thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-30--Trump Lawyer Says Fired Cybersecurity Chief Should Be 'Shot' For Defending Election

President Donald Trump ’ s campaign lawyer Joseph diGenova suggested Monday that Chris Krebs , the former chief of U.S. cybersecurity , should be executed for defending the integrity of the Nov. 3 election .
“ Anybody who thinks the election went well , like that idiot Krebs who used to be the head of cybersecurity , that guy is a class A moron .
He should be drawn and quartered .
Taken out at dawn and shot , ” diGenova said in a call-in interview to “ The Howie Carr Show , ” which was broadcast on the radio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was fired by the president earlier this month after the Department of Homeland Security office he led , the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency , said publicly that it had found no evidence of votes being deleted , lost , changed or compromised in the 2020 election ― contradicing Trump ’ s baseless claims of rampant fraud .
Krebs , a lifelong Republican , stood by his position during a “ 60 Minutes ” interview on Sunday night , saying that those ongoing allegations are “ dangerous ” and “ nonsense ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confidence ” in the security of the election .
“ We can go on and on with all the farcical claims alleging interference in the 2020 election , but the proof is in the ballots , ” Krebs said Sunday .
“ The recounts are consistent with the initial count , and to me that ’ s further evidence , that ’ s confirmation that the systems used in the 2020 election performed as expected.
” “ The way I look at is that we ’ re a nation of laws and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Krebs told NBC ’ s “ Today.
” “ I ’ ve got an exceptional team of lawyers that win in court and I think that they ’ re probably going to be busy.
” Asked if he was concerned for his safety , Krebs said he wouldn ’ t give his harassers “ the benefit of knowing how I ’ m reacting to this.
” DiGenova , his host Carr and the right-wing network they appeared on all have a history of parroting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that often benefit Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disturbing call for violence with a few chuckles before moving on .
The reckless comments against the former public official come as the president himself continues to lash out at Krebs and other members of his own party who have publicly disputed his claims of widespread election fraud .
Some officials have reported receiving threats of violence against themselves and their family members .
Last month , another member of Trump ’ s inner circle , former White House strategist Steve Bannon , casually called for violence against public officials who disagreed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like to see infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI Director Christopher Wray beheaded as a “ warning to federal bureaucrats .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump’s campaign lawyer Joseph diGenova suggested Monday that Chris Krebs, the former chief of U.S. cybersecurity, should be executed for defending the integrity of the Nov. 3 election.
“Anybody who thinks the election went well, like that idiot Krebs who used to be the head of cybersecurity, that guy is a class A moron. He should be drawn and quartered. Taken out at dawn and shot,” diGenova said in a call-in interview to “The Howie Carr Show,” which was broadcast on the radio, Newsmax and online streams.
Advertisement
Krebs was fired by the president earlier this month after the Department of Homeland Security office he led, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said publicly that it had found no evidence of votes being deleted, lost, changed or compromised in the 2020 election ― contradicing Trump’s baseless claims of rampant fraud.
Krebs, a lifelong Republican, stood by his position during a “60 Minutes” interview on Sunday night, saying that those ongoing allegations are “dangerous” and “nonsense” and that Americans should have “100% confidence” in the security of the election.
“We can go on and on with all the farcical claims alleging interference in the 2020 election, but the proof is in the ballots,” Krebs said Sunday. “The recounts are consistent with the initial count, and to me that’s further evidence, that’s confirmation that the systems used in the 2020 election performed as expected.”
Joseph diGenova, attorney for President Donald Trump's campaign, at a Nov. 19 press conference where Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell peddled conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. Tom Williams via Getty Images
Advertisement
Krebs said Tuesday that he’s considering legal action against people lobbing death threats at him.
“The way I look at is that we’re a nation of laws and I plan to take advantage of those laws,” Krebs told NBC’s “Today.” “I’ve got an exceptional team of lawyers that win in court and I think that they’re probably going to be busy.”
He added that his legal team is reviewing “all our available opportunities.”
Asked if he was concerned for his safety, Krebs said he wouldn’t give his harassers “the benefit of knowing how I’m reacting to this.”
“They can know that there are things coming though,” he said.
Are you worried about your safety? @SavannahGuthrie asks Christopher Krebs, the ousted cybersecurity official who has received death threats pic.twitter.com/O2nctDi8xm — TODAY (@TODAYshow) December 1, 2020
DiGenova, his host Carr and the right-wing network they appeared on all have a history of parroting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that often benefit Trump. Carr responded to diGenova’s disturbing call for violence with a few chuckles before moving on.
The reckless comments against the former public official come as the president himself continues to lash out at Krebs and other members of his own party who have publicly disputed his claims of widespread election fraud. Some officials have reported receiving threats of violence against themselves and their family members.
Advertisement
Last month, another member of Trump’s inner circle, former White House strategist Steve Bannon, casually called for violence against public officials who disagreed with the president. He said he would like to see infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI Director Christopher Wray beheaded as a “warning to federal bureaucrats.”
DiGenova and other members of the Trump legal team have failed to make any headway in their efforts to overturn the election results in key battleground states.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-30--Sean Hannity Says Trump 'Needs To Pardon' Himself And His 'Whole Family'

President Donald Trump “ needs to pardon his whole family and himself ” as he walks “ out the door ” of the White House , Fox News host Sean Hannity said on his radio show Monday .
“ I assume that the power of the pardon is absolute and that he should be able to pardon anybody that he wants to , ” Hannity declared as he interviewed fringe lawyer Sidney Powell .
Powell was bounced from Trump ’ s election legal team earlier this month after spouting bizarre conspiracy theories claiming that Venezuela , Cuba , “ antifa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foundation and the deceased Hugo Chávez , among others , were responsible for shifting November ’ s presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden .
Hannity did not specify what criminal charges Trump or his family could face .
He insisted Trump needs to pardon himself and his family to protect him from unspecified “ witch hunts.
” Powell told Hannity that she didn ’ t know the details of Trump ’ s “ authority to pardon himself.
” But she insisted it wouldn ’ t be unnecessary because “ the president is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” — despite losing to President-elect Biden .
Generally , someone granted a pardon has been convicted of a federal crime and has shown remorse or made reparations .
Pardons typically are granted after an application is presented five years after a conviction or release from prison and is approved by the Department of Justice ’ s pardon attorney .
A president has never pardoned himself .
In 1974 , former President Richard Nixon was pardoned after his resignation by his successor , Gerald Ford .
Trump last week pardoned his former national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represented by Powell , after Flynn had pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about secret calls with Kremlin officials as Trump was coming into office .
Flynn was granted a “ full and unconditional pardon ” from “ any and all possible offenses ” arising out of the investigation into possible Kremlin collusion by former special counsel Robert Mueller .
Trump pardoned Flynn after the Department of Justice failed to get his case thrown out in court .
General Michael Flynn , the 33 year war hero who has served @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good lawyer , he has retained a GREAT LAWYER , Sidney Powell .
Best Wishes and Good Luck to them both !
— Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) June 13 , 2019

President Donald Trump “needs to pardon his whole family and himself” as he walks “out the door” of the White House, Fox News host Sean Hannity said on his radio show Monday.
“I assume that the power of the pardon is absolute and that he should be able to pardon anybody that he wants to,” Hannity declared as he interviewed fringe lawyer Sidney Powell.
Advertisement
Powell was bounced from Trump’s election legal team earlier this month after spouting bizarre conspiracy theories claiming that Venezuela, Cuba, “antifa,” George Soros, the Clinton Foundation and the deceased Hugo Chávez, among others, were responsible for shifting November’s presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden.
Hannity did not specify what criminal charges Trump or his family could face.
He insisted Trump needs to pardon himself and his family to protect him from unspecified “witch hunts.”
Powell told Hannity that she didn’t know the details of Trump’s “authority to pardon himself.” But she insisted it wouldn’t be unnecessary because “the president is going to get another four years in office” — despite losing to President-elect Biden.
Generally, someone granted a pardon has been convicted of a federal crime and has shown remorse or made reparations. Pardons typically are granted after an application is presented five years after a conviction or release from prison and is approved by the Department of Justice’s pardon attorney.
Advertisement
A president has never pardoned himself. In 1974, former President Richard Nixon was pardoned after his resignation by his successor, Gerald Ford.
Trump last week pardoned his former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was represented by Powell, after Flynn had pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about secret calls with Kremlin officials as Trump was coming into office.
Flynn was granted a “full and unconditional pardon” from “any and all possible offenses” arising out of the investigation into possible Kremlin collusion by former special counsel Robert Mueller. Trump pardoned Flynn after the Department of Justice failed to get his case thrown out in court.
General Michael Flynn, the 33 year war hero who has served with distinction, has not retained a good lawyer, he has retained a GREAT LAWYER, Sidney Powell. Best Wishes and Good Luck to them both! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 13, 2019


thehuffingtonpost--2020-12-01--CNN's Brianna Keilar Has A Mocking New Nickname For Fox News

The “ Newsroom ” anchor slammed the widely watched conservative network for allowing President Donald Trump to spew wild conspiracy @ @ @ @ @ host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday .
Bartiromo , an ardent Trump supporter , failed to @ @ @ @ @ false claim that the election was stolen by President-elect Joe Biden .

By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-12-01--Scott Atlas Resigns After Whispering Controversial COVID-19 Advice Into Trump’s Ear

Dr. Scott Atlas , a controversial pandemic adviser to President Donald Trump who was lambasted for supporting the idea of herd immunity to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic , resigned from his role on Monday .
“ I worked hard with a singular focus — to save lives and help Americans through this pandemic , ” Atlas , a neuroradiology professor , said in his resignation letter , adding that he “ always relied on the latest science and evidence.
” He was serving a 130-day detail as a special government employee , and his term was set to expire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported by Fox News .
Atlas had no infection disease background and had not worked in public health , and both The New York Times and The Washington Post reported he had become disliked throughout the White House in recent weeks , although he remained a favored adviser to Trump .
“ He has many great ideas , ” the president said in August , according to the Times .
“ And he thinks what we ’ ve done is really good , and now we ’ ll take it to a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House to embrace the controversial herd immunity strategy sparked deep worry among public health experts , who warned the approach could lead to hundreds of thousands or even millions of additional deaths .
During his advisory tenure , Atlas also argued against some mask wearing , saying the science behind face coverings is uncertain , despite recommendations from the nation ’ s top public health experts and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
( Trump himself has regularly attacked masks and often refused to wear them , even after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waning days of his reelection campaign ) .
Atlas also urged schools to reopen , saying fear about doing so was “ hysterical.
” CDC Director , Robert Redfield reportedly told a colleague that everything Atlas said was “ false.
” His departure was not unexpected , although Trump could have extended the special role if he wanted .
The Post added that Atlas had not been seen at the White House in recent weeks and had been absent from coronavirus task force meetings .
The country is now entering a bleak new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 267,000 Americans have died .
Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s top infectious disease expert , warned Sunday that the U.S. would likely see skyrocketing case numbers during the holiday season after an initial burst of travel for the Thanksgiving holiday .
“ We may see a surge upon a surge .
We don ’ t want to frighten people , but that ’ s just the reality , ” Fauci said .
“ We said that these things would happen as we got into the cold weather and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve happened .
It ’ s going to happen again.
” In his resignation letter , Atlas heaped praise on Trump ’ s response to the COVID-19 pandemic , citing the president ’ s support of Operation Warp Speed in the development of a potential vaccine .
“ I congratulate you for your vision , and also congratulate the many who did exemplary work — we know who they are , even though their names are not those familiar to the public .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Dr. Scott Atlas, a controversial pandemic adviser to President Donald Trump who was lambasted for supporting the idea of herd immunity to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, resigned from his role on Monday.
“I worked hard with a singular focus — to save lives and help Americans through this pandemic,” Atlas, a neuroradiology professor, said in his resignation letter, adding that he “always relied on the latest science and evidence.”
Advertisement
He was serving a 130-day detail as a special government employee, and his term was set to expire this week. His resignation was first reported by Fox News.
Honored to have served @realDonaldTrump and the American people during these difficult times. pic.twitter.com/xT1hRoYBMh — Scott W. Atlas (@ScottWAtlas) December 1, 2020
Atlas had no infection disease background and had not worked in public health, and both The New York Times and The Washington Post reported he had become disliked throughout the White House in recent weeks, although he remained a favored adviser to Trump.
“He has many great ideas,” the president said in August, according to the Times. “And he thinks what we’ve done is really good, and now we’ll take it to a new level.”
Advertisement
Reports that Atlas had urged the White House to embrace the controversial herd immunity strategy sparked deep worry among public health experts, who warned the approach could lead to hundreds of thousands or even millions of additional deaths.
During his advisory tenure, Atlas also argued against some mask wearing, saying the science behind face coverings is uncertain, despite recommendations from the nation’s top public health experts and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Trump himself has regularly attacked masks and often refused to wear them, even after he tested positive for COVID-19 in the waning days of his reelection campaign). Atlas also urged schools to reopen, saying fear about doing so was “hysterical.” CDC Director, Robert Redfield reportedly told a colleague that everything Atlas said was “false.”
Stanford's top medical scientists Ioannidis, Bhattacharya endorse... Protect the high-risk; open schools, society. Alternative? Confine healthy people, restrict business, close schools...kills people, destroys families, sacrifices kids. #RationalThinking https://t.co/4aszfaNXzu — Scott W. Atlas (@ScottWAtlas) October 16, 2020
His departure was not unexpected, although Trump could have extended the special role if he wanted. The Post added that Atlas had not been seen at the White House in recent weeks and had been absent from coronavirus task force meetings.
The country is now entering a bleak new phase of the pandemic, even after more than 267,000 Americans have died. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, warned Sunday that the U.S. would likely see skyrocketing case numbers during the holiday season after an initial burst of travel for the Thanksgiving holiday.
Advertisement
“We may see a surge upon a surge. We don’t want to frighten people, but that’s just the reality,” Fauci said. “We said that these things would happen as we got into the cold weather and as we began traveling, and they’ve happened. It’s going to happen again.”
In his resignation letter, Atlas heaped praise on Trump’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, citing the president’s support of Operation Warp Speed in the development of a potential vaccine.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-12-01--Conservative Magazine Slams Donald Trump’s ‘Most Reprehensible’ Postelection Tactic

The editors of the conservative magazine National Review rebuked Donald Trump ’ s “ disgraceful conduct ” following the 2020 election , slamming the president ’ s “ petulant refusal ” to accept defeat against President-elect Joe Biden .
In a column published Monday , the editors noted how “ almost nothing that the Trump team has alleged ” to overturn the election results “ has withstood the slightest scrutiny.
” “ Flawed and dishonest assertions like this pollute the public discourse and mislead good people who make the mistake of believing things said by the president of the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which last week described Trump ’ s refusal to concede as a “ bid for infamy.
” The editorial also poured cold water on Trump ’ s reported belief that the Supreme Court will “ issue a game-changing ruling ” on the vote in his favor , calling it “ fantastical.
” “ Trump ’ s most reprehensible tactic , ” the magazine said , was “ to attempt , somewhat shamefacedly , to get local Republican officials to block the certification of votes and state legislatures to appoint Trump electors in clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This has gone nowhere , thanks to the honesty and sense of duty of most of the Republicans involved , but it ’ s a profoundly undemocratic move that we hope no losing presidential candidate ever even thinks of again , ” the editorial read .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The editors of the conservative magazine National Review rebuked Donald Trump’s “disgraceful conduct” following the 2020 election, slamming the president’s “petulant refusal” to accept defeat against President-elect Joe Biden.
In a column published Monday, the editors noted how “almost nothing that the Trump team has alleged” to overturn the election results “has withstood the slightest scrutiny.”
Advertisement
“Flawed and dishonest assertions like this pollute the public discourse and mislead good people who make the mistake of believing things said by the president of the United States,” said the magazine, which last week described Trump’s refusal to concede as a “bid for infamy.”
The editorial also poured cold water on Trump’s reported belief that the Supreme Court will “issue a game-changing ruling” on the vote in his favor, calling it “fantastical.”
“Trump’s most reprehensible tactic,” the magazine said, was “to attempt, somewhat shamefacedly, to get local Republican officials to block the certification of votes and state legislatures to appoint Trump electors in clear violation of the public will.”
“This has gone nowhere, thanks to the honesty and sense of duty of most of the Republicans involved, but it’s a profoundly undemocratic move that we hope no losing presidential candidate ever even thinks of again,” the editorial read.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-30--Republicans Rail Against Joe Biden's 'Radioactive' Cabinet Pick

Senate Republicans are sharpening their knives for Neera Tanden , President-elect Joe Biden ’ s announced pick to lead the Office of Management and Budget , in what is quickly shaping up to be the first congressional fight of his presidency .
Tanden , 50 , previously served as an adviser to 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton , as well as President Barack Obama .
She would be the first woman of color and the first South Asian woman to lead OMB , a key White House office that supervises federal agencies and administers the federal budget .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account and role as president of the Center for American Progress , a left-leaning think tank with deep ties to the Democratic establishment , that is giving Republicans pause .
On Twitter , Tanden hasn ’ t shied from expressing her opinions about GOP “ enablers ” of President Donald Trump and his agenda , sometimes taking an adversarial approach to elected officials and journalists alike .
In 2018 , she issued a sharply worded statement slamming Sen. Susan Collins ( R-Maine ) over her support of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roe v. Wade.
” Tanden appeared to have deleted some tweets in recent days that referenced Collins and other senators whom she may need to win confirmation to her post .
Republicans on Monday expressed opposition to her confirmation even before she has been formally nominated by Biden , who has yet to take office .
“ I think in light of her combative and insulting comments about many members of the Senate , mainly on our side of the aisle , that it creates certainly a problematic path ” to her confirmation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told reporters on Capitol Hill , adding that Tanden “ strikes me as maybe [ Biden ’ s ] worst nominee so far.
” Senate Majority Whip John Thune ( R-S.D . )
said Tanden had been “ pretty partisan ” and “ kind of out of the mainstream.
” He noted with a laugh that the targets of her attacks were in some cases Republican senators who would have to vote on her potential nomination .
Asked about her opinion on Biden ’ s pick for budget chief and her prospects for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t familiar with her background and declined to comment .
But she , too , indicated Tanden ’ s Twitter account might pose an issue .
The treatment Republicans are giving to the online presence of one of Biden ’ s administration picks stands in stark contrast to how they approached Trump over the last four years .
Most GOP senators repeatedly dodged questions about the president ’ s incendiary tweets attacking members of both parties and his hurling of insults at just about everyone who stood in his way , pretending they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when asked about them by reporters ― even when those reporters offered to show them the tweets in print .
Moreover , Senate Republicans have confirmed a number of partisan bomb-throwers to Trump ’ s administration , including former House Freedom Caucus chair Mick Mulvaney as Trump ’ s budget chief , and Ric Grenell , who was by all accounts a conservative Twitter troll who went on to serve as U.S. ambassador to Germany and acting director of national intelligence .
The goalposts under an incoming Democratic administration are quickly shifting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination is only the opening play .
Some Republicans have also expressed concern with other Biden picks over potential ethics issues regarding ties to consulting firms and the defense industry ― areas where members of Trump ’ s Cabinet were largely given a pass .
It ’ s possible that Senate Republicans would deny Tanden ’ s nomination a hearing outright .
Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) , who is expected to chair the Senate Budget Committee if Republicans maintain control of the chamber next year , declined to commit to hearings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he ’ ll “ cross that bridge when we get there.
” Tanden ’ s path to confirmation may ultimately depend on the Georgia Senate election runoffs in early January .
Democrats are hoping for a miracle : Winning both races in what has long been regarded a red state , at least before Biden won it in the Nov. 3 presidential election , would give them 50 votes in the upper chamber .
Kamala Harris , the incoming vice president , could cast the tiebreaker in that scenario and help get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats defect .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Senate Republicans are sharpening their knives for Neera Tanden, President-elect Joe Biden’s announced pick to lead the Office of Management and Budget, in what is quickly shaping up to be the first congressional fight of his presidency.
Tanden, 50, previously served as an adviser to 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, as well as President Barack Obama. She would be the first woman of color and the first South Asian woman to lead OMB, a key White House office that supervises federal agencies and administers the federal budget.
Advertisement
But it is Tanden’s active Twitter account and role as president of the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank with deep ties to the Democratic establishment, that is giving Republicans pause.
On Twitter, Tanden hasn’t shied from expressing her opinions about GOP “enablers” of President Donald Trump and his agenda, sometimes taking an adversarial approach to elected officials and journalists alike. In 2018, she issued a sharply worded statement slamming Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) over her support of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, calling her a “fake defender of Roe v. Wade.” Tanden appeared to have deleted some tweets in recent days that referenced Collins and other senators whom she may need to win confirmation to her post.
Republicans on Monday expressed opposition to her confirmation even before she has been formally nominated by Biden, who has yet to take office.
“I think in light of her combative and insulting comments about many members of the Senate, mainly on our side of the aisle, that it creates certainly a problematic path” to her confirmation, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told reporters on Capitol Hill, adding that Tanden “strikes me as maybe [Biden’s] worst nominee so far.”
Advertisement
“She’s going to be radioactive,” he added.
“I’ve heard that she’s a very prolific user of Twitter.” - Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said Tanden had been “pretty partisan” and “kind of out of the mainstream.” He noted with a laugh that the targets of her attacks were in some cases Republican senators who would have to vote on her potential nomination.
Asked about her opinion on Biden’s pick for budget chief and her prospects for confirmation, Collins said she wasn’t familiar with her background and declined to comment. But she, too, indicated Tanden’s Twitter account might pose an issue.
“I’ve heard that she’s a very prolific user of Twitter,” the Maine Republican told reporters on Monday.
The treatment Republicans are giving to the online presence of one of Biden’s administration picks stands in stark contrast to how they approached Trump over the last four years. Most GOP senators repeatedly dodged questions about the president’s incendiary tweets attacking members of both parties and his hurling of insults at just about everyone who stood in his way, pretending they “didn’t see” them when asked about them by reporters ― even when those reporters offered to show them the tweets in print.
Advertisement
Moreover, Senate Republicans have confirmed a number of partisan bomb-throwers to Trump’s administration, including former House Freedom Caucus chair Mick Mulvaney as Trump’s budget chief, and Ric Grenell, who was by all accounts a conservative Twitter troll who went on to serve as U.S. ambassador to Germany and acting director of national intelligence.
The goalposts under an incoming Democratic administration are quickly shifting, and the fight over Tanden’s nomination is only the opening play. Some Republicans have also expressed concern with other Biden picks over potential ethics issues regarding ties to consulting firms and the defense industry ― areas where members of Trump’s Cabinet were largely given a pass.
It’s possible that Senate Republicans would deny Tanden’s nomination a hearing outright. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is expected to chair the Senate Budget Committee if Republicans maintain control of the chamber next year, declined to commit to hearings for her on Monday, saying only that he’ll “cross that bridge when we get there.”
A spokesperson for Biden’s transition team did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Democrats, meanwhile, dismissed GOP criticism of Tanden as bad-faith pearl-clutching after years of looking the other way when it came to Trump’s Twitter account.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called Tanden “so eminently qualified that some on the Republican side — grasping at straws — have taken issue with comments made on Twitter criticizing the policy positions of Republicans in Congress.”
Advertisement
“Honestly, the hypocrisy is astounding,” Schumer added. “If Republicans are concerned about criticism on Twitter, their complaints are better directed at President Trump, who has made a hobby out of denigrating Republican senators on Twitter.”
Prominent progressive lawmakers also voiced support for Tanden, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) ― an important coup given her clashes with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and his allies during both the 2016 and 2020 Democratic presidential primaries.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-12-01--Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey Appears To Ignore Call From Trump While Certifying Election Result

Arizona Gov .
Doug Ducey appeared to have ignored a phone call from President Donald Trump or Vice President Mike Pence while he was certifying the state ’ s election results on Monday .
In viral video below , the Republican governor is shown receiving a call on his cellphone while he signs documents to validate President-elect Joe Biden ’ s victory in the state .
With “ Hail to the Chief ” playing on the ringtone , Ducey pulls the phone from his pocket , glances at the caller ID and places the phone on his desk .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ducey bragged in July that he had set his ringtone to “ Hail to the Chief ” whenever Trump or Pence called because he had so much direct contact with them , Newsweek noted .
HE 'LL GET BACK TO YOU Back in July , Gov .
Ducey said he changed his White House ringtone to `` Hail to The Chief '' so he would n't miss a call from Trump/Pence .
Guess who called while Ducey was certifying Arizona 's election ?
( 7 secs in ) pic.twitter.com/bzBGpfSIDf — Brahm Resnik ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , who has failed to acknowledge his election loss to President-elect Joe Biden , has been raging against state officials ― including Republicans ― who refuse to back his baseless claims of vote fraud to reverse the results .
He and his GOP allies have unsucessfully sought to pressure swing state officials and have pressed a flurry of flimsy lawsuits .
Ducey now joins those on the receiving end of Trump ’ s venom .
The president later posted a video of Ducey officially confirming Arizona ’ s results and asked on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to put a Democrat in office ... Republicans will long remember !
” Why is he rushing to put a Democrat in office , especially when so many horrible things concerning voter fraud are being revealed at the hearing going on right now .
@ OANN What is going on with @ dougducey ?
Republicans will long remember !
https : //t.co/XILGaHcyw7 — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) November 30 , 2020 Ducey , who called Arizona ’ s election system “ strong , ” was commended by many on Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House pressure .
But he might be singing a different tune to Trump from now on .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey appeared to have ignored a phone call from President Donald Trump or Vice President Mike Pence while he was certifying the state’s election results on Monday.
In viral video below, the Republican governor is shown receiving a call on his cellphone while he signs documents to validate President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the state.
Advertisement
With “Hail to the Chief” playing on the ringtone, Ducey pulls the phone from his pocket, glances at the caller ID and places the phone on his desk. He quickly gets back to the paperwork.
Ducey bragged in July that he had set his ringtone to “Hail to the Chief” whenever Trump or Pence called because he had so much direct contact with them, Newsweek noted.
HE'LL GET BACK TO YOU Back in July, Gov. Ducey said he changed his White House ringtone to "Hail to The Chief" so he wouldn't miss a call from Trump/Pence. Guess who called while Ducey was certifying Arizona's election? (7 secs in) pic.twitter.com/bzBGpfSIDf — Brahm Resnik (@brahmresnik) November 30, 2020
Trump, who has failed to acknowledge his election loss to President-elect Joe Biden, has been raging against state officials ― including Republicans ― who refuse to back his baseless claims of vote fraud to reverse the results. He and his GOP allies have unsucessfully sought to pressure swing state officials and have pressed a flurry of flimsy lawsuits.
Advertisement
Ducey now joins those on the receiving end of Trump’s venom. The president later posted a video of Ducey officially confirming Arizona’s results and asked on Twitter: “Why is he rushing to put a Democrat in office ... Republicans will long remember!”
Why is he rushing to put a Democrat in office, especially when so many horrible things concerning voter fraud are being revealed at the hearing going on right now. @OANN What is going on with @dougducey? Republicans will long remember! https://t.co/XILGaHcyw7 — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 30, 2020
Ducey, who called Arizona’s election system “strong,” was commended by many on Twitter for staying on task while under White House pressure.
But he might be singing a different tune to Trump from now on.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-12-01--Trump Has Raised Up To $170 Million Since Election Day: Reports

President Donald Trump has raised between $ 150 million and $ 170 million since Election Day amid ongoing appeals to supporters as part of his effort to undercut results of the race that saw him lose by millions of votes to President-elect Joe Biden , according to several media reports .
Both The Washington Post and The New York Times reported details of the massive haul , much of which was raised through small-dollar donations from the president ’ s ardent base in the week after the election .
But those appeals are based on misleading emails and text messages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using shady legal language buried in the solicitations that effectively gives the president broad power to use the money for a variety of purposes beyond fighting the outcome of the election .
The fine print behind the fundraising says the first 75 % of any donation goes to the Save America leadership political action committee , which Trump set up in mid-November , and the remaining 25 % goes to the Republican Party ’ s operating expenses .
Any donor would have to give more than $ 5,000 before their money would go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his surrogates have continued to spout lies about the election , pointing to discredited conspiracy theories about voting machines and fraud behind mail-in ballots .
There has been no evidence to back up those claims , and every legal effort the president has backed to overturn election results in six battleground states has failed .
All six battleground states have now certified their votes declaring Biden the winner .
The president-elect is set to be inaugurated on Jan. 20 , and Trump will have to leave the White House ( his administration signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after resisting doing so for days ) .
The figures , shared by an anonymous source close to the Trump campaign , are mammoth and unprecedented .
They near sums raised at the height of the presidential race and would almost guarantee that Trump will exit the White House with all of his campaign debt paid off and a sizable chunk in the bank for any political activity after his presidency .
The Post noted there are few limitations on how the money can be spent and that it could easily flow to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fees or pay for his travel or personal expenses .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump has raised between $150 million and $170 million since Election Day amid ongoing appeals to supporters as part of his effort to undercut results of the race that saw him lose by millions of votes to President-elect Joe Biden, according to several media reports.
Both The Washington Post and The New York Times reported details of the massive haul, much of which was raised through small-dollar donations from the president’s ardent base in the week after the election.
Advertisement
But those appeals are based on misleading emails and text messages, and the Trump campaign has been using shady legal language buried in the solicitations that effectively gives the president broad power to use the money for a variety of purposes beyond fighting the outcome of the election. The fine print behind the fundraising says the first 75% of any donation goes to the Save America leadership political action committee, which Trump set up in mid-November, and the remaining 25% goes to the Republican Party’s operating expenses.
Any donor would have to give more than $5,000 before their money would go to the recount effort.
Trump and his surrogates have continued to spout lies about the election, pointing to discredited conspiracy theories about voting machines and fraud behind mail-in ballots. There has been no evidence to back up those claims, and every legal effort the president has backed to overturn election results in six battleground states has failed.
All six battleground states have now certified their votes declaring Biden the winner. The president-elect is set to be inaugurated on Jan. 20, and Trump will have to leave the White House (his administration signed off on the official transition last week after resisting doing so for days).
The figures, shared by an anonymous source close to the Trump campaign, are mammoth and unprecedented. They near sums raised at the height of the presidential race and would almost guarantee that Trump will exit the White House with all of his campaign debt paid off and a sizable chunk in the bank for any political activity after his presidency.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-12-01--Education Department Starts Addressing Discrimination Cases Related To COVID-19

After spending months failing to make meaningful progress on complaints of coronavirus-related discrimination in schools , the Education Department has started opening investigations into some of these allegations , HuffPost has learned , even though the department denies it has changed gears .
In November , HuffPost first reported that attorneys in the department ’ s Office for Civil Rights said they had not been able to move forward on these complaints .
But at that time , a spokesperson for the Department of Education denied it had failed to make progress on the investigations .
“ This information is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a low-level employee who has not been fully informed or brought up to speed on the clear directive given by HQ to move forward on all COVID cases without delay , ” spokesperson Angela Morabito told HuffPost in early November .
However , HuffPost had reviewed a September email from regional leadership sent to a group of employees explaining that discrimination complaints related to COVID-19 would require scrutiny from the highest levels of management in an effort to form a consistent response to unprecedented issues .
This essentially left the cases in limbo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Morabito now denies , though , that any change in processing the complaints has taken place , though some complaints seem to be moving forward on a case-by-case basis .
There has not been official communication stating that the Department of Education changed its overall processing of these complaints , sources told HuffPost .
One DOE employee said that they just recently were given a greenlight to move ahead on COVID-19 cases .
( HuffPost is providing anonymity for current employees out of concern they could face professional repercussions . )
Additionally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights advocate Marcie Lipsitt got word last month that their discrimination cases were moving forward .
These families say that their children have failed to receive the education services they ’ re entitled to during the pandemic .
In one instance , a family told the Education Department in August that their child was being discriminated against on the basis of disability because their school district had failed to provide mandated speech and language services from March 2020 until the end of the school year .
The Education Department didn ’ t respond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In its response , the department said it would open an investigation into whether the school district had failed to provide a free and appropriate public education , in violation of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act , which bans discrimination based on disability .
Earlier in the fall , when Lipsitt inquired about the delayed responses to COVID-19 complaints , an Office for Civil Rights attorney told her that these cases were receiving greater scrutiny than other complaints and that rewriting allegations without referring to the pandemic could help them get processed faster .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stephanie Onyx , was told the same .
At the time , attorneys in the civil rights office told HuffPost that they were concerned the department had failed to make meaningful progress on cases that raised urgent issues of discrimination linked to the pandemic .
“ That ’ s kind of consistent with what we ’ ve come to expect .
We have a staff of skilled , passionate attorneys who want to do their jobs , and I think many of us feel like we just can ’ t , ” a @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos listens during an Aug. 12 White House meeting about reopening schools during the pandemic Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
After spending months failing to make meaningful progress on complaints of coronavirus-related discrimination in schools, the Education Department has started opening investigations into some of these allegations, HuffPost has learned, even though the department denies it has changed gears.
In November, HuffPost first reported that attorneys in the department’s Office for Civil Rights said they had not been able to move forward on these complaints. But at that time, a spokesperson for the Department of Education denied it had failed to make progress on the investigations.
Advertisement
“This information is categorically false and represents the viewpoint of a low-level employee who has not been fully informed or brought up to speed on the clear directive given by HQ to move forward on all COVID cases without delay,” spokesperson Angela Morabito told HuffPost in early November.
However, HuffPost had reviewed a September email from regional leadership sent to a group of employees explaining that discrimination complaints related to COVID-19 would require scrutiny from the highest levels of management in an effort to form a consistent response to unprecedented issues. This essentially left the cases in limbo, with attorneys unable to move forward.
Morabito now denies, though, that any change in processing the complaints has taken place, though some complaints seem to be moving forward on a case-by-case basis. There has not been official communication stating that the Department of Education changed its overall processing of these complaints, sources told HuffPost.
One DOE employee said that they just recently were given a greenlight to move ahead on COVID-19 cases. (HuffPost is providing anonymity for current employees out of concern they could face professional repercussions.)
Advertisement
Additionally, several families who work with disability rights advocate Marcie Lipsitt got word last month that their discrimination cases were moving forward. These families say that their children have failed to receive the education services they’re entitled to during the pandemic.
In one instance, a family told the Education Department in August that their child was being discriminated against on the basis of disability because their school district had failed to provide mandated speech and language services from March 2020 until the end of the school year. The Education Department didn’t respond to the complaint until late November.
In its response, the department said it would open an investigation into whether the school district had failed to provide a free and appropriate public education, in violation of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, which bans discrimination based on disability.
The department’s response to the complaint also directly referenced COVID-19 and how it might affect school district operations.
Earlier in the fall, when Lipsitt inquired about the delayed responses to COVID-19 complaints, an Office for Civil Rights attorney told her that these cases were receiving greater scrutiny than other complaints and that rewriting allegations without referring to the pandemic could help them get processed faster. A mother who filed a complaint, Stephanie Onyx, was told the same.
Advertisement
At the time, attorneys in the civil rights office told HuffPost that they were concerned the department had failed to make meaningful progress on cases that raised urgent issues of discrimination linked to the pandemic.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-12-01--‘Photoshop Battle’ Over Mark Ruffalo Skateboarding Is A Real Marvel

Six years after being snapped skateboarding in a New York City playground , this picture of actor Mark Ruffalo is @ @ @ @ @ : On Sunday , a Reddit user resurfaced the 2014 image of the “ Avengers @ @ @ @ @ on the platform ’ s “ Photoshop Battle ” thread .
Dozens of people have @ @ @ @ @ with many referencing Ruffalo ’ s role as Bruce Banner/Hulk in the Marvel Cinematic Universe @


thehuffingtonpost--2020-12-01--Nasdaq Seeks More Diverse Boards From Listed Companies

zz/STRF/STAR MAX/IPx Nasdaq on Tuesday requested that all of its companies publicly disclose consistent , transparent diversity statistics about their board of directors .
The proposal filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday , if approved , would require all companies listed on the exchange to publicly disclose consistent , transparent diversity statistics about their board of directors .
It would require most Nasdaq-listed companies to have , or explain why they don ’ t have , at least two diverse directors .
This includes having one board member who self-identifies as female and one who self-identifies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Foreign companies and smaller reporting companies would have additional flexibility in satisfying this requirement with two female directors .
According to the 2018 Board Diversity Census from the Alliance for Board Diversity and the consulting firm Deloitte , women held just 22 % of Fortune 500 seats in 2018 , compared to 20 % a year earlier and 16 percent in 2010 .
White men held 66 % of Fortune 500 board seats in 2018 .
Blacks held nearly 9 % of seats in 2018 , compared with nearly 8 % in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives companies an opportunity to make progress toward increasing representation of women , underrepresented minorities and the LGBTQ+ community on their boards , ” Nelson Griggs , president of the Nasdaq Stock Exchange , said in a prepared statement .
“ Corporate diversity , at all levels , opens up a clear path to innovation and growth .
We are inspired by the support from our issuers and the financial community with this effort and look forward to working together with companies of all sizes to create stronger and more inclusive boards.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to give stakeholders a better understanding of a company ’ s current board composition and to bolster investor confidence that all listed companies are considering diversity when the look for new board members .
The proposal would require all Nasdaq-listed companies to publicly disclose board-level diversity statistics through Nasdaq ’ s proposed disclosure framework within one year of the SEC ’ s approval of the listing rule .
All companies will be expected to have one diverse director within two years of the SEC ’ s approval of the listing rule .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Market and Nasdaq Global Market will be expected to have two diverse directors within four years of listing rule approval .
Companies listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market will be expected to have two diverse directors within five years of the SEC ’ s approval .
Companies that can ’ t meet the board composition objectives within the required timeframes won ’ t be subject to delisting if they provide a public explanation of their reasons for not meeting the objectives .

Nasdaq on Tuesday requested that all of its companies publicly disclose consistent, transparent diversity statistics about their board of directors. zz/STRF/STAR MAX/IPx
Nasdaq is seeking U.S. authority to require more diversity in the board rooms of Nasdaq-listed companies.
It is the first major exchange to pursue such a requirement.
The proposal filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday, if approved, would require all companies listed on the exchange to publicly disclose consistent, transparent diversity statistics about their board of directors.
Advertisement
It would require most Nasdaq-listed companies to have, or explain why they don’t have, at least two diverse directors. This includes having one board member who self-identifies as female and one who self-identifies as either an underrepresented minority or LGBTQ. Foreign companies and smaller reporting companies would have additional flexibility in satisfying this requirement with two female directors.
Corporate boards are overwhelmingly white and male.
According to the 2018 Board Diversity Census from the Alliance for Board Diversity and the consulting firm Deloitte, women held just 22% of Fortune 500 seats in 2018, compared to 20% a year earlier and 16 percent in 2010. White men held 66% of Fortune 500 board seats in 2018. Blacks held nearly 9% of seats in 2018, compared with nearly 8% in 2010.
“This proposal and partnership gives companies an opportunity to make progress toward increasing representation of women, underrepresented minorities and the LGBTQ+ community on their boards,” Nelson Griggs, president of the Nasdaq Stock Exchange, said in a prepared statement. “Corporate diversity, at all levels, opens up a clear path to innovation and growth. We are inspired by the support from our issuers and the financial community with this effort and look forward to working together with companies of all sizes to create stronger and more inclusive boards.”
Nasdaq said the proposal’s goal is to give stakeholders a better understanding of a company’s current board composition and to bolster investor confidence that all listed companies are considering diversity when the look for new board members.
Advertisement
The proposal would require all Nasdaq-listed companies to publicly disclose board-level diversity statistics through Nasdaq’s proposed disclosure framework within one year of the SEC’s approval of the listing rule.
All companies will be expected to have one diverse director within two years of the SEC’s approval of the listing rule. Companies listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market and Nasdaq Global Market will be expected to have two diverse directors within four years of listing rule approval. Companies listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market will be expected to have two diverse directors within five years of the SEC’s approval.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-12-01--The Radical Idea Of Making Sure Everybody Has Enough Money To Live On

That ’ s why we need data over debate , said Jürgen Schupp of the German Institute for Economic Research @ @ @ @ @ new basic income trial in Germany .
Schupp despairs a little over the polarization of @ @ @ @ @ insist either that basic income will be easy to implement , he said , or @ @ @ @ @ fiendishly complex to ever work .
We don ’ t know yet but we need @ @ @ @ @ insists , because “ we have a lack of utopian ideas ” and countries consistently @ @ @ @ @ people with the resilience and security they need to weather shock after shock .

FutureProof is a collaboration between HuffPost and Unearthed, Greenpeace UK’s journalism unit
While $21 a month may not seem like a life-changing amount of money, for Denis Otieno Anam it has been exactly that. “It was a big, big thing,” said the 40-year-old teacher, who lives outside the town of Bondo in western Kenya. “I could get some basic things I want in life.” Every month, money is transferred to him, no strings attached, to spend however he chooses.
He previously scraped by with slim earnings from his job in a small bar and whatever he could make from his goat and chickens. Once he had bought food and essentials for himself, his wife and four children, there was nothing left over. He dreamed of being a teacher, but “even applying for jobs was really difficult,” he said. He could not afford the costs of sending off applications.
That changed when he started receiving the money in 2017. He sent off a bunch of applications and landed a teaching job in a nearby high school. The money didn’t just transform his work; it changed things at home, too. Every month, he and his wife (who also receives cash payments) sit down together to budget, plan and figure out how to make their lives more secure. Anam, previously the sole breadwinner, feels the pressure on him has dissipated. “It’s brought harmony into my family,” he said.
Advertisement
A mobile phone message confirming a universal basic income transaction in the Bondo region of western Kenya. The nonprofit GiveDirectly has been running a UBI program in the area since 2016. Credit: Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP/Getty Images
Anam and his wife are recipients of the largest and longest-running universal basic income (UBI) program in the world. Led by the U.S.-based nonprofit GiveDirectly, it has provided 22,500 people in two very poor Kenyan counties — Siaya, where Anam lives, and Bomet — with some form of no-strings-attached money. The ultimate aim is to see what happens when you put money into the hands of poor people and give them the freedom to decide how to spend it.
The idea of giving people a basic income is centuries-old. It is supposed to cover your fundamental needs and to act as a cushion, so whatever happens to you ― an illness, unemployment, a natural disaster, a pandemic ― you should have enough money to survive.
Advertisement
In its purest form, UBI is universal rather than targeted based on criteria like income or wealth. It’s individual and unconditional, meaning there are no hoops to jump through and no restrictions on how it can be spent. It is not intended as a tool to force certain behaviors, but as a means to help people afford the basic dignities of life.
The program in Kenya is a big deal in the UBI world because it hits all these notes. “We don’t check if you’re rich or poor; we give it to everybody,” said Tavneet Suri, associate professor of applied economics at the MIT Sloan School of Management and one of the lead researchers on the GiveDirectly initiative.
More than three years in and the results have been good, said Caroline Teti, the director of recipient advocacy at GiveDirectly. Recipients are healthier and less hungry. They have a safety net to take risks and start their own businesses. Community resilience has also grown, with people pooling resources to make bigger investments ― such as piped water and more robust housing.
Top left: Samson, 72, gets 2,250 shillings a month ($21) as a recipient of the UBI program, which he uses for his fish farm in the Bondo region of western Kenya. Top right: Monica, 30, uses the basic income to support the poultry farm she runs with her husband. Bottom left: Caroline Teti, of the nonprofit GiveDirectly, shakes hands with a basic income recipient. Bottom right: Grace, who is 65 and retired, uses the money for treatment of her swollen leg and for buying food. Credit: Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP/Getty Images
When COVID-19 hit, it was a serious test both of people’s ability to cope and of UBI. Between May and June, researchers called up recipients to see how they were managing: How was their health? Were they able to get enough food? Had their income dropped?
Advertisement
The resulting study was small and has not yet been peer-reviewed, but what they found was encouraging. While businesses saw much of their income wiped out, Suri said, those owned by people getting the basic income did not collapse, unlike those owned by people who were not receiving transfers. The researchers also found that those receiving a UBI were less likely to go hungry and that the improvements to their physical and mental health were not lost. “You see these effects of the UBI that persist through the crisis,” said Suri.
These results may offer insight into the role UBI could play in building resilience to a whole host of shocks: not just this pandemic or future viruses, but also the unfolding impacts of the climate crisis, which consistently fall hardest on the poorest and most marginalized. It’s an idea Suri is testing in the Kenya scheme. “We do think the UBI will provide some ‘insurance’ against bad events,” she said. “If something bad happens, you have a fallback.”
In 1795, about 60 miles west of London, an English district called Speenhamland implemented what some credit as the very first basic income scheme. Bad harvests, soaring food prices and rising unemployment made life bleak. So local officials gathered in a pub to formulate a radical plan: Give people money. Residents’ incomes were topped up to ensure they could afford basics. If food prices increased, the payments would too.
And it worked for a while ― hunger abated. But old ideas about the “idle poor” bubbled up and the scheme was blamed ― falsely, according to a recent analysis from historian Rutger Bregman ― for population growth and a loss of productivity. It was shut down in 1834, the income floor was swept away, and people were plunged back into poverty.
Advertisement
While Speenhamland’s system may have lasted only a few decades, its legacy was long.
Fast forward more than a century to the U.S. in the 1960s and basic income seemed to be gathering steam. Martin Luther King Jr. raised the idea in his 1967 book “Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?” And in 1969, UBI found an unlikely ally in President Richard Nixon, who planned for every American family of four to receive $1,600 a year from the state (around $11,500 in today’s money). But he was handed a report that featured a negative analysis of the Speenhamland scheme, claiming it had been a disaster. Spooked, Nixon attached a work requirement to his plan. The proposal ultimately died.
Basic income projects sprung up across the U.S. and Canada in the 1970s ― including the “Mincome,” a project in rural Canada between 1974 and 1979, which guaranteed families an annual income of 16,000 Canadian dollars (U.S. $12,000) in today’s money. Results of the Mincome ― published decades later, when economist Evelyn Forget stumbled across boxes of data on the scheme ― found an 8.5% decline in hospitalizations, improved mental health and improved high school completion rates.
But what has held fast ― informing policymaking from the demise of Speenhamland onward ― is the idea of a work-shy, “undeserving poor.”
It’s a powerful myth, and one that ignores economic realities. In the past few decades in the U.S., as wages stagnated for those on the lower end of the income spectrum, jobs have ceased to be a guaranteed route out of poverty. “We know that people are working and are poor. That’s why there’s a term called ‘working poor,’” said Michael Tubbs, the outgoing mayor of Stockton, California, who has been running a basic income scheme since 2019. Inequality in America has climbed to giddying heights. The odds are especially stacked against people of color: Black households in the U.S. on average hold one-tenth of the wealth of white households.
“For many people, it’s not going to be possible for them to simply just go out in the marketplace and find a job that will enable them to live a decent life,” said Andrew Yang, the former Democratic presidential candidate who now runs the nonprofit Humanity Forward. And many still do an enormous amount of unpaid labor ― like caring for small children and vulnerable relatives or volunteering ― which is incredibly valuable for society but not recognized by the economy.
Advertisement
.
.
“This is not a budget problem, this is a priorities problem.”
MELVIN CARTER, MAYOR OF SAINT PAUL
.
.
Calls for a UBI have become louder in recent years. Tech billionaires, such as Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, have latched onto the idea as a buffer against increasing automation, which is predicted to take millions of jobs (and to distract from their own dizzying wealth). Yang campaigned for the 2020 presidential nomination on a policy of every American receiving $1,000 a month just for being alive.
But it took a pandemic to propel the idea of UBI into the mainstream.
COVID-19 has wiped away millions of jobs, many potentially permanently, and laid bare the brutality of an economic system where a person’s ability to access the fundamentals ― food, a home, medical care ― is dependent on having a job. And the pandemic is just one disruption of many. People are struggling to protect themselves from the coronavirus while simultaneously facing wildfires, hurricanes and cyclones ― disasters made more frequent and extreme by climate change.
Suddenly, the idea of giving people money doesn’t seem quite so radical anymore. Under the Trump administration, Americans were given a taste of basic income with a one-off stimulus payment of $1,200 earlier in the pandemic. In May, Spain brought forward the launch of a nationwide basic income scheme targeted at 850,000 low-income families. Canada, Scotland, India and others have discussed versions of basic income as a response to COVID-19.
“The pandemic was a trigger. It’s a crisis that’s been waiting to happen,” said Guy Standing, professor of development studies at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) and co-founder of the Basic Income Earth Network, “… and it has shown we have no resilience.” Too many people, he said, “are living on the edge of unsustainable debt. That’s your life. You’re living bits and pieces.”
Advertisement
Virginia Medina knows what it’s like to live a life of bits and pieces. The Stockton, California, resident and her husband have long struggled with health problems and debt. When she found out she would be getting $500 a month to spend however she wished, “I just said thank God because he knew what I needed, and it came through at the right time.”
Stockton became the largest city in the U.S. to declare bankruptcy in 2012. But during his mayoral term, Tubbs has put it on the map for another reason: a guaranteed income program that, since February 2019, has been giving money to 125 people who earn below the city’s median income.
For Medina, the extra money has been a lifeline. “I can go to the store and get the things that I need and not have to worry, ‘Oh, gee, I get another bill, what am I going to do?’” she said. She can afford her medication, she has been able to visit her sick sister who lives in Oregon, and she has been paying down her debts. By the time the program finishes in January 2021, she expects to be debt-free.
Virginia Medina is a recipient in the Stockton, California, basic income program. She receives $500 a month, no strings attached. Credit: Snap Jackson
Tubbs wants his program to dispel the myth, pushed by some critics of basic income, that people are poor because they have made bad decisions. That belief, the mayor said, is often rooted in racism: “Folks are uncomfortable giving other people ― mainly people of color, Black people ― agency in money-making decisions.”
Advertisement
The results of the Stockton initiative show that people are spending the money on necessities. More than 40% of the money is going toward food, 12% to utility bills, 9% to car-related expenses, such as fuel and repairs, with the rest spent on expenses like medical insurance, clothes and recreation.
Not only does this undermine assumptions that a UBI would be wasted; it also goes to the heart of what many basic income advocates say is often ignored ― that giving money to poor people directly supports the local economy. “It gets sent right back into the economy immediately,” said Yang, “in the form of grocery bills and daycare expenses and car repairs, and all of that activity ends up generating or sustaining job growth.”
Left: Susie Garza displays the city-provided debit card through which she receives $500 a month through the program in Stockton, California. Right: Michael Tubbs, the outgoing mayor of Stockton, implemented an 18-month basic income trial with the help of the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration. Credit: AP/Getty Images
Basic income trials launched around the world have shown a range of less tangible, but no less meaningful, positive outcomes. Between 2017 and 2018, 2,000 randomly selected unemployed people in Finland were given 560 euros ($640) a month. Findings showed that, while there was not a statistically significant rise in employment among the recipients, they were more secure, faced less depression and loneliness and had greater trust in policymakers and institutions than control groups.
Concerns that UBI recipients will stop working have consistently been disproved, as have suspicions that the money will be spent in socially undesirable ways. A basic income trial in Madhya Pradesh, one of India’s poorest states, found that alcoholism declined among the 6,000 recipients ― in line with World Bank research that shows basic income does not lead to increased spending on “sin products” like cigarettes and alcohol.
Advertisement
The people in Madhya Pradesh bought goats and chickens so they could sell eggs, milk and meat. Dependence on money lenders declined. People weather-proofed their homes, built toilets and improved sanitation, which particularly benefited girls (clean facilities to use when they had their periods made it easier to attend school).
“There was a huge emancipatory effect,” said Soumya Kapoor Mehta, head of IWWAGE, a gender research and advocacy centre in India, and one of the principal researchers on the India scheme ― and it lasted beyond the program. “Those are permanent improvements,” she said. “The footprint that we left ... there was a sense of resilience that had built up.”
Some hope that basic income could even shore up resilience in the face of the climate crisis. “If you’re trying to give people the resources to, for example, get out of the way of a storm,” Yang said, “the most efficient way to do that is to put money into their hands.”
And it goes further than that, said Standing, who believes UBI could help build a lower-carbon economy. While there is still a lack of research on the environmental impacts of basic income programs, the SOAS professor said they could encourage more people to shift from jobs offering poor pay, bad working conditions or long commutes “to forms of work that we value, [but] which are unpaid, such as care work, voluntary work, and community work” ― which, he added, are better for the environment and a boost to communities.
Advertisement
The most common criticism of UBI is cost.
Economists and advocates have laid out a slew of plans to raise money to fund basic income efforts. Governments could cut some existing programs or run larger deficits. Some, like Standing, call for the development of huge national capital funds ― in Alaska, for example, every resident receives an annual dividend paid out from the proceeds of the state’s oil economy. Taxes are also in the mix: eco-taxes to penalize polluters, wealth taxes on society’s richest, and land taxes.
But for many basic income supporters, “How can we afford it?” is simply the wrong question. Mia Birdsong, a writer, activist and host of “More Than Enough,” a podcast series on basic income, said she gets this question all the time. Her response: “Are you fucking kidding me?”
“We don’t ever get asked about the military or the space program, or having Secret Service [protection] for every president until they die,” she said, but “when it comes to super basic needs like housing and food and education and health care, the hand-wringing starts.”
“We’re always worrying about the money, trying to figure out the least expensive thing that we can do,” said Saint Paul Mayor Melvin Carter, who is launching a basic income trial in his city. But the pandemic has shown that money can be found when it’s most needed, he said. “This is not a budget problem, this is a priorities problem.”
What almost everyone agrees on is the need for more data, especially on the impact of UBI schemes in high-income countries. “There is a huge upside [to UBI], this kind of liberating effect,” said Suri, “[but] it might be countered by some of the downsides.” For example, prices could rise if supply didn’t keep up with the new demand, she said.
Advertisement
And while there’s plenty of evidence that giving money to very poor people in developing countries measurably reduces poverty, the effect in high-income countries is complicated by the existence of welfare systems. Should basic income replace safety net programs in those countries or exist in addition to it? Some right-wing proponents, such as controversial political scientist Charles Murray, have called for the welfare state to be swept away. Others, like Yang, want some programs to continue alongside UBI, but not others.
“Basic income is such a nice and simple word and thing, but it’s very complicated,” said Olli Kangas, the scientific leader on Finland’s basic income trial. “Each country is different and each country is a special case.”
That’s why we need data over debate, said Jürgen Schupp of the German Institute for Economic Research, who is leading a new basic income trial in Germany. Schupp despairs a little over the polarization of the basic-income debate. People insist either that basic income will be easy to implement, he said, or that it’s too fiendishly complex to ever work. We don’t know yet but we need to find out, he insists, because “we have a lack of utopian ideas” and countries consistently fail to provide their own people with the resilience and security they need to weather shock after shock.
The coronavirus pandemic has pummeled health, economies and livelihoods, thrusting many more people into what Standing calls the “precariat” ― a mass class of people who have jobs but cannot escape the crush of poverty. It’s revealed the fragility of economies and sounded a warning bell for what’s to come. COVID-19 won’t be our last crisis. A warming world is bringing with it increasing, converging shocks that will have the power to displace populations, crash financial markets and tank whole industries.
Advertisement
There’s an appetite for something transformatively different, said Tubbs. “And not incremental but bold. And not bold for boldness’ sake, but bold to meet the bold times we’re living in.” UBI, a once-radical idea, is suddenly in the frame.
Back in Kenya, Anam said the additional income he and his wife receive has brought some extra security during the pandemic and, longer-term, given his family a layer of stability they simply did not have before.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-12-01--New Yorker Cover Goes Viral Because It's 'So Damn Relatable' For 2020

The New Yorker ’ s new front page has gone viral because of the way many people think it perfectly @ @ @ @ @ impact of the coronavirus pandemic .
“ I have a feeling that , years from @ @ @ @ @ back at this cover and have a kind of P.T.S.D .
reaction to something as @ @ @ @ @ hand sanitizer , ” Tomine said in an interview with the magazine .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The New Yorker’s new front page has gone viral because of the way many people think it perfectly sums up 2020 and the impact of the coronavirus pandemic.
Artist Adrian Tomine’s illustration for the magazine’s Dec. 7 issue ― titled “Love Life” ― shows a woman video chatting, surrounded by “artifacts from daily pandemic life.”
Advertisement
Inside this week’s issue of The New Yorker: https://t.co/TwnUw4lGXI pic.twitter.com/ABdeWepUn9 — The New Yorker (@NewYorker) November 30, 2020
“I have a feeling that, years from now, I might look back at this cover and have a kind of P.T.S.D. reaction to something as insignificant as a bottle of hand sanitizer,” Tomine said in an interview with the magazine.
Twitter users hailed the image’s relatability:
I don’t know why @NewYorker wouldn’t tag me in this drawing they did of me trying to survive the end of my 20s during a pandemic. pic.twitter.com/Kf7cg3T2kK — Haleigh Hoffman (@HaleighHoffman) November 30, 2020
But it’s so damn relatable — Haleigh Hoffman (@HaleighHoffman) November 30, 2020
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-12-01--Navy To Decommission Warship Damaged In Suspected Arson

SAN DIEGO ( AP ) — The Navy said Monday that it will decommission a warship docked off San Diego after suspected arson this summer caused extensive damage , making it too expensive to restore .
Fully repairing the USS Bonhomme Richard to warfighting capabilities would cost $ 2.5 billion to $ 3 billion and take five to seven years , said Rear Adm. Eric H. Ver Hage of the Navy Regional Maintenance Center .
The amphibious assault ship burned for more than four days in July and was the Navy ’ s worst U.S. warship fire outside of combat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left with extensive structural , electrical and mechanical damage .
Restoring the 22-year-old ship for another use , perhaps as a hospital , would take almost as long as full restoration and cost $ 1 billion .
Decommissioning the ship will take nine months to a year and cost $ 30 million , Ver Hage said .
“ We did not come to this decision lightly , ” Navy Secretary Kenneth J. Braithwaite said .
“ Following an extensive material assessment in which various courses of action were considered and evaluated , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not fiscally responsible to restore her.
” Navy officials and industry experts studied the cost and schedule with an eye toward “ the art of the possible , ” Ver Hage told reporters .
They considered the impact that restoration would have on other spending priorities .
Arson is suspected in the July 12 fire , and a U.S. Navy sailor was questioned as a potential suspect , a senior defense official said in late August .
The sailor was questioned as part of the investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Firearms and Explosives , an official with knowledge of the investigation said in August .
The official spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to provide details not yet made public .
The sailor was not detained .
Ver Hage declined to comment Monday on the status of several investigations and he didn ’ t give a timeline for their completion , saying they “ will conclude when the time is right.
” Ver Hage said about 60 % of the ship would likely need to be replaced to have it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , mast and many levels directly below the flight deck .
About 160 sailors and officers were on board when the flames sent up a huge plume of dark smoke from the 840-foot ( 256-meter ) amphibious assault vessel , which had been docked at Naval Base San Diego while undergoing the upgrade .
Aside from the ship ’ s extensive damage and advanced age , evidence would have to be preserved for any prosecution , delaying repair work , he said .
Defense attorneys would be entitled to examine the wreck for @ @ @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
SAN DIEGO (AP) — The Navy said Monday that it will decommission a warship docked off San Diego after suspected arson this summer caused extensive damage, making it too expensive to restore.
Fully repairing the USS Bonhomme Richard to warfighting capabilities would cost $2.5 billion to $3 billion and take five to seven years, said Rear Adm. Eric H. Ver Hage of the Navy Regional Maintenance Center.
Advertisement
The amphibious assault ship burned for more than four days in July and was the Navy’s worst U.S. warship fire outside of combat in recent memory. The ship was left with extensive structural, electrical and mechanical damage.
Restoring the 22-year-old ship for another use, perhaps as a hospital, would take almost as long as full restoration and cost $1 billion. Decommissioning the ship will take nine months to a year and cost $30 million, Ver Hage said.
“We did not come to this decision lightly,” Navy Secretary Kenneth J. Braithwaite said. “Following an extensive material assessment in which various courses of action were considered and evaluated, we came to the conclusion that it is not fiscally responsible to restore her.”
Navy officials and industry experts studied the cost and schedule with an eye toward “the art of the possible,” Ver Hage told reporters. They considered the impact that restoration would have on other spending priorities.
Advertisement
“The dollars definitely would disrupt our strategy for investment,” Ver Hage said.
Arson is suspected in the July 12 fire, and a U.S. Navy sailor was questioned as a potential suspect, a senior defense official said in late August.
The sailor was questioned as part of the investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, an official with knowledge of the investigation said in August. The official spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to provide details not yet made public. The sailor was not detained.
Ver Hage declined to comment Monday on the status of several investigations and he didn’t give a timeline for their completion, saying they “will conclude when the time is right.”
Ver Hage said about 60% of the ship would likely need to be replaced to have it fully restored, including the flight deck, mast and many levels directly below the flight deck.
The ship will likely be decommissioned in San Diego. Crew members will be notified of reassignment.
The Bonhomme Richard was nearing the end of a two-year upgrade estimated to cost $250 million when the fire started.
Advertisement
About 160 sailors and officers were on board when the flames sent up a huge plume of dark smoke from the 840-foot (256-meter) amphibious assault vessel, which had been docked at Naval Base San Diego while undergoing the upgrade.
Firefighters attacked the flames inside the ship while firefighting vessels with water cannons directed streams of seawater into the ship and helicopters made water drops.
More than 60 sailors and civilians were treated for minor injuries, heat exhaustion and smoke inhalation.
Lawrence B. Brennan, a retired Navy captain and adjunct professor of law at Fordham Law School, said the decision to decommission was “inevitable and correct.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-12-01--Melania Trump Really Hates Christmas In 'Kimmel' Spoof Of White House Holiday Video

“ Who gives a f**k about Christmas stuff and decoration ?
” she complained in the recording .
On “ @ @ @ @ @ Monday night , host Jimmy Kimmel served up a savage spoof of the video , @ @ @ @ @ him ” baubles featuring Melania ’ s husband , a “ This is bullshit ” @ @ @ @ @ aggressive Christmas album titled “ Who Gives A F**k About Christmas Stuff ?
”

“Who gives a f**k about Christmas stuff and decoration?” she complained in the recording.
On “Jimmy Kimmel Live” on Monday night, host Jimmy Kimmel served up a savage spoof of the video, complete with “I hate him” baubles featuring Melania’s husband, a “This is bullshit” toy train and a very aggressive Christmas album titled “Who Gives A F**k About Christmas Stuff?”
Watch the roast below.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-12-01--Former Stanford Colleagues Cheer Scott Atlas Leaving White House Task Force

Dr. Scott Atlas resigned from the White House coronavirus task force on Monday after months of advocating against social distancing policies and disputing the medical consensus around COVID-19 .
A frequent Fox News guest , Atlas was reportedly a deeply controversial presence even among some other members of the pandemic team .
“ His actions have undermined and threatened public health even as countless lives have been lost to COVID-19 .
We will continue to advocate for evidence-based public health policies that are grounded in established science , including the use of proven preventative measures like mask-wearing and social-distancing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective therapies and vaccines.
” Atlas , a favorite of President Donald Trump who falsely claimed that masks do not work , became synonymous with Trump ’ s neglectful response to the pandemic after the president named him to the coronavirus task force in August .
As COVID-19 cases and deaths surged in the United States , Atlas advocated for a less restrictive government response ― an approach that appealed to the desire of Trump and other Republicans to downplay the virus and lift lockdown measures .
Like many Trump picks , Atlas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his numerous hard-charging spots on conservative media .
During his Fox News appearances in the early months of the pandemic , he pushed a consistent message that the government should ignore public health experts in favor of policies that usually required doing less and reopening more .
In a typical appearance on Tucker Carlson ’ s show in early May , Atlas claimed that it was far too late in the pandemic to create contact tracing programs similar to those being used in multiple other countries .
He denied any need for widespread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only certain groups such as health care workers required screening for COVID-19 .
On Fox News host Brian Kilmeade ’ s radio show , Atlas disputed scientific studies that supported the wearing of masks and stated in recent months that the “ data is unclear on masks.
” He repeatedly flirted with the idea of pursuing “ herd immunity ” ― letting the coronavirus spread until enough of the population became infected and developed resistance to the virus ― although he has denied advocating such a policy .
Once he got to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as other members of the task force , criticized Atlas ― who is a neuroradiologist and not an epidemiologist or immunologist ― for spreading misinformation about the coronavirus and essentially telling Trump what he wanted to hear .
Atlas ’ former colleagues at Stanford ― where he was part of the Hoover Institution , a conservative think tank ― put out an open letter in September criticizing his role on the White House task force .
Nearly 100 faculty members , including epidemiologists and a former dean of the Stanford University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ views undermined the work of credible health officials and researchers .
“ To prevent harm to the public ’ s health , we also have both a moral and an ethical responsibility to call attention to the falsehoods and misrepresentations of science recently fostered by Dr. Scott Atlas , ” the faculty members said in that open letter .
In response , Atlas took the unusual step of threatening legal action against his former colleagues .
Through a lawyer , he accused them of malicious defamation and warned them to retract their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accusing Atlas of trying to silence important criticism of dangerous public health policy .
“ We are more than a little surprised that Dr. Atlas has chosen to waste his time on this matter .
He is a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force and an advisor to President Trump .
The decisions that he is involved in making are literally life and death matters for the people of this nation , ” Roberta A. Kaplan and Josh Matz , attorneys for the group of Stanford academics , wrote to Atlas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public .
“ If he can not tolerate science-based criticism of his opinions and statements concerning this public health crisis , then he has no business advising anybody , let alone the President of the United States , ” they argued .
Stanford further distanced itself from Atlas in November after he tweeted that “ people get what they accept ” and that Michigan residents should “ rise up ” to oppose coronavirus restrictions implemented by Democratic Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer , who had been the target of a recently foiled terror plot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement saying that “ Dr .
Atlas ’ s statements reflect his personal views , not those of the Hoover Institution or the university .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Dr. Scott Atlas resigned from the White House coronavirus task force on Monday after months of advocating against social distancing policies and disputing the medical consensus around COVID-19. A frequent Fox News guest, Atlas was reportedly a deeply controversial presence even among some other members of the pandemic team.
They may have been breathing private sighs of relief on Monday, but Atlas’ former colleagues at Stanford University went public with their celebration.
Advertisement
“Dr. Scott Atlas’ resignation today is long overdue and underscores the triumph of science and truth over falsehoods and misinformation,” dozens of Stanford faculty, including top infectious disease experts, said in a public statement.
“His actions have undermined and threatened public health even as countless lives have been lost to COVID-19. We will continue to advocate for evidence-based public health policies that are grounded in established science, including the use of proven preventative measures like mask-wearing and social-distancing, and the safe testing and delivery of effective therapies and vaccines.”
Atlas, a favorite of President Donald Trump who falsely claimed that masks do not work, became synonymous with Trump’s neglectful response to the pandemic after the president named him to the coronavirus task force in August. As COVID-19 cases and deaths surged in the United States, Atlas advocated for a less restrictive government response ― an approach that appealed to the desire of Trump and other Republicans to downplay the virus and lift lockdown measures.
Like many Trump picks, Atlas caught the president’s attention with his numerous hard-charging spots on conservative media. During his Fox News appearances in the early months of the pandemic, he pushed a consistent message that the government should ignore public health experts in favor of policies that usually required doing less and reopening more. In a typical appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show in early May, Atlas claimed that it was far too late in the pandemic to create contact tracing programs similar to those being used in multiple other countries.
Advertisement
“It’s simply illogical and impossible to do contact tracing. There’s no reason to have contact tracing as a predicate for reopening,” Atlas said.
He denied any need for widespread testing, stating on May 7 that only certain groups such as health care workers required screening for COVID-19. On Fox News host Brian Kilmeade’s radio show, Atlas disputed scientific studies that supported the wearing of masks and stated in recent months that the “data is unclear on masks.” He repeatedly flirted with the idea of pursuing “herd immunity” ― letting the coronavirus spread until enough of the population became infected and developed resistance to the virus ― although he has denied advocating such a policy.
Dr. Scott Atlas was widely criticized for spreading misinformation about the coronavirus and essentially telling President Trump what he wanted to hear. Tom Brenner/Reuters
Once he got to the White House, many medical experts, as well as other members of the task force, criticized Atlas ― who is a neuroradiologist and not an epidemiologist or immunologist ― for spreading misinformation about the coronavirus and essentially telling Trump what he wanted to hear.
“Everything he says is false,” Dr. Robert Redfield, a coronavirus task force member and the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was overheard remarking on Atlas in September.
Advertisement
Atlas’ former colleagues at Stanford ― where he was part of the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank ― put out an open letter in September criticizing his role on the White House task force. Nearly 100 faculty members, including epidemiologists and a former dean of the Stanford University School of Medicine, stated that Atlas’ views undermined the work of credible health officials and researchers.
“To prevent harm to the public’s health, we also have both a moral and an ethical responsibility to call attention to the falsehoods and misrepresentations of science recently fostered by Dr. Scott Atlas,” the faculty members said in that open letter.
In response, Atlas took the unusual step of threatening legal action against his former colleagues. Through a lawyer, he accused them of malicious defamation and warned them to retract their statement. The signatories instead published responses accusing Atlas of trying to silence important criticism of dangerous public health policy.
“We are more than a little surprised that Dr. Atlas has chosen to waste his time on this matter. He is a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force and an advisor to President Trump. The decisions that he is involved in making are literally life and death matters for the people of this nation,” Roberta A. Kaplan and Josh Matz, attorneys for the group of Stanford academics, wrote to Atlas’ lawyer in a letter also made public.
“If he cannot tolerate science-based criticism of his opinions and statements concerning this public health crisis, then he has no business advising anybody, let alone the President of the United States,” they argued.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-12-01--COVID-19 Cases Were Likely In The U.S. Earlier Than First Thought: Study

The coronavirus was likely in the U.S. as early as mid-December 2019 , roughly a month before the first COVID-19 case was confirmed , according to research published on Monday .
A study of blood samples from 7,389 routine donations to the American Red Cross between Dec. 13 , 2019 , and Jan. 17 , 2020 , found evidence of COVID-19 antibodies in 106 specimens , according to researchers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
The donations were made in nine states ― California , Connecticut , Iowa , Massachusetts , Michigan , Oregon , Rhode Island @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antibodies reactive to SARS-CoV-2 , the virus that causes COVID-19 , came from all nine .
People ride the New York City subway on Dec. 14 , 2019 .
New research suggests that the coronavirus was in the U.S. in late 2019 .
Despite the timing of these donations , it wasn ’ t until Jan. 15 that U.S. health officials confirmed what they believed was the country ’ s first COVID-19 case .
This followed China reporting cases of the illness late last year .
By March , the World Health Organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early cases may not have been detected for a number of reasons , including that patients didn ’ t seek medical care because their symptoms were mild or nonexistent , the report states .
“ For those with symptomatic infections who may have sought medical care before SARS-CoV-2 was known to be circulating in the U.S. , clinical samples may not have been collected and therefore respiratory virus testing may not have been performed ; even fewer specimens would likely be archived and available for retrospective molecular testing , ” the report adds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely asymptomatic when they donated their blood to the Red Cross since each donor had to be screened for bacterial or viral respiratory infections , including influenza .
We now know that the symptoms of those infections are similar to those of COVID-19 patients .
If prospective blood donors were not well , they would have been asked to come back another time , researchers said .
Health experts already suspected that the virus arrived in the U.S. weeks to months before it was officially recorded .
Researchers from the University of California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Washington reported in September that there had been an unusual increase in patients seeking treatment for respiratory illness beginning the week of Dec. 22 and continuing through to the end of February .
To offer some idea , however , the researchers referenced a previous unrelated survey of blood donors ’ travel .
It found that less than 3 % of survey respondents reported having traveled outside of the U.S. within 28 days before donating blood .
Of that percentage , only 5 % said they had traveled to Asia , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The coronavirus was likely in the U.S. as early as mid-December 2019, roughly a month before the first COVID-19 case was confirmed, according to research published on Monday.
A study of blood samples from 7,389 routine donations to the American Red Cross between Dec. 13, 2019, and Jan. 17, 2020, found evidence of COVID-19 antibodies in 106 specimens, according to researchers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Advertisement
The donations were made in nine states ― California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin. Donations with antibodies reactive to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, came from all nine.
People ride the New York City subway on Dec. 14, 2019. New research suggests that the coronavirus was in the U.S. in late 2019. Gabby Jones via Getty Images
Despite the timing of these donations, it wasn’t until Jan. 15 that U.S. health officials confirmed what they believed was the country’s first COVID-19 case. This followed China reporting cases of the illness late last year. By March, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak a pandemic.
“These findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may have been introduced into the United States prior to January 19, 2020,” researchers stated in their report.
Advertisement
These early cases may not have been detected for a number of reasons, including that patients didn’t seek medical care because their symptoms were mild or nonexistent, the report states.
“For those with symptomatic infections who may have sought medical care before SARS-CoV-2 was known to be circulating in the U.S., clinical samples may not have been collected and therefore respiratory virus testing may not have been performed; even fewer specimens would likely be archived and available for retrospective molecular testing,” the report adds.
A COVID-19 testing sign at the empty Tom Bradley International Terminal at Los Angeles International Airport on Nov. 25, 2020. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Blood donors who had COVID-19 were likely asymptomatic when they donated their blood to the Red Cross since each donor had to be screened for bacterial or viral respiratory infections, including influenza. We now know that the symptoms of those infections are similar to those of COVID-19 patients. If prospective blood donors were not well, they would have been asked to come back another time, researchers said.
Health experts already suspected that the virus arrived in the U.S. weeks to months before it was officially recorded.
Advertisement
Researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Washington reported in September that there had been an unusual increase in patients seeking treatment for respiratory illness beginning the week of Dec. 22 and continuing through to the end of February.
Other countries have also said they’ve found evidence of the virus circulating earlier than previously believed, including France and Italy.
Researchers noted in their report on Monday that they couldn’t determine whether the blood donors’ infections were from community spread or travel.