous Salon article. A lapse as grievous as we saw on Jan. 6 is hardly due to incompetence at that level. We are most likely talking about bias.

This is why, as a top priority, Vice President Harris should put her lawyer hat on once again and lead, together with Congress, a reform of the FBI legal standards on terrorism, as they are applied to the progressive left and the far right.

The Capitol attack was not an unpredictable, once-in-a-lifetime “black swan” event. It was part of a pattern. It’s not like a meteor hit Washington out of nowhere. These right-wing groups are well known, and closely followed by the FBI.

Ahead of the elections, FBI agents themselves competently and timely foiled the plot by far-right militias to kidnap and assassinate Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. The FBI agents that did that did not need a publicly organized event that was all over the media and Twitter to tell them what might happen. This indicates that FBI agents and analysts in the field get it right — when the top leadership doesn’t put the brakes on them, that is. The people who entered the Capitol had similar plans for any number of politicians and lawmakers. There is evidence appearing now through the courts that the Trump mob indeed intended to capture and assassinate members of Congress, as detailed in a recent court filing by federal prosecutors. The FBI knows these groups and their intentions.

In a press conference several days after the events, FBI officials informed the public that they needed to differentiate between “keyboard bravado” and actual intentions. Keyboard bravado is the new “locker-room talk.” The FBI gave terrorism practices and terrorism preparations par excellence the benefit of the doubt, but have a pronounced tendency to crack down on practices which are far away from terrorism when it comes to the progressive left.

The FBI has traditionally been known for its repression of left or progressive activis,, as an Intercept article explores and as a new documentary film about the FBI’s treatment of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. shows.

In the spring of last year, when I was a candidate for the office of UN special rapporteur on freedom of speech, Bowdich was quoted, in a memo leaked to the New York Times, reacting to the nationwide wave of Black Lives Matters protests. Bowdich maintained that the protesters should be arrested under an outdated racketeering law from the 1940s. The leaked memo showed that Bowdich considered the social justice movement “a national crisis” comparable to 9/11. The hundreds of thousands of people mourning and marching across the country, unified by the simple concept that no life should be taken lightly, were seen by the FBI’s deputy director as similar to terrorists or members of organized crime operations.

To say that protesters who clash with the police are like terrorists is like saying that a car crash at the traffic light is a suicide bombing. Recently I wondered why Bowdich won’t speak about 9/11 now, when we face the threat of actual far-right terrorism, including plans to blow up buildings and assassinate lawmakers.

The FBI remains obsessed with dissident or radical voices on the left, while largely ignoring the violent extremists and the real terrorism threat on the far right, as recently revealed by an Intercept investigation that found “glaring disparities between law enforcement’s depiction of groups on the right and the left.”

When it came to analysis of left-wing groups, “law enforcement intelligence was often vague, mixed up in online conspiracy theories or untethered to evidence of suspected criminal activity”. When it comes to the right, on the other hand, the documents showed “law enforcement agencies across the country sharing detailed and specific information on the mobilization of armed groups looking to use the unrest as cover to attack law enforcement and protesters and set off a civil war.”

Harris, together with Congress, should lead a review and reform of the legal standards the FBI uses in opening terrorism investigations on progressives, Black activists, pro-bono lawyers, intellectuals and left-wing journalists, and review the standards for evidence of what constitutes suspicious criminal behavior, the thresholds for warrants, and other legal procedures. How easy is it to open terrorism investigations on progressives or leftists who have no prior criminal record and no suspicious criminal-group memberships?

It is past time to get to the bottom of this. As recent events should make clear, the progressive left is not the national security enemy.

“We’ve never seen a threat to democracy like this”

Erwin Chemerinsky watched the emotional debate in the House of Representatives impeachment proceedings yesterday with an eye to the past and the future. At stake was whether our Constitution, the foundational document of our democracy, would survive. While most of his scholarly work concerns constitutional law, the University of California, Berkeley, Law School dean has also helped shape many public and private institutions.

As a USC law professor and later dean of the University of California, Irvine, Law School, Chemerinsky was a regular contributor to the Los Angeles Times editorial pages and served on the board of directors of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

Shortly after Donald Trump was elected president, Chemerinsky, attorney and author Zephyr Teachout and Harvard professor Laurence Tribe joined together to sue the president for violating the emoluments clause of the United States Constitution.

Chemerinsky talked to Capital & Main on January 13, minutes after the House of Representatives impeached President Trump for the second time, just seven days before his term ends.

* * *

Capital & Main: Looking back at American history, outside of the Civil War, is this the worst constitutional crisis we have faced as a nation? Would you even call it a constitutional crisis?

Erwin Chemerinsky: It is a constitutional crisis. I think it is the most serious threat American democracy has faced. We came very close to having an election subverted, and that would really have been the end of democracy as we know it.

The language of the articles of impeachment states that Trump is being impeached pursuant to section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment is primarily known for its equal protection and due process elements. Why was section three of the Fourteenth Amendment, which deals with government office holders engaging in insurrection and rebellion against the United States, used as the basis for impeachment today?

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, soon after the end of the Civil War. Section three says that anyone who holds a position in government who engaged in insurrection is disqualified from holding future office. This obviously was meant to deal with those who fought for the rebels during the Civil War. I don’t think anyone imagined that someday it would be the president of the United States who had incited insurrection.

The language of the congressional articles of impeachment says that Trump is being impeached because “in context” his statements were a clear incitement to invade the Capitol. Is it clear to you that what he said and did was a violation of the Constitution? 

I think that Donald Trump did incite insurrection as the articles of impeachment say. Obviously, incitement has to be taken in the context of the words and the actions. Donald Trump 20times at that rally said to the audience “the need to fight.” Standing next to him, Rudy Giuliani said there needs to be “trial by combat.” And this followed Nov. 3 and President Trump doing everything he could to subvert the results of the election. So it’s understandable that Congress would perceive this as inciting insurrection.

There has been a lot of talk about barring Trump from office in the future. What would have to happen for that to take place?

I think the articles of impeachment were written to trigger section three of the Fourteenth Amendment. Section three, of course, says that anybody who holds government office who incites or participates in insurrection, they are barred from future office. I imagine when it would come up is if President Trump would decide to run again then states would have to decide whether to allow him on the ballot or allow him to participate in their caucuses in light of section three of the Fourteenth Amendment.

You wrote recently for the Los Angeles Times that the House of Representatives should not rush towards impeachment. Trump’s allies are also saying the process is rushed. Can you explain your position on this issue? 

Always before, impeachments have gone through a process with a committee holding hearings, then making recommendations to the entire body. Today the House of Representatives decided not to follow that procedure. I worry about deviating from that in terms of future precedent. Also, I wasn’t sure what the hurry was to do this because the Senate is not going to take it up before Jan. 20. The Senate’s in recess until Jan.19. In light of that I would have rather that the usual procedure be followed. Let me be clear. I support the impeachment of Donald Trump. I believe he committed high crimes and misdemeanors. I was speaking to the procedural question.

However, Republicans have had no hesitation to use raw political power regardless of circumstances to–for instance–deny Merrick Garland a hearing in the Senate for Supreme Court appointment and to rush through Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation. Yet Democrats are counseled to be cautious while Republicans have no qualms about using the power available to them. 

I am not counseling the Democrats to be cautious as I support impeachment. I support impeachment because it is important that Congress send a message. After all, we are speaking on Jan. 13, and there are just seven days left of the Trump presidency. Impeachment isn’t about removing him from office. Impeachment is about sending a message. I don’t believe that the message is any less if it comes next week or two weeks from now than if it comes today. And I very much criticized how the Republicans manipulated the process to keep Merrick Garland from getting a hearing and in rushing Amy Coney Barrett through. But I don’t think that that should justify the Democrats then ignoring the process.

What do you make of Trump’s calls to election officials in Georgia, pressuring them to find fraud or to find votes that would overturn the results there?

I believe Donald Trump violated both state and federal election law when he attempted to pressure the Georgia secretary of state to find him the votes to let him be the winner in Georgia. I think this too could have been an article of impeachment. I think this too could be something that Donald Trump is prosecuted for in the future.

Twitter and Facebook have removed Trump from their platforms. Give us your sense of any legal or First Amendment issues that might be involved here. 

There is no First Amendment issue with Twitter permanently barring Trump or Facebook excluding Trump for a period of time. The First Amendment applies only to limit what the government can do. The First Amendment doesn’t limit what private entities like Facebook and Twitter could do. So, what they did was completely constitutional and legal. From a free speech perspective apart from the Constitution, I’m troubled by a lifetime ban. I think Twitter should certainly take down anything that’s incitement – take down anything that’s an invasion of privacy. But whether a lifetime ban is appropriate is to me a very different question.

Historian Eric Foner recently published a book called The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution, where he deals with the significance of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. He argues that those amendments amount to a “constitutional revolution.” Do we need another constitutional revolution today and if so, what form might it take?

The Constitution was written in 1787 for an agrarian slave society. I think it would be desirable to write a new Constitution, but at this moment in time, when our society is so deeply polarized, I don’t think it makes sense. I think there is no way we’re going to come to consensus on issues right now. So, for now I think the best we can hope for is to be under this Constitution and to preserve democracy under it.

These impeachments–whether of Andrew Johnson in 1868 or Bill Clinton in 1998–seem to come partly as a result of the deep divisions in society. Is that fair to say?

Andrew Johnson’s impeachment was the result of a deep division in society. Johnson was a Southerner who found himself as president right after the Civil War and presiding over a Reconstruction he didn’t want. I think the impeachment of Bill Clinton was the result of a society being very divided. The impeachment proceedings of Richard Nixon were very different. I think that Nixon committed crimes. I think the impeachment of Donald Trump reflects that he, too, violated the law. The impeachment last year was that he violated the law with regard to pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden’s son. I think the impeachment today is a reflection of crimes with regard to inciting insurrection.

Robert O. Paxton, emeritus professor of social science at Columbia and one of the foremost historians of fascism, wrote in Newsweek this week that in the past he had hesitated to describe Trump as a fascist. He now writes that Trump’s recent actions remove his objection to the fascist label and that the “label now seems not just acceptable but necessary.” What is your sense of that word and whether we should be worried about those political tendencies here? 

Donald Trump tried to subvert the democratic process. He lost the popular vote by 7 million votes. He clearly lost the Electoral College. He did everything he could to try to stay in power notwithstanding the results of the election. We’ve seen that Donald Trump has very many authoritarian impulses, and we’ve never seen a threat to democracy like this. So, I think it’s completely appropriate to call him authoritarian, or even fascist.

We have Merrick Garland nominated for attorney general. What are the issues he is going to have to focus on to revive the Justice Department? 

Merrick Garland has to restore respect for the Department of Justice and morale within the Department of Justice. It has been terribly damaged by the most recent attorney general, William Barr. I think that there are areas of the Justice Department that have just been decimated under the Trump presidency. The civil rights division – the part that focuses on investigating police misconduct, the part that focuses on voting rights. Also, the part that deals with environmental protection. A lot of terrific career lawyers have left. He needs to restaff those divisions and he needs to reinvigorate them. But I don’t think that President Biden could have picked anybody better for this than Judge Garland.

Finally, where is this impeachment going to end up? What happens moving forward?

Whenever there is an impeachment by the House, there is a trial in the Senate. Only if two-thirds of the senators vote to convict is the person removed from office. Of course, Donald Trump will no longer be in office. Current Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said there is going to be no rush to hold the Senate proceedings. I expect that at some point down the road there is going to be Senate proceedings. In light of the House vote, I expect there will be some Republicans that will vote to convict but I don’t expect that there will be two-thirds. I don’t know what will mean because Trump will have already left office.

Copyright 2021 Capital & Main

Schumer plays his weak Senate hand . . . badly

Days into the new government, it’s clear that Joe Biden is running an energetic, activist White House. But the new Democratic majority leader, Chuck Schumer, is still stuck in the same stalled Senate where he served in the ever-victimized minority.

Whatever else you want to say about Schumer, he’s no Lyndon Baines Johnson, who dominated as a Senate majority leader from 1957 to 1961. He’s not even Harry Reid, who had the job from 2007 to 2015.

From the outside, it looks like majority-leading-by-pleading, not arm-twisting.

You don’t hear that other senators fear Schumer as much as they hope that he can stand up to the ever-manipulative tactics of a crafty Mitch McConnell. The Republican has lost the majority leader title, but not his magic to set the agenda.

It could be because Schumer got the majority leader office by the barest of margins – the potential tie-breaking vote of Vice President Kamala Harris.

Or perhaps it is because the real majority leader emerging is centrist Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). Manchin repeatedly seems to forget that he is a Democrat and doesn’t mind thwarting Schumer and Democratic goals. It might even be because Biden, himself, a long-time senator, has personal relationships to pursue in the chamber.

Whatever.

Somehow, everyone in the House knows that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with her narrowed Democratic majority, is still the swaying voice for everything from impeachment votes to requiring that members leave their guns at the door. It is the deference of others to her power that we are examining.

We recognize in Schumer a certain caution in trying to get the most from a split, now-stuck Senate. He got to this day in a plodding manner, using congressional rules and his ever-present microphone rather than any sense of authoritative aggressiveness.

Maybe the issue is his speaking voice, which borders on annoying rather than inspiring; or his pleading tone. Maybe he was just better at offering obstructions as a minority leader than serving at the front of the Senate.

Of course, maybe he’ll settle in and be more effective. Right now, the focus for political wins in the Senate still seems to be on McConnell.

Deftness?

On ABC News recently, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, commented on the continuing Schumer-McConnell wrangles over the timing of the impeachment trial, the makeup of Senate committees and the rules governing a 50-50 Senate split. Christie said, “The one thing Chuck isn’t is deft. Definitely not deft.”

Politico’s take: “Chuck Schumer has finally realized his dream of becoming majority leader. And given the circumstances, it’s a bit of a nightmare.” Without an agreement on new rules, for example, Republicans maintain most of the committee leadership,  reviewing confirmations and legislation.

There is a lot to get done at once in a Biden presidency both to reverse what are seen as bad mistakes from the Donald Trump years and to be aggressive about preparing for another election that will put the Senate majority on the ballot again.

The healthy argument between Schumer and McConnell about whether to eliminate filibuster rules – rules that effectively require 60 votes for any substantial legislation rather than a simple majority — are going McConnell’s way. That is partly because Schumer does not have the votes of Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).

The impeachment trial for Trump has been delayed – just as McConnell had asked. The committees needed for confirmation hearings and to review the immediate demands for Biden-proposed legislation on COVID-19 aid, on extending jobless benefits and on immigration changes are being held hostage to the inside game.

Again, filibuster rule debates are inside baseball. They don’t get jobs or food or vaccines done.

It looks as if what drives Republicans’ votes in the Senate is fear: from McConnell over life his as a senator and from Trump whose continuing influence is in aiming his insults and primary threats for re-election.

By contrast, what seems to drive Democratic votes is a general plea to reason rather than the use of power.

As the opposition party, Republicans, of course, already are lining up to give Trump a pass on impeachment conviction and a permanent bar to run for office again. While open to approving Biden’s cabinet, generally Republicans are vocal about a too-large investment in anti-COVID efforts based on caring about the national debt, which they forgot about in the Trump era.

Title without authority

The new heavyweight in the Senate is the center, with Manchin Democrats meeting up with Susan Collins (R-Maine) and a smallish group from Republicans. Somehow, they want to buck both parties with insistence on moderation and politeness – even as the Capitol is assaulted, the coronavirus deaths soar again and hunger is growing.

Schumer himself is up for re-election in 2022 and could face a long-shot primary challenge from the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)

CNN said: “The talks of bipartisanship are quickly getting ensnared by must-move Senate business, not the least of which is getting an agreement on how the Senate will be run over the next two years. It seems simple, but it’s a big deal and it’s proving far harder to secure than anyone had anticipated.”

Schumer is seeing pressure from his left to dump the filibuster to make it easier to pass improvements in health, infrastructure, environment and national security issues. Biden, again, thinks that bipartisanship can be made to work, but needs a strong Schumer.

So, Schumer’s time is short to prove effectiveness. He did not win his title until Georgia improbably elected two Democrats on Jan. 5, and it has been a race to get the new rules in place at a time of simultaneous public tidal waves.  Succeeding as majority leader has meant going toe-to-toe with McConnell over arcane rules.

McConnell simply is acting as if he gets a veto over all that passes to the Senate. He is still acting as majority leader without the title.

Schumer needs to step up to his new job.

Federal judge temporarily blocks Biden’s 100-day deportation moratorium after Texas sues admin

A federal judge in Texas has temporarily blocked the Biden administration’s 100-day moratorium on deportations of some undocumented immigrants.

Federal Judge Drew Tipton on Tuesday issued the order after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued President Joe Biden’s administration late last week alleging the moratorium is unconstitutional and violates an agreement between the Department of Homeland Security and Texas.

“Within 6 days of Biden’s inauguration, Texas has HALTED his illegal deportation freeze,” Paxton tweeted after the order. “*This* was a seditious left-wing insurrection. And my team and I stopped it.”

Paxton argued the state would face irreparable harm if undocumented immigrants were released into the state because of costs associated with health care and education, among other claims.

Tipton’s restraining order is effective for 14 days as the trial on the merits of the lawsuit against the moratorium continues.

“In its Emergency Application, Texas argues it will likely succeed on the merits of its challenges to the January 20 Memorandum, there is a significant risk it would suffer imminent and irreparable harm if a [temporary restraining order] is not granted, and a [temporary restraining order] would not harm Defendants or the public,” he wrote.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, who filed a brief urging Tipton to deny Paxton’s request, decried the ruling in a statement and argued Biden’s move was legal.

“Paxton sought to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election by attempting to baselessly suppress votes; now he is attempting to force the Biden administration to follow Trump’s xenophobic policies,” said Kate Huddleston, attorney for the ACLU of Texas. “The administration’s pause on deportations is not only lawful but necessary to ensure that families are not separated and people are not returned to danger needlessly while the new administration reviews past actions.”

Biden’s proposed moratorium was signed just hours after he took his oath of office and was one of several immigration-related orders, which included a stop to border wall construction. The pause in removals was part a review and reset of enforcement policies within Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agencies as the Biden administration “develops its final priorities,” according to a statement from the Department of Homeland Security.

The moratorium was to exclude any immigrant “suspected of terrorism or espionage, or otherwise poses a danger to the national security of the United States.” Those who entered after Nov. 1 and those who have voluntarily waived any rights to remain in the country, according to a DHS memo.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

While America was sleeping

After four years of Donald Trump's fitful tenure, America is awakening from a long, troubled sleep to discover, like the fictional character Rip Van Winkle, that the world it once knew has changed beyond all recognition.

In that classic American tale by Washington Irving published in 1819, an amiable but shiftless farmer strolls out of his colonial village to go hunting in the Catskill Mountains. There he happens upon a group of mysterious men, drinks deep from their keg of liquor, and falls into a long sleep. He awakens to find that he's grown a white beard down to his belly and his youth has withered into an unrecognizable old age. Walking back to the village, he discovers his wife is long dead and their house in ruins. Meanwhile, the sign above the village pub where he whiled away so many pleasant hours no longer bears the face of his beloved King George, the British monarch, but has been replaced by someone named General Washington. Inside, the convivial chatter of colonial days has given way to fervid electioneering for something called Congress, whatever that might be. Incredibly, Rip Van Winkle had slept right through the American Revolution.  

While this country was similarly sleepwalking through the fever dream of President Donald Trump's version of America First, the world kept changing as decisively as it did during those seven years when General Washington's Continentals fought the British Redcoats. Just as King George suffered a searing defeat that cost him the 13 colonies, so the United States has, with similarly stunning speed, now lost its leadership of the international community.

Whose World Island Is It?

During the eight years before Donald Trump took office in 2017, the U.S. seemed to be adapting creatively to some serious challenges to its post-Cold War global hegemony. After the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the worst since the Great Depression, a bipartisan stimulus program saved the nation's auto industry and launched a slow but sustained economic recovery.

Fueled by renewed economic vitality, Washington seemed to have a reasonable shot at checking China's all too real and growing global economic challenge. After all, using the $4 trillion in foreign exchange reserves it had earned by 2014 from its new role as the world's workshop, Beijing had launched a trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiativefocused on making the vast Eurasian landmass (and parts of Africa) into an integrated trade zone — a veritable "world island" that would exclude America and so radically undercut its global leadership.

In his two terms as president, Barack Obama, Trump's predecessor, pursued a clever countervailing strategy, seeking to split Beijing's potential world island economically at its continental divide in the Ural Mountains. Obama's planned Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which pointedly excluded China, was the keystone to his strategy for drawing Asia's trade toward America, thereby rendering that Belt and Road Initiative a hollow shell. That draft treaty, which would have surpassed any other economic alliance except the European Union, was designed to integrate the economies of 12 Pacific basin nations that generated 40% of gross world product — and the U.S. was to be at the very heart of it.

To drain commerce away from the other half of Beijing's would-be world island, Obama was also pursuing negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union. Its combined $18 trillion economy was already the world's largest, accounting for 20% of gross world product. The proposed regulatory alignment between Europe and the United States would supposedly have added $260 billion to their total annual trade. Obama's bold grand strategy was to use those two pacts to beggar Beijing's plans by giving the U.S. preferential access to 60% of the world economy.

Of course, Obama's effort was encountering strong headwinds even before he left office. In Europe, an opposition coalition of 170 civil society groups protested that the treaty would transfer control over the regulation of consumer safety, the environment, and labor from democratic states to closed corporate arbitration tribunals. In the U.S., Obama's scheme faced sharp criticism even within the Democratic Party. Key figures like Senator Elizabeth Warren opposed the potential degradation of labor and environmental laws via the TPP. In the face of such strong criticism, Obama had to rely on Republican votes to win Senate approval for fast-track authority to complete the final round of negotiations over the treaty. That opposition, however, ensured that neither agreement would be approved before he left office.

It was, however, Donald Trump who delivered the coup de grâce. Right after his inauguration, he curtailed trade talks with Europe and withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, saying: "We're going to stop the ridiculous trade deals that have taken… companies out of our country, and it's going to be reversed." 

Unilateral Foreign Policy

Trump would instead adopt a unilateral America First strategy that soon sparked a costly trade war with China. After two years of escalating tariffs on both sides of the Pacific that damaged the U.S. economy, Trump capitulated in January 2020, signing an agreement that rescinded the most prohibitive U.S. duties in exchange for Beijing's unenforceable promise to buy more American goods. The president then hailed his "big, beautiful" trade deal as a great victory, even though it was nothing less than an ill-concealed surrender.

While his White House seemed obsessed with gaming its bilateral ties with China, Beijing was stealing a page right out of Obama's strategic global playbook, outmaneuvering Washington by pursuing two multilateral trade agreements that should have seemed eerily familiar to anyone who lived through the Obama years. In November 2020, Beijing would lead 15 Asia-Pacific nations in signing a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership that promised to create the world's largest free-trade zone, encompassing 2.2 billion people and nearly a third of the global economy.

Just a month later, China's President Xi Jinping scored what one expert called "a geopolitical coup" by signing a landmark agreement with European Union leaders for the closer integration of their financial services. In effect, the accord gives European banks easier access to the Chinese market, while drawing the continent more closely into Beijing's orbit. So serious is the shift away from Washington that President Biden's incoming National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan publicly urged the NATO allies to first consult with the new administration before signing onto the deal — a plea they simply ignored. Indeed, this treaty is arguably the biggest breach in the NATO alliance since that mutual defense pact was formed more than 70 years ago.

Through a stunning inversion of Obama's bold yet unrealized geopolitical gambit of using multilateral pacts to draw Eurasia's trade toward America, those two agreements will give China preferential access to nearly half of all world trade (without even factoring in the still-developing Belt and Road project). In a diplomatic masterstroke, Bejing exploited Trump's absence from the international arena to negotiate agreements that could, along with that Belt and Road Initiative, steer a growing share of the Eurasian continent's capital and commerce toward China. In the years to come, Beijing's inclusiveness could well mean Washington's exclusion from much of the burgeoning trade that will continue to make Eurasia the epicenter of global economics.

The Decline and Fall of You-Know-Which Great Power

If that were all, then we could chalk up a few significant wins for China and just wait for Biden's foreign-policy team to try to even the score. But there's far more happening that suggests those treaties were a clear manifestation of deeper, more troubling trends.

When empires decline and fall, they seldom collapse in the sort of sudden apocalypse portrayed in a monumental series of paintings entitled "The Course of Empire" by another denizen of the Catskill Mountains, the renowned artist Thomas Cole. His 1836 painting in that series, now appropriately enough hung at the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, shows a "savage enemy" plundering a grand imperial capital whose inhabitants, debased by years of luxurious living, can only flee in terror while women are raped and buildings burn.

Empires, however, usually experience a long, less dramatic decline before they fall in the Roman fashion, thanks to events whose logic only becomes apparent years or even decades later, as historians try to sort through the rubble. So it's likely to be in what, until mid-last week, was (and still in many ways remains) Donald Trump's America, where the signs of decline are as erratic as they are omnipresent.

The most telling harbinger of that decline, Trump himself, is now in exile at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida. Ten years ago in an essay for TomDispatch entitled "Four Scenarios for the End of the American Century by 2025," I suggested that U.S. global hegemony would end not with Thomas Cole's apocalyptic bang, but instead with the whimper of empty populist rhetoric. "Riding a political tide of disillusionment and despair," I wrote in December 2010, "a far-right patriot captures the presidency with thundering rhetoric, demanding respect for American authority and threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal. The world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence."

Trump's election in 2016 made all too real what, until then, had only seemed to me a troubling possibility. With a legerdemain worthy of that nineteenth-century showman P.T. Barnum's bag of bunkum (like the supposed Cardiff Giant or the Fiji Island Mermaid), Trump's TV show "The Apprentice" presented The Donald as a self-made billionaire of extraordinary financial savvy. Who better to rescue America from the job losses, stagnant wages, and foreign competition brought on by economic globalization? But Trump had cheated his way into an Ivy League college; many of his businesses had gone bankrupt; and his much-vaunted entrepreneurial flair came down essentially to frittering away a $400 million inheritance from his father. As journalist H.L. Mencken predicted back in 1920, America had finally come to the point where "the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

Once in office, Trump soon bent the nation (but not the world) to his will, rupturing time-tested alliances, tearing up treaties, denying incontrovertible climate science, and demanding respect for American authority with a thundering, if largely empty, rhetoric that threatened military retaliation or economic reprisals globally. Despite his manifestly inane policies, the Republican Party capitulated, corporate tycoons applauded, and nearly half the American public cleaved to their new-found savior.

As with all sell-out shows, the best was saved for last. When the Covid-19 pandemic struck with full force in March 2020, Trump turned up at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, donning a MAGA hat, to proclaim his "natural ability" when it came to medical science, while distinguished doctors stood by like studio extras in mute testimony to his otherwise risible claims. As the pandemic began climbing toward its terrible, still developing toll, Trump hijacked White House briefings by medical experts to promote a succession of crackpot claims — wearing a mask was merely "politically correct"; Covid-19 was just another flu that "becomes weaker with warmer weather"; hydroxychloroquine was a cure; and shining ultraviolet "light inside of the body" or injecting "disinfectant" were possible treatments. A surprising number of Americans started drinking bleach to protect themselves from the virus, forcing months of public-health warnings.

After nearly a century in which the United States had been a world leader in promoting public health, the Trump administration, to escape blame for its own escalating failures, walked out of the World Health Organization. Lending the country the aura of a failed state, the CDC itself, once the world's gold standard in medical research, bungled the development of a coronavirus test and so forfeited any serious, nationwide attempt to successfully track and trace the disease (the most effective means of its control).

While smaller nations like New Zealand, South Korea, and even impoverished Rwanda effectively curbed Covid-19, by the end of Trump's term the U.S. already had experienced more than 400,000 deaths and 24 million infections — significantly above any other developed nation and a full quarter of the world's total cases. Meanwhile, Beijing mobilized a rigorous public-health campaign that quickly contained the virus to just 4,600 deaths in a population of 1.4 billion. In only four months, China virtually eliminated the virus (despite periodic new local breakouts) and had its economy humming along with a 5% increase in gross domestic product, which accounted for 30% of global growth last year. Meanwhile, after 11 months of an incessant pandemic, the U.S. remained mired in a crippling recession. This striking disparity in state performance only accelerated China's quest to surpass the U.S. as the world's largest economy and, with all that financial clout, become its preeminent power.

A Tragicomic Encore

It was, however, President Trump's bid for an encore that would prove truly extraordinary when it came to imperial decline. During its 70 years as a global hegemon, Washington's public promotion of democracy has been the signature program that has helped legitimate its global leadership (no matter the CIA-style interventions it launched or the colonial-style wars it continually fought).

While the Cold War often compromised that commitment in particularly striking ways, following its end Washington has spent 30 years officially promoting fair voting and democratic transitions, with leaders like former president Jimmy Carter flying off to capitals on five continents to oversee and encourage free elections. Suddenly, the world watched in slacked-jaw amazement as, on January 6th on the White House ellipse, the president denounced a fair American election as fraudulent and sent a mob of 10,000 white nationalists, QAnon conspirators, and other Trumpsters off to storm the Capitol where Congress was ratifying the transition to a new administration.

Adding to this failed-state aura, the country's once-formidable national security apparatus crumpled like a Third World constabulary as right-wing militia men breached the frail security cordon around the Capitol and stormed its halls as if they were a lynch mob hunting for congressional leaders. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's desperate calls to a dawdling Pentagon and Maryland Governor Larry Hogan's dangerously delayed mobilization of his state's National Guard, caused by the U.S. military's compromised chain of command, only seemed to echo the sort of tropical coup scenarios I witnessed in Manila, the capital of the Philippines, during the 1980s.

When Congress was finally back in session, the Capitol still rang with Republican calls, in the name of national unity, for forgetting what the president had incited.  In that way, Republican congressional representatives seemed to echo the kind of impunity that has long protected fallen military juntas in Asia or Latin America from any accounting for their countless crimes. This attempt, in other words, to perpetuate a would-be autocrat's power through a (failed) coup was the sort of spectacle that many millions living in Asia, Africa, and Latin America have experienced in their own fragile states but never expected to see in America.

Suddenly, our supposedly exceptional nation seemed tragically ordinary. The shimmering dome of the Capitol once symbolized the vitality of this nation's democracy, inspiring others to follow its principles or at least acquiesce to its power. This country now looks tattered and tired, caught like others before it between forgetting in the name of unity or demanding the powerful be held accountable for high crimes that will otherwise haunt the nation. Instead of aspiring to America's ideals or entrusting their security to its power, many nations will likely find their own way forward, cutting deals with all comers, starting with China.

Despite an aura of overwhelming strength, empires, even ones as powerful as America's, often prove surprisingly fragile and their decline regularly comes far sooner than anyone could have imagined — particularly when the cause is not Thomas Cole's "savage enemy" but their own self-destructive instincts.

Today, in the era of a 78-year-old president, a veritable Rip Van Biden, Americans and the rest of the world are, it seems, waking up in a new age.  It could well be a daunting one. 

Copyright 2021 Alfred McCoy

There’s a little bit of Larry King in every decent interviewer, whether they like it or not

Shortly before Larry King died on Jan. 23, the internet gifted us with a reminder of why he was one of the 20th century’s most powerful interviewers, and why the 21st century ushered him into irrelevance. It all comes down to a single question: “A luxury you can’t live without.”

Anyone who keeps up with viral memes knows exactly what this is referencing. At the end of December this question launched a clip from King’s February 2020 interview with Danny Pudi, an actor and director best known for playing the insightful oddball character Abed on NBC’s “Community.”

Pudi is not the sort of actor King would have booked at the height of his powers, an era when presidents, pop stars and other headline makers sat down across from him and that gleaming vintage microphone sitting inches from his face. Nobody should complain about that because in fact, between the two of them Pudi is probably more beloved and better known by younger media consumers.

More relatable, too, as Pudi’s answers prove. The first luxury of choice that came to his mind was coffee. King scoffs at this, leading Pudi to take a second crack at the question by offering, “I like socks.”

“Socks,” King repeats. “Your socks, what, you put in your shoes?” Pudi explains he likes cozy feet. Neither of these answers are good enough for King. “Coffee and socks are not a luxury.”

“Alright, gimme a luxury,” Pudi says. “What luxury should I have?” And King purrs, knowingly, “A private plane.”

Pudi looks baffled for a beat before delivering what may be the most perfect answer to a Larry King statement since Marlon Brando smooched the man on the lips. “Larry, I’m on ‘DuckTales.'”

Without intending to, Pudi unlocks a few achievements in this response, starting with flipping the classic “Don’t you know who I am?” rejoinder on its head. Time was that being one of Larry King’s guests was the ultimate signal that you had gained entry into celebrity heaven; if you were sitting across from him you were the type of person who never needed reservations at exclusive restaurants or had enjoyed exclusive access to a few private jets in your time.

Pudi is not one of those folks. This is not to imply he never could be, he just isn’t right now. The performer has better pop culture currency these days than the late King, though, in that he’s perennially interesting and relatable. More people who watched that video relate to Pudi’s designation of good coffee and quality running socks as a luxury than King’s declaration that those things aren’t special. For a millions of everyday people, they are.

Beyond this, however, is that this friendly exchange evinces why King, a man who took pride in minimal preparation for his interviews during most of his 63-year career in broadcasting, slipped from his prominent berth on CNN’s “Larry King Live” to a “Larry King Now” on Ora.TV, a digital channel he co-founded. It wasn’t merely a matter of ageism or his faltering health, I suspect. It’s that his guileless interview style quickly went out of fashion as more combative punditry came into style.

Not long after “Larry King Live” debuted in 1985 it earned the highest ratings of any program on CNN. The show became as vital of a stop for campaigning politicians and stars selling their latest movies as “The Tonight Show” or “Oprah.”

Even then, many hosts and journalists were more skilled at the art of the interview than King was. Ask people to list their favorite professional conversationalists, and certain names are almost guaranteed to earn multiple mentions: Howard Stern. Terry Gross. Marc Maron. Jon Stewart. David Letterman, if you’re counting hosts skilled with getting great answers out of uncomfortable questions. Bill Maher, if you don’t outright detest the guy.

If King has a place on those list it’s usually out of respect for his fame and his 25 years with CNN and multiple cameos in films and TV shows, not necessarily out of any innovations he added to the form.

Ponder this excerpt from a gift of a conversation with Madonna, circa 2002.

“How do you do all you do?” King asks. Madonna responds, “How do I do it?”

“You’re an entrepreneur. You’re a marketer,” he says. She replies, “Yes.”

And it goes from there. “You’re a singer.” “Yes.” “You’re an actress.” “Yes.” “You’re a mother.” “Yes.” . . . “You’re a wife.” “Yes.”

“How do you – how do you have a balance?” King asks.

“I live a highly scheduled life,” she says. “There’s absolutely no time wasted. I’m very focused. And I have a great assistant.”

The more you know. Cue the rainbow and shooting star!

Still, there’s a little Larry King in every great interviewer, whether they’d cop to it or not. Since he didn’t deeply research his guests, he tended to ask questions the average person might want to know. In the maximalist ’80s and ’90s that approach worked wonders. King made his subjects come across as people – real people, serious people.

Politicians in the hot seat softened and came off as more human even as they answered questions that seemed serious but were nowhere in the same realm of toughness as they would be if a major network journalist was doing the interrogating. He wasn’t imposing or intimidating, he was a nice guy asking for simple explanations to simple things about which he was curious.

In the wake of 9/11, that casual style left us wanting. When disasters erupted, King’s main role was to wrangle CNN correspondents and give George W. Bush’s cabinet members a forum that was largely unchallenging. As partisanship grew more rancorous, we learned to turn to “The Daily Show” or, for conservatives, Fox News’ primetime lineup instead of to King who, until that era, ruled the cable primetime roost.

That he refused to be combative or contentious wasn’t the main problem. It was that his professed dedication to open curiosity came across as unquestioning. Usually with celebrities, this was fine and welcome. This, in fact, was as much a part of the brand as King’s signature eyeglasses and suspenders. But when presidents, cabinet members and congressmen were on the other side of the table, he was basically doing them a service instead of putting their feet to the fire.

And as one would expect from a career consisting of somewhere around 60,000 interviews, there are more than a few mind-reeling exchanges we can look back on with 20/20 hindsight and simply wonder whether there were signs we should have noticed back then, like a 2010 chat in honor of his 25th anniversary with CNN.  In this special case, King was the one answering questions.

His interviewer (whose identity we will reveal anon) posed a question from director James Cameron, who asked King who his fantasy guest would be. King replies, “What a list. It would be an endless list. Stalin would be on it. Hitler – you know, evil people make great guests. Because evil people don’t think they’re evil.”

“And you’ve had some of them,” his interviewer says.

“Yes, I know,” King replies. “They don’t get up in the morning, comb their hair, say, ‘I’m evil.’ So I don’t approach them that way.”

The special’s guest host and interviewer, by the way, was Donald Trump.

King clearly wasn’t a man who used simple questions to open the door to deeper understanding about a person – and this, I think, is where some of the best and braver interviewers borrow from his style of simple, gentle questions and probe more sharply, sometimes messily, and if the subject plays along we’re gifted with new insight.

King made it perfectly OK to lead with curiosity and leave space for people to answer questions that seemed too obvious to ask. Look at a fuller version of that exchange with Pudi as an example of this. The segment is called “If You Only Knew” and consist of a series of rapid-fire non-specific questions like, “What was your car?” “Funniest or strangest fan encounter?”

To the question of “Best advice you ever got?” Pudi answers in Polish. He then reveals he likes to rap in Polish. This is precisely the type of quick hit, surface-level interesting hidden talent that thrills people, the small curious question that yields a perspective broadening answer. A better interviewer would have dug a little more into this and probably gotten some incredible stories out of Pudi.

Thanks to King having asked that simple question maybe one day somebody will.

Fueled by tips from family and friends, FBI ramps up arrests of Capitol rioters

The FBI is showing no signs of slowing down in its pursuit of those involved in the Capitol riot earlier this month. From lawmakers to militia members to right-wing activists, those recently arrested run the gamut, but many have ties to both law enforcement and the military. 

Last week, the FBI reported that it has received over 200,000 digital tips from the public, many of which have been provided by friends, family, relatives, and coworkers of those involved. More than 200 cases have been opened and over 100 people have been apprehended in connection with the riot. 

“The American people have demonstrated that they will not allow mob violence to go unanswered,” said Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen in a statement.

On Monday, Brandon Straka, a right-wing activist who spoke at the “Stop the Steal” rally was arrested in Nebraska for impeding a police officer and disorderly conduct. He made national headlines last June after refusing to wear a mask on an American Airlines flight, citing an unspecified medical condition, after which he was permanently banned from the airline. Straka is the founder of the “#WalkAway” campaign which encouraged those on the left to “walk away” from the “divisive tenets endorsed…by the Democratic Party.” CNN’s David A. Love called the campaign “a psychological operation” that was “connected to Kremlin-linked Russian bots” attempting to overstate the popularity of the moment. 

Two Virginia police officers Thomas Robertson and Jacob Fracker were also identified as rioters who breached the U.S. Capitol. After Robertson and Fracker told The Roanoke Times that they were ushered in by Capitol police and that their involvement was purely “a joke,” the FBI later found that Robertson and Fracker evaded the police and had intent to harm members of Congress. According to an affidavit, Robertson told a friend that seeing Senators “cowering on the floor with genuine fear on their faces is the most American thing I’ve ever seen in my life.” Fracker reportedly bragged to friends on social media that he had urinated on Nancy Pelosi’s desk. Both officers are currently on unpaid leave. 

In Texas, Jackson Reffitt, 18, the son of Capital rioter Guy Reffitt, revealed his own father’s involvement in the unrest to the FBI. According to Jackson, his father threatened him well in advance of the insurrection. “If you turn me in, you’re a traitor,” Guy told his son, “And you know what happens to traitors. Traitors get shot.” Jackson nonetheless turned his father in, outing Guy as a member of the Three Percenters, a far-right militia group with a history of violence. In 2017, a Three Percenter was unsuccessfully attempted to detonate a car bomb in Oklahoma City. According to Jackson’s affidavit, Guy brought a pistol with him to D.C.

A small-town Ohio bar owner and veteran, Jessica Watkins, was accused of conspiring in the Capitol insurrection, along with her co-conspirators Donovan Crowl, a former Marine, and Thomas Caldwell, who served in the Navy. According to Watkins’ boyfriend with whom she owns the Jolly Roger bar in Woodstock, Watkins was “not a violent person…She can be very spirited, but she is a very good person at heart and she just really wants to try to help people.” Watkins is a member of the Oathkeepers, a far-right anti-government militia group that threatened to declare “civil war” if former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was elected in 2016. Following the riot, Jessica Watkins told the Ohio Capital Journal, “To me, it was the most beautiful thing I ever saw until we started hearing glass smash. That’s when we knew things had gotten really bad.” 

Former marine Michael Foy, who was caught on tape striking an officer ten times with a hockey stick, was arrested on January 21st. Foy received an honorable discharge from the military in 2019 and was given a “good conduct medal” after securing the rank of corporal. Foy’s public defender Colleen Fitzharris argued that her client is suicidal and is struggling with mental health issues. “He didn’t go to D.C. to cause violence,” said Fitzharris, who alleges that Foy got caught up in “mob mentality.” Foy was charged with four felonies and faces twenty years in prison, and was denied bond behind ahead of his hearing.

On January 8th, federal prosecutors arrested a Trump supporter by the name of John Lolos, who was repeatedly yelling “Trump 2020” on a Delta flight that turned around due to the disturbance. After being kicked off the flight, Lolos was identified by a Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority police officer. The officer had miraculously recognized Lolo after scrolling through his Instagram feed and seeing Lolo in the Capitol riot. “During the video Lolos can be seen exiting the U.S. Capitol doorway, wearing the same shirt he was wearing (at) the airport,” said the airport police officer. He “was waving a red ‘Trump 2020 Keep American Great’ flag hooked together with the United States flag, yelling ‘we did it, yeah!'” 

The FBI also apprehended the man who tweeted “Assassinate AOC” just before joining in on the violent storming of the Capitol. Garret Miller, 34, who posted the tweet in response to AOC’s call for Trump’s impeachment, explained over Facebook that “[he] just wanted to impeach himself a little bit lol. Garrett Miller later received five criminal charges following the insurrection after local law enforcement tipped off the FBI, making Miller’s wish come true. 

https://twitter.com/ryananjax/status/1354198220277215232

 

The case for (and against) wearing two masks

At President Joe Biden’s inauguration last week, many viewers were keen to notice Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) mittens. But there was another inauguration fashion accessory sported by many that caught eyes: politicians donning not one, but two masks. The practice was quickly dubbed “double-masking.” Indeed, former South Bend mayor and Transportation Secretary nominee Pete Buttigieg wore two facemasks, a white one beneath a cloth black one. His spouse, Chasten, sported a double-masked look as well.

Anecdotally, I have noticed more people opting to wear two masks instead of one in the Bay Area, which raises the question: Is two better than one?

On Monday, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and White House advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci weighed in on double-masking, stating, “it just makes common sense.”

“If you have a physical covering with one layer, you put another layer on, it just makes common sense that it likely would be more effective,” Fauci said. “That’s the reason why you see people either double masking or doing a version of an N95.”

However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has yet to officially recommend double-masking — and scientists who have been studying the coronavirus and its mitigation strategies tell Salon it’s unnecessary for them to do so, for now, for a number of reasons. One being, that while it may be “common sense,” the issue is nuanced. That’s partly because the effectiveness of double-masking largely depends on the material of the masks, and how that material compares to the material of one really effective mask.

“More layers is probably better, that does make sense . . .  if a droplet gets through one layer maybe you’ll be stopped by the next layer — that to me is logical,” said Dean Blumberg, chief of pediatric infectious diseases and associate professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California, Davis. “But of course it would also depend on the material, and then the coverage of the mask.”

For example, one N95 mask is better than two cloth masks. 

Dr. John Volckens, a professor of Mechanical Engineering at Colorado State University, said that the take home message is certainly “any mask is helpful,” but agreed that “double masking” is better than one because of the quality of masks that most of the public is wearing. Studies show the best protection against the coronavirus is an N95 mask. However, they are in short supply and prioritized for healthcare workers. Not only are N95 masks hard to come by, but they need to be professionally fitted to one’s face to ensure a tight seal. When this happens, the mask can block 95 percent of very small particles— hence, the name. Even a “suboptimal” fit though can block more than 90 percent of small particles, according to research published before the pandemic. This is why healthcare workers wear N95 masks, which are often accompanied by face shields. But the public isn’t wearing N95 masks—they’re either wearing cloth masks, or disposable surgical ones.

“A lot of masks that I see out in the wild don’t fit very well on people’s faces, there are gaps in them, and this is especially true of those blue surgical masks,” Volckens said. “Those aren’t meant to seal against the face, and if they don’t seal against your face, then they leak.”

Volckens said after wearing an N95, a person has a ring around their face like they’ve been snorkeling. That’s because the mask has created a seal around that person’s face, protecting them from 95 percent of aerosols. Yet that doesn’t happen when a person wears either a surgical mask or a cloth mask—there are gaps and leaks on the sides. 

“Double masking is a way to combat that lack of protection,” Volkens said, “because you have a good mask as the bottom layer like one of those blue surgical masks. The filters in those masks are protective, but they’re not allowed to do their job if they’re leaking on the side,” he continued. “So the second mask you put on holds that filter closer to your face, and provides for a better seal.” 

The second mask, Volckens said, should be anything that helps press the first one around your face more tightly. He added that the second layer of protection could even be a “mask fitter” or “mask sealer” that holds the mask more tightly around a person’s face.

While cloth masks aren’t as effective as N95 masks in protecting the person wearing them and other people, they do provide a layer of protection that can have a profound public health impact on a community. For example, a study published in Health Affairs compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. Researchers found that mask mandates led to a reduction in daily COVID-19 cases; after five days, the growth rate declined by 0.9 percent. At three weeks, the daily growth rate slowed by 2 percentage points.

“A bad mask is better than no mask at all,” Volkens emphasized.

Epidemiologist George Rutherford, MD, at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that the more layers you have, the better. Rutherford emphasized that the public wears masks for three reasons.

“The first one is because 60 percent of people who transmit are asymptomatic when they’re at their most infectious, the second is we also want to protect ourselves,” Rutherford said. “And then the third is if people do manage to get infected, despite wearing masks, you probably get infected with smaller inoculums, fewer viral particles, and as a result they get less sick.”

Rutherford said that wearing two masks is especially a good idea when you’re on public transportation, or in any situation where can’t control the people around you. But don’t expect double masking to be a singular means to get us out of this pandemic— so as long as many people continue to refuse to wear masks.

“I’d rather spend my time getting people to wear masks who aren’t wearing masks,” he said. “Rather than getting people to wear double masks.”

Virginia “Trump in heels” candidate says Capitol attack was justified — because of COVID rules

Virginia’s leading Republican gubernatorial candidate, Amanda Chase, has justified the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol as a response to public health mandates in place to limit the pandemic, according to a recently surfaced video clip. Chase said  the would-be insurrectionists who overran the Capitol while play-acting a ludicrous violent fantasy were actually concerned about “losing our Republic.”

A reporter from the British channel SkyNews approached Chase, a state senator from central Virginia who has described herself as “Trump in heels,” at the Jan. 18 Lobby Day Patriot Food Drive in Richmond, asking for “a word for the rest of the world” about the Capitol riots. “They’re looking in on America and wondering what on earth is going on here,” the reporter wondered.

Chase, who faces censure in the Virginia state legislature after referring to Capitol rioters as “patriots,” said the attack was about “federal and state” mandates.

“America wants freedom. They are tired of an overreaching federal government and state government telling us what we can and cannot do in the form of mandates. I don’t think that’s representative of our republic and people,” she explained. “What we’re seeing is a level of frustration like we’ve never seen in America, and here in Virginia, because people are concerned that we are getting away from a representative republic and are headed towards socialism and communism, in which the government makes all these decisions for us.”

The reporter asked Chase, who spoke at the Jan. 6 rally but left ahead of the riot, to clarify that she was referring to the attack itself: “Is that what was happening at the Capitol Building? Is that what it was all about?”

“Absolutely. Absolutely,” Chase replied. “I think the big concern is that we’re losing our republic. It’s been around for 400 years. We the people want to make sure to preserve our republic.” [Fact check: The United States was founded in 1776, making it 245 years old this July.]

Though many state capitals experienced Trump-endorsed armed protests in response to perceived right-wing frustrations with lockdowns earlier this year, the siege on the U.S. Capitol was not, to any perceptible degree, a reaction to public health mandates. There were no federal mandates in place at the time of the attack, and the mandates in place vary greatly from state to state. Rather, the attackers on Jan. 6 were clearly motivated by repeated lies from Republican officials — most notably the then-president — about election fraud, which dovetailed with “prophecies” promulgated by an absurd but widespread conspiracy theory that the Trump administration was on the verge of arresting, trying and executing numerous Democratic leaders for their gothic and grotesque schemes to rape and cannibalize children. That so-called event, known as the “Storm,” would then herald the “Great Awakening,” when untold secrets about the New World Order would be revealed. Rioters shouted, “Storm the Capitol,” and many referred to the day using the subtle codeword “1776.”

Chase is one of the two chief Republican contenders for the state’s gubernatorial election this year. The other principal candidate, former Virginia House of Delegates Speaker Kirk Cox, has denounced the riot and acknowledged that Joe Biden was the rightfully elected president.

Last week, the Virginia State Senate voted to revoke Chase’s only committee assignment as punishment for a Facebook video in which she expressed sympathy with the rioters, calling them “patriots” and aligning herself with their insurrection. (The social media platform later suspended her account.) Even her Republican colleagues abandoned her, and Chase cast the lone dissenting vote.

“When you back good people, law-abiding citizens, into the corner, they will push back,” she said in the video. “When you cheat them of their elections, when you take away their constitutional rights and freedoms, you’re backing the patriots like myself into a corner. We would like to have a peaceful [resolution] to the events of today, but as you can see, there are many patriots that have already — we, we’ve had enough.”

Facing censure, Chase was given the chance to take back the comments last Friday, but declined. “If I have offended any of you in this room because I am very passionate about the Constitution, I apologize,” she said.

After that address, State Sen. John J. Bell, a Democrat, said that Chase’s apology “fell far short” and confirmed that the body would move forward this week with censure, which carries no practical penalties. The Washington Post reported that the Virginia General Assembly (as the state’s legislature is officially known has only censured one member in modern history, in 1987.

In the Facebook video she posted after the attack, Chase said that she was “very disappointed that Vice President Mike Pence went in a different direction with the electors” — an apparent reference to Pence’s decision to stick to his constitutional role, for which some rioters reportedly wanted to hang him. She later told the New York Times that the real insurrection came from the government and elected officials, including Republican officials.

“They’ve got Mitch McConnell up there selling out the Republican Party,” she said. “The insurrection is actually the deep state with the politicians working against the people to overthrow our government.”

One of Chase’s bodyguards, Joshua Macias, was arrested on Nov. 4 after he and a friend drove an SUV with a QAnon sticker from Virginia Beach to a Philadelphia ballot-processing center, bringing with them two handguns, a semiautomatic rifle and a samurai sword. Prosecutors moved to revoke his bail after he was recorded outside the U.S. Capitol giving “a speech to a crowd inciting a riot.”

“During that speech, the rioters overran the Capitol Police Officers stationed at the door of the Capitol and invaded the building in a manner not seen since the War of 1812,” federal prosecutors said in a court filing.

“MIKE PENCE IS A BENEDICT ARNOLD,” Macias told the crowd, according to the document, adding that Pence “backstabbed the veterans, backstabbed these patriots” and calling on Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act. The document says that Macias then “participated in the insurrection” against the U.S. government.

Macias appeared as a plaintiff against that very government in an outlandish lawsuit filed last week in Texas federal court, which in the second of its three iterations requested that the U.S. government be placed into a form of stewardship modeled on that of Gondor, a kingdom without a king in “The Lord of the Rings.”

Spokespeople for Chase and Macias did not respond to Salon’s request for comment.

Astronomers discover a bizarre string of five planets that “dance” in perfect resonance

Nature is fond of patterns, on both the small scale and the large. Take the Fibonacci sequence, for instance — the repeating pattern of numbers in which each subsequent number totals the sum of the previous two. The formula appears in nautilus’ spiral shells, but also in the arrangement of the planets in the solar system, whose distances align roughly with Fibonacci numbers’ ratios

But the rough synchrony of our planets is nothing compared to the precise alignment of five newly-discovered exoplanets, which orbit their parent star with such a perfect harmony that it seems almost uncanny.  According to a study published in the scientific journal Astronomy & Astrophysics, a solar system discovered by NASA’s Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite is host to at least six planets, five of which orbit around the star — known as TOI-178 (or TESS Object of Interest 178) — in a precise ratio. This is known as a “chain of resonances,” or a series of occasions in which planets orbit a star while maintaining a beat with one another.

“A resonance between two planets is what happens when one completes a certain integer number of orbits while the other also does so,” Dr. Nathan Hara, an astrophysicist at the University of Geneva and a co-author of the paper, wrote to Salon. “They therefore find themselves periodically in the same configuration and the strongest attraction between them is therefore always in the same direction.”

There are a few details that make the new finding so striking. One is the fact that five planets are involved instead of two; as Hara explained, this makes it “one of the longest known chains” of resonant planets. In the case of the exoplanets surrounding TOI-178, they dance at a rhythm of 18:9:6:4:3. This means that every time the innermost planet in the chain makes 18 orbits around TOI-178, the next one in line makes nine orbits, and the one after that makes six orbits, and so on.

The finding is also significant because “in the known resonance chains, the farther the planet is from the star, the less dense it is, like in the Solar system: Mercury, Venus and Earth, Mars, have a higher density than Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.” The stars orbiting TOI-178 in synchrony, by contrast, have unusual comparative densities.

“The innermost planets are the densest ones, but then you have a planet with a very small, Saturn-like density, then it goes up again and falls off,” Hara told Salon. “It is not shattering our understanding of planetary formation, but it is certainly puzzling.”

He also told Salon that the discovery is helpful to scientists because TOI-178 is an unusually bright star — indeed, the brightest star which is known to have transiting resonant chains. 

“Here ‘transiting’ means that the planet passes between the star and the observer, so that the stellar light flux measured by the observer decreases periodically,” Hara explained. “This way you also get an estimate of the radius of the planet. The fact that the star is brighter means that we can gain information with other measurement techniques.”

Hara told Salon that, in addition to TESS, the discovery was made possible by recent advances in astronomical technology including a European Space Agency telescope called CHEOPS, which was launched in 2019, and a state-of-the-art spectrograph known as ESPRESSO that has been operative since 2018.

“This one allows to measure the velocity of the star in the direction of the line of sight and has an unprecedented precision,” Hara explained. “We would not have been able to make mass measurements of the planets of the system with the previous generation of spectrographs, or at the cost of extremely long campaigns.”

As for how the resonant chain on planets exists, Hara told Salon that he has a partial hypothesis.

“The formation of resonant chains is believed to result from formations of planets at wider separations from the star which then migrate inwards together and are trapped in resonance with one another,” Hara wrote. “As for the fact that the densities are not monotonically decreasing as you move away from the star, we don’t really have a convincing explanation yet.”

After ominous news on mutant COVID-19 strains, vaccine-maker Moderna tries to reassure the public

As increasingly deadly and infectious strains of the novel coronavirus appear all over the world, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci told reporters on Monday that Americans cannot afford to get “complacent.”

“We don’t want to get complacent and think … ‘Oh, things are going in the right direction, we can pull back a bit, because we do have circulating in the country a variant from the U.K. that’s in over 20 states right now,” Fauci told NBC’s “Today” show on Monday. President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser was referring to the fact that there has been a recent drop in COVID-19 diagnoses and hospitalizations, although Fauci believes this is a natural plateauing rather than the result of the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines. Fauci’s comment also acknowledged that several new strains of SARS-CoV-2 have emerged, each of which has raised concerns about our ability to combat the deadly disease.

When it comes to the British strain of COVID-19, Prime Minister Boris Johnson told reporters last week that the new variant (known as B.1.1.7) appears to be not only more transmissible, but could also be “associated with a higher degree of mortality.” The government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, emphasized that this concern is based on mathematicians comparing the death rates of people infected with B.1.1.7 compared with older versions of the virus and as such “there’s a lot of uncertainty around these numbers and we need more work to get a precise handle on it.” He added that he is “concerned” about the increase in mortality and transmissibility.

Another one of those strains originated in South Africa, prompting Biden to ban United States travel to that country (as well as to the United Kingdom and Brazil, which has also seen new strains). The South African variant, known as 501Y.V2, was recently found to be able to ward off antibodies from individuals who had recently recovered from COVID-19, meaning that it has the potential to reinfect people with the disease multiple times. 501Y.V2 also includes mutations in a protein known as Spike, which causes the little pins that stick out from around the sphere of the virus like the spines on a sea urchin. Because both the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines work by training the body’s cells to recognize the Spike protein and fight it, this means that the South African variant could evade the mRNA vaccines, or at least reduce their efficacy.

The British and South African strains may have dominated the headlines, but they are not the only strains raising alarm among experts. A Brazilian strain known as P.1 has infected 76 percent of the Brazilian city of Manaus, according to a recent study in the journal Science, which should have put the residents of that city at the level of herd immunity. The fact that it has not done so has raised concerns that the disease is able to evade the human immune system, although this has not yet been proved. Earlier this week public health officials in Minnesota announced that an individual in that state had been infected with the Brazilian variant.

In addition to these three strains, there are also reports that a possible new strain of the novel coronavirus has been discovered in California. The mutated variant, which has been labelled CAL.20C, may account for at least 36 percent of the COVID-19 cases in the Los Angeles area and 24 percent in southern California as of December 2020, according to a paper published by researchers at Cedars-Sinai Hospital that has yet to be peer reviewed. As the researchers wrote, “The predominance of this strain coincides with the increased positivity rate seen in this region.” This means that the new strain could be responsible for the growing number of COVID-19 cases in that area of California.

Researchers are working hard to protect people from the new variants and check whether existing vaccines will protect against new mutations. Although Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech both said that their vaccines are protective against the British and South African strains, they are slightly less confident about the South African one, prompting Moderna to begin development on a booster shot that could help against that mutant form of the virus. Fauci says that he still believes that the two vaccines have “enough cushion” to still be effective against the UK and the South Africa strain. Yet he cautioned that public health authorities needed to keep an eye on those strains, and be ready to upgrade the vaccines “if it’s necessary.” Fauci has also urged Americans to begin double-masking in order to more effectively stop the spread of COVID-19.

Fox News is now defending QAnon

Supporters of the far-right QAnon conspiracy cult were among the extremists who violently stormed the U.S. Capitol Building on Jan. 6, inspiring national security experts to voice concerns about QAnon possibly making inroads in the military and law enforcement. But some pundits at Fox News, including Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson, don’t view QAnon as a threat and are now defending the movement by equating criticism of QAnon with attacks on free speech.

Carlson, during one of his angry rants on Tuesday night, mocked the idea that QAnon is dangerous.

“The real threat is a forbidden idea,” Carlson said mockingly. “It’s something called QAnon.”

Carlson went on to show a collage of cable news clips describing QAnon’s extremism before suggesting that those attacking QAnon are promoting “tyranny.”

“No democratic government can ever tell you what to think,” Carlson told viewers. “Your mind belongs to you. It is yours and yours alone.”

This was a non-sequitur. The clips he had showed included media figures sharing fears and concerns about the belief system, not a call for the government to “tell you what to think.”

Carlson went on to denounce QAnon critics as a “mob of censors, hysterics and Jacobin destroyers, all working on behalf of entrenched power to take total control of everything.”

In a rant of her own, Ingraham showed a clip of Jen Psaki — the new White House press secretary under President Joe Biden — telling reporters that the National Security Council will try to determine “how the government can share information” on efforts to “prevent radicalization” and “disrupt violent extremist networks.” And Ingraham tried to spin Psaki’s announcement not as an effort to prevent domestic terrorism, but as a crackdown on conservatives in general.

“Republicans need to step up in unison and demand that the Defense Department and the Biden administration clearly define what they think constitutes extremism,” Ingraham declared. “Now, if a member of the military voted for Trump, does that make him an extremist? Now, what if someone complains on Facebook that the federal government wastes a lot of money? Is she an extremist? What if they say that Roe v. Wade should be overturned? Or what if they participate in the March for Life?”

Ingraham continued, “What if they’re conservative Baptists — they believe that sex outside of marriage is immoral? Is that extremist? What if they have guns at home and they’re lifetime NRA members? Will they now be considered extremists or even terrorists? We deserve to know. You see where this is destined to lead. And it is certainly not to a freer and more united America.”

By suggesting there’s no way to target the threat from violent extremist ideologies like QAnon without targeting other conventional conservatives, Ingraham, too, offered more cover for the conspiracist movement.

Lawmakers to weigh whether wastewater from oil fields could replenish the state’s aquifers

Deep underneath the ground, fluids travel down and shoot through ancient shale formations, fracturing rock and starting the flow of oil — the essential part of hydraulic fracturing technology that’s transformed America’s oil industry.

But that’s not all that comes up out of the earth.

Salty, contaminated water — held in porous rocks formed hundreds of millions of years ago — is also drawn to the surface during oil production. Before an oil price war and the coronavirus pandemic caused prices to crash in March, Texas wells were producing more than 26 million barrels of the ancient and contaminated water a day, according to an analysis by S&P Global Platts.

In the oil patch, figuring out how to dispose of this water “is something that only gets worse,” said Rene Santos, an energy analyst for S&P Global Platts. “Every time (companies) produce, they have to do something with the water.”

Usually, it’s later injected back underground, into separate wells — a practice that has been linked to increased seismic activity. Sometimes it’s reused in another fracking well. But a new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decision allowing Texas to regulate the discharge of the water after it’s treated could be a first step toward new uses of the water — at least that’s what some Texas lawmakers and oil and gas producers hope.

The EPA told the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality last week that the state could take charge of the federal government’s responsibilities to regulate discharging so-called “produced water,” if the water met certain toxicity standards. Previously, operators had to obtain permission from both the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates the state’s oil and gas industry, and the EPA before discharging the water.

For now, oil and gas operators may apply for individual permits from the TCEQ on a case-by-case basis, an agency spokesperson said. State regulations for the discharges will remain the same as current federal standards, according to a TCEQ press release Wednesday. No applications have yet been received, a spokesperson said.

For every barrel of oil produced in the Permian Basin of West Texas, an average of six barrels of water come up with it, according to an S&P analysis. State Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, argues that the water could eventually help the state replenish its diminishing water supplies.

As chairman of the state Senate Committee on Water and Rural Affairs, he helped produce an interim report ahead of the 2021 legislative session that included such a vision — and now Perry says the recent EPA decision will help get federal regulation out of the way.

“This is a water supply that hasn’t been cultivated or tapped,” Perry said. “It’s a sin to waste that resource.”

The industry, too, has “a lot of excitement” about turning the water into something of value rather than an expense, said Jason Modglin, president of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers.

But scientists and industry observers say the idea is a long shot. Produced water contains high amounts of salt, as well as other minerals and toxins in varying amounts depending on the shale formation it comes from, and technology to make the water potable is still expensive.

Bridget Scanlon, a hydrogeologist and senior research scientist at the University of Texas at Austin, said little is known about what risks produced water could pose after treatment, and significant scientific analysis needs to be conducted before it is discharged into the environment.

“We don’t know as much about this” compared to other sources of water, she said. “At the end of the day, you need to have confidence in what you are doing.”

A first step?

Perry said he will soon introduce a bill that would direct research and analysis on the technology, costs and feasibility of using produced water for new purposes. His vision in the coming decades: big plants in West Texas and the Panhandle that transform the salty, contaminated water into something that can replenish aquifers on a mass scale.

“This was the first step, really — one of the steps that had been a barrier,” Perry said of the change in regulations. Now, he said, “the regulatory environment is set up to have the produced water conversation.”

But reusing produced water is far from financially viable today, industry analysts said. It’s much cheaper to dispose of the wastewater in a well than to treat it. And it’s usually cheaper for companies to buy fresh water for hydraulic fracturing than to treat produced water for that purpose.

“The technology is there, but it’s the expense,” said Santos, the energy analyst. For small operators, especially, “it’s economically prohibitive to clean the water.”

An entire industry has sprung up around supplying fracking operations with water and disposing of the produced water: The water management market for oil and gas production in the U.S. was worth $33.6 billion in 2018, according to IHS Markit, a London-based energy analysis firm.

“It’s a big business,” said Parker Fawcett, another S&P Global energy analyst.

What’s in the water?

Environmental groups and some scientists warn against releasing the produced water, even after treatment, into Texas streams and rivers.

“We don’t have standards for produced water — we’ve never had to deal with it,” said Scanlon, the UT hydrogeologist. “I think we need to look at it in a different way than municipal wastewater.”

She said the “lowest hanging fruit” is to use the water for other fracking wells. Less treatment is necessary to do so, and more reuse of the water by industry would ease the strain on limited freshwater resources in Texas.

Environmental groups say current federal standards for treatment and discharge of produced water — which Texas says it will match as it takes over regulation — are too low to adequately protect the environment.

“Federal regulations haven’t been updated at all,” to respond to the rising problem of disposing of produced water, said Alex Ortiz, a water resources specialist for the Sierra Club’s Lone Star Chapter. “The EPA doesn’t have enough knowledge (about produced water).”

He said the Sierra Club will challenge the decision to give Texas regulatory authority, with the hope that an EPA led by the Biden administration may find a way to reverse the move. The group also aims to push state lawmakers to create tougher water discharge standards.

But Perry, who will soon push his bill in the Legislature, said environmental groups are creating an issue “when there’s not an issue.” As for the costs, he said the state government may have to find a way to help fund a pilot project for reusing produced water.

“As a state, our water supply and ability to guarantee the water supply is a No. 1 priority,” Perry said. “People think we have plenty of water. Truthfully, we don’t.”

Disclosure: The Texas Alliance of Energy Producers and the University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

Biden promised “no malarkey” — he can start by ignoring McConnell and nuking the filibuster

Monday night, after a five-day stand-off, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R.-Ky., finally stopped acting like he’s still the boss of the entire Senate. Since Joe Biden was inaugurated, McConnell, taking filibuster abuse to a whole new level, has prevented the Senate from adopting new rules reflecting that Democrats now hold the majority, a move that left Sen. Chuck Schumer, D.-N.Y., the Senate Majority Leader in name only. McConnell was demanding that Democrats agree, in writing, to never kill the legislative filibuster. But on Monday, McConnell suddenly caved and let the Senate begin its business — without a formal promise from Democrats to never kill the filibuster. 

This is a victory for Democrats, in that they still retain the right to kill the filibuster if — let’s face it, when — Republicans  use it to prevent any meaningful legislation from reaching the Senate floor. Still, as I write in today’s Standing Room Only newsletter, there’s good reason to worry that this concession from McConnell is a trap. His only goal is to destroy Biden’s presidency and prevent Democrats from passing legislation. There’s no reason to think he’s abandoned that goal. 

McConnell’s official explanation is that he believes the filibuster is safe, because “two Senate Democrats confirmed today they will not vote to end the legislative filibuster.” Those Democrats are Sens. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, whose spokesperson said she is “not open to changing her mind,” and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who said “I will not vote” to kill the filibuster. 


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


The defenses of the filibuster have centered around this notion that allowing the minority party absolute power to veto any and all new bills is somehow useful for “unity,” which was a big theme of Biden’s inauguration. McConnell himself defended the filibuster with this unity language, arguing that the “president who promised unity.”

For whatever reason, the mainstream media isn’t doing more to question this strange definition of “unity,” wherein Republicans get everything they want, whether they win or lose elections, and Democrats can piss off forever. This isn’t unity. This is minority rule. 

Frankly, Republicans are employing “drunk uncle” logic here, familiar to anyone with a dysfunctional family dynamic. You know the kind, where the drunk uncle at Thanksgiving gets to insult whoever he wants, say rancid and racist things, and make fun of female relatives for being female. If anyone argues back, they are the ones scolded for supposedly disturbing the family’s peace and unity. That is not peace or unity, to just let the bully win, while everyone else has to suffer. That is bullying and nonsensical. 

It also fits the definition of a favorite word of Biden’s: Malarkey.

Biden campaigned heavily on the idea of “no malarkey,” even going so far as to put the slogan on the side of his campaign bus. Well, the defenses of the filibuster are pure malarkey. Denying the majority of Americans what they voted for isn’t “unity”. It’s spitting in the face of unity, by putting Democratic voters — again, the majority of voters — outside of the political system. It’s a disunified, two-tier system, where Republican wins count and Democratic wins are meaningless. 

The reality is that policy debates are a zero-sum game. In order for Democrats to get what they want — a voting rights bill, a minimum wage increase, a substantive coronavirus relief bill — Republicans will be disappointed. But, if Republicans get what they want — no useful legislation at all — Democrats will be disappointed. There’s no policy to please everyone.

“Unity” simply means the same set of rules for everyone. We aren’t achieving unity if Republicans get to win when they win, but Democrats lose even when they win. The phrase for that is “double standard.” Or, as Biden might say, malarkey. 

Biden’s inauguration speech touched on the deeper, truer definition of “unity,” when he said that unity is achieved when “enough of us came together to carry all of us forward.” He even emphasized “enough of us” by saying it twice, making clear that he was talking about majorities of Americans making decisions, and not letting a diminishing minority have veto power over progress. 

Democrats can start to fix the malarkey problem and enshrine true unity, where all Americans have a right to vote and have that vote counted, with one simple move: Nuking the filibuster. 


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


There are certainly some agenda items that can be passed with the tool Republicans used to pass their policy priorities against the will of Democrats: Budget reconciliation. But to really enact the Democratic agenda that a strong majority of Americans voted for, especially much-needed ethics and voting reforms, the filibuster has to go. It’s always been an anti-democratic institution. That’s only becoming more apparent, as Republicans clearly intend to use it to kneecap any meaningful Democratic legislation. 

Most Democratic leaders appear to get this, as evidenced by Schumer saying that “Our North Star has to be the legislation itself” on MSNBC Monday night. Even Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., a moderate who’s shied away from filibuster reforms in the past, told the New York Times on Monday that Republican obstruction via the filibuster may force his hand on the issue. “I feel pretty damn strongly, but I will also tell you this: I am here to get things done,” Tester said. “If all that happens is filibuster after filibuster, roadblock after roadblock, then my opinion may change.”

It’s just a few holdouts, like Sinema and Manchin, who are still so married to the “drunk uncle gets to decide” logic that they don’t see how they’re betraying the majority of Americans with this filibuster defense. Letting McConnell win even when he loses isn’t any rational definition of “unity” — but it is a bunch of malarkey. If Republicans want to control what bills get passed, they should do it the democratic way, by winning elections. 

State GOPs still pushing Trump’s fraud lies, promoting QAnon and calling Capitol riot “false flag”

Despite former President Donald Trump’s departure from the White House and disappearance from social media, state Republican parties are still promoting pro-Trump conspiracy theories and moving further right than ever. Some Republican lawmakers have seized on the unfounded voter fraud narrative to try to impose new voter restrictions out of concern that widespread voting could hamper their electoral chances.

The Arizona Republican Party on Saturday voted to censure Gov. Doug Ducey, a longtime Republican Trump ally who fell out of favor when he refused to question his own state’s election results and certified President Joe Biden’s win in the state. The measure, which focused on Ducey’s delayed coronavirus restrictions, did not mention his decision to certify the results, though it came up often among the state’s Republicans. The Arizona GOP also censured Cindy McCain, widow of the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and former Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who opposed Trump. The party also re-elected chairwoman Kelli Ward, who backed Trump’s baseless legal crusade and filed a “meritless” lawsuit to overturn the results of her state’s election.

The Hawaii GOP on Saturday defended the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory, which appears to have motivated many members of the pro-Trump mob at the deadly Capitol riot who donned QAnon gear, on its Twitter account.

“We should make it abundantly clear — the people who subscribed to the Q fiction, were largely motivated by a sincere and deep love for America. Patriotism and love of County (sic) should never be ridiculed,” one tweet said. Another added that people “who followed Q doesn’t deserve mockery,” referring to the anonymous 4chan poster who claimed to be a government insider dropping unfounded clues about a secret, cannibalistic Democratic cabal of child-traffickers and the mass arrests Trump was ostensibly planning.

Those tweets were posted by Hawaii Republican vice chairman Edwin Boyette, who has since resigned and had his tweets removed. After stepping down, Boyette blamed “leftist activists and the Democratic establishment attempting to smash any critical speech they can not control.”

The Oregon Republican Party last week approved a resolution “condemning the betrayal” of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for his role in stoking the Capitol riot. The members who supported Trump’s impeachment are “traitors” who “conspired” with “Leftist forces seeking to establish a dictatorship void of all cherished freedoms and liberties,” the resolution said.

The Oregon GOP further claimed there was “growing evidence” that the Capitol attack was a “‘false flag’ operation” designed to “discredit President Trump, his supporters and all conservative Republicans,” even though countless photos, videos, and charging documents show the mob was filled with Trump supporters egged on by the former president’s own comments at the rally preceding the siege.

Oregon Republican chair Bill Currier said in a Facebook video last week that the state party is “encouraging and working with the others through a patriot network of RNC members, the national level elected officials from each state” to issue similar resolutions.

Indeed, Washington state’s county Republican Party leaders have joined the push, calling for Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., one of the Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, to resign over his “indefensible” vote, according to the Associated Press. Republican leaders in Pennsylvania have also refused to seat a Democrat state legislator whose win has been certified by state officials.

The Wyoming Republican Party also issued a statement slamming Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., for aligning with “leftists” to impeach Trump. The House Freedom Caucus is pushing to oust Cheney as the No. 3 Republican in House GOP leadership in response to the vote.

But Republicans are not just eating their own for insufficient fealty to the former president. Many Republican state lawmakers are moving to impose draconian new voting restrictions to combat the alleged widespread fraud that Trump’s own Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security and countless Republican judges have clearly said did not happen.

In Georgia, where top Republican state officials repeatedly pushed back on Trump’s false claims about the election he lost, GOP lawmakers are pushing to impose a “bevy of changes,” including limiting who can vote by mail and the use of drop-boxes, according to Politico. The state Senate’s Republicans and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who drew praise for standing up to Trump’s lies and pressure campaign, have called to end no-excuse absentee voting in the state. Others have called for voter ID requirements for absentee ballots.

Some Georgia Republicans have cited concerns over election integrity to justify their push to limit voting access, even though Georgia already has some of the most restrictive policies in place and has confirmed the “integrity” of the November vote with multiple recounts and audits.

Some Republicans have made statements similar to Trump’s pre-election admission that expanding mail-in voting would hurt Republicans’ election chances, even though down-ballot Republicans generally performed far better than Trump in November, and the incumbent president himself outperformed his poll numbers in several states, including Texas and Florida.

“They don’t have to change all of them [voting regulations], but they’ve got to change the major parts of them so that we at least have a shot at winning,” Alice O’Lenick, a Republican on the Gwinnett County, Georgia, board of elections said in a newspaper interview last week.

The chairman of the Texas Republican Party called for the legislature to make “election integrity” a top priority this session, calling to shrink the state’s early-voting period. VoteRiders, a nonprofit group that helps voters obtain IDs to vote, predicted that at least five other states would move to impose new voter ID requirements, according to Politico. Republican lawmakers in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have also signaled that they want to impose new voter restrictions, although Democratic governors in those states have the power to veto such legislation.

Myrna Pérez, who heads the Brennan Center’s Voting Rights and Elections Program, predicted that voting restrictions would be a top priority for Republican lawmakers, since polls show the party’s voters believe the election was fraudulent even though it’s been “proven time and time again that election fraud is rare.”

“What I think will be the trend this year is attacks rolling back mail voting and attacks rolling back accommodations that happened in response to the pandemic, which we usually don’t see,” she told CBS News. “We usually don’t see a lot of people wasting their time and energy on mail voting because the people that used it, liked it, and the states that use it a lot, really like it.”

Voting restrictions are just one way state Republicans hope to win back power after losing the White House and both chambers of Congress but holding their majorities in many state legislatures. Republicans are poised to have the power to gerrymander nearly 200 congressional districts while Democrats hold control over the boundaries of just 73 seats. With the 2020 Census already expected to cost states like New York, California and Illinois seats in the House, Republican-led legislatures could further redistrict their way to power and make it extremely difficult for Democrats to keep their narrow House majority in the 2022 midterms, creating a scenario similar to the 2010 midterms during Barack Obama’s first term.

“Although conservatives traditionally cast themselves as guardians of governing traditions and institutions, today’s Republicans pride themselves on finding ways to subvert them,” wrote Thomas Patterson, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. “They’re out of power in Washington, but the states determine most of the rules governing registration and voting. Republicans control half of the state governments and share control in half of the rest. Sadly, the lesson that Republicans took from their November defeat was that they hadn’t gone far enough in their efforts to suppress the vote.”

America’s national healing depends on Donald Trump facing real punishment

Donald Trump is gone. Jan. 20 has come and gone. Joe Biden is our 46th president and Kamala Harris is our vice president. Celebration has been on display and our democracy is breathing easier.

But our glow of hopefulness will inevitably be dampened by the penetrating darkness of the past four years. The aftermath of Donald Trump is before us. And it cannot be avoided. For example, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley and several other members of the “sedition caucus” are still in Congress and stand as a constant reminder of how much accountability and healing must still occur.

Many of us are at high risk for the development of trauma, stress-related and anxiety-related symptoms (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD). We have been subjected to physical and psychological abuse by the now-departed president. The sickness and death associated with the coronavirus pandemic has been catastrophic. Our crippled economy has created widespread depression and anxiety. Trump’s racism, xenophobia, misogyny, nativism, white supremacy, violence and incitement of insurrection have all been traumatic forces as well. 

Post-traumatic stress symptoms are increasingly evident among us: distressing and intrusive thoughts, anxiety, worry, fear, flashbacks, nightmares, hyper-vigilance, disturbed sleep and more. These symptoms occur most notably in those with close proximity to the horrific nature of the deadly disease, such as first responders, medical providers and friends and families of victims. All are due to the impact of a cruel and corrupt leader who harmed us after swearing to be our protector. Much like a domestic abuser, Trump deceived, betrayed and mistreated us.

Beyond that, millions of Americans continue to view Trump as their beloved cult leader — even though he has been defeated, disgraced and repudiated. Trump’s followers have been radicalized by the cumulative effects of his lies, conspiracy theories, magical thinking and fake narratives. Americans were bombarded with misinformation and propaganda. As a result, there are many passionate supporters who, at least until now, have refused to allow facts and the truth to shape their perceptions of their leader. Trump’s demagoguery and fear-mongering has worked.

Donald Trump is a proven traitor — at least in the colloquial sense, and perhaps the legal sense as well — who spent four years disavowing the Constitution, attacking our democracy and abusing the public. He must be prosecuted and punished for his misdeeds and malfeasance.

We know that victims of abuse are better able to recover their self-esteem and hopefulness when abusers are held to account and victim safety is assured. Victims often feel unheard, misunderstood and unloved because their horrific experiences are minimized or not believed altogether. Prosecution of the abuser can go a long way to validate the intrinsic worth of the victim, and to help recapture positive mental health. 

So, in a very real way, prosecution of Donald Trump is necessary for individual Americans to heal from their psychological distress and trauma and to feel liberated and positive going forward.

In a similar vein, the radicalization of Trump supporters can be deprogrammed if they see him being prosecuted and punished for his nefarious acts. He must be exposed for who he is — a con man whose cruelty, indifference and anti-democratic leanings were unleashed on the public. The realization of Trump’s menace might help sweep away the false view of him as an esteemed leader. For some, this realization began last Wednesday, as President Biden was sworn in and Trump’s supporters realized that their delusional belief in an ongoing Trump reign was shattered. 

Dealing with the maliciousness and destructiveness of Donald Trump has begun. His oxygen of attention has been taken away. He has been banned from social media platforms. He is being ostracized and purged in most circles. But more than that, he must be prosecuted and punished for his transgressions against America and its people. He cannot simply be given a free pass because he is finally out of office. This would convey a dangerous message. We cannot stick our heads in the sand when abuse and radicalization have run rampant.

It appears that Trump is already considering another presidential run in 2024. Such is an unfathomable proposition in light of his past four years of abuse, death and insurrection. His lack of shame and remorse is appalling — but in no way surprising.

Trump must be convicted in the Senate for his second impeachment offense. He must be banned from future elected office as well. We must send a clear message to him and to all other future or potential presidential candidates that corrupt and criminal behavior will not be tolerated. We will not be abused all over again.

It will take time for us to heal, but that will happen more quickly and completely if prosecution and punishment is meted out to Donald Trump. In a democracy, no person is above the law. We must all be held accountable for our actions. Especially someone who misused and debased the highest office in the land, and whose reign of terror has traumatized us all.

Joe Biden’s first week: The President goes around Congress to fulfill campaign promises

In a tidal wave of executive orders and actions signed during his first week in office, President Joe Biden went around Congress to begin addressing a series of campaign promises.  

“We are at a precarious moment in our economy,” said Brian Deese, the director of the National Economic Council, previewing the actions, “The American people cannot afford to wait. So many are hanging by a thread.”

After first getting the U.S. back into the Paris climate accords to combat climate change, recommit to the World Health Organization in the middle of a pandemic, halting federal funding for Trump’s wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, lifting restrictions on people from Muslim countries and ending the deportation threat against the DREAMers, Biden announced a third wave of actions. 

Skirting around the Congressional approval required for his $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package –– which has already been met with significant Republican pushback –– Biden’s third wave of directives seeks to immediately address the needs of those ravaged by an economy still reeling from the COVID-19 recession. Biden’s first order will call on the Department of Agriculture to readjust its requirements for providing food assistance, making it easier for more families to benefit from the Pandemic Electronic Benefits Program (P-EBT), which will act in lieu of school lunch provisions for children. According to a White House fact sheet, the order is expected to yield a 15% increase in food aid to children unable to receive school meals. 

Biden’s order is also set to expand the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as “SNAP,” for 12 million families that currently rely on the program, according to White House estimates. SNAP is expected to increase by $3 billion, expanding total aid to families of four by 15-20%. While Congress improved these benefits as part of its economic aid package last year, Trump did not allow those receiving the maximum provisions to receive any more aid. 

In addition, Biden’s order will also help workers collect direct payments from past aid packages and give workers “a federally guaranteed right to refuse employment that will jeopardize their health” without having to fear a suspension of their payments. This should prove to be a vital qualification, as 43% of American households have at least one family member with a pre-existing condition.

President Biden’s second order also mandates a $15 minimum wage for both federal workers and federally-contracted workers, which may place pressure on private sector employers to make similar wage adjustments. Biden will, likewise, call on Congress to raise the national minimum wage to $15 as well. 

Another Biden order will restore union organizing power, allowing workers to collectively bargain more effectively. This comes after Trump signed anti-union legislation in 2018, designating a new job classification for government employees called “Schedule F,” which made it easier for employers to fire federal workers, stripping them of many of their civil service protections. 

“Over the last four years, [civil servants] have been undermined and demoralized,” wrote the White House, “The president will sign an executive order taking steps to protect and empower federal employees who are so essential to this country.”

Biden’s also announced a 60-day freeze on regulations to give his administration the time necessary to review any new rules and removed the ban on transgender people serving in the military.

 

 

Tom Cotton’s “Army Ranger” dissembling goes back at least eight years

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., has over the years routinely puffed up his political bona fides by embellishing his military service record, claiming in multiple interviews and campaign ads not only to have been a U.S. Army Ranger, but to have served in action as a Ranger — and, at one point, to have earned the Bronze Star “as a Ranger.”

Salon reported on Friday that during Cotton’s first congressional campaign, the Harvard Law grad claimed to have served as a Ranger and acquired “experience” as a Ranger in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. A number of people came to the senator’s defense, observing that as a graduate of the U.S. Army Ranger School, Cotton — who once said that “bombing makes us safer” — is within his rights to lay colloquial claim to the title. Salon’s original article has been upheld as correct by the fact-check site Snopes, but even those who believe it’s acceptable for Cotton to call himself a Ranger, as opposed to the more accurate “Ranger-qualified,” would likely agree that he can’t claim battlefield experience as a Ranger, nor that he served as one. Yet the Arkansas senator appears to have done both, on more than one occasion.

Cotton still has not provided comment to Salon, but he addressed the issue directly in an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier on Monday.

“Were you straightforward with voters about your military service?” Baier asked.

“Yeah thanks, Brett. I graduated from Ranger School and wore the Ranger tab in combat with the 101st Airborne in Iraq. This is not about my military record; this is about my politics,” Cotton replied. “Ranger Regiment legends like Gen. Scotty Miller or Gen. Craig Nixon have used the term to describe both alumni of the Ranger Regiment and graduates of the Ranger School, as did the secretary of the Army. As did most of my buddies in the Army. As did most of the liberal media, until a conservative veteran was using the term that way. But if some people disagree, that’s fine; I respect their views. What’s most important, I respect the service of all Rangers and indeed all soldiers who serve our country.”

That resembles a coherent answer. But Cotton has in fact suggested that he served with those Rangers. A 2014 campaign ad from his first Senate run, for instance, features Cotton telling the viewing audience that he “made tough decisions as an Army Ranger in Iraq.” Perhaps most egregiously, a 2012 congressional campaign ad approved and paid for by Cotton even claims that “as a Ranger, Tom Cotton earned the Bronze Star.”

It is unclear why Cotton, who is thought to be laying the brickwork for a 2024 presidential bid, has so routinely linked his military service to his Ranger School graduation, but his name and the title have over time become linked in media appearances.

To be clear, passing Ranger School, a grueling 62-day course open to any member of the military, is considered a top honor for any soldier, but it is not the same thing as passing the Army’s Ranger Assessment and Selection Program (RASP), which produces the elite troops who deploy as Rangers, wearing distinctive tan berets and special ops scrolls. The question of whether any Ranger School graduate is a Ranger by definition is a matter of semantic debate in the military, and far from settled, as pointed out in a Military.com article about the reaction to Salon’s reporting: “While the distinction is rarely brought up outside of military circles, it has been fiercely debated among veterans and encapsulates the nuances of military titles.” A Pentagon official not authorized to speak on the record told Salon in a call over the weekend that, according to the Army, Cotton is technically “Ranger-qualified,” and not “a Ranger.” (The Army and its Special Operations unit have not answered Salon’s multiple requests for comment.)

Two Republican Ranger School grads sparred over the issue in last year’s New Hampshire’s GOP Senate primary. Colorado lawyer Bryant “Corky” Messner claimed he “served as a Ranger,” but his opponent, retired Brig. Gen. Don Bolduc, disagreed.

“Unless you served in a Ranger battalion, I think you’re overstretching your claim,” Bolduc told Messner last spring, reported Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler. “I’m Ranger-qualified, and I always stipulate that. I never served in a Ranger battalion.” Kessler, after several conversations with Army officials, rated it a two-Pinocchio lie on Messner’s part.

But with Cotton, a war hawk who has been deemed a “maniac” even by the conservative Washington Examiner, the issue goes deeper: Cotton hasn’t simply said that he was a Ranger, but has strongly suggested or implied that he had deployed, even fought, as a Ranger.

After Salon’s original article was published, conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt came to Cotton’s defense on Twitter, calling the piece a “scurrilous attack.”

“I’ve interviewed @SenTomCotton almost weekly for 8 years,” Hewitt wrote. “He’s rightly proud of his service w/ 101st in Baghdad and w/ The Old Guard and of his Ranger Tab for Ranger School but never confused units or his service. Never claimed to have served in a Ranger unit. Scurrilous attack.”

In fact, in one of those interviews, conducted in 2013, Cotton leads Hewitt to believe that he had actually fought while deployed as a Ranger.

After Cotton explains that he had enlisted as an infantry officer and “became an Army Ranger,” Hewitt inquires about his combat experience as a Ranger, asking: “And so as a Ranger and in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, were you ever attacked by suicide bombers?”

Cotton answers directly, without distinction: “My patrols personally were not, Hugh, thankfully for my men and for me.”

The show’s title refers to Cotton as “Former Army Ranger.”

During a live interview in 2019 for CSPAN’s BookTV series, the Arkansas senator told Hewitt a story about a soldier who had the integrity to report himself for a violation, even though he could have gotten away with it. He then does not correct Hewitt when the latter refers to Cotton’s Ranger claim.

“Now you, Senator, are a Ranger, and ‘Rangers lead the way’ is the motto,” Hewitt says, asking about the transition to a non-combat role after he “came out of the surge leading a platoon in Baghdad.”

Cotton quips: “Well, you know, people weren’t trying to kill me anymore. That was the biggest difference.”

Complaints about Cotton’s use of the term, in fact, have circulated locally as early as his first congressional campaign in 2012.

In response to Salon’s report on Friday, Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., who served in the Ranger battalion, tweeted, “Hey @SenTomCotton, unless you wore one of these berets you shouldn’t be calling yourself a Ranger. Truth matters.”

Cotton has not offered a response to Salon, but after the publication of Salon’s original article, the senator’s communications team sent the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative site, its email exchange with Salon for an article about Salon’s purported collaboration with an outside researcher.

The Free Beacon, it turns out, has deep ties to Cotton, dating to his relationship with leading conservative (and now Never Trumper) Bill Kristol, who helped elevate Cotton to the Senate. Cotton hired Kristol’s son, Joseph, as his legislative director, and Kristol’s son-in-law is the Free Beacon’s founding editor. One of Cotton’s foreign policy advisers and legislative directors, Aaron MacLean, was formerly managing editor at the Free Beacon.

From The Nation:

The Washington Free Beacon — whose founding editor is Matthew Continetti, Kristol’s son-in-law — highlights Cotton’s exploits so regularly that any given page of its Tom Cotton archives (say, this year’s July-September page) will feature an array of headlines that speak to the vast range of the senator’s expertise.

The Beacon’s writer on the piece about Salon was formerly a paid Republican operative, and was named a Beacon “man of the year” for his work helping defeat Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri in 2018. Another man of the year for 2018? Tom Cotton, for advocating against prison reform. 

A test of Biden’s commitment to diplomacy: Appointing Rob Malley as Iran envoy

President Biden’s commitment to re-entering the Iran nuclear deal — formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA — is already facing backlash from a motley crew of hawks, both domestic and foreign. Right now, opponents of re-entering the deal are centering their vitriol on one of the nation’s foremost experts on both the Middle East and diplomacy: Robert Malley, who Biden might tap to be the next Iran envoy. 

On Jan. 21, conservative journalist Eli Lake penned an opinion piece in Bloomberg News arguing that Biden should not appoint Malley because Malley ignores Iran’s human rights abuses and “regional terror.” Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., retweeted Lake’s piece with the heading: “Malley has a long track record of sympathy for the Iranian regime & animus towards Israel. The ayatollahs wouldn’t believe their luck if he is selected.” Pro regime-change Iranians such as Mariam Memarsadeghi, conservative American journalists like Breitbart’s Joel Pollak, and the far-right Zionist Organization of America are opposing Malley. Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed opposition to Malley’s possible appointment and Israeli Maj. Gen. Yaakov Amidror, a close adviser to the prime minister, said that if the U.S. re-enters the JCPOA, Israel may take military action against Iran. A petition opposing Malley has even started on Change.org

What makes Malley such a threat to these opponents of talks with Iran?

Malley is the polar opposite of Trump’s special representative to Iran, Elliott Abrams, whose only interest was squeezing the economy and whipping up conflict in the hopes of regime change. Malley, on the other hand, has called U.S. Middle East policy “a litany of failed enterprises” requiring “self-reflection” and is a true believer in diplomacy.

Under the Clinton and Obama administrations, Malley helped organize the 2000 Camp David summit as special assistant to Bill Clinton; acted as Obama’s White House coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Gulf region; and was the lead negotiator on the White House staff for the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. When Obama left office, Malley became president of the International Crisis Group, a group formed in 1995 to prevent wars. 

During the Trump years, Malley was a fierce critic of Trump’s Iran policy. In an Atlantic piece he coauthored, he denounced Trump’s plan to withdraw and refuted critiques about the sunset clauses in the deal not extending for more years. “The time-bound nature of some of the constraints [in the JCPOA] is not a flaw of the deal, it was a prerequisite for it,” he wrote. “The real choice in 2015 was between achieving a deal that constrained the size of Iran’s nuclear program for many years and ensured intrusive inspections forever, or not getting one.”

He condemned Trump’s maximum pressure campaign as a maximum failure, explaining that throughout Trump’s presidency, “Iran’s nuclear program grew, increasingly unconstrained by the JCPOA. Tehran has more accurate ballistic missiles than ever before and more of them. The regional picture grew more, not less, fraught.”  

While Malley’s detractors accuse him of ignoring the regime’s grim human rights record, national security and human rights organizations supporting Malley said in a joint letter that since Trump left the nuclear deal, “Iran’s civil society is weaker and more isolated, making it harder for them to advocate for change.” 

Hawks have another reason for opposing Malley: his refusal to show blind support for Israel. In 2001, Malley co-wrote an article for the New York Review of Books arguing that the failure of the Israeli-Palestinian Camp David negotiations had not been the sole fault of Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat but included then-Israeli leader Ehud Barak. The U.S. pro-Israel establishment wasted no time accusing Malley of having an anti-Israel bias.  

Malley has also been pilloried for meeting with members of the Palestinian political group Hamas, designated a terror organization by the U.S. In a letter to The New York Times, Malley explained that these encounters were part of his job when he was Middle East program director at the International Crisis Group, and that he was regularly asked by both American and Israeli officials to brief them on these meetings.

With the Biden administration already facing opposition from Israel about its intent to return to the JCPOA, Malley’s expertise on Israel and his willingness to talk to all sides will be an asset. 

Malley understands that re-entering the JCPOA must be undertaken swiftly and will not be easy. Iranian presidential elections are scheduled for June and predictions are that a hardline candidate will win, making negotiations with the U.S. increasingly difficult. He is also keenly aware that re-entering the JCPOA is not enough to calm the regional conflicts, which is why he supports a European initiative to encourage de-escalation dialogues between Iran and neighboring Gulf states. As U.S. special envoy to Iran, Malley could put Washington’s weight behind such efforts.

Malley’s Middle East foreign policy expertise and diplomatic skills make him the ideal candidate to reinvigorate the JCPOA and help calm regional tensions. Biden’s response to the far-right uproar against Malley will be a test of his fortitude in standing up to the hawks and charting a new course for U.S. policy in the Middle East. 

Biden admin pauses deportations for 100 days, suspends “remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers

The Department of Homeland Security announced two significant immigration policy changes late Wednesday that include a 100-day pause on deportations for some undocumented immigrants. The department also announced that asylum seekers who attempt to enter the United States will no longer be part of a controversial policy enacted under former President Donald Trump that has forced tens of thousands to wait in Mexico for American court hearings.

The deportation moratorium and changes to the Migrant Protection Protocols, also known as “remain in Mexico,” come on President Joe Biden’s first day in office. He also signed executive orders rolling back additional Trump-era immigration policies.

The pause in deportations, which begins Friday, is part of a review and reset of enforcement policies within Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agencies as the Biden administration “develops its final priorities,” according to a DHS statement.

The moratorium applies to “certain noncitizens ordered deported to ensure we have a fair and effective immigration enforcement system focused on protecting national security, border security, and public safety” according to the DHS. That category excludes any immigrant who is “suspected of terrorism or espionage, or otherwise poses a danger to the national security of the United States,” those who entered after Nov. 1 and those who have voluntarily waived any rights to remain in the country, according to a DHS memo.

Beginning Thursday, “the department will cease adding individuals into the [Migrant Protection Protocols] program,” according to a separate DHS statement. But the department added that border restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic are still in place. Those restrictions have allowed for the immediate expulsion of most unauthorized crossers back to Mexico. DHS said in its statement that more information about people in MPP will be forthcoming and asked the asylum seekers to stay in Mexico for now.

“All current MPP participants should remain where they are, pending further official information from U.S. government officials,” DHS said.

Eleanor Acer, the director of Human Rights First’s Refugee Protection program, applauded the move but said the Biden administration needed to quickly address the fate of the thousands still in the program. She also said Biden should reject the Trump administration’s health policy to expel future asylum seekers.

“[We] urge the Biden administration to provide information as quickly as possible about the process for asylum seekers who have been subjected to this policy to be brought into the U.S. safely. Lives are on the line, and asylum seekers continue to be subjected to kidnappings, attacks and other targeted violence,” she said in a statement. “The [Biden] administration should not adopt or extend the Trump administration’s misuse of public health authority and should not use public health as a pretext for expelling asylum seekers to places where their lives are in danger.”

The remain in Mexico policy began in California and expanded to the Texas-Mexico border in early 2019. It’s forced more than 60,000 migrants back to Mexican border towns, many of whom have grappled with high crime and little or no security.

More than 20,000 asylum seekers, mainly from Cuba and Central America, have been sent from El Paso to Ciudad Juárez under the program, though it’s unclear how many remain. Mexican officials in the state of Chihuahua said it’s difficult to know how many migrants have given up and returned home, tried to cross illegally or decided to remain in Mexico on their own.

Also on Wednesday, the president sent to Congress an immigration-reform bill that contains several longer-term agenda items, including a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants. The announcement about the MPP program cautions that legislation will apply only to people already in the United States.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

Anti-vaccine activists peddle theories that COVID shots are deadly, undermining vaccination

Anti-vaccine groups are exploiting the suffering and death of people who happen to fall ill after receiving a covid shot, threatening to undermine the largest vaccination campaign in U.S. history.

In some cases, anti-vaccine activists are fabricating stories of deaths that never occurred.

“This is exactly what anti-vaccine groups do,” said Dr. Peter Hotez, an infectious diseases specialist and author of “Preventing the Next Pandemic: Vaccine Diplomacy in a Time of Anti-Science.”

Anti-vaccine groups have falsely claimed for decades that childhood vaccines cause autism, weaving fantastic conspiracy theories involving government, Big Business and the media.

Now, the same groups are blaming patients’ coincidental medical problems on covid shots, even when it’s clear that age or underlying health conditions are to blame, Hotez said. “They will sensationalize anything that happens after someone gets a vaccine and attribute it to the vaccine,” Hotez said.

As more seniors receive their first covid shots, many will inevitably suffer from unrelated heart attacks, strokes and other serious medical problems — not because of the vaccine but, rather, their age and declining health, said epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.

For example, in a group of 10 million people — about the number of Americans who have been vaccinated so far — nearly 800 people ages 55 to 64 typically die of heart attacks or coronary disease in one week, Osterholm said. Public health officials “are not ready” for the onslaught of news and social media stories to come, he cautioned.

“The media will write a story that John Doe got his vaccine at 8 a.m. and at 4 p.m. he had a heart attack,” Osterholm said on his weekly podcast. “They will make assumptions that it’s cause and effect.”

Public health officials need to do a better job communicating the risks — real and imagined — from vaccines, said Osterholm, who has been advising President Joe Biden on the pandemic since his election.

“You get one chance to make a first impression,” Osterholm said. “Even if we come back later and say, “No, [the deaths] had nothing to do with vaccination, it was coronary artery disease,’ the damage has already been done.”

Anti-vaccine groups such as the National Vaccine Information Center and Children’s Health Defense, founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., are already inflaming fears about a handful of deaths — mostly in Europe — that have followed the worldwide rollout of immunizations.

In a blog post, Kennedy scoffed at autopsy results that concluded a Portuguese woman’s death was unrelated to a vaccine. He cast doubt on statements by medical authorities in Denmark who said the deaths of two people there after vaccination were due to old age and chronic lung disease. In an interview, Kennedy said the post-vaccination deaths of some very frail and terminally ill nursing home patients in Norway are a danger sign. Norwegian officials have said the elderly patients died of their underlying illnesses, not from the vaccine.

“Coincidence is turning out to be quite lethal to COVID vaccine recipients,” Kennedy wrote. Kennedy described the deaths as suspicious, accusing medical officials of following an “all-too-familiar vaccine propaganda playbook” and “strategic chicanery.”

Here in the U.S., vaccine opponents have pounced on the tragedy of Dr. Gregory Michael, a 56-year-old Florida obstetrician-gynecologist, to sow doubts about vaccine safety and government oversight. Michael died Jan. 5 after suffering a catastrophic drop in platelets — elements in the blood that control bleeding — suggesting he may have developed immune thrombocytopenia..

According to a Facebook post by his wife, Heidi Neckelmann, doctors tried a variety of treatments to save her husband, but none worked.

A spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the agency is investigating Michael’s death, as it does for all suspected vaccine-related health problems. California authorities have recommended pausing vaccinations with a particular batch of covid vaccines made by Moderna because of a high rate of allergic reactions.

“We’re going to see these events happen, and we have to follow up on every one of these cases,” Osterholm said. “I don’t want people to think that we’re sweeping them under the rug.”

Many Americans were already nervous about covid vaccines, with 27% saying they “probably or definitely” would not get a shot, even if the shots were free and deemed safe by scientists, according to a December survey by KFF. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

These people may be particularly susceptible to vaccine misinformation, said Rory Smith, an investigator at First Draft News, a nonprofit that reports on misinformation online.

A Rare Condition

Seven experts in blood disorders interviewed by KHN said there’s not enough information available to blame Michael’s decline on a vaccine and that the demonstrated benefits of covid vaccinations vastly outweigh any potential risk of bleeding. Even if investigators conclude that Michael’s vaccine caused his death, it would still be an incredibly rare event, given that more than 21.8 million doses have been administered.

“It shouldn’t give anyone pause about whether the vaccine is safe or not,” said Dr. James Zehnder, a hematologist and director of clinical pathology at Stanford Medicine.

Michael’s bleeding disorder could have been developing silently for some time, said Dr. Adam Cuker, director of the Penn Blood Disorders Center at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. It could be a coincidence that Michael started showing symptoms shortly after vaccination, he said. About 30 Americans are diagnosed with immune thrombocytopenia every day.

The timing of Michael’s illness suggests it had another cause, doctors said. According to his wife’s Facebook post, his bleeding problems began three days after his first covid shot. It takes the body 10 to 14 days after vaccination to generate antibodies, which would be needed to cause immune thrombocytopenia, said Dr. Cindy Neunert, a pediatric hematologist at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City.

In most cases, the cause of thrombocytopenia is never known, said Dr. Deepak Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Immune thrombocytopenia is linked, rarely, to certain vaccines, with about 26 cases for every 1 million doses of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine.

But it can also be caused by viruses themselves, including measles and the novel coronavirus, said Dr. Sven Olson, an assistant professor of hematology-medical oncology at Oregon Health & Science University’s school of medicine.

Many patients with immune thrombocytopenia are now wondering if they should be vaccinated against covid, Cuker said. Cuker said he urges nervous patients to be vaccinated, noting that any problems could be managed by closely monitoring their platelet levels and adjusting medication if needed.

Even in patients with underlying bleeding conditions, “it’s still safer to get vaccinated than to get covid,” Zehnder said.

“If you give a vaccine to a large enough number of people, there are going to be rare adverse events but there are also going to be coincidental events unrelated to the vaccine,” Cuker said. “If an anti-vaccine group uses a single case, where no link has been proven, to discourage people from vaccination, that’s terrible.”

Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center, said her site provides balanced information from reputable news sources, including CNN, CBS and the Miami Herald, as well as Pfizer and the CDC.

In an interview with KHN, Kennedy said he questions why government officials have been so quick to dismiss connections between vaccinations and deaths. “How in the world do they know if it’s a vaccine injury or not?” he asked.

“We don’t discourage anybody from getting vaccinated,” Kennedy said. “All we’re doing is conveying the data, which is what the government should be doing. … We print the truth, which is what the medical agencies ought to do.”

Alternative Facts?

Opponents of vaccination have belittled concerns about the novel coronavirus for months, opposing masks and fighting stay-at-home orders and contact tracing, said Richard Carpiano, a professor of public policy and sociology at the University of California-Riverside.

“They have come out against every public health measure to control the pandemic,” Carpiano said. “They have said public health is public enemy No. 1.”

Recently, anti-vaccine activists have been so eager to discredit immunizations that they have blamed covid for the deaths of people who are very much alive.

Social media users selectively edited a video of a Tennessee nurse, Tiffany Dover to make it appear as if she dropped dead after being vaccinated, when in fact she simply fainted, said Dorit Reiss, a professor at the UC Hastings College of Law in San Francisco. Although Dover quickly recovered, social media users posted a fake death certificate and obituary. Anti-vaccine activists also harassed Dover and her family online, said Reiss, who chronicled Dover’s ordeal in a blog post.

Anti-vaccine activists are adept at manipulating video, Smith said.

“They are notorious for using videos and images purportedly showing the adverse effects of vaccines, such as autism in children and seizures in other vaccine recipients,” Smith said. “The more emotive and graphic the videos and images — irrespective of whether it’s actually linked at all to vaccines or not — the better.”

In December, multiple Facebook posts falsely claimed that an Alabama nurse died after receiving one of the state’s first covid vaccines. One Twitter user went so far as to identify the nurse as Jennifer McClung, who worked at Helen Keller Hospital in Sheffield, Alabama. In fact, McClung died of covid. Social media posts spread so widely that Alabama health department officials contacted every hospital in the state to confirm that no vaccinated staff member had died.

Anti-vaccine groups often build fables around “a tiny, tiny grain of truth,” Smith said. “This is why misinformation, specifically vaccine misinformation, can be so convincing. … But this information is almost always taken completely out of context, creating claims that are either misleading or outright false.”

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity twisted a news story about the deaths of 24 people at an upstate New York nursing home, incorrectly blaming their deaths on covid vaccinations. The original article noted, however, that a covid outbreak at the nursing home began in late December, before residents received any vaccines. Covid vaccines, which require two doses for full protection, did not arrive in time to save the residents’ lives.

Kennedy repeated the misinformation — again incorrectly blaming the residents’ deaths on vaccines — in his blog, although he linked to a local news station that reported the information correctly.

Distorting facts to discourage vaccination, Cuker said, is “very irresponsible and damaging to public health.”