Trump says mail voting is bad, but absentee voting is good. His lawyers admit they’re the same thing

President Donald Trump on Thursday tried to draw a distinction between “mail voting” and “absentee voting,” but his own lawyers acknowledged in court documents the two are the same thing.

Trump suggested delaying the election on Thursday amid plummeting poll numbers and the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, which has killed more than 150,000 people and caused the largest GDP drop in U.S. history. Trump has no power to postpone the election, and the idea was roundly rejected by Republican lawmakers. At the same time, many members of the GOP have expressed similar concerns about mail-in voting as the president.

“With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history,” Trump claimed without evidence.

Some states have long used all-mail elections. There have been more than 250 million ballots cast by mail in the last 20 years, and only 143 prosecutions related to mail ballot fraud, or a rate of about 0.00006%.

Trump later reiterated that he opposed “mail-in-voting” but “totally” supports “absentee voting,” even though they are the same thing. Trump and many of his aides have repeatedly voted by mail themselves.

Trump and White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, for example, have claimed that they voted “absentee” in Florida. But there is no “absentee” voting in Florida. Instead, the state has a “no excuse” vote-by-mail system that allows anyone to cast a ballot by mail for any reason.

Trump’s own lawyers acknowledged that there is no difference between “mail-in voting” and “absentee voting” in a lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania’s mail voting rules last month.

Attorneys for the Trump campaign noted that while some states have different wording regarding the terminology, “the terms ‘mail-in’ and ‘absentee’ are used interchangeably to discuss the use of the United States Postal Service to deliver ballots to and from electors” in a lawsuit available in full on the president’s website.

Marc Elias, a lawyer for the Democratic Party who frequently argues election cases in court, told MSNBC on Thursday that “there is no distinction” between the two terms.

“They are synonyms,” he said. “Some states tend to use the term ‘mail-in.’ Some states tend to use the term ‘absentee.’ Sometimes, within a state, the statutes will refer to both. But they are both the same. They are both processes by which people who don’t want to show up to the polls in person can receive in the mail a ballot . . . that they either mail back or deliver through some other mechanism to election officials. There is no difference.”

Trump’s complaints appear to be based on the premise that mail voters typically have to request and fill out a form in order to obtain a mail-in ballot, but some states are sending every eligible voter an application in anticipation of a surge in mail voting due to the pandemic.

The president falsely claimed on Thursday that states were sending out “hundreds of millions of universal mail-in ballots.”

Aside from the fact that there are not “hundreds of millions” of voters in the country, only California, which Trump lost by 31 points in 2016, plans to send absentee ballots to voters. Though Trump has falsely accused other states like Michigan of sending everyone a ballot, Michigan is one of a handful of states that is sending applications — not ballots — to eligible voters. There is not a single state that is sending ballots or applications to anyone who is not registered to vote.

Trump and Attorney General William Barr have also floated conspiracy theories that these ballots could possibly be tampered with or forged, but these baseless claims have been refuted by Republican state officials. There are numerous safeguards in place, including bar codes and signature verification.

Beverly Clarno, Oregon’s Republican secretary of state, told CBS News that the state’s system uses unique barcodes for each ballot it sends out. Kim Wyman, Washington’s Republican secretary of state, told The New York Times that “vote-by-mail has a lot of security measures.”

“At the end of the day, all voting systems are like banks,” she said. “You build a lot of things in to protect from fraud. You build in a lot of measures to detect it. But ultimately, if somebody wants to commit fraud, or if someone wants to rob a bank, they can. And then we have measures on the back end to prosecute that criminal activity. So you hope to deter it, and you hope it doesn’t happen. But if it does, you have ways to deal with it.”

Pressed on his false claims about mail voting on Thursday, Trump spun a new narrative arguing that he does not want election results to be delayed.

“I don’t want to see an election — you know, so many years, I’ve been watching elections. And they say the ‘projected winner’ or the ‘winner of the election’ — I don’t want to see that take place in a week after Nov. 3, or a month or frankly — with litigation and everything else that can happen — years,” Trump claimed. “Years. Or you never even know who won the election.”

Election experts rejected the idea that counting mailed-in ballots, which happens in every election, would delay the election for years.

“That’s not new. We’ve had absentee voting in this country for a long time,” Elias told MSNBC. “We regularly don’t have all the ballots counted on election night.”

“Any state should be able to count votes-by-mail and verify it within a month unless something derails the system,” Edward Foley, a law professor at Ohio State University, told The Hill.

“We should get ready for the fact that we may not know who won on Election Night,” added Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School. “But there’s a process for counting and a process for fighting over the count. And the Constitution says that all of that is over — full stop — well before noon on Jan. 20.”

Dr. Fauci says it’s not “dreaming” that a coronavirus vaccine could arrive by 2021

On Friday morning, leading infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci and other members of the White House coronavirus task force testified before a House subcommittee on the Trump administration’s coronavirus response. The hearing took place as more than 150,000 lives have been lost to the novel coronavirus and the country leads the world in total cases with over 4 million Americans infected.

Despite these grim numbers, some states continue to reopen, and many are planning on sending kids back to school this fall. The piecemeal approach to control the virus in the U.S. has been scrutinized and the subject of debate, especially as other countries have seemingly managed to control its spread and lower the number of infections.

Fauci, Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the assistant secretary for health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Adm. Brett Giroir, addressed concerns about vaccine development, the inability to contain the virus in the U.S., and more at the hearing. In case you missed it, here’s what happened:

1. Dr. Fauci says it’s “not dreaming” that a vaccine will be here in 2021

A sigh of relief came at Dr. Fauci’s optimism when Rep. Maloney (D-NY) questioned if it’s “dreaming” to believe if a vaccine will be available next year.

“We feel cautiously optimistic that we will have a vaccine by the end of this year and as we go into 2021,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I don’t think it’s dreaming, Congresswoman.”

Rep. Maloney also asked if safety standards and scientific integrity are being compromised for speed. Dr. Fauci reiterated that is not the case.

“As I’ve said often and I’ll repeat it for the record now: There’s never a guarantee that you’re going to get a safe and effective vaccine, but from everything we’ve seen now, in the animal data, as well as the early human data,” Dr. Fauci said.

People have often been skeptical about a vaccine actually arriving, especially since it would be the fastest vaccine to be made and distributed in history. Some have pointed to HIV, and the struggle to find a vaccine for that virus, wondering how can one for COVID-19 be made so soon? Dr. Fauci said the two viruses can’t be compared.

“I think the difference between HIV and coronavirus is so different that I don’t think you can compare them, because the body does not make a very good immune response against HIV so it makes vaccine development very difficult,” Dr. Fauci said. “Whereas the body does make a robust immune response against coronavirus which tells us that I believe that we can get to that goal.”

2. However, not every American will get the vaccine right away

Despite the expected arrival of the vaccine, not everyone can have access immediately. Instead, it’s likely be distributed in phases, but that every American will eventually be able to get it within 2021.

“I believe ultimately over a period of time in 2021, if we have — and I think we will have — a safe and effective vaccine, that Americans will be able to get it,” he said. “I don’t think that we’ll have everybody getting it immediately in the beginning. It probably will be phased in. And that’s the reason why we have the committees to do the prioritization of who should get it first. But ultimately, within a reasonable period of time, the plans now allow for any American who needs a vaccine to get it within the year 2021.”

Dr. Fauci added that the U.S. government is taking a “financial risk” to start developing doses of vaccines that have yet to be approved in safety and efficacy.

“We’re taking a risk, a financial risk, not safety risk but financial risk.,” Dr. Fauci. “The development of doses of vaccine, right now as we speak, so that they will be ready by the time we do show safety and efficacy, we’ll be able to distribute it and it will be done by a number of mechanisms.”

3. The U.S. is struggling to contain the virus because the country never fully shut down

When Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) asked why Europe has managed to control the virus, and the U.S. hasn’t, Dr. Fauci said it’s because when the European Union shut down, about 95% of the region actually shuttered its doors.

“When you actually look at what we did, even though we shut down and even though it created a great deal of difficulty, we really functionally shut down only about 50% in the sense of the totality of the country, which means when we reached our peak, as they did they came down almost to a low baseline,” Dr. Fauci explained. “We started off with a very difficult baseline of transmission that was going on at the time that we tried to open up the country, what we saw particularly most recently in the southern states was an increase of cases to 20, 30, 40, 50 thousand, and a couple of weeks ago it was up to 70,000 per day and now it’s down between 50 and 60, and the reasons for that are complex.”

Dr. Fauci also noted that some states followed the suggested guidelines to reopen, while others didn’t.

4. Dr. Fauci is cautious about Russia’s alleged vaccine

As CNN reported, Russia intends to be the first county in the world to approve a vaccine within the next two weeks. China has also been making rapid progress on a vaccine, according to various reports. Despite those advances, Dr. Fauci doesn’t think the U.S. will have to “depend” on other countries for a vaccine though.

“I do not believe that there will be vaccines so far ahead of us that we will have to depend on other countries to get us vaccines,” Dr. Fauci said. “I believe the program that is being sponsored by us right now, and being directed and implemented by us, is going at a very rapid speed — prudent, but rapid.”

Dr. Fauci added he hopes other countries are taking the necessary precautions before actually using the vaccine.

“I do hope that the Chinese and the Russians are actually testing the vaccine before they are administering the vaccine to anyone,” he said. “Because claims of having a vaccine, ready to distribute before you do testing, I think, is problematic, at best.”

5. Dr. Fauci won’t get caught up in Rep. Jim Jordan’s bipartisan drama

Conservative Rep. Jordan of Ohio used his inquiry time to try and trap Dr. Fauci into condemning protests for Black Lives Matter.

“Should we limit the protesting?” Jordan asked. “You make all kinds of recommendations. You make comments on dating, on baseball and everything you could imagine.”

Fauci declined to engage.

“I’m not favoring anybody over anybody,” Fauci replied. “I’m not going to opine on limiting anything . . . I’m telling you what is the danger, and you can make your own conclusion about that. You should stay away from crowds, no matter where the crowds are.”

“The everyday guy can fight and sometimes win”: ACLU doc goes inside four David & Goliath cases

The uplifting documentary, “The Fight,” available virtually July 31, chronicles the efforts of four ACLU lawyers taking on a quartet of cases in 2019 dealing with immigration law, reproductive rights, voting, and LGBT discrimination. Codirected by Eli B. Despres, Josh Kriegman, and Elyse Steinberg, the film lays out the issues of each case, but focuses mainly on the lawyers, who meet with clients, practice their speeches, get flustered, and react to the decisions.

The film addresses the efforts of the ACLU to “defend individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the constitution of the United States,” a mission it has held for 100 years. While the organization has defended cases of free speech, interracial marriage, pornography, evolution, abortion, and same-sex marriage, over the years, a segment in the middle of “The Fight” shows how the ACLU does not have to agree with its clients. They assisted Milo Yiannopoulos, the Westboro Baptist church, and white supremacist groups, whose march in Charlottesville, Virginia culminated in Heather Heyer‘s death.

“The Fight” intercuts its four case studies with news clips, such as Trump’s speeches and tweets, as well as other media to show how each case plays out. The film’s four cases are:

Garza v. Hargan A 17-year-old Jane Doe is denied a desired and constitutional abortion by Scott Lloyd, the then Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement when she is detained; Argued by Brigitte Amiri
Stone v. Trump. Brock Stone, a transman in U.S. military, contests the transgender ban on military personnel, potentially ending his service and benefits, or other transpeople from enlisting; Argued by Joshua Block and Chase Strangio
Ms. L v. ICE. A mother seeking asylum has her child taken away from her; Argued by Lee Gelernt
Department of Commerce v. New York. Is it “arbitrary and capricious” to add a citizenship question to the Census? Argued by Dale Ho

The filmmakers take a verité approach to showing how these ACLU lawyers handle the pressures and strategies of their work. In a recent Zoom interview, Despres, Kriegman, and Steinberg spoke about making their documentary and the ACLU.

How did you determine which cases to select, and how did you get the lawyers to agree to be filmed doing their high-pressure work?

Elyse Steinberg: The idea for the film came about because seven days into Trump’s presidency, the night he enacted his Muslim ban, I joined the protestors on the steps of the Brooklyn courthouse. I was a few steps away when Lee [Gelernt] emerged after the decision came down and his fists were raised high. I could see his expression on his face and the total shock and exhilaration and the crowds of people chanting “ACLU.” I felt this was a story we needed to tell. We needed to be with Lee and the ACLU in this moment. For the next four years, the story of ACLU vs. Trump was going to be one of these great, significant civil rights battles of my lifetime, and as verité filmmakers this is where we needed to come in. I came back that night with the idea.

Eli B. Despres: Eylse came back to the office and she erased the whiteboard where we write down our ideas, and she wrote “The Fight” and said we are getting inside the ACLU. And there went the next three years.

Josh Kriegman: We went to the ACLU and we pitched them. We are verité documentary filmmakers and we explained our style — to get inside and have total access to the lawyers at all moments, the strategy sessions, the arguments, practice sessions, debates, [film] in the hallways, and personal stuff, and they heard our vision and they said, “That was a wonderful vision, but there’s no way you’re ever going to be able to film here.” Many, many conversations later, they came around to allowing us in. We built trust in what we wanted to do as filmmakers and why, and they recognized in the aftermath of Trump being elected that it was an undeniably historical moment that needed to be documented. There was that mission component.

Steinberg: It still baffles me. I remember the phone call and doing the pitch and saying we want to be inside the ACLU, and show everything, but they said you will never make a documentary on the ACLU. It began a long series of conversations. They realized what an important moment it was and that it needed to be documented for history. We were there and following the cases that emerged. We got to follow some of the most important stories — family separation, abortion rights, voting rights, LGBT rights, some of the defining civil rights battles that are central to American history now.

Kriegman: In terms of choosing our subjects, we knew these cases were critically important, but we met these lawyers, and we felt this kind of spark of excitement that documentarians are always chasing. Watching dynamic, talented people at the height of their abilities, pushing themselves to the limit, that is absolutely electrifying. The topics were important, but the people we were with were extraordinary. We knew that we wanted to be with them for the next few years.

The film also considers the history of these issues, from the 1940s Japanese Internment camps to 1963 and voting rights, and the 1970s, with abortion, even a gay marriage case. Obviously, these issues are still topical. What observations do you have about the cyclical nature of the cases?

Despres: The moment that’s ongoing right now resonates with our movie. Our movie starts with protest in the street. Over and over again in U.S. history, you see these movements start in public, whether it’s suffragettes, the Civil Rights movement, the gay rights movement with Stonewall, and then they move into the courtroom. We are seeing that happen again. For us, there’s a cynical view of the cyclical nature of this but the ball keeps moving down the field. ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio had a huge victory [a month ago with Bostock v Clayton County] at the Supreme Court, as did all Americans who believe in equal rights. This story is part of the grand tapestry of the quest for justice in the United States. I’m inspired. We felt privileged to have been able to be with these people documenting this.

Kriegman: The film is an invitation for people to feel hope and inspiration and feel energized. Many people have observed that it is in the midst of crises that authoritarians seize opportunities to take hold, and for lack of security and safety or out of fear we relinquish certain rights, but we are in a moment where it’s more important than ever for us to be vigilant about preserving liberty and the ACLU is at the forefront of these battles — as they have been.

Steinberg: The cyclical nature — it’s what a lot of the ACLU lawyers talk about. They understand that this is a struggle and that it’s long, and they have to keep going and they look at history. But they talk about the Martin Luther King line, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” But that gives a sense of hope that you have to believe in this fight you win sometimes, and when you do, you move forward, and sometimes you step back and then you move forward again. Chase is gobsmacked and exhilarated that he got this win [Bostock]. It gives us a sense of hope, and one reason we wanted to make this film was to show that the everyday guy can fight and sometimes win. That’s a nice message for everyone who is feeling activated.

How did you conceive of the time frame for the film, and arrange to film the action as it unfolded? You could not have been aware of how the cases would be decided when you started filming.

Kriegman: One of the pitfalls of the work is that we really can’t dictate how it unfolds. We knew that we wanted to be there, but we were bracing for the reality that legal cases unfold over a long period of time and we would have to be persistent to capture the arc of these cases as they actually unfolded. It really was just a matter of staying in there for as long as we needed to to see the progression of these cases as they worked their way through the courts.

Despres: There is a reason the courtroom thriller is a well-trod genre. There is a [built-in] tension, and we did not know the ending. But we knew that if we stuck around, we’d end up in a courtroom, perhaps the Supreme Court, and something important would unfold because of what our subjects had been doing.

Steinberg: We felt with a courtroom case, there is an inherent three-act structure to it. We didn’t know how long it would take, which is one of the challenges with legal cases, unlike an election. We had to be with these subjects and stories. And it still goes on, but we were able to get the full story.

What decisions did you make on how you told the story, from intercutting the cases to using animation for the courtroom scenes, and introducing clips and footage to build conflict?

Despres: Whenever possible, we never want to use talking heads who don’t have any skin in the game. We like our experts to actually be participating in the story. I don’t think we will go to an academic holding forth unless they are participants. It’s important to us to let subjects tell their own story. And let the audience just watch what’s happening and absorb it — the arguments, the strategy sessions, or Lee is getting information in real time about his case while he’s going on the air. Those are the visceral moments we live for as documentarians. In terms of structure, it was a challenge because there are four stories. We had support from the editors in putting this together. It was a lift. [Determining] how deep a dive to do and how much you help the audience become an expert in the legal cases is a real balancing act. We tried many different cuts of scenes, making them more or less complex or nuanced, but we knew the backbone was always going to be the experience of our subjects doing this unbelievably difficult thing with incredibly high stakes.

You present what Brigitte Amiri calls, “A canary in a coalmine” case as Jane Doe will be forced to carry her baby to term against her will if the decision goes against her. It could have lasting impact for Roe v. Wade. You emphasize the importance not just of the Supreme Court and Brett Kavanaugh being the judge in Amiri’s case, but also the importance of a class action suit so it is protection for more than just one woman, but all women. Can you talk about that?

Steinberg: One of the things with Brigitte’s case was that the ACLU, when they look to take a case, it has to have the underlines of a class action. Brigitte, initially, had a sense that there were other women who could not get an abortion. She wasn’t sure. Then it started to unfold in real time that there were more women out there. She had not experienced anything like that in her many years of working. It was a real David v Goliath thriller. It also felt like this was a test case. It had the implication for Roe v. Wade when you have more and more judges that Trump put into the Federal Courts open to overturning Roe v. Wade, and Republican representatives and governors who were supporting pro-life and feeling that abortion rights are under threat right now. It’s a scary time for abortion rights. It was one of the great moments to film was watching the great victories. And I was with her when she had that [celebratory] train wine.

There is a consideration in Stone v. Trump that Josh Block, a cisgender man, argues for transpeople. His colleague, Chase Stranglio, who is trans, is reluctant to participate because of his inexperience. How did you read that situation and their working relationship?

Despres: I think that the thing that interests us was following these historic moments through these personal stories. We’re interested in these subjects as human beings. That happened early in filming. You can tell the friendship between Josh and Chase is real and profound. There are very complicated feelings in the dynamic between them, and their roles in this case are genuine.

I tip my hat to Elyse who spearheaded these relationships. It’s about building trust with the subjects who are willing to be unguarded and express themselves while you are there. They understand our intention is fidelity to truth and telling their story and staying out of their way and not editorializing. I think making them comfortable enough to have that conversation with us there was exciting and wonderful. It’s hard to say more about that dynamic than what’s on screen. They have complicated feelings about that relationship and who is doing what and they represented themselves well.

Kriegman: That moment highlights a way to emphasize the humanity of the people behind the cases. The heroism lies in not just that they are fighting to save democracy, but we are seeing that through a personal lens and these moments of humanity that we relate to as viewers that hammers home the larger story that is unfolding around them.

In the voting case Dale Ho has to prove discriminatory intent without framing the case that way. What concerns, if any, did you or he have about revealing the inner workings of the lawyers and their strategies?

Steinberg: We actually talked with Dale about this and filming those moments. Initially, with all the lawyers, there was a bit of wanting to establish trust and a relationship, but very quickly, once we established our relationship, we got out of the way. “Your work is important, and we are just here to film.” They felt we weren’t there, and their motivation to let us in was the same as the ACLU’s; they felt this was such an important moment, and it needed to be documented and it needed to be told. The stakes were so high. Yes, there was a concern they might look embarrassed and going home with him and see him juggling with his children, and see him fumble and make mistakes, but it was about highlighting the stakes of his case. They all forgot about us, but they spent more time with us than their spouses, usually.

The immigration lawyer, Lee Gelernt, is invested in protecting the rights of immigrants and not letting the president separate families. He emphasizes the trauma of the separated families. His emotions were so powerful. What thoughts do you have about how emotion plays a role in these cases?

Steinberg: The story of family separation is just horrifying, and Lee said it was one of the worst things he’d seen in 20 years. He felt the need to humanize what was happening for the judges and take out the legal arguments and really hit home that children were being separated from parents. There is nothing more horrifying or devastating to think about. Lee was the first lawyer to file a class action lawsuit to stop this. He was on the front lines of that and he’s still trying to reunite parents and their children.

Despres: Why he’s so electric and compelling on screen is three-fold. He’s a monster in the courtroom and a devastating intellect, but he’s not the guy you want to assemble your IKEA furniture. But he’s so clearly living and dying with his clients. Those elements make him impossible to tear your eyes off. The stakes are monstrously huge and because of the character traits in Lee, you can’t stop watching him. I’m really grateful he’s out there, and it’s not me. He’s a great champion for these people.

I like the point the film makes about how the travel ban language gets watered down until it passes, or the transgender ban in the military changes so it can be enacted. What observations do you have on this heinous practice of inciting fear and playing to a base?

Kriegman: Yeah, it’s one of the things about Trump, and I’d be curious to see what they lawyers say about this, but my sense is that his opening volley is so extreme and so shocking in so many different arenas. I mean, out to the gate with the Muslim ban, it was so far beyond what you would imagine an American president would do that he somehow manages to walk it back and water it down, and negotiate it back to something less shocking. By that point, people are inured to the reality of what it actually is, yet it is still extreme policy. You saw that with the Muslim ban and Josh and Chase’s case. It’s a striking part of his strategy that is disturbing in its effectiveness.

Steinberg: The lawyers were surprised. Watching it, they didn’t know what his administration would do. Would his tweets become policy? After Trump tweeted he was going to kick transpeople out of military, was that going to become policy? Maybe he’s just tweeting, but then the policy came down. And then they challenged it, and then they won, and they adapted. The fact that the Trump administration continued to fight it, and they were adapting and getting better. It made the job of the ALCU lawyers harder.

Despres: There are such demands on our attention. Lee would give press statements at the height of the travel ban with scores of microphones, and towards the end, he’d see a gaggle of reporters there, and it turns out they were there for something different. It’s hard to keep the American public’s attention on everything that matters, but there are people paying attention. But there is a connection between what happens in the street and what happens in the courtroom.

You include scenes of the lawyer reacting to hate mail, attacks via email and phone messages. Obviously, your subjects are doing a job they believe in to help others. Do you think “The Fight” can change minds?

Kriegman: I hope so. When did the Constitution become a partisan issue? There is a certain audience for the film, but the hope is the that film encourages people to think of civil rights in a basic sense. It’s not a question of partisanship or a question about Trump; it’s really a question about liberty. I certainly hope that the film will help people reflect on that and possibly help Trump supporters reflect on that and cause them to reconsider.

Steinberg: The reason that we like to tell these stories is to get behind these big cases and see the human story and what it’s really like to be with these lawyers in these epic battles. In that way it’s a universal struggle. These lawyers are just everyday people dealing with their children and the pressure of the job, and our hope is that everybody can see the stakes of this fight through this personal lens, and that is a universal message.

“The Fight” is available in theaters and on demand beginning July 31.

Trump threatened to “fill out the absentee ballot” after struggling to cast in-person vote in 2004

President Donald Trump has been vehemently railing against voting by mail, making the baseless claim that it is a recipe for voter fraud — and even making the outrageous suggestion, on July 30, that perhaps the United States should delay its 2020 presidential election because of it. Trump, however, has a history of voting by mail. And an “Access Hollywood” video from 2004 shows Trump threatening to vote by mail after struggling with voting machines.

CNN’s Paul LeBlanc explains that the “Access Hollywood” segment “shows Trump alongside TV host Billy Bush visiting multiple New York City polling locations. Trump, however, is blocked from voting at each location, because he is not on any of the voter rolls at each stop.”

Trump, according to LeBlanc, becomes “increasingly frustrated” and says, “I’m going to fill out the absentee ballot.”

When the segment ends, Trump is seen filling out a provisional ballot in his car and says, “I just voted. At least you can say the Trumpster doesn’t give up.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

One day after Trump floats delaying the election, he suggests moving it up instead

President Donald Trump suggested moving up the Nov. 3 election one day after suggesting a delay.

The president floated the delay Thursday after devastating economic news came out, and NBC’s Peter Alexander asked why the Trump administration devote more attention to safeguarding the election from illness and potential fraud.

“Peter, you know nothing about my energy,” Trump said. “You know nothing about what I’m doing. You know nothing about what I do.”

He insisted the delay had nothing to do with poll after poll showing him falling further behind Joe Biden.

“We’re going to do very well in the election,” Trump said. “Nobody wants that date more than me. I wish we would move it up, OK? Move it up. But you’re not prepared for what they’re doing.”

You can watch more below via Twitter:

.@PeterAlexander: We heard your frustrations with how long it takes to count ballots. So why not spend more energy to provide states with additional funding for elections?

TRUMP: "Peter, you know nothing about my energy … listen, you know nothing about what I do." pic.twitter.com/i18fnt9ePa

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 31, 2020

Why did Jared Kushner’s plan for widespread COVID-19 testing “just went poof into thin air”?

President Donald Trump has had two separate coronavirus task forces: the White House task force that is headed by Vice President Mike Pence and includes medical experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx, and a private sector-oriented task force headed by Jared Kushner — a White House senior adviser and the president’s son in law. Kushner, according to Vanity Fair’s Katherine Eban, launched a coronavirus testing plan back in the spring. But as a July 30 article by Eban explains, things did not go well at all.

During a three-month period, Eban notes, “more than 2.4 million Americans contracted COVID-19, and 123,331 of them died of the illness — first in New York, and then in states around the country. Governors, public health experts and frightened citizens sounded the alarm that a critical shortage of tests and the ballooning time to get results were crippling the U.S. pandemic response. But the million tests, some of which were distributed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to several states, were of no help. According to documents obtained by Vanity Fair, they were examined in two separate government laboratories and found to be ‘contaminated and unusable.'”

Vanity Fair, Eban reports, has obtained a copy of an invoice from the company Cogna Technology Solutions that “noted a total order of 3.5 million tests for an amount owed of $52 million.”

“The tests’ mysterious provenance would spark confusion and finger-pointing,” Eban notes. “An Abu Dhabi–based artificial intelligence company, Group 42, with close ties to the UAE’s ruling family, identified itself as the seller of 3.5 million tests and demanded payment. Its requests were routed through various divisions within Health and Human Services, whose lawyers sought in vain for a bona fide contracting officer.”

Kushner, according to Eban, “oversaw a secret project to devise a comprehensive plan that would have massively ramped up and coordinated testing for COVID-19 at the federal level.” But a participant, quoted anonymously, told Vanity Fair that the plan “just went poof into thin air.” Trump has been claiming that the U.S. has the most comprehensive, efficient and widely available coronavirus testing program in the world. But that claim is wildly inaccurate: during the recent coronavirus surge, there have been numerous reports of people waiting much too long for their test results.

In the U.S., Eban observes, “Cable news and front pages have been dominated by images of miles-long lines of cars in scorching Arizona and Texas heat, their drivers waiting hours for scarce diagnostic tests, and desperate Sun Belt mayors pleading in vain for federal help to expand testing capacity.”

30 million families to lose federal unemployment benefits as Senate GOP skips town for long weekend

The $600 weekly federal unemployment benefit serving as a lifeline for millions of Americans driven out of work by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic is set to expire this weekend after the Republican-controlled Senate adjourned Thursday without passing an extension.

More than 30 million people were still receiving unemployment benefits this week, according to the Department of Labor. While state unemployment systems provide around 40-45% of lost wages, the federal government stepped in to provide an additional $600 a week this spring when the pandemic forced businesses across the country to shutter. Those federal benefits expire on July 31, meaning tens of millions of Americans are about to have their income slashed by more than 60% overnight.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., attempted to cut the unemployment benefit in a measure separate from the larger package being negotiated for the next phase of coronavirus relief on Thursday, but Democrats balked at both the cut and the piecemeal approach.

Republicans have argued that the benefits pay many workers more than 100% of their previous salary, making it difficult for businesses to bring back workers. But while unemployed workers are generally making more, there is scant evidence that the benefits have deterred them from returning to work, as evidenced by a small business owner who was supposed to be a star witness for Republicans at a recent hearing.

“I was very happy that no one refused to come back,” he testified before the Senate earlier this month, “and everybody, when I talked to them, was in agreement and said, ‘Fine, we’ll see you tomorrow.'”

A study by researchers at Yale found that workers who received more in unemployment benefits than their lost wages returned to work at the same rate as those who received less than they previously earned.

Economic analyses have repeatedly shown that the boosted federal benefits have helped prop up other parts of the economy — and a cut would cost the U.S. millions of jobs.

Republicans have dealt with significant infighting after delaying negotiations for months after the House passed its $3 trillion relief bill in May. Some conservatives have refused to back any new spending, and the Republican proposal unveiled this week would slash the federal benefit to $200 per week.

With the GOP split and Democrats refusing to approve a cut, there is no sign that a deal could be reached anytime soon, leaving millions in limbo.

“I’m not very optimistic that we will have any kind of an agreement on a comprehensive bill in the near future,” White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told the Associated Press on Thursday.

With the benefits expiring on Friday night, McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., blamed each other for the stall.

“They won’t engage — period,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. “The Democrats are saying, ‘My way or the highway.'”

Schumer insisted it was McConnell who “refuses to go in the room” and negotiate, according to the AP.

Democrats have largely refused to pass the urgent unemployment aid separate from the rest of the relief package in hopes of pressuring Republicans to drop their resistance to additional spending. While the House bill approved $3 trillion in aid, including a full extension of the $600-per-week benefit and $1 trillion to help cash-strapped cities and states, the Republicans proposed a $1 trillion plan that provides no new funds to local governments.

Republicans have also rejected the Democrats’ push to expand food stamp aid, though their proposal included a measure that would double the “three-martini lunch” tax deduction, protect companies whose workers get sick from lawsuits and billions for military projects.

“On certain issues we made progress, on certain issues we’re still very far apart,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Thursday after a meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Top White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow recently said that an extension of the federal eviction moratorium would be included in the next bill as millions face potential homelessness after the provision already expired last week.

Some Republicans have offered short-term extensions to keep benefits flowing while negotiations continue, but Pelosi rejected the idea as “worthless.”

“We just don’t think they really understand the gravity of the problem,” Schumer added.

Without a deal in sight, it is unclear when the two sides may move on any legislation. The Senate is expected to start its August recess at the end of next week. Any deal will take weeks to sort out.

“State offices will need weeks to reprogram their systems to account for an extension of the $600 weekly federal payments that expire on Saturday — or any changes that Congress makes to the benefit amount or eligibility rules,” Politico reported, noting that laid-off workers in some states still have not received any of the federal benefits to which they were entitled.

Robert Reich, who served as the secretary of labor under former President Bill Clinton, criticized Republican Senate leaders for going on a long weekend as millions of families lose most of their income.

“Just so we’re all clear,” he wrote on Twitter, “more than 25,000,000 unemployed Americans are about to lose their extra unemployment benefits, and the Senate just left for a three-day weekend. Republicans have lost the right to govern.”

Republicans would rather destroy the country than ease up on brutal class war

The wildest thing about the stalled negotiations between Democrats and Republicans in Congress over the competing coronavirus relief packages is how little Republicans seem to care about whether this country plunges into a severe depression, one that might rival the Great Depression of the 1930s. Every move Republicans have made this week suggests total indifference to whether or not the U.S. economy, which is already in deep distress due to the coronavirus pandemic, collapses completely. Their only real concern, it appears, is to make sure that they use this crisis to put the screws even harder to working people and poor people. It’s a goal Republicans seem willing to sacrifice just about anything to achieve.

This isn’t just about the unwillingness of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to work with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats to negotiate in good faith, stalling progress on a package of financial relief to address the pandemic-related economic crash. It’s also that the bill Republicans themselves have proposed is a joke. If it were to pass in its current form, it would pretty much guarantee economic carnage on a scale that could make the 2008 economic crash look like a minor historical blip.

The sole reason for this is that Republicans would rather drive this country straight off a cliff than pass up an opportunity to undermine and disempower a workforce that is already overworked, underpaid and unable to better their personal economic conditions, no matter how hard they work.

There are many issues that Democrats and Republicans are fighting over in the competing House and Senate packages, but perhaps the most telling one is the fight over what form the extended unemployment benefits should take. Democrats want to extend the extra $600 weekly payments that were authorized toward the beginning of the crisis. Republicans, however, want to drop that number to $200 a week, claiming that the higher number is removing people’s incentive to go back to work.

McConnell (estimated personal net worth: $34 million) is strutting around making comments like, “The economic pain is not finished. So Congress cannot be finished either,” designed to make him sound like he’s trying to spare the American people from further suffering, if Democrats would only get out of the way.

No one, however, should be fooled. If McConnell was serious about saving the economy, he wouldn’t even consider an unemployment benefit that is so pathetically low. Around 30 million Americans depend on that $600 a week. Anywhere from one-quarter to one-third of all Americans are already falling short of making their rent or mortgage payments, and that’s with the $600 weekly benefits. If that number drops down by two-thirds, we can expect people to fall further behind, and even become homeless in significant numbers.

On Thursday morning, the Commerce Department released the second quarter’s economic numbers, which reflect the impact of the pandemic recession, and the report is devastating, if not surprising. GDP fell by nearly 33%, which is the worst decline in the era of modern economic indicators.

As Dean Baker at the Center for Economic and Policy Research notes, “a 43.5 percent drop in consumption of services was the largest factor, accounting for 22.9 percentage points of the drop in the quarter.”

Meanwhile, because of Donald Trump’s incompetence and even hostility toward efforts to fight the spread of the coronavirus, the pandemic is getting worse across the country and the economic fallout is likely to continue for months.

The only thing that can help keep this from getting worse is propping up consumer spending — which means giving people a hell of a lot more than $200 a week. As economist Paul Krugman explained in his New York Times column this week, “politicians eager to see the economy bounce back should have wanted to sustain consumer purchasing power until wages recovered.”

But, as he noted, these rational arguments about keeping the economy on life support by propping up consumer spending cannot penetrate the wall of rage that Republicans feel at the very idea of working Americans having even the slightest measure of peace and economic safety.

The argument for slashing unemployment benefits is that people won’t work if they can make more staying home. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (estimated personal net worth: $3.2 million), memorably made this point on CBS over the weekend, claiming that “waiters and waitresses” across Texas “won’t come back because the federal government is paying them, in some instances, twice as much money to stay home.”

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. (estimated personal net worth: $4.5 million), suggested that the best number for extra unemployment benefits was zero, telling HuffPost that Congress was just “providing disincentives to go back to work.”

As anyone with common sense can see, the actual disincentives for going back to work are the fact that a deadly pandemic tearing through the country and the inevitable consequence that there’s not much work to go back to, because public-facing businesses can’t run profitably when most potential customers are sitting at home.

There’s plenty of evidence to back up this common sense. As Krugman pointed out in a graph-laden and “wonkish” Twitter thread, generous unemployment benefits “didn’t prevent a rapid rise in employment during the abortive reopening recovery” of May and early June, because “the workers accepting jobs were precisely the workers who by and large were receiving more in unemployment benefits than from work”.

He also added that unemployment insurance “was helping employment, not hurting it” but the “massive fiscal contraction now being perpetrated” by cutting unemployment will absolutely hurt overall employment numbers, by inflicting major damage on the overall national economy.

Former Treasury Department economist Ernie Tedeschi, appearing Tuesday on CNN, agreed with Krugman, saying that “the generosity of unemployment insurance had no relationship in April or May with the likelihood that workers either found a job the next month or left a job the next month.”

These proofs that Republicans are simply wrong — or are flat-out lying — are important. But even setting that aside, it’s worth noting that Republican talking points are offensive on their face. They are quite literally accusing American workers of being lazy slobs who have to be literally forced to go to work, on pain of starvation.

And this cannot be stressed enough: A major reason 30 million are unemployed is there isn’t nearly enough meaningful work to do. Bars, restaurants, hotels and stores are not exactly flush with customers, even in places where they’re open at all, because most Americans are sensibly staying home rather than risking their lives to get baby-back ribs and a fruity cocktail at Applebee’s. There’s no reason for workers to show up for jobs that don’t need doing, or to risk their own health to do so. Republicans are literally suggesting that people are lazy because they won’t go to work at jobs that don’t exist.

That’s ultimately what all this is about: Republicans refuse to put a pause on the class war, even for a few months, to get us through a pandemic. If anything, McConnell and his fellow Republicans are treating this as an opportunity to grind down American workers and make damn sure they know their place, and to lower the already basement-level expectations of what ordinary people deserve from society in exchange for a demonstrable willingness to work — if there are jobs available, which at the moment there are not.

Republicans were largely responsible for crashing the American economy in 2008 too, but the people who paid the most painful price were not Republican politicians or the wealthy corporate interests they represent. On the contrary, the richest Americans saw their already gargantuan share of the nation’s wealth grow even bigger, while working Americans found it ever harder to get by on a day-to-day basis. There can be little doubt that Republicans see this pandemic as yet another opportunity to increase the already-massive gap between the rich and everyone else.

We can already see how the economic stress is helping bolster long-term Republican goals to enshrine and deepen this country’s outrageous levels of economic inequality. New polling from Time’s Up and Perry Undem shows that the coronavirus recession has caused the income and wealth gaps between men and women, and between white people and people of color, to grow dramatically. No wonder Republicans aren’t overly eager to fix this economic collapse — it’s doing more than they ever could through the legislature and courts to push people they despise even further behind.

Republicans’ most important agenda item is to crush working Americans, especially those who are not white men, under their heel, while continuing to line the pockets of the ultra-wealthy. Nothing, up to and including the total collapse of our economy, will divert them from this mission. Driving ordinary Americans down to starvation wages, and breaking their political power and their will to resist in the process, is worth any amount of destruction.

Nunes refuses to say if he got Biden dirt from Kremlin-linked official after Democrats contact FBI

Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., refused to answer questions about whether he received damaging information about presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden during a closed-door House Intelligence Committee hearing on Wednesday.

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D-N.Y., brought up news reports that materials intended to damage Biden as part of a “foreign disinformation plot” were sent to Nunes, the top Republican on the committee, and other senior Republican lawmakers by Kremlin-linked Ukrainian lawmaker Andrii Derkach, according to a transcript of the meeting released by the panel.

Maloney asked whether Nunes was “prepared to disclose to the committee whether he has received” those materials and “whether he is prepared to share them with the rest of the committee.”

“Does the ranking member wish to respond?” Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked.

“No,” Nunes replied.

Maloney continued to press for an “explanation” from Nunes on why he was “not prepared to respond to a simple question whether he has received materials that have been called into question that seem to denigrate a former vice president.”

Maloney noted that the committee staff was already in possession of “evidence that a package was received.”

The committee’s Democratic majority learned that Nunes had received the materials after a DHL shipping receipt was sent to the majority’s office instead, according to Politico. Officials told the outlet they asked for access to the material, but Nunes had refused to share it. Democrats reported the package to the FBI in January.

“I guess this is a case where silence speaks volumes,” Maloney replied when Nunes did not respond to repeated questions from the Democrat on Wednesday.

Republicans on the panel later complained that Maloney’s questioning was “very rude.”

“Members don’t question other members in hearings,” Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., told Breitbart News. “This wasn’t on the agenda for the meeting. It was really inappropriate in my opinion and pretty childish.”

The outlet reported that lawyers for the House Republicans might bring ethics claims against Maloney.

However, Crawford appeared to confirm in the interview that Nunes had received a foreign package and turned it over to the FBI.

“It’s standard practice that if you get a package from unknown source in a foreign country, it’s probably a good idea to call the FBI and let them handle it, and not handle those packages and don’t open them and go, ‘Hey I wonder what this is? I guess it’s Christmas came early this year,'” Crawford said. “No, you follow the protocol, which is you turn that over to the FBI. That’s what happened.”

Maloney rejected the Republican claim that he was out of line.

“Russians are still trying to interfere in the election using bogus claims about events in Ukraine, so I don’t know what the secret is,” he told Politico. “‘What’s in the box?’ is my question. Just show us, and explain why it’s some big secret. We’ve literally got the receipts. The committee received this material. Why wouldn’t he share it?”

Democratic congressional leaders sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray earlier this month about details surrounding the packages, which were also sent to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who also serves on the committee, and then-White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, according to Politico.

The material was sent to the Republicans in January amid the Senate’s impeachment trial, which focused on Trump’s pressure on Ukraine to help damage Biden ahead of the election. Democrats told Politico that they had not received a response from the FBI about the packages in the six months since they first informed the bureau.

Democrats have become increasingly concerned about Derkach, who met with Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani last December and has since publicly released tapes of Biden’s discussions with Ukrainian officials and held a news conference “publicly declaring his efforts to unite with GOP officials to take down the former vice president,” according to the report.

Derkach told Politico last week that he had sent the materials in hopes of “creating an interparliamentary association called ‘Friends of Ukraine STOP Corruption.'”

He said he had also notified Graham, Grassley, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., about the materials and his news conferences. Graham, Grassley, Peters and Wyden “indicated they never received materials from Derkach,” according to the outlet.

Democrats said in their letter to the FBI that the materials were part of a foreign effort to interfere in the presidential election to help Trump.

The exchange with Nunes on Wednesday came as the committee voted to release a classified addendum about the interference effort to the full House of Representatives, which Nunes adamantly opposed.

“This document contains extremely sensitive information that Democrats will leak if the document is made available to the full House. That is a fact, and that is the intent,” Nunes said. “In fact, some of this information may have already been leaked — a matter I hope the FBI is investigating.”

Derkach also listed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as one of the Republicans to whom he sought to deliver information. Pompeo was asked about Derkach during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.

“I don’t want to comment on any particular individual like Mr. Derkach,” Pompeo said. “I will say this: We’re taking seriously the threats that Russia will try to engage in disinformation campaigns . . . There’s still work ongoing ,and there’s still unsettled intelligence around these things.”

But several people mentioned by Derkach in his allegations have been called to testify by Jonson, who is investigating Hunter Biden’s role on the board of the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, which was what Trump pressed Ukraine to do before he was impeached.

Democrats have called Johnson’s investigation a “laundering” effort for a foreign interference campaign to damage Biden.

“We’re gathering information, but I’m not aware of anything that is Russian disinformation,” Johnson told CNN. “We’re going to vet, we’re going to validate everything we do.”

Democratic leaders expressed concern about the investigation in their letter to Wray.

“We are gravely concerned, in particular, that Congress appears to be the target of a concerted foreign interference campaign,” they wrote, “which seeks to launder and amplify disinformation in order to influence congressional activity, public debate and the presidential election in November.”

The year of dark magical thinking: Trump’s petty revenge fantasies have killed thousands

There have been a lot of changes in Donald Trump’s campaign in the last couple of weeks, but they haven’t been able to change the candidate. He’s more Trumpy than ever.

When the last round of terrible polls were released, showing Trump badly trailing Joe Biden both nationwide and in the key battleground states, Kellyanne Conway and others inexplicably suggested that the president should reignite the dumpster fire formerly known as the coronavirus briefings. That’s not going well. Have they been as bad as the White House coronavirus rallies in the spring, where Trump spent what seemed like hours every day insulting the press corps and generally making a fool of himself? Not yet. But that’s only because he has managed to stick to answering a few questions after droning on for 20 minutes as if he were reading someone else’s book report.

The substance of that book report is the same old happy talk and cheerleading, virtually always based on half-truths and outright lies. And the Q&A period is predictably a disaster. One day he wished his old friend Ghislaine Maxwell, the accused sex trafficker, well, spurring speculation that he was sending her the kind of signal he had earlier sent to his pal Roger Stone, whose sentence he commuted after Stone made clear he hadn’t ratted him out. (Perhaps that’s unfair, but since Trump commonly says things that sound like a slightly less erudite Tony Soprano, it’s only natural to wonder.)

When it comes to dealing with the pandemic, Trump just keeps stepping in it, regardless of what’s in his prepared text. This week he came close to reprising the memorable moment when he asked the scientists to look into using disinfectant to clean out people’s lungs, since it cleans countertops so well. Responding to what was reportedly a coordinated campaign to push hydroxychloroquine, his favorite miracle cure, the president endorsed a quack doctor who has a history of making bizarre claims, including a belief that doctors are injecting alien DNA into their patients and that various reproductive disorders are the consequence of “dream sex” with witches and demons. He said he was very impressed by her.

If Trump actually allowed his public health officers to run the briefings, he might get credit for having a competent professional administration, but he cannot tolerate anyone else getting the attention. In fact, this week featured perhaps the most immature whine he’s ever delivered, and that’s really saying something:

He simply cannot grasp that his performance during this pandemic has shown him to be incapable of handling a crisis, which is the single most important duty of the president. Nor is he willing to delegate the task to others, which makes his embarrassing incompetence all the more conspicuous. And he seems not to understand that his reckless flailing in pursuit of something that might aid his dwindling chances of re-election is entirely transparent.

Trump at the podium spewing misinformation to the public isn’t the only problem. The policies that have been pursued by his administration are blatantly corrupt. Katherine Eban at Vanity Fair reported on a previously unknown shocking decision made back in April.

We knew that there were various people working on the same issue on separate tracks in the White House. There was the official coronavirus task force, the recently revealed political group that met privately in chief of staff Mark Meadows’ office, and the notorious Jared Kushner task force that operated completely independently.

According to Eban, Kushner’s group of whiz kids actually worked up a somewhat sophisticated and comprehensive national testing and tracing program all the way back in April:

Rather than have states fight each other for scarce diagnostic tests and limited lab capacity, the plan would have set up a system of national oversight and coordination to surge supplies, allocate test kits, lift regulatory and contractual roadblocks, and establish a widespread virus surveillance system by the fall, to help pinpoint subsequent outbreaks.

Who knows if their plan would have worked? This is the Trump administration after all. But the people involved were under the impression that it had been approved and that the president would announce it in a Rose Garden briefing in early April. Obviously, that didn’t happen, and the reasons it didn’t are appalling.

As we know, the president never wanted to do a lot of testing because he didn’t want to see “his numbers” go up, so he was no doubt reluctant from the beginning. During this time he was obsessed with the stock market and the economic cost of the shutdowns, which he believed were hurting his re-election chances. This was right around the period when Dr. Deborah Birx was passing around her optimistic models showing that the virus was rapidly running its course.

But this is a new detail:

[B]ecause the virus had hit blue states hardest, a national plan was unnecessary and would not make sense politically. “The political folks believed that because it was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy,” said the expert.

In other words, the Rube Goldberg system that has allowed the virus to surge all over the country resulting in millions of cases and more than 150,000 deaths was understood months ago to be unworkable. But people close to the president of the United States believed that the virus would be confined to states that don’t vote Republican, so letting those people get sick and die was smart politics.

I wish I could say that this is too awful to be believed, but let’s recall that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell clearly stated that he didn’t want to enact a “blue-state bailout” to ease the economic pain of states hit hard by the coronavirus. So this line of thinking wasn’t confined to the White House.

Obviously, these people have since gotten schooled as to the reality that the virus isn’t confined to blue states or big cities, and it’s now hitting their own voters hard. Indeed, as the Washington Post reported, that’s what persuaded Trump to start talking about the crisis again after many weeks of pretending it wasn’t happening.

But Trump’s commentary about the pandemic is making things worse, as always. He erroneously insists that kids are immune, that most of the country is doing great and that a vaccine will be available any day now. (In an extremely optimistic projection, there could be a vaccine in place by January, although there’s no guarantee it will be universally available or effective.) The testing system the Trumpers thought wouldn’t hurt “their people” is once again failing miserably as people have to wait for weeks to get results, and the nationwide surge is so widespread that contact tracing is almost useless anyway. Most of this is happening in red states that followed Trump over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings back in the spring when he told them the virus was going away and it was safe to reopen damn near everything.

Trump and Kushner could have come out of this looking like heroes — which would obviously have benefited the president’s odds of re-election — but they decided to play vindictive, divisive politics instead. But who knows? Maybe Trump will get lucky and that miracle cure will arrive any day. Maybe, as he’s been saying from the beginning, this virus will just disappear overnight. That’s really all there is to Trumpian politics at this point: punishing their enemies and magical thinking.

In Portland, getting out of jail requires protesters relinquish their First Amendment right

Federal authorities are using a new tactic in their battle against protesters in Portland, Oregon: arrest them on offenses as minor as “failing to obey” an order to get off a sidewalk on federal property — and then tell them they can’t protest anymore as a condition for release from jail.

Legal experts describe the move as a blatant violation of the constitutional right to free assembly, but at least 12 protesters arrested in recent weeks have been specifically barred from attending protests or demonstrations as they await trials on federal misdemeanor charges.

“Defendant may not attend any other protests, rallies, assemblies or public gathering in the state of Oregon,” states one “Order Setting Conditions of Release” for an accused protester, alongside other conditions such as appearing for court dates. The orders are signed by federal magistrate judges.

For other defendants, the restricted area is limited to Portland, where clashes between protesters and federal troops have grown increasingly violent in recent weeks. In at least two cases, there are no geographic restrictions; one release document instructs, “Do not participate in any protests, demonstrations, rallies, assemblies while this case is pending.”

Protesters who have agreed to stay away from further demonstrations say they felt forced to accept those terms to get out of jail.

“Those terms were given to me after being in a holding cell after 14 hours,” Bailey Dreibelbis, who was charged July 24 with “failing to obey a lawful order,” told ProPublica. “It was pretty cut-and-dried, just, ‘These are your conditions for [getting out] of here.’

“If I didn’t take it, I would still be in holding. It wasn’t really an option, in my eyes.”

It could not be learned who drafted the orders barring the protesters from joining further demonstrations. The documents reviewed by ProPublica were signed by a federal magistrate in Portland. Magistrates have broad authority to set the terms of release for anyone accused of a crime. They typically receive recommendations from U.S. Pretrial Services, an arm of the U.S. Courts, which can gather input from prosecutors and others involved in the case. ProPublica identified several instances in which the protest ban was added to the conditions of release document when it was drafted, before it was given to the judge. It remained unclear whether the limits on protesting were initiated by Justice Department officials or the magistrates hearing the cases.

Constitutional lawyers said conditioning release from jail on a promise to stop joining protests were overly broad and almost certainly a violation of the First Amendment right to free assembly.

“The government has a very heavy burden when it comes to restrictions on protest rights and on assembly,” noted Jameel Jaffer of Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute. “It’s much easier for the government to meet that burden where it has individualized information about a threat. So for example, they know that a particular person is planning to carry out some unlawful activity at a particular protest.”

Over the past week, the federal government has sharply increased the number of protesters it’s charging with federal crimes — often for petty offenses that are classified as federal misdemeanors only because they occur on federal property. Court documents reviewed by ProPublica show that over a third of the protesters are charged with “failing to obey a lawful order,” which 14 protesters were charged with between July 21 and July 24 alone.

The office of the U.S. attorney for Oregon, Billy J. Williams, did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about who was making charging decisions. In a recent interview with The Oregonian, Williams urged local citizens to demand that “violent extremists” who have attempted to break through the fence outside the federal courthouse leave. “Until that happens, we’re going to do what we need to do to protect federal property.”

Craig Gabriel, an assistant U.S. attorney who works for Williams, insisted the office understood and respected the right to protest racial injustice. “People are angry. Very large crowds are gathering, expressing deep and legitimate anger with police and the justice system,” Gabriel told The Oregonian. “We wholeheartedly support the community’s constitutionally protected rights to assemble together in large, even rowdy protests and engage in peaceful and civil disobedience.”

Gabriel did not mention the written restrictions against protest that have been made a condition of release for some of those arrested.

Several protesters who were let go on July 23 had bans against demonstrating added by hand on their release documents by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta, who signed off on them, a review by ProPublica found. Acosta’s office did not respond to ProPublica’s questions.

For those released on July 24, the restriction was added to the original typed document, also signed by Acosta. One protester arrested and released earlier in the month had his conditions of release modified at his arraignment on July 24. The modified order, signed by Acosta, added a protest ban not previously included.

Three of the 15 protesters charged on July 27, in orders signed by Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo, also had explicit protest restrictions added to their release terms. (One release order has not yet been posted to the federal courts database.) Russo’s office did not reply to ProPublica’s questions.

“I don’t see that as constitutionally defensible,” Jaffer said. And I find it difficult to believe that any judge would uphold it.”

The ACLU’s Somil Trivedi said, “Release conditions should be related to public safety or flight” — in other words, the risk that the defendant will abscond. “This is neither.” He described the handwritten addition of a protest ban to a release document as “sort of hilariously unconstitutional.”

Publicly, the Trump administration has claimed that it has no problem with the protests that erupted in Portland and other American cities in response to the May 25 death of George Floyd, a Black man, in police custody in Minneapolis. The administration said it launched Operation Diligent Valor in July with a massive deployment of federal officers merely to protect federal property from “violent extremists.”

Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School said that imposing a protest ban as a release condition undermines the distinction between protected protest and criminal activity. “Even if they’re right that these people did, in fact, step beyond the bounds of the First Amendment and do something illegal, that doesn’t mean you can then restrict their First Amendment right.”

In many cases, the charges leveled at Portland protesters are closely tied to their presence at the protest — and not to any violent acts.

Eighteen of the 50 protesters charged in Portland are accused only of minor offenses under Title 40, Section 1315, of the U.S. Code. That law criminalizes certain behavior (like “failure to obey a lawful order,” as well as “disorderly conduct”) when it happens on federal property or against people who are located on that property. In other words, it describes behavior that wouldn’t otherwise be a matter for a federal court.

Dreibelbis, like other protesters to whom ProPublica has spoken, said he was arrested for being on the sidewalk outside the federal courthouse. Because the federal government owns the land under the sidewalk, another protester (who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid influencing his upcoming trial) told ProPublica it’s “common knowledge” among protesters that the sidewalk is a no-go zone, and setting foot on it risks federal prosecution.

Dreibelbis told ProPublica he roller-skated into the protest, expecting to attend only briefly. He said he knelt on the sidewalk and was arrested by officers. (The charging document filed against Dreibelbis offers no arrest details.)

Section 1315 is the same law the Trump administration is using to justify initiating the federal show of force in Portland, which the administration has said it intends to employ in other cities where protests have raged since Floyd’s death.

The law allows the secretary of homeland security to supplement the Federal Protective Service, the relatively small agency partly responsible for federal building security, with law enforcement agents from the department’s other agencies (such as Customs and Border Protection).

Both President Donald Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama, have invoked that part of the law in the past. But the use of that same law to file criminal charges appears to be novel. The Obama administration sent a “surge force” of 400 FPS agents, and a dozen CBP agents, to Baltimore in 2015, when the police killing of Freddie Gray sparked broad unrest, but no charges were filed under Section 1315 itself in that response.

In Portland, the federal government has relied on the FPS and U.S. Marshals to write affidavits used to charge protesters in federal court. But it has detailed other agencies on the protest front lines: DHS agencies cited in court complaints include CBP, through its BORTAC tactical unit; Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s investigations unit; DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis, in addition to FPS. Complaints also cite the U.S. Marshals and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which are Justice Department entities.

In the first weeks of the operation, the most common charge against protesters was assault of a federal officer — which, in some cases, counted as a crime on federal property because protesters on the streets were shining lasers at officers inside the courthouse. (DHS has claimed that some officers may permanently lose their vision, but as of July 24, the most serious injury detailed in federal charging documents was an agent who reported seeing spots in his eyes for 15 minutes after the laser attack.)

Over July 23 and 24, however, 10 of the 13 cases opened were charges only of “failing to obey a lawful order.” (One other defendant was charged with assaulting a U.S. Marshal while detained inside the courthouse — where she had been taken after an arrest for “failing to obey a lawful order.”)

Since then, almost all cases have accused protesters of assaulting a federal officer (generally a misdemeanor charge).

In many of the assault cases, files are thin and no details of the allegations have been posted, even for protesters charged as early as July 6. No case files identify an alleged victim — either by name or by the “unique identifier” on their uniforms. (DHS officials have claimed it’s unfair to describe the federal agents in Portland as “unidentified” because they clearly show identification.)

Some assault accusations charge protesters with throwing unidentified objects at officers in body armor, who were unharmed.

Even those defendants who aren’t explicitly barred from attending protests are unable to return to the epicenter of Portland’s unrest as a condition of their release. They are placed under a curfew (either from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. or 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) and told not to go within five blocks of the courthouse grounds except for court hearings.

Experts said that while restrictions of that sort are common, they’re still questionably constitutional. “Though ‘stay away’ orders from a place where a potential crime has been committed are generally standard,” the ACLU’s Trivedi said, “‘stay away’ orders from public places that are part of the public square are more questionable.” But he and others conceded that the government could make an argument that it was necessary to prevent further wrongdoing.

They saw no legitimate rationale for a blanket ban on protests.

“I suppose the government could argue, ‘You disobeyed a law enforcement officer at a protest, and we don’t trust you to not do it again,'” Trivedi said. But the release documents already instruct defendants that they are not allowed to break any laws while awaiting trial.

“If they want to say ‘don’t break a law again,’ they’ve already said that,” Trivedi told ProPublica. “Beyond that, the only part that’s left would be not letting you exercise your First Amendment right.”

Driebelbis, for his part, must now watch the protests proceed without him. “I work across the water from the protests, and I can see it every” night, he told ProPublica. “I’m protesting from this side.”

He hastened to clarify that he didn’t mean he was attending a protest in violation of the court order. “Not protesting! There’s no protesting going on in the party of one. But I am there in spirit.”

Dr. Justin Frank: “It is terrifying to have a president who is psychotic”

Donald Trump is a very obvious person. He is the equivalent of a character in a comic book with a huge thought bubble over his head that everyone can read. But Trump goes even further than that. Because he has no internal censor, Trump shares his private thoughts and impulses with the world without shame or fear of consequences.

Through his public behavior Trump has repeatedly shown that he is mentally unwell. His apparent pathologies include malignant narcissism, delusions of grandeur, an attraction to violence, sadism, a lack of impulse control, utter disregard for rules and norms, and a pathological tendency to lie. In sum, our president can be reasonably described as a psychopath or a sociopath.

The most recent examples of Trump’s mentally unwell behavior, among many include his obsession with his popularity and “ratings” when more than 150,000 Americans are dead from the coronavirus. His easily-injured sense of self is more important than showing any care or concern for the suffering of others. Because Trump is incapable of empathy, the lives of the American people mean nothing to him. Trump “cares” about his followers only as a source of narcissistic fuel.

During a “press conference” on Tuesday at the White House, Trump made a remarkable statement, saying right out loud, “Nobody likes me.”

It came in the context of Trump comparing himself to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease specialist. Here’s how this episode was reported by The Hill:

“It’s interesting. He’s got a very good approval rating, and I like that. It’s good,” Trump said during a press briefing at the White House. “Because, remember, he’s working for this administration. He’s working with us. We could’ve gotten other people. We could’ve gotten somebody else. It didn’t have to be Dr. Fauci. He’s working with our administration, and for the most part, we’ve done pretty much what he and others … recommended.”

“He’s got this high approval rating, so why don’t I have a high approval rating … with respect to the virus?” Trump wondered aloud. …

“It sort of is curious,” Trump said. “A man works for us, with us, very closely, Dr. Fauci and Dr. [Deborah] Birx, also highly thought of, and yet they’re highly thought of, but nobody likes me. It can only be my personality. That’s all.”

He may be the most powerful person in the world, but Trump possesses a deep sense of grievance, victimhood and vulnerability. Although his press conference was supposed to focus on the coronavirus pandemic, it was almost entirely devoted to feeding the president’s ego. Trump’s narcissism, again, showed itself to be more important than the safety of the American people.

Trump continues to tell obvious lies in an effort to twist reality to his will. Trump claimed he had been invited to throw out the first pitch at a New York Yankees game on Aug. 15. That was not true. He continues to claim that the drug hydroxychloroquine is a cure for COVID-19. That’s not true. Indeed, it’s a potentially lethal drug if not taken as directed and under the guidance of a medical professional.

For several years leading mental health professionals have tried to warn the public that Donald Trump’s mental health makes him a danger to the United States and the world. In cowardly fashion, senior Republican officials as well as members of Trump’s own administration have offered the same warnings in private.

Donald Trump’s niece, Dr. Mary Trump, a psychologist, is the first member of the president’s family to issue similar warnings. In her new best-selling book “Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man,” Mary Trump reflects on her personal experiences in the Trump family and her belief that the president’s apparent mental illness can be traced back to abusive parenting, an intolerant household where racism and other forms of bigotry were common, and an overall environment of cruelty and lack of care or concern for other human beings.

Dr. Justin Frank is a former clinical professor of psychiatry at the George Washington University Medical Center and a physician with more than 40 years of experience in psychoanalysis. He is the author of the bestselling books “Bush on the Couch” and “Obama on the Couch.” His most recent book is “Trump on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President.”

In our most recent conversation, Dr. Frank shares his thoughts about Mary Trump’s book and what it reveals about how Donald Trump’s relationship with both his father and mother led to his embrace of cruelty and lack of human warmth, and why Trump is incapable of “maturing” or “growing” as so many reporters and journalists have deluded themselves into believing he may.

Frank also warns the American people that Trump is a violent and emotionally abusive bully and that they will need to find the moral and personal courage to confront him. In order to do so, Americans will first need to confront their own shame and culpability for allowing Trump to become president in the first place.

You can also listen to my conversation with Dr. Justin Frank on my podcast “The Truth Report” or through the player embedded below.

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

This hasn’t been a good few weeks for Donald Trump, has it?

He has always had a split mind. It is split between two sides. This is called “binary thinking.” In this way of thinking a person is either right or wrong. You like me or you hate me. You’re loyal or you’re disloyal. Trump’s world is very clearly demarcated. Now he is likely upset by Fox News because of his interview with Chris Wallace. In his mind, Fox News is now a very difficult organization. How is he going to place them? Good or bad? Friend of foe? A person develops binary thinking as a way of protecting themselves from anxiety. Trump has made his world very simple. If anyone questions or challenges him they are “nasty” and must be retaliated against. That’s how his world is.

Every child feels that way until they’re five or six. Sometimes children do not engage in such simple thinking for long, it may stop at age two or three.

Donald Trump’s interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News was not difficult. Wallace asked easy questions. Trump simply fell flat on his face and embarrassed himself. But is Trump even capable of feeling embarrassed?

He is not. Trump is able to be shamed in the presence of someone else and that’s what happened to him with Obama at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2011. Obama really did humiliate Trump in public by making fun of him. It was very upsetting to Trump. I believe those feelings were converted in Trump’s mind from humiliation and shame immediately into aggressive hatred. This is a feature of Trump’s mind.

The problem with binary thinking is that unless you learn to think complex thoughts, you have a very limited range of responses to adversity or trouble. A person who thinks in that way either tries to run away from adversity or to kill it somehow. Over the years Donald Trump has compromised his ability to think critically. Trump can only react using a simple good-or-bad binary.

Trump has now returned to his daily “press briefings,” which are really just mini-rallies that can get him attention and narcissistic fuel. There are still too many reporters and journalists who praise Trump for “maturing” and treating the pandemic with more “seriousness.” It is laughable and pathetic. Donald Trump is mentally pathological and cannot change. Yet mainstream American journalists keep trying to normalize him.

Those people want Donald Trump to be normal because it is terrifying to have a president who is psychotic. People do not want to believe a president would commit genocide, attack Black and brown people, separate children from their mothers, and cheat and steal all the time. Trump is a man who is both criminal and dangerous. Most people, including the journalist class, cannot accept that reality because it is too frightening.

The American news media wants to normalize Trump for another reason, not only because they’re scared to stand up to a sadistic and disturbed and paranoid president, but because they are also guilt-ridden about trying to normalize him in the past. When a person tries to normalize an abnormal and dangerous person then guilt sets in. The news media keeps trying to normalize Trump, so they rush to praise any positive thing Trump does as a way of justifying their previous need to normalize him.

Donald Trump is America’s bully in chief. So many Americans are afraid to stand up to him. They likely have never confronted the bullies in their personal lives either.

They are afraid of him and he knows it. One of the things Donald Trump has done psychologically is that he projects his own fear and weaknesses on to the people he is bullying. Trump is capable of bullying people with great strength and force and that scares people. Likewise, Republican elected officials are afraid to stand up to Trump because they don’t want to get beaten up at the polls, believing Trump is so powerful. They want to keep their jobs.

Triumphing over Trumpism and repairing the country will require a new level of maturity for the American people. Part of that new maturity will require confronting bullies and getting over fear. Many people are scared of Trump and his regime — as they should be — but they don’t know what to do about the situation, so they sink further into learned helplessness.

That is true on one level. But there is another dimension as well. The American people need to mourn what they did by electing him president. We have to mourn who we’ve become by electing him. We have to mourn the fact that many of us have normalized him. We have to mourn the fact that we’re ashamed of being Americans. We have to mourn the fact that it’s humiliating not to be allowed into any foreign country because of the pandemic and what he did to the country. We have to grieve what’s happened here in America with Donald Trump, because we will not grow as a people otherwise.

I believe that we can grow and mature as a people. But we have to confront the truth and our collective role in Trumpism. People don’t want to do that hard work. Those Americans who are binary thinkers will find it especially difficult to confront their decision to vote for Trump and then to mourn and mature.

Standing up to a bully in the form of Donald Trump is very important. But we also need to recognize internally that we didn’t stand up to him in the first place — and the reason we didn’t stand up to him was out of fear and weakness. We must also mourn the fact that so many people were in denial about just how bad Donald Trump as president would be.

You wrote a book several years ago about Donald Trump’s psychology and behavior. You were trying to warn the American people about the danger Trump represented. What are your thoughts about Mary Trump’s new book?

First of all, I think it is a really good book. She’s a very good and thoughtful writer. There was not any one thing in the book that surprised me about Trump’s psychology or psychodynamics. He’s a sadist. He’s a misogynist. He’s grandiose. He has no empathy. He’s not competent. He can’t really manage things. He’s always been rescued. Those are all things I wrote about in my book “Trump on the Couch.” She and I are in agreement. Mary Trump was able to share specific details about Donald Trump that I would have had no way of knowing. For example, Trump mocked his father when he became senile. That was a very interesting detail because Donald Trump was always afraid of his father. He was never able to stand up to him. It was only when Trump’s father fell ill with Alzheimer’s that Donald Trump could stand up to him by mocking him.

I knew that Donald Trump had a learning disability. But I did not know that Trump paid someone to take his SAT exam.

Mary Trump identifies Trump’s father as the root of his mental pathologies. Do you agree?

Trump’s father and mother are both the source of his problems. Trump’s mother was cold and unavailable. How can you ever feel empathy if you’re not held? How can you ever feel love if you’re not responded to in a loving way and not paid attention to? Donald Trump was not mothered. This means he is unable to soothe, care for or empathize with the American people and their troubles.

What did you think about Mary Trump’s observation about his lies? In her book she writes, “It is a defense mechanism to protect himself against the reality of who he really is and if he actually understood it, he couldn’t bear it.” Your thoughts?

There are multiple levels of Trump’s lying. The first level, which is what Mary Trump writes about, is that Trump lies to compensate for his weaknesses and the fact that he knows that he is not who he pretends to be. Trump is not as strong and as big and powerful as he pretends to be. That is the origin of his lying as a child. When Trump was older, he lied to get money. Trump lied as part of his business.

But now, as president, Trump is being threatened with investigations and other consequences for his misdeeds. Now Trump is lying to save his life. He’s lying to protect himself. Trump may destroy America by sending his federal troops into the cities. Trump is doing other horrible things as well to save himself. Trump’s lies are directed at protecting himself.

All these types of lying are based on one thing, which is the original lie. Trump lies so much because he was lied to as a child. He was lied to when his parents probably told him, “I love you.” Trump knew that his parents did not love him. Trump knew he wasn’t loved by his father or his mother. With compulsive liars they are usually lying because they are deflecting outward a trauma that happened to them. Because Donald Trump was lied to as a child, he has lied to everyone else ever since.

Donald Trump thinks that people do not like him and that they are all out to get him.

What are some details from Mary Trump’s new book that you found particularly provocative and insightful?

The most painful thing about Trump to me is that he really envies people who are loved. Trump hates people who are loved. Trump hated Obama not just because he made the mistake of being president while black, Trump also hates Obama because he was loved. Trump hates these children of immigrants where the mothers carry their babies from El Salvador, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and other dangerous places to find safety in America. These mothers love their children. Trump’s reaction is to break up the families, to separate the mothers from their babies. It is an attack on children but also an attack on love. When Trump breaks up the families of migrants and refugees he is really saying, “You’re going to feel what I felt because my mother was separated from me and I’m going to punish you. I can’t stand the fact that I see someone being loved and it’s not me. Every time I see someone being loved, it reminds me of what I was missing. It reminds me of my yearnings, which I have to deny always.”

Given his psychological profile, how is Donald Trump likely responding to Mary Trump’s book?

He’s very angry at her because anybody who criticizes him is betraying him. Again, Trump is lying to save his life right now. Her book helps to confirm Trump’s criminal behavior. That is also why Trump did not want John Bolton’s book to be released either. Trump does not want anyone to speak the truth about what he is doing. It is not about his reputation, ultimately. Donald Trump hates Mary Trump because she could put him in jail.

What counsel would you offer the American people about overcoming the terror they feel about Donald Trump and what he represents and then moving from inaction to action?

Together, we can be stronger, and we need to find other people with us who will help stand up to the bully. The Black Lives Matter movement is doing this. We will need determination, which is what Rep. John Lewis’ life stood for.

A person must be determined when he or she stands up to a bully. Having a moral compass makes this easier. When you stand up to the bully you may still get beaten up. But you have to stand up to the bully anyway. That is why interdependence and cooperation are so very important in this moment when we need to stand up against the national bully Donald Trump. What makes a person stand up against the bully and do the right thing? Having a sense of right and wrong and not being dominated by fear.

On Medicare and Medicaid’s 55th birthday, let’s expand benefits — not cut them

On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law. This crowning achievement was both the culmination of a decades-long effort to attain guaranteed universal health insurance and the first step in the quest for Medicare for All.

In the 55 years since the legislation was signed into law, both programs have proven their worth. Before Medicare, about half of seniors lacked health insurance. They were an illness away from bankruptcy. Today, 99.1 percent of Americans 65 and older are insured, thanks to Medicare. Nine million people with disabilities who are under age 65 also have health insurance coverage through Medicare.

More than 65 million Americans have health insurance coverage through Medicaid. Medicaid ensures that poor families have access to health care. It means that seniors and people with disabilities have access to long-term care. Together, Medicare and Medicaid cover more than one-third of the people in our country.

Seniors and people with disabilities have, on average, the highest medical costs. Administering a means-tested program like Medicaid presents administrative challenges. That is why it is so striking that Medicare and Medicaid are more efficient and more cost-effective than private health insurance. It would save money to expand Medicare to cover everyone.

Now, as the COVID-19 pandemic rages across our country, it’s long past time to improve Medicare and expand its coverage to everyone. Imagine how much worse off we would be right now if Medicare and Medicaid did not exist. And imagine how much better off and better prepared to cope with the pandemic we would be if everyone were covered automatically by an improved Medicare—if people knew that if they felt sick, they could get checked without any copays or deductibles. Imagine if losing employment did not also mean losing health care.

Unfortunately, Republicans, aided by a small fringe group of Democrats, want to go in the opposite direction. The latest Republican COVID-19 proposal, the so-called HEALS Act, includes a bill called the TRUST Act.

The TRUST Act is a devious ploy to dismantle Medicare as we know it, by creating a closed-door process to fast-track benefit cuts. Using the COVID-19 crisis to sneak it through is the worst possible way to say “happy birthday” to Medicare and Medicaid.

Fortunately, Democratic leaders like Sen. Ron Wyden, Rep. Richard Neal, and Rep. John Larson have been outspoken in their opposition to the bill. So have advocates for seniors, including AARP, which rightfully calls the TRUST Act “a bill that is unrelated to the crisis and that wrongly targets Social Security and Medicare to reduce deficits that have expanded because of needed pandemic relief.”

Congressional leaders must heed these wise words and throw the TRUST Act in the scrap heap where it belongs. Then, they must build on the foundation LBJ signed into law 55 years ago by expanding Medicare and Medicaid instead of cutting them.

During a pandemic that is disproportionately threatening people of color, expanding these programs would be a powerful force for racial justice—just as their creation was. Medicare and Medicaid became law the year after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Hospitals were only allowed to participate in Medicare if they complied with the Civil Rights Act. This led to the desegregation of hospitals throughout the South, improving the quality of care available to people of color.

This was a quiet yet profound achievement. Overnight integration of hospitals, where patients and health care providers interact in the most personal of ways, was a revolution for racial justice. Extending health insurance to low-income Americans, who are disproportionately people of color, was an important step for racial economic justice.

Among the responses demanded by a life-threatening pandemic and the righteous pronouncement that Black Lives Matter should be the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid to a universal program without premiums, co-pays or deductibles.

As a first step, Congress should pass the Health Care Emergency Guarantee Act, which Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) introduced in response to the pandemic. It would guarantee health care (with no out-of-pocket costs) to all Americans for the duration of the pandemic. This is a commonsense public health measure. The last thing we want during a pandemic is for anyone to forgo needed care due to cost concerns.

Congress should then make the guaranteed health care permanent, enacting Medicare for All. As an incremental step, Congress could help struggling families by passing MediKids to provide health care for all children, as the architects of Medicare envisioned as the next step on the road to Medicare for All. They could lower the Medicare age to 55, which would be essential for older workers who lost their jobs due to the pandemic and may never return to the workforce.

In addition to expanding Medicare and Medicaid to cover more people, Congress should improve the programs for current beneficiaries. The COVID-19 crisis in our nation’s nursing homes reveals the need for the government to cover long-term care in home and community settings, rather than funneling people into institutions. Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden has a plan to do just that. Medicare coverage should also be expanded to include hearing, vision, and dental care.

Medicare and Medicaid are turning 55 amidst some of the most tumultuous times our country has experienced since the Great Depression. Frances Perkins, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s secretary of labor, astutely recognized, “We must devise plans that will not merely alleviate the ills of today, but will prevent, as far as it is humanly possible to do so, their recurrence in the future.”

Policymakers should heed her words, and take the steps necessary to both alleviate this pandemic and prevent the next one. That includes improving Medicare and Medicaid, and expanding them to cover everyone in America.

Exclusive: Right-wing nonprofits hit with criminal complaint for self-dealing, tax violations

A nonprofit public watchdog filed a complaint Thursday with the Internal Revenue Service, the state of Wisconsin and the California attorney general’s office accusing the conservative activist group American Majority (AM) of violating the federal tax code and various state laws.

The complaint, filed by the nonpartisan Campaign for Accountability (CfA) and exclusively obtained by Salon, accuses the nonprofit and its related dark-money advocacy arm, American Majority Action Inc. (AMA), of unlawfully putting more than half its expenses toward political activity and concealing donor information from regulators.

Additionally, the watchdog alleges that the groups’ founder and CEO, Ned Ryun, has engaged for years in inappropriate self-dealing through a complex web of transactions.

“Ned Ryun claims that American Majority and American Majority Action are nonprofits working for the public interest. A close reading of their tax returns suggests, however, that these groups may be violating tax law and improperly funneling money to Mr. Ryun,” Daniel E. Stevens, CfA executive director, told Salon in a statement.

“State and federal regulators should investigate whether Mr. Ryun’s management of these nonprofits is violating the law,” Stevens added.

American Majority describes itself as “the nation’s premier conservative training organization.” Its purported mission is to establish and maintain a solid grassroots political infrastructure to organize and support new conservative leaders.

The group’s shadow entity, AMA, however, has a tax status that legally bars it from engaging primarily in political activity. AMA describes itself as “a national conservative organization dedicated to engaging citizens in the political process.”

Tax filings over the years show that the organizations raised about $27.8 million between 2008 and 2018, but the complaint points out numerous inconsistencies.

First, the complaint alleges that AMA engaged primarily in political activity. AMA claimed about $414,000 in total expenses on its 2016 tax filings, but disclosed spending $350,000 of that — or approximately 85 percent — on “direct and indirect political campaign activities.”

If true, that suggests a violation of the federal law that prohibits 501(c)(4) nonprofits from engaging primarily in political activity.

American Majority also appears to have reported incorrect information to the state of California regarding a major donor, a move that CfA says was intended to deceive regulators. That donor, according to the complaint, is Leonard Leo, former executive vice president of the Federalist Society, a conservative advocacy group that has had enormous influence in Donald Trump’s judicial appointments.

According to AM’s tax filings, the organization reported that Leo contributed $500,000 from an Alexandria, Virginia, address in 2015. But in its 2016 filings, AM reported a $500,000 contribution from a group called the Donors Capital Fund of Alexandria, Virginia.

Leo has reportedly been linked to Donors Capital, but CfA’s research does not show him to be an employee or officer. Instead, audits suggest that those two $500,000 donations came from the same donor, attributed to Leo one year and to Donors Capital the next.

The complaint alleges this is an attempt to hide the true source of the funds, because Donors Capital has been reported to fund anti-climate science activities and Islamophobic organizations, and has been characterized as something of an “ATM” for conservative dark-money donors.

In 2016, the year that AM’s filings listed Donors Capital, the group reported receiving $70.7 million in contributions and grants. The year before, Donors Capital took in about $60 million. But in 2017, Donors Capital reported receiving only $366,087.

Finally, the complaint details a complex scheme to secretly move money between nonprofits and for-profit entities in the interest of AM and AMA board members. The organizations kicked substantial amounts of money to Ryun himself, while simultaneously reporting massive losses.

“Mr. Ryun appears to have built a network of organizations designed to funnel money to his for-profit companies and pay himself a salary. State and federal regulators should not allow Mr. Ryun to take advantage of nonprofit tax laws designed to support organizations that benefit the public, not private individuals,” Stevens said in his statement to Salon.

The filing points out that in 2011, American Majority and AMA created a holding company called AM Action LLC. That holding company then set up a for-profit data firm, Voter Gravity Inc, and briefly invested in another data firm called Political Gravity.

Although AM and AMA delivered hundreds of thousands of dollars to AM Action LLC, the complaint says, that company still lost “a staggering amount of money.”

The two nonprofits haven’t disclosed additional contributions or loans since 2015, but the holding company, AM Action LLC, has reported a negative income totaling more than $1.7 million, according to the document.

AMA itself later reported a negative $953,544 adjustment in 2016, the complaint says, “perhaps as a recognition of this poor investment.”

CfA also claims the twin organizations extended loans and covered expenses for private companies connected to American Majority board members and employees.

Ryun’s nonprofits don’t appear to have received a return on their investment in Voter Gravity. According to the complaint, those numbers “represent a staggering loss” for the nonprofits.

“AMA appears to have reported to the IRS that the value of Voter Gravity declined dramatically and that AMA’s ownership interest share in Voter Gravity is now negative,” the complaint says. Beyond the losses, AMA allegedly took out nearly a million dollars worth of loans on behalf of Voter Gravity.

“Despite this bleak financial picture, Voter Gravity continued to pay a salary to Mr. Ryun,” says the complaint, detailing payments over several years that he received from all three entities, even as he declared massive losses.

CfA filed the complaint on Thursday morning, and you can read it here. American Majority did not reply to Salon’s request for comment.

The CDC-to-HHS data switch isn’t responsible for a decline in cases. But it’s a “catastrophe”

The Trump administration’s abrupt order instructing hospitals to stop reporting their coronavirus data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention raised concerns among experts, but viral rumors that it is responsible for the decline in cases nationwide are inaccurate.

The Department of Health and Human Services abruptly instructed hospitals earlier this month to stop sending their data to the CDC and send all patient information to a central database in Washington, sparking concerns that the data was being politicized.

Roughly around the same time as the switch was announced in mid-July, the recent upward curve in coronavirus began to flatten. Although the rate of new cases nationwide is still growing, the increase has been much slower recently.

The timing sparked viral rumors, like the widely-shared graphic below, that the data switch was responsible for the decline in cases, though experts have refuted this claim.

Trump is falsifying the COVID numbers, just like we knew he would!

This needs to be retweeted EVERYWHERE! pic.twitter.com/RRa373VfaN

— James Everett #JailTheOrangeMan (@JSEveret) July 27, 2020

Some also seized on a tweet from the Covid Tracking Project, an initiative launched by The Atlantic, reporting that “state data on current COVID-19 hospitalizations is unstable” and “incomplete” because of the “HHS changeover.”

Once again, the state data on current COVID-19 hospitalizations is unstable. CA, SC, and TX have all posted notices stating their hosp. data is incomplete because of the HHS changeover. We’ve maintained the freeze on their hospitalization data again. More on that tomorrow.

— The COVID Tracking Project (@COVID19Tracking) July 27, 2020

But while the data has been incomplete, the researchers at the Covid Tracking Project “explicitly don’t think the cases flattening has anything to do with the HHS changeover,” Alexis Madrigal, who helped build the tracker, told Salon.

Dr. Tom Frieden, the former head of the CDC under Barack Obama, agreed that the switch is not related to the decline in new cases.

“We do have concerns about the completeness and timeliness of data being collected and reported,” Frieden, who now serves as the president and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives, an initiative of Vital Strategies, told Salon. “However, the data seem to bear out that in at least some places [there] is an actual decrease — although with still very high rates — and that is not an artifact of testing or data reporting.”

The problems with the new system “only affect hospitalization data,” the Covid Tracking Project explained in a blog post:

Our case, testing, and death data from states continues to show the effects of testing and reporting backlogs and day-of-the-week reporting differences, but are as reliable as they were before the new directive. And we find no evidence to support a popular online conspiracy theory that the switchover from the CDC system to the Health and Human Services system explains a national plateau in new coronavirus cases.

Hospitals do not report their case count or testing data to the federal government, the project’s data scientists explained. The data is drawn from many different independent sources.

But the switchover has been a “catastrophe” in other ways, Dave Dillon, a spokesman for the Missouri Hospital Association, told Salon.

“The shift has essentially left the state in the dark for two weeks,” he explained. Dillon’s association had been reporting data to the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network reporting system, but the HHS’ abrupt directive, “with little or no advance knowledge or on-boarding assistance from HHS, created a chaotic environment for hospitals,” he said.

Frieden said the switchover was a mistake.

“The NHSN has been the health care reporting system most widely used by our nation’s hospitals, and should not be replaced, especially abruptly in the middle of a pandemic,” he said. “We need accurate and timely data for an effective public health response to the pandemic.”

The data should be updated daily but the “most recent update was a week ago,” he said. “There are also inconsistencies with data, including key metrics such as ICU capacity and inpatient hospital bed occupancy. From other data sources, we know that 29 states are seeing increased hospitalizations.”

Some states, like Florida, have had “issues with transparency,” which “may also contribute to this confusion,” Dr. Georges Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association, told Salon.

But the “biggest issue is we have lots of data and it is not consistent across the nation,” he said. “Long reporting delays; incomplete data and disparities in data makes it difficult to really know where we are.”

Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign adviser who was embroiled in the Russia investigation before being tapped to serve as a spokesman for HHS, told reporters earlier this month that the switchover would improve data reporting.

“The new faster and complete data system is what our nation needs to defeat the coronavirus and the CDC, an operating division of HHS, will certainly participate in this streamlined all-of-government response,” he said.

HHS did not respond to questions from Salon.

Vice President Mike Pence also insisted that the change was “about making the system better.”

But Dr. Daniel Pollock, who heads the CDC’s Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, which oversees the collection of hospital data, refuted that claim.

Pollock told NPR that the CDC system was not slow and processed data as quickly as other reporting methods. He questioned whether HHS could do as good a job, given the CDC’s longstanding relationship with hospitals.

“They’ve been stood up relatively recently,” he told the outlet. “And they don’t have the track record, the expertise that we’re able to provide.”

The change came after Frieden and three other former CDC chiefs warned of the Trump administration, “political leaders and others attempting to undermine the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

Democratic lawmakers also sounded the alarm after the change.

“The American people need transparency from the nation’s public health agencies,” Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., said on Twitter. “The Trump Administration has politicized the pandemic response at every step, we simply can’t trust them not to.”

“Only the CDC has the expertise to collect data,” argued Rep. Donna Shalala, D-Fla., who served as HHS secretary under President Bill Clinton. “I think any move to take responsibility away from the people who have the expertise is politicizing.”

The change has particularly hit smaller states hard because many were using the CDC system that HHS replaced to report data. Nine states had fewer than 50% of their hospitals reporting data through the new HHS system as of last week. In states like North Dakota and Louisiana, that number was below 30%.

The Missouri Hospital Association was forced to temporarily shut down its data dashboard due to the incomplete information.

“Although Missouri is likely back on track with our hospital-specific data reporting as of today, the shift has essentially left the state in the dark for two weeks,” Dillon said. “So, during the transition, some data was reported incorrectly.”

Dillon said that the lost two weeks came at a critical time as the state’s infections spiked and hospitalizations grew during the transition.

“The absence of information in Missouri reduced local leaders’ line of sight on the virus, effectively eliminating their ability to make good decisions in the interest of their communities,” he said. “HHS is likely on track to offer very good information. We are not critical of the effort to collect and report the data. However, their process to get to that product was a catastrophe.”

Though Dillon is optimistic about the data collection, “the rush to move platforms was unnecessary with significant consequences,” he said. “Overall, it has been an unfortunate incident.”

Frieden, Benjamin and other public health leaders working with Resolve to Save Lives released a list of 15 essential indicators, including confirmed and probable cases, data related to testing rates and hospitalization rates, and even data on the percentage of people wearing masks in public indoor settings, that should be reported by each state to ensure transparency and the public’s ability to respond to the situation in their area.

“There must be a commitment to accurate and timely reporting of data on the 15 essential metrics we outlined, with complete transparency,” Frieden told Salon. “Incomplete data prevent us from getting the full picture of the current course of this ever-changing pandemic, and leave us flying blind as we work to get ahead of it. If we don’t have a full and accurate understanding of what the status of the pandemic is today, we won’t be able to fight it as effectively as possible tomorrow.”

AOC pushes to ban military recruiting on video game streaming platform Twitch

Ahead of a vote that could come as early as Thursday afternoon, advocacy groups are urging constituents to call their representatives in the House to back a measure by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that would ban the U.S. military from using video game streaming platforms like Twitch as recruitment tools aimed at school-age youth.

“Children should not be targeted,” Ocasio-Cortez said on the House floor Thursday afternoon.

Ocasio-Cortez’s amendment—offered on July 22—”prohibits the use of funds for recruiting via video gaming and e-sports platforms.” The U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force all operate ESports streaming channels on Twitch, one of the most popular such platforms for young gamers.

As Common Dreams reported last week, the amendment regarding digital platforms was followed by a broader bill aimed at curbing military recruitment in schools.

A number of activists and advocacy groups have come out in favor of Ocasio-Cortez’s amendment and are urging members of the public to reach out to their representatives to support the measure.

Erik Sperling, Just Foreign Policy executive director, told Common Dreams that families should back the amendment for their children’s sake.

“Any parent should support this amendment,” said Sperling, whose group was involved in crafting the language of the amendment. “It is wrong to allow impressionable children to develop bonds with recruiters online when there is no other voice present to share the real challenges that military service entails.”

“Patriots should support the ban because the real reason that people should join the military is to serve our country, not in hopes of realizing a shoot-em-up fantasy against real humans,” he added.

Other groups weighed in on social media.

“Joining the military (especially during a time of war) is a serious decision, not a game,” tweeted veterans’ group Common Defense.

Progressive activist Jordan Uhl is using his birthday, which happens to fall on Thursday, to ask the public to support the amendment.

Tomorrow is my birthday. The past few years I’ve done fundraisers to “celebrate” for progressive orgs. Didn’t feel right this year.

Instead, tomorrow the House will vote on @AOC‘s military/Twitch recruiting amendment.

Please tweet your Rep. & kindly ask for them to support it!

— jordan (@JordanUhl) July 29, 2020

Uhl, who has been an outspoken voice in favor of the amendment and whose blocking from the military Twitch channel for asking the participants “what’s your favorite w4r cr1me” is the subject of a First Amendment challenge, told Common Dreams he was disappointed the measure was controversial.

“It’s repugnant that we’re even having this debate but Republicans, with the assistance of some Democrats, are trying to justify the military recruiting kids on a platform used by children as young as 13,” said Uhl. “The United States lags behind the rest of the developed world on this front and now Congress is considering whether to fall behind even further.”

“It’s critical that the House supports Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez’s amendment,” said Uhl.

Right-wing militias warned of excessive federal power — now that it’s here, most are doing nothing

Militias and many other Second Amendment advocates have long argued that their primary desire to own firearms — often, many of them — is rooted in a need to protect themselves and their families from a tyrannical federal government, or to discourage the government from becoming tyrannical in the first place.

But with the mayor of a major U.S. city warning that “tyranny and dictatorship” have already arrived on the streets – in the shape of unidentified federal troops using questionable tactics – militia groups appear reluctant to throw their lot in with protesters. In fact, many have been supporting government action to suppress peaceful demonstrators.

Certainly the scenes in Portland have alarmed civil liberties groups: Heavily armed and camouflaged federal officers, wearing no name tags or other insignia, are on the streets of Portland, Oregon, and have teargassed and arrested seemingly peaceful protesters with little or no provocation. President Donald Trump has said similar forces are coming to other cities — many run by Democrats.

To some, it may look exactly like what the militias have been warning of.

As a scholar of the U.S. domestic militia movement, I have seen in recent months a new divide emerging in these groups.

Some, often calling themselves the “boogaloo movement,” see the current political unrest as an opportunity to wrest power from an overbearing federal government. Others support police and their enforcement of strict law and order, even if that means authorities using powerful weapons and overwhelming force.

Shifting online dynamics

Assessing what these groups are doing, and how they are discussing recent events, has become more difficult for observers like me in recent weeks. On June 30, Facebook announced it had removed hundreds of accounts and groups allegedly related to the “boogaloo movement.”

The move came in the wake of several arrests of alleged boogaloo adherents across the country, including three in Nevada accused of plotting to “firebomb” federal land and one in Texas accused of killing one police officer and critically injuring another.

Boogaloo groups still have a social media presence and, until recently when the portion of the site they used was closed, a large presence on the Reddit discussion site, where comments are loosely regulated and people can post anonymously.

Now the movement’s public face is smaller and harder to find without insider knowledge. For instance, until recently it was common to see groups with the words “big igloo” in their names, a play on the word “boogaloo.” After Facebook’s crackdown, some groups are using the word “icehouse” or other synonyms that may not be as obvious. They are therefore harder for algorithms to find, but also for people to find – whether to observe or to join in.

Some ‘back the boog’ social media groups are sharing memes like this, warning of government exercising too much power. Big Doc’s Icehouse Bonanza/Facebook

“Backing the boog”

The groups who “back the boogaloo” imply, or even outright declare, that the U.S. is no longer a free country, and generally call for supporters to oppose, violently if necessary, federal forces and the government they represent.

In the days after George Floyd’s death, I saw some of these groups call for members to participate in protests opposing police violence. But I have not seen similar calls in response to federal officers’ violence in Portland.

That may change if federal forces do appear in other places, especially areas geographically closer to active “back the boog” supporters. It is also possible that the groups are discussing protests or other actions in less public ways, in private messages or on platforms like Parler, that have marketed themselves as friendlier toward a variety of conservative views.

“Backing the blue”

There are still militia members who support police, often called “back the blue” groups. Commentators have observed that silence from them and other Second Amendment supporters certainly seems to be hypocritical, at best, and possibly supportive of tyranny in the current context.

That’s not the way they see it. They argue that one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government is to protect citizens from others who might infringe on their rights or safety. They support police who say that Portland authorities have failed to protect regular people from violent protesters.

That’s also what these groups claimed happened in Seattle’s autonomous zone — though they rely on news sources that describe the protesters as inherently dangerous and hampering business and free association. They seemingly ignore or discount other reports that these characterizations are exaggerated. In my research, I found that militia members were likely to exclusively trust sources like Fox News or even more conservative sites for their information, and recent data confirms that such sources may strongly shape viewers’ understanding of political and other events.

Federal officers beat and pepper-spray a Navy veteran standing in peaceful demonstration.

Mistaken perceptions?

This view of protesters as violent is amplified by some “back the blue” members’ belief that the demonstrators are “Marxist” members of antifa, a mostly nonviolent leaderless collective movement generally opposing fascism.

For example, one Facebook group shared a video of Christopher David, the Navy veteran beaten by federal officers in Portland, talking about his experience. A commentator responded, “The end of the video tell[s] the tale, he’s going to raise money for [Black Lives Matter]! He is a liar he went there to stand with his commie comrades.”

Scholarship on conservative groups argues that they use anti-communist language to cast political opponents as not real Americans who have thus have forfeited any protections U.S. citizens should have.

Anti-liberal rhetoric

Some other “back the blue” members see hypocrisy in liberals, noting that few, if any, on the left objected when federal officers killed LaVoy Finicum during the 2016 standoff between federal officials and armed supporters of rancher Cliven Bundy during a land dispute elsewhere in Oregon.

There are sharing pages like one on a well-known conservative satire site that suggests the same Oregon authorities opposing federal officers tolerate violent behavior from protesters because of “identity politics” — the idea that certain groups favored by liberals, in this case, Black people, are held to a different and more lax standard.

Image shared on Facebook of a modified Gadsden flag.

Several Facebook pages shared an image of a modified Gadsden flag, with a Black Lives Matter fist and promising “we will tread” as “proof” that Portland protesters would take away others’ rights, including the right to bear arms, if given the chance and thus do not deserve protection themselves. One comment in support of such a post read, “I[‘m] glad to see I’m not the only person happy to see these commies being snatched up and dragged away. Yes, I know that this could just as easily be turned around and that we could also be dragged away in broad daylight. But if they aren’t stopped now, and they do somehow manage to gain complete power, we’ll get dragged away anyways. Better them than us, before it’s too late.”

Federal intervention has not stopped the Portland protests from growing, but some analysts expect Trump to increase the response in an attempt to appeal to his supporters as the country heads into the November election. Many people fear that move would spark violence.

The “back the blue” militia members generally respect law and order enough to not fulfill their threats of violence or criminal action – but the “back the boog” groups may not be so restrained. The “back the blue” groups may also act if federal action escalates, and members believe they are needed or useful to help defend the interests of average citizens.

Amy Cooter, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Vanderbilt University

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

Dr. Fauci tried to warn Trump about a global outbreak before he took office

Dr. Anthony Fauci, now 79, was warning about the deadly potential of pandemics long before COVID-19 first surfaced in Mainland China in late 2019. Reporter McKenzie Sadeghi, in USA Today, fact-checks reports that Fauci warned President Donald Trump’s incoming administration about the possibility of a deadly outbreak in early 2017 and examines what the expert immunologist had to say three and a half years ago.

Sadeghi writes that it is inaccurate to claim that Fauci was warning about COVID-19 specifically in 2017, as the disease didn’t exist back then. But to say that Fauci was sounding the alarm about pandemics in general, Sadeghi explains, is absolutely correct.

“The claim that Dr. Anthony Fauci, in 2017, warned the (incoming) Trump administration of the likelihood of an infectious disease outbreak is true based on our research,” Sadeghi reports. “Fauci did not warn about the coronavirus specifically, as some posts claim, but rather, that a more general ‘surprise infectious disease outbreak’ would take place.”

According to Sadeghi, Fauci — in a January 10, 2017 speech — warned Trump’s incoming administration, “There is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases…. The thing we’re extraordinarily confident about is that we’re going to see this in the next few years.”

That speech, Sadeghi notes, was part of an event billed as “Pandemic Preparedness in the Next Administration,” and Georgetown University has posted Fauci’s speech on YouTube.

Watch the speech below:

Global airline body projects world air travel won’t recover for another four years

The International Air Transport Association (IATA), a worldwide trade association which represents 290 airlines, revealed this week that it does not expect global air travel to recover from the coronavirus pandemic for several years.

The IATA does not project global passenger traffic will return to pre-pandemic levels until at least 2024. Though there was a slight increase in passenger traffic from June to May, most of this came in the form of domestic travel, in particular in China.

The IATA identified several factors as contributing to the industry’s struggles, including weak consumer confidence, diminished corporate travel and the struggles by the U.S. and other countries to contain the virus.

“Owing to these factors, IATA’s revised baseline forecast is for global enplanements to fall 55% in 2020 compared to 2019 (the April forecast was for a 46% decline),” a Tuesday news release said. “Passenger numbers are expected to rise 62% in 2021 off the depressed 2020 base, but still will be down almost 30% compared to 2019. A full recovery to 2019 levels is not expected until 2023, one year later than previously forecast.”

Though it anticipated passenger traffic would not return to 2019 levels until 2024, the IATA allowed for the possibility that scientific developments in treating COVID-19 could hasten the industry’s recovery.

IATA general director and CEO Alexandre de Juniac said in a statement that there was “little chance for an upswing in international air travel unless governments move quickly and decisively to find alternatives to border closures, confidence-destroying stop-start re-openings and demand-killing quarantine.”

Salon reached out to the IATA for additional comment on this story.

“Obviously, this is an extraordinarily difficult time for everyone connected to the air travel value chain, including OEMs and system suppliers, travel agents, travel technology providers, airports, air navigation service providers, ground service companies and others touched by aviation,” a spokesperson from the IATA told Salon by email. “In normal times each airline job supports a further 24 jobs in the broader aviation, tourism and travel sectors so the impact of the crisis extends far beyond just airlines.”

When asked if the forecast could be revised in the future, the spokesperson said “forecasts are subject to revision as circumstances change — just as this forecast represents a revision from our forecast in April.”

During a Monday press briefing, de Juniac said the World Health Organization felt travel restrictions were not sustainable. He added that “the immediate top priority in combatting travel restrictions is implementing the [International Civil Aviation Organization] guidance and establishing contact tracing.”

Though De Juniac acknowledged that “COVID-19 testing will need to play a role in facilitating travel,” he stopped short of “suggesting that testing should be a blanket requirement for re-opening.” De Juniac also said the industry needs continued financial support, including “direct financial assistance” and “regulatory relief.”

In related news, a number of airlines announced last month that they would stop serving alcoholic refreshments on their flights over health concerns. The rationale? Because airlines want passengers to have their face masks on for as long as possible, restricting or eliminating alcoholic beverages could reduce the amount of time that passengers spend without donning the protective garment.

The first dog in the US to test positive for COVID-19 has died

Buddy the German shepherd, the first dog in the U.S. to test positive for COVID-19, died earlier this month.

Buddy initially displayed symptoms of COVID-19 in April. He struggled to breathe, became lethargic and lost weight, according to an exclusive report from National Geographic.

Though he was tested for COVID-19 on May 15, his family did not receive a confirmation that he had the disease until they were notified by the New York City Department of Health on June 2.

Buddy began vomiting clotted blood one month later, and doctors discovered that the beloved canine also had lymphoma. Buddy’s family decided that the humane course of action would be to put him to sleep. (Doctors are unclear about the nature of the respective roles played by COVID-19 and lymphoma in the dog’s passing.)

“My pet was like my son,” Buddy’s owner, Allison Mahoney, told National Geographic. “When he was passing away in front of me, he had blood all over his paws. I cleaned him up before we drove to the vet and stayed with him in the back seat. I said, ‘I will have your voice heard, for all our furry friends. Your voice will be heard, Buddy.'”

As of this writing, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has diagnosed more than two dozen animals with the novel coronavirus. There is no evidence thus far that pets can easily contract the novel coronavirus. At the same time, there are still concerns that human beings could infect animals. Thus, individuals with a COVID-19 diagnosis are advised to avoid physical contact with their pets and other animals.

“We are still learning about SARS-CoV-2 in animals, but there is currently no evidence that animals play a significant role in spreading the virus,” the USDA said in a press release when discussing the first COVID-19 diagnosis in an American pet dog. “Based on the limited information available, the risk of animals spreading the virus to people is considered to be low. There is no justification in taking measures against companion animals that may compromise their welfare.”

Studies suggest that both dogs and cats are susceptible to COVID-19, though felines appear to be more so. At the same time, health experts urge pet owners to avoid abandoning their animal companions simply because they are afraid of getting sick.

“The danger we are facing is that people get nervous when they hear that companion animals could be virus carriers and decide to get rid of them,” Jürgen Richt, a veterinary virologist at Kansas State University in Manhattan, told Nature in May.

The first known novel coronavirus infection for an animal in the U.S. was Nadia, a four-year-old Malayan tiger who resides at the Bronx Zoo. Nadia was tested for the novel coronavirus after she began displaying troubling symptoms, including a dry cough and a loss of appetite.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported COVID-19 cases in lions and minks. It has also found that common marmosets, cynomolgus macaques, ferrets, grivets, golden Syrian hamsters and Rhesus macaques can become infected.

The agency also notes that the novel coronavirus appears to have originated in bats.

“Some coronaviruses that infect animals can be spread to humans and then spread between people, but this is rare,” it writes. “This is what happened with the virus that caused the current outbreak of COVID-19, with the virus likely originating in bats. The first reported infections were linked to a live animal market, but the virus is now spreading from person to person.”

It adds, “The virus that causes COVID-19 spreads mainly from person to person through respiratory droplets from coughing, sneezing and talking. Recent studies show that people who are infected but do not have symptoms likely also play a role in the spread of COVID-19.”

After U.S. economy’s most disastrous quarter on record, what lies ahead?

The U.S economy contracted at a staggering annual rate of 32.9 percent between April and June, according to Thursday’s announcement by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). It was by far the most severe decline since the government began keeping quarterly gross domestic product data in 1947, and more than three times worse than the previous record decline of 10 percent in 1958.

The BEA identified a decline in “personal consumption expenditures” as one of the main factors driving the bad economic news, which was not especially surprising given the context of the coronavirus pandemic, with most Americans largely at home for most of the quarter. There was a sharp drop in services like health care and goods like clothing and footwear, along with decreases across the board in nearly all categories of spending and investment. It’s difficult to make a clear comparison between this contraction and the state of the economy during the Great Depression, an enduring crisis that lasted from 1929 through the start of World War II, but the economy contracted by 12.9 percent in 1932.

To make matters worse, more than 1.4 million people filed initial unemployment claims last week, dampening hope among economists that a recovery could be imminent.

What lies ahead? Most likely no immediate good news. Dr. Gabriel Mathy, a macroeconomist at American University, told Salon by email that the decline in investment is “troubling” because sharp drops in investment tend to correspond with recessions. He noted that while consumption was supported by stimulus measures like government direct payments to households and the supplementary unemployment benefits, the anticipated reductions in unemployment benefits will also affect consumer spending.

“That’s one significant headwind, as well as the upcoming wave of fiscal austerity at the state and local level,” Mathy explained. “We saw the same type of cuts at a smaller scale in the 2010s and the slow recovery that resulted: expect this round to be worse since there doesn’t seem to be any federal help for state and local budgets in the GOP version of the spending bill.”

Yale economist Dr. Steven Berry told Salon by email that he saw only one way to pull the U.S. economy out of this steep downturn: Defeat the coronavirus.

There is a strong consensus among economists that the first rule of pandemic economics is to fight the virus. Evidence is now clear that the great part of the economic downturn follows from the actions of ordinary people sensibly trying to avoid getting sick. The lockdowns are not the economic problem. Treating the economic symptoms with expanded [unemployment insurance] and other spending is important. But if we don’t invest more in fighting the virus, the economic suffering will continue.

We need massive funding for fast widespread testing, contract tracing, help with quarantines, PPE, therapeutics and vaccines. Such spending will be repaid in reduced future spending on stimulus, etc., and in direct benefits to economic and social life. We could crush the virus and restore the economy. So far we haven’t even tried.

Mathy offered a strikingly similar observation:

The most important policies right now are to better fight the pandemic. Indoor gatherings in high-risk areas like restaurants and bars should be banned nationwide and national mask orders implemented. Until we have the pandemic under control the recovery will be incomplete. On the economic front, continuing the extra unemployment benefits and sending out new payments to households is of primary importance.

Dr. Kenneth Pomeranz, a professor of modern Chinese history at the University of Chicago who has also written about world economic history, told Salon in an email that there are likely to be harsh consequences for many people during this recession, partly because “in some ways, we still hadn’t fully recovered from 2008 when this hit. Yes, unemployment was low, but for most Americans, income growth was still quite sluggish (as it has been for most of the last 40 years), and economic insecurity (measured, by, for instance, the ability to cope with a sudden, unexpected expense of, say, $1,000) was widespread even before this.” He also noted that higher education and health care have become increasingly unaffordable, with the latter being out of reach for many people despite the Affordable Care Act.

When it comes to the long-term social consequences of the pandemic-induced recession, Dr. Roger D. Simon, a professor of social and urban history at Lehigh University, told Salon by email that “there will be major structural changes” to society, including the likelihood that “people will be leery of movie theaters, concerts, restaurants, even religious services for quite some time. And when they return it will be to a different environment. Those sectors will decline.”

He added, “If working from home becomes more prevalent, as it seems, it will reverse the revival of cities seen in the last few decades. There will be less traffic from office commuters, but also a decline in mass transit, vital in the largest cities. Retail may bounce back eventually, but online purchasing is only growing in popularity. Shaking hands is a thing of the past. Maybe even hugging non-close relatives.”

Dr. Allan Lichtman, a political scientist at American University well known for his record of successfully predicting presidential elections, told Salon that the economic news does not bode well for President Trump’s chances of re-election. He has not yet made a final, formal prediction for the 2020 election, but said he expects to do so soon.

‘I do believe we are entering a new phase of our history, where recovery will take some time,” Lichtman said. “However, I also look at the current crisis as an opportunity for constructive change.” After pointing out that the Great Depression helped Franklin D. Roosevelt win the 1932 presidential election and implement significant economic and social reforms, he argued that this economic contraction could bring about “another period of American renewal, with constructive measures to deal with catastrophic climate change, racial injustice, income inequality, health care challenges and immigration. It can also be a time when we take measures to shore up our democratic institutions that have come under such pressure during the Trump years.”

He added that, for this to happen, Joe Biden would have to defeat Trump, just as in 1932 Roosevelt defeated incumbent Herbert Hoover, who was widely blamed for the disastrous state of the economy.

With Trump donor in charge, Postal Service may shut locations and cut service before Election Day

Cutting service and shuttering locations are both under consideration by the U.S. Postal Service as the agency faces a cash crunch ahead of an expected surge in mail-in voting due to the coronavirus pandemic, according to a sitting U.S. senator and numerous postal worker union officials.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., sent a letter to recently-installed Postmaster General Louis DeJoy demanding an explanation about reports looming closures and service cuts from postal workers in his home state. The concerns were raised after DeJoy, a major Trump donor, pushed for drastic cost-cutting measures when he took over the agency last month, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press.

Manchin’s letter detailed reports that “numerous post office locations in my state and across the nation . . . are scheduled for imminent closure or significant reduction in hours and service.”

Some post offices in West Virginia have hung signs announcing their proposed closure at the end of August, he wrote.

A West Virginia postal workers union official corroborated the reports received by Manchin, noting that 26 offices in just one region of the state are being forced to reduce service to less than four hours a day (along with service cuts at 31 other locations).

“A lot of this has been dropped on us with little or no communication,” Elizabeth Coonan, a steward for the American Postal Workers Union Local 3264 in Clarksburg, told Vice News. “The times that they’re slating [the offices] to close is when they do a lot of business.”

A New Jersey union official told the outlet that 40 post offices in the state are also facing reductions. Posts offices in Alaska, California, Ohio and Tennessee have also announced plans to reduce hours, according to Vice.

“This would likely be a violation of both federal law” and USPS rules, Manchin said in his letter, demanding a detailed list of changes directed by DeJoy since he assumed office last month.

“It’s just asinine to think that you can shut something down or throttle it back in terms of the pandemic when basically the lifeline for voting and democracy is going to be in the hands of the Postal Service,” Manchin told the AP on Wednesday.

Mark Dimondstein, who heads the American Postal Workers Union, which represents more than 200,000 workers and retirees, told the outlet that there was “definitely buzz” about looming closures but no details.

DeJoy said in a statement earlier this week that the USPS could not continue to operate under its existing model. The USPS reported a $4.5 billion loss in the first quarter but saw its revenue slightly increase in the second quarter amid the coronavirus crisis.

“The Postal Service is in a financially unsustainable position, stemming from substantial declines in mail volume and a broken business model,” DeJoy said. “We are currently unable to balance our costs with available funding sources to fulfill both our universal service mission and other legal obligations. Because of this, the Postal Service has experienced over a decade of financial losses, with no end in sight, and we face an impending liquidity crisis.”

DeJoy said in the statement that the situation made it “critical that the Postal Service take a fresh look at our operations and make necessary adjustments.”

“The logical conclusion is that he’s going to try to close some post offices,” Dimondstein told the AP.

Manchin noted in his letter that Congress approved up to $10 billion to help bail out the USPS .

“Unfortunately, not only has little to none of that funding been utilized,” he wrote. “You are now proposing the very cuts that we sought to avoid with that emergency line of credit.”

The Treasury Department on Wednesday announced that it had settled on an agreement with the USPS on the terms of its loans, but the agency was able to continue to operate without additional debt.

“While the USPS is able to fund its operating expenses without additional borrowing at this time, we are pleased to have reached an agreement on the material terms and conditions of a loan, should the need arise,” Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement. “I look forward to continuing to work with Postmaster General DeJoy to fulfill the president’s goal of establishing a sustainable business model under which USPS can continue to provide necessary mail service for all Americans, without shifting costs to taxpayers.”

The Democratic-led House of Representatives approved another $25 billion to help the USPS as part of its $3 trillion HEROES Act package in May after the agency warned that its losses could increase by $22 billion over the next 18 months. But the Republican-controlled Senate’s counter-proposal unveiled by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., this week includes no funding to help the USPS.

Trump, who has frequently criticized the USPS over its budget crunch, more recently has sought to raise doubts over its ability to handle mail-in voting, which he opposes based on debunked conspiracy theories alleging possible fraud. Mail ballots have a fraud rate of about 0.00006%.

The president on Thursday suggested delaying the election over his unfounded fears about fraud. However, he has no authority to move the date, and there appears to be no appetite in Congress to do so.

Advocates of voting by mail have raised concerns that DeJoy’s plans for an “operational pivot” could result in slowing down mail delivery ahead of an election where record numbers are expected to vote by mail because of the pandemic.

“While these changes in a normal year would be drastic, in a presidential election year when many states are relying heavily on absentee mail-in ballots, increases in mail delivery timing would impair the ability of ballots to be received and counted in a timely manner — an unacceptable outcome for a free and fair election,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., the chairwoman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, said in a letter to DeJoy.

Watchdog groups warned earlier this month that DeJoy’s appointment could “corrupt a key institution ahead of Election Day.”

“Throughout his presidency, Donald Trump has attacked democratic institutions and undermined independent agencies. Now, as millions of voters are relying on the Postal Service to support our elections during the coronavirus pandemic, Trump is politicizing another once-nonpartisan government agency. Having a political ally with ethical and competence questions like DeJoy lead the agency potentially puts November’s election at risk,” Donald K. Sherman, the deputy director of for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Sylvia Albert, the director of voting and elections at Common Cause, wrote in a joint NBC News op-ed.

“Installing a loyalist like DeJoy is another way Trump could undermine the agency and suppress voting in 2020,” they added. “These actions are yet another desperate and potentially dangerous attempt to undermine the general election as his approval numbers continue to slip.”

Scrutinizing the #ChallengeAccepted meme: Why do selfies have to be justified as activism?

Days after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gave a speech on the House floor about everyday sexism, black-and-white selfies began to occupy my Instagram feed. The photos looked like a cross between a professional glamour shot (in part due to Instagram’s selection of black-and-white filters) and women ready to give a very serious TED Talk.

“Challenge accepted,” they wrote, next to an accompanying hashtag #womensupportingwomen. Was this inspired by AOC’s speech? Or was it another Dove Real Beauty campaign dressed up as feminism? To be honest, I didn’t think much more about it, but it turned out that neither were true.

As of Thursday afternoon, at least 6.2 million Instagram posts had used the hashtag #challengeaccepted. The basic premise of this meme is that a woman sends a message to another woman telling her how amazing she is, and “challenges” her to post a black and white photo of herself as part of a global effort to support women.

The message is usually the same, but has likely evolved over time. “I was careful to choose who I think will meet the challenge,” a message I received stated. “Post a photo in black and white alone, [write] ‘challenge accepted’ and mention my name. [Then] identify 1 to 50 women to do the same, in private.” Admittedly, I had a knee-jerk reaction because I despise chain mail on any platform, but one can easily see how quickly this movement has spread in part due to the perceived exclusivity of the “nomination.”

Since #challengeaccepted has to do with women and selfies (two polarizing topics on their own) the social media campaign has now become a complicated symbol of feminism that has been the center of many think pieces, this one included. As reported by Taylor Lorenz in the New York Times, the exact origins of #challengeaccepted are technically unknown despite that in many posts the movement has been tied to raising awareness about femicide in Turkey, which some have claimed to be the purpose of the campaign. Certainly it has brought the struggle that Turkish women face to a much-needed global spotlight.

In 2019, 474 women were killed. Most recently, the brutal murder of 27-year-old Pınar Gültekin by an ex-boyfriend has caused a rightful upswell of protests in the country, too. On Instagram, @beelzeboobz, a user based in Turkey posted an explanation of the challenge for non-Turkish friends.

“Turkish people wake up every day to see a black-and-white photo of a woman who has been murdered on their Instagram feeds, on their newspapers, on their TV screens,” the post states. “The black-and-white photo challenge started as a way for women to raise their voice. To stand in solidarity with the women we have lost. To show that one day, it could be their picture that is plastered across news outlets with a black-and-white filter on top.”

As Lorenz points out, another #challengeaccepted existed back in 2016, which also featured a rise of black-and-white selfies, which was intended to raise awareness for cancer.

But the most recent Americanized co-opted version of the hashtag has morphed into something else, a show of solidarity and female empowerment that many (myself included) have struggled to take seriously. Notably, the Turkish hashtags like #istanbulsözleşmesiyaşatır (Istanbul Convention saves lives) and #kadınaşiddetehayır (No to violence against women) have been left out of many of these posts. But perhaps, this campaign as a whole reveals something a little darker about the American female experience: that we feel like we can’t post a selfie on its own without drawing criticism, but only if it benefits the greater good. In other words, if it’s “activism.”

Selfies of women have long been shamed by viewers, labeled as narcissistic, low-brow, or even tacky. Ever since Paris Hilton claimed to have invented the selfie, the tone of the movement was set to be criticized, even though studies have shown that photos on Instagram with faces get more likes and engagement.

Past Instagram campaigns have tried to defy unrealistic celebrity beauty standards in the media on social media. “I Woke Up Like This” is one example, where people post photos of themselves in the morning to bring some sort of reality to our online filtered Instagram lives, but again the movement was packed as an act of “self-love.”

The recent #ChallengeAccepted meme raises the question: What’s the purpose of Instagram? What was meant to be an app to make mobile photos look cool has turned into a digital photo album where we can show off the content of our lives to our friends, exes, and strangers in real time.

However, there’s been a shift in which Instagram has gone from a place to post light-hearted photos to engaging in politics and activism. While the shift is well-intended, and certainly made our collective time spent feel more justified, it’s worth questioning how much change an Instagram post can actually bring. Just as posting about Black Lives Matter on Instagram doesn’t make you anti-racist, posting #ChallengeAccepted doesn’t mean you actually take action on female empowerment (look to Ivanka Trump’s participation in the meme as one example).

On the other hand, the concept of women-focused selfies have always been feminist because they’re valued less than those depicting men. It’s widely believed that the first documented “selfie” in history has a clear credit; it was taken by a man named Robert Cornelius in 1839 who certainly had to work for the piece of art (that’s now a photo on his tombstone) for three to 15 minutes because of the technological limitations of cameras at that time. The next documented selfie didn’t pop up until 1900. But in this case, the woman in the photo is unidentified. Where is her tombstone tribute? Today, men are more likely to take selfies than women, and a response to a man’s six-pack on Instagram is certainly going to receive a different, more positive response compared to the comments on a woman’s selfie post of her body.

As #ChallengeAccepted carries on, it’s worth asking what exactly is the “challenge” here? Posting a selfie? Supporting each other? If so, do we need a hashtag to do that? As screenwriter Camille Blackett wrote in a viral tweet: “Do people not know you can just post a hot selfie for no reason?”

Music helped treat her father’s dementia, and that’s why Shohreh Aghdashloo made “The Cuban”

In the heartwarming Canadian drama, “The Cuban” Shohreh Aghdashloo (“The Expanse“) plays Bano, the Afghani aunt of Mina (Ana Golja, of “The Fanatic“), a plucky pre-med student. Mina cares for the title character, Luis Garcia (Oscar-winner Louis Gossett Jr.), a jazz musician and forgotten legend now living in an assisted living facility. He is being treated for vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s. Mina uses music (and food) to care for Luis, who responds to her treatment, much to the chagrin of the administrators.

Bano, a former doctor, is a now an administrator in the facility. She worries about her niece making bad decisions — not just in how Mina is ignoring protocol in caring for Luis, but also that she is neglecting her studies and spending time with a guy, Kris (Giacomo Gianniotti of “Gray’s Anatomy“).

As Mina is helping Garcia remember his better days as a performer, Bano is confronted with her past.

Aghdashloo, who executive produced “The Cuban,” steals the film with her flinty performance. It is not just the Oscar-nominated actress’ deep raspy voice that demands attention, it is her entire presence. She is alternately conspiratorial, whispering to Mina about their cousins, and commanding as when she confronts Mina about her behavior. And while Bano may be tough as nails, she does show moments of vulnerability.

The versatile actress who came to prominence in America with “House of Sand and Fog,” and delivered a powerful turn in “The Stoning of Soraya M.,” recently had a comic supporting role in “A Simple Wedding,” (another film she executive produced). She spoke with Salon about her career and “The Cuban.”

The last time we spoke, you told me you pick your roles carefully. “With a pair of tweezers,” was your phrase. What appealed to you about “The Cuban,” and prompted you to be an executive producer for this film?

Sergio [Navarretta, the director] asked me to meet, and he is telling me the story, and my heart is melting because I had the same experience with my own father. Ten years ago, my father shows signs of Alzheimer’s, and my mother told us that he may not recognize you. She told me to politely say, “I’m your daughter.” At a family reunion he was totally out of it. He said it was like meeting for the first time. My brother, who is a doctor, put on Persian music, and my father came to life. He knew everyone, and the name of the song. It was one of those golden moments: we had dad back; he recognized us. My brother kept playing Persian music.

But I didn’t put this together. I wasn’t able to think that the music had an amazing effect on people with Alzheimer’s. It worked with my father. I thought it was just a personal experience. When Sergio told me the subject matter, I was in tears. I said not only do I want to do the film, but I also want to executive produce it because it’s a jewel. It will help millions of patients with Alzheimer’s and dementia. It works and is a new way to take care of people. We’re not taking mental health seriously. Playing music for patients— even those being taken care at home — it is better than leaving the patient alone dealing with his or her misery. Play music they are familiar with to take them back to good old days and give them food they are familiar with. Don’t change their habits, but help them find themselves, and make them feel like they are still living in this world.

You create a deep background for your characters. Bano gave up her career, and other things to come to Canada. She is fiercely independent. What details did you give her character to create her backstory?

When I first read the screenplay, I noticed that she and I share a lot; we both left our country and came to the Western world to make a better life. But we also educated ourselves, and it was our perseverance that brought us here. We are [working] to get to a better place. I felt for her deeply because I had two friends from Iran who were like Bano and were, culturally speaking, incapable of living as their authentic selves in the new land.

I like the idea in the film that Bano has one foot in the old land, one foot in the new land. She can’t let go of her heritage, but Mina, the younger generation does not feel the same way. Can you talk about the immigrant experience, and starting over in a new country, which you have some experience with yourself?

When you migrate, the first thing you try to do is disconnect with the past. They say if you think about the past you are depressed. If you think about the future, you are anxious. Think about now, this moment, and you are a normal person. Bano feels the same way. When you change countries, it means you want to change your life, so you don’t want to come across points of references that will take you back and remind you of the serene, beautiful life or rough time you had in your [old] country. The best and worst will connect you to the past and none of it can help your life today. Those people try to cut the past right away and not worry about the future. Get yourself acclimated and get educated. This is why Bano does not want to connect with the past or remember it. It would be easy for her to cherish her memories, but she needs to forget about the past to educate herself and not act like a silly young girl but think about starting fresh.

I appreciate how the past haunts Bano. She tells Mina, “You can’t change the past. All you have left is the future.” What are your thoughts on past and future?

We have no idea what the future has in store for us. Why entertain bad ideas? Entertain the right, good idea, and not get caught in something that happened and that you can’t do anything about. This is what I tell my daughter about the future. When, in my belly, did you know what you were coming into? It’s that obscure. Why get agitated or depressed over something that hasn’t happened?

Music is key in the film and is used to generate memories. Bano appreciates Mina’s singing. Afghanis are listening to Cuban jazz. Can you talk about the music you listen and dance to?

I dance to African music and Arabic music — it’s the richest. They are similar to classic Persian music. In the film, the Cuban music is coming from Afghanistan, which has been invaded by Russia. I had a conversation with an Afghan who said they brought music from all the communist countries, including Cuba.

Bano is a bit strict in the film. She insists on education as opportunity and wants Mina to stay away from Kris and focus on her studies. What observations do you have about her character’s attitudes?

To my beliefs, it’s not about the boy. If their relationship was happening at the right time, Bano wouldn’t say anything to Mina. It’s about education. People who come from another world, most of them see that the more they are educated, the better the life they and their families can have. It’s what I told my daughter — higher education. We joke about it. Iranians are all about, “Bring me a Ph.D.” So are Afghanis and Pakistanis. We want to learn more and educate more so we are more equipped to cope in the modern world.

All my father used to say was, “Education, education, education.” My mother would look at us four kids and say, “Doctors, Engineer, Doctor, Engineer.” I was supposed to be a doctor, and that was my family’s mentality. That’s how it is in Iran and neighboring countries. We need to learn and have access to educate ourselves and not spend our time elsewhere except in libraries, learning skills. I have failed ever since I lived outside Iran. When I lived in the U.K., I was like a lucky child adopted by the right parents. I had to work more, and harder, and be more alert, not only to appreciate what I have been given, but to communicate and take a step for myself and my country and the people of the world.

“The Cuban” offers you another dramatic role, but you had a chance recently to do comedy in another film you executive produced, “A Simple Wedding.” Can you talk about playing two different overbearing motherly characters, Bano here, and Ziba in “A Simple Wedding”?

You see the difference between them! One is all about education, and the other is all about getting her daughter married. In order to do a comedy, I had to produce it myself, but I met Rita Wilson and Tom Hanks years ago. She had done “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” and wanted something about Iranian Americans. I got an email from her with a script. I read It and loved it and said, “I’ll produce it to tell the story because it’s funny to the Iranians.” Who else will build the Persepolis in their backyard for a wedding? I’m dying to do another comedy.

As an Iranian actress, you are often cast in Middle Eastern roles. Can you talk about the opportunities and limitations you’ve faced in Hollywood as well as representation? I appreciate the cultural sensibilities in “The Cuban,” but not all films are that nuanced.

The last 18 years, since “House of Sand and Fog,” I’ve been working back to back. On my IMDb page you can see the work I’ve done. I’ve barely had vacation! I never had any problems working with American directors or producers or colleagues. I would love to say to either the Hollywood industry or the American film industry: if you do your work, and are hardworking and dedicated, and if you can do a good job, no matter what, regardless of your color of your skin, your background, or your accent, they will hire you no matter what. It’s about good work, productive work, and dedication to your work. If you know how to do your job, there is no way you won’t be successful. This is how this industry is. You need to be authentic, hardworking, and understand a situation and act accordingly. That’s all you need to do. Trust me.

“The Cuban” is available virtually and in select theaters beginning July 31.