Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Homeland Security gave $6M in contracts to firm where acting secretary’s wife is executive: report

On Wednesday, September 23 — the day of Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf’s confirmation hearing in the U.S. Senate — NBC News reported that the consulting firm where his wife, Hope Wolf, is an executive had been awarded more than $6 million in contracts from DHS, according to the federal government website USA Spending.

NBC News’ Julia Ainsley reports, “Wolf’s wife, Hope Wolf, is vice president of professional staff operations at Berkeley Research Group, a consulting firm. Although the company has a long history of federal contracts, it did not do work for DHS until after Wolf became the (Transportation Security Administration’s) chief of staff in 2017. A DHS spokesperson said (Chad) Wolf was not aware of the contracts until he was contacted by the media.”

That spokesperson told NBC News, “At no time in any of his positions since joining DHS has Acting Secretary Wolf been involved in awarding any contracts. Even if he were involved with the procurement process for this particular contract, which he was not, he would have had to recuse himself due to even the appearance of impropriety.”

But according to Kyle Herrig, founder of the watchdog group Accountable.US, those $6 million worth of contracts may be a conflict of interest. Herrig told NBC News, “After Mr. Wolf joined DHS, it began pumping millions of dollars into his wife’s firm, which also happens to be his largest financial asset. The arrangement is highly problematic and warrants congressional scrutiny.”

President Donald Trump chose Chad Wolf as acting secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in November 2019 following the departure of former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. Before that, Wolf served as Nielsen’s chief of staff.

Fox News interview comes back to bite Eric Trump in new legal motion filed by NY AG Letitia James

President Donald Trump’s son Eric, a major figure within the Trump Organization’s businesses, has claimed he told a court that he is willing to appear in compliance with New York Attorney General Letitia James’ subpoena.

But in a new briefing, James pointed out that Eric Trump and his legal team have in fact stated a “categorical refusal” to appear — and that one of those refusals occurred during an interview with Fox News Radio.

“Eric Trump’s own public statements after this proceeding was commenced confirm that position,” said the briefing, noting that during that interview, Trump said, “The question is . . . why would you possibly comply?”

Trump said he could not “understand why” his wife Melania “would want to go” to Africa: report

A new report claims that President Donald Trump has privately accused American Jews of being more loyal to one another than to the United States.

Both current and former White House officials tell The Washington Post that Trump one time ranted about American Jews after getting off a phone call with Jewish lawmakers.

Specifically, The Post’s sources say the president “has muttered that Jews ‘are only in it for themselves’ and ‘stick together’ in an ethnic allegiance that exceeds other loyalties.”

Additionally, these sources say that Trump “has maintained that Black Americans have mainly themselves to blame in their struggle for equality, hindered more by lack of initiative than societal impediments,” while also telling aides that he “could never understand” why first lady Melania Trump would ever want to visit Africa.

A former White House official tells The Post that when challenged by aides on his comments, Trump would say, “No one loves Black people more than me.”

Another former official said that their best defense of Trump is to say that he may not be an overt white supremacist.

“Woodrow Wilson was outwardly a white supremacist,” the former official said. “I don’t think Trump is as bad as Wilson. But he might be.”

Carol Anderson, a professor of African-American Studies at Emory University, tells The Post that Trump’s racist rhetoric reminds her most of former President Andrew Johnson, who was frequently accused of having sympathy for the Confederacy during his tenure.

“Johnson made it clear that he was really the president of a few people, not the American people,” Anderson said. “And Trump has done the same.”

No charges filed against any of the three officers for the killing of Breonna Taylor

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron announced on Wednesday that former Louisville Police Det. Brett Hankison was charged with three counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree for blindly shooting into Breonna Taylor’s apartment, though not for her shooting death.

Hankison, the only officer terminated after the shooting, was indicted by a Jefferson County grand jury earlier in the day. His bond was set at $15,000. If convicted, he faces between one to five years in prison for each charge.

Hankison was charged over bullets that struck the apartment of Taylor’s neighbors. The other two officers who fired their weapons, Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly and Det. Myles Cosgrove, were not indicted.

Cameron, a Republican, made the announcement after a grand jury investigating the case presented its report on the shooting to a judge.

“What I can provide today are the facts. … I urge everyone today to not lose sight of the fact that a life has been lost, a tragedy under any circumstances,” he said, but declined to go into detail about his investigation due to state rules prohibiting prosecutors from commenting on ongoing cases.

Cameron said investigators had to “piece together” evidence because none of the officers wore body cameras.

He said that a single witness corroborated the officers’ claims that they announced themselves before trying to enter Taylor’s apartment, arguing that it was not a “no-knock” warrant. The officers encountered Taylor’s boyfriend Kenneth Walker, who shot Mattingly in the leg, he said. Mattingly fired his gun six times, Cosgrove fired his gun shot his gun 16 times, and Hankison fired 10 times, with some of Hankison’s bullets striking a nearby apartment, he said. Taylor was hit with only one “fatal” shot, he claimed, adding that she would have died from the wound within seconds. The FBI concluded the fatal shot was fired by Cosgrove, he added, though other reviews were inconclusive.

Mattingly and Cosgrove “were justified in their use of force,” he said, but Hankison, who fired from outside a sliding door, put Taylor’s neighbors in danger.

Homicide charges “are not applicable to the facts before us,” he said, because Mattingly and Cosgrove returned fire “to protect themselves” when they were shot at by Walker.

“I know that not everyone will be satisfied with the charges announced today,” he added, criticizing at length those acting on “emotion” and “outrage” in calling for more severe charges and castigating “celebrities” and “influencers” weighing in on the case.

Cameron said that any civil rights violations and questions about the search warrant would be investigated by the FBI.

Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer declared a state of emergency for the city on Tuesday “due to the potential for civil unrest” following the announcement. Restaurants and stores were boarded up and some federal buildings were shuttered for the week.

Fischer announced last week that the city settled a wrongful death lawsuit brought by Taylor’s family for a record $12 million. The settlement also included numerous police reforms.

Taylor, a Black 26-year-old emergency room technician, was fatally shot by police officers reportedly serving a “no knock” search warrant in a drug investigation targeting her ex-boyfriend Jamarcus Glover in March.

Taylor’s boyfriend Kenneth Walker and neighbors said the officers did not announce themselves when they tried to enter the home. The officers claimed they did announce themselves but Taylor and Walker did not hear them. Walker said he believed someone was breaking in and fired his legally owned gun, hitting Mattingly in the leg.

Mattingly, Hankison and Cosgrove returned fire, hitting Taylor six times, Cameron said on Wednesday.

Walker has said that Taylor was alive for at least five minutes after the shooting but the officers made no attempt to help her, which Cameron disputed. Dispatch logs obtained by the Louisville Courier-Journal show that Taylor received no medical attention for more than 20 minutes after she was shot.

No money or drugs were found in the apartment and her family has said she had no involvement with Glover’s alleged drug business.

Walker was charged with attempted murder and assault before prosecutors dropped the charges.

The Courier Journal reported that police had targeted Glover and an associate, who they believed were selling drugs at a house 10 miles away from Taylor’s home. A judge signed a warrant allowing police to search Taylor’s home because one of the officers said that Glover had used her apartment to receive packages.

Taylor’s family alleged in a lawsuit that Glover was targeted as part of a large-scale redevelopment project in his neighborhood and that Taylor was killed as part of a gentrification effort, which the city denied.

Hankison was fired in June after interim Police Chief Robert Schroeder accused him of “blindly” firing 10 rounds into Taylor’s apartment, though the officer is appealing the decision.

Schroeder said that Hankison’s conduct was a “shock to the conscience” and that he was “alarmed and stunned” that the officer violated department procedures in the shooting, noting that bullets also struck a wall, endangering Taylor’s neighbors.

Mattingly and Cosgrove were placed on administrative leave.

A day after the grand jury in the case convened, Mattingly sent a mass email to fellow officers defending his actions and criticizing protesters as “thugs.” Mattingly insisted that officers involved in the shooting “did the legal, moral, and ethical thing that night” while complaining that “the good guys are demonized, and criminals are canonized.”

His attorney has said that he was “following orders of superior officers” and “followed established police procedures.”

The firing was prompted by mass protests that intensified after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

Cameron, the first Black attorney general in the state and a rising Republican star who spoke at the party’s convention last month, was appointed as a special prosecutor in the case in May. The FBI opened a separate investigation as well.

The Louisville Metro Council in June passed Breonna’s Law, which barred no-knock warrants and required officers serving search warrants to wear body cameras.

After settling with the city last week, Taylor’s mother Tamika Palmer said that the only way to bring justice for her daughter’s death was to prosecute the officers who shot her.

“As significant as today is, it’s only the beginning of getting full justice for Breonna,” she said. “We must not lose focus on what the real job is. And with that being said, it’s time to move forward with the criminal charges, because she deserves that — and much more.”

Trump attacks John McCain after former Republican senator’s widow endorses Joe Biden: “Never a fan”

Cindy McCain endorsed family friend Joe Biden over President Donald Trump.

The president has repeatedly attacked and insulted her late husband, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and she appeared Wednesday morning on multiple TV news programs to endorse Biden in November’s election.

“I hardly know Cindy McCain other than having put her on a Committee at her husband’s request,” Trump tweeted. “Joe Biden was John McCain’s lapdog. So many BAD decisions on Endless Wars & the V.A., which I brought from a horror show to HIGH APPROVAL. Never a fan of John. Cindy can have Sleepy Joe!”

Trump and the GOP don’t care about 200,000 dead — only about power

On Tuesday, the official death count from the coronavirus pandemic in the United States passed 200,000. A memorial was placed in front of the Washington Monument to mark this grim milestone, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi there not just to share the grief, but in anger. 

“This was preventable. Not all of it, but much of it,” Pelosi said, citing a failure to “embrace science over politics” in leadership, a not-so-oblique reference to the way that Donald Trump has, at every turn, either been incompetent or actively undermined efforts to slow the spread of the virus

Meanwhile, Trump was running his mouth at reporters on the White House lawn Tuesday afternoon, but on one subject — the 200,000 people he let die — he was uncharacteristically short on words. 

Always playing his role as the corny movie villain who gives his evil scheme away in dialogue, Trump wanted instead to talk about the Supreme Court and how he plans to use it to steal the election. 

“We need nine justices” on the court, Trump said, to deal with what he characterized as “the unsolicited millions of ballots that they’re sending.”

That was garbled Trump-speak for his hope that, by shoving a right-wing loyalist onto the bench before Nov. 3, he can get the Supreme Court to rule millions of absentee ballots inadmissible and steal the election. 

Within the span of a few minutes, Trump managed, despite being barely coherent at the best of times, to encapsulate the entire GOP outlook on our current situation: They’re simply too busy crushing our democracy to give a crap about the 200,000 people who have died, the 6.9 million infected or the 13.6 million unemployed

As Judd Legum noted in his Popular Info newsletter on Wednesday morning, conversations around Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell jamming through a Supreme Court nominee so close to the election have been focused on the hypocrisy of it all. McConnell justified holding a Supreme Court seat open for nearly a year in 2016 by disingenuously claiming to believe it was wrong to seat a justice during an election year, but the second a seat could be filled by a Republican president, he jettisoned his phony concern. 

“But beyond the hypocrisy, the Senate’s decision is heartless,” Legum argues, because they are “choosing to ignore the ongoing pandemic to pursue a narrow ideological agenda.”

“Narrow ideological agenda” is, if anything, an understatement. As Trump’s comments made clear, the ultimate goal here is to bring about the end of any meaningful kind of democracy, so that Republicans, who control the Senate and the White House even though they lost the popular vote for both, can secure minority rule indefinitely. A right-wing court will make it consistently harder for Democrats to vote and will do its utmost to overturn vacate any legislation Democrats pass if they actually manage to win elections on a drastically tilted playing field. 

Trump, of course, doesn’t care how many lives are ruined by the pandemic. He has actively made it worse, encouraging people to take risks with their health and interfering with efforts by public health officials to stop the virus from spreading.

But McConnell is just as bad. Even before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and left her seat on the court open, the majority leader pointedly ignored a coronavirus relief bill passed by the Democratic-controlled House back in May, which was meant to boost the economy and protect the elections. 

McConnell clearly had no intention of passing any kind of coronavirus relief, especially if it contained any protection for the democratic systems he wishes to gut. As a political stunt, Senate Republicans offered a “skinny” relief bill, but only to make it look like they were doing something. They put very little effort into even pretending they intended for the bill to reach Trump’s desk.

Instead of working with House Democrats on a compromise bill that might actually pass both houses, McConnell has been laser-focused on his one and only goal, which is democracy-proofing the Republican hold on power. Just last week, he jammed through six more federal judicial appointments in two days, gobbling up power like a snake going after a mouse, and completely indifferent to the suffering of the people he was supposedly elected to represent. 

To put a cherry on top of this sundae of corruption and disregard for Americans’ well-being, one of the cases the Supreme Court is likely to review this fall is yet another attempt by Republicans to strike down the Affordable Care Act.

The legal arguments in the case are idiotic, but it hardly matters. As McConnell understands, the only thing that matters is power. If Trump installs one more judge before the case is argued, then the three remaining liberals plus the one conservative who occasionally cares about legal arguments making sense — Chief Justice John Roberts — will be in the minority. Republicans will finally achieve their goal of finding an end run around democracy to deprive people of health care.

It’s worth remembering that the ACA was passed, as political science professor Scott Lemieux has noted, by “a duly elected House majority and Senate supermajority” and was signed by a president who “won a landslide.” Republican efforts to repeal the law by normal legislative means have failed “because it’s too popular.”

The ACA’s popularity is the sort of thing that has soured Republicans like McConnell on the concept of democracy. If the people are allowed to to choose their own leaders, they may well choose people who pass policies that improve their lives and level the playing field at least a little between ordinary Americans and the wealthy elite. In other words, if the people keep voting for a better world, Republicans clearly believe those voters have forsaken their right to have a say in governance at all. 

No wonder McConnell and Trump are fine with abandoning Americans to the widespread death and destruction of this pandemic. As far as those two and their Republican cronies are concerned, the American people are little more than an inconvenient threat to their power, and all such threats must be quashed. 

Republicans to ask Supreme Court to restrict voting by mail in Pennsylvania in post-Ginsburg appeal

Republicans will ask the Supreme Court to limit mail-in voting in Pennsylvania after the top court in the key swing state extended ballot deadlines last week.

Republicans state legislative leaders indicated Tuesday in a court filing that they will ask the Supreme Court for an emergency stay to block the state court’s ruling from taking effect before the election. The filing also asked the state court to stay its own decision, citing plans to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The move comes days after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away from cancer complications, leaving the court with a 5-3 conservative majority.

“This could be a big first test for the post-RBG Supreme Court and where it will stand on election issues,” Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California Irvine, told The Hill, which first reported the filing. “There’s little reason to believe that the conservative-liberal divide will disappear with Justice Ginsburg’s death.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled last week to allow mail-in ballots to be counted even if they arrive three days after Election Day so long as they are postmarked by Nov. 3. The court also expanded drop boxes in the state and blocked a Republican attempt to allow “poll watchers” to monitor voters in counties where they do not reside.

The Republicans only plan to ask the Supreme Court for a stay on the mail-in ballot extension.

“The court’s judgment . . . creates a serious likelihood that Pennsylvania’s imminent general election will be tainted by votes that were illegally cast or mailed after Election Day,” the GOP filing said. “. . . The Elections Clause of the United States Constitution vests the authority to regulate the times, places, and manner of federal elections to Pennsylvania’s General Assembly, subject only to alteration by Congress — not this Court.”

The appeal would go to conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who oversees the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, according to The Washington Post. However, the entire court may choose to weigh in on the decision. The outlet noted that Republicans also separately asked a lower federal court to declare the drop box and poll watcher rulings unconstitutional.

“Such last-minute changes by court order can engender widespread ‘voter confusion,’ erode public ‘confidence in the integrity of our electoral process’ and create an ‘incentive to remain away from the polls’,” the Republican filing claimed.

But Republicans appear to have no interest in addressing another mail-in voting rule, which election officials warned has the potential to cause “electoral chaos” and set the state up to be the “subject of significant post-election legal controversy, the likes of which we have not seen since Florida in 2000.”

The state court’s decision, while largely siding with Democrats, upheld a rule requiring election officials to discard “naked ballots,” or ballots that are returned without a second inner “secrecy envelope.”

Philadelphia City Commissioner Lisa Deeley warned that the rule may disenfranchise more than 100,000 voters in the state. The state has historically seen a “naked ballot” rate of around 6%. The number of mail ballots is expected to increase tenfold this year, and the ballots are required to be rejected.

Fifteen other states use secrecy sleeves, which Deeley said are a “vestige of the past” made obsolete by rapid counting machines, which replaced the old system of manually counting ballots at individual polling places. The secrecy envelope “exists now only as a means to disenfranchise well-intentioned” voters, she said.

Pennsylvania is expected to be a critical state this November after President Donald Trump carried the state by just over 44,000 votes in 2016.

Election forecaster FiveThirtyEight predicts that there is about a 31% chance that the state could tip the election this year to Trump or Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Polls show a close race in the Keystone State, with Biden leading by an average of 4.5%.

There is a significant chance that the results in Pennsylvania and other states will be challenged after the election. Trump himself has said that he is “counting” on federal courts to determine the election winner.

“We’re going to have a victory on Nov. 3 the likes of which you’ve never seen,” he said at a rally last week. “Now we’re counting on the federal court system to make it so that we can actually have an evening where we know who wins — not where the votes are going to be counted a week later or two weeks later.”

Is Trump’s Supreme Court strategy self-destructive — or his pathway to a second term?

President Trump repeatedly says that he’s accomplished more than any president in history. I’ve never heard anyone ask him to lay out specifically what he means by that. He can try to take credit for signing big tax cuts for the wealthy, but that was passed by the Republican Congress with little input from him. It’s true that his executive branch agencies have overturned many environmental rules and other regulations, but he hasn’t been involved and clearly doesn’t know the details.

Trump’s corruption has given his consigliere, Attorney General Bill Barr, the opportunity to further his own “powerful executive” theory. His craven pandering to white supremacists and the evangelical right has kept the base bonded tightly to the Republican Party. But beyond that his list of accomplishments is nil. He has literally done nothing but run his mouth and turn the U.S. into an object of fear and pity around the world

But as much as Republicans no doubt cringe at his ignorant antics, they have exactly what they always wanted. For all his embarrassing narcissism and ineptitude, Trump is the personification of what Republican operative Grover Norquist once told a group of activists a few years back was the perfect president:

We are not auditioning for “fearless leader.” We don’t need a president to tell us where to go. We know what direction we want to go. … We don’t need someone to think it up or design it. Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States.

Trump doesn’t know what his great accomplishments are, nor can he explain what he plans to do in his second term other than “more of the same,” whatever that is. That, in large measure, is exactly why he has the continued loyalty of the officials in his party.

The mere fact that Trump has the working digits to hold a pen has allowed Mitch McConnell and the far-right Federalist Society to pack the courts with extremist judges, many unqualified and all of them young. They’ve allowed Trump to think he did something special. But that happened because McConnell blocked dozens of Obama’s nominees, including, of course, Merrick Garland, whom Obama named to the Supreme Court and who didn’t even get a hearing. Then McConnell coerced Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire, and got tragically lucky last week with the untimely death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Trump had absolutely nothing to do with any of that beyond warming the desk chair in the Oval Office and signing the pieces of paper they handed him. His bragging about his “legacy” on the courts is a joke. If it’s anyone’s legacy, it’s McConnell’s.

As Salon’s Andrew O’Hehir has argued, McConnell is more or less in a win-win situation whether the vote on the next Supreme Court nominee is held before or after the presidential election. He either gets his own legacy sealed with a 6-3 extremist majority for a generation or, if he is forced to wait, his endangered Senate Republicans have something to juice right-wing turnout, potentially saving McConnell’s Senate majority. Whether they win or lose in November, they have till January to complete the confirmation and will probably get the seat anyway.

As of Tuesday, it appears that McConnell has the votes to confirm whichever young, far-right woman he and the Federalist Society have chosen for Trump to nominate. Unless the Democrats decide to pull out all the stops to stall the confirmation — which is implausible, based on everything we know about their behavior — Trump’s choice may very well be seated just before Election Day.

I had initially assumed that Trump was being foolish to rush the confirmation. After all, if this seat is such a motivator for the base, why wouldn’t you use it to ensure they come out to vote by saying that if Trump doesn’t win, they may not be able to confirm his choice? Sure, they’ll still have the votes in the lame-duck session but you’d think Trump would be able to convince Republican voters that the court is lost to the liberals unless they show up to vote for him. Fear-mongering is his specialty.

I had also assumed that Trump was making a silly calculation that getting a third Supreme Court seat filled during his first term would make him look like a “winner,” which, in his mind, is a huge motivation for voting for him. And there would be the added, all-important benefit of owning the libs.

He’s not the only one who sees this as a motivator. Take this headline from the conservative Townhall.com in which Matt Vespa dispenses with all the Republicans’ hypocritical and unconvincing retreats from their previous positions on filling a seat in an election year and tells it like it is: “Shove It, Democrats. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Seat Is Ours … And There’s Nothing You Can Do About It”:

Welcome to Thunderdome, b**ches. This is the fight that distinguishes the men from the boys; who can deliver a strike to the jugular and who can’t; and between who’s weak and who wants to win.

Or as Trump more prosaically put it during a Fox News interview on Monday, “When you have the votes, you can sort of do what you want.”

Republicans aren’t trying to hide their will to power. But there is a hitch. We still sort of, kind of have a democratic system — and if the polls are correct, a large majority of voters is getting ready to reject them. So it looks as if this Supreme Court seat, and all the seats Mitch McConnell has filled in the lower courts, may have to step up and be the partisan players they were chosen to be.

On Saturday night in Fayetteville, North Carolina, Trump said the quiet part out loud, as usual:

Now we’re counting on the federal court system to make it so that we can actually have an evening where we know who wins — not where the votes are going to be counted a week later, two weeks later.

On Monday he made it very clear why he is rushing the nomination through:

Vice President Mike Pence made the same point, emphasizing the need for nine justices to decide election cases about “mail-in ballots.” (Apparently, they’ve decided they can’t count on Chief Justice John Roberts to do their bidding.)

Republicans have hundreds of lawyers spread out across the country prepared to file lawsuits and Bill Barr stands ready to bring the full force of the federal government to bear, despite the fact that it is not a party to state elections.

So I thought Trump was being shortsighted in his desire to “win” this battle before the election — but maybe I was wrong. Frankly, I’m pretty sure that if the Republicans thought he could win the election outright they would have persuaded him to use the open Supreme Court seat to help him get out the vote. But they all know that he’s extremely unpopular and highly unlikely to win a free and legitimate contest. So they’ve decided to try to re-run the disastrous 2000 election and have their partisan majority on the Supreme Court install Trump for another term instead. It worked marvelously the first time around — and it’s probably their best shot. 

Without Ginsburg, judicial threats to the ACA, reproductive rights heighten

On Feb. 27, 2018, I got an email from the Heritage Foundation, alerting me to a news conference that afternoon held by Republican attorneys general of Texas and other states. It was referred to only as a “discussion about the Affordable Care Act lawsuit.”

I sent the following note to my editor: “I’m off to the Hill anyway. I could stop by this. You never know what it might morph into.”

Few people took that case very seriously — barely a handful of reporters attended the news conference. But it has now “morphed into” the latest existential threat against the Affordable Care Act, scheduled for oral arguments at the Supreme Court a week after the general election in November. And with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, that case could well morph into the threat that brings down the law in its entirety.

Democrats are raising alarms about the future of the law without Ginsburg. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday morning, said that part of the strategy by President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans to quickly fill her seat was to help undermine the ACA.

“The president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because … Nov. 10 is when the arguments begin on the Affordable Care Act,” she said. “He doesn’t want to crush the virus. He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act.”

Ginsburg’s death throws an already chaotic general election campaign during a pandemic into more turmoil. But in the longer term, her absence from the bench could accelerate a trend underway to get cases to the Supreme Court toward invalidating the ACA and rolling back reproductive freedoms for women.

Let’s take them one at a time.

The ACA Under Fire — Again

The GOP attorneys general argued in February 2018 that the Republican-sponsored tax cut bill Congress passed two months earlier had rendered the ACA unconstitutional by reducing to zero the ACA’s penalty for not having insurance. They based their argument on Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 conclusion that the ACA was valid, interpreting that penalty as a constitutionally appropriate tax.

Most legal scholars, including several who challenged the law before the Supreme Court in 2012 and again in 2015, find the argument that the entire law should fall to be unconvincing. “If courts invalidate an entire law merely because Congress eliminates or revises one part, as happened here, that may well inhibit necessary reform of federal legislation in the future by turning it into an ‘all or nothing’ proposition,” wrote a group of conservative and liberal law professors in a brief filed in the case.

Still, in December 2018, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas accepted the GOP argument and declared the law unconstitutional. In December 2019, a three-judge 5th Circuit appeals court panel in New Orleans agreed that without the penalty the requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. But it sent the case back to O’Connor to suggest that perhaps the entire law need not fall.

Not wanting to wait the months or years that reconsideration would take, Democratic attorneys general defending the ACA asked the Supreme Court to hear the case this year. (Democrats are defending the law in court because the Trump administration decided to support the GOP attorneys general’s case.) The court agreed to take the case but scheduled arguments for the week after the November election.

While the fate of the ACA was and is a live political issue, few legal observers were terribly worried about the legal outcome of the case now known as Texas v. California, if only because the case seemed much weaker than the 2012 and 2015 cases in which Roberts joined the court’s four liberals. In the 2015 case, which challenged the validity of federal tax subsidies helping millions of Americans buy health insurance on the ACA’s marketplaces, both Roberts and now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the law.

But without Ginsburg, the case could wind up in a 4-4 tie, even if Roberts supports the law’s constitutionality. That could let the lower-court ruling stand, although it would not be binding on other courts outside of the 5th Circuit. The court could also put off the arguments or, if the Republican Senate replaces Ginsburg with another conservative justice before arguments are heard, Republicans could secure a 5-4 ruling against the law. Some court observers argue that Justice Brett Kavanaugh has not favored invalidating an entire statute if only part of it is flawed and might not approve overturning the ACA. Still, what started out as an effort to energize Republican voters for the 2018 midterms after Congress failed to “repeal and replace” the health law in 2017 could end up throwing the nation’s entire health system into chaos.

At least 20 million Americans — and likely many more who sought coverage since the start of the coronavirus pandemic — who buy insurance through the ACA marketplaces or have Medicaid through the law’s expansion could lose coverage right away. Many millions more would lose the law’s popular protections guaranteeing coverage for people with preexisting health conditions, including those who have had COVID-19.

Adult children under age 26 would no longer be guaranteed the right to remain on their parents’ health plans, and Medicare patients would lose enhanced prescription drug coverage. Women would lose guaranteed access to birth control at no out-of-pocket cost.

But a sudden elimination would affect more than just health care consumers. Insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals and doctors have all changed the way they do business because of incentives and penalties in the health law. If it’s struck down, many of the “rules of the road” would literally be wiped away, including billing and payment mechanisms.

A new Democratic president could not drop the lawsuit, because the Trump administration is not the plaintiff (the GOP attorneys general are). But a Democratic Congress and president could in theory make the entire issue go away by reinstating the penalty for failure to have insurance, even at a minimal amount. However, as far as the health law goes, for now, nothing is a sure thing.

As Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan who specializes in health issues, tweeted: “Among other things, the Affordable Care Act now dangles from a thread.”

Reproductive Rights

A woman’s right to abortion — and even to birth control — also has been hanging by a thread at the high court for more than a decade. This past term, Roberts joined the liberals to invalidate a Louisiana law that would have closed most of the state’s abortion clinics, but he made it clear it was not a vote for abortion rights. The Louisiana law was too similar to a Texas law the court (without his vote) struck down in 2016, Roberts argued.

Ginsburg had been a stalwart supporter of reproductive freedom for women. In her nearly three decades on the court, she always voted with backers of abortion rights and birth control and led the dissenters in 2007 when the court upheld a federal ban on a specific abortion procedure.

Adding a justice opposed to abortion to the bench — which is what Trump has promised his supporters — would almost certainly tilt the court in favor of far more dramatic restrictions on the procedure and possibly an overturn of the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade.

But not only is abortion on the line. The court in recent years has repeatedly ruled that employers with religious objections can refuse to provide contraception.

And waiting in the lower-court pipeline are cases involving federal funding of Planned Parenthood in both the Medicaid and federal family planning programs, and the ability of individual health workers to decline to participate in abortion and other procedures.

For Ginsburg, those issues came down to a clear question of a woman’s guarantee of equal status under the law.

“Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ‘to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation,'” she wrote in her dissent in that 2007 abortion case. “Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.'”

HealthBent, a regular feature of Kaiser Health News, offers insight and analysis of policies and politics from KHN’s chief Washington correspondent, Julie Rovner, who has covered health care for more than 30 years.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The true cost of resistance: Consider what happened to Julian Assange and Roger Hallam

Two of the rebels I admire most, Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks publisher, and Roger Hallam, the co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, are in jail in Britain. That should not be surprising. You can measure the effectiveness of resistance by the fury of the response. Julian courageously exposed the lies, deceit, war crimes and corruption of the ruling imperial elites. Roger has helped organized the largest acts of mass civil disobedience in British history, shutting down parts of London for weeks, in a bid to wrest power from a ruling class that has done nothing, and will do nothing, to halt the climate emergency and our death march to mass extinction.

The governing elites, when truly threatened, turn the rule of law into farce. Dissent becomes treason. They use the state mechanisms of control — intelligence agencies, police, courts, black propaganda and a compliant press that acts as their echo chamber, along with the jails and prisons — not only to marginalize and isolate rebels, but to psychologically and physically destroy them. The list of rebels silenced or killed by ruling elites runs in a direct line from Socrates to the Haitian resistance leader Toussaint L’Ouverture, who led the only successful slave revolt in human history and died in a frigid French prison cell of malnutrition and exhaustion, to the imprisonment of socialist Eugene V. Debs, whose health was also broken in a federal prison. Rebel leaders from the 1960s, including Mumia Abu-Jamal, Sundiata Acoli, Kojo Bomani Sababu, Mutulu Shakur and Leonard Peltier, remain, decades later, in U.S. prisons. Muslim activists, including those who led the charity The Holy Land Foundation and Syed Fahad Hashmi, were arrested, often at the request of the Israeli government, after the hysteria following 9/11, and given tawdry show trials. They also remain incarcerated.

Resistance, genuine resistance, exacts a very, very high price. Those in power drop even the pretense of justice when they face an existential threat. Most rebels, like Ernesto “Che” Guevara, and the tens of thousands of rebels the U.S. has had kidnapped, disappeared and brutally tortured and killed throughout American history, end up as martyrs.

Once a rebel is caged, the state uses its absolute control and array of dark arts to break them. Julian, whose extradition hearing is underway in London, and who spent seven years trapped as a political prisoner in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, is taken from his cell in the high security Belmarsh Prison at 5 a.m. He is handcuffed, put in holding cells, stripped naked and X-rayed. He is transported an hour and a half each way to court in a police van that resembles a dog cage on wheels. He is held in a glass box at the back of court during the proceedings, often unable to consult with his lawyers. He has difficulty hearing the proceedings. He is routinely denied access to the documents in his case and is openly taunted in court by the judge.

It does not matter that Julian, who is being prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act, is not a U.S. citizen. It does not matter that WikiLeaks, which he founded and publishes, is not a U.S.-based publication. The ominous message the U.S. government is sending is clear: No matter who or where you are, if you expose the inner workings of empire you will be hunted down, kidnapped and brought to the U.S. to be tried as a spy and imprisoned for life. The empire intends to be unaccountable, untouchable and unexamined.

The U.S. created in the so-called “war on terror” parallel legal and penal codes to railroad dissidents and rebels into prison. These rebels are held in prolonged solitary confinement, creating deep psychological distress. They are prosecuted under special administrative measures, known as SAMs, to prevent or severely restrict communication with other prisoners, attorneys, family members, the media and people outside the jail. They are denied access to the news and other reading material. They are barred from participating in educational and religious activities in the prison. They are subject to 24-hour electronic monitoring and 23-hour lockdown. They must shower and go to the bathroom on camera. They are permitted to write one letter a week to a single member of their family, but cannot use more than three pieces of paper. They often have no access to fresh air and must take the one hour of recreation in a cage that looks like a giant hamster wheel.

The U.S. has set up a segregated facility, the Communication Management Unit, at the federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana. Nearly all the inmates transferred to Terre Haute are Muslims. A second facility has been set up at Marion, Illinois, where the inmates again are mostly Muslim but also include a sprinkling of animal rights and environmental activists. Their sentences are arbitrarily lengthened by “terrorism enhancements” under the Patriot Act. Amnesty International has called the Marion prison facility “inhumane.” All calls and mail — although communication customarily is off-limits to prison officials — are monitored in these two Communication Management Units. Communication among prisoners is required to be only in English. The highest-level “terrorists” are housed at the Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility, known as Supermax, in Florence, Colorado, where prisoners have almost no human interaction, physical exercise or mental stimulation. It is Guantánamo-like conditions in colder weather.

Julian is already very fragile. His psychological and physical distress include dramatic weight loss, severe respiratory problems, joint problems, dental decay, chronic anxiety, intense, constant stress resulting in an inability to relax or focus, and episodes of mental confusion. These symptoms indicate, as Nils Melzer, the UN special rapporteur on torture who met and examined Julian in prison has stated, that he is suffering from prolonged psychological torture.

If Julian is extradited to the U.S. to face 17 charges under the Espionage Act, each carrying a potential 10-year sentence, which appears likely, he will continue to be psychologically and physically abused to break him. He will be tried in the burlesque of a kangaroo court with “secret” evidence, familiar to Black and Muslim radicals as well as rebels such as Jeremy Hammond, sentenced to 10 years in prison for hacking into the computers and making public the emails of a private security firm that works on behalf of the government, including the Department of Homeland Security, and corporations such as Dow Chemical.

Roger is being held in Pentonville Prison in London, which was built in 1842 and is in disrepair. He is charged with breaking bail conditions over an action that saw activists throw paint on the walls of the four major British political parties, as well as conspiracy to cause criminal damage. A Green Party member leaked to the British police a recorded Zoom discussion Roger had with three other members of Burning Pink, an anti-political party organized to create citizen assemblies to replace ruling governing bodies, as they discussed upcoming actions. The homes of the four activists on the Zoom meeting — along with Roger, they were Blyth Brentnall, Diana Warner, Ferhat Ulusu and Anglican priest Steven Nunn — were raided on Aug. 25. Their electronic devices were confiscated by police and they were arrested.

Roger is housed in a dirty, vermin-infested cell and denied books and visitors. A vegan, he is forced to live on a diet of cold cereal and bread. On many days there is no hot food served in the prison. Violent altercations within the prison are commonplace. The overcrowded cells often lack lighting and heat. He has no change of clothes and has been unable to wash the clothes he is wearing for weeks. He stuffs bedsheets and paper in the cracks of the door to block mice and cockroaches. The toilet in his cell has no seat, is covered in excrement and does not flush properly. He goes days without access to the outside. His reading glasses are broken. He is waiting on a request for tape to fix them. The COVID-19 pandemic is in the prison. Two of the staff have died from the virus. Roger could be imprisoned in these conditions until February, if he is denied bail in a hearing scheduled for this week.

Roger’s arrest came as Extinction Rebellion was planning a blockade of the printing presses of News Corps Printworks, which prints several major British newspapers, including The Times, Sun on Sunday, Sunday Times, The Daily Mail and The London Evening Standard. The blockade took place on Sept. 4 to protest the failure of those news outlets to accurately report on the climate and ecological emergency. The blockade delayed distribution of the papers by several hours.

“The days of standing up to tyranny have long faded,” Roger writes from prison. “The life-and-death struggle against Hitler and fascism is consigned to the history books. Today’s liberal classes believe only in one thing: maintaining their privilege. Their one priority is power. The number one rule is: preserve our careers, our institutions at all cost. The historical rule number one of fighting evil is the willingness to lose your career and to risk the closing down of your institution. The prospect of death and destruction is lost in a postmodernist haze. Leadership has decayed into sitting behind a desk, following public relations protocols (otherwise known as lying). Leading from the front, the first to go to prison Martin Luther King-style died with the passing of the World War II generation.” 

“The game is up,” Roger continued. “The old alliance with the liberal classes is dead. New forms of revolutionary initiative and leadership are rising up. Members of the new political party Burning Pink have thrown paint at the doors of the NGOs and political parties calling for open dialogue and public debate. The response, true to form, has been a lethal and deafening silence. We are now in prison from where I write this article after a Green Party member recorded a Zoom call and passed it to the police. We have not been let out for exercise for the first five days. We have no kettle, no pillows, no visits. But we don’t give a shit. We are doing something about Evil.”

Mitt Romney blasted for backing SCOTUS vote as progressives vow fight to the end

Republican Sen. Mitt Romney announced Tuesday that he would participate in a floor vote to replace U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the November 3 general election, triggering condemnation and a fresh wave of vows from progressives that they will keep fighting to ensure the next elected president gets to pick the nominee.

Ginsburg’s death Friday ignited a political battle in the midst of early voting for the election, with President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pledging to soon hold a vote and progressives pressuring the upper chamber to abide by the standard Republicans set ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Four GOP senators would have to side with Democrats to reject a third Trump nominee to the court. Although Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said over the weekend that they both oppose holding a vote this close to an election, so far no others from the party have joined them.

Romney’s revelation Tuesday didn’t come as a huge surprise—”Not shocked,” tweetedMoveOn—but it did bolster calls to increase pressure on Senate Democrats to use all the tools at their disposal to block a pre-election or lame-duck session vote.

“Not surprising. He’s a Republican. Water is wet,” Working Families Party national director Maurice Moe Mitchell said of Romney and his decision on the Supreme Court vote. “Let’s organize. 42 days left. Sweep em out.”

Indivisible co-founder and co-executive director Ezra Levin responded similarly to the Utah Repblican’s move, saying: “This is bad, but it ain’t over til the votes are cast. Fury—our political system needs your fury right now.”

Acknowledging the calls for Republicans to follow their own made-up rules—created when McConnell blocked a vote on former President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016—Romney said that his decision “is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’ which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.”

“It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent,” the senator added. “I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the president’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.”

Critics pushed back against his claim about precedent in light of McConnell’s 2016 move. As Zack Ford of Alliance for Justice put it in a tweet responding to the statement: “Oh, I see Romney has joined in the lie-telling. This is absolute hogwash.”

In a statement, Ana Maria Archila, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy, accused Romney of joining with Republican leadership in “a shameful political power grab” that “shows the terrifying extent to which they value their power over the people they represent.”

“The legitimacy of the Supreme Court flows directly from voters’ ability to shape its composition through the election of a president and Senate,” she said. “By attempting to force through this nomination, Republican leadership is displaying their utter disregard for the will of the people.”

Indivisible addressed Romney’s statement in a series of tweets, emphasizing the importance of both continuing to pressure senators and also flipping the upper chamber to Democratic control. As Common Dreams reported Friday, due to the Covid-19 pandemic and Trump’s comments on the election, progressive groups are urging voters who can to take advantage of early in-person and mail-in voting.

“Justice Ginsburg was a champion of justice, a trailblazer for women, and an American icon,” Indivisible tweeted Tuesday. “Unfortunately, we know that anyone Trump picks will be a right-wing extremist who opposes the Affordable Care Act and will overturn Roe v. Wade, among many other terrible attributes.”

“We won’t lie to you—this is going to be hard but that doesn’t mean we won’t fight like hell anyways,” the group added, urging voters to make a plan using its Save SCOTUSwebpage. “Then sign up to host an event this weekend. We need you.”

Masks in the mail: The pandemic inflection point that might have been

There are so many ways that Donald Trump has fallen short in his response to the COVID-19 pandemic — so many things he could have done differently that would have saved countless lives. Most of them, however, were never even remotely possible because of his appalling character flaws and the complete lack of a rational White House decision-making process.

That’s why this one really stings: The U.S. Postal Service, it turns out, was about to send five face masks to every household in America — in April! — until someone at the White House nixed it. They even had a draft press release ready to go.

I can’t think of any one act that might have changed the pandemic timeline more than that — and we were so close!

The Washington Post disclosed — but underplayed — this astonishing might-have-been on its website last Thursday morning, mentioning it six paragraphs into an article that was more generally about thousands of pages of Postal Service emails and other documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the watchdog group American Oversight.

But the story wasn’t even on the front page of the Post the next morning, and there’s been no follow-up. A few other news organizations essentially rewrote the Post story for their own websites. And a few journalists have listlessly inquired about it, to no avail. The New York Times and the Associated Press seem to have ignored it completely.

Most significantly, no one has determined exactly who, and under what sort of pressure, killed the plan and along with it — I don’t think this is hyperbole — tens of thousands of Americans.

I don’t get it.

I don’t think there’s a bigger story right now than Trump’s ineffective, incoherentwillfully ignorantflimflam-filled response to this deadly crisis. I think the mainstream press has allowed him to duck anything like real accountability for it and should be ceaselessly freaking out that he continues to do almost nothing about it.

And I can’t think of a more potent, visceral example of Trump’s failure than this. I can’t think of a single specific thing his administration could have done that would have changed the timeline so much.

I mean, imagine an alternate past in which the government reached into every household in America and handed them five face masks — five months ago! — with the implicit message that they should use them.

I can’t imagine anything more effective, in retrospect; anything that would have had as personal an impact on so many people; anything that would have been more welcome.

Undercovered

Tony Romm, Jacob Bogage and Lena H. Sun broke the story for the Post — under the anodyne headline “Newly revealed USPS documents show an agency struggling to manage Trump, Amazon and the pandemic.”

Eventually, they wrote about this:

At one point in April, USPS leaders drafted a news release announcing plans to distribute 650 million masks nationwide, enough to offer five face coverings to every American household. The document, which includes quotations from top USPS officials and other specifics, was never sent.

So what happened?

Before the news release was sent, however, the White House nixed the plan, according to senior administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share internal deliberations ….

“There was concern from some in the White House Domestic Policy Council and the office of the vice president that households receiving masks might create concern or panic,” one administration official said in response to the scrapped mask plan.

The Post reporters uncritically accepted Health and Human Services and White House claims that most or all of the masks were instead distributed by Project America Strong “to critical infrastructure sectors, companies, healthcare facilities, and faith-based and community organizations across the country.” But a Yahoo News report in July disclosed that the project had run out of masks as of July 1, after distributing fewer than 350 million.

As the Post noted, there was a sketchy contemporaneous report of the plan, in early April, by Axios reporters Caitlin Owens and Jonathan Swan. They described a possible “partnership in which Hanes and Fruit of the Loom manufactured millions of cloth face masks and the U.S. Postal Service would have helped deliver them.” They reported that it was championed by Robert Kadlec, the assistant secretary for preparedness and response at HHS, and supported by deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger. But “[s]everal senior officials opposed the idea, questioning its practicality,” they wrote. And they quoted a “source familiar with the situation” saying the plan was “dying a slow death.”

Since the Post story came out, ABC NewsCNNPeople and the Daily Beast have all taken note, but failed to advance it.

Trump was asked about it during his appearance in the briefing room on Friday, but ducked and segued into a critique of the Postal Service in general — and there was no follow-up:

Q: The Postal Service had planned on sending 650 million face masks to Americans back in April.  That never happened. Why not? And was it because you were —

Trump: I don’t know. I — I don’t run it, to be honest.

Q: Were you running —

Trump: That’s run — as you know, that’s run by a commission, and they run it. I think, frankly, if they would raise the price of packaging, you’d end up making a lot of money, or breaking even, or doing something ….

On “Meet the Press” on Sunday, NBC’s Chuck Todd got HHS Secretary Alex Azar to essentially confirm the story, but moved on without getting him to advance it:

Todd: Mr. Secretary, I want you to see if you can clear something up for us. As you know, there was that report this week due to a Freedom of Information Act request. We got a copy of a press release that the United States Postal Service was going to be sending out in April, that said in conjunction with your agency, HHS, there was going to be up to 650 million reusable masks sent to the hardest-hit areas. And then the implication was the White House decided against this. … [E]ventually the masks were sent to various organizations, but the White House decided to nix the idea of mailing masks essentially to the American people. Was that a mistake?

Azar: Well, Chuck, I’m actually glad you asked about that. You know, thanks to the incredible foresight of Dr. Bob Kadlec, our assistant secretary for preparedness and response, in the early days of the pandemic we worked with Hanes and other clothing manufacturers to retool their equipment and actually start pumping out these reusable cloth face masks. And we distributed 650 million of those to the hardest hit areas. At one point, we thought about shipping them to every American through the Postal Service, but the decision of the task force, instead, was send them where they can be used most, to the hottest, most active areas. So we got 650 million masks out. It was just through a different mechanism, getting them where they’re needed most. And we just recently got about 60 million face coverings, these cloth face coverings in a smaller size, out to kids especially in schools in underserved areas.

Todd: Well, one of the assets of sending masks to everybody would have been it would have sent the message that masks are important, at a time when the president was disputing whether he should be wearing a mask.

Azar: Well, Chuck, we got 650 million masks out to where they’re needed most. I think that’s what matters. Get them to the hot spots and get them where they can add the absolute most value. And you know, we’ve been calling for the use of face coverings since the middle of April when the president put out his guidelines for reopening America.

CNN’s Jake Tapper did not bring up the topic in his interview with White House virus task force member Adm. Brett P. Giroir, on “State of the Union.” Tapper did however, give Giroir a necessary lecture:

The most powerful person in this country is constantly undermining your message about mask-wearing. You need to convince him to change that message, because one of the reasons spread continues is because people are not respecting the words you are saying, words that I think are very important.

An alternate timeline

Trump’s defenders frequently point out that Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading expert on infectious diseases, initially waved off public mask use — as he did, for instance, in an interview aired on “60 Minutes” in March, evidently motivated by the legitimate concern that health care workers might face a shortage.

But by early April, the White House coronavirus task force and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were both formally recommending that people wear masks. The Surgeon General even made a video showing how to make your own.

Mask use, nevertheless, remained at minimal levels for weeks longer, and has never approached full saturation.

Part of the initial problem was a lack of supply — which obviously would have been alleviated by the Postal Service plan. Part of it was also cultural resistance, which might have been alleviated by everyone’s neighbors having masks too. And part, of course, was Trump’s continued personal resistance to mask-wearing — which might have been at least a bit offset by such a concrete measure as the neighborhood letter carrier sticking some through your mail slot.

Instead, it took three months — until July 11 — for Trump himself to wear a mask in public, for large retailers like Walmart to require masks and for usage to really tick up.

One expert estimate is that masks reduce the risk of transmission by at least one-third. I’m no epidemiologist, so I can’t translate that into number of lives lost. But it’s got to be a lot.

For comparison, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that between now and the end of this year, increasing mask use to the levels seen in Singapore (95 percent) “would decrease the cumulative U.S. death toll to 298,589, “or 116,501 lives saved compared to the reference scenario.”

Similarly, CDC director Robert Redfield just last week told senators that the coronavirus could be controlled in six to 12 weeks if all Americans wore masks. He called face coverings the most “powerful public health tool we have … more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine.”

Meanwhile, in this timeline, Trump continues to mock people who wear masks, and continues to make utterly ridiculous statements about their effectiveness. Last week, during an ABC News town hall with George Stephanopoulos, for instance, he let loose with this bizarre screed:

Trump: … [B]y the way, a lot of people don’t want to wear masks. There are a lot of people think that masks are not good. And there are a lot of people that, as an example, you have …

Stephanopoulos: Who are those people?

Trump: I’ll tell you who those people are — waiters. They come over and they serve you, and they have a mask. And I saw it the other day where they were serving me, and they’re playing with the mask. … I’m not blaming them. … I’m just saying what happens. They’re playing with the mask, so the mask is over, and they’re touching it, and then they’re touching the plate. That can’t be good.

How different would everything have been if someone at the White House hadn’t blocked this plan? We’ll never know, and it’s a crushing tragedy.

More Giuliani mystery: He created two unknown companies amid his work for Trump in Ukraine

Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal attorney, has told Salon that he created two new companies last year amid his work on Trump’s behalf trying to dig up damaging information on Joe Biden in Ukraine. The purpose of the companies, especially that of Giuliani’s brand new one-man law firm — as well as their possible connections to the president — is somewhat unclear.

According to New York records, one of the companies, first called Giuliani Media and now known as Giuliani Communications, was created in November, just before Giuliani traveled to Ukraine with a production crew from One America News Network (OAN).

During that trip, Giuliani interviewed Ukrainian lawmaker Andrii Derkach, who was recently sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department as an “active Russian agent,” for material included in a documentary later aired on OAN. Giuliani released his interview with Derkach a few months later.

Although the existence of Giuliani Communications has not been previously reported, its creation lines up with reports at the time that Giuliani planned to create a podcast aimed at defending Trump from the impeachment narrative. He eventually launched that podcast, which airs regularly, and has conducted video interviews as well — including the one with Derkach. For unclear reasons, Giuliani changed the company name to Giuliani Communications in March 2020, the same month he released his Derkach interview.

Giuliani’s other new company is his personal law firm, Rudolph W. Giuliani PLLC, which was created in June 2019, according to New York records. The existence of the company has only been mentioned in an October 2019 report from Roll Call. Giuliani told Salon that he had set up the firm because a client of his wanted money put in escrow.

“I didn’t want Giuliani Partners to do it, because I know the ethical rules,” Giuliani said, but declined to name the client or to explain the potential ethical problems further. “I’m just a country lawyer,” he added.

“The question is what the client hired Giuliani to do,” Brett Kappel, top authority on lobbying and government ethics law, told Salon. If the client had hired Giuliani to provide legal advice, Kappel explained, or to “represent him in litigation or a negotiation where an exchange of money was contemplated,” then Giuliani would be required to place any funds entrusted to him by the client in an escrow account separate from the law firm’s funds. The former New York mayor’s consulting business, Giuliani Partners, “isn’t a law firm and isn’t subject to the same ethical requirements,” Kappel said.

That raises the intriguing question of why Giuliani had not set up a personal law practice until he got this specific request from this specific client. Although attorneys can represent clients without forming a firm, a PLLC shields the owner from liability.

At the time Giuliani formed his PLLC, he had already been representing Trump as his personal attorney for more than a year. He also claims to have represented Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, with whom he also struck up a business arrangement in 2018. Parnas and Fruman later ran political errands for Giuliani in Ukraine.

On the day Giuliani set up his personal firm, he seemed to have Ukraine on the brain, tweeting, “New Pres of Ukraine still silent on investigation of Ukrainian interference in 2016 election and alleged Biden bribery of Pres Poroshenko. Time for leadership and investigate both if you want to purge how Ukraine was abused by Hillary and Obama people.”

That same month, according to the Washington Post, Giuliani began doing consulting work for Luis Abinader, a presidential candidate in the Dominican Republic. It is not clear whether he also did legal work for Abinader.

A few days later, Giuliani he took a trip with Parnas to London that lasted several days, during which Giuliani met with Venezuelan financier Alejandro Betancourt, who is currently the subject of a major money laundering investigation in the U.S. Giuliani later took on Betancourt as a client, and spoke on his behalf to Justice Department prosecutors in September.

Giuliani told Salon in a previous phone conversation that Parnas was his client during a trip the two took to Madrid in July 2019, when he met with top Ukrainian foreign policy official Andriy Yermak (who subsequently became chief of staff to President Volodymyr Zelensky). Giuliani made the claim about representing Parnas when he was asked about his meeting with Yermak, explaining that attorney-client privilege barred him from discussing details of their conversations. Parnas’ current attorney has denied that Giuliani was representing Parnas at that time.

Giuliani claims to have done all his work for Trump free of charge, though the president has never publicly acknowledged that. Giuliani’s work on Trump’s behalf ultimately led to the president’s impeachment.

“Trump did not disclose on his financial forms, as required, that he was taking pro bono counsel from Giuliani,” Jordan Libowitz, of the government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told Salon. Trump has alleged that “there’s no way of assessing the value of Giuliani’s work,” Libowitz said, “even though it is his responsibility to keep track of it.”

Giuliani disclosed the previously unknown companies in a conversation with Salon about another previously unreported company that he created in 2002 and which received taxpayer-backed emergency loans this spring. Salon’s investigation of the company offered new insight into Giuliani’s arcane business arrangements, which are reportedly the subject of subpoenas from federal investigators in the Southern District of New York. Experts told Salon that the company’s loan application raises questions of bank fraud, a felony.

That SDNY probe is also reportedly investigating whether Giuliani’s activity in Ukraine violated the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).

Matt Sanderson, a top FARA law attorney, told Salon that despite reams of reports, and Giuliani’s history of peddling known Russian disinformation about both Joe Biden and his son Hunter, there isn’t enough public information to determine whether Giuliani’s work in Ukraine would qualify him, or OAN, as foreign agents.

“We would have to know if anyone acting on behalf of foreign interests, especially someone tied to the government, paid for or directed that work,” Sanderson said.

OAN, as a U.S. media company, is exempt from registering as an agent. Sanderson, however, pointed to a recent episode involving former CNN host Larry King, who conducted a blatantly unethical interview with Russian journalist Anastasia Dolgova that was filmed in two parts: King’s scripted questions, and then Dolgova’s answers.

King’s exposure, Sanderson told ProPublica, might hinge on whether he was “acting in his capacity as a member of the news media,” or was “doing an infomercial where he’s paid specifically to do the interview.” The same might apply here to OAN, Sanderson said.

Trump has often spoken glowingly of OAN — which has positioned itself significantly to the right of Fox News and has frequently spread even more blatant misinformation — as a preferred alternative. The president promoted the network’s Ukraine coverage several times on Twitter, including a Chanel Rion interview with former Ukrainian prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko, during which Giuliani was present at the table.

Giuliani’s interview with Andrii Derkach is no longer available on OAN’s site, and all stories in which “Derkach” is tagged have been removed. OAN president Charles Herring previously told Salon that the network’s website automatically deletes older content, but there are indications that the Derkach material was deliberately removed. One story in which his name was misspelled as “Derkash,” for instance, was not deleted.

Giuliani did not reply to Salon’s questions about whether he had charged or expensed any of his Ukraine-related activity on President Trump’s behalf to either Giuliani Communications or Rudolph W. Giuliani PLLC.

3 ways a 6-3 Supreme Court would be different

If the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is replaced this year, the Supreme Court will become something the country has not seen since the justices became a dominant force in American cultural life after World War II: a decidedly conservative court.

A court with a 6-3 conservative majority would be a dramatic shift from the court of recent years, which was more closely divided, with Ginsburg as the leader of the liberal wing of four justices and Chief Justice John Roberts as the frequent swing vote.

As a scholar of the court and the politics of belief, I see three things likely to change in an era of a conservative majority: The court will accept a broader range of controversial cases for consideration; the court’s interpretation of constitutional rights will shift; and the future of rights in the era of a conservative court may be in the hands of local democracy rather than the Supreme Court.

A broader docket

The court takes only cases the justices choose to hear. Five votes on the nine-member court make a majority, but four is the number required to take a case.

If Roberts does not want to accept a controversial case, it now requires all four of the conservatives – Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas – to accept the case and risk the outcome.

If they are uncertain how Roberts will rule – as many people are – then the conservatives may be not be willing to grant a hearing.

With six conservatives on the court, that would change. More certain of the outcome, the court would likely take up a broader range of divisive cases. These include many gun regulations that have been challenged as a violation of the Second Amendment, and the brewing conflicts between gay rights and religious rights that the court has so far sidestepped. They also include new abortion regulations that states will implement in anticipation of legal challenges and a favorable hearing at the court.

The three liberal justices would no longer be able to insist that a case be heard without participation from at least one of the six conservatives, effectively limiting many controversies from consideration at the high court.

A rights reformation

The rise of a 6-3 conservative court would also mean the end of the expansion of rights the court has overseen during the past half-century.

Conservatives believe constitutional rights such as freedom of religion and speech, bearing arms, and limits on police searches are immutable. But they question the expansive claims of rights that have emerged over time, such as privacy rights and reproductive liberty. These also include LGBTQ rights, voting rights, health care rights, and any other rights not specifically protected in the text of the Constitution.

The court has grounded several expanded rights, especially the right to privacy, in the 14th Amendment’s due process clause: “…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This sounds like a matter of procedure: The government has to apply the same laws to everyone without arbitrary actions. From the conservative perspective, courts have expanded the meaning of “due process” and “liberty” far beyond their legitimate borders, taking decision-making away from democratic majorities.

Consequently, LGBTQ rights will not expand further. The line of decisions that made Justice Anthony Kennedy famous for his support of gay rights, culminating in marriage equality in 2015, will advance no further.

Cases that seek to outlaw capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishments” will also cease to be successful. In 2019 the court ruled that excessive pain caused by a rare medical condition was not grounds for halting a death sentence. That execution went forward, and further claims against the constitutionality of the death penalty will not.

Challenges to voting restrictions will likely also fail. This was previewed in the 5-4 decision in 2018 allowing Ohio to purge voting rolls of infrequent voters. The Bill of Rights does not protect voting as a clear right, leaving voting regulations to state legislatures. The conservative court will likely allow a broader range of restrictive election regulations, including barring felons from voting. It may also limit the census enumeration to citizens, effectively reducing the congressional power of states that have large noncitizen immigrant populations.

Birthright citizenship, which many believe is protected by the 14th Amendment, will likely not be formally recognized by the court. The court has never ruled that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen. The closest it came was an 1898 ruling recognizing the citizenship of children of legal residents, but the court has been silent on the divisive question of children born of unauthorized residents.

The conservative understanding of the 14th Amendment is that it had no intention of granting birthright citizenship to those who are in the country without legal authorization.

Noncitizens may also find themselves with fewer rights: Many conservatives argue that the 14th Amendment requires state governments to abide by the Bill of Rights only when dealing with U.S. citizens.

In any case, individual rights will likely be less important than the government’s efforts to protect national security – whether fighting terrorism, conducting surveillance or dealing with emergencies. Conservatives argue that the public need for security often trumps private claims of rights. This was previewed in Trump v. Hawaii in 2018, when the court upheld the travel ban imposed against several Muslim countries.

Not all rights will be restricted. Those protected by the original Bill of Rights will gain greater protections under a conservative court. Most notably this includes gun rights under the Second Amendment, and religious rights under the First Amendment.

Until recently, the court had viewed religious rights primarily through the establishment clause‘s limits on government endorsement of religion. But in the past decade, that has shifted in favor of the free exercise clause‘s ban on interference with the practice of religion.

The court has upheld claims to religious rights in education and religious exceptions to anti-discrimination laws. That trend will continue.

A return to local democracy

Perhaps the most important ramification of a 6-3 conservative court is that it will return many policies to local control.

For example, overturning Roe v. Wade – which is likely but not certain under a 6-3 court – would leave the legality of abortion up to each state.

This will make state-level elected officials the guardians of individual liberties, shifting power from courts to elections. How citizens and their elected officials respond to this new emphasis is perhaps the most important thing that will determine the influence of a conservative court.

Morgan Marietta, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts Lowell

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

Fox’s Judge Napolitano warns Trump “is playing with fire” if he rams through a Supreme Court pick

On the radio show Fox Across America this Monday, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said that President Trump potentially calling for a vote to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court could spark the “World War III of political battles.”

“There’s a little bit of playing with fire here because you have probably six very vulnerable Republicans — by very vulnerable I mean they are running for reelection, they’ve been behind in the polls consistently for a couple of weeks now,” Napolitano said.

“They’re going to do what they think is right to get themselves reelected,” he continued. “Scalia once said there’s only one reason politicians do or say anything, it’s to get reelected, and that might not be what President Trump wants. So Mitch McConnell better count noses before he does anything. He’s already lost two Republicans. He can only afford to lose one more. If he loses two more, his nomination isn’t going to come to the floor.”

According to Napolitano, Senator Lindsey Graham will be “front and center” of those who are vulnerable.

“And if this nomination comes to pass, he’ll be presiding over a few days of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. And one of the Democrats on that committee is running for vice president with Joe Biden, Senator Kamala Harris.”

Listen to the audio below:

Joe Biden is already being cagey about expanding the Supreme Court

Joe Biden is an instinctive institutionalist. In the past, he has opposed killing the filibuster and expanding the Court in response to the theft of what should be Merrick Garland’s seat. But he has left himself some room to maneuver on the filibuster, at least, telling The New York Times last year that “it’s going to depend on how obstreperous [Senate Republicans] become.” According to The Times, he “noted that he has historically supported the filibuster and was optimistic he could find common ground with Republicans. ‘But I think you’re going to just have to take a look at it.'”

Nobody has ever gone broke betting on the GOP’s obstreperousness.

Now, if Republicans do push through an arch-conservative to fill the seat held by Ruth Bader Ginsburg just before or after the voters weigh in, as seems likely, it would give advocates of structural pro-democracy reforms a powerful argument in a debate that they’d already made significant progress advancing within the Democratic coalition.

When asked on Monday whether he would favor expansion if another justice is pushed through by a president* who lost the popular vote by almost three million ballots, Biden told a local ABC affiliate, “it’s a legitimate question” before proceeding to explain why he wouldn’t answer it: “Because it will shift the focus.”

That’s what [Trump] wants, he never wants to talk about the issue at hand and he always tries to change the subject. Let’s say I answer that question, then the whole debates gonna be about what Biden said or didn’t say, Biden said he would or wouldn’t. The discussion should be about why he is moving in a direction that’s totally inconsistent with what founders wanted. The Constitution says voters get to pick a president who gets to make the pick and the senate gets to decide. We’re in the middle of the election right now, you know people are voting now. By the time this supreme court hearing would be held, if they hold one, it’s estimate 30 to 40% of American people already have voted. It is a fundamental breach of constitutional principle. It must stay on that and it shouldn’t happen.”

This is a good answer in one sense, and potentially a very bad one in another.

Biden is right to be wary of committing now to expanding the Court because it shifts the conversation away from the fact that Republicans are working to entrench an activist majority on the Court that was appointed by a party that represents a minority, and that group will almost certainly strike down any efforts by Democrats to expand healthcare, combat global heating or enact any other major agenda items, regardless of how much popular support they have.

And while there is little to no evidence that a Supreme Court vacancy is firing up the GOP base more than the Democrats’,  it is possible that the prospect of expanding the bench and shifting the ideological center of the Court would do just that.

The problem with this approach is that Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have proven that they are willing to destroy the Senate’s ability to function and rip the country further apart to grab that seat, and they have 53 Republican votes–plus Vice President Mike Pence’s tie-breaker if necessary–to accomplish that goal. And the only real leverage Democrats have is the threat of retaliation–by killing the filibuster and expanding the Court if they win.

It’s unclear if the GOP will attempt to confirm a Trump pick before the election–or even if there is enough time on the calendar to do so. So perhaps Biden’s ambiguity is the best approach at this point, but only if he’s willing to threaten to rebalance the Court after the votes are counted if he wins. The message at that point would be that he doesn’t want to further inflame partisan animus by restructuring the judiciary, but by ignoring the voters’ preference, Republicans left him no choice.

That’s the only way to keep the focus on Republicans’ contempt for the will of the American electorate front-and-center, not activate Republicans who are wary of Trump just prior to the vote and not give up his party’s leverage afterward if Democrats can deliver Republicans a resounding defeat.

Let’s hope that Biden and his team see it this way, because if they concede RBG’s seat without imposing a serious penalty on the Republican Party, it would only invite more scorched earth tactics in the years to follow.

Top election forecaster shifts Senate races away from Republicans Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham

With the Senate poised to begin likely explosive confirmation hearings over President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, top election expert Larry Sabato has swung his projection for two critical contests to the left. Their outcomes could determine wether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who is leading the charge to fill the seat amid the election, retains control of the upper chamber.

Maine’s Senate race has switched from “toss-up” to “leans Democratic” as incumbent GOP Sen. Susan Collins continues to struggle in the polls. Sabato also nudged South Carolina’s Senate race in the direction of Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison, moving incumbent Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham’s seat from “likely Republican” to “leans Republican.”

Collins has seen her support erode following her critical vote to confirm another Trump nominee to the high court: Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Graham was one of the leading Republicans who rejected taking up former President Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland ahead of the 2016 election. Graham told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he reversed his position following Kavanaugh’s confirmation, because Democrats allegedly “tried to destroy” the justice’s life.

“Jaime’s grassroots movement to bring hope back to South Carolina is growing every day,” Harrison campaign manager Zack Carroll told Salon in a statement. “Voters in South Carolina want leaders they can trust, who will use their power to look out for them. But after 25 years in Washington, Lindsey Graham has changed and he’s lost his moral compass — he has left South Carolina values behind.”

Indeed, the confirmation looms large over both seats. Collins believes the next president should select Ginsburg’s replacement. The nominally pro-choice Republican’s vote to confirm Kavanaugh, a conservative justice who faced allegations of sexual assault and lying under oath, fractured her support among women in her state. It also sparked a massive national crowdfunding campaign to back the Democrat who would become Collins’ opponent.

In the end, that role was filled by Maine Speaker of the House Sara Gideon, who has recently seen her poll numbers surge amid new allegations of corruption against Collins. Gideon posted a 12-point lead over the four-term incumbent last week in a non-partisan Quinnipiac poll.

The tide has turned on Senator Susan Collins, who was so popular in Maine that she won nearly 70% of the vote the last time she ran,” Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Mary Snow said of that poll. “Likely voters are sending the message that there’s no ‘middle of the road’ when it comes to President Trump, who is deeply unpopular in the state.”

Graham, who chairs the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, will take the lead in high-profile confirmation proceedings. He is expected to try to push Trump’s nominee through before Election Day. An individual close to the Harrison campaign told Salon that observers were still uncertain as to how the proceedings would sway voters in South Carolina — an opinion shared by Sabato’s Crystal Ball.

In fact, Sabato’s team pumped the brakes on releasing these latest changes — which they had finalized Friday morning — after news of the death of Ginsburg broke. In the end, they chose to publish without revision.

Collins, according to Crystal Ball analysts, has two problems. First, while she has maintained some of her crossover appeal, the drumroll of public polls have favored Gideon — of the 16 surveys released this year, Collins has only led in one internal GOP poll from mid-June. When that is combined with Maine’s unique ranked choice voting system, Collins faces an uphill battle.

The election forecast rates eight Republican Senate races as “toss-ups” or “leans.” Only two of those races are likely to shade more Democratic than the country as a whole in the presidential race, Maine included. And that fact makes the Supreme Court vacancy “an added burden” for Collins.

Harrison, who served as a longtime congressional staffer, D.C. lobbyist and the first Black chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party, has pressured Graham by consistently out-raising the incumbent throughout the year. Reputable polls have reflected a dead heat.

Recent public polling has borne out the Harrison campaign’s internal surveys over the summer showing a tight gap, according to Sabato’s team. An early August Quinnipiac poll found the two tied at 44%, and another Quinnipiac survey last week showed a tie again last week at 48%.

Harrison’s fundraising suggests the support of national resources and enthusiasm in addition to deep pockets. In August alone, Harrison raised more than $10 million; last week, his campaign claimed to have pulled in $2 million in two days. Further, Ginsburg’s death has motivated left-leaning voters across the country, who have been pouring money into Democrat-backing groups, some of which will also help Harrison in his quest to unseat the man who oversaw the Kavanaugh hearings.

The Harrison campaign has attacked Graham as a Trump lackey, who has neglected his state in order to retain his proximity to power. Sabato’s analysts said this closeness to Trump might prove prickly for Graham, who has tried to distance himself from the president amid the fallout from the administration’s botched response to the coronavirus pandemic.

“One actually wonders if Graham, who morphed from a Trump critic in the 2016 GOP primary cycle to a major Trump ally, would be better off trying to solidify his standing with Trump voters instead of trying to generate crossover support,” the analysts wrote, pointing out that Graham will likely use his high-profile role in the confirmation process to try to shore up support with the Trump base.

Crystal Ball’s analysis also pointed out that South Carolina’s ballot featured only one third-party candidate from the far-right Constitution Party, which may eat into Graham’s numbers.

“It is possible that despite the pandemic, 2020 could set a modern record for turnout,” the report said. “The battle over the court’s future turns up the heat of American politics, but the temperature was white hot already.”

Trump lays out his plan to have the Supreme Court intervene in the presidential election

In a startling frank admission, President Donald Trump told reporters on Tuesday that he believes the country needs to have nine Supreme Court justices because of the millions of mail-in ballots at play in the 2020 election.

“We need nine justices. You need that,” he said. “With the unsolicited millions of ballots that they’re sending, it’s a scam. It’s a hoax. Everybody knows that. And the Democrats know it better than anybody else. So you’re gonna need nine justices up there, they’re going to be very important.”

Critics of the president, including many here at AlterNet, have been arguing for months that Trump clearly sees his best chance at victory to be an early declaration that he’s won on Eleciton Night, challenging any mail-in ballots that might be breaking toward former Vice President Joe Biden in key states, and taking any legal fight to the Supreme Court stacked with conservative judges. With the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Trump now has the opportunity to install a sixth conservative justice, giving him an even better chance of having any election-related ruling break his way. And he also is using the very chaos and uncertainty he is fomenting around the election to justify the extremely rushed schedule the GOP has laid down for confirming a nominee.

Trump’s plan to win the election by challenging votes that go against him has been clear for months now. It’s also entirely and transparently corrupt. While Trump focused on the idea of unsolicited ballots as the key problem in his remarks above, he and his allies, such as Attorney General Bill Barr, often deride mail-in ballots generally. But then they make telling exceptions, such as Trump’s claim that despite the supposed problems with mail-in voting, sending ballots through the post in Florida — where he votes and where the GOP has long relied on mail-in votes — is perfectly acceptable.

He just wants to create enough doubts around the ballots so he can target them wherever it happens to be convenient, and then leave his fate in the hands of the Supreme Court. It’s worked before — Republicans won the presidency in 2000 after the infamous Florida recount and the Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore.

Trump recently mentioned another component of his plan at a rally — the baseless assertion that a winner must be declared on Election Night, despite the fact that many states actually require ballots to be counted for many days after if they have the right postmark.

You can watch the clip below via Twitter

“The Choice 2020: Trump vs. Biden” gives insight into the “life method” of our next president

The United States electorate is more divided than it has ever been. Every new breaking development in the current presidential race between Donald Trump and his Democratic challenger Joe Biden only draws the fault lines in a bolder pen. And 42 days before what may stand to be the most emotionally charged, toxic election in generations, the polling data shows that most American voters have already made their choice.

This would seem to render PBS' "The Choice 2020: Trump vs. Biden" superfluous. Not quite.

The recurring presidential candidate profile that has aired on  "Frontline" every four years since 1988, may seem a bit less essential in these frantic days, when every headline sounds an alarm about a new assault on our democracy or announces a society-shifting tragedy, the latest being the death of liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, removing the only barrier to a conservative majority ruling the highest court in the land.

But Michael Kirk never creates any edition of "The Choice" with the goal of persuading viewers as to the worthiness of one presidential candidate versus another. Instead the longtime "Frontline" producer takes an approach that ensures each edition stands the test of time, distilling the intimate histories of each man into a central idea that Kirk refers to as "their life method."

"What has each done at critical times – facing crises, troubles, obstacles – that reveal in some way something that will help us be predictive about them as a president?" Kirk explained in a recent interview with Salon.

Kirk has produced five out of the last six installments of "The Choice," meaning he's been tasked to shape some of the most contentious and consequential presidential face-offs in memory into an even-handed dual portrait. But this particular edition would seem uniquely challenging, regardless of the highly structured approach he uses to arrive at each candidate's "life method."

He breaks it down by explaining that the producers sift through each candidate's personal history to find recurring story events. Those coalesce into a narrative that provides a window into each candidate's interiority, which is a far more interesting way of looking at Biden and Trump than simply evaluating their stated platforms, or going by what historians, journalists or their surrogates have to say about them.

Granted, the fact that Mary Trump, Valerie Biden Owens, Rudy Giuliani, Anthony Scaramucci, John Bolton and Steve Bannon go on record with Kirk is significant.

But they lend their perspective on events and traits that don't succumb to the news cycle, Kirk explains, the constants in each man's life that guide these two hours. This prevents the crush of headlines from diverting Kirk or his team from fulfilling the project's mission.

And when it comes to Trump and Biden, Kirk and his staff had their work cut out for them.

On one side you have Trump, an incumbent skilled at manipulating the media and creating an obfuscating cloud of distraction and rage that has floated around him since the day he was sworn in.

From that moment, Kirk produced a number of "Frontline" hours that have examined Trump's policies and profiled the men who have the greatest influence on him, and his impact on American government itself. So between those in-depth reports and what appears in the 2016 edition of "The Choice," where Kirk juxtaposed Trump's story and Hillary Clinton's, the filmmaker has a mountain of material to sort.

However, as Kirk points out, finding another angle for Trump's profile in the current biography wasn't difficult because now we know what kind of president he is, which shed a new light on an aspect of Trump's story Kirk says he didn't explore very much in the first go-round: his marriage to Ivana.

"We were more focused on this idea we had of him as this kind of swashbuckler who really wasn't good as anything, but a salesman. The relationship with Ivana was more about glitz and celebrity," Kirk explained.

Looking back now grants a new understanding about why Trump has difficulties keeping a steady group of advisers around him. "The Ivana relationship becomes one where for the first time in his life, the only time in his life, he tries to form a bond with another equivalent human being, in his mind," Kirk observed.

When Trump realized he basically married a female version of himself, "he basically destroys her through the horrible headlines, everything. He just viciously goes after her. Well, that's a very important thing to know. I hadn't thought about the example of that and what it tells me about him as a president now sitting in the Oval Office, largely alone, except for TV screens that have his friends at Fox or One America News on them."

And this explains why he can't be with an equal partner in any part of his life, including in his administration.  "He's absolutely a lone wolf. From General Kelly to anybody who's tried to be his chief of staff, anybody who's tried to get close to him, anybody who wanted to be on his cabinet – he can't be with a partner in anything . . . the fact is Donald Trump is listening to something else, his own views."

Biden presents a different challenge. Kirk said it's often easier to profile the side of a challenger as opposed to an incumbent president because the White House has tight control over who they roll out. But Biden already has a long history in public service to examine, including aspects of his personality that make a portion of the electorate view him as a compromise candidate as opposed to a system-shifting visionary.

What Kirk found on that half of his research is that there is what he thinks of as a secret Joe Biden not many people know. "The thing about Biden is he's not a super brain, right? He's not a guy who was going to get there in the Senate or anywhere else based on his intellectual ability or even flights of unbelievable thinking about ideology or where the Democratic party ought to be or anything like that. Academics were not his big thing."

"But a lot of people haven't spent a lot of time chasing 'hail fellow well met' Joe Biden any deeper than his gaffes, his mistakes and his big stumbles," Kirk said. "And we determined at the very beginning, after reading everything and being sort of unhappy about almost everything that had ever been written about him or said about him, that there's a reason Joe Biden has stuck around for 50 years. What's the deal? Who likes him? How does he do it?"

"The Choice 2020: Trump vs. Biden" answers that question in a fascinating way that doesn't hold back on showing that Biden's propensity for appropriating stories and personas to win hearts and minds goes back to the very start of his political career. A refrain in Biden's half of the story is that he seems to regularly find himself in situations requiring him to apologize, and he's always getting back up and soldiering on.

One of the many aspects of Biden's that this "Frontline" handles with great sensitivity and care, and with no shortage of thoughtfulness from Atlantic staff writer John Hendrickson, is the subject of Biden's stutter.

Anyone who has some knowledge of Biden's life story can probably predict that when placed beside Trump's, he comes off as more empathetic and comforting. But then, that's a matter of perspective.

If the state of our union in 2020 is a loud argument between the forces who define American by its strength and primacy, Trump's profile in "The Choice" as a ruthless bully set on winning above everything else would seem to be a reason to return him to office by those who venerate power. Biden's reputation as a man who has suffered and therefore has some familiarity with grief and resilience also comes through, and anyone seeking to cast their vote for a comforting, stabilizing leader should have any doubts about that allayed.

"The Choice" isn't going to change anyone's mind this late in the game, and that isn't its purpose. But it will paint a very clear picture of what we may be getting into over the next four years, and forewarning is equally as useful right now, if not more so.

"The Choice 2020: Trump vs Biden" premieres Tuesday, Sept. 22 at 9 p.m. on PBS member stations and on YouTube, and is available stream on the "Frontline" website.

Beto O’Rourke and other Democrats think Biden could win Texas — and upend American politics

For Republicans, the ultimate nightmare in presidential races would be Democrats flipping Texas and turning it into a blue state. Texas, with its 38 electoral votes, has been reliably Republican for decades — and a Democrat hasn’t carried Texas in a presidential race since Jimmy Carter in 1976. But journalists Nicole Narea and Dylan Scott, in an article published in Vox this week, report that more Democratic strategists are now taking Texas seriously when it comes to presidential races.

Recent polls have shown former Vice President Joe Biden to be surprisingly competitive in Texas, which is a big change from the 1990s and 2000s — when Democratic strategists assumed that Republicans would automatically win the state’s electoral votes and that their time and energy would be better spent in Florida, Pennsylvania and other swing states they had a better chance of winning. But that was before Democrat Beto O’Rourke narrowly lost to incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz in 2018.

O’Rourke’s loss was a major disappointment for Democrats, but as O’Rourke sees it, the fact that he lost to Cruz by only 2% shows that Democratic strategists shouldn’t give up on Texas. In an interview in August, O’Rourke complained, “I don’t see any signs that the national party is taking Texas as seriously as they should. I don’t know that they realize the huge victory that Texas could give the national Democratic Party.”

Indeed, if Republican presidential candidates have to start working harder for Texas’ 38 electoral votes, that isn’t good news for the GOP at all. And according to Narea and Scott, more Democrats are seeing the wisdom of O’Rourke’s advice.

Gradually, the Vox journalists report, Democrats have been making progress in Texas.

“Trump won the presidential election by 9 percentage points in 2016 — a much smaller margin of victory than Mitt Romney’s 16 points in 2012,” Narea and Scott explain. “This year, the polls show former Vice President Joe Biden nipping at Trump’s heels in Texas, and Republicans are worried about their down-ballot candidates. Biden’s campaign in the state says they believe they can win in November and remake the Electoral College map for good.”

Rebecca Acuna, director of Biden’s campaign in Texas, told Vox, “Texas is a true battleground state, with an increasingly young, diverse, and fast-growing population and the potential to change the map for future election cycles.”

O’Rourke argues that if Biden could pull off a win in Texas, it would be “psychologically” brutal for the Republican Party. And Democratic strategist David Axelrod told Vox, “Expanding the map serves two purposes. The first is to keep your options open to make a move late, if the numbers move from possible to promising. The second is to force the other campaign to spend to defend a must-have state for them.”

In 2018, O’Rourke forced a prominent Republican to work extra-hard to avoid being voted out of office. GOP pundits were on Fox News pounding their chests after Cruz defeated O’Rourke, declaring that Texas will never be a blue state. But the fact that O’Rourke only lost by 2% is a warning sign that Republicans cannot take Texas for granted.

However, Narea and Scott point out that some Democratic strategists fear that paying too much attention to Texas takes Biden away from important battleground states he has a better chance of winning such as Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Although Texas’ demographics are enticing to Democrats — only 41% of its residents are non-Latino whites, according to the U.S. Census — Narea and Scott stress that Democrats have a lot of obstacles to overcome in the state, from voter to suppression to gerrymandering to low voter turnout. Officials in Harris County (which includes Houston) recently tried to send mail-in ballots to everyone on its voter rolls, but Republicans challenged them with a lawsuit — and the Texas Supreme Court agreed with Republicans.

“That sh*t is not accidental,” O’Rourke warned. “Republicans have been really good at shrouding this racist voter suppression by saying, ‘That’s just the way shit happens in Texas,’ and (that) it isn’t the way that they designed it to happen.”

Whistleblower on Jared Kushner’s COVID task force says he was told to “fudge” death data model

A grandson of former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy told The New Yorker that he was the whistleblower that sounded the alarm on presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner’s coronavirus task force to Congress.

Max Kennedy Jr., 26, told The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer that he sent an anonymous whistleblower complaint to Congress in April “detailing dangerous incompetence” in the administration’s pandemic response, according to the report.

“Americans are facing a crisis of tragic proportions, and there is an urgent need for an effective, efficient and bold response. From my few weeks as a volunteer, I believe we are falling short,” he said in the complaint in April. “I am writing to alert my representatives of these challenges and to ask that they do everything possible to help front-line health-care workers and other Americans in need.”

“I just couldn’t sleep,” Kennedy told Mayer. “I was so distressed and disturbed by what I’d seen.”

Kennedy was advised by a friend to volunteer for Kushner’s “impact team” and decided to jump at the opportunity to join the Supply-Chain Task Force in March believing that the job “didn’t seem political.”

Kennedy, who was surrounded by other 20-something volunteers from various fields with no experience in procuring medical supplies, said he was surprised that they were not intended to be support staff for the procurement team.

“We were the team,” he told Mayer. “We were the entire frontline team for the federal government.”

The team was tasked with procuring much-needed supplies while equipped with only their personal laptops and private email accounts. Kennedy said that as the weeks went on, he was disturbed by President Donald Trump’s continued efforts to downplay the pandemic.

“I knew from that room that he was saying things that just weren’t true,” he said, adding that the team was too small to meet the challenge.

Kennedy told Mayer that Brad Smith, one of the leaders of the task force, “pressured [Kennedy] to create a model fudging the projected number of fatalities,” according to the report. Smith told him that he wanted the model to revise down the number of projected deaths, arguing that experts’ models were “too severe,” according to Kennedy.

“I don’t know the first thing about disease modelling,” Kennedy said he told Smith, adding that he turned down the task.

The country marked 200,000 deaths this week, though experts believe the number is even higher.

Kennedy told the outlet that the team was also directed to prioritize requests from Trump’s friends and supporters, including “special attention” for Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, who demanded masks for a hospital she favored.

The task force ultimate failed to get enough equipment, Mayer wrote, forcing hospital workers to reuse potentially contaminated equipment or improvise with garbage bags while states bid against each other for critical supplies.

One of the task force officials told Kennedy that Trump was a “marketing genius” because he “personally came up with the strategy of blaming the states” for the failure to procure equipment.

Kennedy ultimately quit the team in April and landed a gig with the Democratic Party.

Kushner has dismissed what he called “hysterical” media reports that the administration’s response was highly inadequate, declaring it a “success” despite more than 200,000 deaths.

His “shadow” task force has been widely criticized from within, with one senior official describing the team of young entrepreneurs to the New York Times as a “frat party” that “descended from a UFO and invaded the federal government.”

Kushner, like Trump, initially sought to downplay the threat posed by the pandemic and rejected federal action to help states desperately in need of medical supplies, according to Vanity Fair.

“Like Trump — when it comes to fighting the coronavirus outbreak — Kushner appears more concerned with the stock market than with public health,” GQ’s Luke Darby wrote in May. “One Republican briefed on the administration’s coronavirus response told Vanity Fair that as early as mid-January, advisers were sounding alarms, but ‘Jared kept saying the stock market would go down, and Trump wouldn’t get reelected.'”

Kennedy told Mayer he came forward despite signing a non-disclosure agreement because he doubts the administration can silence him in court.

“If you see something that might be illegal, and cause thousands of civilian lives to be lost, a person has to speak out,” he said, adding that the administration’s pandemic response “was like a family office meets organized crime, melded with ‘Lord of the Flies.’ It was a government of chaos.”

Ex-top prosecutor: Mueller didn’t investigate Trump finances or interview Ivanka over blowback fears

A former prosecutor on Robert Mueller’s team said in a new book that the special counsel decided not to pursue President Donald Trump’s finances or interviews with his children over fears that the president would shut down the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Andrew Weissmann, who led the prosecution of former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort, blamed Aaron Zebley, Mueller’s top deputy in the investigation, for stopping investigators from looking into the president’s finances in his new book “Where the Law Ends,” according to excerpts published by The Washington Post.

Weissmann wrote that Zebley also pushed another prosecutor to “stand down” from pursuing Trump Organization documents because it risked affecting the negotiations with the president’s legal team to set up an interview with Trump. Trump ultimately did not appear for an interview and submitted written answers largely claiming not to recall key details.

“Aaron had a way of gaslighting you, of making you question your own reality, that you were being too aggressive in your drive to pursue leads and push harder — like you were not enough of an adult,” he wrote.

“Repeatedly during our 22 months in operation, we would reach some critical juncture in our investigation only to have Aaron say that we could not take a particular action because it risked aggravating the president beyond some undefined breaking point,” he added, according to a New York Times report on the book.

Weissmann also argued that Mueller was wrong not to issue a subpoena to compel Trump’s testimony.

“What are we saying to future presidents, and to future investigators, who will have our decision thrown in their face?” Weissmann said he told Mueller. “If we do not subpoena the president in this investigation, how can others justify the need to do so?”

Weissmann said he wonders whether the team had “given it our all” in light of the questions left unanswered by the probe.

“As proud as I am of the work our team did — the unprecedented number of people we indicted and convicted and in record speed for any similar investigation — I know the hard answer to that simple question: We could have done more,” Weissmann wrote.

The former prosecutor listed a number of unanswered questions left open by the decision not to pursue Trump’s financial records.

“We still do not know if there are other financial ties between the president and either the Russian government or Russian oligarchs,” he wrote. “We do not know whether he paid bribes to foreign officials to secure favorable treatment for his business interests, a potential violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that would provide leverage against the president. We do not know if he had other Russian business deals in the works at the time he was running for president, how they might have aided or constrained his campaign, or even if they are continuing to influence his presidency.”

Weissman noted elsewhere in the book that the same business account used to send hush money payments to Stormy Daniels after her alleged affair with Trump was also used to receive “payments linked to a Russian oligarch,” according to excerpts published by The New York Times.

Weissmann also criticized his team for failing to interview the president’s daughter, White House adviser Ivanka Trump, or subpoena his son, Trump Organization executive Donald Trump Jr., over fears that Trump would respond by shutting down the investigation.

The team “feared that hauling her in for an interview would play badly to the already antagonistic right-wing press — look how they’re roughing up the president’s daughter — and risk enraging Trump, provoking him to shut down the special counsel’s office once and for all,” he wrote.

Fear of retribution from Trump led Mueller to avoid other key aspects of the investigation, Weissman claims.

“This sword of Damocles affected our investigative decisions, leading us at certain times to act less forcefully and more defensively than we might have,” he wrote. “It led us to delay or ultimately forgo entire lines of inquiry, particularly regarding the president’s financial ties to Russia.”

Mueller concluded in his report that the investigation could not prove a criminal conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and Russian operatives but left open the question of whether Trump obstructed justice, noting that Justice Department guidelines prevent him from prosecuting a sitting president.

Weissmann argued in the book that Mueller should have explicitly stated that Trump obstructed justice.

Elsewhere in the book, Weissmann criticizes Attorney General William Barr over the four-page summary he released mischaracterizing the Mueller report’s conclusion. Barr “had betrayed both friend and country,” Weissmann wrote.

Weissmann wrote that Mueller had “left it to Congress to make its own assessment of our evidence, or to another prosecutor in the future, who would be free to indict the president once he’d left office,” only to have Barr intervene to argue that the evidence did not amount to obstruction of justice.

Weissmann concluded that the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, which was more detailed than the Mueller report, was “better” than the conclusions reached by the special counsel’s team.

“It made judgments and calls, instead of saying, ‘You could say this and you could say that,'” he wrote, according to The Atlantic, which was first to report Weissmann’s comments.

Weissmann also criticized the federal government for doing little in response to Russia’s aggression in the U.S. election, noting that the Russian operation had “gotten what it had worked so hard for, a servile, but popular, American leader” who was willing to dismiss a threat “as pernicious as anything we faced in World War II or on 9/11.”

“There is no other way to put it,” he wrote. “Our country is now faced with the problem of a lawless White House, which addresses itself to every new dilemma or check on its power with a belief that following the rules is optional and that breaking them comes at minimal, if not zero, cost.”

Asked if Mueller had let the American people down, Weissmann told The Atlantic’s George Packer, “absolutely.”

“I wouldn’t phrase it as just Mueller. I would say ‘the office,'” he said. “There are a lot of things we did well, and a lot of things we could have done better, to be diplomatic about it.”

Asked if the investigation was a “historic missed opportunity,” Weissman replied, “that’s fair.”

Election official warns Pennsylvania’s mail-in ballot rules may disenfranchise 100,000 voters

An official who oversees elections in Philadelphia warned Pennsylvania Republicans that as many as 100,000 voters could be disenfranchised if the state legislature does not change a mail ballot secrecy rule by November.

City Commissioner Lisa Deeley wrote in a letter to Republican legislative leaders that the state’s rules requiring officials to reject “naked ballots” — or ballots sent without a second inner “secrecy envelope” — would “set Pennsylvania up to be the subject of significant post-election legal controversy, the likes of which we have not seen since Florida in 2000.”

Deeley called on the legislature to eliminate the requirement after Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court last week upheld the rule while otherwise siding with the state’s Democratic Party to extend the ballot deadline and expand drop boxes.

“While everyone is talking about the significance of extending the mail ballot deadline, it is the naked ballot ruling that is going to cause electoral chaos,” she asserted. 

Based on previous rates of rejection, Deeley estimated that the rule would require officials to throw out 30,000 to 40,000 mail ballots in Philadelphia alone — and more than 100,000 statewide.

“When you consider that the 2016 election in Pennsylvania was decided by just over 44,000 votes, you can see why I am concerned,” Deeley said, adding that these are “votes that will not be counted, all because of a minor technicality.”

The “secrecy sleeves” are a “vestige of the past” and are “not needed,” because the ballots are no longer counted at individual polling places, Deeley wrote. The ballots are now counted by machines that process 12,000 ballots per hour in secrecy envelopes and 24,000 per hour without the secrecy envelope.

“At these speeds, there is no opportunity to stop, or even slow down, and identify how an individual voted,” Deeley said. “The secrecy envelope exists now only as a means to disenfranchise well-intentioned Pennsylvania voters.”

The issue affects voters from all parties, Deeley noted, and is expected to be a major problem given that many voters are casting ballots by mail for the first time.

“Anyone who advocates doing nothing to address this situation, in hopes that more Democratic ballots are thrown out than Republican ballots, is not being an effective policy maker and is not doing their job to make sure this election goes off well,” Deeley wrote.

Deeley added that it would cost nothing to eliminate the requirement, instead saving tens of thousands of dollars.

“Failing to act will cost taxpayers heavily,” she said, noting that the state would have to “invest heavily” in reaching out to voters to remind them to include the double envelope.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 16 states in total require secrecy envelopes, including key states like Florida, Georgia, Minnesota and Texas. But few were decided by a margin as low as 44,292 votes — the margin by which President Donald Trump carried Pennsylvania in 2016.

Election forecaster FiveThirtyEight projects that there is a 31% chance that Pennsylvania will be the “tipping-point state” in the presidential election. The outlet highlighted the importance of the state, noting that Democratic nominee Joe Biden would have a 96% chance of winning the Electoral College if he wins Pennsylvania. Trump, meanwhile, has an 84% chance to win if he carries the state.

David Becker, the head of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, agreed with Deeley’s assessment that “naked ballot” rule could affect a significant number of voters.

“There is no question this is going to happen, and it’s going to happen with a decent number of ballots. But I can’t tell you if it’s going to be a number of ballots that exceeds the margins or not,” he told the Philadelphia Inquirer. “We’re all extrapolating based on no data, but this will happen — and it could happen to a significant percentage. That’s all we can really say.”

“For a lot of people, this is going to be their first experience voting by mail,” Delaware County Councilwoman Christine Reuther added. “They didn’t vote absentee, they didn’t vote in the primary and this whole thing is going to seem really strange to them.”

Trump, who has repeatedly espoused debunked conspiracy theories about voting by mail, has waged a costly legal battle over mail-in voting rules in Pennsylvania and other states. Trump and the Republican National Committee (RNC) have set up a $20 million legal fund for election-related legislation, BuzzFeed News reported. The president’s campaign and the RNC have filed more than half a dozen lawsuits challenging mail-in voting rules, and they have asked judges to intervene in at least 11 other cases, according to the report.

“My biggest risk is that we don’t win lawsuits,” Trump told Politico in July. “We have many lawsuits going all over. And if we don’t win those lawsuits, I think — I think it puts the election at risk.”

Over the weekend, Trump reiterated that he was relying on federal courts to determine the election winner.

“We’re counting on the federal court system to make it so that we can actually have an evening where we know who wins, OK,” he said at a rally in North Carolina. “Not where the votes are going to be counted a week later — two weeks later.”

Anne Helen Petersen: The antidote to burnout is regulating capitalism

Journalist Anne Helen Petersen touched a cultural nerve when she published an article about her own experience of burnout. The 2019 BuzzFeed article, titled “How Millennials Became The Burnout Generation,” gave a name to an experience so many Millennials had been feeling for a long time. Likewise, the viral piece debunked a cultural myth about Millennials being “lazy”; the stereotype, Petersen says, may come from the fact that the build-up of small stressful tasks leads to feeling overwhelmed.

Petersen’s feature was the culmination of years of being overworked, underpaid, depressed, anxious, and facing an endlessly challenging future — while being bound by impossible career expectations and the performance, on social media, of a “perfect” life. Months later, the World Health Organization went on to recognize burnout as an “occupational phenomenon.”

In an interview with Salon, Petersen said she had no idea the article would resonate like it did, and eventually lead to her much-anticipated book, on sale Sept. 22, “Can’t Even: How Millennials Became The Burnout Generation.” “The original essay was a way for me to work through my own burnout,” Petersen said, sharing that the book had given her yet more insight into the root of the problem. “I can see it clearly.”

Salon chatted with Peterson in a wide-ranging conversation that touches on Baby Boomer parenting techniques and the collapse of the American middle class. As always, this article has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.

Let’s start with the genesis of the book. Clearly your BuzzFeed article about burnout resonated with a lot of people — especially Millennials, but not only Millennials. And I’m wondering if you can share more about the process of turning that article into the book? 

I want to say, though, that I had no idea it was going to be a book when I wrote the article. The original essay was a way for me to work through my own burnout. And when it got published, I was like, “okay, hopefully some people read this and it resonates with them,” and that would be lovely. But I did not expect it to do what it did.

About a week afterwards, a colleague of mine said something on Twitter about it becoming a book. And I was like, “that would be interesting,” because I had been working on a different book proposal while I was burnt out, and it was just so forced and not very good. And I was like, “why don’t I do this?”

So from that I realized I could go deeper and wider in terms of context and experience, and turn an academic lens on it. I’m trained as an academic historian in media studies. So when I think about a phenomenon, a concept, there’s what I can do for an article and then there’s a completely different set of research that I do when it’s going to be a book. I started by making a giant reading list, seriously like a hundred books. And then started thinking about economic history, parenting history, and history of the discourse of passion around work. There’s so many things that I could go deep on, and it was really gratifying to be able to poke around in all of those different corners.

Do you feel like you have more answers now after your investigation?

I think I can see it clearly. I think that, before with my article, I was like, “I’m burnt out.” And this is something that is very common to our generation.

But then, as I started doing so much more research, and especially just learning a ton about the economic history of the United States that I was somewhat familiar with, but not as familiar with, I just got so much more insight.

For example, there was a period of stability for a lot of Americans, middle-class stability, where  a lot of people who were not middle class were added to the middle class, and that has gradually deteriorated over the course of Millennials’ lifetimes. I wondered, how can we think about reinstating some of that security? And preventing the precariousness that I think is really at the root of burnout?

And then just other things too, like the history of parenting surveillance and ideas about parenting, and what good parenting looks like. All of that was so revelatory for me in terms of thinking about my own parents, how I grew up and how, in some ways, I had some of the components of what in the book is called conservative cultivation. But I also had the total freedom and lack of supervision that accompanies more childhoods in rural areas. I grew up in a small town in Idaho, there just wasn’t as much conservative cultivation available as someone who is growing up in, say, New York City or Seattle or something like that.

What do you think of how Baby Boomers parented their Millennial kids?

It’s hard because I really think Baby Boomer parents were absolutely trying to provide security for their kids. And they were trying to do that by rearing them to succeed in the world as they saw it. And that meant, how can you get into a really good college? And then from college, how can you get a really good job?

I think that that kind of laser focus on the path to success made it easier to ignore how some of the other choices that parents were making — say, in their voting decisions and then the legislators that they elected. How would that have ramifications on things like, if you vote for legislators who defund public education and who institute right to work laws? How is that going to have effects on your kids when they enter college, in terms of how much debt they’re going to have to accumulate? But also, what are the labor conditions going to be for them when they get out of college? I think it’s hard to draw that line.

And then there’s just stuff that can seem like really good parenting because it’s preparing kids for college but that really was fashioning kids into mini-adults very early, and sucking the joy out of a lot of stuff. The thing that always sticks out to me from my research is standardization of play. How you used to go “play” at someone’s house, and now you have a “playdate,” something that is formalized and now has cultural capital, that has start times and end times, and oftentimes is supervised. It’s such a great metaphor for just how play has changed over the course of our lives.

That really stuck out to me in your book, how Millennials kids were managed as mini-adults — how we were encouraged to stay busy and have all these activities after school. In our adult life, the consequence is that many Millennials don’t know what to do with their free time, which causes anxiety and stress. But it seems like there is a disconnect between what we were told being an adult was versus what adult life is actually like.

Especially, I think, in young adulthood. And you see it most vividly in the way that there’s still this Boomer mentality that Millennials don’t work or are lazy, which is so fascinating to me. I say this in the book, but every Millennial I know is just hustling as hard as they can with what they’re doing. But I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that some of the forms of work are not recognizable as work to older generations.

So, something like — depending on your job — some component of it might be managing the Instagram account. And that just [doesn’t look like a job] to someone else, like, you’re just on social media. Whereas it’s actually a very difficult job that requires very particular skills and a lot of time. And it doesn’t look or feel like work. And so, if you say, “I’m so exhausted,” they’re like, “what have you been doing? You haven’t been in the coal mines,” or something like that.

The thing that [Boomers] often bring up is, “you’re not doing physical labor and so it’s not hard work.” That’s one of the disconnects.

I’m curious what your thoughts are on this cultural obsession and fascination with Millennials in general.

I think that every generation, as they come into form, they’ve become an object of fascination. There was a similar obsession with Gen X when they were our age, and Boomers.

How do you think we can distance ourselves from this obsession of being productive, and having to do everything perfectly, like even our hobbies?

I think that comes from childhood. Do you feel that? Do you feel like you learned that in childhood?

I don’t even know. Your book definitely made me see things more clearly, but I feel like I need to go back to therapy to really think about it.

I think that when we come to instrumentalize hobbies as a thing that you have to put on your resume, you make it into something that you have to be the best at. You can’t just play volleyball or the piano, it was like you have to be in all of these competitions, and that sort of thing. It has to have distinction in some capacity, and that, I think, transforms a hobby into something quite different.

The beauty of a hobby, and I’ve thought about this so much and there’s a chapter in the book about it, is that you don’t have to be good at it because it’s not for anyone but yourself. I just wrote a newsletter about how I’m just really struggling to make my garden work here in Montana. I was like, “I’m so embarrassed, I can’t Instagram my garden.”

But, who cares? What matters is that I have spent an inordinate amount of time just watching my vegetables grow every morning, and that gives me pleasure. Being able to go out there and just look at them. And that’s a hobby. It’s a feeling that is hard to recognize because you have become so alienated from it. But I think it’s going to take a lot of unlearning to feel at peace with, on the weekend, not doing anything. Not packing your schedule. How to do nothing is really hard for us to learn.

And for some of us, it depends on whether or not you’re a parent or you’re an essential worker who has to go out and be at work all day, every day. But some of us are finding time. Some of us have been forced to hang out with ourselves, and it feels uncomfortable because it’s so unfamiliar.

How do you unlearn that rhythm of always having to be productive and busy?

I do think that I am fortunate in my positioning in the Millennial spectrum, because I’m an “Elder Millennial.” And so, I had some time to cultivate some hobbies before they got cannibalized by my work. Like gardening is something that I did a lot of in the immediate years after college. And I think of those times as times that I was working as a nanny, I didn’t think of how to be productive in my off time, I just had time. It was just actual off time. And there was no social media yet, I had a flip phone, I couldn’t take pictures of anything.

I learned to do things to just do them. So I can return to something like gardening.

I think a lot about the fine line in exercise, the line between, “am I doing this to optimize my body” or “am I doing this because I love it?” So, trying to keep myself attuned to that, and thinking, “what’s a way that I can make an activity to lean into the part of actually experiencing it and liking it,” instead of the, “I must do this so that I look like this” part?

What is the antidote to burnout? Having a hobby?

That’s on a personal level. But the real antidote is to regulate capitalism. The thing I tell people is, there are all sorts of small things that you could do in your life. But that’s a Band-aid. Burnout is not going to be solved until it can be solved for everyone. And that means societal shifts that relieve that safety net beneath us in substantial ways, and not just for certain slots of the middle class.