Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Biden should attack Trump as a massive, ludicrous failure — not just a tax cheat

Using its agenda-setting powers for good instead of evil for once, the New York Times has released the second in a series of stories detailing exactly what kind of fraud Donald Trump is, using recently obtained copies of the tax returns the president has spent years desperately trying to hide.

This second one is a doozy, focusing as it does on how Trump, desperate for cash to prop up his failing empire, faked being a successful businessman on “The Apprentice.” Then, because he is unbelievably bad at business, Trump managed to burn through the $424.7 million windfall he “earned” from that show, leaving him apparently dead broke before he announced his presidential campaign in 2015. 

Much attention has been paid to the revelation from the first article in this series that Trump is a promiscuous tax cheat who uses all sorts of shady strategies — paying his daughter Ivanka as a “consultant” to hide money from the IRS, for one — to keep his income tax bill at zero in most years.

But this second article focuses on what is likely a far more potent slam against Trump in the eyes of the voters he’ll need to win over if he wants to be re-elected in November: He is a comically terrible businessman. His real estate empire was kept on life support through ads with cartoon sheep and selling ringtones, as well multi-level marketing schemes and other ploys to defraud desperate people. 

On Tuesday night we will see the first debate of the general election campaign. Right now, most liberal commentators are urging Trump’s Democratic opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, to talk about Trump’s extensive tax cheating. That would actually be a mistake.

Instead, Biden should focus on how Trump’s entire claim to be a captain of industry is a lie, and the fact that he’s barely stayed afloat through laundry soap ads and tricking people into taking phony classes at “Trump University.”

This may seem counterintuitive to liberals, who are offended by Trump’s immorality and want to see him held to account for his corruption and criminality. But there’s a real danger for Biden in harping on the fact that Trump is a bad person: Doing so runs the risk of making Trump look tough, smart and strong. Instead, Biden should characterize Trump as weak and stupid, which is far more likely to turn off the kinds of voters Trump needs to win in swing states. 

Voters already know Trump is a lying scoundrel. If anything, that’s a big part of his appeal, especially to those low-information and fair-weather voters who dragged him across the finish line in 2016. For many of those voters, Trump serves up a fantasy of the tough guy who breaks the rules to get things done. 

Don’t just take my word for it — the data backs this up. As Dan Pfeiffer, the former communications strategist for Barack Obama, explained in a recent newsletter, focus group and polling evidence shows that Trump actually benefits from telling “voters that norms and institutions are too weak to stop Trump from doing what he wants.”

Trump’s propagandists on Fox News and talk radio get this. Rather than denying that Trump is a tax cheat  — something Trump himself has bragged about — they’re hyping the cheating as evidence that Trump is smart and knows how to work the system. 

Mollie Hemingway, conservative commentator and self-proclaimed Christian, defended tax cheating on Fox News Monday, declaring, “All of these things he’s doing are things that probably all of us do.”

Rush Limbaugh went even further, fawning over Trump’s tax cheating as evidence that he’s a “master” and an “expert.”

By scolding Trump for being a naughty, Biden runs the risk of looking like the nagging police chief in an ’80s cop drama, scolding our rogue-cop hero for bending the rules. Instead, Biden should try to kneecap Trump’s efforts to look clever or strong by focusing on the fact that Trump was such an epic failure at business he needed to shill for laundry soap to keep his companies from collapsing entirely. 

Trump is not a “master” or an “expert” or someone who knows how to “game the system.” Trump, in reality, is this guy:

I attended the Republican National Convention in 2016, and one of the most interesting things was how much the programming avoided mentioning “The Apprentice.” Instead, Trump was portrayed as this Ayn Rand-style titan of real estate, with lots of photos of cranes and men in hard hats.

Propping up this lie that he’s a successful real estate mogul is central to maintaining the Trump mystique. The truth — that his real estate empire is a failure, which was barely kept alive by cash from reality TV, commercial endorsements and fraud — offers the only hope of dimming Trump’s reputation, among a certain segment of voters, as a smart and successful businessman. 

Focusing on Trump’s failures as a businessman is not only a delicious way to humiliate him and degrade him in the eyes of his fans, it offers a path to connect Trump’s failings to the real-life impact on voters.

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to get voters to understand how Trump’s cheating on his taxes affects them. Yes, tax cheating reduces government income that is needed for government services, but that’s abstract accounting talk. Besides, no one is under the impression that Trump’s tax bill was the make-or-break number for a federal budget that runs into the trillions every year. 

But there’s a way to explain why voters should care that Trump is such a failure at real estate that he was forced to hawk mattresses and marketing scams in order to stay above water. Over the last four years, Trump has run the government exactly like he ran his businesses, by failing miserably to do his job and covering up his failures with a bunch of lies and TV pageantry. 

For instance, in the real world, Trump failed miserably to handle the coronavirus pandemic, despite being gifted with a massive public health infrastructure that was, at one time, the envy of much of the world. There are now 7.1 million Americans who have been infected and more than 205,000 who have died — which is more than 20% of the world’s cases, in a country that has only 4.5% of the world’s population. 

But Trump doesn’t care that he failed, because he believes he can fake success, “Apprentice”-style. Just last week, Trump declared on Fox News that he has done a “phenomenal job” and deserves an “A+” for his work on the pandemic. 

Trump thinks he can fake his way through the presidency, just like he faked being a successful businessman. This is an easy, simple message. It’s also likelier to resonate with undecided or shaky voters than the message that he’s a nefarious tax cheat, which runs the risk of making him sound more competent than he actually is.

Trump desperately wants voters to believe he’s a master builder and real estate king. Biden would do well to remind them how Trump actually made the money he then proceeded to lose: By shilling for multi-level marketing schemes and cut-rate pizza chains.  

Will Biden and Trump even discuss the worsening inequality that got us here?

When Donald Trump and Joe Biden take to the debate stage in Cleveland on Tuesday night, they will be standing astride America’s great socioeconomic fault line. Since the outbreak of COVID, that has become an abyss into which hundreds of thousands of Americans have fallen and hundreds of thousands more are likely to follow.

Perhaps the most surreal and oppressive aspect of what we are living through is the way the campaign calendar forces us to normalize a day-in and day-out mass casualty event that approaches or exceeds 1,000 American deaths every day.

Predictably, the media’s fixation on “getting Trump” is nearing a fevered pitch with the New York Times exposé on Trump’s taxes.

But what may be lost on the president’s fiercest opponents in the media is that their predilection for fixating on Trump plays into his hands by making the entire election about him. Tactically, that is far preferable for him than focusing on the rapidly deteriorating circumstances of the American people, who are dying in droves as a consequence of his despotic indifference to the ravages of COVID.

It’s as if the country’s top journalists, who so badly underestimated Trump in 2016, are hoping to expiate their original sin of failing to protect the nation from his unique brand of kids-in-cages tyranny by “finally exposing him.”

If you thumb through the index of Bob Woodward’s book “Rage,” which serves as the definitive tick-tock for Trump’s duplicitous COVID response, you won’t see any reference to unions like the American Federation of Government Employees or the federal civil servants who have died from COVID.

It was the AFGE that tried to warn early on that Trump’s downplaying of the virus would kill their members on the front lines of the TSA, while infecting their families and spreading the virus. All three things happened but this devastating narrative has been consistently obscured by the media’s Trump myopia.

If the corporate news media wanted to really expose Trump, they would tell the lost stories of all the dead doctors, nurses, cops, sheriff’s deputies, firefighters and other essential workers felled as a consequence of Trump’s playing off the nation’s 50 states against each other instead of pursing a coherent national pandemic policy.

The really frightening part is that so many Americans know exactly who Donald Trump is and see his evasion of income taxes as a bona fide. To them, he is a champion for upending a corrupt status quo that uses public health prescriptions like mask-wearing as a plot to take away their God-given rights and liberties.

They fully subscribe to Trump’s delusional premise that the sooner more Americans are infected with COVID the sooner we will achieved “herd mentality.” For these MAGA acolytes, hundreds of thousands of dead Americans, especially if they are the wrong kinds of Americans and likely to vote Democratic, make a fair down payment on a return to prosperity.

Yet, the get-Trump media persists, in the vain hope their latest exposé of him will somehow flip the switch on the ill-informed electorate, who will finally snap out of their Trump trance. Yet what can be observed is that every time they send a Pulitzer-winning jolt through the Trumpenstein they themselves created, he endures.

Even now, the media are playing his game by keeping their lens tight on him. It’s an updated reprise of what happened in 2016, where the lack of on-the-ground reporting on the enduring economic dislocation and despair in places like Cleveland gave Hillary Clinton a false sense of security and gave Trump his opening in places the Democratic elites had long ignored. 

New Jersey’s 2nd congressional district offers a classic example. It was one of 20 districts in the country that voted for Barack Obama both in 2008 and 2012, and then flipped in 2016 to the Republicans, choosing Trump’s phony American-dream restoration over Clinton’s Obama-era continuity.

These are the places where after eight years, Obama’s promises of “hope and change” became stale. Struggling families that had felt uplifted by his election were disappointed by his “recovery” in which they lost their homes even as Wall Street prospered even greater than before.

These congressional districts were made up of 200 counties in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania that had voted for Obama twice, only to turn red for Trump in 2016. These were the places where the working-class voters lived who Michael Moore said saw a vote for Trump as the equivalent of throwing a Molotov cocktail into a corrupt political system that had long ago stopped considering them, much less working for them.

In 2016, more than 750,000 African Americans stayed home ,even after pushing their voting participation to record levels for Obama. At the same time, in states like Ohio, the scene of Tuesday’s debate, many white Americans were engaged and energized by Trump’s racist dog whistle.

It did not take much to turn our behemoth ship of state, setting her ill-fated course to run aground on the deadly shoals of COVID. You don’t have to be a Russian chess grandmaster to skillfully exploit the ignored margins of society, where race or immigration status can determine your fate.

Four years after 2016, this great American fault line endures and has even grown deeper but still remains largely invisible to so much of the corporate media. On one side is the worldview that is framed by commercials for luxury cars, where everyone can always work remotely.

On the other side of this great divide is where America’s working families, in places like New Jersey’s 2nd congressional district and states like Ohio, reside. These are the places where many people can’t easily put their hands on $400 for an emergency. This is the dominion hardest hit by COVID, where people there have no choice but to put their lives at risk and leave their homes as so-called essential workers in the midst of a once-in-a-century pandemic.

This is where the tens of millions of people live whom Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell wanted to force back into the workplace. So they ended the $600 weekly unemployment premium that would have permitted them to stay home and help their kids with the dubious enterprise of “remote learning.”

This is the cohort that includes so many whose health had deteriorated for years because of our for-profit health care system, which rations care based on your ability to pay. It was the circumstances of these invisible people that sent America’s average life expectancy into decline three years in a row before COVID arrived.

The ruling elites of both parties failed the broad swath of America’s working class even as they drowned in student and medical debt. All it took was for Trump to reference them for millions of them to see him as their champion.

On Tuesday night it would be great if the moderators referenced the on-the-ground realities of Ohio’s working families whose economic predicament has only become more precarious during the Trump administration.

According to Policy Matters Ohio, a nonprofit advocacy group, Ohio workers who earn minimum wage make 28 percent less than their grandparents did. Consider the findings of the United Way’s ALICE Ohio Report which tracks the economic standing of the asset-limited, income-constrained but employed (ALICE) population that struggles week to week to make ends meet.

Before COVID, 39 percent of Ohio’s families were either living below the poverty line or struggling week to week to cover the basics. In several counties a majority of the households were in that economically stressed cohort.

According to 2018 data, a single ALICE adult paid $3,024 in federal taxes, and a family of four paid $7,860. Donald Trump paid $750. While the number of Ohio families living below the poverty line has decreased slightly since 2016 the number of ALICE families struggling week to week went up by 46,780.

While Trump can imply that ignoring COVID will return working families to prosperity, it’s important to remember that before the pandemic hit, the number of households unable to afford household essentials in Ohio had been growing over time, from 31 percent in 2007 to 39 percent by 2018.

“The pandemic has shown that many ALICE workers are essential, frontline employees,” said Dr. Stephanie Hoopes, national director of United for Alice. “It has become exceedingly clear that we need ALICE to keep the economy running and to keep us all safe and healthy. Many ALICE workers have no choice but to work, but do not have basic safety gear to do their jobs safely without risk of contracting or spreading the new coronavirus.”

Hoopes continues. “For example, ALICE workers care for our aging and ailing seniors. Yet despite doing physically and mentally demanding work, many ALICE health care workers do not have masks or other Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), placing them, and the families many return to at the end of their shift, at greater risk of exposure.”

When you look at post-World War II economic data, what you see are deteriorating circumstances for America’s working-class households, decade after decade. It did not matter which political party was in power because they both facilitated a concentration of wealth and corporate power that set the stage for a weakened population that could be eaten alive by COVID.

We closed scores of urban and rural hospitals that served the poor. We unlearned the public health lessons from the last pandemic in 1918 and failed to ensure that we kept a registered nurse in all of our schools.

The elites ignored this fundamental erosion of America’s public health well-being, even as they got richer and richer. On the other side of our national fault line, the rest of the nation sank deeper and deeper into chronic disease and addiction while increasingly turning to suicide. All these individual trends were studied and analyzed, but no president and no Congress managed to see what their confluence would portend.

How long can we continue to let our politics be about anything else other than reversing these self-destructive trend lines?

Is Fox News obsessed with “hate”? Study finds network uses this word five times more than its rivals

Fox News is up to five times more likely to use the word “hate” in its programming than its main competitors, according to our new study of how cable news channels use language.

Fox particularly uses the term when explaining opposition to Donald Trump. His opponents are said to “hate” Trump, his values and his followers.

Our research, which ran from Jan. 1 to May 8, 2020, initially explored news of Trump’s impeachment. Then came the coronavirus. As we sifted through hundreds of cable news transcripts over five months, we noticed consistent differences between the vocabulary used on Fox News and that of MSNBC.

While their news agendas were largely similar, the words they used to describe these newsworthy events diverged greatly.

Fox and hate

For our study, we analyzed 1,088 program transcripts from the two ideologically branded channels — right-wing Fox and left-wing MSNBC — between 6 p.m. and 10:59 p.m.

Because polarized media diets contribute to partisan conflict, our quantitative analysis identified terms indicating antipathy or resentment, such as “dislike,” “despise,” “can’t stand” and “hate.”

We expected to find that both of the strongly ideological networks made use of such words, perhaps in different ways. Instead, we found that Fox used antipathy words five times more often than MSNBC. “Hate” really stood out: It appeared 647 times on Fox, compared to 118 on MSNBC.

Fox usually pairs certain words alongside “hate.” The most notable was “they” — as in, “they hate.” Fox used this phrase 101 times between January and May. MSNBC used it just five times.

To put these findings in historic context, we then used the GDELT Television database to search for occurrences of the phrase “they hate” on both networks going back to 2009. We included CNN for an additional comparison.

We found Fox’s usage of “they hate” has increased over time, with a clear spike around the polarizing 2016 Trump-Clinton election. But Fox’s use of “hate” really took off when Trump’s presidency began. Beginning in January 2017, the mean usage of “they hate” on the network doubled.

‘Us’ versus ‘them’

So who is doing all this hating — and why — according to Fox News?

Mainly, it’s Democrats, liberals, political elites and the media. Though these groups do not actually have the same interests, ideology or job description, our analysis finds Fox lumps them together as the “they” in “they hate.”

As for the object of all this hatred, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and other Fox hosts most often name Trump. Anchors also identify their audience — “you,” “Christians” and “us” — as the target of animosity. Only 13 instances of “they hate” also cited a reason. Examples included “they can’t accept the fact that he won” or “because we voted for [Trump].”

Citing liberal hate as a fact that needs no explanation serves to dismiss criticism of specific policies or events. It paints criticism or moral outrage directed at Trump as inherently irrational.

For loyal Fox viewers, these language patterns construct a coherent but potentially dangerous narrative about the world.

Our data show intensely partisan hosts like Hannity and Carlson are more likely than other Fox anchors to use “they hate” in this way. Nevertheless, the phrase permeates Fox’s evening programming, uttered by hosts, interviewees and Republican sources, all painting Trump critics not as legitimate opponents but hateful enemies working in bad faith.

By repeatedly telling its viewers they are bound together as objects of the contempt of a powerful and hateful left-leaning “elite,” Fox has constructed two imagined communities. On the one side: Trump along with good folks under siege. On the other: nefarious Democrats, liberals, the left and mainstream media.

Research confirms that repeated exposure to polarized media messages can lead news consumers to form firm opinions and can foster what’s called an “in-group” identity. The us-versus-them mentality, in turn, deepens feelings of antipathy toward the perceived “out-group.”

The Pew Research Center reports an increasing tendency, especially among Republicans, to view members of the other party as immoral and unpatriotic. Pew also finds Republicans trust Fox News more than any other media outlet.

Americans’ divergent media sources — and specifically Fox’s “hate”-filled rhetoric — aren’t solely to blame here. Cable news is part of a larger picture of heightened polarization, intense partisanship and paralysis in Congress.

Screenshot of Sean Hannity on Fox News with text reading 'Hate & Hysteria' across the Democratic donkey symbol

Sean Hannity portrays criticism of Donald Trump as hate-based. YouTube/Fox News

Good business

Leaning into intense partisanship has been good for Fox News, though. In summer 2020 it was the country’s most watched network. But using hate to explain the news is a dangerous business plan when shared crises demand Americans’ empathy, negotiation and compromise.

Fox’s talk of hate undermines democratic values like tolerance and reduces Americans’ trust of their fellow citizens.

This fraying of social ties helps explain America’s failures in managing the pandemic — and bodes badly for its handling of what seems likely to be a chaotic, divisive presidential election. In pitting its viewers against the rest of the country, Fox News works against potential solutions to the the very crises it covers.The Conversation

Curd Knüpfer, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Freie Universität Berlin and Robert Mathew Entman, J.B. and M.C. Shapiro Professor Emeritus of Media and Public Affairs, George Washington University

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

Kayleigh McEnany supports “criminal investigation” into New York Times after report on Trump’s taxes

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Tuesday said that she supported a “criminal investigation” into The New York Times for publishing details of President Donald Trump’s tax information.

During an interview on Fox News, host Sandra Smith asked McEnany about Rep. Kevin Brady’s (R-TX) call for the Department of Justice to open an investigation into the paper’s reporting.

“The president hasn’t pressed for that [investigation], but look, that is a fair investigation to have,” McEnany replied. “We’ve seen the politicization of taxes before. We’ve seen the IRS targeting Tea Party groups, and its an unacceptable proposition for that to happen.”

“Also unacceptable for these documents of the president to leak illegally to The New York Times, who then publishes the information,” she added. “So, it’s an important investigation.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

 

Fox News host floats bonkers conspiracy theory that Joe Biden will use listening devices at debate

Fox News reported that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden may be planning to use listening devices during Tuesday night’s debate.

During a discussion with Fox News anchor Bret Baier, host Bill Hemmer relayed information from one of his colleagues, which was likely planted by the Trump campaign.

“The Trump team asked to inspect the ears of each debater for electronic devices or transmitters,” Hemmer announced. “The Biden team has not consented to that.”

“The Biden team wanted a break every 30 minutes,” he added. “The Trump team said we will not have that.”

You can watch the clip below via Twitter:

“He’s done”: George Conway predicts Trump will wind up “bankrupt” and a “criminal defendant”

George Conway, the husband of former White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, took to Twitter on Tuesday morning to deliver a brutal prediction about President Donald Trump’s future.

Reacting to The New York Times’ explosive reporting about the contents of the president’s taxes, Conway predicted that the full tax returns themselves will likely be leaked to other reporters, who will post them in their entirety for the public to see.

It’s at that point, Conway believes, that accounting experts will take a deep dive into the president’s finances and raise more questions about his sources of income — and that, in turn, will make him toxic for any financial institutions who were still thinking of lending him money.

“He’ll end up personally bankrupt,” Conway predicted. “He’ll wind up a criminal defendant, fighting off charges of tax and financial fraud, and he might not be even able to foot his lawyers’ bills, if any decent lawyers will still work for him.”

The bottom line, writes Conway, is that “he’s done . . . not just politically, but financially and legally.”

Read the whole thread here.

Breonna Taylor case grand juror: We weren’t given the option of indicting the two cops who shot her

Update: Judge Ann Bailey Smith on Wednesday agreed to allow Cameron to delay the release of the recordings until noon on Friday after he asked for a one-week extension so his office would have “proper time to redact specific personal information of witnesses.”

Original story:

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said he would comply with a judge’s order to release the grand jury recording in the Breonna Taylor case after a grand juror alleged that Cameron had misrepresented the deliberations.

The juror filed a motion calling for the release of the transcripts on Monday so that “the truth may prevail.”

“The Grand Jury is meant to be a secretive body. It’s apparent that the public interest in this case isn’t going to allow that to happen,” a spokesperson for Cameron said in a statement. Despite the concerns over the release, the attorney general’s office said it would comply with the order to release the recording on Wednesday in response to the juror’s complaint.

An attorney for the juror told The New York Times that Cameron “misrepresented” the deliberations and “failed to offer the panel the option of indicting the two officers who fatally shot the young woman.”

The attorney general’s office said it is “confident” in the case they presented but acknowledged that jurors were not given the option of indicting Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly and Det. Myles Cosgrove in Taylor’s shooting.

“The evidence supported that Sergeant Mattingly and Detective Cosgrove were justified in their use of force after having been fired upon by Kenneth Walker,” Taylor’s boyfriend, the statement said. “For that reason, the only charge recommended was wanton endangerment.”

Former Det. Brett Hankison, the lone officer fired after the shooting, was indicted on three counts of wanton endangerment after some of the bullets he “blindly” fired into Taylor’s home struck a wall adjoining her neighbors’ apartment. None of the three officers who fired their weapons were charged in Taylor’s death, even though the city of Louisville agreed to pay Taylor’s family $12 million to settle a wrongful death lawsuit.

Hankison pleaded not guilty on Monday.

Kevin Glogower, the juror’s lawyer, told the Times that the juror approached him after Cameron claimed during a news conference that state law prevented him from charging Mattingly and Cosgrove.

“While there are six possible homicide charges under Kentucky law, these charges are not applicable to the facts before us because our investigation showed — and the grand jury agreed — that Mattingly and Cosgrove were justified in the return of deadly fire after having been fired upon,” Cameron said during the news conference last week.

Glogower told the outlet that the juror was “unsettled” by the fact that they were only presented with possible charges for Hankison. He said in the petition that it was “patently unjust” that Cameron “attempted to make it very clear that the grand jury alone made the decision.”

“Using the grand jurors as a shield to deflect accountability and responsibility for these decisions only sows more seeds of doubt in the process while leaving a cold chill down the spines of future grand jurors,” the petition said.

According to Walker, the lawsuit filed by Taylor’s family, and more than a dozen neighbors, the officers serving a “no knock” search warrant, part of a narcotics investigation targeting Taylor’s ex-boyfriend Jamarcus Glover, did not announce themselves. Cameron claimed at the news conference that a lone witness corroborated the officers’ statement that they made an announcement, arguing that it was not a “no knock” warrant.

Walker opened fire on the officers, claiming he believed someone was breaking in. Mattingly and Cosgrove returned fire, hitting Taylor six times. An FBI analysis determined that Cosgrove fired the fatal shot. Hankison ran into a parking lot and shot into Taylor’s home through a sliding door and bedroom window, resulting in charges against him. Unlike the other officers, he was not shot at by Walker.

Cameron claimed at the news conference that ballistics showed that the bullet that struck Mattingly during the gunfire was Walker’s. But Vice News reported last week that the initial ballistics report did not prove the bullet was Walker’s and found that “due to limited markings of comparative value, [the bullet] was neither identified nor eliminated as having been fired from” Walker’s gun.

Vice News also published a video of body camera footage showing Hankison entering Taylor’s apartment as investigators were working the scene in an apparent violation of department protocol.

Ben Crump, an attorney for Taylor’s family, called the grand jury process a “sham proceeding that did nothing to give Breonna Taylor a voice.”

“I never had faith in Daniel Cameron to begin with,” Taylor’s mother, Tamika Palmer, said after the decision. “I was reassured Wednesday of why I have no faith in the legal system, in the police, in the law. They are not made to protect us Black and brown people.”

“So much misinformation”: Fauci calls out Fox News and Trump’s new adviser for “outlandish” claims

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, on Monday called out Trump adviser Dr. Scott Atlas and Fox News for spreading “misinformation” about the coronavirus.

Fauci called out Atlas, a frequent former Fox News guest who has no background in infectious diseases but has pushed the discredited “herd immunity” strategy and questioned the efficacy of masks, during an interview with CNN chief media correspondent Brian Stelter.

“Most are working together,” Fauci said of the administration’s coronavirus advisers. “I think you know who the outlier is.”

Stelter asked Fauci if he was worried that Atlas was misleading the president.

“Well, yeah, I’m concerned that sometimes things are said that are really taken either out of context or actually incorrect,” Fauci responded. 

Fauci pushed back on Atlas’ skepticism of masks, noting that the “data [was] very strong.”

“If I have an issue with someone, I’ll try and sit down with them, and let them know why I differ with them and see if we can come to some sort of resolution,” he said. “So, I mean, my differences with Dr. Atlas — I’m always willing to sit down and talk with him, and see if we could resolve those differences.”

Fauci’s comments came after an NBC News reporter overheard Dr. Robert Redfield, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, trashing Atlas on a flight from Atlanta to Washington.

“Everything he says is false,” Redfield said, according to the outlet.

Fauci also criticized Fox News, whose segments Trump repeatedly blasts out to his millions of followers on Twitter, for contradicting “obvious” facts.

“There is so much misinformation during this very divisive time that we’re in, and the public really needs to know the facts,” he said. “Some of the media that I deal with really kind of — I wouldn’t say distort things, but certainly give opposing perspectives on what seems to be a pretty obvious fact. If you listen to Fox News — with all due respect to the fact that they do have some good reporters — some of the things that they report there are outlandish, to be honest with you.”

Atlas, a neuroradiologist who serves on the conservative Hoover Institution, caught Trump’s eye during his frequent appearance on Fox News, The New York Times reported. Since joining the coronavirus task force in the summer, Atlas has pushed a “herd immunity” strategy “akin to an approach used to disastrous effect in Sweden” and questioned the use of masks and the threat of the coronavirus to children, according to the outlet.

The CDC did not deny that Redfield said “everything he says is false” on the flight.

“Positions on three issues — the value of wearing a mask, youth COVID-19 infections, and where we are currently with herd immunity — are the positions that Dr. Redfield has different positions on than Dr. Atlas,” the CDC said in a statement. “The doctors agree on many other issues.”

Fauci has repeatedly warned that herd immunity would require more than 70% of the U.S. population to be infected.

“If everyone contracted it, even with the relatively high percentage of people without symptoms . . . a lot of people are going to die,” Fauci said in August. “The death toll would be enormous.”

Fauci said last week that the U.S. was nowhere close to the necessary level of antibodies.

“We are nowhere near herd immunity yet,” he said. “The mean in the country is around 2 to 3%.”

“The View” hosts corner Ted Cruz over attempt to blame Democrats for COVID-19 deaths

Under President Donald Trump’s leadership, the United States has the highest COVID-19 death count in the world — and states with Republican governors, including Florida and Texas, had some of the worst coronavirus surges over the summer. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas tried to defend the GOP response to the COVID-19 pandemic during a Monday, September 28 appearance on ABC’s “The View” — and it didn’t go well for the GOP senator.

Grilling Cruz forcefully, liberal co-host Joy Behar noted that Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis “recently lifted all restrictions on businesses, allowing bars and restaurants to operate at full capacity without a mask mandate. He said they won’t be closing anything going forward.” Behar asked Cruz if Texas should do the same thing, and he responded by trying to blame Democrats for coronavirus deaths — especially New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Cruz claimed that the death rates have been “much, much lower” in Florida than in states with Democratic governors, failing to mention how quickly Cuomo enacted a stay-at-home policy.

Behar, however, reminded Cruz that New York was “hit early” by the pandemic. And when Cruz wouldn’t say anything about DeSantis’ policies, Behar told the senator, “You are deflecting, sir. You are deflecting the question.”

Whoopi Goldberg, another co-host, jumped in, reminding Cruz how disastrous Trump’s response to the pandemic has been at the federal level.

“Had the man who is running the country right now given us this information in January when he had it — when we could have maybe done something a little differently — it might have worked differently,” Goldberg told Cruz. “I just wanted to point that out. It’s not about whose people died more. People died, and they didn’t have to.”

Watch the video below:

Trump’s resort business is collapsing — is that why he pushed to reopen the economy?

For the past several decades, Donald Trump has been widely regarded as a great big phony. Everything about him is a mirage. He steals credit for the accomplishments of others, especially his predecessor, Barack Obama. His business model is all about slapping his goofy name on properties built by others. Even his outward appearance is a fraud: his unsubstantiated self-confidence, his hair, his clown makeup, his baggy suits designed to hide his doughy frame, even his shoes, which appear to have unusually high heels — it’s all intended to make him appear physically more powerful than he actually is. Fake, fake and fake.

It’s all a big show. In reality, he’s nothing more than a petty, brittle, small man — and a business failure.

Now, thanks to the latest bombshell story from the New York Times, revealing previously unknown details about Trump’s tax returns, we finally have solid confirmation that his wealth and his status as a successful businessman are just as fake as his presidential record and his dairy-swirled hair.

One of the major components in Trump’s ongoing deception pertains to the alleged “success” of his various resorts and golf courses. Spoiler warning: Trump’s properties aren’t doing nearly as well as he says, which leads me to a theory about his response to the pandemic. More on that presently.

According to the tax returns obtained by the Times, Trump earned $427 million as the host of “The Apprentice,” along with various deals linked to his network television career. Trump used his TV revenue to go on a spending spree, buying up golf courses around the world — golf courses that turned out to be 18-hole money-pits. As of 2015, he had accumulated 15 golf resorts, and it’s difficult to find one that’s actually operating at a profit.

  • In 2012, Trump purchased the bedbug-infested Trump National Doral resort for $150 million. Since then, the property has gobbled up $162 million in losses, especially after Trump burned through another $213 million in upkeep. The property also has “a $125 million mortgage balance coming due in three years.”
  • His golf resorts in Ireland and Scotland have accumulated “$63.6 million in losses,” according to his tax returns.
  • Trump’s hotel in Washington, D.C., located near the White House, had lost more than $55 million as of 2018.
  • Between 2008 and 2009, during the Great Recession, the Trump Organization itself lost $1.4 billion. Trump exploited this loss to claim a $73 million tax refund from the IRS, which subsequently launched an ongoing audit of Trump’s taxes. If he ends up getting the fuzzy end of the audit, he could owe the government $100 million. For starters.

By the way, the New York Times story didn’t cover losses from his other failed enterprises, including Trump magazine, Trump vodka, Trump steaks and, more notoriously, Trump University.

Furthermore, none of these losses take into consideration tax years 2018, 2019 or — gulp! — 2020. It’s safe to assume that Trump’s losses are continuing to stack up, especially with a crushing recession fueled by the pandemic in full swing.

Despite his garish penthouse and private jet, Trump is broke. His properties are failing and he needs the money. Badly. Turns out, not only is Trump a craptastically bad businessman, but you and everyone you know is paying to help mitigate his investment nightmares nearly every damn weekend. 

Michael Cohen told MSNBC that the tax returns are a Rosetta Stone for understanding Trump’s finances. Accordingly, one of the myriad secrets the New York Times story exposed is a possible answer to why he drags his entire presidential entourage to his resorts on a regular basis — at least 500 times so far, costing taxpayers more than $1 million — and why he chose to rush the nation into reopening the economy while the pandemic was at its height. 

It’s worth mentioning that in addition to forcing taxpayers to finance his money-losing properties, Trump paid zero in taxes during 10 of the last 15 years. Remember the debate about “makers vs. takers?” Trump is absolutely a taker. Indeed, based on these numbers, he’s taken a million times more than he’s paid into the federal government in recent years. Talk about a welfare queen.

Not only are we involuntarily backstopping Trump’s colossal financial losses with our tax dollars, we’re also backstopping his losses with our lives and livelihoods.

We already knew his zealous reopening obsession was about keeping the stock market afloat long enough 1) to keep his portfolio in good standing, and 2) to haul his ponderous bulk into a second term. But reopening too soon could also have been about those crappy golf resorts. The hospitality sector has taken a severe beating this year, thanks to COVID and Trump’s inability to rise to the challenge, and that can’t be good for his already failing resorts.

More than 205,000 Americans are dead, while 7.1 million have been infected, in part because Trump is desperately worried about the solvency of his vacation properties. In other words, the president of the United States is so freaked out about falling deeper into debt that he may very well be making life-and-death decisions for the entire nation based on the failing financial status of his janky resorts.

Think about that for a second. The president is metaphorically grinding down American bodies and fertilizing his golf courses with the remains. Hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens are dead so Trump can be re-elected (or so he hopes) while generating blood money for his failing golf courses. On these terms alone, he’s the deadliest sociopath ever to occupy the White House. 

After the Civil War, the War Department turned Robert E. Lee’s Arlington, Virginia, estate into a military cemetery, burying Union soldiers as close to the Custis-Lee mansion as possible. If there’s any justice remaining in America after this nightmare, Trump should be forced to give up his resorts, and the people we’ve lost due to his sadism and destruction in the face of COVID should be interred on those lands for free — if the families even want that, of course. At the very least, Trump’s resorts should be turned into permanent public memorials to the men, women and children who have succumbed to this otherwise avoidable virus. 

Sadly, there’s nothing phony about Trump’s malice toward American lives as he pursues his cruel and reckless mission to keep his properties on life support. His irredeemable actions this year alone warrant the harshest prison term allowed by law, if for no other reason than to guarantee that nothing like this horror show never happens again in America.

Trump fans who took hydroxychloroquine could be denied health insurance if SCOTUS kills Obamacare

One of the bizarre reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic was President Donald Trump continually pushing supporters to take Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate.

While there never evidence the drug could successfully treat coronavirus, Trump began pushing it regardless — even after his own agencies issued warnings the drug could harm patients.

The people who took the drug, including the president himself, could be denied health insurance.

Larry Levitt, the executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, noted that patients who had taken Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate used to receive automatic “medication denials” before Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act during the Obama administration.

This means, if Trump’s Department of Justice is successful in overturning the Affordable Care Act, Republicans who listened to Trump may have a hard time buying insurance in the individual market.

Data leak: 2016 Trump campaign listed 3.5 million Black people it wanted to stop from voting

President Trump’s 2016 campaign identified more than 3 million Black voters it wanted to deter from casting ballots in the presidential election, according to a massive data leak obtained by the British news outlet Channel 4.

The leak revealed that the campaign compiled data on nearly 200 million voters and divided them up into eight different categories. One category, titled “Deterrence,” listed 3.5 million Black voters.

The leak shows that the campaign disproportionately targeted Black voters in its “deterrence” strategy aimed at lowering voter turnout among likely supporters of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. More than 60% of people on the list in Georgia were Black, for example, even though Black people are around one-third of the state population. Black people made up 46% of the “Deterrence” list in North Carolina even though they make up just 22% of the population. In Wisconsin, Black voters made up 17% of the “Deterrence” list, even though just 5.4% of the state’s population is Black.

In all, about 54% of the people on the “Deterrence” list were people of color, according to Channel 4. Other categories of voters that the campaign sought to turn out were “overwhelmingly white.”

The people on the list were described publicly by Trump’s top data scientists as people the campaign hoped “don’t show up to vote.” The campaign worked with the controversial British data firm Cambridge Analytica, now defunct, to compile the data, which was used to target certain Facebook ads to voters. Voters on the “Deterrence” list were targeted with negative ads attacking Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s campaign reportedly spent more than $44 million on Facebook ads during the campaign, nearly $20 million more than Clinton. His success in targeting voters on Facebook has repeatedly been cited as a key reason for his Electoral College victory, which rested on narrow wins in a few states where Democratic turnout was down.

The campaign pumped out six million different versions of “highly targeted messages” and targeted voters with the help of a Facebook employee embedded within the campaign, according to the report. Some of the ads were “dark posts,” which disappeared from user feeds after the campaign stopped paying for them, meaning that there is no full public record of the ads the campaign bought and it is impossible to tell exactly how voters on the “Deterrence” list were targeted.

The Trump campaign has denied that it targeted Black voters. Brad Parscale, who ran the campaign’s digital operations in 2016, told PBS with “100%” certainty that the campaign “did not run any campaigns that targeted even African Americans.”

But the Channel 4 investigation found that people on the “Deterrence” list were served anti-Clinton ads focusing on her 1990s comments about juvenile “super-predators,” which was viewed in later years as a justification for the mass incarceration of young Black men. Cambridge Analytica acknowledged in a document obtained by the outlet that the video targeted African Americans.

Jamal Watkins, the vice president of the NAACP, called the report an example of modern-day voter suppression.

“The thing that’s shocking-slash-troubling about this is that there’s this category of suppression,” he told Channel 4. “That ‘Deterrence’ part. So, we use data — similar to voter file data — but it’s to motivate, persuade and encourage folks to participate. We don’t use the data to say who can we deter and keep at home. That just seems — fundamentally, it’s a shift from the notion of democracy.”

Watkins said that Facebook has not “fully disclosed their role” in the ad campaign and called on the social network to crack down on “suppressive ads.”

“It’s not ‘may the best candidate win’ at that point, it’s ‘may the best well-funded machine suppress voters and keep them at home, thereby rigging the election so that someone can win,'” he added.

A Facebook spokesperson told Channel 4 that the company has addressed the issues that permitted the scheme.

“Since 2016, elections have changed and so has Facebook — what happened with Cambridge Analytica couldn’t happen today,” the spokesperson said. “We have 35,000 people working to ensure the integrity of our platform, created a political ads library … and have protected more than 200 elections worldwide. We also have rules prohibiting voter suppression and are running the largest voter information campaign in American history.”

Though Trump lost the Black vote by more than 80 points in 2016, reduced Black turnout has repeatedly been cited as a key reason why Clinton lost several states Democrats had previously carried for decades, most notably Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. About 2 million Black voters who backed President Barack Obama in 2012 did not turn out to vote for Clinton.

The new report “has exposed the ways in which the Trump campaign used targeted digital ads to intentionally and methodically deter Black Americans from voting,” said a spokesperson for the African American Policy Forum, a social justice think tank. “This is twenty-first century voter suppression.”

Trump could be more than $1 billion in debt — that’s a national security risk, experts say

A New York Times reckoning of President Trump’s finances suggests that he could be hard-pressed to cover hundreds of millions in debt coming due over the next few years, a prospect that national security experts say raises serious alarms about Trump’s motives and vulnerabilities to foreign influence.

“Someone with a mountain of debt like President Trump is a national security risk and would be unable to get a security clearance if he were any other government employee,” former U.S. attorney and national security law expert Barb McQuade told Salon. “When someone is desperate for cash, they are susceptible to blackmail or bribery. For that reason, people with massive debt or in bankruptcy are not permitted access to our nation’s secrets.”

Indeed, national security authorities tell Salon that debt is one of the most common reasons that the government rejects security clearances. Creditors can exert undue influence over borrowers with large debts, as can someone with knowledge that an individual is strapped for cash. A prominent leader positioned as Trump is — he is deeply in debt, and has refused to detach himself from his businesses, which rely heavily on overseas income — makes a perfect mark for foreign intelligence agencies and corporate entities.

To be considered compromising, experts say, the amount doesn’t have to come anywhere near the estimated $1.1 billion that Trump owes.

“I served with people who lost security clearances because, when they deployed, they had cell phones that weren’t turned off and the account went to collection,” Naveed Jamali, national security expert and author of the book “How to Catch a Russian Spy,” told Salon. “These were 20-year-old kids who did nothing wrong, yet a routine background check showed this and they lost their clearance.

“Trump owes hundreds of millions of dollars, he’s currently under audit and he’s declared bankruptcy multiple times — and to see that he still gets a pass is not only insulting, it’s dangerous,” Jamali said. “How can we expect he isn’t a desperate man, deeply in debt to God knows who?

“It’s probably one of the greatest individual security risks in the history of this country,” he added.

Some critics say part of the problem is that it’s difficult to say exactly who might have Trump in their pocket. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi raised the concern Monday to NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell.

“This president appears to have over $400 million in debt. To whom? Different countries? What is the leverage they have? So for me, this is a national security question,” Pelosi said.

“We take an oath to protect and defend. This president is commander in chief. He has exposure to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars — to whom? The public has a right to know,” she continued.

Trump’s tax returns show that while he he only paid $750 to the U.S. government in 2016 and 2017, he paid thousands of dollars in income taxes to foreign governments where his companies do business, such as Panama, India and the Philippines. He has extensive business ties to Turkey and the Middle East, and actively pursued a Trump Tower Moscow project during the 2016 campaign while publicly saying he had “no deals” with Russia.

But while some might raise the specter of unknown foreign entities holding sway over the president, Trump’s financial disclosures reveal who most of his creditors are — though not entirely. Neither the disclosures nor the tax returns reveal any possible underwriters or silent partners that a bank might have required in order to lend millions of dollars to someone with Trump’s financial record.

Veteran national security attorney Bradley Moss pointed out that the Times report not only shows Trump’s debts, it also throws into serious doubt his capacity to amortize them — a role that foreign interests might be willing to take on in exchange for information or favors.

“Trump’s extensive financial debts, and the serious lack of detail surrounding his ability, if any, to pay those debts, is the very kind of thing that ordinarily would pose a major obstacle to someone serving in a national security position,” Moss told Salon.

Trump’s businesses, many of which are in the hospitality, travel and tourism sectors, have also been hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic. On top of that, the Times revealed for the first time that a decades-long IRS audit over a $72.9 million tax refund that Trump received could end up costing him more than $100 million, should it be decided unfavorably.

Forbes estimates that Trump, while a billionaire in terms of the net value of assets and debts, only has about $160 million in cash on hand. A $100 million hit on that, the magazine noted, would be “absolutely devastating.”

“If you add those together, I mean, he’s very realistically facing a potential bankruptcy where people are concerned — in terms of your previous guest [i.e., Pelosi] — about foreign influence,” former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen told NBC News. “I mean, the more likely scenario that I see is that he’ll find some corrupt foreign entity to help him out of the situation.”

That scenario, however, could play out regardless of whether Trump remains in office or not.

“The out-of-office scenario is fascinating,” McQuade said. “After President Trump leaves office, he will still know many of the secrets he learned as president. While he will no longer have the power to act on them, he will still have the power to disclose them. The Espionage Act makes it a crime to willfully reveal national defense information.”

While the Constitution might provide remedy, Moss pointed to the unique design flaw that failed to prevent this scenario: A 20-something military intelligence analyst might lose his clearance for letting a cell phone bill lapse, but no such rules apply to the president. This, Moss says, is a familiar theme.

“One of the key lessons that has emerged from the Trump presidency is that we may need to consider future constitutional measures to impose disclosure obligations on constitutional officers, such as the president, who are otherwise exempt from national security vetting,” he said.

Another familiar theme might make it difficult for Trump to sell what he knows, even if he wanted to. As Jamali observed, anyone who pays Trump for information is rolling the dice on the reliability of that information.

“I can’t imagine trying to debrief him,” he said.

The struggle to crack down on the cottage industry sabotaging vehicle pollution controls

When officials at the Environmental Protection Agency began investigating Freedom Performance, LLC, they didn’t have to look very hard for evidence that the company was violating the Clean Air Act. According to legal documents, the Florida car parts distributor literally advertised violations on its website. 

“The road to hell is often paved with good intentions,” stated one ad for a kit to remove federally-required emissions controls from diesel trucks. It identified a particular emissions control system that “is certainly noble in its intent,” but “in reality it is putting your engine through hell … The best solution is deletion.” 

According to the EPA, Freedom Performance was advertising defeat devices—hardware and software that bypass or eliminate emission controls. The Clean Air Act forbids tampering with these controls, and violations carry heavy fines. But defeat devices—also known as “delete devices”—are popular with many vehicle owners. 

Shops advertise that delete kits will improve mileage and extend the lifespan of expensive components, saving customers thousands of dollars. In recent years, a lucrative cottage industry of defeat devices has exploded across the U.S. as repair shops, online retailers, and manufacturers feed, and generate, consumer demand. 

The EPA estimates that more than 500,000 diesel pickup trucks have been “deleted” since 2009. The EPA claims that these illegally modified vehicles produced hundreds of thousands of tons of excess nitrogen oxide—the equivalent of adding nine million more trucks to the road. Public health advocates say that diesel emissions contribute to increases in fine particulate matter and other airborne pollutants that have been linked to higher rates of cancer, heart attacks, strokes and neurodegenerative diseases. 

In recent years, the EPA has escalated a crackdown, resolving more than 60 cases against companies that make or distribute defeat devices since 2017. The penalties can be stiff: In February, the agency announced that Freedom Performance would pay over $7 million for committing thousands of violations. The managing member of the company, Geoffrey Kemper, did not respond to requests for comment. 

But the crackdown has left much unresolved.

For one, defeat devices can be easily found for sale in brick-and-mortar stores and online, including on popular platforms such as eBay. That has led some public health advocates to launch their own litigation under the Clean Air Act. They’ve targeted body shops featured on the popular Discovery Channel show “Diesel Brothers,” where some mechanics customized massive diesel trucks with names like BroDozer and Truck Norris. A representative for Discovery declined to comment. 

Enforcement of the defeat device law has triggered pushback from body shops and retailers who say the law is confusing and draconian. The industry is backing a bill in Congress written by the “Motorsports Caucus” that claims it would protect the right of motorists to convert a highway vehicle into a race car, but that opponents say would hamper EPA enforcement of clean air standards.

Flipping a switch

Once upon a time, turning off the emissions controls in a vehicle was almost as simple as flipping a switch, according to the EPA. But as the agency imposed tighter emissions standards, automakers introduced increasingly sophisticated equipment to reduce pollutants.

Nowadays, defeat devices generally come in “delete kits” with hardware and software to use in tandem. One popular item is a straight pipe—a metal tube that can be installed in a vehicle’s exhaust system, replacing equipment like the diesel particulate filter. 

“Tuners,” which plug into a vehicle, install software known as “tunes” that change how a vehicle’s computer regulates emission levels. Physical devices can be installed in a vehicle’s engine or exhaust system, such as “delete pipes,” hollow tubes that bypass or replace equipment containing sensitive filters.

Though aftermarket defeat devices have always been illegal, the EPA significantly ramped up enforcement around the time of the most notorious automotive industry fraud of the 21st century: the Volkswagen scandal. 

In 2013 and 2014, the California Air Resources Board and researchers at West Virginia University discovered that the German automaker had installed a defeat mechanism across its fleet of diesel-engine passenger vehicles. It could detect when the cars were being tested, bringing emissions levels down to regulatory standards. 

On the road, however, the vehicles emitted up to 40 times more nitrogen oxides—reactive, poisonous gases—as during the tests. Nearly 600,000 of these vehicles were sold or for sale in the United States, and the company later admitted it had manufactured about 11 million globally. 

It was the first defeat device violation that the EPA decided to pursue as a criminal case, rather than as a civil suit. A couple decades earlier, in 1998, the EPA had gone after similar violations by seven major manufacturers of big rig diesel engines, including Caterpillar and Mack Trucks. In the end, without admitting wrongdoing, the manufacturers agreed to pay a combined total of $1 billion in fines and investments in building cleaner engines and reducing nitrogen oxide pollution. 

Concerted effort

The Volkswagen case “was a very, very concerted effort by the company to evade the law,” said John Cruden, assistant Attorney General for environment at the time, and lead negotiator on the Volkswagen case. 

The result was a legal settlement that has cost Volkswagen more than $20 billion in the United States alone, including criminal and civil penalties and investments in emission reduction projects around the nation. In June 2020, a federal appeals court ruled that U.S. localities could also sue VW for violating local pollution laws, opening them up to many more claims.

“Few companies could survive that litigation,” Cruden said, “so obviously it has an exceptional deterrent effect.”

Shortly after the Volkswagen violations came to light, the EPA cracked down on other auto manufacturers. In August 2020, after a four-year investigation, Mercedes-Benz parent company Daimler settled with the EPA, the Air Resources Board and the Justice Department, among other agencies, for $1.5 billion for similar emissions cheating tactics.

The ripples have reached smaller operators in the aftermarket parts industry, which makes and installs defeat devices after vehicles are on the road. They range from subsidiaries of major companies like Polaris Inc. to local garages tampering with controls on a few dozen semis.

“When the government discovers misconduct in one part of an industry, it’s not unusual for the government to focus more on the rest of the industry,” said David Uhlmann, a University of Michigan law professor and former head of the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes unit who left prior to the Volkswagen case. 

The number of vehicles targeted for aftermarket tampering is not as great as in the VW scandal, David Cooke, senior vehicle analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FairWarning—but the emissions from any one vehicle, particularly pickups, can be far worse. 

One of the first companies to catch the EPA’s attention was H&S Performance.

Two tips a day

In 2015, the EPA announced that the Utah manufacturer had agreed to pay a $1 million fine for making and selling tens of thousands of defeat devices. H&S’s customers were operators of heavy-duty diesel trucks. According to the consent agreement, the EPA estimated that the H&S tuners created an additional 71,669 tons of nitrogen oxides. The agency claimed that H&S had committed over 114,000 violations of the Clean Air Act—one violation for each time H&S sold a defeat device.

Over the next five years, the EPA took aim at companies that had manufactured hundreds of thousands of defeat devices. The EPA said on average it gets two tips a day about companies selling defeat devices. 

In September 2018, the agency settled a case with a Florida firm called Derive Systems, which allegedly manufactured and sold approximately 363,000 parts.

In July 2015, the EPA received an anonymous tip that a Florida company called Punch It Performance and Tuning was manufacturing and selling defeat devices for diesel trucks, including straight pipes and tunes. After inspecting the company’s sales records, the EPA determined that Punch It and its president, Paul Schimmack, had committed thousands of violations of the Clean Air Act. 

For several years, Schimmack tried to evade the EPA by closing companies and opening new ones to continue selling defeat devices. The complaint against Punch It gave a glimpse of how lucrative the business can be. According to the EPA, Schimmack had multiple homes and a yacht registered to his various businesses. In 2019, Schimmack agreed to pay a civil penalty of $850,000. He did not respond to a request for comment. 

Despite these actions, many companies continue to operate with impunity. The clearest evidence is the sheer number of tuners and straight pipes that appear to be openly sold on e-commerce sites, including eBay, and by users on Facebook’s Marketplace platform.

“All you’ve got to do is Google DPF tuner online and you’ll have a hundred places you can buy it today,” David Sparks, a mechanic featured on the “Diesel Brothers” show, said in a deposition in a court case.

An open boast

While most sites don’t openly claim that their products bypass emissions controls, eBay vendors sell “delete kits” that do make this boast, despite an eBay policy that forbids the sale of defeat devices. An eBay representative told FairWarning the company would remove the illegal listings, but a search for “delete kits” nearly five weeks later still turned up numerous items for sale. 

There is also at least one listing for a delete kit on Facebook’s Marketplace platform which remains active days after FairWarning notified the company of the illegal product for sale. Facebook puts the legal onus on Marketplace buyers and sellers, a spokesperson told FairWarning, and only investigates listings when asked to by regulators or law enforcement.

Companies that make the devices test the EPA—sometimes brazenly. Seven months after the EPA action against Derive Systems, for instance, the company participated in a conference in Las Vegas where contestants brainstormed how to hack car computers to boost performance, according to a company blog post. 

Discouraged by what they see as EPA’s limited results, public health advocates in Utah are pursuing a novel strategy to eliminate defeat devices.

In 2017, the Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment filed what it claims was the first Clean Air Act citizen suitagainst companies selling defeat devices. The law allows private citizens to file lawsuits to enforce emissions standards. Their targets were body shops featured on “Diesel Brothers.” 

For years, these companies produced videos that showcased powerful trucks. One video produced in 2013, which was later used as a court exhibit, showed a large truck blacking out a Prius with thick smoke.

County health department data showed that many diesel trucks were failing emissions tests due to deliberate tampering with pollutant controls, and that a deleted diesel typically produced 36 times more nitrogen oxides than allowed by the EPA. 

Reed Zars, the attorney who filed the suit, only had to look as far as Instagram and Facebook to find potential violations by some of the companies featured on the “Diesel Brothers.” 

Straight-piping

Zars bought one of their trucks and took it to an EPA-certified lab in Colorado for emissions testing. The lab discovered that the modified truck emitted 30 to 40 times the limit for various pollutants. 

“Can you imagine straight-piping a power plant?” Zars said. “They were straight-piping these smaller power plants.” 

David Sparks, a body shop owner featured on “Diesel Brothers” and one of the defendants in the lawsuit, did not respond to requests for comment. 

In March, a court ruled in favor of the physicians’ group, imposing over $850,000 in fines and penalties and forbidding the defendants from selling defeat devices.   

Last September, the Utah advocacy group went after a bigger target: TAP Worldwide, an aftermarket parts company with dozens of outlets across the U.S. TAP is a subsidiary of Polaris Inc.

According to the suit, TAP has repeatedly violated the Clean Air Act by selling and installing defeat devices. TAP, which has asked the court to dismiss the case, did not respond to requests for comment. 

An EPA case against a small body shop illustrates what opponents of the crackdown see as confusing rules and overly aggressive enforcement.

Earlier this year, the EPA fined Lead Foot Diesel Performance, LLC of Georgia $17,348 for selling 18 defeat devices. Vinny Hines, a sales manager for Lead Foot, said the EPA inspector told him that the company was investigated because it had the word “performance” in its name. 

Hines, a self-described “dumb redneck,” said he didn’t think he had anything to worry about when EPA inspectors showed up at his shop in August 2019. He kept a tidy store and properly disposed of waste oil, coolant and other chemical waste. He was surprised when the inspectors said they were looking for defeat devices. Hines said the inspectors went through his invoices until they found sales of 18 defeat devices from five years earlier, he said.   

Deeply embarrassing

For Hines, it was deeply embarrassing and frustrating to be called a lawbreaker after 15 years in the diesel industry without incident. 

The EPA inspectors gave him materials about how to comply with the law but he said he had to get a lawyer to explain how it worked. “I’ve learned one thing: you cannot be compliant with the EPA,” Hines said. “If they came in to inspect, they’re not leaving without taking at least a dollar.” 

Aftermarket parts makers and installers, and even vehicle owners, say they must navigate an intricate set of guidelines.

For example, in scenarios laid out in an EPA compliance presentation, a repairman who noticed that someone had tampered with a car’s emissions controls would have to fix it or face fines, even if the repairman and the car owner had nothing to do with installing the defeat device.

It’s easy to violate such exacting rules without meaning to, they say. But officials and advocates discount the idea that violations are unintentional.

“They know what they’re doing is illegal,” Cooke of the Union of Concerned Scientists said. “And they are doing it for vehicles that then share the road with the rest of us.”

In California, the industry is well aware of state rules that are more stringent than the EPA’s, said Stanley Young, spokesman for the California Air Resources Board. 

On the down-low

“By now everybody knows how strict California is and anybody who tries to sell unauthorized aftermarket parts in California typically knows that they’re doing it illegally and they have to do it kind of on the down-low,” Young said. 

The EPA says it’s made more than two dozen presentations to various industry groups since fall 2019. It has also made presentations at the annual show of the Specialty Equipment Market Association, the leading trade association for aftermarket and racing parts, since 2008. 

But players in the industry and their supporters in Congress continue to promote the idea that the EPA is targeting people who transform their vehicles solely for racing. 

In October 2019, members of Congress who call themselves the Motorsports Caucus introduced a bill to protect the right of motorists to convert their vehicles into race cars—the latest version of legislation that has failed in the past. 

According to public records, the Specialty Equipment Market Association has lobbied for years for Congress to pass such a bill, branding it a commonsense correction to EPA overreach. 

The EPA stated in an email that it has no interest in cracking down on those who manufacture, sell or install parts that transform street-legal vehicles into race cars only operated on a track. What is illegal, according to the EPA, is modifying emissions controls in vehicles that will be used on streets and highways.  

The bill’s opponents believe that rather than clarifying the EPA’s scope, it would make enforcement more difficult. In a previous version of the bill, the Congressional Budget Office anticipated that it would probably force the EPA to shiftits focus from manufacturers and sellers to vehicle users. 

In the aftermath of the Volkswagen scandal, regulators are devising new ways to catch potential defeat device violations at every level. 

The California Air Resources Board, for instance, is testing ways to identify trucks exceeding emissions standards even when they’re on the road, Young said. 

High-tech solutions may become an effective form of deterrence. For now, though, many companies are still willing to test the law. On July 23, the EPA announced that it had busted an Irvine, California company for manufacturing and distributing defeat devices. 

Trump’s Supreme Court pick has a problem with the Constitution

Nomination of conservative Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court makes us think about the role of government in our lives and the Republican majority view of winning vs. fairness.

That her lifetime confirmation will change the direction of the Supreme Court for many years is a given, and, as it happens a sop toward Donald Trump’s re-election efforts.

But what is there to learn here?

Here’s the good news about nominee Barrett: There will be no nonsense about a woman as the nominee, and minimal attention on her choices about religion, lifestyle and what she wears. She will get the same black robe as the rest.

It finally is a choice that is about ideas and about visions of what we want as a nation — even if it comes as a forced march by a Senate that has no time to deal with coronavirus aid.

Her professed allegiance to “originalism” in the law, the mostly conservative but often libertarian view that the original words of the Constitution and the law should suffice for modern challenges — a view she shares with the other recently named justices — is something we need to understand to chart the Court’s future.

We can expect that originalism, for example, will become the substantial legal argument that will lead her to vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, over narrow interpretations of tax law, or to eliminate legal abortion as having been argued previously under the “wrong” section of the Constitution. It’s not her particular brand of Catholicism that will drive her anti-abortion decision-making — though she is seriously anti-abortion as a person — but her insistence on interpreting the Constitution literally that will lead to the same place.

Barrett’s record

In her record as clerk, law professor and judge, there is evidence of far more — a tendency to view the Bill of Rights as anything but generous for life choices. Mark Joseph Stern, who writes about law for Slate, noted that in reading through all of her written decisions, what comes across is not conservatism as much as a certain meanness about the fate of the individual against business, institutions and government.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg saw the Bill of Rights and civil rights acts as generous guarantees of human dignity that must be read expansively to achieve their purpose. By contrast, Barrett’s view of the law is fundamentally cruel. During her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett either has written or joined a remarkable number of opinions that harm unpopular and powerless individuals who rely on the judiciary to safeguard their rights.

“Faced with two plausible readings of a law, fact, or precedent, Barrett always seems to choose the harsher, stingier interpretation. Can job applicants sue employers whose policies have a disproportionately deleterious impact on older people? Barrett said no. Should courts halt the deportation of an immigrant who faced torture at home? Barrett said no. Should they protect refugees denied asylum on the basis of xenophobic prejudice? Barrett said no. Should they shield prisoners from unjustified violence by correctional officers? Barrett said no. Should minors be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without telling their parents if a judge has found that they’re mature enough to make the decision? Barrett said no. Should women be permitted to obtain an abortion upon discovering a severe fetal abnormality? Barrett said no.”

Per her record, if the case is about religion or guns, Barrett is for the individual; if it is about abortion or gender, Barrett seems to forget about the individual.

Barrett has criticized Chief Justice John Roberts’ decisions to uphold narrowly Obamacare, presumably in part out of a belief that the Court is in no position to simply strip 20 million Americans of health care. So, health care rather than abortion undoubtedly will be the key question that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee find for focus — because Barrett is on the record. There is no Republican legislative remedy for this, and we will have yet more chaos in the midst of a pandemic — for the right to uphold a strict interpretation of Constitutional law.

From past decisions, it is clear that she will uphold the Trump steamroller to obliterate environmental regulations and to monitor labor grievances or regulate Wall Street.

Futile confirmation hearings?

With the votes already lined up, the idea of confirmation hearings seems almost futile. Nevertheless, it is a chance for us to feel as if we know what we will be getting into.

My question for Barrett is this: We get the originalism idea, but how does that concept allow us to pick and choose its way about protection of the individual?

I want to know how she matches the specifics of the law — and its legal precedents — with the realities we face in our country.

Do we believe in justice that advances individual rights? If so, why is religion a shield, and consumerist legislation not? Why is legislation that enables government to decide what constitutes marriage OK, and individual rights to health treatments not OK? Why are Americans to be afforded the right to assault weapons but not clean air? What is the role of actions to balance centuries of racial unfairness?

There is a certain sense that the approach is more important than a sense of “justice.” These confirmation hearings always are a bit of a crapshoot since the judges won’t really talk about their views. But an examination of their records should tell us about how they approach the job.

There will be attempts to ask about her affiliation with People of Praise, a religious group that until recently referred to its female leaders as “handmaids” ― evoking comparisons to Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel “The Handmaid’s Tale.” I hope they are set aside quickly — other than establishing that personal beliefs are no substitute for creating a legal precedent.

The Court is about to launch a revolution in exact opposition to the majority of its citizenry. We need to understand how we deal with that.

CDC director overheard on airplane blasting Trump COVID adviser’s misinformation

During a phone conversation on a commercial airplane late last week overheard by an NBC News reporter, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention slammed one of the White House’s top Covid-19 advisers for providing President Donald Trump and the U.S. public with misleading information about the deadly pandemic.

“Everything he says is false,” CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield told a colleague while on a flight from Atlanta to Washington, D.C. on Friday, NBC News reported Monday morning. Redfield, a Trump appointee, later acknowledged to NBC that he was referring to Dr. Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist with no expertise in infectious diseases or epidemiology.

Brought aboard the administration’s Covid-19 task force in August after reportedly catching Trump’s attention with his frequent appearances on Fox News, Atlas has been pushing the White House to adopt a so-called “herd immunity” approach to the coronavirus pandemic—a strategy public health experts warn would cause millions of additional deaths. Atlas has also publicly questioned the effectiveness of face coverings in preventing the spread of coronavirus.

“Since his addition to the task force, Atlas has become the medical expert who spends the most time with the president, and his profile has been elevated in recent weeks by his appearing in the White House briefing room when Trump speaks with reporters,” NBC reported. “There is a concern among Redfield and others that Atlas continually briefs the president and misrepresents what other health experts have said in sworn testimony, according to a member of the task force.”

As epidemiologist Eric Feigl-Ding noted on Twitter, Atlas “has been spreading misinformation for a long time,” including by falsely stating that coronavirus poses “no risk” to children.

Despite Atlas’ complete lack of experience in the field of infectious diseases, Trump has cited the radiologist in an effort to legitimize his false claims about the coronavirus.

“A lot of people do agree with me,” Trump said during an ABC Newtown hall in defense of his insistence that the U.S. is “rounding the corner” on the pandemic. “You look at Scott Atlas, you look at some of the other doctors that are highly—from Stanford.”

But in a letter about a week ahead of Trump’s town hall, dozens of Atlas’ former colleagues at Stanford University Medical School denounced the White House adviser for spreading “falsehoods and misrepresentations of the science” in a variety of areas, from mask use to his promotion of herd immunity.

“Many of his opinions and statements run counter to established science and, by doing so, undermine public-health authorities and the credible science that guides effective public health policy,” the Stanford faculty members warned.

Former Trump campaign chief Brad Parscale hospitalized after wild police raid in Florida

Police reportedly confiscated 10 guns from the Florida home of Brad Parscale, President Trump’s former campaign manager, after Parscale’s wife told them he was exhibiting suicidal behavior and had loaded a handgun during an argument on Sunday.

Body-cam footage of the scene, released Monday, shows Parscale’s wife telling a responding officer that Parscale had been “acting crazy” and “irate,” and had “cocked a handgun.” She said that after she left Parscale alone to “give him space,” she “heard a loud boom.”

Parscale, whom Trump demoted in July amid criticisms of incompetence and self-dealing, had to be taken by force, according to body-cam footage and police reports. One report describes large bruises on Candice Parscale’s arms and face. When asked about those, she told a responding detective that her husband hits her.

Police confronted Parscale in his driveway, shirtless with a beer in his hand, and tackled and handcuffed him, according to body-cam video and incident reports. “I initiated a double leg take down,” one of the responding officers wrote, adding that the 6’8″ Parscale, who appeared calm in the video, did not immediately comply with commands to get on the ground, which the footage appears to substantiate.

“I didn’t do anything,” Parscale can be heard repeating, as police handcuff him on the ground.

Parscale was involuntarily hospitalized in Broward County Health Medical Center. Officers reported removing ten guns from his home: two shotguns, two rifles, a .22 revolver and five other handguns.

The tone captured in the video and police reports from the scene, first publicized Monday by the Miami Herald, stands in stark contrast to official statements on Sunday, such as from Fort Lauderdale Police Chief Karen Dietrich, who said, “We went out and it was very short. We went and got him help.”

Detective Steven Smith’s report describes large bruises on Parscale’s wife’s arms and face: “While speaking with [Candice] Parscale I noticed several large sized contusions on both of her arms, her cheek and forehead. When I asked how she received the bruising, [Candice] Parscale stated Brad Parscale hits her.”

Candice Parscale told officers that while her husband had not hit her on Sunday, Brad Parscale had knocked her phone out of her hand when she attempted to call his father. She told police that Parscale had recently talked about shooting himself, and that she had heard what might have been a gunshot — “a loud boom” — from inside the house. Later she said the sound could have been a car backfiring.

“[Candice] immediately fled residence and stated she heard a loud bang shortly after,” wrote one of the first responding officers. “[Candice] stated that they realized that Bradley did not shoot himself when they heard Bradley ranting and pacing around the residence and the dog barking frantically. However, they were concerned that Bradley might still try to shoot himself, due to him being in possession of several firearms and refusing to vacate the residence.”

News reports first placed Parscale on the chopping block in late April, when an irate Trump reportedly threatened to sue him in a profanity-riddled phone call after internal polls showed the president in a deep deficit to presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Trump eventually demoted Parscale in July, amid budget woes and a disastrous series of events surrounding Trump’s June 20 “comeback rally” in Tulsa, Oklahoma — Parscale had bragged publicly about “one million” ticket requests for the sparsely attended event, and it was later revealed that thousands of fans of Korean pop music had trolled him online by artificially inflating registration numbers.

Salon first reported last week that Parscale appears to have taken a $15,000 pay cut with his demotion.

Parscale had reportedly rankled Trump in other ways, including apparently cashing in on his position by contracting out tens of millions of dollars in campaign business to other companies he owned. Earlier this year he was reported to have been making secret payments to Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lara Trump, the romantic partners of the president’s two adult sons. A campaign finance watchdog filed a federal complaint alleging that the campaign under Parscale used shell companies to cover up the recipients of more than $170 million. Ed Rollins, a veteran Republican strategist who currently runs a pro-Trump super PAC, accused Parscale of spending “like a drunken sailor.”

The New York Times reported earlier this year that “During a campaign appearance last summer in Orlando, Ms. Guilfoyle confronted Mr. Parscale: Why were her checks always late? Two people who witnessed the encounter said a contrite Mr. Parscale promised that the problem would be sorted out promptly by his wife, Candice Parscale, who handles the books on many of his ventures.”

“Brad Parscale is a member of our family and we all love him,” campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh said in a statement Sunday. “We are ready to support him and his family in any way possible. The disgusting, personal attacks from Democrats and disgruntled RINOs have gone too far, and they should be ashamed of themselves for what they’ve done to this man and his family.”

Following the new reports and allegations of domestic violence, Murtaugh told Salon in a statement, “Our thoughts are with Brad and his family as we wait for all the facts to emerge.”

A number of men in Trump’s orbit, including the president, have a history of allegations of abuse and domestic violence. Among them are former campaign CEO and White House strategist Steve Bannon, former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, former senior White House adviser Rob Porter and Trump himself.

The FDA spent nine years “dragging its feet” on monitoring high-risk foods, watchdog says

Last week the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a rule that, if put into effect, would more effectively trace and name foods that are high-risk at being contaminated — including certain types of shellfish, freshly cut fruits and vegetables, leafy greens and nut butter.

In the process, it also settled a 2018 lawsuit by the non-profit group Center for Food Safety (CFS) over its alleged failure to abide by reporting mandates and deadlines established by the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2011, according to a report by Food Safety News.

“[The FSMA] was passed by Congress in 2011 after some high profile foodborne illness outbreaks in the years prior,” Ryan Talbott, a staff attorney at CFS, told Salon. “It was the first major update to our food safety laws since the late 1930s, and it was really Congress’ attempt to have that agency go from reacting to illness outbreaks to being more proactive and preventing them from happening in the first place.”

As a result, Talbott explained, the FSMA “established a series of mandates for FDA to, by certain deadlines, to be more proactive on the food safety front: Having manufacturers have food safety plans and preventive controls in place, the produce safety rule establishing new standards for how we’re handling produce, how food is transported across the country so along the food supply chain [we’re] making sure that they are improving so we are reducing the possibility for a foodborne illness outbreak.”

Talbott also told Salon that CFS has felt compelled to litigate against the FDA because the organization has spent nearly a decade avoiding meeting the requirements established by the Food Safety Modernization Act.

“They’ve really dragged their feet since FSMA was passed, and when it was passed in 2011, it set very quick deadlines for the FDA to meet,” Talbott explained. “These were usually one in the range of one to two years for the agency to issue a proposed rule and then a final rule. Congress’ thinking was that this is a major issue and the agency needs to take this seriously and follow through on it and come up with new rules and regulations. But all along the way, the FDA has dragged its feet, which has required to litigate when they’ve missed these deadlines.”

He added, “I think that’s the biggest complaint, from a food safety perspective. This is the agency that’s supposed to be ensuring that our food is safe and they have clear directors from Congress, based on what was happening in the past, to make improvements. They’ve been given these new tools by Congress, and throughout the history of the last decade, it’s been foot-dragging instead of harnessing those new tools to improve our food safety system.”

According to Food Safety News, the CFS pursued its first lawsuit against the FDA from 2012 to 2014 over the agency’s alleged failure to abide by the legal timelines for issuing seven different regulations. The CFS also pursued a third lawsuit against the FDA that was filed after the 2018 one which was settled this month. (Those lawsuits were ultimately successful.) 

Talbott told Salon that the CFS is still concerned about many of the foods that Americans commonly eat.

“I think over the last several years, you look at some of the outbreaks with leafy greens and romaine lettuce,” Talbott explained. “That’s a particular issue. And the FDA recently just lifted their initial high-risk foods list, and I think for all the foods that are on there, we think that’s a reasonable start for their compliance with this rule. And that includes various fruits and vegetables, nut butters, shellfish, and leafy greens.

Peter Cassell, press officer at the FDA, told Salon by email that “our initial priority was the issuance and implementation of the seven foundational FSMA rules. These rules, which set out requirements for industry to put measures in place throughout the supply-chain to protect the safety of food, form the core of the preventive framework envisioned by Congress. From a public health standpoint, it made sense to prioritize these rulemakings, given that we have limited resources for regulation development.”

After listing steps that he claims the FDA has undertaken to effectively implement the FSMA, he told Salon that “we thought the term ‘high-risk foods list’ could lead to an incorrect understanding of what is intended by this rule. The term ‘Food Traceability List’ helps us convey the connection between this list and the traceability recordkeeping requirements that will be created through this rulemaking process.” He also added that “the foods included on the FTL can all be part of a healthy and nutritious diet. Their inclusion on this list simply means that when compared with other foods using the risk-ranking model, they ranked higher based on the criteria considered.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, foodborne illnesses cause approximately 48 million people to get sick every year, with 128,000 of them being hospitalized and 3,000 of them dying. Scientists have identified more than 250 diseases that are transmitted through food, with most of them being caused by parasites, bacteria and viruses. There are also many foods that become high risk because they have contaminated by chemicals and other toxins.

To list merely two examples of recently exposed food dangers: In July, a study published in the journal Frontiers in Microbiology found that Salmonella enterica Typhimurium is able to enter plants like lettuce and spinach through their stomates, or the tiny air holes that plants can open and close to breathe and stay cool, and as a result cannot be washed off with water and chemicals. In October, a study commissioned by Healthy Babies Bright Futures (HBBF) tested 168 baby foods from American manufacturers for arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury. They found that only nine of the baby foods tested did not contain any of those materials, while 95 percent were contaminated with at least one of the four and 25 percent had been contaminated by all four of them.

Despite these recent controversies over its handling of food safety issues, the FDA decided to temporarily loosen food rules on labeling and information requirements for food manufacturers, the fifth time that the agency has made this decision during the novel coronavirus pandemic, as the Washington Post reported. The FDA argued that this decision was meant to help companies deal with kinks in their supply chains caused by the pandemic through measures like being flexible with vending machine operators about omitting calorie information about their food and allowing food companies to switch out hard-to-find ingredients without altering their labels.

The Korean Vegan hopes her 60-second recipes will make you less racist

Joanne Molinaro, known as The Korean Vegan, had an unexpected inspiration for sharing her plant-based adaptations of traditional Korean recipes.

“The reason I started telling my stories was because I didn’t know what else to do when Donald Trump got elected,” Molinaro told Salon in an interview. “I was, like, traumatized. And I felt like I was living in a country that I didn’t recognize anymore. I couldn’t believe that there were so many people who were okay with racism.” 

The rhetoric of the 2016 election galvanized many, pushing people like Molinaro across the political strata to be louder and take action for their causes. In the months that followed the inauguration, anti-immigrant action and travel restrictions pushed masses of people in cities across the U.S. to organize and protest. 

“I’m an attorney – all the lawyers were going to the airport to offer pro bono services to people who are having problems with their visas,” she explained. “And I was like, ‘Is that what I’m supposed to do? Should I go to the march, should I start protesting? Am I supposed to start writing angry Facebook status posts? That’s what everybody else is doing.'”

She’d previously turned to blogging as a way to codify her plant-based lifestyle and Korean identity, sharing recipes that adjusted traditional dishes like buchimgae and kimchi jjigae, as well as pasta, bread, and pastries. She started sharing her family stories with the idea that joining food and painful stories might generate some understanding or compassion across divides, fighting against anti-immigrant sentiments that she took personally. 

This year, while most people were self-isolating due to the continuing spread of coronavirus, Molinaro took the leap to the video space where many people were spending their downtime. When she joined TikTok in late July, each of the simple recipe videos she shared included an accompanying family story, all less than 60 seconds.

The jump has grown Molinaro’s audience exponentially. Shortly after joining the platform, Molinaro’s videos drew the attention of celebrities like Chrissy Teigen, Patricia Arquette and Yashar Ali, who then shared them on social media. In the weeks since, her TIkTok audience has grown from a few followers to half a million. Her Instagram has nearly doubled from 70K to 133K. And she’s also signed a cookbook deal with Penguin Random House.

Through her platform, she’s shared stories of her mother’s immigration to America, her grandmother’s escape from North Korea, her relationship with her body, interracial dating, and more. As Molinaro’s audience continues to grow, she, too, has grown to expand her storytelling for the moment, especially as calls for racial justice and systemic change continue since protests began again earlier this year.

She spoke to Salon by phone to discuss her food stories, their impact, and how she’s changed to respond to this year’s curveballs. The following has been edited for length and clarity.

It sounds like for you the idea of family stories is very closely tied to food, even if they’re not food stories.

One hundred percent. 

The reason I started sharing stories about my family was because built into those stories was that commonness. “I’m going to show you a beautiful picture of this bibimbap that I’m making. And I’ll also tell you how to make the bibimbap. But in the meantime, while you’re enjoying this recipe, just like you would if you were at my house and I put a course of bibimbap in front of you, we’re going to engage in some conversation. We’re going to engage in some storytelling. We’re going to engage in some sharing.” That’s how intimacy is created. And so I decided to share stories that I felt would resonate on a very human level – like when I went to kindergarten and my grandma packed me the wrong lunch and I felt totally out of place. Who hasn’t ever felt out of place somewhere? Everyone feels that way. 

But what I added to it was this understanding [that] the reason I felt out of place is because my parents were immigrants. And they didn’t understand what it was like to not have a ham sandwich for lunch and have kkaennip for lunch. 

Or I tell the story about my mom, when she came here for nursing school and didn’t have a lot of money and had no idea what to do. I think a lot of people probably can relate to that, especially as young college grads are like, “I don’t know what to do. I have college loans, I have school debt, I don’t know how to get a job, I don’t know what to do.” It’s very scary. That’s a very relatable feeling. But then I added in the layer [of] she couldn’t speak English. And she had a family waiting for her in Korea that was counting on her. They gave her all the monies that they had, and they were counting on her. 

So what I was trying to do was connect with people using these very fundamental building blocks. But then while I had their attention, educate them about the immigrant experience, with the idea that the next time they saw the news, and they saw children in cages, and they saw Donald Trump talking about a wall, or they saw something else about a ridiculous immigration policy – whether unconsciously or consciously – the stories that I was sharing would sort of like stick around in their head and linger. And maybe that would create just the tiniest crack of compassion for the immigrant experience.

How did people respond to you?

I’ll never forget this one DM that I received on Instagram. She’s like, “Hey, I’m a white woman from Alabama. I’m in law enforcement. And I have nothing in common with you in your background. But I just want to say that a lot of the things that you share about you and your family and some of the struggles that you’ve been through, they really mean a lot to me and I just wanted to let you know.”

And that message was so important to me, because it meant that – I don’t know, she’s probably still gonna vote for Donald Trump. I have no idea, maybe she didn’t. But to me, I was like, “Alright, I made a connection with somebody that I probably wouldn’t have if I just stuck to ‘tablespoon of gochujang, tablespoon of soy sauce and a little bit of rice.'” That meant a lot to me. 

Since I’ve transitioned into more of the videos that I’ve been doing over the past couple of months, those types of messages have increased exponentially. That has been very gratifying to me on a personal level. It took a lot of the sting from 2016. 

They’re really simple cooking videos, you don’t even have to explain what you’re doing and how to do it. Why are people enjoying that format? Some of your videos have millions of views.

There’s some people who are like, “This food looks so good.” And there have been a lot of people who’ve actually tried the recipes . . . I get a lot of comments like, “I didn’t even know this is vegan. I just thought it looked good.” So that’s exciting on a totally different level. 

But I think that what the stories, kind of underlying each of these videos, does is it connects with people. And I think right now, with what’s been going on in our country, what’s going on in the world with the global pandemic, I can’t think of a time in my lifetime where humans are [more] in need of some kind of healing. And I think that that’s where this has been resonating with people on that level – we’re all anxious. We’re all lonely, we’re isolated. We have no idea what the future is going to look like in every landscape: politically, financially, economically, even climate-change wise. We don’t know. 

And I think that would be stories do is, in some ways, it transports them because a lot of them take place back in the ’40s when my parents were escaping North Korea and stuff like that. So it totally removes them on that level. But then it connects with them because they understand that anxiety. You know, they really get it. They understand the concept of loss, because a lot of them are going through that right now. And I think they just need to feel like, “Okay, I’m not alone. There’s somebody else out there who feels the same thing. And oh, by the way, I need to eat this thing.” That was amazing.

What has been your most popular story?

Right now, the most successful story is the one about my dad and my divorce . . .That was the story that I shared while making my kkampoong dubu, which also happens to be my most popular recipe. And people definitely related to it. Whether it was with women who were themselves in an emotionally abusive relationship, or whether it was women who had tough relationships with their dad, or whether it was immigrant children who also felt like, “My father is maybe not that affectionate, but I know he loves me.” There’s so many different ways that people kind of connected to that story, which meant that there were a lot of touchpoints in that story. While also sharing a recipe that I love and that I enjoy eating a lot.

I saw your video addressing people crying to your videos. I’ve cried while watching your videos. Why do you think people are connecting to you emotionally?

I think because they trust me and they feel safe with me, I think we instinctively do not feel safe around people who are unwilling to bare themselves, who are so guarded and closed off. 

I’m like an open book, I bare everything out there. I bear my emotions, I bare my anxieties, I bare my joys, I do my recipes, I bare my face. I don’t have very much to hide here. And I think because of that people feel like, “I feel safe with this person. I don’t know who this person is. But I feel like I can trust her. Because she’s not really hiding anything or holding anything back. And that means that maybe I can share a little bit with her as well.”

Do you have any insights into how people are coping right now?

I think people are coping through distraction. A lot of it is distraction. And that’s very understandable. Korean dramas, that’s like my big distraction . . . We’re all grasping for something that will take us away, however temporarily, from our current realities. So I think there’s a lot of that going on. I think cooking is also another large way that people are coping. And I can relate to that. Because when I’m stressed I go straight to my kitchen, and I bake some bread or I make a dish that I like. And before I know it, three hours have passed and I haven’t thought about the thing that was making me crazy. 

And I think that when we engage with other people, when we go on social media, when we channel our frustration and our anxiety into the world. I think that at some level, it’s like trying to get past that very internal monologue that you’re having, where you’re constantly just by yourself thinking about everything that’s happening with a global pandemic, with politics, with BLM, with the violence out there, all of the things that are happening and the complete lack of certainty. If we open ourselves a little bit and engage with other people, connect with other people, then there’s actually a sense of maybe moving forward and doing something, being effective in some small way. 

As we’re in quarantine, it is a very different situation with xenophobia and Black Lives Matter and everything, than even in 2016. Do you feel like your approach has changed for the moment?

Yes, it absolutely has. Because I was not as familiar with the BLM movement, and what that really meant in 2016 . . .  In 2016, it was much more just about me, and sharing my stories and getting my narrative out there . . . In the past four or five months, what I’ve learned is however much I felt betrayed in 2016, I have to remember that my experience is unique from, and probably in some ways better than, the experience of Black Americans.

That was very much an education, and since George Floyd’s murder, [I’ve been] forcing myself to read a lot of the literature, to watch a lot of movies. I was reading law review articles on police defunding and the 14th Amendment. And really coming to grips with that certainly changed my approach. Maybe not the concepts, or even the fundamentals, underlying my storytelling – it’s still about healing, and it’s still about building bridges, and it’s still about connections and compassion. But it certainly has influenced the language that I use to convey my stories to make sure that I’m being more sensitive to everyone.

And the way that I’ve seen it particularly affect my storytelling is related to my veganism. I used to think, “I’m just right. I’m better. I don’t want to kill animals. I think this is right for the environment. I think that the plant-based diet is the best way to eat for your body.” I was very much one of those kinds of vegans.

And then I started doing a lot of research on food deserts, food insecurity. And then that, of course, led into eating disorders and food insecurity in that way . . .  I feel like the most effective way I can be an ambassador for the kind of compassionate lifestyle that I want to leave live is to lead by example, and be compassionate to humans. If you cannot afford to eat kale salad every day and a vegan diet because of where you live, or because you don’t know where your next meal is gonna come from, I’m not the kind of person who’s in any way equipped to judge you. I was definitely not like that before. And that is something very new.

Scientists believe they have found a system of briny underground lakes on Mars

Two years after planetary scientists claimed they had discovered a large saltwater lake on Mars — a finding that, if accurate, significantly increases the possibility of life existing on that planet — a group of researchers now claims to have discovered yet more underground bodies of liquid saltwater, all of them beneath the ice of the Martian south pole.

In a study published in the journal Nature Astronomy, a group of scientists from Italy, Australia and Germany have found evidence of three saltwater lakes near the Martian south pole in addition to the one they believe they found in 2018. They arrived at this conclusion by using an instrument called MARSIS — an acronym for Mars Advanced Radar for Subsurface and Ionosphere Sounding — which is onboard the European Mars Express, a spacecraft that orbits the planet. MARSIS created 134 radar profiles from 2010 to 2019 of the Martian region known as Ultimi Scopuli, which researchers analyzed. They concluded that an entire system of buried lakes might exist on the planet, rather than only one.

“Our results strengthen the claim of the detection of a liquid water body at Ultimi Scopuli and indicate the presence of other wet areas nearby,” the scientists write.

Although the presence of water could suggest the existence of life akin to the organisms that exist in subglacial lakes in Antarctica, the Martian lakes are believed to be “hypersaline” — that is, unusually salty. This would make it more difficult for Earth-like life to exist there.

“There’s not much active life in these briny pools in Antarctica,” John Priscu, an environmental scientist at Montana State University, told the journal Nature. “They’re just pickled. And that might be the case [on Mars].”

Scientists are also not in agreement that the data shows definitively that these are underground lakes.

“Something interesting is happening here, but there’s a really high bar for proof when it comes to talking about liquid water on Mars,” Cassie Stuurman, a planetary scientist and radar expert with the European Space Agency (and who is not involved in the recent study), told Gizmodo by email. “To be really convincing, most scientists would want to see this corroborated by other lines of data and evidence.”

Ali Bramson, a planetary scientist at Purdue University, expressed a similar view to Science News, arguing that “something funky is going on at this location” but adding that “there are some limitations to the instrument and the data…. I don’t know if it’s totally a slam dunk yet.”

The news comes on the heels of the revelation that Earth’s other neighbor, Venus, Earth’s, may harbor airborne life in its atmosphere. Two weeks ago, a group of scientists published a Nature Astronomy paper in which they revealed that phosphine has been discovered in the atmosphere of Venus. “The only known processes that produce phosphine on Earth in similar quantities are biological in origin,” Helen J. Fraser, a co-author of the Venus paper, told Salon earlier this month

Trump: It’s “certainly possible” Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade if Barrett is confirmed

President Donald Trump acknowledged on Sunday that the Supreme Court may overturn Roe v. Wade or chip away at abortion protections if nominee Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed.

“She is certainly conservative in her views, in her rulings, and we’ll have to see how that all works out, but I think it will work out,” Trump told Fox News over the weekend.

Asked if Barrett would be part of a 6-3 ruling “on a life issue,” Trump replied, “It’s certainly possible. And maybe they do it in a different way. Maybe they’d give it back to the states. You just don’t know what’s going to happen.”

Trump said that he did not discuss any specific cases when he met with Barrett.

“I didn’t discuss certain concepts and certain things,” he said. “And some people say you shouldn’t. I don’t see any reason why you shouldn’t. But I decided not to do it. And I think it gives her freedom to do what she has to do. She has to make rulings.”

Trump previously said during the 2016 campaign that he would nominate anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court. Asked whether the court would overturn Roe v. Wade, Trump said, “that will happen automatically in my opinion” if he can nominate enough judges.

Trump formally announced his nomination of Barrett on Saturday. Barrett has criticized the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, though she acknowledged that the court would “probably” let the precedent stand.

In 2016, she predicted that the court would chip away at reproductive health protections.

“I think the question of whether people can get very late-term abortions — you know, how many restrictions can be put on clinics — I think that would change,” she said at the time.

Democrats have also raised concerns about Barrett’s strict Catholicism. Barrett, who is reportedly a member of an obscure group whose members swear a lifelong oath of loyalty and are assigned a “head” and “handmaid” that oversee many personal decisions, has said that a “legal career is but a means to an end . . . and that end is building the Kingdom of God.”

Barrett is also a former member of the Federalist Society, which has been key in advancing anti-abortion judges for Trump’s judicial nominations.

Planned Parenthood warned after the death of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that there were 17 abortion-related cases potentially headed to the Supreme Court after the last two abortion cases were decided by a single vote.

Senate Republicans say they plan to rush Barrett’s confirmation ahead of the November election after blocking former President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland for 11 months in 2016. A New York Times/Siena College poll released over the weekend found that 56% of voters prefer the winner of the election to select the next justice.

The poll also showed that 60% of voters believe that abortion should be legal all or some of the time. About 56% of voters said they would be less likely to vote for Trump if his nominee were to help overturn Roe v. Wade while just 24% said they would be more likely to vote for him.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has also warned that Barrett could help strike down Obamacare after criticizing the court’s decision upholding the law. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case that could decide the fate of the health care law a week after the election.

“Women could once again be charged higher premiums just because they are women; pregnancy could become a pre-existing condition again,” Biden said on Sunday. “It doesn’t matter what the American people want, President Trump sees the chance to fulfill his explicit mission, steal away the vital protections of the ACA from countless families who’ve come to rely on it for their health, their financial security and the lives of those they love.”

Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, framed Barrett’s nomination as an attack on women.

“Trump has made it clear that he would only appoint justices who would overturn Roe v Wade, and his administration is currently asking the Supreme Court to dismantle the Affordable Care Act – we can’t afford to see this nomination succeed,” she said in a statement. “Nominating Amy Coney Barrett is a particular insult to the legacy of Justice Ginsburg. Barrett’s history of hostility toward reproductive health and rights, expanded health care access, and more demonstrate that she will put Justice Ginsburg’s long record of ensuring that everyone receives equal justice under the law at risk.”

Trump wanted Ivanka as his 2016 running mate, says former deputy campaign manager

Donald Trump repeatedly suggested during the 2016 campaign that his daughter, Ivanka Trump, should be his running mate, according to a new book by former deputy campaign manager Rick Gates.

“I think it should be Ivanka. What about Ivanka as my VP?” Trump reportedly asked a group of senior advisers in June 2016. “She’s bright, she’s smart, she’s beautiful, and the people would love her!”

The idea was not a joke, according to Gates. Trump pressed his advisers repeatedly over the weeks leading up to the Republican convention that summer, insisting that Ivanka, at the time a 34-year-old real estate and fashion executive with no political or policymaking experience, would be a hit, while resisting other options, including then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. The campaign eventually polled voters — twice — on the prospect of Trump sharing the GOP ticket with his daughter, Gates says.

Ivanka Trump was the one who put a stop to it, telling her father she didn’t think it was a good idea. Gates says that Trump ultimately went with Pence after he impressed Trump with a “vicious and extended monologue” about the Clinton family at a breakfast that summer.

Gates told the Washington Post in an interview that, while he wasn’t sure Trump would have gone with Ivanka in the end, he chose to include the anecdote in his forthcoming book — titled “Wicked Game: An Insider’s Story on How Trump Won, Mueller Failed, and America Lost,” first reported by Bloomberg — as an example of Trump’s outsider appeal.

Where some might see the idea as a “distasteful symbol of Trump’s nepotism,” the Post writes, Gates pointed to it as a sign of Trump’s commitment to family, and his loyalty to “the values and assets” he cared most about,” Gates told the paper.

On Sunday the New York Times reported that Trump’s tax returns reveal that he wrote off “consulting fees” paid to Ivanka Trump for projects she co-managed as part of her job at the Trump Organization. The Times suggested that this raises questions about a possible scheme to compensate his adult children involved with his business, while avoiding the taxes involved in paying them directly.

Gates worked as former campaign manager Paul Manafort’s right-hand man on the 2016 campaign, staying on after Manafort departed and eventually helping organize the inauguration. In October 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller’s office indicted him on charges of conspiracy against the United States and lying to investigators in relation to his lobbying work with Manafort in Ukraine before joining the Trump campaign.

After pleading guilty in 2018, Gates sat with federal prosecutors for hundreds of hours of interviews and delivered pivotal courtroom testimony against both Manafort and former campaign aide Roger Stone. His testimony that Stone had given Trump a heads-up about WikiLeaks email dumps contradicted written responses that Trump provided under oath to Mueller in lieu of an in-person interview.

Gates was sentenced to 45 days in prison, which he was allowed to serve in weekend installments. His sentence was suspended in April amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Gates’ campaign memoir is not an insider tell-all. It is a defense of Trump’s campaign, a rebuke of the Russia investigation and a justification for re-electing “the most decisive president we’ve had probably since Eisenhower,” as he told the Post.

Gates echoes Trump’s allegations that the Mueller probe was unfair and unfounded, and that he and other campaign aides were targeted by biased prosecutors who wanted them to flip on Trump, when there was no criminal conduct to reveal. Two of the men Gates testified against were sentenced to prison. Trump eventually commuted Stone’s sentence on obstruction charges, but has not taken similar steps toward Manafort, Gates’ longtime business partner.

Asked whether he would take a presidential pardon, Gates told the Post, “Absolutely.”

“I mean, who wouldn’t?” he said, adding that he had not inquired.

“We have not made any overture. … But if I were looking at this objectively, I would say that this started with political intention and that people were caught up in the inquiry in ways that they wouldn’t have been if the inquiry had been done more properly,” he told the Post.

“One of the things I think people lost focus on, again, on both sides is that we’re all human beings. It got so politically toxic, it’s almost as if both sides were not looking at the others involved as human beings, but instead just as political pawns that they could leverage,” Gates said.

Pelosi warns Democrats the election may be decided by the House — where the GOP holds an edge

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., warned Democrats that the House of Representatives may have to decide the election winner if neither candidate wins an outright majority in the Electoral College.

The chances that neither President Donald Trump nor Democratic nominee Joe Biden will win at least 270 electoral votes are slim, according to election forecaster FiveThirtyEight, but Pelosi sent a letter to Democratic colleagues on Sunday preparing lawmakers for the possibility that the election may be deadlocked.

If neither candidate wins 270 electoral votes, each state’s House delegation would get one vote apiece, meaning that Democrats would not hold an advantage despite holding a 34-seat majority. Republicans currently control 26 delegations while Democrats control 22 delegations. Pennsylvania’s delegation is split evenly. Democrats hold a 7-6 edge in Michigan, with Rep. Justin Amash, I-Mich., holding the 14th seat.

“The Constitution says that a candidate must receive a majority of the state delegations to win,” Pelosi wrote, according to Politico, which first reported the letter. “We must achieve that majority of delegations or keep the Republicans from doing so.”

Pelosi called for Democrats to launch an “all out effort” to capture Republican-led House seats, according to Reuters, “because we cannot leave anything to chance.”

Pelosi has “repeatedly” raised the issue with Democratic leaders in recent weeks, according to Politico, and Trump himself has raised the possibility.

“And I don’t want to end up in the Supreme Court and I don’t want to go back to Congress either, even though we have an advantage if we go back to Congress — does everyone understand that?” Trump said during a rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday. “I think it’s 26 to 22 or something because it’s counted one vote per state, so we actually have an advantage. Oh, they’re going to be thrilled to hear that.”

The concern over the possible scenario, which has not happened since 1876, could result in a new focus on House races in Montana and Alaska, which could decide the presidency. The presidential election results are not certified until Congress is sworn in, meaning that Democrats could bolster their count ahead of a possible vote.

Democrats hold a one- or two-seat edge in seven states that are expected to see at least one contested House race. Republicans hold a similar edge in Florida.

Democrats are expected to pick up seats in the Pennsylvania delegation after the state Supreme Court struck down a Republican gerrymander. Michigan is expected to be deadlocked, however, with a Republican expected to win the retiring Amash’s red-district seat. That means the Alaska and Montana at-large seats, which are currently held by Republicans, could swing the vote to Democrats if they are able to capture the deep-red seats.

“If Dems hold their delegations, they would have to flip Alaska-AL *OR* Montana-AL for the House to deadlock,” tweeted election analyst Daniel Nichanian. “Those 2 races are key.”

“We’re trying to win every seat in America, but there are obviously some places where a congressional district is even more important than just getting the member into the U.S. House of Representatives,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., told Politico.

Politico’s Kyle Cheney noted that there could also be a “potential fight” to decide “which members are seated in the case of disputed election results.” If House Democrats hold their majority, they could refuse to seat Republican members where election results are in question.

“Early January could be the greatest constitutional clash we’ve seen in the Trump era,” he wrote, “and maybe any modern era.”

Forget “The Apprentice” — Trump’s taxes show he was really “The Biggest Loser”

Donald Trump’s seemingly immovable approval numbers are a testament, above all other things, to the power of racism, and the way that 40 to 42% of Americans will stand by their man, no matter how bad things get, so long as he keeps hating the same people they hate. But that legendary floor of his — he has almost never dropped below 40%, or risen above 45% — is also a testament to the power of narrative fiction, especially of the televised variety.

During the 2016 Republican primary, polling showed that Trump supporters were bamboozled by “The Apprentice,” mistaking the fictional Trump of the “reality” TV show for the real Trump, a repeated business failure with a series of bankruptcies under his belt. To this day, about half of Americans still believe that Trump is a competent steward of the American economy, despite the worst downturn since the Great Depression, because they mistook a character he played on TV for the real thing. Trump has boosted this lie about his business acumen by concealing decades of his tax returns so that he could claim to be a successful billionaire without being fact-checked by his own accountants. 

But now, after years of trying, the New York Times has successfully harpooned the white whale that journalists, prosecutors, activists and Democrats have been hunting for years: Donald Trump’s tax returns.

Unsurprisingly, the documents suggest Trump cheats on his taxes, as he cheats in every other aspect of life, from marriages to presidential elections. Perhaps more importantly, the documents show that Trump’s entire persona as a successful businessman isn’t just a lie, but the inverse of reality. If we’re going strictly on profit and loss, Donald Trump is the worst living businessman in America. 

 

Trump has twice been basically gifted half a billion dollars by benefactors — twice! — first by his father and then by reality-show producer Mark Burnett for “The Apprentice.” In both cases, tax documents suggest he took more money than most people can even dream of, and flushed it straight down the toilet. Trump isn’t a successful businessman. He’s the photographic negative of a successful businessman. If “The Apprentice” had been honestly named, it would have been called “The Biggest Loser.”

As the Times reports, Trump’s work on “The Apprentice,” for which he did very little beyond showing up to perform before the cameras, earned him “a total of $427.4 million.” Instead of investing this cash bonanza, which he received through no skill or effort beyond letting makeup artists and editors make him look as good as possible, Trump turned around and dumped that money into businesses “that in the years since have steadily devoured cash,” such as $315 million in reported losses for his golf clubs and $55 million in losses for his Washington hotel. He does make money off Trump Tower, but the massive losses are part of the reason Trump has avoided paying income taxes for so many years. 

Not only did Trump blow all the money that Burnett basically handed to him, he also appears deeply in the hole. He owes an eye-popping $421 million to various banks, most of which is coming due in the next four years. On top of that, he may owe another $100 million to the federal government, due to his shady tax practices. As Forbes journalist Dan Alexander calculated on Sunday, Trump’s debts may total more than a billion dollars

Trump isn’t the “stable genius” he claims to be, but no doubt the man has a gift for losing money. 

What makes this even more outrageous is this is the second time Trump was given nearly half a billion dollars that he proceeded to set on fire. As the New York Times pieced together in 2018 from documents provided by Trump’s niece, his father, Fred Trump, funneled $413 million to his profligate son (often illegally), only to watch The Donald waste it all on vanity projects. 

In fact, as with the “Apprentice” money, Trump not only lost the cash Daddy gave him, but kept spending. Trump’s tax documents from 1985 to 1994 obtained by the New York Times show that he lost a billion dollars during that time. In 1990, in fact, Trump was so strapped for cash, despite his father’s largess, that he pressured Fred, who was then 85 and suffering from dementia, to change his will in order to bail his wildly and unimaginably irresponsible son out of debt. 

Trump was likely only saved from ruin in the last decade or so by the infusion of Burnett cash — but then he went deeply into debt yet again. 

How does Trump keep up his lavish lifestyle? Well, no doubt a huge reason he loses money hand over fist is because he burns through it to keep up his lifestyle. He also appears to use accounting tricks to put taxpayers on the hook for his lifestyle. The Times found that by claiming all personal luxuries as business expenses, Trump “can still live a life of wealth and write it off.”

Why does this matter? Trump voters already know the man is a liar and a cheat, and have clearly decided they don’t care. During a 2016 presidential debate, Hillary Clinton accused Trump (correctly, it turns out) of not paying federal income taxes. He declared that made him “smart.” For Trump voters, his tax cheating only adds to his mystique, and enhances his claim that, as a “successful” businessman, he knows how to run the economy, so people should set aside their concerns about his rancid personality and vote for him anyway. 

As Greg Sargent of the Washington Post argues, Trump campaigned on the idea that “he enriched himself off a system rigged to enable such elite gaming” and that he could somehow “unlock its spoils for supporters.” In reality, however, these tax returns show that Trump’s epic cheating wasn’t shrewd so much as a desperate effort to “compensate for truly epic levels of incompetence and failure.”

Trump is incapable of handling a checking account, much less running the economy. He cheats, without question. But he does so in no small part because he’s too stupid to make money honestly. 

The deadly combination of Trump’s ego and incompetence is such that he cannot help but destroy everything he touches. If Trump had simply put the money he’d been gifted into a mutual fund or other such investments, he’d be insanely rich. Hell, if he’d stuck it inside a mattress, he’d be rich beyond the imagination of the vast majority of Americans.

But Trump can’t help but screw things up. He’s a narcissist who wanted to show he was good at business — even though he’s desperately bad at it — and kept on buying up vanity projects like golf courses that lose lots of money. 

Unfortunately for the health of our nation, we can see the same tendencies playing out with the coronavirus pandemic. If Trump had simply left well enough alone, letting public health officials do their job, the pandemic would still be bad, but would now be much better contained. But Trump can’t help but get in his own way. He kept interfering with the response, insisting on treating the pandemic as a PR crisis and a political issue, rather than a health crisis. In the process, he undermined testing, mask-wearing, social distancing and other measures that could have greatly reduced viral transmissions. The result, as of Monday morning, is more than 7.1 million cases and nearly 205,000 deaths

Trump’s entire campaign pitch has been that he may be an asshole, but at least he’s a smart, tough asshole. His daughter, Ivanka, hit this theme hard at the Republican National Convention, joking that “my dad’s communication style is not to everyone’s taste” but that “the results speak for themselves.”

Yeah, First Daughter: They do. It was was preposterous at face value to claim that Trump was an effective leader, in light of the rapidly escalating death toll from the pandemic and a national unemployment rate 8.4% — down from the worst months of 2020 but still more than double what it was in February. But as these tax documents prove, it’s a lie that goes back decades. Trump is both an asshole and a terrible businessman, quite possibly the worst on planet Earth. He surrounds himself in gold-plated cheese, but his real Midas talent is his ability to turn anything he touches to ashes. He did it to his endlessly fake and failed business enterprises, and now he’s doing it to our country.