Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Give it a rest, Republicans — no one wants to take away Turkey Day

With Donald Trump’s post-election flailing becoming less coup and more con-job by the day, the rest of the GOP is clearly feeling anxious about losing the golden goose they’ve come to rely on to lay eggs full of gooey grievance goodness.

Trump, a man with no discernible business or personal skills, has one real talent: Whining. Unburdened by either shame or an attachment to reality, he has ben able to endlessly generate imaginary slings and arrows flung at him. It thrilled his almighty base, people whose entire political world is dominated by fantasies about judgmental liberals clucking phantasmic disapproval in their ears. 

Trump’s entire 2020 campaign was dominated by the horrors of what was deemed “cancel culture.” It’s a vague term that, judging by the endless speeches on the topic at the Republican National Convention, means the obsessive conservative fear that liberals think they’re gross and don’t want to hang out with them.

Which is fair enough! But not exactly the human rights violation that it was made out to be. Nor is it something that can be changed through electoral politics. Instead, the 74 million Americans who swooned to Trump’s message turned out mostly to stick it to the liberals to punish them for this rejection. 

It won’t be easy for other Republicans to recreate Trump’s magic. He’s got a real talent for focusing the attention of conservative voters on the emotion of grievance, to the point where it crowds out all other political considerations, such as concern over the failing economy or fear of the pandemic.

Since actually doing the job of serving Americans is out of the question for Republican politicians, the only real path forward is to find some other way to keep those millions of voters locked in emotional stasis, forever possessed by incoherent rage at liberals for disapproving of them. 

And so, unfortunately, we have our first post-Trump phony outrage, hyped by the usual suspects in GOP politics and on Fox News: The “war on Thanksgiving.”


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


Late Saturday night, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, in his try-hard Trumpian style, let loose with this embarrassment of a tweet:

No, this was not a joking assertion that his wife’s cooking was so good he had to fend off thieves with a shotgun. (Cruz is incapable of that kind of a genuinely fun humor, at any rate.) No, Cruz is trying to push this deliriously dumb notion that liberals are scolds who wish to destroy Thanksgiving for no other reason than a psychotic hatred of pleasure. 

He’s picking up the baton that was offered by Fox News, who has been trying to scare their audience into believing that leftists, out of the pure evil in their communistic hearts, want to destroy an American holiday. As Media Matters has documented, host after host, segment after segment, the right-wing propaganda network has hyped fears that liberals are going to “cancel” Thanksgiving, presumably because the left hates fun. 

The trolling rhetoric has gotten so out of hand that Fox News talking head Charles Payne actually tried to compare this fictional war on Thanksgiving to Trump’s actual, real-world policy of snatching babies away from refugees seeking legal asylum. 

“That is separation of families,” Payne said, both playing the victim and mocking liberals who oppose baby-stealing. “We have been separated. We’ve been forced apart.”

The hook for all this feigned umbrage, of course, is the barrage of warnings about COVID-19 and advice from public health officials about avoiding travel and large gatherings this year only.

There is nothing partisan about these warnings, it should go without saying. The CDC, for instance, advised against holiday travel, even though it’s currently run by a Trump appointee. The only way that “please don’t get sick or infect other people” is a partisan political message is in the wacky world of right-wing trolls, where any effort to show care and concern for the well-being of others is viewed as suspiciously “liberal.”

This fake panic is all about the right desperately trying to find a way, post-Trump, to keep up the ridiculous narrative that liberals are a bunch of nags and spoilsports who only pretend to care about other people as a backdoor way to run a good time. 

Everyone wants to imagine themselves a rebel, of course. But it’s a poor fit for the American right. 

It’s particularly awkward to hang this narrative on family Thanksgiving. In the annals of good times, Thanksgiving averages from a D- to a C+, depending on how many drunken rehashes of childhood arguments erupt over dinner. It’s an occasion so dreadful that many people — mostly the supposedly anti-fun progressives — have added a Friendsgiving to the weekend’s festivities, so they can say that at least one of the meals of they ate was enjoyable. 


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


Nor will it ever make any sense that Republicans — the same people who want to take away your birth control, and who are stocking the courts full of people who would bring back laws against sodomy if they could — have decided they’re the guardians of fun. 

This conflict was apparent in the tweets from Trumpist South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who tweeted dire claims that “the media are even looking ahead and planning to cancel Christmas,” as if the journalist class was licking its lips, eager to stifle any hint of fun. 

But Noem’s own description of said fun involved phrases like “thanking God for everything that he has blessed us with in our lives” and “thank God that we get to live in the greatest nation in human history,” with excitement peaking at “enjoy that delicious turkey and stuffing.” Sounds like all that’s missing from the Noem celebration is a hair shirt and a lecture about how Cardi B will destroy the West with her decadence.

This contradiction exposes what’s really going on: The “war on Thanksgiving,” as well as the imaginary “war on Christmas” that predated it, is just another example of the wettest blankets of American society projecting their own bad habits onto their opponents. 

It’s more of the same projection that rules the modern right. Everything conservatives claim to be the victims of — corruption, election cheating, unfair character attacks — is exactly what they’re dishing out. Trump, in particular, is the master of the form, always falsely accusing Democrats of doing the terrible things he is, in fact, doing

The truth of the matter is that most people, especially those urban-dwelling and people-loving liberals, are unhappy about the conditions of life during the pandemic. But it’s a sacrifice we have to make to save lives. Sacrifice used to be one of those values conservatives would yammer on about, in the long-ago days before Trump. Now the right has been fully consumed by nihilism and an imaginary victim complex, reducing them to childish trolls who whine about having to accept even the smallest amount of personal responsibility. 

 

“Shadow candidate” in Florida race where the Republican won by 34 votes is now under investigation

This year, one of the GOP victories in Florida came when Ileana Garcia, co-founder of Latinas for Trump, defeated incumbent Democrat José Javier Rodríguez in a state Senate race. It was a narrow victory, however, and Miami Herald journalists Samantha J. Gross and Ana Ceballos are reporting that Rodriguez has demanded an investigation of a third-party candidate, Alex Rodríguez.

In that race, Alex Rodríguez (unrelated to José Javier Rodríguez) received more than 6,300 votes, which was a big deal given how close the race was. Garcia defeated José Javier Rodríguez by a mere 34 votes, and there has been speculation that Alex Rodríguez was planted as a spoiler to take votes away from the incumbent Democrat.

“Alex Rodriguez’ candidacy appeared to exist for only one reason: to suck votes away from incumbent José Javier Rodríguez, who shares the same surname,” according to Gross and Ceballos. “The incumbent lost by just 34 votes, and he is now calling for an investigation into Alex Rodriguez — and whoever may have put him up to run.”

“Shadow candidate” Alex Rodriguez, the Herald reporters note, has “drawn the attention of law enforcement.”

“Sources with knowledge of the investigation tell the Miami Herald that Miami-Dade state prosecutors are now probing the mysterious candidacy, which has also led to a series of investigative reports from the Herald and other news outlets such as WPLG-10 and Univision, whose reporters found Rodriguez renting a home in Palm Beach County — not in Miami-Dade County, where he filed to vote and run for state office,” the Herald reporters explain.

In a video posted on Facebook, José Javier Rodríguez argued, “Democracy requires transparency. In order to achieve that, I believe this election requires a full investigation so that those who may have violated the law are held to account and so that such tactics are not used in future elections.”

Garcia defeated José Javier Rodríguez in Miami-Dade County, which is one of the more Democratic-leaning areas of Florida. And that loss wasn’t the only disappointment that Democrats suffered in South Florida this year: Joe Biden underperformed among Latinos in Miami-Dade County compared to Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016, and Florida’s 29 electoral votes were called for President Donald Trump on Election Night — although Bided ended up winning the election, with 306 electoral votes and a lead of more than 6 million in the popular vote.

According to Gross and Ceballos, Florida-based elections attorney Juan Carlos Plana plans to file an ethics complaint against Alex Rodriguez and alleges that his financial disclosure form is “improper.”

Plana told the Herald, “There are more questions than answers, but the questions don’t seem like they will lead to a good place. People like this don’t pop up and say they are going to run for state Senate.”

Inside Team Trump’s last-minute scramble to pressure GOP election officials into flipping the result

On Tuesday, The New York Times podcast “The Daily” looked at how President Donald Trump has — unsuccessfully — tried to use the machinery of state and local government around the country to dismantle

“His team filed a litany of court cases in battleground states. In some, such as Georgia and Michigan, the president and his allies took an even more bullish approach, attempting to use their influence to bear down on election officials, even at the lowest levels of state government,” said the report. “They have been relentless and tenacious in the efforts to transform the president’s fortunes. But the results have been immovable: Joe Biden is the president-elect.”

In one example, noted by the podcast, Trump and his allies leaned heavily on Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to throw out results. Raffensperger himself has pointed at Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for allegedly, and possibly illegally, trying to get him to throw out mail-in ballots for entire counties. Asked whether Trump’s efforts were “inappropriate,” according to the podcast, Raffensperger said, “Yeah, I did, and that’s why I didn’t call him back.”

Ultimately, his efforts have largely hit a brick wall. Even after wining and dining Michigan lawmakers at the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C., they were clear that they could not change the results, and ultimately a bipartisan group of state canvassers voted to certify the election there. “These boards do not, as a matter of course, decide whether to certify votes,” the podcast noted. “Their job is to be a rubber stamp.”

Listen to the full podcast here.

As CDC warns against Thanksgiving travel, here are a dozen more things you can do to help stop COVID

As Americans prepare for the first Thanksgiving in the time of the coronavirus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a stark warning a week before the big day: Don’t travel.

No over the river and through the woods to grandmother’s condo. No flying to a beach gathering with the family you choose.

And if it sounds like the CDC is trying to be like the Grinch who stole Thanksgiving, it is important to remember the grim statistic of more than a quarter of a million people dead from COVID-19. There is no mistaking: The coronavirus is out of control.

Ultimately, lowering the staggering numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths lies squarely with us. Yes, governments can mandate actions; but we’re the ones responsible for adhering to them. Our failure is clear when you look at the latest numbers: Deaths from the virus are projected to soon approach 2,000 Americans a day, and cases continue to climb in the vast majority of states.

If national numbers don’t spur action, will it help to localize the problem? You can find out what’s happening closer to home here at the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Drill down to see the data in your state and county, then take a moment to pause and consider the catastrophic consequences. It’s still within our power to reverse course and lower these numbers. But as a public health scholar and researcher, I can tell you that as infections increase, the more difficult that becomes.

Even the rural states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Wyoming are experiencing tremendous surges. Exhausted hospitals and health care workers across the U.S. are becoming overwhelmed, if not already there. Overwhelmed systems place care at risk. Those with other health conditions need medical intervention and hospitalization. And those with a lax attitude about COVID-19 put themselves at increased risk for negative health outcomes.

Changing behavior is a must

Modifying our behavior minimizes the chances to spread infection. But this is a big task. Government actions are most effective when based on local data and the option to loosen or tighten restrictions based on solid information. We should not view these actions as an attempt to take away our civil liberties. Instead, we should think of them as liberating, a way to keep us away from the virus.

It is not too late to modify your behavior if you’ve been reluctant to accept the realities of the virus. With promising vaccines on the horizon, our challenge as individuals is to reduce current infection numbers. And to do that, everyone must commit to established public health strategies.

A dozen things you can do

  1. Always mask up when indoors and around people who don’t live in your household.

  2. Always mask up when outdoors and unable to maintain physical distancing.

  3. Use either disposable masks or a multi-layer tightly woven cotton mask. Single-layer kerchiefs are insufficient.

  4. When you mask up, make sure it fits your face and covers both nose and mouth. Wash or sanitize your hands after touching or removing the mask.

  5. Remember that masks are not a substitute for physical distancing.

  6. Maintain at least six feet of distance between you and others outside of your household.

  7. Wash your hands frequently with soap and water for 20 seconds, or use a hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol.

  8. Avoid motions that transfer organisms from your hands to your face. Your mouth, nose and eyes have mucous membranes that are potentially receptive to these organisms.

  9. Clean frequently touched surfaces.

  10. Do as much as possible outside and keep interactions with others short.

  11. Fortify ventilation systems for more frequent air exchanges.

  12. Curtail in-person holiday celebrations with those not in your household.

Celebrations are particularly challenging because it’s difficult for everyone to self-quarantine for the 14 days prior to the event. Also, events are typically inside rather than out; spacing of six feet may not be an option; ventilation systems in our energy-efficient homes are likely COVID-19-insufficient; and one cannot be masked while eating.

So for Thanksgiving, do a virtual gathering instead. Cook the same menu in different houses to promote a sense of sharing. Send e-cards to each other with a personal note and wish for a good holiday. Or do a Zoom call where all can speak and express thankfulness for the ability to still be able to connect this year.

It is not unusual for COVID-19 patients to rage when they discover that those around them dismissed or downplayed the wisdom and experience of scientists and doctors about the realities of the pandemic. But there is no need to give up, even in the face of increasingly frightening statistics. Instead, now is the time we need to commit not just to ourselves, but to one another. What’s standing in the way of curtailing the numbers of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths is us.

Pamela M. Aaltonen, Professor Emerita; Immediate Past President, APHA, Purdue University

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

Texas Republicans eye 2022 — and beyond — after romping in November election

The day before the Nov. 3 election, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, was in Corpus Christi about to begin a stump speech in support of the state’s senior senator, John Cornyn, when someone began chanting about an election — but not the imminent one.

“Cruz 2024! Cruz 2024!”

It was a small reminder that, as all-consuming the 2020 election was for Texas Republicans, many eyes had already begun to shift beyond it. Every statewide elected official is up for reelection in 2022 — a ticket led by Gov. Greg Abbott — and speculation is already simmering about whether a Texan will run for president two years later, which could set off a dramatic round of political dominoes.

Democrats, meanwhile, suffered devastating setbacks on Nov. 3, dampening the appetite for any immediate post-election maneuvering for 2022.

Abbott’s bid for a third term will be the marquee contest in two years, and at least before the latest election, Beto O’Rourke or Julián Castro were among the names most discussed as potential Democratic challengers. But Abbott could also face a credible primary opponent, and the new Texas GOP chairman, Allen West, has stoked speculation that he could step up with his striking splits with the governor on his coronavirus response.

Abbott has said he is “100%” running for reelection but more recently breathed new life into long-lingering rumors he is thinking about a White House run.

After 2022, Abbott said in a recent radio interview, “we’ll see what happens.”

Cruz appears a more likely bet for the next presidential race. He has not concealed his interest in running for president again after falling short in 2016, and 2024 would bring an additional layer of political intrigue because he is also up for reelection that year.

Asked in August if he will run for president in 2024, Cruz replied: “I don’t know for sure. I hope to run again.”

Another bid for Cruz?

Cruz spent the latest election cycle tending to his national profile and further building intraparty relationships that could pay off down the road. He launched a “20 for 20” fundraising committee that promised to raise at least $100,000 each for 25 conservative congressional candidates. He spent the final days of the November election hitting five states in five days to campaign for Senate colleagues in competitive races. And he plans to join other potential 2024 candidates in visiting Georgia ahead of the January runoff there with two Republican-held Senate seats on the line.

“I’ve spoken with both David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, the two senators, I’ve told them I’m all in, anything I can do to help, the answer is yes,” Cruz said in a TV interview after the runoffs were set.

Cruz has also used the post-election period to closely align himself with President Donald Trump’s refusal to concede, likely a recognition that Trump will remain a force within the party for the foreseeable future and that Cruz can ill-afford to alienate Trump’s loyalists.

Cruz was Trump’s closest competitor in the 2016 primary. He was one of the last candidates to drop out of the race and ultimately finished second to the future president in the delegate count.

Unlike the last time Cruz ran for president, though, he is up for reelection to his U.S. Senate seat in 2024, which poses a couple interesting hypothetical scenarios. Texas’ “LBJ law” — named after the former president from the state — allows a senator to seek reelection and the presidency at the same time. If Cruz were not to take advantage of that, he would have to decide by the candidate filing deadline — typically early December in the year prior — whether to move forward with a reelection bid or presidential campaign.

If Cruz were to forgo running for reelection, it would likely cause a scramble among both Democrats and Republicans for a rare open U.S. Senate seat.

Abbott’s eyes on 2022

Abbott faces a more straightforward sequence. He is up for reelection in 2022 and then can run for president two years later.

It is a path that has been traveled by Abbott’s two predecessors, Rick Perry and George W. Bush, and until recently, Abbott has enjoyed broad statewide popularity. His approval ratings dropped this summer and he faced backlash from a handful of hardline conservatives in his party amid his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, though he is riding new political momentum after the Nov. 3 election, when his campaign spent millions of dollars to help defend the state House GOP majority.

In the recent radio interview, he took care to note he is first focused on securing a third term. Speaking with Dallas radio host Mark Davis, Abbott said: “You know, one thing that you know about me, and that is I take one step at a time, and the first step is to win reelection, and after that, Mark, we’ll see what happens.”

Abbott got a question on the same topic during a TV interview later the same day and said his current priorities were the state’s coronavirus response and the upcoming legislative session. When the anchor said he would take that as a “maybe” on 2024, Abbott replied, “I’m focused on first things first.”

“We’ve been working on [Abbott’s 2022 reelection campaign] literally since the day after ’18,” Abbott political guru Dave Carney told reporters the morning after the Nov. 3 election, predicting Abbott’s reelection race would probably cost $100 million given the money that flooded into Texas for the latest election. “It’s gonna be a battle.”

Asked if he expected Abbott to face a primary challenge from his right, Carney responded, “I don’t know, but we’ll be prepared.”

Much of the speculation about an Abbott primary challenge has centered on West, who has not ruled it out while grabbing attention with moves like suing Abbott over his extension of this November’s early voting period and protesting outside the Governor’s Mansion over pandemic-related business closures. Abbott has all but ignored West.

While Abbott’s team was thrilled to use O’Rourke as a boogeyman in the latest election — and would no doubt relish running against him in 2022 — Carney bet that O’Rourke would not challenge Abbott due to Biden’s larger-than-expected deficit here on Nov. 3.

The next most common names that come up on the Democratic side are the Castro brothers — former presidential candidate Julián Castro and U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro of San Antonio. Neither has ruled out a run for statewide office in 2022 — or 2024 — according to a person close to them who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. But they may have other options in the nearer term as Biden assembles his cabinet, and Joaquin Castro has remained focused on his bid to lead the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Looming over the speculation about potential Abbott challengers is the question of just how vulnerable he truly is. Trump’s 6-percentage-point win here this month tempered some enthusiasm about the state turning purple. Abbott won his last two gubernatorial campaigns by double digits. Abbott is a mammoth fundraiser with a huge war chest. And in 2022, he will be running in a non-presidential election year that is expected to favor Republicans.

Plus, based on his previous campaigns, Abbott can be expected to compete seriously for the Latino vote, a new source of optimism for Texas Republicans after the Nov. 3 results.

Democrats argue they still have a chance.

“I think the lessons of 2018 still stand, which is that a good candidate with a massive small-dollar fundraising operation and a volunteer turnout operation is likely to be within striking distance in 2022,” said Zack Malitz, the board member and a treasurer of Beat Abbott PAC, a group laying the groundwork to unseat Abbott in 2022.

Like Castro, Malitz said 2022 will be different from 2020, and “I think we’re gonna have something much more like 2018 where the focus will be on the villainy of our statewide Republicans.” The coronavirus crisis, Malitz added, has “shattered the illusion that Greg Abbott is unassailable.”

Future for Democrats uncertain

But for Democrats, the immediate focus is on sifting through the wreckage of the latest election, which saw the implosion of their hopes of flipping the state at the presidential level and making major down-ballot inroads. They also are taking a fresh look at improving their standing with Latino voters, key to any future Democratic dominance statewide, and why Joe Biden underperformed in large swaths of South Texas.

In 2016, Trump lost the 28 counties on or along the Texas-Mexico border by 33 points. This year, his deficit in that region was only 17 points.

“I think the first step, like I said, is to understand what happened and to understand also … in several areas of the state, Latino support for the Democratic presidential candidate actually improved in 2020 versus 2016, and then to go and address what happened along those border communities,” Julián Castro said during a post-election conference call with reporters.

Castro said he was “confident” those problems can be fixed by 2022. And he made the case that 2022 in Texas will be “quite different” from 2020, with no presidential election on the ballot and thus the opportunity for a brighter spotlight on controversy and scandal in state government.

O’Rourke has been open about his disappointment with the latest election results. He spearheaded a massive effort through his Powered by People group to flip the Texas House and win the state for Biden, and if either scenario had come to fruition, he would have emerged from Nov. 3 a formidable 2022 prospect.

O’Rourke has said little about his political future since the election, aside from a Nov. 11 podcast with Amanda Edwards, the former U.S. Senate candidate, in which he urged perseverance for Texas Democrats.

“I think the only way out of our predicament is through,” O’Rourke said, “and I for one want to be part of the team that wants us to get through, in whatever capacity I can be part of.”

Others looking to move up

Abbott’s reelection campaign is not the only part of the 2022 statewide ticket that could see drama. Land Commissioner George P. Bush, grandson of former President George H.W. Bush and nephew of former President George W. Bush, has made little secret that he is interested in moving up, though he has said he would not challenge Abbott or Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. That has not stopped Patrick from moving aggressively to contrast with Bush on the most politically sensitive issue in his portfolio: his office’s management of the Alamo.

Bush more recently left the door open to specifically running against Attorney General Ken Paxton, who remains under indictment for felony securities fraud charges and is now navigating a stormy period after facing a mutiny from his senior staff and FBI investigation.

Paxton’s team has said he is “absolutely” running for a third term. He was among the statewide officials who saw an unexpectedly close race in 2018, and his Democratic challenger that year, Justin Nelson, said he is still considering whether to run for office in 2022 and has not made a decision yet.

While there has not been as much open speculation about Patrick’s reelection run, he has said it would be for his last term, a signal to potential opponents that they could wait four more years for an open seat.

Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller could also try to make moves in 2022. He has joined West in criticizing Abbott’s coronavirus handling, and in a statement for this story, Miller’s campaign appeared to keep his options open beyond seeking another term in his current position.

“Commissioner Miller’s name will be on the Republican primary ballot in 2022,” Miller spokesperson Todd Smith said.

Beyond incumbents, there are some GOP names that have lingered in the background as potential statewide contenders. They include former state House Speaker Joe Straus, a moderate Republican who did not seek reelection and has since stayed involved in policy and political debates. He said Wednesday he has no current plan to run statewide but added, “I keep my options open.”

“Let’s let the dust settle and see who’s out there in the future, but it’s not something I wake up in the morning and miss being in public office,” Straus said during a panel discussion hosted by KERA in Dallas.

Any discussion of Texas Republicans with potential for higher office also includes U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Houston, a national rising star who is coming off a resounding reelection win despite being targeted by national Democrats. While Crenshaw has not expressed interest either way, he has been mentioned as both a possible statewide candidate and a 2024 presidential hopeful.

For Democrats going forward, a central question is who comprises their bench beyond O’Rourke and the Castros. Some who are interested in a fresher face have brought up Lina Hidalgo, the young Harris County judge who unexpectedly won the job two years ago. But Hidalgo has said she plans to run for a second term in 2022, and an aide reiterated that for this story.

There is also Cristina Tzintzún Ramirez, who came in a close third in the U.S. Senate primary earlier this year, missing the runoff. The seasoned organizer has since kept a robust political profile, doling out endorsements in down-ballot races and launching a super PAC, Latino Families Forward, dedicated to tapping the potential of the Latino vote in Texas.

Always in the background, too, is talk of a celebrity candidate, and actor Matthew McConaughey, who lives in Austin, made headlines this week by telling conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that he would consider running for Texas governor. However, in a subsequent interview with late-night TV host Stephen Colbert, McConaughey said the sudden buzz was overblown.

“I have no plans to do that right now,” McConaughey said.

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

“How a torturer ended up running the CIA”: Biden reportedly hopes to avoid probes into Trump crimes

Taking cues from former Presidents Gerald Ford and Barack Obama—who pardoned or ignored their predecessors’ crimes in the name of national unity and healing—President-elect Joe Biden has privately signaled to advisers that he is unlikely to pursue federal investigations of the Trump administration’s policies and actions, NBC News reported Tuesday. 

According to the report, the president-elect has expressed concerns that investigating President Donald Trump or holding members of his administration accountable for wrongdoing would further divide a nation already deeply riven by political tensions, and that focusing on Trump would distract Biden from his forward-looking agenda. 

Biden is said to be especially wary of probing Trump’s taxes or trying to undo any immunity the president may grant to his associates during his final weeks in office.  

Put simply, one adviser said Biden “just wants to move on.”

“He’s going to be more oriented toward fixing the problems and moving forward than prosecuting them,” another Biden confidant told NBC News. 

Progressive critics, however, took the news report as a warning signal, not a sign of political wisdom on Biden’s part.

“His overarching view is that we need to move the country forward,” an aide said. “But the most important thing on this is that he will not interfere with his Justice Department and not politicize his Justice Department.”

One adviser stressed that while Biden and his Justice Department will likely not go after Trump, their decision does not affect state-level investigations such as Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.’s probe of Trump’s tax returns. 

Biden’s position, which was widely anticipated, drew comparisons with his former boss Obama, who while campaigning for president in 2007 and 2008 pledged to investigatethe Bush administration officials responsible for CIA and U.S. military torture and to hold accountable the Wall Street bankers and other capitalists whose criminal actions helped cause and exacerbate the 2008 global economic crisis. 

However, once in office Obama not only declined to prosecute any of the Bush war criminals, his administration actively protected and promoted them—one of whom,Gina Haspel, now directs the CIA. And while not one Wall Street criminal was sent to jail by the Obama administration for the kind of fraud that led to the economic collapse, many top financial executives ended up in the Obama White House to shape and guide economic policy.

“We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards,” Obama said in regard to investigating and prosecuting CIA torturers shortly before taking office in January 2009. “At the CIA, you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering.” 

Biden’s apparent rejection of federal accountability for Trump’s actions also evoked memories of Ford’s 1974 pardon of his former boss and close friend Richard Nixon in the name of ensuring “domestic tranquility” and avoiding “ugly passions [that] would again be aroused” in the wake of the “long national nightmare” of Watergate.

According to the Biden advisers interviewed by NBC News, the president-elect believes that investigating Trump would arouse plenty of ugly passions in a nation whose people are arguably more divided than they’ve been in half a century—or, according to some observers, since the Civil War.

Americans wanting to see Trump—only the third U.S. president to have ever been impeached—face justice must now pin their hopes on state prosecutors as Biden prioritizes being “a president who seeks not to divide, but unify” over holding his predecessor accountable. 

Enough cowardice: Democrats must forge ahead, without caring what the Trumpers say

Even after the landslide defeat of Donald Trump, Republicans across the board continue to be terrified by Trump’s disciples. Fear of the Red Hats has always been one of the primary reasons why the rest of Trump’s party has refused to speak out against his ongoing horror show. It’s not the only reason, but it’s one of the more potent ones.

It’s fascinating to observe how thoroughly they’ve painted themselves into a corner. While leading Republicans are in love with Trump’s policies, not to mention the cover the Red Hats gave them to pass their agenda, they’re privately disgusted by the president’s total lack of personal restraint and constant self-sabotage. 

In fact, Carl Bernstein wrote this week that 21 Senate Republicans have “privately expressed their disdain for Trump.” Underscore “privately.” Bernstein name-dropped Sens. Rob Portman, Lamar Alexander, Ben Sasse, Roy Blunt, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, John Cornyn, John Thune, Mitt Romney, Mike Braun, Todd Young, Tim Scott, Rick Scott, Marco Rubio, Chuck Grassley, Richard Burr, Pat Toomey, Martha McSally, Jerry Moran, Pat Roberts and Richard Shelby. Most of them have voted with Trump across the board, and only a few — Collins, Murkowski, Romney and Sasse, most notably — have dared to publicly criticize him. Why? Cowardice before the fury of the Red Hats.

The dispiriting enormity of Trump’s following (73.8 million in this election) means the rest of the GOP can’t win without the Trumpers. So Republicans routinely clam up whenever Trump crosses another Rubicon — thousands and thousands of Rubicons at this point. By clamming up, they empower Trump to curb-stomp more and more of our democratic values, while they quiver in the corner afraid of Trump deploying his Red Hats against them in another late-night tweetstorm. They’re locked in a MAGA-induced torpor, unable to act even if they wanted to. After four years of irreparable damage to the country, they’re impotent and powerless to stop this weirdo tyrant as he annihilates the integrity of our elections — tweet by tweet, and frivolous lawsuit after hilariously frivolous lawsuit. 

While it’s pathetic, infuriating and completely unpatriotic, I at least understand why they’re doing it. What I don’t understand is why the Normals are afraid of Trump’s Red Hats, too. 

Even before the 2020 election, Democratic leaders, as well as select cable news pundits, have too often repeated a variation on: “Don’t do [x] because it’ll make Trump’s supporters angry.” It’s been trotted out as an excuse for not impeaching Trump and for pardoning Trump, and as a reason to argue against prosecuting Trump and his henchmen after the new administration is sworn in. Fear of the Red Hats is possibly why NBC News’ Chuck Todd felt obligated this past weekend to refer to Joe Biden as the “apparent winner” of the election, days and days after Biden was declared the actual winner of the election by Todd’s own network. Simply put: The truth and integrity of the press is being subverted by an irrational fear of screeching Twitter trolls who don’t know the difference between “they’re,” “there” and “their.” 

Elsewhere, George Washington University Law School professor Randall Eliason published an opinion piece for the Washington Post in which he argued that prosecuting Trump would be a catastrophic error, noting, “Trump and his supporters would inevitably characterize any investigations as a corrupt attempt by the Biden administration to ‘take out’ a potential 2024 rival.” The only response to this is: So what? They’re doing that today with the 2020 election. What’s another knee-jerk grievance on top of all the others?

Eliason isn’t the only one. There will be many more with similarly serious warnings. And the emerging conventional wisdom on this front is entirely based on a fear of the Red Hats and their incoherent rage. 

The tragic reality of the Biden years will be this: The Red Hats are going to scream about literally everything anyway. They already are. History has taught us that appeasement only makes the aggressor more aggressive, and trying to unilaterally play nice will only end in unilateral pantsing. In their deluded, brainwashed minds, Biden stole the election from Trump, while professional stooges like Charlie Kirk and Breitbart are already hyping up their fanboys about inevitable “persecutions” that will follow. Ivanka Trump, meanwhile, has expressed outrage over the New York attorney general’s comprehensive investigation into Trump’s alleged financial crimes. Fox News and the other pro-Trump propaganda outlets will link Biden to all of it, whether Biden wants to be linked or not. 

If they don’t have actual Biden scandals to latch onto, they’ll make ’em up. And since they’ll indiscriminately lose their shpadoinkle anyway, why not uphold the rule of law and proceed forward with accountability — whether in the form of bipartisan commissions, congressional reports or actual grand jury indictments? In other words, rather than refusing to investigate anyone and being accused of investigating everyone, why not damn the torpedoes and proceed, full steam ahead? Again, stop fearing what they’ll say and just do the damn thing.

Trump’s actions have been unprecedented, including the fact that he himself broke the tradition of not investigating previous administrations when he ordered Bill Barr and U.S. attorney John Durham to investigate Barack Obama and “the oranges” of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane probe. (Notice how the Republicans never flinched over the liberal response to the Durham investigation.) Unprecedented crimes deserve bold, unwavering accountability.

We’ve never had a president so flagrantly violate the law on countless occasions, from a dozen instances of obstruction of justice enumerated in the Mueller report to Trump’s extortion plot in the Ukraine debacle that led to his impeachment. His negligence in the face of the pandemic alone should warrant extensive investigation, and there are myriad other crimes likely waiting to be discovered. Should there be civil or criminal accountability for deliberately deceiving the public on the threat of the pandemic, as revealed by Bob Woodward? What happens if evidence is uncovered that Trump sold national security secrets to an enemy? 

Unprecedented times deserve unprecedented accountability. Walking away and burying the past in the past is an excellent way to guarantee another Trump in the future — likely one who’s worse than the first Trump. 

Americans tend to respond to strong, unflinching leadership, and tend to condemn weakness and half-measures. So whether it’s the incoming attorney general or a congressional committee or a state and local probe, if the evidence leads to indictments, Democrats should just own it and ignore the shrieking. The Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson once said, “[Mitch McConnell] doesn’t care about screaming.” The Democrats on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue would do well to employ the same strategy. Hold fast, power through and stop caring about the screaming.

After all, while there are nearly 74 million Trumpers, there are 80 million Biden voters. 

Since 2015, Trump supporters have shown us who they really are. We’ve learned that they’ll go along with whatever the world’s most notorious con man says, no matter how ignorant, no matter how destructive, no matter how contradictory. They will continue to gratuitously worsen the spread of the pandemic, and they will absolutely continue to repeat counterfactual gibberish fed to them by the conservative entertainment complex, including dozens of made-up reasons to impeach Biden. They’ll never see the light. They’ll never accept an olive branch. They’re gone.

Given all this, we need to stop fearing these people. If the evidence points to prosecutions, then we need to encourage the investigators to prosecute. When the next election rolls around, we need to give our leaders, including Joe Biden, the electoral cover they need by prioritizing winning at all costs. That, and a series of post-Trump reforms, is the only way to course-correct the trajectory of the republic. Cowardice will only make matters worse.

The ruling elite’s war on truth: America’s leaders are increasingly disconnected from reality

Joe Biden’s victory instantly obliterated the Democratic Party’s longstanding charge that Russia was hijacking and compromising U.S. elections. The Biden victory, the Democratic Party leaders and their courtiers in the media now insist, is evidence that the democratic process is strong and untainted, that the system works. The elections ratified the will of the people.

But imagine if Donald Trump had been re-elected. Would the Democrats and pundits at The New York Times, CNN and MSNBC pay homage to a fair electoral process? Or, having spent four years trying to impugn the integrity of the 2016 presidential race, would they once again haul out the blunt instrument of Russian interference to paint Trump as Vladimir Putin’s Manchurian candidate?

Trump and Giuliani are vulgar and buffoonish, but they play the same slimy game as their Democratic opponents. The Republicans scapegoat the deep state, communists and now, bizarrely, Venezuela; the Democrats scapegoat Russia. The widening disconnect from reality by the ruling elite is intended to mask their complicity in the seizure of power by predatory global corporations and billionaires.

“This is a disgraceful thing that was done in this country,” Giuliani said at his recent bad-hair-day press conference. “Probably not much more disgraceful than the things these people did in office, which you didn’t and don’t bother to cover and you conceal from the American people, but we let this happen, we use largely a Venezuelan voting machine in essence to count our vote. We let this happen. We’re going to become Venezuela. We cannot let this happen to us. We cannot allow these crooks, because that’s what they are, to steal an election from the American people. They elected Donald Trump. They didn’t elect Joe Biden. Joe Biden is in the lead because of the fraudulent ballots, the illegal ballots, that were produced and that were allowed to be used, after the election was over.”       

Giuliani’s rant was topped by those of Sidney Powell, until this week another of Trump’s lawyers, who blamed software designed for Hugo Chávez, who died in 2013, for Trump’s loss, as well as “the massive influence of Communist money.” The software “was created so Hugo Chávez would never lose another election, and he did not after that software was created,” Powell said. “He won every single election and then they exported it to Argentina and other countries in South America, and then they brought it here.”

Compare this to how Hillary Clinton, during the recent primary campaign, warned that the Russians were “grooming” a female candidate, widely assumed to be Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, to run as a third-party candidate to serve Russian interests. Previously, Clinton called the 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein a “Russian asset.” She insisted, although special counsel Robert Mueller and his prosecutors found no evidence to support her charge, that the Trump campaign had worked closely in 2016 with Moscow and WikiLeaks — which she insists is a Russian front — to defeat her. Clinton’s staff put together a “hit list” in the final days of her 2008 campaign, according to the book, “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign” by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, listing those who were loyal to the Clintons and those who were not. They used a scale of 1 to 7.

“Step back and think about it,” Clinton wrote in her book, “What Happened,” about the 2016 election. “The Russians hacked our election systems. They got inside. They tried to delete or alter voter information. This should send a shiver down the spine of every American.”

Never mind that both ruling parties are silent about the massive interference in our elections by Israel, which uses its lobbying groups to lavishly fund political candidates in both parties and flies members of Congress and their families to Israel for junkets at seaside resorts. Israel’s intrusion in our political process, including when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress in 2015, without informing then President Barack Obama, to attack the president’s Iran nuclear deal, dwarfs that of any other country, including Russia.

The two warring factions within the ruling elite, which fight primarily over the spoils of power while abjectly serving corporate interests, peddle alternative realities. If the deep state and Venezuelan socialists or Russia intelligence operatives are pulling the strings, no one in power is accountable for the rage and alienation caused by the social inequality, the unassailability of corporate power, the legalized bribery that defines our political process, the endless wars, austerity and de-industrialization. The social breakdown is, instead, the fault of shadowy phantom enemies manipulating groups such as Black Lives Matter or the Green Party.

“The people who run this country have run out of workable myths with which to distract the public, and in a moment of extreme crisis have chosen to stoke civil war and defame the rest of us — black and white — rather than admit to a generation of corruption, betrayal, and mismanagement,” Matt Taibbi writes.

These fictional narratives are dangerous. They erode the credibility of democratic institutions and electoral politics. They posit that news and facts are no longer true or false. Information is accepted or discarded based on whether it hurts or promotes one faction over another. While outlets such as Fox News have always existed as an arm of the Republican Party, this partisanship has now infected nearly all news organizations, including publications such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, along with the major tech platforms that disseminate information and news. A fragmented public with no common narrative believes whatever it wants to believe.

I first assumed this job posting from the New York Times for a Moscow correspondent was a parody posted by the Onion. It wasn’t. It speaks volumes about the self-immolation of the New York Times and the press.

JOB DESCRIPTION: Vladimir Putin’s Russia remains one of the biggest stories in the world. It sends out hit squads armed with nerve agents against its enemies, most recently the opposition leader Aleksei Navalny. It has its cyber agents sow chaos and disharmony in the West to tarnish its democratic systems, while promoting its faux version of democracy. It has deployed private military contractors around the globe to secretly spread its influence. At home, its hospitals are filling up fast with Covid patients as its president hides out in his villa. If that sounds like a place you want to cover, then we have good news: We will have an opening for a new correspondent as Andy Higgins takes over as our next Eastern Europe Bureau Chief early next year.

Of course, every charge leveled here against Russia regarding foreign interference can be leveled in spades against the United States, both in the present and past, and even the implied criticism of its pandemic response seems like a textbook case of projection. More to the point, why should the Times even send someone to Moscow to report on what Russians think, feel and how they view themselves and the world if they have already decided they are a cartoon villain? Why have a Moscow bureau at all?

A parody response circulating on the internet imagined a parallel posting by Pravda for a U.S. correspondent:   

JOB DESCRIPTION: Donald Trump’s America remains one of the biggest stories in the world. It sends out its armies, its drones, and its agents around the world to kill its enemies. It has its cyber agents sow chaos and disharmony, undermining and overthrowing regimes, while promoting its faux version of democracy. It has deployed private military contractors around the globe to secretly spread its influence. At home, its hospitals are filling up fast with Covid patients as its president hides out on the golf course. If that sounds like a place you want to cover, then we have good news. We will have an opening for a new correspondent.

I was a foreign correspondent for 20 years, 15 of them with the New York Times. My job was to become bicultural, which requires hundreds of hours of language classes, to see the world from the perspective of those I covered and reflect it back to an American audience. But this type of reporting is now anachronisticThe paper might as well rehire the con artist Jayson Blair to sit in his apartment and snort coke while filing fictional variants on the preordained narrative the paper demands. Or maybe computer algorithms can do the job.

I guess I should not be surprised. After all, it was the Times that produced a 10-part podcast by its reporter Rukmini Callimachi based on interviews with a Muslim identified as Abu Huzayfah al-Kanadi who claimed to have been a member of ISIS in the Middle East. He provided lurid accounts of murders and crucifixions he supposedly carried out. His stories, catering to the rampant Islamophobia that poisons American society, were the audio version of snuff films. They were also a lie. The Canadian “Abu Huzayfah,” whose real name was Shehroze Chaudhry, was arrested in September 2020 by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and charged under Canadian hoax laws for fabricating his story.

The flagrant partisanship and discrediting of truth across the political spectrum are swiftly fueling the rise of an authoritarian state. The credibility of democratic institutions and electoral politics, already deeply corrupted by PACs, the Electoral College, lobbyists, the disenfranchisement of third-party candidates, gerrymandering and voter suppression, is being eviscerated.

Silicon Valley billionaires, including Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt, donated more than $100 million to a Democratic super PAC that created a torrent of anti-Trump TV ads in the final weeks of the campaign to elect Biden. The heavy infusion of corporate money to support Biden wasn’t done to protect democracy. It was done because these corporations and billionaires know a Biden administration will serve their interests.

The press, meanwhile, has largely given up on journalism. It has retreated into competing echo chambers that only speak to true believers. This catering exclusively to one demographic, which it sets against another demographic, is commercially profitable. But it also guarantees the balkanization of the United States and edges us closer and closer to fratricide.

When Trump leaves the White House millions of his enraged supports, hermetically sealed inside hyperventilating media platforms that feed back to them their rage and hate, will see the vote as fraudulent, the political system as rigged, and the establishment press as propaganda. They will target, I fear through violence, the Democratic Party politicians, mainstream media outlets and those they demonize as conspiratorial members of the deep state, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci. The Democratic Party is as much to blame for this disintegration as Trump and the Republican Party.

The election of Biden is also very bad news for journalists such as Matt Taibbi, Glen Ford, Margaret Kimberley, Glenn Greenwald, Jeffrey St. Clair or Robert Scheer who refuse to be courtiers to the ruling elites. Journalists that do not spew the approved narrative of the right-wing, or, alternatively, the approved narrative of the Democratic Party, have a credibility the ruling elite fears. The worse things get — and they will get worse as the pandemic leaves hundreds of thousands dead and thrusts millions of Americans into severe economic distress — the more those who seek to hold the ruling elites, and in particular the Democratic Party, accountable will be targeted and censored in ways familiar to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, now in a London prison and facing possible extradition to the United States and life imprisonment.

Barack Obama’s assault on civil liberties, which included the repeated misuse of the Espionage Act to prosecute whistleblowers, the passage of Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act to permit the military to act as a domestic police force and the ordering of the assassination of U.S. citizens deemed to be terrorists in Yemen, was far worse than those of George W. Bush. Biden’s assault on civil liberties, I suspect, will surpass those of the Obama administration.

The censorship was heavy-handed during the campaign. Digital media platforms, including Google, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook, along with the establishment press worked shamelessly as propaganda arms for the Biden campaign. They were determined not to make the “mistake” they made in 2016 when they reported on the damaging emails, released by WikiLeaks, from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta. Although the emails were genuine, papers such as the New York Times routinely refer to the Podesta emails as “disinformation.” This, no doubt, pleases its readership, 91 percent of whom identify as Democrats according to the Pew Research Center. But it is another example of journalistic malfeasance.

Following the election of Trump, the media outlets that cater to a Democratic Party readership made amends. The New York Times was one of the principal platforms that amplified Russiagate conspiracies, most of which turned out to be false. At the same time, the paper largely ignored the plight of the dispossessed working class that supported Trump. When the Russiagate story collapsed, the paper pivoted to focus on race, embodied in the 1619 Project. The root cause of social disintegration — the neoliberal order, austerity and deindustrialization — was ignored, since naming it would alienate the paper’s corporate advertisers and the elites on whom the paper depends for access.

Once the 2020 election started, the New York Times and other mainstream outlets censored and discredited information that could hurt Biden, including a tape of Biden speaking with former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, which appears to be authentic. They gave credibility to any rumor, however spurious, which was unfavorable to Trump. Twitter and Facebook blocked access to a New York Post story about the emails allegedly found on Hunter Biden’s discarded laptop. Twitter locked the New York Post out of its own account for over a week. Glenn Greenwald, whose article on Hunter Biden was censored by his editors at The Intercept, which he helped found, resigned. He released the email exchanges with his editors over his article. Ignoring the textual evidence of censorship, editors and writers at The Intercept engaged in a public campaign of character assassination against Greenwald. This sordid behavior by self-identified progressive journalists is a page out of the Trump playbook and a sad commentary on the collapse of journalistic integrity.

The censorship and manipulation of information was honed and perfected against WikiLeaks. When WikiLeaks tries to release information, it is hit with botnets or distributed denial of service attacks. Malware attacks WikiLeaks’ domain and website. The WikiLeaks site is routinely shut down or unable to serve its content to its readers. Attempts by WikiLeaks to hold press conferences see the audio distorted and the visual images corrupted. Links to WikiLeaks events are delayed or cut. Algorithms block the dissemination of WikiLeaks content. Hosting services, including Amazon, removed WikiLeaks from its servers. Julian Assange, after releasing the Iraqi war logs, saw his bank accounts and credit cards frozen. WikiLeaks’ PayPal accounts were disabled to cut off donations. The Freedom of the Press Foundation in December 2017 closed down the anonymous funding channel to WikiLeaks which was set up to protect the anonymity of donors. A well-orchestrated smear campaign against Assange was amplified and given credibility by the mass media and filmmakers such as Alex Gibney. Assange and WikiLeaks were first. We are next.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told CNN during this campaign that Russian disinformation efforts are “more problematic” than in 2016. He warned that “this time around, the Russians have decided to cultivate U.S. citizens as assets. They are attempting to try to spread their propaganda in the mainstream media.”

This will be the official mantra of the Democratic Party, a vicious redbaiting campaign without actual reds, especially as the country spirals out of control. The reason I have a show on Russia-funded RT America is the same reason Vaclav Havel could only be heard on the US-funded Voice of America during the communist control of Czechoslovakia. I did not choose to leave the mainstream media. I was pushed out. And once anyone is pushed out, the ruling elite is relentless about discrediting the few platforms left willing to give them, and the issues they raise, a hearing.

“If the problem is ‘American citizens’ being cultivated as ‘assets’ trying to put ‘interference’ in the mainstream media, the logical next step is to start asking Internet platforms to shut down accounts belonging to any American journalist with the temerity to report material leaked by foreigners (the wrong foreigners, of course — it will continue to be okay to report things like the ‘black ledger’),” writes Taibbi, who has done some of the best reporting on the emerging censorship. “From Fox or the Daily Caller on the right, to left-leaning outlets like Consortium or the World Socialist Web Siteto writers like me even — we’re all now clearly in range of new speech restrictions, even if we stick to long-ago-established factual standards.”

Taibbi argues that the precedent for overt censorship took place when the major digital platforms — Facebook, Twitter, Google, Spotify, YouTube — in a coordinated move blacklisted the right-wing talk show host Alex Jones.

“Liberal America cheered,” Taibbi told me when I interviewed him for my show, “On Contact“:

They said, “Well, this is a noxious figure. This is a great thing. Finally, someone’s taking action.” What they didn’t realize is that we were trading an old system of speech regulation for a new one without any public discussion. You and I were raised in a system where you got punished for speech if you committed libel or slander or if there was imminent incitement to lawless action, right? That was the standard that the Supreme Court set, but that was done through litigation. There was an open process where you had a chance to rebut charges. That is all gone now. Now, basically there’s a handful of these tech distribution platforms that control how people get their media. They’ve been pressured by the Senate, which has called all of their CEOs in, and basically ordered them, “We need you to come up with a plan to prevent the sowing of discord and spreading of misinformation.” This has finally come into fruition. You see a major reputable news organization like the New York Post — with a 200-year history — locked out of its own Twitter account. The story [Hunter Biden’s emails] has not been disproven. It’s not disinformation or misinformation. It’s been suppressed as it would be suppressed in a Third World country. It’s a remarkable historic moment. The danger is that we end up with a one-party informational system. There’s going to be approved dialogue and unapproved dialogue that you can only get through certain fringe avenues. That’s the problem. We let these companies get this monopolistic share of the distribution system. Now they’re exercising that power.

In the Soviet Union the truth was passed, often hand to hand, in underground samizdat documents, clandestine copies of news and literature banned by the state. The truth will endure. It will be heard by those who seek it out. It will expose the mendacity of the powerful, however hard it will be to obtain. Despotisms fear the truth. They know it is a mortal threat. If we remain determined to live in truth, no matter the cost, we have a chance.

Progressives praise early Biden picks, but worry his team is stacked with “corporatists”

Progressives have had a mixed reaction to President-elect Joe Biden’s early administration announcements as they seek to gain influence in the coming Democratic administration.

Biden sought to ally himself with the likes of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., after a contentious primary fight and formed a task force to forge a more progressive platform for his administration. Sanders and Warren are not expected to receive administration appointments, however, both due to concerns that Republican senators would derail their nominations and that Republican governors in their states would then appoint GOP replacements.

Biden’s early West Wing hires and Cabinet nominees have been greeted by progressives with a mix of praise and consternation about their corporate ties. Some leftists express concern that the Biden administration, like the Obama administration, would be guided by “corporatists” who prioritize business interests. But they’ve also stressed that there is no question Biden’s team is light years ahead of President Trump’s administration, which has featured a revolving door of lobbyists and executives who undermined their agencies and sought to funnel taxpayer money to their corporate pals.

“Trump’s government — run by the corporate lobbyists, for the corporate lobbyists — has devastated programs and rules that help working people,” Warren said earlier this month. “Americans have made it clear: the last thing they want is for Washington to again hand over the keys to giant corporations and lobbyists.”

Biden’s selections have prioritized experience, diversity and coalition-building, a far cry from the Trump administration’s war against the very agencies it leads.

Biden’s team on Monday announced that he would name Antony Blinken, his former national security adviser and deputy secretary of state, as his secretary of state. Matt Duss, Sanders’ foreign policy adviser, said Blinken was a “good choice” and praised Biden for selecting a diplomat who has “regularly engaged with progressive grassroots.” Former Sanders adviser Faiz Shakir agreed that Blinken was a “solid choice.”

But Blinken’s corporate ties have drawn some handwringing from the left. Blinken, along with Michèle Flournoy, a former top Pentagon official and defense contractor executive, who is rumored to be the frontrunner to become Biden’s defense secretary, founded WestExec Advisors after their time in the Obama administration. That consulting firm, which includes numerous Obama alums, aims to help companies win Pentagon contracts and has extensive ties to a variety of defense contractors, The American Prospect reported. WestExec has also helped a number of Silicon Valley firms pitch the Pentagon for defense contracts, according to The Intercept.

Little else is known about the clients of the firm, which keeps its client roster secret and does not have to disclose their names as lobbying firm would. Watchdog groups have raised concerns over potential conflicts of interest arising from the firm’s secret client list.

“It’s a company that sells influence and connections,” Mandy Smithberger of the nonpartisan Project on Government Oversight told ABC News. “Particularly for those who are going to go through the confirmation process, it’s important to know who they were working for and the kind of work they were doing.”

Biden also tapped Jake Sullivan, an ex-adviser to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as his national security adviser. Sullivan has been praised as “brilliant” and an “all-star” but has his own corporate ties. Since 2017, Sullivan has worked for Macro Advisory Partners, a consulting firm that works with mining companies and sovereign wealth funds, among others, according to the American Prospect. Earlier this year, Sullivan worked with Uber to try to restrict contract workers from being entitled to benefits, according to the report.

Biden’s team on Monday announced that Avril Haines, the former deputy national security adviser and deputy CIA director under Obama, would be his director of national intelligence. She has also served in the State Department and worked for Biden when he was the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A Cuban-American immigrant, Haines would be the first woman to serve in the position.

Haines also previously worked as a consultant for the controversial data-mining firm Palantir, a fact that was scrapped from her bio when she joined the Biden campaign, according to The Intercept. “Co-founded by a far-right, Trump-supporting tech billionaire, Palantir, whose business has benefited from a slew of government contracts, has been accused of aiding in the Trump administration’s immigration detention programs in the U.S. and helping the Trump administration build out its surveillance state,” the Intercept reported.

Biden has picked former Deputy Homeland Security Secretary and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services director Alejandro Mayorkas as his nominee to be secretary of Homeland Security. Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro praised Mayorkas, who would be the first Latino to lead DHS, as a “historic and experienced choice.” A former federal prosecutor, Mayorkas has also worked as a private attorney representing Fortune 100 clients and other high-profile companies. He was investigated in 2015 for intervening in visa cases on behalf of companies owned by Clinton’s brother Anthony Rodham and longtime Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe, the former governor of Virginia.

Biden also tapped Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the longtime former top diplomat to Africa and head of the U.S. Foreign Service, as his ambassador to the United Nations. Thomas-Greenfield has been widely praised for her experience and commitment to the Foreign Service, though The New York Times’ Ken Vogel noted that she also served as senior vice president of a firm “that represented embattled Swiss-based mining giant Glencore,” which is facing allegations of corruption in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Biden’s early selections also include former Secretary of State John Kerry, who has served as an adviser to Bank of America, as a climate czar; longtime aide Ron Klain, a venture capital executive, as White House chief of staff; longtime health care lobbyist Steve Ricchetti as a senior counselor; Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., a top recipient of oil and gas money, as senior adviser; and former campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon, the co-founder of Precision Strategies, which represents pharmaceutical and private equity firms, as deputy chief of staff.

Klain has largely drawn praise from progressives like Warren and Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., but progressive groups have called Richmond’s selection a “betrayal” and “really disappointing.”  Jeff Hauser, the executive director of the Revolving Door Project, told The New York Times that Ricchetti was “a figure so paradigmatically swampy that the writers of ‘House of Cards’ might reject his biography as overly stereotypical.”

Progressives have also warned Biden against selecting “divisive” former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel to his Cabinet and have expressed concerns about Biden’s transition team, which includes executives from Amazon, Lyft, Facebook and other tech firms. A variety of progressive groups, including Demos, MoveOn, Our Revolution, Sunrise Movement and the Working Families Party, sent a letter to Biden calling for him to avoid nominating “corporate executives, lobbyists, and prominent corporate consultants” to top positions. Many others have called for Biden to bar officials from working on issues on which they had lobbied in the past two years, as Obama did. Biden has not been nearly as averse to lobbyists as Obama, and has resisted calls for a lobbyist ban.

Some House Democrats have also pressed the party leadership to push back on corporate influence within the coming Biden administration.

“If the C.E.O. of a fossil fuel corporation should not be put in charge of U.S. diplomacy or an oil lobbyist should not be put in charge of the Interior Department under a Republican administration, there is no reason to believe that an officer or lobbyist at a major bank or financial firm should be put in charge of financial policy under a Democratic administration,” a group of Democrats, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and Katie Porter, D-Calif., said in a letter to Senate leaders.

Other progressives have cautioned against litmus tests for administration picks.

“I understand the desire to have people that are ideologically aligned,” Meredith McGehee, the head of IssueOne, a group seeking to limit money in politics, told The New York Times. “But when you start doing litmus tests on appointees it can backfire. You need to have appointees in the administration who can work with a range of people in Congress or you are not likely to get much done.”

Moderate Democratic groups have also argued that a litmus test “makes it harder to get the diverse Cabinet” Biden and progressives want.

Others have argued that competency and experience are more important traits in administration appointments than ideological purity, particularly after Trump spent years crippling federal agencies.

“I need a team ready on Day 1 to help me reclaim America’s seat at the head of the table, rally the world to meet the biggest challenges we face and advance our security, prosperity and values,” Biden said in a statement on Monday after announcing his national security team. “These individuals are equally as experienced and crisis-tested as they are innovative and imaginative. Their accomplishments in diplomacy are unmatched, but they also reflect the idea that we cannot meet the profound challenges of this new moment with old thinking and unchanged habits — or without diversity of background and perspective. It’s why I’ve selected them.”

As the left debates how much — or how little — to push the incoming administration, Washington lobbying firms are celebrating a return to normal after the Trump administration limited influence to a small number of well-connected firms, according to The New York Times. Some firms have hired officials close to Biden while others stand to benefit from longstanding connections to the administration.

Amid the battle between the left and the more corporate-friendly wing of the Democratic Party, progressives have vowed to continue organizing to push the Biden administration to keep its campaign promises.

“We’re going to organize and demand that this administration — which I believe is decent and kind and honorable — keep their promise,” Ocasio-Cortez told a group of activists last week. “Keeps its promise to young people. Keeps its promise to the movement for Black lives. Keeps its promise to working-class people across the United States.”

“Hillbilly Elegy” is “poverty-class cosplay” and “laughably bad” – reviews of Netflix’s adaptation

J.D. Vance’s Rust Belt memoir “Hillbilly Elegy,” about his family’s history of poverty in Appalachia, became a bipartisan bestseller in 2016, supposedly because it offered an explanation for who voted for a Trump’s presidency. But a swift backlash highlighted the book’s shortcomings: its negative generalizations about Appalachian culture and advancing the narrative that impoverished people are to blame for their own misfortunes (in contrast to how Vance’s bootstrapping led to success).

Ron Howard directs Netflix’s adaptation of Vance’s memoir, written by Academy Award-nominated “The Shape of Water” scribe Vanessa Taylor. Starring Amy Adams as Vance’s mother and Glenn Close as his tough grandmother, the inspiring tale stinks of Oscar bait. Despite this pedigree, the original memoir’s problems had critics predisposed to approaching the film with wariness, and advance reviews have not been glowing.

Howard’s treatment glosses over some of Vance’s political observations, a head-scratching choice that provides additional grist for the review mill. While many critics have approached the panning of “Hillbilly Elegy” with apparent glee, most acknowledge the big-swing performances of Adams and Close, although even those assessments are divisive.

Registering at only 27% on Rotten Tomatoes, “Hillbilly Elegy” has very few supporters. Chicago Sun-times’ Richard Roeper provides the biggest rave, defending the film’s clear Oscar ambitions and calling the film “a beautifully constructed, unforgiving, heart-tugging family epic.” He also dubs Adams’ performance a “tour de force” and Close’s “masterful.”

While the trades Variety and The Hollywood Reporter hedge a bit, acknowledging Howard’s lack of nuance, overall they appear forgiving of the film’s intent even if it is “safe.” Most critics are not so kind, however.

Here’s a closer look at what some of the top critics are saying about “Hillbilly Elegy”:

ROLLING STONE “Hillbilly Elegy” Review: A bestselling memoir becomes Oscar-season B.S.

David Fear’s headline leaves no room for doubt about his opinion. While he nods to the performances, it’s clear that he takes umbrage at the adaptation’s narrative itself:

“Hence, we now have Ron Howard’s ‘Hillbilly Elegy,’ a live-action rendering of various cartoonish aspects of Vance’s book that strives for the Important Statement Seal of Approval,” he writes. “The politically conservative, anti-welfare streak in the author’s writing feels surgically removed; only the turbulence remains, smothered in the syrup (or ‘syrrpp,’ a Southern pronunciation that’s affectionately mocked here) of seasonal treacle. No one would accuse this adaptation of owning the libs or pandering to a base. It’s merely poverty-class cosplay, a pantomime of what people derisively call “white trash” triumph and tragedy being sold as prestige drama. It’s an attempt to serve Spam on a sterling silver platter.”

* * *

VOX: Everything about Netflix’s Hillbilly Elegy movie is awful

Alissa Wilkinson calls the film “possibly the worst movie I’ve seen in years,” “startlingly terrible,” and “strangely gross.”

Among the biggest critiques, however, is that Howard’s adaptation rings false and even lacks the convictions of Vance’s memoir. 

“It is distractingly Hollywoodified, a rich person’s idea of what it is like to be a poor person, a tone-deaf attempt to assuage a very particular kind of liberal guilt by reifying the very thing that caused the guilt in the first place. And, perhaps worst of all, it’s a very dull movie.”

She also dares to criticize the actresses’ performances as “bizarrely theatrical, as if they had to wind themselves up to Perform, with a capital P, as strange creatures they’ve never encountered before. They’re not humanizing portrayals.”

* * *

THE PLAYLIST: The noxious “Hillbilly Elegy” is the year’s most shameless film

Unlike Richard Roeper, Jason Bailey is most offended that the film is a “naked play for awards and prestige.” He also complains, “The dialogue is pure cringe, clanging, and phony – a lot of fist-thumping proclamations like ‘Family’s the only thing that means a goddamn.'”

Not only is he not a fan of the stars’ caricature turns, but he notes that Adams’ performance is so desperate that he pleads, “Just give [the Oscar] to her, for God’s sake, so she can go back to doing interesting work.”

And just in case his position isn’t clear, he ends with: “What an absolute crock of s***.”

* * *

VANITY FAIR: “Hillbilly Elegy” Is shameless Oscar bait

Ah, more anger at the film’s lack of shame! Richard Lawson calls it “both witless cosplay and a failure to interrogate any of the book’s controversial insinuations.”

One of the recurring themes in many reviews is how every scene is an overwrought event. 

“The film leaves pretty much zero room for anything quotidian, anything usual, which might give the story some kind of subtle human texture, and make the dramatic stuff actually land with the intended impact. It’s all yelling all the time, an exhausting litany of bad moments that renders the family’s story just about meaningless.”

Close’s performance is considered an “obscenity” and “all grim calculation masked as empathy.”

In short: “This is prestige bait that uses an awfully rusty lure, tossed with careless pride from its ship of Hollywood fools.”

* * *

WASHINGTON POST: “Hillbilly Elegy” is almost laughably bad — if it weren’t so melodramatic

Critic Michael O’Sullivan also notes that every event is overwrought in this “mystifying film adaptation” of the memoir. 

The film’s apolitical nature, however, is seen as its biggest failure. 

“[The film] eschews theories — more prominent in the book — that might help explain the opioid epidemic and the seemingly unbreakable cycle of poverty that defies simplistic solutions (yet might cause people to seek deliverance from a political outsider). The problem is that in doing so, the movie leaves us, like J.D.’s family, with only a mounting pile of baloney excuses for bad behavior.”

* * *

THE WRAP: “Hillbilly Elegy” Film Review: Ron Howard’s rust belt saga is yokel hokum

According to critic Alonso Duralde, the biggest issue with the adaptation is that it plays 
“like an informercial for J.D. Vance,” with a similar lack of understanding of what perpetuates poverty.

“These people aren’t impoverished because corporate America shut down the local manufacturing industry and sent the jobs to more easily exploited overseas labor; they aren’t ignorant because Ronald Reagan and his spiritual heirs starved public education; there isn’t an opioid crisis in this country because the Sackler family got rich flooding the market with OxyContin — these poor folks just stopped trying,” he writes.

Hollywood elitism is the lens through which this film is made and viewed, “a lurid gawk into the lives of the less fortunate so that more privileged audiences can feel like they’ve experienced something genuine, whether it’s a fried bologna sandwich or the washing and reusing of plastic cutlery.”

* * *

TIME OUT: Harbouring a vendetta against your eyeballs? Ron Howard’s turgid, overacted rust-belt drama is here to help

Phil De Semlyen calls this both a “preachy pudding of a movie” and “weak sauce.” 

Leaving the food metaphors behind, the film ultimately “arrives feeling more like an ill-judged, mind-numbing exercise in Hollywoodsplaining heartland America. And if ever there was a time for movie stars to ugly themselves up to play impoverished Appalachians, this surely isn’t it.”

* * *

INDIEWIRE: “Hillbilly Elegy” Review: Ron Howard adapts J.D. Vance’s controversial memoir into a forgettable Netflix biopic

David Ehrlich acknowledges the film’s yearnings as “for better or worse — exactly the kind of milquetoast and capital-‘E’ Empathetic movie you would expect a bunch of Hollywood liberals to make from Vance’s memoir. 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.”

Ultimately, however, he cites a failing that seems to be worse than any of the missed opportunities in messaging or over-the-top acting: 

“It will stir no controversy, enflame the minimum number of thinkpieces demanded by the moment (most of which will focus on the value of such a blandly “purple” movie at the height of our red/blue divide), and earn a party favor’s worth of awards for its cast. Some will feel seen, others will feel excused from looking closer, and most will feel nothing.

“Hillbilly Elegy” is available to stream on Netflix beginning Tuesday, Nov. 24. 

Federal judge calls Trump suit argued by Rudy Giuliani “Frankenstein’s Monster” and dismisses case

President Donald Trump‘s last-ditch crusade to litigate his way to an electoral win continues to fail with judges, as the campaign and its Republican allies have now lost or withdrawn from more than 30 lawsuits challenging President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

Election officials in every state have said there is no evidence of voter fraud in the presidential election, which Biden won with a record-setting 80 million votes, or nearly six million more than Trump. 

In one particularly cutting opinion, U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann in Pennsylvania wrote that the prosecution, led by erstwhile LifeLock spokesperson-turned-Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, had stitched its evidence together like “Frankenstein’s monster.”

Giuliani alleged, in his first federal courtroom arguments in 28 years last week, that Republican voters in the state had their rights violated under the equal protection clause after counties allowed voters to correct errors on mail-in ballots. It was the campaign’s only effort to challenge the state’s results.

Brann blasted the campaign’s case in a 37-page opinion, writing that not only did the campaign lack standing to bring the case in the first place but even if it did he would dismiss the effort based on its “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations.”

Giuliani’s case, Brann wrote, would not rectify any votes but “simply deny more than 6.8 million people their right to vote.”

“In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state,” wrote Brann.

Giuliani and campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis responded that they did not get a fair shot, and they believed the Supreme Court would grant their appeal.

“We are disappointed we did not at least get the opportunity to present our evidence at a hearing,” they said in a press statement.

The statement also pointed out that Brann was an “Obama-appointed judge,” despite the fact that he is a registered Republican and former member of the ultra-conservative Federalist Society.

Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., defended Brann in a statement as “a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist.” He said the campaign had “exhausted all plausible legal options, and along with court defeats in Michigan and Georgia, the rulings “confirm that Joe Biden won the 2020 election and will become the 46th President of the United States.”

“I congratulate President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala D. Harris on their victory,” Toomey said.

Biden holds an 81,000-vote lead over Trump in Pennsylvania, which certifies its election results on Monday. The state will by joined by Michigan and Nevada, which have also recently rejected lawsuits challenging the election.

Overall, the campaign and its allies have lost or withdrawn more than 30 lawsuits, many of which have been dismissed with prejudice. One of the plaintiffs in Giuliani’s Pennsylvania suit was himself once fined for violating election laws, and other plaintiffs embrace fringe conspiracy theories.

Giuliani, a former U.S. attorney, took over that case on Wednesday, the same day which he made his arguments. Five other campaign attorneys withdrew in advance.

The next day, Giuliani led a 90-minute Trump campaign press conference at Republican National Committee headquarters, where he and Sidney Powell, the top lawyer for Michael Flynn’s defense, promulgated outright lies and fringe conspiracy theories high-powered media lights until brown-tinged hair coloring sweated down Giuliani’s cheeks.

During the conference, Powell — who had earlier pledged that she would “release the Kraken” in court — linked Dominion voting machines to long-dead former Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and repeated a false conspiracy theory circulating in right-wing internet crawlspaces that the machines had somehow sent American votes to Germany which were in turn counted in Spain. In an interview with the far-right cable network Newsmax two days later, Powell accused Gov. Brian Kemp, R-Ga., of taking bribes from Dominion.

On Sunday, Giuliani and Ellis released a statement distancing themselves and Trump from Powell.

“Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own. She is not a member of the Trump legal team,” the statement said. “She is also not a lawyer for the president in his personal capacity.”

Dianne Feinstein to step away from Senate Judiciary Committee leadership role after Barrett hearings

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) announced Monday that she will not seek a leadership position in the Senate Judiciary Committee in the new Congress. 

Feinstein’s tenure as the ranking member has been fraught with complaints by Democrats for refusing to challenge Republicans in the committee about President Donald Trump’s recent Supreme Court appointee. Once the hearing had finished, Feinstein thanked committee chair Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), saying, “This has been one of the best Senate hearings I have participated in.”

Progressives felt it legitimized a process that flew in the face of the GOP-imposed rule that no president could appoint a Supreme Court Justice in the final year of his or her presidency. It was a rule Republicans invented after former Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly. But even after inventing the rule, Republicans refused to play by it, appointing Amy Coney Barrett after the death of legendary Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) is next in line for the chairmanship.

The 87-year-old California Democrat is one of few on the committee who never attended law school.

Trump maintains he “will prevail” in the election he lost as Biden transition formally proceeds

President Donald J. Trump has responded in a tweet to the news that the transition to a President-elect Biden administration must begin.

“I want to thank Emily Murphy at GSA for her steadfast dedication and loyalty to our Country [sic]. She has been harassed, threatened, and abused – and I do not want to see this happen to her, her family, or employees of GSA,” Trump tweeted. “Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail!”

Trump continued, “Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country [sic], I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and I have told my team to do the same.”

See the president’s tweet below:

“The system was rigged”: Fox News host Tucker Carlson claims “presidential election was not fair”

On Fox News Monday, Tucker Carlson — who just a few days previously criticized President Donald Trump’s attorney for refusing to provide evidence for voter fraud conspiracy theories — attacked the entire voting process as unfair.

“Other countries understand it, they don’t use electronic voting because they know it undermines confidence in democracy,” said Carlson. “We ought to revert immediately to the traditional system of voting, the one that served our democracy for hundreds of years . . . but at the same time, we shouldn’t let our focus on voting machines distract us from all that happened earlier this month. The 2020 presidential election was not fair. No honest person would claim that it was fair.”

“On many levels, the system was rigged against one candidate and in favor of another, and it was rigged in ways that were not hidden from view,” Carlson continued. “We all saw it happen. The media openly colluded with the Democratic nominee. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris refused to explain what they would do if they were elected. That’s never happened before in any presidential election in American history.” (In fact, Biden and Harris had pages and pages of policy plans, whereas Trump couldn’t explain what he even wanted a second term for.)

You can watch the video below via Twitter

FX’s stunning “Black Narcissus” remake leaves the viewer in a state of unrequited desire

There’s an argument to be made in favor of a limited series distinguishing itself as a curiosity in a TV world full of content vying to be necessary. This would explain FX’s three-part limited series “Black Narcissus.” 

Reminiscent of vintage PBS material, Amanda Coe’s ethereal adaptation is a performance showcase doubling as a throwback, recalling a time when prestige television was synonymous with “Masterpiece Theatre.” However, even that long-running title has modernized in a way that makes its period pieces feel less removed from the times we’re living in; if they don’t speak to specific current events, then at least their characters or the situations in which they find themselves are relatable.

Maybe that is the central bafflement of this adaptation of Rumer Godden’s 1939 novel which was made into a 1947 film celebrated for its inventive aesthetics and atmospheric build, and the scandalous nature of a story that acknowledges pent-up sexual desire that none of us can avoid, including nuns. Ideas that led to solemn Catholics crossing themselves back then are fairly commonplace nowadays, much to your grandmother’s dismay.

At least here it is handled in a way that maintains the original’s stylistic ambience and leans more heavily on the psychological darkness of the story. Frustratingly this also is this adaptation’s downfall in an era in which the audience expects a series to follow through on flirtations teased early on in a three-hour series that behaves like an independent movie. That is to say, it’s a work of art made to appeal to the very narrow audience that comes to a piece like this and expects a slow and methodical journey leading to no place in particular and best recommended for the lovely views.

Don’t let the good looks fool you though, a trick played upon us by casting Gemma Arterton as Sister Clodagh, a young Anglican nun living in India when it was still under British rule. Among her fellow sisters of St. Faith, Clodagh exhibits the most steadfast devotion, and takes on the task given to her by her superior Mother Dorothea (Dame Diana Rigg in one of her final roles before her death) to open a convent school in a remote village in the Himalayas called Mopu.

This is not a simple mission. A previous group of monks tried and failed in a similar task. And despite assembling a crack group of hardy nuns to get the place up and running, including the ever-useful Sister Briony (Rosie Cavaliero), the convent’s ablest gardener Sister Philippa (Karen Bryson), cheerful schoolteacher Sister Blanche (Patsy Ferran) and the convent’s prickly youngest, Sister Ruth (Aisling Franciosi), it quickly becomes evident that many forces are allied against Clodagh.

Surprisingly her main opposition may not come from the man who owns the place where the convent is to be located, or the nearby villagers, or even the forbidding mountain upon which it is perched, but something unseen. Whether those forces are supernatural or were already present within the women is open to interpretation. The building chosen for the new convent was once a palace for the local ruler’s concubines, and along with all the erotic art splashed across the walls, the place is clearly haunted by a tragic event that occurred in the past.

Also, along with all the erotic art splashed across the walls, there are regular visits from Mr. Dean (Alessandro Nivola), a sexily rumpled British ex-pat and tea factory manager tasked by the general who owns the palace to see to the sisters’ needs.  Dean and Clodagh immediately clash – playground code for “love at first sight.” But while Coe keeps Dean’s internal stirrings a mystery, save for Nivola’s smoldering gazes and habit of lingering too long in terse and tense conversations, his presence leads to much self-flagellating during Clodagh’s nighttime penance. And obviously, his effect on the ladies isn’t limited to her.

The question is whether the viewer is in the mood to weigh what exactly “Black Narcissus” is getting at, and whether its dearth of relevance even matters. It’s an odd case, truly, a three-hour series constructed of top shelf artistry with nothing to gripe about when it comes to the performances – Arterton being a stand-out, and Franciosi giving us a compelling view of a steady descent into insanity – or the dialogue. And that leaves the story itself which, again, is an orientalist tale that is definitely of a time and place and its own thing and could have benefitted from artistic tinkering beyond wondering whether this is supposed to be a ghost story or a tale about the madness that grows out of suppressed desire.

“Black Narcissus” makes a better argument for that second part but not a strong enough one to make its case, leading us back to that in-between area of frustration and questioning: Is this a ghost story? A tragedy of unrequited eroticism? Is this a parable for the ravages of colonialism or a metaphor for Britain losing its grasp on a land that it never had a right to it in the first place? (One significant evolution from the original film’s is that the South Asian characters are played by South Asian actors but they still remain on the periphery.)

And the main, damning question: Is this even necessary?

In its defense, you can ask the same of that which inspires the story’s title, a perfume called Narcisse Noir designed by Caron worn by one of the characters. Apparently the scent was made famous by Gloria Swanson’s character in a 1922 silent film she appears in with Rudolph Valentino, “Beyond the Rocks.” Although popular legend connects the perfume to her role in the far more famous “Sunset Boulevard,” a film Caron itself name-drops on the page where you can purchase the nearly 110-year-old scent, an astute cosmetics blogger found the origin of the popular mania it caused in a 1927 magazine article called “What the Pictures Do to Us.” One day this could be a fun piece of trivia to discuss at parties or, you know, not.

Point being, sometimes understanding the truth behind the how and why a legend takes root has no purpose beyond being interesting. But as is true of perfume from which it draws its name, “Black Narcissus” is enchanting and heady, and most people will be perfectly fine living without it.

All three episodes of “Black Narcissus” premiere Monday at 8 p.m. on FX and are available for streaming Tuesday on FX on Hulu.

How Trump’s tweets inadvertently mobilized hundreds of thousands suburban women against him

Do conservatives own the phrase “housewife,” or can it be reclaimed by liberals? The stereotypes that the phrase “housewife” recalls — manicured lawns, whiteness, nuclear families like in “Leave it to Beaver” — may seem counterposed to liberal values, emblematic of a reactionary ideal of an idyllic American past. But in the 2020 presidential election, President Donald Trump’s loss to President-elect Joe Biden was mostly due to voters in the suburbs of important battleground states. Exit polls show that Black women and suburban women were critical to Biden’s coalition; as AP News explained, Trump would have won if only men had voted. Trump’s loss is owed in part to this tidal shift in women in the suburbs, who banded together and organized in Facebook groups like the 200,000-member strong “‘Suburban Housewives’ Against Trump,” a group that started after Trump’s sexist and racist pitches to female voters in the suburbs fell flat.

Back in August, Trump tweeted that the “suburban housewife” would be voting for him. “They want safety & are thrilled that I ended the long running program where low income housing would invade their neighborhood,” Trump said. “Biden would reinstall it, in a bigger form, with Corey Booker in charge!” He continued to reiterate this message at campaign rallies in battleground states like Michigan, where he told women he was getting their “husbands back to work.”

But the hundreds of thousands of self-identified suburban housewives, Trump’s rhetoric motivated them to mobilize against him.

Loni Yeary, who started the Facebook group “‘Suburban Housewives’ Against Trump,” told Salon that Trump’s “suburban housewife” tweet was what pushed her over the edge. 

“It really angered me,” the 40-year-old said. “Because I am a suburban housewife, I’m a stay at home mom to three kids and I live in a suburb of Cincinnati. . . .  I knew a couple of other women who felt the same as I did and I just decided to start a group.”

That was back in August. Yeary invited friends from Kentucky, Texas, and Florida, to join the group; they then invited their own friends. Two weeks later, it had grown to over 25,000 members; more than 230,000 women are in the group now.

Yeary realized the group had the potential to be a place where women could organize themselves and their neighbors for Biden, and partnered with the group Red, Wine and Blue, a progressive 501(c)(4) whose stated goal is to “harness the power of suburban women.” With their help, “‘Suburban Housewives’ Against Trump” turned into a centralized online location where suburban women could swap organizing ideas, collaborate together to phone bank, text bank and write postcards for Biden and other Democratic candidates in their communities. Women also regularly shared ideas on how to talk to neighbors and people within their circles to “flip their votes” blue, which was core to the group’s “philosophy.”

Online organizing was of particular importance in the 2020 presidential election, as in-person political organizing was made more difficult by the pandemic. As ephemeral as a Facebook group might seem in the larger political sense, the group’s organizers say that the real-life connections fostered by social media gave their group greater power to change minds.

“Our philosophy has been that if you want to change the vote, you’re going to do it through your interpersonal relationships, like friends, coworkers and neighbors,” Yeary said. “Sometimes those are pretty awkward conversations to have, but it’s important, people are more likely to vote because they know that their neighbor down the street is going to vote for Joe Biden, rather than just somebody randomly calling them or texting them.”

To group members, the meaning of the phrase “suburban housewife” is precarious; obviously, there are gendered and — some would argue — outmoded connotations to the phrase. Indeed, in the official title of the group, the phrase “suburban housewives” is rendered in double-quotes, suggesting a facetious or tongue-in-cheek interpretation. Often, members joke about it; one group member said she made a “blue garden” full of Biden-Harris signs in her front lawn as a “suburban housewife” might. Some group discussions center around the sexist tone of “housewife,” and how “annoying” it is to be called the term, especially by a man. Yet ultimately, the group focused on election organizing more than philosophical or cultural debates.

Tracy Barnett, a 54-year-old in Charlotte, North Carolina, joined the group early in August. In an interview, she told Salon she was a “lifelong Republican” until 2016. After Trump won the 2016 presidential election, she realized she wanted to get more involved in politics and become more informed. She was alarmed as she watched those in her community and extended networks descend into Trump’s “cult of personality,” as she called it.

Eventually, a friend invited her to “‘Suburban Housewives’ Against Trump” on Facebook.

“It was a great place for sourcing and compiling information,” Barnett says. “I’d often see people post and say, ‘Hey, I’ve got a colleague (or thread) that is sharing X, Y and Z, I need some information to counteract this,'” Barnett said. She noted that Trump’s tweet that precipitated the group showed how “detached” he was from the suburbs.

“‘Suburban housewives,’ what is that even?” Barnett said. “Nobody’s a housewife, and nobody’s referring to themselves as a ‘suburban housewife,’ so there’s an incredible tone deafness to that. And then you couple that, with the implied racist segregationist rhetoric, and it just . . . insulting.”

Indeed, Trump’s attempt to reach women who live in the suburbs may have been meant to appeal to a part of his “base” who equate the so-called “American dream” to suburbs full of all white, middle-class families that exhibit traditional gender roles. While American suburbia is far from a “utopia,” historian Lily Geismer told Salon, our nation’s suburbs have changed dramatically over the last three decades.

“The suburbs have gone through a sort of tremendous transformation, which I think is one of the things that in some ways the election results actually demonstrates,” Geismer said. “And one of the biggest trends is in their racial diversity; the suburbs by no means have never been a monolith, but that’s been especially true in the last 30 years.”

Miesha Tate Ander told Salon she joined the Facebook group to contribute to the “many faces, many colors” that make up the suburbs today.

“In [Trump’s] mind, there’s no such thing as a Black ‘suburban housewife,'” Ander said. “It’s not just white women who live in the suburbs.”

Ander, who is 43 and living in Atlanta, started a company called Grab ’em by the Postcard, e-postcards designed to, in her words, empower and uplift marginalized and undecided voters. Those e-cards became popular in the Facebook group. Likewise, Ander said she’s also found the Facebook group to be a place where women who might not otherwise connect in real life become friends.

“You’ve got women in here who were previous[ly] Republican supporters. . . but it doesn’t even matter the party. Honestly it just brings together humanity in such a huge way,” Ander said. “And that’s what I really appreciate.”

“‘Suburban Housewives’ Against Trump” isn’t the only liberal “suburban women” organizing group that organically sprouted up online. There’s also “Suburban Women for Kamala Harris,” a Black women–led group that also has over 200,000 members. According to the group’s description, it’s a reaction to Trump’s adviser’s comment that Harris would “scare the s**t out of suburban women.”

Geismer said suburban women organizing is nothing new for either the left or right. Historically, “suburban liberals” have used their identity as suburban parents to their advantage, which she added we’re seeing again in the “resistance mom” movement on the left. However, there are questions around how far the resistance-mom activism can go, and how this cohort can push to dismantle systemic racism; exit polls found that fifty-three percent of white women in America still voted for Trump in 2020.

As a historian, Geismer said she’s interested in this “cleaning” of the “housewife” category, and wonders if it will stick beyond Trump. “It’s a dated term in many ways,” Geismer said. “I would be fascinated at the staying power of that idea going forward without Trump as the focus.”

As Yeary explained, the title of the group was a direct reaction to Trump’s comments. While she hopes the group continues to encourage suburban women to stay engaged in politics and support local Democratic candidates, the term “housewife” will likely stick around, even as Trump’s star fades.

“Both words are key to describing our group, but I recognize that not all the women in the group identify as ‘suburban; or as a ‘housewife,'” Yeary said. “I do like the idea of keeping ‘housewives’ in the name, just as a snarky reminder of where the group’s name came from in the first place; using that description allows us to claim that word and define it how we see fit.”

Mnuchin slammed for Biden “snub” that could sabotage U.S. economic recovery

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin was accused Friday of taking “exactly the wrong policy move right now” and sabotaging the economy for the incoming Biden administration after announcing an end-of-year cutoff to several key coronavirus relief lending programs at the Federal Reserve.

CNBC‘s reporting quoted one financial expert who likened the move by Mnuchin to stripping a ship of its lifeboats when they’re most needed. The outlet explained:

Mnuchin announced Thursday that he will not extend the Federal Reserve’s emergency lending programs that used Congress’ CARES Act funds beyond Dec. 31. The move is expected to drastically reduce the central bank’s ability to shore up the financial system.

“It’s hard to find an economic rationale for it,” Carl Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics, told CNBC‘s “Squawk Box Europe” on Friday.

“I don’t think there’s a good economic or public health or social reason to explain why they want to cut these programs,” he added, “so it’s kind of got to be politics, doesn’t it?”

At issue are an array of relief loan programs facilitated by the Fed with funds provided by the Treasury that were authorized by Congress earlier this year. These programs include: the Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility, Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility, Municipal Liquidity Facility, Main Street Lending Program, and Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility.

“With respect to the facilities that used CARES Act funding,” Mnuchin wrote Thursday to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, “I was personally involved in drafting the relevant part of the legislation and believe the congressional intent as outlined in Section 4029 was to have the authority to originate new loans or purchase new assets (either directly or indirectly) expire on December 31, 2020.”

“As such, I am requesting that the Federal Reserve return the unused funds to the Treasury. This will allow Congress to re-appropriate $455 billion, consisting of $429 billion in excess Treasury funds for the Federal Reserve facilities and $26 billion in unused Treasury direct loan funds,” wrote Mnuchin. 

Mnuchin’s letter, as Bloomberg News reported, elicited swift rebuke from Powell. In a statement released “minutes” after Mnuchin’s letter, the Fed urged that “the full suite of emergency facilities established during the coronavirus pandemic continue to serve their important role as a backstop for our still-strained and vulnerable economy.”

“The central bank,” noted Axios, “almost never issues public statements.” 

The Trump administration’s move sparked a chorus of criticism from economists including Paul Krugman.

In a Friday Twitter thread, Krugman said “Mnuchin is effectively trying to create a financial crisis, or at least make one more likely.” Krugman added that “basically we’re looking at more sabotage by an administration on its way out.”

Krugman was far from alone in his criticism:

Mnuchin’s announcement also drew scathing rebuke from Neil Barofsky, former inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, who described the programs’ move to the chopping block as a “reckless political decision,” and called on the Trump administration “not [to] succumb to the political temptation to straitjacket its successor.”

In his Friday op-ed at the New York Times, Barofsky urged Mnuchin to follow the approach of the George W. Bush administration’s outgoing Treasury Department when it “did all that it could to preserve President-elect Barack Obama’s discretion to use congressionally approved bailout funds from the Troubled Asset Relied Program … to steer our nation’s recovery.”

Trump’s Treasury Department, wrote Barofsky, “should reverse [its] reckless course and follow the precedent set with TARP by extending these programs to give the newly elected administration as much flexibility as possible.”

“It makes no sense to celebrate the programs for the success they have had in calming markets,” Barofsky added, “while at the same time pulling the rug out from under them at a time when they are likely to be most needed.”

China’s just-launched lunar mission will retrieve Moon rocks for the first time in 44 years

On Monday afternoon China launched a spacecraft that, if its mission is successful, will bring Moon rocks back to Earth for the first time in more than 40 years.

The Chinese mission, known as Chang’e-5, used a rocket known as Long March 5 to send a spacecraft to the Moon with the help of the European Space Agency (ESA), according to The New York Times. The launch occurred at the Wenchang Space Launch Center on Hainan Island at 4:35 AM local time (3:35 PM ET). The spacecraft includes an ascender, lander, orbiter and returner, with the plan being for the lander and ascender to descend to the Moon’s surface next month, where it will land near Mons Rümker. Mons Rümker is a volcanic formation approximately 4,265 feet high in the northern region of the Moon’s massive dark lava plains known as Oceanus Procellarum. Chang’e-5 is expected to spend roughly two weeks on the Moon’s surface (or the equivalent of a single lunar day) during which time scientists hope it will drill roughly six and a half feet and collect roughly 4.4 pounds of material. If all of this is successful, Chang’e-5 will return to Earth and land at a site in Inner Mongolia.

Yu Dengyun, deputy chief designer of China’s lunar exploration project, told China’s state television network that this mission will be very complex, pointing out that “we launch rockets on the ground with relatively mature technology, but we are using the lander as the launching platform on the lunar surface. How to dissipate heat, how to divert flows and how to control the rising process are what we have never done before. These are hard nuts to crack.”

The launch had originally been planned for 2017, but was postponed due to an engine failure in the Long March 5 rocket, according to Nature.

In addition to rocks, Chang’e-5 also hopes to collect dust and other materials that will help scientists learn more about the Moon’s history. One specific detail that scientists hope to figure out is precisely how long ago the Moon ceased having active volcanism on its surface. While previous samples indicated that the Moon’s volcanoes may have ceased being active 3.5 billion years ago, some scientists believe it could have been closer to 1 or 2 billion years ago.

Scientists also hope to learn more about the unusual composition of that region of the Moon, which contains rare earth elements, potassium, phosphorus, thorium and uranium.

Overall, the lunar materials could help scientists learn more about the origins of the planet Earth, the Moon and the formation of our solar system.

“This is a really audacious mission,” David S. Draper, the deputy chief scientist at NASA, told The New York Times. “They’re going to move the ball down the field in a big way with respect to understanding a lot of things that are important about lunar history.”

The last lunar mission to successfully bring back rock samples was that of the Soviet Union’s Luna 24 spacecraft, in 1976, although that mission only managed to collect roughly one-third of a pound of lunar material. There were three successful Soviet Luna missions in the 1970s, all unmanned, which retrieved roughly 10 ounces of material from the Moon.

In addition, NASA’s manned Apollo missions retrieved 842 pounds of Moon rock and soil in total. The samples gathered by the Apollo and Luna missions are still being studied by scientists today.

“This was an incredible feat – and today we’ve advanced both science and engineering and our prospects for future missions to study these mysterious ancient storytellers of the solar system,” Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate at the agency’s headquarters in Washington, said in a statement.

For all the hundreds of unmanned probes in the history of human space exploration, sample return missions are very uncommon, due to the added engineering costs and fuel needs. Indeed, most unmanned probes explore bodies in the solar system and either remain there or fly by their targets and continue into space, like the Pioneer and Voyager missions. Besides the Moon, the only solar system bodies to have samples returned from Earth are one asteroid, a comet, and a solar wind sample. Likewise, there are two sample-return missions currently en route back to Earth: the Japanese space agency’s Hayabusa2, which took samples from a near-Earth asteroid dubbed Ryugu; and a NASA spacecraft called OSIRIS-REx, which briefly touched the surface of the asteroid Bennu to gather rocks and pebbles from its surface. Hayabusa2 is scheduled to return to Earth with its samples in a couple weeks, on December 6. 

Over 100 CEOs threaten to cut off funds to Georgia GOP if Trump keeps blocking transition: report

More than 100 business leaders who plan to ask the Trump administration to immediately allow the presidential transition to begin have also discussed cutting off donations to Senate Republicans facing runoff elections to force the party’s hand.

The executives plan to send a letter on Monday demanding that Emily Murphy, the head of the General Services Administration, stop blocking President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team’s work, according to The New York Times.

“Every day that an orderly presidential transition process is delayed, our democracy grows weaker in the eyes of our own citizens and the nation’s stature on the global stage is diminished,” the executives said in a draft letter reviewed by The Times. “Withholding resources and vital information from an incoming administration puts the public and economic health and security of America at risk.”

Some of the executives have “also discussed withholding campaign donations from the two Republican Senate candidates in Georgia unless party leaders agree to push for a presidential transition,” according to the report.

At least one executive said on a Friday call that some wealthy donors had already been considering withholding support to Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., and Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga.

The group includes executives at many top financial firms, including Accenture, Blackstone, and KKR. Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzmann, a loyal Trump ally who spent $27 million this year backing the president and the Republican Party, did not join Blackstone President Jon Gray in signing the letter. He has issued a separate statement urging Trump to move on and accept defeat.

“The outcome is very certain today, and the country should move on,” Schwarzman said in a statement to Axios. “I supported President Trump and the strong economic path he built. Like many in the business community, I am ready to help President-elect Biden and his team as they confront the significant challenges of rebuilding our post-COVID economy.”

The effort appears to have been hatched by a group of Democratic state attorneys general, who urged New York Attorney General Letitia James on Thursday to approach business leaders about ways to compel the administration to stop blocking the transition, according to The Times.

Kathryn Wylde, the chief executive of the Partnership for New York City, told the outlet that James told the group that the attorneys general “thought that the New York business community” would “have influence in convincing Republicans around the country that this should be over, that the transition should be acknowledged and that it was a frightening proposition that this would remain unresolved.”

James said in a statement in response to the report that “this isn’t about partisan politics but about protecting our democracy.”

“Without the rule of law and an orderly transfer of power, everything from commerce to health care delivery to national security is in peril, and our business leaders can see that as clearly as the rest of us,” she added.

The big-money donors were joined by a group of more than 100 Republican former national security officials in calling for Republicans to pressure the administration. The group, which includes former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, former CIA Director Michael Hayden and former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, called on congressional Republicans to demand that Trump concede the election and allow the transition to proceed.

“President Trump’s refusal to permit the presidential transition poses significant risks to our national security, at a time when the U.S. confronts a global pandemic and faces serious threats from global adversaries, terrorist group and other forces,” the group said in a statement obtained by The Washington Post, calling on “Republican leaders — especially those in Congress — to publicly demand that President Trump cease his anti-democratic assault on the integrity of the presidential election.”

Ken Wainstein, a former assistant attorney general for national security under President George W. Bush and one of the organizers of the statement, told The Post that the group was motivated by the “disappointment that so many Republican leaders are abetting” Trump’s effort to “undermine our election.”

John Bellinger, a former State Department and National Security Council official under Bush and another organizer of the statement, said it was “shocking” that “congressional Republicans are allowing Trump to impugn the integrity of our elections.”

Those concerns were echoed by Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton, though he did not sign the statement.

“The Republican Party is not going to be saved by hiding in a spider hole,” Bolton told CNN on Sunday. “We need all of our leaders to come out and say, ‘The election is over.’ We’re not talking about an abstract right for Trump to use his legal remedies. We’ve passed that.”

“Murder on Middle Beach” and the frustrations of trying to solve your family’s own true crime story

Over the last several years, prestige television creators have latched onto scripted programs where grisly crimes punctuate glossy landscapes of immense privilege: there’s Grace Fraser’s (Nicole Kidman) luxe Upper East Side apartment in “The Undoing,” the sprawling Monterey beachside mansions in “Big Little Lies” and the antebellum opulence of the ancestral home in “Sharp Objects.” 

On its surface, “Murder on Middle Beach,” which premiered on Nov. 16, follows that formula. It centers on a case where a middle-aged mother was found stabbed and bludgeoned to death outside her home in an affluent Connecticut suburb. And, like in those shows, there is a certain insider mentality inherent to those communities, which inevitably prompts the question, “Who among us could do such a thing?”

That question lands differently, however, when it’s asked by the real-life son of the woman who was killed. 

HBO’s “Murder on Middle Beach” is the a four-part documentary series directed by first-time filmmaker Madison Hamburg. His mother, Barbara Beach Hamburg, was found murdered in her yard on March 3, 2010. Police initially speculated that this was a crime of passion — Beach Hamburg’s body was found gently covered with pillows, which could be interpreted as a sign of remorse — but without sufficient evidence, the case ran cold. 

Compared to tighter and sleeker true crime renderings like the recent “Don’t F**k with Cats” or “Abducted in Plain Sight,” “Murder on Middle Beach” may initially read as a little scattershot. The documentary was started by Hamburg during his time in film school — and while he was still obviously raw from his mother’s death — and that footage has been absorbed into a collage of vintage home videos, news clips and extensive interviews with members of his large family. 

At times, there’s a definite slog through clips of better times — birthday parties, expensive vacations, family photos that could double as J. Crew catalogue advertisements. 

But the personal nature of the footage is also exactly what makes Hamburg’s investigation so compelling. Unlike many true crime, or even scripted crime, series, “Murder on Middle Beach” is less about finding out who committed the act than exonerating the people closest to him. 

For example, Hamburg’s father, Jeffrey, was painted as a prime suspect in the first episode of the series. 

Jeffrey, who was an exorbitantly wealthy former CEO of Southern Electric International, and Barbara had an incredibly acrimonious divorce. The day Barbara was found killed, she and Jeffrey were due in court to discuss Jeffrey’s claim that he could not afford his child support and alimony payments (which raises the still-lingering question of, if true, where the money actually went). 

It’s a sketchy situation, one made all the more suspicious by Jeffrey’s refusal to speak with Madison about the case, a decision that essentially torpedoed their relationship for several years. All he will tell Madison is that Barbara had secrets and, eventually, that he wasn’t involved in her death. 

The tone of that divulgence suggests something big. You know — Mafia connections, a second family, a dangerous and jealous lover, ties to some secret criminal underbelly of suburban Connecticut. Madison pursues it as such, and proceeds to interview his grandmother and aunts about what kind of double-life his mother could have been living. 

They play coy or dumb (or are edited to appear as such), then after years of silence — and as a cliffhanger ending to Episode 1 — Jeffrey drops a bombshell: Barbara was involved in The Gifting Tables. 

The Gifting Tables was a pseudo-multilevel marketing scam that became popular in Connecticut during the recession, that was eventually exposed as a pyramid scheme. Potential members would “gift” existing members of the organization money in order to join, then recruit new members for their own eventual pay-outs. 

Madison spends Episode 2 of the docuseries unraveling Barbara’s exact participation in the group, which introduces us to a new family member, Jill Platt, Barbara’s great-aunt who introduced her to The Gifting Tables.

While Platt’s presence doesn’t exactly scream “Prime Suspect!” she does offer insight into a side of Barbara that Madison didn’t know. After Barbara’s divorce, she would drink, which led to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings — and was seemingly loved by most members involved — but eventually leveraged connections with other members for Gifting Table gains. 

That’s the kind of breach of trust, Madison realizes, that could cause a lot of resentment, especially after The Gifting Tables came under federal investigation. Joining the group wasn’t cheap. Initial buy-in was about $5,000 and, under leaders like Barbara, women would liquidate savings accounts or refinance their homes for a chance at entering the more lucrative circles of the group. 

Then Madison hits new information that changes the direction of his investigation. Barbara was on the cusp of receiving $40,000 as part of The Gifting Table. Days later, one of his mother’s AA friends admits, there were sightings of a mysterious masked man walking near Barbara’s yard. 

It’s a titillating detail. Madison entertains the idea that his mother’s killer could have been a desperate partner or husband of one of the women involved in Barbara’s Gifting Tables group. The groups themselves were, after all, set up more like secret societies than social clubs; female participants were barred from telling their husbands about their involvement and were frequently encouraged to continue “bringing in new blood.” 

But there’s little hard evidence, like camera footage or additional witnesses, to corroborate that claim. 

As viewers, you begin to understand throughout the second episode the frustration Madison must feel when leads dry up, especially when he confronts investigating officers who admit they haven’t delved into connections between Barbara’s death and The Gifting Tables. 

But inevitably there’s another lead that will propel viewers into the third episode — this one pointing to Barbara’s older sister, Conway, a colorful, outspoken character with a history of substance abuse.

While watching the series, you get the sense that Madison is trying on all these different theories for size, examining them until they cease to make sense. The second episode, especially, shows him attempting to find a rational explanation for his mother’s death that didn’t lead him back to investigating those closest to him, even when that appears to be where the culprit may be lurking.

That’s what’s haunting about the series. Wherever he turns, there are family secrets and, as he puts it, “”The only person I know didn’t [kill Barbara] is me.” 

“Murder on Middle Beach” airs Sundays at 10:05 p.m. after “The Undoing” on HBO.

 

Trump campaign forces Georgia taxpayers to pay for second recount after first one confirms its loss

Georgia will count its votes again after President Donald Trump requested a machine recount following a hand recount which confirmed he lost his election in the state by more than 12,000 votes.

Thousands of Georgia election workers spent last week recounting nearly 5 million votes by hand, finding that the original count showing President-elect Joe Biden winning the state by more than 12,000 votes was correct within 0.1%. Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, both Republicans, certified the vote on Friday after the recount finished within 500 votes of the initial machine count. But the Trump campaign, which has waged a legal crusade based on outright lies and conspiracy theories aiming to overturn the results of the election, said it wants the votes counted for the third time.

“Today, the Trump campaign filed a petition for recount in Georgia,” it said in a statement. “We are focused on ensuring that every aspect of Georgia state law and the U.S. Constitution are followed so that every legal vote is counted.”

The first recount was part of a new mandatory risk-limiting audit, which is not considered an official recount by the state. State law allows a candidate to seek an official machine recount within two days of the certification if the margin is less than 0.5%. The final margin in the race was 0.26%. The recount is expected to begin next week, though it is unclear how long it will take to complete, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

While the Trump campaign was forced to pay millions for a recount in heavily Democratic areas of Wisconsin with large Black populations, Georgia state law does not require candidates to cover the cost, meaning taxpayers will have to foot the bill for another recount which has little chance of affecting the outcome. Unlike the hand recount, the machine recount will “pose greater logistical and financial challenges to county election officials,” The Washington Post noted.

The campaign’s call for another recount came after Raffensperger repeatedly hit back at Trump’s baseless conspiracy theories about the recount. “Numbers don’t lie,” he said after certifying the votes.

The Trump campaign has pushed unfounded conspiracy theories about the state’s signature matching requirement. County officials verify signatures on the ballot envelope when they receive ballots, but afterward, it is impossible to match ballots back to voters because of privacy protections in the state constitution.

“President Trump and his campaign continue to insist on an honest recount in Georgia, which has to include signature matching and other vital safeguards. Without signature matching, this recount would be a sham and again allow for illegal votes to be counted. If there is no signature matching, this would be as phony as the initial vote count and recount,” the campaign baselessly claimed. “Let’s stop giving the people false results. There must be a time when we stop counting illegal ballots. Hopefully it is coming soon.”

But Raffensperger has repeatedly explained that the state has actually strengthened its signature match requirement, noting that signatures for absentee ballots are matched by election workers not once but twice.

“That’s just another red herring that has been thrown out there by a campaign that doesn’t have the votes in this state,” Raffensperger told WSB-TV, “and apparently other states.”

The Biden campaign said it was confident that another recount “will simply reaffirm Joe Biden’s victory in Georgia a third time.”

“As the secretary of state said, there is no reason to believe there are widespread errors or fraud and the Trump campaign has no evidence to back up their baseless claims,” spokeswoman Jaclyn Rothenberg said in a statement. “With regards to signature matching, both parties were aware of the rules set forth months before the election and all signatures have already been matched.”

Raffensperger has repeatedly said he preferred Trump to win but would not do anything to reverse the decision of the state’s voters despite attacks from Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., and Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., and an alleged attempt by Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. to persuade the state to toss legal ballots to swing the election to Trump.

“I’ve been saying that half of America will be happy and half of America will be sad with these results,” Raffensperger told Georgia Public Broadcasting last week. “And I would be disappointed when I put on my Republican hat, but these will be the results and it will be what it is because that is the will of the Georgia voter.”

Kemp has avoided criticizing Raffensperger, though he appeared to echo Trump’s attempts to sow doubt in the result on Friday. The governor urged the secretary of state to randomly select ballots to match signatures, even though it would violate the state constitution.

“The Georgians I have heard from are extremely concerned about this, so I encourage Secretary Raffensperger to consider addressing these concerns,” Kemp said even as he certified the result. “It seems simple enough to conduct a sample audit of signatures on the absentee ballot envelopes and compare those to the signatures on applications and on file at the secretary of state’s Office.”

Raffensperger has not said whether his office would consider such a plan, but Gabriel Sterling, the state’s voting system manager, pleaded for Trump to drop his election challenge in a press conference last week.

“Look, you’ve already got a hand recount,” he said. “Nothing changed. Let’s not do that.”

Regeneron antibody treatment previously given to Trump receives FDA emergency authorization

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on Saturday that it is granting an emergency use authorization to the same experimental antibody treatment, REGN-COV2, that was given to President Donald Trump after he was diagnosed with COVID-19 last month.

The antibody treatment, which is manufactured by the biotechnology company Regeneron, combines the drugs casirivimab and imdevimab and is intended “for the treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19),” according to the FDA letter. The two drugs are described as monoclonal antibodies, meaning antibodies manufactured by cloning a unique white blood cell, and “target the receptor binding domain of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2,” the virus that causes COVID-19. 

REGN-COV2 is similar to a treatment developed by the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly that was given emergency use authorization earlier this month, according to The New York Times. Regeneron’s drug cocktail will only be allowed for people over 12, have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and are at a high risk for developing severe COVID-19. The company only expects to have about 80,000 doses of REGN-COV2 available by the end of November, 200,000 by the first week of January and 300,000 by the final week of January.

It is worth noting that an emergency use authorization is not the same thing as full FDA approval. As Dr. Deborah Doroshow, an assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, explained to Salon last week regarding the FDA’s emergency use authorization of a COVID-19 home testing kit, Emergency Use Authorization does not imply the product is “safe” nor “effective. “Simply, an EUA signifies that there is a serious or life threatening condition for which no approved or adequate alternative exists (in this case, a home testing kit) and that there is reason to believe the product may be effective and that the risks of using it most likely outweigh the benefits,” Doroshow said.

When Trump was diagnosed with COVID-19 last month, he received a bespoke drug regimen that included the steroid dexamethasone to address his lowered oxygen levels; a five-day course of an antiviral drug called remdesivir that is meant to improve recovery time for patients; and an 8 gram dose of an experimental drug called REGN-COV2 from the biotechnology company Regeneron. At the time Regeneron CEO Dr. Leonard Schleifer explained the company’s decision to allow Trump to access their drug by arguing that “giving it to [Trump] or to others who might not be able or don’t qualify for clinical trials is the right use of compassionate use. That’s for small numbers of people, for these exceptions. We want everybody to be potentially able to benefit. We understand we don’t make that decision. This is a decision the FDA has to make.”

Other COVID-19 related drugs have been granted emergency use authorizations recently. In addition to the FDA granting this to Eli Lilly for bamlanivimab, another monoclonal antibody drug, Pfizer and BioNTech submitted an application for an emergency use authorization last week to the FDA for their COVID-19 vaccine candidate. Pfizer Chairman and CEO Dr. Albert Bourla told NPR’s All Things Considered on Thursday that once the vaccine is authorized by the FDA for emergency use, “we will be ready to start distributing our vaccine within hours.” In a joint statement on Friday, Bourla explained that the filing was “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.”

Trump’s on his way out, but leaves a lasting legacy: The right’s open embrace of terrorism

In any sensible society, Kyle Rittenhouse would be shunned across the political spectrum.

The 17-year-old Illinois resident stands accused of shooting three people, killing two of them, during an August Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Whatever the specific facts of that incident, the larger truth is that Rittenhouse is lying in the bed he made for himself. If he had done the right thing, by simply staying at home and leaving the protesters alone, two men would be alive and he would not face homicide charges. But because he got enraptured by violent fantasies of armed confrontation with anti-racists, Rittenhouse picked up a gun, drove across state lines and got exactly what he was looking for. The results were tragic. 

In the past, Rittenhouse would have been largely abandoned, even by right-wingers who might otherwise be generally sympathetic to insecure white men playing dress-up with camo and guns. We’ve seen this pattern from Timothy McVeigh in the 1990s right through the Trump years. Conservatives certainly didn’t embrace Patrick Crusius, the 21-year-old white nationalist accused of murdering 23 people in an El Paso, Texas, Walmart store last year. The mainstream conservative movement often flirts with right-wing extremists, but when the bullets fly or the bombs go off, conservative leaders prefer to pretend that they had nothing to do with the violence. 

But Rittenhouse is free now, on $2 million bail, thanks to the conservative leaders who broke this pattern and rallied to the young man’s side. Rittenhouse was aided by Christian websites fundraising for his defense, and according to his lawyer, Lin Wood — who is also involved in Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election — assistance was also offered by My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell and ’80s-era child actor Ricky Schroder. Schroder even posted a picture of himself celebrating with Rittenhouse, encouraging people to move to social media platforms like Parler that don’t ban people for misinformation or hate speech. (Schroder had his own run-in with the law last year, when he was arrested on domestic violence charges that were later dropped.)

Rittenhouse has Trump to thank for the hero’s treatment he’s getting on the right. Along with undermining the social prohibitions against blatant racism, overt misogyny and openly trying to steal elections, Trump spent the past five years dismantling the taboo against shamelessly encouraging domestic terrorism. Trump’s incitement of violence started shortly after he announced his first presidential campaign, when he fantasized out loud about physical violence against Black Lives Matter protesters in August 2015. He has continued at a steady and intensifying clip over the last five years. By the time Rittenhouse rolled into Kenosha with a gun, Trump had made it safe for conservatives to openly support political violence. 

That’s exactly what happened in the case of Rittenhouse. In the days after the shooting, Tucker Carlson of Fox News painted Rittenhouse as a hero, rather than a kid who was looking for trouble and found it. Soon, much of the conservative media followed. Then Trump himself got involved, insisting that Rittenhouse was justified in shooting protesters. Trump’s administration even pressured the Department of Homeland Security to depict Rittenhouse as a hero, even though there was no reason whatsoever for him to bring a gun to the Kenosha protest in the first place. 

Trump mostly encourages right-wing violence for the same reason he does anything: He thinks it may benefit him personally. It boosted his ego to believe people would risk injury, death or prison out of loyalty to him, and he obviously hoped a right-wing army would rise up to keep him in office after the voters threw him out. (That didn’t happen, thankfully, probably because most Trump supporters are too old and comfortable to go full Rittenhouse.) When a group of would-be terrorists plotted to kidnap Michigan’s Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and likely to murder her, Trump made sure to express his delight in public, seeing the plot as a personal tribute. 

This newfound enthusiasm for violence is bound to outlast Trump, whose impotent coup attempt won’t prevent his eviction from the White House on Jan. 20. That’s because none of this was ever about him, no matter what his ego tells him. He enabled it, of course, by using the presidential pulpit to give permission for some of the uglier urges on the right to burble up to the surface. 

FBI statistics released last week show that hate crimes have risen to their highest level in over a decade, fueled — as in the El Paso shooting — by Trump’s hateful and violent rhetoric. 

To make this even more disturbing, as journalist David Neiwert noted at Daily Kos last week, “this floodtide has been accompanied by a notable decline among law-enforcement agencies who take hate crimes seriously.”

In other words, police departments around the country are refusing to report their hate-crime data, which Neiwert says is “exacerbated by an increasingly partisan conservativism in police cultures, manifested by the open hostility of many officers to civil-rights groups such as Black Lives Matter.”

It’s yet another sign that, under Trump, the American right has become a lot more comfortable with domestic terrorism — so much so that many police departments, which tend to be be incredibly conservative, refuse to treat it as a serious threat. This gels with reports of police encouraging or cooperating with far-right groups who are targeting progressives for harassment, as well as fist-bumping and partying with groups who celebrate violence against the left. 

Trump himself has been hiding out at the golf course since his electoral defeat, but his followers continue to promote violence against anyone who opposes their fascistic fantasies. 

Rittenhouse’s lawyer, Wood, went on former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s radio show over the weekend and suggested that Trump supporters back his anti-democratic coup the way “our Founding Fathers did in 1776.”

Unicorn Riot, a group that tracks the communications of neofascists, has reported an uptick in violent rhetoric among the Oath Keepers, a far right militia group whose leader, Stewart Rhodes, has openly begged Trump for some kind of order to inflict violence on his opponents. Unicorn Riot tracked Oath Keepers on social media calling for “executing lefties openly and violently” and “killing the news media live on air.”

It continues to be unlikely that anything resembling a trained and organized militia will rise up to inflict violence on Trump’s behalf. But this kind of rhetoric can lead directly to acts domestic terrorism, as angry young men, start taking it upon themselves to “do something” rather than simply fantasize about violence online. Even when Trump is out of office, the grievances that fuel this rhetoric — the racism, the misogyny, the paranoid delusions about the “deep state” — will continue to fester.

Trump was merely the manure spread on the ground. Now the ground is thoroughly fertilized, and the violent shoots are beginning to grow. 

Carl Bernstein names 21 GOP senators who privately express “contempt” for Trump but still enable him

Veteran journalist Carl Bernstein on Sunday published a list of 21 Republican senators who have privately expressed “extreme contempt” for President Donald Trump despite publicly backing him.

Bernstein, the longtime Washington Post reporter who covered the Watergate scandal, expressed frustration with Republican lawmakers who have supported Trump amid his attempt to overturn the results of an election he lost based on lies and conspiracy theories.

“We are witnessing the mad king, in the final days of his reign, willing to scorch the earth of his country and bring down the whole system, to undermine our democracy, strip it of its legitimacy, poison the confidence of our people in our institutions and the Constitution for Donald Trump’s own petulant, selfish, rabid ends,” Bernstein said in an appearance on CNN. “We have a president, for the first time in our history, sabotaging his country.”

Bernstein said he has spoken with senators and staff for years who “disdain” Trump before naming more than a dozen of them.

“Many, if not most, of these individuals, from what I’ve been told, were happy to see Donald Trump defeated in this election as long as the Senate could be controlled by the Republicans,” he said, adding that they’ve stayed silent despite Trump’s attacks on the country’s institutions.

“We’re going to have to live with the legacy of this sabotage,” he continued.

Bernstein later published a longer list on Twitter, arguing that doing so did not violate “any pledge of journalistic confidentiality.”

Bernstein’s list of senators who “privately expressed their disdain for Trump” include:

  • Rob Portman, R-Ohio
  • Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
  • Ben Sasse, R-Neb.
  • Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
  • Susan Collins, R-Maine
  • Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska
  • John Cornyn R-Texas
  • John Thune, R-S.D.
  • Mitt Romney, R-Utah
  • Mike Braun, R-Ind.
  • Todd Young, R-Ind.
  • Tim Scott, R-S.C.
  • Rick Scott, R-Fla.
  • Marco Rubio R-Fla.
  • Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa
  • Richard Burr, R-N.C.
  • Pat Toomey, R-Pa.
  • Martha McSally, R-Ariz.
  • Jerry Moran, R-Kansas
  • Pat Roberts, R-Kansas
  • Richard Shelby, R-Ala.

“With few exceptions, their craven public silence has helped enable Trump’s most grievous conduct—including undermining and discrediting the US the electoral system,” Bernstein wrote.

Bernstein’s decision to name senators who privately expressed “disdain” for the president came a week after he called for journalists to expose the Senate’s “dirty secret” that “continues to enable this disinformation.”

“Perhaps half of the Republican members of the Senate despise and disdain Donald Trump,” he told CNN’s Brian Stelter earlier this month. “It’s time that we start calling these senators out, perhaps by name, in terms of what they really believe, what they tell us as reporters on background.

“They have enabled part of this disinformation campaign, and even some of them are talking about a ‘coup’ that Donald Trump is trying to initiate here and hang in the office by challenging legislatures in the Electoral College, et cetera, et cetera,” he added. “They know what’s going on. They won’t speak out. The dirty secret is perhaps these Republicans in the Senate, and we have to figure out a new way to cover them and what they are really saying to each other.”

Republicans were far more willing to criticize Trump during his 2016 primary run, before he became the most popular person in the party. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who has become a loyal ally of the president, ripped Trump as a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot,” who was “unfit for office” during the primary.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, railed against Trump as a “pathological liar,” who was “utterly immoral” and a “narcissist at a level I don’t think this country’s ever seen.”