washingtonmonthly--2020-04-18--Hindu Nationalists Are Using COVID-19 to Fuel a Humanitarian Disaster in India

“ All people are not equal , ” declared Subramanian Swamy , a member of parliament for India ’ s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP ) .
“ There ’ s no such thing as equal rights .
They are not in an equal category.
” He was talking about Muslims .
The BJP ’ s project of Hindu supremacy is nothing new .
Since coming to power in 2014 , the party has pursued Islamophobic policies with zeal .
Within the last twelve months , for example , the BJP has passed legislation designed to strip millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctioned mob violence against Muslims and their allies , leading to dozens of deaths earlier this year .
The prestigious , DC-based Genocide Watch has issued two genocide alerts for India , making it the only country in the world with two such warnings .
But in the wake of the coronavirus ’ spread , the oppression has grown worse .
As the state looks to deflect blame for the virus ’ spread away from its own haphazard response , it has scapegoated Muslims .
In a recent monologue about the pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Muslims “ are dangerous people ” who “ have compromised us all.
” He continued : “ We were just winning when they did everything to defeat us.
” Hashtags such as # CoronaJihad are trending on Indian social media .
There are many reasons to be concerned that this dangerous rhetoric could explode into even more violence .
Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi has authoritarian instincts .
He has embarked on an increasingly successful campaign to control Indian media coverage and crush dissent , including an order that the press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newfound emergency powers and longstanding hatred of Muslims could cause a humanitarian disaster .
Past pandemics have led to brutal oppression .
Given that India already has a history of pogroms , there ’ s plenty of reason to think that the coronavirus could lead to widespread violence against Muslims .
In the past , the United States government has been willing to speak out against Modi ’ s anti-Islam policies .
In 2005 , the State Department barred Modi , then chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat , from entering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were killed in riots inside his state .
But now , the U.S. is looking the other way .
This willful ignorance was on full display in the U.S. State Department ’ s annual report on Human Rights Practices , delivered to Congress just last month .
The report included 65 pages specifically devoted to India , a sign of the country ’ s growing geopolitical significance—and yet its authors completely failed to diagnose the dangerous rise of Hindu nationalism and religiously-motivated violence gripping the country .
While the report identified some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Indian government , it did little to probe what is driving them .
The word “ Hindutva ” the name of the increasingly prevalent , far-right Indian ideology of Hindu supremacy , is not mentioned even once in the report .
Even more shockingly , the State Department report made no mention of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ( RSS ) , a paramilitary force that caused a Washington Post writer to predict “ the end is near for Gandhi ’ s India.
” This powerful organization , which traces its roots to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the BJP .
It controls most of the government ministers , the largest labor unions , and the largest student bodies , and even managed to change textbooks in India to reflect the ideology of Hindutva .
Modi joined the group when he was eight years old .
In failing to criticize India ’ s leaders for embracing Hindutva , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the State Department have sent a disturbing signal : they accept India ’ s rising violence and authoritarianis In the spread and aftermath of the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that governments work together to stamp out religious , economic , or racial scapegoating—before we see renewed waves of ethnic cleansing and genocide take shape .
But America can ’ t lead the world in this effort if it doesn ’ t even acknowledge , let alone confront , the injustices in the world ’ s largest democracy .

“All people are not equal,” declared Subramanian Swamy, a member of parliament for India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). “There’s no such thing as equal rights. They are not in an equal category.” He was talking about Muslims.
The BJP’s project of Hindu supremacy is nothing new. Since coming to power in 2014, the party has pursued Islamophobic policies with zeal. Within the last twelve months, for example, the BJP has passed legislation designed to strip millions of Muslims of their citizenship. It has sanctioned mob violence against Muslims and their allies, leading to dozens of deaths earlier this year. The prestigious, DC-based Genocide Watch has issued two genocide alerts for India, making it the only country in the world with two such warnings.
But in the wake of the coronavirus’ spread, the oppression has grown worse. As the state looks to deflect blame for the virus’ spread away from its own haphazard response, it has scapegoated Muslims. In a recent monologue about the pandemic, widely watched television anchor Arnab Goswami fumed that Muslims “are dangerous people” who “have compromised us all.” He continued: “We were just winning when they did everything to defeat us.” Hashtags such as #CoronaJihad are trending on Indian social media.
There are many reasons to be concerned that this dangerous rhetoric could explode into even more violence. Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi has authoritarian instincts. He has embarked on an increasingly successful campaign to control Indian media coverage and crush dissent, including an order that the press parrot his line on COVID-19. His newfound emergency powers and longstanding hatred of Muslims could cause a humanitarian disaster. Past pandemics have led to brutal oppression. Given that India already has a history of pogroms, there’s plenty of reason to think that the coronavirus could lead to widespread violence against Muslims.
In the past, the United States government has been willing to speak out against Modi’s anti-Islam policies. In 2005, the State Department barred Modi, then chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat, from entering the United States after thousands of Muslims were killed in riots inside his state. But now, the U.S. is looking the other way. This willful ignorance was on full display in the U.S. State Department’s annual report on Human Rights Practices, delivered to Congress just last month. The report included 65 pages specifically devoted to India, a sign of the country’s growing geopolitical significance—and yet its authors completely failed to diagnose the dangerous rise of Hindu nationalism and religiously-motivated violence gripping the country.
While the report identified some of the serious human rights violations committed by the Indian government, it did little to probe what is driving them. The word “Hindutva , ” the name of the increasingly prevalent, far-right Indian ideology of Hindu supremacy, is not mentioned even once in the report. Even more shockingly, the State Department report made no mention of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a paramilitary force that caused a Washington Post writer to predict “the end is near for Gandhi’s India.” This powerful organization, which traces its roots to European fascism, is the parent organization of the BJP. It controls most of the government ministers, the largest labor unions, and the largest student bodies, and even managed to change textbooks in India to reflect the ideology of Hindutva. Modi joined the group when he was eight years old.
In failing to criticize India’s leaders for embracing Hindutva, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the State Department have sent a disturbing signal: they accept India’s rising violence and authoritarianism.
In the spread and aftermath of the coronavirus, it is more critical than ever that governments work together to stamp out religious, economic, or racial scapegoating—before we see renewed waves of ethnic cleansing and genocide take shape. But America can’t lead the world in this effort if it doesn’t even acknowledge, let alone confront, the injustices in the world’s largest democracy.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-17--America’s Essence Is On The Ballot This November

The Trump campaign has launched a new theme on social media that makes the Willie Horton ad of 1988 look like child ’ s play .
Here are a couple of examples .
That is a good indication of what we can expect from Trump over the next few months .
I am reminded of something one of the president ’ s advisors told Maggie Haberman : “ The president , whose own approval ratings have stayed upside down , needs voters to feel negatively not just about his opponents but about longstanding institutions.
” Neither the president nor his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s approval ratings .
They simply want to gin up fear and hatred for their opponents .
As Philip Bump documented , that strategy worked in 2016 .
As it turns out , while people who liked Trump and didn ’ t like Clinton voted heavily for Trump ( as you ’ d expect ) , the current president also had an edge among people who disliked both him and Clinton .
He won those voters by 17 points nationally — and by margins in the closest states that were likely enough to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed… By the numbers , exit polls had Trump leading Clinton among those who didn ’ t like either candidate by 37 points in Wisconsin , 25 points in Pennsylvania and 21 points in Michigan .
Of course , Trump got a huge assist with those voters from former FBI Director James Comey , Russia , Sanders supporters , and the media in painting Clinton as “ corrupt.
” There has been a concerted effort to do the same thing with Biden by linking him to his son Hunter Biden ’ s activities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold the way the smears against Clinton did in 2016 .
According to a recent Quinnipiac poll , Biden leads Trump among voters who dislike both candidates by 32 percent .
Jon Favreau once said that “ every election is a competition between two stories about America.
” Trump ’ s story this year will be similar to the one he told in 2016 .
While it is important for Democrats to point out the overwhelming failures of the Trump administration and call out their lies , it is also important to tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden is doing that by talking about the need to reclaim the soul of America .
Telling a compelling story always starts with identifying the challenge .
It then links the current struggle to those we have overcome in the past .
Finally , it identifies our strength to overcome .
Especially at this moment in our country ’ s history , it feels like it could be a risk to put our faith in the American people .
But I am reminded of something Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote shortly after Barack Obama ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama and the civil rights leaders of old are joined — in a shocking , almost certifiable faith in humanity , something that subsequent generations lost .
The Rev .
Martin Luther King Jr. may have led African Americans out of segregation , and he may have cured incalculable numbers of white racists , but more than all that , he believed that the lion ’ s share of the population of this country would not support the rights of thugs to pummel people who just wanted to cross a bridge .
King @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was a younger , more callow man , that belief made me suck my teeth .
I saw it as weakness and cowardice , a lack of faith in his own .
But it was the opposite .
King ’ s belief in white people was the ultimate show of strength : He was willing to give his life on a bet that they were no different from the people who lived next door .
The truth is that an America that buys into Trump ’ s vision of hate and division @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if there is a soul of America that is still dedicated to the struggle to perfect our union , it will be on the ballot this November .

The Trump campaign has launched a new theme on social media that makes the Willie Horton ad of 1988 look like child’s play. Here are a couple of examples.
That is a good indication of what we can expect from Trump over the next few months. I am reminded of something one of the president’s advisors told Maggie Haberman: “The president, whose own approval ratings have stayed upside down, needs voters to feel negatively not just about his opponents but about longstanding institutions.” Neither the president nor his advisors are interested in raising Trump’s approval ratings. They simply want to gin up fear and hatred for their opponents.
As Philip Bump documented, that strategy worked in 2016.
As it turns out, while people who liked Trump and didn’t like Clinton voted heavily for Trump (as you’d expect), the current president also had an edge among people who disliked both him and Clinton. He won those voters by 17 points nationally — and by margins in the closest states that were likely enough to hand him the electoral college victory he needed… By the numbers, exit polls had Trump leading Clinton among those who didn’t like either candidate by 37 points in Wisconsin, 25 points in Pennsylvania and 21 points in Michigan.
Of course, Trump got a huge assist with those voters from former FBI Director James Comey, Russia, Sanders supporters, and the media in painting Clinton as “corrupt.” There has been a concerted effort to do the same thing with Biden by linking him to his son Hunter Biden’s activities, but that hasn’t taken hold the way the smears against Clinton did in 2016. According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, Biden leads Trump among voters who dislike both candidates by 32 percent.
Jon Favreau once said that “every election is a competition between two stories about America.” Trump’s story this year will be similar to the one he told in 2016.
He is a celebrity strongman who will single-handedly save the country from an establishment that is too weak, stupid, corrupt, and politically correct to let us blame the real source of our problems—Muslims and Mexicans and Black Lives Matter protesters; the media, business, and political elites from both parties.
While it is important for Democrats to point out the overwhelming failures of the Trump administration and call out their lies, it is also important to tell a competing story of America. Joe Biden is doing that by talking about the need to reclaim the soul of America. Telling a compelling story always starts with identifying the challenge.
It then links the current struggle to those we have overcome in the past.
Finally, it identifies our strength to overcome.
Especially at this moment in our country’s history, it feels like it could be a risk to put our faith in the American people. But I am reminded of something Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote shortly after Barack Obama’s election.
Here is where Barack Obama and the civil rights leaders of old are joined — in a shocking, almost certifiable faith in humanity, something that subsequent generations lost. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. may have led African Americans out of segregation, and he may have cured incalculable numbers of white racists, but more than all that, he believed that the lion’s share of the population of this country would not support the rights of thugs to pummel people who just wanted to cross a bridge. King believed in white people, and when I was a younger, more callow man, that belief made me suck my teeth. I saw it as weakness and cowardice, a lack of faith in his own. But it was the opposite. King’s belief in white people was the ultimate show of strength: He was willing to give his life on a bet that they were no different from the people who lived next door.
The truth is that an America that buys into Trump’s vision of hate and division might not be worth saving. But if there is a soul of America that is still dedicated to the struggle to perfect our union, it will be on the ballot this November.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-20--Why Trump Has Wobbled on the GOP Plan to Blame China for COVID-19

Donald Trump initially responded to the coronavirus outbreak by engaging in denial .
But with the pandemic resulting in over 30,000 deaths in the United States , denial became untenable .
Rather than step up to take responsibility to stop the spread of the virus , Trump moved on to allocate blame .
In addition to the previous administration , one of his favorite targets these days is Democratic governors .
The Republican establishment , however , is intent on blaming another villain : China .
The strategy could not be clearer : From the Republican lawmakers blanketing Fox News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s super PAC to the biting criticism on Donald Trump Jr. ’ s Twitter feed , the G.O.P .
is attempting to divert attention from the administration ’ s heavily criticized response to the coronavirus by pinning the blame on China .
With the death toll from the pandemic already surpassing 34,000 Americans and unemployment soaring to levels not seen since the Great Depression , Republicans increasingly believe that elevating China as an archenemy culpable for the spread of the virus , and harnessing America ’ s growing animosity toward Beijing , may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult election .
As the authors of that New York Times piece point out , the attempt to blame China is running into a bit of a problem .
Trump keeps sending mixed messages about the identified villian .
As the Republican establishment gears up to blame China and use that against Biden in the 2020 election , we ’ re seeing some powerful push-back that demonstrates the problem .
The suggestion has been that Trump ’ s hesitancy to join the Republican bandwagon is because he is intent on finalizing a trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are dependent on them for medical supplies .
I would propose that there is something else going on .
What we know about Donald Trump is that he is always driven by self-interest .
His conflicted approach to China is more likely to be based on his business interests .
You might remember that only three months after Trump was inaugurated , his daughter Ivanka ’ s company was awarded several Chinese trademarks on the same day that the family dined with President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago .
Over the course of May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more trademarks while the president was lifting sanctions against the Chinese telecommunications company ZTE .
The pattern continued into the fall of 2018 .
The Chinese government granted 18 trademarks to companies linked to President Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka Trump over the last two months , Chinese public records show , raising concerns about conflicts of interest in the White House .
In October , China ’ s Trademark Office granted provisional approval for 16 trademarks to Ivanka Trump Marks LLC , bringing to 34 the total number of marks China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the office ’ s online database .
Perhaps the timing of all of that is merely a coincidence—just as it might be a coincidence that Trump stopped referring to the “ Chinese virus ” after a phone call with President Xi Jinping .
But I doubt it .
There is also this interesting little tidbit from the Steele dossier that has consistently been ignored .
In other words , Putin might not be the only one who has “ the goods ” on Trump .

Donald Trump initially responded to the coronavirus outbreak by engaging in denial. But with the pandemic resulting in over 30,000 deaths in the United States, denial became untenable. Rather than step up to take responsibility to stop the spread of the virus, Trump moved on to allocate blame. In addition to the previous administration, one of his favorite targets these days is Democratic governors.
The Republican establishment, however, is intent on blaming another villain: China.
The strategy could not be clearer: From the Republican lawmakers blanketing Fox News to new ads from President Trump’s super PAC to the biting criticism on Donald Trump Jr.’s Twitter feed, the G.O.P. is attempting to divert attention from the administration’s heavily criticized response to the coronavirus by pinning the blame on China. With the death toll from the pandemic already surpassing 34,000 Americans and unemployment soaring to levels not seen since the Great Depression, Republicans increasingly believe that elevating China as an archenemy culpable for the spread of the virus, and harnessing America’s growing animosity toward Beijing, may be the best way to salvage a difficult election.
As the authors of that New York Times piece point out, the attempt to blame China is running into a bit of a problem. Trump keeps sending mixed messages about the identified villian.
Even as the president tries to rebut criticism of his slow response to the outbreak by highlighting his January travel restrictions on China, he has repeatedly called Mr. Xi a friend and said “we are dealing in good faith” with the repressive government. He also dropped his periodic references to the disease as “the China virus” after a telephone call with Mr. Xi.
As the Republican establishment gears up to blame China and use that against Biden in the 2020 election, we’re seeing some powerful push-back that demonstrates the problem.
The suggestion has been that Trump’s hesitancy to join the Republican bandwagon is because he is intent on finalizing a trade agreement with China and recognizes that we are dependent on them for medical supplies.
I would propose that there is something else going on. What we know about Donald Trump is that he is always driven by self-interest. His conflicted approach to China is more likely to be based on his business interests.
You might remember that only three months after Trump was inaugurated, his daughter Ivanka’s company was awarded several Chinese trademarks on the same day that the family dined with President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago. Over the course of May and June 2018, Ivanka procured five more trademarks while the president was lifting sanctions against the Chinese telecommunications company ZTE. The pattern continued into the fall of 2018.
The Chinese government granted 18 trademarks to companies linked to President Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka Trump over the last two months, Chinese public records show, raising concerns about conflicts of interest in the White House. In October, China’s Trademark Office granted provisional approval for 16 trademarks to Ivanka Trump Marks LLC, bringing to 34 the total number of marks China has greenlighted this year, according to the office’s online database.
Perhaps the timing of all of that is merely a coincidence—just as it might be a coincidence that Trump stopped referring to the “Chinese virus” after a phone call with President Xi Jinping. But I doubt it.
There is also this interesting little tidbit from the Steele dossier that has consistently been ignored.
In other words, Putin might not be the only one who has “the goods” on Trump.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-20--Why Trump Doesn’t Want to Bailout the Economy from the COVID-19 Crisis

President Herbert Hoover may have been in some respects unlucky and he may not have received the best advice , but nothing he did in response to the onset of the Great Depression was effective in turning the tide .
A lot of this had to do with a failure of imagination and an inability to let go of prior assumptions .
He had campaigned successfully in 1928 on the strong economic performance under Republican presidential leadership during the decade .
When the stock market plunged in 1929 , it was after several years of robust growth .
He wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s reputation for good economic stewardship was well-earned and could be sustained .
His assumption was that there would be a brief recession and then a recovery , hopefully in time for his run for reelection in 1932 .
He began his response by asking business leaders to voluntarily maintain people ’ s level of pay and to refrain from layoffs , hoping that he could thereby maintain consumer demand .
He did his best to buck the nation up and focused on giving people confidence that any hard times would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and consumers cinched their belts , and pretty soon the banks were beginning to fail .
We ’ ve seen something similar with Trump .
He ’ s been planning on using a strong economy for his reelection campaign , and his first response to the outbreak of Covid-19 was primarily about trying to keep the stock market from freaking out .
He minimized the threat and grew angry with government officials who offered contradictory messaging .
Next he resisted the advice that people stop gathering in public spaces or that businesses shut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy into a tailspin .
If he hadn ’ t been so wedded to his reputation for presiding over a growing economy with low unemployment , he might have had an easier time recognizing that the viral pandemic was going to do what it was going to do and that no amount of denial or cheerleading could prevent it from undermining his numbers .
He might have understood that the best political protection available would come from getting ahead of the pandemic before it arrived in force on our shores .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to distort his response , as he ’ s now actively encouraging people to protest the very policies that appear to be working to prevent a worse outbreak of the novel coronavirus .
But sometimes major events occur that require us to almost instantaneously bury our prior assumptions .
In thinking about a good example of this , for some reason my mind went back to the 2004 campaign when John Kerry caused no end of problems for himself by talking about how he had voted for $ 87 billion is supplemental war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against it .
His point had been that he couldn ’ t support final passage of the bill but that he wasn ’ t opposed in principle to the supplemental funding .
At the time , the price tag of the bill was almost as controversial as the purpose .
People felt like tacking $ 87 billion of spending onto the deficit was a big deal .
Iraq would wind up costing so much money that few people remember the 2003 supplemental bill as more than a drop in the bucket .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to what the government spent to recover from the Great Recession .
But even that number is dwarfed by what Congress has spent and will need to spend to contend with this pandemic : The Trump administration and congressional leaders closed in Sunday on an approximately $ 470 billion deal to renew funding for a small-business loan program that ran out of money under crushing demand during the coronavirus pandemic , aiming to pass the agreement into law within days… …The deal would add about $ 310 billion to the Paycheck Protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swamped by demand in the three weeks since Congress created it as part of a $ 2 trillion coronavirus rescue bill… …If the changes are signed into law this week , Congress would have approved more than $ 700 billion in emergency assistance for small businesses alone in just one month .
That would be more than the entire $ 700 billion in bailout money approved during the 2008 financial crisis .
Like it or not , Trump is presiding over all of this massive government intervention , and so are conservative Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not what they promised when they ran for election and it ’ s not consistent with conservative rhetoric going all the way back to Herbert Hoover .
They ’ re doing it because they see no other choice , but they ’ re not embracing it because it runs contrary to their assumptions .
Hoover left office an embittered man and he continued to rail against Roosevelt and his New Deal policies all the way through the Eisenhower administration .
He could never concede that strong government action is sometimes required .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The policies will be enacted but conservatives won ’ t accept them .
This means they can ’ t be trusted to run these programs effectively or to do productive oversight .
This probably spells the end of the Reagan Revolution , although it ’ s unclear if the Republican Party will wither into the same kind of permanent minority party is was in the post-New Deal decades or it will remake itself with new non-conservative members .

President Herbert Hoover may have been in some respects unlucky and he may not have received the best advice, but nothing he did in response to the onset of the Great Depression was effective in turning the tide. A lot of this had to do with a failure of imagination and an inability to let go of prior assumptions. He had campaigned successfully in 1928 on the strong economic performance under Republican presidential leadership during the decade. When the stock market plunged in 1929, it was after several years of robust growth. He wanted to believe that he and his party’s reputation for good economic stewardship was well-earned and could be sustained. His assumption was that there would be a brief recession and then a recovery, hopefully in time for his run for reelection in 1932. He began his response by asking business leaders to voluntarily maintain people’s level of pay and to refrain from layoffs, hoping that he could thereby maintain consumer demand. He did his best to buck the nation up and focused on giving people confidence that any hard times would be temporary. But businesses laid off workers and consumers cinched their belts, and pretty soon the banks were beginning to fail.
We’ve seen something similar with Trump. He’s been planning on using a strong economy for his reelection campaign, and his first response to the outbreak of Covid-19 was primarily about trying to keep the stock market from freaking out. He minimized the threat and grew angry with government officials who offered contradictory messaging. Next he resisted the advice that people stop gathering in public spaces or that businesses shut down because he knew it would send the economy into a tailspin. If he hadn’t been so wedded to his reputation for presiding over a growing economy with low unemployment, he might have had an easier time recognizing that the viral pandemic was going to do what it was going to do and that no amount of denial or cheerleading could prevent it from undermining his numbers. He might have understood that the best political protection available would come from getting ahead of the pandemic before it arrived in force on our shores.
His preoccupation with now outdated economic measures continues to distort his response, as he’s now actively encouraging people to protest the very policies that appear to be working to prevent a worse outbreak of the novel coronavirus. But sometimes major events occur that require us to almost instantaneously bury our prior assumptions.
In thinking about a good example of this, for some reason my mind went back to the 2004 campaign when John Kerry caused no end of problems for himself by talking about how he had voted for $87 billion is supplemental war funding for Iraq before he had voted against it. His point had been that he couldn’t support final passage of the bill but that he wasn’t opposed in principle to the supplemental funding. At the time, the price tag of the bill was almost as controversial as the purpose. People felt like tacking $87 billion of spending onto the deficit was a big deal. Iraq would wind up costing so much money that few people remember the 2003 supplemental bill as more than a drop in the bucket. That’s especially true if you compare it to what the government spent to recover from the Great Recession.
But even that number is dwarfed by what Congress has spent and will need to spend to contend with this pandemic:
The Trump administration and congressional leaders closed in Sunday on an approximately $470 billion deal to renew funding for a small-business loan program that ran out of money under crushing demand during the coronavirus pandemic, aiming to pass the agreement into law within days… …The deal would add about $310 billion to the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses, which was swamped by demand in the three weeks since Congress created it as part of a $2 trillion coronavirus rescue bill… …If the changes are signed into law this week, Congress would have approved more than $700 billion in emergency assistance for small businesses alone in just one month. That would be more than the entire $700 billion in bailout money approved during the 2008 financial crisis.
Like it or not, Trump is presiding over all of this massive government intervention, and so are conservative Republicans in the Senate. It’s not what they promised when they ran for election and it’s not consistent with conservative rhetoric going all the way back to Herbert Hoover. They’re doing it because they see no other choice, but they’re not embracing it because it runs contrary to their assumptions.
Hoover left office an embittered man and he continued to rail against Roosevelt and his New Deal policies all the way through the Eisenhower administration. He could never concede that strong government action is sometimes required.
The same thing is going to happen here. The policies will be enacted but conservatives won’t accept them. This means they can’t be trusted to run these programs effectively or to do productive oversight. This probably spells the end of the Reagan Revolution, although it’s unclear if the Republican Party will wither into the same kind of permanent minority party is was in the post-New Deal decades or it will remake itself with new non-conservative members.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-21--Republicans Are Desperate for Another Tea Party Movement

According to the latest NBC/WSJ poll , Joe Biden leads Donald Trump nationally by seven points ( 49-42 ) .
But here ’ s the news that really counts .
[ W ] hen the race is reduced to 11 swing states—Arizona , Colorado , Florida , Maine , Michigan , Minnesota , Nevada , New Hampshire , North Carolina , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—Biden ’ s combined lead over Trump is 6 points , 49 percent to 43 percent .
Demographically , he ’ s where a winning Democratic nominee usually wants to be : His biggest advantages are with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 85 percent to 7 percent ) , Latinos ( 60 percent to 26 percent ) , voters ages 18-34 ( 54 percent to 31 percent ) , women ( 56 percent to 35 percent ) and whites with a college degree ( 55 percent to 37 percent ) .
Things don ’ t look much better for Republicans when it comes to retaining a majority in the Senate .
Right now , Cook Political Report lists four GOP-held seats as toss-ups : Arizona , Colorado , Maine , and North Carolina .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on behalf of Republicans than is warranted , as demonstrated by the fact that they still consider Arizona to be a toss-up .
Democrat Mark Kelly has led Republican incumbent Martha McSally in the last nine polls—most recently clocking in with a nine-point advantage .
All of that might help explain why so many Republicans are desperately hoping for a renewal of the Tea Party spirit that garnered so much attention during the Obama administration .
As David Catron demonstrates , they think they ’ ve found it in the recent lockdown protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ Democrats ] have disregarded voter lockdown protests with the same disdain with which they ignored the Tea Party movement ten years ago .
The Democrats have clearly forgotten the price they paid for that blunder .
Between 2010 and 2016 they lost Congress , 13 governorships , 816 state legislative seats , and finally the presidency .
They regained some ground in 2018 , but they won ’ t retain it if they don ’ t recognize the protests as the foreshock of an electoral earthquake .
It is possible that these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the moment , what we are seeing is a few dozen protesters in states with millions of voters .
Meanwhile , this is what we ’ re seeing in the polls .
That hardly registers as an “ electoral earthquake.
” Republicans face a few challenges when it comes to reigniting the Tea Party fervor .
The most important ingredient that is lacking is an African American president .
There can be no doubt that the previous movement was fueled by racism .
With that as the groundwork , Republicans were able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ death panels ” in Obamacare .
It was fairly easy to lie about a program that hadn ’ t been implemented yet .
But things are different with a pandemic .
Contrary to what some people think , the coronavirus is spreading in the Republican stronghold of rural America .
Just as cases are starting to plateau in some big cities and along the coasts , the coronavirus is catching fire in rural states across the American heartland , where there has been a small but significant spike this week in cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clash between a frontier culture that values individual freedom and personal responsibility , and the onerous but necessary restrictions to contain a novel biological threat .
The bump in coronavirus cases is most pronounced in states without stay at home orders .
Oklahoma saw a 53 % increase in cases over the past week , according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University .
Over same time , cases jumped 60 % in Arkansas , 74 % in Nebraska , and 82 % in Iowa .
South Dakota saw a whopping 205 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that this new protest movement is bigger than it actually is because the news media has become obsessed with it , as Eric Boehlert documented .
Anxious for a political angle to the ongoing pandemic story and one that can produce instant conflict ( as well as compelling pictures ) , the news media are showering attention on the small groups of GOP protesters who are angry about life-saving social distancing orders issued by governors to battle the Covid-19 pandemic… Proving once again that every Beltway news cycle revolves around the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans angry about today ?
, the recent emergence of Trump-sanctioned protests has grabbed the media ’ s attention , even though some events are drawing modest crowds .
None of this is to suggest that Trump ’ s supporters lack angst or enthusiasm .
That is a given .
But even 72 percent of Republicans say that Americans should continue “ social distancing ” measures .
That doesn ’ t sound like a Tea Party revolt to me .

According to the latest NBC/WSJ poll, Joe Biden leads Donald Trump nationally by seven points (49-42). But here’s the news that really counts.
[W]hen the race is reduced to 11 swing states—Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—Biden’s combined lead over Trump is 6 points, 49 percent to 43 percent. Demographically, he’s where a winning Democratic nominee usually wants to be: His biggest advantages are with African-American voters (where he leads Trump, 85 percent to 7 percent), Latinos (60 percent to 26 percent), voters ages 18-34 (54 percent to 31 percent), women (56 percent to 35 percent) and whites with a college degree (55 percent to 37 percent).
Things don’t look much better for Republicans when it comes to retaining a majority in the Senate. Right now, Cook Political Report lists four GOP-held seats as toss-ups: Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and North Carolina. Cook might be a bit more bullish on behalf of Republicans than is warranted, as demonstrated by the fact that they still consider Arizona to be a toss-up. Democrat Mark Kelly has led Republican incumbent Martha McSally in the last nine polls—most recently clocking in with a nine-point advantage.
All of that might help explain why so many Republicans are desperately hoping for a renewal of the Tea Party spirit that garnered so much attention during the Obama administration. As David Catron demonstrates, they think they’ve found it in the recent lockdown protests.
At the national and state levels [Democrats] have disregarded voter lockdown protests with the same disdain with which they ignored the Tea Party movement ten years ago. The Democrats have clearly forgotten the price they paid for that blunder. Between 2010 and 2016 they lost Congress, 13 governorships, 816 state legislative seats, and finally the presidency. They regained some ground in 2018, but they won’t retain it if they don’t recognize the protests as the foreshock of an electoral earthquake.
It is possible that these protests will grow over time. But at the moment, what we are seeing is a few dozen protesters in states with millions of voters. Meanwhile, this is what we’re seeing in the polls.
More than eight in 10 voters, 81 percent, say Americans “should continue to social distance for as long as is needed to curb the spread of coronavirus, even if it means continued damage to the economy.” Only 10 percent say Americans “should stop social distancing to stimulate the economy, even if it means increasing the spread of coronavirus.”
That hardly registers as an “electoral earthquake.”
Republicans face a few challenges when it comes to reigniting the Tea Party fervor. The most important ingredient that is lacking is an African American president. There can be no doubt that the previous movement was fueled by racism.
With that as the groundwork, Republicans were able to spread lies about Democratic policies—such as “death panels” in Obamacare.
It was fairly easy to lie about a program that hadn’t been implemented yet. But things are different with a pandemic. Contrary to what some people think, the coronavirus is spreading in the Republican stronghold of rural America.
Just as cases are starting to plateau in some big cities and along the coasts, the coronavirus is catching fire in rural states across the American heartland, where there has been a small but significant spike this week in cases. Playing out amid these outbreaks is a clash between a frontier culture that values individual freedom and personal responsibility, and the onerous but necessary restrictions to contain a novel biological threat. The bump in coronavirus cases is most pronounced in states without stay at home orders. Oklahoma saw a 53% increase in cases over the past week, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. Over same time, cases jumped 60% in Arkansas, 74% in Nebraska, and 82% in Iowa. South Dakota saw a whopping 205% spike.
A lot of people think that this new protest movement is bigger than it actually is because the news media has become obsessed with it, as Eric Boehlert documented.
Anxious for a political angle to the ongoing pandemic story and one that can produce instant conflict (as well as compelling pictures), the news media are showering attention on the small groups of GOP protesters who are angry about life-saving social distancing orders issued by governors to battle the Covid-19 pandemic… Proving once again that every Beltway news cycle revolves around the very simple question of, ‘What are Republicans angry about today?, the recent emergence of Trump-sanctioned protests has grabbed the media’s attention, even though some events are drawing modest crowds.
None of this is to suggest that Trump’s supporters lack angst or enthusiasm. That is a given. But even 72 percent of Republicans say that Americans should continue “social distancing” measures. That doesn’t sound like a Tea Party revolt to me.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-21--How Trump Wasted the Best Tool He Had to Fight Coronavirus

Out of all the responsibilities President Donald Trump has shirked during the COVID-19 pandemic , from not pressing China for information on the virus in its early weeks to not building up a testing regime in the Unites States , none has been more derelict than his administration ’ s failure to provide front-line healthcare workers with the medical and protective equipment they need .
What ’ s most exasperating is that there was a system in place to provide that equipment : the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile , an integrated collection of secret , federally-controlled warehouses with billions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical supplies that were needed in this crisis , such as masks and ventilators .
Once the CIA warned Trump of a coming pandemic in January , his administration should have immediately ordered more such equipment to meet the coming surge .
That he didn ’ t left American hospitals overwhelmed .
It left states having to claw to obtain the materials they need to save lives .
Of course , it didn ’ t help that Trump did nothing to replenish or update the stockpile in his first three years in office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distributed 90 percent of the stockpile ’ s supplies .
The president and his administration then compounded these grievous errors with lies and misinformation .
The president ’ s son-in-law Jared Kushner has said the stockpile was for the federal government , not the states .
In fact , it was built precisely for states and localities to use in the case of an emergency .
Trump , meanwhile , has repeatedly blamed his predecessor for leaving him with a depleted stockpile .
“ Our cupboards were bare , ” he told reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , having used the stockpile to deal with the swine flu and the Ebola crises , tried to increase funding for it , but was blocked by Tea Party Republicans and sequestration .
Trump ’ s mismanagement of the reserve is more than just another case of the administration ’ s tendency to shift blame and spew lies .
It gets at the heart of one of the key roles of any president—to prepare for threats that have not yet happened .
One president who exemplified this foresight was Bill Clinton , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second term .
For more insight into this , I spoke with Richard Clarke , Clinton ’ s chief counterterrorism adviser on the National Security Council and the man the president tasked with building the stockpile .
The following Q & A has been edited and condensed for clarity .
What led to the creation of the national stockpile ?
It ’ s been reported that President Clinton came up with the idea after reading a bioterrorism thriller .
Is that true ?
There were a lot of novels out .
Richard Preston @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great reader of everything .
He stayed up late every night reading .
He went through several books a week .
I recall getting a couple bounced over to me , with questions like , “ Could this really happen ?
” But it wasn ’ t just that he had read novels .
There were two events in the mid-1990s that , together , jarred the president : the Oklahoma City bombing , which was done by two Americans with an 18-wheel tractor trailer filled with explosives , and separately , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Aum Shinrikyo developed their own biological and chemical weapons and tried them out on the Tokyo subway .
This caused the president , among others , to think : What if those two things came together ?
What if , suddenly , we had large attacks using chemical or biological weapons on our subways ?
President Clinton asked me to see if we were at all prepared to handle that .
We came back to him and said we weren ’ t .
There were no detection capabilities for most of these kinds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capabilities in most cities .
Nobody was trained , nobody was equipped .
Not only would we not be able to deal with the consequences , we wouldn ’ t even have detected the attack .
There was no detection equipment deployed anywhere .
The Army had some for battlefield use , but there was nothing in any cities .
There was nothing in the White House .
We wouldn ’ t have known if the White House had been sprayed with a biological weapon .
So we started a program .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But we also realized that you could use it for a pandemic .
How did you realize that ?
Well , in investigating all that , we found a lot of interest from the Public Health Service and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
They told us a very similar thing could happen naturally—an emerging infectious disease , like the 1918 flu .
We weren ’ t prepared for that either .
What we figured out was , we could set up a nationwide detection system and an international system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from terrorists and emerging infectious diseases .
The president secured money from Congress to put into the Public Health Service and the CDC to create a stockpile .
A lot of it was grant money that went down to the state and county level , so they could have labs that would be able to detect and test .
They set up a system so that when people came to emergency rooms and reported illnesses , that information would go into a national monitoring system .
We realized that if a big event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be overwhelmed .
So we set up a national stockpile of emergency medical gear that included medicines , hospital beds , ventilators , and put it in warehouses around the country .
We had a plan that when the equipment reached near its expiration date , it would be rotated , either through the Defense Department or Veterans medical systems , so that the equipment would be used before their expiration dates .
How was the stockpile set up so that the government could use it if a real crisis happened ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas to train and equip first responders so they could detect when they had an incident and they would be able get into protective gear .
The stockpile was combined with the training of medical personnel .
You can ’ t just put things in warehouses .
You have to train people how to use them .
You have to have exercises periodically .
You have to regularly review what ’ s in the stockpile , to change the mix depending on new information .
It wasn ’ t meant to just be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant to be a living , growing , adapting stockpile .
People thought we were crazy for doing it because we were responding to something that hadn ’ t happened .
But for once , the government got out ahead of something .
One thing the Trump administration has said is that the stockpile isn ’ t there for the states .
Is that true ?
No , it ’ s for whoever needs it .
The states are the people who are going to need it .
They are the owners and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government doesn ’ t even have first responders .
The stockpile is there for community hospitals around the country .
The creation of this stockpile was all done near the end of Clinton ’ s tenure .
It was obviously designed to help his successors if the country ever faced this kind of crisis .
Was the Bush administration similarly responsive to other threats you warned them about ?
Dick Cheney came in really concerned about bioterrorism .
I think that came from his time as secretary of defense .
We told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at it and said , “ Well , that ’ s great .
I didn ’ t know you had any of this , but it ’ s way too small.
” And so they greatly increased the funding for it .
But obviously , Bush didn ’ t want to hear that there was a major al Qaeda attack coming to the U.S. , even though he was told specifically that .
Didn ’ t want to hear it .
Rather than saying , “ Tell me more , go find out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can do , ” he reacted by saying , “ Well , you ’ ve covered your ass now by telling me that.
” That ’ s a very different kind of approach than Obama or Clinton , who were always looking for the thing that was going to bite them in th eass .
Did the Obama administration also show an interest in preparing for possible disasters ?
Back in 2008 , when Obama was coming into office , he wanted the entire national security cabinet to get together and play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one for them on a nuclear bomb being smuggled into New York ; it was a no-win scenario .
It was designed to get them to understand how a terrorist crisis would play out .
They all loved it .
Years later , when the Trump people are coming in , the Obama people wanted to have that tabletop exercise again on crisis management .
They did itfor the Trump team a week before the inauguration .
It was on a global pandemic that starts in China and comes to the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That was kind of the way the outgoing Obama administration said to the incoming Trump administration : This is important .
Get ready for it .
It ’ s going to happen .
So it seems as though the Clinton and Obama administrations were always scanning the horizon for risks and were trying to prepare the government for something that might or might not happen on their watch , and the Trump administration simply wasn ’ t .
Is that a fair assessment ?
Well , you know , my book Warnings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warnings , and how often they ignore them .
A lot of senior people reject them because they have their own agenda .
They have their own programs .
They came into their senior position with an idea of what they wanted to do .
And now this expert comes in with his or her hair on fire and says the executive has to drop whatever their plans were .
They have to spend a lot of time on that issue .
And they have to spend a lot of money that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And oh , by the way , the thing that the expert is saying is going to happen—it ’ s never happened before .
Under those circumstances , most senior people either ignore the warning , or they do what political scientists call “ satisficing.
” They give just enough attention to it so they can say that they did something , in case anything goes wrong .
They give it a little money , a little attention .
But they never do all the things that would be necessary to deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And then , after the problem manifests , it costs 1,000 times more money than it would have if you had addressed it before .
So , ideally , how should have the administration responded once they get these warnings from the CIA back in January ?
What you should do when you get these warnings , at a minimum , is you should start investing in the long-lead-time items .
If the crisis actually does happen , and you ’ re going to have to buy some things , you need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At least you could have shortened the time horizon .
You could wait a little while to see what more intelligence comes in , but as the intelligence comes in and it confirms the initial warning , you need to spend more , do more , put more in place .
I don ’ t think they did that .
In which case we would have had more ventilators and PPE if they started getting more of it back then .
Are there any other policy actions or decisions that should have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a National Security Council ’ s principles meeting in January .
And the CIA reports that there ’ s a potential pandemic outbreak in China , of a flu that ’ s characterized by high degrees of contagion and high degrees of lethality , and for which there is no vaccination available .
If someone said that at any table in the Situation Room when I was around , I would say , “ Let ’ s get going .
Let ’ s assume the worst-case scenario , and then work back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s a pandemic and it comes here .
Are we ready ?
No .
Well , what ’ s in short supply ?
Let ’ s buy up those supplies .
If we can ’ t buy up supplies , let ’ s kick in with the Defense Production Act to make private industry make the stuff we need .
What do you think we have learned from all this ?
This all shows how much you need a president and a White House staff that is always looking for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pandemic , or an asteroid headed toward Earth , or whatever .
There ’ s no one whose job it is right now to go looking for the next disaster , and then ask if we are adequately prepared for it .
We need to set up a warnings staff—a small number of people who scan the horizon for indications and warnings , and then bring in experts to supplement them .
Otherwise , by the time the crisis hits , it will be too late .

Out of all the responsibilities President Donald Trump has shirked during the COVID-19 pandemic, from not pressing China for information on the virus in its early weeks to not building up a testing regime in the United States, none has been more derelict than his administration’s failure to provide front-line healthcare workers with the medical and protective equipment they need.
What’s most exasperating is that there was a system in place to provide that equipment: the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile, an integrated collection of secret, federally-controlled warehouses with billions of dollars worth of precisely the kind of critical supplies that were needed in this crisis, such as masks and ventilators.
Once the CIA warned Trump of a coming pandemic in January, his administration should have immediately ordered more such equipment to meet the coming surge. That he didn’t left American hospitals overwhelmed. It left states having to claw to obtain the materials they need to save lives. Of course, it didn’t help that Trump did nothing to replenish or update the stockpile in his first three years in office; by mid-April, it had already distributed 90 percent of its supplies.
The president and his administration then compounded these grievous errors with lies and misinformation. The president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner has said the stockpile was for the federal government, not the states. In fact, it was built precisely for states and localities to use in the case of an emergency. Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly blamed his predecessor for leaving him with a depleted stockpile. “Our cupboards were bare,” he told reporters last weekend. Yet the Obama administration, having used the stockpile to deal with the swine flu and the Ebola crises, tried to increase funding for it, but was blocked by Tea Party Republicans and sequestration.
Trump’s mismanagement of the reserve is more than just another case of the administration’s tendency to shift blame and spew lies. It gets at the heart of one of the key roles of any president—to prepare for threats that have not yet happened.
One president who exemplified this foresight was Bill Clinton, who created the Strategic National Stockpile in his second term. For more insight into this, I spoke with Richard Clarke, Clinton’s chief counterterrorism adviser on the National Security Council and the man the president tasked with building the stockpile.
The following Q&A has been edited and condensed for clarity.
What led to the creation of the national stockpile? It’s been reported that President Clinton came up with the idea after reading a bioterrorism thriller. Is that true?
There were a lot of novels out. Richard Preston wrote one. The president was a great reader of everything. He stayed up late every night reading. He went through several books a week. I recall getting a couple bounced over to me, with questions like, “Could this really happen?”
Credit: Wikimedia Commons
But it wasn’t just that he had read novels. There were two events in the mid-1990s that, together, jarred the president: the Oklahoma City bombing, which was done by two Americans with an 18-wheel tractor trailer filled with explosives, and separately, in Tokyo, a fringe group called the Aum Shinrikyo developed their own biological and chemical weapons and tried them out on the Tokyo subway.
This caused the president, among others, to think: What if those two things came together? What if, suddenly, we had large attacks using chemical or biological weapons on our subways? President Clinton asked me to see if we were at all prepared to handle that. We came back to him and said we weren’t. There were no detection capabilities for most of these kinds of attacks. There were no response capabilities in most cities. Nobody was trained, nobody was equipped.
Not only would we not be able to deal with the consequences, we wouldn’t even have detected the attack. There was no detection equipment deployed anywhere. The Army had some for battlefield use, but there was nothing in any cities. There was nothing in the White House. We wouldn’t have known if the White House had been sprayed with a biological weapon.
So we started a program. It was originally designed to deal with bioterrorism. But we also realized that you could use it for a pandemic.
How did you realize that?
Well, in investigating all that, we found a lot of interest from the Public Health Service and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They told us a very similar thing could happen naturally—an emerging infectious disease, like the 1918 flu. We weren’t prepared for that either. What we figured out was, we could set up a nationwide detection system and an international system that would work for both biological attacks from terrorists and emerging infectious diseases.
The president secured money from Congress to put into the Public Health Service and the CDC to create a stockpile. A lot of it was grant money that went down to the state and county level, so they could have labs that would be able to detect and test. They set up a system so that when people came to emergency rooms and reported illnesses, that information would go into a national monitoring system. We realized that if a big event happened in any city, the city would be overwhelmed. So we set up a national stockpile of emergency medical gear that included medicines, hospital beds, ventilators, and put it in warehouses around the country.
We had a plan that when the equipment reached near its expiration date, it would be rotated, either through the Defense Department or Veterans medical systems, so that the equipment would be used before their expiration dates.
How was the stockpile set up so that the government could use it if a real crisis happened?
We created a program in 157 metropolitan areas to train and equip first responders so they could detect when they had an incident and they would be able get into protective gear. The stockpile was combined with the training of medical personnel. You can’t just put things in warehouses. You have to train people how to use them. You have to have exercises periodically. You have to regularly review what’s in the stockpile, to change the mix depending on new information. It wasn’t meant to just be a stash. It wasn’t meant to be a living, growing, adapting stockpile.
People thought we were crazy for doing it because we were responding to something that hadn’t happened. But for once, the government got out ahead of something.
One thing the Trump administration has said is that the stockpile isn’t there for the states. Is that true?
No, it’s for whoever needs it. The states are the people who are going to need it. They are the owners and operators of the first responders. The federal government doesn’t even have first responders. The stockpile is there for community hospitals around the country.
The creation of this stockpile was all done near the end of Clinton’s tenure. It was obviously designed to help his successors if the country ever faced this kind of crisis. Was the Bush administration similarly responsive to other threats you warned them about?
Dick Cheney came in really concerned about bioterrorism. I think that came from his time as secretary of defense. We told him about the program, he looked at it and said, “Well, that’s great. I didn’t know you had any of this, but it’s way too small.” And so they greatly increased the funding for it.
”Most senior White House people either ignore warnings, or they do what political scientists call ‘satisficing.’ They give just enough attention to it so they can say that they did something, in case anything goes wrong.”
But obviously, Bush didn’t want to hear that there was a major al Qaeda attack coming to the U.S., even though he was told specifically that. Didn’t want to hear it. Rather than saying, “Tell me more, go find out about it, tell me what more we can do,” he reacted by saying, “Well, you’ve covered your ass now by telling me that.” That’s a very different kind of approach than Obama or Clinton, who were always looking for the thing that was going to bite them in the ass.
Did the Obama administration also show an interest in preparing for possible disasters?
Back in 2008, when Obama was coming into office, he wanted the entire national security cabinet to get together and play a war game. So I ran one for them on a nuclear bomb being smuggled into New York; it was a no-win scenario. It was designed to get them to understand how a terrorist crisis would play out. They all loved it. Years later, when the Trump people are coming in, the Obama people wanted to have that tabletop exercise again on crisis management. They did it for the Trump team a week before the inauguration. It was on a global pandemic that starts in China and comes to the United States and has high lethality and high contagion. That was kind of the way the outgoing Obama administration said to the incoming Trump administration: This is important. Get ready for it. It’s going to happen.
So it seems as though the Clinton and Obama administrations were always scanning the horizon for risks and were trying to prepare the government for something that might or might not happen on their watch, and the Trump administration simply wasn’t. Is that a fair assessment?
Well, you know, my book Warnings is all about how senior people handle warnings, and how often they ignore them. A lot of senior people reject them because they have their own agenda. They have their own programs. They came into their senior position with an idea of what they wanted to do. And now this expert comes in with his or her hair on fire and says the executive has to drop whatever their plans were. They have to spend a lot of time on that issue. And they have to spend a lot of money that they were going to spend on something else. And oh, by the way, the thing that the expert is saying is going to happen—it’s never happened before.
Under those circumstances, most senior people either ignore the warning, or they do what political scientists call “satisficing.” They give just enough attention to it so they can say that they did something, in case anything goes wrong. They give it a little money, a little attention. But they never do all the things that would be necessary to deal with the problem before it manifests. And then, after the problem manifests, it costs 1,000 times more money than it would have if you had addressed it before.
So, ideally, how should have the administration responded once they get these warnings from the CIA back in January?
What you should do when you get these warnings, at a minimum, is you should start investing in the long-lead-time items. If the crisis actually does happen, and you’re going to have to buy some things, you need to start buying those things right away. At least you could have shortened the time horizon. You could wait a little while to see what more intelligence comes in, but as the intelligence comes in and it confirms the initial warning, you need to spend more, do more, put more in place. I don’t think they did that.
In which case we would have had more ventilators and PPE if they started getting more of it back then. Are there any other policy actions or decisions that should have been made?
Assume you’re sitting in a National Security Council’s principals meeting in January. And the CIA reports that there’s a potential pandemic outbreak in China, of a flu that’s characterized by high degrees of contagion and high degrees of lethality, and for which there is no vaccination available. If someone said that at any table in the Situation Room when I was around, I would say, “Let’s get going. Let’s assume the worst-case scenario, and then work back from that.” Worst case scenario is it’s a pandemic and it comes here. Are we ready? No. Well, what’s in short supply? Let’s buy up those supplies. If we can’t buy up supplies, let’s kick in with the Defense Production Act to make private industry make the stuff we need.
What do you think we have learned from all this?
This all shows how much you need a president and a White House staff that is always looking for the next crisis, whether it’s a pandemic, or an asteroid headed toward Earth, or whatever. There’s no one whose job it is right now to go looking for the next disaster, and then ask if we are adequately prepared for it. We need to set up a warnings staff—a small number of people who scan the horizon for indications and warnings, and then bring in experts to supplement them. Otherwise, by the time the crisis hits, it will be too late.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-21--How Trump’s COVID Immigration Policies Could Become Permanent

Donald Trump ’ s late-night Monday tweet—declaring plans to “ temporarily suspend immigration into the United States ” —is at once less and more significant than it seems .
It is less significant because the Trump administration has already used the COVID-19 crisis to stop most migration into America .
The country has halted almost all visa processing and postponed visa interviews .
Both the Mexican and Canadian borders have been shut down .
Migrants and asylum seekers found at either border are now deported immediately .
And it ’ s now clear that the president ’ s newest executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as his tweet .
Today , for example , the administration said it will continue letting some guest workers in .
The declaration is more significant because it signals that Trump has now carried out perhaps his most notorious promise—to end almost all immigration .
For years , Trump has used the language of crisis for years to try and halt immigration .
It ’ s no surprise that he ’ s now taking advantage of a genuine emergency .
His presidential campaign famously began with a declaration that Mexican immigrants were “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become “ a dumping ground for everyone else ’ s problems.
” After stoking breathless Fox News coverage of an arriving migrant caravan ( or , as he called it , an “ invasion ” ) , Trump deployed thousands of military troops to the U.S.-Mexico border .
And to make good on his trademark pledge to “ build the wall , ” Trump actually declared a national emergency and redirected billions of military dollars to construct new barriers .
In the past , some of Trump ’ s sweeping attempts to halt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the courts .
But the coronavirus changes the balance-of-powers calculus .
To respond to the disease ’ s outbreak , the federal government needs more power , including over entry to the country .
For as long as the pandemic persists , Trump may face less institutional opposition to his immigration policies .
But what happens once the pandemic ends ?
Scientists currently estimate it will take at least another 12 to 18 months before a vaccine is available .
If that ’ s correct , the country may not be pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections .
The “ new normal ” for American immigration , then , will rest on who wins .
Under a Biden administration , it ’ s reasonable to assume that almost all of these policies will eventually be reversed .
But under a continued Trump administration , America ’ s COVID immigration regime might become permanent .
As Gaby Del Valle writes in the Monthly ’ s most recent print issue : Should Trump win a second term , he will likely nominate at least one additional Supreme Court justice and add @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has appointed so far ( a quarter of all federal judges ) .
The legal firewall that has held back the most radical of his executive orders could crumble .
He will continue to target not just undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers , but legal immigrants as well .
It ’ s not just the courts that may sign off .
As Del Valle argues , faced with a second Trump term , it ’ s even possible that a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives would trade broad cuts to immigration for dreamer protections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule soon on the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program .
If the Court lets the program end , Trump may go to Democrats in Congress and promise protection for Dreamers , but only in exchange for broader immigration cuts .
The party shut down the government for several days in January 2018 to try to make sure Dreamers wouldn ’ t be deported , and failed… .
It isn ’ t hard to imagine that to protect them , come 2021 , Democrats would give Trump what he wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orders may seem transient .
But a second Trump term could mean they will be with us long after the coronavirus is gone .

Donald Trump’s late-night Monday tweet—declaring plans to “temporarily suspend immigration into the United States”—is at once less and more significant than it seems.
It is less significant because the Trump administration has already used the COVID-19 crisis to stop most migration into America. The country has halted almost all visa processing and postponed visa interviews. Both the Mexican and Canadian borders have been shut down. Migrants and asylum seekers found at either border are now deported immediately. And it’s now clear that the president’s newest executive action won’t be as expansive as his tweet. Today, for example, the administration said it will continue letting some guest workers in.
The declaration is more significant because it signals that Trump has now carried out perhaps his most notorious promise—to end almost all immigration. For years, Trump has used the language of crisis to try and halt immigration. It’s no surprise that he’s now taking advantage of a genuine emergency. His presidential campaign famously began with a declaration that Mexican immigrants were “rapists” and that the U.S. had become “a dumping ground for everyone else’s problems.” After stoking breathless Fox News coverage of an arriving migrant caravan (or, as he called it, an “invasion”), Trump deployed thousands of military troops to the U.S.-Mexico border. And to make good on his trademark pledge to “build the wall,” Trump actually declared a national emergency and redirected billions of military dollars to construct new barriers.
In the past, some of Trump’s sweeping attempts to halt immigration by executive fiat have been circumscribed by the courts. But the coronavirus changes the balance-of-powers calculus. To respond to the disease’s outbreak, the federal government needs more power, including over entry to the country. For as long as the pandemic persists, Trump may face less institutional opposition to his immigration policies.
But what happens once the pandemic ends? Scientists currently estimate it will take at least another 12 to 18 months before a vaccine is available. If that’s correct, the country may not be pandemic free until well after the November presidential elections. The “new normal” for American immigration, then, will rest on who wins. Under a Biden administration, it’s reasonable to assume that almost all of these policies will eventually be reversed. But under a continued Trump administration, America’s COVID immigration regime might become permanent.
As Gaby Del Valle writes in the Monthly’s most recent print issue:
Should Trump win a second term, he will likely nominate at least one additional Supreme Court justice and add to the nearly 200 federal judges he has appointed so far (a quarter of all federal judges). The legal firewall that has held back the most radical of his executive orders could crumble. He will continue to target not just undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers, but legal immigrants as well.
It’s not just the courts that may sign off. As Del Valle argues, faced with a second Trump term, it’s even possible that a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives would trade broad cuts to immigration for dreamer protections.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. If the Court lets the program end, Trump may go to Democrats in Congress and promise protection for Dreamers, but only in exchange for broader immigration cuts. The party shut down the government for several days in January 2018 to try to make sure Dreamers wouldn’t be deported, and failed…. It isn’t hard to imagine that to protect them, come 2021, Democrats would give Trump what he wants.
Right now, Trump’s orders may seem transient. But a second Trump term could mean they will be with us long after the coronavirus is gone.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-21--Georgia’s Governor Puts More African American Lives at Risk

When I looked into coronavirus hotspots in rural parts of the country , one area stood out : the southwestern part of Georgia .
An outbreak started in the town of Albany and seems to have spread through most of the surrounding counties .
Here is what the map of per capita cases and deaths looks like in southeastern states .
The southwestern part of Georgia rivals the New Orleans area as a hot spot .
Georgia ranks 14th among states when it comes to the number of coronavirus cases per capita .
Nevertheless , Governor Brian Kemp took the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s economy on Monday .
He did so even though Georgia doesn ’ t meet the minimalist conditions outlined by the White House for taking the first step .
Why would a Republican governor be so cavalier about the lives of rural residents in his state ?
One factor to consider requires us to jettison the notion that when we talk about rural residents , we mean white people .
To get some idea of the racial makeup of southwestern Georgia , take a look at a map of something called “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of former confederate states that was dominated by slave plantations .
As an example , the city of Albany , Georgia is over 70 percent African American .
Here is a map documenting the percentage of African Americans in all of Georgia ’ s counties .
What we see is that , other than Atlanta , the coronavirus hotspots in Georgia are centered in rural areas and small towns with large populations of African Americans .
All of this begs the question of whether a racist disregard for the lives of African @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision to re-open the economy .
Another factor that needs to be considered is that Governor Kemp isn ’ t the brightest bulb .
As an example , it wasn ’ t until early April that he learned that the coronavirus can be spread by those who are asymptomatic .
Kemp is also the guy who ran ads like this .
What Georgia got in the 2018 governor ’ s election was a racist who isn ’ t the sharpest knife in the drawer .
If you ever wanted an example ( other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ male privilege fails to put enough obstacles in the path of incompetent men , there you have it .
It ’ s worth remembering what Georgians could have had .
It is very likely that voter suppression played a role in Kemp ’ s election .
With so many African American lives on the line right now , we have a painful reminder of the importance of doing everything possible to protect the franchise .

When I looked into coronavirus hotspots in rural parts of the country, one area stood out: the southwestern part of Georgia. An outbreak started in the town of Albany and seems to have spread through most of the surrounding counties. Here is what the map of per capita cases and deaths looks like in southeastern states.
The southwestern part of Georgia rivals the New Orleans area as a hot spot. Georgia ranks 14th among states when it comes to the number of coronavirus cases per capita. Nevertheless, Governor Brian Kemp took the first step to open the state’s economy on Monday. He did so even though Georgia doesn’t meet the minimalist conditions outlined by the White House for taking the first step.
Why would a Republican governor be so cavalier about the lives of rural residents in his state? One factor to consider requires us to jettison the notion that when we talk about rural residents, we mean white people. To get some idea of the racial makeup of southwestern Georgia, take a look at a map of something called “the black belt,” which is the part of former confederate states that was dominated by slave plantations.
As an example, the city of Albany, Georgia is over 70 percent African American. Here is a map documenting the percentage of African Americans in all of Georgia’s counties.
What we see is that, other than Atlanta, the coronavirus hotspots in Georgia are centered in rural areas and small towns with large populations of African Americans. All of this begs the question of whether a racist disregard for the lives of African Americans is affecting Governor Kemp’s decision to re-open the economy.
Another factor that needs to be considered is that Governor Kemp isn’t the brightest bulb. As an example, it wasn’t until early April that he learned that the coronavirus can be spread by those who are asymptomatic. Kemp is also the guy who ran ads like this.
What Georgia got in the 2018 governor’s election was a racist who isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. If you ever wanted an example (other than Trump) of the way white male privilege fails to put enough obstacles in the path of incompetent men, there you have it.
It’s worth remembering what Georgians could have had.
It is very likely that voter suppression played a role in Kemp’s election. With so many African American lives on the line right now, we have a painful reminder of the importance of doing everything possible to protect the franchise.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-21--The Roger Stone Network is Active on COVID-19 Messaging

I once called Carl Paladino an “ ethics cement-head ” and elected him to my Hall of Scoundrels .
I ’ ve written about the man quite a bit over the years , mainly because he liked to use Roger Stone and Mike Caputo as his campaign advisers .
Here ’ s an example : Caputo is unique among the suspects in the Russia inquiry in that he ’ s the only one I know of who has persistently bragged over the years about having worked for the Kremlin .
He got his start working to help Boris Yeltsin beat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on , he had a job burnishing the image of Vladimir Putin in the United Statees as an employee of Gazprom Media .
Along the way , he never seems to have strayed too far from Roger Stone ’ s side , working with on a variety of trollish New York state campaigns , including the long-shot gubernatorial bids of Carl Paladino and Tom Golisano , and the takedown of attorney general Eliot Spitzer .
It ’ s probably through Stone that Caputo made the acquaintance of Donald Trump and landed a job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his campaign .
Paladino isn ’ t particularly interesting in himself , even if you live in New York State where he ’ s at least somewhat relevant .
But his connections are worth paying attention to because they ’ re always up to no good .
I think the point of that tweet is that racism plays a huge role in the social distancing protests , just as it did when the Tea Party suddenly arrived on the scene in 2009 .
That ’ s certainly true , but remember why Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Health and Human Services Department Secretary Alex Azar confirmed Wednesday that former 2016 Trump campaign adviser Michael Caputo will serve as the department ’ s new spokesperson , putting a vocal defender of President Donald Trump in a key messaging role .
“ I ’ m delighted to have Michael Caputo join our team at @ HHSGov as our Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs , especially at this critical time in our nation ’ s public health history , ” Azar tweeted .
Most of the reporting on this ridiculous hire focused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not in fact “ delighted ” to have a disreputable hack and congressional perjurer like Caputo thrust on him as a spokesperson .
For example , this is from Politico : The move is designed to assert more White House control over Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar , who officials believe has been behind recent critical reports about President Donald Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus pandemic , according to two officials with knowledge of the move… …The high-level move comes after a series of news reports that portrayed Azar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic in January but having the president and his aides dismiss his concerns .
Trump on Sunday tweeted that Azar “ told me nothing until later , ” appearing to refute those reports .
White House officials believe that Azar has been shaping favorable coverage of his handling of the Covid-19 outbreak and trying to shift blame for the administration ’ s mishandled response , said two officials with knowledge of the situation .
It ’ s really impossible to separate Carl Paladino and Mike Caputo .
The two Buffalo natives have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now we see one of them on the streets protesting social distancing while the other is installed as the spokesperson for the Department of Health & Human Services where his job is to make sure Trump doesn ’ t get held accountable for his handling of the Covid-19 outbreak .
This is the Roger Stone network at work .

I once called Carl Paladino an “ethics cement-head” and elected him to my Hall of Scoundrels. I’ve written about the man quite a bit over the years, mainly because he liked to use Roger Stone and Mike Caputo as his campaign advisers. Here’s an example:
Caputo is unique among the suspects in the Russia inquiry in that he’s the only one I know of who has persistently bragged over the years about having worked for the Kremlin. He got his start working to help Boris Yeltsin beat the odds and win reelection. Later on, he had a job burnishing the image of Vladimir Putin in the United Statees as an employee of Gazprom Media. Along the way, he never seems to have strayed too far from Roger Stone’s side, working with on a variety of trollish New York state campaigns, including the long-shot gubernatorial bids of Carl Paladino and Tom Golisano, and the takedown of attorney general Eliot Spitzer. It’s probably through Stone that Caputo made the acquaintance of Donald Trump and landed a job working as a senior communications adviser for his campaign.
Paladino isn’t particularly interesting in himself, even if you live in New York State where he’s at least somewhat relevant. But his connections are worth paying attention to because they’re always up to no good.
Here’s Paladino’s latest effort to get attention:
I think the point of that tweet is that racism plays a huge role in the social distancing protests, just as it did when the Tea Party suddenly arrived on the scene in 2009. That’s certainly true, but remember why Mike Caputo is in the news right now:
Health and Human Services Department Secretary Alex Azar confirmed Wednesday that former 2016 Trump campaign adviser Michael Caputo will serve as the department’s new spokesperson, putting a vocal defender of President Donald Trump in a key messaging role. “I’m delighted to have Michael Caputo join our team at @HHSGov as our Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, especially at this critical time in our nation’s public health history,” Azar tweeted.
Most of the reporting on this ridiculous hire focused on the fact that Secretary Azar was not in fact “delighted” to have a disreputable hack and congressional perjurer like Caputo thrust on him as a spokesperson. For example, this is from Politico:
The move is designed to assert more White House control over Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, who officials believe has been behind recent critical reports about President Donald Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, according to two officials with knowledge of the move… …The high-level move comes after a series of news reports that portrayed Azar as warning Trump about the pending Covid-19 pandemic in January but having the president and his aides dismiss his concerns. Trump on Sunday tweeted that Azar “told me nothing until later,” appearing to refute those reports. White House officials believe that Azar has been shaping favorable coverage of his handling of the Covid-19 outbreak and trying to shift blame for the administration’s mishandled response, said two officials with knowledge of the situation.
It’s really impossible to separate Carl Paladino and Mike Caputo. The two Buffalo natives have been thick as thieves for decades, and now we see one of them on the streets protesting social distancing while the other is installed as the spokesperson for the Department of Health & Human Services where his job is to make sure Trump doesn’t get held accountable for his handling of the Covid-19 outbreak.
This is the Roger Stone network at work.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-22--Senate Intelligence Committee Drops a Bombshell on the Durham Investigation

If you don ’ t follow rightwing news , you might be unaware of the fact that its purveyors are absolutely salivating at the prospect of U.S. Attorney John Durham ’ s imminent indictment of former CIA Director John Brennan for his role in launching the Trump-Russia investigation .
Here is just a sampling : • “ All The Russia Collusion Clues Are Beginning To Point Back To John Brennan ” by Margot Cleveland at the Federalist , • “ The Brennan Dossier : All About a Prime Mover of Russiagate ” by Aaron Maté at RealClearPolitics , • “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by R. Emmett Tyrrell at the American Spectator , and • “ John Durham investigation intensifies focus on John Brennan ” by Jerry Dunleavy at the Washington Examiner .
All of those authors focus on Brennan ’ s role in the January 2017 U.S. intelligence community assessment ( ICA ) describing Russian interference in the 2016 election , which was commissioned by then-President Obama .
This is the statement in that assessment that they find most objectionable ( emphasis mine ) .
In all of Attorney General Barr ’ s statements—both written and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he studiously avoided mentioning the fact that Russian interference was designed to support Trump .
In addition , both Barr and Trump ’ s enablers in the media have suggested that the assessment was the result of bias against the president and that the Steele dossier was incorporated into its findings .
The goal has been to lay all of those failures at the feet of Brennan and claim that his intentions were to take down Donald Trump .
On Tuesday , the Senate Intelligence Committee released the fourth volume of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 election .
This one focused on the intelligence community assessment , dropping a bombshell on every one of those accusations .
Here are some of the key findings : * The Committee found the ICA presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election .
* In all the interviews of those who drafted and prepared the ICA , the Committee heard consistently that analysts were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions .
* The Committee found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the intelligence collected by CIA , NSA , and FBI on Russian interference in 2016 , and this body of evidence supports the substance and judgments of the ICA .
* The Committee found that the information provided by Christopher Steele to FBI was not used in the body of the ICA or to support any of its analytic judgments .
However , a summary of this material was included in Annex A as a compromise to FBI ’ s insistence that the information was responsive to the presidential tasking .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the insinuations we ’ ve heard from Barr and Trump ’ s media enablers .
The Republican Senators who signed on to this report include Richard Burr , James Risch , Marco Rubio , Susan Collins , Roy Blunt , Tom Cotton , John Cornyn , and Ben Sasse , making claims that it was a partisan smear job completely untenable .
But that won ’ t stop some folks from trying .
For example , Fred Fleitz , House Intelligence Committee staffer , has already tweeted that it read like a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has now dismissed the Mueller report , as well as investigations by Mike Pompeo ( while he served as CIA director ) and Inspector General Michael Horowitz , it is doubtful that he will back down as a result of this one from the Senate Intelligence Committee .
But the facts are beginning to form an impenetrable wall that makes things difficult for an attorney general who has already been rebuked by a federal judge for being untrustworthy .

If you don’t follow rightwing news, you might be unaware of the fact that its purveyors are absolutely salivating at the prospect of U.S. Attorney John Durham’s imminent indictment of former CIA Director John Brennan for his role in launching the Trump-Russia investigation. Here is just a sampling:
“All The Russia Collusion Clues Are Beginning To Point Back To John Brennan” by Margot Cleveland at the Federalist,
“The Brennan Dossier: All About a Prime Mover of Russiagate” by Aaron Maté at RealClearPolitics,
“Durham’s On the Way” by R. Emmett Tyrrell at the American Spectator, and
“John Durham investigation intensifies focus on John Brennan” by Jerry Dunleavy at the Washington Examiner.
All of those authors focus on Brennan’s role in the January 2017 U.S. intelligence community assessment (ICA) describing Russian interference in the 2016 election, which was commissioned by then-President Obama. This is the statement in that assessment that they find most objectionable (emphasis mine).
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
In all of Attorney General Barr’s statements—both written and verbal—during his release of the Mueller report, he studiously avoided mentioning the fact that Russian interference was designed to support Trump. In addition, both Barr and Trump’s enablers in the media have suggested that the assessment was the result of bias against the president and that the Steele dossier was incorporated into its findings. The goal has been to lay all of those failures at the feet of Brennan and claim that his intentions were to take down Donald Trump.
On Tuesday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released the fourth volume of their bipartisan investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. This one focused on the intelligence community assessment, dropping a bombshell on every one of those accusations. Here are some of the key findings:
* The Committee found the ICA presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. * In all the interviews of those who drafted and prepared the ICA, the Committee heard consistently that analysts were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions. * The Committee found that the ICA provides a proper representation of the intelligence collected by CIA, NSA, and FBI on Russian interference in 2016, and this body of evidence supports the substance and judgments of the ICA. * The Committee found that the information provided by Christopher Steele to FBI was not used in the body of the ICA or to support any of its analytic judgments. However, a summary of this material was included in Annex A as a compromise to FBI’s insistence that the information was responsive to the presidential tasking.
It is hard to imagine a more thorough debunking of the insinuations we’ve heard from Barr and Trump’s media enablers. The Republican Senators who signed on to this report include Richard Burr, James Risch, Marco Rubio, Susan Collins, Roy Blunt, Tom Cotton, John Cornyn, and Ben Sasse, making claims that it was a partisan smear job completely untenable.
But that won’t stop some folks from trying. For example, Fred Fleitz, House Intelligence Committee staffer, has already tweeted that it read like a whitewash.
Given that Attorney General Barr has now dismissed the Mueller report, as well as investigations by Mike Pompeo (while he served as CIA director) and Inspector General Michael Horowitz, it is doubtful that he will back down as a result of this one from the Senate Intelligence Committee. But the facts are beginning to form an impenetrable wall that makes things difficult for an attorney general who has already been rebuked by a federal judge for being untrustworthy.