Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“Terrorists” Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley should be on no-fly list, House homeland security chair says

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-MS, suggested that, if found liable for inciting the violent unrest at the Capitol last week, Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX, and Josh Hawley, R-MO, could be put on a no-fly list. 

Cruz and Hawley, who were arguably the most vocal congressional opponents of Biden’s electoral victory, have faced a tidal wave of condemnation from Democrats and some Republicans following last week’s chaos on Capitol Hill. Calls for Hawley and Cruz to be censured and even expelled have surfaced in the House, placing the two Senators on thin ice with their Congressional foes and allies alike. 

Rep. Bennie Thompson –– the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee ––  joined the chorus of condemnation on Monday in a SiriusXM interview, pointing out that, if found guilty of encouraging last week’s uprising, Hawley and Cruz should be formally ousted from government. 

“Even a member of Congress that commits a crime…they expel from the body,” the Congressman explained, “There are ethics charges that can be brought against those individuals. And people are looking at all this. What Hawley did and what Cruz did was horrible.”

Regarding the rioters, Thompson thought there was “no question” about whether they should be labeled as terrorists. “These folks, in my opinion, can be classified as domestic terrorists,” he said, “A terrorist is a terrorist, no matter who you are.” 

Thompson also outlined the “protocols” in place to work jointly with the TSA and the FBI –– whom he urged into action last Thursday –– on identifying high-risk individuals and barring them from air travel. Several airlines have already begun imposing lifetime travel bans on participants of the violent mob. According to ABC News, United Airlines banned sixty participants last week, while Alaska Airlines has banned fourteen. 

The Congressman also revealed that the Congressional Black Caucus –– of which he is a key member –– is set to hold its own investigation of the weak police presence and response at the Capitol.

“Somebody’s going to have to tell us why it occurred,” he demanded, “Other than the fact that there white people involved and you treat white protesters with kid gloves, and black and white protesters you threw the full faith and power of the government on them to suppress them. It ought to be one policy.”

“There’s suspicion that some of the sympathizers were also employees of the Capitol Police,” the Congressman added, alluding to the officers seen letting rioters simply waltz into the Capitol and even taking selfies with them. In a separate probe from the CBC’s, two Capitol Police officers have already been suspended, and over ten officers, according to CNN, are currently being investigated. 

Thompson has been steadfast in his commitment to punish everyone responsible for the insurrection, making no exception for elected officials. One Twitter user criticized him for publicly indicting Cruz and Hawley, saying he should be “ashamed.” Thompson rebutted, “I am not ashamed. However, they should be.”

Expelling Senators Cruz and Hawley would require a two-thirds vote in the upper chamber of Congress, and is therefore unlikely, given the GOP’s penchant for unconditional tribalism, even in the face of complete moral bankruptcy. However, a censure –– which necessitates just a majority vote in the Senate –– is much more likely since the Democrats managed to eke out a newly won Senate majority following the Georgia State runoffs.

Lawmakers worry that pro-Trump colleagues could aid potential plot to attack Capitol: report

Members of Congress have discussed special security measures to ensure that fellow lawmakers sympathetic to President Trump’s false election claims do not aid in any new plot against the U.S. Capitol or President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration during a briefing on three specific threats detected by federal authorities, according to HuffPost.

Newly-installed leaders of the Capitol Police briefed House Democrats on a private call Monday about three separate plots against lawmakers and Biden’s inauguration, according to Axios and CNN.

Officials warned lawmakers of a plot to surround the Capitol, White House and Supreme Court and potentially assassinate lawmakers. One alleged plan called for the “largest armed protest ever to take place on American soil.” Another plan included a protest in honor of Ashli Babbitt, the Trump supporter killed by police while trying to breach the House chamber during Wednesday’s riot.

One lawmaker told HuffPost that the discussion included the need to put every member of Congress through a metal detector before the inauguration.

There was an “eyes-wide-open realization,” the unidentified lawmaker told the outlet, that Capitol Police needed to take precautions against “all these members who were in league with the insurrectionists who love to carry their guns.”

“You can’t just let them bypass security and walk right up to Biden and [Vice President-elect Kamala] Harris at inauguration,” the lawmaker said.

Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, also raised questions about whether any elected officials were involved in Wednesday’s riot.

“It’s not clear to what extent the rioters were coordinating operationally with government officials, so we ought to be extremely careful in this line of inquiry. But we must discover which elected and appointed officials, if any, and which civil servants, were helping the coup,” he wrote on Twitter.

Several other lawmakers, including Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nev., and Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., have suggested the riot may have been an “inside job,” though those comments appear to have been in the context of questions about the police response. Two Capitol Police officers have been suspended and 10 to 15 others are said to be under investigation over their actions during the riot.

Other members of Congress have raised questions about how the mob was able to navigate its way through unmarked and non-obvious areas of the Capitol complex. Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., the third-ranking House Democrat, suggested that something “untoward” happened after rioters went looking for him in an unmarked office rather than the main office labeled with his name.

Despite the riot, 147 Republicans, including seven senators, voted to overturn election results in multiple states during the joint session of Congress that was interrupted by the siege and resumed shortly after. While Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, have faced widespread condemnation and calls for their resignation or expulsion after leading the effort, many House Democrats have raised questions over their colleagues’ statements seeming to cheer on the riot.

A group of House Democrats singled out freshman Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., arguing in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that he “needs to be held accountable for his seditious behavior and for the consequences resulting from said behavior,” according to the Associated Press.

Cawthorn spoke at an event hosted by the pro-Trump college Republican group Turning Point USA on Dec. 21, where he appeared to threaten lawmakers who did not support Trump’s baseless election rigging claims.

“Call your congressman and feel free, you can lightly threaten them and say, you know what, if you don’t start supporting election integrity, I’m coming after you, Madison Cawthorn is coming after you, everybody’s coming after you,” he said, according to the Charlotte Observer.

Cawthorn later spoke at Trump’s rally that preceded the riot, exclaiming, “Wow, this crowd has some fight in it.”

Cawthorn, who was a featured speaker at last year’s Republican National Convention, later called the violence “sickening and infuriating” and argued that Trump “never should’ve directed that crowd toward the Capitol.”

Some Democrats also criticized freshman Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., for statements she made on Wednesday.

“Today is 1776,” Boebert declared on Twitter before the riot, echoing a similar comment from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., a QAnon conspiracy theorist. After Trump’s supporters breached the Capitol, Boebert tweeted that “the speaker has been removed from the chambers.”

“We were specifically instructed by those protecting us not to tell anyone, including our family, where exactly we were, for reasons that remain obvious,” Schatz said in response to Boebert’s tweet.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., added that Boebert “was told by the Sergeant of Arms in the chamber to not make any social media posts. It was said repeatedly. She defied it because she is more closely aligned with the terrorists than the patriots.”

“Like any citizen who has committed a crime, Lauren Boebert has the right to remain silent,” Swalwell said in another tweet after Boebert accused Democrats of “endless conspiracy theories.” “I suggest that she use it.”

Boebert has been defiant since the riot, accusing Democrats of “hypocrisy” with “talks of impeachment, censure, and other ways to punish Republicans for false accusations of inciting the type of violence they have so frequently and transparently supported in the past.”

Her comments were in stark contrast with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who said he admonished the president for claiming “antifa people” were behind the riot.

“It’s not Antifa, it’s MAGA. I know. I was there,” he told the president, according to Axios.

McCarthy has issued several forceful comments condemning Wednesday’s violence without mentioning that he led the Republican objections in the House when the joint session resumed following the siege. Before he led a majority of his party in voting to overturn millions of legal votes, McCarthy and more than 120 other House Republicans had supported the Texas lawsuit seeking to throw out millions of votes in four states, which was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court. 

Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., one of the most ardent supporters of the Republican bid to disenfranchise millions of voters, has also drawn scrutiny for his remarks.

“Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass,” Brooks declared at the rally before the riot. “Are you willing to do what it takes to fight for America? Louder! Will you fight for America?”

Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-N.J., has introduced a resolution to condemn and censure Brooks, arguing that his speech “encouraged and incited violence against his fellow Members of Congress” and that since then Brooks has “shown no remorse or regret.”

“Not only did Congressman Brooks fuel an insurrection against the body he serves in,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., said in a statement, “his words helped spark chaos, destruction, injuries, and death.”

Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., promoted the false election fraud claims and the Jan. 6 protest dozens of times and called Biden an “illegitimate usurper” while claiming Trump was the victim of an attempted “coup.” After meeting with Trump in December, Gosar vowed that he would “not accept disenfranchisement” of Trump voters and said “this sedition will be stopped.”

When rioters breached the Capitol, he urged calm, tweeting, “Let’s not get carried away here.” But on Parler, a far-right social network that has since been taken down, he posted an image of people scaling Capitol walls, writing, “Americans are upset.”

Ali Alexander, a far-right activist and an organizer of the “Stop the Steal” rally has claimed that Brooks, Gosar and Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., were involved in planning the Jan. 6 event.

“We four schemed up of putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting,” he said in a since-deleted video, “so that who we couldn’t rally, we could change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body, hearing our loud roar from outside.”

A spokesperson for Biggs disputed that he had ever met or had contact with Alexander or any of the rioters.

Freshman Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., has introduced a resolution with 47 co-sponsors that would begin investigations for “removal of the members who attempted to overturn the results of the election and incited a white supremacist attempted coup.”

Bush says she does not know how many members of Congress deserve to be expelled.

“Even if it’s just a few, we have to make sure the message is clear,” she told The New York Times, “that you cannot be a sitting Congress member and incite an insurrection and work to overturn an election.”

Trump didn’t suffer from “paralysis”: He failed to stop the Capitol siege because he loved the show

After four years of nonstop abuse from Donald Trump, it should be beyond a shadow of a doubt that, while Trump is indeed an ignoramus, his ugly behavior is largely motivated by malice, not stupidity. Yet, as we’ve seen through the years of Trump’s presidency, mainstream media outlets have continued to cast his actions as the choices of a man too numpty-headed to know right from wrong, instead of the behavior of a shameless villain who does vicious and cruel things out of a deeply felt sadism. Since Trump sent an unruly mob to ransack the Capitol, however, mainstream journalists have woken up, describing Trump’s actions accurately as incitement, instead of using euphemisms or casting around for an “innocent” explanation. 

They are now showing signs of slippage back to old habits.

On Monday night, the Washington Post published a report detailing Trump’s refusal to do anything to discourage the insurrectionist mob after they penetrated the Capitol. The headline: “Six hours of paralysis: Inside Trump’s failure to act after a mob stormed the Capitol.”

This headline is wildly misleading. Trump did not suffer from “paralysis,” nor was his inaction due to “failure.” Both words imply that there was a desire to act, but that Trump was somehow incapable. The reality: Trump refused to act.

He had incited the mob and delighted in their actions. He may very well have believed it was going to work to keep Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s win, especially if the insurrectionists had successfully captured or killed members of Congress or Vice President Mike Pence. But one thing that should be beyond all shadow of a doubt is that Trump refused to do anything to stop the riot because he was loving every minute of it. 


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


This framing is all the more aggravating because the details provided by Washington Post reporters Ashley Parker, Josh Dawsey and Philip Rucker make the ill will behind Trump’s behavior crystal clear. They report that Trump refused to take calls from the various congressional members who called for help. They describe a situation where aides and family members pleaded with Trump for hours, yet he refused to listen, and instead was glued to his TV and soaking in every delicious moment of the chaos he caused. When he finally caved and released a message telling his followers to “go home in peace,” he only did so “begrudgingly,” the Post reporters write. 

“Trump watched with interest, buoyed to see that his supporters were fighting so hard on his behalf, one close adviser said,” they write. 

The reporters describe a situation where aides are begging Trump to tell the insurrectionists to stand down, but he would only agree to ask for vague “support” for law enforcement, writing, “They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”

But Trump “had not wanted to include the final instruction to ‘stay peaceful,'” they report. Hours later, Trump reluctantly agreed to release a video telling rioters to go home, but only on the condition that he continue to tell lies about the election, resulting in a video that was less a call for peace and more further incitement. Even Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a reliable Trump sycophant, admitted, “The president saw these people as allies in his journey and sympathetic to the idea that the election was stolen.”

These details matter because Trump’s behavior is not ambiguous. He incited an insurrection, and once it was underway, he reacted with excitement and delight. His actions were purposeful and malevolent. He wanted all this to happen and got grumpy at anyone who wanted it to stop. 

This has been backed up by other reporting showing that Trump’s inner circle is quite clear that he was over the moon about the insurrection. Nebraska’s Republican Sen. Ben Sasse reported that he called the White House during the siege and not only was Trump “delighted” about the melee, but he was also “confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was.”

Last week, the New York Times reported that Trump only taped a video reluctantly conceding defeat after “he appeared to suddenly realize he could face legal risk for prodding the mob.” This was after counsel from his lawyer, Pat Cipollone, and a statement from the D.C. federal prosecutor indicating that charging Trump was a possibility. He obviously didn’t mean a word of it and was only trying to save himself from prison. 

Trump’s support for the insurrection and hatred of anyone who fought back continues to manifest in actions such as refusing to lower the flags for the Capitol police officer who was beaten to death by the mob and only giving in reluctantly after being badgered about it by his aides for days. 


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


And yet, the latest Washington Post story, while bristling with examples of how Trump acts out of malice and not ignorance, keeps framing his actions in a more innocent light, describing Trump as “a president paralyzed” and “more passive viewer than resolute leader”.

This is flatly false. Trump was not being passive at all. He actively incited the mob and he willfully refused to do anything to call them off. He did this deliberately, having exhausted every other avenue he pursued to steal the election. These were not the actions of a man too stupid to act. These were the actions of a man knowingly trying to overthrow a legal election. 

On the opinion page of the Washington Post, Greg Sargent describes the events recounted more accurately, describing it as “President Trump’s depraved and malevolent response to the violent siege of the Capitol” and noting Trump’s “solipsistic, even sadistic pleasure in watching a mob lay siege to our seat of government in his name.”

On Wednesday, House Democratic leadership will almost certainly impeach Trump for “incitement of insurrection.” Trump’s state of mind and intentionality is crucial to making the case for impeachment and removal. In addition, if Trump is to be prosecuted when he leaves office — and he absolutely should be — it’s important that the strong evidence he acted intentionally not be muddied by cowardly reporting. 

The good news is that there’s no real confusion about Trump’s state of mind. He wanted this riot, he wallowed in it, and he lashed out like a whiny child to anyone who suggested that armed insurrection is a bad look.

The bad news is that there’s a massive campaign, from right-wing pundits and Republican politicians, to muddy the waters and downplay the seriousness of what happened. And that campaign is directly aimed at the mainstream media, to discourage honesty about last week’s events and bully journalists into using minimizing or excusing language. Language like “paralysis” and “failure,” instead of more accurate descriptions capturing the intentionality of Trump’s actions. 

It is critical that outlets like the Washington Post not go further down this path of placating right-wing radicals — even if that term describes most Republicans these days — by swaddling the insurrection in euphemism and falsely ascribing innocent motives to Trump when his enmity is as obvious as his combover.

Holding firm to the truth is crucial if we want to save our democracy. Yes, even if that truth involves hurting the snowflake-delicate feelings of the American right. 

Susan Collins shockingly reveals her “first thought was that the Iranians” hit the Capitol

In a new piece for the local paper Bangor Daily News detailing her experience in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress, Republican Sen. Susan Collins made a revealing admission on Monday about her first thoughts during the siege.

The lawmaker from Maine, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said:

My first thought was that the Iranians had followed through on their threat to strike the Capitol, but a police officer took over the podium and explained that violent demonstrators had breached the entire perimeter of the Capitol and were inside. Several of us pointed out that the doors to the press gallery were unlocked right above us. That tells you how overwhelmed and unprepared the Capitol Police were, although many, many of them were very courageous. [emphasis added]

Tired of ads? Want to support our progressive journalism? Click to learn more.

Many commentators noted that it was a pretty stunning admission for Collins to say that her first thought during the attack was that it was Iranians. People who had been paying attention to President Donald Trump and his supporters in the past two months had noticed that their rhetoric was becoming increasingly radicalized and dangerous. Trump and some Republican lawmakers had stoked expectations that Jan. 6 would be a significant date in the president’s fight to overturn the election, putting observers who had been warned about right-wing extremism on edge as the usually ceremonial day to count Electoral College votes approached. FBI Director Christopher Wray had previously warned Congress that groups including white supremacists, “anarchist violent extremists,” and “militia types” — groups often associated with the far right and support for President Trump — are committing the “the most lethal activity” and acts of domestic terrorism in the United States.

The fact that this threat, which came from a crowd that was literally directly outside of the building where Collins was standing, wasn’t first in her mind says a lot. It says she has underestimated the true threat of Trump’s radicalism and right-wing extremism, and she is likely overestimating the threat posed from countries like Iran. Iran may want to do the United States harm, but it was the right-wing radicals who had specifically focused on Jan. 6.

Collins’ failure to clearly see this threat, however, does not come as much of a surprise. After she voted to acquit Trump during his first impeachment in 2020, she infamously said Trump learned “a pretty big lesson” from the process. He made clear, repeatedly, that he hadn’t learned anything, insisting that his conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the center of the charges against him was a “perfect” call.

Nevertheless, Collins included criticism of Trump in her new piece. She squarely placed the blame for inciting the siege on Trump’s shoulders. She wrote:

I called and texted my closest contact at the White House to urge that the president immediately tell the rioters to stop their violence and go home. But President Donald Trump completely undercut that message by repeating his grievances and telling the rioters that he knew how they felt. This was terrible, especially since he incited them in the first place.

Unlike her close ally Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, though, Collins did not demand that Trump resign. Instead, she has hidden behind the process and declined to take a public stance on whether he should remain president. A spokesperson for the Maine senator said over the weekend: “Now that it appears that the House is going to consider an impeachment resolution next week, we won’t have any further comment on impeachment because of the Senate’s constitutional role in those proceedings, which includes sitting as a jury.” This is not a widely accepted principle — other senators feel free to comment on an impeachment case prior to sitting in judgment.

Chad Wolf abruptly quits, after ordering Secret Service to take over Biden inauguration security

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf abruptly resigned on Monday after seemingly falling out with President Trump over the president’s role in inciting last week’s Capitol riot.

Wolf’s departure came hours after he announced that the Secret Service would take over security preparations for President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration this Wednesday, six days ahead of the scheduled date, citing the “events of the past week and the evolving security landscape” leading up to the event. Capitol Police officials told lawmakers on Monday they are actively monitoring three active plots to attack members of Congress ahead of Biden’s swearing-in, according to HuffPost.

Wolf’s resignation comes after Trump abruptly pulled his nomination to lead DHS on Wednesday. The Trump appointee criticized the president’s role in stoking the riot with baseless claims of election rigging, leading his supporters to attack police officers, killing one and injuring dozens of others. Members of the mob, some of whom were said by Capitol Police officers to be “heavily trained,” were armed with pipes and clubs and equipped with zip-tie handcuffs, radios, earpieces and flash-bangs as they marauded through the Capitol, apparently hunting for members of Congress and perhaps Vice President Mike Pence.

“We now see some supporters of the President using violence as a means to achieve political ends,” Wolf said in a statement following the attack. “This is unacceptable. These violent actions are unconscionable, and I implore the President and all elected officials to strongly condemn the violence that took place” last Wednesday.

In his resignation letter, Wolf also cited recent court decisions finding that he had been illegally installed in his role as a reason for his departure. FEMA administrator Peter Gaynor, who has been heavily involved in the coronavirus pandemic response, will take over as acting secretary until the inauguration, Wolf said. Gaynor is the sixth person to lead the department during Trump’s four years in office. A DHS spokesperson told The Washington Post that Wolf would remain at the department in his Senate-confirmed role as undersecretary for strategy, policy, and plans.

Some lawmakers have called for hearings to question why Wolf and the DHS were unprepared for the violent riot after Trump’s supporters openly plotted the insurrection on social media for weeks. Capitol Police did not request assistance from DHS ahead of the assault, according to the Post. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, who resigned after he was criticized for failing to prepare for the potential assault, said House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving, Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger and Pentagon officials repeatedly denied his requests for assistance after the mob overran police. Irving and Stenger have also resigned. The National Guard did not arrive on the scene until nearly four hours after the mob assaulted dozens of police officers and breached the Capitol.

Wolf’s resignation comes amid growing concerns of a potential second attack before Trump leaves office. Wolf ordered the Secret Service, which usually implements inauguration security protocols a day before the swearing-in, to begin their “National Special Security event operations” by Jan. 13.

Capitol Police has also set up razor-wire fencing around the Capitol and around 15,000 National Guard troops from Washington, D.C.. and various nearby states have been deployed in anticipation of a potential attack. The FBI also warned law enforcement agencies in a memo that pro-Trump militants have called for armed protests at all 50 state capitals.

House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., raised questions about Wolf’s abrupt decision to step down nine days before the inauguration. Thompson observed that courts had ruled months earlier that he was serving illegally in his position “so the timing of his resignation … is questionable.”

“He has chosen to resign during a time of national crisis and when domestic terrorists may be planning additional attacks on our government. Unlike others, he is apparently not leaving the Trump Administration on principle,” Thompson said in a statement.

Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, and numerous other White House and administration officials have resigned since last week’s Capitol siege, citing Trump’s role in fomenting the unrest.

“The Trump Administration too often used the Department as a political weapon, left countless senior leadership positions vacant, and let morale suffer,” Thompson said. “Our homeland security has diminished as a result.”

Lawmakers have also expressed increasing concern about the role law enforcement officers may have played in the assault. On the same day Wolf announced he would speed up Secret Service preparations, the Washington Post reported that the agency is investigating a Secret Service officer who cheered on the rioters and falsely blamed antifa for attacking police at the Capitol.

Capitol Police said Monday that two officers had been suspended and more than a dozen others are under investigation for suspected involvement in or support for the riot. A congressional aide told the Post that eight separate investigations have been launched into the actions of Capitol Police on Wednesday. One officer reportedly posted messages in support of the rally that preceded the riot. Another took selfies with the mob after they assaulted dozens of his colleagues and stormed the building. Yet another was seen wearing a Make America Great Again hat as rioters surrounded the Capitol, according to Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio.

Off-duty police officers from Texas, Pennsylvania, Washington state and New Hampshire have also been suspended or placed under investigation for participating in Wednesday’s events.

Some Black Capitol Police officers have said that cops from around the country flashed badges to try to gain entry to the Capitol.

“[One guy] pulled out his badge and he said, ‘We’re doing this for you,'” one officer told BuzzFeed News. “Another guy had his badge. So I was like, ‘Well, you gotta be kidding.'”

Demining America after Donald Trump

2021 has indeed begun and god knows what it has in store for us.  But unless, somehow, we’re surprised beyond imagining, The Donald is indeed going to leave the White House soon and, much as I hate to admit it, in some strange fashion we’re going to miss him.  Of course, it will be beyond a great relief to see his… well, let’s just say him in the rearview mirror.  While occupying the White House, he was, in a rather literal sense, hell on earth. Nonetheless, he was also a figure of remarkable fascination for anyone thinking about this country or that strangest of all species, humanity, and what we’re capable of doing to ourselves. 

So, here’s my look back at our final Trumpian months (at least for a while). As I review the weeks just past, however, you may be surprised to learn that I’m not planning to start with the president’s former national security adviser (of 23 days — “you’re fired!”) cum-convictee-cum-pardonee urging The Donald to declare martial law; nor will I review the president’s endless tweets and fulminations about the “fraudulent” 2020 election or his increasing lame (duck!) assaults on all those he saw as deserting his visibly sinking Titanic, including Mitch McConnell (“the first one offthe ship”); nor do I have the urge to focus on the conspiracy-mongress who capturedthe president’s heart (or whatever’s in that chest of his) with her claims about how “Venezuelan” votes did him in; nor even his doom-and-gloom “holiday” trip to Mar-a-Lago, including on Christmas Day his 309th presidential visit to a golf course; nor will I waste time on how the still-president of these increasingly dis-United States, while pardoning war criminals and pals (as well as random well-connected criminals), managed to ignore the rest of a country slipping into pandemic hell — cases rising, deaths spiraling, hospitals filling to the brim in a fashion unequaled on the planet — about which he visibly couldn’t have cared less; nor will I focus on how, as Christmas arrived, he landed squarely on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s position of giving $2,000 checks to the American people and so for a few days became an honorary “socialist”; nor will I even spend time on his unique phone call for 11,780 votes in Georgia.   

Instead, in this most downbeat of seasons, I’d like to begin with something more future-oriented, a little bit of December news you might have missed amid all the gloom and doom. So, just in case you didn’t notice as 2020 ended in chaos and cacophony, as the president who couldn’t take his eyes off a lost election sunk us ever deeper in his own version of the Washington swamp, there were two significantly more forward-looking figures in his circle. I’m thinking of his daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner who plunked down $30 million on the most exclusive bit of real estate they could find in Florida, a small island with only 41 residences known among locals as the “billionaire’s bunker.”

They purchased a plot of land there on which they can assumedly build the most modest of multimillion-dollar mansions… but let the Hill describe it:

“The secluded spot sits on 1.8 acres and comes with 200 feet of waterfront and ‘breathtaking sunset views.’ A real estate listing dubs it an ‘amazing parcel of land,’ saying, ‘This sprawling lot provides a rare opportunity to build your waterfront dream estate.’ The listing boasts that the Miami island is ‘one of the most exclusive and private neighborhoods in the world with its private country club and golf course, police force, and 24/7 armed boat patrol.'”

And better yet, though just off the coast of Miami, it’s only 60 miles from what they may hope will be the alternate White House for the next four years, Mar-a-Lago. 

The Future, Trump-Style

As far as I’m concerned, amid the year-ending chaos of the Trump presidency, nothing could have caught the essential spirit of the last four years better than that largely overlooked news story.  Let’s start at its end, so to speak. Instead of brooding nonstop about a lost election like you-know-who, Ivanka and Jared, both key presidential advisers, are instead going to pour millions of dollars into what might be thought of as a personal investment in the future on that island off the southern coast of Florida.

When it comes to the planet, this catches in a nutshell the essence of what’s passed for long-term thinking in the Trump White House since January 2017.  After all, the most notable thing about the southern coast of Florida, if you’re in an investing (and lifestyle) mood, is this: as the world’s sea levels rise (ever more precipitously, in fact) thanks to climate change, one of the most endangered places in the United States is that very coast.  Flooding in the region has already been on the rise and significant parts of it could be underwater by 2050 with its inhabitants washed out of their homes well before that — and no personal police force or patrol boats will be able to protect Ivanka and Jared from that kind of global assault.  Even Donald Trump, should he run and win again in 2024, won’t be able to pardon them for that decision.

Put another way, the future of those two key Trump family members is a living example of what, in this world of ours, is usually called climate denialism; the “children,” that is, have offered their own $30-million-plus encapsulation of the four-year environmental record of a 74-year-old president who couldn’t imagine anyone’s future except his own.

Though climate denialism is indeed the term normally used for this phenomenon, as a descriptor in the Trump years it fell desperately short of the mark. It’s a far too-limited way of describing what the U.S. government has actually been doing. Withdrawingfrom the Paris climate accords, promoting oil exploration and drilling galore, and deep-sixingenergy-related environmental regulations, Trump and his crew have not just been denying the obvious reality of climate change (as the West Coast burnedin a historic fashion and the hurricane season ramped up dramatically in 2020), but criminally aiding and abetting the phenomenon in every way imaginable.  They have, in fact, done their best to torch humanity’s future.  As I’ve written in these years, they rather literally transformed themselves into pyromaniacs even as they imagined unleashing, as the president proudly put it, “American energy dominance.” The promotional phrase they used for their fossil-fuelized policies was “the golden era of American energy is now underway” — that golden glow assumedly being the flames licking at this overheating planet of ours.  

So, a climate-change endangered island? Why even bother to imagine such a future? In fact, the president made this point all too vividly when it came to Tangier Island, a 1.3-square-mile dot in the middle of Chesapeake Bay that global warming and erosion are imperiling and that is, indeed, expected to be gone by 2050. In 2017, the president called the mayor of its town (after CNN put out a story about the increasing problems of that Trump-loving isle). He assured him, as the mayor reported, that “we shouldn’t worry about rising sea levels. He said that ‘your island has been there for hundreds of years, and I believe your island will be there for hundreds more.'”

IED-ing the American System

And of course, let’s not forget that, for the president’s daughter and son-in-law, dropping $30 million is just another day at the office. In that, they distinctly follow in the tradition of the bankruptee who has similarly dished out dough to his heart’s content, while repeatedly leaving others holding the bag for his multiple business failures. (Undoubtedly, this is something the American people will experience when he finally jumps ship on January 20th, undoubtedly leaving the rest of us holding that very same bag.)  Pardon me, but that $30 million being plunked down on a snazzy plot of land — someday to be water — should remind us that we’re talking about a crew who are already awash in both money (of every questionable sort) and, at least in the case of the president, staggering hundreds of millions of dollars in debts. It should remind us as well that we’re dealing with families evidently filled with grifters and a now-pardoned criminal, too.

Make no mistake, from the moment Donald Trump walked into the White House, he was already this country’s con-man-in-chief.  Back when he was first running for president, this was no mystery to his ever-loyal “base,” those tens of millions of voters who opted for him then and continue to stick by him no matter what.  As I wrote in that distant 2016 election season,

“Americans love a con man.  Historically, we’ve often admired, if not identified with, someone intent on playing and successfully beating the system, whether at a confidence game or through criminal activity. [At] the first presidential debate… Trump essentially admitted that, in some years, he paid no taxes (‘that makes me smart’) and that he had played the tax system for everything it was worth… I guarantee you that Trump senses he’s deep in the Mississippi of American politics with such statements and that a surprising number of voters will admire him for it (whether they admit it or not).  After all, he beat the system, even if they didn’t.”

And admire him they did and, as it happens, still do. He was elected on those very grounds and, despite his loss in 2020 (with a staggering 74 million voters still opting for him), a couple of weeks from now, he’ll walk away from the White House with a final con that will leave him floating in a sea of money for months (years?) to come.  Here’s how New York Times reporters Shane Goldmacher and Maggie Haberman describe the situation:

“Donald J. Trump will exit the White House as a private citizen next month perched atop a pile of campaign cash unheard-of for an outgoing president, and with few legal limits on how he can spend it… Mr. Trump has cushioned the blow by coaxing huge sums of money from his loyal supporters — often under dubious pretenses — raising roughly $250 million since Election Day along with the national party. More than $60 million of that sum has gone to a new political action committee, according to people familiar with the matter, which Mr. Trump will control after he leaves office.”

He was, in other words, in character from his first to last moment in office and, in his own way (just as his followers expected), he did beat the system, even if he faces years of potential prosecution to come. 

Oh, and one more thing when it comes to The Donald. With a future Biden administration in mind, you might think of him not just as the con-man president but the Taliban president as well. After all, he’s not only torn up but land-mined, or in Taliban terms IED-ed, both the federal government, including that “deep state” he’s always denounced, and the American system of governing itself. (“This Fake Electioncan no longer stand…”) And those improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, he and his crew have buried in that system, whether in terms of health care, the environment, or you name it are likely to go off at unexpected moments for months, if not years, to come. 

So, when you say so long, farewell, aufwiedersehnadieu to you-know-who, his children, and his pals, the odds are you won’t ever be saying goodbye. Not really. Thanks to that $60 million-plus fund, that base of his, and all those landmines (many of which we don’t even know are there yet), he’ll be with us in one form (of disaster) or another for years to come — he, his children, and that island that, unfortunately, just won’t sink fast enough. 

Like it or not, after these last four years, whatever the Biden era may hold for us, Donald Trump proved a media heaven and a living hell. It’s going to be quite a task in a world that needs so much else just to demine the American system after he leaves the White House (especially with Mitch McConnell and crew still in place). Count on one thing: we won’t forget The Donald any time soon. And give him credit where it’s due. There’s no denying that, in just four years, he’s helped usher us into a new American world that already couldn’t be more overheated or underwhelming. 

Copyright 2020 Tom Engelhardt

To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.

Trump is not mentally fit to be president: He should not remain in office — even for one final week

There are two — not just one — compelling reasons for the immediate removal of President Donald Trump. First, he incited the insurrection of our federal government by a violent mob of domestic terrorists. Five people died. Make no mistake, it was a coup attempt. Second, he has killed 372,000 Americans with his unimaginable and unexplainable inaction during the coronavirus pandemic.

Trump is not fit to remain as president for his final week. He has proven to be unstable, erratic, cruel and dangerous. He is incapable of ensuring the safety of the people. He should not have access to our vast military arsenal and nuclear codes for another day.

He has crossed the red line — twice.

Trump not only participated in the insurrection of our federal government on Jan. 6 but also likely was the catalyst that sent the aggressive raid in motion. It is a day that will be remembered forever, because our sitting president was a direct accomplice in the violent insurrection against our cherished democracy. As Dr. David Reiss said in a tweet, “We were one Molotov cocktail or automatic weapon away from losing our government — a true coup.”

RELATED: This psychopath has finally crossed the red line: He must be stopped now

Trump did not have the courage to swarm the Capitol alongside his terrorist supporters. He had announced earlier in the day that he would accompany them in their march. But his previously exposed cowardice took over, and he decided to party and celebrate with family members at the White House while watching the escalating mob on TV. There are reports that he was “delighted” at what he was seeing.

Trump used conspiracy theories about the stolen election to maintain his cult-leader status with his followers. His irrational, self-serving theories were supported by these followers, right-wing extremists and some congressional Republicans. The end result was the belief that they themselves should “select” the next president and that Trump was going to take them to the promised land of contentment and happiness.

Trump’s conspiracy theories are fake. His motive is megalomania and greed. His shared omnipotence with his followers borders on the delusional. Trump’s unrelenting desire to hang onto power at any cost is what motivated his incitement of the insurrection. It was totally about him — his power, his adulation, his greed and his fear.

Trump’s most egregious cruelty during his presidency has been his murder of more than 372,000 Americans during the coronavirus pandemic. Think about it: Trump has been the most powerful man in the greatest democracy in the world, but he could not figure out how to contain and defeat this pandemic? Worse than that, we have lagged behind every advanced country in the world in our handling of the deadly disease. It is as if our president has intentionally maximized the pain and suffering of the people.

RELATED: This could all have been prevented: How mental health experts were silenced

More than just frank incompetence, Trump’s inaction during the pandemic has been callous indifference coupled with pure cruelty. We have been grappling with mass deaths due to a virulent disease that could have been largely prevented by a competent and healthy president. Every move Trump has made — or has not made — has increased the number of deaths rather than reduced them. It is an undeniable fact that he is an accomplice to mass murder.

Since March of last year, Trump’s approach to the pandemic has included denials, lies, conspiracy theories, magical thinking, blaming and inaction. He refused to use the full force of his office to defeat the virus. He did not mount a national response that would have aided and abetted the 50 states. Rather, he sat back and implored the states to handle things with little help from the federal government.

Now, he has washed his hands completely of the pandemic. He does not mention it in prepared or impromptu comments. He has not expressed remorse for our fallen citizens in months. Even then, his comments were read from a teleprompter in an unemotional and monotone way. It is hard to fathom, but Trump has overseen the second worst mass murder in history.

In both the insurrection and the pandemic, Trump betrayed the American people. He has disavowed his oath of office and his Constitutional duties. And he is capable of much more destruction and misery in his remaining final days. Could he give away state secrets or start a war? Might he encourage another insurrection of mob violence? How many citizens will die in the next week due to his pandemic inaction?

Trump must face three choices: resignation, removal by the 25th Amendment or a second impeachment.

Resignation would be the easiest, and he might be able to convince Vice President Mike Pence to pardon him. Removal by the 25th Amendment would also be swift, but it would require Pence to initiate the process. (As of this writing, it appears that Pence is unwilling to do so.) The most cumbersome choice would be impeachment: It would take weeks for the Senate to hold a trial and to convict him, but impeachment by the House would be an additional permanent stain on his already destroyed legacy.

Trump must be banned for life from any governmental or political activity. This is the only way to assure his marginalization and ostracization. Our democracy’s recovery and future well-being requires that he be totally disempowered.

Trump has now been permanently banned from Twitter and other social platforms. This is a major first step in limiting his spread of misinformation, conspiracy theories and self-serving bravado. But it is not enough.

The Senate chose not to convict Trump during his first impeachment trial in February 2020. That mistake has cost us untold human misery and life. Let us not make that same error again.

Immediate removal of this president would be a fitting tribute to the tens of thousands of Americans who have lost their lives in the name of the fight for democracy.

Anything short of removal would give the wrong message. Our elected officials must abide by the Constitution and the rule of law — even if Trump has not.

How to stop an Insurrection Caucus: These reforms could reduce GOP extremism and save our democracy

The mob smashed windows then stormed into the U.S. Capitol. They brandished flags that supported Donald Trump and the confederacy, and messages that proclaimed “stop the steal” and “no more bullshit.” They created an armed standoff at the doors of the House floor, disrupted the constitutional process of certifying the presidential election, and forced lawmakers to barricade themselves behind closed doors fortified with chairs and file cabinets.

Then, many hours later, as a nation reeled, after news anchors spoke of sedition and insurrection in our own capitol, even a coup, determined lawmakers returned to both chambers to finish their work. They filed past broken windows, ransacked offices, even walls newly marked with bullet holes. And then a majority of House Republicans and two ambitious senators eager to seek the White House voted to overturn the results from Pennsylvania and Arizona, citing “fraud” they could not prove and baseless “irregularities” no court or state election official would accept.

One mob wore homemade Trump t-shirts and MAGA caps. The other wore expensive suits and congressional pins. Both have done incalculable damage to the American experiment.

The MAGA mob has been dangerously misled. They have been lied to by their president for months and told that an election Donald Trump clearly lost has been stolen from them. These falsehoods have been amplified by Fox News hosts and other conservative media sources, then echoed unchecked across new social media sites such as Parler and Gab. Then, on Wednesday, Trump addressed his followers at a Washington rally and incited them to storm the Capitol. It should have surprised no one, especially not the Capitol Police, that a violent riot would ensue.

But these Republican lawmakers, educated from fancy universities and law schools, entrusted with leadership, sworn to uphold the Constitution: Just what could their justification be for behavior every bit as insurrectionary? The bitter truth is that our political system encourages today’s Republican party to weaponize gerrymandering, voter suppression and other forms of minority rule. Our elections incentivize this behavior, and then reward politicians who pour gasoline onto the polarization and divisions that helped create them. 

We are trapped in a death spiral. Democracy reform must be job one. There’s much to be done, and the task could hardly be more urgent.

The good news: House Bill 1, the For The People act; and House Bill 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act would go a long way toward reversing those incentives and protecting our democracy by requiring independent commissions — not self-interested partisans — to draw all U.S. House districts, create national election standards and restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act that have been gutted by the U.S. Supreme Court and further eroded by GOP-controlled state legislatures over the last decade. It’s also time for a national discussion on how single-member, winner-takes-all congressional elections aid and abet broken government and polarization; the Fair Representation Act, introduced the previous two Congresses by Virginia congressman Don Beyer, would end this root problem and create proportionality and swing seats everywhere by introducing a system of larger, multi-member districts with winners chosen through ranked choice voting.

Make no mistake: The GOP’s 139-member Insurrection Caucus has been built, in part, by partisan and racial gerrymandering. It is dominated by members from states — Texas, Ohio, Florida, Georgia, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee and others — where Republicans drew district lines that packed Democrats and Black voters into a handful of seats they win overwhelmingly, then diluted the rest of those voters across as many safe GOP districts as possible. That does two things. First, it ensures Republicans win a percentage of seats that’s far higher than their statewide vote total entitles them. And second, it creates uncompetitive districts where all the action moves to the party primary, all but ensuring that the winners are selected only by the most extreme base voters in a low-turnout summer primary.

This warps our politics. It creates a different kind of member, one who is now accountable not to all voters, but just to the most partisan base. The Insurrection Caucus members know that they can’t lose a general election. These members fear only a primary challenge. They govern accordingly. The certification challenge was led by Alabama congressman Mo Brooks. Alabama Republicans drew maps that segregated the vast majority of Black voters into one district, ensuring that the GOP carries the other six. The lines are so tilted that even when former Sen. Doug Jones won statewide here in 2018, he only carried one of the state’s congressional districts.

At the White House, the post-election charge was led by chief of staff Mark Meadows, who began the decade as a small-town sandwich shop owner and, thanks to GOP gerrymandering, ended it as one of the most powerful men in politics. When North Carolina Republicans took power in 2010 and set out to draw a map that ensured they’d win 10 of the 13 congressional seats in this purple state, they started by cracking liberal Asheville, the largest city in western North Carolina, in half, and dividing the Democratic voters into helpless minorities in two districts certain to elect a Republican. Meadows made sure that would be him by running as a birther and vowing to send Barack Obama “back to Kenya.” He won the primary with less than 40 percent of the vote and was quickly on his way to Washington, where he filed the parliamentary mention that cost John Boehner the speakership and forced the 2013 government shutdown.

Meadows’ district wasn’t the only one drawn by establishment Republicans after 2010 to try to hold onto power in a changing nation, that instead created a new insurgent class on the right. At the national level, the demographic change reshaping American politics was an electorate growing younger, more urban, and multiracial. Redistricting allowed Republicans to manicure a different electorate that resemble a right-wing fantasia completely detached from the rest of the nation. The New Yorker broke down the numbers after Meadows’ 2013 shutdown stunt and found that the average House GOP district became 2 percentage points whiter in 2012. The average “suicide caucus,” as they were dubbed, district — which looks very much like the Insurrection Caucus — was 75 percent white, compared to 63 percent nationwide. Half as many Latinos lived in those districts—9 percent compared to 17 percent nationally. Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney by 4 percentage points that year. Not in suicide caucus nation, however, which Obama lost by a 23 percentage point landslide. The Republicans conjured themselves a fantasy nation where their base gained power even as it shrunk.

In the Senate, meanwhile, Ted Cruz (R-Texas/Harvard Law) and Josh Hawley (R-Missouri/Yale Law) fully understand that Congress lacked any constitutional authority to override Democratic electors from Pennsylvania and Arizona; the Senate’s role was merely to open, then count, the votes. But because both senators also aspire to the GOP’s 2024 presidential nomination, they made the political calculation to oppose certification and play to large numbers within the base of Republican primary voters who believe the lies they have been fed about voter fraud. They played footsie with authoritarianism in the name of their own ambition. 

They’re simply following Trump’s path. Our method of selecting presidential nominees encourages this irresponsibility; in 2016, after all, Trump soared to the front of the Republican pack by winning consistent plurality wins in the 33 percent range. He never won a majority of votes in any primary state until New York in mid-April, well past two months into the race. Polls showed Trump losing head to head match-ups against every major Republican challenger. The rules, however, rewarded the polarizing candidate that an extreme segment of the party liked best, even though a large majority preferred someone else. 

If we want to put an end to minority rule, and to elect representatives accountable to everyone once more, we must reform the election laws and a presidential nominating process that allows intense factions to maintain power and dominate politics with fewer votes. Democracy simply does not function when one of our two parties is controlled by those who baselessly question the legitimacy of any election they do not win. 

This should be an American question, and not a partisan one. Indeed, when these reforms are put before voters, they’re widely popular among Democrats, Republicans and independents. But the reality of our politics, however, is that the Republicans have been taken over by this minority faction, and it’s the Democrats who will have to lead the way. They have only a small window in which to act. They hold a slender majority in the House and have no room for error in a tied Senate. The party in power tends to lose seats in the midterm, and Republicans could reclaim the House simply through redistricting; the GOP will have unilateral power to remake maps and erase Democratic seats in Texas, North Carolina, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky and elsewhere. They’ll use it. After all, while the MAGA mob indulged their Sons of Anarchy cosplay throughout the Capitol, the junior insurrection caucuses in the Georgia state legislature got back to work and proposed strict new limits on absentee and mail-in voting, hours after massive voter turnout propelled two Democrats to the U.S. Senate, including the state’s first-ever Black senator.

Republicans who want a different future, who want to liberate their party from the Insurrection Caucus, compete for the presidency after losing the national popular vote in seven of the last eight elections, who value representative democracy over factionalized minority rule, should join this reform crusade. Your party, and the nation, will be under the grasp of authoritarians until you do. The MAGA mobs that desecrated the Capitol on Wednesday will eventually be brought to justice. It’s the mob that was welcomed back inside and then immediately attempted to lay waste to a free and fair election that provides the far more serious threat.

Some Republicans finally call for Trump to face repercussions — yet few willing to back impeachment

House Democrats charged President Donald Trump on Monday with “incitement of insurrection” for his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, formally setting in motion the second impeachment of his presidency with nine days left in his term and fewer than a handful of Republicans in Congress publicly backing sanctions for Trump days after he incited a violent mob to attack many of them.  

The move, which has already acquired more than 175 Democratic backers, comes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced on Sunday that she would only go forward with impeachment if Vice President Mike Pence declined to remove Trump from office through the 25th Amendment. Should the House approve the article with a simple majority vote, Trump would become the first president in history to be impeached twice.

For evidence, the resolution cites Trump’s repeated lies that widespread fraud cost him the election and his demands that the American people and officials reject the results. The article also points to his Jan. 6 rally speech ahead of the attack, in which he spurred his supporters to “fight like hell” or “you’re not going to have a country anymore,” rhetoric that led predictably to that afternoon’s lawlessness.

Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts.

Additionally, the document recalls Trump’s taped phone conversation with Georgia’s secretary of state, in which the president threatened to sabotage a Senate runoff if the Republican did not “find” enough votes to push the state over to Trump.

“In all this,” the motion says, “President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government. He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.”

Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly said in a memo today that, barring unanimous consent from the upper chamber, the earliest he could take up the articles would be Jan. 19, the day before President-elect Joe Biden assumes office, according to NBC News. However, on Sunday, Majority Whip Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said that the House could choose to hold a vote now but still delay passing the article from the Senate until after Biden’s first 100 days in office, in the interest of keeping the new president’s agenda as clear as possible.

Even when Democrats have control of the Senate they will face a steep climb to convict, which requires a two-thirds majority. Still, an acquittal is not a foregone conclusion as it was in during Trump’s last trial one year ago, when Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah cast the lone Republican vote against Trump for leveraging U.S. military resources to extort a foreign power into damaging his political rival. (Romney voted down the second impeachment article, obstruction of justice.) This time, Romney is joined by a handful of Republican lawmakers in both chambers who have gone on the record to approve of taking steps to remove the president, after his supporters attacked them for following the Constitution.

Among them is frequent Trump critic Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., who on Friday joined Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., the first Republican last week to call for Trump to leave office, when he said he would consider articles of impeachment, citing President Trump’s “wicked” dereliction of his oath of office.

“If they come together and have a process, I will definitely consider whatever articles they might move, because as I told you I believe the president has disregarded his oath of office,” Sasse said, citing Trump’s direct incitement of the “insurrectionist mob” that attacked Congress on Wednesday.

“He swore an oath to the American people to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. He acted against that,” Sasse added. “What he did was wicked.” The Nebraska Republican went so far as to say that impeachment should focus on why it took so long to deploy the National Guard, suggesting that the president obstructed the calls for reinforcements to help quell what Sasse described as a “third-world” uprising.

Though Sasse maintained that Trump’s infractions were “not in debate,” he said he was still unsure about the “prudential” issue of what the president’s removal would mean for partisan unity.

“The question is more of a prudential question: What is the best thing for America in 2022 or 2032. The question isn’t what’s best for Donald Trump,” Sasse said. “I don’t care what happens to the man in 2023, I care about what happens to the American people in 2023, what brings 85 and 90 and 95 of our people together.”

South Carolina’s Sen. Lindsey Graham, a dependable Trump ally who on Friday was called “human garbage,” a “traitor” and a “sex trafficker” by a group of Trump supporters upset with his refusal to challenge the election, said on Monday that the risk that impeachment would further divide the country was too great. “In light of President Trump’s Thursday statement pledging an orderly transfer power and calling for healing in our nation, a second impeachment will do far more harm than good,” Graham tweeted, adding that impeachment would be a “major step backward.”

Two other Republican senators — Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, a critical swing state in the election that Trump and allies have subjected to relentless attacks — have called for Trump’s resignation, and while Romney has not yet made a public statement on the matter, he tore into the president last week.

Other Republican officials have quietly endorsed impeachment. “We experienced the attack; we don’t need long hearings on what happened,” one Republican told CNN. “He has to be impeached and removed,” another GOP elected official told the network.

The Washington Post reported that a number of Republican leaders have come out in qualified support, but House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on Monday poured cold water on the idea, opposing impeachment while suggesting four other options, including censure — although his statement, which did not mention Trump, left the target of censure an open question.

“Personally, I continue to believe that an impeachment at this time would have the opposite effect of bringing our country together when we need to get America back on a path towards unity and civility,” McCarthy wrote in a letter obtained by The Washington Post.

“Having spoken to so many of you, I know we are all taking time to process the events of that day,” McCarthy added. “Please know I share your anger and your pain. Zip ties were found on staff desks in my office. Windows were smashed in. Property was stolen. Those images will never leave us — and I thank our men and women in law enforcement who continue to protect us and are working to bring the sick individuals who perpetrated these attacks to justice.”

Domestic terrorism: a more urgent threat, but weaker laws

In the days leading up to the attack on the U.S. Capitol, the FBI received intelligence that extremists were planning violence as lawmakers gathered in Washington to certify the electoral victory of President-elect Joe Biden.

FBI officials managed to dissuade people in several places from their suspected plans, a senior FBI official said — but there was not enough evidence to issue arrest warrants.

“Prior to this event, the FBI obtained information about individuals who were planning on potentially traveling to the protests, individuals who were planning to engage in violence,” said the senior FBI official. “The FBI was able to discourage those individuals from traveling to D.C.”

Although the official did not describe the tactics used, it is not uncommon for the FBI to disrupt potential threats by warning suspected extremists, passing the word indirectly through informants or using local law enforcement to pursue suspects for lower-level offenses.

The FBI shared intelligence about potential threats with the Capitol Police, which has been part of the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force in Washington since 1995. But for reasons that remain unclear, a much-criticized security deployment by the police was unable to prevent the storming of the Capitol on Wednesday.

In recent years, federal authorities have described American extremists as the most urgent terror threat to the country and beefed up resources against them, carrying out a wave of prosecutions this year to head off potential violence as the presidential election approached.

But federal authorities have had more success combating international terrorists than those with a domestic focus, reflecting legal limits on investigations of American political groups, the opaque and elusive nature of the threat, and President Donald Trump’s embrace of far-right groups, experts say.

One fundamental problem is that while federal statutes provide a definition of domestic terrorism, there is not a specific law outlawing it.

The reasons date to 1975, when an inquiry by the Church Committee of the U.S. Senate documented that the FBI had abused its powers by engaging in a pattern of spying on American citizens in groups ranging from the Black Panthers to the Ku Klux Klan. The government placed strict limits on the ability of the FBI and other agencies to infiltrate and track such organizations, with new laws and rules establishing more rigorous requirements for surveillance on Americans than foreigners. Today, FBI counterterrorism officials make a point of saying they target individuals rather than groups, and violent acts rather than ideologies.

Although federal law punishes terror attacks in certain circumstances such as the use of explosives, it does not attach penalities to the crime of domestic terrorism. Authorities rarely file charges of domestic terrorism against suspected American extremists, resorting instead to prosecutions for hate crimes, illegal gun possession and other federal or state violations. Federal agents often cannot use laws that are applicable to international cases, in which charges of material support of terrorism can bring a sentence of 15 years in prison for the simple act of providing a phone card to a suspect linked to a foreign group. Civil liberties protections for Americans make it harder for investigators to persuade judges to authorize wiretaps and other forms of surveillance. Unlike al-Qaida, ISIS and other officially designated foreign terror organizations, U.S. groups such as the KKK are legal, and extremists cannot be prosecuted simply for belonging to or assisting them.

The scenes of congressional representatives cowering on the House floor Wednesday are likely to revive calls for new domestic terrorism legislation. A tougher law, experts say, could have helped authorities prevent the assault on the Capitol — to a point. Although the attack on Congress may fit the textbook definition of domestic terrorism, the perpetrators do not appear to have been the kind of well-organized, heavily armed extremists the FBI has become adept at tracking.

In a separate case suggesting that authorities were watching known groups, Washington city police officers arrested Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, the leader of the right-wing Proud Boys group, soon after he landed in the capital Monday. He was charged with misdemeanor destruction of property and possession of high-capacity firearm magazines in relation to the burning of a Black Lives Matter banner at a local church in December. Authorities have not said that Tarrio was planning any criminal activity this week, however.

As ProPublica reported Wednesday, supporters of Trump spent weeks railing on social media about their plans to go to Washington and protest violently when Congress met to certify an election that they regard as stolen. Federal agencies closely monitor discussions on extremist platforms.

But the senior FBI official said he was unaware of any hard intelligence — such as operational details — about plans to storm the Capitol.

Veteran counterterrorism officials say the bombast and sheer volume of chatter on those forums make it a challenge to differentiate between plotting and ranting. The FBI, Department of Homeland Security and other agencies also contend with strict legal limits on their ability to track constitutionally protected political discourse.

“You are worried that a splinter group will radicalize and become violent. You are also worried about overreach in watching them,” said a former senior FBI national security official. “You are damned if you do, damned if you don’t. We’ll always be criticized in intelligence collection, for doing too much or not enough.”

Another FBI counterterrorism veteran said he had no doubt about what to call the storming of the Capitol on Wednesday.

“The definition of terrorism is the use of a threat of force or violence to influence the policy of a government,” said retired agent Thomas O’Connor. “You had people who physically and violently broke down doors and stopped a legislative action. This is an act of domestic terrorism, in my opinion.”

During 23 years on the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in Washington, O’Connor led high-profile investigations across the world, from the al-Qaida bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 to the massacre of 11 people at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018. He developed a special interest and expertise in domestic terrorism. He was a rarity in that sense. Many agents find the work frustrating and unappealing compared with fighting foreign networks that are designated as illegal organizations and more clearly defined and dangerous.

Nonetheless, the past decade has brought a rise in U.S. extremism, especially on the right. The FBI declared in 2019 that there have been “more deaths caused by domestic terrorists than international terrorists in recent years.”

When O’Connor investigated a left-wing activist who carried out a shooting attack on a conservative research organization in 2012, legal complications forced prosecutors to charge the gunman under city laws rather than federal terror statutes. That experience and others like it convinced him of the need for a statute that explicitly outlaws domestic terrorism and toughens the government’s ability to prosecute it.

O’Connor cited the case of a white supremacist who killed nine people in an African American church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015. If the killer had declared himself a radical Islamist, he would have almost certainly been convicted of terrorism rather than a hate crime, O’Connor said. “If you have your family killed in church in South Carolina, I’d think you’d like it to be known that” Dylann Roof “was a terrorist.”

A crucial challenge to passing a new law would be the politically sensitive topic of designating domestic political movements as terrorist organizations. Proposals for legislation have sought to safeguard legitimate political activity while reducing the legal ambiguities of the offense and other obstacles to enforcement and prosecution.

“Cases that meet the existing statutory definition of domestic terrorism are often deprived of crucial federal investigative and prosecutorial resources,” wrote Amy Collins, a former Justice Department official, in a study for the George Washington University’s Program on Extremism last June.

Trump’s repeated description of federal agencies as part of a so-called deep state has also hampered enforcement of domestic terror crimes, O’Connor and other former agents said. Some local law enforcement agencies have held back in assisting FBI-led counterterrorism task forces, the former senior FBI national security official said. In addition, the mutual affinity of the president and far-right groups has discouraged some federal officials from pursuing the threat as actively or prominently as they should, he said.

“To be frank, if you have a president with no message to be proactive against these groups, in fact just the opposite, you will have a lack of enthusiasm if the commander in chief doesn’t support it,” the former senior FBI official said.

The Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol may have also benefited from hiding in plain sight. They were not hardcore extremists with a well-developed project such as a bombing or an assassination, the kind of threat FBI agents monitor with intercepts and informants and in chatrooms. Instead, they may have coalesced behind a few leaders with a vague plan who took advantage of weak defenses and mob mentality.

“Sometimes you miss things because they aren’t there to catch,” O’Connor said. “It’s difficult when you have a group doing protected First Amendment activity. You have to walk a tightrope. In this case, there may have been nothing to pick up. No concrete plot.

Trump must go! He shouldn’t be in the White House one more day

We must impeach, censure or use the 25th Amendment to remove Donald Trump from office right now. Even two more weeks is too much.

Trump incited a treasonous, destructive Capitol riot, an actual coup attempt.

He seized the Capitol and would not or could not stop his supporters from trashing it. Trump’s late mixed-message video plea for rioters to go home repeated his same falsehoods and said he “loved” the same people that Joe Biden just accused of insurrection and sedition.

Trump lost control. Having broken in and being filmed repeatedly, the rioters inside the Capitol said they were there to stay. They invited removal by police and National Guardsmen – who, it turns out, were ordered to the scene by authority of Vice President Mike Pence.

It’s another sign that Donald Trump can’t do his job, won’t do his job and sees his self-promotion as more important than the good of the nation.

Worse, he directed his thousands of supporters to come to Washington primed for a fight, and they did, armed and mask-less. Trump told his mob that he and they would never concede, and they won’t.

Trump pointed at the Capitol, and they went, using ropes and makeshift ladders and swarming past Capitol police and onto the Senate and House floors. That  started hours-long images of just the kind of thuggery and rioting that Trump has so decried from Black Lives Matter or other left-leaning groups that he lumps together incorrectly as Antifa.

There was no Antifa here. These were largely white, Trump-emblazoned mobsters, supporters eager to tell news cameras they will never accept Biden as president.

Like Trump being caught on tape this week for a shakedown call to Georgia officials to “find” votes to overturn the election results, the biggest surprise yesterday was that most of it was happening right before our eyes.

Attacking Democracy

Now that Trump has turned on Pence for following the Constitution and failing his ultimate Trump loyalty test, Pence has nothing to lose by calling the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment.

Trump may or not be legally nuts but he is incapable of doing his job. It’s not just me – Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.), made a formal request to Pence. Even the National Association of Manufacturers called for its consideration.

Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar (Minn.) and Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) called for Trump’s impeachment, even now, to halt any future ability to run for office, as did various pundits.

Trump launched a literal attack on democracy, the Constitution and the legislative branch of government, all to make himself feel better for losing in November. Beyond the illegalities and plain old tone-deafness of Trump, the astounding number of ironies and hypocrisies wrapped up in the day are overwhelming.

Those include the fact that the storming of the Capitol came as Trump’s own legislative supporters in the House and Senate simultaneously were making the case for a challenge of the Electoral College votes Trump wanted to see overturned.

It was ironic that:

  • Our would-be Law & Order president had just prompted the worst attack on a federal institution since 9/11.
  • Thugs were breaking in through areas of the Capitol where Biden will be sworn in, where Trump himself was sworn in four years ago.
  • The irrelevant federal commission that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) sought actually will be at determining how the capital and Capitol were under-prepared and under-protected. Why was the response so limp compared with force brought on Black Lives Matter protesters in Washington and other cities?

Incitement has been a pattern through the Trump years. He has used rallies and tweets to excite and incite, to call for prosecution and imprisonment of political enemies. He did so again in the hours before the attack on the Capitol. He yelled fire in a crowded theater.

The Congressional Debate

Unbowed, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (R-Calif.), whose office was vandalized, and Pence agreed to call Congress back into session about six hours later to finish addressing the outstanding, required tasks of receiving the results of Electoral College voting. That is the last step before the inauguration for the incoming president – the objectionable step as it turns out.

Even before the riot, the congressional debate was unusual for what had been called as a ceremonial. The issue was joined as Arizona, the third state on the list, was called; Pence followed the rule, and each house had two hours of debate – interrupted by Capitol police who told lawmakers to take cover. Mitch McConnell, who on this same day lost his status as majority leader in a now 50-50 Senate, found himself in the rare position of being allied with Democrats in defense of Constitutional issues.

The rioters face a series of possible federal criminal charges, but we were still awaiting a formal accounting from Capitol police. A woman intruder, identified as Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt of San Diego, was killed by a Capitol police officer’s shot. Three others died of medical reactions. A noose was found erected on Capitol grounds. Offices were broken into, windows broken, documents taken. There were arrests on weapons charges in downtown Washington. A pipe bomb was found at the headquarters of the Republican National Committee while Democratic national headquarters also was evacuated.

The rioters seemed at ease roaming through inside the Capitol, including congressional offices and chambers areas for at least three hours, raising yet more questions about security.

And early today, after the confirmation of Biden, Trump offered an “orderly transition.”

Two questions dominate: Will Trump be removed? And who’s in charge of fixing Capitol security?

Democratic effort to remove GOP members for inciting attack on Capitol gains steam

Dozens of lawmakers are co-sponsoring a resolution introduced Monday by freshman Congresswoman Cori Bush that aims to launch investigations for removal of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives who, along with outgoing President Donald Trump, sparked a violent takeover of the Capitol last week.

“This is sedition. We must hold these Republicans accountable for their role in this insurrection at our nation’s Capitol as part of a racist attempt to overturn the election results,” said Bush (D-Mo.) in a statement. “There must be consequences.”

The Black Lives Matter activist-turned-lawmaker explained that “Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution posits that no individual can serve in the House of Representatives who has engaged in disloyalty or sedition against the United States.”

“There is no place in the People’s House for these heinous actions,” Bush added. “I firmly believe that these members are in breach of their sworn oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. They must be held accountable.”

After confirming that she and her staff were safe from the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol as lawmakers were trying to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory, Bush had vowed her first resolution would call for the expulsion of her colleagues “who incited this domestic terror attack.”

Bush’s promised resolution—which comes amid mounting calls for impeaching Trump and removing him from office—quickly gained support from progressive groups and activists. Now, at least 47 House members are co-sponsoring Bush’s resolution.

“I am proudly co-sponsoring this legislation because there can be no room for white supremacist sympathies in the United States Congress,” declared Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), an original member of the progressive “Squad” that now includes Bush.

Fellow Squad members Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) have called for removing GOP members who echoed Trump’s election lies and provoked the violence:

A version of Bush’s resolution (pdf) shared exclusively with The Intercept calls on the House Ethics Committee “to investigate, and issue a report on, whether any and all actions taken by members of the 117th Congress who sought to overturn the 2020 presidential election violated their oath of office to uphold the Constitution or the rules of the House of Representatives, and should face sanction, including removal.”

Bush’s introduction of the resolution came as Rep. Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.) on Monday objected to a request from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) for unanimous consent to pass a measure (pdf) urging Vice President Mike Pence to take action to remove Trump under the 25th Amendment. Mooney was among over 100 House Republicans who voted after the attack on the Capitol to toss Arizona and Pennsylvania’s electoral votes, which all ultimately went to Biden.

In the absence of action by Pence, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is expected to hold a vote this week to impeach the president a second time. Politico reports that “members of the House Judiciary Committee introduced a single article of impeachment Monday that has already gathered at least 218 co-sponsors.”

Meanwhile, by Monday afternoon, several thousand lawyers and law students from across the United States signed on to a petition organized by Yale Law School students that calls for the disbarment of Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for their roles in prompting last week’s siege of the U.S. Capitol.

 

Is it safe to send your kids to school?

Ten months into the pandemic, the prospect of reopening K-12 schools is divisive. Yet unlike wearing a mask to stop the spread of the virus — a politicized act which is scientifically proven to work — there is far more nuance between the “right” and “wrong” option for in-person schooling. And it can be wildly variable depending on the region.

Recently, Chicago has found itself facing this very question of reopening schools. Mayor Lori Lightfoot hoped to reopen public schools today for the first time since March, though her plans faced fierce opposition from the teachers’ union. Emily Oster, an economics professor at Brown University, told the New York Times that the Chicago school reopening was “probably the most contentious and unpleasant reopening, in terms of how the different sides are interacting with each other.”

Indeed, the stand-off in Chicago is a microcosm of the tensions that many communities have faced throughout the pandemic. From an education standpoint, some are concerned that their children will be set back; from a social standpoint, some children are more safe at schools than at home if they live with abusive guardians.

Yet from a public health perspective, congregating in schools increases the probability of transmission to or from students and teachers. That fear is heightened if there is an immunocompromised parent or grandparent living in the house.

Perhaps, then, the matter comes down to how much one trusts masks and distancing guidelines. In search of ascertaining what is the “safest” option for children, Salon interviewed three medical experts who unanimously agreed: sending children to school is safe if the proper precautions are being taken — and those precautions should be a priority for policymakers, community leaders, and parents alike.

“Schools can open, even when prevalence is high and that’s because schools have shown themselves to be safe spaces, if the appropriate safety measures are in place and enforced,” said Dr. Jeanne Noble, MD, and associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “You can certainly open schools in an unsafe way, and I’m not advocating for that — but when they’re opened with the recognized safety mitigation layers in place, they can do it very safely and be safer spaces than having kids unattended in the general community.”

A recent outbreak in a high school in Israel is one example of how reopening schools can go wrong. But according to a paper examining the outbreak, it happened because students weren’t wearing masks for at least three days. That was compounded by an extreme heatwave. Previously, COVID-19 spread through a sleepaway camp in Georgia over the summer, but as in Israel, the campers weren’t required to wear cloth masks—there was also “daily vigorous singing and cheering,” according to the Centers for Disease and Control (CDC). (Singing and yelling have been found to transmit the virus more effectively.) 

Noble said when students are wearing masks, classrooms are well-ventilated, desks are spread out, outbreaks can be mostly avoided. She pointed to data from Marin County, California, where schools have been allowed to reopen— pending that they complete a School Site Specific Protection Plan — since the end of September as long as proper mitigation strategies are implemented. Since then, there have been 7 suspected in-school transmissions out of nearly 40,000 students total.

Noble said that parents weighing the risk of sending their children back to school should make sure that one specific precaution is being taken: mandated cloth masks.

“Schools need to be able to enforce universal masking among their students; everybody’s got to have a mask and it’s got to cover their nose and their mouth,” Noble said, adding that social distancing is ideal too—at least a minimum of three feet. “Schools don’t have to redesign their classrooms so that every single desk is six feet apart, but it should be at least three feet apart and ideally six whenever that can be done.”

Additional recommended precautions include symptom screening for anyone entering the school campus, and proper ventilation. That can be as simple as keeping the doors or windows open when the weather permits.

“But the primary way COVID is spread is through droplets,” Noble said. “And masks prevent droplet transmission.”

Dean Blumberg, chief of pediatric infectious diseases and associate professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California, Davis, agreed.

“I do think it’s safe,” Blumberg said, “and it’s really counterintuitive, when you think about it, because we’ve all been harping on social distancing and criticizing large group gatherings.” He noted that it does not seem children attending school is driving the pandemic. “In countries that have closed schools and then reopened, the schools have shown very little evidence that they’re causing secondary spread within the community,” he added.

Blumberg added that ideally the schools should have smaller class sizes, universal masks, and resources for contact tracing in case there is an outbreak within a classroom. For parents who are immunocompromised, and still reluctant to send their children to school, Blumberg said offering distance learning virtually was a good option for parents, if it is available.

“Maybe the parents have weakened immune systems or high risk for disease, or they live with extended family with grandparents or great grandparents who are at risk for more severe disease — then I would hope that schools would have the option to continue distance learning until parents were more comfortable with that,” Blumberg said.

Dr. Purvi Parikh, who is an adult and pediatric allergist and immunologist, also echoed what Noble and Blumberg said.

“It really depends on where you live; if you are in an area where infection rates are low children should continue school, as the mental and learning benefits are immense,” Parikh said via email. “However be sure the school is taking all the appropriate precautions of masking, distancing, etc.; even a hybrid model can help.”

Noble said the issue has become a “political” and “labor” one, referring to teacher resistance.

“It’s just not right, kids should not be caught in the middle of this thing — you know they need to be back in school; we have data that can be done safely,” Noble said. “We have schools open and closed not based on public health data or public health science, but we’re doing it based on politics.”

A “Sex and the City” revival minus Samantha? We’re just not that into it

Considering the terror and depression the world was subjected to last week, this weekend’s news of a “Sex and the City” revival on HBO Max should have felt like a gift. Instead and somewhat predictably, it was met with a distinctly divided reaction.

Wisely for all involved, and perhaps to placate those of us who have our doubts, the new series will be titled “And Just Like That . . .” entirely removing the “sex” from the title.

Some people are very, very excited about this news. Fashionistas, Millennials and Zoomers, maybe, who grew up watching sanitized-for-syndication repeats on basic cable (or the real deal, also readily available on HBO) – surely the news of Carrie Bradshaw, Charlotte York Goldenblatt and Miranda Hobbes’ imminent return to series television made untold numbers of folks giddy.

Notice the absence of Samantha Jones from that list – and with that, let’s talk about the rest of us. Those who blocked out the orientalist nightmare that is 2010’s “Sex and the City 2,” who reappraised the original’s hapless white feminism and willful ignorance as to the multicultural nature of New York City and forgave it all owing to what a kick Kim Cattrall‘s performance made watching the original series, can’t be faulted for thinking “Please, no, not this.”

Love the idea or not, this is happening.

According to the announcement, the 10 half-hour episodes of “And Just Like That” drop us back into the stories of Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker), Charlotte (Kristin Davis) and Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) to show us how they’re handling love and friendship in their 50s. (The original series ran for six seasons on HBO between 1998 and 2004.)

And just like that the revival’s producers – a list that includes the three stars, each of whom is reportedly pocketing $1 million per episode – found a way to ditch Samantha Jones, and Cattrall more specifically.

If there were ever a way for this group of characters to return to us, creating a show around theme that focuses on about relationships as opposed to sex is probably a good way to go. Also, when last we saw the original quartet Samantha was the only one enthusiastically banging on the regular.

As for shedding the “Sex and the City” label I don’t even think the series needs it since Parker is a brand unto herself (although that name recognition did not save her other post-“SATC” series “Divorce”), and Nixon’s been steadily working and taking part in her own prestige pieces on top of running for governor of New York in 2018.

That there’s no love lost between Cattrall and the rest of her co-stars is amply established, and confirmed by Cattrall’s on-the-record declaration that she refused to take part in any future “Sex and the City” projects. Many of those statements were related to inquiries about the possibility of a third “Sex and the City” film, which kept up for long enough for some version of a next chapter to be all but inevitable.

Plus, with entertainment corporations eager to populate their streaming services and lure subscribers with familiar titles and brands, there’s a solid business case for HBO Max to pick up a “whatever happened to” version of “Sex and the City.”

In a timeline that has seen a respectable revival of “Saved By the Bell” and a mixed but mostly enthusiastic reception for “The L Word: Generation Q,” the only thing stopping SJP and her fellow stars and executive producers, including Michael Patrick King, from moving on with the franchise was a halfway decent premise and the remaining stars’ desire and availability.

“Sex and the City” remains the gold standard among series about adulting and is more familiar to younger generations than most series. Shows targeted at younger viewers such as “Girls” reference Carrie Bradshaw’s adventures, and the character was entrancing enough to have yielded two seasons of “The Carrie Diaries,” a fantasy of what she was like as a teenager.

Plenty of room exists for those stories featuring women living vibrant lives over the age of 50 beyond the odd basic cable entry and, this is said with the utmost reverence and affection, “The Golden Girls.” Done well, “And Just Like That” could turn out to be a worthy inheritor to that beloved classic series and provide women additional fantasy character archetypes to emulate as we mature.

We get why “And Just Like That” is happening. It’s the handling of the premise that makes me skeptical.

That refers to “Sex and the City 2” which, again – yikes. King wrote, directed and produced both films, and his other notable and recent efforts include “2 Broke Girls” and “AJ and the Queen.”

If you’ve endured the terrible writing on those shows you would be worried about “And Just Like That,” too.

What hope a person might dare to have here rests in the executive producer titles Parker, Nixon and Davis share with King. One can only hope that they include some measure of creative control. Besides, despite its multiple sins the second movie left Carrie, Miranda and Charlotte in a place where their stories could continue.

Miranda ditched the workplace that didn’t respect her voice and found one that did. Charlotte began discovering a way to carve out time and space for herself in the marriage. Samantha, hopped up on menopausal treatments made from yams, continues to hook up every which way. Carrie and Big (Chris Noth) found a way to settle into their marriage without losing their individual identities and still figuring out that they have to “work on the sparkle for the rest of their lives.”

She also kept her iconic apartment to give her space to work and provide storage space for her old couture – meaning that while she never became the old woman who lived in her shoes, as she once worried about aloud, she married a man wealthy enough to provide her stilettos and such with rooms of their own. Not at all what Virginia Woolf imagined when she floated that concept.

There’s open road and characters with strong legs here, which gives a person reason for higher hopes than might accompany other announced revivals, including a proposed return for “True Blood,” which looked thoroughly staked by the time it ended, and “Dexter,” whose revival Showtime also confirmed and will resume the stories of Michael C. Hall’s serial killer in . . . New York state.

That show has a terrible finale to atone for, but so did “The L Word,” and its resurrection fared well enough with viewers. That show’s audience has a share of crossover with “SATC,” making is easily predictably that “And Just Like That” will emerge as a hit regardless of how well it continues these tales of Mr. Big and Carrie’s city.

Still, given the stakes and one of the central minds behind it, I can’t help but wonder whether we’ll ever be as into it the way we were back in the original’s heyday.

“Sex and the City” and “Sex and the City 2” are both streaming on Netflix. All episodes of original series are streaming on HBO Max.

MAGA-approved social media platform Parler is taken down — but its demise may be short-lived

Parler, a so-called “free speech” social media platform that is popular among President Donald Trump’s supporters and others on the far-right, went down on Sunday after Apple and Google removed the company’s app from their services and Amazon Web Services refused to continue hosting it.

But its demise may be short-lived, as a Washington State-based web hosting company called Epik has evidently agreed to host the site. Epik serves as a safe haven for other far right sites, such as the notorious right-leaning social network Gab.

Amazon, Apple and Google all cited the same reason for their decisions to ban Parler — namely, that the company was not doing enough to police language that incites violence. The recent riot inside the US Capitol incited by Trump supporters and QAnon conspirators, many of whom had Parler presences, appears to have been a tipping point for the big tech companies to unify against the site.

Parler is now suing Amazon, claiming that Amazon breached their contract in terminating their service and engaged in anticompetitive behavior. In a statement responding to Parler’s announcement that it plans on suing, a spokesperson for Amazon said: “It is clear that there is significant content on Parler that encourages and incites violence against others, and that Parler is unable or unwilling to promptly identify and remove this content, which is a violation of our terms of service.”

Many social media users on the right and far-right moved to Parler after becoming disenchanted with the moderation policies of sites like Twitter, Facebook, Google and Amazon. Parler CEO John Matze claimed in a statement that the Big Tech companies were acting in a “coordinated effort” to “completely remove free speech off the internet.” Right-wing commentator and Parler investor Dan Bongino claimed without evidence that Fox News that the right-leaning network could be stifled and insisted that the companies’ actions would further radicalize the far right. Fox News host Jeanine Pirro compared the companies’ decisions to Kristallnacht, a pogrom against Jews carried out by Nazis in 1938 as a precursor to the Holocaust.

As Salon’s Nicole Karlis reported last week, Parler is host to a lot of incendiary rhetoric and false claims that support Trump’s political agenda. These include posts (or “parleys”) from white nationalists, comments advocating for violence unless Trump is allowed to stay in power and baseless claims that Biden stole the 2020 election. Parler users also called for “punishing” Vice President Mike Pence for not overturning the election results (which he does not have the power to do), calling for members of the media to be “tied” up or doxxed and argued that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg “should be arrested and hung for treason” for blocking Trump’s account. Others urged Trump to create an account on the platform, since the president was kicked off of Twitter on Friday for inciting his supporters to violence.

Currently, typing the site into one’s web browser leads to an error, meaning that it does not yet redirect to a new hosting service.

Even if it does not ever return, Parler’s data archive is poised to be used to help ID some of the rioters at the Capitol last week. A hacker who goes by @donk_enby was able to archive roughly 99 percent of the content from Parler before it was kicked offline, much of which she described as “very incriminating” against the people who posted it. She explained to Gizmodo that she began by downloading every Parler post from January 6, the day that Trump fomented a coup attempt in Washington which culminated in the Capitol Riot. She is believed to have reverse-engineered Parler’s iOS app to find a web address that the company uses to retrieve data on an internal level, later deciding to archive every post that appeared on the site after Amazon said it would no longer serve as a host.

“Unlike many other systems, Parler requires users to provide a photocopy of identification (typically a state driver’s license) in order to be ‘verified’ on the site,” former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Department of Homeland Security Paul Rosenzweig wrote for Lawfare on Monday. “This ID, along with all of the metadata for Parler posts—such as geo tags for images, IP addresses for posters and so on—was available to Parler administrators. Likewise, the actual content of Parler posts—videos, texts, and such—was also available in plain view format to administrators.” He pointed out that anyone who used Parler to plan, commit or record crimes during the Capitol Riot could be implicated due to the hack, since it would “in the hands of law enforcement, be a treasure trove of leads and, ultimately, of digital forensic evidence that would be useful in proving individual criminal guilt.”

Melania speaks out about Trump’s coup, mourns fallen Capitol cops after rioters

First Lady Melania Trump finally came forward on Monday with a statement on the violent mob unleashed by her husband, finally breaking her week-long silence after the Capitol riot. In her lengthy statement, the First Lady –– who was reportedly holding on a furniture photoshoot for her new coffee table book at the White House during the riot –– casts herself as a victim of “salacious gossip” and “personal attacks” made against her. While she did make mention of the multiple lives lost in the melee on Jan. 6, Melania Trump curiously mourned the pro-Trump rioters who were killed after criminally trespassing on the Capitol before she did the same for the Capitol police officers who died, Brian Sicknick and Howard Liebengood, after trying to fight off the Trump-motivated mob.

I am disappointed and disheartened with what happened last week,” said Melania Trump after expressing condolences to the victims of the violence, then adding, “I find it shameful that surrounding these tragic events there has been salacious gossip, unwarranted personal attacks, and false misleading accusations on me – from people who are looking to be relevant and have an agenda. This time is solely about healing our country and its citizens. It should not be used for personal gain.” 

The First Lady’s self-defense comes after former Trump aide and friend Stephanie Winston Wolkoff published a bitter j’accuse in The Daily Beast last week casting Melania Trump as a passive aider-and-abettor with “blood on her hands.” In Wolkoff’s tell-all published just last year, she detailed how the first lady “stoked and massaged…egos and wittingly agreed to the falsehoods and poisonous lies, veiled as truths, that built this house of mirrors.” 

Although Melania Trump condemned the violence carried out on Wednesday’s insurrection, imploring “people to never make assumptions based on the color of a person’s skin or use differing political ideologies as a basis for aggression and viciousness,” she stopped short of attributing any blame to her husband, the inciter-in-chief, who –– along with over a dozen stalwart Republican allies –– encouraged his supporters to “fight like hell” against a “stolen” election. 

The President is now set to be tried for another round of impeachment by the House this week. Melania Trump, however, made no mention of her husband’s precarious position in office, instead calling for a vague return to normalcy through “healing” and open-mindedness:

As an American, I am proud of our freedom to express our viewpoints without persecution.” The First Lady added, “It is one of the paramount ideals which America is fundamentally built on. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect that right. With that in mind, I would like to call on the citizens of this country to take a moment, pause, and look at things from all perspectives.

Melania Trump’s petty and self-centered response to the shocking events encouraged by her husband is in line with that of her daughter-in-law’s. Ivanka Trump seemed more concerned with her image in the immediate aftermath of the Capitol riot, having the New York Post’s Page Six report that “Ivanka is hurt” after Karli Kloss tweeted criticism of her sister-in-law. 

 

All 13 Texas Democrats in the U.S. House have called for impeaching Trump after Wednesday’s riot

With Democratic leadership in Congress calling for the removal of President Donald Trump 12 days before his term expires, all Texas Democrats in the U.S. House support the idea of impeaching him for a second time.

“After yesterday’s failed coup attempt, it is clear that our fragile democracy cannot afford more pain and destruction,” said U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-El Paso, on Thursday. “Congress must impeach him again, remove him from office immediately and bar him from holding office ever again.”

House leadership signaled early Friday that more formal steps are imminent.

“Donald Trump needs to be removed from office and we are going to proceed with every tool that we have to make sure that that happens to protect our democracy,” U.S. Rep. Katherine Clark, a senior member of House leadership, told CNN in an interview.

Similar to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s remarks on Thursday, Clark said the House “will move forward with impeachment,” if Vice President Mike Pence does not invoke the U.S. Constitution’s 25th Amendment to remove Trump. She said the House could vote on impeachment by the middle of next week.

Additionally, Pelosi announced in a letter to Democratic members that she had discussed with military leadership “preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike.”

The announcement came after a terrifying episode on Wednesday in which Trump-supporting rioters invaded the U.S. Capitol. In that episode, the floors of the U.S. House and Senate and Pelosi’s office were commandeered by Trump supporters while members of Congress sheltered in place, wore gas masks, barricaded doors and prepared for physical combat against invaders. Officials say five people died in the riot. One of the people was U.S. Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick, who died Thursday from injuries sustained while serving the line of duty.

The Texas Democrats calling for impeachment are U.S. Reps. Colin Allred of Dallas, Joaquin Castro of San Antonio, Henry Cuellar of Laredo, Lloyd Doggett of Austin, Escobar, Lizzie Pannill Fletcher of Houston, Sylvia R. Garcia of Houston, Vicente Gonzalez of McAllen, Al Green of Houston, Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston, Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas, Marc Veasey of Fort Worth and Filemon Vela, D-Brownsville.

Fletcher was also in the chamber on Wednesday.

“Not since the War of 1812 has our Capitol been invaded in this way,” she said on Thursday. “This insurrection was incited, encouraged and praised by the President of the United States — an assault on the United States that would once have been unthinkable.”

“It is now clear that the President of the United States represents a grave threat to our Constitution and to our country,” she added. “He has willfully incited violence against the government of the United States. It is for these reasons that I support his removal from office as soon as possible, whether through the process set forth in the 25th Amendment to the Constitution or through the constitutional process of impeachment.”

No president has been removed from office through impeachment. It takes a majority vote in the House, which is controlled by Democrats, to charge a public official with impeachment, which is likely to happen given the anger at Trump for deadly events at the Capitol driven by his supporters.

But on the Senate side, a two-thirds majority is required to convict and remove a public official from office. The Senate will soon be narrowly controlled by the Democrats and any movement to remove Trump from office with just days left in his presidency would need Republican support.

That did not occur in the first impeachment early last year. Only one Republican, U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, voted to convict Trump then.

In that proceeding, the U.S. House charged the president with threatening to withhold support from Ukraine unless that country’s president investigated Hunter Biden, the son of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden. But Democrats fell well short of removing Trump in the Republican-controlled Senate and he was easily acquitted.

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

Economists, scientists say the government should pay you to stay home to end the pandemic

Not even the most conspiratorial pandemic truther would deny that the best way to prevent the spread of the coronavirus — or any airborne pathogen, for that matter — is to avoid human contact. Thus, perhaps unsurprisingly, countries that enacted total lockdowns and paid citizens to stay home dispensed with the coronavirus much more quickly than the United States, which continues to set daily records for new infections.

Here, the obsession with keeping the economy thrumming has meant that true, full lockdowns never quite happened. Common sense would seem to suggest that — if the government really wants to help people avoid poverty while simultaneously containing the virus, and move as quickly as possible toward a full economic reopening — it should simply pay them to stay at home until the pandemic is under control. 

Indeed, other countries have done things along those lines. In March, Denmark announced that it would pay private companies to cover 75% of their employees’ salaries for 13 weeks, provided those employees were not terminated. The country’s government also helped businesses with fixed expenses like rent and covered individuals’ sick leave.

The United Kingdom responded to the pandemic’s outbreak last year by announcing it would pay up to 80% of workers’ wages. Hong Kong declared that it would cover 50% of workers’ salaries for six months. Spain reacted to the economic hardships imposed by the pandemic by announcing it would create a permanent basic income for its low-income citizens.

By contrast, the United States only sent its citizens individual checks for $1,200 during this period, followed by another round of miserly $600 checks for most Americans that went out in the past few weeks. 

This is not to say that paying people to stay at home has always worked like a charm; in September, for example, a study found that only 18 percent of people who had tested positive for COVID-19 had followed official guidelines and stayed home. Nevertheless, common sense says that if people are not forced to go to work in order to survive, fewer people will feel the need to put themselves at risk of contracting and/or spreading the novel coronavirus. A survey of Israeli adults taken in April found that 94% of respondents would abide by a two-week quarantine if they were compensated for their lost wages, while only 57% said they would do so without such compensation. In Austria — a country where employers pay workers who are self-isolating and can request state reimbursement — more than 98% of the people ordered to self-isolate had broken the rules. Germany and other European countries follow similar policies.

“This seems like a no-brainer,” Dr. Dean Baker, economist and co-founder of the progressive think tank the Center for Economic Policy Research, told Salon by email. “We need people to not go to restaurants, bars, and other places where they are likely to contract and spread the virus. That means that these businesses will see revenue plummet if not shut down completely. It’s not fair to make these businesses and workers bear the brunt of the cost of pandemic control, and of course they will resists efforts that put them out of business and jeopardize their livelihood. This means that we have to pay them.”

Dr. Gabriel Mathy, a macroeconomist at American University, told Salon that he also felt it would have been best for the government to have paid its citizens to stay at home right from the outset of the pandemic.

“Given that we have had several rounds of stimulus now and the economy had been weakening before the latest round of checks, it’s clear continuing the pandemic is more expensive,” Mathy wrote to Salon. “If we had had real shutdowns continuing through April and May, the virus would have been eradicated by now. We are seeing the costs are even larger than I thought before, as we are getting new strains evolving due to our inability to eradicate the pandemic. This may result in less effective vaccines and continuation of the pandemic deeper into 2021, or god forbid, 2022.”

Dr. Richard D. Wolff, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Salon that there was “empirical evidence” that most of the places that enacted lockdowns were very successful in stopping the virus. “What the Chinese did in Wuhan, what you see in New Zealand, and on and on and on, these seem to have been the logical correct things to do,” he said. “That’s the logic of limiting exposure.” 

Although there were short-term economic consequences to those policies, Wolff said the short-term loss was worth the return to normalcy. “This was one of those things in life that was a win-win,” Wolff said. “You win against the disease. If you put people into their homes and lock down the city, and you win economically, as well because of the duration of the lockout home is much less impacting on the economics.”

It isn’t merely economists who believe that this is the right course of action. Dr. Monica Gandhi, infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote to Salon that she believes “the correct thing to do during this pandemic is for the government to pay those who cannot stay home to work to stay home.”

To illustrate why she believes this, Gandhi turned to a historical example.

“In 1854, in London, the renowned epidemiologist John Snow closed a water pump in London thought to be spreading cholera and the cholera epidemic in the city ceased,” Gandhi explained. “However, the city ensured that the citizens around that pump were still able to access water. If the government has to close sectors of society’s employment to keep its populace safe, then those who cannot work from home should be paid to stay home so that we don’t have hunger, eviction, and poverty contributing to our public health woes during this pandemic.”

The logistics of keeping people at home are complicated. Dr. Alfred Sommer, dean emeritus and professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told Salon by email that he was unclear about the economic questions involved in paying people to stay at home, pointing out that people in essential jobs would need to be able to go to work safely and that food and essentials would need to be delivered as they were in many countries that enacted such lockdown policies. At the same time, he said that if people would follow public health guidelines as diligently as realistically possible, it would almost certainly have a very salutary impact on containing the virus.

“If everyone who could stay home, stayed home . . .  and everyone who had to be out or at work followed all the guidelines (mask wearing, distancing, etc) – the ‘pandemic’ would rapidly decline,” Sommer wrote to Salon. Sommer said it would take a mere 2-4 weeks for those with the disease to get through their illness. “Some residual infections would occur because of inability for this to prevent all,” he noted. “But with tight implementation there would be an enormous impact — see how much the early outbreaks in meat packing plants how declined with awareness, masks and spacing, though the nature of the work doesn’t reduce the risk completely.”

While paying people to stay at home for two to four weeks makes both economic and medical sense, the sad reality is that America likely lacks the political will to make it happen.

“The odds of stimulus have gone up, but I’m not confident there is political will for a real lockdown,” Mathy told Salon. “There is likely to be more stimulus but not tied to lockdowns.”

MAGA menace comes for Mike Pence: Trump’s enablers are being threatened by a mob of their own making

The most disturbing example is Pence. When a joint session of Congress met on January 6 to certify Biden’s Electoral College victory, Trump demanded that Pence prevent that certification — which he didn’t have the power to do. Regardless, some of the far-right extremists and White nationalists who showed up in Washington, D.C. that day believed that Pence was letting Trump down. Groups of them began chanting, “Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence” — and a hangman’s noose hung from a tree near the U.S. Capitol Building, which was stormed by a violent mob of Trump supporters. The same extremists who were hoping to harm Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that day advocated murdering Pence as well.

Graham has repeatedly jumped through hoops in support of Trump, from the Russia investigation to the Ukraine scandal and the president’s impeachment to Trump’s Supreme Court nominees. But after the storming of the Capitol Building, a frustrated Graham finally distanced himself from Trump — saying, “Trump and I, we’ve had a hell of a journey…. All I can say is: count me out, enough is enough. I’ve tried to be helpful.”

Later, when Graham was walking through Washington, D.C.’s Reagan National Airport last week, he was heckled by angry Trump supporters who believed he hadn’t done enough to help Trump overturn the election results. Video posted by CNN shows a Trump supporter shouting, “Lindsey Graham, you are a traitor to the country…. You garbage human being.”

Barr’s critics often accused him of debasing himself by becoming “Trump’s Roy Cohn” — an insulting reference to the unscrupulous attorney who supported Sen. Joseph McCarthy during the 1950s and represented a young Trump in the private sector during the 1970s. But after the 2020 presidential election, Barr was branded a traitor by MAGA diehards for acknowledging Biden as president-elect and telling the Associated Press, “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

Following the events of January 6, Barr described Trump’s conduct as a “betrayal of his office and supporters” and told AP, that “orchestrating a mob to pressure Congress is inexcusable.”

MAGA diehards are also furious with McConnell, who was a staunch Trump ally throughout his impeachment and aggressively supported all three of Trump’s Supreme Court nominees: Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and most recently, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. On December 15, however, McConnell acknowledged Biden as president-elect and congratulated him on the Senate floor — inspiring wingnut radio host Mark Levin to post, on Parler, “Thanks for nothing, Mitch. Trump helped you secure your seat, as he did so many Senate and House seats, and you couldn’t even wait until January 6th. You’ve been the GOP ‘leader’ in the Senate for far too long. It’s time for some fresh thinking and new blood.”

Mindy Robinson denounced McConnell as a “turncoat,” and far-right pundit Dinesh D’Souza lambasted McConnell as well, tweeting:

History shows that those who support fanaticism can become a victim of it themselves. Communist Leon Trotsky supported totalitarianism in the Soviet Union, and was murdered by Joseph Stalin’s henchmen in Mexico because of his supposed lack of purity. And now, in 2021, the MAGA mob is turning against some of the very people who enabled it.

What the heck is Vegemite (and how do you eat it)?

Cut off from the rest of the populated landmass of planet Earth for several millennia, Australia had plenty of time to develop some natural quirks. Take marsupials (pouches, hopping), for example, or the duck-billed platypus (duck-bill, poison spur), or the disturbing preponderance of poisonous snakes, for example. But it was with the invention of Vegemite in 1922 that things really went off the rails. What is Vegemite? So glad you asked.

Vegemite is a thick, dark spread extracted from the yeasty waste of the beer-brewing process, seasoned with celery, onion, salt, and some undisclosed extra flavors. Salty, umami-rich, with a hint of bitterness, Vegemite is an Australian obsession. But it wasn’t always this way.

The History Of Vegemite

Our story begins with a crisis. German U-boat attacks and the turmoil of WWI disrupted the steady import of Marmite, an incredibly popular British yeast spread, into Australia. Desperate for a replacement, Australian food company Fred Walker & Co. turned to its chief scientist, Dr. Cyril Callister, for help. Over the course of several months, Callister transformed a primordial brewer’s yeast sludge into a savory spread, thicker than Marmite and with a comparable, but uniquely alluring (to some) flavor. But Vegemite was not met with the adulation Dr. Callister had hoped. When Marmite imports stabilized, many Aussies returned to the more familiar product.

In 1928, in an attempt at revitalizing the brand, Fred Walker & Co. changed the name of the spread to Parwill, a clever (they thought) set-up for ads that declared, in a heavily Australian accent, “if Marmite, then Parwill!” But alas, Par-would-not. With the Vegemite name restored, Walker decided to lean on the success of his new venture, the Kraft Walker Cheese Co. (yes, that Kraft). Jars of Vegemite were given free with the purchase of Kraft products, finally — even if only because it was of no cost and plentiful — establishing the brand in Australian homes and hearts.

How To Vegemite

The greatest threat to your future love of Vegemite is reckless over-enthusiasm. Though it may look spoonable, like a dark chocolate Nutella, Vegemite is most commonly scraped over well-buttered toast, just a dab per slice. Where a thick slather would overpower your taste buds, a proper scrape gives the right balance of rounded umami that melds with the rich butter. That said, once you’re comfortable with the stuff, the sky is the limit. Fans have been known to mix Vegemite with water to form a hearty broth, or even to season steak tartare.

Vegemite Substitutes

We’ve already suffered through a catastrophic bucatini shortage, not to mention flour and yeastdeficits; should Vegemite, too, go missing from the shelves, there are plenty of alternatives.

Marmite

Thinner in consistency and slightly sweeter in taste, Marmite is nevertheless the closest substitute for Vegemite. Spread it on toast as you would Vegemite or rub it on chicken.

Other Yeast Extract Spreads

Swiss Cenovis, New Zealand Marmite (different from the English product), Australian Promite, and OzEmite are some of the many other yeast extract spreads produced around the world with a roughly similar consistency and flavor profile.

Miso

Another rich, salty, spreadable product bursting with umami, miso is unmistakably not Vegemite. But it still makes for a savory substitute spread on toast with a bit of butter. Go for a darker, more aged miso to get the most powerful salt and umami kick.

Though it’s unlikely you’ll ever find yourself standing in the kitchen eating Vegemite by the spoonful (that’s what peanut butter was made for), if you really fall for it, you may find yourself scrambling for the last jar on the grocery shelf, toilet paper be damned.

Related recipes:

Congresswoman contracts COVID after House Republicans refused to wear masks during Capitol riot

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., said Monday that she tested positive for the coronavirus after “sheltering with several colleagues who refused to wear masks” during a lockdown amid the Capitol riot last week.

Coleman said in a statement that she believes she tested positive as a result of being “exposed during protective isolation” in the Capitol. Coleman’s announcement comes after the Office of Attending Physician warned that House lawmakers may have been exposed to someone who has since tested positive during the lockdown.

“On Wednesday January 6, many members of the House community were in protective isolation in room located in a large committee hearing space,” Brian Monahan, the attending physician to Congress, wrote in an email to lawmakers obtained by The Washington Post. “The time in this room was several hours for some and briefer for others. During this time, individuals may have been exposed to another occupant with coronavirus infection.”

Rep. Donald McEachin, D-Va., said that he was praying for a “swift and painless recovery” for Watson Coleman. “Our House colleagues who refused to wear masks last week as members were forced to shelter in the Capitol put all of us at risk and should be ashamed of themselves,” he tweeted.

To enable screen reader support, press ⌘+Option+Z To learn about keyboard shortcuts, press ⌘slash

It’s unclear who tested positive or how many lawmakers were in the room. Two House aides told the Post that Monahan was referring to a room where dozens of lawmakers were seen huddled after evacuating the chamber. The lawmakers were led out in gas masks after the pro-Trump rioters attacked police officers, killing one and injuring dozens of others, and attempted to breach the House chamber while lawmakers were still inside. Four members of the mob died in the mayhem, including a woman who was shot by Capitol Police while trying to enter the House chamber through a broken window.

Some Democrats called out several Republican lawmakers who refused to wear a mask in the room. Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester, D-Del., said she was “disappointed in my colleagues who refused to wear a mask” and worried the lockdown could become a “super spreader event.”

A video published by Punchbowl News showed Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., Michael Cloud, R-Texas, and Scott Perry, R-Pa., refuse to wear masks offered to them by Blunt Rochester.

Rep. Susan Wild, D-Pa., told CBS News that about 300 to 400 people were in the room and “about half” refused to wear masks.

“It’s what I would call a COVID super spreader event. About half of the people in the room are not wearing masks. Even though they’ve been offered surgical masks, they’ve refused to wear them,” she said. “Some of the newer Republican members are openly flaunting that they are refusing to wear a mask.”

It’s unclear who in the room tested positive. Rep. Jake LaTurner, R-Kan., said last week that he tested positive but a spokesperson told the Post that he was not among the members in the room.

Rep. Chuck Fleischman, R-Tenn., said he tested positive on Sunday but a spokesperson likewise told the Post that he was not in the room in question.

Public health experts have expressed concerns that the riot itself could become a super spreader event whose impact will be felt around the country.

“There’s going to be chains of transmission that come out of that kind of mass gathering,” Scott Gottlieb, the former head of the Food and Drug Administration, told CBS News on Sunday. “The crowd wasn’t adhering to what we know are good practices in terms of mask-wearing and other things. I think they deliberately eschewed those things. So, yeah, we’re going to see chains of transmission come out of that kind of a gathering, for sure.”

Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told McClatchy that it would likely be a “surge event.”

“Then these individuals all are going in cars and trains and planes going home all across the country right now,” he explained. “So I do think this is an event that will probably lead to a significant spreading event.”

Is fonio the ancient grain of the future?

Multinational corporations (and foundations) generally take one approach to agricultural development in Africa. They encourage farmers to grow high-yield varieties of crops — mostly corn — developed in the U.S. and Europe, using expensive seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides. In many cases, the crops fail to thrive due to the differences in climates and soils. And the same negative environmental impacts associated with industrial agriculture in the U.S., including the loss of biodiversity and water contamination, follow. Overall, these efforts rarely decrease hunger or make farmers more financially secure.

Pierre Thiam and Philip Teverow take a different tack.

Pierre Thiam. (Photo courtesy of Yolélé, photo credit: Sara Costa)

Pierre Thiam. (Photo courtesy of Yolélé, photo credit: Sara Costa)

Thiam was born and raised in Dakar, Senegal, before gaining renown as a chef in New York City. In a 2017 TED talk, he explained how, while conducting cookbook research in Senegal, he came across a form of millet called fonio, which was still grown by smallholder farmers all over West Africa but had nearly disappeared from the urban diet.

“It turns out that fonio had been cultivated for more than 5,000 years,” Thiam says. “I became more interested in this grain that was deemed worth taking to the afterlife by early Egyptians.”

The more he learned, the more potential he saw. Fonio is basically a climate crisis-ready crop; it grows in poor soils in drought conditions with little to no inputs. Those who grow it help preserve agricultural biodiversity and cultural identity in West African countries. And it’s a nutrient-dense, naturally gluten-free ancient grain—perfectly suited to serve both local food security and Western health trends.

In 2017, he teamed up with Teverow, a food industry veteran who ran the trendsetting Dean & DeLuca brand for 13 years, to create Yolélé, a company that would buy fonio from smallholder farmers, build a local supply chain, and export it around the world. The company has gotten some attention over the years and its products are now sold at Whole Foods. But its overall reach has remained small because fonio is incredibly difficult to process, and the infrastructure to do so at a large scale doesn’t exist.

That’s about to change. Yolélé has been developing a proprietary processing system and is set to open its own plant in Mali in the first quarter of 2022. “Today’s fonio processors can produce about one ton of fonio per day,” Teverow told Civil Eats. “Our system will produce three tons per hour.” It will also cut high levels of food waste out of the supply chain.

Read more Civil Eats: A New Study on Regenerative Grazing Complicates Climate Optimism

At the same time, another company, Terra Ingredients, is working on a state-of-the-art fonio processing facility in Senegal. Its progress was delayed by the pandemic but will soon move ahead. New fonio products are also emerging: Yolélé just launched Florence Fabricant-approved fonio pilafs, while Iya Foods debuted fonio flour (made with Terra’s fonio).

All of this movement comes at a critical time for West African countries. During the pandemic, border closures disrupted some relied-upon food imports like rice, wheat, and fresh produce, and millions of people have been thrown further into poverty. In the Sahel region, where most fonio is grown, a recent report found 17 million people were in need of emergency food assistance during the summer months and another 51 million were on the verge of following.

With that context in mind, Thiam and Teverow recently spoke with Civil Eats to share more about the past and future of fonio.

Who is growing fonio for you, and how are they doing it?

Teverow: We’re working with about 1,500 farmers [in West Africa]. The farms are very small. On average, they’re growing on half a hectare [about 1.2 acres]. In most cases, the families have been growing fonio for themselves. What we’re doing differently is asking them to grow for us, not as a feed-the-family crop only, but also as a way to get some income.

Generally, because fonio has been a feed-the-family kind of crop, they don’t have inputs. As a matter of traditional practice, there are inputs sometimes applied, but it thrives on its own. In fact, it responds poorly to the application of fertilizers, so there’s a general reluctance to apply anything. We’re looking for organic fonio and are working with farmers to use organic compost applied in a moderate way.

What does processing look like now, and how will it change?

Teverow: Fonio is harvested by hand with a sickle and is usually threshed manually to separate the grain from the stalk. There are dramatic losses involved in every step. After it’s threshed, each grain is still coated with an inedible husk. Many use a mortar and pestle with sand to rub away and winnow the husk. You end up with a lot of broken grains. There’s also a washing process that involves many changes of water.

Our new system is still multi-step. We train the farmers so that they can harvest in a way that the fonio doesn’t come in contact with the ground during harvesting and transporting. We’ll provide threshers. When it comes to the plant, it will be treated in such a way that the husk will come off thoroughly and cleanly.

Today’s supply chain can’t meet the volume or quality requirements [of big businesses], and this will allow us to meet those. Installing the process will allow us to meet our own growing demand and what we believe is latent demand.

In other words, to sell to more and bigger stores?

Teverow: There’s that, but one of the greatest impacts that we could have is if giant multinational food manufacturers decide to use fonio [as an ingredient] instead of whatever other grain they’re using — rice, wheat, corn — not for everything and not even a large percentage, but even in some small way. If you’re a multi-billion-dollar food company and you’re going through millions and millions of units of any particular item, if you use some fonio in there, it’s going to [lead to demand for] a lot more than we can sell [right now].

Fonio is grown by smallholders. If other companies like yours are also racing to invest in this large-scale processing, is there going to be enough supply? Is there a risk that farmers will keep less for their families in order to sell more, or that prices will drop, hurting farmers?

Teverow: There are around 700,000 tons of fonio grown by smallholders in West Africa. Our current offtake is a tiny drop in that bucket. We aim to reach a scale of 10,000 tons in the next few years. If others pile on and worldwide demand grows by 70,000 tons, that would be 10% of current production. For perspective, today, more than 30 years after I imported quinoa from South America while at Dean & DeLuca, consumption of quinoa is around 80,000 tons in the U.S.

Read more Civil Eats: Does Regenerative Agriculture Have a Race Problem?

fonio growing in west Africa

Fonio growing in West Africa.

We are trying to avoid increasing demand beyond supply, because that would create a boom that destabilizes markets and leads to the race to invest that you describe, which may lead to a bust that hurts smallholders. That being said, if the supply of fonio did not grow in concert with growing demand, there would be problematic excess demand. With that in mind, we plan to increase supply in concert with increased demand.

One way to do that is to reduce post-harvest losses through more efficient processing, as we will do. The same harvest might yield 30 to 40% more fonio.

Another is to increase agricultural productivity so current farmers can produce more on the same land. Our second agronomic trial in Mali, which just concluded, indicates potential yield increases of 77% with reduced input costs, simply by introducing a couple of agronomic changes.

How has the pandemic affected Yolélé and your producers on the ground in West Africa?

Thiam: Fortunately, we didn’t get affected by it directly because we already had stocks and orders before. In general, most African countries had closed their borders [to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the spring]. For a country like Senegal that depends on food imports, that was an awakening. That was really a serious threat. [African government leaders] had to choose either food security or health for the public.

But what does that mean for the farmers, then, if Yolélé is focused on growing markets for exports? How does that model connect to improving food security and sovereignty for them, and more broadly in the countries you work in?

Thiam: Growing markets is one way to bring economic development to those farmers, and the markets are not only focusing on the West; the markets are also local. Right now, those farmers are growing and eating fonio [themselves too]. They don’t even bring the fonio to the cities.

In addition to exporting, we are aiming to open markets in the cities, locally, in the region. This is definitely one of our main goals, and that will be a great thing for food security.

I come back to the example of Senegal: For a long time, since colonization, we’ve been importing broken rice from Southeast Asia. That’s the main grain that’s eaten in Senegal. We still import it even though we’re growing rice.

We have this tendency to look down on products like fonio. In the cities, we look at them as “country people” crops. That’s the mindset that Yolélé is trying to change: looking down on products that are much more nutritious than the broken rice we’ve been importing, and which are our own grains. In doing so, we tackle food security issues, we even bring back pride in eating our own crops, and we hit that first mission, which is economic opportunities and development in rural West Africa for small farmers.

Teverow: I would add that introducing processing capacity can have a tremendous impact on the availability of local food, and what drives the introduction of processing capacity is an export market. So, we’re creating an export market so that we can justify an investment in processing capacity, which can meet local demand. And we see local demand as exceeding export demand, because people already eat these foods. They know them there, and it can be available to them and cheaper than it is today, because it will be processed more efficiently and there will be less loss.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Republicans are gaslighting America about Trump’s coup: Only impeachment can set the record straight

There is no doubt Donald Trump incited the insurrection on January 6. It happened largely in public and is recorded for posterity. Let’s review the record: 

 

  • In a September debate with Joe Biden, Trump ordered the Proud Boys, a neo-fascist street fighting gang, to “stand back and stand by.” It was a message to wait for orders that the Proud Boys took to heart. 
  • On December 19, Trump tweeted repeatedly the place and time for those on stand by to be activated, promising: “Be there, will be wild!”
  • On Jan. 6 itself, Trump whipped the crowd into a frenzy, using incendiary language like, “You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength. You have to be strong!” Trump’s call to action came after multiple speakers had stoked the crowd’s anger with violent rhetoric. Top Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani called for a “trial by combat” and Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks declared, “Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass!”

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


Trump didn’t add, “if you know what I mean,” but he didn’t have to — the people who stormed the U.S. Capitol armed with guns, pipe bombs and flex cuffs to take members of Congress and Vice President Mike Pence hostage understood Trump’s wink-and-nudge style loud and clear. 

None of this is subtle or confusing. Unsurprisingly, however, right-wing media figures — who want to continue to push conspiracy theories and agitate their audiences with insurrectionist talk, but don’t want to face consequences for it — have already begun the process of gaslighting about Wednesday’s event, insisting that it’s being blown out of proportion and shouldn’t be treated like the insurrection that it was. 

Media Matters has a good round-up of the various strategies being employed by right wing media to spin Wednesday’s events as something less serious than an attempted coup spurred on by Trump himself. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson is reframing the insurrectionists as the real victims, subject to imaginary liberal incursions on vaguely defined “freedom.” Laura Ingraham is working the “both sides do it” angle, falsely equating random and disorganized acts of vandalism during Black Lives Matter protests with the Trump crowd’s direct attempt to overthrow the U.S. government and likely murder congressional leaders. Sean Hannity is still working the “antifa did it!” lie, even after the FBI announced no evidence linking anti-fascist activists to the Trump-motivated mob. And Rush Limbaugh is denying that the insurrection was violent, saying it was simply people taking “selfies,” ignoring the fact that five people died, including a Capitol police officer who was beat to death by someone wielding a fire extinguisher. These tactics of deflection also ignore that the mob clearly intended more mayhem— rioters weren’t carrying weapons and wearing armor for their health — and it was only a matter of luck that things didn’t get worse. 

Unfortunately, such right-wing media pressure campaigns have worked, going back at least to the 1990s, when a campaign by figures like Rush Limbaugh to downplay Timothy McVeigh’s 1995 terrorist attack on a federal building in Oklahoma City effectively shut down needed discourse about the role that extremist rhetoric on the right played in the attack. Similarly, feigned outrage on the right over an FBI report in 2009 over the threat of domestic terrorism from returning veterans caused the Obama administration to buckle, withdrawing the report. Since then, there’s been an air of heightened skepticism in mainstream media towards efforts by progressive activists to highlight the growing threat of domestic terrorism. Mainstream journalists have tended, all too often, to treat those warnings as hysterical, even in the face of terrorist attacks in El Paso and Pittsburgh


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


Right-wing efforts to minimize right wing violence can work, so Democrats need to act swiftly to take control of the narrative. Republicans must not be allowed to rewrite history to minimize the seriousness of this situation. And the best possible tool that Democrats have right now to evade right wing gaslighting is impeachment. 

The good news is that Democrats seem to understand this. After giving Vice President Mike Pence the whole weekend to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump from office, House Democrats announced that they would be introducing an article of impeachment on Monday, accusing Trump of “incitement of insurrection.” Still, there still seems to be some desire on the part of House Democrats to give Pence another 24 hours, leading to a confusing timeline where the impeachment is likely not to be brought to the floor until Tuesday.

Pence will no doubt use this time to leak claims he’s “thinking” about it, when he has no actual intention of doing so, in order to buy more time. Democrats should not be fooled and should not delay any further in the vain hope that Pence will abandon his lickspittle ways this late in life. 

But understanding that Pence would rather let Trump send mobs after him to kill him than to invoke the 25th is not the only reason to move swiftly on impeachment. Even if Pence was to act — and he won’t — impeachment is necessary to create a legal and historical record underscoring the truth: Trump incited a mob and sent them after Congress in an attempt to overthrow the U.S. government. 

Articles of impeachment are the kind of official documentation that make it much harder for right wing forces to pressure mainstream media outlets to downplay what happened on Wednesday. It makes it a matter of public record that this was, indeed, an insurrection. That will help be a check against the impulse of cowardly editors and producers in mainstream media to give into the right wing gaslighting campaign. Impeachment will be a show of support from Congress for those who are willing to speak the truth, that we witnessed a coup, incited by Trump, against the leaders duly elected by the people of the United States. 

It’s a bummer that such a thing is necessary, of course. It would be nice if the truth was enough for the media, and right wing lies weren’t so effective at shaping coverage. But it is what it is — bothsiderism has a remarkable gravitational pull, even in the face of an outrage as awful as Trump’s attempted coup. Right now, the mainstream media is being refreshingly forthright about the violence of January 6. Impeachment will help stiffen their spines in the coming days and weeks, as the right wing media continues to insist the insurrection was merely a kerfuffle. 

QAnon congresswoman who live-tweeted Nancy Pelosi’s location to rioters now facing calls for arrest

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), a gun-toting supporter of the QAnon movement, is facing backlash after she was accused of live-tweeting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) location during the attack on Capitol Hill last week.

Boebert shared the tweet soon after President Donald Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol with deadly results.

“The Speaker has been removed from the chambers,” Boebert wrote.

Twitter users responded by calling for the freshman representative to be jailed and removed from Congress.

“@FBIWFO please arrest @laurenboabert for aiding and abetting those who were hunting down @SpeakerPelosi on Jan, 6th by tweeting the Speaker’s whereabouts,” one person responded. “She’s 5ft tall, 100 pounds and carries a Glock (and won’t stop telling everyone).”

“@SpeakerPelosi you need to have her removed with every fight that you have. This is nothing short of an attempt on your life,” another Twitter user agreed.

Read some of the responses below.