Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

James Corden in “The Prom” sparks critic outrage: “offensive” and “worst gay-face”

James Corden‘s casting in “The Prom” has come under fire by several film critics and entertainment journalists now that Netflix has screened the star-studded musical for press. Corden stars in the film as Broadway actor Barry Glickman, played on stage by Brooks Ashmanskas in a Tony-nominated performance. Barry is a flamboyant and openly gay Broadway diva, which has led some press to question why Corden was cast in the role.

“Opinions differ on how acceptable it is for straight actors to play gay roles, but few straight actors could get away with a gay character like this, a role that would feel stereotypical in an ’80s sitcom and here feels offensive,” writes Newsweek critic Samuel Spencer, who notes Corden is “offensively miscast” in the role.

Read more from IndieWireDecember TV premieres: 13 new shows to look out for

“After all, it is not like we have a shortage of actual gay actors who could give the role more pathos,” Spencer adds. “Was Titus Burgess busy? Was Nathan Lane on holiday? Andrew Rannells is even in this movie, so we know he was available, and though he has fun as the out-of-work actor who wants everyone to know he went to Juilliard, this film would have been better had he been given the bigger role.”

The Hollywood Reporter critic David Rooney agrees the character of Barry “cries out for Nathan Lane” as opposed to Corden. The critic adds, “Perhaps aware of the potential minefield for a straight actor playing a flaming gay stereotype, Corden channels the mannerisms without the joy. It’s a flat performance without much heart.”

Read more from IndieWireThe 23 breakthrough performances of 2020

More damning is a review published in The Telegraph by critic Tim Robey, who writes, “In a cast full of talented queer actors in the younger parts, it’s a massive problem to have Corden in gay-face front and center, trying his utmost to own Barry’s tragic experience of leaving home as an unloved 16-year-old….When he grabs Emma’s hand and whisks her to the mall for a makeover, it’s an insult the film doesn’t even consider, stereotyping the young lesbian as fashion-clueless and the gay man as a bustling Queer Eye nightmare who made this reviewer embarrassed to be batting for the same team.”

Erik Anderson, founder of AwardsWatch, shared similar sentiments on social media, calling Corden’s casting “the huge drawback” of the film. Anderson adds, “His performance is gross and offensive, the worst gay-face in a long, long time. It’s horrifically bad.”

Other social media dissenters include Jesse Hassenger, who has bylines at The AV Club and Polygon. “‘The Prom’ taught me a real lesson about tolerance,” the reviewer writes. “I used to think that it was permissible for a straight actor to play a gay character in some circumstances; now I’m willing to go hard-line against it if it means denying James Corden even one future role.”

Digital Spy critic Ian Sandwell claims Murphy “made a major error in the casting of James Corden as the musical’s gay male lead character….We’re not saying it’s a flaw merely to cast Corden in a movie. It’s specifically about casting him in this particular role of Barry Glickman, who, in his own words, is as ‘gay as a bucket of wigs.’ The result sees Corden camp it up to the point of being regressive and offensive, hitting every gay stereotype along the way.

“Corden, as much of an entertainer as he is, is not an actor with the range to make it work,” Sandwell continues. “His performance comes across as dated and strikes a sour note in a movie that otherwise has a very welcome and heartwarming message.”

Read more from IndieWire“The Crown”: Gillian Anderson on the “essential” stridency of Margaret Thatcher

Richard Lawson of Vanity Fair called Corden’s performance “insulting” and also offered up Nathan Lane as an actor who would’ve been the right fit for the role. Lawson’s review claims Corden “is so bad” in “The Prom” that “no more straight actors [should play] gay men until the sins of ‘The Prom’ are properly atoned for.”

“Corden, flitting and lisping around in the most uninspired of caricatures, misses all potential for nuance, and thus never finds even a hint of truth in the role,” Lawson writes. “And this is in a movie that’s supposed to be about empowering queer people!”

It isn’t all pans for Corden, however. Variety critic Owen Gleiberman could sense the backlash coming and wrote in his review, “Corden may be attacked in some quarters for portraying Barry as a gay stereotype, but like Christopher Guest in ‘Waiting for Guffman’ he burrows so deeply into the character that he gives him a three-dimensional essence. He’s soulfully funny and touching.”

Having seen the film, the outrage over Corden’s performance has less to do with a straight actor playing gay and more to do with the uncomfortableness of Corden leaning into effeminate gay stereotypes. The plot includes a backstory for Barry that’s meant to add depth to the character, but that doesn’t prevent the film from becoming cringe-inducing each time Corden plays up the character’s sassy, over-the-top flourishes. The outrage here isn’t a character issue but a casting one that’s specific to Corden.

“The Prom” will be available to stream December 11 on Netflix.

Rian Johnson considered using Anakin Skywalker in “The Last Jedi,” but it was too complicated

In a different galaxy, Hayden Christensen‘s Anakin Skywalker and Mark Hamill’s Luke Skywalker could have come face to face in “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.” Writer-director Rian Johnson revealed to fans on social media that he briefly considered adding the Force ghost of Anakin to his “Star Wars” sequel in a scene that would mark Christensen and Hamill’s first onscreen appearance together in the space franchise.

Read more from IndieWireDecember TV premieres: 13 new shows to look out for

When asked by a fan if he ever considered using Anakin in “The Last Jedi,” Johnson tweeted in response, “Briefly for the tree burning scene, but Luke’s relationship was with Vader not really Anakin, which seemed like it would complicate things more than that moment allowed. Yoda felt like the more impactful teacher for that moment.”

The scene in question finds Luke preparing to burn down the Jedi library on the island of Ahch-To. The character is mentored by the Force ghost of Yoda, who destroys the library himself and encourages Luke to learn from his past failures and join Rey in the Resistance’s fight against the First Order. Yoda’s appearance was kept secret prior to the release of “The Last Jedi.”

Read more from IndieWireThe 23 breakthrough performances of 2020

Johnson makes a good point, as subbing in Anakin for Yoda could have rung emotionally hollow considering Christensen and Hamill never established an onscreen relationship in “Star Wars.” The surprise of seeing Hamill acting opposite Yoda 37 years after the two first appeared together in “The Empire Strikes Back” gives the Force ghost mentorship scene in “The Last Jedi” a nostalgic power that would’ve been lacking had the same moment featured Hamill and Christensen.

Per Johnson’s response, Anakin was only considered for an appearance opposite Luke in “The Last Jedi” and not opposite Rey (Daisy Ridley). Christensen ended up appearing in the “Star Wars” sequel trilogy at a later date, albeit in an unconventional way. Anakin’s voice is one of the several Jedi voices that reach out to Rey during the climax of “The Rise of Skywalker,” but only Christensen’s voice is featured.

Read more from IndieWire“The Crown”: Gillian Anderson on the “essential” stridency of Margaret Thatcher

Both “The Last Jedi” and “The Rise of Skywalker” are now streaming on Disney+.

Ivanka Trump wants to “be the first female president” — at least one major hurdle stands in her way

Ivanka Trump is harboring political ambitions after she leaves the White House after her father’s election loss.

It’s not clear where President Donald Trump’s eldest daughter will live, along with her husband and fellow White House adviser Jared Kushner, but their former friends, colleagues and associates believe Ivanka Trump will try to build up her influence in the Republican Party, reported the Washington Post.

“I think she’d want to be the [first] female president,” said Marissa Velez Kraxberger, a film producer who worked for Ivanka for two years at her now-defunct company. “I don’t think she’s actually ever had any interest in fashion but everything was an angle to gain more power in whatever possible way.”

Ivanka Trump garnered only 4 percent support in a recent Newsmax poll, behind Vice President Mike Pence, her brother Donald Trump Jr. and other possible GOP hopefuls, but sources close to her say she almost certainly will consider a presidential bid of her own.

“Everyone is saying that she’s running for office, and that’s the ultimate compliment for her,” said one source from her New York social circle. “Her recent stance as pro-life was making her ambitions very clear that she is laying the groundwork.”

But her brother also harbors political ambitions and is more popular among the GOP base.

“[There will] will definitely be a power struggle between [Ivanka] and her brother, who is obviously more connected to the base,” and one top Republican fundraiser.

But their ambitions may be thwarted by New York’s fraud investigations into the president and his businesses, and former Trump Organization consigliere Michael Cohen suspects that will ultimately be their undoing.

“There’s too much potential dirt that she doesn’t want released,” said Cohen, the president’s former personal attorney who pleaded guilty in 2018 in two criminal cases related to his work for Trump. “It’s easy to say, ‘I’m doing this, I’m doing that,’ but it’s different to put your entire life out there for the media to excoriate you.”

Ian McKellen and more “Lord of the Rings” actors call on fans to help save Tolkien’s home

Ian McKellen and his “Lord of the Rings” co-star John Rhys-Davies are among the actors lending their voices to Project Northmoor, a crowdfunding charity campaign that seeks to raise funds to buy J.R.R. Tolkien’s home on Northmoor Road in North Oxford, England. The home, which is now for sale, is where the author started work on his “Lord of the Rings” franchise. The goal is to not only buy the house but also to turn it into the world’s first Tolkien literary center.

Read more from IndieWire: “The Crown”: Gillian Anderson on the “essential” stridency of Margaret Thatcher

“We cannot achieve this without the support of the worldwide community of Tolkien fans, our fellowship of funders,” McKellen says in a video posted December 2 to launch Project Northmoor. The actor and Rhys-Davies are joined in the video by “The Hobbit” star Martin Freeman, “Lord of the Rings” illustrator John Howe, and Annie Lennox, who won the Oscar for Best Original Song with “Into the West” from “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.”

Read more from IndieWire: The 23 breakthrough performances of 2020

Per Entertainment Weekly: “The goal is to raise $6 million, but only $5.3 million is needed to buy the house. In the event $6.1 million is raised, the campaign will fund renovations and restore the garden. If they hit the $6.2 million mark, they can fund a scholarship for those from low-income backgrounds to attend creative courses and special events at the house. A $6.3 million total will fund the building of a hobbit house at the end of the garden.”

Read more from IndieWire: December TV premieres: 13 new shows to look out for

“Unbelievably, considering his importance, there is no centre devoted to Tolkien anywhere in the world,” Rhys-Davies says in the video. “The vision is to make Tolkien’s house into a literary hub that will inspire new generations of writers, artists, and filmmakers for many years to come.”

The crowdfunding campaign is the brainchild of author Julia Golding. “Lord of the Rings” fans have a three-month window to raise the necessary funds or else the home will be sold to other buyers. Watch the full Project Northmoor announcement in the video below.

New PPP data shows two dozen businesses at Trump and Kushner properties received federal loans

The Small Business Administration (SBA) on Tuesday released extensive new data indicating that half of the coronavirus Paycheck Protection Program’s (PPP) $522 billion in taxpayer-funded loans went to only 5% of recipients, according to preliminary reviews.

The data, which came in response to multiple Freedom of Information Act requests and a lawsuit, offered the most complete accounting yet of the sweeping emergency relief effort. It showed that PPP loans disproportionately favored bigger businesses, including more than two dozen properties owned by the Trump Organization and the family of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior White House adviser.

Congress included the PPP in the CARES Act this spring, pitching it as a bridge for small businesses to weather the economic crisis precipitated by the pandemic. The government would forgive the loans as long as businesses could show that the money went to specific essential expenses, such as payroll, rent and utilities. (Disclosure: Salon received a PPP loan to keep our staff and independent journalism at 100%.)

However, news reports soon revealed apparent inequities in the program, with millions going to big businesses, including major chain brands and energy companies. Minority-owned businesses received a disproportionately small slice of the funding — Wells Fargo reported allocating PPP money to just one Black-owned business — while big banks pocketed upwards of $10 billion in processing fees.

Further, a Salon analysis previously found that charter schools might have double-dipped as much as $1 billion in PPP money. Salon also revealed that millions of the taxpayer funds went to hate groups. And Salon exclusively reported on a watchdog group’s call for an investigation into six companies with connections to members of Trump’s Cabinet this September.

Politically connected figures, such as congresswoman-elect and QAnon adherent Marjorie Taylor Greene and White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, were also directly linked to PPP loans.

Treasury Department and SBA officials argued that the overwhelming majority of the loans — as of August, more than 87% — were for less than $150,000, most of which benefited smaller operations. But those 87% of businesses only accounted for 28% of the total distributed funds, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday. Further, more than half of the $522 billion in total loans went to larger operations, while 5% of it went to small businesses.

An NBC News analysis, which described the new data as “troubling,” found that 25 loans worth a combined $3.65 million went to entities paying rent at addresses associated with Trump and Kushner properties. Fifteen of the businesses reported that the loans went to keeping one job or no jobs, or did not report a number of jobs saved.

One entity — the Triomphe Restaurant in the Trump International Hotel and Tower in New York — took $2.1 million, reporting no jobs retained. The restaurant has closed.

Two Trump Tower tenants took more than $100,000 to retain three jobs, while four tenants in Kushner’s debt-beleaguered skyscraper at 666 5th Avenue received a combined $204,000, saving six jobs. (Previous reports revealed that Kushner-related companies took millions.)

The data also disclosed key information initially kept under wraps by the government, such as the names of businesses which received less than $150,000, as well as the specific amounts received (instead of a range).

For instance, Salon earlier reported that a previously unknown company owned by Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, got between $150,000 and $300,000 in PPP money. The new data showed that the company — World Capital Payroll Corp — received exactly $209,117 from the government. World Capital, which reported itself not as a payroll company but as a “fund, trust or other financial vehicles,” did not reveal how many jobs were saved.

Experts told Salon at the time that given the information at hand, the World Capital loan application appeared to amount to bank fraud.

The new data also indicated a number of administrative failures. For instance, NBC News found that 100 loans went to entities without a listed name, or with other errors — such as business names that appeared to be phone numbers. Further, more than 300 companies appear to have violated rules against applying under multiple entities, taking more than $10 million each through subsidiaries.

An SBA spokesperson defended the program in a statement published along with the data.

“SBA’s historically successful COVID relief loan programs have helped millions of small businesses and tens of millions of American workers when they needed it most,” the spokesperson said.

However, government accountability groups immediately shot back.

“Only now — after its hand has been forced, hundreds of thousands of small businesses have gone under and millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted — has this administration pulled back the curtains to reveal the malpractice going on behind the scenes,” Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US, a group that advocates for transparency in government, said in a statement on Wednesday. “Americans deserved an open, transparent small business aid program when this pandemic started, and any new small business relief program must take a lesson from the abject failures of this one.”

Hours before the SBA published the data on Tuesday, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a new $908 billion stimulus plan. Nearly $300 billion of it would go to replenishing the PPP and funding other SBA programs.

The surreal manipulation of “Black Bear,” a comic thriller with answers that “hover out of reach”

“Black Bear” is a meta film about filmmakers and filmmaking. This compelling, funny, and offbeat drama opens with Allison (Aubrey Plaza), an actress-turned-director, arriving at a retreat run by Gabe (Christopher Abbott) and Blair (Sarah Gadon). It is irresponsible to reveal anything more than this setup except to say that a love triangle develops. 

Writer/director Lawrence Michael Levine — who last helmed the hilarious mystery-comedy “Wild Canaries” — plays with genre, mixing suspense and romance with slapstick. “Black Bear” takes viewers on a ride, and the film addresses issue of control and manipulation. 

The filmmaker spoke to Salon via Zoom about his film, his relationship with his wife, filmmaker Sophia Takal, and how he directs. 

What do you think is the appeal of films about filmmaking? 

I don’t know what the appeal is. I tend not to think that way. I tend to think: What kind of movie would I want to see and do it. But in the case of this movie, I didn’t even think of that. It was a much more intuitive and spontaneous process. I know that I love backstage drama. I can’t really say why. I have always been drawn to films about movies and theater. I think it’s beyond being a practitioner. It’s something I have been interested in for as long as I can remember.

The film’s tone is very intimate; as if we are eavesdropping on the characters. Can you talk about your approach to the material? 

I like that kind of observational cinema where the directorial hand isn’t particularly heavy. Not that I don’t like the other kind of directing too. I love Scorsese. “Goodfellas” is a heavily directed movie, for example. I just watched “The Death of Mr. Lazarescu.” I loved it. I read a review of it after, and one reviewer, in a positive review, said, that “[Director Cristi Puiu] doesn’t direct movies as much as observe his characters.” I think that understanding is really inaccurate. The choices that [Puiu] made were just as innovative, unique, and interesting as the choices Scorsese makes. They are just less flashy. Most of the directing in a movie like that has to do with staging and placement. When you have only one camera angle, you’re really directing the blocking, so the actors keep the scene interesting and move in sync with the camera. My own approach is not a virtuosic type of cinema in terms of camera movements. It is more observational. But that doesn’t mean it’s not directed. I take more care with performance, dialogue, tempo, rhythm, and things like that.

The tone also shifts from intense drama to slapstick comedy to something surreal. Can you talk about that aspect of “Black Bear”?

Every time I do a movie, I try to put everything that I love about cinema in the movie. I’m not cautious about genre conventions, or saying, “This is a comedy,” so it can’t have any serious moments, or, “This is a drama” so it can’t have any comedy. Although, it was something that we looked at in the edit. We thought a lot about the balance between comedy and tragedy and not overwhelming one with the other. 

I thought about life, and in my life, there’s never been a time when comedy and tragedy weren’t occurring simultaneously. And in that spirit, I wanted to create that tone in the film. There is a lot of humor in the first part, too, which has less physical comedy, but I think there’s some wit in there. I don’t like films that don’t have any laughs — even if it’s a drama, I’m not interested. And if the film is a comedy, and doesn’t have anything that moves me, or engages my intellect, the same is true. 

What are your observations on the central love triangle between Gabe, Allison, and Blair?

I don’t write from outside of my characters. I write from inside them. Which means that I try to make them all have a justification to themselves. I don’t have an overarching attitude about this love triangle, other than the patently obvious, which is that love and desire are not always productive forces or joyful forces, but also destructive forces as well. The power of passion can ruin a life as much as it can make a life. I write from the inside and try to put myself through what each character is going through in that moment. I have total sympathy for my characters.

You dedicate the film to your wife Sophia Takal. What can you say about your relationship with her and moviemaking?

The reason why I dedicated the movie to her was manifold. She wasn’t able to produce the movie, which was the first time that’s happened since we met. She was off making a movie on her own. I wanted her to know her spirit was with me. I also wanted her to know this was a movie about my fears of losing her, not about some wish fulfillment, or something like that. You could look at this movie and read this film a lot of ways. I thought she should know that’s what it was.

When I was done with the film, I was proud of it in a way I had never been about my films before. I did it uncompromisingly. I didn’t do it to please anybody else. In my other films, there was some imagined audience in my mind. When I made “Wild Canaries,” I wanted a movie my parents could enjoy, or that would be palatable to the public because it had a lot of laughs. I thought, I’m getting somewhere with this finally, after years of trying to become a writer/filmmaker. I was really aware I couldn’t have done it without her support and help. When we first met, I was thinking of quitting, and she inspired me to keep going. It was important to acknowledge that. She believed in me really before I believed in myself. So, at the end of the process, I had finally gotten to a place that she thought I could go. 

What can you say about the relationship you had as a director with your actors, and  especially Aubrey Plaza? 

As a director, I am very much present and involved and invested — it’s just that I don’t have any sort of didactic interpretation of the way that a scene should go. I keep my mind open to things the actors can bring that usually go beyond what I imaged when I was writing — new interpretations, surprising thoughts. I don’t direct the actors before we start shooting the scene. I wait to see what they bring. Way more often than not, their interpretations are either spot on, or better than I could have imaged. In that sense, part of my style is staying out of the way when things are going well.

That being said, there were lot of conversation with Aubrey and the other actors before the shooting started. But they were more just reading through the script together in case there were any questions or things the actors were unclear about or if there were any lines they didn’t want to say. It’s usually an interesting conversation when actors say, “I don’t want to say this line.” Either it’s not a good line, or it won’t feel natural coming out of their mouth, or it’s an unnecessary line you could just cut. Or, there’s some deep discomfort that they have with saying the line that will illuminate something about the scene that will help them understand it better on an emotional level. That was really part of the directing. The other part was keeping the energy up and being collaborative and offering ideas back and forth My relationship with Aubrey was similar to the relationship I’ve had with almost every actor I have worked with — which is to say she brought of most of that herself. I worked to accentuate. If she went in a direction I liked, I encouraged her to go further. 

As a director, do you play mind games and manipulate your actors?  Why/why not?

I’ve never played a conscious mind game with anybody. I may be manipulative — that’s possible — but you’d have to ask the people around me. I’m not thinking, “OK, I need to knock this person down, so they feel they need me more,” or some kind of tactic like that. The only thing I am conscious of while directing is trying to be patient and kind. I need to marshal my better angels when I go on set. I’ve acted in all my films over the last decade until this one. It was kind of a different experience, but I still felt I was playing a role as director. It’s a very parental kind of role. 

My parents raised me in such a way they didn’t put their s**t onto me. They never sat me down and said they were having a hard time — will you help me? They were there for me and they didn’t ask me to be there for them. I think that’s pretty adult. Things changed as I got older, and our relationship deepened. I feel like on set, that’s the attitude I try to marshal, which is put your own s**t away. These people don’t need to hear it. They are vulnerable in front of the camera right now and taking big risks that you’re not taking. You need to protect them not only from yourself, but all the craziness on the set. That’s my intention. I’m not saying I’ve done that well. But that’s what I am conscious of. The other stuff is unconscious — the manipulation, the lying. That’s what I’m working to get ahold of. That would be a more interesting question for the people I work with.

On what occasions do you lie, make a joke, or manipulate a situation as the characters do?

In my life? All the time! It’s not just me. It’s the reason why human beings open up their mouths. They talk to get something. And very rarely are they saying specifically what that thing is. People think of language as a means to communication, but more often than not, it’s actually a means for obfuscation. Particularly if you look at political speech, and what’s going on now, you can see it really obviously.

If you look at a conventional movie, people say the things they mean, and you as the audience are expected to take them at their word. But in life, that’s not my view of how people talk or why they say things — and my characters certainly don’t. And a lot of times we’re lying to ourselves. Or we don’t even know ourselves that we are making this joke because we feel threatened or defensive or to get status over somebody. We’re just in the flow of experience. It’s only afterwards, or when you’re watching a movie and see that people are doing this, that you can think about it. It is hard to speak directly and communicate effectively. It is one of the biggest challenges of life. The challenge consists of actually knowing your own truth before you speak.

The film is ambiguous in places. You ascribe symbolism to the title bear. What do you think about ambiguity?

Nobody likes a heavy-handed symbol. I didn’t think the film was particularly ambiguous. I did work to make it a little harder to read and a little more mysterious. I’m pleased that people can have conversations about it and wonder what it all meant. To me, it’s really obvious, and I felt vulnerable about how obvious it was. There are certain things that are ambiguous. I wanted the movie to feel like a dream, and dreams are not really very clear. There’s an emotional reality and vividness to them. But their meanings often hover out of reach of your conscious mind. I like movies that feel that way. 

I did have it in mind to tell a story in parts. I thought it was going to be two or three. I like this way of telling stories. I did a lot work in Hollywood with studios after “Wild Canaries.” There are really reliable formulas you can use in screenwriting to tell a conventional story. I guess I got tired of using them and in some ways, I am tired of seeing them. Once you understand these structural rules, it’s very easy to tell where most movies are going. I just didn’t want that to happen with this one.

“Black Bear” is available in select theaters and VOD on Friday, Dec. 4.

A new stimulus bill pushed by a centrist coalition has a modest chance of being passed

Update: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer released a joint statement on Wednesday asking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to use the $908 billion stimulus proposal as a starting point for relief talks.

A group of centrist Republican and Democratic senators announced on Tuesday that they are introducing a $908 billion stimulus bill, which they hope will serve as a stopgap to help struggling Americans in the weeks before President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration. The question, of course, is precisely what kind of financial help the stimulus is offering.

The bill was pushed by a bipartisan coalition of senators who argue that their legislation could provide a template for relief measures that could help an economy stricken by a new surge in coronavirus cases, according to The Washington Post. Its backers include Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Mark Warner of Virginia as well as Republican Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. CNN reported that Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine are also involved in those talks.

Their plan would provide $300 a week in federal unemployment benefits for four months, offer $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. The group has struggled to come to an agreement on issues like liability protections and state and local funding.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., also announced on Tuesday that senior Republicans had received a coronavirus package proposal from Democratic congressional leaders, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, on the previous night. Neither McConnell nor Democratic aides provided any details about their offer, with Schumer explicitly characterizing it as an attempt to “move the ball forward.”

In contrast with the bipartisan proposal, McConnell met with Republicans House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to discuss in detail what President Donald Trump would be willing to sign into law, according to Axios. Their much narrower stimulus measure includes an additional round of Paycheck Protection Program loans to small businesses that can prove a 25% loss, would extend pandemic unemployment assistance for one month and then phase it out, would provide short-term assistance for child-care providers and would establish coronavirus liability limitations for businesses, schools, religious institutions and government agencies.

One problem with the various stimulus measures is that, even if a bill was actually passed, it would take weeks for the Internal Revenue Service to send people stimulus checks electronically or by paper mail; neither the bipartisan proposal nor the McConnell proposal actually includes new rounds of stimulus checks, according to CBS News. Yet there is urgency to the situation because millions of Americans are scheduled to lose their unemployment benefits at the end of the year, and with the national eviction moratorium also expiring in 2021. An increasing number of Americans are applying for unemployment assistance, indicating that the economy could be stalling due to the surge in novel coronavirus cases.

The paltry proposals put forward by Republicans and the bipartisan group are in stark contrast to the stimulus package passed in March. That bill, which was in excess of $2 trillion, included cash payments of $1,200 to taxpayers whose incomes are equal to or less than $75,000 each year, which were gradually phased out for taxpayers in the upper echelons of tax brackets before being eliminated entirely for those who made in excess of $99,000. Families also received $500 for every child in their household.

That stimulus bill also included $500 billion in relief for corporations, $350 billion in relief for small businesses and $100 billion in assistance to hospitals. It expanded the eligibility criteria for unemployment relief, extended benefits by 13 weeks and increased maximum unemployment benefits by $600 per week.

David Perdue bought Pfizer stock — a week before company said it would develop a vaccine

Sen. David Perdue, one of two multimillionaire Georgia Republicans facing tight runoff elections in January, drew scrutiny this spring for stock transactions made in the weeks ahead of the coronavirus outbreak in the U.S., while he was receiving privileged briefings on the impending pandemic.

According to news reports and Perdue’s financial disclosures, the trades involved 112 transactions, and as much as $825,000 in sales and $1.8 million in purchases. The timing raised flags for various reasons. Perdue sold up to $165,000 in shares of a casino company that later shuttered, for instance, and made an investment in a company that manufactures personal protective equipment on the same day Perdue attended his first classified pandemic briefing.

In a series of transactions in late February, Perdue also invested up to $245,000 in the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.

Though the Pfizer purchase has been reported previously, the events surrounding it have not: One week after those stock purchases, the company publicly announced it would be developing a coronavirus vaccine.

Although the Justice Department eventually cleared Perdue of insider trading, this synchronicity raises new questions about what the senator knew and when.

Perdue has argued that all his trades are executed by a third-party adviser, and that he has no say in day-to-day transactions. Still, he is among the most active traders in Congress: The New York Times reported on Wednesday that he has executed 2,596 market transactions in his single term, often involving companies that operate within the ambit of his Senate responsibilities.

This spring Perdue pushed back against allegations of insider trading in advance of the coronavirus, claiming that outside advisers made the calls without his input, but a bombshell New York Times report last week made clear that was a lie. This summer, Justice Department investigators found that Perdue had instructed one of his wealth managers to offload more than $1 million in a financial firm after the CEO tipped off the senator in a personal email.

The Pfizer transactions would seem to have required even more faith in his broker, who apparently felt counterintuitive confidence in the company’s stock in the early stages of a market-wide crash, and during a week where its shares fell in line with the Dow’s overall drop of more than 6%.

Perdue’s broker would have been similarly undaunted by the company’s Feb. 27 warning to investors that the pandemic “could adversely impact” its operations, including clinical trials:

The extent to which the coronavirus impacts our operations will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, including the duration of the outbreak, new information which may emerge concerning the severity of the coronavirus and the actions to contain the coronavirus or treat its impact, among others.

In particular, the continued spread of the coronavirus globally could adversely impact our operations, including among others, our manufacturing and supply chain, sales and marketing and clinical trial operations and could have an adverse impact on our business and our financial results.

Perdue’s broker chose to buy more Pfizer stock that day.

The broker bought even more the next day, when Perdue’s office issued its first press release about the coronavirus — a joint statement with fellow Georgia Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler that touted their attendance at “regular congressional briefings led by the Coronavirus Task Force.”

The statement noted that the U.S. is “expediting the development of a vaccine.”

In the next few days, it became clear that Pfizer had made the Trump administration aware of its pursuit of coronavirus therapeutics and a vaccine.

Pfizer’s top scientist, Mikael Dolsten, attended a March 2 White House roundtable, addressing “how the federal government can accelerate the development of vaccines and therapeutic treatments for the coronavirus.” Dolsten spoke about those efforts at a follow-up press conference, and referenced close partnerships with a number of government health agencies.

Pfizer released a statement later that day with further details, including a timeline:

Pfizer is engaging with a third party to screen these compounds under an accelerated timeline and currently expects to have the results back by the end of March. Upon completion of such screening, the company could be in a position to move forward with development depending on the results. Toxicology studies would then need to be completed prior to any clinical development, but if successful, Pfizer hopes to be in the clinic by no later than the end of 2020.

As a result, the stock’s closing price rose from $33.42 on Feb. 28 to $34.88 on March 2, and then rose again to $36.40 on March 4.

On March 5 Pfizer announced its budding partnership with German company BioNTech to develop an mRNA-based vaccine, which it theorized could be brought to market faster than traditional vaccines. The project led to the company’s groundbreaking Nov. 9 announcement that its vaccine had demonstrated 90% efficiency in its first stage 3 trial.

Around this time, Pfizer showed promise for long-term gains in other ways, as well. On March 20, a stock market analyst predicted that Pfizer’s top product, a pneumonia vaccine, might outperform projections on the year as a result of the pandemic.

The company’s stock, which had tumbled amid global turmoil on the financial markets, began to recover on March 24.

When public pressure forced Perdue to liquidate his stocks in mid-April, his Pfizer investments yielded profits as high as 9%. If he had held on until the Nov. 9 announcement, the Peach State Republican could have cobbled together gains as high as 25.7%.

It is not clear whether Perdue has a direct personal relationship with Pfizer executives or lobbyists. Federal Elections Commission filings show that Perdue’s campaign over the last four years has accepted tens of thousands of dollars in donations from Pfizer’s PAC, including a $2,800 contribution last November from company CEO Albert Bourla.

But that does not land Perdue anywhere near the top beneficiaries of Big Pharma money in Congress. Dozens of lawmakers take in more than $100,000 a year from the industry, and Pfizer is the biggest donor, according to data compiled by Kaiser Health News. Bourla himself contributes to a number of politicians and committees, mostly, but not entirely Republicans.

However, one of Pfizer’s donations — a $2,500 contribution to One Georgia PAC — came on the same day as Perdue’s first purchase of Pfizer stock this year.

The insider trading scandal this spring tested the public’s confidence in elected officials, after a bipartisan group of senators were accused of using the privileges of their office to benefit financially from the coronavirus pandemic. (Loeffler, Perdue’s Georgia Republican colleague, was among them.)

Investigators later cleared that group, with the exception of Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., who is still a subject of inquiry. There have also been no reports about what came of an SEC probe into Loeffler’s transactions.

Perdue was the last of those officials to announce he had been cleared, which he first made public in September, in response to attack ads from Democratic opponent Jon Ossoff — who will face Perdue again in the Jan. 5 Georgia runoff election.

Last week, Salon reported that a government accountability watchdog has asked the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate another series of Perdue’s trades, these involving stocks in a defense contractor that had benefited from a bill Perdue worked on, unrelated to the coronavirus pandemic.

The Perdue campaign did not immediately reply to Salon’s request for comment.

Mitch McConnell’s dark pivot: Wreck the economy — and sabotage Biden’s presidency

Donald Trump is still pretending he’ll be able to successfully steal himself a second term as president, probably because it’s such a lucrative lie. Mitch McConnell, however, appears to be moving on to his next mission: kneecapping Joe Biden.

The Senate majority leader is doing what everyone who actually learns from history predicted he would, and deliberately sabotaging the American economy, in a belief that voters will blame the incoming Democratic president for the disaster and not the Republican senators who are actually responsible. 

On Tuesday, a bipartisan group of congressional leaders proposed a compromise coronavirus relief bill, worth about $900 billion. The bill is meant to rescue the economy from what is likely to be a disastrous winter, as lockdowns tighten and people stay home in the face of rising cases of COVID-19. It falls far short of the $3 trillion relief package that the Democratic-controlled House passed in May — a bill that was ignored by the Senate — but is substantially better than anything McConnell has proposed. It’s also better than nothing, which is what McConnell’s actions so far have amounted to. 

Unsurprisingly, however, McConnell’s reaction to this carefully drafted and dramatically announced bill was to blow a big, fat raspberry, refusing to even look at it. 


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


“We just don’t have time to waste time,” McConnell told reporters, even though he has been wasting time since May, pretending he intends to pass a real relief bill while actually focusing the Senate’s precious time on cramming as many Trump appointees onto the federal bench as he can

McConnell is as shameless a liar as Trump, even if he’s less theatrical about it. He is clearly in no hurry to pass a stimulus bill and, frankly, is behaving like a man who hopes no bill gets passed at all. That’s because McConnell does not care one whit about how many people die, lose their jobs, lose their homes or otherwise fall into ruin. All he cares about is power — and he likely believes, with good reason, that tanking the economy is the best bet for getting more power. 

“We know that if he remains majority leader, Mitch McConnell will work to cripple the Biden presidency by saddling him with the terrible politics of a miserable recovery,” Greg Sargent of the Washington Post wrote Monday, adding that we know this because that’s was he did “during the last Democratic presidency.”

The strategy is simple, if diabolical: Let the American economy fall into ruin and then blame Biden for the fallout. Use people’s anger to win back the House in 2022 and then elect another Republican to the White House in 2024, and resume cramming the federal bench with right-wing judges. 

It will likely work, too, since most Americans — especially those fair-weather and swing voters who tend to decide elections — don’t follow politics very closely. Research shows that fewer than 40% of Americans can correctly identify which party controls the House and Senate. McConnell knows that people won’t blame him when they don’t even know his name. Instead, they’ll blame the guy whose name they do know — President Joe Biden. 

McConnell does have a $500 billion package he officially supports, which is focused on tax cuts and giveaways to the already wealthy, while offering little in the way of relief for the ordinary working Americans hit hardest by the pandemic. Most importantly, McConnell’s bill would offer businesses liability protection, to prevent employees who contract COVID-19 on the job from suing their employers. 

These kinds of benefits for the already-wealthy are important to McConnell, and he has working to try to push through this bill before Trump — who would be far more likely to sign it than Biden — is forced to leave office. But while McConnell is clearly invested in lining the pockets of the rich and protecting employers whose negligence hurts or kills employees, those delicious goodies are still less important to him than handing Biden a ruined economy. 

After all, the bipartisan group that offered the $900 billion compromise put in some of the sweeteners for the rich that McConnell has demanded, in an effort to attract his support. In particular, the liability protection, a major McConnell priority, was included.


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


But Mitch still isn’t biting. After all, the compromise bill also includes an unemployment expansion, one that would likely last long enough to float American workers until a vaccine is widely available sometime next year. Such a benefit could very well save the economy entirely. As long as things don’t go too badly over the winter — as long as eviction rates don’t spike and people can still engage in at least some consumer spending — the economy could be poised to rebound nicely once people are inoculated on a large scale and can re-engage with the world again. But without that help, the damage to the economy might be so severe that recovery will take years, if not longer. 

Clearly, McConnell doesn’t want to let such a recovery happen. He knows that just as Biden will take the blame for a wrecked economy, he’ll also get credit for a rapidly improving one. 

As David Roberts at Vox warned Tuesday, “[t]he entire conservative movement, from top to bottom, will view limiting Biden to one term as its primary strategic objective,” and is ready to “engage in misinformation, norm violation, procedural fuckery, and outright lawbreaking, if necessary, to achieve that objective.”

Actually, it’s even worse than that: Republicans are willing destroy the economy and condemn thousands more to death — and millions more to economic ruin — to achieve the objective of dooming Biden’s presidency. To believe otherwise is a fool’s game. 

McConnell is already making his first moves, refusing to even consider any bill that would bolster the economy and pretending to be open to negotiation simply to waste more time and make absolutely certain that no substantive legislation will ever happen. McConnell knows he’s got time on his side with this dark strategy. Every day that no relief goes out, the economy degrades further and more people needlessly get sick and die — and America gets closer to the level of economic devastation that will be impossible to recover from anytime soon. Which is exactly what McConnell is counting on. 

Suddenly Republicans want norms, ethics and “civility”: Are they actually psychopaths?

Throughout this post-election period, the reaction from congressional Republicans  has been entirely predictable. Mostly they’ve remained mum about the demented behavior of their president during the last month as he has continued his precipitous dive into a rabbit hole filled with conspiracy theories so delusional that it calls for medical intervention. A few have stepped up to say publicly that Trump has a “right” to pursue legal remedies in court, while privately assuring reporters that the president just needs to act out a little bit before he finally can emotionally accept what’s happened to him.

His stalwart manservant, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., initially involved himself in Trump’s attempts to strong-arm state officials into throwing out legitimate votes in order to help him win. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has evidently been poring over some alleged statistical analysis he found on a dodgy website, and has convinced himself there’s something hinky about votes that were counted after midnight. And Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, the man Trump once accused of stealing the Iowa caucuses back in 2016, now wants the Supreme Court to take up one of the president’s absurd cases.

This isn’t the first time a demagogue and conspiracy-monger has captured the Republican Party. CNN’s Ron Brownstein has pointed out the unpleasant parallels between the way the GOP establishment kowtowed to Joseph McCarthy during the Red Scare of the ’40s and ’50s and their servile acquiescence to Trump’s malignant narcissism. In fact, this seems to be a permanent strain in American conservatism:

Whatever their private doubts about his claims, [Sen. Robert] Taft and other GOP leaders concluded that McCarthyism was a political winner for the party. … Gallup polls showed that about three-fifths of Republican voters viewed McCarthy favorably well into early 1954.

In another parallel to Trump, congressional Republicans were deferential not only because they considered McCarthy an ally, but also because they recognized him as a potential threat. The journalist William S. White captured their skittish ambivalence when he wrote, “In McCarthy, embarrassed Republican leaders know they have got hold of a red-hot bazooka, useful in destroying the enemy but also quite likely to blister the hands of the forces that employ it. Their private fear is that a lethal rocket may at any moment blast out through the wrong end of the pipe.”

Brownstein notes that this dynamic drove the party further and further into conspiracy theories being disseminated by the progressively unhinged McCarthy. It was years before his reign of terror was ended and one of the few Republicans who stood up against him, Sen. Ralph Flanders of Vermont, told the truth about what had happened: “The responsibility for this thing lies squarely on the heads of the Republicans who have been obsessed with the value of McCarthy to the party. We are reaping what they have sown.”

I don’t know what it is about the Republican Party that invites this sort of thing but it’s disturbing, to say the least, that we have seen it reappear in the 21st century. I have to say that I’m even more disturbed by what we are seeing in the aftermath, which also closely resembles what happened during that dark time. The Republican establishment, which so eagerly enables dangerous demagogues, seems to emerge from these episodes without any sense of responsibility for what they’ve done, or even any memory of what happened.

Sure, McCarthy was consigned to history’s dustbin, remembered as a malevolent drunk who railed against communism and was finally taken down by Joseph Welch, chief counsel for the U.S. Army, who famously demanded, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” But there is little mention of the cowardice and opportunism of the Republicans of that time who acted as McCarthy’s accomplices. They carried on with their careers as if nothing had happened. (In fact, one of the great Republican red-baiters of the era, Richard Nixon, went on to become president.)

This brings me to today, when I watch with astonishment as Republicans who have actively collaborated with Donald Trump are partying like it’s 2009, as if Donald Trump were still hosting “Celebrity Apprentice.” Take, for example Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who had the unmitigated gall to go to the floor of the Senate and say this on Tuesday:

Your jaw has to drop at the utter absurdity of any Republican saying such a thing, particularly one who not only supported Trump with his opaque, byzantine business dealings around the world but voted for every one of Trump’s corrupt Cabinet picks, including Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who was just revealed to have remained on the board of a Chinese company up until last year.

Even more outrageous is Cornyn’s opposition to Joe Biden’s choice to head the Office of Management and Budget, Neera Tanden, supposedly because of her insulting tweets:

Here’s another member of the Republican establishment weighing in on that “bad judgment”:

Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio is also clutching his pearls over Tanden’s “partisanship”:

“I think it’s very important to have someone who can work with both sides of the aisle,” said Portman, who held the budget post under President George W. Bush. “She has a very liberal public record and a very partisan series of comments she’s made.”

That’s right, the people who routinely say they don’t read the president’s outrageous tweets are now pretending to care about online civility. Moreover, they are complaining about “partisanship” when they all voted to confirm Mick Mulvaney, the onetime Tea Party congressman and founder of the House Freedom Caucus, which was so “partisan” it chased both John Boehner and Paul Ryan out of the speaker’s chair and forced regular government shutdowns. (Mulvaney himself told the Washington Post that Tanden has no chance of confirmation.)

We are seeing a return to the smarmy, sanctimonious, “adults in the room” pretense of Republicans who will wring their hands over Democrats’ alleged incivility and partisanship — toward Donald Trump, the crudest, most insulting brute in American politics since Joseph McCarthy. Hypocrisy doesn’t even come close to describing this. It is shamelessness on a level that is downright psychopathic.

I maintain that one reason the Republicans did as well as they did in down-ballot elections was an ongoing desire on the part of people on all sides of the political spectrum to say, “Oh that’s just Donald Trump — he’s nuts, but now he’s gone.” Plenty of people all over the country apparently believed that and split their tickets, voting for Biden for president and Republicans for other offices. If the two Georgia runoffs don’t go the Democrats’ way, then that party’s inability or unwillingness to make clear to voters that the Republican Party was equally responsible for everything Trump did will end up being one of the biggest mistake they’ve ever made. Republicans are already “pivoting” to being the grownups who need to tame the unruly Democrats, as if none of this ever happened, and the Democrats are already on defense.

L.A. street vendors are caught between COVID and the law

This story is a collaboration between Capital & Main and L.A. Taco

¡Hay viene la ciudad!” (“Here comes the city!”)

It’s a warning often heard throughout street vendor communities in Los Angeles, meaning only one thing: time to stop selling, start packing and go.

Nearly a year after Los Angeles began officially permitting street vendors as part of the Sidewalk and Park Vending Program, a historic project to legalize vending in Los Angeles, vendors are stuck between an expensive, complex permit system and the devastating penalties that come to those without a license.

Undocumented vendors have been protected from misdemeanor charges since 2019, when Senate Bill 946 went into effect, decriminalizing street vending in California. But this April, L.A. County resumed handing out misdemeanors under Gov. Gavin Newsom’s emergency health order.

Vendors in Los Angeles are at risk of deportation again.

The city also resumed ticketing vendors without permits in March, ending a grace period that was supposed to last for months as vendors navigated the licensing process.

Fines start at $250 and rise to $1,000, potentially disastrous fees for entrepreneurs working outside the formal economy in one of the most expensive cities on the planet.

The enforcement motions also ended a relative golden age for street vending in the city, when vending was decriminalized but no permit programs yet existed — and taco stands sprouted on Los Angeles corners like wildflowers after El Niño.

* * *

For 30-year-old Erika Montiel, a crepes vendor in Compton, going longer than a month without selling was not something she could afford when the pandemic arrived.

“We had to go back to work because our money was already running out. We couldn’t complete rent,” Montiel says. “We had no other choice but to go back.”

For the single mother of two, selling her crepes, churro sundaes and funnel cakes is a job in which she takes pride and joy. It’s also her only job and main source of income, so it’s no surprise that like other vendors, she reopened her stand, Sweet Crepes — run by Montiel; her father, Felipe; and sister, Karla — out of necessity.

 

Erika, Karla and Felipe Montiel pose on a Saturday afternoon in front of their Sweet Crepes stand, which opens every Friday, Saturday and Sunday. (Photo: Janette Villafana)

Not long after Montiel reopened her stand, other vendors began to take notice and joined her.

“It was like all the vendors were waiting to see who got out to sell, because the more vendors they saw, the more comfortable everyone became to come back out,” says Montiel’s sister, Karla.

Yes, they feared getting cited, fined or even arrested, but thanks to warnings like “Hay viene la ciudad” echoing down East Compton Boulevard, Montiel and other vendors have been able to avoid such an encounter.

“That’s why I love this city — because we as vendors and residents of Compton, we have each other’s backs,” says Karla.

Only seven vendors have actually received misdemeanor citations, an official with the L.A. County Department of Public Health wrote in an email.

But according to lawyer Doug Smith, who represents vendors with pro bono law firm Public Counsel, a 2017 executive order from the Trump administration means even those not charged or convicted are at risk of deportation.

Under the order, undocumented residents are “prioritize[d] for removal” if they’ve been charged with or convicted of a crime — but also if they committed “acts” that “constitute a chargeable criminal offense.”

“The mere possibility of criminal prosecution could lead to deportation,” the Los Angeles Street Vendor Campaign wrote in a letter to the County Board of Supervisors. “We are aware of several situations involving simple sidewalk vending citations triggering deportation threats.”

Meanwhile, permits are expensive and highly difficult to acquire.

To sell food legally in Los Angeles, a vendor needs a permit from both the city and the county. To get a city permit, a vendor needs a city Business Tax Registration Certificate and a California State Seller’s Permit. 

To get a county permit, a vendor has to pass inspection from the health department, a feat vendors and vendor advocates say is nearly impossible because the health code was written for restaurants, not vendors on the go working with limited financial resources.

Only 90 vendors have both city and county permits, according to a spokesperson from the Bureau of Sanitation. An estimated 10,000 street vendors work in L.A. County.

Under the current health code, carts conducting “full food preparation” must have hot running water, a liquid waste tank and a three-compartment sink — one compartment for hand-washing and one each for clean and dirty cooking wares. Perishable foods require refrigeration units. Fruteros face particular challenges: No cut fruit can be kept on ice, and fruit can’t even be sliced at a cart without breaking the law.

“The health department has told us they basically believe it’s impossible to retrofit an existing cart into being compliant,” says Rudy Espinoza, executive director of Inclusive Action for the City, a nonprofit supporting vendors in Los Angeles.

Permits from the city are issued by StreetsLA — the city’s Bureau of Street Services, which has added the Sidewalk and Park Vending Program to its pothole and “tree emergency” duties — and cost $291 annually until July 2021, when the price will rise to $541. County health permits cost $772 annually for “high risk” mobile food facilities handling perishable foods and conducting full food preparation, and $393 for “low risk” facilities, which sell prepackaged foods like ice cream, candy or snacks. Vendors also have to pay a one-time fee of $746 to have their cart inspected.

“For vendors who make little more than $10,000 a year, this is an astonishing percentage of their income,” law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp wrote in a letter to the L.A. County Board of Supervisors and Barbara Ferrer, director of the Department of Public Health. “By comparison, yearly California state bar dues for attorneys (a profession with an average annual salary of $168,000) come out to $544—about three-tenths of one percent of average annual income,” they added.

The city has issued 641 citations this year, a spokesperson from the Bureau of Sanitation wrote in an email: 485 to vendors lacking permits and 156 to vendors for COVID-19–related violations, charges resulting from the City Council motion this March.

On Sunday, Oct. 4, Merlin Alvarado, a hot dog street vendor in Hollywood, was having what she described as a normal day at work when, around 2:30 p.m., she noticed a car drive slowly past her stand. As she looked closer, she knew right away that it was StreetsLA, formerly known as the Bureau of Street Services (BSS).

“Whenever we find out BSS or the police is coming, we just pack our things and leave to avoid getting the ticket,” says Alvarado.

This time there was no early warning — the moment she locked eyes with the StreetsLA official, she knew she’d be going home with a ticket. She wasn’t wrong. Three hours passed when, around 5:30 p.m., the official made his way back to Alvarado’s stand and served her a $500 citation.

“Just with him seeing you, you know you’re going to get a ticket whether you move or not,” Alvarado says. “He already has all your information, so if he doesn’t serve you the ticket right there, you know it’ll be coming in the mail.”

Over the last five years as a street vendor in Hollywood, Alvarado has had similar run-ins more times than she can remember. To her, a $500 ticket isn’t the only thing she worries about when street vending. She says that as vendors, they must also watch out for the Los Angeles Police Department.

Citing previous encounters with law enforcement, she described verbal threats used to get her and other vendors to stop selling. In one case, a police officer threatened to arrest her if he saw her again. She recalls saying to the officer that she was committing no crime by street vending. According to Alvarado, the officer responded, “No, I’m not going to arrest you for being a street vendor — I’m gonna arrest you for disrespecting the law. I have many ways I can arrest you without the need of arresting you for street vending.”

At the time Alvarado was selling in an area that was considered a no-sell zone.

It is improper for LAPD officers to threaten arrest, says lawyer Doug Smith, because the city only gives out tickets. Misdemeanors, issued by sheriff’s deputies on behalf of the county, can result in arrest.

“They literally come and intimidate you and scare you into not wanting to come back to the same place,” says Alvarado.

Street vendor Max Hipolito, who sells tacos, mulitas and quesadillas in East L.A., shares similar stories about run-ins with law enforcement and StreetsLA. In a recent incident, his food was thrown away.

On Saturday, Sept. 26, Hipolito had just started selling his food when L.A. County Department of Public Health (DPH) officials, along with sheriff’s deputies, surprised him and other vendors.

Hipolito was told that he was about to be issued a $1,000 fine.

“At that moment they started to check all our food. We had a lot of food when they showed up because we had just started selling,” he says. “So, since it was a lot, they threw all of it in the trash — the food, the salsas, everything.”

Since the pandemic, he has had two similar encounters. In both cases his food was thrown away. However, this was the first time he experienced DPH officials arriving with sheriff’s deputies.

“We just felt sad because it costs us a lot of work, time and money to prepare the food, to buy the ingredients — and for it to all end up in the trash,” says Hipolito.

That day, before officials left, Hipolito says he was given a verbal warning and reminder by the DPH, who told him, ”Next time it won’t be a warning — it’ll be the $1,000 fine.”

The thought of receiving the hefty fine crosses his mind every time he decides to go out and sell.

“It’s difficult to get back out after a situation like that because sometimes that means needing to ask for a loan or borrow money,” he says. “It could be as fast as a week or, in some cases, weeks [before selling again], depending on how much you lost.”

Street vendors like Hipolito and Alvarado have noticed a rise in enforcement since the pandemic began.

The city can visit as often as every day, they say, making the possibility of getting a fine that much higher. Hipolito says that since his last run-in with law enforcement, he recalls the city and sheriff’s department stopping by a few more times — only this time they fined vendors down the street from him.

And although they understand the city has public health as its main concern and priority, they wonder if Los Angeles will ever truly support street vendors.

“It’s a double-edged sword,” says Alvarado. “On one side, street vending is legalized in the city, but on the other side, the process to get the permits is such a hassle.”

* * *

Though the pandemic makes serving L.A.’s famous street food more challenging, the struggle to keep Los Angeles delicious is not new. Police and vendors clashed as early as the19th century, when angry officials demanded the removal of “tamale wagons” from city streets.

Vending boomed in the 1980s as violence in Central America drove refugees to Los Angeles. Barred from traditional employment by the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, immigrants turned to selling street food as a means of survival.

Then, as now, vendors could be fined up to $1,000 and given a misdemeanor, scholar Fazila Bhimji wrote in a 2010 in an anthropology journal. Those with bad luck served six-month jail sentences.

In 1990, a play starring real vendors portrayed the entrepreneurs as being so mired in rules and regulations that they slowly turned into robots. In 1994, the City Council approved a pilot program to legalize vending in up to eight districts. Vendors and their families packed council meetings and celebrated when the legislation passed, but only in one district — MacArthur Park — was the program ever formalized. Six months after its launch, no permits had been approved, and after two years, legislators let the program expire.

Around 2008, a group of vendors, organizers and nonprofits assembled to carry on the fight, with the East Los Angeles Community Corporation (ELACC) and the Los Angeles Food Policy Council particularly involved. Caridad Vásquez, a Boyle Heights vendor from Colima, Mexico, organized and fought for vending rights before the advocates had any allies in city government.

“Caridad is the O.G.,” says Inclusive Action for the City’s Rudy Espinoza. “She’s really the godmother of the campaign. She talks about it and she’s like, ‘I was the one who went to ELACC and told them shit was going down right here on Breed Street.‘”

“When vendors told her she was crazy, she just kept going,” he adds.

Vendors were still packing council meetings before the virus, according to Espinoza, outnumbering opposition by 10:1 or 20:1 margins.

City Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez, who first authored a motion on March 17 calling for a temporary “moratorium” on street vending, says the council acted out of necessity when it resumed enforcement in response to COVID-19.

“Over 200,000 people in this country have died,” she says. “We had the more imminent concern of protecting the public’s health. That was driving the decisions we were making back in March.”

Councilwoman Rodriguez emphasizes that misdemeanors, and thus deportations, are the county’s responsibility. Indeed, the city only hands out fines.

“If you want to talk county policy, you have to talk to the county,” she says.

On Sept. 15, the Board of Supervisors approved a new pilot program to develop an affordable cart for vendors that could satisfy the health code.

Asked if the county will take measures to protect vendors from Immigration and Customs Enforcement or armed law enforcement as part of its pilot program, a spokesperson for Supervisor Hilda Solis, who authored the pilot program motion, referred the question to the Department of Consumer and Business Affairs.

A DCBA spokesperson referred the question to the L.A. County Department of Public Health.

The DPH declined to comment.

The program marks a rare investment in vendors themselves, however, rather than in enforcement procedures, according to Espinoza. But the program is scheduled to take four to six months to complete, and there’s no guarantee a code compliant cart can even be developed or mass produced.

Richard Gomez, an engineer for food truck manufacturer Vahe Enterprises, has been trying to design a cart that can pass health inspections at his Slauson plant.

Thinking he had a model that was finally “bulletproof,” Gomez sent it off to the Department of Public Health last week. The DPH rejected it, asking for six cubic feet of refrigeration, at least four cubic feet of dry storage and a five-gallon water heater.

“Can you imagine someone pushing even four and a half feet of cubic refrigeration on top of a pot of tamales, a pot of hot water?” he says.

On September 23, the City Council also approved $6 million in CARES Act funding for “micro-entrepreneurs” to be distributed through the Los Angeles Regional COVID Fund. The money will help street vendors, according to Councilmember Gil Cedillo, who co-wrote the motion with Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez and Curren Price. Vendors can apply for grants of up to $5,000.

But Espinoza says that money, in large part because it is federal relief, is difficult for vendors to access. Why wasn’t the money allocated into a separate fund for vendors alone?

Espinoza cannot help but be frustrated with city lawmakers.

“Sometimes the way they do these programs, I wonder if they just want us to fail,” he says.

* * *

Unpermitted vendors in Los Angeles are facing different struggles during this pandemic.

Some are struggling to pay rent; others have noticed a decrease in sales; and some run the risk of being exposed by brick-and-mortar businesses that charge vendors “rent” for selling on the sidewalk — an unpleasant situation that Erika Montiel, owner of Sweet Crepes, has personally experienced during the pandemic.

“We recently had to move a block down because the owner from the tire shop where we used to sell our crepes would charge us to post our stand on the sidewalk,” Montiel says. “He wanted to raise the cost for vending there for three days. We eventually had enough and moved.”

The practice of brick-and-mortar establishments charging rent to vendors is outlawed by the Safe Sidewalk Vending Act, says Doug Smith. Montiel and her family are working toward getting a troca, or food truck, anyway, to avoid having to pay for a few feet of sidewalk. They hope the truck will rid them of having to deal with the city altogether.

The Montiels heard through word of mouth that a food truck is more likely to have everything the city requires, giving them a real chance at obtaining their permits.

The owner of Sweet Crepes in Compton begins preparing orders for customers a few short minutes after opening. (Photo:Janette Villafana)

But, of course, everything comes at a cost and is never as simple as presented.

“It’s too expensive,” says Felipe. “We saw it could be up to $90,000 [for a food truck], which is too much for us right now.”

Assuming the city or law enforcement doesn’t show up and force them to shut down, the family sells three days a week for about four hours each day. Their sweet crepes, churros lokos (sundaes) and funnel cakes range in price, but every item on the menu is below $9. And although their nights tend to be busy, every day is not guaranteed to be a successful sales day. Which is why the Montiel family knows it will take more than a couple of months of sales to be able to upgrade to a food truck.

On average, vendors are estimated to make as little as $10,000 per year in sales, and even that amount seems to be decreasing since the pandemic began. Yet, more and more people are driven to street vending after losing their jobs.

Hugo Zamora from Hugo’s Wood Fired Pizza in Boyle Heights had no idea that his side hustle would quickly become his full time job.

“I used to work at a restaurant in Beverly Hills which shut down because of COVID, so I had to start something on my own,” says Zamora.

Wearing gloves and a mask, Zamora throws a piece of dough in the air and says he works upwards of 16 to 18 hours a day street vending. During the day, he sells empanadas in L.A.’s Fashion District, and in the evenings, he sells wood fired pizza from his yard, ensuring that extra precautions are taken to follow new social distancing rules.

Owner of Hugo’s Wood-fire Pizza in Boyle Heights slices one of his Naples-style pizzas from the comfort of his front yard. (Photo: Janette Villafana)

“We take most of our orders over the phone, and the ones that are in person never take long to make, so no one stands outside for more than five minutes,” says Zamora.

Back in Hollywood, Merlin Alvarado says she has noticed business going down, which has caused her to fall behind on rent and bills. And business that once was booming with tourists and large crowds walking the streets of Hollywood is now practically gone.

“I notice my sales have gone down 70%. Before, on a good Saturday, I would make $100 a day, and now I barely make $30 a day,” she says.

“The majority of us live day to day,” Alvarado adds. “People need to know that behind every street vendor there is a family that lives and eats off of that vendor’s business.”

Copyright 2020 Capital & Main

Donald Trump’s mini-monster: Stephen Miller wasn’t born that way

The Age of Trump and its cruelty were not made possible by shades or ghosts or nameless, anonymous bureaucrats and followers. These were people who made the kinds of choices Hannah Arendt warned us about: “The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”

In total, the Age of Trump was made possible and given life by people, real human beings who should be held accountable to the fullest extent possible, by the law as well as the judgments of history and people of conscience.

Donald Trump was and will continue to be the leader and figurehead of his American fascist movement and political personality cult, one that will survive long after he is (presumably) forced out of the White House next month.

Whatever the power he wields over his followers, Donald Trump is at his core an instinctive strongman and authoritarian.

As shown in investigative journalist Jean Guerrero’s new book “Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump, and the White Nationalist Agenda,” Trump’s infamous adviser Stephen Miller is something different and more dangerous: he is an ideologue, a true believer in white supremacy.

Miller has repeatedly taken Trump’s worst instincts and made them worse yet. Examples include the child separation policy, mass detention centers along the border and a general policy of cruelty toward nonwhite migrants and refugees, sabotaging pandemic relief efforts, and an overarching strategy of mainstreaming white supremacy into public policy and attempting to overturn America’s multiracial democracy.

In this conversation, Guerrero explains how Miller was radicalized as a teenager into the ideology of white supremacy and other forms of right-wing extremism. Guerrero also details how the right-wing political machine mentored and elevated Miller, first as a rising star in high school and college and then all the way to the Trump White House. She also offers an explanation of Miller’s profoundly damaged sense of masculinity, which manifests itself through an obsession with gangster movies and a ghoulish fixation on violence. This is a trait Miller shares with Trump, and one that helped to bond the two closely together in their shared political project.

Ultimately, “Hatemonger” is a reminder that human monsters must be created. They are not born that way. 

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

Why has there been such denial among the mainstream news media about the white supremacists inside the Trump administration? Most notably, of course, I mean Stephen Miller. This has continued throughout Trump’s four years as president.

Stephen Miller does a really good job of laundering white supremacist ideas through the language of “heritage” and “economics” and “national security.” People who have racist inclinations do not like to perceive themselves as racist. Even those people who are racist and creating those public policies can continue to entertain such a fantasy.   

Once you start to familiarize yourself with white nationalism and its literature, those concepts are being repeated almost verbatim by the likes of Stephen Miller and others in the Trump administration, as well as their spokespeople and media. The policies of the Trump administration were drawn specifically from a blueprint created by think tanks supported by John Tanton, the eugenicist who believed in population control for nonwhite people. He also believed in race-based pseudoscience and the genetic superiority of whites.

Part of the denial about that reality is a function of systemic issues, such as a lack of diversity in newsrooms and publishing. There are white managers in those spaces who are really reining in their reporters, telling them to not use terms like “racist” or “xenophobe” when describing people like Donald Trump. There is the narrative that such language should not be used to describe Trump, because we “don’t know what is in his heart.” I did not write my new book “Hatemonger” to tell the public what is in Stephen Miller’s heart. What I can tell you is that Stephen Miller is fluent in the language of hatred. He speaks the language of people who hate. I cannot necessarily tell you if there is hate in his heart. Stephen Miller is a hatemonger. He has been engaging in hate-mongering in a deliberate way. He does this through cruel policies, such as systematically separating children from their parents, basically obliterating the asylum system at the U.S.-Mexico border and slashing refugee admissions to historic lows.

What is Stephen Miller an example of?

He is a case study in indoctrination and radicalization. Stephen Miller is the story of what happens when a person is exposed to an extremist ideology during a vulnerable and difficult time in their life. Such a person then ends up becoming consumed by extremism. And then, in the case of Stephen Miller, said person goes on to become the most powerful adviser in the White House.

Stephen Miller was going through a tough time as a teenager. His father is a real estate investor, like Donald Trump, and he was tangled up in legal disputes and bankruptcies related to his business. Miller’s father ended up losing a lot of money and the family had to move to a slightly smaller house in a less affluent, less white neighborhood. My conversations with people who knew Miller at the time, people in his family, revealed that Stephen Miller’s life was unraveling in a small way, to the extent that he lost his place in line as a rich white male. He felt entitled to that privilege. He was looking for somebody to blame.

At the time there was extreme anti-immigrant hostility in California. The Republican governor, Pete Wilson, was talking about a migrant “invasion” at the border and blaming it for everything that was going wrong in the state. Stephen Miller is really a product of that political and social moment. Miller internalized a lot of that racist rhetoric and ended up meeting some very far-right figures, one of whom was David Horowitz. He introduced Stephen Miller, during this vulnerable time in his life, to the idea that values such as equality and freedom, and other parts of America’s civic religion and national mythos, are entirely thanks to white men.

Of course, that is obviously and completely ahistorical. Stephen Miller is a Jewish American. He is the descendant of refugees from Europe. But Miller really saw himself as a white man and began to rally around this idea that America was in danger because of brown and Black people who were coming into the country. David Horowitz introduced a young Stephen Miller to the mission that he needed to save the United States from an existential threat, in the form of the Democratic Party and its alliances with people of color.

How did the right-wing political machine elevate Stephen Miller?

David Horowitz was worried that Stephen Miller was not going to get into an elite university because he was so unpopular in high school and constantly attacked students of color, as well as initiatives to remedy the negative impact of racial inequality.

Horowitz allowed Miller to publish self-promotional articles on his website about all the changes that he had allegedly brought to his high school. Another leading right-wing figure, Larry Elder, allowed Miller to come onto his radio program regularly, when he was a teenager, to complain about his high school.

At Duke University, he continued to use David Horowitz’s ideas to get a bigger and bigger platform. For example, Miller was given a column at the Duke newspaper by leveraging the language of “diversity.” That tactic is something that Horowitz taught him: Use the language of the civil rights movement against it. He was consistently drawn to racial controversies while at Duke. Miller would get national media exposure from that. But Miller graduated without a job. He was again a fringe figure.

Horowitz comes to Stephen Miller’s rescue and gets him his first job, with Rep. Michele Bachmann, the Tea Party congresswoman. And then from there he gets Miller a job with Rep. John Shadegg from Arizona, and finally with Sen. Jeff Sessions from Alabama. Over time Stephen Miller became extremely well connected in the far-right movement, and that helped him get a job working for Donald Trump.

What does Stephen Miller want?

There are two answers to that question.

One of them is very much focused on immigration. He was indoctrinated into the belief that too much immigration from brown and Black countries is detrimental to the United States. What Miller wants is to attack immigration from those countries through whatever means available. That could be through reducing the actual number of people allowed to come to America from those countries or implementing cruel policies in order to deter or frighten nonwhite people from coming at all.

Secondly, and this is why the Stephen Miller story is so important regardless of whether one cares about immigration or not, he is responsible for Donald Trump’s most polarizing rhetoric. Miller is also responsible for why Trump was so combative in general. Stephen Miller is truly a master at pitting groups against one another by using wedge issues.

He understands that when you get people fighting with each other, whether it’s based on their skin color or their political affiliation or whether they want to wear a mask during the coronavirus crisis, it creates media attention.

Both Miller and Trump believe that any media attention is good media attention, regardless of whether it is negative or positive. Those distractions also allowed Miller and Trump and the administration to push through their agenda. For example, the disastrous response to the coronavirus public health crisis. Instead of focusing on the distribution of masks and medical equipment, Trump and Miller divided the American people by closing the door to legal immigration and denying green cards.

For Stephen Miller, what does it mean to be “white”? Jewish people were not necessarily considered “white” in America until the 1950s or 1960s. Miller has taken that to the most grotesque extreme by becoming a white supremacist.

I believe that Miller would avoid the question. He tries to avoid the topic of race and skin color because he has been taught to launder white supremacist ideas through the language of “heritage,” “economics” and “national security,” as a way of making hate more palatable.

I believe that an honest answer to that question from Stephen Miller would be that whiteness to him is associated with positive values and ideals. Stephen Miller has been brainwashed to perceive people who are not white as being something evil and beastly. Stephen Miller’s reading preferences are very powerful evidence of his beliefs.

Miller has endorsed the explicitly white supremacist novel “The Camp of the Saints.”

In 2015, through his connections at Breitbart, he urged staff there to write articles showing parallels between that book and real life. “Camp of the Saints” is about the destruction of the “white world” by this horde of brown refugees who are described as animals and beasts and monsters. The book explicitly promotes hatred and violence against brown and Black people by white people as a way of ensuring the latter’s survival. “The Camp of the Saints” is a book about the “white genocide” conspiracy theory, the same conspiracy theory that white terrorists have used to justify their acts of violence. We saw this in the horrible massacre in El Paso.

From a very young age, Stephen Miller would write things such as, “I’m Jewish, but Jewish people are a minority and so even though Jewish holidays are important to me, American holidays are much more important to me.” Stephen Miller was very obsessed with the idea of being perceived as American. And for him to be American was associated with whiteness and the white male heroes he held dear, such as John Wayne. The types of movies and the types of people that Stephen Miller idolized were consistently associated with what he understood whiteness to be. To Miller, whiteness is associated with positive ideals. Miller is also obsessed with mobsters and organized crime and the idea that there is no rule of law apart from “might makes right.” It all has to do with power for Stephen Miller.

Stephen Miller’s obsession with organized crime figures suggests that he is a fragile and weak man who suffered some type of trauma or other harm to his sense of manhood. He is a remarkably dangerous but cartoon-like figure, an adult man who dresses up like a mafioso from the movies.

I spoke at length to one of his longest and closest friends who told me about how, as a child and then well into his 30s, Stephen Miller was obsessed with mobsters. One of his favorite movies was “Casino” with Robert De Niro.

Stephen Miller would go so far as dress up as De Niro’s mobster character. Miller would actually go to Las Vegas dressed that way to celebrate his birthday and on vacations with friends and family. Dressing up like a mobster was not something he just did as a child. Stephen Miller actually incorporates the facial tics and hand gestures of the mafia figures he admires.

When Miller was in high school, he disavowed one of his closest friends because he was Hispanic. That signals to the type of man that he would later become.

Stephen Miller was close friends with Jason Islas. Islas’ ancestors are from Mexico and he was exploring his heritage, more as a way of reconnecting with his father, who he had not been spending a lot of time with. Around that time, Stephen Miller decides to no longer be friends with Jason, telling him they can’t be friends anymore because of his Latino heritage. Miller also insults Jason by telling him about all these other things he does not like about him, such as that he’s too small and too insecure, in general just deliberately attacking the things that he knows are going to hurt Jason Islas.

This happened in eighth grade, going into freshman year of high school. Jason Islas told me, “I don’t think that people should be judged for the rest of their lives by the things that they do when they’re this age.” With Stephen Miller, the way in which he rejected Jason Islas because of his Mexican heritage would later calcify into something even darker and do a great amount of of damage to thousands of people from Latin America.

How has Stephen Miller impacted Donald Trump’s approach to the coronavirus pandemic?

Stephen Miller, from the day that he entered the Trump administration, has been focused on narrowing the scope of the Department of Homeland Security. DHS has a mandate of protecting the American people from a broad range of threats such as terrorism, cyber-warfare and pandemics.

Stephen Miller wanted DHS narrowly focused on immigration issues because that was where the country’s demographics could be re-engineered. This allowed him to shape policy to attack refugees and asylum-seekers. Miller would eliminate people from their positions if they disagreed with him. Many of the top positions at the Department of Homeland Security are held by people in an acting capacity. They have not been confirmed by Congress. This allows Miller to have greater control over them. The Department of Homeland Security is supposed to be protecting the American people from things like a public health crisis, but is so narrowly focused on Miller’s racist obsessions that it has failed to protect the American people from much greater and real threats.

Trump is pathological if not an outright sociopath. The facts are clear there. Miller and Trump both idolize cruelty. They speak openly about hurting people. Moreover, both of them are fixated on violence.               

Stephen Miller has a fascination with violence. He shares that trait with Donald Trump. When Stephen Miller was in high school, he wrote an article where he fantasized about watching Osama bin Laden being shot. I believe that his violent ideations are part of why he has been able to last so long in the White House. Stephen Miller understands Donald Trump in a very instinctual way. Miller is the only adviser who consistently pushes Trump in the most cruel and aggressive directions. Trump loves that.

If there is a truth commission or some other organization tasked with revealing the full extent of the Trump regime’s crimes and other evils, what would you tell them about Stephen Miller?

I would try to make very clear where Stephen Miller’s ideas come from. The Trump administration has consistently talked about how their immigration policies were about “national security” and “law and order,” and about keeping out “criminals” and “the cartels.” But Stephen Miller’s policies have really been about creating a majority white country. Stephen Miller’s goal was and is to harm, keep out, exclude and remove as many brown and Black people as he can from this country.

What would America look like if Stephen Miller got his way?

America would be a homogenized gated white community, like the suburbs of Orange County. Unfortunately, America already has mass incarceration of Black people, but there would be more of that if Stephen Miller got his way.

Do you believe that Stephen Miller will have one of those deathbed confessional moments — like Lee Atwater, the architect of the infamous “Southern strategy” — where he recants and apologies at the end of his life for the evil things he has done?

If Stephen Miller believes that it will serve him career-wise, then he might do such a thing eventually. At the end of the day, I would be very surprised if Stephen Miller actually repented.

 

States with lax coronavirus guidelines are spreading the virus beyond their borders

For months after Washington state imposed one of the earliest and strictest COVID-19 lockdowns in March, Jim Gilliard didn’t stray far from his modular home near Waitts Lake, 45 miles north of Spokane.

The retiree was at high risk from the coronavirus, both because of his age, 70, and his medical condition. Several years ago, he had a defibrillator implanted. So he mainly ventured out during the pandemic to shop for food.

There wasn’t much else to do anyway. Gatherings in his county were limited to no more than 10 people, there was a mask mandate, movie theaters were closed and many nightclubs and concert venues were shuttered because of a state ban on all live entertainment, indoors and out.

An hour away in Idaho, life was more normal. The state left key COVID-19 regulations up to localities, many of which made masks optional. Even in places that required face coverings, enforcement was laxer than in Washington. High school sports, canceled for the fall in Washington, were on full display in Idaho. Most Idaho schools welcomed back students in person, in contrast to the remote learning prevailing in Washington. Businesses reopened earlier and with fewer restrictions. There were concerts and dances.

Weary of Washington’s restrictions, thousands of residents made the easy drive over the border to vacation, shop and dine in Idaho. Gilliard resisted temptation until he learned that the annual Panhandle Bluesfest would go on as scheduled near Priest River, Idaho, on Sept. 12. A keyboardist who used to own a blues club just outside Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, Gilliard was buoyed after months of relative isolation by the prospect of hanging out with friends while listening to music on a remote mountainside surrounded by soaring pine trees and thick hemlocks. He decided to go.

A friend took a picture of Gilliard at the festival. Wearing a bandanna fashioned as a headband, a cut-off T-shirt and dark glasses, he was perched on a tree stump and pointing back at the camera. As was permitted by local regulations at the time, he was not wearing a mask, nor were about 10 people sitting together in the background.

As the number of COVID-19 cases skyrockets nationwide, the extent of the public health response varies from one state — and sometimes one town — to the next. The incongruous approaches and the lack of national standards have created confusion, conflict and a muddled public health message, likely hampering efforts to stop the spread of the virus. The country’s top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, said last month that the country needs “a uniform approach” to fighting the virus instead of a “disjointed” one.

Nowhere are these regulatory disparities more counterproductive and jarring than in the border areas between restrictive and permissive states; for example, between Washington and Idaho, Minnesota and South Dakota, and Illinois and Iowa. In each pairing, one state has imposed tough and sometimes unpopular restrictions on behavior, only to be confounded by a neighbor’s leniency. Like factories whose emissions boost asthma rates for miles around, a state’s lax public health policies can wreak damage beyond its borders.

“In some ways, the whole country is essentially living with the strategy of the least effective states because states interconnect and one state not doing a good job will continue to spread the virus to other states,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health. “States can’t wall themselves off.”

A motorcycle rally in August in Sturgis, South Dakota, with half a million attendees from around the country spread COVID-19 to neighboring Minnesota and beyond, according to Melanie Firestone, an epidemic intelligence service officer for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who co-authored a report on the event’s impact.

South Dakota “didn’t have policies regarding mask use or event size, and we see that there was an impact in a state that did have such policies,” Firestone said. “The findings from this outbreak support having consistent approaches across states. We are all in it together when it comes to stopping the spread of COVID-19.”

Viruses don’t respect geographic boundaries. While some states require visitors, especially from high-risk areas, to be tested or quarantined, others like South Dakota have no such restrictions. Many people who are tired of strict COVID-19 measures in their states have escaped to areas where everyday life more closely resembles pre-pandemic times. There, with fewer protections, they’re at risk of contracting the virus and bringing it back home.

After the Idaho concert, Gilliard started feeling ill and was diagnosed with the coronavirus. For about a week, he stayed in bed. As his condition worsened, he was admitted to a Spokane hospital and placed on a ventilator. He died on Oct. 15. His death certificate lists COVID-19 as the underlying cause.

Going to the Idaho festival likely killed Gilliard, his ex-wife, Robin Ball, said.

“If he had been wearing a mask, not shaking hands and keeping distance, he could probably be alive,” she said. “He had been careful before that. He shouldn’t have been up there.”

The degree of coronavirus regulation tends to track political lines. President-elect Joe Biden carried blue Washington state with 58% of the vote, while President Donald Trump easily won red Idaho with 64%. Trump has helped to fuel the patchwork response to the pandemic, criticizing the approaches of some states, praising others and at times contradicting the advice of his own coronavirus task force and Fauci.

“What really struck me [is] how hard it is to take the pandemic strategy as laid out by the White House with every state on its own and … implement it because every state is not on its own, they are all interconnected,” Jha said.

Biden has said he wants to implement national standards, such as required mask wearing, to help blunt the spread of COVID-19 while acknowledging the federal government has little power to do so. He hopes to work with governors and local officials to establish consistent standards across the country.

A lack of such consistency is affecting eastern Washington, which appears to be absorbing some of the costs — both human and economic — of Idaho’s more laissez-faire approach to the virus. The rate of new cases in and around Spokane, near the Idaho border, is far higher than in Seattle and western Washington, which experienced one of the earliest outbreaks in the country in February. Although slightly more than half of recent COVID-19 cases in Spokane spread among households or personal contacts, Spokane Regional Health District epidemiologist Mark Springer said, “people bringing back COVID-19 from larger events in Idaho” has been a problem. And with Idaho’s rate of new cases now doubling Washington’s, Idahoans who commute to the Spokane area pose an outsized danger. At the same time, Washington’s shuttered businesses have ceded customers to their Idaho competitors.

Public schools in Washington have also suffered. After opening the school year with remote-only instruction, the Newport School District lost about one-fourth of its 1,200 students. Most of them opted either for specialized online-only programs or for nearby private and public schools across the border in Idaho, which offered in-person learning and sometimes didn’t require masks or social distancing, said Newport Superintendent Dave Smith. The plunge in enrollment has led to a $1.2 million drop in funding, he said.

In early October, Newport began some in-person learning but had to return to remote instruction after a COVID-19 outbreak in the community. The source was traced to a Christian church and school only a few feet from the Washington border in Oldtown, Idaho.

“It’s incredibly frustrating,” Smith said. “I certainly think aligned standards across the nation would have changed our situation.”

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee recently called on “Idaho leaders to show some leadership” and be more aggressive in combating COVID-19. He blamed the virus spread in Idaho for straining Washington hospitals. For their part, some in Idaho have complained that the rise of COVID-19 there has more to do with the influx of Washington residents over the summer and fall than with a lighter regulatory touch.

Many of those Washingtonians headed to Coeur d’Alene (pop. 52,400), the seat of Kootenai County and the largest city in northern Idaho. Despite some cancellations, many tourism activities went on as scheduled. The Spokesman-Review newspaper in Spokane ran a feature headlined, “A nearby escape: Coeur d’Alene Resort offers amenities for singles and families.” The resort, the article noted, was offering special packages for families that include a pizza-making experience, scenic cruise tickets and discount theme park tickets. In the resort garage, most of the license plates were from Idaho or Washington.

“Yes, the coronavirus exists,” the article continued. “However, the luxe Coeur d’Alene Resort is open and taking steps to make an experience as safe as possible.” While employees wore masks, the article said, they were optional for guests and about two-thirds opted not to use them. The resort did not respond to requests for comment.

At a park in downtown Coeur d’Alene, a weekly concert series called Live After 5 attracted crowds all summer. Though attendance was lower than in prior years, it swelled as promoters targeted marketing to tourists, concert organizer Tyler Davis said. At one show in July, a member of the band surveyed the large gathering and said, “Look around you guys, it feels kind of normal tonight.” Groups of people danced in front of the stage, food trucks lined up along one side and vendors set up tents. Masks were “encouraged but not required.”

The day after that show, the Panhandle Health District encompassing five Idaho counties ordered a mask mandate in Kootenai. It required masks in indoor and outdoor public places when a social distance of 6 feet could not be maintained.

Springer, the epidemiologist, watched the flow of Spokane County residents to Idaho with concern. “The issue with Idaho is a somewhat significant one for us in that the restrictions are a pretty stark contrast between what is in Idaho and what we have in Washington,” he said. “Coeur d’Alene is a sister community to us.”

Jim Gilliard was a popular figure in the blues music community around Spokane and northern Idaho. In the 1990s, he operated a music club outside Coeur d’Alene called Mad Daddy’s Blues. He was a talented musician himself, playing keyboards in local blues bands, even after losing a finger and badly injuring two others in a table saw accident.

Gilliard was raised in New York City and Pennsylvania. His father, E. Thomas Gilliard, was an acclaimed ornithologist who served as curator of birds at the American Museum of Natural History and was often gone for months at a time on expeditions to New Guinea. After Gilliard met Ball, the two headed to Colorado and enjoyed life as ski bums, moving from resort to resort for a couple of years before eventually settling in Coeur d’Alene, and having a son. After they divorced two decades ago, she stayed in Coeur d’Alene and he ended up in the village of Valley, Washington. (pop. 164).

Gilliard was one of nearly 300 people who paid $25 each to attend the blues festival, which was held 2 miles up a mountain road outside Priest River, Idaho, a tourist town 6 miles from the Washington border.

Bonner County, where the concert was held, is a rural pocket of defiance against government public health mandates related to the coronavirus. When the local library instituted a mask requirement for users, mask-less demonstrators, some clutching small children, protested and tried to enter the library as staff members stood their ground and explained they were only trying to prevent people from getting sick. The county sheriff wrote to the governor criticizing lockdown orders early in the pandemic, alleging that public health officials misled the public and that “COVID-19 is nothing like the plague.”

Concert organizers Billy and Patty Mullaley said they waited until the end of June before deciding to go ahead with it. The only potential roadblock was getting liability insurance at an affordable price during a pandemic, which they were able to do after shopping around.

“At the time, there were not any restrictions” on events like theirs in Idaho, Patty Mullaley said. “We did not take it lightly, having the event. We really put thought into it.” They bleached outhouses and the area around the concert stage offered plenty of space for social distancing, she said. Among those most grateful they went ahead, she said, were musicians who had been starved for gigs because of coronavirus-related cancellations. Featured acts included Sammy Eubanks, Coyote Kings and Tuck Foster and the Tumbling Dice.

Mullaley said the festival drew Washington residents eager for events banned in their own state. “From my experience, everyone and their dog from Washington was over here,” she said. “Our COVID is probably from people coming over here from Washington.”

Few of the hundreds of people at the festival wore masks and many didn’t stay socially distant, according to attendees. “Part of what made it magical was people were completely free and happy and not fearful at all,” said Sylvia Soucy, who had COVID-19 earlier in the summer. People danced barefoot on the soft sand and mingled with friends, she said.

Mullaley said people socially distanced “as much as possible.” In the end, she said, “these were all adults” who made individual decisions. Soucy agreed. “It was completely a choice all of us made,” she said. The remote setting — no cellphone service, no electricity and surrounded by hundreds of acres of undeveloped forest — added to the temporary joy of escaping from the virus, Soucy said.

Soucy said she talked to Gilliard there and he was in good spirits, “glad that people were not worried about being able to get together there on the mountain.” Gilliard also chatted with other friends, including a former girlfriend, according to Soucy. Ball said the former girlfriend was diagnosed with COVID-19 shortly after the festival and notified Gilliard.

“I don’t know why he let his guard down,” Ball said. “I will never understand that.” In the end, she thinks it had to do with “a long summer of not having a lot of stuff to do. He had been so cautious for those seven or eight months. He just didn’t feel like it was going to be a problem.”

The Mullaleys said they were unaware of anyone else from the concert getting COVID-19 around that time. But some Washington residents who tested positive for the coronavirus told contact tracers that they had attended the blues festival, according to Matt Schanz, the administrator of Northeast Tri County Health District, a public health agency in Washington covering counties near the Idaho border.

That doesn’t definitively mean that they contracted the virus at the festival, he said. “We have 550 cases within three counties, and if you read the summary reports, a decent number of those have some affiliation with Idaho,” Schanz said.

South Dakota has largely remained open for business during the pandemic. Gov. Kristi Noem, an ally of Trump’s, has refused to impose a mask mandate, saying there are questions about its effectiveness. The state has not placed any restrictions on bars and restaurants and officials allowed the 10-day motorcycle rally in Sturgis. Such a rally would have been prohibited in Minnesota. Both Minnesota and South Dakota are in the top five states when it comes to rates of cases per capita over the last week.

The CDC advises that outdoor events are less risky than indoor ones. The Sturgis rally, which featured events in both settings, is now linked to at least 86 COVID-19 cases in Minnesota, including four people who were hospitalized and one death, according to a CDC report released in November. The report said the total is likely an undercount as some of those infected declined to share their close contacts with health officials.

“These findings highlight the far-reaching effects that gatherings in one area might have on another area,” the researchers wrote. They added, “This rally not only had a direct impact on the health of attendees, but also led to subsequent SARS-CoV-2 transmission among household, social, and workplace contacts of rally attendees upon their return to Minnesota.”

Mike Kuhle, the mayor of Worthington, Minnesota, said South Dakota’s approach to the pandemic “is a source of heartburn for me and sleepless nights.” His city is close to both the South Dakota and Iowa borders. In addition to worries about the virus spreading from South Dakota, Kuhle said, “during the lockdown people have gone to Sioux Falls for shopping. It’s ugly for our businesses.”

A similar dynamic has played out in the Quad Cities area at the border of Illinois and Iowa. There, thousands of people cross bridges over the Mississippi River every day to work, visit family and shop in each state.

As cases in Iowa began to surge this summer, Gov. Kim Reynolds dismissed mask mandates as “feel-good” measures that are difficult to enforce. Until recently, Iowa restaurants and gyms were allowed to operate at full capacity as long as social distancing measures were in place. There was no state-imposed limit on the size of social gatherings. Nicknamed “COVID Kim” by her critics, Reynolds changed course in mid-November in the face of surging cases and hospitalizations, requiring masks.

Illinois clamped down earlier and harder, instituting a mask mandate at the end of April. Movie theaters opened in Iowa before those in Illinois. Iowa never closed its golf courses when neighboring states like Illinois did.

For Illinois businesses, the gap between the two states’ regulations has been crushing, said Paul Rumler, the president of the Quad Cities Chamber.

“A river runs through it but otherwise this is one community,” he said. On the Illinois side, “we have retailers and restaurants who want to be responsible corporate citizens and follow the guidelines knowing they are at a disadvantage from a business literally 3 miles away.”

Rumler said the chamber advocated for the two states to have a consistent approach to the pandemic to no avail. “If there was a federal standard, it would eliminate the confusion of our region,” he said. “It would make our life a lot easier.”

Debbie Freiburg, a volunteer contact tracer for the county encompassing the Illinois side of the border, said the looser restrictions in Iowa offered Illinois residents the chance to “take a break” from the virus.

“It’s bad and the differences are huge, unfortunately,” she said. “I can be in Iowa in 10 minutes, and there were a lot of us going shopping in Iowa.”

Freiburg, who retired to the area after working as a pediatric cancer nurse in Washington, D.C., said cases in her Illinois county have been tracked to Iowa, including several from a large wedding at a hotel just over the border.

Tensions between Washington and Idaho over their divergent responses to the pandemic escalated in October. As the count of COVID-19 cases climbed, the board of the Panhandle Health District in Idaho voted 4-3 to rescind the mask order it had imposed on Kootenai County three months before. Officials in Washington were stunned. Inslee, the governor, refused to rule out restrictions on border traffic.

The move by the health board came amid growing resistance in the state to mandatory public health measures to control the virus and skepticism that COVID-19 was even real.

A group of Idaho politicians, including Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin, appeared in a video in October urging the state to limit restrictions. Sitting in a truck with an American flag draped over the side, McGeachin placed a gun over a Bible. “We recognize that all of us by nature are free and equal and have certain inalienable rights,” she said. A legislator in the video said “the pandemic may or may not be occurring.”

State Rep. Tony Wisniewski, who represents Kootenai and also appeared in the video, urged the health board to make masks optional. He compared the mask mandate to what he said was a requirement in Nazi Germany to tell authorities if a neighbor was Jewish.

Health board member Allen Banks said he was “deeply suspicious” of tests for COVID-19. In an email to a senator who had criticized the board’s mask mandate, he wrote, “I hope you and the legislators who support your effort will continue to stand for truth rather than the fantasy of a phony disease based on a false test.”

Board member Walt Kirby, who had voted in July to approve the mask mandate initially, was the deciding vote. He opposed a mandate because people were “pretty damn nasty” to him for supporting it before, he explained. “I am not going to vote for it, I am just not because no one is wearing the damn masks anyway,” Kirby said, adding that he wears a mask. As for people who ignore the advice of public health experts, he said, “I am just sitting back and watching them catch it and die and hopefully I will live through it. You know I am 90 years old already and I am not getting involved in it anymore.”

Even as the requirement was rescinded, cases in Kootenai were soaring. The rate of hospitalizations in the border area in northern Idaho is nearly double the rate in the Spokane region. Overall, the number of new cases in Idaho per capita is almost twice that of Washington.

With the county mandate overturned, the city of Coeur d’Alene considered in late October whether to adopt one on its own. Mayor Steve Widmyer and the City Council were inundated with hundreds of emails and telephone calls, many from mask opponents.

“This is Idaho, not Washington or California,” wrote one resident. “Let the people decide if they wish to mask up or not.” Another told the city leaders, “If you want to live with a mask ‘muzzle’ on your face move to California or Washington.”

Ball, Gilliard’s ex-wife, urged Widmyer to support a mandate. “People come here so they don’t have to wear a mask and fill our bars and businesses while spreading covid,” she wrote.

In Coeur d’Alene, the mayor only votes to break a tie among the city councilors. Widmyer, who had complained that city officials “shouldn’t have been put into this position,” didn’t have to vote, because the council approved the mandate 4-2 on Oct. 26. Protesters outside chanted, “No more masks, we will not comply,” and the blowback has been swift. A group of residents is pushing to recall the pro-mandate councilors. The mayor did not respond to interview requests.

While Coeur d’Alene adopted a mandate, nearby Post Falls and Hayden rejected similar proposals. All three cities are less than 20 miles from the Washington border. Idaho Gov. Brad Little has also remained steadfast in opposition to the idea, unlike Iowa’s Reynolds. “Idaho’s health officials have been mindful of the challenges of mitigating spread of COVID-19 in border communities since the onset of the pandemic,” a spokeswoman for Little said in an email. The governor’s “priority at this time is mitigating the spread of COVID-19 in Idaho and preserving health care capacity for those in need.”

For the Panhandle health board, however, the situation became too dire to ignore. On Nov. 19 it reversed itself again and passed a mask mandate for all five of its counties, including Bonner, the site of the blues festival. But county sheriffs have ignored enforcing the mandate or made it a low priority, according to local media.

The move came too late to save Gilliard. “Until everyone in this country can do the same thing, all states on the same page, limit crowd size and mask mandates that are enforced, this is going to happen,” said Ball, his ex-wife. “It only makes sense. Because what we have been doing hasn’t been working.”

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat: Trump’s coup is not over; his enablers aren’t done

Dismiss Donald Trump and the GOP’s attacks on the 2020 election at your peril, warns Ruth Ben-Ghiat, historian and author of the new book, “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present.” In our recent interview for Salon Talks, Ben-Ghiat — a professor of history and Italian studies at NYU — observes that Trump probably hasn’t actually studied other leaders in history who transformed functioning democracies into authoritarian regimes. Nonetheless, his actions line up almost perfectly with many who have done just that, from Benito Mussolini in fascist Italy to Vladimir Putin in contemporary Russia.

“For the strongman, politics is always personal,” Ben-Ghiat explains which may sound ironic given that “strongmen” are all about displaying virility. As she explained in our conversation, they tend to take every slight personally, and that’s certainly the case with President Trump, who constantly complains that he’s a victim who has been treated unfairly, which for some reason has endeared him even further to his supporters. 

Even with Trump on his way out in January, Ben-Ghiat makes clear the threat of authoritarianism in America is not over. She explains that the Republican Party is increasingly embracing undemocratic methods to acquire and retain power, from voter ID laws to blocking Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016. Some GOP elected officials — thankfully, not all — even enabled Trump’s efforts to overturn or delegitimize the 2020 election results.

Ben-Ghiat’s book it serves as a wake-up call for any who believe what we are seeing is nothing more than an extra dose of our “normal” hyper-partisan politics. If we as a nation don’t attempt to rein in the use of undemocratic or anti-democratic tactics, the U.S. may end up featured in future history books as a former democracy that slid into authoritarianism. Watch my Salon Talks with Ruth Ben-Ghiat below or read the following transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for clarity and length.

Your new book on authoritarianism, “Strongmen: From Mussolini to the Present” is a scary must-read. Not because of the past, but because of the present. Let me first get your reaction as an expert to what we have seen recently in the headlines, with Donald Trump literally trying to overturn the results of this election.

I turned in the book in the summer of 2020, and I was just reading over the ending chapter. I found a sentence that said that Trump might try to stay in office to avoid prosecution and to keep his grifting going. I said it in a more elegant manner, but what we’re seeing is not at all surprising, because today authoritarians come to power through elections and then they manipulate elections to stay there.

Some journalists are hesitant to use the word “coup” because to them, that conjures up tanks in the street. But would it be fair to say what Trump is trying to do is an electoral coup or political coup, where he clearly lost the election, but he’s spreading misinformation to overturn it and keep himself in power?

Yeah, I’m very glad that a third of the book is about the age of military coups. And then what happens where we get to the age where they’re coming in through elections. This qualifies as what’s called an “auto-coup” or a self-coup, where somebody who’s already in power tries to manipulate elections and uses propaganda and threats to stay there.

For a classic coup, you need law enforcement and the military. And that’s why, I was quite heartened that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, went out of his way and made a pointed declaration, saying that the armed forces are going to obey the Constitution and not an individual. We all know who that individual is. I don’t think he’s going to succeed by traditional military-coup means, because that’s not what you do anymore. It’s more like law-warfare, where you use lawyers and bureaucracy. Paperwork can kill democracy today, basically.

Clearly Joe Biden and many leading Democrats have made the strategic decision not to join this battle, to stay above it. Maybe on Twitter, you see some members of Congress, but they certainly have not flooded the zone calling this out. It concerns me that it almost feels like an unintentional appeasement of Donald Trump, letting him say what he’s going to say because democracy is going to win out at the end of the day. Does history tell us that’s a good or bad strategy?

I’m really glad you made that point, because I think one of the hard truths we have to face is that the GOP is an authoritarian party. The other day they issued a very aggressive declaration, saying they’re going to fight to liberate the country from tyranny, which is this old right-wing line that democracy is tyranny and authoritarian government is freedom. So they went out in a new aggressive way, saying they’re going to back [Trump] all the way to the end.

We’re in a situation where Erdogan in Turkey and Modi in India, who are not liberal rulers, have called Biden to congratulate him on the election, but the GOP will not concede. In this situation, it’s very important that the Democrats come out very strongly, because the history of authoritarian shows that Trump is a bully and if you don’t push back against him, he will take more advantage and consider you to be a lesser opponent. I think they’re going to have to change their messaging, because things are getting very, very frightening, very, very serious. Being above it all is not going to work.

I get the sense from Democrats in power that if they join this battle, then it makes it partisan and maybe antagonizes the Republicans who are not on board. A little over 50 percent of Republicans think Trump is the rightful winner, and about 30 percent think Joe Biden is. The Democrats actually almost seem happy with that 30 percent. I fear that each day this goes by and you don’t see Democrats on Fox News or on Newsmax making the counter-argument, it gets more and more traction.

This is the same framework that has hampered the media from adequately responding to Trump. Here’s the issue. Very early on, before Trump was inaugurated, I published a CNN op-ed saying that Trump was following the authoritarian playbook. Now, it makes sense that Americans would only have a democratic frame of reference, because we’ve never had a dictatorship. We’ve never had a foreign occupation.

But seeing Trump in anything less than an authoritarian frame allows you to make a lot of strategic mistakes. He’s never been in office for democratic means or goals. He’s been in office to make money for the Trump Organization, to build a personality cult to keep people loyal to him and to prolong his power. Staying in office to avoid prosecution, etc., becomes an end in itself. So if we see it that way, this is why the media needed to call this out immediately and not do the both-sides thing.

In a parallel way, the Democrats thinking that they may look partisan is futile at this point. They have to really think about what role they want to have in history. Being silent, to kind of be above it all, there’s a lesson from history. When Mussolini was pushing, he hadn’t declared dictatorship yet, but it was very clear he was actually fixing an election. The opposition in the Italian parliament did a noble thing. They left. It was called the “Aventine secession,” because they went and met on the Aventine Hill in Rome. They didn’t want to engage with these thugs. They were trying to be above it all. You know what Mussolini did? He said, “Good, they’re not here.” They were unable to enter back into parliament when they wanted to return, and he declared a dictatorship. So it doesn’t work to be above it all when you have somebody like Trump.

I think you make a great point that our media, and even the Democrats, are not well equipped to deal with a person like this. It took almost two years for many in the media to use the word “liar” to describe Donald Trump. I was writing it in articles and I would get editors crossing it out. Then after a while, they’re like, “OK.” I feel like the same thing now is happening now in mainstream media where they can’t say there’s a coup happening in the United States because there aren’t tanks.

The book goes through a hundred years of history and there are these recurring patterns. One of them is that people have been in denial. They don’t want to take the leader seriously. Even now you have people saying, “Trump’s not so bad, he just golfs all the time.” They’re already saying, “Well, what we need to worry about is someone who’s going to be much more competent in the future.”

But we are now in an emergency. I’ve been making videos every day about the transition, and I’m making it very clear that we are in a crisis state. The minute that Biden won and Trump and the GOP didn’t recognize the results, this opened a window for a kind of state of exception. So the time is now to worry about an authoritarian, not in 2024. But it’s very upsetting for some people to recognize what’s in front of them, because then they think, “Well, maybe I have to do something about it.” This is a pattern that’s been repeated over a hundred years.

If Trump were somehow able to stay in power for four more years, setting aside that we have a 22nd Amendment that says he can’t serve another term after that, do you think the GOP would support his efforts to remain in power beyond four more years?

I do. It’s a great question, because the reason the GOP is going along with this is that there are many people who have invested a lot to put America on this path. And let’s be very clear, it’s a project of taking America out of the realm of democracy, including all the world alliances, and putting it into what I called in 2016, Axis 2.0. Look at who Trump is dealing with. Erdogan and Putin, these are the people he admires, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary. So people like William Barr and Mike Pompeo, we’re not talking about hacks on Fox News. We’re talking about the apex of power.

They have invested a lot, and each one may have his own agenda. Like for Barr and Pence it’s white Christian hegemony, but they don’t want to give it up because they’re coming very close to being able to consolidate it in ways that are very frightening for liberal democracy. So I would caution anybody to think that just because you see Trump going to play golf or he doesn’t have any public events on his schedule, it doesn’t mean people are not digging in for this desperate endgame.

My fiancée, who’s originally from the Middle East, was reading some of Trump’s recent tweets and she goes, “He’s not leaving. You understand that?” I go, “He’s leaving.” And she goes, “He’s not leaving. He really is tweeting like he has won.” She doesn’t look at it through the American lens. Bassem Youssef, who’s the Jon Stewart of the Middle East, he’s saying, “This doesn’t end well.” I think a lot of Americans are uncomfortable with that talk, but I think people like that are being blunt because they’re looking at this through what they’ve seen in the Middle East.

Yes, and I think one of my strengths as an analyst has been that I grew up here in America, but my parents are immigrants. My mother’s from Scotland, my father was born in Jerusalem and my grandfather was from Yemen. So I also work on global history. I started with Italian fascism, studied empire, and I turned that global lens — and also my whole family culture, where there’s no relatives in the States — onto America. I’ve been able to see things very clearly. And I’m also getting lots of messages from people in the Middle East, family or not, people I don’t know, saying the same thing you just said.

There are countries that you go through in your book, where it’s not like 1930s authoritarianism or even like Gen. Pinochet in Chile, with people disappearing. It’s more almost like an oligarchy. If Trump were able to stay, I don’t even think it’d be like Putin. For instance, I could still do my comedy. I could still bad-mouth Trump and they might lash out at me a little bit. It would have the trappings of democracy, but we’d have backslid to where Donald Trump and the oligarchs have an inordinate amount of control over the power of this nation.

We’re still searching for a language. I talk about this in the introduction of the book, to describe this new form of autocracy. Some people call it electoral autocracy, where you don’t totally get rid of the opposition, you don’t need a one-party state. We have that only in North Korea and in China. But if you’re not communist, you keep the trappings of democracy, but it’s fixed. The game is fixed.

Sadly, during the years I wrote the book, several people on the world leadership scene have consolidated their power. Many people think we would drift toward an Orbán scenario, although I think it would be much more violent. Orbán has domesticated the judiciary and the media without much physical violence. Orbán rules by decree now. Putin amended the Russian constitution — here we go with the law-fare, right? Death of democracy by paperwork. He amended it so he could stay in power till 2036 if he wants. So in each case it’s going to look different in every way and it’s not going to look like the old fascist dictatorships. That’s why I don’t use the word “fascist” for Trump, although he uses a ton of fascist tactics, including a personality cult.

In your book, you had a line about it always being personal for the strongman in politics. And I can only think of Trump. Why is it that politics are always personal for these people? Is Trump’s embrace of victimhood part of that as well, where he’s constantly complaining about how unfairly he is treated?

Yeah, it’s all about him, right? And he always has to be the biggest victim. So unfortunately, this too is out of the playbook. Mussolini was the victim, Hitler was too. And what it is, is that they don’t represent the nation like democratic leaders, they embody the nation. So they become the embodiment of the nation’s sufferings and dreams and hopes. When he first came in in 2016, Trump said that the world system was rigged against America and he was going to save it. He was going to be the voice. Now, he also said that the election system was rigged. He started saying this in 2016 in case he lost, but he didn’t lose. This is very old rhetoric, and even if he leaves office, this victim cult will only grow among his followers.

And the thing about it is, it connects to their masculinity. I have a whole chapter on virility because on the one hand they’re supposed to be alpha males, right? Trump is retweeting his face on the body of Sylvester Stallone. We can laugh at that stuff, but it’s deadly serious. On the other hand, they’re victims, whining all the time about being persecuted. And this actually makes people feel tenderly toward them, it’s even endearing. So you go to Trump rallies and journalists will get these quotes, like a woman will say, “I’d wade through a sea of COVID to save Trump.” Stuff like that. All of them have done this over a hundred years, and this is why women are a big fan base for these men who are definitely not working toward women’s rights.

You have a whole chapter on endings, and it’s not surprising that most authoritarians leave office involuntarily and for different reasons. Berlusconi finally lost an election in Italy. Others die from natural causes or unnatural causes. If America is able to get rid of Trump on Jan. 20, is it in our best interests to try to create legal impediments to prevent another Trump? You can’t pass laws and say, “No one named Donald Trump can run for office.” We can’t do that. It’s unconstitutional. It’s not democratic.

Or any other Trump. [Laughter.]

But should Congress, pass laws that might keep someone like Trump off the ballot, or at least limit his powers if he gets in?

Oh, absolutely. So Silvio Berlusconi is a big protagonist in the book, and he is quite similar. Trump is much more dangerous, but Berlusconi was so corrupt that he had laws passed that were tailored to his individual situation — talking about the personal is political. If he was accused of bribery, he had a law passed that made bribery a lesser offense. He was finally voted out in 2006 after five years. But the center-left that came in, the reformist left, they didn’t do enough about corruption and about what you’re talking about, safeguards against ruining democracy and creating accountability.

People got very angry and this was the birth of right-wing populism in Italy. He was voted back in, in 2008, and then he was worse than ever. So the lesson is, if we can get rid of Trump and we don’t use this window that opens up with the Biden administration to be very vehement in our pushback and have much more rigorous vetting of candidates and address all the things Trump has exposed, we’re doing ourselves a huge disservice.

When you mentioned corruption with other leaders, were their children corrupt as well? Because we’ve seen Ivanka Trump, who literally got trademarks registered on the very day her dad was meeting with the leader of China. She got countless trademarks from China, and even in Japan when Mike Pence was over there. The list goes on. I can’t speak to Donald Trump Jr., he’s not in the administration, so that’s a little different. But is that a typical sign of these authoritarian leaders?

Yeah. One of the reasons they are the last to know that they should be leaving, is that they make these — I call them cocoons, their inner sanctums. They have flatterers and family around them, and this is also because family can be trusted to be part of the corruption. And usually, it’s a family game. The same was true with Pinochet and so many rulers. I have a paragraph in the book on the special role of sons-in-law, from Mussolini’s son-in-law, who he made foreign minister — and then later had executed — up to Orbán and Putin’s sons-in-law. Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary was in business with Putin’s son-in-law. And up to our own Jared Kushner. So what we’re living through, what we’ve been living through for four years, almost everything is part of a historical pattern.

How does Trump stack up in terms of the other strongmen? I don’t mean in terms of the atrocities that they committed, because it’s a different time. So not in terms of actual outright violence, but just how they acted and their signature moves, where does Trump fit in?

Unfortunately for us, his personality, the impulsiveness, the need to humiliate others, even those who work for him, his grandiosity, his anxieties, his fears of his insecurities, all of it matches up 100 percent to all the other rulers. The outcomes are different, as you say. We’re not in a one-party state fascist era. He didn’t come to power through a military coup, but the personality type, which leads to these dynamics of government from the inner sanctums to not wanting to leave to humiliating others, is the same.

In 1931, Mussolini’s head of the fascist party learned he was fired by reading it in the newspaper. And Mobutu in the Congo used to have, I call them “sadistic dictator games.” He used to have rallies and everybody had to be assembled, with his officials in the first row. Then he would announce, live on television, which ones were fired. Rex Tillerson in 2018 was scrolling through Twitter while on the toilet and that’s how he found out he was fired. So again, the dynamics are the same, even if the outcome — like what happens to the people who get fired — changes.

We have less than two months until Jan. 20. is there anything in history that we should be on the watch for, even more than we are? Anything we can do to make sure we end this authoritarian regime?

It’s a time right now to be very watchful, to conserve your energies. Of course we have a pandemic and we’re all extra tired, people have children at home, schools were just closed again in some places. So this is very difficult. But there may be a moment when mass nonviolent protest needs to be activated. That has been extremely effective at pushing back, because it not only tells the leader of the depth of hostility — and we did this in the summer with the Black Lives Matter protests — it also does so to his enablers. Now, whether that’s going to move the needle with the GOP, I don’t know. We’ll have to see what happens. It’s a very unpredictable time, which is the nature of these states of exception.

Thousands of doctors’ offices buckle under financial stress of COVID

Cormay Caine misses a full day of work and drives more than 130 miles round trip to take five of her children to their pediatrician. The Sartell, Minnesota, clinic where their doctor used to work closed in August.

Caine is one of several parents who followed Dr. Heather Decker to her new location on the outskirts of Minneapolis, an hour and a half away. Many couldn’t get appointments for months with swamped nearby doctors.

“I was kind of devastated that she was leaving because I don’t like switching providers, and my kids were used to her. She’s just an awesome doctor,” said Caine, a postal worker who recently piled the kids into her car for back-to-back appointments. “I just wish she didn’t have to go that far away.”

So does Decker, who had hoped to settle in the Sartell area. She recently bought her four-bedroom “dream home” there.

The HealthPartners Central Minnesota Clinic where Decker worked is part of a wave of COVID-related closures starting to wash across America, reducing access to care in areas already short on primary care doctors.

Although no one tracks medical closures, recent research suggests they number in the thousands. A survey by the Physicians Foundation estimated that 8% of all physician practices nationally — around 16,000 — have closed under the stress of the pandemic. That survey didn’t break them down by type, but another from the Virginia-based Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative found in late September that 7% of primary care practices were unsure they could stay open past December without financial assistance.

And many more teeter on the economic brink, experts say.

“The last few years have been difficult for primary care practices, especially independent ones,” said Dr. Karen Joynt Maddox, co-director of the Center for Health Economics and Policy at Washington University in St. Louis. “Putting on top of that COVID, that’s in many cases the proverbial straw. These practices are not operating with huge margins. They’re just getting by.”

When offices close, experts said, the biggest losers are patients, who may skip preventive care or regular appointments that help keep chronic diseases such as diabetes under control.

“This is especially poignant in the rural areas. There aren’t any good choices. What happens is people end up getting care in the emergency room,” said Dr. Michael LeFevre, head of the family and community medicine department at the University of Missouri and a practicing physician in Columbia. “If anything, what this pandemic has done is put a big spotlight on what was already a big crack in our health care system.”

Federal data shows that 82 million Americans live in primary care “health professional shortage areas,” and the nation needed more than 15,000 more primary care practitioners even before the pandemic began.

Once the coronavirus struck, some practices buckled when patients stayed away in droves for fear of catching it, said Dr. Gary Price, president of the Physicians Foundation, a nonprofit grant-making and research organization. Its survey, based on 3,513 responses from emails to half a million doctors, found that 4 in 10 practices saw patient volumes drop by more than a quarter.

On the West Coast, a survey released in October by the California Medical Association found that one-quarter of practices in that state saw revenues drop by at least half. One respondent wrote: “We are closing next month.”

Decker’s experience at HealthPartners is typical. Before the pandemic, she saw about 18 patients a day. That quickly dropped to six or eight, “if that,” she said. “There were no well checks, which is the bread-and-butter of pediatrics.”

In an emailed statement, officials at HealthPartners, which has more than 50 primary care clinics around the Twin Cities and western Wisconsin, said closing the one in Sartell “was not an easy decision,” but the pandemic caused an immediate, significant drop in revenue. While continuing to provide dental care in Sartell, northwest of Minneapolis, the company encouraged employees to apply for open positions elsewhere in the organization. Decker got one of them. Officials also posted online information for patients on where more than 20 clinicians were moving.

The pandemic’s financial ripples rocked practices of all sizes, said LeFevre, the Missouri doctor. Before the pandemic, he said, the 10 clinics in his group saw a total of 3,500 patients a week. COVID-19 temporarily cut that number in half.

“We had fiscal reserves to weather the storm. Small practices don’t often have that. But it’s not like we went unscathed,” he said. “All staff had a one-week furlough without pay. All providers took a 10% pay cut for three months.”

Federal figures show pediatricians earn an average of $184,400 a year, and doctors of general internal medicine $201,400, making primary care doctors among the lowest-paid physicians.

As revenues dropped in medical practices, overhead costs stayed the same. And practices faced new costs such as personal protective equipment, which grew more expensive as demand exceeded supply, especially for small practices without the bulk buying power of large ones.

Doctors also lost money in other ways, said Rebecca Etz, co-director of the Green Center research group. For example, she said, pediatricians paid for vaccines upfront, “then when no one came in, they expired.”

Some doctors took out loans or applied for Provider Relief Fund money under the federal CARES Act. Dr. Joseph Provenzano, who practices in Modesto, California, said his group of more than 300 physicians received $8.7 million in relief in the early days of the pandemic.

“We were about ready to go under,” he said. “That came in the nick of time.”

While the group’s patient loads have largely bounced back, it still had to permanently close three of 11 clinics.

“We’ve got to keep practice doors open so that we don’t lose access, especially now that people need it most,” said Dr. Ada Stewart, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Caine, the Minnesota mom, said her own health care has suffered because she also saw providers at the now-closed Sartell clinic. While searching for new ones, she’s had to seek treatment in urgent care offices and the emergency room.

“I’m fortunate because I’m able to make it. I’m able to improvise. But what about the families that don’t have transportation?” she said. “Older people and the more sickly people really need these services, and they’ve been stripped away.”

#GivingTuesday spotlights the struggle of nonprofits during COVID

Historically, nonprofits have gotten nearly a third of their charitable donations just during the month of December. In recent years, this flurry of giving has begun on #GivingTuesday, an online campaign that takes place on the first Tuesday after Thanksgiving. We asked Erica Mills Barnhart, a University of Washington nonprofits scholar, to explain how nonprofits are holding up amid the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic distress it has caused, as well as why everyone with money to spare should consider giving some of it away now.

1. How are nonprofits faring?

Many are in trouble.

According to a study on how the pandemic is affecting nonprofits in Washington state, my colleagues and I found that demand for services is 10.2% higher, while funding has sunk by 29.5%.

In addition, nonprofits said they are losing out on as much as half of their usual volunteering hours. This decline in hands-on support is adding to the strain on nonprofit staffs attempting to do more with less.

The situation in Washington state mirrors what is happening nationally.

Simulation models developed by Candid, a nonprofit information service, estimate that 8%-25% of U.S. nonprofits could be forced to close in the next year or two.

2. Are some nonprofits harder-hit than others?

Yes. For instance, we found that Washington state health and human service organizations are seeing a 29% increase in the need for their help — far more than average. Although their funding forecasts are not as bleak as those for other kinds of nonprofits, funding is not keeping up with the demands these groups face for their services.

Organizations serving Black, Indigenous and other people of color are especially struggling, as COVID-19 has taken a disproportionate toll on these communities, making their needs greater. However, funding for organizations led by, and serving, people of color lags behind that for white-led organizations. This disparity is exacerbating the funding gap for those hit hardest by the pandemic.

Arts groups have also been particularly hard-hit. ArtsFund, a nonprofit that gives grants to arts groups, found that in Seattle and the rest of the Central Puget Sound region, 73% of museums, theaters and other arts nonprofits had fired or furloughed some of their staff.

Although transitioning to online programming has some benefits, such as being able to reach a broader audience, the report concludes that the “future of live theater and live music is at risk.”

3. What’s at stake?

From hospitals and schools to civic leagues and cultural centers, nonprofits help keep Americans healthy, engaged, informed and educated. Not only do nonprofits serve and support communities of all kinds, they are also an economic engine.

According to Johns Hopkins University researchers, these organizations are the nation’s third-largest source of employment, after retail and manufacturing. They accounted, before the pandemic, for about 1/10th of all private-sector jobs. And the nonprofit sector grew 18.6% in the decade before 2017 — outpacing for-profit employment, which grew by only 6.2%, according to that report.

Therefore, any stagnation or job losses in the nonprofit sector will ripple throughout the economy.

Lives are also at stake. Many hospitals and health care centers are nonprofits and some of them are unable to meet all their patients’ needs. At the current pace of the coronavirus pandemic’s spread, even the doctors at one of the country’s best-prepared hospitals do not believe they’ll be able to meet the demand for care.

The nonprofit Feeding America found that some 50.4 million Americans are now food-insecure, meaning that they lack consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life. That was up sharply from about 35 million Americans being food-insecure at some point in a given year before the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of children who experienced food insecurity in 2020 grew from 11.2 million to an estimated 17 million — nearly 1 in 4 American kids.

4. Can the government help?

Absolutely. Fifty-six percent of the nonprofits that took part in our study obtained Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act Paycheck Protection Program loans to support their employees. While nearly 30% said they had some trouble applying, 95% of those that did apply got loans. This indicates that the government’s March 2020 relief package helped nonprofits.

The House of Representatives has passed a measure that would deliver more economic relief. To date, the Senate has failed to follow up. Additional or complementary support at the state and local level would also help.

5. What can everyone else do?

The answer is simple. Support nonprofits as much as possible.

Fortunately, Classy, a fundraising information website, found that 39% of Americans say they definitely or probably will give more in 2020 than they did in 2019.

Individual donations are critically important to nonprofits, as they help pay for things that other income sources may not cover, such as rent, equipment and salaries. Many — if not most — Americans can take advantage of a US$300 charitable deduction Congress included in the CARES Act. This one-year-only opportunity is available to taxpayers who don’t itemize their returns for money given directly to tax-exempt nonprofits. The CARES Act also included a provision designed to encourage the richest Americans to give away more wealth in 2020.

People without any money to spare can still support nonprofits by encouraging elected officials to include nonprofits in economic relief efforts and by volunteering, even if they do it virtually.

Businesses can also support nonprofits through charitable donations. Corporate philanthropy can potentially boost a company’s reputation among consumers who, increasingly, choose what to buy based on how they feel about companies.

Foundations, entities that give away money to support charitable causes, can also step up. Many already are taking action to address the COVID-19 crisis, which is heartening.

But nonprofits will no doubt keep struggling to make do in 2021. This is why I believe it’s critically important that everyone who can afford to donate to nonprofits — including individuals, foundations and businesses — does so. This influx of money would go a long way.

Scott Atlas shrugged: Trump’s “most dangerous” adviser quits amid COVID surge

Scott Atlas, President Donald Trump’s “favorite — and most dangerous — Covid-19 adviser,” announced his resignation from his White House position late Monday just days before his 130-day role on the coronavirus task force was set to expire, a move that was welcomed by critics who say the Stanford University radiologist’s views on the deadly pandemic are inconsistent with epidemiological recommendations and harmful to the nation’s public health.

“I worked hard with a singular focus — to save lives and help Americans through this pandemic,” Atlas wrote in his resignation letter.

The coronavirus pandemic has killed more than 268,000 Americans, and NPR reported Monday night that “since Atlas began his job in August, nearly one hundred thousand people have died of Covid-19 in the U.S.”

Slate summarized Atlas’ tenure on Tuesday morning:

Atlas had no prior experience in public health but grabbed Trump’s attention during his flame-throwing appearances on Fox News and joined the Trump administration as an adviser in August. Atlas proceeded to push a libertarian approach to managing the pandemic: he questioned the effectiveness of social distancing, considered widespread testing to control the virus unnecessary, all the while he derided widespread closures and questioned the utility of mask-wearing as part of an overall belief in the highly questionable herd immunity approach to solving the virus. . .  Atlas’ coronavirus views, as you may have suspected, conveniently jived with Trump’s anti-science takes on all aspects of the virus.

Progressives characterized Atlas’ embrace of herd immunity as not just “highly questionable,” but rather as a potential “massacre” that would require over 200 million people to be infected, resulting in millions of deaths, as Common Dreams reported in September. 

In his resignation letter, Atlas insisted he “always relied on the latest science and evidence, without any political consideration or influence.”

“As time went on, like all scientists and health policy scholars, I learned new information and synthesized the latest data from around the world, all in an effort to provide you with the best information to serve the greater public good,” he said. 

Atlas claimed to have focused in particular on looking out for “the working class and the poor.” The U.S. has more than 13.5 million Covid-19 cases as of Tuesday, and as Les Leopold showed in an October Common Dreams essay, low-income Americans will bear the greatest burden as infections and deaths surge. 

“He’s an MRI guy… He has no expertise in any of this stuff,” Dr. Ashish Jha, the dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, told NPR.

Despite having no background in infectious diseases, Atlas has “been bringing out arguments that have been refuted week after week, month after month, since the beginning of this outbreak,” Jha added. 

Matthew Gertz, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, illustrated one example of the clash between Atlas’ anti-lockdown opinions and real-world evidence. 

On October 30, Atlas told Fox News: “All lockdowns do are destroy families, really kill people. . . And it’s amazing to me that places, unfortunately, like the U.K. and France have not learned their lesson.” Meanwhile, data comparing the three countries’ trajectories completely undermine Atlas’ talking points. 

“He’s a destructive force,” a federal health official told The Daily Beast last month. “I mean, at this point, I don’t know how else to explain what he’s doing. It’s really disruptive.”

Trump’s outgoing adviser took a leave of absence from his position as a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford, to temporarily join the White House.

The university has in recent weeks distanced itself from Atlas, especially after he called for an uprising against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer following the Democratic leader’s implementation of new public health measures last month. 

Trump’s pardon of Flynn may be “broader” than Ford’s pardon of Nixon, legal expert says

The Department of Justice released President Donald Trump’s sweeping pardon of Michael Flynn, showing that he had absolved his former national security adviser of “any and all possible” crimes related to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.

The Justice Department included Flynn’s formal pardon in a court filing asking for his criminal case to be dismissed. Though Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian official during the 2016 presidential transition, he later tried to withdraw his plea. The Justice Department, at the behest of Attorney General William Barr, also unsuccessfully intervened in attempt to get Flynn’s case dismissed.

Trump’s pardon gives Flynn immunity for “any and all possible offenses” connected to the Mueller investigation and any related grand jury proceedings. The extraordinarily broad pardon absolves the former Trump adviser of any charges based on “facts and circumstances, known to, identified by or in any manner related to the investigation of the special counsel.”

Legal experts believe Flynn’s pardon may be the broadest since former President Gerald Ford preemptively pardoned former President Richard Nixon in 1974.

“Pardons are typically directed at specific convictions or at a minimum at specific charges,” Margy Love, the head of the Collateral Consequences Resource Center and a former pardon attorney for Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, told Politico. “I can think of only one other pardon as broad as this one, extending as it does to conduct that has not yet been charged, and that is the one that President Ford granted to Richard Nixon.”

But the pardon granted to Flynn might have been “even broader,” Love argued.

“In fact, you might say that this pardon is even broader than the Nixon pardon, which was strictly cabined by his time as president,” she said. “In contrast, the pardon granted to Flynn appears to extend to conduct that took place prior to Trump’s election to the presidency, and to bear no relationship to his service to the president, before or after the election.”

While Bush granted broad pardons in the Iran-Contra affair, those were “limited to conduct that took place in the service of the presidency,” Love added.

The language in Flynn’s pardon means that he will avoid any other potential federal charges from his legal battle. Though Flynn pleaded guilty only to lying to the FBI, some legal experts have argued that he could also be prosecuted for contradicting his statements to the court after he attempted to reverse his plea.

District Judge Emmett Sullivan has been weighing whether to dismiss the case for months. The Justice Department, asking Sullivan to dismiss the case on Monday, said Trump’s pardon also included “any possible future perjury or contempt charge in connection with General Flynn’s sworn statements and any other possible future charge that this court or the court-appointed amicus has suggested might somehow keep this criminal case alive over the government’s objection.”

“Accordingly, the president’s pardon, which General Flynn has accepted, moots this case,” the filing said.

Flynn lied to the FBI about his contacts with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Flynn contacted Kislyak to urge the Kremlin not to retaliate against sanctions from the Obama administration. He also faced an investigation for his work in Turkey, which allegedly included a plot to kidnap a Turkish dissident in Pennsylvania and deliver him to the country.

After pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about his calls to Kislyak, Flynn’s new lawyer Sidney Powell led an effort to reverse his plea. She argued that the FBI had acted improperly by questioning him.

Powell is now waging a dubious legal effort parallel to Trump’s legal team, alleging a baseless and bizarre conspiracy theory that voting machines switched votes from Trump to President-elect Joe Biden in a plot linked to Venezuela, Cuba, China, the CIA and the Republican governor of Georgia.

Andrew Weissmann, one of Mueller’s former top lieutenants, slammed the Trump administration’s intervention into the case.

“Trump issued the pardon only after Barr debased the Department of Justice by filing a disingenuous motion to dismiss,” he told The New York Times. “Sullivan will have the opportunity to weigh in on his view of all this when he grants the motion to dismiss based on the full pardon.”

A Senate insider has a dark warning about Mitch McConnell: Expect the worst

Democrat Adam Jentleson can recite chapter and verse about Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s bitter partisanship: he served as deputy chief of staff for former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid during the Obama years. And in an interview with New York Magazine, Jentleson has a warning for President-elect Joe Biden: expect the worst from McConnell.

Jentleson discusses the state of the U.S. Senate in his upcoming book, “Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy.” It remains to be seen whether McConnell will be Senate majority leader or Senate minority leader in 2021 — that will be determined by what happens in the two U.S. Senate runoff elections in Georgia in January. And when New York Magazine’s Ben Jacobs asked Jentleson, during the interview, “how important” the outcome of those Senate races will be for Biden’s incoming administration, he replied, “It’s all the difference in the world.”

Jentleson told Jacobs, “It is night and day. That ranges from prospects for passing legislation and having his nominees confirmed to who controls the committees and the day-to-day business and sets the agenda of the Senate. So, it’s two seats that could lead to two very different prospects for Joe Biden when he is inaugurated in January.”

The former Reid staff added, “If Democrats win those two seats, even though it’s the barest majority possible . . . that means that instead of Mitch McConnell deciding what bill is on the floor every single day, it will be Chuck Schumer in that decision seat. And it means that instead of Lindsey Graham or another Republican overseeing all of Biden’s judicial picks, it will be a Democrat . . . And that goes all the way down, from Supreme Court picks to circuit and district court picks. So, it is just a massive difference.”

Biden and McConnell go way back. The 78-year-old president-elect served in the U.S. Senate from January 1973 to January 2009, when he was sworn in as President Barack Obama’s vice president — and McConnell, who is also 78, was first elected to the Senate via Kentucky in 1984. McConnell has always been quite conservative, but in recent years, he has grown much more vindictive. For example, McConnell blocked many of Obama’s judicial nominees and wouldn’t even consider Obama’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, in 2016. Obama was clearly willing to meet McConnell half way with the Garland nomination, proposing someone who was quite centrist in his judicial philosophy. But McConnell was determined to block anyone Obama nominated, however moderate.

When Jacobs asked Jentleson if it is a “given” that “McConnell and Senate Republicans are never negotiating in good faith,” he responded, “Yes . . . Even Republicans who demonstrate good faith in private are operating in a system that demands they toe the line of their base. Their base is not going to want to see them cut deals with Biden.”

Jentleson warned, “I’m pretty pessimistic. I think that most of what Biden is going to want to get done is going to have to be done through executive action.”

President Trump has discussed “preemptive pardons” for his three eldest children: report

Shortly after reports that Rudy Giuliani discussed a pre-emptive pardon with outgoing President Donald Trump, The New York Times reported that the president is also debating preemptive pardons to his family.

“President Trump has discussed with advisers whether to grant preemptive pardons to his children, to his son-in-law . . . according to two people briefed on the matter,” reported Maggie Haberman and Eric Schmidt. “Mr. Trump has told others that he is concerned that a Biden Justice Department might seek retribution against the president by targeting the oldest three of his five children — Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump — as well as Ms. Trump’s husband, Jared Kushner, a White House senior adviser.”

“Donald Trump Jr. had been under investigation by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, for contacts that the younger Mr. Trump had had with Russians offering damaging information on Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign, but he was never charged. Mr. Kushner provided false information to federal authorities about his contacts with foreigners for his security clearance, but was given one anyway by the president,” continued the report. “The nature of Mr. Trump’s concern about any potential criminal exposure of Eric Trump or Ivanka Trump is unclear.”

Pardons can be issued before charges are handed down. However, they do not shield from state liability; Ivanka is currently caught up in an investigation by New York authorities for consulting fees paid out to her that were used in a Trump tax write-off.

You can watch more below via Twitter

“Black Mirror” creator Charlie Brooker sets Netflix mockumentary about 2020 with Hugh Grant

The year from hell, i.e. 2020, is about to get the mockumentary treatment courtesy of none other than Charlie Brooker, the creator of “Black Mirror.” Leave it to the maker of some of television’s darkest dystopias to conjure a new one, and once again at Netflix, now the home to ongoing seasons of “Black Mirror.”

While details about the mockumentary remain hush-hush, Hugh Grant let it slip earlier this year during an interview about “The Undoing” with New York Magazine that he’ll be featured in the project.

Read more from IndieWireDavid Lynch Netflix project ,”Wisteria” working title, in the works – report

“Charlie Brooker has written a mockumentary about 2020. It’s for Netflix,” Grant said, adding that he will be “an historian who’s being interviewed about the year. I’m pretty repellent, actually! And you’ll like my wig.” Anyone who saw “The Undoing,” the HBO miniseries co-starring Nicole Kidman that wrapped on Sunday, realizes Grant knows a thing or two about being repellent.

Netflix officially came aboard Charlie Brooker’s “Black Mirror” science-fiction series, which originated at the UK’s Channel 4, back in 2015. The fifth season of the show dropped on Netflix with three episodes in June 2019. That season, another bleak and sometimes seriocomic skewering of contemporary society and technology, featured Anthony Mackie, Miley Cyrus, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Topher Grace, Andrew Scott, and more.

Read more from IndieWireHugh Grant on “The Undoing” ending, reading Twitter reactions, and “the black side of charm”

Brooker has long been a cultural satirist, including his BBC show “Charlie Brooker’s Weekly Wipe” which ran from 2013 through 2016, with attentions more focused on “Black Mirror.” He’s also previously served as an outspoken columnist for The Guardian. Brooker has won five Primetime Emmy Awards for “Black Mirror,” including Outstanding Television Movie in 2019 for the innovative, interactive special “Bandersnatch,” three prizes in 2018, and two in 2017.

Meanwhile, IndieWire recently interviewed Hugh Grant about the well-watched finale of “The Undoing,” a show whose online popularity the actor said he’s been following. “It’s been quite an exhausting six weeks, either resisting looking at Twitter to see how people are reacting, or giving in after a few drinks and spending four hours of the night either being pleased or outraged at how people are reacting to certain things — or depressed, when they say, ‘Christ, he looks ancient.’ ‘He looks 150.’ ‘Let’s give him a facial.'”

Read more from IndieWire“All Rise”: Kamala Harris’ debate performance influenced Simone Missick in Season 2

Netflix declined a request for comment.

Rudy Giuliani, who has not been charged with a crime, discussed preemptive pardon with Trump: report

Rudy Giuliani, erstwhile spokesperson for LifeLock identity theft protection services and current top lawyer in President Donald Trump‘s muddled efforts to overturn his electoral defeat, discussed a preemptive pardon with his boss, according to a new report.

Two individuals told The New York Times that the pair of longtime friends had discussed the possibility as recently as last week, though it was unclear who first raised the topic.

While Giuliani has not been charged with a crime, federal investigators have probed his business dealings abroad, including in connection with his failed attempts in Ukraine last year to smear then-candidate Joe Biden with allegations of corruption. Giuliani’s efforts led directly to the impeachment of his client, Trump — a process the former U.S. attorney has vigorously defended in numerous TV appearances.

Giuliani denied report in a tweet decrying alleged “fake news.”

#FakeNews NYT lies again. Never had the discussion they falsely attribute to an anonymous source,” he posted on Tuesday. “Hard to keep up with all their lies.”

Though an unlimited pardon, which implies admission of a crime, would offer Giuliani blanket immunity, it would also prevent him from pleading the Fifth if he were called to testify in any future court proceedings.

Trump last week issued a sweeping pardon to Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser who had sought to overturn a 2017 guilty plea for lying to the FBI about backchannel contacts with the Russian government ahead of the president’s inauguration.

The formal language of that pardon first appeared in a Department of Justice court filing on Monday, once again asking U.S. District Judge Emmett Sullivan to dismiss the government’s case against Flynn.

The filing described a “full and unconditional pardon” which extended beyond Flynn’s plea to “any and all possible offenses” that might arise in connection to the case, as well as “any and all” possible future offenses related to the Mueller investigation “in any manner” — including grand jury proceedings.

In addition to the Russia-related charges, Flynn faced possible criminal liability for failing to register as a foreign agent for his work on behalf of the Turkish government during the 2016 election, when he was the Trump campaign’s top national security adviser.

Giuliani’s legal exposure, however, appears unclear. A pardon ahead of unspecified charges would appear to stand out in U.S. history. Former President George Washington preemptively pardoned members of the Whiskey Rebellion for treason, and former President Jimmy Carter preemptively pardoned thousands of Americans who avoided draft during the Vietnam War. The closest example would appear to be former President Gerald Ford’s preemptive pardon of former President Richard Nixon.

Nixon, however, faced clear legal jeopardy for obstruction of the Watergate investigation. Any criminal liability for Giuliani is at this point speculative, as far as public reporting goes.

According to interviews conducted by Salon with individuals familiar with the case and multiple news reports, Giuliani’s business dealings have been subject of subpoenas from the Southern District of New York — the very office he once led.

That probe grew out of the arrest of former Giuliani associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who were booked one year ago on unrelated campaign finance charges at a Washington-area airport as they waited to board a flight to Vienna. Their arrests came as impeachment hearings heated up in Congress — and one day after they met Giuliani for drinks at Trump’s Washington hotel.

“He’s not concerned about this investigation, because he didn’t do anything wrong and that’s been our position from Day 1,” Robert Costello, Giuliani’s personal attorney, told The Times on Tuesday.

Additionally, CNN reported last month that FBI agents in New York revisited witnesses with new questions about Giuliani’s efforts in Ukraine and possible links to Russian intelligence. The agents reportedly inquired about the source of communications and images which Giuliani pulled from what he said was Hunter Biden’s hard drive.

Salon reported in October that Giuliani had declined similar material in May 2019, citing concerns about reliability, as well as connections to Russian intelligence. Politico later matched that report.

Giuliani’s communications director did not reply to Salon’s request for comment for this article.

COVID-19 testing center reopens amid backlash over closing for “She’s All That” reboot shoot

A COVID-19 testing center at Los Angeles‘ Union Station will remain open following backlash over news the location would temporarily close to accommodate a film shoot for the upcoming “She’s All That” reboot. L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti took to social media early Tuesday morning to announce the decision to close the testing center had been reversed. The original decision to close the location resulted in testing delays for over 500 Los Angeles residents who had scheduled appointments.

“Working with LAFD, Curative, and Metro Los Angeles, my team has worked to reopen testing at Union Station on Tuesday,” Garcetti wrote in a social media post. “The 504 Angelenos who were scheduled for a test there can visit the kiosk as originally planned or any of the other 14 City sites, where we offer 38K tests daily. Since March 20, the City has administered more than 2.5 million free tests. City sites offer free tests to anyone with or without symptoms and results are provided within 24-48 hours.”

Read more from IndieWire“All Rise”: Kamala Harris’ debate performance influenced Simone Missick in Season 2

Garcetti was at the center of backlash Monday night after it was revealed by Deadline that the “She’s All That” reboot was responsible for shutting down the popular COVID-19 testing center. The 504 Los Angeles residents who were scheduled to be tested at Union Station on December 1 received the following email: “We learned today that the Union Station kiosk will be closed on Tuesday, December 1 and unfortunately, your appointment for COVID-19 testing at that location was canceled. However, the City of Los Angeles is able to honor your scheduled testing appointment tomorrow at any of our other testing locations. You do not need to make a new appointment.”

Read more from IndieWireHugh Grant on “The Undoing” ending, reading Twitter reactions, and “the black side of charm”

In a statement made to the Los Angeles Times, FilmLA addressed the matter by saying, “All we know at this hour is that this decision wasn’t made by FilmLA or the City’s film permit approver LAPD, nor was it sought by the production company seeking to film at Union Station.”

Read more from IndieWireDavid Lynch Netflix project ,”Wisteria” working title, in the works – report

The “She’s All That” reboot is in production from Miramax. “Mean Girls” filmmaker Mark Waters is directing the movie, which goes by the title “He’s All That” and flips the genders of the two main characters. The reboot’s cast includes Tanner Buchanan, Myra Molloy, Madison Pettis, Peyton Meyer, Isabella Crovetti, and Annie Jacob.

Department of Justice probing possible bribery scheme concerning presidential pardon: report

On Tuesday, CNN reported that the Justice Department is investigating a potential transfer of money to the White House in exchange for a pardon from outgoing President Donald Trump.

The president recently announced a pardon of his former national security adviser Michael Flynn for his guilty plea for false statements in connection with the Russia investigation. Another recent report suggests Trump’s attorney and longtime ally Rudy Giuliani discussed a preemptive pardon for future criminal charges with the president.

According to Katelyn Polantz, “The disclosure is in 20 pages of partially redacted documents made public by the DC District Court on Tuesday afternoon. The records show Chief Judge Beryl Howell’s review in August of a request from prosecutors to access documents obtained in a search as part of a bribery-for-pardon investigation.” Nobody has reportedly been indicted yet.