Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Why Trump was never investigated as a Russian agent

Donald Trump never was investigated to determine if he is a Russian agent or asset according to an explosive book published Tuesday by a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter.

In Trump v. The United States, Michael S. Schmidt reports Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s team was barred from investigating whether Trump, who has many known connections to Russian criminals and who says he trusts Putin over American intelligence agencies, was a Russian agent.

Mueller’s team was allowed to look into obstruction of justice by Trump, Schmidt writes in the e-book that went on sale today. Team Mueller found numerous examples but was barred by Justice Department policy from indicting the president.

The Mueller team tried, unsuccessfully, to get Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to allow a counterintelligence investigation into Trump’s Kremlin dealings. Rosenstein refused, Schmidt reports.

A counterintelligence investigation into Trump as a possible Russian agent was ordered in spring 2017 by Andrew G. McCabe when he was acting FBI director.

McCabe told 60 Minutes that he ordered an investigation in May 2017 into whether Trump “had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests.” He also said he feared that without his written formal record in FBI files the case would be made to disappear.

FBI shut down

The FBI counterintelligence investigation was shut down before any substantial inquiry was made, Schmidt reports.

These and many more stunning revelations, along with new evidence indicating that Trump is a continuing threat to American national security, are based on extensive interviews with those involved and more than a thousand pages of government documents that reporter Schmidt says no one else outside of the government has read.

The book raises serious questions about how and why Rosenstein, as deputy attorney general, shielded Trump. Why did Rosenstein not want law enforcement and counterintelligence officials to know the full extent of Trump’s relationship with Russians, especially Russian President Vladimir Putin?

It is a question Schmidt does not answer. If there is a non-nefarious answer it may that human vulnerability was the cause. Rosenstein had long experience as a federal prosecutor, little as a counterintelligence lawyer.

Russian money

Moscow has courted Trump since at least 1987 and Trump has done numerous deals with Russian oligarchs that make no sense in business terms but make perfect sense when viewed as money laundering and payoffs.

Russian money is suspected to be behind the massive loans which Deutsche Bank made to Trump when no other major bank would do business with him. Deutsche Bank has been fined more than $622 million for laundering money for Russians.

Schmidt paints a portrait of a president with no understanding of or regard for our Constitution, federal laws or limits on his authority, a portrait consistent with my own Trump books. Schmidt shows that in the Oval Office Trump often took the side of Russia against American interests.

Trump insensitivity

“Trump had a profound insensitivity to how his actions would be perceived,” Schmidt writes, “and was often indifferent to law or precedent.”

Candidate Trump said he didn’t trust American intelligence agencies.

As president, standing next to Putin in Helsinki in 2018, he declared that he takes Putin at his word.

One day later, in a formal White House statement, Trump walked back his remarks, though I and many other Trump watchers took that as only one of his many attempts to muddy clear waters so people would be unsure about his conduct.

Trump has made clear he believes there is nothing wrong with conspiring with a hostile foreign power if it helps keep him in office. In June this year, Trump told ABC News, in a lengthy interview, that he would accept help from foreign governments such as the Kremlin in the current election.

Accepting election help of any kind from any foreign government or person is a criminal offense.

Author’s background

Reporter Schmidt has solid credentials. He has broken numerous stories that relied on law enforcement, political and intelligence sources. While Team Trump denounced many of those stories when they broke, the reporting held up as future events unfolded.

In 2016, Schmidt broke the story that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal email account for official business (as did several of her predecessors).

He won a Pulitzer Prize for revealing that James Comey, the FBI director Trump fired in 2017, created contemporaneous memos of his one-on-one meetings with Trump. Comey’s memos include the story of Trump demanding a pledge of personal loyalty, which Comey refused.

Schmidt also shared in a Pulitzer Prize for exposing sexual predator Harvey Weinstein and broke major stories about sexual harassment and secret financial settlements with victims that resulted in Bill O’Reilly losing his job as a Fox News host.

The revelations in Schmidt’s book completely recast the 418-page Mueller report and destroy Trump’s already noxious claims that the Mueller report vindicated him. It also helps explain the mendacious declaration by Attorney General William P. Barr in March 2019 that the Mueller report cleared Trump. Barr also wrote a four-page memo that turned out to be highly misleading, guiding people away from understanding the serious wrongdoing Mueller’s team uncovered, especially in obstructing justice.

A question never asked

A significant theme of the Schmidt book is that investigators were not only blocked from investigating whether Trump is disloyal to America, but that at times the Mueller investigators didn’t ask the right questions of witnesses.

One example involves John Kelly, the retired general who became Trump’s second White House chief of staff.

The president asked Kelly to pledge personal loyalty to Trump, Schmidt reveals. Kelly said he would be loyal to our Constitution, pretty much what Comey also said, Schmidt writes.

Mueller’s team never learned of this, Schmidt writes, because they didn’t ask.

That such an obvious question – were you asked to pledge personal loyalty to Donald Trump the way FBI Director Comey was? – was not posed raises questions about what else within the restricted purview of the Mueller team also was missed.

Did Team Mueller ask Rosenstein, whose actions shielded Trump, whether he was asked for a pledge of personal loyalty? Who else was asked to pledge personal loyalty, something we expect of dictators but never in American presidents? Who did pledge to Trump? Who refused? We don’t know.

These are questions that should now be pursued by the House Intelligence Committee, which you can be sure will inquire about many things in the Schmidt book.

Kremlin interests

There was reason aplenty for the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation of Trump and those around him, extraordinary as that would be.

One reason was the retention of Michael Flynn, another retired general, after Trump was warned by Sally Yates, who briefly served as acting attorney general, that he was subject to blackmail and unfit to know sensitive secrets. Trump then fired Yates, a career federal prosecutor with a distinguished record.

Another concern involved the Trump campaign enthusiastically accepting a written offer of help from the Kremlin in June 2016. For the next 13 months, Trump’s oldest son Don Jr., who received the emailed offer, lied and denied. He said, falsely, that no help was ever offered or provided by Moscow. Why did Don Jr. lie then and, when The New York Times got the emails forcing his hand, did he mischaracterize their nature?

The emails resulted, just days later, in a Trump Tower meeting of Kremlin agents, at least one with deep ties to Russian intelligence agencies, and Don Jr., Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and campaign manager Paul Manafort. The Mueller Team never was able to learn exactly what happened in part because Don Jr.’s lawyers indicated that the president’s son would assert his Fifth Amendment right to avoid testifying because he might incriminate himself.

Just the fact that Manafort, now a convicted felon, was paid 10s of millions of dollars by a Kremlin-friendly Ukraine leader and that Manafort managed the Trump campaign for free at a time when he was in serious financial trouble, would have justified a major FBI counterintelligence investigation into Trump and his campaign.

McGahn role

Schmidt devotes a lot of words to Don McGahn, who as White House counsel was there to serve the Office of the President, not the man himself. McGahn, either directly or through intermediaries, appears to be a key Schmidt source.

Schmidt writes that McGahn apparently knows a secret that could “drive Trump from the White House.” McGahn is trying to avoid testifying before Congress about what went on behind closed doors at the White House.

McGahn, Schmidt writes, was “one of the few Trump advisers… who regularly stood up to the president, telling him when his ideas were harebrained and screaming back at him when he unloaded nasty digs on senior staff.”

Schmidt says what was missing from the Mueller report about Trump and Russia sparked his interest. He writes that people who have seen the full report – the public version is heavily redacted – told him there is nothing about Trump’s possible allegiance to Russia or other improper associations. That knowledge made Schmidt even more curious about the lack of a counterintelligence investigation when there was abundant reason to undertake one.

The Trump attacks on McCabe, Comey’s deputy at the FBI, raise questions about what the White House knew and when about McCabe initiating an intelligence inquiry. That is an issue sure to be investigated by the House Intelligence Committee led by Rep. Adam Schiff of California.

Before he himself was fired, Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe two days short of eligibility for a full pension. That was seen by many as a sign that anyone in government who crossed Trump was fair game and crossing Trump could be costly. It came out later that McCabe also had ordered a criminal investigation into whether Sessions lied during his Senate confirmation hearing, which may also have influenced Sessions in such a petty action of firing McCabe on a day that would deny him his full pension.

Getting rid of McCabe and dirtying him up in public on specious grounds takes on new significance with the publication of the Schmidt book. Only by neutralizing McCabe, removing him and discrediting him could Trump evade the greatest risk he faced — a counterintelligence investigation into his Russian dealings.

The truncated FBI investigation  needs to be resumed unimpeded immediately.

Clarification: Schmidt’s book, at pages 363-4, reports that Rosenstein limited Mueller’s team to criminal matters and to ask if they wanted to expand into counterintelligence, which they did not.

If Trump refuses to accept defeat, the republic will survive intact, as it has done in the past

With the outcome of the 2020 presidential election still hanging on the uncounted votes in a handful of battleground states, President Donald Trump has already prematurely declared victory and said he will take the election fight to the Supreme Court.

Joe Biden said that “It’s not my place or Donald Trump’s place to declare who has won this election,” Mr. Biden said. “That’s the decision of the American people.”

This situation compounded the worry felt by some even before the election that a contested election would severely undermine faith in American democracy.

Yet the United States has a long history of such contested elections. With one exception, they have not badly damaged the American political system.

That contested 1860 election – which sparked the Civil War – happened in a unique context. As a political scientist who studies elections, I believe that, should President Trump – or less likely, Joe Biden – contest the results of the November election, American democracy will survive.

Legitimacy and peaceful transitions

Most contested presidential elections have not posed threats to the legitimacy of government.

Legitimacy, or the collective acknowledgment that government has a right to rule, is essential to a democracy. In a legitimate system, unpopular policies are largely accepted because citizens believe that government has the right to make them. For example, a citizen may despise taxes but still admit that they are lawful. Illegitimate systems, which are not supported by citizens, can collapse or descend into revolution.

In democracies, elections generate legitimacy because citizens contribute to the selection of leadership.

In the past, contested elections have not badly damaged the fabric of democracy because the rules for handling such disputes exist and have been followed. While politicians and citizens alike have howled about the unfairness of loss, they accepted these losses.

Contested elections and continuity

In 1800, both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr received the same number of votes in the Electoral College. Because no candidate won a clear majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives followed the Constitution and convened a special session to resolve the impasse by a vote. It took 36 ballots to give Jefferson the victory, which was widely accepted.

In 1824, Andrew Jackson won a plurality of the popular and electoral vote against John Quincy Adams and two other candidates, but failed to win the necessary majority in the Electoral College. The House, again following the procedure set in the Constitution, selected Adams as the winner over Jackson.

The 1876 election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden was contested because several Southern states failed to clearly certify a winner. This was resolved through inter-party negotiation conducted by an Electoral Commission established by Congress. While Hayes would become president, concessions were given to the South that effectively ended Reconstruction.

The contest between Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Richard Nixon in 1960 was rife with allegations of voter fraud, and Nixon supporters pressed for aggressive recounts in many states. In the end, Nixon begrudgingly accepted the decision rather than drag the country through civil discord during the intense U.S.-Soviet tensions of the Cold War.

Finally, in 2000, GOP candidate George W. Bush and Democratic candidate Al Gore tangled over disputed ballots in Florida. The Supreme Court terminated a recount effort and Gore publicly conceded, recognizing the legitimacy of Bush’s victory by saying, “While I strongly disagree with the Court’s decision, I accept it.”

In each case, the losing side was unhappy with the result of the election. But in each case, the loser accepted the legally derived result, and the American democratic political system persisted.

The system collapses

The election of 1860 was a different story.

After Abraham Lincoln defeated three other candidates, Southern states simply refused to accept the results. They viewed the selection of a president who would not protect slavery as illegitimate and ignored the election’s results.

It was only through the profoundly bloody Civil War that the United States remained intact. The dispute over the legitimacy of this election, based in fundamental differences between the North and South, cost 600,000 American lives.

What is the difference between the political collapse of 1860 and the continuity of other contested elections? In all cases, citizens were politically divided and elections were hotly contested.

What makes 1860 stand out so clearly is that the country was divided over the moral question of slavery, and this division followed geographic lines that enabled a revolution to form. Further, the Confederacy was reasonably unified across class lines.

While the America of today is certainly divided, the distribution of political beliefs is far more dispersed and complex than the ideological cohesion of the Confederacy.

Rule of law

History suggests, then, that even if Trump or Biden contest the election, the results would not be catastrophic.

The Constitution is clear on what would happen: First, the president cannot simply declare an election invalid. Second, voting irregularities could be investigated by the states, who are responsible for managing the integrity of their electoral processes. This seems unlikely to change any reported results, as voter fraud is extraordinarily rare.

The next step could be an appeal to the Supreme Court or suits against the states. To overturn any state’s initial selection, evidence of a miscount or voter fraud would have to be strongly established.

If these attempts to contest the election fail, on Inauguration Day, the elected president would lawfully assume the office. Any remaining ongoing contestation would be moot after this point, as the president would have full legal authority to exercise the powers of his office, and could not be removed short of impeachment.

While the result of the 2020 election is sure to make many citizens unhappy, I believe rule of law will endure. The powerful historical, social and geographic forces that produced the total failure of 1860 simply are not present.

This is an updated version of a story originally published on September 1, 2020.

Alexander Cohen, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Clarkson University

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

Outrage after Trump excludes U.S. from WHO-backed global vaccination cooperation pact

Provoking a flurry of critical reactions from health experts and lawmakers, the Trump administration announced Tuesday afternoon that it will not participate in the “global effort to develop, manufacture, and equitably distribute a coronavirus vaccine, in part because the World Health Organization is involved”—a decision the Washington Post said “could shape the course of the pandemic and the country’s role in health diplomacy” going forward. 

The purpose of the Covid-19 Vaccines Global Access (Covax) Facility is to “speed vaccine development and secure doses for all countries and distribute them to the most high-risk segment of each population,” explained the Post

While more than 170 countries are in negotiations to participate in Covax, Judd Deere, a spokesperson for the White House, told reporters that “The United States will continue to engage our international partners to ensure we defeat this virus, but we will not be constrained by multilateral organizations influenced by the corrupt World Health Organization and China.”

The Post described the decision as a “doubling down by the administration on its bet” that the U.S. will win the so-called “vaccine race.” 

Yet by foregoing the opportunity to “secure doses from a pool of promising vaccine candidates,” the Trump administration is pursuing a “potentially risky strategy,” the newspaper reported. 

Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University told the Post that “America is taking a huge gamble by taking a go-it-alone strategy.”

Senator Chris Van Hollen tweeted that “Trump’s go-it-alone strategy has already given us the highest death toll in the world. At his inaugural, he spoke of ‘American carnage’ and he now seems determined to make it a reality.”

Epidemiologist Eric Feigl-Ding called it an “absolutely terrible” decision that “will hurt us in the long run.” Akin to “shooting ourselves in the foot,” he said that “turning down an insurance policy during a pandemic is nonsensical and madness.”

In addition to the domestic risks, Trump’s decision could have negative international ramifications, too. 

“The idea behind Covax is to discourage hoarding and focus on vaccinating high-risk people in every country first, a strategy that could lead to better health outcomes and lower costs,” but “U.S. nonparticipation makes that harder,” the Post explained. 

One potentially catastrophic scenario acknowledged by the Post is that “a U.S. vaccine does pan out, but the country hoards doses, vaccinating a large number of Americans, including those at low risk, while leaving other countries without.”

Virologist Angela Rasmussen tweeted that “‘America First’ doesn’t apply to pandemics. Viruses don’t observe national borders. If anyone is at risk, we all are. Refusing to cooperate with other countries on vaccines will kill people.”

On the other hand, if Covax does result in a reliable vaccine developed elsewhere in the world, the U.S. and its people could be left out of enjoying the benefits and protections of such a success.

Wajahat Ali of the New York Times summarized the Trump administration’s latest decision regarding vaccines as “more self-inflicted damage.”

Exclusive: How a pro-Trump Black group became an off-the-books Turkish lobbying campaign

In 2018, officials with a controversial pro-Trump nonprofit called the Urban Revitalization Coalition (URC) — which recently lost its tax-exempt charity status and made headlines earlier this year with suspicious cash giveaways to Black voters — facilitated an off-the-books foreign influence campaign on behalf of powerful people in Turkey, according to social media posts and people familiar with the organization.

URC officials Darrell Scott and Kareem Lanier, both prominent Trump surrogates in the Black community, are said by multiple sources to have used the organization as a vehicle to “solicit donations,” including from wealthy Turkish nationals. Some of these solicitations came by way of former MAGA-world star Rabia Kazan, whom they brought on strictly for that purpose, according to Kazan and people familiar with the arrangement.

Furthermore, an associate of Scott and Lanier named Bruce Levell, a Trump surrogate, former congressional candidate and Small Business Association advocate — who was reportedly at one time in the running to head that cabinet-level agency — allegedly shook down Kazan for cash, then asked her to destroy records after reports of government raids on former Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s home and offices, according to Kazan and others familiar with the events.

This foreign influence campaign was aimed at shaping U.S. policy in anticipation of an overarching trade deal with Turkey. It also intersected with Turkey’s release of Andrew Brunson, an American pastor whom the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had been holding as a political prisoner.

Text messages from an Erdogan aide obtained by Salon describe the exchange as a “gift” from Turkey — in other words, a quid pro quo intended to benefit each country.

Some of these activities, described in detail below, raise serious legal questions, such as violations of rules governing tax and lobbying law, experts tell Salon.

Legal experts and people familiar with the URC told Salon that given these activities, the organization appears to have functioned as a shell lobbying and fundraising operation, and a go-between that communicated with both the Trump administration (and Trump campaign) and Turkish interests close to Erdogan. 

This is a story about how peripheral players, including foreign nationals, worked on the legal margins of lobbying, campaign and foreign agent laws amid the chaotic free-for-all of the Trump presidency. They blurred official and unofficial administration posts with other organizational and campaign roles, and obscured the source and usage of funds from both the public and government agencies such as the IRS and Federal Elections Commission.

It’s also a story about how these peripheral and inexperienced players, who found themselves suddenly close to the highest levels of power in the world, ultimately failed. The hype of their social media diplomacy (and Trump’s) has died away, as have their second-string attempts, along with those of experienced career U.S. and Turkish officials, to navigate the full range of geopolitical factors that make such negotiations so difficult. In this case, those negotiations involved one of the most politically complex countries in the world, under the rule of an elected strongman, amid a climate of war and perilous domestic uncertainty in both nations.

While these trade negotiations received praise in the Turkish press — which wrote at one point that the prospective deal was expected to “soar” — it appears that the URC’s efforts never got off the ground. 

Unlike in Turkey, they also went virtually unnoticed by the U.S. press.

First, an unlikely campaign

In 2018, URC officials first curried financial favors and investments from Turkish business representatives in connection with an economic initiative launched by the Trump administration, according to multiple people familiar with the events and the social media activity of the officials themselves.

Turkish business emissaries secured meetings in New York and Washington that extended to Trump officials, Republican members of Congress and campaign surrogates such as Tom Barrack and Lara Trump, according to public reports and social media posts.

The agenda was complicated. Broadly speaking, it was an effort to shape U.S. policy toward Turkey around trade and economic development. Specifically, it appears to have connected parallel URC efforts, to help craft an executive order and to help Turkish and U.S. interests effect a tentative multibillion-dollar trade expansion partly structured to open the American manufacturing market to Turkish companies, according to reports and social media posts from the people involved.

The fact that these meetings were apparently geared towards influencing official U.S. policy, experts say, raises questions about whether those involved should have registered with the Department of Justice as foreign agents.

Before the URC lost its tax-exempt status, it was a 501(c)(3) charity organization, which allowed the group to keep its funding sources secret and, uniquely, made any donations it received tax-deductible.

The URC made headlines when it held campaign-tinged events with cash giveaways for Black voters in poor communities, including a $25,000 raffle last December — something the organization had told the IRS it wouldn’t do. Politico described the raffles as a nationwide strategy of holding events “in Black communities where they lavish praise on the president while handing out thousands of dollars in giveaways.”

Ethics watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) subsequently raised concerns that the organization was in breach of its promise to the IRS not to participate in political activities.

The URC’s initial IRS application had promised that it would not give “funds to individuals,” according to documents obtained by CREW, and that it would not operate raffles. It appears to have done both those things. The group also told the IRS that it would not “support or oppose candidates in political campaigns in any way,” but its obvious pro-Trump activities raised questions about that, too.

But because the URC never filed a tax return, it’s impossible to know much about the group’s finances. Not only is its fundraising unknown, so is its spending and the amounts it raised over the years.

The URC was co-founded and helmed by Darrell Scott, an adviser to Trump’s 2016 and 2020 campaigns who presents himself as a pastor reformed from a life of drugs. Scott currently co-chairs Black Voices for Trump, an official arm of the campaign which was formerly led by the late Herman Cain.

Scott often identifies himself as “Dr. Scott,” thanks to an honorary degree he received in 2004 from the unaccredited St. Thomas Christian College. He is also the founder and pastor of the non-denominational New Spirit Revival Center, which is headquartered in a former Cleveland Heights synagogue and has its own radio station.

A familiar face at the White House, Scott has traveled with Trump multiple times on Air Force One and watched the 2018 midterm returns with the president at the White House. Scott is also close with senior White House adviser Jared Kushner, whom he calls “J-Rock,” and can frequently be seen on the sidelines when the administration or the Trump campaign make appeals to Black voters.

The URC operates a dysfunctional website: It can’t be accessed directly, only through backlinks; the “donations” button does not work; it lists a fake phone number tied to a Cleveland cemetery; and the posted email address bounces messages back to the sender.

Scott and URC co-founder Lanier are also senior members of the National Diversity Coalition, a minority-advocacy group created by former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen to help Trump reach out to nonwhite audiences, as best he could, in 2016. (Kazan was on the advisory board from Spring 2016 to May 2019.) The group turned on Cohen in 2018 following reports that he was co-operating with federal investigators. Bruce Levell, whom Kazan alleges of a shakedown, is also a senior official with the NDC, and has after a brief stint in the SBA re-emerged in the group as a face of Trump’s 2020 campaign and claiming to have created the organization.

It’s this backdrop that became one of a number of playing fields for shadow Turkish economic and government forces.

According to Kazan, a Turkish writer and former MAGA-world ambassador who turned on TrumpWorld amid threats to her safety and immigration status, Scott asked her to solicit “foreign donations” to the organization from wealthy business magnates she knew in Turkey.

Chief among those contacts — in Kazan’s world and in Turkey generally — is the family of billionaire Rahmi Koç, who is perhaps the wealthiest person in Turkey outside of Erdogan, along with the Koç family megacorporation.

Kazan told Salon that she connected Scott with a number of influential Turkish figures, including Mehmet Nazif Günal, with whom she says Scott frequently discussed assets in Saudi Arabia, and Ali Akat, president of the Turkish American Business Association (TABA) and the Turkish-American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham). Akat made at least two visits to the U.S. in 2018, in April and November.

The TABA-AmCham website describes the group as a non-governmental organization representing the American Chamber of Commerce in Turkey, “serving American companies operating in Turkey and Turkish companies in business relations with America.”

Experts tell Salon that by all appearances, the URC was engaged in lobbying efforts on behalf of foreign interests — which if true would legally require it to register with the U.S. government as a foreign agent.

Furthermore, nothing happens at this level in Turkey without Erdogan’s knowledge and blessing, expatriate Turkish journalist and newspaper editor Abdulhamit Bilici told Salon in a call.

“No, it’s not possible Erdogan could not know about this. Even the smallest details of these things wouldn’t happen without his knowledge. All businesses in the country, if allowed to operate, pay their dues to him, so to speak — including even the Koç family, the biggest conglomerate,” Bilici said, a point familiar to experts in Turkey, even though Erdogan’s name never appears in any of Scott and Lanier’s social media braggadocio.

During Akat’s two known trips to the U.S., he had multiple meetings with Scott, and met at least once with Lanier. The meetings focused mainly on deals regarding so-called “Opportunity Zones,” a Trump administration initiative designed to incentivize investment in poor, heavily-minority areas, according to social media posts from Scott.

The financial incentives in Opportunity Zones are chiefly drawn from tax breaks on capital gains from real estate investment. But according to contemporaneous accounts in the press and in social media posts, the URC and Akat were not discussing exclusively real estate, but the possibility of creating billions of dollars in manufacturing opportunities that would introduce new foreign companies and give them an edge to compete in the U.S. market.

Lanier and Scott posted multiple times about their interactions with Akat in late April and May 2018. In one, Scott indicated that he would take Akat to meet the president at the White House, later confirmed by Akat in Turkish press.

Akat also published numerous photos from the trip in a press release on the Turkish Chamber of Commerce website.

At 9:31 p.m. on April 25, 2018, Scott tweeted, “With some of my Business Homies, Ali and the guys, in DC at the Trump discussing bringing businesses to America! Great things are on the horizon! #urbanRevitalizationCoalition.”

At 9:34, he tweeted, “With my guy Ali to discuss bring HUNDREDS of BUSINESSES to Urban America. Great things are on the horizon __#UtbanRevitalizationCoalition” [sic], added a picture of himself with Akat in the atrium of the Trump International Hotel in Washington.

The following day, Scott tweeted, “Finalizing plans to bring 30 billion dollars in investment along with 25,000 well paying manufacturing jobs to Urban America. Great things are on the horizon!!!!! #UrbanRevitalizationCoalition”

Scott tagged all the tweets with the name of his nonprofit, whose mission, according to its website, is to “Revitalize America’s Urban Communities!”

On May 6 — not long after Akat’s departure, and one day after a since-deleted article in the Turkish press quoted Akat about the benefits of the visit — Scott tweeted, “Myself and @realkareemdream have been negotiating with foreign investors about potentially pouring billions of dollars into Opportunity Zones in Urban Communities all across the country. Great things are on the horizon! ##UrbanRevitalizationCoalition.”

That same day, Lanier quoted Scott’s tweet about “foreign investors,” adding his own message: “Huge Announcement(s) Coming Soon Urban America! @realDonaldTrump@PastorDScott and many others are fighting everyday for all in our great country!!! @CNN and @MSNBC will be forced to eat their words and report “Real News” for a change. Hahaha!!!#BillionsontopofBillions

(Scott repeated his original “foreign investor” tweet on May 20 from his alternate Twitter account. The only retweet was from a QAnon account.)

It is not clear what the “huge announcement” might have been. The U.S. never concluded any large-scale trade deal with Turkey — even through the regular government and economic channels that Erdogan and Akat were also exploring.

Akat can be seen in multiple photos taken at the Trump International in D.C., not just with Scott, but with billionaire Tom Barrack as well as Lara Trump, the president’s daughter-in-law and chair of the America First Action super PAC. He also met with several members of Congress, lobbyists and White House officials, according to social media posts and contemporaneous Turkish media reports.

Akat posted a photo of himself at the hotel on April 30. That was the evening President Trump had an intimate dinner there with America First donors, which was famously attended by Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, Rudy Giuliani’s personal envoys to Ukraine, who made a recording that night of Trump demanding the removal of Marie Yovanovitch, then the U.S. ambassador to that nation.

In a taped phone conversation in Turkish, obtained by Salon and independently translated by experts three times, Akat acknowledges that Scott and Lanier had solicited monetary “donations” from him. (This could be construed, experts say, as soliciting payment in return for lobbying work.) Akat says that when he declined to give them money, the two men “pressured” him to delete photos of their meetings on social media.

Kazan claims that Scott and Lanier asked that she do the same with her own relevant photos from the time.

It’s not clear when Scott and Lanier are alleged to have made this demand. In January 2019, after the Turkish trade deal appears to have fallen through, Lanier lamented foreign influence in the U.S. government in multiple tweets.

“Why are we sending $40+ Billion in ‘assistance’ to foreign citizens and not giving $8 Billion for our country’s safety?” reads one.

Some of Akat’s photos are still publicly accessible, but his tweets are not — at some point he set his 122,000-follower Twitter account to private. One photo from his trip is available on independent reporter Zach Everson’s 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue blog and in a Turkish-language TABA press release.

Salon has archived a number of photos referenced in this article here.

Akat appears to have deleted only one photo — the only one where he is shown with Lanier.

Lanier runs a real estate consulting firm in Georgia called Buckhead Consulting Agency Inc. Asked for comment on this article in a phone call, Lanier said, “I’ve had nothing to do with anything Turkey.”

Reminded of the social media posts and shown the deleted photograph, Lanier declined comment.

Then an unexplained shakedown

Around the time that Ali Akat visited the United States, the FBI raided residences and offices of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, who had created the National Diversity Coalition for Trump and recruited Darrell Scott and Bruce Levell into the 2016 Trump campaign.

Cohen and the group then brought Rabia Kazan into the NDC in the spring of 2016. She continued to advocate on the group’s advisory board after the inauguration, and was placed by Cohen near Trump, next to Omarosa Manigault, during a press conference at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

Around that time, Levell, an Atlanta-area jewelry store owner and Black Trump surrogate who styled himself an NDC executive director — but was described by multiple people as in charge of its computer network — launched a long-shot campaign in the special election for the 6th congressional district of Georgia.

(After the 2016 campaign, Levell, was reportedly considered as possible head of the Small Business Administration, a cabinet-level agency. In the end, Trump appointed Linda McMahon, wife of a professional wrestling mogul, instead. Leah Levell, Bruce’s daughter, who also worked as a 2016 Trump surrogate, ended up with a White House gig.)

At CPAC, Kazan says, Levell’s assistant asked her to write a $200 check to Levell’s campaign — the cut-off for reporting donations to the FEC. Kazan said she wrote the check but did not think to ask for a receipt, adding that everyone at NDC knew her immigration status, which would have made it illegal to solicit or accept the donation. (Kazan herself was not aware that she was legally barred from donating to campaigns until this January, according to BuzzFeed News.)

Levell lost the election that April.

A year later, on March 7, 2018, after speaking at an International Women’s Day event in Washington, Kazan got a call from Levell, whose Twitter bio says he is a “longtime President Donald J Trump advisor.”

Kazan claims that Levell told her on the call, which a Kazan associate confirmed overhearing to Salon, that he was coming from the White House and needed her to withdraw $2,000 cash as a donation to NDC. Kazan said she asked if she could pay with a credit card, but Levell, she says, demanded cash. He  told her he would get it from her at the Trump International lobby in two hours, at around 7 p.m.

At 6 p.m., Kazan went to the Bank of America ATM near the Trump hotel, where she withdrew the ATM limit — $1,000, as confirmed by banking records reviewed by Salon.

When Kazan met Levell in the hotel lobby, he was upset she didn’t have the full $2,000, and told her that NDC needed the cash to pay for website work. She said Levell took the cash she had, and she didn’t get a receipt.

“I would never think people are coming from White House, an adviser for Trump, forcing you to get cash like a ‘Goodfellas’ movie,” Kazan later told Salon. The story was independently confirmed by another person familiar with the group, who indicated Levell squeezed others for money.

Two months later, on May 9, 2018, Levell messaged Kazan over Telegram — an encrypted messaging service — telling her they needed to speak over a landline. Kazan then texted him from another phone.

“Trust me. Don’t talk to anybody about NDCTrump. Delete,” wrote Levell. “Cohen under fire. Thanks.”

A month earlier, the FBI raided Cohen’s home and office, seizing his hard drives and cell phones. The week that Levell texted Kazan, news outlets reported on financial records showing that Cohen’s LLC had received payments from companies hoping to gain actionable insight into the president’s thinking.

A law enforcement official later told the New Yorker that he had leaked the records after he realized that two critical reports on Cohen’s financial activity were missing from a government database. Kazan says that in the call, Levell told her he was worried about exposure to the FBI, and that phones belonging to people at the NDC might be monitored.

A week before the raids, the NDC account tweeted its support for Cohen, who at the time was under public scrutiny as the Stormy Daniels payoff scandal unraveled.

“.@NDCTrump is thankful for our chairman @MichaelCohen212 for defending our POTUS everyday and for putting the people’s priorities first. Retweet if you agree !! #AmericaFirst #MAGA @Bruce_LeVell @PastorDScott @realDonaldTrump @ChristosBlueSky @DonaldJTrumpJr @STEPHMHAMILL“, the post read, above a picture of Trump giving a thumbs-up.

Eventually, however, Cohen split from the group, and less than a year later flatly delivered a blistering critique of Trump’s racism to Congress, which Cohen’s testimony detailed from what he said were events in his first-hand experience. (The NDC tweeted the next day that Cohen was lying.)

Cohen, who at one point defended Trump as not racist, has emphasized the point repeatedly and will offer new details of Trump’s bigotry in his forthcoming book, Disloyal — which coincidentally will go head-to-head with Scott’s own new book, a fight Scott appears to savor.

According to Kazan, a few days after the Levell texts, she played a recording she made of the call with Levell for Scott and Lanier in a meeting on the seventh floor of the Trump International Hotel. According to Kazan, upon hearing the tape, Scott told her that NDC did not accept donations and did not have a bank account, and that her “donation” would have been illegal. Scott called Levell, she says, and after a loud, profanity-laced conversation told Kazan not to publicize the matter.

Around that time, Scott and Lanier invited Kazan to join the URC, which people familiar with the matter told was formed in part to give Scott and Levell their own group, separate from Cohen, which would fall under the purview of the Republican Party. Kazan accepted.

@_rabiakazan Congratulations on your new position. You’re the person for the job! #UrbanRevitalizationCoalition,” Scott tweeted on May 8.

Kazan replied, “IT IS A GREAT HONOR FOR ME SIR! #UrbanRevitalizationCoalition #maga“.

Kazan told Salon that it wasn’t clear to her why she — a Turkish writer and women’s rights advocate, with no experience in economic development or community advocacy — was the “person for the job” at an organization ostensibly devoted to revitalizing largely Black urban areas. Except, that is, for what struck her as obvious: The group wanted to tap into her access to wealthy and influential people in Turkey. They had no other use for her, she said.

“I did nothing,” she told Salon. “They asked me to bring customers.”

Specifically, Kazan said, Scott and Lanier asked her to “solicit donations,” including from Turkish connections. This was corroborated by another person familiar with the workings of the group.

“Kareem told me we have people who are ready to give one million dollars,” Kazan added.

Kazan’s sister married into one of the wealthiest families in Turkey, which controls the plastics manufacturing giant Plastmore. She has tapped those connections. For instance, Kazan connected Trump confidant Roger Stone to billionaire Rami Koç so that Stone could try to drum up money for his legal fund, as BuzzFeed News reported this February. According to reporting in Politico and BuzzFeed, Rudy Giuliani’s communications assistant, Christianné Allen, tried to convince Kazan’s sister to connect Plastmore directly with Giuliani — which Kazan’s sister declined to do.

In several emails sent months later and acquired by Salon, Kazan demanded a refund of the money she had given Levell, reminding Scott that she had played the phone call recording for him.

Scott distanced himself and the NDC from this incident, telling Kazan that the matter was between her and Levell. “Once again, I’m very sorry that this happened, but the NDC was not involved,” Scott wrote in an email, obtained by Salon. The NDC, Scott again told Kazan, could not accept donations and did not have a bank account.

The NDC’s definition as a political and taxable entity is hazy. Levell for his part claimed in a 2016 interview with the Washington Post that the group wasn’t a political committee and wouldn’t raise money for the campaign, a distance that the campaign reinforced at the time. Per the Post:

“And I’m not being paid!” LeVell declared, a point he likes to make after a recent appearance on an urban radio station during which callers asked how much money he was getting to talk up Trump. “I make my own money. I have a five-star-rated business.”

LeVell said the group is not a political committee and will raise no money for Trump. Trump spokesman Hope Hicks confirmed that the group was created independently from the campaign. “They are not affiliated with the campaign,” she said, adding, “Mr. Trump is incredibly grateful for their support.”

However, it appears today that Level is doing just that.

The NDC website still lists Levell as executive director. He never landed the top, cabinet-level slot at SBA, but was brought on as a Southern regional advocate. Though he appears to have left the SBA, or at least significantly cut his work since 2019, it is not clear when or why. Levell did not reply to any of Kazan’s emails about the alleged shakedown, and did not reply to Salon’s detailed questions for this article.

Kazan resigned from the NDC the following May. When Salon asked why she stayed at this dubious organization for so long, she replied, “Because I loved the president. I was still believing in him.”

Next: A visit to the White House, dreams of a $12 billion deal and the release of an American pastor.

Ted Cruz claims pregnancy is not “life-threatening” in effort to ban abortion pill

Sen. Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican who was once a ferocious opponent of Donald Trump, submitted a letter Monday to the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) co-signed by 20 of his GOP colleagues, asking the agency to take the abortion pill off the market amid the coronavirus pandemic, calling the lawful medication “deadly” and an “imminent hazard to the public health.”

As an exigent excuse, Cruz wrote that the pandemic is exacerbating risks to women’s health, which appears inarguable, but then said that “pregnancy is not a life-threatening illness, and the abortion pill does not cure or prevent any disease.”

That is very from the truth. While pregnancy is not an “illness” as that term is commonly understood, 830 women die from pregnancy-related complications every day, according to the World Health Organization.

Further, according to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which operates under the same umbrella department as the FDA — Health and Human Services — the maternal mortality rate in the U.S. is 17.4 deaths per 100,000 live births. The maternal mortality rate for Black women is more than double that: 37.1 deaths per 100,000 births. Compared with rates in 10 similarly wealthy countries, the U.S. would rank last.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, Republican elected officials and anti-abortion groups have tried to leverage the crisis to curtail abortion access — largely without success. In March, a federal judge overruled an abortion ban that Cruz’s home state of Texas had put in place amid the pandemic.

Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, the “abortion pill” Mifeprex could only be prescribed in person. A federal judge in Maryland suspended that rule in July, in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against the FDA.

U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled in that case that because in-person visits increase the risk of contracting the disease, prescriptions must be accessible over the phone or via telehealth appointments, otherwise the barrier to access would otherwise “constitute irreparable harm.”

“Particularly in light of the limited timeframe during which a medication abortion or any abortion must occur, such infringement on the right to an abortion would constitute irreparable harm,” Chuang wrote.

Cruz’s letter, however, calls the ruling an “opportunistic ploy,” alleging that the court was hijacking the pandemic to wrongly expand access to abortion — despite the fact that abortion is a legal medical procedure and the right to access is protected by law.

Cruz is also arguing against the FDA’s own data.

According to the agency, in the 18 years between Mifeprex’s approval in 2000 and Dec. 31, 2018, the U.S. has recorded a total 24 deaths associated with the medicine — two of which involved ectopic pregnancies, which themselves can be deadly. As of 2016, about 2.75 million women have taken Mifeprex — that works out to less than one death per 100,000 women.

Working from statistical averages, more than 640 women would have died of pregnancy complications in 2018 alone.

Dr. Jennifer Gunter, an OB/GYN and New York Times contributor, pointed out to Cruz on Twitter that erectile dysfunction medications such as Viagra are more dangerous than Mifeprex.

twitter.com/DrJenGunter/status/1301367197520986113

Is the Trump administration bluffing about a vaccine timeline? Scientists are skeptical

Experts who spoke with Salon expressed doubt about whether the Trump administration can have a coronavirus vaccine ready by late October or early November, even as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has asked public health officials in all 50 states and five large cities to prepare for precisely that possibility.

The CDC guidance specifically asks those local governments to be ready to distribute a possible vaccine to health care workers and members of high-risk groups as early as next month, according to The New York Times. Because Trump’s reelection chances have been significantly hurt by the coronavirus pandemic, however, it is unclear whether this guidance reflects medical reality or is simply an effort directed by the president to improve his odds of winning in the Nov. 3 election.

Dr. Monica Gandhi, infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California — San Francisco, told Salon that it is unrealistic to think a vaccine could be ready in only two months.

“It is not realistic from a distribution standpoint that, by November 1st, we would be through the trials, we’d know the efficacy data, we’d know the safety data and we could start distributing,” Gandhi pointed out. “That’s just two months away, so it doesn’t seem realistic on any vaccine timeline that I’ve ever heard of. I do think that there’s a lot of momentum to get the vaccine trials done quickly, and there are a lot of cases, and both of those are good things in terms of getting things done quickly, but this sort of timeline is beyond anything I’ve ever heard.”

She added, “There are two major points of a vaccine trial: one, to make sure that it doesn’t actually cause immediate adverse reactions — which can be kind of simple, like if there is soreness at the site, all the way up to whether if you got reinfected and if it could cause a very severe infection. So safety takes time with vaccine trials. Efficacy also takes time because you’re going to look for surrogates of vaccine protection, like antibodies and T cells, and you want to look at how long that lasts.”

Dr. Alfred Sommer, dean emeritus and professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, was similarly skeptical of the administration’s timeline.

“It is certainly possible that we will have at least one — there are already many in the works,” Sommer wrote. Yet he emphasized to Salon that while a vaccine prototype may exist by then, scientists will likely still not know how well it works — including how safe a vaccine is, if it works on patients for a long period of time, and what happens when it is distributed in large numbers. “We had a small, but significant late onset neurologic disease among patients given Swine Flu vaccine in a rush,” he noted.  Perhaps most crucially, Sommer said that by November we may not even know who the vaccine works in, “depending upon the constitution of the phase 3 trial participant.”

He added, “vaccines (like the Flu vaccine) are much less effective in the elderly, because their immune response is not as vigorous as it is in the young.”

Other public health experts echoed Gandhi’s and Sommer’s observations.

“It is a reasonable idea to begin state and national planning to distribute the vaccine, because it has some unique storage needs,” Dr. Georges Benjamin, Executive Director of the American Public Health Association, told Salon by email. “It] probably will require two doses and will be of limited supply initially. This will take several months to appropriately plan for. However, there is no way the vaccine studies can responsibly be ready until the end of the year at the earliest. Most likely it will be January of 2021 before we will have the understanding needed to be secure we have a safe and effective vaccine.”

Dr. Justin Lessler, an associate professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, wrote to Salon that while he does not “know enough about the current status of trials to say if one can be appropriately tested and ready by November,” he does believe that “even if one is ready supplies will likely be limited, and it will be many months before it is available to everyone.”

Dr. William Haseltine, a biologist renowned for his work in confronting the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the founder and former CEO of Human Genome Sciences, also expressed concern to Salon.

“Under normal circumstances, it would be impossible,” Haseltine explained. “And even under these circumstances, there is one thing for sure: We won’t know how well it works. And we won’t know if it’s safe. What would have to happen — and I’ve looked at the details and read a great deal about it — is a data safety monitoring board would have to have reviewed the data, seeing that those vaccinated were not infected whereas those who were unvaccinated were infected at an appreciable rate, and there was no safety signal.”

He added, “Even then it would be very provisional, it would be very few pages. You wouldn’t have an idea of how the vaccine would perform from a safety point of view in a large diverse population, and you wouldn’t even know how long the protection might last. In this case it could last less than a month or two because that’s all the time they would have.”

This is not the first time that there have been concerns about the Trump administration rushing to get a vaccine out before it is safe to do so. Last month Dr. Stephen Hahn, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, faced controversy after telling the Financial Times that he may issue an emergency authorization for a COVID-19 vaccine before Phase Three trials are complete.

“It is up to the sponsor [vaccine developer] to apply for authorization or approval, and we make an adjudication of their application,” Hahn said. “If they do that before the end of Phase Three, we may find that appropriate. We may find that inappropriate, we will make a determination.”

Phase Three trials of a potential medicine are, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “conducted to confirm and expand on safety and effectiveness results from Phase 1 and 2 trials, to compare the drug to standard therapies for the disease or condition being studied, and to evaluate the overall risks and benefits of the drug.”

Gravitational wave telescopes have revealed a long-predicted, new class of black hole

Astronomers have discovered the most massive black hole collision ever observed, and also the most distant, at 7 billion light years away — meaning it happened when our universe was only half its current age. More intriguingly, the black hole merger originated in two black holes of a size that had never been observed before, according to new research published this week.

Two papers in the journals Physical Review Letters and The Astrophysical Journal Letters detail this unprecedented cosmic show, which provided scientists with conclusive evidence that a third type of black holes exist. One black hole, roughly 66 times the mass of our own sun, collided with a second black hole 85 times the mass of our sun. This collision created one single black hole around 142 times the mass of the sun; the remaining mass was converted into gravitational energy, which created the shockwave felt faintly on Earth 7 billion years later and 7 billion light-years away. 

“We have detected a gravitational wave signal which we interpret to come from the merger of two black holes into a larger black hole,” Christopher Berry, an astrophysicist, told Salon. “This is the largest black hole that we have discovered with gravitational waves, and is what we would call an ‘intermediate-mass black hole.'”

Astronomers have long searched for intermediate-mass black holes (IMBH), Berry explains. Over the years, there have been hints that they’ve existed, but this is the first time astronomers have unquestionable evidence that they do.

“Up to now we knew of two populations of black holes,” Berry said.

The two black holes types previously recognized were stellar black holes, which are created from the gravitational collapse of a star and have masses that range from five to several tens of solar masses; and supermassive black holes, which live in the center of galaxies and are hundreds of thousands to billions of times the mass of our sun. All of the stars in our galaxy orbit the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way; our solar system orbits the center once every 230 million years.

Previously, the mere observation of these two classes of black holes — one type being relatively small, around 5 to 20 times our sun’s mass, and the others unfathomably massive — suggested that there must be an intermediate stage between the two sizes. Hence, it was curious that astronomers had never found direct evidence of such a black hole. That’s what makes this discovery even more exciting, astronomers say.

Avi Loeb, chair of Harvard’s astronomy department, told Salon via email that the situation with black holes previously “resembled visiting a nursery and finding two giant babies among hundreds of babies of normal size.”

“You immediately wonder: who are the parents of these two?” Loeb said. “The simplest path to making such black holes is known to every kid who played with LEGO; by combining the small building blocks together, it is possible to construct big objects.”

Berry said now that astronomers have detected an intermediate-mass black hole, it’s likely more will be detected.

“We can go out and hunt for them, and hopefully as we find more we’ll be able to answer: Are the stellar mass black holes and the supermassive black holes connected?” Berry said.

In other words, they’re the missing link to better understanding the history of our universe. 

The process to discover this long-hunted black hole required scientists to measure the shockwaves that the merger produced, also known as gravitational waves. They are usually hard to detect by the time they reach Earth. But thanks to the observatories known as LIGO [Laser Interferometry Gravitational-Wave Observatory] and Virgo, they’ve become easier to see. Both observatories do not resemble telescopes in the traditional sense — rather, they resemble stadium-length rooms full of lasers bouncing back and forth off many mirrors. Space-time is distorted by gravitational waves, and thus the laser beams wiggle ever so slightly in response to space-time’s perturbations due to gravitational waves stemming from such stellar mergers. By positioning different facilities around the world — LIGO has a facility in Louisiana and one in Washington, and Virgo is located in Italy — scientists can pinpoint the direction and location of such events, as gravitational waves only move at the speed of light and will strike one facility before the others. 

In 2015, LIGO made its first detection of gravitational waves. The most recent detection is the farthest merger that LIGO and Virgo have ever found. While it is possible that astronomers picked up waves from a collapsing star or another weird phenomenon instead of colliding black holes, experts are confident in their interpretation of the findings, and that they represent a rare cosmic event.

“The distance of the new event is much larger than most of the events detected before, implying that it is hundreds of times rarer,” Loeb said. “Unexpected rare anomalies of this type are exciting because they can teach us something new; I am still hoping for a future event that will not look anything like a merger of two black holes and would imply a completely new type of source, potentially new physics, but like all things precious, such sources appear to be rare.”

Berry said that after this latest discovery, astronomers will likely rethink how black holes are created.

“The fact that we have something which looks like a black hole in this mass range indicates that maybe we have a different way of forming black holes than just having them collapse from stars,” Berry said.  “It tells us something about potentially how black holes form, that there are more than you might naively expect out there in the universe, and putting this all together is helping us understand exactly how stars live — how they interact with their environments and how the universe behaves.”

Kayleigh McEnany shames Nancy Pelosi over hair salon visit during White House briefing

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Thursday attempted to shame House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for violating coronavirus restrictions, even though President Donald Trump has repeatedly ignored similar restrictions in other cities.

McEnany kicked off Thursday’s White House briefing by playing a video obtained by Fox News showing a maskless Pelosi getting her hair done at a San Francisco salon that was supposed to be closed under local rules.

“We will be playing the video on a loop for all of you to see during the duration of this introduction,” McEnany said. “Apparently, the rules do not apply to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She wants small businesses to stay shut down but only reopen for her convenience.”

She then accused Pelosi of holding up a $1.3 trillion coronavirus relief bill proposed by Republicans that includes money that “would support businesses like this hair salon,” even though House Democrats passed a $3 trillion relief bill back in May, but Trump and Senate Republicans allowed unemployment benefits and other relief measures to lapse rather than vote on the package.

Pelosi claimed that she was “set up” by the salon owner and said she deserves an apology even though her visit violated local guidelines just days before salons were allowed to accept clients outdoors.

“Nancy Pelosi is demanding an apology from a single mother and small business owner who has received threats since Nancy Pelosi’s comments against her salon,” McEnany said. “Nancy Pelosi, you ought to apologize to the American people, or better yet, come back to Washington and get to work for hardworking Americans like this salon owner who you maligned and demanded an apology from.”

Trump also taunted Pelosi over “easily” she was “set up”, later adding, “Maybe the Beauty Parlor owner should be running the House of Representatives instead of Crazy Nancy?”

While criticism aimed at Pelosi by business owners affected by local health order shutdowns should come as no surprise, the White House attack is ironic, given that McEnany has repeatedly defended Trump’s violations of coronavirus restrictions and even his own White House guidelines.

Trump violated Atlanta’s mask mandate when he visited Georgia in July and Washington, D.C.’s mask mandate that same month. He mocked New Jersey’s guidelines when members of his Bedminster golf club were seen violating the state’s restrictions on large gatherings and masks. The president has repeatedly flouted his own administration’s coronavirus guidelines at the White House and held a rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, against the advice of health officials. Former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain died from coronavirus complications weeks after attending the rally without a mask.

While many Republicans have criticized Pelosi, some Republican congressional staffers say they have been forced to come into work and told not to wear masks on Capitol Hill.

The blowup over Pelosi’s blowout came after ESalonSF owner Erica Kious provided surveillance video of her visit to Fox News.

“It was a slap in the face that she went in, you know, that she feels that she can just go and get her stuff done while no one else can go in, and I can’t work,” Kious told the network.

Pelosi claimed on Wednesday that she was given an incorrect version of the rules from the salon even though its closure was mandated by local restrictions.

“I take responsibility for trusting the word of the neighborhood salon that I’ve been to over the years many times, and when they said, ‘We’re able to accommodate people one person at a time.’ I trusted that,” Pelosi said.

Kious rejected Pelosi’s claim that she was “set up” in an interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson.

“This isn’t even political,” she said. “She’s been coming in there … it’s the fact that she actually came in, didn’t have a mask on, and I just thought about my staff and people not being able to work and make money and provide for their families, and if she is in there comfortably without a mask and feeling safe, then why are we shut down? Why am I not able to have clients come in?”

But Pelosi’s stylist, who rents a chair at Kious’ salon, issued a statement backing the speaker’s claims. Her attorney said in a statement that Kious herself “is seen on photographs and video footage styling various clients’ hair, ignoring social distancing guidelines, and not wearing protective equipment (masks), as recently as a few days prior to Speaker Pelosi’s arrival at eSalon on August 31, 2020.”

“The fact that Ms. Kious is now objecting to Speaker Pelosi’s presence at eSalon, and from a simple surface-level review of Ms. Kious’ political leanings, it appears Ms. Kious is furthering a setup of Speaker Pelosi for her own vain aspirations,” the statment said, adding that Kious “took a special interest in the appointment” and blamed Pelosi for her business being shut down even though the order came from Governor Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Mayor London Breed.

Breed defended Pelosi on Wednesday, arguing that it was “really unfortunate” that the incident has received a lot of media attention given the “fact that we basically have a dictator in charge of running this country.”

“It’s unfortunate that this conversation has blown up in the way that it has and distracted from the real issue,” she added. “We don’t have good solid federal leadership helping us facilitate this COVID response … We have bigger issues as it relates to this country.”

Still, some observers argued that Pelosi did “enormous” damage by failing to adhere to pandemic guidelines at a time when Democrats have sought to draw a clear contrast with Republicans by backing actual medical advice.

“In the culture wars where everyone’s hypersensitive to any transgression on either side, I can see this fitting into a narrative that Democrats want a different set of rules for themselves,” longtime California Democratic adviser Rose Kapolczynski told the Los Angeles Times. “But it’s one haircut. It’s not going to have a huge impact on the election.”

Zuckerberg vows to fact-check Trump if he declares premature victory: Critics are skeptical

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday announced new policies to crack down on misinformation ahead of November’s elections. Critics are skeptical that the social network’s changes will have much impact.

Zuckerberg said the company will not accept any new political ads in the week ahead of the election and will crack down on misinformation that seeks to discourage voting or “delegitimize the outcome of the election.” He said the network would also “add a label” if any candidate prematurely declares victory, a policy that appears to be aimed at concerns that President Trump may claim he has won before all the votes are counted.

“I’m concerned about the challenges people could face when voting. I’m also worried that with our nation so divided and election results potentially taking days or even weeks to be finalized, there could be an increased risk of civil unrest across the country,” Zuckerberg said in Facebook post, adding that “this election is not going to be business as usual.”

Zuckerberg, who has repeatedly come under fire for allowing the spread of false claims in political ads and failing to crack down on misinformation, said the social network would promote voting information at the top of its platforms through November and would remove any “explicit misrepresentations” about voting.

“If any candidate or campaign tries to declare victory before the final results are in, we’ll add a label to their posts directing people to the official results from Reuters and the National Election Pool,” the social network said in a blog post.

Trump has repeatedly refused to commit to accepting the results of the election while spreading debunked conspiracy theories about mail voting. Trump has also repeatedly sought to falsely sow doubt in the safety of ballot drop boxes (though not in-person voting) amid the pandemic, and on Wednesday literally urged his supporters to illegally vote twice to test the voting system.

The Trump campaign quickly criticized Facebook’s decision on Thursday, doubling down on the president’s insistence that the social network is biased against Republicans despite mounting evidence that Facebook officials have gone out of their way to acquiesce to conservative demands.

“In the last seven days of the most important election in our history, President Trump will be banned from defending himself on the largest platform in America,” campaign spokeswoman Samantha Zager said in a statement. “When millions of voters will be making their decisions, the President will be silenced by the Silicon Valley Mafia.”

But Democrats say the changes do not address the fundamental issue that Facebook is used to spread misinformation.

“Democrats will continue to urge these platforms to recognize the great responsibility they have in 2020 to protect voters from dangerous disinformation,” Ben Block, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), told The Wall Street Journal. “That means real, concrete action to combat disinformation that is being organically spread by users on their platforms.”

Technology experts also expressed skepticism about the impact of the changes.

Siva Vaidhyanathan, a Facebook expert at the University of Virginia, told the Associated Press the policies were “reasonable,” but said he was “not optimistic that this will be terribly effective” because Facebook has struggled to enforce its own rules.

CNBC tech editor Steve Kovach pointed out that the ad ban only applies to ads submitted in the final days before the election, after millions of voters have already cast their ballots. He said that “candidates will still be able to claim victory or cast doubt on the election results” even if Facebook adds a link with accurate election information. “Users, including political candidates, will still be able to spread false information about mail-in voting and the pandemic,” he added, noting that the company’s policy only calls for the removal of posts that claim you will catch the coronavirus if you go vote.

DCCC chair Rep. Cheri Bustos, D-Ill., and Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, issued a joint statement criticizing the new policies.

“Facebook’s last-minute changes will not prevent disinformation from being shared organically and will still allow political campaigns to run ads with lies,” they said. “At the same time, these changes will undermine efforts to ensure voters, particularly voters of color, who use Facebook as a resource can access accurate information — including when, where and how to cast their ballots.”

Disney’s disjointed “Mulan” remake is obsessed with the concept of “ch’i” but can’t find its own

“Mulan,” directed by “Whale Rider” filmmaker Niki Caro, is Disney’s newest live-action interpretation of an animated classic, and the first to come out during quarantine. 

Initially slated for release in March, the live-action “Mulan” made early waves by eschewing its source material in favor of a rendition without musical numbers, dragon sidekick Mushu, or fan favorite (and bisexual icon) officer Li Shang. The new film was billed as more somber in tone, more action-packed, with new characters. (Most of Disney’s remakes have been adapted closer to the originals.)

Compare this to the 1998 animated original, which is a brightly colored, action musical buddy comedy that received criticism due to its Westernization of a Chinese story. This is, of course, a problem of Hollywood writ large — Disney, especially in the ’90s, was a prime offender. At the same time, the animated original became a cult classic among a generation of growing millennials, particularly young Asian American women who appreciated Disney’s singular Chinese “princess” in a sea of mostly white offerings. I count myself in that latter group.

Because the source material is so Westernized in nature, it’s a little hard to judge the remake through any coherent cultural metric. It’s being released to international audiences, as well, whose experiences will be totally different from that of being Chinese American, specifically —the lens that the original film probably most closely captured. That said, it’s worth noting that the crew on the live-action film is perplexingly white—this includes the director, screenwriters, costume designer, cinematographer, and many, many others. 

Whether or not you enjoy the live-action film will probably have to do with how wedded you are to the original — and even then, the live-action edition has some major road bumps. Mulan (the politically divisive Yifei Liu) is a fairly different character from the animated version, a woman who is already an adept warrior but is forced to hide it for the sake of societal expectations. (In the opening minutes of the film young Mulan displays her agility, setting her up for success as a fighter.) This is a complete 180 from the ethos of the animated film, where Mulan’s entire thing is that she is not a warrior, and chooses to fight anyway for the sake of her father and her family. 

Making Mulan a natural-born fighter isn’t an unreasonable change, in an era with few notable female action stars — it’s also truer to the original folk song “Ballad of Mulan,” where Mulan was a skilled fighter before enlisting. It might have been an excellent reinterpretation, were it not so heavy-handed and, well, Disney-fied. But what remains bears minimal discernible relationship to the original, while reading too much like a basic Marvel film with a Chinese-looking facade to stand on its own. 

The primary offense is the film’s use of “ch’i” (or “qi”) as a narrative crutch. In the 2020 “Mulan,” having a preponderance of “ch’i” means being full of an amorphous source of power and life— it’s something women in this cinematic universe shouldn’t display, but Mulan has quite a bit of. It’s also a device Disney knows well, as there is minimal difference between the film’s usage of “ch’i” and Star Wars’ usage of “The Force.” 

This live-action “Mulan” loses a considerable amount of suspense when Mulan’s ability to rise through the ranks becomes a function of “not hiding her ch’i” and hoping others won’t chastise her for it. It feels a little too Sheryl Sandberg “Lean In,” wherein Mulan’s journey is about breaking through the “ch’i ceiling” around her male peers, by doing impossible feats. 

Though the film has culled its musical numbers, most iconic plot beats remain, augmented to have narrative payoffs gesturing to Mulan’s growing “ch’i” rather than her wit or ingenuity. (And certain songs get their counterpart as short scenes or lines that can be read as fan service or cringey, depending on your perspective.) To the film’s credit, Chen Honghui (Yoson An)—who is meant to play a version of Li Shang who is a fellow soldier rather than an officer—is a refreshing, charismatic addition, and can still be read as a queer character.

The fight choreography is enjoyable to watch, but is held back under similar constraints —Mulan gets to dazzle periodically, “showing her ch’i” and deploying a javelin through air kick, in a mic drop moment that would feel welcome in a superhero film. The use of environment feels a little closer to the balancing acts in “Pirates of the Caribbean” than the soaring, maximalist, dance-like combat of wuxia films. It’s a bit disjointed for the film to take itself so seriously while meeting us halfway with the fantastical elements of the genre it aspires to emulate — to have Mulan scale the wall of one passageway rather than full buildings.

As a result, it’s really hard not to miss the original’s sense of humor, from the songs to the non-human supporting cast. In addition to losing Mushu, there’s no unlucky cricket (although a fellow soldier is named Cricket), sassy horse, chaotic puppy, or squabbling ancestors. Instead, Mulan is watched over by a flowy looking CGI phoenix spirit, who flies overhead before she does something impressive. It’s reminiscent of “The Lion King’s” Timon and Pumbaa, playful characters who were pared down, lest their musical sequences look uncanny on real-looking animals. 

This all points to the bigger question of Disney’s commitment to turning its animated classics into live action. Disney’s recent releases have been remakes of their most beloved properties, ones they can feel confident people will pay money to see in theaters. But there are some stories that exist better as animation — just as there are certain animated stories whose understanding of race and culture are stuck in the past. This might be a $29.99 not worth spending.

“Mulan” is available to Disney+ subscribers for a premier cost of $29.99 beginning Sept. 4 until Nov. 2. It will be released for free to all subscribers on Dec. 4.

Robert Pattinson tests positive for coronavirus, halting “The Batman” production

UPDATED: Robert Pattinson has tested positive for coronavirus, prompting “The Batman” to suspend filming in the United Kingdom days after it went back into production, according to a source familiar with the situation.

Warner Bros. confirmed earlier on Thursday that production was being halted after a crew member tested positive but did not confirm the person’s identity. Vanity Fair first reported that Pattinson was the one who had coronavirus.

Read more from Variety: Hollywood sees surge of film, TV production as Hollywood goes back to work

“A member of ‘The Batman’ production has tested positive for COVID-19 and is isolating in accordance with established protocols,” a Warner Bros. spokesperson said in a statement. “Filming is temporarily paused.”

The studio declined to comment about whether or not Pattinson had contracted the virus; a representative for the actor did not immediately respond to request for comment.

Read more from Variety: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle sign Netflix deal

Depending on the amount of time that Pattinson has to self-isolate, suspending production could be a costly proposition. “The Batman,” starring Pattinson as the Caped Crusader, was about seven weeks into filming when they had to turn off cameras in March due to the pandemic. The gritty comic book adventure has approximately three months of material left to shoot and hopes to be done filming by the end of the year.

Numerous productions were put on pause when the virus began to intensify last spring, and very few blockbusters have resumed filming amid the global health crisis. “Jurassic World: Dominion” was the first major movie to restart and has been back to work at Pinewood Studios in the U.K. since July. Universal Pictures, the studio releasing the latest “Jurassic” sequel, has taken expensive and extensive measures to ensure the set will remain coronavirus-free. Those safety procedures involve everything from routine temperature checks to renting out a hotel for the cast and crew for 20 weeks.

Read more from Variety: Carole Baskin, Nelly and more join “Dancing With the Stars” cast

Since production for “The Batman” was put on hold, Warner Bros. pushed back its theatrical release and now plans to unveil the movie on the big screen on Oct. 1, 2021.

Matt Reeves directed “The Batman,” which also stars Zoë Kravitz as Catwoman, Paul Dano as the Riddler and Jeffrey Wright as Commissioner Gordon. John Turturro, Peter Sarsgaard, Jayme Lawson, Andy Serkis and Colin Farrell round out the cast.

Reeves, in a recent panel during DC FanDome, revealed that “The Batman” takes place during “Year Two” of the Dark Knight’s emergence — before his enemies have become full-fledged supervillains.

“No Time to Die” new trailer: Daniel Craig’s final James Bond movie debuts explosive footage

With “Tenet” opening in theaters worldwide to strong numbers as the first studio tentpole released amid the coronavirus pandemic, all eyes will soon shift to see if “No Time to Die” can do the same in November. The long-awaited new James Bond movie was originally on the release calendar for April. Buzz around the project is sky high as it marks the final outing for Daniel Craig in the title role after a beloved run of 007 films such as franchise high points “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall.” Is Craig saving the best for last? It’s the question Bond fans have been asking themselves for well over a year now.

Read more from IndieWire: “Bird Box,” “Stranger Things” and more Netflix properties will stream for free

The official “No Time to Die” synopsis reads: “Bond has left active service and is enjoying a tranquil life in Jamaica. His peace is short-lived when his old friend Felix Leiter from the CIA turns up asking for help. The mission to rescue a kidnapped scientist turns out to be far more treacherous than expected, leading Bond onto the trail of a mysterious villain armed with dangerous new technology.”

Joining Craig in his final Bond movie are returning franchise actors Lea Seydoux, Jeffrey Wright, Ben Whishaw, Ralph Fiennes, and Naomie Harris. Newcomers to the franchise include “Captain Marvel” breakout Lashana Lynch (in a role rumored to be the first female character to hold the 007 title) and “Bohemian Rhapsody” Oscar winner Rami Malek as the villain. “Spectre” actor Christoph Waltz is expected to reprise his role of Ernst Stavro Blofeld in one scene of the film.

Read more from IndieWire: “Dicktown”: The year’s funniest animated comedy bloomed from a real-life friendship

While “No Time to Die” is notable for being Craig’s final 007 project, it’s also anticipated for being the latest project from “Beasts of No Nation” and “True Detective” director Cary Fukunaga. The filmmaker is the first American director to take the reins of the Bond film franchise. Fukunaga had locked picture on “No Time to Die” before the pandemic shut down the film industry, and he didn’t go back to tinker with it ahead of the November release.

“Although time would have been lovely, we had to put our pencils down when we finished our post production window, which was thankfully before COVID shut down everything else,” Fukunaga said earlier this year. “The short answer is money. Although Bond is a big movie, we still have to weigh cost with value. And like anything, you could tinker endlessly. The movie is great as it is, hope ya’ll will feel same too when it comes out.”

Read more from IndieWire: “A.P. Bio” review: An exciting Season 3 makes Glenn Howerton’s Peacock comedy must-see TV

“No Time to Die” will open in U.S. theaters on Nov. 20 courtesy of MGM. Watch the new official trailer in the video below.

Dwayne Johnson reveals he and his family tested positive for coronavirus

Dwayne Johnson has revealed that he’s tested positive for coronavirus, in addition to his wife Lauren Hashian and their two young daughters.

“I wanted to give you guys a little helpful update on things that have been going on on my end for the past two-and-a-half to three weeks now. So the update is this: my wife Lauren as well as my two baby girls and myself, we have all tested positive for COVID-19,” Johnson said in a video posted to his Instagram account on Wednesday.

Read more from Variety: Hollywood sees surge of film, TV production as Hollywood goes back to work

“I can tell you that this has been one of the most challenging and difficult things we have ever had to endure as a family, and for me, personally, as well. And I’ve gone through some doozies in the past,” he said. “Testing positive for COVID-19 is much different than overcoming nasty injuries, or being evicted or even being broke, which I have been more than a few times.”

Luckily, Johnson said that he and his family are no longer contagious and are starting to feel better after their diagnoses.

Read more from Variety: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle sign Netflix deal

“I wish it was only me who tested positive, but it wasn’t, it was my entire family, so this one was a real kick in the gut. But I am happy to tell you guys that we as a family are good. We’re on the other end of it, we’re on the other side. We’re no longer contagious, and we are — thank God — we are healthy,” he said.

The “Jumanji” star said they have been self-isolating, and he and Hashian had a “rough go” at first, but his daughters are back to playing like normal. “Very close family friends” had been the ones to transmit the virus to the Johnson family, despite everyone involved being “incredibly disciplined.”  Johnson urged his followers to have friends get tested before coming over and to keep their immune systems healthy.

Read more from Variety: Carole Baskin, Nelly and more join “Dancing With the Stars” cast

“The other thing is wear your mask, we have been in quarantine for months, we wear our masks every day,” he said. “This baffles me that some people out there, including some politicians, will take this idea of wearing masks and make it part of a political agenda, politicizing it. It has nothing to do with politics. Wear your mask. It is a fact, and it is the right thing to do and it’s responsible thing to do. Not only for yourself and your family, but also for your fellow human beings.”

Watch his full video here.

Charlie Kaufman’s exasperating “I’m Thinking of Ending Things” could’ve been a masterpiece

Charlie Kaufman‘s films — “Being John Malkovich,” “Adaptation.,” and “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” which he wrote, and “Synecdoche, New York,” and “Anomalisa,” which he directed — are cheeky and depressing headscratchers. They feature doppelgangers and time loops that allow the characters (and by extension audiences) to re-evaluate things from different perspectives. 

These themes are in evidence once again in his ambitious and curious but not entirely successful new Netflix film, “I’m Thinking of Ending Things.” Adapted from Iain Reid’s novel, this long (135 minutes), stagy drama has the deceptively simple plot of an unnamed young woman (Jessie Buckley) — call her Louisa, as one character does — going on a road trip with her boyfriend Jake (Jesse Plemons) to visit his parents at their farm. But what transpires is far more complicated. Louisa is trapped in liminal space, an emotional state where she is considering breaking up with Jake as the title indicates. She could also very well be contemplating suicide, as the title further suggests.

Kaufman shrewdly lets viewers decide for themselves, and his film is full of clues and conundrums. What is real or not is irrelevant. The tone here is deep melancholy throughout. With bleak, heartbreaking images of isolation and desolation, either reading is possible. And while some viewers will be spellbound as Louisa experiences thoughts of anxiety and despair, others are sure to rate this film as an endurance test. Again, both interpretations are plausible.

The film begins in earnest with Louisa and Jake driving off in his car as snow gently falls. As they talk in hesitant ways, almost afraid of offending the other, the windshield wipers mark time like a metronome. He reads her mood and can almost read her mind as she contemplates “ending things.” He encourages her to recite a poem, “Bone Dog,” which is brilliant and full of vivid, depressing images, such as “The sun goes up and down like a tired whore.” Their talk turns philosophical, but it ends abruptly with their arrival at Jake’s family home.

So far, so good. Twenty minutes have passed in this car ride, and Kaufman has signified the remoteness of their relatively new (and possibly ending) relationship by framing Louisa and Jake separately. He also crosscuts their conversation with scenes of a high school janitor (Guy Boyd), a character who takes on greater importance as the film unfolds, going about his daily routine. 

I'm Thinking of Ending Things

Once at the farm, “I’m Thinking of Ending Things” gets a bit strange. Jake is reluctant to enter the house and takes Louisa to the barn instead. He tells her a story about a pig eaten by maggots. Upon entering the house, Jake’s parents (Toni Collette and David Thewlis) take their time coming downstairs, which is awkward. The dinner that follows is practically theater of the absurd. 

Kaufman employs all his patented tricks during the hour or so spent inside the house. Viewers will share Louisa’s discomfort as she explains her artwork, quantum physics, and how she and Jake met. Jake is frustrated by his mom repeatedly confusing the words “genius” and “genus” when referring to Trivial Pursuit. Things soon spin out of control. 

“I’m Thinking of Ending Things” starts to make subtle shifts in time, and even dress. Keep an eye on the color story being told, and in one sequence, Louisa is seen wearing pearls, which she had not had on before. She has an encounter with Jake’s father in Jake’s childhood bedroom where he is significantly older and suffering from Alzheimer’s or dementia. Mom is an invalid in some scenes, and a chipper housewife in another. These digressions are like dreams, but they very well may be real. Or not. Kaufman is not telling. 

There are others scenes that confound, such as one involving the janitor watching a fake Robert Zemeckis film. This episode, like those in the farm section of the film, stalls a narrative that already lacks momentum. As Louisa repeatedly pleads to return home, additional delays occur, causing her (and by extension, the viewer) greater despair. And when she later tells herself, “This is the last time I will be with Jake,” she is more uncertain than convincing. 

What does all of this amount to? It is uncertain. Louisa is patient and polite towards Jake’s parents, enduring their peculiar behavior, and hoping to make a good impression, but she obviously would rather be anywhere else. (Viewers will likely share this emotion). Jessie Buckley has these tiny creases on both sides of her mouth that resemble parentheses, and it is fun (and not inappropriate) to imagine that everything she says reveals a thought she is having that is incidental or supplementary to the conversation happening at the time. (Remember, she is nameless, so possibly imaginary or fictitious). Consider her monologue on the drive home, where an unexpected reference to “A Woman Under the Influence” results in Louisa reciting Pauline Kael‘s critical review of the film and Gena Rowland’s celebrated performance. 

“I’m Thinking of Ending Things” is full of such textual references. Jake cites David Foster Wallace, and initiates a discussion of him being known more for his suicide than his writing. There is an exchange about “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” being a rapey song, and Guy Debord’s “The Society of the Spectacle,” is mentioned as well. One does not need to know these cultural touchstones to appreciate Kaufman’s depiction of the relationship between Louisa and Jake, but, of course, it helps. 

What is clear (sort of) is that the car rides that bookend the dinner — along with the various time-jumping episodes in the farmhouse section of the film — show the different tints, colors, moods, and textures of these characters as they present different sides of themselves. They are hiding their true natures and feelings even with people they love, or think they love, or may not love. Jake’s anger towards his mother masks his own shame. His mother’s tinnitus suggests a deeper, more troubling pain. Dad’s forgetfulness may be his coping mechanism. Louisa’s confusion reflects her own equivocation. 

And had “I’m Thinking of Ending Things” ended there, Kaufman’s film might have been a masterpiece. Alas, it continues, and the last hour gets really existential and weird. 

On the ride home during a treacherous snowstorm, Jake insists on stopping for an ice cream, an experience that has a surreal quality to it. Things get stranger still when a detour to the high school leads to more doppelgangers, a truly disturbing janitor sequence, and a reference to “Oklahoma!” (not the film’s first). These are all compelling set-pieces, but they fail to deliver an emotional impact because everything feels so detached, so removed, so nightmarish/dreamlike. The film ultimately feels like Kaufman is shaking a snow globe and randomly presenting different possible stories featuring the main characters in various periods of their lives. Nothing feels connected, least of all the characters. 

Nevertheless, Jessie Buckley is fantastic, conveying her wavering emotions with the slightest expression. Buckley is so fully invested in Louisa that viewers wince for her during the more discomfiting moments. As Jake, Plemons is appropriately sanguine. He is touchy in his mother’s presence and tetchy in Louisa’s. It, too, is a finely calibrated performance. In support, Toni Collette overacts, deliberately and effectively, while David Thewlis makes each verision of the character he plays interesting.

Ultimately, “I’m Thinking of Ending Things” is as provocative as it is exasperating. It may require repeated viewings to understand everything Kaufman is trying to achieve — Guy Boyd’s janitor remains largely an enigma — but the prospect of sitting through this film twice just feels excruciating.

“I’m Thinking of Ending Things” is available to stream beginning Friday, Sept. 4 on Netflix.

David Graeber, author of “Debt” who coined the term “bullsh*t jobs,” dies at 59

David Graeber, an American anthropologist and anarchist best known for authoring popular and accessible books about economic justice, passed away on Wednesday at the age of 59.

The news of Graeber’s passing — which was announced by his widow, the artist and writer Nika Dubrovksy, over Twitter — has shaken academics, readers and activists around the world. Although the cause of Graeber’s death has not been announced at the time of this writing, Dubrovsky tweeted that he died at a hospital in Venice.

“Shocked to hear that David Graeber has passed away, one of the greatest thinkers of our time. And a phenomenal writer.” historian Rutger Bregman, author of “Utopia for Realists” and “Humankind,” tweeted on Thursday.

His sentiments were echoed by Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn, who tweeted in reply to Dubrovsky: “So very sorry sorry. David was such an inspiration and believer in the kind of world we must become. Nika, solidarity and love! Jeremy”

Richard D. Wolff, Professor of Economics Emeritus from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, told Salon by email that “David Graeber did original work carrying forward the tradition of thinking critically about capitalism and advocating for a better system. That tradition is now a fast-growing group of US academics breaking out of the Cold War legacies that still hobble so much work in the social sciences.”

Graeber’s history of challenging the economic status quo can be traced back to his parents. Born in 1961 to a father who fought with the Communists in the Spanish Civil War and to a mother who was a member of the international Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, Graeber began his career as an anthropologist, studying at SUNY-Purchase and the University of Chicago before doing two years of anthropological fieldwork in Madagascar on a Fulbright fellowship and teaching at Yale University.

Yet Graeber’s passion for economic justice never left him; indeed, he suspected that Yale’s decision to not renew his contract one year before he would have received tenure was motivated by a distrust of his politics. The anthropologist eventually was hired by the London School of Economics, where he would become one of the prestigious institution’s most esteemed intellectuals.

It was not until 2011, however, that Graeber achieved celebrity status, when his bookDebt: The First 5000 Years” was published. Graeber traced the history of debt as an idea back to the ancient civilization of Sumer, claiming to demonstrate in the process that debt likely preceded the existence of either money or barter as a common method for people to trade goods and services. His underlying argument was that, while at first money was exchanged and debt incurred simply as a way for people to forge bonds and indicate favors owed, society was corrupted when money became the lifeblood of societies and commercial transactions became tonally hierarchical rather than communal. These developments led to the current global economy, one in which debts are enforced through violence (usually implemented by the state) and in which supposedly “free” markets are directly linked to economic exploitation and social injustice. Graeber also praised what he described as “everyday communism,” or economic systems like those in certain ancient civilizations in which people act on basic empathetic impulses out of both self-interest and a sense of larger social obligation.

At the same time that “Debt” became a hit, Graeber also attracted international attention as one of the organizers of Occupy Wall Street. He is perhaps best known for helping to develop the famous Occupy Wall Street slogan, “We are the 99 percent.” He elaborated on the Occupy Wall Street ideology in a 2014 interview with Salon:

I’m thinking of a labor movement, but one very different than the kind we’ve already seen. A labor movement that manages to finally ditch all traces of the ideology that says that work is a value in itself, but rather redefines labor as caring for other people. I think we saw the first stirrings of that kind of movement during Occupy. I remember being particularly struck with the “We are the 99%” web page—this was a page where people who supported the movement, but were mostly too busy to actually take part in the occupations or assemblies, could contribute by posting pictures of themselves holding up signs where they’d written out their life situation. Demographically it was a very telling. Maybe 80% of them were women. And even those who were men were mostly in caring professions: health care, social services, education. And the complaints were surprisingly uniform: basically they were all saying, “I want to do something with my life that actually benefits others; but if I go into a line of work where I care for other people, they pay me so little, and they put so much in debt, that I can’t even take care of my own family! This is ridiculous!”

Four years later Graeber published his next hit book, “The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy.” Extending the idea from “Debt” that modern class structures are reinforced through violence, Graeber analyzed the history of bureaucratic thinking — tracing its modern incarnation to the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on rational thoughts and mathematics — and argued that wealthy countries today are dominated by public and private bureaucracies. These bureaucracies primarily serve financial interests like those on Wall Street, Graeber argued, and he called for Americans to actively oppose bureaucratic ways of thinking and instead embrace approaches that encourage creative and compassion.

His last book, “Bullshit Jobs: A Theory,” was published in 2018. In it, Graeber coined the term “bullshit job” to define the class of job that constituted “a form of paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence even though, as part of the conditions of employment, the employee feels obliged to pretend that this is not the case.”

Salon’s Erin Keane wrote a positive review of “Bullshit Jobs,” calling it “nothing short of essential reading for anyone embarking on a career search in 2018.” Keane praised Graeber’s ability to “break [down] of the roots of resentments between types of workers . . . an illuminating distinction he draws around the politically polarizing, so-called ‘elite’ professions.”

Ridley Scott’s new series “Raised by Wolves” imagines a bleak future for humanity – and android moms

Ridley Scott does not see a bright future for humanity. His vision is beyond compare, and his filmography is marked by acclaimed films set during all eras, with some of his most spectacular evoking history (“Gladiator,” “Kingdom of Heaven“) and contemporary stories (“Thelma & Louise,” “Black Hawk Down“). As for how he sees where humanity is headed – indeed, where it’s set to end up – look at the garbage piles passing for cityscapes in “Blade Runner,” or the corporatization of humanity as seen in “Alien,” “Prometheus” and “Alien: Covenant.”

The “Alien” films don’t show us much of Earth – only deep space, where humanity survives on ships. No matter, since the Scott-produced HBO Max series “Raised By Wolves” fills in the gaps by showing what he and series creator Aaron Guzikowski plausibly suspect will happen. The short version is that humanity wrecks everything with an endless war between atheists and hardcore true-believers, grinding the planet into rubble until the survivors who can afford it jump onto an ark and blast off into space.

But we’re jumping ahead here. Before we get an eyeful of our doomed tomorrow, “Raised By Wolves” sets down a distant planet known as Kepler-22b with a pair of androids, the lissome Mother (Amanda Collin) and doting Father (Abubakar Salim). As soon as they disembark from their craft and make camp, Father hooks up Mother to half a dozen frozen embryos which she brings to term in little amniotic-filled bins while Father sets up their shelter and cooks up bunch of dad jokes to pass the time. Not even making up that part.

Anyway, once the ethnically diverse baby clutch is “born,” Mother and Father do their best to raise them, hoping to jump start humanity again on what is, in keeping with the Ridley Scott brand, a stark and unforgiving rock where very little grows or survives. Regrettably that’s also true of human children, and despite the latex bodysuit-clad androids’ best efforts over a dozen years, their hatchlings’ fates play out like a calamitous chronicle penned by Edward Gorey: “One goes by misadventure! Some get the croup! The sixth is super feisty, mouthy and a poop!”

Raised By Wolves

That last survivor is Campion (Winta McGrath), and he alone is with his robot parents when their hardscrabble but otherwise peaceful existence is interrupted by a band of sun-worshipping warrior zealots known as Mithraics, led by a commander named Marcus (Travis Fimmel).  In the way of all invading forces claiming divine right as a reason for taking over lands, the Mithraics quickly come into conflict with Campion, Mother and Father. Judging by their numbers, they would seem to be easily conquerable.

Except for several secrets Guzikowski and Scott keep up their sleeves.

Innovating science fiction is an incredibly daunting task regardless of who’s doing the world building because very few speculative visions are remarkably different from anything that’s come before. While the “Raised By Wolves” universe isn’t technically Scott’s alone – the series executive producer directs the first two episodes, but Guzikowski guides the narrative as the series’ showrunner – it’s similar enough to his vision that a viewer can’t be faulted for presuming it to be at least “Alien”-adjacent.

Since we’re referring to that franchise, there’s a vast energetic and qualitative difference between “Alien” and the likes of “Prometheus.” The earlier vision traded upon tension in the style of classic horror, while the latter was so steeped in visuals, atmosphere and meticulously filling out the franchise’s lore that it dragged more than it beguiled. This is a central concern with “Raised By Wolves,” particularly with regard to its split development of Mother, Father and Campion’s worlds and the backstories of Marcus and his battling wife Sue (Niamh Algar).

 

All science fiction is allegory on some level, and “Raised By Wolves” poses questions about humanity that many, many other films and series have before by filtering its observations through its synthetic lifeforms. It’s no spoiler to reveal that – shock! – Mother and Father have been programmed to be more human than the other human beings they encounter, although from there the conflict breaks down between what it means to be human and the definition of humane.

Still, anyone who has seen a few genre films knows this story and isn’t likely to be surprised when philosophical aspects of their programming, as well as whatever the Mithraics internalize, begin to break down. This happens definitively in the first episode when a key character’s mask comes off and wreaks havoc, and people suddenly blink into red mist.  This is a Ridley Scott joint, after all; even the solid characters are apt to turn on a dime and that’s true of the planet itself, too.

(Analysis of what this male-conceived series has to say about women and motherhood, by the way, could be the subject of its own longform analysis. Feminist studies majors, there’s a freebie paper topic for you – hop to it!)

Diehard sci-fi folks will probably be fine with this and may even forgive the sluggishness and haphazard narrative zigzagging back and forth between the opposing forces. What’s harder to breeze over is the fact that no character in “Raised By Wolves” is sympathetic enough to pull for or fascinating enough to follow with interest. Without those tethers the audience is left to gawk at the sterile aesthetics of the piece and little else; not even the performances are compelling enough to magnetize our attention, although Collin and Fimmel do their level best.

Nevertheless, Collin’s interpretation of a doting android contains more distracting ingredients than anything that would be viscerally appealing. I can only describe it as landing somewhere between Data on “Star Trek” and Jennifer Jason Leigh’s screwy roomie in “Single White Female.” This enables Salim to evoke more warmth and amiability in Father but only in contrast with what his robo-mate is presenting.

Fimmel is as Fimmel does; in keeping with the feral and unpredictable style of performance that serves him well in “Vikings” his Marcus emanates a dangerous charisma with his facial expressions often at odds with the spirit of whatever dialogue he’s purring out at any given time.

It doesn’t help that the Mithraic soldiers’ uniforms are distractingly kitschy; imagine cast-off uniforms from some 1980s XFL team called Holy Rollers.

Nevertheless, the sheer ambition of “Raised By Wolves” and the brand-name visionary behind it may be enough to claim a portion of the audience’s fascination for these 10 episodes. Certainly it was enough to draw my interest, and certainly it was a disappointment to struggle to connect with this series over the course of its first six episodes. The comforting news about this sort of story is that there is always another one in the works by somebody somewhere, and in watching this they may avoid making the same mistakes. And that’s the challenge of genre – creatives don’t necessarily have to innovate because familiarity is often an audience’s friend. But the best works evolve, so that even if someone else’s future vision isn’t brighter it can at least be better than what we have at present.

“Raised by Wolves” premieres on Sept. 3 on HBO Max.

Martha McSally down 17 points in new Fox News poll showing Democrats surging in key states

Sen. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., trails retired astronaut Mark Kelly by 17 points in a new Fox News poll that had plenty of bad news for Republicans up for re-election in November.

The poll shows Kelly leading McSally 56-39 among likely voters after another recent poll showed the incumbent Republican losing by 19 points.

McSally, who lost her 2018 Senate bid to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. before being appointed to the seat previously held by the late Sen. John McCain, is by far the most vulnerable Republican up for election this fall. Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., has consistently led in the polls and in fundraising. McSally’s deficit has grown after she urged supporters to give up meals to donate to her campaign.

The Fox News poll found that even many likely Trump voters do not support her campaign, with 89% of the president’s supporters backing McSally while 96% of Joe Biden supporters back Kelly. About 14% of Republicans said they plan to vote for Kelly, while only 3% of Democrats support McSally.

Trump’s collapse in Arizona has made things even more difficult for the senator. McSally has fully embraced the president’s agenda in her campaign but the Fox News poll found that Trump trails Biden, 49% to 40%, among likely voters in the state. Trump trails by 46 points among Hispanic voters, 16 points among women, and 12 points among seniors, who had been a core part of the president’s base. Although there are hypothetical pathways for Trump to win the Electoral College while losing Arizona, in practical terms it would likely be a sign of a Biden landslide.

The poll shows that the formerly red state continues to shift away from Republicans. Trump beat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by just under four points in Arizona in 2016 but Mitt Romney carried the state by 11 points in 2012. Sinema became the first Arizona Democrat elected to the Senate in 30 years in 2018. Even Republicans are now worried that Trump and McSally are so unpopular it may cost them the state legislature for the first time in 50 years.

The Fox News poll showed that Arizona voters overwhelmingly trust Biden to handle the coronavirus pandemic more than Trump, and prefer Biden on criminal justice and policing issues as well, a trend that is also evident in other states.

Biden leads Trump 50% to 46% in North Carolina, according to the survey, where voters prefer the Democrat to handle the coronavirus, by a nine-point margin. The poll also found Democrat Cal Cunningham leading incumbent Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., 48% to 42%, among likely voters. Trump carried North Carolina by less than four points in 2016.

Biden also leads Trump by 50% to 42% in Wisconsin, one of the key states that tipped the election to Trump in 2016. Voters in the Badger State prefer Biden to handle the pandemic by a whopping 17 points. Trump carried the state by just 23,000 votes in 2016, winning about 47% of the vote. The Fox poll found that his approval rating in the state is down to 45% while 54% of the state disapproves of his job performance.

Trump, despite frequently echoing the network’s talking points and calling into its talk shows for softball interviews, accused Fox News of producing “suppression polls” to hurt his campaign. Trump claimed the Fox polls are “fake news.”

“I believe we are leading BIG!” he added.

Despite Trump’s attempts to spin the data, other new polls suggest that the president failed to get the post-convention bump he hoped for. A recent Selzer & Co. poll found Biden leading by eight points while Quinnipiac showed him leading by 10, CNN/SSRS showed him leading by eight, and YouGov showed him leading by 11.

Biden did get one piece of bad news after the conventions, a Monmouth poll that showed the two candidates effectively tied in Pennsylvania after a July poll that showed Biden leading by 7-10 points.

FiveThirtyEight election forecaster Nate Silver pointed out that Biden “is still more likely than Trump to win Pennsylvania,” as well as Arizona and Wisconsin. Silver’s Electoral College projection gives Biden about a 7-in-10 chance to win the election, he wrote, “almost exactly the same position he was in before the conventions.”

Trump has a plan to steal the election — in fact, he has a bunch of them

Donald Trump knows he is unlikely to win a fair election in 2020. But his strategies to cheat are so numerous and scattershot — did you catch that story about how acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf blocked a report about Russian propaganda? — that it’s tempting to take comfort in the hope that he has no overarching strategy to fake or steal a second term.

In truth, however, the sheer number of schemes in play is all the more reason to worry, because it shows Trump’s team is flexible and capable of adapting to changing circumstances. Worse yet, it shows they have a number of fallback plans. If one effort fails, then another effort might just work. Attacking our democracy on multiple fronts depletes the resources (time, money, energy) of their opponents, making it likelier that one effort will break through and be successful. 

There is good news, however. A combination of Trump’s big mouth, the continued courage of whistleblowers and the fact that Republicans have to conduct a lot of their scheming through the media means that, with two months to go, Trump’s plans to distort, subvert or flat-out steal the election have come into view. Democrats, and anyone else who still believes in democracy, can avoid being caught flat-footed. What’s required is to take all this seriously, instead of hiding behind increasingly foolish hopes that it can’t happen here. 

Because folks inevitably object to any proposal that Trump is scheming, on the grounds that he’s too dumb to pull any such thing off, let’s just get this out of the way: Trump doesn’t need to be smart. He just needs to surround himself with smart but immoral people. There’s significant evidence he has done just that. 

After months of reading reports on Trump’s various schemes to steal the election, I’ve outlined below roughly how I think they see this playing out, both on the legal and political fronts. This isn’t to scare readers, it’s to help us all be better prepared to fight back. 

1. Keep as many Democrats as possible from voting in the first place. 

Unfortunately, this is the strategy that will likely be most effective, as it builds on years of Republican voter suppression tactics that predate Trump and don’t depend on him. For example Georgia has reportedly purged 200,000 voters off the rolls by claiming they had moved when they likely had not

Still, Trump has put his own spin on it by exploiting the coronavirus crisis that he caused through a combination of negligence and open malice. Huge numbers of Americans, especially Democrats, plan to vote by mail and Trump clearly plans to keep them from doing it, aided by Postmaster General (and Trump mega-donor) Louis DeJoy, who took the helm of the Postal Service over the summer and immediately got busy slowing down the mail. Republicans are also fighting a legal battle to keep states from implementing measures that make mail-in voting more efficient.

2. Declare victory on Election Day before final results are tallied. 

Trump has made public statements arguing that the winner should be declared on the night of Nov. 3, even though it’s far more likely that the election can’t be called for at least a few days, until the mail-in ballots have been counted. Democrats reasonably believe, therefore, that Trump, perhaps aided by Fox News, will declare victory before the votes are counted. Having established his claim to “victory,” which will snag the headlines, Trump will then paint efforts to get all votes counted as usurpation by Joe Biden and the Democrats. 

3. Disqualify as many mail-in ballots as possible.

Trump has been on a media war to stoke the idea that mail-in ballots are “fraudulent,” even going so far as to tell his own voters to vote twice, once by mail and again in person, implying this will “prove” that mail-in ballots are frauds. Now Attorney General Bill Barr is joining in, shamelessly lying to both journalists and the House Judiciary Committee about “fraud” being rampant with mail-in voting. (It’s not.) 

Likely building on the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in 2000, which declared George W. Bush to declare victory without a full and fair vote recount in Florida, Trump and Barr will likely pull as many legal shenanigans as they can to get as many mail-in ballots as possible thrown out in the days after the election. With the courts stacked with Republican appointees — and specifically Trump appointees — there’s a real danger that many of these legal challenges will work. 

4. Build an ad hoc right-wing militia to intimidate election officials or pro-democracy protesters. 

It’s not a mystery why Trump, Fox News and the White House are fashioning Kyle Rittenhouse — a 17-year-old charged with a double homicide for shooting anti-racism protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin — into a hero. It’s to encourage other Trump supporters to take up arms and join up with militia groups that are being hastily organized on social media. Right now these gangs of armed right-wingers are focused on intimidating Black Lives Matter protesters and getting into street fights with leftists, but once they’re established, their attentions can be easily redirected to other goals by Trump through tweets and other public statements. 

That’s a useful tool for Trump to have if, for instance, he decides it’s necessary to keep election officials in swing districts from finishing a count of mail-in ballots. If that sounds outrageous, note that Trump’s friend Roger Stone — recently released from prison after Trump commuted his sentenceused exactly this tactic with the infamous “Brooks Brothers riots” used to stop vote counting in Miami in the 2000 election. That time it was done without guns, but now Trump’s goons have normalized the idea of “protesting” by brandishing weapons. 

There’s also good reason to be concerned about right-wing militias being used to suppress pro-democracy protests that will likely break out if and when Trump declares himself the winner and starts the legal maneuvers aimed at keeping all votes from being counted.. 

5. If all else fails, reject the election results by declaring the election “rigged” and refuse to leave office. 

The good news is that this strategy is the least likely to work, because the Constitution is quite clear on the timeline and methodology for the Electoral College to convene and to declare a new president. If the votes are counted and Biden is the winner, there is not much Trump can do, in terms of legal dirty tricks, to keep the Electoral College from doing its job. Furthermore, the Constitution is clear that Trump’s term ends at noon Eastern time on Jan. 20, and whoever has been duly elected becomes president, with or without a Supreme Court justice administering the oath amid all the pomp and circumstance. (If there is no duly elected president or vice president on Jan. 20, the speaker of the House would become president. I think it’s safe to assume Republicans would prefer President Biden to that scenario.)

The bad news is that, by the time all that happens, Trump and Fox News will likely have whipped Republican voters into such a frenzy over the “rigged” election that they may well conclude violence is justified to keep their man in office. 

If that seems implausible, well, the reality is that most Republican voters have already embraced this fascist viewpoint, as Eric Levitz of New York magazine detailed in a disturbing article this week.

A YouGov poll taken in January 2020 shows that a majority of Republican voters agree that the “traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it” and only 22% were willing to disagree. Similarly, 41% believed that “a time will come when patriotic Americans have to take the law into their own hands” and only 22% disagreed. The rest were “unsure,” which likely means they will either softly support such violence or at least will do nothing to stop it. 

That’s all very depressing, and I won’t try to put a positive spin on it just to make anyone feel better. To quote Michelle Obama, “It is what it is.” 

None of this is a reason to give into despair and quit fighting, however. On the contrary, one massive advantage that those who still believe in democracy have is that now we know what Trump, who loves to run his mouth, is planning. 

Democrats seem cognizant of the problem. Biden has repeatedly said that he believes Trump plans to steal the election, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated that she knows it will be a struggle to get Trump to accept electoral defeat. During the Democratic National Convention, multiple speakers emphasized the importance of voting early, to forestall Trump’s efforts to steal the election.

Whether or not Democrats have a plan to respond to all these possible scenarios is still obscure. We can hope that means that, unlike Trump, they’re not tipping their hands publicly about what they intend to do. 

It’s going to be a long two months. But at least we know, roughly but with a pretty high degree of confidence, how Trump and his allies see this playing out. Now it’s on the rest of us to stop it from happening. 

Cuomo says Trump “better have an army” to come to NYC after labeling it an “anarchist jurisdiction”

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo warned that President Donald Trump would need an “army” to walk the streets of New York City again in response to the administration seeking to cut off federal funding to cities led by Democratic mayors.

Trump on Wednesday issued a directive instructing federal agencies to begin the process of cutting federal funds to New York City; Washington, D.C.; Seattle and Portland in response to what he called “anarchist jurisdictions” that have allowed “lawless” protests and a rise in crime.

“He better have an army if he thinks he’s gonna walk down the street in New York. New Yorkers don’t want to have anything to do with him,” Cuomo said at an emergency news conference in response to the directive. “He can’t have enough bodyguards to walk through New York City, people don’t want to have anything to do with him.”

Cuomo said Trump’s order was “illegal” and “another attempt to kill New York City.”

“I think it’s because he is from New York City and New York City rejected him, always,” Cuomo said. “He was dismissed as a clown in New York City, those who know him best, like him least… He was disrespected in New York City. Nobody took him seriously and he was just a tabloid cartoon.”

The president’s move appears to be a campaign gambit as even Fox News polls show him trailing significantly in states he won in 2016. Trump issued the memo in his attempt to make “law and order” the “centerpiece of his re-election campaign,” according to the New York Post, which first reported the move.

“My Administration will not allow Federal tax dollars to fund cities that allow themselves to deteriorate into lawless zones,” the directive said. “To ensure that Federal funds are neither unduly wasted nor spent in a manner that directly violates our Government’s promise to protect life, liberty, and property, it is imperative that the Federal Government review the use of Federal funds by jurisdictions that permit anarchy, violence, and destruction in America’s cities.”

The memo called on agencies to report federal funding to the four cities that can be cut and instructs Attorney General Bill Barr to develop a list of “anarchist jurisdictions” that “permitted violence and the destruction of property to persist and have refused to undertake reasonable measures.”

The memo does not require Barr to include the four cities, which the Post noted was “possibly for legal reasons.”

The memo says that White House budget director Russ Vought must then issue guidance to agencies “on restricting eligibility of or otherwise disfavoring, to the maximum extent permitted by law, anarchist jurisdictions in the receipt of Federal grants.”

The memo, which repeatedly names New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, blames officials for allowing “violence to spike” while moving to slash police funding and rejecting Trump’s offer to send in federal law enforcement. The crime spike in New York City featured prominently at the Republican National Convention with former Mayor Rudy Giuliani leading criticism of de Blasio, even though the higher crime rate this year is far lower than it was during Giuliani’s reign. Many cities across the U.S. have dealt with a rise in violent crime amid the pandemic.

The memo also accused Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser of allowing “rioters and anarchists to engage in violence and destruction” and blames Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler and Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan for vandalism and protests that led to violence. All of the mayors have been highly critical of Trump and have blamed him for stoking violence.

“As a result of these State and local government policies, persistent and outrageous acts of violence and destruction have continued unabated in many of America’s cities, such as Portland, Seattle, and New York,” the memo says.

De Blasio vowed to challenge the president’s directive in court during a news conference on Thursday while criticizing Trump’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.

“Mr. President. We asked you to help New York City and you weren’t there for us,” he said. “You failed us. And now you want to punish us? It makes no sense. And by the way, your words don’t carry much weight on this topic, because the Supreme Court has spoken.”

“This is a racist campaign stunt out of the Oval Office to attack millions of people of color,” press secretary Bill Neidhardt added in a statement.

Durkan called the move an “attempt to distract” from Trump’s handling of a pandemic that has killed more than 185,000 people and “destroyed the American economy.”

“The only anarchy zone in America, where the rule of law is disregarded, is at the White House,” she said on Twitter. “The President’s actions continually harm cities and the millions of residents who live there. At a time when our nation desperately needs healing, a cure to the virus and a federal government to lead us through this crisis, the President invents yet another way to divide.”

Wheeler called the directive a “new low, even for this president.”

“He continues to believe that disenfranchising people living in this country to advance his petty grudges is an effective political strategy. The rest of us know it is dangerous, destructive, and divisive,” he tweeted, adding that Trump’s plan threatens to cut funding for “health, education, and safety net dollars Americans are relying on to get through this pandemic and economic crisis.”

Legal experts predicted that courts would quickly reject Trump’s tactics.

“This is a campaign document coming out of the White House,” Sam Berger, a former White House official in the Obama administration, told The Washington Post. “Any actual restriction on funding in court will immediately be sued and almost certainly struck down.”

Trump may have “committed a felony” by telling supporters to commit voter fraud: “Do NOT vote twice”

Attorney General Bill Barr defended President Donald Trump urging supporters to illegally vote twice in North Carolina even as a top Democratic lawyer argued that his comments constituted a “felony.”

Trump traveled to North Carolina on Wednesday, where he told supporters to test the voting system by casting a mail ballot and then voting in person on Election Day, which The New York Times noted is an “act that constitutes the kind of voter fraud the president has railed against.”

“They are going to have to check their vote by going to the poll and voting that way because if it tabulates, then they won’t be able to do that,” Trump said. “So let them send it in, and let them go vote. And if their system is as good as they say it is, then obviously they won’t be able to vote. If it isn’t tabulated, they will be able to vote. So that’s the way it is, and that’s what they should do.”

Trump said he was “not happy” about the expansion of mail-in voting amid the coronavirus pandemic despite copious evidence that it is secure.

“At the same time, we’re in court with a lot of it. We’re going to see if it can be stopped,” he said. “But send your ballots, send them in strong, whether it’s solicited or unsolicited. The absentees are fine. But go to vote and if they haven’t counted it, you can vote. That’s the way I view it.”

Trump has repeatedly claimed without evidence that increased mail voting would lead to rampant fraud even though mail ballot fraud is virtually nonexistent and some states have had all-mail elections for years.

Marc Elias, a top Democratic Party lawyer who frequently argues high-profile elections cases in court, said that “the president just committed a felony” by telling people to violate election laws.

North Carolina election law says that it is illegal for “any person with intent to commit a fraud to register or vote at more than one precinct or more than one time, or to induce another to do so, in the same primary or election, or to vote illegally at any primary or election.”

“The president is urging you to commit a felony—one for which you, though not he, could actually get prosecuted,” warned attorney Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “Be careful whom you listen to for advice about how to conduct yourself during this election.”

Barr tried to defend Trump’s comments in an interview with CNN minutes later.

“Well, I don’t know exactly what he was saying,” Barr said. “But it seems to me what he’s saying is he’s trying to make the point that the ability to monitor this system is not good and if it was so good, if you tried to vote a second time, you would be caught if you voted in-person.”

“That would be illegal if somebody mailed in a ballot and then actually showed up to vote in person. That would be illegal,” anchor Wolf Blitzer replied.

“I don’t know what the law in the particular state says,” Barr claimed.

“Is there any state that says you can vote twice?” Blitzer pressed.

“There are some that maybe you can change your vote up to a particular term,” Barr replied. “Why are you asking me what he’s saying?”

“Wait, the AG isn’t sure that voting twice is illegal?” Elias questioned. “That he needs to check state law?”

North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein warned voters that trying to cast two ballots is absolutely illegal.

“Today, President Trump outrageously encouraged NCians to break the law in order to help him sow chaos in our election,” Stein tweeted. “Make sure you vote, but do NOT vote twice!”

Patrick Gannon, a spokesman for the North Carolina Board of Elections, told the Times that the system would prevent a person from voting twice because only their first vote would be recorded while the second vote would be thrown out.

“Intentional willful double voting is a felony,” he added.

Trump and Barr also repeated baseless conspiracy theories about mail voting in their remarks.

Barr claimed that mail voting “is very open to fraud and coercion, is reckless and dangerous, and people are playing with fire.”

Pressed on his claims by Blitzer, Barr acknowledged he was basing his claim on “logic” but not “evidence.”

“I don’t have any information because this is the first time we’ve tried such a thing,” Barr said.

“I will point out there are five states that only have mail-in voting including Utah and Colorado, Washington state,” Blitzer replied.

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, has dismissed the Trump administration’s claims as a “political calculation,” arguing that mail voting is “more secure” than in-person electronic voting.

“I don’t know of any evidence that voting by mail would increase voter fraud,” he said, adding that nearly every voter in his state casts ballots by mail.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden accused Trump of “trying to delegitimize” the election results by sowing doubt in mail voting.

“The way to overcome this is to vote. Vote, vote, vote. And there’s not a shred of evidence, not a shred of evidence that mail-in voting is fraudulent,” Biden said on Wednesday. “Not a shred.”

40 of Trump’s biggest broken promises

Trump voters. Nearly 4 years in, here’s an updated list of Trump’s 40 biggest broken promises.

1. He said coronavirus would “go away without a vaccine.” You bought it. But it didn’t. While other countries got the pandemic under control and avoided large numbers of fatalities, the virus has killed more than 130,000 Americans*, and that number is still climbing.

2. He said he won’t have time to play golf if elected president. But he has made more than 250 visits to his golf clubs since he took office — a record for any president — including more trips during the pandemic than meetings with Dr. Fauci. The total financial cost to America? More than $136 million.

3. He said he would repeal the Affordable Care Act, and replace it with something “beautiful.” It didn’t happen. Instead, 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance since he took office. He has asked the Supreme Court to strike down the law in the middle of a global pandemic with no plan to replace it.

4. He said he’d cut your taxes, and that the super-rich like him would pay more. He did the opposite. By 2027, the richest 1 percent will have received 83 percent of the Trump tax cut and the richest 0.1 percent, 60 percent of it. But more than half of all Americans will pay more in taxes. 

5. He said corporations would use their tax cuts to invest in American workers. They didn’t. Corporations spent more of their tax savings buying back shares of their own stock than increasing workers wages. 

6. He said he would boost economic growth by 4 percent a year. Nope. The economy stalled, and unemployment has soared to the highest levels since the Great Depression. Just over half of working-age Americans are employed — the worst ratio in 70 years.  

7. He said he wouldn’t “cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.” His latest budget includes billions in cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. 

8. He promised to be “the voice” of American workers.He hasn’t. His administration has stripped workers of their rights, repealed overtime protections, rolled back workplace safety rules, and turned a blind eye to employers who steal their workers’ wages. 

9. He promised that the average American family would see a $4,000 pay raise because of his tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. But nothing trickled down. Wages for most Americans have barely kept up with inflation.    

10. He promised that anyone who wants a test for Covid will get one. But countless Americans still can’t get a test. 

11. He said hydroxychloroquine protects against coronavirus. No way. The FDA revoked its emergency authorization due to the drug’s potentially lethal side effects.

12. He promised to eliminate the federal deficit. He has increased the federal deficit by more than 60 percent. 

13. He said he would hire “only the best people.” He has fired a record number of his own cabinet and White House picks, and then called them “whackos,” “dumb as a rock,” and  “not mentally qualified.”  6 of them have been charged with crimes.

14. He promised to bring down the price of prescription drugs and said drug companies are “getting away with murder.”  They still are. Drug prices have soared, and a company that got federal funds to develop a drug to treat coronavirus is charging $3,000 a pop.

15. He promised to revive the struggling coal industry and bring back lost coal mining jobs. The coal industry has continued to lose jobs as clean energy becomes cheaper. 

16. He promised to help American workers during the pandemic. But 80% of the tax benefits in the coronavirus stimulus package have gone to millionaires and billionaires. And at least 21 million Americans have lost extra unemployment benefits, with no new stimulus check to fall back on. 

17. He said he’d drain the swamp. Instead, he’s brought into his administration more billionaires, CEOs, and Wall Street moguls than in any administration in history, and he’s filled departments and agencies with former lobbyists, lawyers and consultants who are crafting new policies for the same industries they used to work for.

18. He promised to protect Americans with pre-existing conditions. His Justice Department is trying to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act, including protections for people with preexisting conditions. 

19. He said Mexico would pay for his border wall. The wall is estimated to cost American taxpayers an estimated $11 billion. 

20. He promised to bring peace to the Middle East.Instead, tensions have increased and his so-called “peace plan” was dead on arrival. 

21. He promised to lock up Hillary Clinton for using a private email server. He didn’t. Funny enough, Trump uses his personal cell-phone for official business, and several members of his own administration, including Jared Kushner and Ivanka, have used private email in the White House. 

22. He promised to use his business experience to whip the federal government into shape. He hasn’t. His White House is in permanent chaos. He caused the longest government shutdown in our nation’s history when he didn’t get funding for his wall. 

23. He promised to end DACA. The Supreme Court ruled that his plan to deport 700,000 young immigrants was unconstitutional, and DACA still stands.  

24. He promised “six weeks of paid maternity leave to any mother with a newborn child whose employer does not provide the benefit.” He hasn’t delivered. 

25. He promised to bring an end to Kim Jong-Un’s nuclear program. Kim is expanding North Korea’s nuclear program. 

26. He said he would distance himself from his businesses while in office. He continues to make money from his properties and maintain his grip on his real estate empire. 

27. He said he’d force companies to keep jobs in America, and that there would be consequences for companies that shipped jobs abroad. Since he took office, companies like GE, Carrier, Ford, and Harley Davidson have continued to outsource thousands of jobs while still receiving massive tax breaks. And offshoring by federal contractors has increased.

28. He promised to end the opioid crisis. Americans are now more likely to die from an opioid overdose than a car accident. 

29. He said he’d release his tax returns. It’s been nearly 4 years. He hasn’t released his tax returns.

30. He promised to tear up the Iran nuclear deal and renegotiate a better deal. Negotiations have gone nowhere, and he brought us to the brink of war.

31. He promised to enact term limits for all members of Congress. He has not even tried to enact term limits.

32. He promised that China would pay for tariffs on imported goods. His trade war has cost U.S. consumers $34 billion a year, eliminated 300,000 American jobs, and cost American taxpayers $22 billion in subsidies for farmers hurt by the tariffs.

33. He promised to “push colleges to cut the skyrocketing cost of tuition.” Instead, he’s made it easier for for-profit colleges to defraud students, and tuition is still rising.

34. He promised to protect American steel jobs. The steel industry continues to lose jobs.

35. He promised tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations would spur economic growth and pay for themselves. His tax cuts will add $2 trillion to the federal deficit. 

36. After pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, he said he’d negotiate a better deal on the environment. He hasn’t attempted to negotiate any deal.  

37. He promised that the many women who accused him of sexual misconduct “will be sued after the election is over.” He hasn’t sued them, presumably because he doesn’t want the truth to come out.

38. He promised to bring back all troops from Afghanistan. He now says: “We’ll always have somebody there.”

39. He pledged to put America first. Instead, he’s deferred to dictators and authoritarians at America’s expense, and ostracized our allies — who now laugh at us behind our back.

40. He promised to be the voice of the common people.He’s made his rich friends richer, increased the political power of big corporations and the wealthy, and harmed working Americans.Don’t let the liar-in-chief break any more promises. Vote him out in November.

Trump punishes International Criminal Court for investigating potential US war crimes in Afghanistan

The Trump administration has sought to weaken or abandon various international agencies since 2016. Now it’s taking aim at the International Criminal Court, a global tribunal that investigates and prosecutes war crimes, torture and genocide.

Claiming the ICC’s investigation into alleged war crimes by U.S. forces in Afghanistan poses a national security threat, President Donald Trump issued an executive order on June 11 effectively criminalizing anyone who works at the ICC. Its lawyers, judges, human rights researchers and staff could now have their U.S. bank accounts frozen, U.S. visas revoked and travel to the U.S. denied.

On Sept. 2, Sec. State Mike Pompeo announced the new sanctions would be applied for the first time, against ICC special prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and her top aide.

The executive order does not target U.S. citizens. But Americans can be sanctioned if they “materially support” the ICC by, say, filing an amicus brief to support a case. Such language usually applies to foreign terrorist organizations and their enablers – not human rights lawyers.

The retired Gen. Wesley Clark called Trump’s order a “tragic mistake” in foreign policy. He says the U.S. “has nothing to fear from the ICC,” which exists to deter and punish the kinds of atrocities committed by Germany and Japan during World War II.

I am an international human rights lawyer who has defended and advocated for victims of gross human rights violations in American courts and at the United Nations. For these people, the ICC is the only real means to hold their persecutors accountable, even if few of them will ever set foot in the court.

Brief history of the ICC

The ICC is the only criminal court with near global jurisdiction.

Since its founding in 2002 in The Hague, it has successfully prosecuted over 40 high-ranking politicians, warlords and heads of state for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Those imprisoned include Thomas Lubanga, a warlord who recruited child soldiers and forced them to fight in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Bosco Ntaganda, convicted of rape, murder and sexual slavery in the same conflict.

The ICC also issues warrants for the arrests of leaders who’ve fled the court’s justice, such as Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir, who stands charged with genocide for the rape, killing and torture of civilians in Darfur. Fugitive suspects are prosecuted by the ICC if and when they are extradited to The Hague.

Occasionally, special war tribunals are established outside the ICC to prosecute specific cases in specific countries. Recently, a special international tribunal convicted a Hezbollah member for the 2005 assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.

Together, the ICC and these complementary special tribunals enforce international human rights law. The ICC is a court of last resort. It acts only when national governments cannot or will not investigate and prosecute war crimes. Its jurisdiction is intentionally narrow. It means countries with a strong rule of law need not fear international investigation.

U.S. fearful of international justice

In the early 1990s, the U.S. was deeply involved in United Nations negotiations in the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the ICC. But in 1998 President Bill Clinton decided not to ask Congress to ratify the Rome Statute, claiming there was no protection against “politicized prosecutions.”

Despite not being one of the court’s 123 member countries, the U.S. has often facilitated the ICC’s work. Successive U.S. administrations have imposed a series of sanctions against people under ICC investigation, including members of the Assad regime suspected of committing war crimes in Syria.

The U.S. has also championed the ICC’s ongoing examination of crimes committed by the Taliban in Afghanistan and its investigation of Myanmar for possible genocide against the Rohingya Muslims. The U.S. also got involved in the hunt for the infamous Ugandan guerrilla leader Joseph Kony, who was indicted by the ICC in 2005 for using children as sex slaves and insurgents.

But some of the ICC’s newest cases hit close to home.

One is a pending investigation of American military actions in Afghanistan between 2003 and 2004. Dozens of people claim to have been tortured during interrogation by the CIA in “black sites” created by the Bush administration. Two current Guantanamo detainees, Sharqawi Al Hajj and Guled Duran, who are represented by legal counsel, have provided detailed testimonies to the ICC.

Another is the ICC’s investigation into possible crimes by Israel related to Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel, like its ally the U.S., is not a member of the ICC.

In May, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned the ICC to end its “illegitimate” probes into the U.S. and Israel or else face “consequences.”

Limited jurisdiction

The ICC persisted, saying the U.S. could fend off the ICC by investigating the alleged war crimes itself.

“The I.C.C. is not intent on ‘hauling’ Americans up to trial before it,” wrote ICC president Eboe-Osujiin in a June 18 New York Times op-ed responding to Trump’s Executive Order. It is simply committed to seeing credible claims against U.S. security personnel in Afghanistan investigated, Eboe-Osuji said.

But the U.S., like Israel, has refused to acknowledge that war crimes may have been committed. Such standoffs trigger ICC involvement as the court of last resort.

Historically, the International Criminal Court has almost exclusively prosecuted individuals from weaker nations, primarily in Africa. Some critics have dubbed it the “African criminal court.” Yet most African countries, like other ICC members, remain supportive of the court’s work.

The ICC is also a slow, cumbersome and expensive form of justice. It has spent over US$1.2 billion over the past 12 years to successfully punish only three individuals of the dozens it has prosecuted.

But the court’s importance goes beyond its verdicts. Without its watchful eye and long arm, war criminals would roam free.

In undermining its work, the Trump administration claims to protect American security. But if the U.S. won’t cooperate with the ICC in international criminal investigations of its own citizens, other countries are less likely to help when the U.S. wants terrorists and war criminals brought to justice.

Susan M. Akram, Clinical Professor, School of Law, Boston University

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

Democratic strategist Michael Gordon: How the ghastly RNC could get Trump re-elected

In a healthy democracy, political conventions are events where political parties select their nominees, resolve internal differences between various factions, solidify their platform for the public and try to win over undecided voters, as well as reaffirm the priorities of their base. A political convention is both a celebration and coronation of the party’s chosen leaders.

Unfortunately, these are not good or normal times in America. An authoritarian neofascist is our president. The country is fast approaching 200,000 dead from a pandemic — people who did not have to die if Donald Trump’s regime had not sabotaged the relief efforts. The country struggles with a ruined economy, one which Trump and his Republican Party have only made worse.

The Democratic convention was clear-minded, mature, and traditional even as it improvised and innovated its style and presentation because of the deadly pandemic. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were presented as responsible leaders who will heal the country and embrace a better future with a more diverse, vibrant, inclusive and prosperous multiracial democracy.

The Republican Party’s convention was the exact opposite. It was an authoritarian gathering which — despite the strategic deployment of Black and brown conservatives as human props — celebrated racism, white supremacy, cruelty and violence, repackaged as “patriotism” and “Christianity.” Trump and the Republican Party also prostituted the White House for Trump’s vainglorious speech, an exercise in flaccid ego masturbation for a wannabe dictator.

Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels supposedly said that to win power one should accuse the other side of that which you are guilty. Channeling Goebbels’ advice, right-wing propagandist and radio personality Rush Limbaugh told his listeners last week when discussing the Republican convention that:

And as I’ve watched it, it has occurred to me, Trump isn’t just running for reelection.

The story that is being told at the Republican National Convention is about saving America. It’s about saving America from a race war that the Democrats are out there actively trying to promote. They’re trying to foment it. They want this country to be Black versus white, immigrant versus native, male versus female. That’s what they want. They want that chaos, they want this constant us-versus-them aspect of daily life.

And Trump is making it clear that he’s interested in people who are constructive, productive, generally happy. He’s not interested in parasites, the generally miserable.

If empirical reality and an agreement about fundamental truths are the basis of a healthy democracy, then the Republican National Convention was a spectacular rejection of those values. It was an Orwellian alternate reality, in which up is down and down is up and where Donald Trump is a flawless, king-like god. To that point, the Republican Party offered no official platform for 2020, beyond basically saying, “Whatever Trump wants is what we want.” The party’s descent and collapse into a Trump personality cult is now fully complete.

Writing at the Independent, Patrick Cockburn described this new low point in American history:

The Republican convention was a nauseating performance even by the cess-pit standards of the Trump administration. In its cult-like obeisance to the supreme leader it reminds me of meetings of the Iraqi Baath Party that periodically endorsed Saddam Hussein as the national saviour.

The only speeches acceptable in both cases were dollops of fawning praise. Speakers outdid each other in adulation, pretending that shambolic failures were triumphant successes. Trump’s calamitous inability to cope with the coronavirus pandemic, leading to the death of 180,000 Americans, was ignored. Thirty years ago, Saddam Hussein likewise informed wildly applauding Baathists that the “mother of battles” in Kuwait had been a splendid Iraqi victory.

Here is John Nichols at the Nation:

The political strategy of the Republican National Convention has been evident from the moment it opened. The organizers are determined to stir a backlash vote against every Democrat who has displayed even modest regard for the need to address police violence and systemic racism. There’s a reason for this. President Trump and his partisans are well aware that he cannot win an election based on his record of mismanaging the response to a pandemic and mass unemployment, and of dividing the country against itself with racism and xenophobia. So they are amplifying those divisions in hopes of identifying a narrow, ugly, and exceptionally dangerous path to victory.

In total, the Republican National Convention was an intoxicating drug for Trump’s death cult members and a bewildering display for any thinking, decent, intelligent human being.

Trump and the Republicans have no interest in winning over other Americans — in fact, they view them as an enemy to be destroyed. Instead, the strategy is to prevent Democrats and others not in thrall to the Trump regime from voting by any means necessary, both legal and illegal.

Trump has repeatedly signaled to the idea that he is willing to use violence to stay in power indefinitely. This week he defended one of his supporters, 17-year-old vigilante Kyle Rittenhouse, who allegedly killed two people and maimed a third at a recent protest against police brutality and social inequality in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Trump and his mouthpieces continue to use stochastic terrorism as a means of encouraging violence against Democrats and anyone else deemed to be “un-American” and an “enemy.” On Tuesday of this week, the Trump campaign sent out a fundraising email threatening violence against his and the movement’s enemies. The email proclaimed: “The Liberal Mob will come after you on the streets simply for not agreeing with them. They hate our country and they hate YOU.”

Michael Gordon is a Democratic strategist and founder of the strategic communications firm Group Gordon. He served in the Clinton White House and as spokesperson for the Justice Department.

Gordon is now a columnist at Business Insider. His commentary and analysis has been featured by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and elsewhere.

In this conversation with Salon, Michael Gordon warns that as ghastly as last week’s Republican National Convention may have appeared to many Americans, it was a successful event on its own terms, and may help Trump win the 2020 presidential election. Why? because Donald Trump and his inner circle know their audience and are skilled at giving them exactly what they want — and by doing so may also win over right-leaning independents and undecided voters.

Gordon explains that the average voter does not care about the scandals and other issues that journalists and other members of the political chattering class obsess over. The result is that too much political reporting is disconnected from reality as it exists for most Americans.

Michael Gordon also reflects on why so many Trump voters — including members of his own family — remain loyal to Donald Trump no matter what level of criminality and corruption he engages in. Gordon then shares what this means for the Democrats’ chances of winning back the White House.

How are you managing this never-ending torrent of scandals, corruption, and crime from the Trump administration and those around him? He should have been impeached and removed from office based on the Senate intelligence report about collusion and conspiracy with Russia to meddle in the 2016 election. Never mind the Russian bounties on U.S. soldiers or that nation’s ongoing efforts to help Trump steal the 2020 election.

The strategy of this president and his administration is to overwhelm everybody with his scandals. If we can’t keep up with all the scandals, then we cannot manage them.  

My solution is to always try to focus on the issues that impact real voters and what they are thinking about. I grew up in the Midwest. I have lots of family members who are swing voters. I also have a lot family members who are Republicans. I try to get a sense from them about what they do and do not care about.

There are certain scandals and other matters that the news media is breathless about. But those issues are not very relevant to real people in the general public. Swing voters are going to decide the 2020 election. Many of them do not care about such things. Yes, certain scandals and other issues can stick to this president and impact the outcome. But much of what the news media focuses on will not.

Many reporters and journalists and other professional politics watchers were all upset about Donald Trump having the Republican National Convention take place at the White House. “Trump is breaking another norm!” Yes, Trump should not have spoken during the convention from the White House. But does a swing voter in Michigan really care about the Hatch Act? Or Trump breaking those norms?

They don’t. It does not impact their lives. What impacts their lives is the country getting the coronavirus under control and jumpstarting the economy. People are in great economic pain and want it to go away.

How would you intervene against a professional political class, especially among Democrats and supposed liberals and progressives, who actually believe that their outrage and concerns are shared by the American people as a whole? It would be funny if the situation in this country were not so dire. 

People tend to live in their own echo chamber. They think that is how they make a difference in the world. They shout from the mountaintops from their smart phone online through social media, and then get all their friends to agree with them. Such behavior is not really making an impact on politics or policy in a substantive way.

The echo chamber is an issue I see at all levels of politics. The loudest voices are frequently not even the majority. They are just the loudest. The loud voices get even louder because on a basic level they know they are not even the majority, thus the overcompensation.

How could any reasonable, decent human being continue to support Donald Trump given his cruelty, his evident mental pathologies, his widespread corruption, his betrayal of his oath of office and his embrace of authoritarianism, fascism and white supremacy? Almost 200,000 are dead from his sabotage of the coronavirus pandemic, the economy is in ruins and there are any number of other failures of public policy and human decency

Almost all of my relatives believe that Donald Trump is an idiot. They do not like his rhetoric. They think Trump handles many things in a stupid way. My relatives think that Trump was slow to respond on the pandemic. They understand who Donald Trump is.

But they still support his policies. They still support what he does as president. They distinguish the noise of Trump from what he is actually getting done. My relatives, and likely other Trump supporters too, view the economy before the pandemic as being strong. They like some of his other policy decisions as well. My relatives and other Trump supporters think that Trump is a tough talker. They believe that is good for the country. They support the Republican Party. Therefore, they will still support Trump for a second term in the 2020 election.  

At the end of the day, despite Trump’s many failures my relatives still support him because his policies fit with what they value. I love my family members who support President Donald Trump. I love my family even though Donald Trump is dangerous for our country.

What does this continued support of and fealty to Donald Trump reveal about Republican voters in the aggregate?

It is all a reflection of how divided the United States fundamentally is. There is not a lot of room for nuance in the country’s politics right now. People are either on one team or the other.

And for most people politics is not that important. The average person thinks about politics every four or so years when there is a presidential election or some other big contest. To them politics is just something you do periodically. The average person will pay attention during the conventions and debates. Then they will cast their votes.

Ultimately, the country is divided up into political teams and that means there is not a lot of room to maneuver. People also forgive their own political teams for its mistakes. You have to forgive your team for a lot of bad actors and bad actions. Thus, Donald Trump and his support.

What are your thoughts on the Democratic and Republican conventions?

I felt good after the Democratic convention. It was a little awkward because of the way it had to be staged. But at the end of the day I thought the Democrats did OK. I wish that Biden and Harris had given their speeches outside. I wish that there was some more energy around them. Joe Biden did what he had to do. The convention painted a picture of Biden as someone who has a heart whereas Donald Trump does not. Biden was shown to be competent and experienced while Trump is not.

The Republican Party had their convention and it was depressing. They were just shameless in rewriting every aspect of Trump’s presidency.  But I do think it is going to help Trump and the Republicans. Trump has no shame or fear. The Republican Party and its convention were just full-on lies about Trump and his presidency. That shamelessness is Donald Trump’s greatest competitive advantage. The truth is irrelevant to Trump and his campaign. But for a person who is possibly looking for a reason to vote for Donald Trump — maybe a quiet Trump voter — they may have found some reassurance from what they saw at the convention.

Generally, I have been pretty optimistic about Joe Biden becoming president. I felt that way last year too. But I am concerned. It started with Trump’s State of the Union, which was vile and offense, but for the target audience it was brilliant.

Watching his State of the Union speech I thought, “Oh my god, this guy might win another four years.” That was the first time I had such a thought. With the RNC they did it again. The Republicans put on a very good show. Not for me. Not for people inclined to think like me. But for people looking to be reassured about voting for Trump, it was a good show. That makes me nervous because Donald Trump is great at the show and bad at reality.

Please soothe my anxieties or make them worse. I believe that it is more likely than not that Donald Trump defeats Joe Biden and is president again. This will involve illegal and quasi-legal machinations and other schemes. There will also be Russian interference. There will be violence and intimidation by his enforcers on Election Day. He has announced as much. Trump is also closing in the polls, especially among white voters in key battleground states. It appears that the president’s racist “law and order” appeals are working. Moreover, Trump leads a political cult and those voters will not abandon him for any reason — even it means their lives in the pandemic.

Well, 2020 is different from 2016 for a number of reasons. The Democrats have a more popular candidate than four years ago with Hillary Clinton. Biden does not have the same baggage and negatives. I also believe that there is a personal appeal to Biden where even the people who do not agree with his policies still like him as a human being.

The suburban swing voters who helped shift Congress in 2018 have Trump’s number now in a way they did not before. From the pandemic to the economy and his reaction to the killing of George Floyd and what came afterward with the protests, the suburban swing voters see Trump’s flaws more clearly and magnified.

There is also a tremendous amount of energy in the Democratic Party’s base. Yes, there is some discomfort with Biden. But Donald Trump can unify the party in a way that Biden cannot. The base dislikes Donald Trump more than they are uncomfortable with Biden. This means that there will be fewer people sitting at home and assuming that Biden will win. It also means fewer people going with a third party.

But in the end the outcome of the 2020 election cannot be close. The Democrats need to win in an landslide. The cheating and voter intimidation and suppression are going to give Trump and the Republicans a several-point advantage on Election Day. The Democrats need to win big to overcome that.

What about the enthusiasm gap between Trump’s voters and Joe Biden’s? Also, the so-called “secret Trump voters” who because of social desirability effects may not tell pollsters that they will vote for Trump again?

With the cheating and secret Trump voters that will add up to three or four points on Election Day, in my opinion. In 2016 Donald Trump won with an inside straight. He is going to need to do that again to defeat Joe Biden. But now, given all of Trump’s failures, it will be Joe Biden who pulls off that inside straight. Most of the swing voters are going to move to Biden because of the pandemic and economy. It is true that Donald Trump is generating enthusiasm — that is true both for his voters and for Democratic voters who want to get him out of office. Yes, there are folks on our side who do not love Joe Biden. But those same people are still going to be enthusiastic about voting for him because they want to get Donald Trump out of the White House.

Let us assume that Donald Trump is defeated on Election Day. Do you think Trump accepts the outcome or does he refuse to leave office?

He may not concede to Joe Biden per tradition. I also believe that Trump may never concede publicly and may try to create a smokescreen around the outcome. Trump may not be useful in the mechanics of the transition of power.

He may not leave Biden a letter. He may not show up to Biden’s inaugural. But at the end Donald Trump is going to leave. Trump is not going to let himself be escorted out of the White House by U.S. marshals.

Sen. Joni Ernst floats QAnon conspiracy theory about inflated COVID death count: “So skeptical”

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, told a crowd Monday that she was “so skeptical” about the death count of coronavirus victims in the U.S., echoing a false conspiracy theory pushed by adherents of the sprawling, baseless QAnon conspiracy theory movement.

An attendee told Ernst during the Q&A portion of her campaign stop in Waterloo, Iowa, that he believed coronavirus cases and deaths have been overcounted — a proposition repeatedly debunked by medical professionals who say the true death count is, if anything, likely to be much higher than official numbers available today.

More than 185,000 people have died of COVID-19 in the U.S. as of Wednesday evening, according to the Johns Hopkins University coronavirus database.

Ernst, however, implied that she agreed with the man, saying that she too was “so skeptical” of those numbers.

“These health care providers and others are reimbursed at a higher rate if COVID is tied to it, so what do you think they’re doing?” Ernst asked the crowd.

Doctors and coroners determine official cause of death.

Asked to clarify her remarks, Ernst said after the Waterloo event that this financial arrangement was “what I’ve heard” from health care providers, but added that she wasn’t sure whether that meant death numbers were actually being inflated.

“They do get reimbursed higher amounts if it’s a COVID-related illness or death,” the Republican told a reporter with the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier.

Asked about the death count theory, Ernst explained, “I heard the same thing on the news, you know, traveling across the state today, that they’re thinking there may be 10,000 or less deaths that were actually singularly COVID-19.”

“Now, no doubt that there are deaths and it complicates with those that have other illnesses, certainly, but those are just attributable to COVID-19, I’m just really curious. It would be interesting to know that,” she said.

Critics blasted Ernst, whose state was alerted this week by the White House coronavirus task force that it had the highest infection numbers in the nation.

Eric Feigl-Ding, an epidemiologist and senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, called Ernst’s remarks “JAW DROPPING” in a series of tweets.

“Senator Ernst is from Iowa, where currently is having one of the WORST #COVID19 OUTBREAKS hotspot in the entire nation as a region, and some say maybe the world,” Feigl-Ding said. “To deny that is to deny the suffering of Iowans.”

Theresa Greenfield, Ernst’s Democratic opponent in the upcoming November election, which looks to be a tight contest, called the comments “appalling.”

“It’s appalling for you to say you’re ‘so skeptical’ of the toll this pandemic has on our families and communities across Iowa,” Greenfield tweeted. “We need leaders who will take this seriously.”

While it’s true that Medicaid adds 20% in payments for care for coronavirus patients, that money is meant to cover the additional costs incurred by the challenges of treating a new virus.

The false number of 10,000 reflects a viral QAnon meme that misrepresents a study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which said that COVID was the only factor in 6% of reported U.S. deaths from the coronavirus. The theory concludes incorrectly that this means only 6% of those reported deaths should count.

Victims with at least one other contributing factor, such as pneumonia — often brought about by the virus — are still part of the total number of deaths.

On Monday President Trump retweeted a tweet pushing the theory from QAnon follower named “Mel Q.” Twitter removed the tweet for violating its rules against spreading misinformation about the pandemic.