Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

The worst part of Trump’s disastrous Axios interview

A new interview of President Donald Trump with Axios’ Jonathan Swan garnered much attention and acclaim for the reporter on Tuesday, with many stunned at the level of ignorance, incompetence, and callousness on display in the White House.

But to be frank, while Swan put up some resistance to Trump and fact-checked him at key moments, he actually let the president get away with a lot of lying and dishonest spinning. Of course, this is what the president does — he spews disinformation and tries to bulldoze anyone who challenges him — which makes him difficult to interview. Much of it made Trump look ridiculous and incompetent, but that was often more Trump’s doing than Swan’s.

There was one particular exchange, though, where the combination of Swan’s pushback to Trump’s lies and the president’s fumbling for an explanation was deeply revealing about his administration and the place the country finds itself. Trump boasted about the amount of coronavirus testing the United States has done, but Swan accurately pointed out that such extensive testing is only necessary because the virus is so widespread. And then Swan tried to steer the conversation toward the most important statistics.

“The figure I look at is death. And death is going up now. It’s a thousand a day!” Swan said.

“Take a look at some of these charts,” Trump said, bringing up a pile of papers. “Right here: United States is lowest in numerous categories.”

“In what?” Swan asked. “Oh, you’re doing death as a proportion of cases. I’m talking about death as a proportion of population. That’s where the U.S. is really bad. Much worse than South Korea, Germany, etc.”

“You can’t do that!” Trump responded. 

Swan looked puzzled. “Why can’t I do that?”

“You have to go by the cases,” Trump said.

“It’s surely a relevant statistic to say if the U.S. has X population and X percentage of death per that population, vs. South Korea,” Swan argued.

“No, because you have to go by the cases!” Trump demanded, becoming petulant.

“Well, look at South Korea, for example: 51 million population; 300 deaths. It’s crazy compared to—”

“You don’t know that!” Trump interjected. He then tried to cast doubt on the South Korean statistics.

 

This move, of course, gave away Trump’s strategy. He wants to draw a direct comparison to other countries when he thinks it reflects well on him. And when the question is abstract — whether we care about the percent of deaths per case or per population — he can just assert that his preferred metric is correct. But when Swan, cleverly, cast the question in concrete terms that showed ho much more successfully South Korea has contained the virus, Trump needed to shift the ground of his argument and question the validity of the statistics that he had just based his case on.

He then tried to get Swan to praise him for the large number of tests the United States conducts — even though, as Swan had pointed out, it only conducts so many tests because the outbreak is so bad. And indeed, the country is almost certainly not conducting as many tests as it should, because the high positivity rate of the tests in recent weeks suggests that many cases are going undetected.

What was most revealing about the exchange is how uninterested Trump actually seemed in the life and death stakes of the matter, or in getting the science right. He’s not concerned, as I’ve shown, in having a serious debate about which metric is most meaningful for understanding the nature of the pandemic in the United States. He’s only interested in focusing on which statistic he thinks makes him look good. Any news that doesn’t make him look good is dismissed as irrelevant or fake — that’s why he demanded that “you can’t do that” when Swan cited deaths as a proportion of the population. Trump has no argument for why this statistic was spurious or misleading, and surely it’s not, because it’s the federal government’s responsibility to keep the virus from spreading in the United States. It has utterly failed to do that, and more than 4 million cases and more than 150,000 deaths are the results.

Trump earlier showed his callousness when Swan pressed him on the daily death rate of more than 1,000 a day: “They are dying, that’s true. It is what it is.”

And later, on a totally different subject, Trump showed his willingness to pick and choose types of data to fit the narrative he wants to push.

“Why do you think black men are two and half times more likely to be killed by police than white people?” asked Swan.

“Police have killed white people in a larger number,” Trump said. “Police have killed many white people also.”

So here, Trump dismissed proportionality entirely as a relevant metric for police deaths and instead just looked at the total numbers. If he had focused on totals rather than proportionality in the case of coronavirus deaths, of course, he would find that the United States has — by far — the greatest total coronavirus deaths in the entire world. But that number doesn’t fit his narrative, so he ignores it.

Pharma CEOs privately scoff at Trump’s drug pricing orders: “Not expecting any impact”

Pharmaceutical executives have publicly spoken out against President Trump’s executive orders aimed at reducing drug prices, but several CEOs in the industry have told shareholders that they are “not expecting any impact” from the president’s largely symbolic moves.

Trump has touted the orders repeatedly even though experts say his proposals cannot be implemented through executive orders alone. Trump’s insistence that he has cracked down on drug prices have been boosted by statements from pharmaceutical companies, whose executives balked at a meeting with the president in response to the orders last week.

But at least two executives told investors on earnings calls last week that they don’t think the orders will amount to much.

Sanofi CEO Paul Hudson dismissed the executive action as a “lot of talk” on an earnings call last Wednesday. Hudson said he “is not expecting any impact from these conversations this year.”

“Of course, with pre-election … it’s a very convenient subject matter,” he added.

Eli Lilly CEO David Ricks went further, telling investors on Thursday that he does not expect any federal action on drug pricing this year. In concert with Trump’s executive orders, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, introduced a bipartisan bill that would save taxpayers billions on drug costs and out-of-pocket expenses. Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, also introduced a bill that would reduce drug prices.

“Grassley reintroduced a version of his bill to try to make one last push. I believe his chairmanship is ending, in any case, at the end of this Congress. So it’s understandable why he’s doing that,” Ricks said. “I don’t think that that package has much of a chance to advance.”

Ricks added that he is likewise not concerned about the House bill or Trump’s orders.

“The most likely scenario is that these [executive orders] can’t take force and don’t take force prior to a new presidential term, a new Congress sitting and that Senate Finance doesn’t go anywhere either nor does HR 3,” he said. “I think that’s sort of the probable planning scenario.”

Government watchdog groups said the comments reflect an understanding that the president’s orders were all for show.

“The drug company CEOs made the mistake of saying the quiet part out loud: Trump has no intention of actually implementing policies that would meaningfully help patients or risk hurting the pharmaceutical industry’s bottom lines,” Eli Zupnick, a spokesman for the progressive government watchdog group Accountable.US, told Salon. “His executive orders, which are unlikely to be implemented this year and wouldn’t have meaningful impacts on drug prices even if they were, are nothing more than last-ditch publicity stunts to distract people from the fact that he hasn’t come close to delivering on his promises to reduce the prices of prescription drugs.”

Trump signed the four executive orders last month.

“I’m not willing to wait any longer,” he declared. “We’re doing things that nobody thought could be done.”

But the orders are “unlikely to take effect anytime soon, if they do so at all,” The Washington Post reported, because experts say Trump’s proposals cannot be implemented through executive order.

“If they’re simply ordering [the Department of Health and Human Services] to continue with its rulemaking process, the executive order isn’t really accomplishing anything,” Rachel Sachs, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis told the Post.

One executive order was aimed at speeding up a proposal that would allow states and wholesalers to import drugs from Canada. Another is aimed at tying some Medicare drug prices to those paid in other countries. The third claims to end the widespread use of rebates to insurance middlemen from government-run programs like Medicare. The fourth requires pharmaceutical companies to provide discounts to thousands of health programs that serve low-income patients.

Some groups that have advocated for lowering drug prices rejected the orders as an empty gesture because Trump lacks the authority to fully enact the proposals.

“These Executive Orders are not about policy, they’re about politics,” Margarida Jorge, the campaign director for Lower Drug Prices Now, told the Post. “The only reason for President Trump’s rekindled interest in lowering drug prices is his dwindling poll numbers, and realization that our country’s senior citizens are abandoning him thanks to his bungled handling of the coronavirus crisis.”

The orders come as Trump continues to push to overturn the Affordable Care Act, which would leave tens of millions without health coverage, strip pre-existing condition protections, and raise drug prices and premiums. And while Trump has claimed that drug prices have already gone down under his leadership, more than 4,000 drugs saw price increases averaging 21% in 2019 alone.

“We shouldn’t be giving the administration credit for now moving, three and a half years into the game, when we could have actually had policies that would have been implemented and would have resulted in more Americans being able to access the drugs now,” Ameet Sarpatwari, assistant director of Harvard Medical School’s Program on Regulation, Therapeutics and Law, told NPR. “Clearly what this speaks of is a bit of desperation as to the president’s sinking in the polls and needing to show that he is doing something about a campaign commitment from four years ago, on which there hasn’t really been much action.”

“Ellen DeGeneres Show” producers address staff as misconduct investigation continues

As “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” winds down its summer hiatus, Variety has learned that producers on Monday are addressing with staff accounts of workplace misconduct on the popular daytime talk series, which are currently being investigated by WarnerMedia. As an increasing number of allegations come to light, questions are mounting as to how DeGeneres’ lucrative talker and carefully crafted public persona will be affected.

Senior creatives and producers are back at work this week, with the 140 or so personnel at “Ellen” gradually returning in stages following the break. The investigation is still ongoing. As Variety reported exclusively last week, series producer Telepictures and distributor Warner Bros. Television informed staff that WarnerMedia’s employee relations group and a third-party firm would interview current and former staffers about their on-set experiences.

Read more from Variety: Ellen DeGeneres sends emotional apology to staff; EP Ed Glavin expected to depart

The probe comes in the wake of several reports of mistreatment and misconduct, including a mid-July BuzzFeed News investigation that surfaced allegations of racist behavior and intimidation on the show. In April, Variety reported on the outrage among the show’s crew members over pay reduction, a lack of communication and poor treatment by producers after the pandemic shut down production; a non-union tech company was hired to tape the show remotely from DeGeneres’ California home. Last week, a separate BuzzFeed News report emerged that included dozens of former employees alleging sexual misconduct and harassment by top executives on the show.

The new season of “Ellen” is scheduled to premiere on Sept. 9. Another show that DeGeneres hosts, “Game of Games” on NBC, is headed back into production the week of Aug. 24, although according to those familiar with the situation, it is still undetermined as to whether there will be a studio audience during taping.

Read more from Variety: “Mulan” to premiere on Disney+ as streamer surpasses 60.5 million subscribers

How the recent reports will impact the “Ellen” viewership in the fall remains to be seen.

“What makes it difficult, with the kind of crisis this is, is it’s not an acute problem” such as harassment by DeGeneres herself or embezzlement, said Ketchum senior VP of issues and crisis management Andrew Moesel. “It’s more a challenge to her entire brand ethos, which is as a friendly, relatable person next door, which is really the way that viewers perceive her and her value as an entertainer.”

The allegations “create a sizable crack in the impression of her as a friendly, next-door neighbor that you’re spending your afternoon with,” he said.

Given the popularity of the long-running show, some publicists say DeGeneres’ core fan base is unlikely to stop tuning in because of recent reports, though only time will tell whether the negative publicity will sour more casual viewers.

DeGeneres’ public persona as a talk-show host has been built on the premise, “Be kind to one another.” When “Ellen” won a Daytime Emmy in June for best entertainment talk show, DeGeneres said in her acceptance speech that she would more actively use her show as a way to create change and amplify the voices of Black people and people of color.

Read more from Variety: “Who’s the Boss?” sequel series in development with Tony Danza, Alyssa Milano attached

Following the recent spate of headlines, DeGeneres issued an emotional apology letter to staff last week that the show was not the “place of happiness” that she promised it would be, and said that she was “disappointed to learn that this has not been the case.” Executive producer Ed Glavin is expected to exit his role.

Entertainment publicist Danny Deraney said that he has been hearing stories of DeGeneres’ alleged behavior “for years,” including from those who have worked on her show.

“I think Ellen has had a problem with reading the room lately,” he said, in reference to DeGeneres broadcasting from her sizable home amid the pandemic and calling self-quarantine a “prison,” and the criticism she received after photos surfaced of her attending an NFL game with former President George W. Bush a year ago.

“She has an image problem that clearly is going to need some work to salvage any kind of momentum that she has earned over over this time or any kind of positive reputation that she has,” said Deraney. “There’s a lot of negativity surrounding her and her show, and it starts by offering a better apology and taking ownership of what she’s done, and really being better.”

TikTok provides influencers income during the pandemic, but a ban could ruin that

When the pandemic hit and gyms began to close, Laura Novak was let go from her job as a part-time trainer at 24-Hour Fitness by email. Despite losing a large part of her income, Novak knew she had another source to depend on: TikTok. As a former gymnast, the 31-year-old has over half a million followers on the social media platform where she is often sharing clips of herself training on the bars or doing another type of workout while making money through brand partnerships. Now, as President Donald Trump threatens to ban the popular video-sharing company from operating in the U.S., Novak also faces losing up to $1,200 a month.

“It makes for my personal job and the economic hardship that’s been felt this year a lot harder now, thinking that I can’t even count on this source of income,” Novak told Salon. “I have these contracts, but now I’m kind of like well, ‘Should I spend the time fulfilling them? Or is it going to get banned? Or are the brands going to say, ‘We’re not going to do this because of the uncertainty of TikTok’?'”

Novak emphasized that TikTok, which she’s been on since August of 2019,  has been a really helpful source of income right now as a fitness trainer, and more lucrative than Instagram. Currently, she has a contract with the fitness drink Celsius that pays her around $300 for every 12-second video.

For months, Trump and other politicians from both parties have raised concerns about TikTok, the Chinese video-sharing service that’s taken social media by storm, being a potential national security threat. Specifically, concerns have centered around the app’s parent company, ByteDance, and fears that the company could give its users’ sensitive data to the Chinese Communist Party, or that content could be censored.

TikTok has denied these accusations.  The concerns and threats surfaced again when Trump told reporters last Friday that he planned to ban the app “immediately,” or by Sept. 15. This threat has now prompted Microsoft to consider purchasing the social media app TikTok.

The timing of a potential U.S. ban of TikTok doesn’t bode well for the company that recently announced a plan to hire 10,000 staff in the U.S. over the next three years. The company also announced in a blog post that it will give creators in the U.S. over $1 billion in the next three years “to encourage those who dream of using their voices and creativity to spark inspirational careers” on TikTok.

While social media apps and their popularity have always been precarious (look to Vine and MySpace as examples), TikTok has managed to be a win-win situation for the platform’s creators and brands looking to reach specific audiences, often from the Gen Z or millennials cohorts during the pandemic.

Alessandro Bogliari, the co-founder and CEO of The Influencer Marketing Factory, told Salon TikTok is unique and attractive to brands because of the viral nature of the app.

“I would say that in general for the type of numbers that you can see compared to, for example, Instagram or YouTube, that the virality factor of TikTok is really one of the best deals that you can do,” Bogliari said, adding that many of the influencers the agency works with are looking for opportunities on different platforms, like Triller and Byte because of the U.S. government’s threats.

Sam Gach, a 28-year-old in Ann Arbor, Mich., is known for posting yoga tutorials on TikTok. Gach told Salon that while he’s on other platforms, TikTok has become one of his most important ones.

“It’s my fastest growing platform,” Gach said, who has 89,600 followers on the app. “It’s a bit nerve-wracking, but I think right now, from what I’m hearing, it sounds like it may not be banned, but it’s still very uncertain.”

Gach said if it is though, he would not “be happy about it,” adding he’s made a few thousand dollars from TikTok in the last month, but it’s all still very new. Gach left his full-time job at a corporate company in March and is working on becoming a full-time online fitness instructor. He’s currently working on an online yoga program for beginners, which he hopes will be his primary source of income in the future. Currently, he makes money from social media content and teaching yoga. Gach said if TikTok got banned, it would certainly negatively impact his ability to build an audience that might eventually be part of his online yoga program.

Gach isn’t the only TikTok creator who is facing uncertainty, while also being relatively new to the platform. Holly Auna is new to earning income on the platform, but as a singer and songwriter it’s been great to have TikTok as a source of income while she hasn’t been touring during the pandemic. 

“It’s scary thinking about the idea that it might be banned, but at the same time I had a pretty good music MySpace following, and that went away,” Auna said. “I’ve had to accept that there will always be something new but I hope TikTok doesn’t go away because I absolutely love the family I’ve created on TikTok with all of my followers who supported everything from my random crafting to my music.”

Rep. Carolyn Maloney declares victory over Suraj Patel after NYC certifies disputed primary vote

The New York City Board of Elections has certified the final count in a contentious, drawn-out Democratic primary in the 12th Congressional District, with long-time incumbent Rep. Carolyn Maloney declaring a narrow victory over progressive challenger Suraj Patel, Salon can report.

Though the Patel campaign acknowledged the certification of the vote to Salon, it did not concede defeat, citing the resolution of its pending court case challenging thousands of discarded mail-in ballots in the controversial election.

“I’m thrilled the voters of NY-12 have decided to return me to Congress for another term,” Maloney told Salon in a statement. “I look forward to continuing my work as Oversight chair, particularly in light of the challenges New York faced in this primary, and which we must address before November’s general election. I have already and will continue to hold hearings on the matter, and will continue my work to ensure the Post Office and our election process are set up for success with the funding and integrity they need.”

The Patel campaign, meanwhile, called the certification preliminary. 

“The count has been preliminarily certified subject to our court ruling,” Patel spokesperson Cassie Moreno told Salon. “It should concern all of us that the state is now appealing a decision — using taxpayer money — to fight to keep votes from being counted. If our opponent’s claims are true, why does she want the count to stop now? Why doesn’t she want votes to be counted? We’ll continue to shine a light on this situation as far as it goes, because it’s so much bigger than us now. It’s about the right to have your vote counted in the midst of a global pandemic.”

An election lawyer on the ground told Salon that at the time of certification, Maloney was ahead by more than 3,700 votes with fewer than 1,000 ballots to be counted in a four-way race. The lawyer acknowledged the pending court case, which is anticipated to be settled Aug. 10, but concluded: “Final answer, all that notwithstanding: Maloney is fine.”

At a Tuesday press conference, President Donald Trump, who for months has peddled baseless conspiracy theories to discredit mail-in voting, called the election a “disaster” which required a do-over.

Moreno told Salon that the city elections board, while certifying results today, also said it awaits guidance from its state counterpart, as directed in Monday’s court order.

A controversy over mail-in ballots involving postmarks and delivery dates led the city to toss about 12,500 ballots. The hangup is not about voting by mail per se but rather an unanticipated bureaucratic glitch emerging from a brand new process, which led to thousands of ballots going without a postmark, rendering them invalid.

“The additional votes a federal judge has ruled must be counted are expected to diminish Rep. Maloney’s margin and potentially change the outcome of the race as a whole,” Moreno said.

But a New York Post analysis of the court filing shows that only about 691 of the designated ballots are left to be counted, which would not erase Maloney’s current 3,700-vote margin.

However, Patel signed on to a lawsuit challenging the state to validate additional discarded ballots, such as those without signatures. His campaign maintains that difference could still change the outcome, whereas Maloney says the process has been completed to her satisfaction.

Maloney joined Patel and the two other candidates in a statement calling for the city to count every ballot received by June 26, regardless of whether it has a postmark, but she declined to join the suit.

Ahead of the primary, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., issued an executive order expanding mail-in ballots regardless of voter need to help ensure election continuity amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. In previous elections, absentee voters had to pay for their own postage, but Cuomo’s emergency expansion ordered local boards of elections to distribute postage-paid ballots.

However, postage-paid envelopes are not typically stamped by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). A sizable portion of these absentee ballots were returned without a dated postmark, disqualifying them under the law.

The city elections board had instructed USPS offices to postmark all ballots, but it appears the policy was not applied consistently throughout the city, specifically in the 12th District.

The city had never processed mail-in ballots at any rate near this volume. Voters returned 408,000 of the approximately 778,000 absentee ballots sent out this year, per the board. For perspective, as Gothamist pointed out, the total number of city absentee ballots cast in all 2016 elections — including all primaries on national, state and local levels as well as the general election — was less than 300,000.

A federal judge in Manhattan ruled Monday that the city elections board had to count more than 1,000 of the disputed ballots. Patel applauded the ruling, which he said raised red flags ahead of the general election.

“This is no longer a Democratic or a Republican fight. This is not an establishment versus progressive fight,” he said. “This is now a fight for the voting rights of millions in a pandemic.”

CDC study finds kids of all ages may play key role in virus transmission amid push to reopen schools

President Donald Trump and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos have called for the nation’s public schools to re-open this fall, but a new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that children of all ages are susceptible to coronavirus infection — and can efficiently transmit the virus to others.

The study analyzes a coronavirus super spreader event at a Georgia sleepaway camp in June. Several hundred campers (with a median age of 12) and staffers (with a median age of 17) were tested for COVID-19. Of the 344 individuals for whom test results were available, 260 came back positive for COVID-19, or more than 75%.

Of note: The highest percentage of children who tested positive were the youngest. The attack rate was 51% among those between 6 and 10 years old, 44% among those between 11 and 17 years old and 33% among those between 18 to 21 years old.

“This investigation adds to the body of evidence demonstrating that children of all ages are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and contrary to early reports, might play an important role in transmission,” the study’s authors wrote.

Among the 136 cases for whom symptom data is available, 26% of patients reported no symptoms. Among those who did, 65% reported subjective or documented fever, 61% reported headaches and 46% reported suffering from a sore throat.

Though staffers were required to wear cloth masks, campers were not. The camp also did not keep windows and doors open in order to increase ventilation within the buildings.

“Settings like multi-day, overnight summer camps pose a unique challenge when it comes to preventing the spread of infectious diseases considering the amount of time campers and staff members spend in close proximity,” the CDC said in a media statement.

“Correct and consistent use of cloth masks, rigorous cleaning and sanitizing, social distancing and frequent hand washing strategies, which are recommended in CDC’s recently released guidance to reopen America’s schools, are critical to prevent transmission of the virus in settings involving children and are our greatest tools to prevent COVID-19,” it added.

The CDC’s specific mention of schools comes amid explicit demands from the highest ranks in the Trump administration that publicly funded institutions reopen after summer. In addition to Trump saying last month that “schools must open in the fall,” DeVos told reporters that “education leaders need to examine real data and weigh risk. Risk is involved in everything we do, from learning to ride a bike to riding a rocket into space and everything in between.”

On another occasion, she added: “Ultimately, it’s not a matter of if schools should reopen. It’s simply a matter of how. They must fully open, and they must be fully operational.”

Last month, Dr. Russell Medford, chairman of the Center for Global Health Innovation and Global Health Crisis Coordination Center, discussed the preconception that children are less vulnerable to the coronavirus with Salon.

“It’s much less severe in the young, but the young are infected significantly and in large numbers,” Medford said at the time. “We are seeing our hospital beds and ICU beds being filled up with young patients now in Florida and Texas that are in the hospital and undergoing intensive treatment because of their infection by coronavirus.”

But on the same day the study was released, CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield warned legislators of “significant public health consequences” if schools do not reopen their doors.

“It’s important to realize that it’s in the public health’s best interest for K-12 students to get back into face-to-face learning,” Redfield testified to Congress. “There’s really very significant public health consequences of the school closure.”

He added that roughly “7.1 million kids get their mental health service at schools. They get their nutritional support from their schools. We’re seeing an increase in drug use disorder, as well as suicide, in adolescent individuals. I do think that it’s really important to realize it’s not public health versus the economy about school reopening.”

The private school in Maryland where Trump’s youngest son Barron attends classes is currently closed by a local government order.

Solving the mystery of how my mother died: Was it murder, suicide or death by cosmic joke?

My mother killed herself when I was eight years old. At least, that’s what I thought, although no one really said it out loud. It was just assumed; it fit everything I knew about her and made sense of all those furtive glances I got. But when I was 22, newly graduated from college, my older brother told me that she had been murdered — by our very own father. And not some vague, metaphoric killing off with emotional abuse, but literal pills-down-her-throat murder, so he could be with his new girlfriend.

OK. Orders another cocktail.

But then — line up those cocktails — years later I published a memoir, and a key character from my past contacted me with yet a third version of what had happened. THE version. Everything changed. Again. I didn’t know who or what to believe. I was in my 40s, and I still didn’t know how my mother Creola died.

On April Fools’ Day. Did I mention that? Bartender….

The suicide theory was hard to shake. I had proof. One Saturday afternoon, I had found my mother with a plastic bag tied around her head, held tight at the neck with the blue madras belt from my brand new Easter suit. Just before then, I had been playing outside, some made-up game with knights and dragons and a damsel in distress. I needed a costume, so I ran inside to get my older brother Ed’s bathrobe: perfect for a Medieval skirt, with maroon ribbed corduroy and gold trim. Regal enough for a king, or at least the little third-grade queen that I was. I went into Ed’s bedroom and found my mother lying face-up on the bed: arms held rigid at her sides, hands clenched, as if forcing herself not to rip off the dry cleaner’s plastic covering her face. Under the translucent blue of the plastic, complete with imprinted warnings to “keep away from children,” she looked like she was floating at the bottom of a pool. She moved before I did, clawing off the plastic; her face was sweaty and red. She said she was trying to get rid of a cold, and not to tell my father.

I didn’t. I didn’t tell anyone, and a few months later she was dead. April Fools’ Day, a date impossible to ever forget. She’d been very groggy in bed that morning, too sick to teach her fourth grade class. My father called the principal to say they’d need to get a substitute teacher for her.

Nobody ever told my twin brother Tim and me how she ended up dead, between the time we left for school that morning and the time we got home that afternoon. In the weeks to come, the vague phrase “brain aneurysm” floated around, which someone explained to me as “her brain exploded.” I imagined her bedroom walls covered with blood and brain matter, like President Kennedy’s head after getting assassinated, 30 miles away in Dallas. The reality, which I also began to hear in small-town Texas whispers, is that her bed had been covered with empty pill bottles and crushed-up pills. It seemed as if this time she had succeeded at suicide, with pills instead of plastic.

For the next decade, that became the secret history of my life: how I might have prevented her death if only I had told the “getting rid of her cold” story she told me not to tell. There was a lot I should have told some responsible adult: how she had once attacked my father with a cast iron skillet, beating him as she screamed, “The Great Apostle Paul told me to do this!” How her fugue states often called out the family doctor, who would ask her to count backwards from 10 and name the president. In my adult years, I came to presume she was bipolar, a phrase that didn’t even exist then.

Fast forward, and I’m visiting my much-older brother Ed in Washington, D.C. We’re having what feels like our first grown-up dinner, man to man, and it took just one martini for Ed to tell me his secret history:

“You know, Daddy killed Mother.”

Uh, no … I didn’t know.

My reaction was the same as when I found Mother’s head covered in see-through plastic: I couldn’t make sense of it. Now I was the one looking up from the bottom of a pool.

“You mean…the way he treated her. His drinking. His running around on her. Emotionally he killed her? He killed her spirit?”

“No, he killed her killed her. He forced her to take pills and made it look like suicide.”

Over more martinis, and popcorn shrimp — you never forget your first — Ed began to spill out his litany of proof: Mother calling him at college a few weeks before her death, to say she was leaving Daddy and taking us — the boys, the twins — with her. Daddy was having an affair and she couldn’t take it anymore. (In fact, I did remember that secret “field trip” she’d taken us on, to find an apartment in a nearby town, complete with her now-familiar warning: “Don’t tell your father.”) Finally, the fact that Daddy refused to let an autopsy be performed on her. That was the clincher.

Everything made a different kind of sense now. That sweet new woman who ran the shoe repair shop near Daddy’s job who suddenly appeared in our lives just after Mother died. The new shoes he wore; the moccasins she gave us. The suppers we began eating on TV trays at her house. And the sucker punch I felt when, after Ed’s revelation, I finally looked at the register from Mother’s funeral. The very last name signed in the book, before my mother went into the ground, was Rita Cobb, the woman our father married just seven short months later. 

It was almost impossible to believe. My father a killer? Really? But maybe that was easier to believe, even better to believe, than thinking she had killed herself without leaving a suicide note. Without saying goodbye to the three sons everyone said she loved so much. Now, I didn’t have to hate her for abandoning us; I could just hate him for killing her.

God, what a line to have to write. But at least case closed.

Uh, not so fast. You might want to look at that cocktail menu again.

In 2009, I published a family memoir called “The History of Swimming.” Doing publicity, I got an email from a name I didn’t recognize at first. On the slug line were these two simple, ominous words: “Your Mother.”

It turned out to be from my fourth grade teacher back in Texas. The very same woman who had been my mother’s student teacher for all of three days when my mother died; the woman who then took over her job. She wrote, “There’s something about your mother’s death you need to know.” She proceeded to tell me a story I had never heard before. A true story, I think. The true story. The Holy Grail I’d been seeking for over four decades.

On that beautiful last day of March, on playground duty at J. L. Greer Elementary School, my poor distracted mother — worried about losing her mind and her husband, worried about making a future by herself, with two young children in tow — wandered straight into the orbit of a tether ball in mid-flight and was knocked unconscious. Instead of going to the hospital she was brought home, and the next day she died of that mysterious brain aneurysm.

Death by tether ball, a punch line I never saw coming. On April Fools’.

In those next days of mourning, as her fellow teachers brought over platters of food and smothered us with their perfume and powder, no one said a word about that damn tether ball. Maybe to my father, but no one else. (Certainly not to my older brother and aunt; otherwise why did they become obsessed with indicting my father?) Maybe the teachers all thought someone else had told us.

“I thought YOU did.”

“No, I thought YOU did.”

No one did, and I spent the next three decades in a sort of limbo, playing a game of “either/or.” Either suicide or murder. Was one better than the other? A gruesome playground injury never entered the equation. Did finding out finally change everything — or anything? Is the anger finally gone, at her for not leaving a note, at him for not killing her? At those damn teachers for never telling us what happened on the playground? At God, for playing that cosmic joke? Is that why I’ve been such a tempestuous, angry person for so long?

For better or worse, those decades of not knowing still feel like a part of my DNA. You just can’t shake all that overnight. Maybe that core mystery is such an essential part of my life, I need it to keep me going. Maybe her death, in some bizarre way, was a perfect storm that involved all three things, a crumbling house that Creola built: the ball led to the pills that my father was stockpiling to do her in anyway. All the evidence is there, to make a case for any one of the three.

What would my mother tell me, if she could solve the mystery once and for all?

I couldn’t write another memoir, but I did write a new novel to give her a voice of her own. Room to answer. In my new novel, “Rules for Being Dead,” little Kim isn’t the only one on the hunt. “Creola Perkins” is too, in limbo and floating above a little Texas town, after watching her own body being taken out of our house in a body bag. She knows how she ends up, but not how she gets there. And she finds the answer, for both of us.  

Sam Jay brings her raw “SNL” comedy to Netflix for “3 in the Morning”

Midway through her first Netflix standup special, comedian Sam Jay describes how her approach to travel has changed as she’s aged. She used to arrive at her destination and sleep all day so she could party all night, but her priorities have now shifted since entering her 30s. “I’m an old bitch, I want to see the architecture and the museums,” she deadpans, waiting a beat before wryly adding that she still took mushrooms before she left the hotel. 

It would have been easy at that point for Jay’s set to go down the road of stoner humor — perhaps a few lackadaisical jokes about how weird the London streets look when you’re very, very high — but instead, it takes a sharp turn towards discussing the “audacity of white people.” 

She describes walking into The British Museum and seeing room after room of artifacts obviously stolen by white colonists. When Black folks steal stuff, Jay says, they have the inclination to spread it out. But when white people steal from other cultures, they literally build a fortress for their stolen goods, charging $20 for entry. Jay assumes the voice of a posh British man addressing the plebeian masses, “Shoot them if they touch it.” 

Jay’s debut special,”Sam Jay: 3 in the Morning,” which was filmed at The Masquerade in Atlanta, is full of these snappy transitions from observational humor to more complex interrogations of sociopolitical issues, but she possesses a certain rawness in her presentation that simultaneously elevates jokes that fall onto well-trodden ground and imbues even most contentious political content with the familiarity of a discussion with a friend at a bar, both of you slightly tipsy. 

Take her bit about air travel, for example, a topic mined by many a stand-up. It starts with a description of her girlfriend packing three (THREE!) bags for their trip to London, which leads to the infinitely quotable line, “Why are you packing bags you don’t have arms for?” Then suddenly, Jay does another quick pivot and we’re suddenly talking about her fear of death — and how maybe it’s not death itself she fears, but rather survival? 

And while in the hands of another comic these stream-of-consciousness meditations could easily sprawl into exasperating tangents (like in Pete Davidson‘s recent underwhelming special, “Alive in New York”), Jay attacks her set with a precision that shows that at her core she is both a writer and — perhaps more importantly — an editor who is comfortable leaving content on the cutting room floor. 

Jay was a relative late-comer to the comedy scene. She didn’t begin stand-up until she was 29, but since 2017, she has been a staff writer at “Saturday Night Live,” where she’s written standout sketches like “Black Jeopardy.” 

As Salon’s Melanie McFarland wrote, that 2019 sketch is built on some of the same unexpected twists found in Jay’s current special. “‘Black Jeopardy’…lands its jokes by fooling the audience into thinking it knows how the contestant Kenan Thompson’s Darnell sets up as the stooge will perform, then quickly turns that assumption on its ear,” she wrote. “Chadwick Boseman’s T’Challa from ‘Black Panther,’ for example, was entirely out of his depth when called upon to answer questions about American black culture.” 

So was Elizabeth Banks’ character, Allison, who plays a white woman who doesn’t see color (“So it’s just ‘Jeopardy’ to me,” she chirps) and Tom Hanks’ Doug, who shows up to “Black Jeopardy” wearing a MAGA hat. 

“Only after Allison realizes that she can’t win regardless of what she does can she get points on the board — ‘That is the blackest thing you said all day, Allison!’ Darnell tells her,” McFarland writes. 

Jay’s political analysis in “3 in the Morning” is equally attuned to the current climate and puts into words the frustrations many of us are probably experiencing — especially considering that this special was released in the middle of a pandemic to which the government response has been absolutely abysmal. Liberals like to defend the country, Jay points out. They like to say that the country is better than the president. 

“No the f**k we’re not,” Jay says. “If we were, he wouldn’t be the f**king president. We’re better than Trump? We’re a country of Golden Corral buffets. Who the f**k do we think we are? Trash. We’re trash.” 

Troughs of macaroni, $9.99 prime rib, 99 cent hamburgers. That’s who we are, Jay asserts with deep conviction, a tone that she carries into segments about her disdain for trans-exclusionary women, Greta Thurnberg, and the exclusivity of white feminists. These observations are built upon self-aware humor about the most marginalized aspects of her identity. Jay is the only Black openly lesbian writer in the “SNL” writers’ room. 

This isn’t to say that the entire special is trapped in a stratosphere of $5 political terms. 

Jay’s standup is laced with profanity and a lot (I mean, a lot) of dick jokes, but she manages to make the transition between high- and low-brow seamless. 

Inherent to most good standup is the ability to find and express the universal truisms in personal experiences, and Jay has this ability. Towards the end of her special, when she talks about how one of the things holding her back from parenthood is the idea that someone would be wholly dependent on her, I found myself nodding at the screen. It’s such a tender observation. “That’s so me,” I thought. But then she makes another quick pivot, this time to how she wants to stunt on other moms when it comes to how much she spends on adopting a child. It’s a take that is so uniquely Sam Jay — and it only left me wanting to hear what other turns she was going to take. 

“Sam Jay: 3 in the Morning” is currently streaming on Netflix.

The Daily Caller has been paid by GOP campaigns while providing fact-checking services for Facebook

The Daily Caller has taken tens of thousands of dollars to help Republican campaigns raise money while performing political fact-check services for Facebook.

Federal election filings from the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee show that the two organizations rented email lists from the publication this year, paying $40,213.75 and $18,171.40, respectively.

The Caller, a right-wing publication co-founded by Fox News personality Tucker Carlson, has also since 2016 sent dozens of emails “paid for by Trump Make America Great Again Committee,” a joint fundraising vehicle shared by the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee, according to Media Matters.

Media Matters also revealed that The Daily Caller has sent sponsored emails on behalf of a number of Republican candidates this year. Media Matters posted screenshots of the emails, from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.CRep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio; the Senate Conservatives Fund; and the Bikers for the President PAC.

The Daily Caller’s fact-checking subsidiary Check Your Fact says on its own “about” page:

Our mission is a non-partisan one. We’re loyal to neither people nor parties — only the truth. And while the fact-checking industry continues to grow, there are still countless assertions that go unchecked. We exist to fill in the gaps.

We commit to being fully transparent with how we conduct our fact checks. Whenever possible, any reader should be able to retrace the steps we took in establishing the truth.

Check Your Fact partnered with Facebook’s fact-checking program last year. However, the Daily Caller itself has published right-wing disinformationfalse stories and content written by white supremacists. For instance, it teased a fake nude photo of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and it failed to disclose that a 2017 report from Charlottesville’s “Unite the Right” rally was written by the rally’s chief organizer.

The Check Your Fact website itself is in need of a fact-check. As of Monday, the site’s “about” page claimed that Tucker Carlson still holds a majority stake in its parent company, The Daily Caller. However, Carlson told The New York Times in June that he had sold his stake in the publication last year.

The Republican National Committee disclosed spending about $4,500 to rent an email list from The Daily Caller in March 2016 just before Trump secured the nomination, according to FEC records. The Trump campaign also previously paid $150,000 the Daily Caller to rent its list, though it did not disclose the payment, which was shelled through a third-party vendor.

Aside from three Trump campaign payments to right-wing outlet Newsmax in 2015, no other media organizations have disclosed mailing list rentals to the Trump campaign, RNC or joint fundraising committee Trump Victory over the last two election cycles.

However, FEC records show that the Trump campaign and RNC have each paid a handful of third-party vendors several millions of dollars for email lists. Those companies do not have to disclose what lists they share — or where or how they got the email data.

The biggest single list acquisition payments have gone to Facebook, which the RNC paid about $5.4 million in three installments from Sept. 9 to Nov. 21, 2019, per FEC data. Facebook announced it would not be fact-checking political ads in September 2019.

Check Your Fact did not reply to Salon’s inquiry about the error on its site.

In spite of many colorful charts, President Trump loses every coronavirus fact-check to interviewer

President Donald Trump suggested in a convoluted interview with Axios’ Jonathan Swan on Monday that South Korea had published fake death numbers in a possible effort to make its response to the coronavirus pandemic appear better than his own.

“Well, look at South Korea for example,” Swan said. “Fifty-one million,  population. Three hundred deaths. It’s like, it’s crazy compared to—”

“You don’t know that,” Trump responded.

“I do,” Swan said. “It’s on—”

“You don’t know that,” the president repeated.

“You think they’re faking their statistics? South Korea?” Swan asked, puzzled. “An advanced country?”

“I won’t get into that, because I have a very good relationship with the country,” Trump replied. “But you don’t know that, and they have spikes.”

The president made the accusation about the false statistics while trying to defend his own rosy analysis of his administration’s success in containing the spread of the coronavirus.

For nearly three minutes, a visibly flustered Trump tried to hand Swan several colorful and simplistic charts, each of which distorted the politically inconvenient reality that under Trump’s stewardship, cases, hospitalizations and deaths per capita in the U.S. continue to increase.

“Here’s one right here,” Trump said later. “The U.S.”

The president held up a horizontally-printed chart featuring four pastel-colored bars the width of two fingers.

“You take the number of cases. No, look,” Trump told Swan, flourishing the graph. “We’re last. Meaning, we’re first. We have the best.”

“Last?” Swan asked. “I don’t know what we’re first in — as of what?”

“Take a look again,” Trump said, again trying to give the chart to Swan. “It’s cases, and we have cases because of the testing.”

The president has repeatedly tried to convince the American public of the misleading notion that the reason why the U.S. has reported more cases than any other country thus far is because it has conducted more tests.

But as recently as his comeback rally in Tulsa, Okla., Trump went so far as to publicly claim that he had ordered public health officials to “slow the testing down” in order to improve his public image.

When Swan made clear that in his view, hospitalizations and death rates were a better indicator of the outbreak’s severity, Trump accused the founder of Axios of “not reporting it correctly.” He then tried to hand Swan another chart.

“I mean, 1,000 Americans are dying a day,” Swan said. “But I understand. I understand on the cases, it’s different.”

“No, but you’re not reporting it correctly, Jonathan,” Trump interposed.

Swan replied, “I think I am, but—”

Trump shuffled his papers.

“If you take a look at this other chart,” he said, looking for the desired graph. “This is our testing, I believe. This is the testing, yeah.”

“Yeah, we do more tests,” Swan agreed.

“No, wait a minute. Well, don’t we get credit for that?” Trump asked. “And because we do more tests, we have more cases. In other words, we test more. We have — now, take a look.”

The president held up a line graph in full view of the camera.

“The top one — that’s a good thing, not a bad thing,” he said.

“The top, Jonathan,” the president continued. “The top.”

Swan replied, “If the hospital rates were going down and deaths were going down, I’d say, ‘Terrific — you deserve to be praised for testing. But they’re all going up. Sixty-thousand Americans are in hospital, 1,000 dying a day.”

“If you watch the news and you read the papers, they usually talk about new cases, new cases, new cases,” Trump said.

“I’m talking about death,” Swan responded. “It’s going up.”

“Death is way down from where it was,” Trump said.

“It’s a thousand a day,” Swan pointed out. “It was two-and-a-half thousand, and it went down to 500. And now it’s going back up again.”

“Excuse me?” Trump said. “Where it was? It is much higher than where it is right now.”

The two continued to go back and forth about whether deaths were, in fact, up or down. The reported total death toll in the U.S. stands at greater than 155,935, according to the most recent data from The New York Times. While daily deaths are still well below the national peak in April, that rate has more than doubled in recent weeks, led by ongoing spikes in the three most populous states of California, Florida and Texas, according to The Times.

In the interview, however, Trump falsely claimed that death rates were dropping in Texas and Florida.

“It’s going down in Florida?” a visibly puzzled Swan asked.

“Yeah. It leveled out, and it’s going down,” the president said. “That’s my report as of yesterday.”

The president provided numerous other stunning moments throughout the interview, including defending his good wishes towards alleged sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell; saying the career of recently passed civil rights icon and Democratic Rep. John Lewis was not impressive; and admitting that in a recent conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose country attempted to influence the outcome of the 2016 in Trump’s favor, he had not mentioned Russian bounties on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump also said he would cut the troop presence in the country in half by Election Day.

Here is a transcript of the full exchange about COVID-19 deaths:

TRUMP: We’re gonna look at some of these charts.

SWAN: I would love to.

TRUMP: We’re gonna look –

SWAN: Let’s look.

TRUMP: And if you look at death per –

SWAN: It’s starting to go up again.

TRUMP : Here’s one. Well, Right here, U.S. is lowest in numerous categories – we’re lower than the world –

SWAN: Lower than the world. Lower than the world? What does that mean?

TRUMP: We’re lower than Europe –

SWAN: In what? In what?

TRUMP : Take a look. Here’s case death.

SWAN : Oh, you’re doing death as a proportion of cases. I’m talking about death as a proportion of population. That’s where the U.S. is really bad. Much worse than South Korea, Germany, etc.

TRUMP: You can’t-  you can’t do that>

SWAN: Why can’t I do that?

TRUMP: You have to go by – you have to go by where – Look, here is the United States. You have to go by the cases.

SWAN: Why not as a percentage of population?

TRUMP: What it says is when you have somebody where there’s a case-

SWAN: Oh, ok.

TRUMP: The people that live from those cases-

SWAN: It’s surely a relevant statistic to say if the U.S. has X population and X percentage of death of that population versus South Korea-

TRUMP: No but you have to go by the cases.

SWAN: Well look at s k for ex. 51 m population, 300 datehs. its like, it’s crazy compared to-

TRUMP: You dont know that

SWAN: I do. It’s on –

TRUMP: You dont know that

SWAN: You think they’re faking their statistics? SK? An advanced country?

TRUMP: I wont get into thatt bc i have a very good relationship with the country, but you dont know that. And they have spikes

SWAN: Germany low, 9000.

TRUMP: Here’s one right here. The us. You take the number of casses. Look. We’re last. Meaning we’re first. We have the best. 

SWAN: Last? I dont know what we’re first in. aAs of what?

TRUMP: Take a look again. It’s cases. And we have cases because of the testing.

SWAN: I mean, 1,000 Americans are dying a day. But I understand. I under on the cases it’s different.

TRUMP: No, but you’re not reporting it correctly, Jonathan.

SWAN: I think I am, but-

TRUMP : If you take a look at this other chart — look, this is our testing, I believe. This is the testing, yeah.

SWAN: Yeah, we do more tests.

TRUMP: No, wait a minute. Well, don’t we get credit for that? And because we do more tests we have more cases. In other words we test more, we have –  Now take a look. The top one. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing.

SWAN: But-

TRUMP: The top, Jonathan, the top.

SWAN: If hospital rates were going down and death were going down I’d say, “Terrific, you deserve to be praised for testing.” But they’re all going up. 60,000 Americans are in hospital, 1,000 dying a day.

TRUMP: If you watch the news and you read the papers they usually talk about new cases, new cases, new cases.

SWAN: I’m talking about death. It’s going up.

TRUMP: Death is way down from where it was.

SWAN: It’s a thousand a day. It was two-and-a-half thousand and it went down to 500 and now it’s going back up again.

TRUMP: Excuse me. Where it was it is much higher than where it is right now.

SWAN: It went down and it went up again.

TRUMP: It spiked. Now it’s going down again.

SWAN: It’s going up.

TRUMP: It’s going down in Arizona, going down in Florida, it’s going down in Texas-

SWAN: Nationally it’s going up.

TRUMP : Take a look at this, these are the tests.

SWAN: It’s going down in Florida?

TRUMP: Yeah. It leveled out and it’s going down. That’s my report as of yesterday.

You can watch the full interview below via YouTube:

Joe Manchin criticizes Trump donor turned postmaster general for threatening closures in rural areas

On CNN Monday, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) laid into Louis DeJoy, the controversial GOP megadonor just appointed to serve as President Donald Trump’s postmaster general amid fears he will try to sabotage the Postal Service for personal gain or to block mail-in votes.

“There is talk, Senator, of the Post Office being told to cut back on deliveries or change the way they operate,” said anchor John Berman. “This in the middle of the pandemic. This with an election 90 some days away. What does that say to you?”

“Mr. DeJoy does not want to work with us or understand the lifeline that a post office is all across America, especially in rural America,” said Manchin, a conservative Democrat who represents a number of rural mining communities. “We had letters go out to post offices in West Virginia last week that they were going to be closed. There was postings up, and then I got involved and sent a letter immediately and they took those down. You cannot close a post office — no way, shape or form — in this pandemic . . .  It’s a lifeline  — a lifeline for America and a lifeline for health care. I see people get their medicines, their information, checks, everything. They’re not connected to the 21st Century of internet. They’re relying on the postal office. We’ll protect that, and I think we have bipartisan support. Everyone is speaking out up on this.”

“Do you see some intentionality there, because people are saying that maybe the president doesn’t want the Post Office to handle the ballots?” asked Berman.

“I don’t believe in conspiracy theories at all,” said Manchin. “The facts are we’re not getting the support for the postal services. The indications were to close. West Virginia got indication of closures . . . I know directly they want to close some post offices, and we’re going to prevent that from happening.”

You can watch below via YouTube:

 

Census count to be cut short and exclude undocumented immigrants under possibly illegal Trump order

The Census Bureau revealed Monday that it will stop collecting data one month earlier than planned as it works to exclude undocumented immigrants from congressional apportionment under President Donald Trump’s legally dubious order.

The agency said earlier this year that it would need more time to complete the decennial count because of the coronavirus pandemic. Census Bureau Director Steven Dillingham now says the data will be delivered to Trump by the end of the year instead of next spring, at which time presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden may be in power.

Only about 63% of the country’s estimated 121 million households have responded to the census. The move particularly threatens to impact historically undercounted groups, such as people of color, immigrants and rural residents.

Dillingham said in a Monday statement that the bureau will end its field data collection and collecting responses via phone, mail or online by Sept. 30, Politico reported. He also said the bureau “continues to work on meeting the requirements” of two orders issued by Trump: a July 2019 executive order instructing government agencies to report data on undocumented immigrants for the purpose of excluding them from census data used by states to draft legislative maps and a presidential memorandum issued last month instructing the Census Bureau to exclude undocumented immigrants from congressional apportionment.

“A team of experts are examining methodologies and options to be employed for this purpose,” Dillingham said.

During a House hearing last week, Dillingham repeatedly refused to say whether the bureau stood by its original request for an extension. The Democratic-led House already voted to approve an extension, but a proposal from Senate Republicans does not include one.

The move is expected to boost Republican election prospects in the House of Representatives. An analysis by the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics found that among others, California would lose two seats, and New Jersey would lose one seat. Meanwhile, states likes Alabama and Ohio would gain one seat.

Trump claimed in the memorandum in June that the Constitution “has never been understood to include in the apportionment base every individual physically present within a State’s boundaries at the time of the census.”

“Instead, the term ‘persons in each state’ has been interpreted to mean that only the ‘inhabitants’ of each state should be included,” the memo said. “Determining which persons should be considered ‘inhabitants’ for the purpose of apportionment requires the exercise of judgment.”

Democrats and advocacy groups quickly challenged the order in court, arguing that the Constitution does not allow the census to count some people but not others. Under the 14th Amendment, House seats are to be divided among states “according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.”

Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who now heads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said the order “clearly” violated the Constitution.

“This latest scheme is nothing more than a partisan attempt at manipulating the census to benefit the president’s allies, but it plainly violates the U.S. Constitution and federal laws and cannot stand,” he told Politico.

The memo was issued after the Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from adding a citizenship question to the census, though the president has tried to go around the court decision by using his executive powers. Administration officials said at the time that citizenship data could be used to draw legislative maps that “would likely shift power from more densely populated cities to rural areas,” according to Politico.

New York census director Julie Menin said Trump’s memorandum was “nothing but a disgusting power grab from an administration hell-bent on preserving its fleeting political power at all costs.”

“From day one, it has been abundantly clear that Donald Trump is going to try everything possible to stop New Yorkers from filling out the census, and now, amid a global pandemic that’s severely impacted outreach, they are straight-up trying to steal it,” she said in a statement to The Washington Post.

Civil rights groups accused Trump of trying to undermine the census in hopes of undercounting minority populations.

“The Trump administration is doing everything it can to sabotage the 2020 census so that it reflects an inaccurate and less diverse portrait of America,” Vanita Gupta, the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in a Washington Post op-ed. “Its latest effort involves quietly compressing the census timeline to all but guarantee a massive undercount . . . It will leave the country with inaccurate numbers that deprive communities of resources, political power and the federal assistance necessary to recover from the pandemic for the next 10 years.”

Watch the trailer for “Ratched,” the origin story of the “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” nurse

“You deserve someone to show you mercy. How different I would be if someone had.” 

This line, spoken by Sarah Paulson in the role of Mildred Ratched in the new trailer for “Ratched,” gets to the heart of what the upcoming Netflix series promises: an origin story for one of literature and film’s most memorable villians 

Produced by Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan, “Ratched” follows Mildred as she arrives in Northern California after serving as a military nurse, seeking employment at a well-reputed psychiatric hospital. But there’s something sinister beneath Mildred’s stylish, put-together surface. 

While she presents herself as an ideal nurse, her capacity for manipulation and revenge soon becomes evident — even, as the trailer shows us, over something as small as a stolen peach — especially as she turns her sights on the mental health care system and those within it. 

But plenty of questions remain regarding what took Nurse Ratched from Mildred to monster. 

The character  of Nurse Ratched originated in Ken Kesey’s 1962 novel “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” Told from the perspective of “Chief” Bromden, a resident at a psychiatric hospital, the book centers on the tensions between patient Randle McMurphy and Nurse Ratched. McMurphy is a gambler and rabble rouser who faked insanity to serve a prison sentence in the hospital instead of at a prison work farm. He constantly antagonizes Ratched by running illegal card games in the ward, sneaking prostitutes into the hospital and sexually harasses the aides and nurses, including Ratched. 

In response, she intimidates and emasculates the residents by whatever means necessary — restricting their access medication to and basic necessities, humiliating them in front of their peers, subjecting them to electroshock therapy or (in the case of McMurphy) having them lobotomized. 

Kesey describes her as beautiful: “Her face is smooth, calculated, and precision-made, like an expensive babydoll, skin like flesh-colored enamel, blend of white and cream and baby-blue eyes, small nose, pink little nostrils.” (Hello, Sarah Paulson). 

The suspenseful series, created by Evan Romansky, has a star-studded cast, which is led by Paulson and includes: Cynthia Nixon as Gwendolyn Briggs, Judy Davis as Nurse Betsy Bucket, Sharon Stone as Lenore Osgood, Jon Jon Briones as Dr. Richard Hanover, Finn Wittrock as Edmund Tolleson, Charlie Carver as Huck, Alice Englert as Dolly, Amanda Plummer as Louise, Corey Stoll as Charles Wainwright, Sophie Okonedo as  Charlotte Wells, Brandon Flynn as Henry Osgood, and Vincent D’Onofrio as Gov. George Wilburn.

“Ratched” will debut on Netflix on Sept. 18. 

Trump’s base loved that he was a liar and a cheat — but now it’s coming back to bite them

One of the most frustrating things, for both Democrats and the investigative journalists who worked tirelessly to expose Donald Trump’s seemingly unending frauds, was how little Trump’s base seemed to care that he was a liar and a cheat. The evidence of Trump’s sociopathic disregard for business ethics, or any ethics at all, is overwhelming.

Trump cheated people who worked for him, finding ways to refuse to pay them. He spent decades engaged in tax fraud, reaping hundreds of millions through the process. Trump’s claims to be a billionaire appear the inverse of reality, where he was a billion dollars in the red, making him the photonegative of a billionaire. Trump University was a scam, described in court as preying “upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money.” Trump’s supposed charitable foundation was also a scam that faked giving to worthy causes but operated largely as a way for Trump to pay bribes and pay down his personal debts with other people’s money. Trump’s real estate business was drowning in fraud, with the entire family engaging in practices that should have resulted in criminal charges, such as lying to potential buyers about how well their condos were selling

There are easily a dozen more examples of the various ways that Trump has shamelessly lied, distorted numbers, cheated other people and generally committed fraud with the ease most of us would pour a cup of coffee. It was inevitable that he would do the same thing as president — but with the coronavirus statistics, that has turned deadly. 

In an interview with Jonathan Swan of Axios that aired Monday night, Trump showed up with a bunch of fraudulent charts and made the preposterous claim that “we’re lower than the world” when it comes to the coronavirus.

This is flat-out false, as Swan pointed out. The U.S. has by far the most cases in the world, at 4.7 million as of Tuesday morning. On a per-capita basis it’s a little better, but we still rank eighth-highest in the world. The U.S. also has the most deaths, at 155,000 and climbing fast, and ranks 10th in the world in per-capita death rate. 

But Trump, using the flimflam talents of a lifelong tax cheat, insisted that the only number that counts is the ratio of deaths to infections, which ignores the fact that millions more people have been infected than would have been under a moderately competent administration, of whatever party or ideology.

Trump is “applying salesmanship that works in the worlds of real estate and reality television to the worst pandemic in the century,” Swan said about his own interview with Trump

Honestly, he was understating the case. Trump’s instincts towards fraud didn’t “work” all that well in the world of real estate, as evidenced by his multiple bankruptcies. Arguably, Trump and other members of his family should have already been sent to prison for using these tactics in the business world, since it’s clear he went well beyond legal puffery into outright fraud and tax evasion. The fact that Trump has so far managed to survive his own lengthy history of fraudulent behavior only speaks to the toxicity of an economic system that allows white men born into wealth to fail endlessly upward. 

It’s no surprise that Trump is lying about this. He’s always been a liar and a fraud. It’s not like his own voters are ignorant of this well-documented fact.

But Trump’s voters have never minded that he lies and cheats. In fact, that was exactly what they liked about Trump. As I argued in my book “Troll Nation,” Trump’s voters knew he was a raging asshole, but were convinced he’d be their asshole, a guy who would stick it to the people they viewed as enemies (immigrants, liberals, feminists, journalists and so on) and that he’d leverage his skills at cheating and defrauding others to their benefit.

Focus group data made this clear: The more that Trump voters heard that he was a bully and a con man, the better they liked him

Trump himself leaned into this narrative hard during the 2016 campaign, reveling in his own history of corrupt behavior but promising his voters that his evil ways made him the best champion for their interests. 

“All my life, my whole life I’ve been greedy, greedy for money,” Trump told attendees as a 2016 event in Des Moines, Iowa, before promising, “but now I want to be greedy for the United States.”

During an October 2016 debate with Hillary Clinton, when she highlighted Trump’s long history of fraudulent tax avoidance, Trump retorted, “That makes me smart,” arguing that if he had paid his fair share in taxes, they “would be squandered, too, believe me.”

He played a similar game when Clinton brought up his multiple bankruptcies, portraying these not as business failures but clever ways to cheat the system. He even argued that he could use trickery to “renegotiate” the U.S. government’s debt by half. (This is not possible.)

It’s a turn as unsurprising as Darth Vader choking one of his own soldiers to death: Trump is only too happy to use his  instincts to defraud and lie to the very people he promised he’d fight for. Unfortunately, Trump isn’t just lying about his sketchy personal finances anymore. He’s lying how many people are dying due to his negligent and even malicious handling of a major public health crisis. 

It was inevitable that Trump would do this to his own voters sooner or later. His assurances that he would be a lying fraud, but one who was always on their side, were always the empty promises of a con man to his marks.

“If he can in any way profit from your death, he’ll facilitate it, and then he’ll ignore the fact that you died,” Trump’s niece, the psychologist Mary Trump, writes in her book “Too Much and Never Enough.”

In this case, it’s not so much that Trump thought he would directly profit from people dying. It was more that he convinced himself that any measures taken to mitigate the pandemic — whether that meant a rigorous lockdown, mask mandates or a serious nationwide testing regimen — would hurt his chances of re-election, and he’d much rather see people die in large numbers than let that happen.

But perhaps this is splitting hairs: However you slice it, millions of people have gotten sick and more than 155,000 are dead because Trump thought he could cheat on the coronavirus numbers the same way he cheated on his taxes, cheated his customers, cheated charities and cheated the so-called students at his so-called university. His voters elected him because they admired his sleaziness, and thought they would benefit from his cheating ways. But now they’re just as likely to get sick or die as the liberals they were so eager to enrage and humiliate.

We can’t expect some mass exodus back to reality among Trump supporters, of course. It’s very common for people who have been defrauded to refuse to admit it, and to defend the con man who targeted them, rather than admit that they were wrong in the first place. This is visible in cults like Jonestown or Heaven’s Gate, where members may be willing to die before conceding they should never have followed their cult leader. Trump’s approval rating remains stuck at a stubborn 40%, so now we know: That’s the proportion of Americans who would rather risk death from a pandemic than admit that maybe the liberals were right all along. 

Donor to President Trump and Roy Moore revealed as secret funder of right-wing Federalist: report

For years, there has been speculation about the funding behind the right-wing publication The Federalist, which has turned into one of President Donald Trump’s most reliable backers.

However, a new report from The New York Times appears to have partially solved this mystery.

Two sources with knowledge of The Federalist’s finances tell The Times that packing supply magnate Dick Uihlein is one of the people who gives generously to the publication.

As The Times notes, Uihlein has not only given donations to Trump, but also to far-right politicians such as failed Alabama GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore, who lost to Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) after it was alleged that he had molested several women when they were teenagers.

“After Mr. Moore was accused of assaulting underage girls in 2017, The Federalist ran an opinion piece that defended men who dated young women as a practice with a long history that was ‘not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family,'” The Times notes.

Despite denials by Trump Organization, Jeffrey Epstein was a Mar-a-Lago member: new book

A new book called “The Grifter’s Club: Trump, Mar-a-Lago, and the Selling of the Presidency” provides documentary evidence that late alleged child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein was a member of President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, despite past claims that Epstein was only a frequent guest.

Nicholas Nehamas, a reporter for the Miami Herald and one of the book’s authors, tells website News & Guts that he and his coauthors found that Epstein “was in fact listed as a member of Mar-a-Lago,” and that “the authors viewed a membership log that includes Epstein, with an address at his mansion in Palm Beach.”

Nehamas also reveals the reason why Trump kicked Epstein out of the club in 2007.

“Previously reported court records state that Trump banned Epstein from visiting the club for an alleged sexual assault on a girl,” he explained. “We were told the young woman was the daughter of a member and Trump kicked his friend out to protect Mar-a-Lago’s brand. Because the club’s membership is a closely guarded secret, no one has known the full extent of Epstein’s ties to Mar-a-Lago until our reporting.”

Trump’s past friendship with Epstein has come under scrutiny ever since the billionaire was arrested on child sex trafficking charges last year.

In 2002, Trump raised eyebrows when he said that Epstein “likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

Tucker Carlson: It’s “probably illegal” for Biden to only consider women of color for vice president

Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who once dismissed white supremacy as a “hoax” and “not a real problem,” falsely claimed on Monday that it was “probably illegal” for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to only consider women of color for the vice presidency. 

Carlson — who has long used his show to push white grievance politics and echo white nationalist and white supremacist talking points — singled out three Black women on Biden’s short-list for attack, even though the former vice president has also considered white women candidates. Among the names were three senators: Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

Biden has rolled out a list of contenders that includes numerous women of color, but his list is not limited to Black women, with Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., who is of Asian descent, and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, D-N.M., who is Latinx, reportedly under consideration.

But Carlson — who presumably has a new head writer after the last one was ousted for posting racist and sexist diatribes online — singled out Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., and former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams for criticism on Monday.

The Fox News host argued that “in a normal year, no mainstream candidate would consider any of these people,” all of whom “would be disqualified without debate.” He described Abrams as “delusional,” Bass as a “lunatic Fidel Castro acolyte who praised Scientology” and Harris as “transparently transactional.”

“Even Democratic primary voters who have a strong stomach found her repulsive,” Carlson said of the senator from California. “Pretty much no one who knows Kamala Harris likes her.”

Carlson, who has repeatedly claimed to his viewers that white people in the U.S. are under “attack,” then floated that it was “probably illegal” for Biden to limit his short-list to women of color.

“Biden has decided to hire exclusively on the basis of qualities that are both immutable and completely irrelevant — race and gender — and that’s it,” the Fox News host insisted. “‘But wait a second,’ you ask. ‘Isn’t that insulting? Isn’t it wrong? Isn’t it probably illegal?’ ‘Yes, it is,’ all three of those things. But no one’s pushing back against it, so Biden is doing it.”

The false attack was par for the course for Carlson, who earlier this month attempted to argue that Duckworth, an Iraq veteran who was awarded a Purple Heart after losing both her legs when her helicopter was shot down in 2014, “hates America.” He later doubled down, calling her a “coward” and a “fraud” after she expressed support for a national dialogue about removing certain statues.

Duckworth fired back after President Donald Trump shared Carlson’s attack on social media.

“But what I actually said isn’t the reason Mr. Carlson and Mr. Trump are questioning my patriotism, nor is it why they’re using the same racist insults against me that have been slung my way time and again in years past, though they have never worked on me,” she wrote in a New York Times op-ed. “They’re doing it because they’re desperate for America’s attention to be on anything other than Donald Trump’s failure to lead our nation, and because they think that Mr. Trump’s electoral prospects will be better if they can turn us against one another.”

But the attacks on Biden’s potential running mates have not been limited to Trump and Fox News. Recently, Biden’s own advisers have come under fire for their remarks about Harris and fellow contender Susan Rice, who served as national security adviser under former President Barack Obama. 

Former Democratic Party chair Ed Rendell, a close Biden ally, told CNN last week that Harris can “rub people the wrong the way.” Rendell later observed that Rice had smiled during a television appearance, which was “something that she doesn’t do all that readily.” He added that he found her “actually somewhat charming.”

Former Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who is leading Biden’s vice presidential search, was quoted by Politico as complaining that Harris “had no remorse” for hitting out at Biden during the primary debates.

“Dodd felt it was a gimmick — that it was cheap,” a donor who spoke to Dodd about the exchange told the outlet.

Other Biden allies argued to CNBC that Harris was “too ambitious” to be vice president.

Harris appeared to hit out at those attacks during her Friday appearance at Black Girls Lead 2020, a virtual conference for young Black women.

“There will be a resistance to your ambition,” she said. “There will be people who say to you, ‘You are out of your lane,’ because they are burdened by only having the capacity to see what has always been instead of what can be. But don’t you let that burden you.”

Abrams, who has also been criticized as being ambitious, pushed back in an interview with MSNBC on Sunday, arguing it would be a disservice to woman of color and “women of ambition” not to tout their credentials for vice president. 

“When you do something different — when you meet the standards that are normative for men with a behavior that they don’t expect from you — either as a woman or person of color, then you’re going to get critiqued,” she said.

Former acting Democratic Party chairwoman Donna Brazile criticized Biden’s allies for making the attacks public.

“It’s been relentless. It’s been unfortunate, but I must say it’s been predictable,” she told The Washington Post. “It’s extremely disappointing, because many of these attacks . . . are being made by Democratic men who should know better. I would hope that in this selection process, we are mindful that Black women — and women of color — deserve respect.”

Destroying the Postal Service: Is that Trump’s best shot at stealing the election?

In a time of instability and uncertainty, there’s one thing we can count on: Donald Trump will do everything he possibly can to retain power through the forthcoming election and beyond. His motives are well-known: If he loses the election, he’ll not only go down in history as a one-term loser, which is anathema to his ridiculously hyperbolic puffery, but it’s likely he’ll face indictment on myriad criminal charges, while fighting off an avalanche of lawsuits aimed at his criminal negligence.

How do we know he’s capable of anything? For starters, he already tried to cheat in this election. He was impeached and put on trial in the Senate for doing it. Before that, he tried to cheat in the 2016 election, too, with the help of Russia and his then-lawyer Michael Cohen, who funneled campaign cash to buy the silence of women Trump awkwardly screwed while married. If he’s willing to risk impeachment and other ramifications in order to suppress the vote, there’s definitely no off-position on his self-destruction switch. 

And self-destruction might be the upshot of his latest plot. We’ll get to that part in a second.

Trump and his postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, are busily dismantling the U.S. Postal Service at a time when more Americans rely upon the USPS for deliveries of supplies while isolating in place: everything from prescription drugs to household necessities to paychecks to absentee ballots. 

It’s the absentee ballots in particular that are motivating Trump and DeJoy to do what they’re doing, and — as a bonus — they might finally get to privatize the USPS in the process.

By way of background, the Postal Service is faced with unfunded healthcare and pension liabilities for former postal workers due to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, passed by the lame-duck Republican Congress of 2006, which caused a $120 billion cash crunch. Meanwhile, however, second-quarter 2020 revenues for the USPS grew by more than $300 million from the second quarter of the previous year, totaling $17.8 billion. Likewise, 2019 revenues for the entire year were up more than $500 million over 2018. It turns out that e-commerce from corporations like Amazon (and Walmart and Target and so on) has significantly helped the USPS, with operating revenues growing every year since 2012. That’s not to downplay the pension deficit, merely to say that mail delivery has been robust.

So why did DeJoy decide to eliminate overtime for USPS workers last month?

As you might have noticed, the lack of overtime has slowed mail delivery to a virtual crawl, which has the deliberate effect of consumer confidence in the USPS, convincing Americans that the postal mail is shoddy and unreliable at a time when Trump desperately wants people to stop using it — and to stop using it for one specific purpose: voting.

The head of the American Postal Workers Union, Mark Dimondstein, recently observed: “These changes are happening because there’s a White House agenda to privatize and sell off the public Postal Service.”

To achieve full privatization and vote suppression, USPS management under Trump is rigging the game by holding back deliveries and deliberately pissing people off. People who are angry at the Postal Service are less likely to use it, opting for FedEx, UPS or another competitor, which will affect USPS revenue while disincentivizing absentee voting by convincing people their ballots are likely to arrive late, or not at all. 

Dismantling the USPS is part of a larger effort to rig the vote using the courts. Trump tweeted on Monday: “In an illegal late night coup, Nevada’s clubhouse Governor made it impossible for Republicans to win the state. Post Office could never handle the Traffic of Mail-In Votes without preparation. Using Covid to steal the state. See you in Court!”

While we’re here, what happened in Nevada — a vote by the state legislature to send mail-in ballots to all voters, not an edict by the governor — was neither illegal nor a coup. Trump lies and exaggerates everything. Duh. Furthermore, in 2018, the Postal Service deployed a system known as Service Type Identifiers (STIDs) — a barcode tracking system for absentee ballots that allows for point-to-point monitoring of each and every ballot sent through the mail.

Regarding the threat about “court” in Trump’s tweet, the president’s re-election campaign has already spent more than $20 million on lawsuits against absentee balloting. (All “mail-in” ballots are actually absentee ballots, but Trump doesn’t want you to know that.) According to Rolling Stone’s Andy Kroll, the Trumps have filed lawsuits in “more than a dozen states, including the battlegrounds of Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida.” Nevada’s in there too, of course. The legal fund itself is being supplied by the usual array of pro-Trump Batman villains: Coal tycoon Bob Murray, Charles Schwab, Woody Johnson (of Johnson & Johnson), Marvel Entertainment chair Ike Perlmutter and so on. 

The high-priced mission is as old as Madison Avenue marketing: manufacture a problem, then prescribe a solution. The nonexistent problem is “voter fraud,” and the solution is to exploit the legal system to block absentee ballots and other services like ballot drop-boxes. 

Naturally, the war against absentee voting joins other pointless yet suppressive solutions like Voter ID laws, voter purges and other suppression tactics, predominantly aimed at traditionally Democratic voters, especially people of color. Contrary to what the world’s most notorious liar repeats on endless loop, statistically, there’s virtually no such thing as voter fraud — not with absentee ballots, not with in-person voting, not at all. It doesn’t exist, other than as rare, anecdotal episodes amounting to a tiny handful of the hundreds of millions of ballots cast in recent years. And in those anecdotal cases, the perpetrators are almost always nabbed and prosecuted.

Speaking of money, we only need to see that DeJoy, the recently-appointed postmaster general, gave Trump $1.2 million in campaign donations to understand where his loyalties are. By the way, prior to running the USPS, DeJoy was tasked with raising money for the ill-fated Republican National Convention this month (the one that was first in Charlotte and then moved to Jacksonville and now is happening nowhere in particular). He has also donated millions to the broader GOP.

In other words, DeJoy has invested a mountain of cash in Trump’s re-election and he’s not about to let something like efficient mail delivery stand in his way. If they can privatize the entire shmear along the way, well, that’s a cherry on top. 

Vaporizing the USPS and selling the parts for scrap, while suppressing absentee ballots, is only the beginning. As we discussed several weeks ago, it’s inevitable that Trump will try to exploit the courts to block the count of absentee ballots after Election Day, targeting “too close to call” precincts that could shift the electoral votes for an entire state. The result could either be another Bush v. Gore-style Supreme Court decision or a lengthy delay in reporting the results, during which time Trump could try to declare victory, hurling the entire process into a cauldron of chaos. The current slate of lawsuits is just the beginning. The true mayhem has yet to begin.

Now for the self-destructive aspect of Trump’s absentee gambit.

When you consider that 33 states, plus the District of Columbia, already offer absentee voting without an excuse, Trump is shotgun-blasting the service in a way that could also inadvertently thwart his own fanboys from casting ballots as well. The Washington Post reported this week:

[S]tate and local Republicans across the country fear they are falling dramatically behind in a practice that is expected to be key to voter turnout this year. Through mailers and Facebook ads, they are racing to promote absentee balloting among their own.

Womp womp. 

By the way, one of the Republican campaigns that appears to be defying Trump’s war on absentee ballots is — yes! — Trump’s own campaign. In fact, his operation sent out at least one email to Pennsylvania supporters urging them to get their evil absentee ballots in time for the primary election. The email even promoted a Trump-branded web page meant to assist voters with the process. No wonder the Red Hats are going indiscriminately bonkers these days, given the whiplash-inducing mixed messages. Nevertheless, it might be too late for Republican voters, at least the ones who believe every word belched by their mendacious clown dictator.

As for the rest of us, the only way to overcome DeJoy and Trump’s malfeasance is to get your absentee ballots and mail them right away as soon as early voting begins, state by state. The sooner ballots are in the hands of your county board of elections, the more likely they’ll be counted before Donald Trump’s lawyers step in. We’re not powerless here. Trump can’t stop you from voting unless you wait until the last minute. Don’t. The mail may be crippled by Trump’s cheating and conniving, but we don’t have to be caught in his trap. Not this time.

Can the pandemic bring accountability back to this country?

Whether you consider the appalling death toll or the equally unacceptable rising numbers of Covid-19 cases, the United States has one of the worst records worldwide when it comes to the pandemic. Nevertheless, the president has continued to behave just as he promised he would in March when there had been only 40 deaths from the virus here and he said, “I don’t take responsibility at all.”

In April, when 50,000 Americans had died, he praised himself and his administration, insisting, “I think we’ve done a great job.” In May, as deaths continued to mount nationwide, he insisted, “We have met the moment and we have prevailed.” In June, he swore the virus was “dying out,” contradicting the views and data of his just-swept-into-the-closet coronavirus task force. In July, he cast the blame for the ongoing disaster on state governors, who, he told the nation, had handled the virus “poorly,” adding, “I supplied everybody.” It was the governors, he assured the public, who had failed to acquire and distribute key supplies, including protective gear and testing supplies.

All told, he’s been a perfect model in deflecting all responsibility, even as the death toll soared over 150,000 with more than four million cases reportednationwide and no end in sight, even as he assured the coronavirus of a splendid future in the U.S. by insisting that all schools reopen this fall (and that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention back him on that).

In other words, Donald Trump and his team have given lack of accountability a new meaning in America. Their refusal to accept the slightest responsibility for Covid-19’s rampage through this country may seem startling (or simply like our new reality) in a land that has traditionally defined itself as dedicated to democratic governance, and the rule of law. It has long seen itself as committed to transparency and justice, through investigations, reports, and checks and balances, notably via the courts and Congress, designed to ensure that its politicians and officials be held responsible for their actions. The essence of democracy — the election — was also the essence of accountability, something whose results Donald Trump recently tried to throw into doubtwhen it comes to the contest this November.

Still, the loss of accountability isn’t simply a phenomenon of the Trump years. Its erosion has been coming for a long time at what, in retrospect, should seem an alarmingly inexorable pace.

In August 2020, it should be obvious that America, a still titanic (if fading) power, has largely thrown accountability overboard. With that in mind, here’s a little history of how it happened.

The war on terror

As contemporary historians and political analysts tell it, the decision to go to war in Iraq in the spring of 2003, which cost more than 8,000 American livesand led to more than 200,000 Iraqi deaths, military and civilian, was more than avoidable. It was the result of lies and doctored information engineered to get the U.S. involved in a crucial part of what would soon enough become its “forever wars” across the Greater Middle East and Africa.

As Robert Draper recently reminded us, those in the administration of President George W. Bush who contested information about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq were ignored or silenced. Worse yet, torture was used to extract a false confession from senior al-Qaeda member Ibn Sheikh al-Libi regarding the terror organization’s supposed attempts to acquire such weaponry there. Al-Libi’s testimony, later recanted, was used as yet another pretext to launch an invasion that top American officials had long been determined to set in motion.

And it wasn’t just a deceitful decision. It was a thoroughly disastrous one as well. There is today something like a consensus among policy analysts that it was possibly the “biggest mistake in American military history” or, as former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) put it four years after the invasion, “the worst foreign policy mistake in U.S. history,” supplanting the Vietnam War in the minds of many.

And that raises an obvious question: Who was held accountable for that still unending disaster? Who was charged with the crime of willfully and intentionally taking the nation to war — and a failed war at that — based on manufactured facts? In numerous books, the grim realities of that moment have been laid out clearly. When it comes to any kind of public censure, or trial, or even an official statement of wrongdoing, none was ever forthcoming.

Nor was there any accountability for the policy and practice of torture, “legally” sanctioned then, that took the country back to practices more common in the Middle Ages. (It’s worth noting as well that John Yoo, who wrote the memos authorizing such torture then, is now helping the Trump administration find ways to continue evading checks on the presidency.)

More than a decade ago at TomDispatch, I wrote about how the Bush administration supported such acts at the highest levels. As a result, in the early years of the war on terror, in 20 CIA “black sites,” located in eightcountries, the U.S. government used torture, as a Senate Select Intelligence Committee Report of December 2014 would detail, to elicit information and misinformation from dozens of “high-value detainees.”

It should go without saying that torture violates just about every precept of the modern rule of law: the renunciation of adjudication in favor of brutality, the use of dungeon-like chambers and medieval equipment rather than the expertise of intelligence professionals gathering information, and of course the rejection of any conviction that civility and rights are valuable.

Among his first acts on entering the Oval Office, Barack Obama pledged that the United States under his leadership would “not torture.” Nonetheless, the lawyers who wrote the memos legally approving those policies were never held accountable, nor were the Bush administration officials who signed off on them (and had such techniques demonstrated to them in the White House); nor, of course, were the actual torturers and the doctors who advised them in any way censured or criminally charged in American courts.

Indeed, many of their careers only advanced as they took jobs like a federal judge, a professorat a prestigious law school, or a well-remunerated author. When suggestions for leveling criminal charges or holding congressional hearings and investigations were raised, the Obama administration decided not to proceed. Attorney General Eric Holder claimedthat “the admissible evidence would not be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt,” while President Obama insisted that the administration should “look forward as opposed to looking backwards.” Accountability was once again abandoned.

And looming over the war on terror, the invasion of Iraq, and those torture policies was a refusal to hold any agency, administration, or anyone at all responsible for failing to stop 9/11 from happening in the first place. The 9/11 Commission Report might have been an initial step in that process, but as journalist Philip Shenon put it in his book “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation,” the report “skirt[ed] judgements about people who almost certainly had some blame for failing to prevent September 11.”

Evasion elsewhere

It wasn’t only in relation to the war on terror that accountability vanished. The government responded to the 2007-2008 banking crisis with a similar determination to avoid it. At that time, the men who ran the nation’s largest banks had played upon the greed of investors to leverage mortgage investments until, lacking government bailouts, their companies would have gone under. In response, both the Bush and Obama administrations bandaged the losses with federal funds. Yet when it came to a classic dive into irresponsible and even illegal financial behavior, they offered stern warnings and nothing else.

Accountability had been similarly elusive for corporate crimes for decades. Take, for instance, the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill that covered 1,300 miles of Alaskan coastline with oil, while killing thousands of birds, otters, seals, and whales. Lawsuits brought by that state did result in payments of more than $1 billion after the federal government indicted ExxonMobil for violating the Clean Water Act. However, only the captain of the ship, whom many experts felt had been scapegoated, was convicted of a criminal offense.

A separate lawsuit filed on behalf of local fishermen, native Alaskans, and landowners fared less well. In our post-9/11 era of unaccountability, the penalties that had been leveled against the oil company were reconsidered. In 2008, the Supreme Court reduced a $5 billion punitive damages award by 89% to $507.5 million dollars. And in 2017, in the early months of the Trump administration, 26 years of litigation came to an abrupt end when a federal court in Alaska decided not to pursue a final ExxonMobil payment of $100 million for damages from the spill.

As it turns out, (lack of) accountability is increasingly not just a matter of the law but of politics, as the Mueller investigation of Russian interference in the presidential election of 2016 highlighted. No matter how much information Mueller and his team collected demonstrating violations of both law and policy in future president Donald Trump’s dealings with Russia, or how much information a series of career diplomats and national security officials provided on his quid pro quo approach to Ukrainian officials, escaping blame, not to mention impeachment, has proven all too easy for the president.

As Attorney General Barr told the nation, misrepresenting the essence of the Mueller report, the investigation “did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” More accurately, the report concluded that the evidence “does not exonerate” the president.

Subsequently, nine individuals, seven of them members of the Trump team, were found guilty and 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted (though charges against two of the companies have been dropped by Barr’s Department of Justice). And while five of those convicted went to jail, Donald Trump commuted the sentence of his close associate Roger Stone. Meanwhile, the prosecution of his first National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is still in turmoil after the Department of Justice directed and a federal appeals court ordered the case to be dropped. As the Flynn episode demonstrates, even when individuals were held accountable, the president and his administration have, in essence, refused to accept the judgments of the courts.

In other words, the mechanisms for shining a light on government wrongdoing are being systematically undermined and abolished. In that spirit, in April and May at the behest of the president, numerous inspectors general, tasked by law with investigating and reporting on wrongdoing in their agencies, were fired, including those for the State Department and the Intelligence Community, as well as the acting inspectors general for the departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Transportation.

In the age of Trump we’re reaching the end of the line when it comes to accountability in the halls of government. Increasingly, it’s no longer an American concept.

Once upon a time

It hasn’t always been this way. In the past, when government policy or the officials making it have gone rogue, broken the law, and conspired against the basic tenets of American democracy, they have, at times, paid the price. Nearly a century ago, for instance, President Warren Harding’s Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall went to prison for accepting bribes from oil companies in the Teapot Dome Scandal. In fact, the list of former government officials who have been convicted and served time in jail is long.

Fifty years later, in the Watergate scandal of Richard Nixon’s presidency, 69 individuals, including several top government officials, were indicted and 48 of them found guilty of burglarizing documents from and wiretapping Democratic Party headquarters, among other things. The trail of illegality and cover-up went right up to the office of the president, ending in impeachment proceedings, which led President Nixon to resign.

During the years of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, misuse of power was punished as well. Fourteen people in or close to his administration were convicted for their participation in the Iran-Contra scandal in which the government secretly sold weapons to Iran, an act proscribed by law, with plans to use the funds from those sales to support American-backed Contra rebels in Nicaragua (also in violation of U.S. law). True, of the 14 charged and 11 convicted, only one actually served his sentence in prison. Nonetheless, the convictions stood as a testament to a public acknowledgement of governmental wrongdoing.

Perhaps the saddest part of all is that the Trump administration has not just refused to take responsibility for anything whatsoever, but has blamed others, even those on the front lines of pandemic defense, for things that it did. Since Covid-19 struck American shores and the president and his officials failed to respond, resulting in a catastrophically high — and climbing — death toll, accountability has been harnessed to political whims in a new way. The president has, for instance, blamed President Obama whose pandemic office was  dismantled by Trump’s own national security advisor John Bolton.

Until recently, President Trump refused to wear a mask in public and insisted — until belatedly canceling the Republican National Convention in Jacksonville, Florida, still rife with the pandemic — on holding a maskless, unsocial-distanced indoor rally in Tulsa despite overwhelming evidence that indoor transmission is the predominant means by which Covid-19 spreads. In doing so, he also encouraged irresponsible behavior at a local level, while supporting governors ready to imprudently reopen their state economies far too quickly and so condemn Americans there to an explosion of new cases.

It’s possible that this abdication of leadership, leading to a disastrously rising death rate, will, in the end, help Americans turn the corner from unaccountability to accountability — and not just for the disastrous Covid-19 response. Recent street protests from Portland to Manhattan, Chicago to Kansas City, are a sign that accountability is long overdue, not just for the current era, but for this century of American life.

In March, journalist Peter Bergen was the first person to call for a 9/11-style commission to investigate the government’s response to the coronavirus, “if only to make sure the nation is prepared for the next pandemic.” Recently, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein and Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, both from California, also proposed a Covid-19 Commission “not as a political exercise to cast blame, but to learn from our mistakes so we can prevent the problems we now face from being tragically repeated… An honest analysis is the only way to adequately prepare for the next novel virus or another disaster.”

Of course, no such thing is imaginable until Donald Trump is out of office and the Senate in Democratic hands, which does look possible. In the meantime, in its own deadly fashion, the pandemic crisis may actually help turn the tide and bring accountability back to American shores. If more than 150,000 deaths, countless numbers of them preventable, don’t offer a compelling reason to hold our public officials responsible, then what would?

Whatever the punishments, however symbolic or cosmetic, crimes of this sort need to be exposed for what they are and those who carried them out officially identified and held to account. This has nothing to do with retribution. It is not about exacting punishment. It’s about shining a beam of light on deeds that have been harmful beyond imagination and must never be repeated. We as a nation need to remind ourselves of what morality, justice, and the responsible use of power can mean. The country has to be given a chance to restore its long-faded commitment to accountable government. And perhaps we should acknowledge one more crucial thing: that this may prove to be our last chance.

Copyright 2020 Karen J. Greenberg

To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.

There was no “Trump derangement syndrome”: We were right about him all along

Do you remember “Trump Derangement Syndrome?”

It was a cute phrase that likely first appeared in 2015, deployed by prominent voices across the political spectrum to demean, mock, reject, dismiss and deflect the warnings that Donald Trump was a fascist, an authoritarian and a white supremacist, not to mention a vile and dangerous human being with apparent mental pathologies who posed a massive threat to American democracy.

Such truth-telling patriots were called “hysterical” and “alarmist,” or told they were “out of touch” and overly “bitter” about Hillary Clinton’s defeat thanks to the antiquated mechanism of the Electoral College and Russian interference. Those who first raised the alarm about Trumpism as a new version of fascism were also assured that “the institutions were strong” and fascism could never take hold in America — and most certainly not in the form of a proudly ignorant wrestling-heel wannabe and reality-TV huckster.

When Trump won the presidential election in 2016, there were some on the left eager to dance on Hillary Clinton’s grave. A few even gave Trump the totally unearned benefit of the doubt: He claimed to oppose globalization, neoliberalism and “endless war,” and to speak for the “white working class”.

Centrist Democrats and the so-called mainstream American news media also rejected the existential threat to democracy that Trump represented. They convinced themselves, over and over, that the supposed power and gravity of the office would normalize and mature him. He was a “businessman” and a “pragmatist” eager to make deals, not an ideologue — so why worry? Trump was “brash” and “unconventional,” but America’s political institutions were strong.

The stenographers of current events and the other hope-peddlers, with their horse-race journalism, false equivalence “both-sides-ism” and obsession with meaningless controversies would not let themselves see the truth of Trump’s danger or that of his neo-fascist movement. To admit the truth about Trump would mean that the old habits of writing and thinking about American politics are obsolete. Moreover, such an admission would demand speaking truth to power in a way that many members of the mainstream news media, specifically, are too afraid to, for both professional and personal reasons.

Republicans and other members of the Trump movement used “Trump Derangement Syndrome” to bully their critics into silence. The American right celebrated drinking “liberal tears” and loved the way Trump’s victory had made Democrats and so-called progressives go “crazy.”

Trump Derangement Syndrome is weaponized language in the same vein as the myth of the “liberal media.” Both lies put Democrats and the mainstream news media on the defense. While the American right and the Republican Party (and now Trump’s neo-fascist movement) drag the issue-space further and further to the right — and have done so for decades — the “liberal media” tries to find an imaginary balance by presenting right-wing extremism as somehow a “reasonable” alternative point of view.

Trump Derangement Syndrome was also a smokescreen for Donald Trump’s wild success in advancing the agenda of the plutocrats, gangster capitalists, Christian nationalists and “Dominionists” — as well as overt white supremacists — in destroying the very idea of government itself as well as American multiracial democracy.

Of course, it was not Donald Trump’s most vocal critics who were “deranged” but his followers, enablers and allies. As I explained in January 2017, shortly before his inauguration:

It is not those who oppose Trump who are deranged, but rather those voters who convinced themselves that a plutocrat authoritarian reality TV star con man and professional wrestler wannabe with no experience in government at any level was qualified to be president of the United States.

This is America’s great national derangement. Those who stand against and oppose Donald Trump are patriots who are trying to return the country to sanity.

Now, some three months away from another Election Day, Donald Trump has finally arrived at the moment which those of us who were slurred as “hysterical” and “alarmist” have warned about for more than five years.

Last Thursday, Trump issued this now-infamous tweet: 

With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???

That same afternoon, when questioned about Trump’s threats to interfere with the 2020 election, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told the U.S. Senate: “In the end, the Department of Justice and others will make that legal determination.” This is not true. The Department of Justice and the president possess no legitimate authority to delay or cancel a federal election. 

Later in the day, Trump continued to work from the authoritarian’s playbook, attempting to pivot away from his earlier statements. During a White House press event, Trump said:

Do I want to see a date change? No. But I don’t want to see a crooked election.

What will happen in November – it’s a mess. I want a result much more than you… I don’t want to be waiting around for weeks and months.

This is a familiar strategy in which the authoritarian challenges norms and boundaries by floating trial balloons and then pretends to change his mind as a way to make the heretofore-unthinkable into something acceptable.

Trump’s most recent threats are but another crescendo in he and his servants’ efforts to subvert and eventually overturn secular multiracial democracy and the rule of law in America.

Only weeks ago Trump began deploying his own personal secret police force, hoping to enforce his will by suppressing dissent and free speech in Democratic-led cities all over the United States. The events in Portland, Oregon, are but a prelude to Trump’s national terrordome.

Trump’s own personal secret police force along with his civilian “watchdogs,” may well be used to intimidate Democratic voters on Election Day and beyond. Trump has repeatedly asked hostile foreign countries to interfere in the 2020 presidential election on his behalf. He was impeached for doing just that with his attempt to blackmail the government of Ukraine to launch a phony investigation of Joe Biden. 

Trump continues to threaten senior Democratic leaders, including Biden, Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and others with treason charges, potential imprisonment and perhaps even execution. Former national security adviser John Bolton’s recent book includes details of Trump’s lurid fantasies about having journalists killed. According to Bolton, Trump supports imprisoning his “enemies” in concentration camps — something he is already doing with brown and Black migrants and refugees from Latin America, the Caribbean and other parts of the nonwhite world.

Donald Trump, has repeated his threats, ever since the 2016 campaign, that he will not respect the will of the American people if he loses a presidential election.

In sum, Donald Trump is not pretending. None of this is a game. He is a neo-fascist. Such observations and warnings are not hysterical. They are plain observations based on a consensus of the available facts.

As historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat explained in a 2017 essay at The Washington Post:

The strongman knows that it starts with words. He uses them early on to test out his plans to expand and personalize executive power on political elites, the press and the public, watching their reactions as they arrange into the timeless categories of allies, enemies and those who help him by remaining silent. Some say the strongman is all bluster, but he takes words seriously, including the issue of which ones should be banned.

Now what to do?

In a perfect and just world, the hope peddlers, professional centrists, stenographers of current events and others who maintain the boundaries of approved public discourse in America would go to the public square, prostrate themselves before the world and then beg forgiveness for how they, for years and by various means, empowered Donald Trump.

That will not happen. Instead, such voices will proclaim that they were sounding the alarm about Donald Trump years ago and are the real vanguard defenders of American democracy. In reality, such voices were enablers, far behind the truth if not actively running away it. They are now trying to position themselves on the correct side of history because their shame and failure to protect America from Donald Trump and his neo-fascist movement are so great.

In the weeks remaining before Election Day — which will certainly not be “free and fair” and when Trump’s machinations will be at their most extreme — the mainstream news media and the American people must internalize the fact that the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution mean little for Trump and his regime.

Hopeful claims — or delusions — that the Constitution and state laws dictate the rules of Election Day must be viewed with extreme cynicism. Trump and his enforcers are not restrained by such arcane conventions.

If there is indeed an election on Nov. 3, Americans most vote against Trump in overwhelming numbers in order to force him to step down. Unless Donald Trump is convincingly vanquished at the polls, he will find some way to stay in office. 

If Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr try to cancel the presidential election or interfere with it in any other way, Americans must take to the streets and engage in corporeal politics — including a national strike and other plans to disrupt day-to-day life and “business as usual” — on a scale so large that they make the George Floyd people’s uprising look like a PTA meeting.

Ultimately, those of us who warned the American people for years, sometimes on a daily basis, about this Mad King and would-be tyrant take no joy from saying, We told you so. There is no satisfaction in being correct about such a horrible thing.

On this point, Jared Yates Sexton, author of “American Rule: How a Nation Conquered the World But Failed Its People,” wrote last Thursday on Twitter: 

Those of us warning that Trump is an authoritarian capable of destroying democracy haven’t been doing it for profit or attention or out of unwarranted alarmism. None of this is hard to predict. They don’t hide it at all. Stop expecting everything to be fine because “America.”

To watch American democracy, fall so ill so fast, and now to be on the verge of collapse — when such a thing could have been so easily prevented — is a world historical tragedy.

The U.S. left behind: Under Trump, the world goes on without us

What happens when you have a short-sighted, egotistical, isolated president who has trouble processing information caught in multiple, simultaneous crises?

The nation’s rivals get mischievous — and they find ways to circumvent the power of the United States on a global basis.

  • Russians are pressing ahead in Ukraine and breaking nuclear treaties
  • Chinese are stalling on trade commitments and being aggressive on the seas
  • The Iranian desire for a nuclear weapon was set back only by an explosion of dubious origin
  • Israelis are grabbing Palestinian land
  • North Koreans are back at launching missiles

Now, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has acknowledged Iran is working actively with China toward a 25-year strategic partnership that basically replaces U.S. and European investments in his country. He called for shared security and intelligence sharing.

Now there is word Iran is assembling Chinese-built missile sites.

Details of the far-reaching agreement surfaced in an 18-page leaked document online, The Washington Post and The New York Times both reported. It discusses a $400 billion investment in Iran by China, as well as intelligence sharing and security cooperation, including in possible missions in Syria and Iraq.

The outline also discusses Chinese companies expanding in Iranian railroads, ports and telecommunications, while securing for Beijing a steady and discounted Iranian oil supply for the next quarter-century. China would develop free-trade zones in strategic locations in Iran, further binding the country into Beijing’s sprawling Belt and Road global trade and development initiative.

What the report says is that all this will happen despite U.S. sanctions against countries doing business with Iran. It dismisses all the stern warnings that Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo launch at Iranian counterparts.

Who needs the U.S.?

Lost in the blizzard of coronavirus, joblessness, racial discord and an election that turns uglier by the day is the expectation that the United States must play a major role in the world.

At the White House, this means that Donald Trump gets himself a platform either at the White House or on the rally road to regularly denounce China. For what? Over allegations of China being the source of the virus, on lagging on commitments to follow through on promised purchases of U.S. agricultural products, and, increasingly now about espionage through G5 technologies distributed by Chinese companies.

It means making derogatory comments about Mexicans, Central Americans, Iranians and European allies, all while going light on North Korea and Russia. It’s a strategy that is based on admiration for oligarchs and “winning” images for himself rather than on understandable strategic statements and a reliable and strong intelligence and defense community to follow through.

No one has a good explanation for Trump failing to raise the roof over reports that Russian military intelligence officers are bribing the Taliban to target American soldiers.

If anything, the chaos of domestic issues has masked the steady exfiltration of national security people with admirable records for a parade of substitute Trump loyalists who commit only to pursuing a Trump re-election strategy over all else.

It is a lot easier to see how this apparent deal helps Iran and China than it is to see how the United States benefits here. Indeed, it seems another lost opportunity for the United States to maintain its international leadership.

Meanwhile, the Russians are fueling a proxy war in Libya and funding insurgents to the government while the United States remains sidelined, another instance of aggressiveness in the face of a moribund U.S. foreign policy.

After the nuclear deal rejection

The Post noted that the apparent deal is “a reminder of how unlikely it was that Trump could cajole Tehran to sit down for new negotiations after scrapping U.S. commitments to the nuclear deal, a diplomatic agreement that was years in the making and involved the efforts of major powers, including China. Now, with their economy in tatters, the Iranians are seeking a lifeline from Beijing. And Chinese officials, given their own tussle with Washington, seem willing to take the risk.”

The Times offered that “at a time when the United States is reeling from recession and the coronavirus, and increasingly isolated internationally, Beijing senses American weakness. . . China feels it is in a position to defy the United States, powerful enough to withstand American penalties, as it has in the trade war waged by President Trump.”

All parties agree that Iran is in an economic crisis, the result of U.S. sanctions and coronavirus, for which it was ill-prepared, making it much more likely that Iran might turn to an anti-U.S. partner like Russia or China.

There are internal Iranian political issues over aligning with any outsider, but apparently this deal with China is preferred to subservience to what are perceived as American authoritarianism.

Is this Keeping America Great or do we need a new hat?

Studies debunk Mnuchin claim that $600 benefit is a disincentive to work

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has repeated a widely-debunked claim that the enhanced federal unemployment benefit of $600 a week is a disincentive to work. Numerous studies have found that is not the case.

Mnuchin claimed in an interview with ABC News that “there is no question” the enhanced benefit is a disincentive to find a job in “some cases.”

“We want to fix the issue where in some cases people are overpaid, and we want to make sure there’s the right incentives,” Mnuchin claimed as he continues to push to drastically slash the benefit from $600 to around $200 per week.

Host Martha Raddatz cited a recent Yale study that debunked his claim. The study found that the expanded benefits “neither encouraged layoffs during the pandemic’s onset nor deterred people from returning to work once businesses began reopening.”

“Workers facing larger expansions in unemployment insurance benefits have returned to their previous jobs over time at similar rates as others,” the researchers wrote. “We find no evidence that more generous benefits disincentivize work either at the onset of the expansion or as firms looked to return to business over time. In future research, it will be important to assess whether the same results hold when states move to reopen.”

Mnuchin responded that he “went to Yale” and doesn’t always “agree” with the university before pointing to a “Chicago study” that found that the majority of unemployment recipients receive more from the benefit than their previous salary.

There is no question that many people get more from the benefit than their previous salaries, though multiple analyses have shown that the extra funds have helped prop up the economy amid an economic collapse and that reducing the benefit would shrink the economy and cost millions of jobs.

The study that Mnuchin cited did not even claim to answer the question of whether the additional money was actually a disincentive to work. But study after study has found that it has not affected businesses’ ability to bring back workers.

A study by the Chicago Federal Reserve found that laid-off workers receiving the generous unemployment boost “search more than twice as intensely as those who have exhausted their benefits.”

Another study by researchers at the New York Federal Reserve and the University of Pennsylvania found that job vacancies declined by 64% during the crisis but “employers did not experience greater difficulty finding applicants for their vacancies after the CARES Act, despite the large increase in unemployment benefits.”

A study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research likewise found no evidence of Mnuchin’s claim.

“States with more generous unemployment insurance benefits had milder declines and faster recoveries,” the study said. “We find no evidence that high UI replacement rates drove job losses or slowed rehiring.”

Arindrajit Dube, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, found that “there is no clear indication that [enhanced benefits] had an impact on the employment in the data through late July.”

Ernie Tedeschi, a former Treasury Department economist, found “no evidence of any effect on labor market flows from more generous UI in May and June.”

Democrats slammed Mnuchin for recycling a debunked talking point to defend a proposed 66% federal unemployment cut.

“Inflicting suffering on tens of millions of Americans by cutting unemployment benefits because of an anecdotal ‘some cases’ argument that has been refuted again and again by studies of actual data is a stupid way to make policy,” said Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has voted by mail, claims the practice is prone to fraud

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has voted by mail at least four times, according to election officials in Oconee County, South Carolina, and voter records obtained by Salon.

Public records show that Graham has cast a total of nine absentee ballots since 2004, but South Carolina classifies “absentee” to mean both in-person early voting and voting by mail. After Salon’s review with Oconee County election officials, it appears four of those absentee ballots were cast by mail.

Graham, who has questioned the security of mail ballots as recently as Thursday, appears most recently to have voted by mail in the 2008 general election, records show. He also apparently voted by mail in the 2006 South Carolina statewide election, as well as the primary and general elections in 2004, according to public records.

The three-time incumbent and chair of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee has found himself unexpectedly neck-and-neck in the polls with underdog challenger, Jaime Harrison, former chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party. Though opinions about mail ballots fall largely along partisan lines, with Republicans generally arguing for restrictions, leaders in a number of deep-red states have expanded mail voting options. States that have done so have reported surges in voter turnout, which tends to work in Democrats’ favor.

Graham campaign spokesperson T.W. Arrighi told Salon in a statement that while the senator endorses absentee mail-in voting, he does not support a nationwide expansion, claiming falsely that it would make “ballot harvesting” legal.

“Senator Graham has always supported absentee voting, either in-person or by mail. In fact, Senator Graham often votes absentee due to his travel schedule, including this past June 1 when he voted absentee in-person at the Walhalla Election Commission,” Arrighi said.

“However, Senator Graham does not believe in a national vote-by-mail system — in which tens of millions of Americans are mailed ballots, and ballot harvesting is legalized. A system like that is rife with ballot security and fraud issues,” he said.

“This is classic Lindsey Graham: Say one thing and do another,” Harrison campaign spokesperson Guy King said in a statement provided to Salon. “He thinks vote-by-mail is good enough for him, but not for South Carolinians trying to make their voices heard in a way that keeps their families safe.”

“It smells of desperation, and it’s yet another sign that Lindsey is beginning to panic and lose confidence in his chances this November. Voters here are fed up with this blatant hypocrisy, and are ready for a leader like Jaime Harrison who has a backbone and will act based on conviction, not political convenience,” King added.

The Harrison campaign did not reply to Salon’s questions about Harrison’s own voter record.

Election law expert Rick Hasen debunked voter fraud fear-mongering in a Washington Post op-ed published this April. He pointed to a study conducted by News21, a national investigative reporting project that tracks election fraud, which found that absentee ballot issues comprised about 24% of election fraud prosecutions between 2000 and 2012, making it the most common type of election fraud. But even that is greatly deceptive: As Hasen wrote, “the total number of cases was just 491 — during a period in which literally billions of votes were cast.”

Though Graham opposes a national expansion of voting by mail, his own campaign has actively and personally encouraged its expansion in South Carolina. Ahead of the state’s primary election this June, Graham’s campaign distributed mailers urging voters to register absentee.

“Vote conveniently from home,” the mailer reads, opposite a picture of a silver-haired senior couple.

“Voting Absentee is the simple alternative to voting at the precinct,” it continues. “Let your voice be heard loud and clear over a cup of coffee from the convenience of your own home.”

The mailer, which the campaign sent out in May, includes two detachable cards pre-addressed to the Graham campaign and headlined “I WANT TO VOTE BY MAIL,” which voters can use to request an absentee ballot application.

The brochure also features a picture of Graham standing next to President Trump, who the month before had tweeted, without providing evidence, “Mail in ballots substantially increases the risk of crime and VOTER FRAUD!”

An Oconee County election official told Salon that most voters in Graham’s precinct are 65 or older, making them automatically eligible for mail voting. The state requires voters under 65 to provide a legitimate reason for a mail-in ballot. Older voters historically tend to skew conservative.

Mail-in ballots have become a political flashpoint in recent months, as the pandemic has sent state and local leaders scrambling to ensure that elections could proceed safely.

A major mail ballot snafu in New York City involving postmarks has led the board of elections there to scrap about 12,500 mail ballots in the 12th congressional district’s Democratic primary, a close race between incumbent Rep. Carolyn Maloney and challenger Suraj Patel. The hangup is a massive black eye for the Democratic-led state, and has raised serious concerns about the viability of expanded mail-in voting with a strategically impeded Postal Service, as well as cries of disenfranchisement. Trump seized on the issue this week, claiming baselessly that the vote was “rigged.”

Graham joins a number of prominent Republicans who have pushed false conspiracy theories about the security of voting by mail, only to be revealed later as having cast mail-in ballots themselves.

Those individuals include Vice President Mike Pence, Attorney General William Barr, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway and Trump himself, who now lists his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach as his official residence and has voted absentee in Florida in recent elections.

Why the idea of jobless benefits scares the conservative mind

When Congress passed the CARES Act earlier this year, lawmakers gave some low-wage Americans who lost their jobs an income they’ve been demanding for years: $600 a week, which works out to $15 an hour for a 40-hour workweek. Because the federal minimum wage is less than half that rate—stuck there due to the intransigence of conservatives waging a class war against the poor—the coronavirus pandemic ironically gave the bottom rung of the American workforce a taste of what they could have had all along. So popular was this $600 in jobless benefits that even some Republicans who had voted against that provision in the CARES Act boasted about it to their constituents and failed to mention that like most of their GOP colleagues, they had initially opposed the provision.

The main conservative argument against paying unemployed workers $600 a week is that employers who try to entice them back into the workforce—whether it is safe or not—will have to compete with the government payments. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said out loud, “we don’t want to make it more profitable to stay home than to go back to work.” Think about that: the yearly salary equivalent of this supposedly generous benefit works out to just over $31,000 a year. If employers are unable to compete with such a low salary, there is something deeply wrong with our economy. In Los Angeles where I live, the amount does not even cover rent for a two-bedroom apartment.

Still, so underpaid are American workers that the $600-a-week in benefits, in addition to the one-time stimulus checks of $1,200, buoyed the entire economy as people actually began spending the cash. By May of this year, spending was up by 8.2 percent after falling dramatically in the two months before. According to an Associated Press report in late June, “The federal money has pumped nearly $20 billion a week into the economy and enabled many of the unemployed to stay afloat.” According to one estimate, the benefits comprise 15 percent of all wages in the nation, and “unemployed people are spending more than they did before the pandemic, while those who have jobs are spending less.”

At about the same time, spending by the richest Americans fell. Credit card use declined dramatically in the first half of the year—a trend that was directly attributed to the nation’s wealthiest people. Those businesses most dependent on selling pre-pandemic-era luxury goods and services to rich folks suffered the most. One study tracked the correlation, concluding that, “Declines in high-income spending led to significant employment losses among low-income individuals working in the most affluent ZIP codes in the country.”

The broader conclusion from such a study is that the wages of the working poor are far too dependent on the luxury spending of the wealthiest—a clear sign of the deep rot in the American economy as wealth and income inequality have continued to increase year after year. Had conservative lawmakers not stood in the way of increasing the federal minimum wage beyond $7.25 an hour, it is likely that the COVID-19 crisis would have had a lesser economic impact on the poorest Americans.

Conservative talking points for years warned against an economic apocalypse resulting from a higher minimum wage, saying that corporations would cut jobs—as if under the current status quo they are keeping on more workers than they actually need. Such notions have done deep damage to the economy.

Perhaps what the economic elites are really terrified of is that Americans might get used to being paid at least $600 a week. White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow admitted that, “We’re paying people not to work. It’s better than their salaries would get.” Kudlow seems far more willing to give Americans one-time checks to entice them to return to their low-paying jobs rather than provide steady and relatively decent incomes for the long term.

Kudlow and other wealthy elites have had an ever-increasing influence over the nation’s economic policy, and under Donald Trump’s administration, that influence has deepened. Trump had justified his choices of various billionaires for top cabinet posts saying, “I want people that made a fortune because now they’re negotiating with you.” It should come as no surprise then that Trump’s Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who is worth about $400 million, complained about jobless workers being overpaid. He said on Fox News, “It wouldn’t be fair to use taxpayer dollars to pay more people to sit home than they would get working and get a job.” Mnuchin has no standing to defend taxpayers considering that he has sheltered his own income in offshore tax havens.

In fact, Yale researchers found that the government assistance did not artificially depress employment rates and that it, “neither encouraged layoffs during the pandemic’s onset nor deterred people from returning to work once businesses began reopening.” What the relatively generous jobless benefits have done is to finally spark a national conversation about putting a floor on wages. Now that a portion of the workforce has experienced an income that amounts to $15 an hour, there will be a greater public appetite for boosting wages. Moreover, the pandemic has offered a chance for economists all over the world to study the effects of what has amounted to a large-scale experiment of the kind that proponents of a Universal Basic Income have wanted to conduct for years.

Supporters of an economy based on consumerism ought to embrace the idea. If tax dollars ensure that the poorest Americans have a basic income, it is likely to stabilize consumer spending. Even some billionaires see value in the idea. Tilman Fertitta, a restaurateur and owner of the Houston Rockets, said, “You’re going to see this economy go backwards when we cut out this $600 a week.”

One would imagine that President Trump, who has based his reelection strategy on a strong economy, would support such a policy. But the ideology that a basic income represents contradicts the relentless Republican attacks on government “socialism.” If the government were to rig the economy in favor of poor Americans instead of wealthy elites and corporations (as is now the case), it would open the door to popular programs such as Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and of course an increase in the federal minimum wage. And that appears to be the biggest concern for the capitalist ideologues who are setting current policy.