Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Sidney Powell’s new lawsuit claiming election fraud cites a witness from a place that doesn’t exist

President Donald Trump’s former lawyer Sidney Powell has made another humiliating error in her legal filing. After misspelling “District Court” twice in her Georgia filing, it turns out Powell cited a source about a non-existent county in Michigan. 

“For example, in PA, President Trump’s lead of more than 700,000 county advantage was reduced to less than 300,000 in a few short hours, which does not occur in the real world without an external influence,” the legal filing said. “I conclude that manually feeding more than 400,000 mostly absentee ballots cannot be accomplished in a short time frame (i.e., 2-3 hours) without illegal vote count alteration. In another case for Edison County, MI, Vice President Biden received more than 100% of the votes at 5:59 PM EST on November 4, 2020 and again he received 99.61% of the votes at 2:23 PM EST on November 5, 2020. These distributions are cause for concern and indicate fraud.”

First, Biden couldn’t have received more than 100 percent of the vote anywhere. But he really couldn’t have received more than 100 percent of the vote in Edison County, MI because there is no Edison County, MI. Second, there is an Edison Township in Middlesex, New Jersey. There is also a city named Edison in Georgia and a “historic hamlet” exists in Doylestown Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Maricopa County, Arizona has a large field called Edison Park. There are only 12 places in the world named Edison, and the closest one to Michigan is in Ohio. Given the rivalry between Michigan and Ohio, it would be a huge mistake to confuse the two.

This isn’t the first time a Trump lawyer has confused Michigan with another state. “Celebrity” lawyer Lin Wood confused the state with Minnesota in a Georgia lawsuit.

While Powell is filing these confused suits, she’s also begging for “millions of dollars” to defend “the republic” on her website.

See a screen capture from the claim below:

Amy Adams reacts to negative “Hillbilly Elegy” reviews by saying the film “transcends politics”

Hillbilly Elegy” has garnered some of the worst reviews of 2020 (the film’s MetaCritic score sits at 39), with several film critics condemning the Ron Howard-directed drama for how it portrays its Appalachian setting and characters. NME critic Richard Phippen wrote the film “betrays the very people it’s trying to celebrate” by “failing to acknowledge the legitimate problems they face,” while Adam Nayman of The Ringer added, “The movie focuses on the so-called ‘forgotten’ citizens of red state America—but it has zero interest in actually exploring the group.” What do stars Amy Adams and Glenn Close make of the critical beating? Adams told NME the film’s themes are what’s most important and far outweigh its politics.

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

“I think the themes of this movie are very universal,” Adams said. “Whether it be generational trauma, whether it be just examining where we come from to understand where we’re going and who we are. I think the universality of the themes of the movie far transcend politics.”

Close added the film “wasn’t made with politics in mind, it was made with Ron’s intent. I think he succeeded magnificently to tell the story of a very specific family.”

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

“I never would presume to say what critics should or shouldn’t do,” Adams noted when asked if film critics should put politics aside when reviewing films. “Everybody has a voice and can use it how they choose to use it.”

“Hillbilly Elegy” is based on J.D. Vance’s bestselling memoir of the same name. IndieWire’s David Ehrlich awarded “Hillbilly Elegy” a C- review, writing, “The source material has been stripped of its libertarian streak (in addition to any other social commentary) and sandblasted into something that more closely resembles a shouty episode of ‘This Is Us’ in both structure and tone than it does a pre-history of the Trump era or a caricature of those who capitalized on it.”

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

Despite negative reviews, “Hillbilly Elegy” has remained on Netflix’s top 10 most-streamed list since debuting on the platform November 24. Read IndieWire’s interview with screenwriter Vanessa Taylor here, in which she discusses tackling the controversial elements of Vance’s novel. “Hillbilly Elegy” is now available to stream on Netflix.

UK government asks Netflix to make it clear “The Crown” is fictional

Netflix‘s wildly popular Royals saga “The Crown” continues to be in the crosshairs of controversy overseas with its suspicions over fidelity to facts.

Speaking to The Daily Mail, Cultural Secretary Oliver Dowden said, “It’s a beautifully produced work of fiction, so as with other TV productions, Netflix should be very clear at the beginning it is just that.”

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

“Without this,” he added, I fear a generation of viewers who did not live through these events may mistake fiction for fact.” Dowden is proposing a “health warning” to accompany the series, which he accuses of doing lasting damage to the monarchy and including Prince Charles.

A source close to the Prince told the Mail, “It is quite sinister the way that [writer Peter] Morgan is clearly using light entertainment to drive a very overt republican agenda and people just don’t see it. They have been lured in over the first few series until they can’t see how they are being manipulated. It is highly sophisticated propaganda.”

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

Controversial aspects including the timeline of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles’ affair during his marriage to Diana, as well as verbal abuse toward Diana, which prompted even Earl Spencer to weigh in.

The brother of the late Princess Diana warned Netflix viewers to watch the new season of the British royal drama series “The Crown” with a skeptical eye. During an interview on “Love Your Weekend with Alan Titchmarsh” (via Today), Spencer said Americans tend to take “The Crown” as fact, which he won’t stand by now that Diana is a main character. Spencer also rejected a request from the “The Crown” team to film at the Spencer family’s ancestral home in Northamptonshire, England.

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

“It would help ‘The Crown’ an enormous amount if at the beginning of each episode it stated that, ‘This isn’t true but is based around some real events’. Because then everyone would understand it’s drama for drama’s sake,” Spencer said.

Star Emma Corrin, who portrays Princess Diana,  told Harper’s BAZAAR, “The series that we’re in is fictionalized to a great extent.”

Mysterious Utah monolith evoking “2001: A Space Odyssey” has vanished

Updated Monday, November 30: Just days after the “2001”-esque monolith appeared — and then vanished — in Utah, another similar-looking structure has appeared in Romania. According to the Daily Mail, the shiny triangular structure was discovered on Batca Doamnei Hill, in the city of Piatra Neamt, in northern Romania, facing what is known as the Holy Mountain.

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

Neamt Culture and Heritage official Rocsana Josanu told Euro Weekly that an investigation has begun. “We have started looking into the strange appearance of the monolith. It is on private property, but we still don’t know who the monolith’s owner is yet,” she said. “It is in a protected area on an archaeological site. Before installing something there, they needed permission from our institution, one that must then be approved by the Ministry of Culture.”

Earlier: As mysteriously as it was discovered in the Utah desert on November 18, the 10-foot-tall, silver monolith evoking one of the most potent images from Stanley Kubrick‘s “2001: A Space Odyssey” has now vanished. According to a Facebook post from Utah’s Bureau of Land Management on Saturday, the puzzling structure was removed from “public lands by an unknown party.”

The Bureau added, “The BLM did not remove the structure which is considered private property. We do not investigate crimes involving private property which are handled by the local sheriff’s office. The structure has received international and national attention and we received reports that a person or group removed it on the evening of Nov. 27.”

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

The structure was discovered in the red rocks desert of southwestern Utah by helicopter pilot Bret Hutchings while on a sheep-counting mission. Hutchings told Salt Lake City broadcaster KSL-TV the object appeared to be planted by an anonymous person, with wildlife crew surmising the slab was constructed by an artist or fan of Kubrick’s science-fiction landmark. Hutchings quipped, “We were joking around that if one of us suddenly disappears, I guess the rest of us make a run for it…That’s been about the strangest thing that I’ve come across out there in all my years of flying.”

Hutchings added, “One of the biologists is the one who spotted it and we just happened to fly directly over the top of it. He was like, ‘Whoa, whoa, whoa, turn around, turn around!’ And I was like, ‘What.’ And he’s like, ‘There’s this thing back there — we’ve got to go look at it!’ We were thinking, is this something NASA stuck up there or something? Are they bouncing satellites off it?”

Though Utah originally opted not to disclose the location to avoid attracting inexperienced hikers, the coordinates were eventually discovered, by hiker David Surber, who observed on Instagram that the structure was aluminum, not magnetic, and made of three pieces riveted together, with two rivets missing on the top. See below.

“Apparently the monolith is gone,” Surber later said on Instagram. “Nature returned back to her natural state I suppose.”

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

The New York Times reported that some speculated the monolith to be the work of sculptor John McCracken, who died in 2011. According to Patrick McCracken, his father told him in 2002 that “he would like to leave his artwork in remote places to be discovered later.”

It’s source, and where it lives now, remain a mystery befitting of Kubrick’s beguiling sci-fi masterpiece.

Moderna requests emergency use authorization for its coronavirus vaccine. Here’s what that means

The American biotechnology company Moderna announced on Monday that it is asking regulators in the United States and Europe to allow emergency use authorization for their promising vaccine candidate. Their request comes only a week after two other pharmaceutical companies, Pfizer and BioNTech, made a similar request from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Moderna, which worked with the United States National Institutes of Health to create its vaccine candidate, said that additional results received over the weekend confirmed a roughly 94% effectiveness rate, according to the Associated Press (AP). Moderna Chief Medical Officer Dr. Tal Zaks told the AP that after learning about the results, “I allowed myself to cry for the first time. We have already, just in the trial, have already saved lives. Just imagine the impact then multiplied to the people who can get this vaccine.”

A member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee had a similarly optimistic response. As Dr. Paul Offit told CNN, “This is striking. These are amazing data.”

Moderna is not the first big pharmaceutical company to say that it is ready for emergency use authorizations. Pfizer and BioNTech submitted a filing to the FDA last week after its vaccine candidate was found to be more than 90 percent effective at stopping the pandemic.

“Filing in the U.S. represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” Pfizer Chairman and CEO Dr. Albert Bourla explained in a joint statement released on Friday. “We look forward to the upcoming Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee discussion and continue to work closely with the FDA and regulatory authorities worldwide to secure authorization of our vaccine candidate as quickly as possible.”

It is important to note that an emergency use authorization, if granted, does not mean that the general public will have access to the vaccine. As Dr. Deborah Doroshow, an assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, explained to Salon earlier this month, “an Emergency Use Authorization is not the same thing as FDA approval, nor it is saying the product is safe and effective. Simply, an EUA signifies that there is a serious or life threatening condition for which no approved or adequate alternative exists …. and that there is reason to believe the product may be effective and that the risks of using it most likely outweigh the benefits.”

The next step for both Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech is to see what the FDA’s scientific advisers say as they publicly debate the evidence supporting their various vaccine candidates. The debate for Pfizer/BioNTech is scheduled to begin on Dec. 10, while Moderna is expected to make its case before the so-called “science court” exactly one week later on Dec. 17. If both vaccines are green-lit for emergency use by the FDA, Moderna expects to have enough of its vaccine ready for 10 million people by the end of the year. (It has 20 million doses ready but the vaccine requires two shots.) Pfizer has enough doses for 12.5 million people.

Because initial doses are limited, they are expected to be given to health care workers, the frail and elderly, residents at long-term care facilities, essential workers and people whose underlying health conditions put them at higher risk.

Experts do not believe that a vaccine will be ready for the general American population until at least early spring. In terms of production capacity, federal officials estimate that 25 to 30 million people will be able to be vaccinated per month. The US population is 328 million, and polls have found that about 72% of the adult population say they would get a coronavirus vaccine. That means it is likely to take about 7 to 10 months to produce and administer enough vaccines to inoculate all 200 million to 250 million Americans that would opt for a vaccine.

In other words, assuming all goes to plan, all Americans who want a vaccine will probably be vaccinated by fall or winter 2021. Based on the specific way the human immune system reacts to the novel coronavirus, there are still questions over whether humans would need to be re-vaccinated every year. 

Both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine candidates are mRNA-based vaccines, a very new technology. Short for “synthetic messenger RNA,” mRNA vaccines use synthetic mRNA (the part of a living creature’s DNA that tells cells which proteins to manufacture) to help the body’s cells recognize proteins found in disease-causing microorganisms (in this case, the spikes in the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19). This makes the immune system able to effectively combat them.

One hurdle to production and distribution relates to the freezing temperatures that vaccines must be stored at to remain viable. Different vaccine candidates have different storage needs: Moderna’s vaccine candidate must be kept at -20°C, although the company claims it can remain stable for up to one month at consumer refrigerator temperatures of 2°C to 8°C. Pfizer’s candidate must be kept at -70°C, beyond the abilities of most commercial refrigerators.

“More ‘end user’ locations will be equipped to use the Moderna vaccine, with its less stringent cold chain requirements,” Dr. Justin Lessler, an associate professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, wrote to Salon earlier this month. “Likewise, if that vaccine is more thermostable it should be less sensitive to accidental breaks in the cold chain (e.g., a batch being left out on the table for longer than it should) which may increase practical effectiveness.”

Lessler added, “That being said, Pfizer has shown commitment to overcoming the issues with distribution and they certainly can be overcome.”

At the time of this writing, more than 13 million people have been diagnosed with COVID-19 in the United States and 63 million people have been diagnosed worldwide. More than 260,000 of the COVID-19 patients in the United States have died, and more than 1.4 million have died worldwide.

How humanity lost control of plastic pollution

Early in the pandemic, many scientists noticed an odd, incongruous side effect of business closures and widespread shelter-in-place orders: a concomitant reduction in air pollution. NASA saw significant drops in nitrogen dioxide levels in satellite data from April 2020. That raised an uneasy prospect for environmentalists, the possibility that the coronavirus pandemic — which has, as of now, killed 1.5 million people worldwide (including more than 260,000 in the United States) — might have a “silver lining” for the environment. 

Yet new reports appear to show that any such hope was misplaced, as whatever drop in air pollution the pandemic may have indirectly caused was displaced by a massive surge in plastic waste. Indeed, that poses a significant long-term problem for Earth’s oceans, where much plastic waste ends up — and highlights the need for legislation to make more single-use goods biodegradable or develop large-scale public works projects to manage plastic pollution. 

Several factors contributed to the pandemic-related surge in plastic pollution, according to a September report in Science Magazine. For one thing, the proliferation of COVID-19 cases throughout the world caused a steep drop in travel and, as a result, a drop in the price of petroleum. This has made it cheaper to manufacture new plastics than to simply recycle existing plastic products, which has increased overall plastic production.

Meanwhile, there has been a sharp rise in demand for personal protection equipment (PPE), much of which is manufactured with plastic. The World Health Organization (WHO) requested a 40% escalation of disposable PPE. Science Magazine noted that if every person on Earth uses an average of one disposable face mask every day after lockdown ends, the planet would experience a monthly disposal of 129 billion face masks and 65 billion gloves.

The report also extrapolated about the quantity of American medical waste based on numbers from Wuhan, where the virus originated, predicting that the United States could create a year’s worth of medical waste in only two months if our numbers are similar to those of the Chinese city. The report also pointed to the increase in packaged take-out meals and home-delivered groceries and the increased pressure on waste management facilities as contributing factors to the spike in plastic pollution.

As the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) reported earlier this month, the quantity of single-use plastic in food-related products like packaging and utensils may have increased by 250% to 300% in America since the coronavirus outbreak reached this country. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) also reported that it expects plastic pollution to increase by 40% in the next decade.

Meanwhile, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) released an August report finding that measures taken to protect the public from COVID-19 has increased plastic littering in Canada, with much of the plastic winding up in Canadian freshwater supplies. This increases the quantity of microplastics — or pieces of plastic smaller than 5 mm — that will make their way into the food chain and ingested by human beings, with unforeseeable health results.

There is also an ecological toll caused by the increase of plastics in freshwater.

“In aquatic environments, organisms of all types—from algae to fish to birds—ingest or interact with plastics,” IISD reported. “The ingestion of plastics by animals may cause reproductive issues, behaviour changes, and starvation. Animals can also become entangled in plastic debris, causing physical harm and, in some cases, death. Plastic debris of all sizes can also accumulate chemicals and leach them into the environment with potentially toxic effects on wildlife.”

Duke University student Caroline Gordon wrote something similar for the Nicholas School of the Environment, pointing out that “at least 700 species worldwide have been affected by plastic ocean pollution, including 84% of sea turtle species, 44% of all seabird species, and 43% of all marine mammal species. It is also estimated that one in three marine mammals have been found tangled in some type of marine litter, such as lost fishing gear or plastic bags.”

“The plastic industry seized on the pandemic as an opportunity to try to convince people that single use plastic is necessary to keep us safe, and that reusables are dirty and dangerous,” John Hocevar, ocean campaign director at Greenpeace, told CNBC. “The fact that neither of these things is supported by the best available science was irrelevant.” 

He added, “Exploitation of Covid-19 fears ultimately made people less safe, distracting attention from the need to focus on the risk of airborne transmission and critical measures like wearing masks and maintaining social distancing.”

The consequences of all this plastic consumption could become all too real in our own lifetimes. The World Economic Forum (WEF) projected in 2016 that the total weight of plastic in the ocean could outweigh the total weight of fish by 2050. It based this conclusion in part on the fact that international plastic use has increased 20-fold since the 1960s and is expected to double again by the 2030s. Roughly one-third of all plastics are not properly disposed of, resulting in 8 million metric tons of plastic pollution entering the environment each year.

Many countries have regulations or bans on single-use plastics. The inter-governmental NGO OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) has proposed subsidies for plastic recycling, and taxes on certain single-use plastic waste, as possible means of reducing plastic waste worldwide through policy.

Why Fleetwood Mac’s music resonated so deeply in 2020

No viral video embodies 2020 more than the TikTok clip of Nathan Apodaca swigging Ocean Spray Cran-Raspberry juice while longboarding as Fleetwood Mac‘s “Dreams” plays in the background. Apodaca’s timing is impeccable — he grins throughout the video, and pointedly lip-syncs the lyrics, “It’s only right that you should / Play the way you feel it” — and the framing of the clip shows off the early morning sky and the cars speeding by around him.

“It’s just a video on TikTok that everyone felt a vibe with,” Apodaca told The New York Times. “I’m happy that I could chill the world out for a minute.”

Not only did the clip very much exude tranquility — it also boosted “Dreams,” which was already the only Fleetwood Mac song to reach No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100. The tune enjoyed its biggest streaming week to date, as Apodaca’s clip quickly turned into a popular meme, and started receiving sporadic Top 40 radio airplay. 

The support was good enough to catapult “Dreams” back into the Billboard charts: It topped the Rock Digital Song Sales chart and eventually peaked at No. 2 on Hot Rock & Alternative Songs. Mick Fleetwood and Stevie Nicks even joined TikTok to respond to Apodaca’s video, with the former recreating the longboard trip and quipping “Dreams and Cranberry just hits different” in the caption.

Fleetwood Mac would’ve had a big 2020 if “Dreams” was their only pop culture triumph. However, the band has been in the news all year, thanks to a steady stream of creative endeavors and popular releases. The band’s current label home, Rhino Records, issued an early years boxed set (“Fleetwood Mac: 1969 – 1974”) and an in-demand Record Store Day release, “The Alternate Rumours,” that’s already going for impressive amounts on the resale market

All of this activity comes more than a half-century after Fleetwood Mac formed, and nearly 45 years since the group first reached the U.S. Top 40, with the single “Over My Head.” Few bands last this long; fewer still maintain deep cultural relevance for decades. In contemporary music, the only existing groups with comparable longevity and impact are Queen and the Rolling Stones, with the Grateful Dead-associated Dead & Company also in the running.

However, Fleetwood Mac is especially resonant in 2020. In a year that often feels chaotic and out of control, the band’s music is a familiar and steadying presence. Part of that comes from its soothing veneer: Fleetwood Mac’s songs often arose from relationship tension and interpersonal drama, but the band tended to cloak these fractures in elegant poetry and empathetic sentiment. In fact, although known as a ferocious rock band, their most enduring hits tend to scan as romantic soft-pop — couching fiery, passionate lyrics in gauzy keyboards, honeyed guitars and soothing grooves. 

Fleetwood Mac’s ability to find gorgeous, fragile beauty in even dark days is also extremely relatable. An album like “Rumours” endures because it emphasizes the silver lining of emotional conflicts; love’s often messy and nonlinear, and breakups may not lead to closure, but there’s always the chance tomorrow will be better. Even “The Chain,” a song with a rumbling Godzilla bass line that details the band’s interpersonal acrimony (“Damn your love, damn your lies”), emphasizes that their musical bond has permanence. Fleetwood Mac can be moody and melancholy — but their music never loses its optimism.

That underlying buoyancy also makes the band’s music malleable. Their songs have transcended the sadness of original inspirations — “Dreams,” after all, was written as a breakup lament (“Thunder only happens when it’s raining/Players only love you when they’re playing”). Consequently, Fleetwood Mac’s happier moments are also ripe to be heard in different contexts: A 2013 ad for a UK phone company used the ecstatic “Everywhere” as the soundtrack to a pony moonwalking around the countryside.  

Fleetwood Mac’s tireless work ethic is also admirable. Despite the pandemic, the individual band members have forged ahead with creative endeavors. Nicks released a new single (“Show Them the Way”) as well as a live album and movie, “Stevie Nicks 24 Karat Gold the Concert,” culled from her 2017 solo tour. She also told a Los Angeles Times interviewer that a long-awaited TV miniseries telling the story of the Celtic figure Rhiannon is finally in the works, and have released frequent musings about life in quarantine that resemble reassuring letters sent by an old friend. 

Earlier in the year, Mick Fleetwood held an all-star celebration for Fleetwood Mac’s founder, blues guitarist Peter Green. The London concert, dubbed Mick Fleetwood & Friends Celebrate The Music Of Peter Green And The Early Years Of Fleetwood Mac, featured current member Christine McVie and former Mac member Jeremy Spencer, as well as major guests such as Aerosmith’s Steven Tyler, David Gilmour and ZZ Top’s Billy Gibbons.

Fleetwood Mac’s newest members also kept busy in quarantine. Neil Finn launched an occasional live online broadcast, dubbed Fangradio, and announced a new record by his beloved long-time band, Crowded House. Mike Campbell and his current group The Dirty Knobs released their debut album, “Wreckless Abandon”; the guitarist and keyboardist Benmont Tench were also the highlight of a 70th birthday tribute to their late Heartbreakers bandmate Tom Petty. Even Lindsey Buckingham — the guitarist and songwriter who parted ways with the band in 2018, which paved the way for Finn and Campbell to join — surfaced after a health scare and announced a forthcoming livestream.

That Fleetwood Mac continues moving forward no matter what obstacles (or lineup changes) come the band’s way is also deeply inspirational. In fact, such perseverance is awe-inspiring, especially since it leads to tremendous momentum and feeds into their ongoing popularity. Pop culture fragmentation means that many bands or movements tend to be niche-based. However, Fleetwood Mac is forever — and omnipresent.

Joe Biden names all-female communications team, Kayleigh McEnany falsely claims Trump did it first

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Sunday falsely claimed that President Donald Trump had beaten President-elect Joe Biden to the punch when the transition team announced an all-female communications team.

The Washington Post on Sunday reported that Biden had selected an “all-female White House press team,” drawing complaints from the Trump administration.

McEnany claimed on Twitter that Trump “already has an ALL FEMALE White House press team” as she accused the “completely DISCREDITED” Washington Post of revealing its “blinding propagandist Fake News proclivities.”

But many on Twitter noted that McEnany’s deputies included Judd Deere and Brian Morgenstern. She claimed that Vice President Mike Pence also had an all-female team, but his press secretary is Devin O’Malley.

“This is just such a weird and pointless thing to lie about,” George Conway, a conservative critic of the president and husband of former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, tweeted.

The Post report noted that Biden’s team will mark the “first time all of the top aides tasked with speaking on behalf of an administration and shaping its message will be female.”

The team will be headed by longtime Democratic spokeswoman Jen Psaki and veteran Biden aide Kate Bedingfield.

Psaki, who served as White House communications director for former President Barack Obama and press secretary for former Secretary of State John Kerry, will replace McEnany behind the podium when Biden is inaugurated next month.

Psaki said on Twitter that her goal was to “rebuild trust of the American people” after her predecessor repeatedly made false claims from behind the White House podium.

Bedingfield, who was Biden’s deputy campaign manager and communications director, will take over as White House communications director. Trump has gone through six different communications directors in four years, including Anthony Scaramucci’s 11-day stint at the helm.

“Communicating directly and truthfully to the American people is one of the most important duties of a president, and this team will be entrusted with the tremendous responsibility of connecting the American people to the White House,” Biden said in a statement. “These qualified, experienced communicators bring diverse perspectives to their work and a shared commitment to building this country back better.”

Karine Jean-Pierre, former spokeswoman for the progressive group MoveOn.org and chief of staff to Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, will serve as Psaki’s top deputy. Pili Tobar, a former aide to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and deputy director of the immigration reform group America’s Voice, will serve as Bedingfield’s deputy.

Ashley Etienne, the former communications director to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will serve as Harris’ communications director. Symone Sanders, a former adviser to Biden’s campaign who earlier served as press secretary of Sen. Bernie Sanders’, I-Vt., 2016 campaign, will be Harris’ top spokesperson.

“Our country is facing unprecedented challenges — from the coronavirus pandemic to the economic crisis, to the climate crisis and a long-overdue reckoning over racial injustice,” Harris said in a statement. “To overcome these challenges, we need to communicate clearly, honestly and transparently with the American people, and this experienced, talented and barrier-shattering team will help us do that.”

Elizabeth Alexander, Biden’s former press secretary, will serve as the communications director to first lady Jill Biden.

“President-elect Biden has a history of advocating on behalf of women in the U.S. and around the world, and today’s announcement is a continuation of that work,” Ron Klain, who will serve as Biden’s chief of staff, said in a statement. “They embody Joe Biden’s commitment to a diverse administration where the voices of all Americans are represented.”

The team faces an uphill climb in rebuilding trust with the American public after Trump’s press team repeatedly lied to the media and voters alike.

McEnany began her tenure by vowing, “I will never lie to you.” She proceeded to repeatedly lie from behind the podium. Her predecessor, Stephanie Grisham, did not even bother holding a single press briefing for more than a year. Former press secretary Sarah Sanders admitted that she lied to reporters when she was interviewed by special counsel Robert Mueller’s team. Sean Spicer, Trump’s first press secretary, kicked off the president’s single term by echoing his demonstrably false boast of the “the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period.”

Biden has said he will restore the daily White House press briefing, but “simply returning to pre-Trump standards isn’t nearly enough,” Dan Froomkin wrote in Press Watch last week. “Even before Trump’s parade of propagandists turned the briefing room into a cesspool of disinformation, the job of press secretary — under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama — had devolved into deflecting press inquiries rather than genuinely responding to them . . . Given how much Trump’s conduct has led to a loss of faith in the government’s competence or even its good intentions, nothing short of extreme openness is likely to win back America’s trust and confidence.”

New Kelly Loeffler ad claims multimillionaire knows what “it feels like waiting on that paycheck”

Sen. Kelly Loeffler, the unelected multimillionaire Georgia Republican senator facing a critical runoff election this January which will determine control of the U.S. Senate, released an ad over the weekend claiming that she knows “how it feels” to wait on a paycheck.

“It’s so important to have Senator Loeffler in the Senate, especially right now. What we need more than ever is a business mind,” Janelle King, who is billed as the founder of Speak Georgia but is also the former deputy director of the Georgia Republican Party, says in the ad. “We need someone who understands not just how to write paychecks and sign paychecks but how it feels like waiting on that paycheck.”

While the ad plays to economic anxieties brought about by the coronavirus pandemic, Loeffler has not supported another round of stimulus checks.

Loeffler, who has held executive positions for well more than a decade at her husband’s company, Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) — which owns the New York Stock Exchange, among other markets — is worth between $800 million and $1 billion, according to Forbes. That makes her by far the wealthiest member of Congress.

Her Democratic opponent, Dr. Raphael Warnock, grew up in public housing.

Weeks after Georgia’s Republican Gov. Brian Kemp named Loeffler to replace outgoing GOP Sen. Johnny Isakson last December, ICE issued her an unusually structured severance package estimated to be worth more than $9 million. The deal immediately vested stock options worth more than $1 million, which otherwise would have been worthless, and did the same for half of her $15.6 million stake in ICE cryptocurrency subsidiary Bakkt, where she served as chief executive officer.

At the time of Loeffler’s exit, an estimated 14% of Americans owned some form of cryptocurrency, with a median investment of $360.

That same month, Loeffler and her husband, Jeffery Sprecher, also bought a private jet.

Over the next year, amid the backdrop of the coronavirus pandemic, the couple offloaded more than $58 million in stock of their own company, Salon reported on Saturday. In the context of years of trades, the dumps showed an irregular pattern, with Sprecher quadrupling previous sales of any other year.

The couple was later investigated for possible insider trading after news reports revealed a series of market transactions ahead of the coronavirus pandemic, including activity on Jan. 24. Loeffler received a classified briefing on the public health crisis that day. 

While the Department of Justice and Republican-led Senate Ethics Committee both eventually cleared Loeffer, it is unclear what became of a parallel Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into the trades. Through those sales, Sprecher also appears to have violated conflict of interest rules enumerated in the New York Stock Exchange code of conduct.

The appointed senator’s recent ad continues with a male voiceover touting her position on issues such as school choice, creating opportunities for minority-owned businesses and a “comprehensive healthcare plan for all Georgians.”

After Loeffler moved from the general election to a runoff against Warnock — the Black pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta — she compiled her 13 pieces of healthcare legislation into one single plan, proposing a market-based solution to expanded coverage. Warnock supports a public option.

Loeffler’s record on minority businesses, which had disproportionately less access to crucial pandemic relief funds, is unclear. A bill called “Reaching America’s Rural Minority Businesses Act of 2020” was introduced to the Senate in October, but she was not one of the four co-sponsors, which included two other Republican senators.

The third plank of the ad, school choice, implores a euphemism for religious and often segregated education options.

Two of Loeffler’s recent digital ads were pulled for violating YouTube’s terms of service, including one on Nov. 20. A YouTube spokesperson declined to tell Salon why the ads were pulled.

Loeffler and GOP colleague David Perdue have called for Georgia’s Republican secretary of state to resign in the wake of President Donald Trump’s historic defeat in the deep-red state. Right-wing voters who view the pair as insufficiently supportive of the president’s efforts to overturn the results have called for a boycott of the runoff, which is scheduled for Jan. 5.

“I’m seeing a lot of talk from people that are supposed to be on our side telling GOP voters not to go out & vote for @KLoeffler and @Perduesenate,” Donald Trump Jr. tweeted in the duo’s defense. “That is NONSENSE. IGNORE those people.”

You can watch the Loeffler’s new ad below via YouTube:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fyPDiORqaA

Melania “delighted” to mark holidays after being caught asking, “Who gives a f*ck about Christmas?”

Melania Trump participated in the unveiling of the annual Christmas decorations at the White House for a final time only weeks after the first lady was heard using profanity to describe her holiday planning duties in a secret recording.

Writing on Twitter that she was “delighted” to mark “this special time of the year,” Melania unveiled the White House Christmas decor on Monday.

“Together, we celebrate this land we are all proud to call home,” she added.

A White House press release further touted the “Gold Star Family Tree,” despite President Donald Trump’s frequent feuds with Gold Star families, and its “Be Best” ornament, referring to the first lady’s anti-bullying campaign which has been undercut by her husband’s nonstop invective.

“I am excited to announce this year’s White House holiday theme, ‘America the Beautiful,'” the first lady said in a statement. “From coast to coast, the bond that all Americans share is an appreciation for our traditions, values and history, which were the inspiration behind the decorations this year. Thank you to all of the staff and volunteers who worked to make sure the People’s House was ready for the holiday season. Wishing everyone a Merry Christmas and a happy and healthy New Year.”

The rollout arrived weeks after Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former close friend and adviser of the first lady, released secret recordings from 2018 in which Melania defended her husband’s child separation policy and complained about her holiday responsibilities.

“I’m working . . . my ass off on the Christmas stuff — that you know. Who gives a f*ck about the Christmas stuff and decorations? But I need to do it, right? OK,” she said in the recording. “And then I do it, and I say that I’m working on Christmas and planning for the Christmas. And they said, ‘Oh, what about the children that they were separated?’ Give me a f*cking break.”

Twitter users skewered the first lady’s newfound holiday spirit.

The holidays festivities come as Melania, who also echoed her husband’s birther lies, publicly backs her husband’s attempt to subvert the election he lost.

“The American people deserve fair elections. Every legal – not illegal – vote should be counted,” she tweeted earlier this month. “We must protect our democracy with complete transparency.”

Behind the scenes, CNN reported that the first lady “advised him to come to terms with President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.” But, like her husband, Melania has reportedly not reached out to incoming first lady Jill Biden.

It is unclear what the first lady, who once complained that she was the “most bullied person in the world,” plans to do after departing the White House next month.

“I think Melania will probably be secretly relieved,” journalist Kate Andersen Brower, the author of “First Women,” told USA Today. “This is not what she signed up for . . . She feels like she can’t do anything right, and though every first lady feels that way at some point, she has the disadvantage of being married to someone who has burned every bridge to the past.”

Melania has also been taking meetings about writing her White House memoir, according to Page Six.

“I’m told her husband is encouraging her,” a source told the outlet. “She’s not done, or going as quietly as you might expect . . . In the wake of Stephanie Winston Wolkoff’s betrayal, in both print and on secret tapes, Melania’s story could be worth big money.”

Twitter users joked that the book would likely be eerily similar to former first lady Michelle Obama’s, a reference to Melania’s 2016 Republican National Convention speech. In the address, Melania lifted parts of her predecessor’s speech from the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

“Working title of Melania’s book: Becoming, by Michelle Obama,” one user quipped.

Another added, “I can not wait to hear about Melania growing up on the South Side Chicago.”

Fox News host debunks Trump after fellow host Maria Bartiromo let him spew lies without any pushback

Fox News host Eric Shawn on Sunday debunked President Donald Trump’s false claims about the election after morning show host Maria Bartiromo aired a torrent of unchecked lies from the president.

Shawn, who has repeatedly fact-checked the president’s unfounded claims aimed at undermining an election he lost, picked apart the baseless conspiracy theories mere hours after his own network broadcast them.

“[Trump] doubled down on his claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, even though local and national election officials, as well as federal and state courts in multiple states — and in some cases the Trump campaign’s own lawyers — have said there is no evidence to prove that,” Shawn said, adding that “experts say such claims are unsupported falsehoods that are not backed up by any facts.”

Shawn later brought on Axios reporter Hans Nichols to dissect Trump’s false claims, noting that one of the president’s arguments was that President-elect Joe Biden could not have gotten more votes than former President Barack Obama despite a huge increase in voting by mail.

“It seems that we have a president who . . . can’t process the fact that someone who he thinks is so inferior to him won the election,” Shawn said.

The comments came shortly after Bartiromo, who landed Trump’s first interview since his election loss and has pushed baseless fraud conspiracy theories herself, allowed Trump to repeat his debunked allegations without noting they are undermined by the facts.

“The facts are on your side,” Bartiromo claimed, even though Trump and his allies have lost nearly every election-related lawsuit to date.

Trump claimed that “glitches” moved “thousands of votes from my account to Biden’s account,” echoing the bizarre and discredited conspiracy theory pushed by attorney Sidney Powell which led to her ouster from his legal team. In spite of no evidence to support his claim, Trump went on to insist that “dead people were applying to get a ballot.”

The president repeatedly complained how some swing states shifted from his column to Biden’s column after mail-in ballots were counted. Some Republican-led legislatures prevented them from being tallied earlier on election night.

“This election was over, and then they did dumps. They call them dumps — big massive dumps in Michigan, Pennsylvania and all over,” Trump said, describing the reporting of vote counts. “If you take a look at . . . every swing state that we’re talking about. And they did these massive dumps of votes, and all of a sudden, I went from winning by a lot to losing by a little. And, in some cases, it took a period of time to do it.”

Trump then launched into a new conspiracy theory, baselessly claiming that his own Department of Justice and FBI “may be involved” in the “fraud.”

“These people have been there a long time. And I know FBI, and the FBI is great at the levels that we talked about. But it’s inconceivable,” he said. “You would think if you’re in the FBI or Department of Justice, this is the biggest thing you could be looking at. Where are they? I’ve not seen anything.”

Trump also lashed out at Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican who was endorsed by the president, for doing “absolutely nothing” to overturn the result of the election in his state after election officials repeatedly discredited claims of fraud or irregularities. Republicans have grown increasingly concerned that Trump’s lies will discourage voters from participating in the upcoming Senate runoffs in the state, because they think it could be “rigged.”

Bartiromo did little to press Trump on his unsubstantiated claims. At one point, she appeared to agree with Trump when he falsely claimed the election was “rigged.”

“This is disgusting,” she said. “And we cannot allow America’s election to be corrupted.”

Bartiromo was widely criticized over the interview, which was labeled as propaganda. The network’s news hosts have repeatedly pushed back on Trump’s false claims. Even the Trump sycophants like Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson have dismissed the president’s attempt to overturn the election.

“This is propaganda,” tweeted Amanda Carpenter, a former aide to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who now serves as a CNN contributor. “Maria went all in on at least three different conspiracies… She’s way off the deep end. This isn’t a Trump problem, it’s a Fox problem.”

“Bartiromo’s interview with the president is filled with so many lies and so much misinformation,” wrote journalist Yashar Ali. “Probably more than any interview during his presidency.”

CNN host Brian Stelter wondered how Bartiromo went from a respected financial journalist to a Trump propagandist. Bartiromo, who was the first reporter to broadcast live from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in 1995, went on to host CNBC’s “Squawk Box” and several other shows before joining Fox Business and launching her Sunday Fox News show.

“Maria Bartiromo, once a feared and acclaimed journalist, best known for working the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, forcing CEOs to tell the truth, now sits behind a desk and invites the president to lie and lie and lie,” he said on Sunday.

“There would be outrage if Fox News hired someone like InfoWars’ Alex Jones to be anchoring a show on their network,” CNN reporter Oliver Darcy told Stelter. “Frankly, there is not much daylight between Maria and Alex Jones.”

You can watch the Fox News segment below via YouTube

Trump and his allies won’t drop claims of stolen election — because they’re cashing in

On Sunday morning, Donald Trump let loose with what may be his most unhinged performance yet — which is really saying something — of his extended effort to pretend the election was stolen from him by President-elect Joe Biden. In a 45-minute interview on Fox News with host Maria Bartiromo, which was more like an uninterrupted dramatic monologue, Trump unloaded an absolute truckload of lies. He lied about ballots and voting machines, claiming that millions of fake votes were recorded. He suggested the FBI was “involved” in the imaginary conspiracy against him. He even said he “came up” with the coronavirus vaccines, a claim that is utterly ludicrous but will be swallowed without complaint by all the people who still mock Al Gore for claiming to have “invented” the internet — which Gore never actually said

What’s especially weird about this whole situation is that Trump is doubling down on these false claims in the face of an epic failure to get his attempted coup off the ground. The recount that Trump demanded in Wisconsin — although his campaign only paid for a recount in two overwhelmingly Democratic counties — not only affirmed Biden’s win in that state, but increased the president-elect’s total by 87 votes. Meanwhile, Trump’s losing streak in the courts only got worse over the weekend, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissing one Trump lawsuit with prejudice (meaning he can’t sue again regarding this matter) and another suit failing in the Third Circuit federal appeals court

“Voters, not lawyers, choose the president,” federal judge Stephanos Bibas — a Trump appointee! — wrote in deciding the latter case. 

And yet, Trump continues to invite more humiliation. He continued to rant on Twitter, promising, “We have some big things happening in our various litigations on the Election Hoax.” (Whoever he means by “we,” they do not.)

Worse yet, Trump has an army of liars at his disposal: The right-wing punditry, spread out across radio, TV and the internet, is largely bolstering these utterly false claims that the election was “rigged” and that Trump will somehow prevail in his efforts to steal the White House. 


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


There are multiple reasons for this. Trump’s black hole of an ego makes it impossible for him to admit he lost the election, first of all. Most right-wing pundits are increasingly consumed by an authoritarian ideology that’s opposed to democracy, and they view these lies as a good way to undermine public trust. Republican politicians are eager to delegitimize Biden’s presidency, and also to lay the groundwork for more voter suppression tactics. By falsely accusing Democrats of cheating, in other words, Republicans create cover for their real-life cheating. 

But as is usually the case with right-wing politics in the 21st century, a lot of this is about money. Trump’s voting base is a sea of suckers. He and the various grifters who make up most of the right-wing media are eager to drain those suckers dry. Stoking anger over the lost election and feeding people’s fantasies about stealing it is, by all appearances, a cash bonanza. 

On Sunday, New York Times media columnist Ben Smith published a profile of Chris Ruddy, CEO of the Trump-tastic website and TV network Newsmax. As the headline suggests — “The King of Trump TV Thinks You’re Dumb Enough to Buy It” — the profile is not a flattering one. Instead, it depicts Ruddy is knowingly pumping out lies about the election, because doing so is dramatically increasing ratings and traffic, and making him a fortune. 

Ruddy claimed he’s justified in spreading misinformation for cash, insisting to Smith that the rest of the media also hypes lies and bullshit to make money. (Ruddy’s example of this, however, is “this Russian hoax theory,” which is neither a hoax nor a theory, but a substantial scandal that, in a healthier political environment, would have led to Trump’s removal from office years ago.) 

Ruddy is far from the only one who sees a lucrative opportunity in peddling lies to America’s would-be brownshirts about Trump’s glorious assault on democracy — disingenuously packaged as “stop the steal”, since all things with the right are projection — and how it will ultimately succeed. 

As Media Matters documented last week, a hive of right-wing grifters are blitzing their followers by email, demanding they turn over their grandkids’ college fund to this effort to overturn the election results.

Charlie Kirk, Alex Jones, Candace Owens and many other right-wing parasites are hammering their lists of subscribers and supporters with pitches like, “Will you help me fight with President Trump and ensure only legal votes are counted? Rush $25 right here,” and “One thing is clear: the fraud was happening everywhere, and there is a lot of it that still needs [to be] exposed,” all for the low, low price of $25 (or more). 


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


Of course, the biggest grifter is Trump himself, who has been sending his followers dozens of emails a week, begging for cash and promising that it will be used to stop the “Radical Left and Fake News Media,” who “will do whatever it takes to try to STEAL the White House.” (More projection!) The emails are full of lies about how their donation will somehow be improved a thousandfold, through mechanisms that are not explained. 

Where’s the money going? It’s not being lavishly spent on this go-nowhere fight to snatch Biden’s victory away, that’s for sure. For instance, a statewide recount of Wisconsin was expected to cost Trump $8 million. Instead of paying full price, however, the campaign chose to recounting two counties for $3 million. 

This penny-pinching has an obvious purpose: It allows Trump to reroute the money raised away from his failed coup attempt into a leadership PAC that he can use as a slush fund, just as he did with the Trump Foundation in years past. Far from being able to “increase your impact by 1000%,” as the emails promise, the money donated will likely go towards Trump traveling and throwing himself a bunch of parties for the next few years. 

No one should shed a tear for the fools being parted from their money, especially since said fools imagine they’re funding an authoritarian coup aimed at ending free and fair elections. Nonetheless, this entire grifting empire is a big problem, because the end result of all this profiteering is that our democracy is being undermined. As Trump and his buddies cash in, their reckless rhetoric is encouraging their followers to grow ever more hateful towards the rest of Americans — the majority of Americans — who continue to believe in democracy. 

As Heather Digby Parton wrote Monday at Salon, “standard conservative victimhood is changing into something else with Trump’s crusade to delegitimize the election and convince tens of millions of people there is a conspiracy to disenfranchise them.”

This narrative is already being used to justify illegal and fascistic power grabs and election cheating. We’re already seeing signs of it in the way Georgia’s Republican donor base has been haranguing politicians in that state to do more to help Trump steal the election. That won’t work for Trump, at least not this time around, it could certainly lay the groundwork for pushing out the few remaining honest Republicans in power and passing more policies targeted at keeping Black voters from the polls. 

It’s also ramping up the aggression of some of the more unsavory people in the Trump base. In Raleigh, North Carolina, this weekend, there was an ugly demonstration by a group of Trump supporters insisting that his lies about the election were true. The rally was flush with Proud Boys, who wore insignia declaring their eagerness for violence and yelled at counter-protesters that they wanted to “exterminate” them. This kind of baseless anger suggests that it’s a matter of when, not if, there’s another terrorist attack by a Trump fanboy. 

There’s little chance of Trump or his enablers letting up between now and Inauguration Day, which is still more than seven weeks away. There’s clearly too much money to be made by endlessly promising Trump voters that they’re on the verge of stealing this election from Biden, and that another $25 is all it will take to get Trump a second term. Apparently, not even the routine humiliation of losing court battles and recounts will slow down the grift train — not as long as the American right is still composed of a bunch of suckers. 

Trump’s whining about the “rigged” election feeds off GOP’s longtime victim complex

Both the New York Times and the Washington Post were out over the holiday with deep dives into the post-election moves by Donald Trump and various players around the country as the president refuses to concede and one lawsuit after another is rejected by the courts. They are harrowing tales of a president (whom one source in the Post describes as “Mad King George, muttering ‘I won, I won, I won'”) and a group of lower-level Republicans and judges around the country who stepped into the breach to stop him from overturning the election results.

The Post’s narrative takes us down the White House rabbit hole to show just how demented Trump has been ever since election night, when it became clear that his strategy to take advantage of the “red mirage” wasn’t working. You may recall that Republicans had successfully kept certain swing states from counting mail-in ballots until the day of the election, the idea being that an early lead from in-person votes might give the impression that Trump had “won” at least 270 Electoral College votes and could declare victory on election night. This stupid plan was thwarted by the Fox News decision desk calling Arizona for Joe Biden, not that it stopped Trump from emerging at 2:30 a.m. on Wednesday, Nov. 4, to declare victory anyway.

His behavior ever since has been predictably daft, disseminating obscure voter-fraud conspiracy theories, empowering his maniacal personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani (whom the Post says Trump considers a “peer”) and generally behaving like a spoiled, petulant child who simply cannot admit that he lost. Even after four long years of debasing our government and political culture, this would almost be a sad denouement — if he weren’t also brainwashing tens of millions of Americans to believe that the election was rigged and cannot be trusted. Unless he wins, of course.

The New York Times reported on the state and local Republican officials who withstood tremendous pressure to usurp the will of the voters and overturn the results for Donald Trump. Some of the stories are real profiles in courage, such as the Republican secretary of state in Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, whom Trump called an “enemy of the people” in his rambling Thanksgiving Day press conference and who now has to have bodyguards due to all the threats against his family. But it didn’t stop with the big names: There was an effort to get GOP officials all over the country to raise doubts about the election results and take actions to overturn them.

I guess it never occurred to any of the geniuses on the Trump team that asking these people to say the election was sabotaged would mean indicting themselves as incompetent stewards of the process. Most of them were not willing to destroy their own professional reputations for Trump’s quixotic need to soothe his battered psyche. Sadly, it will not be surprising if many of them lose their jobs anyway. It’s fair to assume they will be seen by some of their constituents as turncoats for allowing the massive fraud that (according to this insane narrative) cost Trump millions of votes in at least half a dozen different states.

The Times also lauds the judges at both the state and federal level who have dismissed one bumbling, amateurish lawsuit after another. Really, no one should have ever expected them to do otherwise. The fact that many of us actually felt anxious about that shows how low the bar is these days.

Despite protestations from plenty of establishment voices, none of this is a sign that the “guardrails” worked. It’s clear from both articles that the only thing keeping Donald Trump and the Republican Party from overturning this election through propaganda and backdoor political power plays is the fact that too many swing states were not close enough for their strategy to work. Nobody should be relieved by this outcome. It’s only remarkable because the election wasn’t that close. And this unfortunately gives Trump a platform to be a martyr.

One of the most unattractive aspects of Donald Trump’s personality is the incessant whining that everything is “unfair” and that he’s a victim of conspiracies and plots and endless nefarious attempts to take him down. It has always surprised me that his unwillingness to take any responsibility for the fact that his presidency is a dumpster fire — or for literally anything else — doesn’t bother the members of his base who wear T-shirts that say “F**k your feelings” and take such pleasure in making the “snowflake libs” cry.

For all their macho posturing, right-wingers forever cast themselves as victims. Going back to the antebellum South and the subsequent “lost cause” of the Confederacy, and then forward to the modern conservative movement that insists liberals will grab their guns, force them to abandon their religion and destroy their “culture,” they’re constantly whining that they don’t get any respect.

Once again, Trump speaks to this massive set of insecurities. But standard conservative victimhood is changing into something else with Trump’s crusade to delegitimize the election and convince tens of millions of people there is a conspiracy to disenfranchise them.

Yale professor Timothy Snyder, an expert on authoritarian regimes, appeared on CNN this weekend and explained just how pernicious this latest round of victimization really is:

You’re telling people, basically Trump voters, whose votes were counted, that they are the victims and in doing so you are reversing the basic truth of American history, which is that the people who are at real risk of being disenfranchised are African Americans. You are reversing that story and that in itself is not only tragic, and unfair, but it is also dangerous.

When you teach people who have power that they are victims, you are risking people who have power to go outside the system the next time. That they will expect that their own party will and should cheat the next time.

Trump has made it clear that he believes the vote was stolen from him in cities with large Black populations — Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Atlanta. Basically, he’s set up a counter-narrative that his white voters have been disenfranchised by Black people. His eager accomplices in the Republican Party are already taking advantage of this grotesque inversion of reality for their own ends:

You can imagine this happening in Republican states all over the country. This epic whiner will serve as a martyr to the cause of white disenfranchisement, which will inspire the MAGA legions to demand that their leaders summon the will to win by any means necessary. This isn’t the end of this destructive pattern. 

How Biden and Kerry could rebuild America’s global climate leadership

John Kerry helped bring the world into the Paris climate agreement and expanded America’s reputation as a climate leader. That reputation is now in tatters, and President-elect Joe Biden is asking Kerry to rebuild it again — this time as U.S. climate envoy.

It won’t be easy, but Kerry’s decades of experience and the international relationships he developed as a senator and secretary of state may give him a chance of making real progress, especially if that work is conducted in the spirit of mending relationships rather than “naming and shaming” other countries.

Over the past four years, the Trump administration pulled the U.S. out of the international Paris Agreement on climate change, rolled back policies that were designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and tried to prevent any discussion of climate change at international gatherings like the G-7 and G-20 summits.

The international community, meanwhile, largely moved forward. Many countries and regions have pledged to move their economies toward “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of the century, including China, the European Union, South Korea and Japan. An increasing number of cities and states have set similar goals. Trump’s hard-line stance may have actually emboldened some, notably China, to make such announcements.

Getting those pledges implemented is what matters now, and that will require leadership, detailed planning and careful diplomacy. The U.N. climate conference in November 2021 will be special. It will be the first time countries will evaluate their progress on the Paris Agreement, and they will be expected to strengthen their commitments. Biden has already signaled that he will bring the U.S. back into the agreement as soon as he takes office.

As energy policy experts who have been involved in international climate policy for over two decades, we have watched how countries responded to U.S. involvement, and how their views of America’s ability to lead the world dimmed over the past four years.

The U.S. is the second largest greenhouse gas emitter worldwide after China. It is also the largest emitter historically. Concrete domestic action to reduce those emission will be critical to regaining trust and standing on the global stage.

Energy is at the center of the climate challenge

The effects of climate change are already evident across the globe, from extreme heat waves to sea level rise. But while the challenge is daunting, there is hope. Solar and wind power have become the cheapest forms of power generation globally, and technology progress and innovation continue apace to support a transition to clean energy.

In the U.S. under a Biden administration, long-term national climate legislation will depend on who controls the Senate, and that won’t be clear until after two run-off elections in Georgia in January.

But there is no shortage of ideas for ways Biden could still take action even if his proposals are blocked in Congress. For example, he could use executive orders and direct government agencies to tighten regulations on greenhouse gas emissions; increase research and development in clean energy technologies; and empower states to exceed national standards, as California did in the past with auto emission standards. A focus on a just and equitable transition for communities and people affected by the decline of fossil fuels will also be key to creating a sustainable transition.

The U.S. position as the world’s largest oil and gas producer and consumer creates political challenges for any administration. U.S. forays into European energy security are often treated with suspicion. Recently, France blocked a multi-billion dollar contract to buy U.S. liquefied natural gas because of concerns about limited emissions regulations in Texas.

Strengthening cooperation and partnerships with like-minded countries will be critical to bring about a transition to cleaner energy as well as sustainability in agriculture, forestry, water and other sectors of the global economy.

Creating a global sustainable transition

How the world recovers from COVID-19’s economic damage could help drive a lasting shift in the global energy mix.

Nearly one-third of Europe’s US$2 trillion economic relief package involves investments that are also good for the climate. The European Union is also strengthening its 2030 climate targets, though each country’s energy and climate plans will be critical for successfully implementing them. The Biden plan — including a $2 trillion commitment to developing sustainable energy and infrastructure — is aligned with a global energy transition, but its implementation is also uncertain.

Once Biden takes office, Kerry will be joining ongoing high-level discussions on the energy transition at the U.N. General Assembly and other gatherings of international leaders. With the U.S. no longer obstructing work on climate issues, the G-7 and G-20 have more potential for progress on energy and climate.

Lots of technical details still need to be worked out, including international trade frameworks and standards that can help countries lower greenhouse gas emissions enough to keep global warming in check. Carbon pricing and carbon border adjustment taxes, which create incentive for companies to reduce emissions, may be part of it. A consistent and comprehensive set of national energy transition plans will also be needed.

The global shift to clean energy will also have geopolitical implications for countries and regions, and this will have a profound impact on wider international relations. Kerry, with his experience as secretary of state in the Obama administration, and Biden’s plan to make the climate envoy position part of the National Security Council, may help mend these relations. In doing so, the U.S. may again join the wider community of countries willing to lead.

Dolf Gielen, Payne Institute Fellow, Colorado School of Mines and Morgan Bazilian, Professor of Public Policy and Director, Payne Institute, Colorado School of Mines

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Has consummate insider Tony Blinken, Biden’s nominee for State, learned from his mistakes?

Donald Trump’s defeat doesn’t mean that we no longer have to relitigate why he won. He increased his voter base by more than 10 million even while losing, after all. Republicans have (probably) retained control of the Senate, came close to winning the House and did not lose a single state legislature. For all their enabling of Trump, most elected members of the GOP were rewarded. So while Joe Biden has demonstrated that Trump can be defeated without confronting the appeal of Trumpism directly, Democrats’ disappointing down-ballot showings across the country this year show what a failure to present a clear and cogent counter-narrative can mean. 

The consequences begin now — with Biden’s rollout of his official inner circle. 

The transition from Trump to Biden is undoubtedly one of the most consequential transfers of power in American history. The Trump administration appears to be pushing full steam ahead to use executive powers to push through damaging policies during the lame-duck period. It’s vital that Biden work to rebuild credibility by holding the past administration to account. Perhaps that is why Biden’s “Build Back Better” campaign slogan ultimately resonated with a majority of voters. Naming his selection for secretary of state as his first Cabinet pick suggests that Biden is eager to ditch the “America First” approach favored by the Trump administration for a return to U.S. foreign policy managed primarily by the State Department, not the Pentagon. 

Newly-named Secretary of State-designate Tony Blinken will prove most useful in building back a hollowed out Foggy Bottom. Back-to-back State Department outsiders under Trump — former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, followed by former Kansas congressman Mike Pompeo — have left a depleted workforce. Returning control to seasoned hands like Blinken, a longtime Biden aide who has held foreign policy positions for more than 25 years, can certainly be reassuring — but that’s never more true than in the fog of war. If our recent history is any guide, however, once the haze of Trump’s pollutants clears, a return to normal will quickly be viewed as a disappointment. 

Institutionalists like Blinken have done tremendous damage. From supporting the invasion of Iraq to backing the Saudi war in Yemen, Blinken has championed some of the worst foreign policy decisions in recent U.S. history. It’s important to ask how this consummate foreign policy insider, who was instrumental in providing U.S. aid to the Saudi-led coalition battling Houthi fighters in Yemen’s six-year-long civil war, can thoroughly probe the Trump administration’s recent $8 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia. When the inspector general at Foggy Bottom began investigating, Pompeo fired him. When Democrats in the House issued subpoenas to investigate, Pompeo ordered State Department officials not to comply. For his part, Blinken has expressed regret for his role in pushing for the Saudi war in Yemen and has said the Biden administration will “take a hard look” at the Trump administration’s newly announced $23 billion arms deal with the United Arab Emirates. 

“There is a premium still, and in some ways even more than before, on American engagement, on American leadership,” Blinken said as a Biden campaign adviser, in a critique of Trump’s removal of U.S. troops from Germany and hostility toward NATO. Like so many of the establishment players who helped shape the foreign policy of modern Democratic presidents, Blinken has pushed for a multinational, but U.S.-dominated approach that’s led to incredible aggression around the world. Even without a multilateral coalition, Bliken has advocated for military adventurism, as in Iraq — which he still maintains was merely a failure of execution, not a fundamentally illegal invasion. Barack Obama took office with the promise to broadly rethink America’s historically problematic role in the region, but by bringing in so many people like Blinken who had previously gotten it so wrong, he ultimately failed to do so. 

There is somewhat more reason to be hopeful this time around, surprisingly enough. Biden and his team have made some promising rhetorical gestures that suggest an understanding that U.S. foreign policy must evolve. 

“The last administration has to acknowledge that we failed, not for want of trying, but we failed,” Blinken said on CBS News in May. “We failed to prevent a horrific loss of life. We failed to prevent the massive displacement of people internally in Syria and, of course, externally as refugees. And it’s something that I will take with me for the rest of my days.”

Blinken’s also handled criticism from the left in a manner that bodes well for an administration bound to receive boatloads of pushback from progressives. Faced with a barely passing grade from a “progressive realism report card,” Blinken talked of evolving — which is not something I imagine Pompeo would ever contemplate. 

Blinken has also been met with attacks from the right already. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has pointed to Blinken’s work at a private firm he founded after the Obama administration, leaving concerning questions about the revolving door in Washington. Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin recently resurfaced their report on an alleged conflict of interest involving China, Ukraine and, believe it or not, Hunter Biden, the president-elect’s son. Republicans have a track record of successfully tying Democrats to corruption for electoral success — and the appearance of corruption can often be just as politically damaging as the real thing.  

Ultimately, Trump won in 2016, and nearly did so again in 2020, because he positioned himself as an enemy of the establishment. If Tony Blinken and the rest of Joe Biden’s team of D.C. insiders don’t demonstrate some level of contrition for their own past mistakes, and evolve a new approach on matters of foreign policy and national security now, then a Trump comeback in 2024 — or something worse — is very much on the table. 

Trump risks war again: Will the world condemn the murder of Iran’s top nuclear scientist?

Israel used all four years of Donald Trump’s presidency to entrench its systems of occupation and apartheid. Now that Joe Biden has won the U.S. presidential election, the assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientist — likely by Israel, with the go-ahead from the U.S. — is a desperate attempt to use Trump’s last days in office to sabotage Biden’s chances of successful diplomacy with Iran. Biden, Congress and the world community can’t let that happen.

On Friday, Nov. 27, Iran’s top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, was assassinated in the Iranian city of Absard outside of Tehran. First, a truck with explosives blew up near the car carrying Fakhrizadeh. Then, gunmen started firing on Fakhrizadeh’s car. The immediate speculation was that Israel had carried out the attack, perhaps with the support of the Iranian terrorist group the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran (MEK). Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted that there were “serious indications of [an] Israeli role” in the assassination. 

All indications indeed point to Israel. In 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu identified this scientist, Fakhrizadeh, as a target of his administration during a presentation in which he claimed that Israel had obtained secret Iranian files that alleged the country was not actually abiding by the Iran nuclear deal. “Remember that name, Fakhrizadeh. So here’s his directive, right here,” Netanyahu said

Fakhrizadeh’s death was far from the first assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist. Between 2010 and 2012, four Iranian nuclear scientists were assassinated — Masoud Alimohammadi, Majid Shahriari, Darioush Rezaeinejad and Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan. Though Israel never took official credit for the extrajudicial executions, reports were fairly conclusive that Israel, working with the MEK, were behind the killings. The Israeli government never denied the allegations. 

The assassination of Fakhrizadeh also follows reports that the Israeli government recently instructed its senior military officials to prepare for a possible U.S. strike on Iran, likely referring to a narrowly averted plan by Trump to bomb Iran’s Natanz nuclear site. Furthermore, there was a clandestine meeting recently between Netanyahu and Saudi ruler Mohammed bin Salman, which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo may also have attended. Among the topics of conversation were normalization between the two countries and their shared antagonism towards Iran.

Israel’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear activities are particularly galling given that Israel, not Iran, is the only country in the Middle East in possession of nuclear weapons, and Israel refuses to sign the International Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Iran, on the other hand, doesn’t have nuclear weapons and has opened itself up to the most intrusive international inspections ever implemented. Adding to this absurd double standard is the intense pressure on Iran from the United States — a nation that has more nuclear weapons than any country on earth.

Given the close relationship between Netanyahu and Trump, and the seriousness of this attack, it is very likely that this assassination was carried out with the green light from Trump himself. Trump has spent his time in the White House destroying the progress the Obama administration made in easing the conflict with Iran. He withdrew from the nuclear deal and imposed an unending stream of crippling sanctions that have affected everything from the price of food and housing to Iran’s ability to obtain life-saving medicines during the pandemic. He has blocked Iran from getting an IMF $5 billion emergency loan to deal with the pandemic. In January, Trump brought the U.S. to the brink of war by assassinating Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. In an early November meeting with his top security advisers, and right before the assassination of Fakhrizadeh, Trump himself reportedly raised the possibility of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. 

After the news broke of the assassination, Trump expressed implicit approval of the attack by retweeting Israeli journalist and expert on the Israeli Mossad intelligence service, Yossi Melman, who described the killing of Fahkrizadeh as a “major psychological and professional blow for Iran.”

Iran has responded to these intense provocations with extreme patience and reserve. The government was hoping for a change in the White House and Biden’s victory signaled the possibility of both the U.S. and Iran going back into compliance with the nuclear deal. This recent assassination, however, further strengthens the hands of Iranian hardliners who say it was a mistake to negotiate with the United States, and that Iran should just leave the nuclear deal and build a nuclear weapon for its own defense. 

Iranian-American analyst Negar Mortazavi bemoaned the chilling effect the assassination will have on Iran’s political space. “The atmosphere will be even more securitized, civil society and political opposition will be pressured even more, and the anti-West discourse will be strengthened in Iran’s upcoming presidential election,” she tweeted.

Iranian hardliners already won the majority of seats in the February parliamentary elections and are predicted to win the presidential elections scheduled for June. So the window for negotiations is a narrow one of four months immediately after Biden’s inauguration. What happens between now and Jan. 20 could derail negotiations before they even start. 

Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said that U.S. and Israeli efforts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program “have now morphed into Trump & Netanyahu sabotaging the next US President. They are trying to goad Iran into provocations & accelerating nuclear work — exactly what they claim to oppose. Their real fear is US & Iran talking.”

That’s why members of Congress, and President-elect Biden himself, must vigorously condemn this act and affirm their commitment to the U.S. rejoining the nuclear deal. When Israel assassinated other nuclear scientists during the Obama administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced the murders, understanding that such illegal actions made negotiations infinitely more difficult.

The European Union, as well as some important U.S. figures, have already condemned the attack. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., pointed out the risks involved in normalizing assassinations, observing that killing will make it harder to restart the Iran nuclear agreement, and that the assassination of Soleimani backfired from a security standpoint. Former Obama advisor Ben Rhodes tweeted that it was an “outrageous action aimed at undermining diplomacy,” and former CIA head John Brennan called the assassination “criminal” and “highly reckless,” risking “lethal retaliation and a new round of regional conflict.” But rather than putting the responsibility on the U.S. and Israel to stop the provocations, Brennan called on Iran to “be wise” and “resist the urge to respond.”

Many on Twitter have raised the question of what the world response would be if the roles were reversed and Iran had assassinated an Israeli nuclear scientist. Without a doubt, the U.S. administration, whether Democrat or Republican, would be outraged and supportive of a swift military response. But if we want to avoid escalation, then we must hope that Iran will not retaliate, at least not during Trump’s last days in office.

The only way to stop this crisis from spiraling out of control is for the world community to condemn the act, and demand a UN investigation and accountability for the perpetrators. The countries that joined Iran and the United States in signing  the 2015 nuclear agreement — Russia, China, Germany, the U.K. and France — must not only oppose the assassination but publicly recommit to upholding the nuclear deal. Biden must send a clear message to Israel that under his administration, these illegal acts will have consequences. He must also send a clear message to Iran that he intends to quickly re-enter the nuclear deal, stop blocking Iran’s $5 billion IMF loan request, and begin a new era of diplomacy to dial back the intense conflict he inherited from Trump’s recklessness.

Elite law firms are “overwhelmingly” working for the fossil fuel industry, new report says

In the past few years, the fossil fuel industry has been targeted by a wave of climate-related lawsuits: cities seeking compensation for damages from climate change, states alleging fraud, fisherfolk suing over declining harvests. Many activists believe that some of the most important climate battles of the century may be won in the courtroom.

But America’s elite law firms are mostly on the wrong side of those battles. According to a new report from the advocacy group Law Students for Climate Accountability (LSCA), most of the nation’s top 100 law firms provide far more support to clients exacerbating the climate crisis than to clients addressing it.

“Law firms write the contracts for fossil fuel projects, lobby to weaken environmental regulations, and help fossil fuel companies evade accountability in court,” said Alisa White, a Yale Law School student and a lead author of the report, in a statement.

LSCA’s report, released on Thursday, looked at tens of thousands of instances of litigation, transactions, and lobbying from the Vault Law 100 list of the most prestigious U.S. law firms. It found that between 2015 and 2019, top law firms worked on 10 times as many cases exacerbating climate change — e.g., defending a fossil fuel company — as combating it. They also lobbied five times more often for fossil fuel companies than for renewable energy companies, earning $36.5 million in compensation from the oil and gas industry compared to $6.8 million from renewable energy clients.

“These elite law firms are overwhelmingly working on the side of fossil fuel companies,” said Tim Hirschel-Burns, another student at Yale Law School and the other lead author of the report. “They are choosing to make a quick buck at the expense of our generation’s future.”

The report includes a “climate scorecard” that grades each law firm on its climate-related litigation, transactions, and lobbying activities. Overall, two-thirds of the firms received a D or an F grade, and only four got an A. Not all Fs were equal, though — some of the firms performed far worse than the average. Paul, Weiss, for example, in the period from 2015 to 2019, litigated 21 cases exacerbating climate change, seven times the Vault 100 average. And the law firm Hogan Lovells earned 24 times the average for its lobbying work for the fossil fuel industry, netting more than $7 million. (Paul, Weiss didn’t respond to Grist’s request for comment on the report, and Hogan Lovells declined to comment.)

LSCA’s report builds off of a movement that began in January, when law students from Harvard, Yale, NYU, and the University of Michigan protested recruitment events for the law firm Paul, Weiss. “#DropExxon,” their banners read, a demand that the firm stop representing the oil and gas giant. In December, Paul, Weiss had successfully defended ExxonMobil in a $1.6 billion trial over the company’s alleged failure to inform investors of the risks of climate change to its business.

Leaders from LCSA said the activism was a reminder of the values that brought them to law school, and it helped inspire the idea for the scorecard. “Most of us came to law school to try to make a positive impact,” said Hirschel-Burns. He said that the report could be a tool for like-minded students who are choosing which law firms to apply to post-graduation.

Harold Koh, former dean of Yale Law School and legal advisor to the Department of State, suggested in a statement that aspiring and current lawyers should use the climate report card to “search their souls,” asking themselves whether they are “truly devoting their life’s energies toward a more livable future, or toward an increasingly uninhabitable planet.”

Law students can choose to boycott some of the worst firms, Hirschel-Burns said, but that is not always possible given students’ varying financial situations. Ultimately, the LSCA’s message is directed at law firms. “We want them to see the error of their ways,” he said. “If not, we want them to be held accountable.”

The report concludes by asking firms to sign the Law Firm Climate Responsibility Pledge, a promise to stop taking on new work for the fossil fuel industry and phasing out existing work by 2025 at the latest. The pledge also commits signatories to taking on more renewable energy clients and pursuing litigation that fights climate change.

“This report should serve as a wake-up call for law firms to stop lending their services to the fossil fuel industry — and instead use their skills and power to fight climate change,” the LSCA writes.

More than one dozen Trump officials violated Hatch Act in month before the election

Although President Donald Trump has tried to undermine the United States’ system of checks and balances, watchdogs in Washington, D.C. have been keeping a close eye on him — and according to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 16 members of the Trump Administration committed violations of the Hatch Act in order to promote his reelection campaign in October.

In an article published on CREW’s website on Monday, November 2 — the day before the 2020 presidential election — CREW reporters Donald K. Sherman and Linnaea Honl-Stuenkel explain, “during the month of October, at least 16 Trump Administration officials have violated the Hatch Act a total of more than 60 times, in an unprecedented and escalating assault on the rule of law and the democratic process. President Trump has allowed — and encouraged — senior officials to use their government roles to take actions benefiting his reelection effort in its final weeks and days as Americans are casting their ballots.”

Sherman and Honl-Stuenkel, however, report that the violations of the law went beyond the Hatch Act — which prohibits employees of the executive branch of the federal government from engaging in some forms of overtly political activity while on duty.

“Beyond the 16 (Trump) Administration officials we identified who have committed clear violations of the Hatch Act,” the CREW reporters note, “the White House appears to have also deployed cabinet members to swing states to tout Trump policies on the taxpayer dime — and pressured leaders of the State Department, FBI and DOJ to take actions against his political adversaries purely for his partisan benefit.”

In mid-October, the Office of the Special Counsel identified 14 senior Trump officials who violated the Hatch Act. And half a month later, CREW identified 16 — who include White House Senior Advisers Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner; National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien; Trump economic policy adviser Peter Navarro; White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany; White House Deputy Press Secretary Brian Morgenstern; White House Assistant Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt; White House Communications Director Alyssa Farah; National Intelligence Director John Ratcliffe; Ja’Ron Smith, deputy director of the Office of American Innovation; Marc Short, Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff; Devin O’Malley, Pence’s press secretary; Larry Kudlow, director of the White House Economic Counsel; David Friedman, U.S. ambassador to Israel; Energy Secretary Dan Brouliette; and Andrew Giuliani, associate director of the Office of Public Liaison and son of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (President Trump’s personal attorney).

But that list, according to Sherman and Honl-Stuenkel, is not all-inclusive when it comes to unethical behavior by Trump Administration officials.

Sherman and Honl-Stuenkel note, “In addition to the Administration’s obvious Hatch Act violations in the media, the Trump Administration also seems to have deployed legions of cabinet members to battleground states to tout Trump Administration programs in their official capacity. Recent visits include: Interior Secretary David Bernhardt in Iowa, Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Ohio and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos in Michigan, among many others.”

Robert Reich on the profitability of racism

Since the first colonizers arrived in the United States to this very moment, wealthy elites have used the tools of theft, exclusion, and exploitation to expand their wealth and power at the detriment of Black, Latinx, Indigenous people, and marginalized people of color.It all boils down to this simple truth: Racism is profitable.

The profitability of racism sparks a vicious cycle called the Oppression Economy: Elite institutions are motivated to keep suppressing the economic vitality of people of color. That economic oppression in turn hinders their political power, and that political oppression kneecaps their ability to change the system. 

This cycle plays out in every aspect of our economy and is particularly apparent in mass incarceration.The criminalization of people of color is a multibillion-dollar industry: In 2017 alone, mass incarceration cost $182 billion; trapping mostly low-income Black and Latinx people in a cycle of economic and political disenfranchisement. 

If we follow the money, we find that some of America’s largest banks, including Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase, have all extended millions of dollars in credit lines to for-profit prison operators like GEO Group and CoreCivic. 

The unregulated operations of prisons has increasingly mandated cheap service for maximum profit. For example, bail bonds companies, telecommunications, food, and commissary companies gouge both those incarcerated and their families.The exploitation doesn’t stop upon release from prison. 

The suppression of economic vitality of people of color is just beginning. Because of discrimination, formerly incarcerated people face an unemployment rate of 27 percent — higher than the total U.S. unemployment rate during any historical period, including during this pandemic and the Great Depression. 

Fines and fees associated with the criminal “justice” system have placed $50 billion in debt on the shoulders of approximately 10 million people who have been through the system. To make matters worse, many states bar people convicted of felonies from receiving any government assistance.That’s just incarceration. 

Over the past four decades, the cost of policing in the U.S. has skyrocketed, almost tripling from $42.3 billion in 1977 to $114.5 billion in 2017. Of the 100 largest cities in America, the nine police forces that kill people at the highest rate per population all take up over 30 percent of their cities’ budgets — leaving paltry resources to invest in housing, education, or health care.

This deliberate economic oppression suppresses political power of people of color, weakening their constitutional right to change the rules of a system that regulates whether or not profit can be derived from racism. 

In our current system, the wealthy elite use their purchased political power to manipulate the system for their own gain at the expense of people of color.

Let’s turn back to people who are incarcerated. In 48 states, those who are currently or formerly incarcerated face restrictions on their right to vote. Yet, inmates count as residents of where they are incarcerated, rather than their hometowns. That means people in prison have no representation, and are used as pawns to skew representational power towards the largely white, rural areas that house prisons. 

This leaves incarcerated people’s hometowns under-represented. The restrictions on voting power don’t end upon release. 6.1 million people are prevented from casting a ballot due to a prior felony conviction, and 1 in 13 Black people have lost their right to vote due to felony disenfranchisement, compared to 1 in 56 non-Black people.

It’s a never-ending cycle that has been churning for centuries: the profitability of racism motivates elite institutions to continue economic oppression of people of color that in turn hinders their political power, and that political oppression kneecaps their ability to change the system in which racism is so profitable.

So how do we break the cycle?

Let’s start with supporting candidates and pressuring elected officials at every level of government who will support bold policies that dismantle the Oppression Economy and build a Liberation Economy — and remove those that don’t. 

To end the Oppression Economy, our government must end the criminalization of people of color, end their political suppression, and curb runaway corporate power.

And, to build a Liberation Economy our government must guarantee that all people of color have access to basic economic rights like guaranteed income and employment, universal health care, guaranteed housing, a free college education and generational wealth.    

This Liberation Economy is within our power to create. As Teddy Roosevelt said, “we are the government.” It does not belong to the corporations and the plutocrats that currently control them. It belongs to us, and it is within our power to take it back.

We can break this cycle, if we act together.

Let’s get to work.

As Trump pursues chaos and confusion, Biden urged to “go big and fast” to fix “broken” government

“The chaos and confusion is the strategy.”

That’s according to Julie Pace, Washington bureau chief for the Associated Press, who on Wednesday published an analysis of President Donald Trump’s refusal to accept his loss to President-elect Joe Biden; instead, Trump is spreading lies and filing lawsuits that challenge the election results, fire up his base, and attack U.S. democracy.

The effort by Trump and his allies to “sow discontent and doubt among his most loyal supporters” won’t keep him in office, Pace posited, “but it could both undermine the new president’s efforts to unify a fractured nation and fuel Trump in his next endeavor, whether that’s another White House run in 2024 or a high-profile media venture.”

Even some Republicans who spoke to Pace on the record admitted that Trump’s recent behavior “is all about maintaining his ego and visibility,” in the words of Judd Gregg, a former Republican governor and U.S. senator from New Hampshire. “He’s raising a lot of money and he intends to use it,” Gregg added of the outgoing president.

While high-profile GOP lawmakers like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., are backing Trump’s refusal to concede, Pace reported that “some Trump allies acknowledge privately that using the courts to actually reverse Biden’s victory isn’t the point of their efforts.”

In addition to bolstering Trump’s future in politics, entertainment, or both, some Republican strategists and lawmakers see Trump’s tantrums and court battles as key to keeping his base engaged ahead of a pair of runoff elections in Georgia scheduled for January, which will determine which party controls the Senate, Pace noted.

The AP analysis followed reporting from CNN that on the foreign policy front, “the Trump team has prepared legally required transition memos describing policy challenges, but there are no discussions about actions they could take or pause.”

The Trump team’s goal, according to one unnamed official, “is to set so many fires that it will be hard for the Biden administration to put them all out.”

CNN’s report touched on Trump policies related to Afghanistan, China, Iran, Yemen, arms sales to Gulf states, and Israeli settlements in illegally occupied Palestinian territory — and how moves on each before Biden’s inauguration, planned for January 20, may impact the incoming administration. Regarding the fire-lighting approach:

It’s a strategy that radically breaks with past practice, could raise national security risks, and will surely compound challenges for the Biden team — but it could also backfire. Analysts and people close to the Biden transition argue the Trump team may act so aggressively that reversing some of its steps will earn Biden easy goodwill points and negotiating power with adversaries.

In other areas, they say the Trump team may be confusing style with substance — that the difference between Trump and Biden isn’t a matter of the end goal, such as a departure from Afghanistan or a nuclear-free Iran, but simply a matter of how each leader wants to get there.

“The idea that Biden is some sort of softy doesn’t correspond with many things,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Pointing to the same baseline goals for a nuclear-free Iran, a withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a way to manage the relationship with an increasingly assertive China, Parsi said, “The Biden administration is likely to continue many policies, but just with a different style.”

Charles Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told CNN that he thinks “by seeking to accelerate the process of achieving some of his big foreign policy promises in the next couple of months, Trump is trying to indicate to his base that if he’s elected again, he’ll continue to do exactly as he promised.”

While it is unclear whether Biden, who turns 78 on Friday, will seek reelection in 2024 or an ousted Trump, now 74, will seek a delayed second term in four years, concerns continue to mount about the consequences of the president’s response to his defeat.

“It’s painfully clear that the next two months before Joe Biden’s swearing-in will be all about Trump’s petty vengeance and the Republicans building on resentments,” Michael Winship wrote Thursday in a column for Common Dreams. “Given what Trump’s been up to since Election Day (and his sordid history embracing birtherism and other canards), it feels as if these eight weeks will be a concentrated Reader’s Digest version of his entire administration, fueled with spittle, bile, ignorance, and cupidity.”

“As insane and silly as it all seems, we cannot drop our guard for an instant,” he warned. “We’ll need to remain vigilant; they are doing everything they can, no matter how illegal and repugnant, to stay in power. When they finally are forced to vacate, they’ll leave behind a scorched earth the new Biden administration will struggle to coax back to life.”

Critics of the current administration are also alarmed about the head of the General Services Administration, Trump-appointee Emily Murphy, blocking Biden’s team from accessing key resources by so far refusing to sign off on the election results — despite warnings that, given the coronavirus pandemic, a rocky transition risks American lives.

“A seamless transition is necessary to ensure that the incoming administration is prepared to confront the COVID-19 pandemic from day one,” said Dr. Peter G. Lurie of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, one of dozens of experts who signed a letter sent to the GSA chief on Thursday. “Administrator Murphy must fulfill this responsibility immediately, as every extra day of delay can only add to the death toll.”

With the bodies stacking up — as of Thursday evening, Covid-19 had killed over 251,000 Americans — and Trump “wrecking the government on his way out,” Ryan Cooper offered some advice to the evolving Biden administration at The Week.

“First, root out the Trump stooges,” he wrote. “Every one of his political appointees should be fired as soon as replacements can be found, and there should be a wide-ranging audit of other employees hired during the last four years. Consistent with civil service rules, Trump loyalists should be removed from the lower ranks where possible.”

Cooper also urged Biden to “go big and fast” to address the various crises the country faces — from the pandemic and wealth inequality to the climate emergency and centuries of racial injustice — learning from the “extreme administrative sluggishness” of the Obama administration, for which Biden was vice president, as well as Trump’s demonstration of “how much can be accomplished with sheer shameless belligerence.”

“Ask for neither permission nor forgiveness,” he advised. “Instead get your people into their jobs by hook or by crook, drown the reactionary hacks on the federal courts with a blizzard of executive orders and administrative rulings, get things up and running fast to establish beneficiaries and put enemies on the back foot, and if you lose a case, change the reasoning slightly and do the same thing again.”

“It’s hard indeed to imagine Joe Biden doing any of this,” Cooper confessed. “But if he cared to accomplish any of his agenda, whether it’s piecemeal reforms or something more aggressive, fixing the broken government is a necessary precondition.”

7 things President-elect Biden can achieve on health care

President-elect Joe Biden has plenty of work ahead of him; reining in the out-of-control pandemic tops the list, and beyond that, there are significant challenges on health care in general.

Unquestionably, the incoming administration also faces limitations. Twelve years ago, Barack Obama had a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate. This time, that will not be the case, and many progressive dreams, like “Medicare for All,” are far out of reach. Even Biden’s modest goal to expand the Affordable Care Act via a public option will likely fall on Mitch McConnell’s deaf ears.

As a professor of public policy analyzing the political landscape, I believe big, transformational reforms are unlikely in the next few years, particularly given the contentious aftermath to the presidential election. But Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris can make changes in seven smaller but important policy issues that will improve the lives of millions of Americans. Some of these the Biden administration can achieve on its own via regulations and other administrative actions. Others require bipartisan cooperation, but Republicans might come on board if it suits them politically.

1. Taking Executive Action

To shore up the Affordable Care Act, Biden has a number of administrative policy tools that reverse course on many actions taken by the Trump administration. In some instances, he can take executive action; he will not need Congress to cooperate.

To lower the uninsured rate, Biden can expand enrollment periods for the ACA marketplaces. He can also refocus on advertising, outreach and enrollment efforts. The Trump administration virtually eliminated this type of funding with significant implications for enrollment. He can also move to strike regulations that weaken the marketplace. Dozens more seemingly small technical changes to regulations can cumulatively have a considerable impact.

2. Expanding Medicaid coverage

The ACA was passed with the intent that states would broaden coverage for the uninsured by expanding Medicaid; most Republican states balked. Biden may have a way around that; he can encourage states to expand their Medicaid programs via the Section 1115 waivers. With those waivers, states may temporarily disregard certain Medicaid requirements to test innovations.

Under President Obama, some Republican states traded Medicaid expansion for smaller premiums or health-behavior incentives. Now work incentives and potentially work requirements may be on the table. While these requirements certainly make individual enrollment harder for some, compromise may be necessary to bring Medicaid coverage to the remaining holdout states, all Republican.

3. Tackling the opioid epidemic

The opioid crisis has worsened because of the coronavirus outbreak. While the Trump administration has made some efforts to address the issue, those with addiction and substance use disorder need much more. Refocusing the attention of the government on opioids during the pandemic is crucial. Otherwise, things will get even worse.

Biden should secure additional bipartisan funding from Congress for states hit hardest by opioids, like West Virginia. Once again, many of those states are red. Yet bipartisanship will be key to establishing a comprehensive national strategy is crucial here.

4. Improving access to organ transplants

Organ transplants don’t get much attention, but the U.S. has suffered a severe shortage of available organs for decades. Every day, 13 Americans die waiting for a kidney, and four more die waiting for other organs. COVID-19 has further worsened the shortage.

The Trump administration made advances on this issue through regulations. These include increasing support for living organ donors. Biden should build on this progress. He could change the current approach to donations, which relies solely on altruism, by increasing financial support for donors. The Organ Donation Clarification Act, from Democratic U.S. Rep. Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, is now languishing in Congress, but it could serve as a major step in this direction.

5. Ending surprise medical bills

The Trump administration talked about it, but never managed to eliminate surprise billing. Those are medical bills patients aren’t expecting, often because a provider is not part of their network.

Americans are overwhelmingly outraged by surprise bills and want a solution. Both parties in Congress have worked on the issue for years, yet hospitals, physicians and insurers have lobbied to keep them untouched.

Some limited progress is likely through regulation. But it will take statutory change to establish meaningful protections for all Americans. Strong presidential and congressional leadership could make a difference here, but even then, it won’t be easy.

6. Reining in prescription drug prices

The U.S. pays substantially higher prices than the rest of the developed world for prescription drugs. This is primarily due to limited competition among drug companies and a patent system susceptible to gaming. Moreover, our regulatory apparatus has focused largely on drug safety while deemphasizing cost-effectiveness for new and existing drugs.

The Trump administration’s recent proposal to fix the problem were limited. Congress should follow the German example, which reins in prices by 30 percentage points as compared with the U.S. and focuses on rewarding effective drugs. Pharmaceutical companies will vigorously fight to maintain their profits, but given the universal public disdain for high drug prices, a committed bipartisan coalition may bring some relief.

7. Expanding children’s health coverage

The years under Trump saw increases in the number of children without health insurance. Today, more than 4 million American children are without insurance. This occurred even before the job losses caused by the pandemic.

Bipartisanship has worked in the past to improve access for children both through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Now Biden can strengthen both programs. Investments into school-based health also seems prudent. And while bipartisanship on the issue has grown less prominent, there might be enough Republicans in Congress willing to join Democrats and expand coverage and benefits.

Simon F. Haeder, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Penn State

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Inside the bunker: Scenarios for Trump’s last months in office

Editor’s Note: For months leading to Election Day the question had been a staple of late night comedy television: How would President Donald Trump behave during his final days in office, should he lose the White House to Joe Biden? Then, as Nov. 3 approached, more serious discussions emerged about the damage a wounded, enraged Trump could wreak upon the federal government and American democracy — even on the property at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. With the election over and Trump resisting calls to concede the race to Biden, it’s worth revisiting Steve Appleford’s Oct. 29 article examining Trump’s options leading up to Inauguration Day.

 

He’s threatened to challenge the election results by any means necessary. He’s refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. But even in defeat, there is still much Donald Trump can do in the 72 days before the inauguration of his successor. First on his agenda: self-preservation and revenge.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who served as the House Democrats’ lead impeachment manager, warns Trump could retaliate against his “list of political enemies” and engage in a rush of “executive orders or extreme policies he’ll try to sign in the intervening months.”

His next salvo could come in an avalanche of last-minute agreements with Trump’s favorite authoritarian regimes or dramatic regulatory shifts on the environment, immigration, labor or transportation, and across multiple agencies of the executive branch.

Just days before the election, Trump signed an executive order stripping civil servants of protection from political interference, and pushed forward a seismic survey in search of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, sidestepping a normal environmental review. Cabinet departments are now looking at increasing the number of hours truckers can drive before resting and allowing trains to transport dangerously flammable liquefied natural gas.

Whether more such damaging moves are in the offing depends on how well Trump keeps his administration together after his loss. “He’s so unstable,” says Matt Dallek, a presidential historian and George Washington University professor who has authored books on Reagan and FDR. “If you just watch his day-to-day actions on almost any issue, it seems unlikely that he would say, ‘Here are the three policy issues that I want to try to work on before I leave office.’ It’s just not how the guy operates.”

Rep. Eric Swalwell, one of several California Democrats who’ve been critical of the administration, says Trump has made so many slipshod attempts to achieve his supposed goals that the worst case may not happen. “We’re spared a lot of times as a country by his cowardice and incompetence,” Swalwell says.

Even at the height of Trump’s presidential powers, his executive orders have been most valuable to him as photo opportunities at the Resolute Desk. Any initiatives signed during his final weeks in office could mean even less.

“Executive orders are only as good as the president who is issuing them,” says Cynthia Lebow, a senior political science lecturer at UCLA and former general counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee under then-chairman Joe Biden. “He could issue as many executive orders as he wanted in the last two weeks or, for that matter, [on] the last day of his presidency, and they could all be overturned and reversed [on] day one [when] Joe Biden becomes president.”

Still, it’s likely that Trump will want to look out for his family and friends, issuing a tsunami of pardons for at-risk family members, campaign loyalists and White House officials. Donald Trump Jr. as well as President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner (who may face perjury charges) and two convicted felons — former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and 2016 campaign manager Paul Manafort — will all be candidates.

Many of Trump’s critics fully expect him to attempt a pardon for himself for any federal crimes, including instances of possible obstruction of justice as catalogued in the Mueller report. “I have the absolute right to PARDON myself,” Trump tweeted in 2018, “but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?” Andrew Weissmann, a former lead prosecutor for special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, has said in recent interviews that Trump has little to lose by making the attempt, which would at least delay any prosecution.

The extent of Donald Trump and family’s criminality is “potentially so vast that he could possibly be charged with multiple criminal acts,” says Dallek. “There’s campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, lying under oath, multiple violations of the Hatch Act, the self-dealing, the self-enrichment and, of course, the tax cases.”

Schiff calls the notion of self-pardoning “patently unconstitutional and antithetical to the notion that nobody, not even the president, is above the law. I would expect the courts to strike that down.”

He appears to be right: A 1974 opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel stated, “Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself.” An attempted self-pardon by Trump would inevitably face a court fight, particularly if a new attorney general decides to prosecute the outgoing president. But it may stop short of the U.S. Supreme Court.

“I’m not even sure that the Supreme Court would take a case involving the exercise of the presidential pardon power under the separation of powers theory,” says Lebow, who remains an advisor to the Biden campaign. “This is so clearly something that comes under the president’s power under Article One.”

 * * *

For nearly 90 years, presidential reelection has been the norm, with two significant exceptions in Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, who both gave teary concession speeches. Rejection at the polls is a devastating vote of no confidence for any incumbent, and a rejected Trump could be unpredictable. He might, for instance, decide to retaliate against those he’s judged as insufficiently “loyal” to him, much as Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was ejected from the National Security Council after testifying in the Trump impeachment hearings. In recent weeks, the president has been openly angry with Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the government’s leading infectious disease specialist, and FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, among many others.

“It would be deeply concerning and totally corrupt if Trump fired Wray or Fauci because they disagreed with him,” says Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), adding, “I do believe Joe Biden will hire Dr. Fauci right back if that were the case.”

The real damage Trump leaves for his political opponents could be most insidious at the administrative level, pushing through regulatory rule changes while continuing to embed Trump loyalists into scientific advisory boards who will be difficult to remove after he’s gone.

“To be honest with you, they’ve been rushing these things from the beginning — lots of poorly justified decisions and shoddy rule-making,” says John Coequyt, global climate policy director for the Sierra Club. In terms of climate change, the Trump years have meant a turn backwards, beginning with the president’s decision to leave the 2015 Paris Agreement.

“A lot of what we were very concerned about has already happened,” Coequyt adds. “Mostly what we’re talking about now are smaller rules.”

The upside to this “shoddy” rule-making in the final days, Coequyt notes, is that it tends to make reversal easier, though still complicated and time-consuming. Court challenges are inevitable, as the usual requirements for public comment are sidelined. And some of the regulations will still be going through legal review and could be withdrawn by the incoming Biden administration.

“It’s still going to take a lot of time to change, even if the rules never really go into effect. It’s a lot of administrative work and a lot of uncertainty for whoever is being impacted by the standards,” says Coequyt.

Former Rep. David Jolly, who quit the Republican Party two years ago, worries how adversaries around the world might react while the U.S. is frozen in an ongoing crisis over the election.

The potential for catastrophic misjudgment in U.S. foreign policy is open-ended, similar to Trump’s almost offhanded 2019 decision to pull American troops from a largely peacekeeping role in northern Syria, leaving Kurdish allies vulnerable to attack by Turkey. More than 130,000 Kurdish people were displaced as a result.

Jolly, now a Florida independent who has been an outspoken critic of Trump, fully expects the president’s influence over the GOP to dissipate quickly. “He’s not going to have Republican allies that will support his chaos and campaign of vindictiveness,” say Jolly.

Jolly also predicts that the president’s instinct for protecting and projecting the Trump brand will restrain him from a campaign of total shock and awe on his way out of the Oval Office.

“The president has lived every day trying to figure out how he can extract as much personal wealth out of the presidency for him and his family, and I don’t think that changes,” Jolly says. “He [will] use the office for his personal gain every day until noon on January 20th and then probably thereafter.”

Copyright 2020 Capital & Main

Omar to Biden: Seize “once-in-a-generation” chance to end disastrous U.S. foreign policy

Rep. Ilhan Omar on Friday urged President-elect Joe Biden to seize the “tremendous opportunity” he’ll have to shift the nation’s foreign policy in the Middle East and depart from the approach taken by President Donald Trump, who’s “made armed conflict more instead of less likely.”

The Minnesota Democrat laid out her plea for a “renewed vision” in an op-ed published at The Nation.

Cataloguing what she framed as the current administration’s numerous foreign policy mistakes with regard to Iran, Omar listed Trump’s departure from the nuclear deal, the assassination of Gen. Qasem Soleimani, and escalating economic sanctions.

Omar also took issue with Trump’s relationships with some of the world’s “most notorious human rights abusers,” including Saudi Arabia. She further pointed to the fact that the kingdom is using U.S. weapons to bomb Yemeni civilians.

Also coming in for criticism are the recently brokered purported peace deals with nations including Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Omar said such deals are truly aimed at beefing up the military threat targeting Iran, all while further normalizing Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

Biden can embark on a new course that includes holding all human rights abusers to account and backing the call for two-state solution, wrote Omar.

In short, said Omar, “we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reorient our foreign policy away from shortsighted military alliances and toward justice.”

Newsmax CEO cornered for spreading false information about election because it’s great for ratings

Furious because Fox News’ decision desk called Arizona for former Vice President Joe Biden on Election Night, President Donald Trump has been angrily railing against the right-wing cable news outlet and encouraging his supporters to watch Newsmax TV or One America News instead — and Newsmax TV has been enjoying a post-election ratings surge by going out of its way to be more Trumpian than Fox News or Fox Business. The New Yorker’s Isaac Chotiner discussed, among other things, Newsmax’s post-election success during an interview with Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy. And Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake is noting that Ruddy, during the interview, basically admitted that Newsmax has been promoting Trump’s bogus voter fraud claims without even investigating them.

During the interview, Ruddy indicated to Chotiner that he didn’t necessarily believe all of Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud. But the Newsmax CEO acknowledged that promoting them has been great for ratings.

Ruddy told Chotiner, “At the end of the day, it’s great for news. The news cycle is red-hot, and Newsmax is getting one million people per minute, according to Nielsen, tuning into Newsmax TV. I think it’s good.”

Chotiner told Ruddy, “Look, you’re a smart guy. You were defending things that you might not a hundred percent believe. But the attention this is getting Newsmax, and what it’s doing for the news business, is maybe where I should be focusing my questions, rather than the intricacies of the vote count.” And the Newsmax CEO responded, “Well, I would never do something that I thought was wrong or untrue. I didn’t create the news cycle, Isaac. Donald Trump did. He created this whole thing. He could have accepted the (election) results, but I’m saying, ‘Look at the amazing stuff that’s done for the news business.’ People are more interested.”

Blake, in response to that interview, voiced some blistering criticism of Ruddy:

During the interview with Chotiner, Ruddy compared Trump’s refusal to accept the election results to Bush v. Gore — which, after the 2000 presidential election, found the campaigns of then-Vice President Al Gore and then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush in a bitter fight over who won Florida (Gore eventually conceded). And Chotiner explained why the Trump/Gore comparison is nonsense, telling Ruddy, “Well, (Trump is) not saying, ‘We want a recount.’ He’s tweeting that he won and that there’s massive voter fraud, and both of these things are false.”