Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Inside the stimulus fight: A $600 check for most Americans is now a distinct possibility

Update: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s staff notified congressional leaders on Wednesday that the bipartisan proposals are unlikely to be accepted by Senate Republicans, according to Politico.

There is talk on Capitol Hill of President Donald Trump and Congress passing a stimulus measure that includes $600 checks to Americans — yet the current gridlock over various stimulus proposals raises questions as to whether anything will be passed before Trump’s presidency ends.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin suggested on Tuesday that Congress pass legislation which would include $600 for every taxpayer and an additional $600 for every child, according to The Washington Post. This is in sharp contrast to the original stimulus passed in March, which provided cash payments of $1,200 to taxpayers who made less than $75,000 per year as well as $500 for each child. The Trump administration’s proposal also significantly reduced the size of the stimulus bill overall, including reducing the size of federal unemployment benefits by extending expiring benefits but not including any additional federal benefits. As a result, it was swiftly rejected by Democratic leaders in Congress.

Indeed, it seems increasingly likely that the two sides will not be able to come to an agreement on relief legislation before the end of the year, according to Politico. Congressional Republicans are opposed to Democrats’ support for $160 billion in aid to states and municipalities, while congressional Democrats oppose a liability shield being pushed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that would protect businesses whose employees are infected with the novel coronavirus while at the workplace. Some congressional Republicans are also specifically opposed to providing any aid to blue states.

If Congress does not pass a COVID-19 relief bill soon, 12 million Americans will lose their unemployment benefits on the day after Christmas. In addition, eviction moratoriums, a federal program for paid family leave and protections for student loans borrowers will also expire, furthering the financial hardships on Americans even as the economy worsens due to the recent surge in COVID-19 cases.

Last week a bipartisan group of senators proposed a $908 billion stimulus bill that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi later endorsed as a starting point for relief talks and a stopgap to help Americans struggling prior to President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration. (Pelosi later said that McConnell had agreed that COVID-19 relief should be part of any congressional year’s end spending bill.) Their plan included $300 a week in federal unemployment benefits for four months and $160 billion in funding for state and local governments and provide assistance for small businesses, health care facilities, schools and people paying off their student loans. McConnell responded with a proposal that would have extended unemployment assistance by only one month before phasing it out and offering a new round of Paycheck Protection Program loans to small businesses that can prove a 25% loss. The Senate Majority Leader’s proposal stressed Republicans’ desire to create coronavirus liability limitations for schools, religious institutions, businesses and government agencies.

The original stimulus legislation included $500 billion in relief for corporations that lost money due to the pandemic, $350 billion in relief for small businesses and $100 billion in assistance to hospitals. It also extended unemployment benefits by 13 weeks and expanded criteria for eligibility so that freelancers, gig workers and furloughed employees could be included. At the time that the comparatively more generous legislation was passed, political experts speculated that it was because Trump and his Republican allies in Congress wanted to shore up his political position for the upcoming election.

“Part of the reason Trump and so many other Republicans are supporting such an expansive stimulus package: As the party with more power in Washington, they stand to take more of the blame if the response to the public health and economic crisis is seen by the public as lacking,” Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, told Salon by email at the time.

“True Blood” reboot planned from “Sabrina” showrunner Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa

With the final season of Netflix’s “Chilling Adventures of Sabrina” set to arrive, series creator Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa is hard at work on his next project, which has a similar supernatural bent.

Read more from IndieWire“Big Mouth”: An ode to Lola, Season 4’s groaning, bossy, vocal-fry queen

Variety reported that Aguirre-Sacasa is in early development on a reboot of HBO‘s vampire drama “True Blood.” Aguirre-Sacasa and “NOS4A2” creator Jami O’Brien will work together on the script, as well as serve as executive producers, while Alan Ball, the original creator of “True Blood,” will also executive produce. There’s nothing else currently known about the reboot and it’s unclear if any of the original cast will return.

The series, which ran on HBO from 2008 to 2014, follows Louisiana waitress and telepath Sookie Stackhouse, originally played by Anna Paquin, as she navigates a relationship with vampire Bill Compton (played by Stephen Moyer), as well as a host of other fantasy and supernatural characters. The series itself was an adaptation of Charlaine Harris’ series of novels, “The Southern Vampire Mysteries.”

Read more from IndieWire“The Grinch Musical!” review: The best and worst of NBC’s holiday special – live blog

Outside of Paquin and Moyer the series also included Alexander Skarsgard, Rutina Wesley, and Joe Manganiello. Ball  left the series in Season 5, leaving many fans to feel the latter seasons were subpar.

It’ll be interesting to see where Aguirre-Sacasa and O’Brien take the new series, which became a guilty pleasure for many HBO viewers with its mix of melodrama and sex. Before rebooting “Sabrina the Teenage Witch” for Netflix, Aguirre-Sacasa was also the mastermind before The CW’s successful “Riverdale” series, a similar property to “True Blood” with its high-concept plots and beautiful people in peril.

This would be the showrunner’s second HBO property in development. In 2019 it was announced he was working on a supernatural detective series called “The Shelley Society,” surrounding a young Mary Shelley, for HBO Max, though it’s unknown what stage of development that’s in. In that same report it was also announced Aguirre-Sacasa was working on a reimagining of Dracula, albeit focused more on Dracula’s brides.

Read more from IndieWireWinter TV awards: With FX in flux, can “Mrs. America” break through?

For its fans, “True Blood” is a sacred property so Aguirre-Sacasa and O’Brien have their work cut out for them. Though, considering how everything old is new again, this is the right time to return to the series — with its focus on a world where vampires exist the series was able to examine elements of bigotry and tolerance, themes that are certainly still present today.

Nicolas Cage to explore the origins of f*ck, sh*t, and more curse words in new Netflix series

Nicolas Cage continues to have one of the least predictable careers in Hollywood as he now moves to Netflix to host a new comedy series in which he will be exploring the origins of some of the most used curse words in the English language, from f*ck and sh*t to p*ssy and d*ck. Yes, you read that correctly. The streaming giant has announced “History of Swear Words,” hosted by Cage and debuting at the start of 2021. The comedy series is set to run six episodes, with each episode devoted to uncovering the history behind one curse word.

Read more from IndieWire“Big Mouth”: An ode to Lola, Season 4’s groaning, bossy, vocal-fry queen

Netflix’s official synopsis for “History of Swear Words” reads: “An education in expletives: the history lesson you didn’t know you needed. ‘History of Swear Words,’ hosted by Nicolas Cage, is a loud and proudly profane series that explores the origins, pop culture-usage, science and cultural impact of curse words. Through interviews with experts in etymology, pop culture, historians and entertainers, the six-episode series dives into the origins of ‘F**k,’ ‘Sh*t,’ ‘B*tch,’ ‘D**k,’ ‘Pu**y,’ and ‘Damn.'”

Joining Cage in the series is a roster of comedians that include Joel Kim Booster, DeRay Davis, Open Mike Eagle, Nikki Glaser, Patti Harrison, London Hughes, Jim Jefferies, Zainab Johnson, Nick Offerman, Sarah Silverman, Baron Vaughn, and Isiah Whitlock Jr. The host will also consult with experts that include Benjamin Bergen (PhD, Cognitive Scientist, author of “What The F”), Anne Charity Hudley (PhD, Linguist and Educator), Mireille Miller-Young (PhD, Professor of Feminist Studies), Elvis Mitchell (Film Critic/Host of “The Treatment” on KCRW), Melissa Mohr (PhD, author of “Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing”), and Kory Stamper (Lexicographer, author of “Word By Word”).

Read more from IndieWire“The Grinch Musical!” review: The best and worst of NBC’s holiday special – live blog

“History of Swear Words” is set to kick off a busy 2021 for Cage, who most recently starred in “Jiu Jitsu” and lent his voice to Universal’s animated sequel “The Croods: A New Age.” Cage-starring films lined up for the new year include “Pig,” “Willy’s Wonderland,” and “The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent,” in which Cage is starring as both himself and a fictionalized version of himself.

Read more from IndieWireWinter TV awards: With FX in flux, can “Mrs. America” break through?

Nicolas Cage’s “History of Swear Words” will be available to stream January 5 on Netflix. Watch the first trailer for the comedy series in the video below.

“Home Alone” itself shows why a Disney+ reboot Is a bad idea

Click to the “Holiday Collection” on Disney+ and the first image you’ll see is nine-year-old Macaulay Culkin, hands pressed to his face after daring to use his father’s aftershave. There’s no image that evokes Christmas more. It’s director Chris Columbus‘s Yuletide version of Edvard Munch’s “Scream” and, at this point, almost as iconic. Somehow Culkin’s grimace can stand alongside Nativity scenes and Christmas trees to evoke the season.

Read more from IndieWire: “Big Mouth”: An ode to Lola, Season 4’s groaning, bossy, vocal-fry queen

Disney+ has a whole lineup of cheery movies in that “Holiday Collection.” One new addition, a three-minute short about a Filipina grandma and her granddaughter bonding over a cherished toy called “From Our Family to Yours,” is a tear-inducing treat. But “Home Alone,” acquired through Disney’s purchase of 20th Century Fox in 2019, feels like the crown jewel in this collection. Clips from the movie now feature prominently in commercials for the streaming service. And it’s getting a whole surge of renewed attention for celebrating its 30th anniversary. Plus, a remake starring Archie Yates — the cherubic, bespectacled friend of the title character in “JoJo Rabbit” — is in the works. What’ll it be called? “Home Alone 3”? Oh wait, that already exists, even if we’ve all mercifully purged it from our collective memory. (Along with two direct-to-TV sequels, one imagines “Home Alone 3” thrown in Old Man Marley’s garbage can full of salt.)

This new remake must not happen. The idea alone causes this writer to wince as if he’s stepped on a nail barefoot, or had his scalp burned off, or been branded with the initials of a wealthy family from their vanity doorknob. And this is coming from someone who would gladly pay good money for a Trump-free re-edit of “Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.” Like rebranding the Wet Bandits the “Sticky Bandits,” this remake is a horrible idea. “Home Alone” is a product of a time and a certain set of creatives; it should be left alone unless at least some of those creatives can return. And frankly, there’s no reason for them not to.

This column will not attempt to elaborate on the greatness of “Home Alone,” which is self-evident (but more about that can be found here). Instead, let us point out these five reasons the remake is as terrible an idea as sticking your head through a doggie-door after your partner in crime has already been shot with a BB-gun by someone on the other side.

1. The original “Home Alone” is John Hughes by way of “SCTV”

And that’s an alchemy impossible to replicate two decades into the 21st Century. Hughes, who wrote the script after he had already made all of his teen landmarks of the 1980s, adjusted his focus from adolescents to a younger tyke in Culkin’s Kevin McAllister. Apparently, the idea came to Hughes, when, a relatively new father himself, he imagined how his own child would fare on their own if he suddenly left on a trip.

The real spice to the script, though, seems to have been found on-set. For many viewers, it was “Home Alone” through which they were first introduced to Catherine O’Hara’s unique style of comedic obtuseness. The way she goes from harried, unconcerned indifference to harried, obsessive concern is something only O’Hara could do. And her scenes with John Candy, who apparently, as a condition of working for only one day and not receiving payment, improvised all of his dialogue, have all of the charge of an “SCTV” sketch. That’s probably because both O’Hara and Candy were “SCTV” alums.

Read more from IndieWire: “The Grinch Musical!” review: The best and worst of NBC’s holiday special – live blog

2. It’s a much harder story to tell in the age of cell phones

“Home Alone” only seems possible because it was made right at the last moment before the introduction of cell phones and the internet made Kevin’s level of isolation in one’s own home and neighborhood impossible. Tech started to intrude a bit more even in “Lost in New York,” when Kevin’s parents are able to track his movements by his use of his father’s credit cards. Being cut off from the world seems much more difficult in when a downed phone line doesn’t mean a total communications blackout.

3. The original represents legitimately beautiful craft

Before the production proper even started in the village of Winnetka, north of Chicago, in the early months of 1990, Columbus had already filmed shots to convey a fake movie within the movie: “Angels with Filthy Souls,” a play on the 1939 Warner Bros. gangster classic “Angels with Dirty Faces.” Many kids who grew up watching “Home Alone” thought for years that “Angels with Filthy Souls” was a real movie, including Seth Rogen and Chris Evans. That’s also a testament to just how well that fake movie is cast, acted, and shot, to make you think this is the real deal from the 1930s.

All of “Home Alone” shows that level of care, though. Take a look at how many of the shots are centered on Kevin so the camera is at his level, with his point-of-view shots also taken from a relatively low angle to reflect his perspective. It’s one of the most effective kids’-eye-view movies ever.

4. It’s a character study more than a franchise

Let’s back up a minute. This is a movie about a kid who, when he can do anything he wants with his parents away, decides to pop in a VHS tape of a 1930s gangster movie. Now that’s a character we want to know! And one very hard to duplicate.

Read more from IndieWire: Winter TV awards: With FX in flux, can “Mrs. America” break through?

5. Why remake when you can keep it going?

Pitch time. Don’t remake “Home Alone,” make a 30-years-later follow-up. Kevin McCallister is now a 40-something racked with commitment and abandonment issues who runs afoul of a paroled Marv (Daniel Stern solo, as, let’s face it, Pesci’s not coming back), which triggers his warrior instincts. Culkin, who always seems on the verge of some big, weird, almost-certainly-indie comeback project, would be back. Catherine O’Hara has never been hotter after “Schitt’s Creek,” so who wouldn’t want to see her in this movie? Devin Ratray (snotty older brother Buzz) has been on an indie-movie tear with “Nebraska,” “Blue Ruin,” and “Hustlers,” so he should come back too. Columbus should be behind the camera. Of course, Hughes died in 2009, as did John Heard, who played Kevin’s father, in 2017. But nothing would pop more than seeing most of the original cast return for a meta take on the original film. An evolution, not a reboot. As every one of us who’s lived through 2020 knows, the idea of being “home alone” has never had greater currency.

The original film was meant to be a Christmas parable, a la “It’s a Wonderful Life,” about discovering the value of what you have as opposed to the pipe-dream wish you think you want. No, you don’t really want your family to suddenly vanish after all. But in our world of hyper-connectivity, the idea of suddenly unplugging from it all for a bit is less a “be careful what you wish for” fantasy than ever before. It’s now just a fantasy. “Home Alone” is a story with great plasticity. It’s easy enough to find a “social distancing” metaphor here, or an articulation of your desire not to spend your holidays with your Trump-supporting relatives. Read just a little into it and you’ll find something that speaks to you. Remaking this story from scratch rather than continuing the story 30 years later would be an even bigger mistake than forgetting to take your child on a trip two years in a row.

Just watching the original feels like an act of the movie being made anew each time you hit the play button. That’s what timeless classics do.

And here’s Culkin’s own take about a “Home Alone” remake:

In viral anti-racism PSA, “Steven Universe” character Pearl challenges our whitewashed history

Pearl (Deedee Mango) of the animated series “Steven Universe” has a message for Cartoon Network viewers: Tell the whole story. 

In a new public service announcement that began running on the network beginning Dec. 3, the character asks a classroom of students who invented the lightbulb. “Thomas Edison,” they brightly respond. That’s not entirely true. Pearl reveals that the invention could be more rightly attributed to Lewis Howard Latimer, the Black inventor responsible for creating the filament inside the bulb. 

“So, now you know!” Pearl says, before looking at the camera again. “Wait, is that it?”

“We’re not going to mention why he invented the filament? To create a better standard of living for people who had just been freed from slavery?” she says. “Are we going to ask about why kids are learning about Thomas Edison and not learning about Lewis Latimer?” 

Pearl — who is a “Gem,” essentially meaning that she is an alien being that exists as a magical gemstone projecting into a holographic body — flips through a textbook in disbelief. Where are the Black Roman warriors? The Black classical musicians? The Black cowboys? The Black fighter pilots? These people all existed in history, but are nowhere to be found in the book’s pages. 

“I worry about you humans because you only live, what, about 100 years?” she said. “You rely on these stories to know your own history. Thanks to systemic racism, most of your storytellers prioritize white accomplishments, which leaves you with an incomplete picture.” 

This PSA is the second of a four-part ongoing series of anti-racism content featuring “Steven Universe” characters, rolling out bimonthly. Cartoon Network released its first short, titled “Don’t Deny It, Defy It,”  on Oct. 27, which sparked a smattering of online outrage among some commenters who said that “[racism] is a strong word for kids” — which points to their fundamentally misunderstanding the PSA’s message “You have to acknowledge racism to work against it.” 

However, the second clip featuring Pearl decrying whitewashed history started to go viral on Twitter on Wednesday as more users came across it. There, the response has been largely positive. 

“Cartoon Network absolutely doesn’t have to do this,” one user wrote. “There’s nothing forcing them to. It’s not Black history month and there’s no national outrage that they’re capitalizing on. They do it cause [sic] it matters. THIS is the right way to tackle anti-racism.” 

This also isn’t the first time this year that the network has had to confront topics of racism and representation. In August, the voice actor Stuart D. Baker was fired from his role on “Squidbillies,” an adult animated series that runs on Cartoon Network’s nighttime programming block Adult Swim. 

As Joe Otterson reported for “Variety,” Baker, who performs under the name Unknown Hinson, posted on his Facebook profile about Dolly Parton voicing her support for the Black Lives Matter movement. “In doing so, he referred to Parton as a ‘freak titted, old Southern bimbo’ and a ‘slut.’ In another post, he wrote ‘HAVE FUN [sic] forsaking your own race, culture, and heritage.'” 

Series creators Jim Fortier and Dave Willis announced via the show’s official Twitter handle that Baker was no longer a part of the show.

“We’re aware of the extremely offensive and derogatory social media posts made late last week by Stuart D. Baker,” they wrote. “The views he expressed do not reflect our own personal values or the values of the show that we and many others have worked hard to produce over the past 15 years. For those reasons, production of Squidbillies will continue without Mr. Baker, effective immediately.”

“Squidbillies” isn’t a particularly subtle show (though numerous academics have questioned whether it perpetuates or subverts stereotypes about Appalachia); the Adult Swim website once described it as such: “A family of inbred squids tears the ass out of all creation in the North Georgia Mountains. It’s not all drinking, brawling, and reckless gunplay. Occasionally, they use crossbows. There’s also hate, love, sex, a multinational drywall conglomerate, cockfighting, the penal system, and a deep-seated mistrust of authority and all things different.” 

In contrast, “Steven Universe” has been lauded for its nuanced portrayal of LGBTQ representation and exploration of otherness. 

“This coming-of-age story is centered around a boy who avoids the hallmarks of traditional masculinity,” Caroline Cao wrote for Salon in March. “He comfortably dons pink, idolizes his female-presenting (technically agender, and “she/her” pronouns apply) Gem guardians, prefers diplomacy over punching his problems, and sings before a cheering crowd in a dress and glittery make-up.” 

So, it shouldn’t be a surprise for longtime fans that the show’s creator Rebecca Sugar, alongside “O.K. KO! Let’s Be Heroes” creator Ian Jones-Quartey, have created these sharp, timely public service announcements just when we need them most. 

Scientists say the US is about to face its “worst public health event” ever

Dr. Deborah Birx, President Donald Trump’s coronavirus response coordinator, warned the American people that the upcoming December surge in COVID-19 cases will be the “worst public health event” that the country will ever face.

That might sound a bit melodramatic — but public health experts Salon spoke with agreed with her stark assessment.

During an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Birx addressed the fact that US hospitals are struggling to keep up with the influx of patients caused by the coronavirus pandemic and anticipated that things are going to get worse.

“This is not just the worst public health event. This is the worst event that this country will face, not just from a public health side,” Birx told NBC. She later added, “This fall/winter surge is combining everything that we saw in the spring with everything we saw in the summer — plus the fall surge going into a winter surge. I think that’s why Dr. Redfield made this absolute appeal to the American people.” This was in reference to a comment last week by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Robert Redfield, who said that the upcoming months will be “the most difficult time in the public health history of this nation.”

The experts who talked to Salon agreed with that analysis.

“Certainly the 1918 influenza pandemic most closely approximates the current pandemic in its mortality, infectiousness, involvement of a broad swath of American society, and coordinated public health responses,” Dr. Deborah Doroshow, an assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and adjunct assistant professor of the history of Medicine at Yale University, wrote to Salon. “In 1918, germ theory was really taking hold among the American public (although it had been accepted by scientists and physicians for several decades) and similar arguments about masking and ‘freedom’ were not uncommon.”

She added that, although the 1918 influenza pandemic is the closest equivalent to the American experience with the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, “other public health events have proven devastating to particular groups of Americans.” These included the way that smallpox and other infectious diseases that decimated the population of Native American and Alaska Natives, and the systemic public health issues that stem from racism

Experts who spoke to Salon also emphasized that the public health crisis is not some distant future event; it is already upon us.

“They [hospitals] are overwhelmed already,” Dr. Alfred Sommer, dean emeritus and professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, wrote to Salon. “Many are not just near the breaking point in physical capacity, but what is too often overlooked, their staff are exhausted, physically and emotionally, with no let-up in sight.”

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, echoed that view.

“Respiratory disease always get worse in the fall and winter,” Benjamin wrote to Salon. “So this natural increase plus the lack of aggressive use of masks, social distancing and closures of large events will make this outbreak worse. Influenza during this time will also make it worse unless people get their flu shots.”

Sommer explained that the surge in COVID-19 cases can also be attributed to people disregarding important public health guidelines.

“We just came off Thanksgiving when far too many people travelled and congregated, spreading this highly infectious disease; and Christmas is coming up, when even more people who are infectious will be congregating with family and friends and spreading it further,” Sommer wrote to Salon. 

Sommer emphasized the “exponential” spread pattern for infectious disease. “[One] case (for [COVID-19]) produces [four] cases; the next iteration is then 16 cases, then 32, etc.” 

Sommer also noted that winter is helpful to the virus’ need to spread, as people are “getting closer together indoors,” while dry air “helps to ‘preserve’ the virus in the air and surfaces longer.”

Sommer lamented that so many Americans shirk public health advice, such as mask-wearing and avoiding congregating in groups. “It is a great lesson to the rest of the world at how bizarre our ‘wild west’ mentality can go against everyone’s best interest,” Sommer added.

“We are seeing new and ominous records being set as the [COVID-19] pandemic surges throughout the US,” Dr. Russell Medford, chairman of the Center for Global Health Innovation and Global Health Crisis Coordination Center, wrote to Salon. “Over 100,000 Covid-19 patients are now hospitalized in the US with over 20,000 patients in the intensive care units for the first time since the pandemic began. This is nearly double the record highs in hospitalizations we saw in the springtime in the northeastern states and in the summer in the Sun Belt.”

He added, “Today, hospital systems throughout the US are facing critical shortages not just in beds and space but, due to the incessant demand since the beginning of the pandemic, in the availability of trained healthcare workers (nurses, technicians, doctors) to care for these patients. Unfortunately, over the next eight to 12 weeks, we will likely see an intensification of these trends.”

“The consequences of an overwhelmed hospital system to the health of the individual with COVID, or with any other serious medical condition requiring hospital care, are dire,” he emphasized. 

“Alabama Snake” can’t out-weird “Tiger King,” even if a preacher tried to murder his wife via snake

Snake handlers hold a special place in pop culture. 

In the 2000 episode of “X-Files,” Mulder (David Duchovny) and Scully (Gillian Anderson) investigate the Church of God with Signs and Wonders in the fictional town of Blessing, Tennessee, where a number of ritual murders involving snakes have taken place. In 2013, “Justified” featured a multi-episode arc where Boyd Crowder (Walton Goggins) butts heads with Preacher Billy (Joseph Mazzello) a snake-handling pastor, who ultimately dies on his own altar after sustaining a bite from a wild rattlesnake. This happens just after it’s revealed that Billy’s sister had been milking the church’s ritualistic snakes of their venom the entire time. 

The concept is briefly mentioned in “The Simpsons” (Moe tells Homer, ” I was born a snake handler, and I’ll die a snake handler”) and in Netflix’s “Teenage Bounty Hunters.” Then, in 2019, Goggins — again! — and Olivia Colman starred in “Them That Follow,” a drama/thriller about a Pentecostal sect that incorporates snake-handling into their services. 

In these fictional accounts, the snake handling characters serve, with varying degrees of subtlety and success, the scripts in several ways: their churches are typically based in the American South or Appalachia, a detail that is true to life but, depending on the depictions, can come bundled with tired and damaging stereotypes about those regions. There’s often an element of charlatanism associated with the handler’s act, a nod to both the hypocrisy that sometimes bolsters self-appointed religious power.

At their best, these depictions provide an opportunity to illuminate the very human desire to have enough faith in something — love, a way of life, God — that they would be willing to put their physical bodies on the line. At their worst, they portray the congregants who were duped as culturally backwards and ignorant punchlines. 

These are the threads that HBO Max’s new documentary “Alabama Snake,” directed and co-written by Theo Love, could have pulled into the real world. The premise is there, as it delves into the events surrounding the conviction of Pentecostal preacher Glenn Summerford after he was found guilty of attempting to murder his wife, Darlene, with a rattlesnake that he used in church services. 

Unfortunately, the film is so tightly coiled around atmospheric re-enactments — which are undeniably evocative, but stagnating — and an undulating “he said, she said” narrative, that it fails to deliver much of a bite. 

“Alabama Snake” opens on the two parademics who answered the 911 call from Darlene. They detail how they found a woman with a serious bite on her hand, staggering down a remote road. The paramedics didn’t have anti-venom and neither did the local Scottsboro emergency room, so they rushed her to Birmingham 90 miles away. 

Darlene survived and, once she was fully healed, immediately accused Glenn of forcing her at gunpoint to stick her hand in the snake enclosure in their backyard shed. Why? There are shades of the same answer offered throughout the documentary: it was a test of Darlene’s faith after she had strayed from their marriage, or it was punishment for Darlene’s serial infidelity, or it was retribution for her molestation of Glenn’s two young teenage sons. 

The filmmakers never press Darlene on that last accusation, which is presented in on-screen text during a cutaway scene and is corroborated by one of Glenn’s sons, though denied by the other. This is just one example of  unsettling details that are introduced into the narrative that provide context, but aren’t fully explored enough to truly flesh out the narrative. Instead, it’s a “Tiger King”-esque pileup of weirdness where, if one was recounting the documentary by memory, they’d have to pause again and again to say, “Oh my god, and this happened, too.” 

There’s a brawl where Glenn allegedly punches someone’s eyes out of their sockets. There’s a still-unsolved house fire that killed his toddler daughter (that is potentially related to the man losing his eyes, but there’s no proof). There’s divorce and deception and finding Jesus. 

And don’t get me wrong, I like weird — but in a documentary, weirdness needs context. “Alabama Snake” tries, but it focuses on the wrong things. 

There are lengthy  —and sometimes mildly cartoonish — re-enactments that focus on how Glenn’s stepfather taught him how to fight and how that training, combined with alcoholism and personal tragedy, may have transformed him into an irredeemably angry man. The filmmakers interview a court stenographer, who offers some context about what Glenn and Darlene said in court, but also pauses to explain how shorthand works. 

We hear from present-day Darlene, but she seems deeply unwell. Her words are incredibly slurred (to the point her portions are subtitled) and she speaks of suicidal ideations and of being surrounded by and casting out literal demons. We hear Glenn’s voice, as well, but it’s from archived tapes recorded after his conviction. 

The filmmakers try to introduce some level of ambiguity to the narrative; investigators found a suicide note written by Darlene, which she maintains Glenn forced her to write, and Glenn’s family says that if he truly wanted Darlene dead, he maybe would have killed her. But as the narrative stands, there’s no concrete reasons given to believe that Darlene is lying about the central story of being forced to place her hand in a snake enclosure. 

In this form, “Alabama Snake” could have easily been titled “Alabama Gun” or “Alabama German Shepherd.” The murder weapon is perhaps enough to lure someone into the story, but it’s never parsed in such a way that viewers understand its true significance. 

This is despite the fact that Appalchian historian Dr. Thomas Burton, who also produced the 1973 documentary “They Shall Take Up Serpents,” serves as the film’s main scholarly talking head. He introduces interesting ideas: the Biblical interpretations (or misinterpretations) that led to some Pentecostal sects adopting snake handling, the skepticism that some in the community had for Glenn, the notion that Glenn was put on trial more for his general religious practices than the individual crime involving Darlene. 

But, by the closing credits, those concepts still remain a little murky. And while “Alabama Snake” has been advertised as being a story rooted in Appalachia, it falls short on identifying why fringe rituals continue to have a hold in the region, and how or if the town of Scottsboro was altered by the media frenzy that surrounded Glenn’s 1991 conviction. 

In the end, “Alabama Snake” is a cursory examination of a story with splashy characters and a weird true crime twist. For a fuller understanding of the topic, maybe pair it with Dr. Burton’s 2004 book on the case, “The Serpent and the Spirit.” 

“Alabama Snake” is available to stream beginning Wednesday, Dec. 9 at 9 p.m. on HBO Max.

Trump ramps up GOP pressure campaign as Republicans rally around last-ditch Texas lawsuit

Embattled Texas attorney general Ken Paxton was widely derided after he filed a longshot lawsuit on Tuesday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block electors in key battleground states from casting “unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes.”

There is no evidence of fraud in the presidential election, according to election officials in every state. President-elect Joe Biden won with a record-setting 81 million votes — a margin of victory of more than seven million votes over Donald Trump.

Paxton’s complaint charges Wisconsin, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania with what he claims were illegal procedural changes made ahead of the election to limit the spread of the coronavirus, allegations that Pennsylvania already successfully argued could violate due process rights for millions of voters. At one point, Paxton’s filing repeats the debunked claim that a mysterious late-night dump of ballots boosted Biden’s chances in Pennsylvania, alleging that Trump’s opponent had “less than one in a quadrillion” odds of winning all four states. All four states have certified their results, and all but Wisconsin met Tuesday’s “safe harbor” deadline, the accepted final date by which states must complete all post-election challenges, such as recounts. State courts will likely toss any new challenges filed after that date.

Legal experts quickly dismissed the lawsuit and some questioned whether Paxton, currently the target of an FBI bribery investigation, is angling for a pardon from the outgoing president.

Attorneys general from the targeted states also pushed back against the suit. “

With all due respect, the Texas Attorney General is constitutionally, legally and factually wrong about Georgia,” Katie Byrd, spokeswoman for Republican Georgia attorney general Chris Carr, said in a statement. The other three attorneys general, all Democrats, issued a joint statement calling Paxton’s effort an attempt to “mislead the public and tear at the fabric of our Constitution.”

But on Wednesday afternoon, 17 Republican-led states, led by Missouri, signed on to an amicus brief in support of Texas. Reuters justice correspondent Brad Heath pointed out that several of those states had implemented the same election procedures that they criticize as unlawful.

“I suspect a lot of these Republican states would’ve been been a lot more reluctant to sign on to these kinds of legal arguments — which would expose them to tons of litigation over their own laws — if they thought it had any chance of success,” Heath said.

Trump allies on Capitol Hill, some under pressure from the Oval Office, also pushed ahead.

Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., on Wednesday sent an email asking every House Republican to add their signatures to an amicus brief for Paxton’s suit. Trump, Johnson told his colleagues, had called him personally and is “anxiously awaiting the final list” of signatories.

“Are we the party of list-making now?” one lawmaker asked CNN’s Jake Tapper.

The 154-page filing, a hard copy of which White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany held aloft for the benefit of viewers during a Tuesday night interview with Fox News personality Sean Hannity, comes as the Supreme Court issued a one-sentence rejection of a GOP challenge to Pennsylvania’s use of mail ballots.

While Paxton may have won support from MAGA-world, Republican attorney George Conway, husband of former top Trump official Kellyanne Conway, called the exercise “insane.”

“The notion that the Supreme Court is going to have a litigation . . . where states are attacking each others’ rules for choosing electors is insane,” Conway told CNN, adding that “the biggest election fraud of the 2020 cycle” is “the lie that [Donald Trump] won the election.”

Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman wrote in a Bloomberg op-ed: “In Trump’s fantasy world, apparently shared by Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, the Supreme Court will engage in a constitutional coup d’état and give Trump a second term.”

“This idea is based on a view of the court as entirely partisan,” he continued. “It’s disrespectful of the rule of law. And it’s wrong, whether held hopefully on the right or fearfully on the left.”

Rick Hasen, top election law expert and professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California Irvine, said the case was a “publicity stunt” for a presidential pardon.

“The Texas case is not serious. Far from it. It’s a publicity stunt masquerading as a lawsuit,” Hasen tweeted on Tuesday. “AG Paxton should be sanctioned for it. It goes against the will of millions of voters. He’s going for a pardon with Trump.”

Indeed, Paxton has legal exposure of his own. He is currently the target of a federal probe into allegations that he committed bribery and abused his office on behalf of a wealthy political donor.

Beyond that, Paxton is still under indictment for felony securities fraud, for convincing investors to buy shares of a tech firm without disclosing that he would get commission on the sale. The case has bounced around Texas trial courts for five years, reaching the state’s highest criminal court before dropping back down to the county level. Paxton himself has still not faced trial.

The president’s pardon power does not extend to state charges.

Giuliani says he didn’t know most Americans can’t access his VIP coronavirus treatment regimen

Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s personal attorney and former New York City mayor, insisted that he has not changed his views about the dangerousness of COVID-19 despite his recent diagnosis — and even after he was informed that he had access to rare, expensive medications that most Americans with COVID-19 do not.

Speaking in an interview with New York’s TalkRadio 77 WABC on Tuesday, Giuliani said that he has “exactly the same view” that the coronavirus pandemic is being exaggerated and that people don’t need to wear masks, even as he spoke from a phone in a Washington DC hospital room because he had been infected. Giuliani added that “I’ve also been through cancer, a couple of other things — very serious, very serious, emergency knee operation. Things happen in life, and you have to go with them. You can’t overreact to them. Otherwise, you let the fear of illness drive your entire life.”

Giuliani’s comments echoed Trump’s own response to being diagnosed with COVID-19 back in October, when the president tweeted, “Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life.” Like Trump, Giuliani has recently criss-crossed America, often while shirking public health guidelines, in an attempt to overturn Biden’s unambiguous victory in the 2020 presidential election.

Like Trump, Giuliani has been treated with remdesivir and dexamethasone, which one of the radio hosts pointed out is too expensive for ordinary Americans.

“I, well, I didn’t know that. I mean, they give it to us here at this hospital,” Giuliani told the radio hosts. He added that he was “not sure” their description was accurate.

After being diagnosed with COVID-19, Trump was given the steroid dexamethasone to address his lowered oxygen levels; a five-day course of the antiviral drug remdesivir that is meant to improve recovery time for patients; and an 8 gram dose of an experimental drug called REGN-COV2 from the biotechnology company Regeneron.

The treatment that President Trump got is certainly not available to all patients, Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, told Salon by email in October. Benjamin’s views were echoed at the time by Dr. Richard D. Wolff, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

“Privilege is the key adjective to describe not only the medical care Trump is now receiving but the entire package of first-rate health care provided freely to top officials, the Congress, etc,” Wolff wrote to Salon. “It is a long-standing reproach to the deep inequalities of US capitalism that the same governmental officials whose votes deny a first-rate universal health care system to the mass of Americans can and do luxuriate in just such a system for themselves. It only adds insult to that injury that the President gets medicines and treatments not available to the public.”

Besides being ignorant about the accessibility of his drug regimen, Giuliani also eschewed the scientific consensus on wearing masks to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus. When asked by one of the hosts if his experience being hospitalized changed his view on masks, Giuliani replied “No. It does not. I think you can overdo the masks.”

Like Giuliani, Trump has repeatedly downplayed the importance of wearing a mask, even mocking President-elect Joe Biden for regularly wearing a mask during one of the presidential debates.

There is scientific consensus that masks prevent the spread of coronavirus. “Masks are important for catching droplets and microdroplet aerosols expelled while talking and breathing,” Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding, Senior Fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, told Salon by email in July. 

Coronavirus vaccines weren’t tested on pregnant women — here’s why that’s a problem

The Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is breaking some healthcare barriers, but not all.

In less than one year, the vaccine has passed through three required phases of a clinical trial and is currently ready to be mass-produced across the world. Great Britain became the first Western Nation to vaccinate its citizens this week. As soon as this weekend, hospitals across the United States will be able to start vaccinating frontline workers, pending approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

However, there’s one peculiar caveat to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine— and to other major vaccine trials, too: none included pregnant women in their clinical trials. Indeed, not one of the vaccines expected to be approved by the FDA in the next couple weeks, including the Pfizer/BioNTech one, have been tested on pregnant women directly, leaving a cohort of people who are vulnerable to COVID-19 with no direct information on how the vaccine will affect them or their fetuses.

“We don’t know anything directly about the safety of the vaccine in pregnant or in lactating persons because they were all excluded from the vaccine trials,” Dr. Melissa Simon, Director of the Center for Health Equity Transformation at Northwestern’s Center at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, told Salon in a phone interview. “The only thing that could have possibly happened, which we won’t know until the data are unblinded, is if any of the participants in the vaccine trials got pregnant during the course of participating in the trial.”

The exclusion speaks to a long-lived trend in America’s healthcare system, in which pregnant women are actively excluded from the clinical vaccine trials and critical research in healthcare. Earlier this month, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), a non-profit organization focused on maternal health, released a statement calling the “existing practice of ‘protection by exclusion'” as “harmful.” The same statement said that the move has been “characterized” as “clinical experimentation on pregnant women” because it results in the vaccine being “distributed and administered without the safeguards of research protocols in place.”

Simon described the intentional oversight as a “missed opportunity” and “concerning.” Dr. Stephanie Gaw, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of California-San Francisco’s Center for Reproductive Sciences, agreed.

“I think it was definitely a missed opportunity to get as much data as possible in order to make the most rational choices and deciding on allocation of valuable resources,” Gaw said.

Fortunately, both doctors said they believe there is little risk to the fetus or pregnant women based on what we know about the technology of the COVID-19 vaccine. Multiple medical groups, including SMFM, agree. However, there are no definitive answers yet.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccine candidates are mRNA-based vaccines, meaning they involve creating a synthetic single-stranded RNA molecule that produces proteins once in the body. In the case of the COVID-19 vaccine, these proteins are similar to those already found in the novel coronavirus and they trigger the immune system to produce protective antibodies without using parts of the real coronavirus to create immunity. According to the FDA documents, some protection against the coronavirus can occur after the first dose, while full protection occurs after the second one.

The AstraZeneca vaccine, developed by Oxford University, is slightly different from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in that it uses a chimpanzee adenovirus to engineer the spike protein from novel coronavirus. Simon said what we know about the Ebola vaccine in pregnant women is “one clue” that tells experts in the field that the current COVID-19 vaccines pose a “low risk” for pregnant women. According to one study on the Ebola vaccine in pregnant women, there were no congenital anomalies detected in the infants born from vaccinated women. There also wasn’t an alarming gap in pregnancy loss between vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

“AstraZeneca’s use of a viral vector is similar to the mechanism that has been used in the Ebola vaccine,” Simon said. “But we just cannot say for sure because to our knowledge, no pregnant or lactating person has received any of the vaccines in the trials yet.”

Gaw said the problem with excluding pregnant women from COVID-19 vaccine trials isn’t about the vaccine itself being “dangerous” to anyone, but instead failing to protect pregnant women—especially, those who are frontline workers.

“They’re making plans for deployment, healthcare workers and frontline workers will be the first to get it — but guess what, a lot of those people are pregnant,” Gaw said. “We don’t have any direct data on whether it’s safe, we think it probably is, biologically, but we also don’t know if it works the same— pregnant immune systems are a little different.”

There are several reports of pregnant women — particularly those with comorbidities  — becoming critically ill from COVID-19. And according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pregnant women have a higher risk for severe outcomes of COVID-19 than those who aren’t pregnant.

Gaw said the lack of data could hypothetically mean that doctors won’t know the correct dosage for pregnant women.

“Is the dosing the same? Is the vaccine schedule the same in pregnancy?” Gaw explained, as one example. “On the plus side, it might be more beneficial in pregnant women; it could also protect the newborn baby and then you’re vaccinating two people, there are a bunch of positives and negatives that essentially we just don’t know because we’re missing data at this point.”

Vaccine hesitancy, which is already a problem with the pregnant and non-pregnant population, is another concern with the exclusion of pregnant women in the clinical trials.

Historically, excluding pregnant women from vaccine trials has been a “a long standing challenge,” partly based on the “unsubstantiated fear” of harming a fetus, Simon said. This isn’t the first time the concern of pregnant women being excluded from a vaccine trial has been raised and scrutinized before. When asked why this continues to happen, Gaw said there are usually additional barriers for including pregnant women— like more paperwork.

So, what are pregnant women—especially healthcare workers—to do?

Gaw said pregnant women should speak with their doctors, and ask for the vaccine if they want it.

“They should definitely not be excluded just because they’re pregnant,” Gaw said. “Ultimately, the decision relies on the patient.”

The FDA documents about the Pfizer vaccine indicated that the company is expected to submit plans for a clinical study to assess safety and immunogenicity in pregnant women in the future. Until then, pregnant women seeking definitive answers are forced to wait.

Insiders at Charlie Kirk’s Trump-favored charity are cashing in: report

This election, one of President Donald Trump’s most influential advocates is 26-year-old Charlie Kirk, who has developed a unique bond with the first family. The conservative star dines with the president at Mar-a-Lago and rang in the new year there. During each of the last two winters, he used the club to hold a formal fundraiser for his nonprofit, Turning Point USA, that featured Donald Trump Jr.

At a Turning Point event in June, the president, addressing the crowd, said, “Let us also show our appreciation to my good friend, Charlie. I’ll tell you, Charlie is some piece of work who is mobilizing a new generation of pro-American student activists.” On a Turning Point webpage soliciting donations, Trump Jr., a close friend of Kirk’s, is quoted as saying, “I’m convinced that the work by Turning Point USA and Charlie Kirk will win back the future of America.”

The tax-exempt charity says its mission is to educate “students about the importance of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and capitalism.” As its profile has risen, its revenue has ballooned, reaching $28 million, a sevenfold increase in four years.

But behind the scenes, Turning Point USA has entered into questionable financial arrangements, particularly involving Kirk’s mentor, William Montgomery, the lesser-known co-founder who is credited with discovering Kirk. Montgomery, 80, an Illinois entrepreneur and onetime Tea Party activist, is one of three Turning Point insiders who have won lucrative deals from the group to handle its printing, payroll processing and fundraising.

The nonprofit has also made misleading assertions about its finances to state and federal regulators, according to interviews and an examination of tax and business records.

Charities are required to conduct annual independent audits certifying their books are sound in order to fundraise in more than a dozen states. But the accounting firm Turning Point uses has engaged in multiple business relationships with Montgomery, who for years served as the nonprofit’s treasurer. The dynamic, experts say, imperils independence and undermines the credibility of Turning Point’s financial statements, including its federal tax returns — an issue of significance at a moment when more and more cash is flowing into the organization’s coffers.

“This raises real questions about the legitimacy of the return,” Philip Hackney, a University of Pittsburgh School of Law professor who formerly worked in the IRS’ chief counsel’s office, told ProPublica. “It makes it difficult to trust what is reported and begins to raise the possibility that it’s a fraudulent statement.”

The IRS requires, under the penalty of perjury, that charities attest whether they received an independent audit. Both Kirk and the co-founder have signed off on Turning Point’s filings.

In response to questions from ProPublica, Sally Wagenmaker, an attorney for the nonprofit, said that payments to businesses belonging to organization officials “provided a compelling operational benefit in Turning Point’s best and other interests,” and that they were “in full compliance with TPUSA’s IRS-compliant conflict of interest policy.”

Andrew Kolvet, a Turning Point spokesman, said the business relationship between the group’s auditor and its former treasurer is not significant and maintained the accounting firm is indeed an independent company. Another potential issue, ProPublica found, is that the license of the firm expired in late 2018, though the one that personally belongs to the firm’s managing partner has not.

Turning Point was founded in 2012 by Kirk, then 18, and Montgomery, who invested in the young activist after hearing him speak at a small college in the state. At the 2016 Republican National Convention, Kirk met Trump Jr. and would soon accompany him on the road as an assistant. As Turning Point has thrived, Kirk’s salary has grown from $27,000 to nearly $300,000, and he no longer lives with his parents — last May he bought a $855,000 two-bedroom, two-bathroom oceanfront condo in Longboat Key, Florida, county property records show.

Over the last year, the president has delivered remarks at the organization’s conferences three separate times. At the group’s December 2018 Mar-a-Lago affair, the president’s eldest son helped it haul in nearly $5 million, tax records show. Recently, Kirk published a book called “The MAGA Doctrine,” which Trump and his son promoted on Twitter.

For his part, Montgomery, whose Facebook profile picture features him posing with Trump Jr., left Turning Point last April, when, Kolvet said, his term as a board member ended. Two months later, Kirk effusively praised Montgomery in a blog post, celebrating his unmatched contributions to the nonprofit. “To anyone who has been impacted by my videos, podcast, TPUSA, our chapters, literature, events, conferences, field programs, or any speeches I have given,” Kirk wrote, “you have Bill Montgomery to thank for investing in an 18-year-old with a vision — when everyone else thought it was impossible, foolish, and deemed for failure.”

Montgomery, Kolvet told ProPublica, “remains a friend of the organization.”

Turning Point amplifies White House messaging by regularly tweeting memes and one-liners supportive of Trump administration policies or politics to hundreds of thousands of Twitter followers, and it retweets similar messages sent by Kirk, who is followed by nearly 2 million people. Meanwhile, Kirk’s and the group’s tweets are often retweeted by the president, promoting the young leader’s incendiary statements to more than 82 million followers, including his description of COVID-19 as the “China virus.”

Kirk cultivates the image of a young, serious executive, favoring button-down shirts and sport coats in public. He revels in provoking left-leaning activists and students on everything from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the effects of “white privilege,” which he calls a “racist lie.” Turning Point promotes clips of his campus confrontations on social media, typically boasting that Kirk has “destroyed” an unworthy adversary.

Turning Point says it now has “a presence” on more than 2,000 campuses, 272 employees and an affiliated nonprofit largely focused on supporting Trump. Yet as the organization has expanded, it has on occasion been the center of controversy. Politico found that Turning Point has fabricated its influence on college elections. And in 2017, The New Yorker drew attention to an organizational culture that appeared plagued with racism and indifferent to laws that prohibit charities from engaging in express political advocacy. The magazine obtained text messages written by the group’s former field director that said, “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all…I hate blacks. End of story.” (The sender of the text resigned and Kirk told the magazine, “Turning Point assessed the situation and took decisive action within 72 hours of being made aware of the issue.”)

ProPublica’s examination of Turning Point’s finances raises additional questions about the way the group is run, the reliability of its public disclosures and its approach to regulations governing nonprofits.

Turning Point is registered to fundraise in dozens of states across the country. Because of the group’s size, attorneys general and secretaries of state in 15 states — including New York, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Kansas — require it to file audits to remain in good standing. The work, each state’s statute invariably specifies, must be carried out by “an independent certified public accountant.”

The IRS does not require such an audit, but it asks about the audit’s status. On Turning Point’s last four federal tax returns, consistent with its state filings and spanning a period that covers July 2015 through June 2019, the group asserts that its financial statements are “audited by an independent accountant.”

But Turning Point’s accounting firm, the Stapleton Group, based in Orland Park, Illinois, has a significant tie to the charity. Montgomery, the charity’s co-founder, has served as a “business development advisor” for Stapleton, helping to bring clients to the firm. The company’s managing partner, Robert Stapleton, who handles Turning Point’s returns, has worked as Montgomery’s personal tax preparer, according to Stapleton. The firm, which employs a handful of people, was incorporated by the same suburban Chicago lawyer who, records show, formed a business entity Montgomery used to collect rent and make political contributions.

Robert Stapleton and the Stapleton Group did not respond directly to ProPublica. Instead, the firm provided comments through Kolvet.

Stapleton became Turning Point’s auditor after Montgomery introduced the firm to the organization, a referral for which Montgomery wasn’t compensated, Stapleton said through the spokesman. On his LinkedIn page and in a biography that once lived on Turning Point’s website, Montgomery identifies his connection to Stapleton’s firm; on the former, it states the affiliation began in 2010 and has continued to the present.

Montgomery received “no remuneration” from the firm and “acted in a business development capacity in his spare time and on commission only” in 2011, according to Stapleton. Turning Point, Kolvet said, “is confident in the independence of any services provided by The Stapleton Group.”

In a statement, the firm said, “The Stapleton Group upholds the highest levels of integrity and independence while conducting audits and reviews for many businesses and organizations of all sizes.”

Until the spring of last year, records show, Montgomery served on Turning Point’s board and as its secretary and treasurer, giving him oversight of Turning Point’s financial books and custody over its corporate records, according to the group’s bylaws. At one point, he was solely responsible for fundraising and the spending of Turning Point’s cash, according to charity records filed in New Mexico.

“If Montgomery has a strong relationship with the auditor, then there is a clear conflict there,” said Tzachi Zach, an Ohio State University accounting professor. “Other than the auditor being hired, there should be no other relationship between the auditor and the nonprofit.”

James Fishman, a former assistant attorney general in the New York attorney general’s office, said that, on the question of independence, Turning Point’s audit arrangement “does not pass the smell test. If an attorney general looked closely, they would find it wasn’t independent.”

In a letter dated July 7, and provided by Kolvet, Robert Stapleton wrote to Montgomery on company letterhead asking him to “immediately correct” his LinkedIn profile that claimed he is “associated with the Stapleton Group.” The letter was dated two weeks after ProPublica first inquired about Montgomery’s ties to the accounting firm; Montgomery’s LinkedIn profile still identifies him as a “business development advisor” for Stapleton.

The nonprofit’s most recent publicly available audit, signed by the “The Stapleton Group” in May 2019, presents an additional issue. The firm’s license to practice expired in late 2018, according to the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, the state agency that regulates occupational licenses. In Illinois, state law prohibits certified public accounting firms with an expired license from conducting audits.

Stapleton said his firm “is aware and is in the process of rectifying the issue,” and through Kolvet provided a copy of his personal CPA license to ProPublica. Wagenmaker, the Turning Point attorney, wouldn’t provide a copy of the group’s most recent audit, which is not yet public and captures the nonprofit’s finances through last July. She also wouldn’t confirm whether it was carried out by the Stapleton Group.

Montgomery hasn’t responded to calls and emails seeking comment.

During Montgomery’s time at Turning Point, he personally benefited from several of the group’s business arrangements. Between July 2017 and June 2019, tax records show, Turning Point paid more than $430,000 to a printing shop owned by Montgomery, and gave him an additional $25,000 for the rental of a small office space. The compensation was on top of the direct income he received from Turning Point, which earned him close to $200,000 during the same period.

Doug De Groote, the organization’s board secretary, said the vendor payments to Montgomery “represent fair market value or lower for the trade services received.” He added, “These decisions were made with Mr. Montgomery recused and with the organization’s best interest paramount.”

Turning Point similarly said it was getting a better deal by using the payroll processing firm owned by the organization’s current treasurer, Tom Sodeika. In late 2018, the nonprofit tapped the services of his small, Illinois-based company, Precision Payroll of America. Turning Point paid Precision $51,072 for its services from late 2018 through last July, according to tax records. The amount, Kolvet said, was “at a significant discount below market rates and in full compliance with Turning Point conflict-of-interest policy.”

In January, Sodeika sold the company and relinquished all executive positions there. Turning Point would not say how much Sodeika sold Precision for or to whom he sold it, but Kolvet told ProPublica that “prior to the sale of the company” it provided services to Turning Point “at discounted market rates.”

Turning Point’s treasurers are not the only insiders who have reaped financial rewards from the nonprofit. It also appears to have steered extra cash to a highly paid employee through limited liability companies, business records show.

Stacy Sheridan, Turning Point’s “senior advancement director,” receives a salary of more than $180,000, according to the group’s latest tax filings, which also show over $200,000 flowing to two business entities — GSM Strategy LLC and Lionrock Ventures LLC — that were paid for fundraising. The return does not disclose who is behind both companies, neither of which has a website. But corporate records for GSM and Lionrock include Sheridan’s name and addresses associated with her.

When asked about the LLC payments, neither Kolvet nor Sheridan provided a comment. On their own, the veiled arrangements may pass legal muster, but Hackney, the former IRS official, said they could be part of a larger, troubling pattern.

“As the number of self-interested transactions go up,” he said, “the potential goes up for the possibility that the organization is being operated for the private interests of those who control the organization.”

This versatile biscuit-topped pot pie is the perfect dish for your leftover holiday turkey or meat

On Thanksgiving night my husband was incredibly diplomatic about my turkey fail. And fail I did – my word, not his – a rebuke of my highest efforts. I’d brined the meat and seasoned it on top of that. I’d tented the turkey in foil as I have for years, but this time I didn’t notice a gap in my joined edges, which allowed all the precious basting steam to escape. By the time I checked on the bird it was . . . thoroughly cooked.

“The dark meat’s terrific,” he cagily offered when I asked about the breast (his favorite part, the reason for the season!). When I asked again he offered after a pause, in the kindest voice, “This is why gravy was invented.” Like I said, that was day one.

Twenty-four hours later he was cracking jokes about building a monument to the leathery meat and the despair it represented. Then he offered the inspirational flash that saved that weekend’s leftovers. “Why don’t we toss it into a pot pie?” Being an overachiever, I viewed this turkey rescue mission as a chance to save face.  “How do you feel about a biscuit crust?

A good pot pie recipe can be the home cook’s best friend in situations like this, and an artful salvation to dashed holiday ambitions. Better yet, making one can be as simple or as complicated as the chef wants it to be. Nevertheless until recently the pot pie got a terrible rap for being, horror of horrors, basic.

Since the mid-20th century and the rise of mass manufactured convenient foods, the pot pie has been synonymous with those frozen single-serving pucks nestled in aluminum pans. Back in the day they were created to be an easy meal option that sits somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between made-from-scratch and a frozen pizza, giving exhausted parents a night off from cooking while meeting the requirements of a balanced meal. Meat, vegetables and a starch coexisting in one neat package that can be baked from its frigid state and also happens to be a single-serving pie. What could be better?

A homemade pie, that’s what. The downside of these mass-produced versions is that they weren’t particularly pleasing to adult palates. They also have a reputation for being packed with sodium and fat.

With any homemade dish the preparer can control levels of unhealthiness and better still, how the pie tastes. That part depends on the cook’s whims, and there are countless methods and flavors to draw upon. This savory pastry has been enjoyed in cultures around the world and in various forms since ancient times, and it can be molded to suit royalty or ravenous workers collapsing at the end of a taxing day.

Whether fancied up or entirely utilitarian, made with two crusts or one, or created with any variety of ingredients, a pot pie is a decadent, nourishing creation. A veritable galaxy of recipes exist for people to choose from.

Reading a few of them may lead a person to believe that pulling one together from scratch or something close to it is a complex undertaking. Again: only if you want it to be.

Take this version as an example. For the filling I worked off of a recipe from a 2007 issue of Everyday Food intended as a lighter version of the classic pot pie recipe. It uses low-fat milk and flavors the sauce in part with lemon juice, two ingredients used as meat tenderizers – better dry turkey rescue agents than gravy.

The publication’s original recipe uses six sheets of phyllo dough for the top crust, stacked two at a time and brushed or sprayed with olive oil between layers, reducing the calorie count and eliminating any prep time that might otherwise be devoted to making a pie crust.

Like the phyllo dough, you can easily purchase pie crusts from the store. Similarly if you want to make the biscuit top without the work, use a box of Bisquick or one of those cannister tubes of ready-bake biscuit dough.

Any of those options can yield a mostly homemade pot pie in under 40 minutes or less if, like me, you have some leftover meat to repurpose. That makes a single-crust homemade pot pie a doable weeknight dinner option, especially if you have second-day rotisserie chicken to play with.

Those willing to devote a little more time to making the biscuit dough from scratch and who care less about the higher calorie count – it’s 2020, live a little! –  will be rewarded by a fluffy, decadent accompaniment to the meat, carrots, sweet peas and sauce sheltered beneath.

Use any biscuit recipe you like. Salon recently published an excellent one by Kelly Fields. Drop biscuit recipes are even simpler in that you can just pour the batter on top of the filling before baking. My go-to recipe is Edna Lewis’ Sunday Revival Dinner version, taken from her classic cookbook “The Taste of Country Cooking.” Exactly what’s needed to transform a turkey day tragedy into a leftover triumph.

Biscuit-Topped Turkey (or Chicken!) Pot Pie

For the filling:  

  • Leftover turkey breast meat (or meat of your choice), around 12 to 14 ounces
  • Coarse salt and ground pepper
  • 3 tablespoons olive oil
  • 4 carrots, sliced 1/4 inch thick
  • 1 medium onion, finely chopped
  • 1/4 teaspoon dried thyme leaves
  • 1/4 cup all-purpose flour
  • 2 1/2 cups low-fat (1%) milk
  • 1 package (10 ounces) frozen peas, thawed
  • 2 tablespoons fresh lemon juice

(Reporter’s note: If you like more lemon feel free to add more, but be careful not to overdose on it or you may break the sauce’s creaminess. If you want a thicker sauce use whole milk or toss in pats of butter, a bit at a time, to thicken.)

For the biscuits (as Edna Lewis directs):

  • 3 cups sifted all-purpose flour
  • 1 scant teaspoon salt
  • ½ teaspoon baking soda
  • 4 teaspoons Royal Baking Powder
  • ⅔ cup lard (Reporter’s note: If you’re squeamish about using lard, Crisco or room-temperature butter work fine for this situation.)
  • 1 cup plus 2 tablespoons buttermilk (If sweet milk is being used, omit the baking soda and the 2 tablespoons of milk; sweet milk is more liquid than sour and therefore these are not needed.)

Method – filling

  1. Preheat oven to 425 degrees.
     
  2. Take your (over)cooked turkey or chicken and either cut it into cubes with a knife or shred it with your hands. Set aside.
     
  3. Heat 2 tablespoons oil in a large saucepan over medium. Add carrots, onion, and thyme; season with salt and pepper, and cook until carrots are crisp-tender, 8 to 10 minutes. Add flour, and cook, stirring, 1 minute. Gradually add milk, stirring until smooth. Cook, stirring occasionally, until mixture comes to a simmer and thickens.
     
  4. Remove from heat, then stir in peas, lemon juice, and chicken, and season with salt and pepper.

Method – biscuits and pot pie

  1. Take a large bowl, sift into it the measured flour, salt, soda and baking powder. Add the lard, and blend together with a pastry blender or your fingertips until the mixture has the texture of cornmeal.
     
  2. Add the milk all at once by scattering it over the dough. Stir vigorously with a stout wooden spoon. The dough will be very soft in the beginning but will stiffen in 2 or 3 minutes. Continue to stir a few minutes longer.
     
  3. After the dough has stiffened, scrape from sides of bowl into a ball, and spoon onto a lightly floured surface for rolling. Dust over lightly with about a tablespoon of flour as the dough will be a bit sticky. Flatten the dough out gently with your hands into a thick, round cake, and knead for a minute by folding the outer edge of the dough into the center of the circle, giving a light knead as you fold the sides in overlapping each other.
     
  4. Turn the folded side face down and dust lightly if needed, being careful not to use too much flour and cause the dough to become too stiff. Dust the rolling pin and the rolling surface well. Roll the dough out evenly to a bit less than 1/2-inch in thickness.
     
  5. Dust your biscuit cutter in flour first to prevent the dough sticking to the cutter. Then, press the cutter into the dough and lift up with a sharp quickness without a wiggle.
     
  6. To make the crust rest the biscuit rounds closely together on top of the filling, working from the outside of your casserole dish inward and placing the biscuit rounds on the outer rim as close to the dish as possible. 
     
  7. Bake for 15 to 20 minutes, starting at 15 to make sure you don’t put the biscuits in for too long. Once the filling starts bubbling and the biscuits have risen and are on the lighter side of golden, your pot pie is done. Let it cool for 10-15 minutes before serving.

Viral Michigan witness won’t quarantine after Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis test positive for COVID

Melissa Carone, whose unsworn testimony next to an unmasked Rudy Giuliani at a Michigan state legislature hearing on voter fraud went viral last week, said on Tuesday that she would not quarantine following his positive COVID-19 diagnosis, despite municipal orders and a legislature shutdown. She had not been tested.

Following the former LifeLock spokesperson’s hospitalization on Sunday, Trump campaign legal adviser Jenna Ellis, who had traveled extensively with Giuliani and also sat beside him during the Michigan hearing, announced she had also tested positive for the virus.

The Ingham County Health Department, which has jurisdiction over the state capital of Lansing, ordered anyone who had been within six feet of the president’s personal attorney for at least 15 minutes to self-quarantine, The Washington Post reported Tuesday. The directive also applied to the many attendees at the hearing who did not wear a mask.

But Carone, who espoused lies and conspiracy theories about election fraud for nearly half an hour while the former mayor of New York occasionally leaned towards her, at one point grabbing at her arm to rein in her aggressive, told The Post that she had not heard about the health notice.

“I would take it seriously if it came from Trump, because Trump cares about American lives,” she said, adding that if fringe networks that regularly traffic in coronavirus misinformation such as One America News or Newsmax “told me to go get tested, I would do it.”

“It is not that I don’t believe in getting tested. I don’t trust the tests,” Carone explained. Giuliani, who posed for pictures alongside Carone, has been as “extremely likely” to have been contagious by health officials.

The freelance IT worker received national attention when her disjointed testimony went viral earlier this month. Election officials in every state have said there is no evidence of voter fraud in the presidential election, which Biden won with a record-setting 81 million votes — seven million more than Trump.

Giuliani had exalted Carone as a star witness in the campaign’s effort to rewrite the results of Trump’s defeat in the 2020 presidential election. But several weeks before her appearance, a Michigan circuit judge had already ruled that her claims were “simply are not credible.”

Video of the hearing shows Carone slurring her way through a series of lies about fraudulently tabulated votes while berating a stoic Republican lawmaker.

“The poll book is completely off,” Carone said in the clip. “Completely off.”

“Off by 30,000?” the Republican asked.

“I’d say that poll book is off by over 100,000,” she replied.

“What about the turnout rate?” she added, as Giuliani leaned over to tug her arm in an apparent effort to get his witness back on track.

The video racked up millions of views and was later lampooned “Saturday Night Live.”

The state House announced it would hold off votes following Giuliani’s diagnosis this week. The move follows a more broad action by the entire Arizona legislature to shut down entirely for one week in wake of Giuliani and Ellis’s recent address to lawmakers there. On Wednesday, in response to an employee complaint, the Michigan Occupational and Safety Hazard Administration opened an investigation into the legislative body over possible violations of restrictions in place to curb transmission of the coronavirus.

A number of people in Giuliani’s circles have recently tested positive for the coronavirus, including the 36-year-old Ellis as well as his communications director, Christianné Allen. Allen, 21, has been in self-quarantine for weeks after experiencing possible symptoms following a Nov. 19 press conference featuring Giuliani and Ellis. Salon first reported that Allen had tested positive Nov. 28, and had been experiencing “more than mild” symptoms.

Giuliani’s son, Andrew, tested positive the day after attending the Nov. 19 press event. He said on Thursday that his father has been feeling better.

Fox News taken down by an even bigger Trump-promoting rival: Newsmax scores ratings win

Newsmax TV scored a minor ratings win over Fox News that could signal a major conservative media shift after the network went all-in on President Donald Trump’s baseless election conspiracy theories.

Newsmax’s “Greg Kelly Reports,” a show Trump has plugged on Twitter, edged out “The Story with Martha MacCallum” on Fox among the key 25- to 54-year-old demographic on Monday night, CNN’s Brian Stelter reported, for the first time in the network’s six-year history.

Kelly’s show averaged 229,000 viewers in the demographic while MacCallum, who won her 7 pm timeslot in every category ahead of the election, averaged 203,000. Prior to the election, Kelly’s show only averaged about 10,000 viewers in the 25-54 demographic and about 100,000 viewers in total, according to Stelter. But on Monday, his show hit 949,000 total viewers.

Kelly, a former local New York news anchor, has quickly risen in the post-election conservative TV universe by repeatedly claiming Trump did not lose the election long after every mainstream network called the race.

“This is Newsmax, where we have not called the election,” he bragged last month, more than a week after the election was called. “Why would we? We do not know who has won. This whole idea of a president-elect? It is a media fabrication.”

Kelly has served as an unabashed cheerleader for Trump and claimed that the lame-duck president was “fulfilling his duty” and “defending the Constitution” by refusing to concede and challenging legal votes in numerous states.

Kelly has also repeatedly hosted former Trump attorney Sidney Powell, allowing her to push bizarre and unfounded conspiracy theories that even Fox News’ Tucker Carlson ripped as baseless. He even occasionally calls out his competitors directly.

“Fox does seem to be going through something of an identity crisis,” he told viewers last month. “They’re not very supportive of the president these days — they seem to be bending over backward to hurt him.”

Other Newsmax shows have also seen a rating bump. Stelter noted that the rating bump is particularly pronounced when Fox is airing straight news shows, like MacCallum’s or fellow host Neil Cavuto’s, rather than pro-Trump opinion shows like “The Five” and “Hannity.”

Newsmax chief Chris Ruddy, a longtime friend of Trump, told CNN that the network plans to continue to expand its opinion shows to capitalize on its rating boom, though the network significantly trails Fox News in the overall ratings. Still, Newsmax averaged just 72,000 viewers before the election, which jumped to 204,000 after the election.

“We’re here to stay,” Ruddy said. “The ratings are showing that.”

The network has seen a boost from Trump’s tweets. The president has repeatedly urged followers to tune into the channel while slamming Fox News for not backing his baseless conspiracy theories.

Fox executives have taken notice. CNN reported last month that Fox News producers were told not to continue booking regular guests if they kept appearing on Newsmax, though the network denied the report.

Some Fox employees described Newsmax to CNN as “far-right” and “fringe” and specifically criticized Kelly’s program.

Trump has also touted One America News Network, an even more fringe outlet that is not even rated by Nielsen because of its small audience, has also seen a boost after the election, according to its executives (who are not always the most reliable sources).

OAN President Charles Herring said last month that a “massive wave of former Fox News viewers have abandoned Fox and have found a home at OAN.”

Steve Tomsic, the chief financial officer at Fox, cited Newsmax and OANN at a financial conference this week.

“I think when people think about competition, they sort of, their knee-jerk reaction is to think, ‘well all we need is two or three talking heads to go head to head with ours.’ The business is much bigger than that,” he said, according to CNN. “So we feel super confident about Fox News being able to compete in any environment going forward.”

Fox News has been the most-watched network in primetime since Memorial Day, according to Nielsen, and the most-watched cable news network for nearly19 years.

Fox coverage has grown more disparate since the election. Some hosts, like Marta Bartiromo, have fully embraced Trump’s baseless conspiracy theories while longtime Trump boosters like Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson have reluctantly admitted the president’s defeat. The network’s “news side” has been far more active in batting down election falsehoods.

“It seems that we have a president who, he can’t wrap his brain or mind around the fact, he can’t process that someone who he thinks is so inferior to him won the election,” host Eric Shawn declared last week.

Fellow host Sandra Smith expressed disbelief when a guest tried to suggest that President-elect Joe Biden did not win.”What? What is happening?” she questioned on a hot-mic while off-camera during the viral moment.

“We’ve called it.”

Trump voters don’t really believe Biden stole the election — but they do want a coup

Do Republican voters really believe that Joe Biden stole the election from Donald Trump? Do they sincerely see Trump’s efforts to overturn the election as the legitimate actions of a wronged man trying to defend democracy? When they declare “stop the steal,” are they truly unaware that they are the ones trying to steal this election from the rightful winners? 

Or are millions of Americans arguing in bad faith, merely claiming to believe Trump is the true winner? Is this all just a disingenuous song-and-dance, meant to put a morally justifiable gloss on what is actually widespread support among Trump voters for a coup? The answer to this question of “delusion or bad faith?” matters quite a bit, as Trump continues to prosecute his futile campaign to steal the 2020 election.

Polls show that a hefty majority of Republican voters — 68%, according to Reuters/Ipsos — say they believe the 2020 election was “rigged” in Biden’s favor. Since the election, more than $200 million has flowed into Trump’s coffers from Republican donors responding to emails promising to “stop the steal.” Are these donors innocent lambs who sincerely believe that Trump is a good man done wrong? Or are they people who are actively seeking to finance a coup, employing the flimsiest of excuses? 

Well, as the author of a book called “Troll Nation,” it’s clear where I stand: By and large, Republican voters who claim that Biden stole the election are arguing from bad faith, not delusion.

This distinction is important because it shows that the intentions of Republican voters (and too many of their elected leaders) are sinister, and need to be taken seriously as an overt assault on democracy. Understanding modern politics means understanding one crucial reality about the current landscape: Conservatives don’t hold beliefs, they only have rationalizations. 


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


Many of their long-standing beliefs don’t hold up to modern moral standards or rational scrutiny. Rather than give up those beliefs, however, Republicans have developed a series of disingenuous gambits, conspiracy theories and trolling tactics to derail conversations, sow confusion and otherwise distract those who would challenge their indefensible ideology. 

Of course, it’s morally indefensible to come right out and say you care more about keeping your gas guzzler than protecting the planet. So, instead, conservatives claim to be “skeptical” of climate science, wasting their interlocutor’s time by forcing them to prove, over and over and over and over again, that climate change is real. Similarly, open contempt for women’s rights is hard to argue, so instead, conservatives will claim concern for “fetal life” to justify support for forced childbirth — even though none of their other policy preferences point to concern about the wellbeing of children, much less fetuses. 

Poll numbers showing that Republican voters “believe” that Trump lost the election are more of the same.

Conservatives know better than to openly argue that Democratic votes shouldn’t be counted. So instead they concoct this elaborate conspiracy theory, painting themselves as the victims of voter fraud in order to justify an illegal effort to steal the election. The current situation is similar to the last time there was a widespread conspiracy theory aimed at delegitimizing a duly elected Democratic president. During Barack Obama’s presidency, polling showed that large numbers of Republicans, often a majority, expressed “skepticism” that Obama was a natural-born citizen and therefore legally eligible to be president. As is the case now, Trump was a ringleader in pushing this “birther” conspiracy theory, helping to mainstream claims that Obama’s presidency was illegitimate. 

But did Republican voters really believe that Obama was born in Kenya? Or was it just a cover story for their real but unspeakable racist opposition to a Black man being president? 

A 2014 study by Stanford researchers suggests strongly that for most birthers the conspiracy theory was bad faith and not a sincere error. The researchers compared different polls and found that how the poll questions were worded made a huge difference in conservative adherence to birtherism. When pollsters reminded respondents that only “natural-born” citizens can become president, nearly 60% of Republican voters readily denied Obama’s citizenship. But when polls framed it as a test of knowledge of facts, by asking respondents where Obama was born, only 31% of conservatives espoused birther beliefs. These findings suggest that most conservatives weren’t confused about where Obama was born. The conspiracy theory was just a way to express racist beliefs about the inherent illegitimacy of Black leaders by asking “questions” about Obama’s birth certificate. 

Trump knows how to tickle this racist impulse in his followers and, unsurprisingly, his claims that Biden “stole” the election follow the same formula. Trump and his main henchman, Rudy Giuliani, have specifically accused Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee and Atlanta — all cities where Black Americans are either a majority or a plurality of residents — of having “dumps” of illegal ballots. 


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


The appeal of this conspiracy theory to racists isn’t subtle. It’s a way to deny the legitimacy of Black voters without coming right out and saying it. This isn’t just a conspiracy theory about Trump’s fragile ego. It speaks directly to long-standing right-wing fury at minority voting rights. Historian Jeffrey Herf notes another historical precedent at play, comparing Trump’s conspiracy theory to the ones that rose up in Germany between the first and second world wars in a recent Washington Post op-ed:

[Trump’s] efforts to deny the reality of defeat and threaten democracy recall the most famous comparable episode in modern European history — the claims by the German military and diplomatic establishment that Germany had not been defeated militarily in World War I. Instead, they argued, Germany had been “stabbed in the back” by liberals, socialists, communists and Jews who somehow snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

In reality, Herf points out, the war was “lost because of the superiority of the Allied military” and German hubris leading to bad battlefield decisions. But claiming to believe otherwise gave conservative Germans a chance to save face and, perhaps more important, an excuse to bash other Germans — mostly leftists and Jews — who they didn’t want to acknowledge as equal citizens. Was it bad faith or misapprehension? As I note in a recent newsletter, Jean-Paul Sartre felt strongly it was the former at the time, and argued the “bad faith” case in his famous 1946 essay on anti-Semitism . 

So why does it matter?

As Greg Sargent writes at the Washington Post, “What Republican voters think, or say they think, about who really won matters less than the fact that, as a consequence, they actively want their elected representatives to subvert our democracy and keep Trump in power illegitimately.”

Unfortunately, the belief that these folks are sincere in their claims that the election was “stolen” puts a glow of innocence on their actions. This leads many observers underestimate the seriousness of a situation where a large percentage of Americans are actively supporting a coup. It also focuses attention away from what needs to be done to fight back. The “delusion” model of understanding Republican behavior suggests that education is the solution. That was thoroughly disproven in the Obama years, when even the release of his long-form birth certificate did little to discourage GOP voters from denying his legitimacy

Instead, it’s important to see those who support Trump’s coup for who they are: People who have been radicalized, through racism hateful propaganda and a sense of perpetual grievance, against democracy. They aren’t going to change their minds because of new facts, because the underlying belief — which is that they deserve to be in power, no matter what — is the problem here. It’s a rising American authoritarianism, and we underestimate it at our peril. 

“The worst of the worst”: Rep. Katie Porter reveals how Mitch McConnell is blocking COVID relief

Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) slammed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Republicans’ efforts to stall stimulus negotiations while upholding President Donald Trump’s “right to pursue baseless lawsuits alleging election fraud.”

On Tuesday evening, Porter posted a series of tweets as she expressed concern about lawmakers’ inability to reach a substantial deal for the next stimulus package. Although discussions have taken place, Porter noted McConnell’s continued efforts to block bipartisan negotiations for a COVID-19 relief bill which would fund an additional round of unemployment benefits, small business loans, financial support for healthcare systems and essential workers.

“When I came to Congress, I knew I had a responsibility to pull back the curtain for the American people and expose corruption in real time. So, I’m filling you in on Senator McConnell’s attempts over the last 8 days to tank a *bipartisan* COVID relief bill,” Porter said.

She added, “You may have heard that Democrats and Republicans have agreed upon spending $900 billion to fund another round of small business loans, support hospitals and essential workers, and help the 10 million people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own.”

She also revealed everyone who has been part of the negotiations has been in agreement with moving forward with the next package. However, McConnell appears to be the only lawmaker who refuses to bring a vote to the floor.

Porter continued, “Everyone at the negotiating table—including Senate Rs—has agreed to a compromise. Except one. Mitch McConnell is refusing to bring it to the floor unless it wipes away all COVID-related lawsuits filed that “allege injury or death” due to corporate negligence.”

“These lawsuits represent the worst of the worst examples of disregard for human life—cases filed on behalf of nursing home patients and grocery store workers who died because the company in charge of keeping them safe prioritized cutting costs over protecting them.”

She concluded, “The same McConnell who said that President Trump is “100% within his rights” to pursue baseless lawsuits alleging election fraud is now refusing to pass urgently-needed relief unless it strips those same rights from the most vulnerable among us. This must be exposed.”

As of Wednesday, Dec. 9, the United States has reported more than 15.5 million coronavirus cases, nationwide.

DeSantis appointee resigns in protest of “unconscionable” raid on COVID whistleblower

A Republican official in Florida resigned on Tuesday in protest of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ handling of the coronavirus pandemic and the police raid on whistleblower Rebekah Jones, a Florida data scientist who accused the state of manipulating coronavirus data.

Ron Filipkowski, a lifelong Republican appointed by DeSantis to the 12th Circuit Judicial Nominating Commission, which selects judges, resigned from the panel on Tuesday after reviewing the search warrant used to seize electronic devices from Jones. Armed police raided Jones’ home on Monday in an investigation of an unauthorized message sent over the Florida Department of Health emergency management system. Jones helped build the state’s coronavirus data dashboard before she was fired for insubordination in May. She claimed she was fired for refusing to manipulate data to cast the state’s infections in a more favorable light and alleged that DeSantis ordered the raid in retaliation, which his office denies.

Filipkowski, a former state and federal prosecutor, said in his resignation letter that he was “increasingly alarmed” by DeSantis’ “reckless and irresponsible” pandemic response but the raid on Jones was “unconscionable.”

Filipowski, a Marine veteran, said that even if Jones was behind the message he would “still call her a hero.” He added that he found the governor’s office claim that DeSantis was unaware of the raid “not credible.”

Jones said on Monday that police pointed guns at her and her family, which the Florida Department of Law Enforcement denied, and seized her computers and hardware that she used to maintain her own coronavirus data dashboard. The FDLE said they traced the source of the message to Jones’ home.

Jones denied that she was behind the message and accused DeSantis of trying to “intimidate scientists” into silence. DeSantis’ office said he only learned of the raid after it happened.

The message, which was sent to 1,750 recipients who are mostly first responders, urged people to “speak up before another 17,000 people are dead.”

“You know this is wrong. You don’t have to be a part of this,” the message said. “Be a hero. Speak out before it’s too late.”

The Tallahassee Democrat reported that the search warrant used to seize Jones’ electronics was signed by Circuit Judge Joshua Hawkes, who was appointed by DeSantis in September.

“The judge who signed the search order of my house was appointed by Governor Desantis and sworn in less than a month before he signed that warrant. In civil court,” Jones wrote on Twitter. “He’s not even a criminal court judge. It was one of his first actions as judge.”

Jones said that the seized electronics contained “evidence of corruption.”

“This was DeSantis. He sent the gestapo,” she tweeted. “This is what happens to scientists who do their job honestly. This is what happens to people who speak truth to power.”

Filipowski, who was twice appointed to the panel by former Gov. Rick Scott and once by DeSantis before going on an anti-Trump bend and working with The Lincoln Project in support of Joe Biden, told CNN that he watched the video of the raid and “couldn’t believe what I was seeing.”

“Then I read the search warrant, and I’m a criminal lawyer, and I couldn’t believe what I was reading in the search warrant about how broad it was, about what they were alleging as a supposed crime,” he said. “I was just really outraged by the whole situation. And then the final straw was hearing Gov. DeSantis’ spokesman… say he didn’t know anything about the raid… Which I found to be fantastical. Just not credible.”

Filipowski said there was “no way” a “small” law enforcement agency like the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which reports directly to DeSantis, went ahead with the raid without clearance.

The lifelong Republican told the Tampa Bay Times that he felt DeSantis was abusing his power to retaliate against a whistleblower who has been a “thorn in his side” for months.

“You’re using law enforcement in intimidating people who are trying to tell the truth and now we are crossing over to my whole life as a prosecutor, employer, crusader,” he said. “This is wrong. He is taking it to a different level. “

He added that he hoped his resignation “in my own little way could draw some more attention to it” and “to the plight of the people of Florida who I feel are not being told the truth about COVID.”

Democrats in Florida have also spoken out against the raid and called for an investigation. 

“We got a situation where they show up at a home and draw guns for a data break. This is outrageous.” Democratic State Sen. Annette Taddeo said. “I really felt like am I really watching something happening in the United States or in Cuba.”

Texas Republicans sue to throw out the election results in other states

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing four battleground states — Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — whose election results handed the White House to President-elect Joe Biden.

In the suit, he claims that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law, and asks the U.S. Supreme Court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College.

The last-minute bid, which legal experts have already characterized as a longshot, comes alongside dozens of similar attempts by President Donald Trump and his political allies. The majority of those lawsuits have already failed.

There is no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, officials in most states and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr have said. Biden won in all four states where Paxton is challenging the results.

In a filing to the high court Tuesday, Paxton claims the four battleground states broke the law by instituting pandemic-related changes to election policies, whether “through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity.”

Paxton claimed that these changes allowed for voter fraud to occur — a conclusion experts and election officials have rejected — and said the court should push back a Dec. 14 deadline by which states must appoint their presidential electors.

“That deadline, however, should not cement a potentially illegitimate election result in the middle of this storm,” attorneys for Texas wrote.

Officials in Georgia — where Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger recertified the state’s election results again Monday after a recount — were quick to dismiss Paxton’s allegations, as were leaders in the other three states named in the lawsuit.

“The allegations in the lawsuit are false and irresponsible,” Georgia’s deputy secretary of state, Jordan Fuchs, said in a statement Tuesday. “Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring forward a single person who this happened to. That’s because it didn’t happen.”

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel dismissed Paxton’s suit as “a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading.”

“Mr. Paxton’s actions are beneath the dignity of the office of Attorney General and the people of the great state of Texas,” she said.

Paxton and Trump are political allies whose interests often line up in court, as with Texas’ challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Paxton, in public appearances, often characterizes their relationship as a friendly one, sharing the story of the time the president called while Paxton was in the shower.

Paxton, who has been under indictment since 2015 for felony securities fraud charges, is facing fresh criminal allegations from eight of his top deputies, who said they believe he broke the law by using the agency to do favors for a political donor. The FBI is investigating Paxton over those claims, according to the Associated Press. Paxton has denied wrongdoing.

Notably, Paxton himself is listed as the agency’s lead attorney on the case — a highly unusual role for the state official, who rarely plays a hands-on role even in the state’s major cases. Paxton’s new chief deputy, Brent Webster, signed onto the filing, but conspicuously absent is the agency’s top lawyer for appellate work, Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins, who typically argues the state’s cases before the Supreme Court and did so as recently as last month. None of Hawkins’ deputies is listed as contributing to the case, nor are any of the agency’s hundreds of other attorneys.

The agency instead appears to have hired an outside attorney, Lawrence Joseph, to contribute to the case.

The agency did not answer questions about its staffing choices for the lawsuit, nor did Hawkins himself.

Gov. Greg Abbott, a former Texas attorney general, did not return a request for comment on the lawsuit.

The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues. 

Biden can’t make bipartisanship great again: Republicans already rejecting peace offer

Right after this year’s election, Politico sponsored a 2020 Voters Priority survey that showed just how shockingly divided the country really is. On virtually every issue, Republicans and Democrats are polar opposites, with eight out of 10 respondents claiming to have “lost respect for the other side” and nearly 75% of respondents saying they cannot trust members of the other party. A majority of survey respondents even said they wouldn’t want their child to marry someone from the opposing party, that they wouldn’t hire someone from the other party and that they believed the other party was literally ruining the country.

In this poll, as in earlier surveys, 79% of Trump voters refuse to accept the result of the election, agreeing that “illegal voting and fraud stole this election.” More than half of Trump voters even claim that their own vote was not accurately counted.

Despite the apparent widespread distrust, however, large numbers of respondents from both parties insist that they want the Congress to work together in a bipartisan fashion. Nearly 70% of Trump voters and 76% of Biden voters say that the best leaders “reach across the aisle to make compromises.” Even 48% of Trump voters (who think Biden stole the election) say that congressional Republicans should seek compromises and work with the new administration.

As disorienting as this may appear, it isn’t all that unusual. 

Polling repeatedly shows that the public says it wants bipartisanship and compromise. People reliably affirm that they are sick of partisan fighting. But considering the scorched-earth practices of the GOP and the perennial anger among the base of the Democratic Party for its failure to “fight back,” I have long suspected that what people really mean by compromise is for the other side to give in and do it their way. Bipartisanship is just a way of describing a surrender by your political opponents, where they sign on to your ideas. There just isn’t a lot of “give” on either side these days.

Nostalgia for the old style of bipartisan compromise that was made possible because the two parties were ideologically diverse, with liberals and conservatives on both sides, is still with us. You’ll often hear pundits and historians wax on about how the parties would battle by day but that at night former House speaker Tip O’Neill would go down to the White House and hoist a Scotch with President Reagan after work. It’s a nice little fable, but if it was ever true, it hasn’t been that way for a long time.

Still, Joe Biden expressly promised to unify the country and went so far as to say he thought that after Trump left office the fever would break, Republicans would have an epiphany and they could all work together for the sake of the country. He’s a very optimistic guy — he said the same thing before the 2012 election too. It didn’t work out the way he expected.

Like Barack Obama before him, Biden ran on the idea that he could bring people together. It made political sense to do it. Many people are horrified by Trump’s divisiveness and yearn for someone who can calm things down and get things done. A veteran politician who knows how Washington works and gets along with everyone sounded awfully good to many people after this Trump clown show. Given Biden’s experience under Obama (and simply observing the cynical behavior of GOP officials under Trump), it’s hard to imagine he actually believes that, but maybe he truly sees himself as some sort of national healer.

As Salon’s Igor Derysh reported on Tuesday, Biden is making good on his promise to reach out to Republicans by appointing Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., to head a new White House Office of Public Engagement. Richmond characterizes part of his role as serving as a “conduit straight into the White House for American corporations” — which is not exactly the kind of “unity” Biden’s base voters were looking for.

But Richmond also said he will create a position that will reach out to conservatives as well because Biden’s team were “not elected just to help Democrats or urban cities or minorities.” That’s true enough. Biden has said many times that he will be the president of all of America, not just those who voted for him, which is as it should be. Unlike Trump, who punished the states that didn’t vote for him and lavished attention on those that did, presidents have an obligation to serve the whole country. Frankly, Democratic agendas have always been meant to benefit their own voters no more than those who despise them, whether it’s social welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare or the Affordable Care Act, labor laws and safety regulations. Biden’s agenda will do the same, even though the Republicans will fight him with everything they have.

But if anyone still seriously believes “the fever” is going to break soon or that Mitch “Grim Reaper” McConnell is going to have an epiphany and help Biden pass that agenda, they need to think again. Remember, that poll that showed people want bipartisanship also showed that nearly 80% of Republicans believe that the election was stolen.

Trump has already convinced tens of millions of his voters that Biden is an illegitimate winner, and the current president’s collaborators in the Republican Party are doing nothing to disabuse them of that idea. After all, it works for them.

As for “reaching out” to the Republican base, good luck. 

Richmond’s announcement was not exactly welcomed in right-wing circles:

In some respects I can understand this. It can feel condescending for the winner to assume that the other side wants to make nice when it’s still smarting from a defeat. But right-wing pundits or columnists aren’t really the problem. As the New York Times reported on Tuesday, the threats from Trump’s supporters are growing:

Supporters of the president, some of them armed, gathered outside the home of the Michigan secretary of state Saturday night. Racist death threats filled the voice mail of Cynthia A. Johnson, a Michigan state representative. Georgia election officials, mostly Republicans, say they have received threats of violence. The Republican Party of Arizona, on Twitter, twice called for supporters to be willing to “die for something” or “give my life for this fight.”

In Idahopublic health officials had to call off a Zoom meeting because protesters were pounding on the doors of their homes. And this stuff is just the tip of the iceberg. People are being threatened all over the country and it’s a miracle that something terrible hasn’t happened already.

Trump may have lost the legal battle and will lose institutional power within a few weeks. But the danger won’t pass anytim soon, because the GOP establishment sees benefit in leveraging this incoherent rage to sabotage what they’re essentially claiming will be an illegitimate Democratic presidency. Biden can initiate all the outreach he wants but I don’t think GOP officials could put that genie back in the bottle if they wanted to. And they have made it very clear that they don’t want to.

As Biden prepares to take over, media normalizes Republican obstruction

There has never been a need for a more radical departure in governance in this country than there is right now.

But conventional media coverage is already circumscribing Joe Biden’s presidency by insistently positing extreme Republican intransigence and treating it as normal and inevitable — even before it has manifested itself.

Political reporters should be demarcating the enormous challenges ahead. And they should be prepared to call out in alarm when they identify gratuitous obstructionism — instead of preemptively assuming it will be ubiquitous, and in that way making it seem innocuous, and barely even newsworthy, when it happens.

Similarly, they should identify it as a symptom of an unhinged, reality-defying consensus, rather than of everyday partisan politics. You got a hint of that in the Washington Post’s recent survey (bravo!) which found that only 12 of the 52 current Senate Republicans are willing to publicly acknowledge Biden’s victory.

What would actually be “normal” right now would be for the president-elect to be able to pick his governing team, and for the opposition party to object only to nominees who are wildly unqualified or radically out of the mainstream.

But what the political press has instead normalized is the Republican Party’s Trump-addled take-no-prisoners partisanship. Heck, Republican leaders don’t even need to threaten to block nominees. The elite media simply assumes they will — baking Republican intransigence into their narratives, and putting the onus on Biden to somehow avoid it.

Granted, it’s not unreasonable to anticipate that presumptive Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will do his utmost to obstruct Biden, and that many Republican senators will go along.

And granted, Biden to some extent seems to have internalized the inevitability of Republican obstruction himself — and is largely sticking to tried-and-true Democratic Party stalwarts rather than firebrands.

But it’s quite possible that some of McConnell’s caucus will refuse to go along with extreme partisan obstruction. Even if Republicans hold on to their Senate majority, it will be a small one.

So when and if Republicans block reasonable Biden nominees, that should elicit articles full of outrage, not knowing smirks and yawns.

As it looks now, however, you should probably be prepared for the smirks and yawns.

As soon as Biden clinched his election victory, political reporters started warning him that he shouldn’t pick people who might inspire Republicans’ wrath.

Mike DeBonis wrote in the Washington Post that centrist Republicans have “effective veto power over his administration’s staffing” — with the presumption that they would use it.

One of the funniest headlines was in the The Hill on Nov. 13: GOP senators say Warren nomination would divide Republicans — as if dividing Republicans in a successful confirmation fight should trouble Biden. Alexander Bolton reported:

Senate Republicans are warning that President-elect Joe Biden would spark “a fight” if he were to nominate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or former national security adviser Susan Rice to his Cabinet.

Bolton acknowledged that several Republicans could conceivably peel off from the caucus — and even quoted right-wing Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin saying “I give a great deal of latitude to the president” on nominations — before dropping the boom: an unstated threat from McConnell.

Only when “moderates,” such as director of national intelligence nominee and former Obama drone queen Avril D. Haines — are announced, do reporters such as Julian E. Barnes of the New York Times write that they are “likely to win confirmation in a sharply divided Senate”; the implication being that someone more progressive would lose.

Lisa Mascaro‘s recent story for the Associated Press correctly acknowledged “the political reality of a narrowly controlled Senate that will leave the new Democratic administration dependent on rival Republicans to get anything done.”

But before you know it, she was describing inexcusable conduct as if it were just normal politics, writing that “Republicans are swiftly signaling that they’re eager to set the terms of debate and exact a price for their votes.”

She described the GOP’s plight quite sympathetically, as “suspended between an outgoing president it needs to keep close — Trump can still make or break careers with a single tweet — and the new one they are unsure how to approach.”

Patricia Zengerle of Reuters reported on Nov. 24 that “Republican members of the U.S. Senate fired warning shots to President-elect Joe Biden that they may be prepared to stand in the way of his Cabinet appointments, despite the long-held tradition of a new president having the right to choose who will run government agencies.”

But the comments from the members were critiques, not threats. It’s Zengerle who assumed they would metastasize over time.

Several days later, when some far-right Republicans blustered about Biden’s most controversial selection yet – the outspoken Neera Tanden as director of the Office of Management and Budget — Reuters’ Andrea Shalal stenographically quoted a spokesman for Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, saying Tanden had “zero chance” of being confirmed. There was no context or pushback.

Even articles like this one by Lisa Mascaro and Matthew Daly of the Associated Press — which is all about how McConnell and the GOP chairs of key committees have remained silent about the confirmation process — assume that Republicans will fight.

“Even if McConnell is willing to accept Biden’s choices for top Cabinet positions, the Republican leader is not expected to allow easy Senate confirmation without a political price,” they wrote. “He is known for driving hard bargains even on routine business, and Republicans are eager to level payback on Democrats for running out the clock with procedural hurdles to Trump’s nominees.”

The reporters normalize extraordinary intransigence, writing for instance that Alejandro Mayorkas, a Cuban-American former federal prosecutor who would be the first immigrant to serve as secretary of homeland security, “faces the potentially toughest path to confirmation,” and quoting an anonymous Republican aide who says Democrats “have got a lot of work to do” to persuade Republicans to support him.

Reporters are even reconciled to parts of the government remaining effectively neutered in the post-Trump era because of Republicans in the Senate. The Washington Post’s Cat Zakrzewski wrote, “It’s looking increasingly likely that the incoming Biden administration will face a deadlocked Federal Communications Commission” because “it could be difficult for Biden to nominate a tie-breaking Democratic commissioner to fill the fifth slot.”

It’s so much dog-bites-man with these people that the big news is when Republicans say they won’t throw a fit about some potential Biden nominee.

And all of this is happening despite the fact that reporters who actually talk to Republican senators get the impression they’ll go along.

Burgess Everett, a Politico congressional correspondent reported this on Nov. 20:

Senate Republicans are signaling they will confirm most of President-elect Joe Biden’s Cabinet picks in January — a rare bright spot for a White House that may clash with a GOP majority for years to come.

Many Republicans won’t even publicly concede that Biden will be the next president while President Donald Trump fights to overturn the election results. But a critical mass of GOP senators said in interviews that Biden has the right to his Cabinet, indicating he may be able to staff his administration largely to his liking.

Instead of proactively giving them cover for their dirty work, journalists should mock Republicans who criticize Biden’s nominees for their blatant hypocrisy, which will surely only grow. Like this:

More of that, please.

The collective suicide of the liberal class: We will all pay the price for their cowardice

Liberals who express dismay, or more bizarrely a fevered hope, about the corporatists and imperialists selected to fill the positions in the Biden administration are the court jesters of our political burlesque. They long ago sold their souls and abandoned their most basic principles to line up behind a bankrupt Democratic Party. They chant, with every election cycle, the mantra of the least worst and sit placidly on the sidelines as a Bill Clinton or a Barack Obama and the Democratic Party leadership betray every issue they claim to support.

The only thing that mattered to liberals in the presidential race, once again, was removing a Republican, this time Donald Trump, from office. This, the liberals achieved. But their Faustian bargain, in election after election, has shredded their credibility. They are ridiculed, not only among right-wing Trump supporters but by the hierarchy of the Democratic Party that has been captured by corporate power. No one can, or should, take liberals seriously. They stand for nothing. They fight for nothing. The cost is too onerous. And so the liberals do what they always do, chatter endlessly about political and moral positions they refuse to make any sacrifices to achieve.          

Liberals, largely comprised of the professional-managerial class that dutifully recycles and shops for organic produce and is concentrated on the two coasts, have profited from the ravages of neoliberalism. They seek to endow it with a patina of civility. But their routine and public humiliation has ominous consequences. It not only exposes the liberal class as hollow and empty, it discredits the liberal democratic values they claim to uphold. Liberals should have abandoned the Democratic Party when Bill Clinton and political hacks such as Biden transformed the Democratic Party into the Republican Party and launched a war on traditional liberal values and left-wing populism. They should have defected by the millions to support Ralph Nader and other Green Party candidates.

This defection, as Nader understood, was the only tactic that could force the Democrats to adopt parts of a liberal and left-wing agenda and save us from the slow-motion corporate coup d’état. Fear is the real force behind political change, not oily promises of mutual goodwill. Short of this pressure, this fear, especially with labor unions destroyed, there is no hope. Now we will reap the consequences of the liberal class’ moral and political cowardice.

The Democratic Party elites revel in taunting liberals as well as the left-wing populists who preach class warfare and supported Bernie Sanders. How are we supposed to interpret the appointment of Antony Blinken, one of the architects of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and supporter of the apartheid state of Israel, as secretary of state? Or John Kerry, who championed the massive expansion of domestic oil and gas production, largely through fracking, and, according to Barack Obama’s memoir, worked doggedly to convince those concerned about the climate crisis to “offer up concessions on subsidies for the nuclear power industry and the opening of additional U.S. coastlines to offshore oil drilling,” as the new climate policy czar? Or Brian Deese, the executive who was in charge of the “climate portfolio” at BlackRock, which invests heavily in fossil fuels, including coal, and who served as a former Obama economic adviser who advocated austerity measures, to run the White House’s economic policy? Or Neera Tanden, for director of the Office of Management and Budget, who as president of the Center for American Progress raised millions in dark money from Silicon Valley and Wall Street while relentlessly ridiculing Bernie Sanders and his supporters on cable news and social media and who proposed a plank in the Democratic platform calling for bombing Iran?

The Biden administration resembles the ineffectual German government formed by Franz von Papen in 1932 that sought to recreate the ancien régime, a utopian conservatism that ensured Germany’s drift into fascism. Biden, bereft like von Papen of new ideas and programs, will eventually be forced to employ the brutal tools Biden as a senator was so prominent in creating to maintain social control: wholesale surveillance, a corrupt judicial system, the world’s largest prison system and police that have been transformed into lethal paramilitary units of internal occupation. Those who resist as social unrest mounts will be attacked as agents of a foreign power and censored, as many already are being censored, including through algorithms and de-platforming on social media. The most ardent and successful dissidents, such as Julian Assange, will be criminalized.

The shock troops of the state, already ideologically bonded with the neofascists on the right, will hunt down and wipe out an enfeebled and often phantom left, as we saw in the chilling state assassination by U.S. marshals of the antifa activist Michael Reinoehl, who was unarmed and standing outside an apartment complex in Lacey, Washington, in September when he was shot multiple times. I witnessed this kind of routine state terror during the war in El Salvador. Reinoehl allegedly killed Aaron Danielson, a member of the far-right group Patriot Prayer, during a pro-Trump rally in Portland, Oregon, in August.

Compare the gunning down of Reinoehl by federal agents to the coddling of Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old accused of killing two protesters and injuring a third on Aug. 25 in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Police officers, moments before the shooting, are seen on video thanking Rittenhouse and other armed right-wing militia members for coming to the city and handing them bottles of water. Rittenhouse is also seen in a video walking toward police with his hands up after his shooting spree as protesters yell that he had shot several people. Police, nevertheless, allow him to leave. Rittenhouse’s killings have been defended by the right, including Trump. Rittenhouse, who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations for his legal fees, has been released on $2 million bail.

We stand on the cusp of a frightening authoritarianism. Social unrest, given a continuation of neoliberalism, the climate crisis, the siphoning off of diminishing resources to the bloated war machine, political stagnation and the failure to contain the pandemic and its economic fallout, is almost certain. Absent a left-wing populism, a disenfranchised working class will line up, as it did with Trump, behind its counterfeit, a right-wing populism. The liberal elites will, if history is any guide, justify state repression as a response to social chaos in the name of law and order. That they, too, are on the Christian Right and the corporate state’s long list of groups to be neutralized will become evident to them when it is too late.

It was Friedrich Ebert and the Social Democratic Party of Germany, siding with the conservatives and nationalists, that created the Freikorps, private paramilitary groups composed of demobilized soldiers and malcontents. The Freikorps ruthlessly crushed left-wing uprisings in Berlin, Bremen, Brunswick, Hamburg, Halle, Leipzig, Silesia, Thuringia and the Ruhr. When the Freikorps was not gunning down left-wing populists in the streets and carrying out hundreds of political assassinations, including the murder of Walther Rathenau, the foreign minister, it was terrorizing civilians, looting and pillaging. The Freikorps became the antecedent of the Nazi Brownshirts, led by Ernst Röhm, a former Freikorps commander.

All the pieces are in place for our own descent into what I suspect will be a militarized Christianized fascism. Political dysfunction, a bankrupt and discredited liberal class, massive and growing social inequality, a grotesquely rich and tone-deaf oligarchic elite, the fragmentation of the public into warring tribes, widespread food insecurity and hunger, chronic underemployment and unemployment and misery, all exacerbated by the failure of the state to cope with the crisis of the pandemic, combine with the rot of civil and political life to create a familiar cocktail leading to authoritarianism and fascism.

Trump and the Republican Party, along with the shrill incendiary voices on right-wing media, play the role the anti-Semitic parties played in Europe during the late 19th and early 20th century. The infusion of anti-Semitism into the political debate in Europe destroyed the political decorum and civility that is vital to maintaining a democracy. Racist tropes and hate speech, as in Weimar Germany, now poison our political discourse. Ridicule and cruel taunts are hurled back and forth. Lies are interchangeable with fact. Those who oppose us are demonized as human embodiments of evil.

This poisonous discourse is only going to get worse, especially with millions of Trump supporters convinced the election was rigged and stolen. The German Social Democrat Kurt Schumacher in the 1930s said that fascism “is a constant appeal to the inner swine in human beings” and succeeds by “mobilizing human stupidity.” This mobilized stupidity, accompanied by what Rainer Maria Rilke called “the evil effluvium from the human swamp,” is being amplified and intensified in the siloed media chambers of the right. This hate-filled rhetoric eschews reality to cater to the desperate desire for emotional catharsis, for renewed glory and prosperity and for acts of savage vengeance against the phantom enemies blamed for our national debacle.

The constant barrage of vitriol and fabulist conspiracy theories will, I fear, embolden extremists to carry out political murder, not only of mainstream Democrats, Republicans Trump has accused of betrayal such as Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and those targeted as part of the deep state, but also those at media outlets such as CNN or the New York Times that serve as propaganda arms of the Democratic Party. Once the Pandora’s box of violence is opened it is almost impossible to close. Martyrs on one side of the divide demand martyrs on the other side. Violence becomes the primary form of communication. And, as Sebastian Haffner wrote, “once the violence and readiness to kill that lies beneath the surface of human nature has been awakened and turned against other humans, and even made into a duty, it is a simple matter to change the target.”

This, I suspect, is what is coming. The blame lies not only with the goons and racists on the right, the corporatists who pillage the country and the corrupt ruling elite that does their bidding, but a feckless liberal class that found standing up for its beliefs too costly. The liberals will pay for their timidity and cowardice, but so will we. 

Meet the man at the center of a shadowy multimillion-dollar “scam PAC” network

A super PAC that claims to advocate for wounded veterans raised millions of dollars this year, but spent only $18,000 of it on political activity. The rest of the money was spun off to administrative and marketing services, including to three companies belonging to one person — a former long-shot Democratic congressional candidate, self-published author, certified nutrition-label reader and serial hustler in East Tennessee named Alan Bohms.

The organization, called American Wounded Veterans PAC, bears hallmarks of what campaign finance watchdogs call a “scam PAC” — a for-profit fundraising vehicle that professes to advocate for a cause but makes no clear promise on how it will spend the money raised, and in reality intends to keep most of it, or pay it out to affiliated contractors.

Bohms, along with his lawyer, Matthew Fisher, appears to be at the center of a sprawling, intertwined network of super PAC and nonprofit scammers first revealed in 2019 in a series of exposés about a group called Heroes United PAC.

Bohms, however, has never had his name on a PAC and was never named in those stories. Instead he feeds off of the PACs, one operator in a large network of shadowy marketing companies where affiliated PACs shuttle almost all of the funds they raise.

Following the public exposure and an out-of-court settlement with Montgomery County, Maryland, that network appears to have simply shuttered its old PACs and started afresh in early 2020.

A Salon investigation indicates that Bohms and Fisher remained central figures in this venture. The network itself seems to have stayed intact, as has the larger, even more mysterious network of untraceable telemarketing companies above them that take an even larger cut.

Over the last three years, that larger network has pulled in tens of millions of dollars for the PACs in the name of charitable causes. But the groups plowed almost all of their millions into fundraising and marketing companies, including paying sham companies run by people in their own network.

“Scam PACs” exploit an ill-defined space between federal campaign finance and state charity laws: Political action committees (PACs) operate outside the laws that regulate charities — for example, officially registering with state governments, publicly disclosing their executives, reporting their expenses and so on.

Scam PACs represent “a way for them to get around the charity laws — that’s exactly what they’re doing,” Stuart Discount, chief executive of the Professional Association for Customer Engagement, a trade association for direct marketers, told Reuters for a special report on scam PACs published last January, which touched on the Heroes United scheme.

But scam PACs don’t behave like normal political action committees, either. Instead of political advocacy focused on specific issues or an ideological agenda, they solicit money for supposedly charitable causes — children in poverty, cancer victims, law enforcement groups, firefighters, wounded soldiers and the like — and tell donors, often in passing, that part of their efforts involve lobbying politicians about the cause.

None of the PACs mentioned in this story appear to have registered as lobbying organizations with the federal government.

Because super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money with little regulatory oversight, scams can turn tidy profits. In 2018, federal prosecutors indicted two brothers who operated a network of right-wing scam PACs with names like Americans for Law Enforcement PAC, Life and Liberty PAC and Republican Majority Campaign PAC, which over the course of 10 years had bilked donors out of $50 million.

That indictment alleged that “less than 1% of all donor money to the PACs was spent on political contributions.” The rest went to fundraising efforts and into the two men’s pockets, resulting in a $1.2 million fine.

That appears similar and perhaps smaller in scale to United Heroes and the larger network that Bohms, Fisher and their associates are in, which netted tens of millions of dollars this year alone.

American Wounded Veterans, for example, raised $2.5 million from donors in 2020, according to its latest Federal Election Commission filing. But the group spent just 0.7% of those funds on what qualifies as legitimate political activity, in the FEC’s eyes: a single $18,000 payment this June for ads to support Rep. Charlie Crist, a Florida Democrat.

On its website, American Wounded Veterans PAC says that its mission is “to transform our nation’s capital by electing a new generation of leaders ​who will put people over politics.” Crist would not appear to fit the mission: He is in no sense a member of a “new generation,” but an old hand, a 64-year-old career politician and former Florida governor whose committee assignments in the House have nothing to do with veterans affairs.

While it appears impossible to trace the PAC — the phone number and address that its current treasurer, Michael Simpson, reported to the FEC are both virtual — it’s possible to trace that ad payment. That money went into the pocket of the aforementioned Alan Bohms, a Knoxville-area resident with a colorful history and an apparently diverse set of interests, who was himself implicated in a number of multimillion-dollar scam PAC schemes last year.

One of those groups had a name strikingly similar to American Wounded Veterans: The American Coalition for Injured Veterans, which paid vast sums to Bohms’ former company, Tampa Media Marketing.

Heroes United PAC spent a total of more than $462,000 on Tampa Media’s services between 2018 and February 2020, FEC records show. During that same time frame, the PAC spent only $147,000 on legitimate political activity. That’s just one-third of what Bohms’ company made in that time, and a mere 0.1% of the group’s total fundraising.

In fact, Tampa Media pulled in a combined $2.5 million between 2018 and 2020 cycles, according to data from Open Secrets.

This year, Bohms started fresh, ditching Tampa Media and creating a new company with a generic, essentially invisible moniker: “Campaign Marketing Inc.” That company was the eventual recipient of the $18,000 ad buy from the American Wounded Veterans PAC — which itself had also been created in January.

That wasn’t all Bohms earned from American Wounded Veterans’ innumerable small donors — Campaign Marketing Inc. performed a number of other services for the PAC this year, apparently $129,000 worth.

Additionally, Bohms had registered Campaign Marketing Inc. to do business under two other, equally generic aliases — Prestige Tax & Payroll and Insight Data Management — both of which took payments from American Wounded Veterans.

All told, Bohms took in $173,000 for his services through those companies just this year — all purportedly to run some ads for an unopposed Florida congressman two months before a canceled primary.

No other political group reported paying any of those three companies.

Still, American Wounded Veterans PAC has about $2.3 million in 2020 fundraising to account for. Where did it come from? Almost all of the PAC’s receipts are “unitemized,” meaning the money came in the form of contributions of $200 or less, so the PAC does not have to disclose those donors. (A great many scam PAC donors are elderly people who quite likely believe they are giving to legitimate charities.)

Campaign finance and government ethics law expert Brett Kappel told Salon this fits the scam PAC pattern.

“One of the more pernicious effects of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has been an explosion in the number of super PAC scams,” Kappel said. “Since super PACs can solicit and accept contributions in unlimited amounts, they have become a favorite vehicle for the unscrupulous — many of whom previously ran charity scams.”

“Fortunately, the Justice Department has responded to the proliferation of super PAC scams and has successfully prosecuted many scam PAC operators for mail and wire fraud over the past few years,” Kappel added.

And where did the money go?

That ostensibly legitimate $18,000 expense appears dubious on a closer look. This year Crist ran unopposed in the Democratic primary for Florida’s 13th congressional district, which was originally scheduled for August but ultimately canceled.

It is unclear why Campaign Marketing Inc, spent $18,000 on advertising to support Crist in June. Bohms would not answer that question — although he said he formerly lived in Crist’s district, in and around St. Petersburg, Florida. 

It is also unclear how Crist feels about a sketchy newcomer PAC using his campaign as a vehicle to raise millions of dollars in the name of wounded U.S. troops. His campaign did not reply to Salon’s detailed questions about the PAC, the ads or Bohms.

Reached for comment, Bohms denied he had any direct connection to American Wounded Veterans PAC, though he did say that the group paid him to “do some work.”

“I don’t care to take part in your article,” he said, then hung up.

While Bohms appears to have made good money from American Wounded Veterans, the overwhelming majority of the PAC’s cash was spent on telemarketing. The companies involved have generic, forgettable names like “Political Marketing Services,” “Market Process Group” and “Campaign Vendor Management Inc.,” which make internet searches difficult, but still pull in millions of dollars a year.

Many of these entities appear to be new, and it seems likely they are all part of a single network.

For instance, Campaign Vendor Management is a company in Gulfport, Florida, founded this April by John DiGregorio, who lives near Bohms’ old home, in Pinellas County, Florida — Charlie Crist’s district. (Florida state records show that in 1993 Bohms registered in Pinellas County as a convicted criminal. He was later charged in Florida with aggravated battery, but the case was apparently dismissed after four years.)

Federal filings reveal a tiered structure, with a level of entities above Bohms that receive massive PAC payments for vague marketing-related services. Those bigger entities, however, are better at hiding their tracks.

Take Political Marketing Services LLC, which is untraceable with any tool short of a subpoena. The company appears to be one of the biggest fish of the PAC network’s 2020 scam cycle, pulling in millions of dollars for marketing services this year alone.

The company was created in Wyoming just last year, but FEC records show that in that time it has taken in massive revenues — some in lump sum payments up to $311,000 — but from only four PAC clients, with thematic names: Security in America PAC (which terminated this April after raising $3 million and spending $3,000), Law Enforcement for a Safer America PAC, American Wounded Veterans PAC and the Firefighters Support Association PAC.

One of those clients, Law Enforcement for a Safer America, pulled in more than $12.3 million this year, filings show, but spent only $400,000 — or 3% — on political activity. It paid more than that, $421,947, to a New Jersey company called The Contact Center, Inc., which made a total of $1.2 million in the 2020 election cycle and operates a bogus website with a phone number that appears tied to a modem or fax line.

While Political Marketing Services LLC appears impossible to trace — it is registered under an anonymous agent with the admirably literal appellation Wyoming Registered Agent — an Alabama-based company also called Political Marketing Services LLC received $395,800 in coronavirus small business loans this spring.

The company told the government it was physically located at 9340 Helena Road in Birmingham, Alabama — but that address is a UPS store.

A LinkedIn page exists for Political Marketing Services, which appears to have two employees in Alabama. Its supposed website, political-marketing.net, consists of a single line of text attributed to an “old Chinese proverb”: “When the wind of change blows, some build walls, others build windmills.”

The site’s architect is a political marketing researcher from Germany. He did not reply to Salon’s request for comment.

A reporter in Cheyenne sent Salon photos taken of Wyoming Registered Agent’s address — a nondescript two-level brick building that hosts mailboxes for dozens of corporate entities from across the country, as well as a skeleton staff of administrative workers who populate the mostly empty suites.

At the reporter’s request, a member of the building’s staff called Wyoming Registered Agent to inquire about Political Marketing Services. She quickly hung up, telling the reporter that the woman at the other end of the line would not discuss the company.

It is unclear whether Bohms is connected directly to Political Marketing Services. He refused to answer multiple detailed follow-up questions. A Wisconsin lawyer named Matt Fisher, who says he represents Bohms, called Salon to ask what the story was about, but declined to discuss anything on the record.

Fisher’s bio claims he is a board member of a law enforcement advocacy charity called Band of Blue. That charity’s website, however, does not list him among its board members. IRS records indicate the charity reports less than $25,000 revenue annually.

Fisher told Salon during the call that he did not represent Bohms in connection with election law, which seems far-fetched. Last year, Fisher represented Zachary Bass, the treasurer for Heroes United PAC, and Matthew Greenlee, the group’s director and a close associate of Bohms, in their dispute with Montgomery County, Maryland. That case, a double scam split between the PAC and a related charity called the Volunteer Firefighters Association, was covered by multiple national media outlets, and the group ended up settling, agreeing to end solicitations in the county and refund any donations.

That year, Bass was listed as treasurer for five PACs. This year he is listed on none.

“It’s pretty rare to catch telemarketers,” Eric Friedman, the director of Montgomery County’s Office of Consumer Protection, told the Center for Public Integrity at the time. “We think it’s a big news story because even though this happened in Montgomery County, it illustrates a nationwide problem where fake PACs are engaging in fake marketing for fake charities.”

FEC filings also undermine Bohms’ claim that he was not connected to American Wounded Veterans. The treasurer of Firefighters Support Association (which spent 6% of its $3.1 million revenue on political efforts) was also the original treasurer of American Wounded Veterans PAC: Mark Phillips.

While it is not clear whether these any of these LLCs or PACs raise funds for charities — and collect fees for the work — circumstantial evidence abounds.

Phillips, the treasurer of Firefighters Support Association, also happens to be a member of a 501c(3) charity run by Bohms called the Volunteer Firefighter Alliance.

And among the Volunteer Firefighter Alliance’s other officials is Matthew Greenlee, director of Heroes United PAC, who was paid more than $38,000 for his work with the group in the 2018 fiscal year, according to IRS records.

This charity has had its legitimacy called into question several times, and each time Bohms has defended it affably.

It appears from IRS filings that Bohms, a volunteer firefighter himself, started the VFA (website here) in 2014. The group, which also works under the name Firefighter Cancer Alliance (near-identical website here), has come under scrutiny multiple times from local sheriffs as an apparent scam. (It received a GuideStar “transparency” title in 2017.)

Just last March, for instance, the volunteer Lancaster County Fire and Rescue Department, in South Carolina, cautioned residents against responding to VFA solicitations, saying that local officials believed the letters were a scam: “No funds that are sent to the Texas return address listed would go towards Lancaster County firefighters,” the department head told the Lancaster News.

(The VFA website posts this disclaimer: When you receive a pledge confirmation in the mail, you might notice that you are asked to send your contribution to a different address than our corporate office. That address is the mail processing point for our fundraising campaign.)

A review of the organization’s tax filings shows that in 2019 the VFA pocketed more than $5 million in contributions, and managed to spend almost that exact same amount — but not on charity work: Almost all of its income went to telemarketing and fundraising efforts. Bohms paid himself $93,864.

In fact, VFA paid more than $2.2 million of its private contributions out to a notorious New Jersey-based telemarketing center called Outreach Calling. In September, the Federal Trade Commission joined the attorneys general of four states in an expansive federal lawsuit filed against Outreach Calling in the Southern District of New York, alleging that the company had scammed consumers out of millions of dollars as primary fundraisers for numerous “sham charities” that were the subjects of legal action.

Outreach Calling has been permanently banned from charity fundraising.

The founder and top executive at Outreach, Mark Gelvan, was connected to a company that specialized in PAC fundraising, called Market Process Group, in a January 2020 Reuters special report. Like Political Marketing Services, that company is impossible to trace without a court subpoena. But during the 2018 and 2020 cycles, Market Process Group made about $18 million from political organizations, according to OpenSecrets, including from American Wounded Veterans, the Firefighters Support Association, Heroes United and the American Alliance for Disabled Children.

But the VFA claims to offer legitimate charitable services, and its website is unusually heavy on specific data, which it presents upfront as proof of the group’s work.

The first pieces of information about the charity that viewers see are the “over 47,911,770 people” that Nielsen suggests may have been reached by the group’s radio PSAs; its recruitment mailings to “over 8,964,664 people”; the 423 cable outlets and “over 700 radio stations” that it has sent PSAs; and the alleged 949 people that “have contacted us wanting to become involved with their local Fire Department.”

The vast majority of that work seems to involve dumping mass amounts of unsolicited direct mail into the world. (For example: “We have mailed out 115,700 Thank You Cards nationally to our Volunteer Firefighters; Shipped ‘Thank You’ bundles to 1,544 Fire Departments across the United States.”)

The site also says the group offers a no-cost life insurance program to volunteer firefighters (a total 25 volunteer firefighters died in 2019), as well as a national crisis hotline: 1-844-550-HERO, “24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

Salon called the VFA crisis hotline, and selected the “suicide prevention” option. The call was redirected and immediately dropped. Salon called back and selected the “substance abuse” option. That call was also redirected and dropped. No general operators were available to assist a third attempt.

When Salon informed Bohms about the hang-ups in a text message, he replied, “I will check into that. Thank you.”

Salon tried the hotline again several days later, with the same results.

The VFA also offers another connection between Bohms and Heroes United PAC.

In 2017, Bohms disclosed his connection to Heroes United in a phone call with a man who believed he had been the target of an automated call from a group called the Volunteer Firefighters Association — nominally, a different entity from the Volunteer Firefighter Alliance, and the one involved in the scam that Heroes United settled with Montgomery County.

Fisher is the common lawyer between the groups.

One other Volunteer Firefighter Alliance board member took a $93,864 salary: Robert Kesterson, who in 2016 gave Bohms a five-star book review on Amazon, apparently the only one he has received.

In reaction to Bohms’ self-published racetrack gambling advice book, “The Art of Horseplay: The Life of a Handicapper,” Kesterson wrote:

I have been around horse racing my entire life, even grew up in a thorough bread facility. Got into wagering on races the last few years. Mr. Bohm’s system is a well known in horse betting circles. I was surprised at how many “secrets” he turned loose of in this well written book. See you at the races!

Another review of that book says, “If you got this book free, it’s still not worth reading!”

“The back of the book and description leads you to believe this is a book on how to handicap horses, what to look for in horses and picking horses to bet on. It does not!!” the reviewer warns. “This is a horrible book.”

That review is followed by another, which reads, “The first reviewer is largely correct. Except for a Show Bettor System, this book offers no information on how to handicap horses.”

Bohms has self-published a number of other books, including “The Squirrel Commander: Guide to Small Game Hunting,” “Eat Less CRAP, Eat More FOOD: A Paleo Crockpot Cookbook” and “Big Al’s Golf for Beginners,” which can be purchased for $902.81.

Bohms also has a company called Big Al’s Hot Dogs. His LinkedIn page features certificates indicating that he completed courses in “Understanding the Dates on Food Labels” and “General Nutrition: Belly Fat” through online classes provided by Texas A&M University.

Bohms originally hails from a small town in northern Illinois, but a person familiar with his family told Salon he had left for Florida decades ago after he was told he had fathered a child. His daughter had disabilities from birth, the person said, but Bohms was out of the picture and unreachable. Two years ago, after a nearly 30-year search, the mother found Bohms through his Twitter account. He has not been responsive, even after his estranged daughter reached out personally. “He wants nothing to do with her,” the person said. Bohms, who also has a family in Tennessee, has a three-year-old grandson he does not know about, the source told Salon.

“He has no business running a charitable organization,” the person said. “He’s a crook, a liar, and waste of time.”

Bohms’ brief political career was also peculiar. In 2016, he ran for Congress as a Democrat in Tennessee’s 1st congressional district, which a regional political operative told Salon has been “Republican-held since before the Civil War.”

The bar to get on a ballot in Tennessee is extraordinarily low. “It’s 25 signatures total. Anyone can get on,” the operative said. “It’s bullshit and needs to be changed.”

Bohms got on the ballot, and faced no other candidates in the Democratic primary. In the general election, he won 15.4% of the vote against Rep. Phil Roe, the Republican incumbent.

It is unclear why Bohms ran. His campaign committee raised no money, and Tennessee voter rolls do not disclose party affiliation. However, Bohms now regularly identifies himself upfront as a former congressional candidate. (No Democratic candidate had even bothered to run in the district in 2014.)

To the extent Bohms had a campaign platform, it was vaguely libertarian in tone. The East Tennessean characterized him as “a self-described family man and volunteer firefighter who stands for the rights of marginalized groups, wants to get big money out of politics and is a proud supporter of second amendment rights.”

He criticized the outsized influence of money in politics on his campaign website:

We should not be elected based on the amount of money we have to spend on an election. After all, because one Candidate has $500,000 to spend and the other only has $2,000, does that make the wealthier Candidate the better man for the job? It definitely means he is less in tune with the needs of the working class. In a democracy we should have the right to elect people on their ideas. The biggest problem I have with this is that these wealthy politicians believe they have the answers to our problems. The job title is “Representative,” which means instead of them telling us what they want to do, they should listen and the ask us want we want them to do. Then go to Washington and “represent” our views and opinions. That would be the true definition of the word representative.

As for Bohms himself, FEC records show that he has only ever donated to one candidate in his entire life: to Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a fiercely conservative Republican. In 2018, two years after his failed Democratic bid, Bohms gave her campaign and PAC $4,700 — less than the maximum allowable amount.

Biden says he’ll take on structural inequality. Good! You need to hold him to it

“It’s time we address the structural inequalities in our economy that the pandemic has laid bare,” President-elect Joe Biden said last week, as he introduced his economic team.

It’s a good team. They’re competent and they care, in sharp contrast to Trump’s goon squad. Many of them were in the trenches with Biden and Barack Obama in 2009 when the economy last needed rescuing.

But reversing “structural inequalities” is a fundamentally different challenge from reversing economic downturns. They may overlap – last week the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit a record high at the same time Americans experienced the highest rate of hunger in 22 years. Yet the problem of widening inequality is distinct from the problem of recession. 

Recessions are caused by sudden drops in demand for goods and services, as occurred in February and March when the pandemic began. Pulling out of a recession requires low interest rates and enough government spending to jump-start private spending. This one will also necessitate the successful inoculation of millions against Covid-19.

By contrast, structural inequalities are caused by a lopsided allocation of power. Wealth and power are inseparable – wealth flows from power and power from wealth. That means reversing structural inequalities requires altering the distribution of power.

Franklin D Roosevelt did this in the 1930s, when he enacted legislation requiring employers to bargain with unionized employees. Lyndon Johnson did it in the 1960s with the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, which increased the political power of Black people.

Since then, though, not even Democratic presidents have tried to alter the distribution of power in America. They and their economic teams have focused instead on jobs and growth. In consequence, inequality has continued to widen – during both recessions and expansions.

For the last 40 years, hourly wages have stagnated and almost all economic gains have gone to the top. The stock market’s meteoric rise has benefited the wealthy at the expense of wage earners. The richest 1 percent of US households now own 50 percent of the value of stocks held by Americans. The richest 10 percent, 92 percent.

Why have recent Democratic presidents been reluctant to take on structural inequality?

First, because they have taken office during deep recessions, which posed a more immediate challenge. The initial task facing Biden will be to restore jobs, requiring that his administration contain Covid-19 and get a major stimulus bill through Congress.  Biden has said any stimulus bill passed in the lame duck session will be “just the start.”

Second, it’s because politicians’ time horizons rarely extend beyond the next election. Reallocating power can take years. Union membership didn’t expand significantly until more than a decade after FDR’s Wagner Act. Black voters didn’t emerge as a major force in American politics until a half-century after LBJ’s landmark legislation.

Third, reallocating power is hugely difficult. Economic expansions can be a positive-sum game because growth enables those at the bottom to do somewhat better even if those at the top do far better. 

But power is a zero-sum game. The more of it held by those at the top, the less held by others. And those at the top won’t relinquish it without a fight. Both FDR and LBJ won at significant political cost.

Today’s corporate leaders are happy to support stimulus bills, not because they give a fig about unemployment but because more jobs mean higher profits.

“Is it $2.2tn, $1.5tn?” JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon said recently in support of congressional action. “Just split the baby and move on.”

But Dimon and his ilk will doubtless continue to fight any encroachments on their power and wealth. They will battle antitrust enforcement against their giant corporations, including Dimon’s “too big to fail” bank. They’re dead set against stronger unions and will resist attempts to put workers on their boards.

They will surely oppose substantial tax hikes to finance trillions of dollars of spending on education, infrastructure and a Green New Deal. And they don’t want campaign finance reforms or any other measures that would dampen the influence of big money in politics.

Even if the Senate flips to the Democrats on 5 January, therefore, these three impediments may discourage Biden from tackling structural inequality.

This doesn’t make the objective any less important or even less feasible. It means only that, as a practical matter, the responsibility for summoning the political will to reverse inequality will fall to lower-income Americans of whatever race, progressives and their political allies. They will need to organize, mobilize and put sufficient pressure on Biden and other elected leaders to act. As it was in the time of FDR and LBJ, power is redistributed only when those without it demand it.

History will judge Bill Barr as a dangerous and colossal loser

Of all the bombastic statements ever uttered by Attorney General William “Bill” Barr, a remark made toward the end of a lengthy interviewwith CBS News in May will be remembered above the rest. Asked how “history” will look upon his controversial motion to dismiss the criminal charges that Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought against Michael Flynn for making false statements to the FBI, Barr raised his eyebrows, chortled loudly, and flashed a sly smile.

Then he answered:

“Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who’s writing the history. But I think a fair history would say that it [the move to drop the Flynn case] was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law.”

Barr’s attempt to dismiss Flynn’s prosecution went wildly awry. The dismissal motion was intensely litigated, and Flynn was still awaiting sentencing when, on November 25, President Trump issued the retired Army lieutenant general and former national security adviser a “full and unconditional pardon” for “any and all possible offenses” arising from the Mueller investigation. No matter that Flynn had twice pleaded guilty to the false statement charge. So much for the rule of law.

Barr’s Justice Department responded to the pardon with another dismissal motion on Flynn’s behalf. The motion was granted on December 8.

Flynn, for his part, responded to the pardon on social media with reckless abandon, tweeting an ad from the Washington Times that called for Trump to suspend the Constitution and “invoke limited martial law” to permit the military to conduct an election do-over.

The history of Barr’s service as Trump’s attorney general will no doubt be the subject of much future academic and political commentary. And while future historians may debate the details of his record, Barr will not be among the “winners” who will get to pass judgment on his performance as the nation’s top law enforcement officer. To the contrary, Barr will go down as the second-biggest loser of the Trump era, subordinate only to Trump himself.

It may be tempting to look at Barr as something of a tragic figure, as someone who lost his moral compass and sacrificed his good name in fealty to a corrupt leader. Tempting, perhaps, but wrong.

Yes, it’s true that a few Democrats, along with some influential mainstream legal commentators, supported Barr’s nomination to become attorney general before his appointment in 2019. They believed he was an “institutionalist,” and they hoped that he would be an improvement over his immediate predecessors, Jeff Sessions and Matthew Whitaker, who had disgraced the Department of Justice. They were fooled.

The real tragedy is that anyone left of center ever viewed Barr as a fair-minded institutionalist. The truth is that Barr has always been an aggressively partisan right-wing ideologue, bent on entrenching the most retrograde of GOP policies.

longtime and fervent proponent of the “unitary executive” theory, which posits that all executive branch power is vested in the president and in its most extreme form amounts to a blueprint for presidential supremacy, Barr served as attorney general from 1991 to 1993 in the administration of George H.W. Bush. Barr is widely credited with using his position as attorney general at the time to secure pardons for six criminal defendants accused of breaking federal law in connection with the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s.

Two of the Iran-Contra pardons—granted to former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and former CIA officer Duane Clarridge—were issued “preemptively,” prior to conviction, in a fashion reminiscent of Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon and those Trump is reportedly contemplating for himself and members of his family and inner circle. For his work procuring the Iran-Contra pardons, Barr earned himself the nickname of the “Coverup-General.”

After Trump nominated Barr to serve a second stint as attorney general, the ACLU issued a scathing report, asserting:

“During his time in government as well as in the private sector, Barr amassed a record of advancing policies that advocated dragnet government surveillance, mass incarceration, and discriminatory profiling while pushing an aggressive theory of expansive executive power that sidelines Congress’ constitutional role in checking the president.”

Since resuming the reins as attorney general, Barr has proven to be everything the ACLU feared, and more. From publicly mischaracterizing the findings of the Mueller report to defying congressional subpoenasintervening in the sentencing of Roger Stone, forcing Geoffrey Berman to step down as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and allegedly giving the order to assault peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters outside the White House, Barr has strived to transform the Justice Department into a neofascist ministry of the interior dedicated to advancing the personal interests of the president rather than those of the nation.

And don’t be misled by Barr’s recent revelation, made in an interview with the Associated Press, that the DOJ has found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Barr may have incurred Trump’s ire with the disclosure and he may even be considering resignation as tensions with Trump mount, but as the multiple litigation debacles of Rudy Giuliani have shown, Barr simply stated the obvious to the AP—that there is no credible case of voter fraud to be made.

In the same interview, Barr disclosed that he had appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham as a special counsel to continue an ongoing probe into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigations conducted by both Mueller and the FBI. Unless Biden’s new attorney general rescinds Barr’s order, Durham will be in a position to perpetuate the corrosive right-wing myth that agents of the “deep state” had conspired to “stab [Trump] in the back” and cripple his presidency.

Durham’s appointment is Barr’s cynical parting gift to the country, illustrating once again that there is no honor or redemption to be found in the public works of Bill Barr. Not now, and, absent the unforeseeable, not ever.

This article was produced by the Independent Media Institute.