washingtonmonthly--2020-05-13--Trump Wants to Make the 2020 Election a Referendum on Obama

A quick perusal of Trump ’ s Twitter feed demonstrates that he and his enablers continue to be obsessed with what they are calling “ Obamagate.
” In commenting on this development , Brian Kilmeade made a statement that has a lot of political pundits scratching their heads .
Why would Trump want to run against one of the most popular presidents in modern history ?
For example , a recent poll showed that a majority of Americans , 52 percent , say Obama would be a better leader for the current crisis than Trump , who weighed in at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good job of getting inside Trump ’ s head to tell us what ’ s going on in there .
Trump ’ s psychology is defined by his terror of rejection .
The most stinging insult in his vast vocabulary of disdain is loser .
And yet every poll , every powerful Biden TV ad , forces Trump to contemplate that he is headed toward a historic humiliation… Angry , scared , and aggrieved by the lack of praise for his efforts , Trump turns for safety to television , where his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else ’ s fault .
They tell him that he is right and all his critics are wrong .
They promise that miracle drugs will—poof !
—make all his troubles vanish without effort .
Sean and Tucker and Laura and Jeanine and the Fox & Friends romper room tell him stories that hold the terror at bay .
Frum concludes that Trump has “ lost the plot ” because “ he ’ s talking about things most voters could not even understand , let alone care about.
” It ’ s true that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delving into the intricacies of how the investigation into the whole Trump-Russia affair was both launched and conducted .
But that misses the point of what they see when Obama ’ s name is invoked .
The first thing to keep in mind is that , just as he ’ s always done , Trump is not attempting to win over a broad coalition of voters .
Instead , he ’ s playing to his base in the Republican Party .
To understand who is included in that group , we have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last great political realignment took place .
Through the implementation of the so-called “ Southern Strategy , ” the GOP hitched their star to white people who were resentful of the gains made by African Americans after the Civil Rights movement .
Then , in the 1980s , they became the party of Christian nationalists , who not only had a history of racism but added to the whole embrace of grievance politics by launching the culture wars .
When it came to actual policies , the Republican Party has always depended on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elite .
That is why David Roberts pointed out that the GOP became the “ post-truth ” party .
During the Bush/Cheney years , those policies brought us the massive failures of a bungled response to Katrina , two seemingly endless wars in the Middle East , and the Great Recession .
All Republicans had left was to be the party of racism and grievance .
They played that to the hilt by simply obstructing everything Democrats tried to do—becoming the “ post-policy ” party .
Following Obama ’ s re-election in 2012 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that counseled them to reach out to people of color , women , and young people .
But doing so would have gone against everything their base voters had come to expect from them .
Instead , they went with Trump , who had launched his career on the national political stage with the racist lie of birtherism .
What running against Obama exemplifies is that Trump will once again attempt to fire up his base with racism and grievance politics .
But of course , it also builds on the president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes , Obama has taken up residence in Trump ’ s head because , in every way imaginable , the former president demonstrated that he was better at the job .
As Jonathan Chait once captured so well , that is an unforgivable crime to racists .
Notably , the most horrific torture depicted in 12 Years a Slave is set in motion when the protagonist , Solomon Northup , offers up to his master engineering knowledge he acquired as a free man , thereby showing up his enraged white overseer .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dignified competence in the scene that so enraged his oppressor .
The social system embedded within slavery as depicted in the film is one that survived long past the Emancipation Proclamation – the one that resulted in the murder of Emmett Till a century after Northup published his autobiography .
It ’ s a system in which the most unforgivable crime was for an African-American to presume himself an equal to — or , heaven forbid , better than — a white person .
Ta-Nehisi Coates did an amazing job of explaining how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the first white president.
” While he uses words that might be offensive to some , they help capture the sentiment we ’ re dealing with .
As Frum explained , Donald Trump is growing more desperate every day at the prospect of becoming a loser .
Given that his entire political existence hinges on the fact of the black president who preceded him , he is resorting to the one thing he knows best : racism .

A quick perusal of Trump’s Twitter feed demonstrates that he and his enablers continue to be obsessed with what they are calling “Obamagate.” In commenting on this development, Brian Kilmeade made a statement that has a lot of political pundits scratching their heads.
Why would Trump want to run against one of the most popular presidents in modern history? For example, a recent poll showed that a majority of Americans, 52 percent, say Obama would be a better leader for the current crisis than Trump, who weighed in at only 38 percent.
David Frum does a good job of getting inside Trump’s head to tell us what’s going on in there.
Trump’s psychology is defined by his terror of rejection. The most stinging insult in his vast vocabulary of disdain is loser. And yet every poll, every powerful Biden TV ad, forces Trump to contemplate that he is headed toward a historic humiliation… Angry, scared, and aggrieved by the lack of praise for his efforts, Trump turns for safety to television, where his two-dimensional friends explain how everything is everybody else’s fault. They tell him that he is right and all his critics are wrong. They promise that miracle drugs will—poof!—make all his troubles vanish without effort. Sean and Tucker and Laura and Jeanine and the Fox & Friends romper room tell him stories that hold the terror at bay.
Frum concludes that Trump has “lost the plot” because “he’s talking about things most voters could not even understand, let alone care about.” It’s true that most voters aren’t interested in delving into the intricacies of how the investigation into the whole Trump-Russia affair was both launched and conducted. But that misses the point of what they see when Obama’s name is invoked.
The first thing to keep in mind is that, just as he’s always done, Trump is not attempting to win over a broad coalition of voters. Instead, he’s playing to his base in the Republican Party. To understand who is included in that group, we have to go back to the 1960s when the last great political realignment took place.
Through the implementation of the so-called “Southern Strategy,” the GOP hitched their star to white people who were resentful of the gains made by African Americans after the Civil Rights movement. Then, in the 1980s, they became the party of Christian nationalists, who not only had a history of racism but added to the whole embrace of grievance politics by launching the culture wars.
When it came to actual policies, the Republican Party has always depended on its supporters among the financial and military elite. That is why David Roberts pointed out that the GOP became the “post-truth” party.
Republicans thus talk about “taxes” and “spending” and “regulation” in the abstract…They talk about cutting the deficit even as they slash taxes on the rich and launch unfunded wars. They talk about free markets even as they subsidize fossil fuels. They talk about American exceptionalism even as they protect fossil-fuel incumbents and fight research and infrastructure investments. In short, Republicans have mastered post-truth politics.
During the Bush/Cheney years, those policies brought us the massive failures of a bungled response to Katrina, two seemingly endless wars in the Middle East, and the Great Recession. All Republicans had left was to be the party of racism and grievance. They played that to the hilt by simply obstructing everything Democrats tried to do—becoming the “post-policy” party.
Following Obama’s re-election in 2012, the Republican Party performed an autopsy that counseled them to reach out to people of color, women, and young people. But doing so would have gone against everything their base voters had come to expect from them. Instead, they went with Trump, who had launched his career on the national political stage with the racist lie of birtherism.
What running against Obama exemplifies is that Trump will once again attempt to fire up his base with racism and grievance politics. But of course, it also builds on the president’s own racism. As the saying goes, Obama has taken up residence in Trump’s head because, in every way imaginable, the former president demonstrated that he was better at the job. As Jonathan Chait once captured so well, that is an unforgivable crime to racists.
Notably, the most horrific torture depicted in 12 Years a Slave is set in motion when the protagonist, Solomon Northup, offers up to his master engineering knowledge he acquired as a free man, thereby showing up his enraged white overseer. It was precisely Northup’s calm, dignified competence in the scene that so enraged his oppressor. The social system embedded within slavery as depicted in the film is one that survived long past the Emancipation Proclamation – the one that resulted in the murder of Emmett Till a century after Northup published his autobiography. It’s a system in which the most unforgivable crime was for an African-American to presume himself an equal to — or, heaven forbid, better than — a white person.
Ta-Nehisi Coates did an amazing job of explaining how that played out with the election of “the first white president.” While he uses words that might be offensive to some, they help capture the sentiment we’re dealing with.
Before Barack Obama, niggers could be manufactured out of Sister Souljahs, Willie Hortons, and Dusky Sallys. But Donald Trump arrived in the wake of something more potent—an entire nigger presidency with nigger health care, nigger climate accords, and nigger justice reform, all of which could be targeted for destruction or redemption, thus reifying the idea of being white. Trump truly is something new—the first president whose entire political existence hinges on the fact of a black president.
As Frum explained, Donald Trump is growing more desperate every day at the prospect of becoming a loser. Given that his entire political existence hinges on the fact of the black president who preceded him, he is resorting to the one thing he knows best: racism.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-13--Can Biden Risk Picking a Governor as His Running Mate?

We ’ ve never had a situation before where a presidential nominee has promised to pick a running mate of a certain gender .
Joe Biden has understandable reasons for ruling out any men , but the decision drastically narrowed the field of options .
CNN reports that the Covid-19 outbreak may have narrowed it even further .
Several governors who have gained attention on the frontlines of the coronavirus fight are also getting a potential look .
Biden has repeatedly shined a spotlight on Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer , but Democrats close to him believe at least two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Gov .
Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island and Gov .
Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico .
But it ’ s an open question whether a governor would even be able to seriously entertain an offer , given the crushing demands of leading their states through a pandemic and economic collapse .
None have been tested on the national stage or put through the rigors of a presidential race and Democrats close to the process believe the status of the coronavirus in each state will be a factor in whether leaders like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be picked .
Even Whitmer , who has drawn the most attention because of Michigan ’ s intense battle with coronavirus , is ultimately seen by many people close to Biden as a longshot .
“ Yes , she ’ s incredibly talented , but could she take the job now ?
” one Biden adviser not involved in the search said .
I confess that this particular consideration had not occurred to me .
In general , I think governors make better presidential candidates than members of Congress , and the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems especially true in modern times because Congress has been persistently unpopular for decades now , and a voting record on any contentious topic is likely to limit the potential breadth of any candidate ’ s appeal .
While Washington , D.C. has become completely polarized and ticket-splitting for federal candidates has almost disappeared , we still see blue governors in red states and red governors in blue states on a regular basis .
Meanwhile , governors across the nation are experiencing a surge of polling approval as voters look for leadership in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Regardless of the cycle , governors are basically mini-presidents who carry out many of the same executive duties as a president , so their experience is more relevant to the job .
Based on these factors , I ’ d strongly advise Biden to select a governor , but it ’ s true that we now have to consider the governors ’ records on the coronavirus , which can change quickly and unpredictably as states experience new spikes in cases .
We also have to worry that even a governor who is popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on handling the pandemic will look like their shirking their job if they put their focus on running a national campaign .
This also argues for a later decision point for Biden .
A candidate that looks rock-solid today might look hapless and helpless in the fall if their state experiences a major upsurge in Covid-19 cases , or if their economies sputter relative to other states .
It ’ s less risky to make a final assessment in July than in May .
There are some senators who could make a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could help unite the party , while Kamala Harris could boost excitement and help black turnout .
Harry Reid has been lobbying for Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada to create excitement and help Latinx turnout .
Amy Klobuchar could amplify his brand and have some crossover appeal and strength in key Midwest states .
If Biden wants to look further , he can go for mayors ( like Keisha Lance Bottoms of Atlanta who has been recommended by Jim Clyburn ) or members of the House ( like impeachment manager Val Demings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s appearing on Thursday with Stacey Abrams who endorsed him on Tuesday .
She ’ s never held a political position higher than Minority Leader of the Georgia House of Representatives , but she ran a compelling race for governor and has boatloads of oratorical skill and charisma .
All of these options must be fully vetted , of course , but only the governors are a serious risk due to the coronavirus .
As of today , the pandemic actually gives governors an edge , but it could work against them , @ @

We’ve never had a situation before where a presidential nominee has promised to pick a running mate of a certain gender. Joe Biden has understandable reasons for ruling out any men, but the decision drastically narrowed the field of options. CNN reports that the Covid-19 outbreak may have narrowed it even further.
Several governors who have gained attention on the frontlines of the coronavirus fight are also getting a potential look. Biden has repeatedly shined a spotlight on Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, but Democrats close to him believe at least two others are also seen as possible contenders: Gov. Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico. But it’s an open question whether a governor would even be able to seriously entertain an offer, given the crushing demands of leading their states through a pandemic and economic collapse. None have been tested on the national stage or put through the rigors of a presidential race and Democrats close to the process believe the status of the coronavirus in each state will be a factor in whether leaders like Whitmer, Raimondo or Lujan Grisham could be picked. Even Whitmer, who has drawn the most attention because of Michigan’s intense battle with coronavirus, is ultimately seen by many people close to Biden as a longshot. “Yes, she’s incredibly talented, but could she take the job now?” one Biden adviser not involved in the search said.
I confess that this particular consideration had not occurred to me. In general, I think governors make better presidential candidates than members of Congress, and the same is true for running mates. This seems especially true in modern times because Congress has been persistently unpopular for decades now, and a voting record on any contentious topic is likely to limit the potential breadth of any candidate’s appeal. While Washington, D.C. has become completely polarized and ticket-splitting for federal candidates has almost disappeared, we still see blue governors in red states and red governors in blue states on a regular basis.
Meanwhile, governors across the nation are experiencing a surge of polling approval as voters look for leadership in the midst of an unprecedented crisis. Regardless of the cycle, governors are basically mini-presidents who carry out many of the same executive duties as a president, so their experience is more relevant to the job.
Based on these factors, I’d strongly advise Biden to select a governor, but it’s true that we now have to consider the governors’ records on the coronavirus, which can change quickly and unpredictably as states experience new spikes in cases. We also have to worry that even a governor who is popular at home and has a better-than-average record on handling the pandemic will look like their shirking their job if they put their focus on running a national campaign.
This also argues for a later decision point for Biden. A candidate that looks rock-solid today might look hapless and helpless in the fall if their state experiences a major upsurge in Covid-19 cases, or if their economies sputter relative to other states. It’s less risky to make a final assessment in July than in May.
There are some senators who could make a lot of sense for Biden. Elizabeth Warren could help unite the party, while Kamala Harris could boost excitement and help black turnout. Harry Reid has been lobbying for Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada to create excitement and help Latinx turnout. Amy Klobuchar could amplify his brand and have some crossover appeal and strength in key Midwest states.
If Biden wants to look further, he can go for mayors (like Keisha Lance Bottoms of Atlanta who has been recommended by Jim Clyburn) or members of the House (like impeachment manager Val Demings of Florida), and he’s appearing on Thursday with Stacey Abrams who endorsed him on Tuesday. She’s never held a political position higher than Minority Leader of the Georgia House of Representatives, but she ran a compelling race for governor and has boatloads of oratorical skill and charisma.
All of these options must be fully vetted, of course, but only the governors are a serious risk due to the coronavirus. As of today, the pandemic actually gives governors an edge, but it could work against them, too.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-14--If Biden Wins, His Cabinet Picks Will Be More Important Than His VP Choice

Since it became clear that Joe Biden would be the Democratic presidential nominee , much of the focus has turned to who he will pick to be his running mate .
All of that is completely understandable .
But a case can be made that who he chooses for that position will be less important than the people he nominates for cabinet positions .
Most recently , that has been highlighted by the actions of the current attorney general .
Dropping the charges against Michael Flynn was not only a betrayal of justice .
Barr ’ s actions have also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire Department of Justice , as David Kurtz explains .
The Justice Department is being dismantled as an independent , broadly legitimate , respected component in service of the rule of law… The impacts go far beyond the particulars of a given case or the tenure of a single compromised attorney general .
Good lawyers leave the department , as we have already seen .
Marginal lawyers cut corners , clip their wings , and acquiesce in the corruption in small , imperceptible ways .
Up and coming lawyers steer clear of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people are drawn to it .
The effects are generational .
The repairs to undo the damage are not swift and can not be sped up .
Should Biden become president , it will be his attorney general ’ s job to “ undo the damage ” of those generational effects—at least as much as possible .
But the problem goes way beyond the Justice Department .
Especially since Trump has filled the federal bureaucracy with people whose only real skill is loyalty to him , the same thing is happening with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mike Pompeo at the State Department , Alex Azar at the Department of Health and Human Services , Sonny Perdue at the Department of Agriculture , Andrew Wheeler at EPA , Ben Carson at HUD .
The list goes on .
In every case , the mission of those departments has been corrupted and put in service to Trump ’ s ego , while staffing has been hollowed out and norms discarded .
On that last one , for years now we ’ ve been hearing about how our intelligence services have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple of pages made up of charts and pictures , which Trump basically ignores .
We also know that Trump has thrown out the norm of a wall of separation between the president and his attorney general .
This is where voters might have been wise in choosing Biden as the nominee .
He has eight years of experience working in a functional administration , so he knows which norms are critical to reinstate and how to do so .
But just as important is the fact that he has working experience with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eager to step up to the plate and begin the process of repairing the damage .
That isn ’ t limited to people who served in Obama ’ s cabinet , but all of the undersecretaries and staffers who played such critical roles in policy implementation .
I ’ m not suggesting that Biden should announce his cabinet picks before the election .
There are very good reasons why candidates have chosen not to do so in the past .
But ever since he entered the Democratic primary , I have thought that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asset was that he would be ready to hit the ground running on day one .
With our relationships around the globe in tatters and domestic affairs corrupted , that becomes a priority .
Getting this country ’ s feet back on solid ground has to happen as quickly as possible in order for us to start moving forward .

Since it became clear that Joe Biden would be the Democratic presidential nominee, much of the focus has turned to who he will pick to be his running mate. All of that is completely understandable. But a case can be made that who he chooses for that position will be less important than the people he nominates for cabinet positions.
Most recently, that has been highlighted by the actions of the current attorney general. Dropping the charges against Michael Flynn was not only a betrayal of justice. Barr’s actions have also done deep and lasting damage to the entire Department of Justice, as David Kurtz explains.
The Justice Department is being dismantled as an independent, broadly legitimate, respected component in service of the rule of law… The impacts go far beyond the particulars of a given case or the tenure of a single compromised attorney general. Good lawyers leave the department, as we have already seen. Marginal lawyers cut corners, clip their wings, and acquiesce in the corruption in small, imperceptible ways. Up and coming lawyers steer clear of a hollowed-out Justice Department and the wrong kinds of people are drawn to it. The effects are generational. The repairs to undo the damage are not swift and cannot be sped up.
Should Biden become president, it will be his attorney general’s job to “undo the damage” of those generational effects—at least as much as possible.
But the problem goes way beyond the Justice Department. Especially since Trump has filled the federal bureaucracy with people whose only real skill is loyalty to him, the same thing is happening with Betsy DeVos at the Department of Education, Mike Pompeo at the State Department, Alex Azar at the Department of Health and Human Services, Sonny Perdue at the Department of Agriculture, Andrew Wheeler at EPA, Ben Carson at HUD. The list goes on.
In every case, the mission of those departments has been corrupted and put in service to Trump’s ego, while staffing has been hollowed out and norms discarded. On that last one, for years now we’ve been hearing about how our intelligence services have reduced the Presidential Daily Briefing to a couple of pages made up of charts and pictures, which Trump basically ignores. We also know that Trump has thrown out the norm of a wall of separation between the president and his attorney general.
This is where voters might have been wise in choosing Biden as the nominee. He has eight years of experience working in a functional administration, so he knows which norms are critical to reinstate and how to do so. But just as important is the fact that he has working experience with a host of people who are probably eager to step up to the plate and begin the process of repairing the damage. That isn’t limited to people who served in Obama’s cabinet, but all of the undersecretaries and staffers who played such critical roles in policy implementation.
I’m not suggesting that Biden should announce his cabinet picks before the election. There are very good reasons why candidates have chosen not to do so in the past. But ever since he entered the Democratic primary, I have thought that the former vice president’s biggest asset was that he would be ready to hit the ground running on day one. With our relationships around the globe in tatters and domestic affairs corrupted, that becomes a priority. Getting this country’s feet back on solid ground has to happen as quickly as possible in order for us to start moving forward.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-14--Can Vote by Mail Work in Low Income Minority Neighborhoods?

On April 28 , Maryland held a special congressional election to replace the late Elijah Cummings , who died in October .
That same day , Ohio ran its statewide primary after postponing it from March .
Both of these elections were not only the first since the COVID-19 outbreak to be conducted almost entirely by mail ; they were the first federal vote-at-home elections to be run east of the Mississippi .
In Maryland , that didn ’ t come without controversy .
The outcome of the election itself was never in doubt .
The winner , Kweisi Mfume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 1996 , was expected to defeat his Republican challenger in an overwhelmingly Democratic district , which encompasses roughly half of Baltimore City , parts of Baltimore County , and most of Howard County .
What was in doubt was how well the new system would work , especially as Maryland election officials had to make the switch in such a short period of time .
A number of state leaders expressed concerns .
“ Most vote-by-mail only states are overwhelmingly white and took years , not months , to transition , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Speaker Adrienne Jones wrote to Governor Larry Hogan in March .
Even after the State Board of Elections revised its plan to include some in-person polling options for both the special election and the state ’ s June 2 presidential primary , skeptics worried that low-income Baltimore voters who don ’ t have permanent addresses could be disenfranchised—Maryland ’ s Seventh District includes some of the poorest sections of West Baltimore—and that the limited number of polling places would result in more people flocking to them , creating not only chaos but vectors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the three polling places open on Election Day to see if that happened .
When I showed up , hardly anyone was there .
It wasn ’ t clear , however , whether the low traffic meant the new system was a success or failure .
Either voters embraced the vote-at-home option and it worked according to plan or , in fact , the system change resulted in fewer people exercising their right to vote .
The answer would not be revealed for almost two weeks—as the state was accepting all ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be receiving and counting them for at least 10 days following the election .
Now , the votes are in and the results are impressive .
Voter turnout overall increased 10 percent from February ’ s primary election , which was the more competitive race—a Democratic primary in a Democratic enclave—and was held the old-fashioned way .
Voter participation jumped from 21 percent of eligible voters to roughly 32 percent .
( That was also much higher than the last time a special election was held in that district in 1996 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to the polls . )
Even more encouraging , turnout spiked by nearly six percent in Baltimore City , going from 19 percent of eligible voters in February ’ s traditional election to 25 percent in April ’ s vote-by-mail election .
The district ’ s voters overwhelmingly voted at home , with 157,075 casting ballots by mail and only 1,009 people casting them at one of the three polling places .
The vote-at-home election was not without flaws and confusion .
One voter I spoke with at the Baltimore City polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ envelope to mail back her ballot .
“ I had a ballot and I went to the post office to mail it , and I had the wrong envelope , ” Vivian Castain , 88 , told me .
“ I went back home , and I couldn ’ t find it anywhere , so I came here.
” Another voter said that she never received her ballot in the mail .
“ I didn ’ t get my ballot , ” said Camille Alexander , 46 .
“ So I came on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the ballots mailed to Baltimore City voters went undelivered , compared to three percent of the ballots that never reached voters in Baltimore and Howard counties .
Election officials said that was mostly because some of the addresses on file were out of date .
And while vote by mail turned out more voters in the congressional district overall , including Baltimore City , the gap between the city and the surrounding whiter and richer counties widened .
Baltimore County ( different from the city ) and Howard County each turned out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That amounts to a 13.5-percentage point gap in the turnout between Baltimore City and the suburbs , compared with a six-point gap in February .
Still , Maryland ’ s first experiment with a federal vote-by-mail election proved that the system can succeed at increasing turnout in a major black city with a large low-income population just as it has in majority white states and counties throughout the country .
In 2018 , for instance , a study commissioned by the Monthly found that Utah counties that enacted vote-by-mail in the 2016 presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five percentage points higher than those that didn ’ t .
Then , in the 2018 midterms , every vote-at-home state had a turnout rate at least 10 percentage points higher among eligible voters than the national average .
More impressively , Maryland election officials showed how to make a dramatic election reform under intense time pressure and the stress of a pandemic , albeit with a few hiccups .
According to Amber McReynolds , CEO of the National Vote at Home Institute , Maryland ’ s State Board of Elections followed her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the three main things it needed to do make the change .
First , it mailed every voter a ballot ( in other recent vote-by-mail elections , such as Wisconsin and Ohio , voters received letters stating that they could apply for vote-by-mail ballots , an extra step to reduce overall turnout ) .
Second , it kept a limited number of polling places open for those who needed them , such as people with disabilities and without access to mail .
Third , Baltimore City elections officials bought more equipment , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seamless transition .
And Maryland was already in a reasonably good place , as it switched to paper ballots years ago and already allowed for no-excuse absentee voting .
Those steps offered a stark contract to Ohio , which made voters request a vote-at-home ballot by submitting an application .
As a consequence , it experienced a low voter turnout—only 22.6 percent of its eligible voters cast ballots .
That was well below the state ’ s 2016 primary turnout rate of 43.6 percent .
Of course , that race also had two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demystified the process and didn ’ t require voters to jump through hoops to get their ballots at home , ” McReynolds told me .
“ Those extra steps are really what makes it challenging for the voters and for the election officials , because it adds time to the process , it adds data entry , it adds administrative burdens , and it adds costs .
Then , by adding the in-person option for the voters who wanted it , they essentially did what the western states do really well : They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opt-in system.
” What ’ s more , Maryland proved that if election officials simply mail every voter a ballot , the vast majority of voters will choose to vote at home , thereby making the few polling places that are open far less dangerous .
The success of Maryland ’ s vote-by-mail election is no guarantee that vote by mail will be successful everywhere come November .
But it shows that if election officials make the right moves now , they can not only keep our elections from posing a public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participate in them .

On April 28, Maryland held a special congressional election to replace the late Elijah Cummings, who died in October. That same day, Ohio ran its statewide primary after postponing it from March. Both of these elections were not only the first since the COVID-19 outbreak to be conducted almost entirely by mail; they were the first federal vote-at-home elections to be run east of the Mississippi.
In Maryland, that didn’t come without controversy. The outcome of the election itself was never in doubt. The winner, Kweisi Mfume, who held the seat from 1987 to 1996, was expected to defeat his Republican challenger in an overwhelmingly Democratic district, which encompasses roughly half of Baltimore City, parts of Baltimore County, and most of Howard County. What was in doubt was how well the new system would work, especially as Maryland election officials had to make the switch in such a short period of time.
A number of state leaders expressed concerns. “Most vote-by-mail only states are overwhelmingly white and took years, not months, to transition,” Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson and House Speaker Adrienne Jones wrote to Governor Larry Hogan in March. Even after the State Board of Elections revised its plan to include some in-person polling options for both the special election and the state’s June 2 presidential primary, skeptics worried that low-income Baltimore voters who don’t have permanent addresses could be disenfranchised—Maryland’s Seventh District includes some of the poorest sections of West Baltimore—and that the limited number of polling places would result in more people flocking to them, creating not only chaos but vectors of contagion.
I stopped by two of the three polling places open on Election Day to see if that happened. When I showed up, hardly anyone was there. It wasn’t clear, however, whether the low traffic meant the new system was a success or failure. Either voters embraced the vote-at-home option and it worked according to plan or, in fact, the system change resulted in fewer people exercising their right to vote. The answer would not be revealed for almost two weeks—as the state was accepting all ballots postmarked on Election Day, meaning it would be receiving and counting them for at least 10 days following the election.
Now, the votes are in and the results are impressive. Voter turnout overall increased 10 percentage points from February’s primary election, which was the more competitive race—a Democratic primary in a Democratic enclave—and was held the old-fashioned way. Voter participation jumped from 21.4 percent of eligible registered voters to roughly 32 percent. (That was also much higher than the last time a special election was held in that district in 1996, when only eight percent of voters showed up to the polls.) Even more encouraging, turnout spiked by nearly six percent in Baltimore City, going from 19 percent of eligible registered voters in February’s traditional election to 25 percent in April’s vote-by-mail election.
Voters throughout the district overwhelmingly voted at home, with 157,075 casting ballots by mail and only 1,009 people casting them at one of the three polling places.
The vote-at-home election was not without flaws and confusion. One voter I spoke with at the Baltimore City polling place said she had lost the return envelope to mail back her ballot. “I had a ballot and I went to the post office to mail it, and I had the wrong envelope,” Vivian Castain, 88, told me. “I went back home, and I couldn’t find it anywhere, so I came here.” Another voter said that she never received her ballot in the mail. “I didn’t get my ballot,” said Camille Alexander, 46. “So I came on out.” Indeed, roughly 10 percent of the ballots mailed to Baltimore City voters went undelivered, compared to three percent of the ballots that never reached voters in Baltimore and Howard counties. Election officials said that was mostly because some of the addresses on file were out of date.
And while vote by mail turned out more voters in the congressional district overall, including Baltimore City, the gap between the city and the surrounding whiter and richer counties widened. Baltimore County (different from the city) and Howard County each turned out 38 percent of its eligible registered voters. That amounts to a 13.5-percentage point gap in the turnout between Baltimore City and the suburbs, compared with a six-point gap in February.
Still, Maryland’s first experiment with a federal vote-by-mail election proved that the system can succeed at increasing turnout in a major black city with a large low-income population just as it has in majority white states and counties throughout the country. In 2018, for instance, a study commissioned by the Monthly found that Utah counties that enacted vote-by-mail in the 2016 presidential election had a turnout rate more than five percentage points higher than those that didn’t. Then, in the 2018 midterms, every vote-at-home state had a turnout rate at least 10 percentage points higher than the national average.
More impressively, Maryland election officials showed how to make a dramatic election reform under intense time pressure and the stress of a pandemic, albeit with a few hiccups.
According to Amber McReynolds, CEO of the National Vote at Home Institute, Maryland’s State Board of Elections followed her organization’s recommendations and scale plan and did the three main things it needed to do to make the change. First, it mailed every voter a ballot (in other recent vote-by-mail elections, such as Wisconsin and Ohio, voters received letters stating that they could apply for vote-by-mail ballots, an extra step that reduces overall turnout). Second, it kept a limited number of polling places open for those who needed them, such as people with disabilities and without access to mail. Third, Baltimore City elections officials bought more equipment, like high-speed vote counters, to ensure a seamless transition. And Maryland was already in a reasonably good place, as it switched to paper ballots years ago and already allowed for no-excuse absentee voting.
Those steps offered a stark contrast to Ohio, which made voters request a vote-at-home ballot by submitting an application. As a consequence, it experienced a low voter turnout—only 22.6 percent of its registered voters cast ballots. That was well below the state’s 2016 primary turnout rate of 43.6 percent. Of course, that race also had two competitive presidential primary campaigns.
“Maryland demystified the process and didn’t require voters to jump through hoops to get their ballots at home,” McReynolds told me. “Those extra steps are really what makes it challenging for the voters and for the election officials, because it adds time to the process, it adds data entry, it adds administrative burdens, and it adds costs. Then, by adding the in-person option for the voters who wanted it, they essentially did what the western states do really well: They created an opt-out system instead of an opt-in system.” What’s more, Maryland proved that if election officials simply mail every voter a ballot, the vast majority of voters will choose to vote at home, thereby making the few polling places that are open far less dangerous.
The success of Maryland’s vote-by-mail election is no guarantee that vote by mail will be successful everywhere come November. But it shows that if election officials make the right moves now, they can not only keep our elections from posing a public health risk but actually get more people to participate in them.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-14--The Trump Administration’s Self-Own on Michael Flynn

Trump ’ s Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has released records of people in the Obama administration who requested the unmasking of names in intelligence reports that related to Michael Flynn .
The Trump campaign made it immediately clear why they had done so by responding to the fact that former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s name appeared on the list .
The first thing to keep in mind are the facts about the process of unmasking .
As the released document explains , every person on the list who made an unmasking request “ was ‘ an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the unmasking was approved through the agency ’ s normal protocol , ” so there was nothing illegal or inappropriate about Biden ’ s request—or any of the others on the list .
However , the names and dates provide some clues about why Obama officials were concerned about what they were seeing in these intelligence reports .
Given that the timing of this release of classified information coincides with Attorney General Barr ’ s announcement that he was dropping charges against Flynn , most of the discussion has focused on the December @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kislyak .
The conversations between the two included a discussion of sanctions and other measures the Obama administration announced that day in response to Russia ’ s attempts to interfere in the 2016 election .
Flynn not only lied about that to the FBI but was eventually forced to resign his position in the Trump administration for lying to Vice President Pence and others in the White House .
But of the 49 requests for unmasking that revealed the name of Michael Flynn , 42 of them came before December 29 , 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in early to mid-December and the people making them include several officials involved with NATO , Syria , and Turkey , as well as UN Ambassador Samantha Power .
A quick review of Flynn ’ s activities at the time tells us why they were so concerned .
December 1 – Flynn and Kushner met with Kislyak at Trump Tower—a meeting they didn ’ t disclose until March 2017 .
According to a written statement Kushner submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee , Kislyak wanted “ to facilitate a discussion with Russian generals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibility of setting up a back channel for communications with Moscow at Russian diplomatic facilities .
We also know that Flynn was interested in talking to Moscow because he had developed a plan for the U.S. and Russia to cooperate militarily in Syria .
In May 2017 , this is what reporters at the Washington Post revealed .
When Obama officials learned from those intercepts about what Kislyak reported to Moscow , it is understandable why they would want to know the name of the person ( s ) who were involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be particularly pertinent to those who were involved in our foreign policy with regards to Syria .
Mid-December – One of the reasons why Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his telephone calls with the Russian ambassador is because prosecutors had proof that he had failed to disclose the fact that he was acting as a paid lobbyist on behalf of the Turkish government .
Here is what we learned about that during the Mueller investigation .
To the extent that the intelligence community was reporting on surveillance related to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is understandable why Obama officials involved with NATO and Turkey would be particularly concerned .
December 22 – Flynn called Kislyak ( at Kushner ’ s request ) to ask if Russia would delay or defeat an upcoming U.N. Security Council resolution vote condemning Israel ’ s building of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem .
The Obama administration had agreed to allow the resolution to come up for a vote — angering Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu .
It is understandable that Ambassador Power would want to know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about undermining U.S. policy at the U.N. Joe Biden is actually one of the few people who made an unmasking request after Flynn ’ s telephone calls with Kislyak about U.S. sanctions .
His request came on January 12th—the same day that David Ignatius published a report about the call in the Washington Post .
So by then , it was already public knowledge .
I realize that ’ s a lot of information to absorb and that Trump has a much easier job in simply yelling : “ It was a crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But the facts are that Flynn ’ s behavior was unprecedented and deeply disturbing .
Members of the previous administration didn ’ t just have a legitimate cause for concern , they would have been derelict in their duty to ignore it .

Trump’s Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has released records of people in the Obama administration who requested the unmasking of names in intelligence reports that related to Michael Flynn. The Trump campaign made it immediately clear why they had done so by responding to the fact that former Vice President Joe Biden’s name appeared on the list.
The first thing to keep in mind are the facts about the process of unmasking.
[O]fficials requesting an unmasking in an intelligence report generally cannot know who it will turn out to be at the time they make the request. They would have been asking to learn more about an intelligence report with a generic reference to an unnamed American.
As the released document explains, every person on the list who made an unmasking request “was ‘an authorized recipient’ of the information and the unmasking was approved through the agency’s normal protocol,” so there was nothing illegal or inappropriate about Biden’s request—or any of the others on the list. However, the names and dates provide some clues about why Obama officials were concerned about what they were seeing in these intelligence reports.
Given that the timing of this release of classified information coincides with Attorney General Barr’s announcement that he was dropping charges against Flynn, most of the discussion has focused on the December 29th calls between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak. The conversations between the two included a discussion of sanctions and other measures the Obama administration announced that day in response to Russia’s attempts to interfere in the 2016 election. Flynn not only lied about that to the FBI but was eventually forced to resign his position in the Trump administration for lying to Vice President Pence and others in the White House.
But of the 49 requests for unmasking that revealed the name of Michael Flynn, 42 of them came before December 29, 2016. The vast majority of requests came in early to mid-December and the people making them include several officials involved with NATO, Syria, and Turkey, as well as UN Ambassador Samantha Power. A quick review of Flynn’s activities at the time tells us why they were so concerned.
December 1 – Flynn and Kushner met with Kislyak at Trump Tower—a meeting they didn’t disclose until March 2017. According to a written statement Kushner submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Kislyak wanted “to facilitate a discussion with Russian generals about Syria” and they discussed the possibility of setting up a back channel for communications with Moscow at Russian diplomatic facilities. We also know that Flynn was interested in talking to Moscow because he had developed a plan for the U.S. and Russia to cooperate militarily in Syria.
In May 2017, this is what reporters at the Washington Post revealed.
Ambassador Sergey Kislyak reported to his superiors in Moscow that Kushner, son-in-law and confidant to then-President-elect Trump, made the proposal during a meeting on Dec. 1 or 2 at Trump Tower, according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials. Kislyak said Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications. The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser.
When Obama officials learned from those intercepts about what Kislyak reported to Moscow, it is understandable why they would want to know the name of the person(s) who were involved in those undisclosed meetings. The discussions would be particularly pertinent to those who were involved in our foreign policy with regards to Syria.
Mid-December – One of the reasons why Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his telephone calls with the Russian ambassador is because prosecutors had proof that he had failed to disclose the fact that he was acting as a paid lobbyist on behalf of the Turkish government. Here is what we learned about that during the Mueller investigation.
Federal investigators are examining whether former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn met with senior Turkish officials just weeks before President Donald Trump’s inauguration about a potential quid pro quo in which Flynn would be paid to carry out directives from Ankara secretly while in the White House, according to multiple people familiar with the investigation. Investigators for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russia’s interference with the U.S. presidential election recently questioned witnesses about the alleged December 2016 meeting between Flynn and senior Turkish officials, two people knowledgeable with the interviews said. The questions were part of a line of inquiry regarding Flynn’s lobbying efforts on behalf of Turkey.
To the extent that the intelligence community was reporting on surveillance related to Flynn’s activities on this matter, it is understandable why Obama officials involved with NATO and Turkey would be particularly concerned.
December 22 – Flynn called Kislyak (at Kushner’s request) to ask if Russia would delay or defeat an upcoming U.N. Security Council resolution vote condemning Israel’s building of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Obama administration had agreed to allow the resolution to come up for a vote — angering Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It is understandable that Ambassador Power would want to know who was talking to the Russian Ambassador about undermining U.S. policy at the U.N.
Joe Biden is actually one of the few people who made an unmasking request after Flynn’s telephone calls with Kislyak about U.S. sanctions. His request came on January 12th—the same day that David Ignatius published a report about the call in the Washington Post. So by then, it was already public knowledge.
I realize that’s a lot of information to absorb and that Trump has a much easier job in simply yelling: “It was a crime and Obama/Biden were in on it!” But the facts are that Flynn’s behavior was unprecedented and deeply disturbing. Members of the previous administration didn’t just have a legitimate cause for concern, they would have been derelict in their duty to ignore it.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-14--What Happens When the President Believes Conspiracy Theories?

Jonathan Last of Bulwark has collected some of the more batshit insane theories about the coronavirus that are circulating on the right , and they are frightening to read .
You might be surprised to learn from Rudy Giuliani that Anthony Fauci is responsible for the outbreak because he personally “ gave $ 3.7 million to the Wuhan laboratory ” where it supposedly originated and therefore “ we paid for the damn virus that ’ s killing us.
” The saner theory , which is based in fact , is that U.S. Embassy in Beijing asked the Trump administration to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they could make the facility secure , and they got turned down .
Also , the Intelligence Community says they have no proof that the virus was created in that facility or that it escaped from there .
Yet , if it did , that would be another example of Trump not listening to experts rather than proof that Anthony Fauci is responsible .
Giuliani is taking something embarrassing and turning it around to deflect blame away from the president .
The One America News Network ( OAN ) prefers to cast a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in development that might serve as a treatment for Covid-19 , so I guess the theory here is that a bunch of “ globalists ” started a pandemic on purpose which shut down international travel and disrupted international commerce so they could make a bunch of money off a patent .
Then there ’ s the anti-vaccination crowd which has a variety of nutty theories , including that Anthony Fauci has been so effective in developing vaccines that he ’ s rendered our immune systems helpless to fight the novel coronavirus .
Lastly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes from the group that is opposed to wearing masks .
If you want to end the lockdown immediately , then you will want to take any nominal precautions that will allow reopening as quickly as possible .
Wearing a mask is a low-cost , high-benefit way to reduce the spread of the coronavirus , and hence make it possible to ease restrictions while lowering the chances of another outbreak .
But in reality , that is not what we ’ ve seen .
The people opposed to wearing masks are all in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy now , irrespective of whether the scientists advise that it is safe .
Last ’ s explanation isn ’ t bad : “ As America ’ s decadence has increased over the last 30 or so years…we have become—just objectively speaking—a less serious country.
” Perhaps this is a long-term trend , but the least serious person in the country is certainly the president .
After Anthony Fauci testified to the Senate HELP Committee this week that school ’ s are not necessarily going to be safe to open in the fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the effects of the virus , Trump said , “ Look , [ Fauci ] wants to play all sides of the equation .
I was surprised by his answer actually , because , you know , it ’ s just to me—it ’ s not an acceptable answer , especially when it comes to schools.
” He added that “ the only thing that would be acceptable ” is giving older teachers and professors a few more weeks before they return “ because this is a disease that attacks age , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Financial Times , Trump believes that scientists exaggerate all the time , which is why he refused to ramp up testing or order ventilators .
Rather , he took Jared Kushner ’ s advice that such precautions were unnecessary and would spook the stock markets .
On Thursday , Trump is celebrating a ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court which takes power away from the governor to manage the outbreak .
He is thereby betting heavily that Wisconsinites won ’ t have reason to rue this ruling when they go to the polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tom Wolf is doing what he can to make sure people know who to blame .
Speaking of county executives who have defied his stay-at-home orders , Wolf remarked , “ To those politicians who decide to cave in to this coronavirus , they need to understand the consequences of their cowardly act.
” There ’ s a reason that all this defiance is coming from the right .
President Trump may have made a show of listening to his experts during his daily reality show Coronavirus Task Force press briefings , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he doesn ’ t believe that outbreak is as serious as they say and that the economy should not be in lockdown .
He ’ s the leader here and he ’ s giving permission and encouragement to his followers to pursue every conspiracy theory and break every law .
Ipsos polling now shows Trump in thirties in his matchup with Biden , and I hope that is correct .
I want to believe this country hasn ’ t become so decadent that it can ’ t be saved in November .

Jonathan Last of Bulwark has collected some of the more batshit insane theories about the coronavirus that are circulating on the right, and they are frightening to read. You might be surprised to learn from Rudy Giuliani that Anthony Fauci is responsible for the outbreak because he personally “gave $3.7 million to the Wuhan laboratory” where it supposedly originated and therefore “we paid for the damn virus that’s killing us.”
The saner theory, which is based in fact, is that U.S. Embassy in Beijing asked the Trump administration to give more money to that lab so they could make the facility secure, and they got turned down. Also, the Intelligence Community says they have no proof that the virus was created in that facility or that it escaped from there. Yet, if it did, that would be another example of Trump not listening to experts rather than proof that Anthony Fauci is responsible. Giuliani is taking something embarrassing and turning it around to deflect blame away from the president.
The One America News Network (OAN) prefers to cast a wider net.
Recent reports claim the remdesivir patent is controlled by mainland China, Bill Gates, and the WHO, while the Clintons may have a stake in it as well. The entire cover-up is allegedly backed by globalist billionaire George Soros.
Remdesivir is a drug in development that might serve as a treatment for Covid-19, so I guess the theory here is that a bunch of “globalists” started a pandemic on purpose which shut down international travel and disrupted international commerce so they could make a bunch of money off a patent.
Then there’s the anti-vaccination crowd which has a variety of nutty theories, including that Anthony Fauci has been so effective in developing vaccines that he’s rendered our immune systems helpless to fight the novel coronavirus.
Lastly, however, the most interesting development comes from the group that is opposed to wearing masks.
If you want to end the lockdown immediately, then you will want to take any nominal precautions that will allow reopening as quickly as possible. Wearing a mask is a low-cost, high-benefit way to reduce the spread of the coronavirus, and hence make it possible to ease restrictions while lowering the chances of another outbreak. But in reality, that is not what we’ve seen.
The people opposed to wearing masks are all in the camp that wants to open the economy now, irrespective of whether the scientists advise that it is safe. Last’s explanation isn’t bad: “As America’s decadence has increased over the last 30 or so years…we have become—just objectively speaking—a less serious country.”
Perhaps this is a long-term trend, but the least serious person in the country is certainly the president. After Anthony Fauci testified to the Senate HELP Committee this week that school’s are not necessarily going to be safe to open in the fall and that children are not immune to the effects of the virus, Trump said, “Look, [Fauci] wants to play all sides of the equation. I was surprised by his answer actually, because, you know, it’s just to me—it’s not an acceptable answer, especially when it comes to schools.” He added that “the only thing that would be acceptable” is giving older teachers and professors a few more weeks before they return “because this is a disease that attacks age, and it attacks health.”
According to the Financial Times, Trump believes that scientists exaggerate all the time, which is why he refused to ramp up testing or order ventilators. Rather, he took Jared Kushner’s advice that such precautions were unnecessary and would spook the stock markets.
On Thursday, Trump is celebrating a ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court which takes power away from the governor to manage the outbreak.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1260905587912646656
He is thereby betting heavily that Wisconsinites won’t have reason to rue this ruling when they go to the polls in November. In Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Wolf is doing what he can to make sure people know who to blame. Speaking of county executives who have defied his stay-at-home orders, Wolf remarked, “To those politicians who decide to cave in to this coronavirus, they need to understand the consequences of their cowardly act.”
There’s a reason that all this defiance is coming from the right. President Trump may have made a show of listening to his experts during his daily reality show Coronavirus Task Force press briefings, but he’s sent a clear message that he doesn’t believe that outbreak is as serious as they say and that the economy should not be in lockdown. He’s the leader here and he’s giving permission and encouragement to his followers to pursue every conspiracy theory and break every law.
Ipsos polling now shows Trump in thirties in his matchup with Biden, and I hope that is correct. I want to believe this country hasn’t become so decadent that it can’t be saved in November.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-15--Is the FBI Attempting to Silence a Republican Senator?

Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina has been accused of insider trading following a massive stock sell-off around the same time that he was receiving briefings on the coronavirus from U.S. public health officials .
On Wednesday , FBI agents went to his residence to serve a search warrant targeting his phone records .
One day later , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that Burr would be stepping down as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee , adding that “ we agreed that this decision would be in the best interests of the committee.
” As former DOJ spokesman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the home of a U.S .
Senator and executing a warrant is not business as usual and not a step the FBI would take lightly.
” Similarly , the L.A. Times reported that “ such a warrant being served on a sitting U.S. senator would require approval from the highest ranks of the Justice Department and is a step that would not be taken lightly.
” Senator Burr should definitely be held accountable if it can be proved that he engaged in insider trading as the country was careening towards a pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is unconscionable behavior for a public servant .
But Burr wasn ’ t the only one .
Senator Kelly Loeffler of Georgia did the same thing .
Why isn ’ t the FBI knocking on her door to serve a subpoena ?
The first thing to know in answer to that question is that Senator Loeffler has been a loyal Trumpist—defending the president on everything from his extortion of Ukraine to his handling of the coronavirus .
While Senator Burr has hardly been a Trump critic , during his tenure as chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t toed the president ’ s line with respect to Russiagate .
Burr ’ s committee spent years investigating Russia ’ s attempt to interfere in the 2016 election and has so far produced four bipartisan reports on their findings .
It was the most recent one that I described as a bombshell that got dropped on the Durham investigation .
To recap , it has been clear for quite a while now that one of Barr ’ s goals with the Durham investigation is to discredit the January 2017 U.S. intelligence community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 2016 election , which was commissioned by then-President Obama .
This was the key finding of the ICA ( emphasis mine ) .
The most recent report from the Senate Intelligence Committee found the ICA to be an accurate assessment of what occurred .
That placed Senator Burr and his committee in direct opposition to how Attorney General Barr wants to re-write history .
Is this treatment by the FBI retaliation , or an attempt to silence Burr ?
It sure looks that way .
It is also possible that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the way as he and Grenell continue their process of selectively releasing classified information .
For example , during an appearance on Tucker Carlson ’ s show Tuesday night , Ed Henry , who seems to have an inside track with Grenell ’ s office , said that his sources are telling him that the DNI is preparing to release four or five other batches of intelligence , including evidence suggesting that Putin actually wanted Clinton to win in 2016 .
As Jonathan Chait documents , that goes against everything we know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2016 election .
But beyond what we watched happen with our own eyes and ears , Vladimir Putin publicly admitted his intentions during a press conference with Trump in Helsinki .
We ’ ll have to wait and see what Grenell and Barr have planned .
But it has become clear that we are witnessing the most corrupt and authoritarian abuse of the justice system in this country ’ s history—including what appears to be an attempt to silence a sitting senator .

Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina has been accused of insider trading following a massive stock sell-off around the same time that he was receiving briefings on the coronavirus from U.S. public health officials. On Wednesday, FBI agents went to his residence to serve a search warrant targeting his phone records. One day later, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that Burr would be stepping down as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, adding that “we agreed that this decision would be in the best interests of the committee.”
As former DOJ spokesman Matthew Miller tweeted, “showing up at the home of a U.S. Senator and executing a warrant is not business as usual and not a step the FBI would take lightly.” Similarly, the L.A. Times reported that “such a warrant being served on a sitting U.S. senator would require approval from the highest ranks of the Justice Department and is a step that would not be taken lightly.”
Senator Burr should definitely be held accountable if it can be proved that he engaged in insider trading as the country was careening towards a pandemic. That is not only illegal, it is unconscionable behavior for a public servant. But Burr wasn’t the only one. Senator Kelly Loeffler of Georgia did the same thing. Why isn’t the FBI knocking on her door to serve a subpoena?
The first thing to know in answer to that question is that Senator Loeffler has been a loyal Trumpist—defending the president on everything from his extortion of Ukraine to his handling of the coronavirus. While Senator Burr has hardly been a Trump critic, during his tenure as chair of the Intelligence Committee he hasn’t toed the president’s line with respect to Russiagate.
Burr’s committee spent years investigating Russia’s attempt to interfere in the 2016 election and has so far produced four bipartisan reports on their findings. It was the most recent one that I described as a bombshell that got dropped on the Durham investigation.
To recap, it has been clear for quite a while now that one of Barr’s goals with the Durham investigation is to discredit the January 2017 U.S. intelligence community assessment (ICA) describing Russian interference in the 2016 election, which was commissioned by then-President Obama. This was the key finding of the ICA (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.
The most recent report from the Senate Intelligence Committee found the ICA to be an accurate assessment of what occurred. That placed Senator Burr and his committee in direct opposition to how Attorney General Barr wants to re-write history. Is this treatment by the FBI retaliation, or an attempt to silence Burr? It sure looks that way.
It is also possible that the attorney general wants to get Burr out of the way as he and Grenell continue their process of selectively releasing classified information. For example, during an appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show Tuesday night, Ed Henry, who seems to have an inside track with Grenell’s office, said that his sources are telling him that the DNI is preparing to release four or five other batches of intelligence, including evidence suggesting that Putin actually wanted Clinton to win in 2016.
As Jonathan Chait documents, that goes against everything we know about what happened in the run-up to the 2016 election. But beyond what we watched happen with our own eyes and ears, Vladimir Putin publicly admitted his intentions during a press conference with Trump in Helsinki.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday he wanted President Donald Trump to win the 2016 election because he believed Trump’s policies would be more friendly to the Kremlin. “Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal,” Putin said, standing alongside Trump at a joint news conference.
We’ll have to wait and see what Grenell and Barr have planned. But it has become clear that we are witnessing the most corrupt and authoritarian abuse of the justice system in this country’s history—including what appears to be an attempt to silence a sitting senator.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-15--Will COVID-19 Get Policymakers To Start Taking Loneliness Seriously?

These days , staying healthy means staying in and staying apart .
Most of us get it , despite the disturbing images of Americans defying shelter-in-place orders .
If hunkering down at home and social distancing makes us a little lonely , so be it .
This loneliness will pass , we tell ourselves .
But the truth is that the loneliness will not pass for all of us , especially not for those who were lonely before COVID-19 and for whom loneliness is not a momentary condition .
As former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy explains in his new book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World , loneliness is a chronic condition for millions of Americans and , indeed , for millions of people around the world .
Indeed , a 2018 Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 22 percent of adults reported that they either often or always feel lonely .
That ’ s much bigger than the number of smokers or people suffering from diabetes , both recognized as huge public health challenges .
The loneliness problem is particularly acute among older adults , with a UCSF study finding that 43 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lonely .
This isn ’ t an American phenomenon .
Researchers have found similar numbers in England , Japan , Australia , and Italy .
Murthy starts with a simple proposition .
“ We all have a deep and abiding need to be seen for who we are—as fully dimensional , complex , and vulnerable human beings .
We all need to know that we matter and that we are loved.
” Loneliness is that lousy feeling that we do not much matter to anyone , that we lack the love and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t just hurt emotionally , it has a significant negative impact on physical health , as well .
As Murthy details , the leading researcher on the health impact of loneliness has shown that people with weak social connections are 50 percent more likely to die prematurely than people with strong connections .
Stunningly , the health outcomes of social disconnection are akin to the impact of smoking 15 cigarettes a day .
Murthy served as the U.S .
Surgeon General from 2014 to 2017 .
Previous Surgeons General brought prominence to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addiction , smoking , and diabetes .
Simply put , it ’ s a big deal when the nation ’ s top doctor identifies loneliness as a public health problem .
Murthy is so persuasive in his description of the loneliness problem , that he makes it seem abundantly clear that it ’ s time to advance large-scale , public health-oriented responses .
In other words , if loneliness is a public health crisis , there should be a public health response .
That ’ s where Murthy ’ s book is less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem and shows how widespread it is , he doesn ’ t follow up with compelling solutions .
Still , this book is a major contribution service to our nation ’ s health officials and policymakers , who will be dealing with the loneliness epidemic long after the COVID-19 pandemic is gone .
One place to start , as Murthy does , is to understand the causes of this growing sense of disconnection .
Some are comparatively obvious .
There are cultural influences , such as the way we celebrate individualism and independence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prize our privacy .
Moreover , Murthy points out that so many people are overworked and constantly busy that they can ’ t , or simply don ’ t , devote time to cultivating the kinds of relationships that make them feel connected .
Murthy also recognizes other factors , like the lasting impact of trauma .
He takes a deep dive into the prevalence of adverse childhood experiences ( ACEs ) and how they influence a person ’ s ability and willingness to trust and connect .
Of course , Murthy gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology in our lives .
Murthy acknowledges that technology can sometimes make people feel closer by facilitating communication with faraway relatives , or people with shared interests .
He is sharp , however , on the corrosive impact of constantly monitoring Facebook or Instagram .
Murthy memorably quotes a friend ’ s observation that “ checking your social media feed is like comparing everyone ’ s best day to your average days—you always come up short.
” Deploying the skills of an empathic doctor—and the spirit of a friend—Murthy has good suggestions for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part in small acts of reaching out , offer service to others , meditate .
Yet these recommendations often felt more like they were coming out of a self-help book than one about a public health crisis .
The advice is useful , of course , but an incomplete prescription for how we can respond to widespread loneliness as a society .
In the book , Murthy includes mini-profiles of the innovators who have sought to combat loneliness , including Mayor Tom Tait and his effort to create a “ culture of kindness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entailed promoting small acts of neighborliness and changing the way the local police responded to the opioid crisis .
Murthy also features Men ’ s Sheds—a sort of fix-it workshop provides a place of connection for men who eschew organized activities and gatherings , but who often end up deeply lonely .
The Men ’ s Shed movement has jumped from its origin in Australia to numerous other countries .
All of this provokes big and important questions—most especially , what kind of public policy can be advanced to foster greater social connectedness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which we still need an answer .
I love Murthy ’ s repeated calls to service as an antidote to loneliness , but how would we create opportunities for everyone to engage in service ?
Expanding our national service programs , such as AmeriCorps , would be a great start .
The good news is that some public officials are already embracing that idea .
Senators Chris Van Hollen and Chris Coons recently introduced legislation to do precisely that .
Of course , getting more Americans to partake in service would help , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Together doesn ’ t provide that cure , but perhaps Murthy ’ s manifesto on loneliness , combined with our broader experience in the time of COVID-19 will be the major catalyst we need to spark a large-scale search for what we can collectively do .
The novel coronavirus outbreak might be the major catalyst we need .
In this moment when so many of us feel more disconnected than ever before , it ’ s a chance to think big .
It ’ s hard to imagine the Trump administration doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump himself suffers from a profound kind of loneliness—but a Joe Biden administration could take action upon taking office , assuming he wins in November .
Biden would be wise to establish a national commission on methods and policy prescriptions to combat loneliness and increase social connection .
He could have Murthy lead that commission and enlist other leaders who have written about this challenge , including conservatives like Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse and former president of the American Enterprise Institute Arthur Brooks .
The commission should also recruit the social innovators highlighted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scholars on personal and civic connection like Julianne Holt-Lunstad and Robert Putnam , and experts like Julia Freeland Fisher .
Crucially , the National Commission to Combat Loneliness needs to be given the resources to succeed .
It should be given an innovation fund to invest in promising ideas and innovations to reduce social isolation and to produce policy recommendations that are equal to the scale of the challenge that Murthy documents .
All in all , Together is a great book to read while social distancing .
Like the popular works of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cain , and Adam Grant , Murthy applies the proven formula of combining well-summarized academic research , effective storytelling , and candid personal anecdotes .
That results in a smart , highly readable book that takes a timely and urgent issue and gives it the attention it needs .
Maybe now we can start to prioritize how to create a less lonely world in the future .

These days, staying healthy means staying in and staying apart. Most of us get it, despite the disturbing images of Americans defying shelter-in-place orders. If hunkering down at home and social distancing makes us a little lonely, so be it. This loneliness will pass, we tell ourselves. But the truth is that the loneliness will not pass for all of us, especially not for those who were lonely before COVID-19 and for whom loneliness is not a momentary condition.
Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World
by Vivek H. Murthy M.D., Harper Collins, 352 pp.
As former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy explains in his new book Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World, loneliness is a chronic condition for millions of Americans and, indeed, for millions of people around the world. Indeed, a 2018 Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 22 percent of adults reported that they either often or always feel lonely. That’s much bigger than the number of smokers or people suffering from diabetes, both recognized as huge public health challenges. The loneliness problem is particularly acute among older adults, with a UCSF study finding that 43 percent of people over 65 report feeling lonely.
This isn’t an American phenomenon. Researchers have found similar numbers in England, Japan, Australia, and Italy.
Murthy starts with a simple proposition. “We all have a deep and abiding need to be seen for who we are—as fully dimensional, complex, and vulnerable human beings. We all need to know that we matter and that we are loved.” Loneliness is that lousy feeling that we do not much matter to anyone, that we lack the love and the social connections we need.
Loneliness doesn’t just hurt emotionally, it has a significant negative impact on physical health, as well. As Murthy details, the leading researcher on the health impact of loneliness has shown that people with weak social connections are 50 percent more likely to die prematurely than people with strong connections. Stunningly, the health outcomes of social disconnection are akin to the impact of smoking 15 cigarettes a day.
Murthy served as the U.S. Surgeon General from 2014 to 2017. Previous Surgeons General brought prominence to health issues like HIV/AIDS, obesity, addiction, smoking, and diabetes. Simply put, it’s a big deal when the nation’s top doctor identifies loneliness as a public health problem.
Murthy is so persuasive in his description of the loneliness problem, that he makes it seem abundantly clear that it’s time to advance large-scale, public health-oriented responses. In other words, if loneliness is a public health crisis, there should be a public health response. That’s where Murthy’s book is less strong. While he estimably diagnoses a problem and shows how widespread it is, he doesn’t follow up with compelling solutions.
Still, this book is a major contribution service to our nation’s health officials and policymakers, who will be dealing with the loneliness epidemic long after the COVID-19 pandemic is gone.
One place to start, as Murthy does, is to understand the causes of this growing sense of disconnection. Some are comparatively obvious. There are cultural influences, such as the way we celebrate individualism and independence, and the extent to which we prize our privacy. Moreover, Murthy points out that so many people are overworked and constantly busy that they can’t, or simply don’t, devote time to cultivating the kinds of relationships that make them feel connected. Murthy also recognizes other factors, like the lasting impact of trauma. He takes a deep dive into the prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and how they influence a person’s ability and willingness to trust and connect.
Of course, Murthy gives special attention to the ubiquitous role of technology in our lives. Murthy acknowledges that technology can sometimes make people feel closer by facilitating communication with faraway relatives, or people with shared interests. He is sharp, however, on the corrosive impact of constantly monitoring Facebook or Instagram. Murthy memorably quotes a friend’s observation that “checking your social media feed is like comparing everyone’s best day to your average days—you always come up short.”
Deploying the skills of an empathic doctor—and the spirit of a friend—Murthy has good suggestions for people who are experiencing loneliness: Take part in small acts of reaching out, offer service to others, meditate. Yet these recommendations often felt more like they were coming out of a self-help book than one about a public health crisis. The advice is useful, of course, but an incomplete prescription for how we can respond to widespread loneliness as a society.
In the book, Murthy includes mini-profiles of the innovators who have sought to combat loneliness, including Mayor Tom Tait and his effort to create a “culture of kindness” in Anaheim, California, which entailed promoting small acts of neighborliness and changing the way the local police responded to the opioid crisis. Murthy also features Men’s Sheds—a sort of fix-it workshop provides a place of connection for men who eschew organized activities and gatherings, but who often end up deeply lonely. The Men’s Shed movement has jumped from its origin in Australia to numerous other countries.
All of this provokes big and important questions—most especially, what kind of public policy can be advanced to foster greater social connectedness? It’s a question for which we still need an answer.
I love Murthy’s repeated calls to service as an antidote to loneliness, but how would we create opportunities for everyone to engage in service? Expanding our national service programs, such as AmeriCorps, would be a great start. The good news is that some public officials are already embracing that idea. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Chris Coons recently introduced legislation to do precisely that.
Of course, getting more Americans to partake in service would help, but it’s not a cure. Together doesn’t provide that cure, but perhaps Murthy’s manifesto on loneliness, combined with our broader experience in the time of COVID-19 will be the major catalyst we need to spark a large-scale search for what we can collectively do.
The novel coronavirus outbreak might be the major catalyst we need. In this moment when so many of us feel more disconnected than ever before, it’s a chance to think big. It’s hard to imagine the Trump administration doing anything about loneliness—although one might speculate that Trump himself suffers from a profound kind of loneliness—but a Joe Biden administration could take action upon taking office, assuming he wins in November.
Biden would be wise to establish a national commission on methods and policy prescriptions to combat loneliness and increase social connection. He could have Murthy lead that commission and enlist other leaders who have written about this challenge, including conservatives like Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse and former president of the American Enterprise Institute Arthur Brooks. The commission should also recruit the social innovators highlighted in Murthy’s book, leading scholars on personal and civic connection like Julianne Holt-Lunstad and Robert Putnam, and experts like Julia Freeland Fisher.
Crucially, the National Commission to Combat Loneliness needs to be given the resources to succeed. It should be given an innovation fund to invest in promising ideas and innovations to reduce social isolation and to produce policy recommendations that are equal to the scale of the challenge that Murthy documents.
All in all, Together is a great book to read while social distancing. Like the popular works of Malcolm Gladwell, Dan Pink, Susan Cain, and Adam Grant, Murthy applies the proven formula of combining well-summarized academic research, effective storytelling, and candid personal anecdotes. That results in a smart, highly readable book that takes a timely and urgent issue and gives it the attention it needs. Maybe now we can start to prioritize how to create a less lonely world in the future.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-15--PBS Finds No Support for Tara Reade’s Accusations

It ’ s interesting to see how thorough the PBS NewsHour reporters were in trying to assess Tara Reade ’ s allegations against Joe Biden .
They identified and “ tried to contact nearly 200 former staffers.
” They ultimately interviewed 74 people , including 62 women , who worked for Biden over the years .
Some were mere interns , others system administrators , and some were senior aides .
Their experience spanned from his first run for Senate in 1972 all the way to his time as vice-president .
Twenty of them worked for Biden in the early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reade .
No one corroborated her primary accusation or offered anything that could reasonably be described as supporting information .
The interviews revealed previously unreported details about the Biden office when Reade worked there , such as an account that she lost her job because of her poor performance , not as retaliation for lodging complaints about sexual harassment , as Reade has said .
Other recollections from former staffers corroborated things she has described publicly , such as Biden ’ s use of the Senate gym and a supervisor admonishing her for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who spoke to the NewsHour described largely positive and gratifying experiences working for Biden , painting a portrait of someone who was ahead of his time in empowering women in the workplace .
By the very nature of the allegations , it ’ s impossible for Biden to disprove .
Her story can be checked for consistency and plausibility , however , and obviously it would be buttressed if it were echoed by other people who worked in the office at the time or it appeared like a recognizable pattern of behavior .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ relevant to talk to people from every period of Biden ’ s career even when they obviously have no knowledge of Reade .
It ’ s true that most people who have worked for Biden have little to no incentive to lend support to Reade , but when 200 people are contacted , you ’ d think at least a couple would be disgruntled or perhaps ex-Democrats who want Biden to lose in November .
If he created a hostile workplace for women , the likelihood of this would be even higher .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ results is that it ’ s well known that Biden is a very grabby kind of guy .
He hasn ’ t exactly asked permission to put his hands on women , and this habit is well-documented in video footage over the years .
He has publicly acknowledged that he ’ s behaved inappropriately in this respect and apologized for it .
It ’ s certain that Biden has made women on his staff uncomfortable at times throughout his whole career , so we might expect that some interpreted it as sexual harassment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they said this : The takeaway is that Biden did not exhibit a pattern of behavior that supports Reade ’ s allegations .
If her charges are true , it represented an aberration .
The second purpose of the interviews was to establish if the details of her story are consistent and plausible .
In other words , setting aside what Biden might have done , could it have happened in the way she described ?
The responses raised serious doubts about this .
Numerous staffers have offered public skepticism that an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ area between Biden ’ s offices in the Russell building and the Capitol .
This is what PBS Newshour discovered , too .
Reade ’ s description aligns with other staffers ’ recollections of Biden ’ s short indoor route between his office and the Capitol .
It is a roughly 10-minute walk that consists of one flight of stairs and one long hallway inside the Russell Building , followed by a wide tunnel through which he could walk or take an internal subway train to the Capitol .
The layout of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A recent walk through that area showed the subway tunnel contains no out-of-view areas , like an alcove .
The remaining portion of the route includes multiple stairwells as well as corridors lined with offices .
It is a main thoroughfare for senators and staffers .
Some former staffers told the NewsHour that if Biden did assault Reade in any of these places , it would have been a brazen attack in an area with a high risk of being seen .
We ’ re talking about something that is alleged to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all appropriate caveats apply .
Reporters can only do so much to investigate the charges .
In this case , they cast the widest possible net to find any possible corroboration .
They investigated the supposed crime scene .
Nothing they discovered adds credence to Reade ’ s story .
They did find someone who said she was fired for cause and others who said she was justifiably reprimanded for dressing inappropriately , which is at odds with her story .
She said she was ordered to serve drinks at a reception , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Biden ’ s staff who said he always asked men to perform that task .
She said this occurred at a fundraiser , but the general consensus was that staffers were consistently banned from attending fundraisers or doing campaign work .
There are many other questionable things about Reade ’ s past that I could mention , but my interest isn ’ t in trashing the alleged victim .
I just want to highlight that some laudable reporting occurred here , and what they found should help put people ’ s minds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is some kind of sexual predator like the current occupant of the White House .

It’s interesting to see how thorough the PBS NewsHour reporters were in trying to assess Tara Reade’s allegations against Joe Biden. They identified and “tried to contact nearly 200 former staffers.” They ultimately interviewed 74 people, including 62 women, who worked for Biden over the years. Some were mere interns, others system administrators, and some were senior aides. Their experience spanned from his first run for Senate in 1972 all the way to his time as vice-president. Twenty of them worked for Biden in the early 1990s, at the same time as Reade. No one corroborated her primary accusation or offered anything that could reasonably be described as supporting information.
The interviews revealed previously unreported details about the Biden office when Reade worked there, such as an account that she lost her job because of her poor performance, not as retaliation for lodging complaints about sexual harassment, as Reade has said. Other recollections from former staffers corroborated things she has described publicly, such as Biden’s use of the Senate gym and a supervisor admonishing her for dressing inappropriately. Overall, the people who spoke to the NewsHour described largely positive and gratifying experiences working for Biden, painting a portrait of someone who was ahead of his time in empowering women in the workplace.
By the very nature of the allegations, it’s impossible for Biden to disprove. Her story can be checked for consistency and plausibility, however, and obviously it would be buttressed if it were echoed by other people who worked in the office at the time or it appeared like a recognizable pattern of behavior. That’s why it’s relevant to talk to people from every period of Biden’s career even when they obviously have no knowledge of Reade.
It’s true that most people who have worked for Biden have little to no incentive to lend support to Reade, but when 200 people are contacted, you’d think at least a couple would be disgruntled or perhaps ex-Democrats who want Biden to lose in November. If he created a hostile workplace for women, the likelihood of this would be even higher.
None of the people interviewed said that they had experienced sexual harassment, assault or misconduct by Biden. All said they never heard any rumors or allegations of Biden engaging in sexual misconduct, until the recent assault allegation made by Tara Reade.
One thing that is striking about these results is that it’s well known that Biden is a very grabby kind of guy. He hasn’t exactly asked permission to put his hands on women, and this habit is well-documented in video footage over the years. He has publicly acknowledged that he’s behaved inappropriately in this respect and apologized for it.
“Social norms are changing,” he wrote. “I’ve heard what these women are saying. Politics to me has always been about making connections, but I will be more mindful about respecting personal space in the future.”
It’s certain that Biden has made women on his staff uncomfortable at times throughout his whole career, so we might expect that some interpreted it as sexual harassment. Yet, none did. Instead, they said this:
Female staffers who spent countless hours with Biden, including in one-on-one settings, like his small private office in the U.S. Capitol, known as a “hideaway,” said he never made passes at them or behaved in other ways that suggested sexual impropriety.
The takeaway is that Biden did not exhibit a pattern of behavior that supports Reade’s allegations. If her charges are true, it represented an aberration.
The second purpose of the interviews was to establish if the details of her story are consistent and plausible. In other words, setting aside what Biden might have done, could it have happened in the way she described? The responses raised serious doubts about this.
Reade’s attorney told the NewsHour that Reade recalls the assault happening “in a semiprivate area like an alcove” and that it was “somewhere between the Russell (building) and/or Capitol building.” He pointed out that survivors often have difficulty with specifics about trauma.
Numerous staffers have offered public skepticism that an assault could have taken place in the area between Biden’s offices in the Russell building and the Capitol. This is what PBS Newshour discovered, too.
Reade’s description aligns with other staffers’ recollections of Biden’s short indoor route between his office and the Capitol. It is a roughly 10-minute walk that consists of one flight of stairs and one long hallway inside the Russell Building, followed by a wide tunnel through which he could walk or take an internal subway train to the Capitol. The layout of that route and building has not changed. A recent walk through that area showed the subway tunnel contains no out-of-view areas, like an alcove. The remaining portion of the route includes multiple stairwells as well as corridors lined with offices. It is a main thoroughfare for senators and staffers. Some former staffers told the NewsHour that if Biden did assault Reade in any of these places, it would have been a brazen attack in an area with a high risk of being seen.
We’re talking about something that is alleged to have happened almost 30 years ago, so all appropriate caveats apply. Reporters can only do so much to investigate the charges. In this case, they cast the widest possible net to find any possible corroboration. They investigated the supposed crime scene. Nothing they discovered adds credence to Reade’s story.
They did find someone who said she was fired for cause and others who said she was justifiably reprimanded for dressing inappropriately, which is at odds with her story. She said she was ordered to serve drinks at a reception, and this was directly contradicted by veterans of Biden’s staff who said he always asked men to perform that task. She said this occurred at a fundraiser, but the general consensus was that staffers were consistently banned from attending fundraisers or doing campaign work.
There are many other questionable things about Reade’s past that I could mention, but my interest isn’t in trashing the alleged victim. I just want to highlight that some laudable reporting occurred here, and what they found should help put people’s minds at ease about the possibility that Biden is some kind of sexual predator like the current occupant of the White House.