Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Health experts horrified as Trump’s newest COVID-19 adviser pushes “herd immunity” strategy

A top White House coronavirus adviser brought on earlier this month despite his lack of expertise in infectious diseases or epidemiology is reportedly pushing the Trump administration to adopt a so-called “herd immunity” strategy to the pandemic that public health experts warn could kill millions of Americans and infect hundreds of millions more.

The Washington Post reported Monday that Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist from the right-wing Hoover Institution, caught President Donald Trump’s attention “with a spate of Fox News appearances in recent months” in which he downplayed the severity of Covid-19 and questioned the need for lockdowns and social distancing measures.

Atlas—who one commentator described as the “anti-Fauci,” referring to National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci—has “advocated that the United States adopt the model Sweden has used to respond to the virus outbreak… which relies on lifting restrictions so the healthy can build up immunity to the disease rather than limiting social and business interactions to prevent the virus from spreading,” according to the Post.

Sweden’s decision to forego strict lockdowns in favor of more relaxed social distancing guidelines has been criticized by public health experts as a reckless approach to the pandemic that contributed to the country’s high death rate compared to other European nations. Pursuing a similar strategy in the U.S., a country with a population of 328 million, would be catastrophic, experts warned.

Jonathan Reiner, a cardiologist and professor at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, tweeted Monday that to achieve “herd immunity” without a vaccine, “about 250 million Americans would contract the virus and 1.5-2 million would die.”

Post analysis found that 2.13 million deaths may be required to “reach a 65 percent threshold of herd immunity, assuming the virus has a one percent fatality rate.”

Yale University epidemiologist Gregg Gonsalves said “no one in public health” thinks highly of Atlas’ approach to the Covid-19 pandemic, which has infected more than six million people in the U.S. and killed at least 182,000—the highest death toll in the world.

“It’s not edgy, contrarian,” Gonsalves said of Atlas’ thinking. “It’s dangerous and terrifying.”

Senior Trump administration officials told the Post that despite warnings from medical experts, the White House has already moved to implement “some policies” in line with Atlas’ proposed strategy, “particularly with regard to testing.”

“The Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, invoked the Defense Production Act earlier this month to expedite the shipment of tests to nursing homes—but the administration has not significantly ramped up spending on testing elsewhere, despite persistent shortages,” the Post reported. “Trump and top White House aides, including Atlas, have also repeatedly pushed to reopen schools and lift lockdown orders, despite outbreaks in several schools that attempted to resume in-person classes.”

Last week, as Common Dreams reported, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention abruptly issued new guidance that no longer recommends Covid-19 tests for everyone who has been potentially been exposed to the virus—a change that was reportedly directed by the highest levels of the Trump administration.

Fauci, who said he was in surgery and under general anesthesia when the new CDC guidance was discussed, warned the latest recommendations “will give people the incorrect assumption that asymptomatic spread is not of great concern.”

“In fact,” said Fauci, “it is.”

Eric Topol, a cardiologist and head of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego, told the Post that he believes Atlas “was basically recruited to crowd out Tony Fauci and the voice of reason.”

“Not only do we not embrace the science, but we repudiate the science by our president, and that has extended by bringing in another unreliable misinformation vector,” said Topol.

Melania Trump’s former confidante reveals to Rachel Maddow that she has secret recordings of Trumps

Longtime Melania Trump confidante Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, the author of the new tell-all book Melania and Me, was interviewed by the host of MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” on Tuesday and made the bombshell revelation that she has tapes.

Maddow noted that there has been reporting that Winston Wolkoff may have recorded conversations with the first lady.

“Can you comment on that at all?” Maddow asked.

“So, Rachel, I — I haven’t commented on this in the past,” she replied. “And one of the reasons why I’m going to share this with you this evening is because I’ve been accused of taping my friend, as the White House said, and how horrible of a human being I am for doing that.”

“And they’re right. If she was my friend, it would be horrible, but Melania and the White House have accused me of criminal activity, had publicly shamed and fired me and made me their scapegoat. At that moment in time, that’s when I pressed record, she was no longer my friend,” she explained. “And that’s not how you treat a friend, so I was going to do anything in my power to make sure that I was protected. And at first I really did think maybe she would come to my aid, maybe she would tell the truth. She turned her back, she did. She folded like a deck of cards and I was shocked when she did it.”

“Are you saying at that point you decided in order to protect yourself that you — that you would make recordings of some of your conversations with the first lady or that you did?” Maddow asked.

“I did, Rachel. I did,” she replied. “And, again, it’s disgraceful in any other context, but who would believe any of this otherwise? You can’t make this up. But, again, I needed the evidence, I needed the evidence.”

“If the White House continues to call you a liar and say that you have made up these conversations, and that these things you are attributing to the first lady or the president are things that didn’t happen, do you have plans to release those tapes to the public or to show them — play them for reporters so that other people can validate what you’re saying?” Maddow asked.

“There is a report coming out,” she replied. “The last thing they should be doing is coming after me.”

Watch:

“I don’t recall”: Pence tells Fox News he can’t remember if he was on standby for Trump

A new report from New York Times reporter Michael Shmidt’s book about Donald Trump has refocused attention on the president’s unexpected visit last November to Walter Reed Medical Center, a trip that has never been fully explained.

The White House claimed that the president was simply going in early for the first phase of his annual physical, though as many people pointed out, that’s not a thing. And Schmidt reported that Vice President Mike Pence was told to be on standby to take over the duties of the presidency in case the president went under anesthesia, though reportedly that step was not necessary.

Fox News host Bret Baier brought up the reporting Tuesday night during an interview with Pence, seeming to catch the vice president off-guard. Pence clearly wanted to avoid answering the question, and when pinned down, claimed he didn’t “recall” being on “standby” — extremely evasive language that suggests he may be relying on technicalities to justify essentially lying to the public.

“Is [Schmidt’s report] true?” asked Baier.

“Um,” Pence said, taking a beat. “President Donald Trump is in excellent health.” (This is not true.)

He continued, still talking around the question: “And um, Bret, I’m always informed of the president’s movements. And whether it was on that day or any other day, I’m informed. But there was nothing out of the ordinary about that moment or that day, and I just refer any other questions to the White House physician.”

Baier kept pushing: “But as far as being on standby?”

It was a clear opportunity for a flat denial of Schmidt’s story, but Pence couldn’t manage it. He continued with weasel words.

“I don’t, I don’t recall being told to be on ‘standby,'” he said, emphasizing the word as if to suggest the importance of the precise language of his denial. “I was informed that the president had a doctor’s appointment.”

“I don’t want to spend too much time on it, I just want to be clear—” Baier said.

“I gotta tell ya, part of this job is that you’re always on standby as president of the United States,” Pence said. “But the American people can be confident that this president is in remarkable good health.”

It’s not clear why he couldn’t just say: “That story is not true.” Which, of course, suggests it is true. It doesn’t mean that rumors Trump had “mini-strokes” — which the president denied on Twitter — are true, however. It may be more likely that the president had some kind of medical need that he is too embarrassed to tell the public about. But the fact that the White House seems to be lying and misleading about what happened is unacceptable.

Watch the clip below:

President Trump devoured by Mitch McConnell in John Cameron Mitchell’s strange music video

President Donald Trump gets eaten by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for a good cause. No, really. It’s for a good cause.

John Cameron Mitchell, best known for “Hedwig and the Angry Inch,” premiered the music video for “New American Dream,” the title track to the director’s upcoming benefit album, on Tuesday. Proceeds from the album will be given to Burritos Not BombsTransgender Gender-Variant and Intersex Justice Projectand Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Scholarship Trust Fund.

Read more from IndieWire: Jeff Nichols and Matthew McConaughey set “Mud” reunion with 5-episode podcast

The “New American Dream” music video doesn’t lack for imagery that is equal parts trippy and grotesque — a turtle shell-clad McConnell feasting on Trump’s face is one of the more benign images. The music video also showcases McConnell vomiting as well as an image of Pepe the Frog with the Washington Monument cutting its face in two — said Washington D.C. landmark quickly turns into an ejaculating penis, of course. Though the actual music might be relatively kooky and unassuming, Mitchell’s lyrics are suitably morbid and full of references to “golden vomit” and “the weak one’s living flesh.”

“‘New American Dream’ is a lockdown-inspired remotely organized platonic musical orgy,” Mitchell said in a statement on Bandcamp. “The idea started in March during self-isolation in a 100-year-old stone hut near Palm Springs. I encouraged screen/songwriter Our Lady J to send me a piano track over which I wrote the melody/lyrics to ‘See You Again,’ a tribute to the homeless during the pandemic. It went so well that I reached out to a variety of musical friends who sent me their own tracks that I could write to.

Read more from IndieWire: The 7 best movies coming to Netflix in September 2020

While Mitchell’s new music video is a dark and zany affair, he noted that the album was intended to help a sincerely wholesome cause and was a collaborative effort.

“I even contacted a stranger in the South of France on Instagram, Izae, because I liked his cover of a Hedwig song and we ended up writing two songs on the album,” Mitchell said in the Bandcamp statement. “Like the old story about the Stone Soup where strangers throw whatever food item they possessed into a communal pot, old friends and new donated vocals, overdubs, mixing, mastering, video production, art and publicity. Soon I realized we had a double album that could benefit the various charities that I’ve been helping through this dark time with Hedwig merch sales. It’s been such a comfort to us and we hope others will feel it too and add to the pot for the benefit of those in need.”

Read more from IndieWire: “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air” sets unscripted reunion special at HBO Max

Check out the “New American Dream” music video below:

Twitter removes Trump video with “Electric Avenue” song after copyright complaint

Twitter has taken down a video tweeted by President Trump that used the song “Electric Avenue” after receiving a copyright complaint.

Trump tweeted the video on Aug. 12, which featured an animated train with his campaign logo barreling through a town while Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden followed behind slowly on a railroad handcar. “Electric Avenue,” the hit 1982 song by Eddy Grant, played in the background of the video.

Read more from Variety: Adele accused of cultural appropriation for putting hair in bantu knots

The tweet, taken down on Tuesday night, has the message “The media has been disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner.”

The takedown came on the same day that Grant sued the Trump campaign for the unauthorized use of his song, according to CNN. Grant’s lawyer issued a cease and desist letter to the campaign the day after the president posted the video. A post on Grant’s website says that he is the “sole and exclusive rightful copyright owner of the musical composition.”

Read more from Variety: “Grey’s Anatomy” to start shooting Season 17 in L.A. in September

“As a result of your wrongful unauthorized infringing use in connection with your controversial political campaign, substantial damage and irreparable harm has occurred and will continue to occur to my client and his reputation as an artist when affiliated in any way with your campaign,” the post from Grant’s lawyer, Wallace E.J. Collins, reads.

Grant is the latest musician to seek legal action against the Trump campaign for unauthorized use of music. Leonard Cohen’s estate is “exploring legal options” after the song “Hallelujah” was played twice during the Republican National Convention, after the estate denied the RNC’s request.

Read more from Variety: “Robin’s Wish” review: A wrenching look at Robin Williams’ last days

“We are surprised and dismayed that the RNC would proceed knowing that the Cohen Estate had specifically declined the RNC’s use request, and their rather brazen attempt to politicize and exploit in such an egregious manner ‘Hallelujah,’ one of the most important songs in the Cohen song catalogue,” said Michelle L. Rice, the Cohen estate’s lawyer. “We are exploring our legal options.”

“Three-Body Problem” series from David Benioff, D.B. Weiss, Alexander Woo set at Netflix

Netflix has ordered a drama series based on the award-winning Chinese book series “The Three-Body Problem” with David BenioffD.B. Weiss, and Alexander Woo set to write and executive produce.

The series order covers all three books in the trilogy — “The Three-Body Problem,” “The Dark Forest,” and “Death’s End,” all of which were written by Liu Cixin. They tell the story of humanity’s first contact with an alien civilization. Netflix struck a deal with The Three-Body Universe and Yoozoo Group for the rights to produce an English-language adaptation of the books.

Read more from Variety: Adele accused of cultural appropriation for putting hair in bantu knots

“Liu Cixin’s trilogy is the most ambitious science-fiction series we’ve read, taking readers on a journey from the 1960s until the end of time, from life on our pale blue dot to the distant fringes of the universe,” Benioff and Weiss said. “We look forward to spending the next years of our lives bringing this to life for audiences around the world.”

The project boasts an all-star lineup behind the camera. In addition to Benioff, Weiss, and Woo, Rian Johnson serves as executive producer along with Brad Pitt and Rosamund Pike. Author Liu and accomplished sci-fi writer Ken Liu, who translated the English versions of the first and third books, serve as consulting producers.

“David Benioff, D.B. Weiss and Alexander Woo have experience tackling ambitious sagas over time and space,” said Peter Friedlander, vice president of orginal series at Netfix. “Rian Johnson and Ram Bergman have long dazzled fans with thrilling and mind-bending epics. They are all fierce advocates of ‘The Three-Body Problem.’ As ardent fans, it was especially meaningful to us to get the support of Liu Cixin who created this expansive universe. We all share the same goal: to pay homage to this incredible story and take members on the adventure of a lifetime.”

Read more from Variety: “Grey’s Anatomy” to start shooting Season 17 in L.A. in September

Benioff and Weiss executive produce under their Bighead Littlehead banner along with the company’s newly installed president, Bernadette Caulfield. Johnson, Ram Bergman, and Nena Rodrigue executive produce via T Street Productions. Pitt executive produces with along with Dede Gardner and Jeremy Kleiner for Plan B Entertainment. Pike and Robie Uniacke executive produce for Primitive Streak. Lin Qi, chairman of Yoozoo Group and The Three-Body Universe, and Zhao Jilong, vice president of The Three-Body Universe, also executive produce.

“It’s a privilege to be adapting one of the great masterpieces of Chinese science-fiction,” Woo said. “‘The Three-Body Problem’ trilogy combines so many things I love: rich, multi-layered characters and true existential stakes – all told as an elegant and deeply human allegory. I’m thrilled to kick off my partnership with Netflix with this accomplished creative team.”

“The Three-Body Problem” marks the first project Benioff and Weiss are attached to write at Netflix since the duo, who previously created HBO’s “Game of Thrones,” signed an overall deal at the streamer reportedly worth nine figures. The new show is no doubt the type of ambitious genre programming Netflix hoped would come from the deal, as fantasy drama “Game of Thrones” proved to be a worldwide hit and wrapped up its run last year after eight seasons and numerous awards and accolades. Benioff and Weiss are also attached to executive produce “The Chair,” a six-episode Netflix dramedy starring Sandra Oh and Jay Duplass and written by Amanda Peet.

Read more from Variety: “Robin’s Wish” review: A wrenching look at Robin Williams’ last days

Woo is also currently under an overall deal with Netflix, which he signed earlier this year. He most recently co-created and served as showrunner on “The Terror: Infamy” at AMC, which told a supernatural horror story set in an internment camp for Japanese Americans during World War II. His other credits include “True Blood,” “Manhattan,” and the HBO movie adaptation of “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.”

“I have the greatest respect for and faith in the creative team adapting ‘The Three-Body Problem’ for television audiences,” said Cixin. “I set out to tell a story that transcends time and the confines of nations, cultures and races; one that compels us to consider the fate of humankind as a whole. It is a great honor as an author to see this unique sci-fi concept travel and gain fandom across the globe and I am excited for new and existing fans all over the world to discover the story on Netflix.”

Democratic data firm warns Trump may lead in a “landslide” before losing once all ballots counted

A top Democratic data firm warned that election night could be plunged into “chaos” if President Donald Trump appears to have a big lead in Election Day vote before all of the mail-in ballots are counted.

“We believe that on Election Night, we are going to see Donald Trump in a stronger position than the reality actually is,” Josh Mendelsohn, the head of the Michael Bloomberg-funded data firm Hawkfish, told Axios.

About 40% of voters plan to vote by mail, nearly double the total in 2016, according to the firm’s polling. But while more than 50% of Joe Biden supporters intend to vote by mail, only 20% of Trump’s supporters plan to do so. This could result in a big lead for the president on election night, with a large number of mail-in ballots left to be counted.

Mendelsohn, whose firm also works for the Democratic National Committee and pro-Biden super PACs, told Axios that the “mirage” could result in “chaos in America.”

“We are sounding an alarm and saying that this is a very real possibility, that the data is going to show on election night an incredible victory for Donald Trump,” he said. “When every legitimate vote is tallied and we get to that final day, which will be some day after Election Day, it will in fact show that what happened on election night was exactly that, a mirage. It looked like Donald Trump was in the lead and he fundamentally was not when every ballot gets counted.”

One of the scenarios that the firm modeled projected that Trump could hold a lead as high as 408 to 130 electoral votes, if only 15% of mail-in ballots are counted by Nov. 3. But the lead could flip to Biden’s favor within four days once more than 75% of the mail ballots are tallied. That model projects that Biden would win 334 electoral votes to 204 even though Trump might have appeared to win a landslide victory on election night.

The model was based on a nationwide poll of more than 17,000 voters. The firm’s modeling predicted that states would count about 25% of their mail ballots per day, resulting in a four-day delay, while states that already have high mail participation rates could count all of the ballots within two days.

Trump himself has predicted that the count may take “weeks” or “months” or even “years,” though Hawkfish predicts the count will take much less time.

Nate Lerner, the founder of the progressive grassroots firm Build the Wave, said that media outlets should especially heed the firm’s warnings.

“The media needs to change how it covers election night this year and make it extremely clear that the results on election night are NOT definitive as millions of mail-in ballots still need to be counted,” he tweeted. “This is how Trump could steal the election.”

Richard Haas, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, called the projection a “nightmare scenario” that would test whether “US democracy [is] up to the challenge.”

Haas said the prediction was “not far-fetched” given Trump’s attempts to already label it a “rigged” election but warned that there could also be “clashes in [the] streets” and the possibility that “foreign actors would try to exploit” the situation.

At the same time, some Republicans worry that Trump’s repeated attacks on mail-in voting could backfire, especially in key swing states.

“We are scaring our voters away from it, we are hurting ourselves and putting ourselves at a disadvantage,” Rohn Bishop, a Republican county chairman in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, told Iowa Public Radio. “Not a big disadvantage, but a disadvantage, and that’s one of the reasons I push back against it, because it is a legitimate way to vote.”

“There is a real concern that (Trump’s actions) will end up suppressing the Republican vote,” Amy Koch, a Minnesota Republican strategist, told Reuters. “We are trying to tell voters that mail voting here in Minnesota has safeguards, but I worry that Trump has the biggest megaphone and can blow the whole thing up.”

What does a “mini-stroke” look like? Medical experts weigh in on Trump’s mysterious hospital visit

This story, like so many others involving Trump, begins with a tweet.

On Tuesday, Trump posted on Twitter that “they are trying to say that your favorite President, me, went to Walter Reed Medical Center, having suffered a series of mini-strokes.” He denounced this supposed report as “FAKE NEWS” and insinuated that his opponent in the upcoming election, Democratic nominee Joe Biden, might actually be the one with the neurological health issues.

This tweet raised eyebrows because, before it was posted, the idea that Trump had had a “mini-stroke” was not reported by anyone in the mainstream media. A White House aide later explained that Trump had been responding to a Monday tweet by Joe Lockhart, who had served as press secretary to President Bill Clinton. This only raised more questions, however, since Lockhart had merely asked, “Did [Donald] Trump have a stroke which he is hiding from the American public?” Lockhart never said anything about “a series of mini-strokes”; nor did Michael S. Schmidt, a New York Times reporter whose upcoming book mentions that Trump made a surprise visit in November to Walter Reed Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.

Schmidt’s book did claim, however, that Vice President Mike Pence was on “standby” to temporarily assume the office of the presidency in case Trump needed a procedure that requires anesthetic. The White House claims that the president was only having a routine checkup, which would not account for the reported requirement that Pence be on standby in the event that he Trump needed to be anesthetized — as check-ups generally do not require anesthetic.

“People who’ve worked at the White House say the White House medical office is so well-equipped that White House medical staff can handle on-site all but the most serious incidents without a president ever having to be rushed off campus from the White House to the hospital,” MSNBC host Rachel Maddow pointed out on Tuesday. “But rushed he was. What was that all about?”

(By contrast: When President George W. Bush had a colonoscopy in 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney temporarily assumed office because Bush was administered anesthetic. The Bush administration was open about this.)

While there is no smoking gun that would indicate the Trump administration is covering up that he had a stroke, such an event would certainly be on par for an administration with a tenuous grasp on truth. In any case, the lack of direct evidence hasn’t stopped a raft of public speculation. Salon spoke to medical experts about what a “mini-stroke” really is, what it does, and whether such speculation was baseless or not.

“We do not use the term ‘mini-stroke’ for a variety of reasons,” Dr. Larry Goldstein, chairman of the neurology department at the University of Kentucky and co-director of the Kentucky Neuroscience Institute and UK Neuroscience Research Priority Area, told Salon by email. “The medical term is TIA — transient ischemic attack. These are episodes in which the blood supply to a portion of the brain is briefly interrupted causing the same symptoms as a stroke that resolve, generally within minutes and with no evidence of relevant permanent injury on brain imaging such as an MRI or CT scan.”

He added, “If there is evidence of damage on imaging, the same event is classified as a stroke.”

Dr. David Paydarfar, chair of the Department of Neurology at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, told Salon in writing that mini-strokes are frequently associated with “poorly controlled risk factors like hypertension, diabetes [et cetera], and in such cases often occurs in clusters.” He pointed out that the physical symptoms of a mini-stroke include “slurred speech, imbalance, weakness or clumsiness of one or more limb(s), loss of cognitive function” and the cognitive symptoms include “problems with comprehension and/or expression of speech, loss of recall, loss of other intellectual function like calculation, visuo-spatial orientation.”

If Trump did suffer such a transient ischemic attack, it would probably not be difficult for him to conceal that from the public: As Dr. Russell Medford, a former associate professor of medicine, director of molecular cardiology and adjunct clinical professor of medicine at the Emory University School of Medicine, told Salon by email, “By definition, TIAs are transient with full resolution of any presenting symptoms.” At the same time, he explained that mini-strokes are “a serious and concerning medical diagnosis that places the patient at increased risk for a future ischemic stroke.”

Previous presidents have been disabled or severely affected by strokes, and even hid them from the public. When Woodrow Wilson had a stroke in 1919, he was unable to effectively serve for the remaining year-and-a-half of his second term. Less than three decades later, Franklin Roosevelt had a stroke right at the beginning of his fourth term — and died.

These presidential strokes occurred at crucial junctures in American history. When Wilson had his stroke, America had just ended World War I, was grappling with an influenza epidemic and was wrestling with constitutional amendments to prohibit alcohol and grant women the right to vote. When Roosevelt had his stroke, America was wrapping up World War II and transitioning from the Great Depression and war-era economies to what the nation hoped would be a prosperous future.

Although Trump has previously claimed that Joe Biden, a former vice president, is not mentally fit to be president, it is unclear if his recent tweet was referencing Biden’s own history of neurological ailments. During his first presidential campaign in 1988, Biden suffered two aneurysms.

Heated Massachusetts Senate primary: A progressive vs. establishment matchup unlike any other

Tuesday’s Massachusetts Democratic primary is the latest test for progressives facing establishment Democrats in what should be the final electoral battle in the the 2020 intra-party factional conflict.

While other races have seen young, progressive upstarts unseat longtime incumbents like Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., a powerful 16-term incumbent, and Rep. Lacy Clay, D-Mo., whose family had held his seat for more than 50 years, the Massachusetts Senate primary pits 74-year-old progressive incumbent Ed Markey, D-Mass., against 39-year-old Rep. Joe Kennedy III, D-Mass., who has the backing of the party’s establishment.

Kennedy, who is the grandson of former Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and the great-nephew of both uncles former President John F. Kennedy and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, drew the backing of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the late Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Kennedy is one of the wealthiest members of Congress, thanks to millions in stocks in fossil fuel companies and other large corporations, and has been forced to repeatedly explain why he is challenging an ideologically-similar and popular senator who has been in Congress since 1973. Though Kennedy has not been considered a moderate in the House (and is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus), progressive groups have overwhelmingly rallied around Markey, who is seen as a longtime ally.

Markey co-authored the Green New Deal plan with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. and drew the freshman congresswoman’s coveted endorsement. He’s also been endorsed by the other Massachusetts senator, Elizabeth Warren — who was once Kennedy’s professor at Harvard Law School — and by top progressive groups Our Revolution and the Sunrise Movement.

While Kennedy held a lead after initially declaring his candidacy — likely because he has the most famous surname in Massachusetts political history — the race has tightened in recent months. Latest polls have shown Markey pulling ahead by an average of 10 points.

The other highly-watched race in the Bay State features a contest more akin to the progressive-establishment matchups seen across the country, with 31-year-old Alex Morse, the openly gay mayor of the working-class city of Holyoke, taking on 16-term incumbent Rep. Richard Neal, who as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is a powerful figure in House leadership.

The race drew national headlines when Morse was accused of sexual misconduct in what appears to have been a political hit job. Morse denied that he ever had any “non-consensual sexual encounter” but acknowledged that he’d had consensual relationships with students at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The Intercept later reported that the leaders of the College Democrats of Massachusetts, who brought the allegation, plotted the scandal to win favor with Neal.

Neal’s campaign denied it was involved in the plot, though The Intercept reported that state party leaders may have taken part in the effort.

It appears that this attempt to smear Morse and the ensuing homophobic backlash may have helped him. Morse experienced a fundraising boost and has said internal polling showed him surging to within five points of the longtime incumbent. Having observed what befell Engel and Clay in primaries this year Neal has spent more than four times as much as Morse during the primary campaign.

Morse supports Medicare for All and the Green New Deal and has drawn the backing of Ocasio-Cortez, Jamaal Bowman (the New York progressive who beat Engel) and former presidential candidate Andrew Yang. He has also earned the endorsements of the Sunrise Movement, Our Revolution, and the Justice Democrats.

Morse and his supporters have criticized Neal as “corporate America’s favorite Democrat,” noting that no other Democrat has raised more money from corporate PACs.

Neal, who drew the endorsements of top unions in the state and even Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, has sought to downplay his corporate donations.

“If you contribute to my campaign you buy into my agenda,” he said. “I’m not buying into yours.”

The race to replace Kennedy in the House has also shaped up to be a wild affair, with seven Democrats facing off in one of the most expensive races this year. Five of the Democrats have raised more than $1 million. The frontrunners include Newton City Councilor Becky Grossman, who has led in some internal polls, Alan Khazei, a Bain Capital-backed Democrat who has outraised the competition, and Newtown City Councilor Jake Auchincloss, a Marine veteran who drew the endorsement of The Boston Globe. The race also features Ihssane Leckey, a candidate backed by Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who has poured $1 million of her own money into the race, and former Brookline Select Board member Jesse Mermell, who is backed by Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass.

Another race featuring a progressive-establishment matchup is in the state’s 8th congressional district, where incumbent Rep. Stephen Lynch has been massively outraised by progressive challenger Robbie Goldstein, a physician. Lynch has more than $1 million from previous fundraising but spent little on ads in the race. An internal poll released by Goldstein last month showed him within seven points of the incumbent.

With Ocasio-Cortez backing Markey and Morse while Pelosi is backing Kennedy and Neal, the Massachusetts primary is clearly one front in the bigger battle between insurgent progressives and the Washington Democratic establishment.

“No one gets to complain about primary challenges again,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted after Pelosi endorsed Kennedy against Markey, a highly unusual intervention by the House speaker against an incumbent senator from her own party. 

AOC later starred in an ad for Markey’s campaign.

“When it comes to progressive leadership, it’s not your age that counts,” she said in the ad. “It’s the age of your ideas.”

DOJ “preparing” to indict top Trump fundraiser in foreign corruption probe: report

Yet another Trump insider is about to be indicted, according to a new report in The Washington Post.

“Federal prosecutors are preparing to charge longtime GOP fundraiser Elliott Broidy in connection with efforts to influence the U.S. government on behalf of foreign interests, according to people familiar with the matter, a result of a sprawling, years-long investigation that involved a figure who helped raise millions for Donald Trump’s election and the Republican Party,” the newspaper reported. “Broidy is under scrutiny for his alleged role in a campaign to persuade high-level Trump administration officials to drop an investigation of Malaysian government corruption, as well as for his attempt to push for the extradition of an outspoken Chinese dissident back to his home country, according to the people, who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation.”

The newspaper reported Broidy is in negotiations with Bill Barr’s Justice Department for a plea deal.

“The case has intensified in recent weeks, with prosecutors securing a guilty plea Monday from one of Broidy’s business associates, Nickie Mali Lum Davis, who admitted to taking part in what prosecutors have described in charging documents as a ‘back-channel lobbying campaign’ to end the Malaysian corruption investigation and to return Chinese exile Guo Wengui to his home country,” the newspaper reported. “According to a charging document filed in her case, Davis admitted she aided and abetted the efforts of two others involved in the influence campaigns, identified only as Person A and Person B. People familiar with the matter identified them as Fugees rapper Pras Michel and Broidy, respectively.”

After Trump won the 2016 election and took over the Republican Party apparatus, Broidy was appointed deputy finance chairman of the RNC.

Thugs on a plane? Trump’s bizarre yarn echoes viral Facebook rumor — and Rudy Giuliani’s rants

President Trump pushed a baseless and bizarre conspiracy theory on Monday that a plane “almost completely loaded with thugs” was sent to disrupt the Republican National Convention, a claim that appears almost identical to a rumor that traveled across Facebook three months ago.

Trump made the claim in an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, alleging without evidence that “we had somebody get on a plane from a certain city this weekend, and in the plane it was almost completely loaded with thugs, wearing these dark uniforms, black uniforms, with gear and this and that.”

While the president would not divulge more details, he assured Ingraham that the incident is “under investigation right now.”

There is no evidence of such a flight. When Ingraham asked Trump to say more, the president replied, “I’ll tell you sometime.” The unidentified black-clad “thugs,” the president said, were headed to Washington D.C., to disrupt the RNC.

NBC News’ Ben Collins later reported that the rumor lines up with a viral Facebook post from June 1, which falsely claimed to have observed a similar sinister contingent on board a flight from Seattle to Boise, Idaho: “At least a dozen males got off the plane in Boise from Seattle, dressed head to toe in black.”

That post — apparently from a man from Emmett, Idaho — advised Boise residents: “Be ready for attacks downtown and residential areas,” claiming that one group member had “a tattoo that said Antifa America on his arm.”

Collins reports that the Facebook post had been shared more than 3,000 times, and other pages from the area “added their own spin,” including the state branch of right-wing militia group the 3 Percenters.

One such post, Collins writes, alleged that the Payette County Sheriff’s Office had confirmed that “Antifa has sent a plane load of their people.” This wasn’t true, and the post spread so widely that the actual Payette County Sheriff’s Office felt compelled to release a statement clarifying that the rumor was “false information.”

Earlier in the Ingraham interview, Trump claimed vaguely that there are “people that are in the dark shadows,” and that Democratic nominee Joe Biden was being controlled by “people that you haven’t heard of.”

Ingraham pointed out that this sounded like a conspiracy theory.

“They’re people that are on the streets. They’re people that are controlling the streets,” Trump explained.

While Trump’s theories perplexed many observers beyond Ingraham, they echoed months of steady rhetoric from Trump confidant and former LifeLock spokesperson Rudy Giuliani, who himself told Ingraham in an interview this June that the Black Lives Matter social justice movement “wants to come and take your house away from you.”

Ingraham had asked Giuliani about the “planned and well-funded attack going on” in Washington, alluding to a small group effort to topple a statue of former President Andrew Jackson on government property.

“Well, over this weekend it should be quite plain to every American who can see through the propaganda that antifa, Black Lives Matter, the communists and their allies are executing a plan they wrote about four or five years ago,” Giuliani replied.

“Just go back and read what they wrote in the manifestos that they wrote, including Black Lives Matter,” he continued.

Giuliani rattled off a litany of institutions that antifa, Black Lives Matter, the communists and their allies supposedly want to “destroy,” including the United States government itself, the police and prisons.

“They want to internationalize our government,” he claimed, without explanation. “They want to do away with our system of courts, and they want to take your property away and give it to other people.”

 “This is an anarchist — organized anarchists, supported with a lot of money,” Giuliani said, without offering any evidence or supporting the claim further.

“We had outbreaks in about 30 cities over the weekend [in June],” Giuliani added. “There were well over 100 people wounded with guns and 25 Americans killed over the weekend. That didn’t happen accidentally, Laura,” he claimed. “That’s part of a plan — and we better wake up to it, and we better stop being silly.”

“People who say they are favorable to Black Lives Matter — Black Lives Matter wants to come and take your house away from you,” Giuliani added. “They want to take your property away from you. They want to let criminals out of prison — all criminals out of prison,” Giuliani continued.

“They are anarchists, and they are anti-American,” he concluded.

Earlier that month, conservative media personality Piers Morgan had called the former mayor “completely barking mad” in a discussion about race relations. Not long after Giuliani’s string of cable news rants, Trump first introduced the idea that Democrats want to “destroy the suburbs” as a campaign talking point in a speech from the south lawn of the White House.

“Joe Biden and his bosses from the radical left want to significantly multiply what they’re doing now, and what will be the end result is you will totally destroy the beautiful suburbs,” Trump said at the time. “Suburbia will be no longer as we know it.”

Around the same time, Trump appeared to echo another misleading point that Giuliani had recently espoused on cable news about the rates at which police kill white people versus Black people.

Collins, who covers disinformation and social media for NBC News, has reported before on false social media rumors about roving gangs of antifa supporters, which have had real-world impact.

In June, for instance, fake Facebook rumors inspired people to take over central squares in several American towns to defend them against busloads of imaginary antifa invaders. A week after the original “thugs on a plane” rumor went viral in Idaho, a group of armed men showed up in Missoula, Montana, to observe protests in the town, concerned that planeloads of antifa might descending to wreak havoc on that heartland city.

“Did you write this because you wish your mother was dead?”: No — the exact opposite

After learning the premise of my novel about a young woman’s pursuit of the truth of what happened to her mother on the night of her mysterious death, several people have asked only somewhat jokingly: “Did you write this because you wish your mother was dead?”

But the exact opposite was true. I wanted my mother to live forever. Ultimately, I wrote about what was for many years my greatest fear — that one day my mother would not pick up the phone and that I wouldn’t be able to reach her in time to save her. I would never be able to repay her for all she’d done.

My mother immigrated to the United States in the 1970s to marry my father, who had been in the Los Angeles area since the 1960s, arriving for a PhD program on a student visa. From what I could tell from photographs and stories that I’ve heard from family, after a very difficult period during the war of escaping what is now North Korea, my mother had what seemed to be a magical life once her family could gain some traction in South Korea. Her father, my grandfather, was an artist, and because she was beautiful and muse-like, and often nervous but charming, she was spoiled. She herself went on to study painting, graduating with a degree in studio art, mostly working with watercolors in a naturalistic and traditional style.

But when she moved to America in her early 30s, she found herself trapped in a marriage and a country that seemed to despise her. My parents fought constantly, sometimes violently, and my father drank excessively. He eventually abandoned my family when I was six, and our lives turned upside down since my mother didn’t have the English or the business skills to have much of a career for herself. She disappeared into graveyard shifts or behind the counter at fast-food restaurants. She eventually saved up enough to own her own clothing shop in a working-class swap meet, but the earnings were small, and the hours were brutal and long. I had felt like this country had ruined my parents’ lives. Yet my mother stayed here because she didn’t think it would be responsible to displace her children in another country, South Korea, where we didn’t speak the language or know the culture. We were American after all.

In some ways, this made me feel like I was the reason that kept her from living the life that she always thought she would have. She had seemingly sacrificed everything for me, a daughter who possessed more resources — American-born, fluent in English, and educated here. I have always felt responsible for my mother’s life.

Then years later in 2004, when I was in my early 20s, my estranged father died in a car accident weeks before I was to move from my hometown of Los Angeles to Seattle for graduate school. After the news of my father’s death, I spent days floating through life as if watching my life on a screen, removed from myself. Not only was I deeply saddened by the sheer tragedy of my father’s life, including the permanent separation of him from his mother and siblings during the Korean War, but I was grieving the loss of seeing how or if our failed relationship could ever play itself out differently. There would be no painful reconciliation. The pain of the unknown and the unsaid would remain with me for a long time.

Two weeks after the shock of his death, I had no choice but to move to Seattle for graduate school. There I developed the fear that my mother, 1,100 miles away in Los Angeles, could die suddenly without me there, as if I was the one who assembled her each day, animating her into life. Each time I would pick up the phone to call her, I would imagine what would happen if she didn’t answer. Would I fly to Los Angeles immediately? Who could I call to check in on her? We have only some distant relatives in Los Angeles, Canada and Korea and I have none of their phone numbers. I have always relied on her to communicate with them. I have always relied on her to be that connection between us all.

But what I was too young, too immature to admit to myself was that I needed her more than she needed me. I understand that now. I needed her to hold on to her life so that I could defer what I had been avoiding all along: my culture, my history, myself. From the Korean food that I always counted on her to cook to the relationships with my grandmother, aunts, and uncles abroad, she was a repository for knowledge that I could not take on, maybe from laziness or denial. After all, she was the woman I once marveled at as a child, the woman who could carve the skin off an apple into a single ribbon that would fall, still coiled, into my hands. She was the woman who would boil buckwheat noodles, cool them off after rinsing them in the sink, and then place a bite size into my mouth as a reward for standing beside her the entire time. I just wanted to be near her. Back then, we never needed words to say how we really felt about each other.

But then as I entered middle school outside of Koreatown, through a special program in a more affluent neighborhood, and began to compare my mother to other people’s parents, parents who had weekends off and health insurance, parents who didn’t work all the time and yell at their kids every time they fell down, I became angry and depressed. The apples my mother still sliced seemed mealy and brown. I wanted ice cream and cake. The noodles weren’t as exciting as pizza or hamburgers. Her dishes were boring and tired. My mother, who worked and cooked and cleaned from the crack of dawn to night, was embarrassing and inadequate. In my mind, she oscillated between sheer neglectfulness and obsessiveness over my life. She didn’t seem to notice my feelings at all, but remained laser-focused on my skin, my hair, my body. Perhaps this was a way of gaining some sense of control over the fact that I was clearly “outgrowing” her. I would abandon her one day too after all.

But it took me years of adulthood, at least a decade after my father died, to admit to myself the truth: I felt responsible for my mother’s life because in secret I had internalized all the beliefs about her that I learned from this country, its culture — that because she didn’t speak English she was childlike, that because she didn’t have a husband, she should be frightened all the time, that because she was poor, she would always be vulnerable and weak. When in reality, women like my mother — who came to this country and survived for decades on her own, who do not speak English well, who despite how hard they worked remain poor — are not only ingenious in their creativity and resourcefulness but very much have their own narratives, their own stories to tell. They are the engineers of their own lives and they have so much more to be proud of beyond their children and their children’s accomplishments. My mother is not a failure; rather she is proof that, despite all the discrimination and hardship she has experienced in this country, one can remain full of earnestness, humor, and soul. This isn’t a testament to the opportunities of this nation but an example of how human beings will always, despite the powers that be, resist erasure through the impressions, large and small, that we make upon each other, through the narratives that can sometimes emerge from even the briefest of encounters. My mother remained human and magnificently flawed through it all.

And it was only until I admitted to myself my own internalized hatred toward my mother, that I was finally able to write about how I truly felt with the depth and complexity that our relationship deserves. Although my fiction is not autobiographical, the feelings in it, particularly the feelings toward my mother, are very real and very alive.

Through the death of the protagonist’s mother in my novel, I was forced to reckon with the fact that maybe, despite my sense of resentment toward my mother growing up, I needed her, a foreigner, as a place to direct my sense of anger toward the world, unjust and cruel to so many, and to direct my love for life as well, in the details of the tenderness that can exist between a mother and daughter. Like many targets of hatred and xenophobia, she was a screen onto which I projected my deepest fears, and my deepest desires. But she is nobody’s screen, and when we realize this, all we have left is ourselves, and the brutal truth of who we are.

I’ve grown through and out of this nightmare, just like I’ve grown through my first novel. There are many more fears to have and many more stories to tell, but my actual relationship with my mother, and with myself, has never been better than it is now. We talk more often and more honestly than ever before. Whatever happens to her I know that I’ll survive, because I asked myself these questions in the process of writing: What kind of person do I want to be? What matters to me most? And the answers are in the stories that I tell myself and this world.

How to make a your own Starbucks pumpkin cream cold brew at home

Something I’ve been thinking a lot about recently is how rituals surrounding what we eat and drink have changed during the pandemic. Simple things — like picking up a bodega bacon, egg and cheese before rushing to work, or having a leisurely cup of coffee at a cafe while people-watching — are either relics of the past or have become totally different experiences, fraught with anxiety. 

That’s why, when Starbucks announced that they would be bringing back their pumpkin spice products on Aug. 25, the earliest annual launch date yet, I felt a tiny bit relieved. Like, we’re in the middle of an unprecedented global pandemic and preparing for a perilously crucial election, but still the pumpkin-spiced world turns

The Starbucks PSL (or pumpkin spice latte, for the uninitiated) is a controversial beverage, in the way that only something that is so wildly popular can be. Over 200 million cups are sold annually, but as Vox’s Rebecca Jennings put it, “since its inception in 2003, the pumpkin spice latte has become something of a straw man for discussions about capitalism, seasonal creep, and the meaning of  ‘basic,’ resulting in widespread hatred for an otherwise innocuous beverage.” 

While I think people who make a single food their whole personality are a little boring (let’s just say I’m not a candidate for pumpkin spice toothpaste or pumpkin spice hummus), they honestly pale in comparison to the people who deride folks for simply finding joy in something — especially during the raging dumpster fire that is this year.

And something that is giving me both a little joy and a sense of seasonal ritual is recreating Starbucks’ pumpkin cream cold brew in my own kitchen; it’s a kind of extension of my ongoing desire to make coffee house-quality drinks at home.

The Starbucks website offers a pretty transparent outline of what is in their drinks. The ingredients list for the Pumpkin Cream Cold Brew is basically a paragraph long, but once I dug into it, I was able to identify the main ingredients for making it at home: 

  • Cold Brew Coffee: Coffee, water, ice 
  • Pumpkin Cream: Cream, milk, sugar, pumpkin puree 
  • Vanilla Syrup: Sugar, water, “natural flavors”
  • Pumpkin Spice Topping: Cinnamon, ginger, nutmeg and cloves

With a few quick adaptations, I was able to create a version that works at home, but still satisfied my cravings for a sweet, creamy and cold treat that bridges summer heat and fall flavors. 

DIY Pumpkin Cream Cold Brew

Serves 2

Cold Brew

  • 8 ounces of cold brew concentrate
  • 8 ounces of water

Pumpkin Cream

  • ½ cup of heavy whipping cream 
  • 2 tablespoons of whole milk 
  • 1 tablespoon of canned pumpkin puree (not pumpkin pie filling)
  • 3 tablespoons of sugar

Vanilla Syrup 

  • 4 tablespoons of water 
  • 2 tablespoons of brown sugar
  • 1 tablespoon of vanilla extract

Pumpkin Spice Topping 

  • 2 teaspoons of ground cinnamon
  • 2 teaspoons of powdered ginger
  • 2 teaspoons of powdered nutmeg
  • 2 teaspoons of ground cloves

1. In a small saucepan over medium heat, combine whipping cream, whole milk, pumpkin puree and sugar and stir vigorously. Allow the mixture to come to a simmer, and then immediately remove from heat; do not allow it to boil. Allow the pumpkin cream to come to room temperature, then transfer to an airtight container and refrigerate until cool. 

2. Wipe out the saucepan, and combine the ingredients for the vanilla syrup, bringing the mixture to a simmer. Stir the mixture until the brown sugar dissolves, then remove from the heat. Set aside. 

3. Pour 4 ounces of cold brew concentrate into two glasses over ice, followed by 4 ounces of water and vanilla syrup to taste. Stir. 

4. Remove the pumpkin cream mixture from the refrigerator. It’s time to froth! You can do this a few ways: use a milk frother, place the mixture in a blender, or even just whisk it really aggressively. You just want the pumpkin cream to have a little body — not quite whipped cream, but thicker than straight cream. 

5. Split the pumpkin cream between the two glasses. 

6. Combine the cinnamon, ginger, nutmeg, cloves. Sprinkle it over the pumpkin cream, and enjoy.

New filing shows USPS board chairman is also director of Mitch McConnell super PAC

The chairman of the U.S. Postal Service board of governors also serves as a director of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s $130 million super PAC, according to a new corporate filing in Virginia.

Robert “Mike” Duncan, who testified alongside embattled Postmaster General Louis DeJoy before the House last week, was listed in the document as one of the directors of the Senate Leadership Fund, which has spent millions trying to defend vulnerable Senate Republicans.

Duncan is also a director at American Crossroads, a pro-Trump super PAC, CNBC reported last month.

Duncan, who also served in the George H.W. Bush White House, is the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. He served on the RNC from 2002 to 2009, during which time the party “supervised an unprecedented escalation of voter disenfranchisement efforts in swing states … [including] manipulating mail-in votes,” HuffPost has reported.

Duncan was appointed by Trump, who has been accused of trying to sabotage the postal system in an effort to undermine an expansion of mail-in voting ahead of the election.

Duncan is one of numerous top officials at the USPS with ties to Trump, including DeJoy, who was a top RNC official and has donated millions to Trump and the Republican Party.

Duncan has drawn increased scrutiny over the process that led to DeJoy’s selection after policy changes made by DeJoy were blamed for a nationwide mail slowdown.

DeJoy was chosen by the board of governors even though a firm hired to vet candidates did not recommend him. Democrats have questioned why he did not go through the same background check as other candidates.

David Williams, the former vice chairman of the board of governors, testified to the House last month that DeJoy was the only candidate interviewed who appeared to be unqualified for the job. Williams said he resigned because of the effects of political influence on the USPS board.

“I had expressed concerns after each of the interviews with Mr. Louis DeJoy,” Williams said. “I urged that a background investigation be conducted. And when I resigned, I cited it as one of my reasons for submitting my resignation to Chairman Robert Duncan.”

Duncan and DeJoy are just two top officials at the USPS with extensive links to the GOP and Trump. CNBC reported that five of the six members of the board of governors have Republican ties.

A spokesman for the super PACs Duncan serves on denied any impropriety.

“Mike Duncan has been a member of the boards of directors of American Crossroads and Senate Leadership Fund for a number of years, and he continues to serve in that role,” spokesman Jack Pandol told CNBC. “Our boards, like most boards, oversee organizational policies, financial management, senior executive compensation and management performance — but are not involved in directing day-to-day operations or projects.”

Michael Bromwich, a former federal prosecutor and Justice Department inspector general, argued however that “Duncan is more responsible than anyone for politicizing the USPS.”

“He threw DeJoy’s name into the Postmaster General selection process,” Bromwich wrote on Twitter. “His top priority isn’t governing the USPS; it’s trying to ensure Trump’s re-election and continued Republican control of the Senate.”

Others pointed out that McConnell has also been involved in the USPS service woes, blocking a coronavirus relief bill that would provide $25 billion to the cash-strapped agency that House Democrats passed back in May.

The House Oversight Committee said on Monday that it will subpoena DeJoy after he apparently withheld documents from the committee’s investigation into the USPS service changes. The committee warned Duncan that he may face a subpoena as well.

“Congress passed a law in 1970 to reform the Postal Service and ensure that it is independent and removed from politics, but President Trump has turned that law on its head,” Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said in a statement last week. “He installed a GOP partisan as Chairman of the Board of Governors, who turned around and inserted his fellow Republican fundraiser as Postmaster General. … Both of these officials are longtime Republican operatives, fundraisers, and mega-donors, and they are overt about their efforts to help Donald Trump win in November. … President Trump is fundamentally degrading the longstanding independence of our core constitutional functions to his own political ends right before our eyes.”

“Climate of fear”: McDonald’s workers couldn’t even wash hands, worker complaint alleges

Broken plumbing preventing hand-washing, a malfunctioning A/C making it difficult to breathe with a mask on amid a heat wave, and arbitrary favoritism allowing some workers to skip safety checks were just a few of the egregious claims made by Northern California McDonald’s workers. Their health complaint, filed on August 29 with the Santa Clara County Public Health Department, fits into a pattern nationally — in which front-line workers at McDonald’s around the country have cried foul at what they perceive as shockingly lax safety protocols amid an atmosphere in which COVID-19 outbreaks among fast food workers are all too common.

According to the complaint, “there isn’t warm water to wash hands in the mornings and the bathrooms have been closed because the toilets were clogged,” at the McDonald’s at 1150 S. De Anza Boulevard in San Jose.

The two workers who signed the complaint also say that the air conditioner is broken, “creating excessive heat in the front, lobby and drive-though areas and making it difficult to breathe with a mask.” The complaint states that the air conditioner hasn’t been working for “as long as a month” and that the problem became more dire when California experienced a heatwave with record-breaking temperatures earlier this month.

“These past weeks were really hard,” Maurilia Arellanes, who has also worked at the San Jose McDonald’s for nearly a year and is one of the two workers to file the complaint, told Salon in an interview via a translator. “My hands were really sweaty; we were sweating everywhere and it was just really hard to breathe with a mask on and our hands were sweating because of the gloves and some people were trying to put their masks down to be able to breathe.”

Indeed, the convergence of a heatwave, pandemic and wildfire smoke put frontline workers in a very vulnerable position.

“When wildfires are raging and filling the air with smoke while frontline workers need to wear masks to protect themselves from COVID-19, McDonald’s shouldn’t force its employees to choose between breathing properly and staying safe,” Allynn Umel, Campaign Director for the Fight for $15 and a Union, told Salon in a statement. “McDonald’s is the most profitable fast-food company in the world, and they should be able to do something as simple as maintaining air conditioning in every store to ensure that cooks and cashiers are healthy and safe.”

Equally troubling, the complaint alleges “abusive behavior” by the store manager, including “favoritism, retaliation and screaming at coworkers.” The workers in the complaint allege that certain workers who are favored by management are allegedly allowed to skip COVID-19 safety measures like regular temperature checks and wearing a mask. The complaint adds there is “a climate of fear where coworkers do not speak up and take action for safety, for fear of having hours and/or days cut from our schedules.”

Libertad Vazquez, who has worked at the San Jose McDonald’s for nearly a year and is the second worker on the complaint, says he regularly sees workers skip health checks or not wear their masks properly at 1150 S. De Anza Boulevard in San Jose.

“I have also seen that a certain maintenance worker enter [sic] the store without symptom screening by the supervisor,” Vazquez writes in the complaint. “I have seen that when the store is busy and there is a wait to be screened, he is able to skip the line and clock himself in without a temperature check and without being asked if he has COVID-19 symptoms or if he has been exposed to COVID-19.”

Arellanes said managers don’t encourage workers to wash their hands despite it being a key recommendation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for restaurant workers.

“Sometimes the managers use a timer and enforce hand washing every 30 minutes, but most of the time they do not use the timer and it is up to each person whether or not they wash their hands,” Arellanes writes in the complaint.

In an interview, Arellanes explained that employees are often told to “hurry up” in the bathroom if they’re taking too long, usually waiting for the water to warm up.

On the McDonald’s website, the company states that its restaurants “are continuing our high standards of promoting regular and thorough handwashing and reminding our crew members of our best practices for personal hygiene.”

Arellanes tells Salon that to date, there have been no known cases of COVID-19 in the store.

The claims in the complaint have been denied by Peter Ou, the owner and operator of the McDonald’s in question. In a written statement Ou said: “Our highest priority is to protect the health and well-being of our people, and we are deeply disappointed in these allegations, which do not at all reflect what is happening in our restaurant as we work to protect and provide for our people and serve the community during this difficult time.”

Ou continued:

All of the utilities at our restaurant located at 1150 S De Anza Blvd in San Jose are operating properly, including the HVAC system, water heater, and restrooms.

To help ensure the safety of our employees and customers, we are conducting thorough sanitization procedures on a nightly basis as well as sanitizing and disinfecting high touch point areas in the restaurant throughout the day, PPE is in ample supply, and gloves and masks are provided to our crew members on a daily basis. We’re also conducting wellness and temperature checks before each shift.

 Additionally, this restaurant is currently only serving food via drive thru, delivery and carry-out. Our dining room is not open at this time. We require all customers picking up carry-out orders to wear masks. We’ve also installed protective barriers at the counter and drive thru, in addition to adhering to social distancing guidelines and enhanced hygiene procedures.

The claims of these workers are reminiscent of other complaints from McDonald’s workers in the region. On August 27, workers at a McDonald’s in Gilroy, California, held a rally protesting a lack of air conditioning amid other concerns that the workers have been raising about COVID-19 since June. According to a complaint filed by one worker on August 27th to California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), there have been “several” COVID-19 cases at 6990 Automall Parkway in Gilroy, California. As Salon previously reported, at a Berkeley, Calif. McDonald’s, multiple employees contracted COVID-19, and some were asked to deep-clean the store themselves in exchange for food rather than pay.

Beyond California, there have been more reports throughout the pandemic of insufficient measures being taken to protect McDonald’s workers from COVID-19. According to a report published at the end of August by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA), McDonald’s was one of several fast-food chains experiencing  “active workplace outbreaks with five or more confirmed COVID-19 cases.” In April, a COVID-19 outbreak at a Chicago store led workers to file a complaint with the Occupational Safety & Health Administration alleging managers did not alert all employees about a night-shift worker contracting COVID-19.

Back in San Jose, Arellanes said she hopes the complaint motivates public health officials to fix the air conditioning at the S. De Anza Boulevard location, which she says hasn’t happened yet, in addition to safety measures being taken seriously in her workplace.

“I want us to be treated better and equally, and also to have the necessary equipment and for the temperature of the store to be fixed,” Arellanes said.

Read the full redacted complaint from San Jose McDonald’s workers below:

Trump calls “FAKE NEWS” on reports of his “mini-strokes”: Journalists say, “What reports?”

President Trump tweeted Tuesday that media reports that he had made a visit to Walter Reed Medical Center because he had “suffered a series of mini-strokes” were “fake news” — but this confused reporters, who had not known of any such reports.

“It never ends! Now they are trying to say that your favorite President, me, went to Walter Reed Medical Center, having suffered a series of mini-strokes. Never happened to THIS candidate — FAKE NEWS. Perhaps they are referring to another candidate from another Party!” the president tweeted.

Journalists were quick to point out that the president himself appeared to be breaking news.

A White House aide later told Peter Alexander that Trump had been referring to a Monday tweet from Joe Lockhart, press secretary to former President Bill Clinton, which read: “Did @realDonaldTrump have a stroke which he is hiding from the American public?”

This does not fully explain Trump’s defense: Lockhart is a PR flack and not a member of the news media, and had not alleged that Trump had suffered multiple strokes. He raised a hypothetical question of whether the president had had a stroke, but did not specify the magnitude or significance of such a hypothetical stroke.

The question had context, as well. Earlier that day, New York Times reporter Gabriel Debenedetti flagged a passage in a new book from Times colleague Michael Schmidt, regarding Trump’s unexpected visit to Walter Reed Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, last November. Debenedetti said that Schmidt “reports the White House wanted Mike Pence ‘on standby to take over the powers of the presidency temporarily if Trump had to undergo a procedure that would have required him to be anesthetized.’ The vice president never had to take this step.”

While the unannounced visit raised questions about the president’s health at the time, Dr. Sean Conley, Trump’s physician, has described the visit as “routine” and published a memo saying that the trip was only kept secret because of “scheduling uncertainties.”

“Despite some speculation, the president has not had any chest pain; nor was he evaluated or treated for any urgent or acute issues,” Conley’s memo said. “Specifically, he did not undergo any specialized cardiac or neurologic evaluations.”

Trump for his part described the visit as a “very routine physical.”

If that’s true, it’s not clear why, as Schmidt reported, Pence would have been prepared to take over presidential duties. That’s not without precedent: Other vice presidents have taken this step when the president has been temporarily incapacitated. For instance, Dick Cheney stood in for George W. Bush when the then-president had to have a colonoscopy.

Whatever arrangements were made regarding Trump and Pence occurred without a clear explanation provided to the press. If Schmidt is right about a possible procedure requiring anesthesia, it would suggest that Trump’s visit was not, as the president claimed, a “very routine physical.”

Schmidt clarified that whatever “fake news” the president is complaining about didn’t come from him:

Trump and his allies are redefining right-wing violence as “self-defense”: That’s a dark path

Here’s the first thing to notice about the horrific news cycle of the past few days: Donald Trump is openly stoking right-wing violence, in no small part, because it bumps the coronavirus pandemic (6 million cases and rising, more than 183,000 dead) and the economic crisis (10% unemployment and 29 million Americans going hungry) out of the headlines.

The second thing to note is that it’s nonetheless a terrifying development that will almost certainly lead to more violence, especially in light of what promises to be a chaotic but close election, where violent tactics and intimidation could affect the outcome. 

On Monday afternoon, after days of encouraging right-wing aggression on Twitter against the largely peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters, Trump gave a press conference in which he upped the ante by defending Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old who apparently shot three people, killing two of them, during a weekend protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Trump’s claim? It was self-defense. “I guess it looks like he fell and then they very violently attacked him,” the president said, adding that Rittenhouse “probably would have been killed” had he not shot the protesters, though, in standard Trump fashion, he hedged the whole thing by noting that the shootings are “under investigation.”

Trump’s language is, not surprisingly, misleading. The investigation has advanced to the point that criminal charges have been filed that present a clear narrative: Rittenhouse shot people who were trying to disarm him

During the same press conference, Trump defended the caravan of right-wingers that invaded Portland, Oregon, over the weekend for the obvious purpose of terrorizing the population, especially BLM protesters. Trump claimed that this caravan “protested peacefully,” even though there’s video of them shooting unarmed people with paintball guns and pepper spray. One member of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer was shot and killed during this encounter — it’s not clear what happened, but to be clear, lethal violence is deplorable no matter who’s pulling the trigger.

Trump of course seized on the shooting as a way to depict the right-wing caravan as a band of innocents, saying they used “paint as a defensive mechanism” and that “paint is not bullets.”

Trump is following in the footsteps of his most adamant supporters — and Fox News host Tucker Carlson — who have rallied around Rittenhouse, declaring him a hero and martyr who acted only in “self-defense”. 

Now the baton has been picked up by at least one Republican senator, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who told CNN that he approves of “citizen soldiers” showing up to “overwhelm the number of rioters.”

It is worth pointing out once again that while Republicans characterize virtually all Black Lives Matter protesters as “rioters,” the vast majority have been peaceful. And even in places like Kenosha and Portland, which have seen some acts of property destruction and some protesters arrested for nonviolent offenses the unrest was largely sparked by police crackdowns, often with tear gas and violent assaults.

Obviously, we don’t know all the facts in the Rittenhouse case, and he will clearly get a zealous legal defense. What is not in dispute is that if Rittenhouse had simply stayed home and minded his own business, two other men would not have died and he wouldn’t be facing murder charges.  

Similarly, the caravans of armed Trump supporters in Portland and elsewhere are deliberately fashioning themselves as an invading army, organizing to “liberate” “Democrat cities,” as Trump would put it. They’re outsiders coming in to conquer, or at least that’s very much the message they’re sending. 

Let’s set aside the legal specifics of what constitutes “self-defense” for a moment, and look at the big picture. We’re talking about people who pick up weapons and deliberately go out, most often to other cities and towns, looking for trouble.

That behavior is outright aggression, to anyone with common sense. But Trump and his allies are trying to redefine it as “self-defense.”

This all follows last week’s Republican National Convention, which featured Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the St. Louis couple who were charged with a crime after threatening a bunch of BLM protesters with guns for the perceived crime of marching on a public street. 

Again, the fact that the McCloskeys were the aggressors really should be beyond dispute. The protesters they threatened had done nothing to them, and in fact were merely walking past on their way to the mayor’s house, which is nearby. But the McCloskeys and their defenders have continued to insist that this too was “self-defense.” 

“What you saw happen to us could just as easily happen to any of you,” Patricia McCloskey said in the bizarre video the couple taped for the RNC, painting herself and her husband as victims of some kind of terrible invasion, instead of instigators who threatened people who had done nothing more than exercise their constitutional rights. 

Welcome to the upside-down logic of TrumpWorld, where our president openly encourages violence and crime while claiming to be for “law and order,” and defines acts of armed aggression, as long as white conservatives are the aggressors, as justified self-defense. 

This is typical Trumpian projection, of course. He’s always accusing his opponents of doing the thing that he’s actually doing, to the point where any Trump accusation should be presumed to be a confession. 

This mentality doesn’t just flow from Trump’s own psychological damage. This redefinition of right-wing violence as “self-defense” comes straight from the outsized sense of entitlement that defines modern conservatism. These are folks who believe that America belongs to them and only them, and anyone who looks or behaves different than them — because they’re not white or not Christian or simply because they have progressive values — is a threat, by definition. 

We can see this in the behavior of the McCloskeys, who keep yammering about “private property,” even though the protesters they menaced were walking down a public street. But it’s clear enough that people like them view America itself as “private” property that belongs only to them and people who look, think and act the way they do. Everyone else is a trespasser — especially if they dare to express their views. 

If other people are a threat simply for existing, then it’s no great leap to argue that hostility or violence toward those people is a form of self-defense. 

As Jamie Jeffers, a history podcaster who lives in Portland, recently explained in a viral Twitter thread, “Portland is a deep blue dot in a sea of red, and that fact is bitterly resented by many Republicans in the surrounding towns,” because Portland liberals are “seen as living in their territory.”

That’s how right-wingers can literally invade a city to terrorize the people living there, and justify that as somehow an act of “self-defense.”

This redefinition of aggression has been going on for decades on the American right, fueled in large part by the NRA and the gun industry. The gun lobby has repeatedly claimed that using a gun in self-defense is a common event, often going so far as to allege that Americans defend themselves with guns millions of times a year. But the Harvard Injury Control Research Center dug into those statistics and found that most of the incidents described as “self-defense” actually involved people using guns to escalate interpersonal conflicts and intimidate people — situations where simply walking away would have been a vastly safer option. 

Unfortunately, a lot of states, under gun-lobby pressure, have legally redefined self-defense in ways that encourage this kind of escalation. The result, research shows, is that rates of shooting homicides rise, because people feel entitled to pick fights, and when their targets fight back, to shoot first and claim self-defense

We saw how this can play out in the infamous 2012 shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. What is indisputable about that case is that Zimmerman saw Martin returning home after walking to the convenience store and started following him for no good reason, other than than he thought Martin looked “suspicious”.

Zimmerman’s self-defense argument was that after he chased Martin down, Martin put up a fight and Zimmerman felt compelled to shoot him dead. Of course, if Zimmerman had simply left Martin alone, as a 911 operator specifically asked him to do, none of that would have happened. 

The right to self-defense is enshrined in the law: It’s supposed to be a right to take actions that are necessary to protect one’s life or the lives of others. But in Trump’s America, the right to “self-defense” has become a question of identity. White conservatives get to claim self-defense, no matter how clearly they instigate violence, because they view the rest of us as inherently threatening.

Giving right-wingers carte blanche for acts of violence, under the guise of self-defense, clearly raises the tension at an incredibly tense moment in America. That’s what Donald Trump wants, of course. He is trailing Joe Biden in the polls, and clearly intends to claim the election was “rigged” if he loses. If you’re planning to reject election results, and to refuse to accede to the peaceful transfer of power, it would sure help to have masses of armed supporters who believe that it’s acceptable to shoot first in the name of “self-defense.” That’s exactly the army Trump is hoping to build with this reckless rhetoric. 

“Very alarming”: Barr’s abrupt removal of national security official before election sparks worries

Attorney General Bill Barr’s decision to abruptly replace a career official who led a Justice Department office that oversees the legality of national security policy with a political appointee sparked concerns among national security officials, according to ABC News.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brad Wiegmann, a 23-year career official who headed the DOJ National Security Division’s Office of Law and Policy, was told that he was being reassigned two weeks ago, according to the report.

Wiegmann was replaced with Kellen Dwyer, a 36-year-old cyber-crimes prosecutor who joined the DOJ six years earlier. Dwyer previously made headlines in 2018 when he accidentally revealed secret charges that had been filed against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

“It’s very alarming,” Katrina Mulligan, who served under Wiegmann, told ABC news, adding that Dwyer’s limited experience made him a “very odd” choice to replace an official she described as an “exceptional” manager.

The Office of Law and Policy is charged with ensuring that federal counterintelligence and counterterrorism activities don’t violate the law. Mulligan said the office is tasked with telling officials “what you want to do… is illegal” and then “try to offer them alternatives that weren’t illegal.”

The team is heavily involved in National Security Council meetings, conducts oversight of FBI intelligence-gathering, and helps congressional staff draft legislation.

“[It] has been sort of the center of gravity for the Department of Justice on national security policy, and it’s a central role,” Matt Olsen, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told ABC.

Mulligan expressed concern that a political appointee would now have influence over policy regarding “what we will and won’t do overseas and at home” in terms of surveillance and when “it is and isn’t appropriate” for the DOJ to inform the public about election interference.

“The concern here is that you have someone who by all accounts has been doing a great job in a very sensitive role,” Olsen added, “[and] now within really just weeks of the election is replaced with somebody who is viewed more as a partisan.”

The Justice Department declined to say why Wiegmann was replaced.

“Brad doesn’t have a political bone in his body” and “has been such an uncontroversial person in that role for such a long time,” Mulligan told ABC, adding that he “was trying to advance the policies that this administration wanted to advance.”

Olsen said that given Barr’s efforts to intervene in matters related to President Donald Trump, the department does not “get the presumption of the doubt when it comes to making personnel decisions like this.”

A DOJ spokesperson told the outlet that Weigmann “continues to serve a vital role in the front office of the National Security Division,” adding that the office had been staffed by “political appointees and career staff since its inception.”

A current federal official pushed back on that claim.

“It would not have been that unusual early in an administration to place a political [appointee] in that policy role, but to do that now is very unusual,” the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told ABC.

Barr has frequently been accused of politicizing the DOJ by intervening in criminal cases related to the president’s former advisers and echoing Trump’s baseless conspiracy theories about mail voting.

Those moves have raised fears among even Republicans that the DOJ may seek to influence the election.

“Barr has utterly and completely trashed the norm of DOJ separation from politics,” Donald Ayer, who served as the deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, told The Intercept. “For the last several months, Barr has been fully engaged in using the tools of the Justice Department primarily for the purpose of advancing the president’s election prospects.”

Barr has also teased that the DOJ is trying to wrap up US Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the federal Trump-Russia probe “before the election” even though the department traditionally avoids making public information that could affect the race 60 to 90 days before the election. Former FBI Director James Comey infamously ignored that tradition when he made public statements about the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“It seems inevitable that Barr will attempt to unleash an October surprise through the Durham investigation,” former DOJ prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig told The Intercept.

“Given his past misrepresentations of the Mueller report,” added fellow former DOJ prosecutor Justin Levitt, “the American people should look very carefully and very skeptically at absolutely anything Barr announces this year.”

Laura Ingraham catches Trump pushing “conspiracy theory” that Biden is controlled by “dark shadows”

Fox News host Laura Ingraham repeatedly tried to steer President Donald Trump back to safety after he repeatedly pushed bizarre false claims and conspiracy theories during a one-on-one interview on Monday.

Trump, who has struggled to paint longtime moderate Democrat Joe Biden as some sort of radical by linking him to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., went further in the interview by pushing a baseless claim that mysterious shadow people are controlling the Democratic nominee.

“He’s not controlling anything,” Trump said of Biden.

“Who do you think is pulling Biden’s strings?” Ingraham asked. “Is it Obama people?”

“People that you’ve never heard of, people that are in the dark shadows. People that—” Trump replied before Ingraham interjected.

“What does that mean? That sounds like a conspiracy theory,” she said. “Dark shadows. What is that?”

“No, they’re people you haven’t heard of. There are people that are on the streets, there are people that are controlling the streets,” Trump insisted. “We had somebody get on a plane from a certain city this weekend. And in the plane, it was almost completely loaded with thugs, wearing these dark uniforms — black uniforms — with gear and this and that. They’re on a plane”

Ingraham asked Trump to explain the bizarre plot he described, but the president demurred.

“I’ll tell you sometime,” he said. “But it’s under investigation right now.”

Trump added that there were “a lot of people” on the plane heading for the Republican National Convention to “do big damage.”

The Washington Post’s Katie Shepherd noted that Trump’s claim was oddly similar to “debunked rumors of a plane filled with black-clad rabble-rousers setting out to harass right-leaning towns and suburbs” that spread on social media, except the president is now claiming they were headed for his convention.

Trump also compared police officers who shoot civilians to golfers who miss putts while discussing the shooting of Jacob Blake, prompting Ingraham to try to save him again.

“Shooting a guy in the back many times…I mean, couldn’t you have done something different, couldn’t you have wrestled him? In the meantime he might have been going for a weapon. You know there’s a whole big thing there,” he said. “But they choke. Just like in a golf tournament they miss a three-foot putt–”

“You’re not comparing it to golf, because of course that’s what the media would say,” Ingraham interrupted.

“I’m saying people choke,” Trump replied.

“People panic,” Ingraham suggested.

“People choke,” Trump repeated.

Trump also bizarrely and falsely claimed that “Portland has been burning for many years, for decades it’s been burning,” before alleging that protesters were being paid by outside agitators. Portland has not been “burning,” and life for most of the city’s residents has gone on unchanged. There is no evidence that any protesters are being paid.

Elsewhere in the interview, Trump tried to link low-income housing to crime in the suburbs.

“You’re not saying that poor people are criminals though,” Ingraham interjected.

“No, I’m not saying that at all,” Trump said. “But, there is a level of violence that you don’t see.”

Reporters were stunned by Ingraham’s repeated attempts to bail out the president.

“Honestly, it’s difficult to recall an interview in which the interviewer spent so much time interjecting to try and save the interviewee from himself,” wrote The Daily Beast’s Sam Stein.

Trump repeatedly blamed Biden for acts of rioting and violence after he and other Republicans continued to push a false claim that the former vice president had not condemned the criminal acts.

Biden hit out at the false claims on Monday, arguing that Trump “long ago forfeited any moral leadership in this country.”

“Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting,” Biden said. “It’s lawlessness. Violence will not bring change, it will only bring destruction. It’s wrong in every way.”

But while Biden condemned the violence, the president refused on Monday to denounce the Trump supporter charged with killing two people in Kenosha, Wisconsin last week.

“He may believe mouthing the words law and order makes him strong, but his failure to call on his own supporters to stop acting as an armed militia in this country shows you how weak he is,” Biden said on Monday. “Does anyone believe there will be less violence in America if Donald Trump is re-elected?”

Biden also hit out at Trump’s baseless claim that he was being controlled by radicals.

“You know me. You know my heart, and you know my story, my family’s story,” he said. “Ask yourself: Do I look to you like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters? Really?”

We just passed 6 million cases, and it didn’t have to be like this — if we’d had a leader

The United States this week surpassed 6 million cases of COVID-19, the most in the world. Even when measuring relative to population, America’s standing is dismal and depressing. We’re currently ranked 10th in the world with 18,675 cases per million people, and growing by 30-50,000 new cases every day. As I begin to write this essay, midday on Monday, we’ve already racked up 14,151 cases for the day so far. 

Just for the sake of contrast, Italy is ranked 60th in cases per million residents. France is ranked 63rd. Germany is 83rd. Iraq is ranked 49th. Canada is 76th. Again, the U.S. is ranked 10th. There are “shithole countries,” as Trump called them, who are faring better than we are.

In case the Red Hat trolls jump into the comments to rubber-stamp Donald Trump’s nonsense about how we have the most cases because we do the most testing, the U.S. is ranked 18th in testing per million residents, far from the most in the world (per million), yet we’re 10th in cases, and 11th in deaths. Denmark, on the other hand, is 13th in testing, meaning it does more testing than we do, but it’s ranked 82nd in cases and 55th in deaths (all per million residents). If Trump were right, and testing artificially increased cases and deaths somehow, Denmark would have many more cases and deaths per million than we do. It doesn’t. We still have more. Many more.

It’s difficult to verbalize how mortifying and inexcusable this is. 

Trump can’t shut up about making America great again. But based on his response to the pandemic alone, we’re not even close to being great. We’re not even greatness-adjacent.

The once-vibrant concept of marrying civic and societal responsibility with patriotism has all but disappeared from a not-insignificant population of our fellow Americans. Throughout the past four years, and especially during the past six months, far too many shirkers have been hoodwinked into believing that irresponsibility, self-indulgence, recklessness and blind gullibility are patriotic. And it’s entirely the consequence of the most irresponsible, self-indulgent, reckless and easily-manipulated president in history. 

As of today, thanks to the malicious incompetence of Donald Trump, there’s no end in sight. But it didn’t have to be this way. 

Had the president sucked it up and fulfilled the bogus “presidential” fantasies of Van Jones and Chris Cillizza, if Trump had followed the response strategy he was provided by previous administrations, and if he had simply looked to presidents who, during a variety of previous national emergencies, rallied the country to achieve actual greatness, we’d surely be ranked far better than the unforgivable status we occupy today. In fact, it’s likely we’d be celebrating today, rather than desperately hoping for a vaccine and a change in leadership while more and more of our friends and family get sick and die.

What could the president have done differently? In a word: everything.

During the 2014 Ebola outbreak, the United States led the world’s response, deploying thousands of “DOD, CDC, USAID, and other U.S. health officials to Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea to assist with response efforts, as part of a 10,000-person U.S.-backed civilian response.” Likewise, during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak, within seven days of the first case, the CDC under President Obama had already activated its emergency operations center — three days prior to the World Health Organization’s emergency declaration. The H1N1 outbreak ended with around 12,000 American deaths. Under Trump, during COVID, there were 12,000 deaths in the past 14 days alone, since Tuesday, Aug. 18.

On Jan. 21, 2020, when the first U.S. case was identified, Trump refused to do a damn thing, failing to take the threat seriously and failing to mobilize our national infrastructure — federal, state and local — to isolate the virus before it spread. Instead, his endless record of irresponsible denial began with a statement to CNBC about how everything was “under control” and that “it’s going to be just fine.” That’s all he did. 

Trump’s “travel ban” from China wasn’t authorized until 10 days later, on Jan. 31, after the virus was already here. It was a full 20 days after the first COVID death in China and the day after the World Health Organization’s global health emergency declaration. In the midst of all that, Trump did the least he could do without doing nothing, banning some travel from China. 

What if he had banned all travel from China as well as Europe on the same day, given cases and deaths in France, too? Instead, the travel bans were staggered piecemeal, and even after the China ban, 40,000 people entered the U.S. from China — to repeat: after his flimsy ban. Trump didn’t impose a ban on travel from Europe until mid-March, dooming his hometown of New York City, where most of the cases were traced from Europe, not China.

It would be nearly a month later, on Feb. 25, before Trump finally requested coronavirus response funds from Congress, launching the White House task force the next day. Imagine if Franklin D. Roosevelt had waited a month to mobilize in response to the Pearl Harbor attack, dilly-dallying before asking Congress for a declaration of war in, say, January 1942, rather than early December 1941. Imagine if John F. Kennedy had waited a month to respond after learning about the introduction of Soviet nukes in Cuba.

By the time the president appointed Mike Pence as the head of the task force, the first American COVID death had already occurred, 20 days before. On Feb. 28, Trump assured his disciples that the virus would disappear “like a miracle” — also calling it “the new hoax.” How’s that working out?

Imagine if Trump had declared a national emergency 14 days earlier than he did on March 13, nearly a month after the first U.S. case. A Columbia University study showed he could have reduced deaths by 84 percent. If he had acted just a week earlier than he did, 35,927 lives would’ve been saved.

Instead of urging Americans to make the sacrifices needed to contain and eradicate the virus, Donald Trump began to loudly insist upon reopening the country at the worst possible time — in mid-April, at the initial height of the curve — indulging his fanboys with all-caps tweets like “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” (The day he tweeted that message, 2,597 Americans died from the virus, just 400 fewer than on 9/11.) 

He could have taken a difference approach: the path taken by so many other presidents in prior eras of actual American greatness. But he’s too brittle, too paranoid, too toxic, too illiterate to do that.

Like the previous Republican president, he could have framed the lockdown and prevention efforts with rah-rah Lee Greenwood patriotism. Trump could have rallied the entire nation by appealing to our national pride rather than resigning himself to being the president of his base alone. Imagine the national mobilization for World War II, but applied to the pandemic, with all Americans chipping in to the war effort. He could have achieved exactly that, but he’s incapable of it. He lacks the restraint, discipline, forethought and temperament possessed by even our more lackluster chief executives.

Trump could have marched us to war against the pandemic, framing the isolation, the social distancing and the mask-wearing — the minimum requirements advised by experts — as intrinsic to our patriotic duty, setting an example himself with photo-ops of his own sacrifices. But he didn’t. 

He could have pushed for even more financial relief for out-of-work Americans, sandbagging against further economic repercussions until the curve had been flattened. 

He could have celebrated every achievement and milestone with triumphant addresses from the Oval Office. He hasn’t, because there aren’t any achievements to celebrate, beyond the ones he falsely claims as his own.

With a unifying, proactive tone established by the White House, there could have been national telethons to raise money for the victims. 

There could have been plans for post-pandemic memorials, like the 9/11 or Vietnam memorials, giving us something positive and inspirational to strive for. After all, Trump fancies himself a builder. 

He could have, at the bare minimum, called for national moments of silence for the people we lost. To date, he’s never called for a moment of silence for the victims or anyone else. Ever.

He could have leveled with us, yet he’s only ever downplayed the threat while embellishing his bungled, ham-fisted non-response.

He could have explained the stakes while calling upon our spirit of community to do what’s necessary rather than what’s easiest. 

The president, for the first time in our national history, chose to frame selfish defiance, irresponsibility and loud ignorance as patriotic, shirking what’s right, ignoring expertise and deceiving the public about the true dynamics of the threat.

There never should have been any question of holding public rallies until after the curve was flattened. Instead, Trump held a rally in Tulsa — once again, at the worst possible time, during the second spike of the first curve. Former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain is dead now, and the event became a vector for the disease, all due to Trump’s unquenchable vanity and his desire for unsubstantiated accolades.

Trump, unlike every president before him, refuses to call the threat by its actual designation.

It’s nearly fall now. Had Trump led the nation as it’s been led in the past, I’m confident the pandemic could have been all but ended by now, or would at least be on the way out. We would have seen dramatically fewer deaths and cases with a national strategy, not unlike our national strategies confronting world wars, terrorist attacks, natural disasters and so forth. Instead, Trump chose to defer his duty to the states, lazily delegating his job to others while he plays golf and verbally masturbates on Twitter. 

At this rate, and with this president in charge, I’ll be shocked if this is over by next August, with Americans more divided than ever. The unity of the post-9/11 era seems like fan-fiction today.

Thanks to Trump, we’ve become a nation of proud self-destruction, growing increasingly numb to the catastrophic death toll our lack of national leadership has precipitated, while our president encourages and indeed embodies our worst instincts — lionizing the negative character traits our parents raised us to reject. (Sadly, some of our Trump-supporting parents have rejected those values, too.) Rather than rising up as we have so often in the past, Trump and his people have given up, many of them choosing to relentlessly screech at anyone who tries to display even modestly responsible behavior.

Presidential leadership isn’t some kind of magic trick. Rather, it’s as easy as borrowing from copious historical precedent and applying it to what we could have accomplished today. By all measures, historical and otherwise, Donald Trump is a failed president, achieving the exact opposite of American greatness — 10th worldwide in deaths per million! — because he’s too stubborn, too vain and too sociopathic to do what’s difficult or what’s right.

In failing to rise to the occasion, Trump has transformed America from being a proud and noble if imperfect union into a pitiable shell of its former self, cupping its ears under the covers and shouting “Not listening!” while the president’s henchmen tell us we’re all going to get the virus anyway, so why bother? This kind of non-leadership, this kind of nihilism, should never be rewarded with a second term.

They say we shouldn’t change horses midstream, meaning we shouldn’t change presidents mid-crisis. Yet what’s become abundantly clear, especially since March, is this: Our horse ran away at the first sight of water. Now we’re drowning in a preventable flood and it’s long past time for a new leader who can carry the burden of our beleaguered nation to the shoreline. Finally.

By the way, as I finish writing this, 32,987 new cases of coronavirus have been confirmed so far today, up from 14,151 when I started. That’s 18,836 new U.S. cases in the time it took me to write this. Not great. Not even close.

3 ways the Senate Democrats’ new climate plan is all about money

Another day, another 100-plus-page Democratic plan to address our overheating planet and the growing climate crisis. On Tuesday, the Special Committee on the Climate Crisis — a group of 10 Democratic U.S. senators led by Senator Brian Schatz from Hawaii — released a 260-page report calling on the government to spend more than $400 billion a year toward building “the clean energy future we all deserve.”

It’s not the first climate plan to be released in recent months, and it won’t be the last. Two months ago, Democrats in the House released a 538-page report to tackle the climate crisis and reduce inequality at the same time. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, meanwhile, has pushed a $2 trillion plan that would eliminate emissions from the electricity sector by 2035 and spur huge investments in clean energy.

The Senate plan, however, covers different ground. Here are three ways the Democratic senators’ plan diverges from the other recent plans we’ve seen.

The plan doesn’t say exactly how we should cut emissions, just how much we should spend

Compared to other climate plans, the Senate’s climate action roadmap is a little vague on policy specifics. Like the Biden and House plans, it calls for the country to cut carbon emissions to “net-zero” by 2050 — but at this point, that goal, once seen as ambitious, is a must-have. After all, climate-fueled disasters are spreading at a rapid rate: Wildfires in California have burned more than 1.25 million acres so far this summer, and Hurricane Laura, one of a number of record-breaking tropical storms this season, is poised to make landfall in the Gulf Coast on Wednesday or Thursday.

To help the nation get to net-zero, both Biden and House Democrats have thrown their weight behind creating a clean electricity standard, which would require all of the nation’s electricity to be carbon-free by 2035 or 2040, respectively. The Senate plan, however, is more ambivalent on how to cut emissions from electricity, saying that “a federal clean energy standard, emissions standards, a carbon price, and/or other market mechanisms” could all work if tied to massive clean energy spending. (The plan does support creating or strengthening federal standards for vehicle emissions and pollution from heavy industry.)

Though the plan doesn’t commit to a specific strategy for cutting emissions, it does put a price tag on what it will take to cut emissions dramatically. According to the senators, the federal government should be spending at least 2 percent of the country’s gross domestic product every year to address climate change — and funneling 40 percent of that spending towards communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis. (They predict this investment will create around 10 million jobs.) Based on the current U.S. GDP, that’s around $400 billion a year, almost on par with the $2 trillion Biden has vowed to spend in a four-year period.

The plan centers financial and economic risks

Many of the economic risks of climate change are already crystal clear, and yet financial markets have yet to take them into account. The Senate committee devotes a substantial part of its plan to this oversight, warning that if banks, insurers, and investors are allowed to continue taking on more risk under the assumption that the government will bail them out later, it could lead to a 2008-style economic crisis.

There are three ways that climate change presents a systemic risk to the financial system, according to a recent report by the sustainable finance nonprofit Ceres. The most obvious are the direct economic losses caused by climate change-fueled droughts, heatwaves, wildfires, storms, and flooding. Then there are the socioeconomic risks — things like negative health impacts and lost productivity due to extreme heat, or declines in tourism as biodiversity dissipates. Lastly there’s something called “transition risk,” the idea that companies that aren’t preparing for the transition to the carbon-neutral economy are setting themselves up to lose money because their assets could lose value rapidly.

The Senate plan runs with a number of Ceres’ recommendations, including the suggestion that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) require publicly traded companies to disclose their climate risks. It also recommends that the SEC require credit rating agencies to account for climate risk in their methodologies, warning that the current rating system allows the companies that are driving climate change to have easy access to credit.

Senate Democrats also want the Federal Reserve to incorporate climate change into U.S. monetary policy and in its “stress tests,” or analyses of how well financial institutions, as well as the entire U.S. economy, can withstand a financial crisis. The plan recommends the U.S. officially join the Network for Greening the Financial System, an international collaboration developing new approaches to financial regulation.

There’s broad support for these changes. In mid-July, 40 investors representing nearly $1 trillion sent letters to U.S. financial regulators, urging them to incorporate climate change into their mandates. The mega-plan released by House Democrats in June included many of the same recommendations. The Senate committee contends that they will not only mitigate financial risk, but also reorient the market to make the investments needed to fight climate change look more financially attractive.

The plan goes after dark money in politics

Current campaign finance and lobbying laws allow an oil company like ExxonMobil to pour millions into a marketing campaign aimed at greening its public-facing image while simultaneously lobbying against climate policy in Congress. In the Senate plan, a section on “dark money” seeks to limit Exxon’s and other fossil fuel corporations’ abilities to influence elections and spread disinformation about climate change.

Citizens Unitedthe 2010 Supreme Court decision that allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts to advocate for the election or defeat of politicians — anonymously, via shadowy nonprofits, if they wished — “allowed fossil fuel political power to effectively capture Republican elected officials nationwide,” the plan says. In order to curtail the influence of fossil fuel dollars on elected officials, the committee suggests a three-pronged approach: expose, reform, and alert.

The initial step is to pull back the veil on fossil fuel industry funding. In order to accomplish this, the plan says Congress should investigate which corporations are funding which nonprofits, even requiring witnesses from nonprofits who testify before congressional committees to disclose their funding sources — if the funders have a vested interest in the subject at hand.

To reform the campaign finance system, the plan recommends that the Securities and Exchange Commission create a rule that would require companies to disclose their spending on everything that has to do with influencing politics. The committee also prompts Congress to update and enforce the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, which sought to shut the revolving door between the private sector and the federal government (it didn’t work). And, finally, the plan says Congress should pass legislation mandating transparency in election spending. The Senate attempted to pass such legislation in 2012 but it was blocked by Republicans.

Curiously, the third prong of the committee’s plan for dark money, “alert,” provides little in the way of concrete action. Instead, the senators call on corporate America to use its political clout to put pressure on fossil fuel companies and boost climate action in Congress.

“Imagine how quickly Congress could act if powerful trade associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers became advocates for serious pro-climate policies,” the plan says. “Imagine if the powerful banking, agricultural, financial services, technology, and consumer products lobbies came in and demanded real climate action.”

In short, the Senate Climate Crisis Committee knows that politicians can’t build “the clean energy future we all deserve” on their own. The plan isn’t just a roadmap for Democratic lawmakers; it’s also an invitation to major corporations to use their power for the greater good.

Are major corporations listening? Time will tell.

Betsy DeVos is now arguing COVID-19 pandemic is ultimately a “good thing” for U.S. public education

On the heels of two federal judges halting a controversial rule that allows private schools to get more Covid-19 relief funding than Congress intended, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos said Friday that she believes the viral pandemic has been a “good thing” for the nation’s education system, a comment that quickly drew criticism from Democrats and public education advocates.

“Betsy DeVos calling Covid-19 a ‘good thing’ for our schools just goes to show you how divorced this administration is from reality,” the Michigan State Democratic Party — of Devos’ home state — tweeted. “Let’s not forget: Millions of kids are forced to stay home from school because Trump failed to handle the virus.”

DeVos made the comment in a Friday interview aired on SiriusXM while discussing how the pandemic has affected the nation’s schools. She claimed the pandemic — which caused teachers nationwide to switch to emergency remote learning plans — has shown that the U.S. education system is “static” and unable to adjust to changing circumstances.

“I think this [the pandemic] is a good thing because I think it’s going to really force changes that should have happened many years ago, and most of that’s going to happen when families themselves are empowered to make those choices and those changes and those decisions,” DeVos said.

“I think the last six months have really revealed the fact that the system that most students have been a part of has been a very static, one-size-fits-all system that is unable in way too many cases to pivot, to be nimble and flexible and to adjust to new and different circumstances,” she said in the interview.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden also hit back against the comments on Saturday.

“I don’t know a single person who believes any part of this pandemic has been a ‘good thing’,” Biden tweeted. “Secretary DeVos and President Trump refuse to take this virus seriously — our children are paying the price.”

And the Democratic National Committee tweeted that the secretary was only “celebrating because she thinks this will advance her anti-public school agenda.”

The education secretary’s comments drew criticism from author and public school teacher Mercedes Schneider, who wrote on her personal blog:

First of all, a pandemic is not “a good thing” for schools. Teachers are preparing wills. Classrooms are being stripped bare for sanitation reasons, and the learning environment is stifled by requisite social distancing. Presenting this crisis as “good” is callous and ignorant.

Schneider took further issue with DeVos’ characterization of the education system as “static.”

“In the face of a pandemic, adjusting ‘to new and different circumstances’ is an understatement. Although stasis might have been desired, it was *not an option,*” wrote Schneider.

It is true that Covid-19 has shone a light on inefficiencies and inequalities in our education system—as some schools focus on remote learning, 1 in 5 parents have saidit’s likely their children will not be able to complete school work because they either do not have access to a computer or to a reliable internet connection, for example—but DeVos’ insistence on private school funding continues to draw criticism and lawsuits.

A federal judge in San Francisco Thursday granted a preliminary injunction against the Department of Education’s rule, calling the department’s argument for it “interpretive jiggery pokery,” and slamming the department for arguing that the rule is in the public’s interest.

As Forbes reported Sunday:

As part of the CARES Act, Congress appropriated more than $13 billion to help schools and their students cope with the hardships created by the pandemic. The law quite clearly called for the Department of Education to distribute the most money to the schools with the largest numbers of poor students.

DeVos didn’t like that distribution formula and said in April that she would distribute CARES money to schools based on the total number of students, be they rich or poor, in the school. Since there are fewer low-income students in private schools, this would have diverted hundreds of millions of dollars away from public schools towards private schools.

U.S. District Judge James Donato agreed that there is some public interest in Covid relief funding going to private schools, but “allowing the Department to rewrite the statutory formula for sharing education funds is manifestly not in the public interest.”

Donato’s ruling was the second time in less than a week that a federal judge has ruled against DeVos on the issue.

Meanwhile, school districts across the country push forward with reopening plans, and early statistics indicate Covid-19 spread in districts that chose to return to in-person learning. The National Education Association last week introduced a dashboard that tracks the virus’ spread in schools, and so far it reports 4,282 Covid-19 infections and 75 deaths.

Republicans are running on a “big lie” about American cities — and it’s getting people killed

The Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in a modest influx of New Yorkers to my town, which is located about 90 miles Northwest of the city. My new next-door neighbors just moved up from Brooklyn this month. As one of them told me the other day, they made the move because they are now able to work remotely, and it made sense to get out of the city because they could rent an entire three-bedroom house for less than they had been paying for a cramped two-bedroom apartment.

Speaking over the fence that separates our backyards, my new neighbor explained that because of the outbreak, she and her partner weren’t comfortable enjoying the city’s restaurants, nightlife and cultural attractions–those that remain open–and said, “there’s no point paying a fortune in rent to sit at home and watch Netflix.” They’re now considering getting a dog.

Crime didn’t enter the picture, and with good reason. According to NYPD data, there were 1,021 fewer major crimes in the city in June and July than there were during the same period in 2019. It’s true that there were 29 more murders, in a city of 8 million people, during those two months than there were last year–a figure promoted relentlessly by the conservative media–but there were also 39 fewer rapes, 107 fewer assaults and 284 fewer robberies.

Despite the uptick in homicides, likely a result of months of quarantine, the city is on pace to have 400 murders this year, which would be 270 fewer than New York experienced in the final year of Rudy Giuliani’s term as Mayor. Yet during the Republican National Convention, Giuliani claimed that “murders, shootings, and violent crime are increasing at percentages unheard of in the past.”

Having failed to contain a historic public health crisis and ensuing economic downturn, the Republican Party is running on a big lie, claiming against all evidence that “Democrat-led” cities are rife with crime and rioting and chaos, with fearful (white) residents fleeing in droves to safer locales in the suburbs. Every aspect of this storyline is completely divorced from reality.

America’s cities, like its suburbs and small towns, are struggling with the impact of the pandemic and are struggling with a severe loss of tax revenues resulting from lockdowns and from people not feeling safe going to bars and restaurants and shopping when their economies did reopen. Many residents of big cities, like those in suburbs and small towns, are struggling economically. These are real problems that are absent from the conservative discourse at present.

While the right mocks the very idea of peaceful protests, riots have in fact been scattered, localized and in many cases caused by overly aggressive policing, as you can see from videos collected by The New York Times. People are angry about racially discriminatory policing, but in many communities, it’s pretty clear that the cops are even angrier about being held accountable. Almost all of the turmoil in Portland has occurred in a small area around the federal courthouse after dark. The city isn’t on fire, and most Portland residents are living their lives unaffected by the protests. The dynamic has been similar in Seattle and other big cities.

Let’s also point out that most big-city governments are controlled by Democrats. That’s true of the safest and the most dangerous cities, the ones with the best and the worst finances and those with the most and least tension between cops and the communities they police–they’re almost all “Democrat-run.” Big cities are diverse, and Republicans rarely win elections in localities with significant non-white populations.

Also keep in mind that violent crime in the United States has seen a long and steep decline over the past 25 or so years. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, violent crime dropped by 71 percent between 1993 and 2018. Property crimes also fell by 69 percent over that same period. This is vital context for any short-term uptick in crime that some communities may be experiencing as we reopen our economies.

But this narrative that American cities are smoking ruins or are being destroyed by criminals and looters has become Trump’s–and the GOP’s–central argument for 2020, with Fox News playing clips of trash fires and windows being broken on a loop and the Republican National Convention lauding the heroism of a terrified white couple who waved guns at peaceful protesters.

We expect the parties to exaggerate and at times lie during campaigns, but at least in the modern era, no major party has run a campaign that is entirely divorced from any objective reality. In most cases, Republicans aren’t even bothering to offer any real arguments. During the convention, there was a throw-away line or two about Biden raising taxes, but that’s been pretty much been it.

And this relentless propaganda campaign is getting people killed. Hopped up on the belief that they’re saving the country from violent anarchists, the far-right has unleashed an enormous amount of violence and intimidation on Black Lives Matter protesters. The Huffington Post reports that “white vigilantes and far-right actors have shown up to oppose Black Lives Matter protests in the U.S. at least 497 times this year, according to data collected by Alexander Reid Ross, a doctoral fellow at the Center for Analysis of the Radical Right.”

The dataset, which Ross shared with HuffPost, documents a staggering amount of violence directed at protesters by the far-right, including 64 cases of simple assault, 38 incidents of vigilantes driving cars into demonstrators, and nine times shots were fired at protesters.

All told, six protesters were hit by vigilante bullets in this summer’s violence. Three died from their wounds.

Ross’ dataset also includes 387 incidents of intimidation, such as people using racist slurs, making threats and brandishing firearms.

“There just isn’t really anything to compare it to,” Ross told HuffPost. “I’ve never seen anything like this in my life.”

Such incidents are so common that they often don’t make national news. Last week, a Pennsylvania man shot and wounded a member of a group of people marching to Washington to protest without any preamble–there was no confrontation preceding the attack. And yet the incident didn’t make a ripple in the national news. And after the RNC celebrated the McCloskeys’ armed defense of private property, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha multiple times, ostensibly to protect a gas station, and committed violence against that city’s residents, culminating in the alleged murders of two of them.

And making matters worse is that Trump refuses to condemn the violence from the far-right because doing so would undermine his mendacious claim that leftists are responsible for a lion’s share of the mayhem. As Lilliana Mason, a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, pointed out, research “exposing subjects to quotes from Trump or Biden explicitly rejecting violence” has found that “when leaders reject violence, partisans reject violence. When leaders say nothing, partisans endorse violence.”

Donald Trump doesn’t have much to run on. His desperate attempt to shift the national conversation from the Covid-19 crisis and resulting recession to widespread chaos in American cities is a Hail Mary pass that’s getting people killed.

 

Maddow blows apart the White House talking points on why Trump was rushed to Walter Reed hospital

The host of “The Rachel Maddow Show” on MSNBC was able to infer a fascinating conclusion after new reporting on President Donald Trump’s rushed trip to the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in November.

Reporting at the time said the visit was “abnormal” and “scheduled last minute.”

“Here is something we do not know until now,” Maddow said. “In November, you may remember a little bit of a health scare or at least a lot of health questions raised about President Trump. It was a Saturday afternoon in mid-November and President Trump was seemingly rushed off to Walter Reed Medical Center. This was an unannounced trip, it was a surprise, it led a lot of questions to what may have went wrong for the president that may lead to a rushed trip.”

“The White House later cooked up some weird story about how that sudden, unannounced trip to Walter Reed had been a long plan segment of the president’s annual physical and he was like doing a bit of it as if physicals are a thing that’s happening in the episodes over the course of the season or something,” she joked. “It was very strange, that’s not how physicals work.”

“People who’ve worked at the White House say the White House medical office is so well-equipped that White House medical staff can handle on-site all but the most serious incidents without a president ever having to be rushed off campus from the white house to the hospital,” she reported. “But rushed he was. What was that all about?”

She noted that the forthcoming book Donald Trump v. The United States: Inside the Struggle to Stop a President by Michael Schmidt reports further on the mystery.

Maddow explained how Vice President Mike Pence was “on standby to take over” if Trump needed a general anesthesia at Walter Reed.

She explained that, “whatever it was, it was serious enough that the vice president was warned to be on standby, that the president might have to be under general anesthesia, which would occasion Mike Pence having to temporarily become president.”

“And to state the obvious, that is not something that happens when you go in for a segment of your physical,” Maddow noted. “If you had to go under general anesthesia to have a physical, nobody would have an annual physical.”

Watch: