Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

President Trump admits to Americans that Fox News is “not even watchable”

President Donald Trump lashed out at Fox News in a context-free tweet Wednesday, calling the network “not even watchable” while at the same time taking personal credit for its success.

“I was on Air Force One flying to the Great State of Texas, where I just landed,” the president began his tweet. “It is AMAZING in watching @FoxNews how different they are from four years ago. Not even watchable. They totally forgot who got them where they are!”

Trump deleted an earlier version of the tweet in which he had attempted to tag Air Force One. However, the famous airplane, which has carried Trump to destinations around the world for more than three years, does not have its own Twitter account.

The president erroneously tagged an eponymous Ohio heating and air conditioning company. That company, Air Force One, received between $2 million and $5 million in federal emergency loans designed to help small businesses retain jobs during the coronavirus pandemic. The company reported putting the funds toward 204 jobs.

Trump appears to have increasingly soured on Fox News, whose polls do not reflect the political reality of winning he espouses. The president has chastised the network for dumping far-right pundits Diamond & Silk. He previously warned his followers that the network was “on a bad path,” instead directing them towards alternative right-wing outlets.

“Fox News weekend afternoons is the worst!” he tweeted earlier this month. “Getting into @CNN and MSDNC territory. Watch @OANN & @newsmax instead. Much better!”

The president similarly lashed out at Fox News after a network poll showed Biden up 14 points nationwide last month.

“Many will disagree, but Fox News is doing nothing to help Republicans, and me, get re-elected on November 3rd,” Trump complained in May.

In April, the president attacked Fox reporters during two coronavirus briefings within days of each other. In February, he blasted multiple network shows and personalities for critical coverage. On Jan. 28, Trump tweeted that Fox News was “really pathetic” and “so politically correct” after anchor Chris Wallace discussed impeachment with Democrat Chris Van Hollen.

On April 11, Trump called the weekend programming on Fox News “a total waste of time,” and plugged the even further afield One America News Network (OANN) as an alternative. In December, he seemed to take a shot at Fox by retweeting an apparent jab at the network’s sluggish confirmation of a story broken by OANN. The tweet was later deleted, apparently because it was inaccurate.

But Trump has recently hyped the network, as well. Earlier this month, he bragged that Fox beat CNN in the ratings thanks to “President Trump.” He also appeared to have bitten much of his divisive Fourth of July speech at Mount Rushmore from host Tucker Carlson’s monologues.

However, in 2015 Trump also tweeted that he could no longer watch Fox News:

And he has specifically said he would no longer watch former network anchor Megyn Kelly:

Here are some other things Trump has called “unwatchable” over the years, including the Emmy Awards, the procedural drama “Law & Order,” the late-night sketch comedy show “Saturday Night Live,” a slew of late-night talk show hosts, Fox News competitors CNN and MSNBC, former New York Yankees star infielder Alex Rodriguez and — twice within a month of losing his bid to buy the Buffalo Bills — the National Football League.

Lindsey Graham ad shows Democratic opponent Jaime Harrison with digitally darkened skin tone

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s campaign posted a Facebook ad last week featuring an image of his Democratic opponent Jaime Harrison — who is Black — with a digitally darkened skin tone. 

The image, which was originally published in the New York Times, relocates Harrison from a brightly-lit professional background to a dark background that is nondescript. Harrison, whose skin is noticeably darker, is juxtaposed with comedian Kathy Griffin, who is white and has red hair. Another more faint image of Harrison floats above her head. 

“Hollywood continues to bankroll my opponent, raising tens of thousands in campaign cash to attack me, but they fail to understand this simple fact: South Carolinians won’t stand for Radical Leftists telling them how to think and how to vote,” the Facebook post’s caption reads. “Are you with me?”

Here’s a side-by-side comparison of the two images:

Harrison condemned the ad in a statement to Salon, in which he recast Graham as the unrecognizable candidate.

“Lindsey Graham is playing a part in a 400-year history of an Old South that had no room for people who looked like me,” Harrison said in the statement. “More than 83,000 South Carolinians have tested positive for COVID-19 and over 1,500 have died from the virus. Our state is hurting right now, and we must keep our eye on the ball and fight for the people of the Palmetto State.”

“Lindsey Graham might have darkened my face — but it’s Lindsey who the people of South Carolina can’t recognize,” he added.

The Graham campaign did not immediately respond to Salon’s request for comment. A spokesperson called the incident a “non-story” in a statement to CNN. 

“It’s sad that detractors are making up fake accusations about this graphic — intended to highlight Jaime Harrison’s support from Kathy Griffin, a liberal actress who once posed with a fake severed head of Donald Trump,” T.W. Arrighi, the Graham campaign’s communications director, told the outlet.

“The artistic effect used, the same one that was used on Senator Graham just two days before in a video, is a non-story,” Arrighi continued. “The only people who want to shift focus from policies important to South Carolinians — like creating jobs and bringing our medical supply chain back from China — are liberal detractors who are trying to hide their radical positions.”

But the only current video from the campaign’s Facebook page from that time frame featuring Graham is a clip from a meeting with South Carolina healthcare administrators.

The attack ad comes as political leaders wrangle with the partisan fallout from the national reckoning on race which has gripped the country in the wake of George Floyd’s death in police custody.

Harrison’s communications director Guy King called on Graham to remove the video and donate the money generated from the ad to a civil rights organization. King called the move “the oldest trick in the book” and a “desperate measure” that shows “how scared he is from our grassroots movement” in a statement to Salon. 

The South Carolina Democratic Party, which Harrison chaired, tweeted that the state “will elect (Harrison) regardless of what kind of stunts Lindsey tries to pull.”

“We don’t care how dark a person’s skin might be,” the party added. “We vote for the person, not their skin pigment. We all know Jaime and know a fake photo.”

Though South Carolina is typically viewed as an intransigent conservative stronghold — Graham beat his 2014 Democratic opponent by nearly 16 points — Harrison has challenged that truism, topping Graham’s fundraising in both quarters this year, including more than double in the second quarter.

This week the Harrison campaign released results from an internal mobile and landline phone poll showing the candidates in a statistical tie. An online poll conducted in May found that 56% of South Carolina voters held an unfavorable view of Graham, while only 35% took a positive view. Though registered Republicans still dominate the state, Harrison claimed an 18% lead among independents — 46% to 28%.

Netflix’s existential “Shine Your Eyes” searches for a man who “inhabits the world of fiction”

“Shine Your Eyes,” is an impressive, immersive, and existential drama by Brazilian filmmaker Matias Mariani. The film is the first narrative feature by the director, who made the phenomenal true crime documentary, “I Touched All Your Stuff,” (co-directed with Maíra Bühler). 

In the feature, Amadi (O.C. Ukeje) travels from Lagos to São Paulo to bring his older brother, Ikenna (Chukwudi Iwuji), back home. However, as Amadi discovers in São Paulo, Ikenna is not who he says he is. His brother has created a parallel identity as a professor and only child. What unfolds is a kind of mystery. Although Amadi meets various people who knew Ikenna, he bemoans, “The more I search, the more he disappears.”

“Shine Your Eyes” is dazzlingly filmed as Amadi searched for his brother in São Paulo. Mariani shoots scenes at oblique angles or from overhead that highlight the characters among the gorgeous geometric architecture and cityscape. These images magnify his presence as they also convey the isolation of immigrants, emphasized by the language barriers of Amadi being in an unfamiliar land. 

Mariani also investigates the way technology makes us close, yet also distant, and the pressures of family and family traditions. His film is also filled with music, from a classical concert and a karaoke performance to Amadi, a musician, vamping with some friends. 

Via Skype, Mariani spoke with Salon about his fantastic new film. 

This is your feature debut. What prompted you to shift gears away from documentary and create a fictional story as well as shift from working with Maíra to directing solo?

I’ve been working in film for 15-20 years, and most of my films have been as a producer. I have a tendency to really face creative work as something very communal and collaborative. That probably comes from producing where you’re contributing, but you don’t have to worry about your “voice.” The films I did with Maíra — the documentary and our shorts — we were very close in collaborating, and it felt natural. Maíra helped me come up with this story, but I felt it was something I’d like to film alone. I can’t say why. I enjoy collaborating, and I wish to do other films as a co-director. It’s not a documentary or fiction film thing. They can be collaborations. But the scriptwriting was very collaborative, and we [there were six screenwriters plus Mariani] would pitch ideas and situations in a writer’s room. That was very important.

I have never been a verité filmmaker. Werner Herzog‘s “Minnesota Declaration” is about why truth is deeper than cinema verité. I think fictional construction is at the root of our search for truthfulness. “I Touched All Your Stuff” is about the art of storytelling and how you create and believe your own stories. I don’t feel after “Shine Your Eyes” that I won’t go back to documentaries, I do have ideas, but they are more essay-like, which is what “Touched” was. 

When people think of documentaries, they think something happened, and they register that. But that’s not what “Touched” is about or “Shine Your Eyes,” because for me, that is not interesting to make. 

How did you conceive of Amadi, his quest, and the people he met?

The origins of the idea came to me when I moved to New York to study film at NYU. I didn’t know anyone, and I felt very lost in the beginning. I had a clear sense of being a foreigner. It was bad, but it was also unique — it gave me a sense of individuality and being a stranger in a strange land. That’s where the idea comes from. I missed São Paulo a lot, and I realized how attached I was to São Paulo, a city I found beautiful, which not many people do. I wanted to make a film about a foreigner in São Paulo, and Maíra and I researched groups moving to São Paulo. Africans were creating a community here.

So, we taught Portuguese at a community center for free to immigrants for six months. It wasn’t research in that we were looking for something from them, it was more a transactional nature, and we used that to establish the characters. We then went to Nigeria for a month, and the characters came to us throughout this process. I reflected on the feeling of being a foreigner. It has to do with the way you react to things in a new country. And if you a react in the way that people don’t expect, they know you are not from there. I wanted to see if I could make a film where Amadi’s reactions showed his character without having to go into his backstory. 

Your previous film, “I Touched All Your Stuff,” features a search for an individual through the records left on a computer and/or phone. “Shine Your Eyes” features a not dissimilar narrative device, as Amadi tracks Ikenna through his computer and phone. He discovers that Ikenna has told lies and created an imaginary identity to escape detection. Can you explain your fascination with this idea of hiding in plain sight?

That’s a very American expression, “hide in plain sight.” We don’t have that in Portuguese. It is similar to “Touched” with the search for someone’s footprints and reconstructing them through what’s behind. Ikenna left the cell phone and computer and picture in Miro’s (Paolo André) house. There’s a sense for me that these [traces] we leave behind can tell so much about us. The internet is a place where that happened, and that’s a political thing — that’s where the wealth of information comes. But I don’t want to get into that. I’m touched by small things, like finding the earrings of an ex-girlfriend when you are cleaning the house. I find that cinematic, and good for storytelling, which is why I structured the film this way. I really wanted to talk about fiction and this idea that Ikenna is a fictionalizer; he creates stories and a world where he is a successful mathematician. That fiction has a spurious origin, and it comes from the first time a human is told a lie. I like to think about that. And that’s why Ikenna inhabits the world of fiction. 

I’d like to get your thoughts on the use of space in the film. You shoot the city in such an incredible way. The grit is palpable. The way you frame shots overhead, on a bias, or as an almost abstract is remarkable. How did you conceive of the visual compositions, which are really all about showing the isolation of the characters?

Coming from documentary filmmaking, I felt I wanted to spend a long time studying and thinking. In the documentary world, you have little time to frame shots and make things the way you want. I thought it was important to think through locations and framing and I had a DP who was close — he’s the godfather of my kid — and we spent the whole time talking about shots. The idea was that the beginning of the film, it was as if the camera was how Amadi viewed things; this omnipotent camera watching him. One of the Igbo consultants, Chioma Thompson, talked about the Igbo mythology, which has the square as the original shape, and not the circle. That gave us ideas. We shot in Academy ratio and seeing how that [square frame] looked blew me away. Another thing that helped us was that I thought of most of the locations before I thought of the story. They were places I felt I needed to shoot something, so the story was in the service of the locations rather than the other way around. I had to include the concert hall, but I had to come up with an idea to shoot there. 

The film features various music, from a classical concert to scene with a DJ at a nightclub to a karaoke performance, to Amadi, a musician, vamping with some friends. Can you talk about the way you incorporated music and these different genres into the story? 

Highlife [music] was from the early ’60s, and it was the way Nigerians and Ghanaians used the Caribbean music, like calypso — it links South America and Africa. The major thing I wanted to think about in the film was language, and what we can communicate without words. Language means Amadi can share things with Emília (Indira Nascimento) without speaking the same language. I think music has that quality; you don’t need to know what the singer is saying to thoroughly enjoy the music. It’s a powerful, nonverbal form of communication. It can tell so much about you and what you play and hear. Amadi could communicate through that. 

Another thing I wanted to do was try to show São Paulo through this as well. For Brazilians, our music is our biggest cultural expression. It’s on people’s mind when they think of Brazil. They imagine it having a sound. I wanted to subvert that. São Paulo is a big subversion — it’s not beautiful, it’s not by the sea, and our music is also much more cosmopolitan. We have samba, but our relationship to music in São Paulo is different, so I think that it is interesting to use music to tell the story. 

What observations do you have about African immigrants in Brazil? I understand that there are racial (and gender) hierarchies and inequalities in Brazil. Your film touches on this to a degree in depicting this minority immigrant community, but it never quite emphasizes racism.  Although Amadi does comment São Paulo is a “white people’s city.” Can you talk about the African diaspora in São Paulo?

Brazil is extremely racist. We are one of the most racist countries. But for a long time, we pretended it didn’t exist, which is why the situation got so bad. We have this myth that we’re a mixed breed, and all different races, but the diversity in smaller in a fancy restaurant and if you go to a favela it’s the reverse. 

In my original draft, I had more situations with racism discussed more openly but when I worked with an Igbo scriptwriter, she gave me insights. For an African, if you are raised in a country that is ethnically more homogeneous skin-tone wise, and grow up where black is status quo, the relationship is different than if you are born or raised in Brazil. I was trying to find ways to address it — how proud Africans were in Brazil, and how that works as a shield against the more devious side of Brazilian culture. This is why we didn’t put anything too on the nose in the film. The concert hall shot shows that Amadi and Emília are the only two black people in the whole room. 

I knew that in order for this story to be told the way it should, I needed contributors with experiences that were closer to what the characters live through on screen. Francine Barbosa, for example, was one of our screenwriters who focused a lot on writing Emília, and she — being a black Brazilian woman — could bring a concreteness to the character I would never have been able to do by myself. I think that having a diverse crew, and especially having a lot of head of crews being black Brazilians, allowed the story to be enriched tremendously by different viewpoints and different life experiences.

The film pivots on Ikenna’s identity as the eldest son in his family and the responsibilities of that, responsibilities that Amadi does not want. What can you say about this element of African culture and how it dovetails or deviates from Brazilian culture? 

On a personal note, I come from a big family that has demands and expectations about what you do. I shaped Amadi and Ikenna’s relationship to the one I had with my brother who was more carefree and did not have the expectation and responsibility I did. Our relationship was defined by that — what people expect from you, and how to carve a space for yourself. 

With Igbos and Brazilians, Igbos have this thing about the older male child that they are the ones who care for parents when they grow old and provide for the family, so when I got to know those aspects of the culture, I thought it was very drama-oriented and be a good dimension to add to the story. Brazil has a strong family bond, but it’s less than the Igbos. Ikenna needs to go back since Amadi doesn’t want to shoulder the responsibility. That’s how I saw my relationship with my brother.

“Shine Your Eyes” provides some interesting clues for Amadi to follow, as Ikenna is obsessed with statistics, trying to find ways of predicting horseraces, for example. Can you talk about developing these metaphysical aspects of your story and the more existential concepts in the film?

The film is not about what it’s supposed to be about in a way. I’m a sci-fi nerd. I grew up reading Arthur C. Clarke, Philip K. Dick, and Ray Bradbury. I got these books when I was 12 or 13 and I think it has to do with that — what speculative fiction does; it puts your mind on a certain realm, you question reality and what we see in our everyday lives. I’m also very interested in science. I went to school for biology, and physics was an area of interest. One of the scriptwriters was a physicist, and he helped me build the world that Ikenna would inhabit.

This idea of randomness — and that the universe is extremely random, but when we try to simulate that, we cannot. You cannot write a book, film or video game and export that randomness. It’s such a peculiar characteristic. It defines who we are, and it is sheer luck — or bad luck. I wanted to discuss that in “Shine Your Eyes.”

“Shine Your Eyes” is now available to stream on Netflix.

Shine Your Eyes (Cidade Pássaro) – TEASER from TABULEIRO on Vimeo.

Brett Kavanaugh urged Supreme Court to avoid decisions on Trump’s tax returns and abortion: report

When Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed by the GOP-controlled U.S. Senate in 2018 and sworn in as a U.S. Supreme Court justice, Democrats feared that he would be very sympathetic to President Donald Trump’s agenda — more so than former Justice Anthony Kennedy, the right-wing libertarian he replaced. But Joan Biskupic, a CNN legal analyst, is reporting that according to “multiple sources,” Kavanaugh “urged his colleagues in a series of private memos this spring to consider avoiding decisions in major disputes over abortion and Democratic subpoenas for President Donald Trump’s financial records.”

In June Medical Services v. Russo, the Supreme Court recently struck down an anti-abortion law in Louisiana. Biskupic reports that Kavanaugh wanted the Court to “sidestep” the June Medical case — and his “plan would have ensured the law — a credentialing mandate for doctors who perform abortions — would not go into immediate effect, but also ensured that the justices would not have to put their own views on the line.”

Similarly, Biskupic notes, the 55-year-old Kavanaugh wanted the High Court to “avoid the subpoena fight over Trump financial documents, based on the judicial principle that courts should stay out of cases involving fundamentally political questions.”

“Throughout the recent Court session, as Kavanaugh revealed a desire to avoid certain thorny dilemmas, the newest justice also demonstrated a pattern of trying to publicly appeal to both sides,” Biskupic notes. “His style of accommodation was on display in recent disputes over gay and transgender workers and, separately, undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children.”

According to Biskupic, the memos indicate that Kavanaugh was worried about being perceived as a pro-Trump ideologue.

“In 2018, Trump chose Kavanaugh to succeed Kennedy, convinced by advisers that the (George W.) Bush loyalist would be true to Trump and his brand of conservatism,” Biskupic explains. “Kavanaugh has not turned his back on the politicians who guaranteed his High Court ascension, but his writing has suggested he does not want to appear to be a reflexive conservative vote — particularly against women.”

Regardless, Kavanaugh was among the four dissenters in June Medical and did not find Louisiana’s anti-abortion law to be unconstitutional; the other dissenters were Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Texas Democrats running for the US House have more campaign cash than Republicans

Early this election cycle, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn publicly worried about complacency within the Texas Republican political class — even after Democratic gains made in 2018.

So in early 2019, the state’s senior senator encouraged Texas Republicans in the U.S. House to bolster their fundraising and think twice about sending money out of the state.

“There’s an attempt by the leadership to extract as much money as possible out of the state as they can and use that wherever they need it, and I understand that,” he told The Texas Tribune in June 2019. “But we need to make sure our Texas races — from the president and all the way down to the courthouse — are adequately financed and resourced. And that’s going to require us to raise a significant amount of money.”

More than a year later, a Texas Tribune analysis of recent campaign finance reports shows that Cornyn’s fears of a funding problem have come to life. Democratic U.S. House candidates in Texas have millions more aggregate cash on hand than their Republican counterparts. It marks an extraordinary six-year shift within the Texas delegation.

In 2016, U.S. House Republican candidates in Texas had $32.3 million on hand in July of that year. Their Democratic counterparts reported $11.4 million.

The next cycle, boosted by a backlash to President Donald Trump, Democrats saw a jump in fundraising. In 2018, Texas Republican U.S. House candidates had $34.8 million in cash on hand, compared with $21.8 million on the Democratic side.

Newly filed campaign finance reports show a complete shift this year. Republicans running for the U.S. House in Texas reported $19.2 million. Democrats had $26.7 million.

In some races, the outsized financial reserves will amount to little, thanks to precisely drawn congressional lines intended to reinforce Republican incumbent protection. But for a Texas Democratic ecosystem that was effectively moribund only six years ago, the ways in which these Democratic candidates are raising and spending their campaign funds point to a more sophisticated — and optimistic — approach to the fall general election campaign.

The data for this analysis was pulled from July campaign finance reports from the second quarter of each election year that congressional seats are on the ballot. Those reports are among the most critical in the cycle. Unless candidates have to compete in a primary, most spend the first 18 months of a campaign cycle raising and stockpiling money. The second quarter reports often mark a high point in cash-on-hand sums before candidates drain it all during the fall television advertising season.

This new Democratic cash sloshing around the state is being spent on staff payroll, printing shops and even direct mail and polling — all of which could well make a Democratic presence known in otherwise ignored deeply GOP pockets of the state.

Impact down the ballot

The heart of the disparity exists in five U.S. House district races: The 7th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd and the 32nd.

Two are races with Democratic incumbents, U.S. Reps. Colin Allred of Dallas and Lizzie Pannill Fletcher of Houston. Each faces a serious Republican opponent — businesswoman Genevieve Collins is challenging Allred and veteran Wesley Hunt is against Pannill Fletcher. Both Republican candidates have about $1 million in cash on hand, indicating they are taking fundraising seriously. Collins has self-funded her campaign in part.

But the Democratic candidates spent their first terms fully leveraging their incumbencies: Allred reported $3 million, and Fletcher posted $3.5 million in cash on hand.

Elsewhere, Democratic candidates Sri Preston Kulkarni and Gina Ortiz Jones of the 22nd and 23rd districts, respectively, outperformed expectations when they ran for the same offices in 2018. That gave them a strong case to make to donors heading into 2020. They locked down their nominations in March and spent the spring and summer raising money while Republicans litigated expensive runoff contests.

In the 21st District, Democrat and former state Sen. Wendy Davis outraised freshman U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Austin, by a nearly 3-1 margin.

There are also outliers in the cash on hand on both sides.

For instance, freshman U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston, has a growing national profile and reported $4 million on hand at the end of June.

Another freshman Republican, U.S. Rep. Michael Cloud of Victoria, represents a mostly noncompetitive conservative district in southeast Texas. He reported $344,000 in cash on hand, a sum that is on par with many incumbents of both parties. His Democratic rival, Ricardo De La Fuente, reported $1.1 million, almost all thanks to a candidate loan.

There is almost no chance Republican candidates in top-tier competitive races will be significantly short on money. And a Republican billionaire could still cut a seven-figure check to a GOP super PAC and reset the table in a U.S. House race overnight.

The conservative group Club for Growth indicated recently that it plans to spend at least $2.5 million supporting Roy in his race, for instance. Another super PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund, named Fletcher in the spring as one of their top targets and put $3 million in television spending behind that announcement.

Even so, candidate fundraising is still a foundational block to campaigns. Candidates secure lower ad rates than outside groups, which is particularly crucial in expensive media markets like the ones where these races are being litigated: Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Austin and San Antonio.

And the money affects more than just the seven or so competitive U.S. House races on the ballot.

Take the state’s 3rd Congressional District. Situated entirely in North Texas’ Collin County, it has been a longtime undisputed GOP stronghold. Mitt Romney won the district in 2012 with 64% of the vote to Barack Obama’s 34%. But in 2018, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, carried the county by only six percentage points, and U.S. Rep. Van Taylor of Plano saw the district’s margin narrow from 27 points in 2016 to 10 points during his first run for the seat in 2018.

Taylor took that race seriously, advertising on broadcast television, and he has over $1 million in cash on hand this year. His opponent, attorney Lulu Seikaly, only had about $40,000 on her last financial report, but the way she is spending that money is noteworthy. That same report revealed she had hired a national direct mail consultant. Additionally, her campaign said in a news release that it had raised $100,000 since the mid-July runoff and has had a well-regarded polling firm conduct an internal poll of the race.

Should a Democratic wave hit the state in the fall, Seikaly will already have poll-tested messaging and located vendors to potentially take advantage of the environment. If not, her efforts to bring Democrats in her district to the polls could still help others in her party above and below her on ballot. Taylor’s district overlaps considerably with that of state Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, who is one of more than a dozen GOP incumbents Democrats are targeting in an effort to flip the state House.

Beyond the candidate fundraising, millions more in Democratic dollars will pound the state. The national parties and aligned super PACs are postured to dump tens of millions of dollars into the targeted U.S. House races, the fight for the state House and, potentially, the Senate race. Republicans are expected to respond in kind but the difference is, before 2018, these Democratic groups mostly ignored the state, save for the Texas 23rd Congressional District in west Texas.

This year, the spending will be in every major media market.

Multiple factors

The reasons for the deficit are more complicated than mere complacency on the Republican side.

A handful of Republican members who hold top committee positions or are running for those slots — U.S. Reps. Kevin Brady of the Woodlands, Michael Burgess of Lewisville and Kay Granger of Fort Worth — have transferred significant portions of their campaign funds to the House GOP campaign arm to bolster their support among House members.

And about a year ago, some of the biggest Republican fundraisers in the delegation announced their retirements. There was U.S. Rep. Will Hurd of Helotes, who raised millions each year for his inevitably difficult reelection campaign each fall. There were also U.S. Reps. Mac Thornberry of Clarendon, Bill Flores of Bryan, Pete Olson of Sugar Land, Kenny Marchant of Coppell and Mike Conaway of Midland. All had leadership roles or choice committee assignments and with that, obligations to raise money for colleagues.

In most retirements, incumbents spend their last year or so in office cutting back on fundraising and political activity. The candidates who replace them on the ballot raised and spent big money in their primaries and are only now turning to the general election. Some of those Republican candidates are all but certain to come to Congress, but others will face formidable Democrats in the fall.

There are also currently three fewer Republican members than there were in the past two cycles at this point. Two Republican members lost re-election last cycle and another seat, the 4th District, is in the process of choosing nominees for a special election to succeed former U.S. Rep. John Ratcliffe, who is now serving as the director of National Intelligence.

Also, the biggest difference between 2018 and 2020 is that the GOP no longer holds a majority in the U.S. House, and it is a law of political gravity that the party with the gavel has a much easier time raising money.

Additionally, numerous Texas Republicans noted, several of the primary races to replace retiring GOP members were only decided two weeks ago in a later-than-usual runoff. It makes sense, they argue, that so many of their candidates are broke. But now that the general election here, they will benefit from a burst of fundraising. Democrats counter that logic by noting that several of their own House candidates, too, faced financially exhausting runoffs.

Even so, the disparity bothers some national Republicans who are increasingly worried about resources across the map and particularly in Texas.

For his part, Cornyn is a source of stability within the Republican slate. He reported $14.5 million in cash on hand on June 30 and has raised $22.4 million over the course of this cycle. By comparison, his Democratic competitor, MJ Hegar, had about $900,000 and likely depleted that sum in the final weeks of her runoff against state Sen. Royce West of Dallas.

Since Hegar clinched the nomination, her campaign touted raising $1 million in the first week after the runoff. Republicans who care about this race are closely watching her progress with worry, as they see Democratic Senate candidates in other states catch national fundraising interest and bank tens of millions of dollars a quarter.

Cornyn is a former chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, a post in which he oversaw the raising and spending of hundreds of millions of dollars to elect Republicans to the Senate in the 2010 and 2012 cycles.

And that makes his 2019 comments about raising and keeping money back home all the more remarkable. Cornyn, like most Texans dating back to Lyndon B. Johnson, climbed the ranks of Capitol Hill by directing Texas money to colleagues elsewhere in the country.

But this cycle, he is telegraphing that the best service he and other Texas Republicans can be to his party is to take care of business back home.

“We are, I think, no longer the reliably red state we have been,” he said in 2019. “We are at risk of turning purple; and if we don’t do our job, then we could well turn blue in the coming years.”

The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues. 

Health vs. the economy? It was always a bogus choice, but the media helped spread it

After snookering the endlessly gullible mainstream media last week with another of his endless “pivots,” Donald Trump was back to his normal self — spreading conspiracy theories, making up ridiculous lies, not caring one single bit about the well-being of the people he was elected to serve — at Tuesday’s so-called coronavirus briefing. His campaign is now heralding Trump’s supposedly new understanding that the pandemic is a very serious thing, but Trump didn’t act that way. He spent the entire event minimizing the dangers of the virus, pushing a hoax theory that there’s a “cure” and insisting that states end lockdown restrictions that Trump believes are hobbling the economy and damaging his chances for re-election. 

Since the very beginning of this pandemic, Trump has attached himself to the notion that it’s the lockdowns, rather than the virus itself, that are causing the country’s economic pain. As early as March, Trump was pronouncing on Twitter: “WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF.” Here we are in July, and he seems committed to the idea that simply “reopening” the country will bring the economy roaring back and create a rationale for his re-election, an outcome he would clearly sacrifice millions of lives to secure. 

The problem is that Trump’s core assumption — one shared by most of the Republican Party, which has embraced the “reopening” strategy nearly across the board — is wrong. What’s destroying the economy is and always has been the virus. There will be no economic recovery unless the virus is contained, no matter how many bars are open for business. 

Unfortunately, the mainstream media spread and reinforced this false narrative for months, making it impossible to have a meaningful public discussion about what it would it actually take both to protect public health and save the economy. 

As economist Paul Krugman explained in his New York Times column on Monday, “the ‘rocket ship‘ recovery Donald Trump promised has crashed and burned” and job growth “appears to have stalled or reversed, especially in states that were most aggressive about lifting social distancing mandates.”

The reason is simple enough: You can reopen restaurants and bars all you want, but that won’t restart the economy when most Americans are unwilling to go out and spend money, since doing so puts them and their families at obvious risk of severe lingering illness or death. 

This dichotomy between saving the economy and slowing the viral spread was always false, as I argued early on in the pandemic. Far from destroying the economy, in fact, aggressive lockdowns coupled with extensive government aid — as well as other measures Trump rejected, like widespread testing and mask mandates — offered the only real hope of containing the virus quickly enough to get back to normal. Now it’s much too late for that, and the economic pain is going to be dragged out far longer than it had to be. 

As soon as Trump started pushing this false choice between the economy and public health, the mainstream media accepted and promoted that framework, turning a phony binary — that was never a choice at all — into common wisdom. Here are some of the most damning examples.

March 25, Bloomberg News: “The Coronavirus Trade-Off That Won’t Go Away: Whether we like it or not, the choice between lives and the economy is already dictating events.”

March 27, CNN: “Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s coronavirus podcast for March 26: Saving lives or saving the economy.”

March 30, Reuters: “The U.S. weighs the grim math of death vs. the economy.”

April 1, WBUR: “‘Saving The Economy Versus Saving Lives?’: An Ethicist and Economist Consider a Coronavirus Question.”

April 10, New York Times: “Restarting America Means People Will Die. So When Do We Do It? Five thinkers weigh moral choices in a crisis.” 

April 15, NPR: “Lives vs. the Economy.”

May 1, San Francisco Chronicle: “Save the economy or save lives: Bay Area residents debate morality of shelter in place”

To be certain, from the beginning some journalists tried to fight back against this dangerous false dichotomy, pointing out that many economists believed the only way to save the economy was to stop the pandemic, and that widespread lockdowns, far from hurting the economy, were the only way to save it in the long run. 

These efforts were largely in vain, however. Trump’s phony choice got stuck in the public imagination, and Americans picked their sides without really stopping to ask if there was even a real conflict here.

Now, two full months into the “reopening” experiment, we have our answer: There was no way to bring the economy back to full strength without stopping the virus. We get to live in the worst of both worlds, with a cratering economy and a rapidly spreading pandemic that sets new records nearly every day. 

Indeed, this false notion the media propped up for months, that there’s some legitimate choice between the economy and public health, is still being invoked not just by Trump, but by the entire Republican Party. It’s a useful myth for defending a coronavirus bill that falls far short of offering the financial aid needed to keep the economy on life support until the virus is defeated. (Which will have to happen by way of a vaccine created at record speed, since Trump failed so badly at containing it any other way.)  

For instance, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, appeared on CBS on Sunday, denouncing an extension of unemployment benefits by arguing that “we have an absolute economic catastrophe” and “we have got to get America back to work.” He went on to insinuate that restaurant employees who are on unemployment due to the pandemic are simply too lazy to return to work. 

This is, of course, complete honking nonsense. It’s not just that these folks have a legitimate fear of getting the coronavirus, although that’s true. But there’s also no good reason to go back to work, when most potential customers are extremely unlikely to risk their lives by going out to eat. 

Cruz and his fellow Republicans don’t actually care about an economic recovery, of course. If they did, as Krugman points out, they would have “wanted to sustain consumer purchasing power until wages recovered.” There is literally only one way to do that: Robust unemployment benefits and other financial assistance. Reopening won’t recover wages — businesses won’t be able to pay their employees if they don’t have customers. 

Republicans clearly don’t care if the economy craters, likely because they learned from the 2008 crash that wealthy Americans and corporations will be just fine, shielded by the government bailouts they won’t extend to ordinary working people. This entire song-and-dance about “getting America back to work” is about kicking people off unemployment, even if returning to work means making significantly lower wages than they did before the pandemic — if they get wages at all. It’s class war, full stop. 

But this reality is still being obscured because too many gullible reporters and editors spent months propping up the narrative that there was some kind of ethical or philosophical choice between saving the economy and stopping the virus. 

It was a seductive lie, no doubt. Debating an intriguing ethical dilemma is fun! Plus, that false dichotomy created a conflict between Team Economy and Team Human Life, and everyone knows that ratings and clicks are driven by conflict.

It felt like being a spoilsport to be the person who pointed out that there was no conflict at all, and that the only way to save the economy was to contain the virus. As things turned out, by spending months “debating” this alluring but imaginary ethical dilemma, the media missed the real story, which was that Trump and Republicans did everything they could to both tank the economy and spread the disease. 

It’s probably too late for this, but there’s a lesson in this for journalists: View all frameworks offered up by politicians with intense skepticism, especially coming from those who are known to be pathological liars. The task here was clear enough: Expose Trump’s bogus narrative, rather swallowing and regurgitating it. By uncritically embracing Trump’s false choice, the media gave cover to Republican politicians who made the entire situation worse, driving the pandemic to every corner of the nation and driving the economy deep into the ditch. Now the whole country is in a tailspin, and there’s no obvious way to pull out of it. 

“Go back to school”: Trump pushes back on GOP opposition to funding new FBI building near his hotel

President Donald Trump on Wednesday slammed Republicans who are refusing to refurbish an FBI building near Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.

The White House has come under fire from both Republicans and Democrats for including $1.75 billion for the FBI building in a coronavirus relief package. Critics argue that Trump wants to refurbish the building to prevent other commercial development — including other hotels — in the area.

Trump told reporters on Wednesday that Republicans who opposed the funds needed to “go back to school.”

Earlier, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany suggested that the president would not veto the entire relief package if funds for the building were excluded from the legislation.

Lincoln Project calls Susan Collins a “Trump stooge”: She “never stands up” to the president

The Lincoln Project has started going after Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) with a new ad that accuses her of failing in her duty to hold President Donald Trump accountable.

The ad begins by listing off prominent past Maine politicians, including former Republican Sen. Margaret Chase Smith, who famously stood up to Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) in her famous “Declaration of Conscience” speech.

The ad then shows how Collins has failed to act as strongly as her predecessor by noting how she failed to vote to convict the president during his Senate impeachment trial.

“Susan Collins never stands up to Donald Trump,” the ad says. “That’s why Maine is done with her weakness and excuses.”

The ad then claims Collins’s reputation as an independent-minded Republican is a “fraud,” while also claiming that Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are the ones really pulling her strings.

“Maine deserves a leader,” the ad concludes. “Not a Trump stooge.”

You can watch the video below via Twitter:

Senate GOP rejects pandemic food stamp aid while calling to double “three-martini lunch” deduction

Senate Republicans rejected an extension of a program that expanded food aid to families affected by the coronavirus pandemic in their relief proposal but included a provision which would double the “three-martini lunch” deduction for business meals.

The Census Bureau reported that about 26 million adults and between 8 to 15 million children live in households that did not have enough food last month. Images around the country, from Arizona and Texas to New York and Massachusetts, show mile-long lines at food banks amid the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

But the Republican Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection and Schools Act (HEALS Act), which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., unveiled on Monday, did not include either an expansion of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly referred to as food stamps, or an extension of the Pandemic EBT program, which provides aid to families with children who recently lost access to free meals at schools, The Washington Post reports. It does, however, include a tax break on business lunches.

“It is deeply disappointing that it failed to include a SNAP benefit increase or an extension to Pandemic EBT,” Lisa Davis of the food aid group Share Our Strength told the outlet. “We know that childhood food insecurity is soaring to levels we’ve never seen.”

“This bill is entirely divorced from the reality of the crisis this country is facing,” added Sarah Reinhardt of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Food and Environmental Program.

The decision comes amid the Trump administration’s push to reopen schools despite high rates of infection in numerous states, though President Donald Trump finally acknowledged last week that schools in hot spots would have to delay reopening for several “weeks.

Low-income families have been hit hardest by the pandemic, with nearly a third facing food insecurity in the last month, according to an analysis by the Hamilton Project. The analysis found more than five times as many children facing food insecurity in June than in all of 2018 and nearly three times as many as during the Great Recession in 2008.

People of color, who have been hit hard by the pandemic, have also disproportionately experienced the brunt of the financial shock it has caused. Nearly 40% of Black and Latinx families with children face food insecurity, according to a study by researchers at Northwestern University.

“Given the national conversation about institutional racism and inequality, the decision is baffling,” Luis Guardia, who heads the advocacy group Food Research and Action Center, told The Post. “It’s hard to think of a program that has SNAP’s virtuous cycle of feeding people. That money turns over in the local economy quickly and creates more jobs, and ultimately if people have steady jobs, they aren’t hungry.”

While the bill eschewed food aid for millions of hungry families, it would double the so-called “three-martini-lunch” deduction for business meals from 50% to 100%. The bill also includes $30 billion for military projects and nearly $2 billion for a new FBI building near Trump’s Washington hotel.

“They didn’t have money for food stamps, but they had money for an FBI building just so that they can diminish competition for the president’s hotel,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said on Monday.

Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., told HuffPost that he included the meal deduction increase in hope that it would increase business for venues with “limited indoor dining.” The idea was also repeatedly pushed by Trump himself, who claimed it would “bring restaurants and everything related back.”

“If your notion of addressing food security is a tax deduction for expensive business dinners but not making sure that no child in America goes to bed hungry, you may be a Republican,” Pelosi said on Twitter.

Senate Republicans are also pushing to slash federal unemployment benefits from $600 to $200 per week, claiming that the “generous” benefit makes it difficult for companies to bring back workers despite a lack of evidence. Numerous economists have found that the unemployment benefits have helped prop up the economy, and drastically cutting them would shrink the GDP and cost the country millions of jobs.

Republicans also rejected the Democratic proposal to provide about $1 trillion in aid to cash-strapped states and cities, offering them zero new funding. That could result in mass layoffs for government workers like nurses and hospital employees, teachers and public health and safety workers.

“McConnell’s COVID bill is a parade of horribles: Want a $400 tax subsidy for three martini lunches? You got it. Money for hungry American children? Too bad. Want to cut support for workers who’ve lost their jobs? Sure. A moratorium on utility cutoffs and evictions? No dice,” Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., who sits on the Senate Appropriations and Budget committees, wrote on Twitter. ” Can you believe we had to wait more than two months for this ludicrous proposal?? They’re wasting time and endangering lives & livelihoods.”

NYPD admits it’s used unmarked vehicles to apprehend suspects for “decades” after “disturbing” video

As the New York Police Department defended a viral video showing plainclothes officers forcefully detaining a trans protester in an unmarked van, the agency admitted that it has used similar vehicles to apprehend suspects for “decades.”

A video posted Tuesday to Twitter by the independent journalist Michelle Lhooq shows men in shorts and T-shirts grab the trans protester and wrestle her into an unmarked van. About 15 seconds into the video, marked officers on bikes arrive to set up a perimeter around the van as the plainclothes officers rush to drive away. The incident took place in the Kips Bay neighborhood of Manhattan.

The protester was identified by her friends as an 18-year-old homeless trans woman named Nicki Stone. Stone was charged with multiple counts of vandalism and criminal mischief for allegedly spraying graffiti on police cameras and other locations around the city, Gothamist reported.

“Suddenly, there was an unmarked grey van that moved out in front of us that had been waiting for us,” a protester named Derrick told the outlet. “Four guys jumped out and a line of police bicycles came out from down the block — we hadn’t seen them. They pushed us back. They grabbed Nicki like she was a rag doll . . . They had her arms on her neck, and then they drove off. They’re targeting our leaders – that’s what’s going to happen now.”

The video drew widespread criticism. The Human Rights Campaign called it “deeply troubling.” The American Civil Liberties Union said the video showed the protester was “abducted off the streets by unmarked ‘officers.'”

“These dangerous, abusive, and indefensible actions must stop,” the ACLU on Twitter. “Law enforcement must be held accountable.”

Though the video drew comparisons to the federal officials deployed to Portland who have snatched protesters into unmarked vans ostensibly as part of President Donald Trump’s executive order to protect monuments and federal property, the NYPD said no federal authorities were involved in the arrest.

The NYPD issued a statement on Twitter saying that Stone was wanted for damaging police cameras, and she was detained by the Warrant Squad, which uses unmarked vehicles to carry out arrests. NYPD Lt. John Grimpel told NBC News that the Warrant Squad has used unmarked vehicles to detain people for “decades.”

“A woman taken into custody in an unmarked van was wanted for damaging police cameras during 5 separate criminal incidents in & around City Hall Park. The arresting officers were assaulted with rocks & bottles,” the NYPD said, though the video does not appear to show officers being assaulted with neither rocks nor bottles.

“The Warrant Squad uses unmarked vehicles to effectively locate wanted suspects,” the statement added. “When she was placed into the Warrant Squad’s unmarked gray minivan, it was behind a cordon of NYPD bicycle cops in bright yellow and blue uniform shirts there to help effect the arrest.”

Alex Vitale, the coordinator of the Policing and Social Justice Project at Brooklyn College and the author of “The End of Policing,” refuted the NYPD’s explanation.

“Those officers arrived after a violent arrest by non-uniformed officers in the middle of an active [protest],” he wrote. “This was a reckless and dangerous provocation.”

Three witnesses who spoke to Gothamist also disputed the claim.

“None of that happened whatsoever,” protester Clara Kraebber told the outlet. “We literally turned the corner and were met with a line of police who attacked us without warning.”

Ali Bauman, a reporter at CBS New York, also questioned the explanation, asking why the NYPD would “not tell reporters where the woman was taken or where she is being processed.”

New York City Councilwoman Carlina Rivera later tweeted early Wednesday morning that the protester had been released. Rivera called for an independent review of the arrest and “an immediate explanation for why an unmarked van full of officers was anywhere near a peaceful protest.”

“It’s clear that using an unmarked van and plainclothes officers to make an arrest for vandalism (in the middle of a peaceful protest) is a massive overstep,” she added. “I’m exploring legislation.”

Similar incidents have been seen in other cities. The San Diego Police Department launched an internal investigation after a viral video showed armed men, who did not identify themselves, detaining a young woman in an unmarked van outside of a high school last month. The SDPD said the men were plainclothes officers but refused to release any details of its investigation.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has not commented on the video, and a spokeswoman referred questions to the NYPD statement. But other city leaders publicly questioned the arrest.

City Council Speaker Corey Johnson called the video “incredibly disturbing,” according to The New York Times. New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer said he was “deeply concerned” by the arrest.

Organizers told The Times that the woman was arrested in connection with the clearing of an encampment outside City Hall, where demonstrators called for the city to defund the police. De Blasio touted that the City Council had voted to cut nearly $1 billion from the NYPD budget in response to demonstrations last month, though activists have called that claim a “lie.”

New York criminal defense attorneys on Wednesday decried the arrest but noted that the tactic used in the video was not uncommon.

“This is not a new policing strategy – I mean, maybe for protests, but this is how NYPD polices Black and Brown neighborhoods,” said civil rights attorney Rebecca Kavanagh. The reaction to the video, she said, was “white people waking up to a reality Black and Brown people have lived for decades.”

“The thing about all the outrageous acts of police violence, nonsensical arrests and holding people indefinitely that have been shocking everyone in the news is that… it’s always been happening,” agreed Olayemi Olurin, a New York City public defender. “This is how they always conduct themselves. You just don’t hear about it.”

As wildfire season nears, pulmonologists fear smoke will worsen COVID-19 symptoms

Vast swaths of California are being enveloped in smoke as wildfire season starts anew. In northern California, evacuation orders took effect on Monday in northeastern Siskiyou County as the Caldwell Fire spread. On Tuesday, winds pushed smoke from a massive structure fire in San Francisco to the East Bay. These are but two of many fires burning across the state — the presence of which has heightened fears that the intersection of two crises, wildfire season and COVID-19, will worsen both. Indeed, as the Golden State experiences record increases in coronavirus cases, pulmonologists are concerned about how the next few months will play out.

“The pandemic is new for all of us,” Panagis Galiatsatos, an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine who is a pulmonary physician and media spokesperson for the American Lung Association, told Salon. “No one’s written ‘how to handle a pandemic,’ and no one’s written ‘how to handle a pandemic and a wildfire.'”

Galiatsatos said he is concerned that wildfires might increase the likelihood of the coronavirus spreading, partly as a result of Californians being displaced. California is already experiencing a spread of coronavirus at very high rates, despite its early success with a statewide lockdown. According to the California Department of Public Health, California has a total of 466,550 positive cases as of July 28 — the highest number of a U.S. state, according to the CDC, although California is also the nation’s most populous. In total, 8,518 have died from COVID-19 in California.

“Wildfires are requesting people to relocate given their homes are in danger, and suddenly you’re taking people who have been quarantined and asking them to find a new place to live,” Dr. Galiatsatos told Salon. “Now they’re expanding their social bubble out of necessity without the appropriateness of really thorough contact tracing to understand where these family members have been, and so forth.”

Another concern, Galiatsatos said, is how exposure to wildfire smoke might lead to an increase in severity of symptoms. In non-coronavirus times, vulnerable populations are warned to stay inside when there’s wildfire smoke. Now, such directives become even more important.

“Wildfires will put out a lot of just natural pollutants, but these can really impact people’s breathing conditions,” Galiatsatos said. “Your underlying breathing status may be impacted by the consequences of the wildfire, and add a viral infection to this and your symptoms might be worse than expected.”

“You’re asking the immune system to do two things at once and it may not be able to do that,” Galiatsatos added.

John Balmes, MD a professor of medicine at UC San Francisco, told Salon in an email he agrees that exposure to wildfire smoke is likely a risk factor for a COVID-19 infection, “based on multiple studies in humans and animals on the effect of non-wildfire [2.5 micron particular matter] on risk of viral respiratory tract infections.” Balmes added that emerging research from China, Europe and the U.S. indicate that non-wildfire air pollution could increase the COVID-19 death rate. Specifically, a study from the Harvard School of Public Health found that people with COVID-19 who live in U.S. regions with higher levels of air pollution are more likely to die from the disease.

As Californians have surely noticed, wildfires and the haze they generate have become more common in recent years. According to a paper by researchers at Harvard and Yale universities, smoke waves “are likely to be longer, more intense, and more frequent under climate change, which raises health, ecological, and economic concerns.” As Salon has previously reported, the long-term effects of exposure to this kind of smoke is still unknown.

Galiatsatos said the good news is that there are ways for people to protect themselves from wildfire smoke with cloth masks. While previous smoke waves in California have led people to buy N95 masks, Galiatsatos said he doesn’t encourage the general public to go out and buy N95s because of the shortage, but also because they need to be fitted properly to work.

“Your simple cloth mask, that will work,” Galiatsatos said.

Bill Barr on Capitol Hill: Lies, evasions and a promise to “follow the law.” Be very afraid

Attorney General Bill Barr finally showed up for his long-scheduled hearing before the House Judiciary Committee and once again proved himself to be Trump’s eager henchman. He didn’t read aloud some of the more incendiary parts of his opening statement (which as Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., observed, “reads like it was written by Alex Jones or Roger Stone”) but for all his braying about “the law” his arrogant attitude and slippery answers left no doubt about where his allegiance lies. Let’s just say Trump doesn’t have to worry about Barr’s loyalty.

The list of Barr’s odious comments is a mile long, starting with his fatuous answers regarding the question of systemic racism in policing. He evidently thinks it’s cute, just as his boss does, to insist that “more white people are shot by police than Black people” when responding to the question of why Black people, who make up only 13 percent of the U.S. population, account for 25 percent of those shot and killed by police since 2015 while “non-Hispanic” whites, who are more than 60 percent of the population, only account for 45 percent. This answer is insulting to the intelligence of the American people.

Barr also obfuscated, dissembled, misled and evaded questions about his interference in cases on behalf of Trump’s cronies, the firing and reassigning of U.S. attorneys working on cases involving the president, the shocking events at Lafayette Square in June and his inconsistency in applying federal laws to benefit the president, while ignoring them when they don’t. As hard as it is to believe, he even took it upon himself to strenuously defend the president’s botched COVID-19 response in great detail, something he could have easily avoided by saying it isn’t his purview.

But no, Barr had the temerity to use some of Trump’s most spectacularly absurd excuses by blaming the Obama administration, which hasn’t been in office for three and a half years, for allegedly destroying the CDC and failing to replenish the national stockpile of PPE. If there was one moment that captured Barr’s total immersion in Trump’s ocean of self-deception and lies, it was that series of inane talking points.

There is a whole lot to worry about with what Barr is doing right now, not the least of which is covering up Trump’s corruption and pushing paramilitary responses against peaceful protests. But after listening to his testimony, I think it’s the potential for direct interference in the presidential election by Barr and the Justice Department that should have every American on high alert.

Consider that Barr’s opening statement referred to the Russia investigation as “bogus,” ignoring the fact that, among other things, Robert Mueller and multiple House and Senate committees have established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Donald Trump. This would also indicate that Barr is completely unconcerned about another propaganda or hacking campaign happening as we speak, despite repeated warnings from the FBI the U.S. intelligence agencies and Congress.

That just isn’t something the attorney general of the United States cares about. When asked if it was OK to solicit or accept foreign assistance in an election campaign, he even responded, Indeed, he even went so far as to answer, “It depends what kind of assistance.” He caught himself, so when he was asked the same question again he said, “No.” It’s a felony, after all. But I think it’s pretty clear that he believes when Trump asks for assistance from Russia, Ukraine and China — all of which we’ve seen him do publicly — it is just fine.

On the other hand, Barr has invented out of whole cloth a new concern that hostile governments will alter the election results by “manufacturing mail-in ballots,” citing zero actual evidence but rather his “common sense” as proof. That’s because there is no evidence. Many states provide no-excuse absentee ballots and five states have total vote by mail. Oregon, for instance, has done it since 1998, without any hint of such a problem.

Earlier in the hearing, Barr had made it clear that he sent federal troops into Portland because protesters were harming a federal building. When asked why he had backed the right of armed protesters who stormed the Michigan state capitol, some of whom threatened the governor with lynching and beheading, he claimed not to have been aware of that and mumbled something about defending religious freedom. He indicated that he’s only concerned with federal offenses.

Rep. Greg Stanton, D-Ariz., pointed out that Trump has suggested that no ballots should be counted after Election Day and asked Barr, “If the president asks you to intervene and try to stop states from counting legal ballots after Election Day, will you do the right thing and refuse?”

Barr responded, “I will follow the law.” He separately said he would “enforce” the law. So that means if a state has issued a ruling saying that votes cannot be counted if they were postmarked before Election Day but didn’t arrive until after that, he would be willing to intervene on behalf of the president to ensure those votes weren’t counted.

Anyone who lived through the Florida 2000 election debacle should know that this is not a matter for federal law enforcement. Elections are run by the states. If there’s a dispute it goes to the courts and in a worst-case scenario to the Congress. Barr has no authority to intervene at all in how states count and tabulate their votes, but judging from his recent behavior, I doubt that would stop him. With Barr, “follow the law,” seems to mean “do whatever benefits Donald Trump and hurts his enemies.”

When Judiciary chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., asked Barr whether he had discussed the presidential campaign with Trump, the attorney general said he couldn’t talk about his private conversations but blithely admitted that they talk about the campaign in Cabinet meetings and said nobody should be surprised that the election comes up. Actually, they should be both surprised and alarmed. The AG is supposed to be the most removed from politics of all high-level administration officials and neither the president nor anyone else should not be talking to him about the campaign or the election. (You may recall the furious rending of garments on the right when Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton for 15 minutes in 2016. )

Perhaps most chilling was Barr’s answer to Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., who asked whether Barr himself would leave office on Jan. 20, 2021, if Trump loses the election but tries to remain in the White House. “Well, if the results are clear, I would leave office,” the attorney general said. He did not elaborate further, but considering that the president is already saying that mail-in voting will somehow “rig” the election, something Barr claims to believe is thoroughly possible, his unwillingness to simply say that he would leave office if Trump loses is more than a little bit disturbing.

When Nadler asked Barr whether he had ever discussed the presidential campaign with Trump he also asked whether they had discussed the “current or future deployment of federal law enforcement” within the context of Trump’s re-election campaign. Barr answered, “I’m not going to get into my discussions with the president.”

It would have been completely acceptable for him to simply say no to such an explosive suggestion. You have to wonder why he didn’t. 

Killing democracy in America: The military-industrial complex as a cytokine storm

The phrase “thinking about the unthinkable” has always been associated with the unthinkable cataclysm of a nuclear war, and rightly so. Lately, though, I’ve been pondering another kind of unthinkable scenario, nearly as nightmarish (at least for a democracy) as a thermonuclear Armageddon, but one that’s been rolling out in far slower motion: that America’s war on terror never ends because it’s far more convenient for America’s leaders to keep it going — until, that is, it tears apart anything we ever imagined as democracy.

I fear that it either can’t or won’t end because, as Martin Luther King, Jr., pointed out in 1967 during the Vietnam War, the United States remains the world’s greatest purveyor of violence — and nothing in this century, the one he didn’t live to see, has faintly proved him wrong. Considered another way, Washington should be classified as the planet’s most committed arsonist, regularly setting or fanning the flames of fires globally from Libya to Iraq, Somalia to Afghanistan, Syria to — dare I say it — in some quite imaginable future Iran, even as our leaders invariably boast of having the world’s greatest firefighters (also known as the U.S. military).

Scenarios of perpetual war haunt my thoughts. For a healthy democracy, there should be few things more unthinkable than never-ending conflict, that steady drip-drip of death and destruction that drives militarism, reinforces authoritarianism, and facilitates disaster capitalism. In 1795, James Madison warned Americans that war of that sort would presage the slow death of freedom and representative government. His prediction seems all too relevant in a world in which, year after year, this country continues to engage in needless wars that have nothing to do with national defense.

You wage war long, you wage it wrong

To cite one example of needless war from the last century, consider America’s horrendous years of fighting in Vietnam and a critical lesson drawn firsthand from that conflict by reporter Jonathan Schell. “In Vietnam,” he noted, “I learned about the capacity of the human mind to build a model of experience that screens out even very dramatic and obvious realities.” As a young journalist covering the war, Schell saw that the U.S. was losing, even as its military was destroying startlingly large areas of South Vietnam in the name of saving it from communism. Yet America’s leaders, the “best and brightest” of the era, almost to a man refused to see that all of what passed for realism in their world, when it came to that war, was nothing short of a first-class lie. 

Why? Because believing is seeing and they desperately wanted to believe that they were the good guys, as well as the most powerful guys on the planet. America was winning, it practically went without saying, because it had to be. They were infected by their own version of an all-American victory culture, blinded by a sense of this country’s obvious destiny: to be the most exceptional and exceptionally triumphant nation on this planet.

As it happened, it was far more difficult for grunts on the ground to deny the reality of what was happening — that they were fighting and dying in a senseless war. As a result, especially after the shock of the enemy’s Tet Offensive early in 1968, escalating protests within the military (and among veterans at home) together with massive antiwar demonstrations finally helped put the brakes on that war. Not before, however, more than 58,000 American troops died, along with millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians.

In the end, the war in Indochina was arguably too costly, messy, and futile to continue. But never underestimate the military-industrial complex, especially when it comes to editing or denying reality, while being eternally over-funded for that very reality. It’s a trait the complex has shared with politicians of both parties. Don’t forget, for instance, the way President Ronald Reagan reedited that disastrous conflict into a “noble cause” in the 1980s. And give him credit! That was no small thing to sell to an American public that had already lived through such a war. By the way, tell me something about that Reaganesque moment doesn’t sound vaguely familiar almost four decades later when our very own “wartime president” long ago declared victory in the “war” on Covid-19, even as the death toll from that virus approaches 150,000 in the homeland.

In the meantime, the military-industrial complex has mastered the long con of the no-win forever war in a genuinely impressive fashion. Consider the war in Afghanistan. In 2021 it will enter its third decade without an end in sight. Even when President Trump makes noises about withdrawing troops from that country, Congress approves an amendment to another massive, record-setting military budget with broad bipartisan support that effectively obstructs any efforts to do so (while the Pentagon continues to bargain Trump down on the subject). 

The Vietnam War, which was destroying the U.S. military, finally ended in an ignominious withdrawal. Almost two decades later, after the 2001 invasion, the war in Afghanistan can now be — the dream of the Vietnam era — fought in a “limited” fashion, at least from the point of view of Congress, the Pentagon, and most Americans (who ignore it), even if not the Afghans. The number of American troops being killed is, at this point, acceptably low, almost imperceptible in fact (even if not to Americans who have lost loved ones over there).

More and more, the U.S. military is relying on air power, unmanned drones, mercenaries, local militias, paramilitaries, and private contractors. Minimizing American casualties is an effective way of minimizing negative media coverage here; so, too, are efforts by the Trump administration to classify nearly everything related to that war while denying or downplayingcollateral damage” — that is, dead civilians — from it.

Their efforts boil down to a harsh truth: America just plain lies about its forever wars, so that it can keep on killing in lands far from home.

When we as Americans refuse to take in the destruction we cause, we come to passively accept the belief system of the ruling class that what’s still bizarrely called “defense” is a “must have” and that we collectively must spend significantly more than a trillion dollars a year on the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and a sprawling network of intelligence agencies, all justified as necessary defenders of America’s freedom. Rarely does the public put much thought into the dangers inherent in a sprawling “defense” network that increasingly invades and dominates our lives.  

Meanwhile, it’s clear that low-cost wars, at least in terms of U.S. troops killed and wounded in action, can essentially be prolonged indefinitely, even when they never result in anything faintly like victory or fulfill any faintly useful American goal. The Afghan War remains the case in point. “Progress” is a concept that only ever fits the enemy — the Taliban continues to gain ground — yet, in these years, figures like retired general and former CIA director David Petraeus have continued to call for a “generational” commitment of troops and resources there, akin to U.S. support for South Korea. 

Who says the Pentagon leadership learned nothing from Vietnam? They learned how to wage open-ended wars basically forever, which has proved useful indeed when it comes to justifying and sustaining epic military budgetsand the political authority that goes with them. But here’s the thing: in a democracy, if you wage war long, you wage it wrong. Athens and the historian Thucydides learned this the hard way in the struggle against Sparta more than two millennia ago. Why do we insist on forgetting such an obvious lesson?

“We have met the enemy and he is us”

World War II was arguably the last war Americans truly had to fight. My Uncle Freddie was in the Army and stationed at Pearl Harbor when it was attacked on December 7, 1941. The country then came together and won a global conflict (with lots of help) in 44 months, emerging as the planetary superpower to boot. Now, that superpower is very much on the wane, as Donald Trump recognized in running successfully as a declinist candidate for president in 2016. (Make America Great Again!) And yet, though he ran against this country’s forever wars and is now president, we’re approaching the third decade of a war on terror that has yielded little, spread radical Islamic terror outfits across an expanse of the planet, and still seemingly has no end.

“Great nations do not fight endless wars,” Trump himself claimed only last year. Yet that’s exactly what this country has been doing, regardless of which party ruled the roost in Washington. And here’s where, to give him credit, Trump actually had a certain insight. America is no longer great precisely because of the endless wars we wage and all the largely hidden but associated costs that go with them, including the recently much publicized militarizationof the police here at home. Yet, in promising to make America great again, President Trump has failed to end those wars, even as he’s fed the military-industrial complex with even greater piles of cash.

There’s a twisted logic to all this. As the leading purveyor of violence and terror, with its leaders committed to fighting Islamic terrorism across the planet until the phenomenon is vanquished, the U.S. inevitably becomes its own opponent, conducting a perpetual war on itself. Of course, in the process, Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Somalis, and Yemenis, among other peoples on this embattled planet of ours, pay big time, but Americans pay, too. (Have you even noticed that high-speed railroad that’s unbuilt, that dam in increasing disrepair, those bridges that need fixing, while money continues to pour into the national security state?) As the cartoon possum Pogo once so classically said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Early in the Iraq War, General Petraeus asked a question that was relevant indeed: “Tell me how this [war] ends.” The answer, obvious to so many who had protested in the global streets over the invasion to come in 2003, was “not well.” Today, another answer should be obvious: never, if the Pentagon and America’s political and national security elite have anything to do with it. In thermodynamics class, I learned that a perpetual motion machine is impossible to create due to entropy. The Pentagon never took that in and has instead been hard at work proving that a perpetual military machine is possible… until, that is, the empire it feeds off of collapses and takes us with it.

America’s military complex as a cytokine storm

In the era of Covid-19, as cases and deaths from the pandemic continue to soar in America, it’s astonishing that military spending is also soaring to record levels despite a medical emergency and a major recession. 

The reality is that, in the summer of 2020, America faces two deadly viruses. The first is Covid-19. With hard work and some luck, scientists may be able to mass-produce an effective vaccine for it, perhaps by as early as next spring. In the meantime, scientists do have a sense of how to control it, contain it, even neutralize it, as countries from South Korea and New Zealand to Denmark have shown, even if some Americans, encouraged by our president, insist on throwing all caution to the winds in the name of living free. The second virus, however, could prove even more difficult to control, contain, and neutralize: forever war, a pandemic that U.S. military forces, with their global strike missions, continue to spread across the globe.

Sadly, it’s a reasonable bet that in the long run, even with Donald Trump as president, America has a better chance of defeating Covid-19 than the virus of forever war. At least, the first is generally seen as a serious threat (even if not by a president blind to anything but his chances for reelection); the second is, however, still largely seen as evidence of our strength and exceptionalism. Indeed, Americans tend to imagine “our” military not as a dangerous virus but as a set of benevolent antibodies, defending us from global evildoers. 

When it comes to America’s many wars, perhaps there’s something to be learned from the way certain people’s immune systems respond to Covid-19. In some cases, the virus sparks an exaggerated immune response that drives the body into a severe inflammatory state known as a cytokine storm. That “storm” can lead to multiple organ failure followed by death, yet it occurs in the cause of defending the body from a viral attack.

In a similar fashion, America’s exaggerated response to 19 hijackers on 9/11 and then to perceived threats around the globe, especially the nebulous threat of terror, has led to an analogous (if little noticed) cytokine storm in the American system. Military (and militarized police) antibodies have been sapping our resources, inflaming our body politic, and slowly strangling the vital organs of democracy. Left unchecked, this “storm” of inflammatory militarism will be the death of democracy in America.

To put this country right, what’s needed is not only an effective vaccine for Covid-19 but a way to control the “antibodies” produced by America’s forever wars abroad and, as the years have gone by, at home — and the ways they’ve attacked and inflamed the collective U.S. political, social, and economic body. Only when we find ways to vaccinate ourselves against the destructive violence of those wars, whether on foreign streets or our own, can we begin to heal as a democratic society.

To survive, the human body needs a healthy immune system, so when it goes haywire, becomes wildly inflamed, and ends up attacking and degrading our vital organs, we’re in trouble deep. It’s a reasonable guess that, in analogous terms, American democracy is already on a ventilator and beginning to feel the effects of multiple organ failure.

Unlike a human patient, doctors can’t put our democracy into a medically induced coma. But collectively we should be working to suppress our overactive immune system before it kills us. In other words, it’s truly time to defund that military machine of ours, as well as the militarized version of the police, and rethink how actual threats can be neutralized without turning every response into an endless war.

So many years later, it’s time to think the unthinkable. For the U.S. government that means — gasp! — peace. Such a peace would start with imperial retrenchment (bring our troops home!), much reduced military (and police) budgets, and complete withdrawal from Afghanistan and any other place associated with that “generational” war on terror. The alternative is a cytokine storm that will, in the end, tear us apart from within.

Copyright 2020 William J. Astore

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

Welcome to Donald Trump’s terrordome: But even this may not save him

Donald Trump is a political arsonist. He has unleashed a firestorm across America. The kindling was always there. Trump chose to throw gasoline on it and set it afire.

Trump’s political cult members and other followers are dancing in a circle around the flames. In the light and noise, they see and hear things which are not there. Like the troglodytes in Plato’s allegory of the cave, they have lost the ability to discern truth from lies. All that matters is their proximity to Trump’s fire.

Good Americans have encircled Trump’s conflagration. They know the danger and power it possesses. They are also willing to be burned and suffer other injuries to save the country from its worst inclinations in the form of the fire devils that Trump commands.

Good Americans also know that fire can be used for both creation and destruction. As such, they are waiting for the right moment to seize the fire for their own purposes.

There are observers as well. Many are in the shadows cowed and afraid. Other watchers are sad and depressed and more than a little confused by what America in the Age of Trump has become.

Trump’s blazing fire is the main attraction in the American terrordome, where the spectacle of Trump’s threats, violence, lies, fear, intimidation, corruption, racism and cruelty unfold. This is the logic of reality TV made into a presidency and the resulting surreal nightmare that has entrapped the American people in the Age of Trump.

The protagonists in Trump’s spectacle are the “virtuous,” “strong” and “heroic” Donald Trump and his “patriotic” and “law-abiding” (white) followers — and of course the police and other enforcers of “law and order.”

The villains are the various recurring bogeymen of the right-wing imagination, such as Latino “rapists” and “murderers,” “invasions” and “caravans” of nonwhite people, Muslims and any other group deemed to be despised. “Anti-fascists” and “Black Lives Matter” activists, who supposedly hate America. Black athletes who kneel in protest against police thuggery and other social injustices are “thugs” who should be kicked out of the country. The George Floyd protesters and anyone else who dares to disagree with the Trump regime are enemies of the state to be purged. “Anarchists,” leftists, liberals and intellectuals with their “political correctness” are also to be disposed of.

This spectacle circulates across American society via Fox News and the larger right-wing propaganda disinformation machine. Unwittingly, those Americans with their “doomscrolling” — a phrase that sounds like something from the H.P. Lovecraft mythos or the “Hellraiser” movies — and other Trump fixations are all part of the spectacle as well.

In total, Trump’s terrordome is the theater of political terror and the “American carnage” he first promised in his 2016 inauguration speech. Trump hopes to use the same themes to win the 2020 election — and then to stay in office for as long as he wants.

Trump’s terrordome has a new attraction: his personal stormtroopers, a de facto Gestapo.

In a massive violation of the civil and human rights of the American people, Trump’s secret police are operating in Portland, Oregon, grabbing protesters off the streets and disappearing them for interrogated. Trump’s Gestapo is beating, gassing and shooting protesters with so-called non-lethal weapons, which in reality can cause grievous physical harm.

Trump has promised to unleash more than 50,000 of his personal enforcers in Democratic-led cities across the country. He will likely use these same enforcers to try to steal the 2020 election.

Trump’s theater of terror in Portland (and soon elsewhere, perhaps) is following a script common to the authoritarian playbook where the leader creates a crisis, the people resist and then the threats and violence are amplified — with the end goal being a “state of emergency” that “justifies” the authoritarian seizing even more power.

At the New York Times, former FBI director James Comey accurately summarizes Trump’s Portland gambit:

What better way for Trump to demonstrate to his followers that he is “your president of law and order” than to deploy highly visible federal officers, and in a way that is sure to invite violent conflict, which, of course, demonstrates the need for a law-and-order president? And on it goes. The only thing damaged in the process will be the United States and the federal law enforcement agencies our country needs. Yet again, the craving of our president for reelection seems to override everything.

The Trump regime is so unrestrained that it actually uses the word “theater” to describe the Portland protests and the president’s related instigations and plots to remain in power.

As reported by the Washington Post, a Trump regime official said the president had chosen Portland as “a theater for his fight,” adding that “the White House had long wanted to amplify strife in cities, encouraging DHS officials to talk about arrests of violent criminals in sanctuary cities and repeatedly urging ICE to disclose more details of raids than some in the agency were comfortable doing…. It was about getting viral online content.”

Last Friday, Trump’s White House press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, presented the regime’s own version of a Joseph Goebbels propaganda film in the form of a video purporting to show “riots” in Portland. This presentation was so tasteless that even Fox News cut away from the White House press briefing.

Of course, there are no “riots” except for those instigated by Trump’s enforcers and the right-wing extremists and other paramilitaries who have infiltrated what are largely peaceful gatherings.

McEnany’s propaganda film is part of a larger and obvious strategy of terrifying the American people — or at least Trump’s base of older, white Fox News watchers, who he imagines as a “silent majority” — into supporting the president’s crackdown and re-electing him.

In Trump’s terrordome these distorted images of anti-fascists, Black Lives Matter activists, mothers, veterans and other protesters are doing another type of political work as well

Violence by the Trump regime against dissenters is made legitimate. Moreover, violence by Trump’s supporters against his perceived enemies is encouraged and rendered virtuous as well

In many ways, Donald Trump’s terrordome spectacle is his version of the “Two Minutes Hate” as depicted in George Orwell’s essential book “1984”.

Writing at Bloomberg, legal scholar Cass Sunstein explains:

To see it, we have to step back a bit and consider one of George Orwell’s most powerful creations: the Two Minutes Hate, directed against Emmanuel Goldstein, “the Enemy of the People” and opponent of Big Brother.

As Orwell depicts it in “1984,” Big Brother focuses the public on Goldstein’s misdeeds and the continuing threat he poses: “He was the commander of a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirators.” As citizens see Goldstein’s face on a screen, they break out into “uncontrollable exclamations of rage,” followed by a “hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer.”

Orwell’s ominous words suggest that every human heart is vulnerable to that ecstasy. “The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in.” (Think of what happens on contemporary social media.)

For Big Brother, the Two Minutes Hate is shrewd politics. It is a diversion from issues of policy, and from problems that people face in their ordinary lives. It focuses citizens’ attention on a malevolent, even demonic force, who continues to threaten them.

Trump’s terrordome and the power he has over many tens of millions of Americans (including bystanders) also recalls the description of Nazi Germany in journalist Milton Meyer’s book “They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45”:

The world you live in — your nation, your people — is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.

Donald Trump is an authoritarian and a neo-fascist. Like others of that ilk, he is only able to destroy and not create. Nearly 150,000 Americans are dead from the coronavirus pandemic and Donald Trump’s willfully negligent response. The country is teetering on the edge of a second Great Depression. Other existential threats, such as the global climate disaster, continue their march largely unabated.

Ultimately, the Trump regime and its politics of terror and cruelty amplify the pain, suffering, fear and insecurity of the American people — and by design do nothing to soothe and heal them.

Public opinion polls and other research show that the American people are experiencing high levels of anxiety and other mental health challenges from the Age of Trump and his pandemic. Suicides have increased. The American people largely want a return to normalcy and consistency and not the chaos of the Trump regime. Life spans continue to decrease among many populations in America, include the “white working class”. The American people know that the country is going in the wrong direction and the myth of American exceptionalism is collapsing. Patriotism is at the lowest levels in several decades.

The pain, sorrow, loss, and misery are the goal: Trump and his regime are illegitimate, and hope to use his terrordome spectacle to remain in power.

Because of a deep reluctance to state those plain facts, America’s mainstream news media continues to ignore that the country is in the grip of a fascist politics and authoritarian spectacle where normal politics and the folk theory of democracy — with its “free and fair” elections, responsible political parties, politically engaged citizens, rule of law, and respect for the Constitution as well as existing political and social institutions — no longer apply.

Those people who are fortunate to live outside of Trump’s terrordome see something horrible in America. Once the leader of the world, the U.S. has lost its prestige and moral authority. Writing at the New York Times, Roger Cohen reflects on how America now looks from Germany, a country which was destroyed by fascism and then rebuilt as a leading democracy:

When paramilitary-style units have no identifying insignia, there is no transparency, no accountability — and that means impunity. Democracy dies. Think of all this as setting the scene for Trump’s own “state of emergency” if he does not like the November election result. Social media is combustible enough for a physical fire to be unnecessary.

The president says he wants to protect law-abiding citizens. In 1933, after the Reichstag burned, Hitler issued the “Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State” as his means to seize power.

German horror at Trump has many components. He’s the fear-mongering showman wielding nationalism, racism and violence as if the 20th century held no lessons. He’s the would-be destroyer of the multilateral institutions that brought European peace and made it possible for Germans to raise their bowed heads again. He is a fascist in the making.

At present, Joe Biden is leading Donald Trump in the polls. There are many ways, legitimate and otherwise, that Donald Trump could win a second term, but many observers now believe that he will be vanquished in historic fashion. Of course, that is no guarantee that Trump will peacefully leave office in January or that he may not find a way to contest the outcome.

A Biden victory would show that the American people want a return to normal. But what does “normal” really look like when the status quo did so much to vomit out Trump’s neo-fascist regime and all the destruction and human misery it created?

To light the way forward to a better America will demand much more than going back to “normal” — from Joe Biden and from all of us.

Trump tries “dominating” the streets — but his utter incompetence gets in the way

Again, the problem may be in actually listening to Donald Trump’s words. Instead, you’re supposed to intuit what he means, give him a huge benefit of the doubt and believe that none of his use of the powers of the White House for partisan political gain is out-and-out abuse of the office.

He already is getting considerable criticism for deploying 114 anonymous federal agents in Portland, ostensibly to defend the federal courthouse from demonstrators unhappy with policing procedures nationally. Now Trump, with Attorney General William P. Barr at his side, announced he was sending armed law enforcing agents from several federal departments to Kansas City (about 200), Chicago (150) and Albuquerque (35) – even though local officials don’t want them. Detroit, Cleveland and Milwaukee, site of the Democratic National Convention, already have been targeted.

But to date, these numbers are bigger as symbols on all sides than on direct effect on dampening protest. Indeed, protests are spreading to Seattle, Austin, Los Angeles and New York – in response to the deployment of agents altogether.

To date, there has been one federal arrest in Kansas City, and 18 criminal charges in Portland, including several for not obeying an agent’s command. Whatever arrests are being made are part of normal city policing decisions. Does that sound like federal “domination”?

Now Trump has told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on a phone-in that he’s willing to send as many as 75,000 federal agents into American cities to quell violent crime. Actually, he started with 50,000-60,000 and upped it to 75,000, adding that “We have to be invited in.

“At some point we’ll have to do something much stronger than being invited in,” Trump said.

If we have 75,000 border patrol and customs enforcement personnel hanging around with nothing else to do but wait for the chance to don unmarked uniforms, rent plain vans and snatch protesters from the streets of U.S. cities run by Democratic mayors, we have a bigger problem than outbreaks of vandalism at the federal courthouse.

Skirting legalities

The invited-in part is important, because that’s what makes it legal, especially since there are no federal buildings under siege in the other cities. But even if you can stomach the idea that the president of the United States believes that he has a personal palace guard to deploy, the numbers he cites are absurd, of course.

Or not. We don’t know how far a cornered Trump will go to protect his image.

For example, Trump has never said what we learned from The Intercept, that Homeland Security apparently has ordered aerial surveillance of Americans in Portland, warzone-like, to guide federal agents. The Intercept reports on monitoring twin-engined planes with surveillance equipment from the 645th Aeronautical Engineering Group at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio looping in tight circles above Portland – a deployment well beyond defending a building.

It is beginning to take on more than a scattershot approach to militaristic force from a White House desperate to change the subject from coronavirus deaths, joblessness and protest.

When coupled with his Law & Order campaign ads, his attacks on Joe Biden and his warnings to “suburban housewives,” we have an unmistakable campaign thrust of fear. Add in recent moves to block counting of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Census and his defenses of policing in a time of social justice protest over police treatment of Black citizens and you have a good dollop of bias poured on the bias.

Trump’s words are divisive, raw, unheeding, misogynistic, racist and wrong.

The question I keep asking myself is why it is so necessary to resort to such tactics. I understand we have a candidate under siege from a pandemic, an economic tsunami and protests against society’s institutional ills. But seizing on and exaggerating urban violence as an excuse to muscle presidential troops into place, tear-gassing and making “proactive arrests,” as Chad Wolf, acting head of Homeland Security describes the snatching of citizens from the streets, is a drastic move.

So, what these agents do is both ineffective on the one hand, and in likely violation of individuals’ civil rights on the other, since a federal court decision is now pending. A federal court did find that Oregon could not pursue its legal plea for the feds to be withdrawn because the judge found the state lacked “standing” in the question.

In Kansas City and elsewhere, it is a mix of FBI and other enforcement agencies in response to a perceived rise in crime because of recent incidents. Kansas City asked for help in solving some unsolved crimes, but not in general policing, and its mayor has joined with others in telling Trump to back off.

The words matter

What are we doing? Is Trump making any point about “domination” in sending 100 agents to quell what he sees as rioting? Or can’t he see that these actions are doing more harm than good?

The inanity of talk of sending 75,000 federal agents to police Democratic city streets joins a long list of Trump statements that cannot be backed up and enforced.

The Census announcement has no effective mechanism to identify non-citizens in the count and is being challenged in court. Canceling the Republican National Convention big gatherings in Jacksonville in the middle of pandemic outbreaks had been inevitable to all but Trump from the moment that he had insisted on them a few short weeks ago. Asserting that China is about to settle a huge positive change in the purchase of U.S. agricultural products falls away instead to an ordered closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston, a move that has prompted a similar announcement about a forced closure of a U.S. consulate there.

While Trump boasts that no governors or hospitals are going without protective equipment, there are governors who publicly scratch their heads and wonder why they are short. Trump demanded a payroll tax rollback that cannot find enough Republican Senate votes to move forward.

And, after days of deploying agents to Portland, the nightly demonstrations are continuing.

Besides being wrong for the times on so many policy issues, Trump is now being seen as incompetent. If Trump is going to schedule daily announcements, he should have something to say.

Trump might be better off actually scaling what he says to what he can actually deliver.

Lawsuits challenging Trump’s federal agents in Portland test issues other cities may face

President Donald Trump has announced that the U.S. Department of Justice will send a “surge of federal law enforcement” into American cities run by “extreme politicians” who are on an “anti-police crusade,” including Chicago, Kansas City, Albuquerque, Cleveland, Detroit and Milwaukee.

Those cities may soon see legal battles like the ones in Portland, Oregon, where four notable lawsuits challenge the actions of federal agents who, under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security, were purportedly sent to protect federal property on the July 4th weekend and still remain.

As a state and local government law scholar, I believe a surge of hundreds of federal officers into cities throughout the United States would represent an unprecedented expansion of the role of the federal government into local police matters.

Together, the Portland lawsuits ask the court to delineate, and enforce, constitutional limits on the federal government’s ability to override state and local law enforcement and use police tactics that violate protesters’ constitutional rights.

Extended protests and multiple incidents

Since May 29, Portlanders have marched, sung, chanted and stood together in Portland to demand racial justice and condemn police violence against Black Americans.

Local officials and observers describe a fringe minority of protesters pointing laser pointers at officers, throwing cans, breaking windows and setting dumpsters and bags of garbage on fire, and shooting fireworks at the federal courthouse. One person was arrested for allegedly attacking a federal officer with a hammer.

In response to some of these actions, the Department of Homeland Security has sent paramilitary-style units to Portland. The president has characterized the operation as limited to protection of federal property and personnel and enforcement of federal laws — but also as restoring public safety after liberal politicians “have put the interests of criminals above the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

State and local officials and observers say those federal agents are detaining and arresting innocent protesters. They also say federal officers have fired non-lethal rounds, pepper balls and tear-gas canisters at peaceful protesters, journalists, medics and legal-rights observers.

In a court filing, the city says the presence of heavily armed federal agents is not keeping order, but rather “escalating violence, inflaming tensions in our City, and harming Portlanders.” The city also says, “Serious and credible allegations have been made that the federal government has effectively kidnapped people off Portland streets, among other abuses of power.”

Independent monitors sue to protect themselves

The first case, Index Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Portland, began as a lawsuit by six journalists and legal observers seeking to stop Portland police from assaulting news reporters, photojournalists and legal observers documenting the police’s violent response to protests. After the arrival of federal agents in Portland, the lawsuit expanded to include the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Marshals Service.

On July 23, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon rejected federal claims that “the force used on Plaintiffs [was] ‘unintended consequences’ of crowd control.” He issued a temporary restraining order barring federal agents from “arresting, threatening to arrest, or using physical force directed against any person whom they know or reasonably should know is a Journalist or Legal Observer.”

The judge also barred federal agents from “seizing any photographic equipment, audio- or videorecording equipment, or press passes … or ordering such person to stop photographing, recording, or observing a protest.”

State sues to block baseless arrests

In the second lawsuit, Oregon’s Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is suing on behalf of the state of Oregon to stop federal agents from detaining or arresting people without probable cause or a warrant, and to require the federal agents to identify themselves and their reason for an arrest or detention.

The suit says citizens rightly fear “being thrown into a van by anonymous agents,” which infringes on their First Amendment rights to protest. It also says citizens have Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights not to be snatched “off of the streets without probable cause” by unidentified officers in unmarked cars.

On Friday, Judge Mosman denied Rosenblum’s request to immediately bar such behavior by federal agents, saying that Rosenblum had not provided enough evidence to show federal agents were engaging in a pattern of unlawful detentions and finding the state did not have standing to seek the temporary order.

As the parties prepare their next moves in this case, governors throughout the country will likely be watching to see whether Judge Mosman recognizes a state’s interest in local police matters and its standing to sue federal agencies to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Citizens sue to protect their own rights

The third case focuses on the 10th Amendment, which says that, except specific federal powers spelled out in the Constitution, all other powers are reserved to the states and its citizens.

Those bringing the suit, which include the First Unitarian Church of Portland, say federal law enforcement agencies are infringing on Oregon’s sovereign powers to police Oregon streets. They say the deployment of federal law enforcement officers in Portland infringes on the power of Oregon citizens to hold state and local police accountable.

The lawsuit also argues that the federal response violates the First Amendment rights of the First Unitarian Church of Portland, whose religious practice includes activism and protest in the face of injustice.

While the lawsuit acknowledges that the federal government has a right to protect its property and personnel, it claims that “defendants have far exceeded these constitutional limitations” while policing in Portland.

What happens next in this case depends in part on whether the plaintiffs ask for an immediate order requiring the federal agencies to leave local policing to state and local law enforcement.

Medics sue to stop “targeting and attacking”

Several street medics who tended to injured protesters sued the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Marshals Service and the city of Portland, saying that “police and federal agents brutally attacked volunteer medics with rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, batons and flash-bangs.”

The suit claims the attacks violate the medics’ First and Fourth Amendment rights and seeks damages for injuries to the medics. On Friday, the medics also asked the court for an order stopping law enforcement from further targeting and attacking medics. The court will likely rule on this request in the coming week.

Federal overreach threatens police accountability

The theme of urban violence used by Trump plays on white fears of Black people and those living in extreme poverty.

Trump uses coded racist language to paint a picture of cities “plagued by violent crime,” “heinous crimes” and “bloodshed.” He claims that local leaders have abdicated their duty to protect citizens, requiring the federal government to step in.

The nation was founded on the principle that freedom is safeguarded by two governments, a federal government with specific, limited powers, and state governments with all other powers.

The Constitution reserves to the states an expansive power to police because that allows for law enforcement policies that reflect local circumstances and customs, and are responsive to the concerns of local citizens — which is exactly what Black Lives Matter and other protesters are now demanding in Portland and throughout the country.

Sarah J. Adams-Schoen, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Oregon

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

Even if Joe Biden wins in a blowout, the “global economy” is not coming back

COVID-19 has not only presented the global economy with its greatest public health challenge in over a century, but also likely killed off the notion of America’s “unipolar moment” for good. That doesn’t mean full-on autarky or isolationism but, rather, enlightened selfishness, which allows for some limited cooperation. Donald Trump’s ongoing threats to impose additional tariffs on a range of EU exports are exacerbating this trend as the old post-World War II ties between the two regions continue to fray. Even the possibility of a Biden administration is unlikely to presage a reversion to the status quo ante. Regionalization and multipolarity will be the order of the day going forward.

Many will regard these developments as chiefly driven by geopolitical prerogatives. But over time, the driving engine of the process will be a combination of maturing technologies that are rewriting the laws of profitability in manufacturing and production for advanced economies. The various capacities that enabled a far-flung global supply chain and sent the economies of Asia into hyperdrive over the past 40 years have continued to mature. The rise of China, South Korea and Japan in this period is just a phase of a larger series of advances that are now likely to become more distributed and at the same time reshuffle the geopolitical trend lines we currently experience.

The reshuffling is coming in large part because America’s historic military dominance has less relevance in a world where the new forms of competition place greater weight on access to advanced research and technologies, rather than the projection of brute military force (especially given the increasing proliferation of nuclear technologies and the rise of asymmetric warfare). Furthermore, the lack of American manufacturing capacity has left it open to a significant loss of influence to the benefit of other regions, notably China (in Asia), and Germany (in the European Union).

China in particular will likely remain both a geopolitical and economic rival to the United States for the foreseeable future, especially as it already supersedes the United States in some areas of technology (such as 5G), and is increasingly becoming the locus of economic activity in Asia. As yet, Asia is by no means a cohesive economic or strategic bloc (such as the European Union), especially given the ongoing American influence in countries such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. But longer term, it is hard to believe that an independent democratic Japan would embrace a foreign policy stance that risks antagonizing a country of almost 1.4 billion people with nukes. According to some projections, by 2050 Japan will likely constitute about one-eighth of China’s GDP, South Korea much less. On the basis of that size disparity, strategic triangulation is a non-starter. Japan will no more be able to “balance” China than Canada today can “contain” the United States. It is likewise difficult to envisage Seoul continuing to have its own relations with the North being continuously subject to the vagaries of Pentagon politics in D.C. Heightening instability on the Korean peninsula is hardly in the long-term interests of either Seoul or Pyongyang.

By the same token, the idea of a broad but shallow trilateral United States-EU-Japan bloc against China is also a fantasy because the European Union, like Japan, increasingly finds its own interests clashing with those of the U.S. These tensions have manifested themselves fully in the current dispute over Huawei, China’s largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer. The Europeans, especially Germany, may well be too invested in China to side with the United States in this particular dispute given its strong pre-existing commercial ties with the former, as Wolfgang Munchau’s Eurointelligence highlights:

“China is Germany’s biggest trading partner. Merkel continues to seek dialogue with China and insisted that ties with the country are of strategic importance to the EU. If this can be called a strategy it is clearly motivated by economic interests. These days, German car makers are dependent on the Chinese market, where record sales in Q2 compensated for the fallout from the pandemic in other markets, the FAZ reports.”

This also applies in the specific case of Huawei, where the U.S. is spearheading an attempt to limit the Chinese company’s global reach on national security grounds. Berlin in particular is seeking to balance the tensions of preserving an increasingly fraying relationship with the U.S. versus safeguarding emerging German commercial interests in China. The Merkel government is expected to make a definitive decision on Huawei by the autumn when the German parliament reconvenes; this will have significant implications for Europe as a whole, as an increasing number of EU member states are moving away from the firm’s 5G wares.

German political opinion remains sharply divided on the issue of Huawei. The decision is also complicated by the fact that “Deutsche Telekom, a 32%-state-owned company, is the country’s largest mobile provider and already relies heavily on Huawei equipment. It has lobbied strongly against any action that would make it harder for it to roll out 5G,” according to the Economist. If the Berlin government fails to follow the lead of the United Kingdom (which recently reversed an earlier decision to incorporate Huawei equipment in its growing 5G infrastructure), it will send a very powerful political signal in terms of how Germany prioritizes its long-term interests, which are no longer axiomatically tied to the U.S.

However Germany decides on Huawei, Atlanticism as a concept is largely dead in Europe. Even before the onset of the pandemic, for example, Italy had already become the first European country to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in response to ongoing economic stagnation. COVID-19 has, if anything, accelerated this Sinification of the Italian economy, given the ham-handed response of Brussels to the country’s plight (and which is still governed by old prevailing austerity biases). Although the tangible economic benefits of the BRI have likely been overstated, Rome-based journalist Eric Reguly has written:

“The Italian government rolled out the welcome mat to Chinese President Xi Jinping in part because it is desperate for foreign investment. Italy suffers from crushing youth unemployment and never fully recovered from the 2008 financial crisis. It felt it was more or less abandoned by the U.S. and the rest of the EU on the investment front. The anti-EU sentiment among Italians rose during the migrant crisis, when other countries of the bloc refused to relieve Italy’s migrant burden, and rose again earlier this year, when Brussels ignored Italy’s initial pleas for help to fight COVID-19.”

It is important to note that Huawei is but a symptom of a broader EU disengagement from the U.S. Even if Huawei’s role in Europe’s future 5G networks is minimized, the big winners will be European companies, Nokia and Ericsson, not American ones. The 5G deficiency is but one illustration of how America’s failure to prioritize a robust manufacturing sector has contributed to a loss of influence and leverage in Europe.

That in turn explains the relatively tepid response to American pressure in many European capitals. Many EU member states have made the calculation that their interests are no longer inextricably tied to those of the U.S. One also sees this in response to American threats over new Russian natural gas pipelines, which the EU is largely ignoring. Europe has outgrown the suffocating embrace of Cold War exigencies.

The one outlier might well be the United Kingdom in its post-Brexit incarnation. Via the Five Eyes intelligence coordination among the U.S., the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, it is possible that there will be a further tightening of the Anglosphere countries. Their current convergence on Huawei is one illustration of this, although Huawei’s Chief Digital Officer, Michael MacDonald, concedes that the battle over 5G dominance is small fry compared to “the total Digital Economy, which is generally accepted to contribute as much as 25% of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) by 2025-26, [and] will be worth approximately $20 trillion, with 5G contributing just 0.2%.” And here the U.S. has everything to play for, given its ongoing dominance through American Big Tech behemoths such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google.

As far as the U.S. itself goes, that also means a narrow but deep North America strategy (United States/Mexico/Canada), especially given the American government’s increasing proclivity to view economic warfare through the prism of national security considerations (as it did during the original Cold War). Those national security calculations have changed somewhat: In a reversal of old Cold War norms, whereby the strategic importance of Japan via America’s offshore naval presence was paramount, Mexico is now being prioritized, at least in regard to manufacturing and investment flows via the new North American trade agreement. As U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer writes in Foreign Affairs, the newly reconfigured United States-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement reinforces this trend by “overhaul[ing] the ‘rules of origin‘ that govern trade in the… [automobile] sector,” increasing the threshold from 62.5 percent under the old NAFTA to 75 percent under the new USMCA.

These concerns are becoming bipartisan, as both parties are now tacking increasingly toward an overt form of economic nationalism.

Multipolarity need not usher in a Hobbesian-style world of eternal conflict. But as it becomes more of a reality, it signals the increasing eclipse of America as a preeminent superpower of one. Asia’s rise in particular simply returns the distribution of economic activity to what it was before the first industrial revolution. That’s not a bad thing, except for those rooted toward an embrace of American hegemony that must be retained at all costs, peacefully or by war. If anything, one could argue that America’s status as the world’s sole global superpower ushered in considerably greater global instability, given the absence of any restraining counterweight, as Washington went from one unilateral war of choice to another. A Joe Biden victory in November may temporarily arrest these trends, but the die has been cast.

Sheriff threatens to ignore 911 calls over support for Black Lives Matter: “I wish you good luck”

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported on a shocking letter from a Nevada sheriff’s office on Tuesday — and upon investigation busted the department for plagiarism.

“A diversity statement that a local library district in Northern Nevada was set to discuss Tuesday drew a harsh rebuke from the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, which said in a letter that any endorsement of the Black Lives Matter movement would ‘support violence,'” the newspaper reported. “The diversity statement was on the agenda at a Douglas County Public Library Board of Trustees meeting before the session was canceled.”

The letter is available on the department’s website.

“Due to your support of Black Lives Matter and the obvious lack of support or trust with the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, please do not feel the need to call 911 for help,” Sheriff Daniel J. Coverley threatened. “I wish you good luck with disturbances and lewd behavior, since those are just some of the recent calls my office has assisted you with in the past.”

The newspaper investigated the provenance of the letter.

“The bulk of the letter from the Sheriff’s Office, which was signed by Sheriff Daniel Coverley, appears to be copied word for word from a letter dated June 22 that was sent to leaders in Congress,” the newspaper reported, linking to a letter sent by Republican attorneys general.

“Of the 28 sentences in the sheriff’s letter, 28 appear to be copied either word-for-word or partially from the June 22 letter,” the newspaper reported.

Read the full report.

Trump storms out of press briefing after CNN reporter questions his promotion of quack doctor

President Donald Trump abruptly ended his press briefing on Tuesday when CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins pressed him on his promotion of a quack doctor’s dangerous claims about COVID-19.

On Monday night, Trump shared a video of the doctor who falsely claimed hydroxychloroquine is a “cure” for COVID-19 and that it obviated the need to wear masks or undertake other mitigation measures during the pandemic. Some of her claims were clearly wrong on their face — it’s important to reduce the risk of catching diseases even if we have a cure for them — and top experts argue that the evidence continues to give little indication that hydroxychloroquine is effective against the virus. The video Trump shared was so dangerously wrong that social media platforms began removing it.

Subsequent reporting revealed that the doctor in the video is a complete quack — she has previously promoted claims about alien DNA and demon sperm.

“The woman that you said is a ‘great doctor’ in that video that you retweeted last night said that masks don’t work and there’s a cure for COVID-19, both of which experts say is not true,” Collins told Trump during the evening briefing. “She’s also made videos saying that doctors make medicine using DNA from aliens and that they’re trying to make a vaccine to make you immune from becoming religious. So, what’s the logic in retweeting that?”

Trump shook his head and looked down.

“I can tell you this,” he said. “She was on air with many other doctors. They were big fans of hydroxychloroquine. And I thought she was very impressive in the sense that where she came — I don’t know what country she comes from — but she’s said that she’s had tremendous success with hundreds of different patients. And I thought her voice was an important voice, but I know nothing about her.”

Trump tried to move on to another reporter, but Collins had a follow-up. As she tried to cut in, he clearly grew annoyed. He decided to give up on getting a question from another reporter, said only, ‘Thank you very much, everybody,” and quickly left the room.

Watch the exchange below:

“This scheme is illegal”: Trump campaign masked $170 million in payments, watchdog alleges

A nonprofit transparency watchdog filed a complaint Tuesday with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) accusing President Donald Trump’s campaign and joint fundraising committee of laundering nearly $170 million through firms belonging to former campaign manager Brad Parscale and campaign lawyers.

The complaint accuses the Trump campaign of diverting money through two companies, American Made Media and Parscale Strategy, in order to hide the destinations for millions of dollars in payments. Parscale, who has been accused of “milking” Trump “like a cow,” was demoted earlier this month amid flagging poll numbers and several unforced errors.

The campaign allegedly used the same scheme to cover up previously reported payments to Trump family members and associates such as Lara Trump and Kimberly Guilfoyle — both of whom work for the campaign.

“This scheme is illegal,” Brendan Fischer, Director of the CLC Federal Reform Program, told Salon.

The names of a number of campaign vendors identified in previous reporting do not appear in the campaign’s FEC filings. Instead, it appears that the campaign reports its payments to American Made Media, a company created by Trump campaign officials, which then moves the funds to third-party vendors, according to the complaint.

For instance, reports indicate that the Trump campaign contracted with Realtime Media and Opn Sesame. Both are headed by Gary Coby, the campaign’s digital director. However, neither firm appears in the campaign’s filings.

The CLC also claims that it uncovered Federal Communications Commission records showing that Trump campaign ads are placed by Harris Sikes Media, but the campaign has not reported any payments to the firm during this election cycle.

While it is not unusual for campaigns to omit some third-party vendor payments — such as a media company subcontracting a videographer — Fischer called these instances “a well-orchestrated scheme designed to undermine laws and transparency requirements.”

“Trump took it to another level,” Fischer said. “Those recipients weren’t simply sub-vendors. They didn’t take directions from Parscale’s companies. They took directions directly from the Trump campaign. They worked for the Trump campaign, and the campaign tried to hide it.”

The Trump campaign also reports paying approximately $48,000 a month for “strategy consulting” to Parscale Strategy, the consulting firm founded by former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale. Multiple media reports say that Parscale Strategy itself is a conduit for salary payments to Lara Trump and Guilfoyle, though those salaries combined account for only $30,000 a month.

“The big problem is we can’t know how much was spent and where it was spent,” Fischer said. “For instance, the campaign could be covering up unlawful coordination with independent groups, such as super PACs and dark money organizations. It’s illegal to use common vendors, and we don’t know.”

“Or take the example of Cambridge Analytica from 2016,” he said. “We might not know whether the campaign is working with a potentially problematic digital operation.”

Fischer listed a number of other examples, such as additional payments to the Trump Organization or other Trump-linked entities.

“This campaign has a history of keeping certain transactions off the books,” he said, pointing to the hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels which landed former Trump “fixer” Michael Cohen behind bars. “What else isn’t being disclosed? We don’t know, and Trump’s donors don’t know how their money is being spent.”

However, the mystery won’t be solved any time soon. Fischer speculates that the FEC won’t be able to fully unravel all of the issues until 2022 or 2023.

“Complaints this complicated usually remain pending for two to three years,” he said.

Fox News judge calls out feds deployed by Trump for “inciting” violence in Portland

On Tuesday’s edition of Fox News’ “Your World with Neil Cavuto,” senior legal analyst Andrew Napolitano — a former judge and libertarian-leaning frequent critic of the Trump administration — laid into federal officials for “inciting” violence in Portland, Oregon.

Contrary to their mission of defending federal property, Napolitano argued, many of the agents were “nowhere near the courthouse disrupting freedom of speech” and that it is a problem “for them to go out stirring things up in the street.”

“It is an unorthodox way to express political opinions in the middle of the night in the area where nobody lives,” said Napolitano. “But political dissent is part of our heritage and our culture and it is how the country began . . . I do think they have incited more than what ordinarily would be the case primarily because of their continuous hour-long barrages of tear gas. It is a very serious form of tear gas.”

Napolitano has repeatedly sounded the alarm on the Trump administration’s use of federal officials to quell protests, last week warning that it is “unlawful, unconstitutional and harmful.”

In the face of public outrage, the administration is moving forward with plans to deploy more federal agents to cities around the country.

GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz files a criminal referral against Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg with William Barr

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., on Monday asked Attorney General William Barr to open a criminal investigation into Mark Zuckerberg over allegations that the Facebook CEO lied to Congress.

In a letter to Barr, Gaetz accused the social media executive of making false statements to Congress on two occasions in 2018. He alleged that Zuckerberg “repeatedly and categorically denied any bias against conservative speech, persons, policies or politics” on his platform.

“On both occasions, members of Congress asked Mr. Zuckerberg about allegations that Facebook censored and suppressed content supportive of President Donald Trump and other conservatives,” Gaetz wrote.

“Mr. Zuckerberg also dismissed the suggestion that Facebook exercises any form of editorial manipulation,” he added.

Zuckerberg made the remarks in 2018 under questioning from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., who accused Facebook of “bias and censorship.” Cruz cited a 2016 Gizmodo revealing allegations that the social media platform had knowingly suppressing conservative news. Zuckerberg responded:

I understand where that concern is coming from, because Facebook and the tech industry are located in Silicon Valley, which is an extremely left-leaning place. And this is actually a concern that I have, and that I try to root out in the company, is making sure that we don’t have any bias in the work that we do. And I think it is a fair concern that people would at least wonder about.

As evidence to support his claims, Gaetz directed Barr to a recent sting by Project Veritas, an organization known for its efforts to take down liberal organizations, mainstream media outlets and public figures through videos that have been criticized as inaccurate. In a statement, CEO James O’Keefe disputed the criticism, saying, “Not a single one of our videos has been proven to be deceptively edited or taken out of context.”

Project Veritas published hidden-camera footage of purported Facebook content moderators apparently admitting that they delete conservative posts.  Gaetz says the “whistleblowers” in the video offer “ample evidence” of the company’s “bias and manipulation.”

“According to the Veritas report and undercover footage, the adjudicators were outspoken about their political bias against Republicans and actively chose to eliminate otherwise-allowable content from the platform and from public view simply due to its political orientation,” Gaetz wrote.

“At the same time,” Gaetz added, “speech promoting violence against the president and his supporters was labeled as merely ‘political,’ and was thus allowed to stay on the platform.”

The Republican representative also claims, without citing evidence, that Facebook’s artificial intelligence content screening program is itself not politically neutral, which he alleges is a violation of the “good faith” provision of the Communications Decency Act.

Republicans — from internet trolls, up to lawmakers and President Donald Trump himself — regularly accuse Facebook and other social media platforms of anti-conservative bias.

However, Facebook launched its own project in the weeks after the 2016 election — “Project P,” for propaganda — which found dozens of pages peddling fake news ahead of Trump’s victory. Nearly all the pages were based overseas, had financial motives and “displayed a clear rightward bent,” according to the Washington Post.

Another reason why moderators may encounter a higher volume of flagged conservative content is because Facebook’s most popular content has become overwhelmingly conservative over time. “Facebook has become the home of right-wing America, while Twitter and Snap have become the home of the left,” Vanity Fair’s Nick Bilton reported earlier this year.

And while liberals have criticized Facebook for refusing to fact-check political ads — and even threatened to break up the social media platform — a number of leading conservatives have reportedly met in secret with Zuckerberg, including Tucker Carlson, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and on at least one occasion, Trump himself. Zuckerberg has not disclosed the content of those meetings.

Matt Gaetz did not respond to Salon’s request for comment. Facebook declined to comment.

Emmy nominations show efforts to be less white but still don’t get everything right

Long ago in a TV galaxy that feels far, far away, a few young sages observed, “When it’s time to change, you’ve got to rearrange who you are and what you’re gonna be.”

Maybe this goes some way in explaining the nominations for the 72nd Emmy Awards, a batch that continues the institution’s tradition of infuriating and bewildering people in some respects while delightfully surprising us in others.

This being the Emmys, the maddening elements prevailed Tuesday morning despite the praiseworthy choices reflecting Academy of Television Arts and Sciences voters’ efforts to move with the times. Regardless of how many selections reflected the body’s business as usual approach – “The Handmaid’s Tale” for Outstanding Drama again? Seriously? – the sheer overwhelm of streaming service content made some shifts inevitable.

For example, although HBO traditionally has a strong showing in terms of overall nominations, holding the record for totals in 2019 with 137, this year Netflix shattered that total with a whopping 160 nods.

HBO still boasts holding the top slot among most nominated series with its 26 nominations for “Watchmen,” with Amazon’s “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel,” a classic example of an Emmy voter rubber-stamp selection, coming in second with 20.

Even so, this is also a year in which a “Star Wars” property claimed a spot in the running for Outstanding Drama alongside more traditional choices including HBO’s “Succession,” AMC’s “Better Call Saul” and Netflix’s “The Crown.” The Disney+ space western “The Mandalorian” battled its way into those ranks while titles that otherwise might have been considered shoo-ins such as “This Is Us” and the Apple TV+ sleeper hit “The Morning Show” were denied entry.

Tuesday morning’s announcements were hosted by a very animated Leslie Jones, with category nominations presented Laverne Cox, Tatiana Maslany, and Josh Gad beaming in from other socially distant locales.

Alongside “Maisel” in the Best Comedy category are HBO’s “Insecure,” whose creator and star Issa Rae and co-star Yvonne Orji received individual acting nominations, and to the delight of its many fans, “Schitt’s Creek” raked in 15 nominations, including nominations for each of its principal cast members, including fan favorite Catherine O’Hara.

Not even that managed to be the category’s dark horse. That honor goes to the nomination for FX’s sheltering-in-place vampire comedy “What We Do In the Shadows.”

The nomination for “Watchmen” is merely one exciting choice out of many in the best Limited Series category, possibly the race vibrating with the highest level of excitement of all the programs owing to the caliber of that drama’s competition: it’s going up against Hulu’s “Little Fires Everywhere“; Netflix’s “Unbelievable” and “Unorthodox,” another Tuesday morning shocker (as is the nomination for “Unorthodox” star Shira Haas); and FX’s “Mrs. America.”

The flipside of this is the criminal failure to nominate “Unbelievable” stars Merritt Wever and Kaitlyn Dever for their moving performances, lending a bitter irony to the show’s title. But as always, these snubs place the actors in fine quality company alongside the likes of “Better Call Saul” stars Bob Odenkirk, Rhea Seehorn, and Jonathan Banks, none of whom were nominated despite the Best Drama nod for the series.

Emmy voters once again – again! – left FX’s “Better Things” out of the top comedy category and passed over its creator Pamela Adlon for directing and individual performance. Or it did the opposite, nominating “Ramy” creator and star Ramy Youssef for Best Actor in a Comedy Series while passing over the series for Outstanding Comedy. Meanwhile, Netflix’s “The Kominsky Method” gained nods in that category as well as tapping series stars Michael Douglas and Alan Arkin for the Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor.

And while Emmy voters showed their willingness to roll with the publicly declared intention to enact change within the industry, one could almost hear the award creak of the voting body’s changing voice as it struggled to hit the right notes, and the screech of failing nevertheless to be in tune with the public (and, good Lord, census trends) even as TV academy voters met some hopes and aspirations while missing others. Here are a trio of missed opportunities worth pondering.

The evident struggle to adequately grapple with inclusion

This year Emmy nominations voting took place July 2-13 –  weeks after the murder of George Floyd ignited protests around the world and launched the Black Lives Matter movement into the mainstream.

Between this and Donald Trump’s original plan to host a rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the site of the 1921 massacre where that city’s white citizens murdered hundreds of Black people and displaced thousands in the burning of Black Wall Street – and the event that opened “Watchmen” – suddenly there was renewed interest in Damon Lindelof’s take on Alan Moore’s and and Dave Gibbons’ seminal graphic novel.

That series’ 26 nominations-strong show is only part of a nominations roster that includes extensive acknowledgment of Black actors and creators, including but not limited to Don Cheadle for Showtime’s “Black Monday,” Tracee Ellis Ross and Anthony Anderson for “Black-ish,” Kerry Washington in “Little Fires Everywhere,” Sterling K. Brown for “This Is Us,” Thandie Newton for “Westworld,” Uzo Aduba for “Mrs. America” and in a surprise that shocked and delighted countless viewers, but nominations announcer Leslie Jones most of all, Zendaya for “Euphoria.” Giancarlo Esposito‘s “Better Call Saul” co-stars may have been denied nods, but he received two nominations for that show and for his guest star turn in “The Mandalorian.”

To anyone rooting for everybody Black, this may feels like a coup. Look at the representations of Asian actors on this list, and you’ve got Sandra Oh in the running for Best Actress and . . . um . . . yeah. How about Latinx representation? Well, in a year in which voters could choose from performances on “Vida,” a variety of moving work on the finale season of “Orange Is the New Black” and had the opportunity to give Rita Moreno props for her work on “One Day at a Time,” the sole Latina to make the nominations list is . . . Alexis Bledel from “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

Laverne Cox earned a nomination for her work in the last “OITNB” season which is wonderful. However, it is aggravating that voters didn’t see fit to honor the work of MJ Rodriguez or Indya Moore in “Pose,” which turned out its most poignant season yet.

The bizarre over-populating of some categories at the expense of others

We’re all trying to figure out what it means to live in an era of Too Much Television, and it’s clear that Emmy is doing its best to accommodate the swell of more and better TV and performances in the major categories.

Having said that, if an awards body is going to have eight slots for individual performers in the Drama and Comedy categories, it makes little to no sense to limit the actor and actress races in Limited Series to five, particularly in an era where that format is gaining in popularity and improving in quality. The same is true for Variety Sketch, which fortunately acknowledges the superior freshness of “A Black Lady Sketch Show,” which joins frequent winner “Saturday Night Live” and “Drunk History” in that race, and which easily could have accommodated IFC’s “Sherman’s Showcase” and “The Iliza Shlesinger Sketch Show.” Alas, for some reason, there can only be three here. (May the odds be ever in “A Black Lady Sketch Show“‘s favor.)

The stubborn sameness of Emmy’s nomination choices

I’ll grant you, Emmy has been much, much worse in terms of rounding up the usual suspects year after year, and I would even say that some of this year’s “snubs” evince the body’s middling efforts to look further afield to uplift selections to which in past years it would have been blind. Elisabeth Moss didn’t get a Best Actress nomination for “Handmaid’s,” and I’m fine with that. “RuPaul’s Drag Race” received 10 nominations, which I’m also fine with because two very deserving reality series, “Top Chef” and “Nailed It,” also have a presence in the reality category.

HGTV’s “A Very Brady Renovation” received an Unstructured Reality nod, because nostalgia is a gentle drug. “Tiger King” got six nominations, tying it with “Cheer.” Somehow bite-sized streaming service Quibi woke up Tuesday morning to 10 nominations. Make of that what you will.

Zendaya’s nod is a terrific example of this and an even more inspired choice than “The Mandalorian” which, though a pleasant surprise feels somewhat more expected in a post-“Game of Thrones” universe.

Even so, looking at the Variety Talk category I can’t help wondering if voters have ever watched Showtime’s “Desus & Mero” or truly appreciate how much better “Late Night with Seth Meyers” is than, oh let’s just say it, “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”

Kimmel is hosting this year’s Emmy awards telecast but that shouldn’t factor into the nominations process and in full honesty, I like his series. But he’s a frequent flyer here, and Meyers is taking on topical humor with similar verve to what fellow nominees Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee, John Oliver and Stephen Colbert are dishing out. His and Desus and Mero’s absence here are a major source of frustration.

Emmy, like America, is going through its awkward phase of figuring out how to let go of past tendencies to fight the tide and moving into the future instead. These nominations may have been a mixed bag, but at least there were a few interesting choices serving as counterweights to the usual irritations. A more accurate reading of how serious voters are about acknowledging the cultural shifts that are upon us and the true greatness of the medium won’t be available for a couple of more months – more than enough time for minds to change and possibly revert to old habits.

The 72nd Primetime Emmy Awards will be telecast Sunday, Sept. 20 on ABC. For For more, check out Salon’s full list of Emmy nominees.

Paul Krugman: GOP’s “cult of selfishness” informed its destructive response to coronavirus pandemic

Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore has reported a COVID-19 death count of more than 148,000 for the United States, which has become the world’s coronavirus hotspot. Liberal economist Paul Krugman, in his New York Times column, argues that the United States’ high number of coronavirus-related deaths and infections underscores the failures of President Donald Trump and the Republican Party. But Krugman also stresses that the problem goes way beyond Trump’s ineptness and exemplifies “America’s cult of selfishness.”

“Premature reopening led to a surge in infections: adjusted for population, Americans are currently dying from COVID-19 at around 15 times the rate in the European Union or Canada,” Krugman laments. “Yet the ‘rocket ship’ recovery Donald Trump promised has crashed and burned: job growth appears to have stalled or reversed, especially in states that were most aggressive about lifting social distancing mandates, and early indications are that the U.S. economy is lagging behind the economies of major European nations.”

Krugman notes that “Trump and allies were so eager to see big jobs numbers that they ignored both infection risks and the way a resurgent pandemic would undermine the economy.” But he goes on to say that “there’s a deeper explanation of the profoundly self-destructive behavior of Trump and his allies: they were all members of America’s cult of selfishness.”

The economist explains, “You see, the modern U.S. right is committed to the proposition that greed is good, that we’re all better off when individuals engage in the untrammeled pursuit of self-interest. In their vision, unrestricted profit maximization by businesses and unregulated consumer choice is the recipe for a good society.”

Republicans who are consumed with selfishness, according to Krugman, have a hard time looking at the big picture.

“I’ve long been struck by the intensity of right-wing anger against relatively trivial regulations, like bans on phosphates in detergent and efficiency standards for lightbulbs,” Krugman writes. “It’s the principle of the thing: many on the right are enraged at any suggestion that their actions should take other people’s welfare into account.”

According to Krugman, far-right Republicans equate irresponsibility with “freedom.”

“This rage is sometimes portrayed as love of freedom,” Krugman observes. “But people who insist on the right to pollute are notably unbothered by, say, federal agents teargassing peaceful protesters. What they call ‘freedom’ is actually absence of responsibility.”

Krugman concludes his column by warning that during the coronavirus pandemic, Republicans have “sacralized selfishness” with deadly results.

“What the coronavirus has revealed is the power of America’s cult of selfishness,” Krugman argues. “And this cult is killing us.”