washingtonmonthly--2020-10-02--The Improbable Rise of Britain’s First Elected Black Mayor

On June 7 , Bristol protestors yanked down a bronze statue of famous slave trader Edward Colston , rolled it through the streets , and dumped it into the harbor where Colston ’ s slave ships had once docked .
Colston had surveyed the city since 1895 .
But his imposing monument was no match for the roughly 10,000 Black Lives Matter demonstrators who were marching through Bristol ’ s streets in solidarity with Americans protesting George Floyd ’ s killing .
That evening , city mayor Marvin Rees labeled Colston ’ s fall a piece of “ historical poetry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News .
That the statue fell under Rees was itself poetic .
Rees is the United Kingdom ’ s first directly elected Black mayor .
Born in 1972 to a Black Jamaican father and a white British mother , raised in an impoverished Bristol neighborhood , his ascent has been improbable .
But after a successful career in progressive journalism , and a stint researching racial inequality , Rees became the Labour Party ’ s Bristol mayoral candidate .
In May 2016 , Rees swept to victory and now governs a city of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office , Rees has tried to make racism and inequality central to his administration .
In 2016 , he promised to build 2,000 houses a year—forty percent at affordable rates—by the end of his term .
In 2018 , Rees launched the Commission on Race Equality ( CORE ) , to look for and fight against racism within the city limits , and Stepping Up , a program to create a corps of minority civic leaders .
But it wasn ’ t Rees ’ s administration that toppled the statue and , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mayor ’ s left wanted to know why it still towered above the city four years into his term .
“ We have campaigned for this for years without success , been fobbed off and ignored , ” said Cleo Lake , a prominent Green Party city councilor .
It wasn ’ t just the statue .
In Bristol , people drink beers at the Colston Arms , children study at Colston School , and , if you follow Colston Avenue , you ’ ll arrive at the concert venue Colston Hall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legacy of the slave trader who bequeathed his riches to the city when he died in 1721 .
Shawn Sobers , a Black filmmaker and professor at the University of the West of England , told me it causes daily “ psychological damage.
” It ’ s also not just Colston ’ s name .
Colston Hall has an annual budget of roughly £500,000 , which dwarfs the £20,000 allotted for St Paul ’ s Carnival , the yearly African Caribbean celebration whose organizers request £80,000 .
“ If Black lives matter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Lake told me .
Under pressure from the national government ’ s budget cuts , Rees has also reduced funding for social care and community centers , which disproportionately hurts Black families .
It ’ s a severe hit for a city with the third-worst educational inequality—measured by the disparity in high school achievement between Black and white students—out of 348 districts in England and Wales .
Another burden for Black people in Bristol is that they are five times more likely to be unemployed than the white British population .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s possible at the mercy of a Conservative national government .
But he ’ s also been critical of some Black Lives Matter protestors for , in his view , prioritizing style over substance .
“ No memo [ of demands ] arrived on my desk the day after Colston got pulled down , ” Rees told me .
“ At the Selma march , they didn ’ t just provoke a confrontation , chucking loads of dust in the air to see what happened .
They had specific policy outcomes.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for working alongside the business community and government ministers .
Many see him as a future Labour leader , and perhaps even a future prime minister .
But in his compromising style , Rees risks alienating the progressive community from which he came .
Marvin Johnathan Rees grew up on a public housing estate in Easton , Bristol .
Life as a Black kid in the 1980s was challenging .
“ I felt vulnerable constantly , ” he told me .
He would often receive racist threats and other verbal abuse on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ student , Rees suffered from low self-esteem .
His teachers flagged him for his potential , but his fear of failure paralyzed him from trying in class .
“ What if I start to do some work and they find out I ’ m not as clever as they think I am ?
” he recalled worrying .
Rees gravitated to kids like him—underachievers who were smart but distrusted the system .
Most were students of color .
But when Rees was fourteen , two lines on his school report card swiveled his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Marvin , the world could be your oyster .
But the way you ’ re behaving , you ’ re not going anywhere , ” his geography teacher wrote .
For many students , it would have been an admonishment .
For Rees , it confirmed that he had potential after all .
“ I took that home and read it and read it and read it , ” he said .
Rees began to change his habits .
He started boxing regularly , studying for the exams needed for college , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it came at a cost .
He began to live what he described as a “ parallel reality ” from his Black peers , who couldn ’ t understand why he set his sights on going to a university rather than earning money straight from high school .
“ Yo , Marv , you ’ re behaving like a white man !
” Rees remembers a friend telling him .
“ That ’ s what white men do.
” He argued back .
“ No , that ’ s wrong , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you gon na make money putting tires on someone ’ s car in a garage all day ?
” Rees eventually left Bristol for Swansea University in Wales , graduating with a bachelor ’ s in economic history and politics in 1993 and a master ’ s in political theory and government in 1995 .
In August 1998 , he flew to the U.S. to work for the Christian social justice magazine , Sojourners .
Afterwards , he attended Eastern University , a private Christian college in Pennsylvania , graduating in 2001 with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global economic development .
From there , his career took off .
He spent five years reporting for the BBC after returning to the U.K .
In 2010 , he was named a Yale World Fellow—part of a competitive program for future leaders run by Yale University .
Rees said he still struggled with low self-esteem .
When he arrived in New Haven , Rees remembers the World Fellows director , Michael Capello , mentioning something to the class about how the application process can yield surprising results because it ’ s conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were talking about me , ” Rees said .
“ I thought , ‘ Oh , they ’ ve realized they made a mistake.
’ ” In reality , Capello told me the opposite was true .
“ He never felt like he was a worthy choice , ” he said .
But as the months rolled on , Rees “ really emerged as a leader among the leadership group.
” Eliot Abel , another fellow , said Rees ’ s personality was mediating— “ he had an interest in bringing people together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to challenge anyone , including prominent guest speakers like former U.K. prime minister Tony Blair .
Rees ’ s trajectory contrasted wildly with his teenage peers , and it did so in ways he considered structurally unfair .
He ’ d regarded many of his friends as cleverer , smarter , and more confident than him .
“ The people I was at school with—intellectually—were the equal of anyone , ” he said .
Years later , some had gone to prison , a couple had passed away , and others were still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attributed his success in no small part to luck : a short note from his teacher containing needed affirmation , which his peers never got .
In 2011 , Rees again returned to the U.K. to work for the National Health Service on improving racial equality in mental healthcare .
Not too long after , Bristol voted in a referendum to introduce the city ’ s first-ever elected mayor .
He won the Labour Party ’ s nomination and ran in 2012 against George Ferguson , a flamboyant Liberal Democrat-turned-independent .
Ferguson campaigned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal wealth .
He “ assumed he should be mayor , ” Rees said .
Ferguson won , but by a small margin .
Rees remained a rising Labour Party star , and he was again chosen to run in 2016 against Ferguson .
Rees campaigned on a platform of building homes and reducing inequality .
As much as 15 % of the Bristol population—70,000 people—live in the most run-down areas of the U.K. , according to last year ’ s city government data .
It was a compelling campaign message .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office , his style has been careful , conciliatory , and pragmatic .
Following the £106 million in local budget cuts , Rees has worked closely with the predominantly white business community to pursue his policy goals on housing , poverty reduction , and inequality .
It has delivered results .
Public records show he exceed his goal of building 2,000 homes—40 percent affordable—by 2020 .
His administration has also received plaudits from progressive campaigners .
Sado Jirde , director of Black South West Network , a racial justice charity , said it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the table before Rees was mayor .
But for some on the left , the reforms lack a radical edge .
“ I ’ m not sure they go far enough , ” Lake , of the Green Party , said .
Labour leftists are disappointed that he paired back city services in response to national budget cuts , rather than fighting to pass a “ no cuts ” budget by tapping into Bristol ’ s monetary reserves or extending city borrowing His policies have also earned him critics on the right .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Rees encouraged local private businesses to invest 25 percent of their corporate responsibility budgets into “ CityFunds ” to alleviate poverty and achieve other sustainable growth goals .
That helped him raise cash while offering 4 percent returns to investors .
But not everyone is convinced he has local companies ’ best interests at heart .
The “ job of people like Marvin should be to remove barriers [ to business ] , ” Heather Macdonald Tait , who runs Why , a local communications business , told the Financial Times , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me that behind his back , Rees is subject to more abrasive criticisms .
“ I ’ ve had people say , ‘ Marvin cares too much about poor people , ’ ” Jirde said .
“ They call him ‘ the Black mayor ’ or ‘ the inner-city mayor.
’ ” For Rees , the varying criticisms cut to the heart of what it means to be a Black politician .
“ The irony is , more is expected of you on issues of race and poverty , and yet you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me .
Figures like Donald Trump or Boris Johnson can criticize the establishment all they like , he said , “ because they are the establishment , right ?
If a Black person did that or a person from a working-class background , you ’ d be accused of having a chip on your shoulder or being an angry Black man.
” However , Rees ’ s initial response to the toppling of Colston kept most of Bristol ’ s communities on board .
He dredged up the statue from Bristol harbor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a museum and began a citywide discussion on what should replace him .
“ I think the moment found him , ” said Capello , of Yale .
“ There aren ’ t a lot of people who ’ ve come out of this recent chaos looking better than before.
” Many locals I spoke to saw him as a future top-table Labour politician .
The Times of London editorial board wrote , in July , “ If Mr. Rees continues to lead his city with such consummate skill , one day he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own.
” Colston ’ s stone plinth sat empty in the center of Bristol for 38 days and nights .
Then , at dawn on July 15 , the artist Marc Quinn erected a resin statue of a local Black Lives Matter protestor with her fist raised .
Rees got a text right after the statue went up .
He had spoken to Quinn four weeks beforehand and declined his bid to build a new statue .
“ It ’ s a fantastic offer , and I really appreciate the sentiment , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right time to do that , ” Rees recalled telling him .
Rees wanted the whole of Bristol to decide what replaced Colston .
After Quinn built it anyway , Rees ordered it down .
“ We don ’ t just stick a wet finger in the air [ and ] see which way the wind is blowing and go with it , ” he said .
Twenty-four hours later , the plinth was once again empty .
For Rees , it was just in time .
He had received reports far-right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ If a statue of a black woman is attacked and dragged through the streets , that ’ s a whole different piece of imagery that we don ’ t need , ” Rees said .
But many on the left were unhappy that the statue couldn ’ t stay even temporarily .
“ What a shame this wonderful statue wasn ’ t kept there ” while the city decided on an alternative to Colston , said Diane Abbott , a senior Labour Party politician and the first Black woman ever elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politician committed to incrementalism and bolder liberals—is somewhat reminiscent of Barack Obama ’ s presidency .
Obama ’ s central achievement , the Affordable Care Act , helped minority communities by increasing the poor ’ s access to health care .
But his overtures to Republicans , his willingness to compromise in negotiations , and his reluctance to address race head on drove more progressive Democrats mad .
It was under Obama ’ s administration , after all , that the Black Lives Matter movement erupted .
But for Rees , like Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and careful compromise with other political actors is necessary to accomplish these ends .
This wasn ’ t always Rees ’ s view .
As a young progressive , he was influenced by Tony Benn , a long-serving leftist Labour politician .
Benn retired from parliament in 2001 , in part to protest the policies of Blair , who had moved Labour decidedly to the center .
“ I left parliament to devote more time to politics , ” Benn famously declared .
Rees told me that while the phrase once inspired him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as counterproductive—and even irresponsible .
“ Now I look back , I think it was unforgivable to make a statement like that without thinking about the impact it would have on people like me .
Because where else are people like me going to go and get power ?
”

On June 7, Bristol protestors yanked down a bronze statue of famous slave trader Edward Colston, rolled it through the streets, and dumped it into the harbor where Colston’s slave ships had once docked. Colston had surveyed the city since 1895. But his imposing monument was no match for the roughly 10,000 Black Lives Matter demonstrators who were marching through Bristol’s streets in solidarity with Americans protesting George Floyd’s killing.
That evening, city mayor Marvin Rees labeled Colston’s fall a piece of “historical poetry” in an interview with Channel 4 News. That the statue fell under Rees was itself poetic. Rees is the United Kingdom’s first directly elected Black mayor. Born in 1972 to a Black Jamaican father and a white British mother, raised in an impoverished Bristol neighborhood, his ascent has been improbable. But after a successful career in progressive journalism, and a stint researching racial inequality, Rees became the Labour Party’s Bristol mayoral candidate. In May 2016, Rees swept to victory and now governs a city of almost half a million people.
In office, Rees has tried to make racism and inequality central to his administration. In 2016, he promised to build 2,000 houses a year—forty percent at affordable rates—by the end of his term. In 2018, Rees launched the Commission on Race Equality (CORE), to look for and fight against racism within the city limits, and Stepping Up, a program to create a corps of minority civic leaders.
But it wasn’t Rees’s administration that toppled the statue and, after it fell, activists and politicians to the mayor’s left wanted to know why it still towered above the city four years into his term. “We have campaigned for this for years without success, been fobbed off and ignored,” said Cleo Lake, a prominent Green Party city councilor. It wasn’t just the statue. In Bristol, people drink beers at the Colston Arms, children study at Colston School, and, if you follow Colston Avenue, you’ll arrive at the concert venue Colston Hall. The city is peppered with the legacy of the slave trader who bequeathed his riches to the city when he died in 1721. Shawn Sobers, a Black filmmaker and professor at the University of the West of England, told me it causes daily “psychological damage.”
It’s also not just Colston’s name. Colston Hall has an annual budget of roughly £500,000, which dwarfs the £20,000 allotted for St Paul’s Carnival, the yearly African Caribbean celebration whose organizers request £80,000. “If Black lives matter, you need to support Black cultural institutions,” Lake told me. Under pressure from the national government’s budget cuts, Rees has also reduced funding for social care and community centers, which disproportionately hurts Black families. It’s a severe hit for a city with the third-worst educational inequality—measured by the disparity in high school achievement between Black and white students—out of 348 districts in England and Wales. Another burden for Black people in Bristol is that they are five times more likely to be unemployed than the white British population.
Rees argues he’s doing what’s possible at the mercy of a Conservative national government. But he’s also been critical of some Black Lives Matter protestors for, in his view, prioritizing style over substance. “No memo [of demands] arrived on my desk the day after Colston got pulled down,” Rees told me. “At the Selma march, they didn’t just provoke a confrontation, chucking loads of dust in the air to see what happened. They had specific policy outcomes.” He has earned plaudits from national commentators for working alongside the business community and government ministers. Many see him as a future Labour leader, and perhaps even a future prime minister. But in his compromising style, Rees risks alienating the progressive community from which he came.
Marvin Johnathan Rees grew up on a public housing estate in Easton, Bristol. Life as a Black kid in the 1980s was challenging. “I felt vulnerable constantly,” he told me. He would often receive racist threats and other verbal abuse on the way home from school.
As a student, Rees suffered from low self-esteem. His teachers flagged him for his potential, but his fear of failure paralyzed him from trying in class. “What if I start to do some work and they find out I’m not as clever as they think I am?” he recalled worrying. Rees gravitated to kids like him—underachievers who were smart but distrusted the system. Most were students of color.
But when Rees was fourteen, two lines on his school report card swiveled his future in a whole new direction. “Marvin, the world could be your oyster. But the way you’re behaving, you’re not going anywhere,” his geography teacher wrote. For many students, it would have been an admonishment. For Rees, it confirmed that he had potential after all. “I took that home and read it and read it and read it,” he said.
Rees began to change his habits. He started boxing regularly, studying for the exams needed for college, and slowly building up his low self-esteem. But it came at a cost. He began to live what he described as a “parallel reality” from his Black peers, who couldn’t understand why he set his sights on going to a university rather than earning money straight from high school. “Yo, Marv, you’re behaving like a white man!” Rees remembers a friend telling him. “That’s what white men do.”
He argued back. “No, that’s wrong,” Rees recalled saying. “How you gonna make money putting tires on someone’s car in a garage all day?”
Rees eventually left Bristol for Swansea University in Wales, graduating with a bachelor’s in economic history and politics in 1993 and a master’s in political theory and government in 1995. In August 1998, he flew to the U.S. to work for the Christian social justice magazine, Sojourners. Afterwards, he attended Eastern University, a private Christian college in Pennsylvania, graduating in 2001 with a second master’s degree in global economic development.
From there, his career took off. He spent five years reporting for the BBC after returning to the U.K. In 2010, he was named a Yale World Fellow—part of a competitive program for future leaders run by Yale University.
Rees said he still struggled with low self-esteem. When he arrived in New Haven, Rees remembers the World Fellows director, Michael Cappello, mentioning something to the class about how the application process can yield surprising results because it’s conducted entirely online. “I thought they were talking about me,” Rees said. “I thought, ‘Oh, they’ve realized they made a mistake.’”
In reality, Cappello told me the opposite was true. “He never felt like he was a worthy choice,” he said. But as the months rolled on, Rees “really emerged as a leader among the leadership group.” Eliot Abel, another fellow, said Rees’s personality was mediating—“he had an interest in bringing people together”—but that he was never afraid to challenge anyone, including prominent guest speakers like former U.K. prime minister Tony Blair.
Rees’s trajectory contrasted wildly with his teenage peers, and it did so in ways he considered structurally unfair. He’d regarded many of his friends as cleverer, smarter, and more confident than him. “The people I was at school with—intellectually—were the equal of anyone,” he said. Years later, some had gone to prison, a couple had passed away, and others were still in unfulfilling jobs—all were underachievers. He attributed his success in no small part to luck: a short note from his teacher containing needed affirmation, which his peers never got.
In 2011, Rees again returned to the U.K. to work for the National Health Service on improving racial equality in mental healthcare. Not too long after, Bristol voted in a referendum to introduce the city’s first-ever elected mayor. He won the Labour Party’s nomination and ran in 2012 against George Ferguson, a flamboyant Liberal Democrat-turned-independent. Ferguson campaigned as an anti-establishment populist despite his immense personal wealth. He “assumed he should be mayor,” Rees said.
Ferguson won, but by a small margin. Rees remained a rising Labour Party star, and he was again chosen to run in 2016 against Ferguson. Rees campaigned on a platform of building homes and reducing inequality. As much as 15% of the Bristol population—70,000 people—live in the most run-down areas of the U.K., according to last year’s city government data. It was a compelling campaign message. This time, Rees won.
Since assuming office, his style has been careful, conciliatory, and pragmatic. Following the £106 million in local budget cuts, Rees has worked closely with the predominantly white business community to pursue his policy goals on housing, poverty reduction, and inequality. It has delivered results. Public records show he exceed his goal of building 2,000 homes—40 percent affordable—by 2020. His administration has also received plaudits from progressive campaigners. Sado Jirde, director of Black South West Network, a racial justice charity, said it was impossible to get a seat at the table before Rees was mayor.
But for some on the left, the reforms lack a radical edge. “I’m not sure they go far enough,” Lake, of the Green Party, said. Labour leftists are disappointed that he paired back city services in response to national budget cuts, rather than fighting to pass a “no cuts” budget by tapping into Bristol’s monetary reserves or extending city borrowing
His policies have also earned him critics on the right. As part of his One City Plan, Rees encouraged local private businesses to invest 25 percent of their corporate responsibility budgets into “CityFunds” to alleviate poverty and achieve other sustainable growth goals. That helped him raise cash while offering 4 percent returns to investors. But not everyone is convinced he has local companies’ best interests at heart. The “job of people like Marvin should be to remove barriers [to business],” Heather Macdonald Tait, who runs Why, a local communications business, told the Financial Times, criticizing his CityFunds advocacy.
Jidre told me that behind his back, Rees is subject to more abrasive criticisms. “I’ve had people say, ‘Marvin cares too much about poor people,’” Jirde said. “They call him ‘the Black mayor’ or ‘the inner-city mayor.’”
For Rees, the varying criticisms cut to the heart of what it means to be a Black politician. “The irony is, more is expected of you on issues of race and poverty, and yet you have less space to maneuver,” Rees told me. Figures like Donald Trump or Boris Johnson can criticize the establishment all they like, he said, “because they are the establishment, right? If a Black person did that or a person from a working-class background, you’d be accused of having a chip on your shoulder or being an angry Black man.”
However, Rees’s initial response to the toppling of Colston kept most of Bristol’s communities on board. He dredged up the statue from Bristol harbor with the intention of sticking it in a museum and began a citywide discussion on what should replace him. “I think the moment found him,” said Cappello, of Yale. “There aren’t a lot of people who’ve come out of this recent chaos looking better than before.” Many locals I spoke to saw him as a future top-table Labour politician. The Times of London editorial board wrote, in July, “If Mr. Rees continues to lead his city with such consummate skill, one day he may even merit a statue of his own.”
Colston’s stone plinth sat empty in the center of Bristol for 38 days and nights. Then, at dawn on July 15, the artist Marc Quinn erected a resin statue of a local Black Lives Matter protestor with her fist raised.
Rees got a text right after the statue went up. He had spoken to Quinn four weeks beforehand and declined his bid to build a new statue. “It’s a fantastic offer, and I really appreciate the sentiment, but I don’t think now is the right time to do that,” Rees recalled telling him. Rees wanted the whole of Bristol to decide what replaced Colston. After Quinn built it anyway, Rees ordered it down. “We don’t just stick a wet finger in the air [and] see which way the wind is blowing and go with it,” he said. Twenty-four hours later, the plinth was once again empty.
For Rees, it was just in time. He had received reports far-right counter-protestors were planning to vandalize the statue. “If a statue of a black woman is attacked and dragged through the streets, that’s a whole different piece of imagery that we don’t need,” Rees said. But many on the left were unhappy that the statue couldn’t stay even temporarily. “What a shame this wonderful statue wasn’t kept there” while the city decided on an alternative to Colston, said Diane Abbott, a senior Labour Party politician and the first Black woman ever elected to parliament.
This friction—between a progressive politician committed to incrementalism and bolder liberals—is somewhat reminiscent of Barack Obama’s presidency. Obama’s central achievement, the Affordable Care Act, helped minority communities by increasing the poor’s access to health care. But his overtures to Republicans, his willingness to compromise in negotiations, and his reluctance to address race head on drove more progressive Democrats mad. It was under Obama’s administration, after all, that the Black Lives Matter movement erupted.
But for Rees, like Obama, economic issues are race issues, and careful compromise with other political actors is necessary to accomplish these ends.
This wasn’t always Rees’s view. As a young progressive, he was influenced by Tony Benn, a long-serving leftist Labour politician. Benn retired from parliament in 2001, in part to protest the policies of Blair, who had moved Labour decidedly to the center. “I left parliament to devote more time to politics,” Benn famously declared. Rees told me that while the phrase once inspired him, he has come to view it as counterproductive—and even irresponsible. “Now I look back, I think it was unforgivable to make a statement like that without thinking about the impact it would have on people like me. Because where else are people like me going to go and get power?”


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-02--Eight Questions About President Trump Testing Positive for COVID-19

The stunning news came in the early hours of Friday morning : The President of the United States and the First Lady had tested positive for the coronavirus .
Here are questions that should , but probably won ’ t be answered in the coming days and weeks .
How could this have happened ?
Given the president ’ s cavalier attitude towards masks , a posture adopted by his staff and family , it was probably inevitable this would happen .
Despite the aggressive testing of anyone who meets with the commander in chief , no regimen is perfect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the president , reportedly tested negative on Wednesday but felt symptoms that night and was tested on Thursday and proved positive .
Why then did the president travel on Thursday when he surely would have known about Hicks being positive and recognized that he might be too ?
We don ’ t know if Hicks infected Trump .
We do know there was reason for the president to cancel his travel on Thursday including to a fundraiser in New Jersey where he seemed sluggish .
Did Trump spread COVID ?
We should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those he met with on Thursday .
Anonymize the data but let us know if COVID was spread .
One can ’ t totally rule out espionage as the source of Hicks ’ s or Trump ’ s COVID although it ’ s far fetched .
We know Vladimir Putin ’ s government has worked hard to keep Trump in office but it ’ s not impossible for a foreign government , say Iran , to find a way to infect a Trump aide .
But will there be an investigation ?
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act of Congress or the White House initiating one with subpoena power .
It ’ s unlikely .
But it should happen .
Consider the stakes : Eight American presidents have died in office , four from assassination , and four from illness .
Abraham Lincoln , James Garfield , William McKinley , and John F. Kennedy were felled by assassins ’ bullets while William Henry Harrison , Zachary Taylor , Warren Harding , and Franklin D. Roosevelt died in office for medical reasons ranging from pneumonia to a cerebral hemorrhage .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself , let ’ s hope that Trump isn ’ t the ninth .
It ’ s unlikely .
With the best medical care and the odds in his favor , even as an overweight septuagenarian in his 70s , Trump should be okay .
On “ CBS This Morning ” , Dr. John LaPook , CBS News Chief Medical Correspondent , said the odds are overwhelming that Trump won ’ t need hospitalization .
For now , he has cold symptoms and is in quarantine .
It ’ s not Woodrow Wilson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find out how a pandemic breached the White House .
As of Friday morning , Mike Pence is reportedly testing negative .
But what about the National Security Advisor who has tested positive once before ?
The Chief of Staff ?
To the degree medical forensics can tell us what happened , we have to know more .
We know mask-wearing in the White House was more common a few weeks ago and has dissipated .
Would we have known any of this had Hicks ’ s positive test not been broken by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ?
Unlikely .
A hoax would require the cooperation of the White House Medical Unit and a tremendous number of other staff .
Besides , there ’ s no clear political gain or loss to be had from such deceit .
No one should take anything the president says at face value but in this case , cynicism shouldn ’ t lead to paranoia .
Did Hicks infect the President and First Lady ?
We have no idea .
The report that Hicks had tested positive emerged just hours before the Trumps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But that ’ s a correlation , not causation .
It could have come from others in the president ’ s purview .
That ’ s why we need a real investigation and aggressive contact tracing .
Did the president endanger others , perhaps criminally , by traveling and having contact with others ?
Certainly , the president ’ s ambivalent attitude towards masks and his the-disease-will-go-away attitude have contributed to the pandemic .
And the administration ’ s response to halting the virus ’ s spread has been shameful .
Was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We don ’ t know .
Criminal negligence seems highly unlikely .
What if Trump gets really sick or even , heaven forbid , dies ?
We ’ ll probably know soon how severe the case is .
And we should keep in mind that the president of Brazil and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom have survived testing positive .
Trump is very likely to recover .
Suppose he isn ’ t ?
If Trump is incapacitated by a severe case of COVID-19 the Constitution allows for a voluntary , temporary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the 25th Amendment .
A more complex set of procedures follows if the Vice President and Cabinet decide that the president is unfit for office .
This push-him-out-of-office strategy is a staple of political thrillers , yes , but something this supine cabinet never considered during the last tumultuous four years , and doubtfully would now .
What happens to the next debate ?
If Trump is quarantined for two weeks , he ’ s unlikely to make the one on October 15 but he just might depending on how you count @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made .
What ’ s the big takeaway from this ?
The White House needs a formal protocol for how to operate during a pandemic .
The Trump administration ignored the good plans left for them by the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations for managing a global outbreak .
Now the White House needs a plan for its 19 acres .
The White House is paying the price for ignoring common sense at home .

Now what?
The stunning news came in the early hours of Friday morning: The President of the United States and the First Lady had tested positive for the coronavirus.
Here are questions that should, but probably won’t be answered in the coming days and weeks.
How could this have happened? Given the president’s cavalier attitude towards masks, a posture adopted by his staff and family, it was probably inevitable this would happen. Despite the aggressive testing of anyone who meets with the commander in chief, no regimen is perfect. Hope Hicks, a top aide to the president, reportedly tested negative on Wednesday but felt symptoms that night and was tested on Thursday and proved positive. Why then did the president travel on Thursday when he surely would have known about Hicks being positive and recognized that he might be too? We don’t know if Hicks infected Trump. We do know there was reason for the president to cancel his travel on Thursday including to a fundraiser in New Jersey where he seemed sluggish. Did Trump spread COVID? We should know and find out the status of those he met with on Thursday. Anonymize the data but let us know if COVID was spread. One can’t totally rule out espionage as the source of Hicks’s or Trump’s COVID although it’s far fetched. We know Vladimir Putin’s government has worked hard to keep Trump in office but it’s not impossible for a foreign government, say Iran, to find a way to infect a Trump aide.
But will there be an investigation? There should be but it would take an act of Congress or the White House initiating one with subpoena power. It’s unlikely. But it should happen. Consider the stakes: Eight American presidents have died in office, four from assassination, and four from illness. Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy were felled by assassins’ bullets while William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Warren Harding, and Franklin D. Roosevelt died in office for medical reasons ranging from pneumonia to a cerebral hemorrhage. For the sake of humanity and the president himself, let’s hope that Trump isn’t the ninth. It’s unlikely. With the best medical care and the odds in his favor, even as an overweight septuagenarian in his 70s, Trump should be okay. On “CBS This Morning”, Dr. John LaPook, CBS News Chief Medical Correspondent, said the odds are overwhelming that Trump won’t need hospitalization. For now, he has cold symptoms and is in quarantine. It’s not Woodrow Wilson’s stroke. But we must find out how a pandemic breached the White House. As of Friday morning, Mike Pence is reportedly testing negative. But what about the National Security Advisor who has tested positive once before? The Chief of Staff? To the degree medical forensics can tell us what happened, we have to know more. We know mask-wearing in the White House was more common a few weeks ago and has dissipated. Would we have known any of this had Hicks’s positive test not been broken by Bloomberg News?
Could Trump be faking it? Unlikely. A hoax would require the cooperation of the White House Medical Unit and a tremendous number of other staff. Besides, there’s no clear political gain or loss to be had from such deceit. No one should take anything the president says at face value but in this case, cynicism shouldn’t lead to paranoia.
Did Hicks infect the President and First Lady? We have no idea. The report that Hicks had tested positive emerged just hours before the Trumps announced that they too were testing positive. But that’s a correlation, not causation. It could have come from others in the president’s purview. That’s why we need a real investigation and aggressive contact tracing.
Did the president endanger others, perhaps criminally, by traveling and having contact with others? Certainly, the president’s ambivalent attitude towards masks and his the-disease-will-go-away attitude have contributed to the pandemic. And the administration’s response to halting the virus’s spread has been shameful. Was Trump himself a spreader on Thursday? We don’t know. Criminal negligence seems highly unlikely.
What if Trump gets really sick or even, heaven forbid, dies? We’ll probably know soon how severe the case is. And we should keep in mind that the president of Brazil and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom have survived testing positive. Trump is very likely to recover. Suppose he isn’t? If Trump is incapacitated by a severe case of COVID-19 the Constitution allows for a voluntary, temporary transfer of power to Vice President Pence under the 25th Amendment. A more complex set of procedures follows if the Vice President and Cabinet decide that the president is unfit for office. This push-him-out-of-office strategy is a staple of political thrillers, yes, but something this supine cabinet never considered during the last tumultuous four years, and doubtfully would now.
What happens to the next debate? If Trump is quarantined for two weeks, he’s unlikely to make the one on October 15 but he just might depending on how you count the days. No announcement has been made.
What’s the big takeaway from this? The White House needs a formal protocol for how to operate during a pandemic. The Trump administration ignored the good plans left for them by the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations for managing a global outbreak. Now the White House needs a plan for its 19 acres. The White House is paying the price for ignoring common sense at home.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-30--Donald Trump vs. the Suckers Who Pay Their Fair Share of Income Taxes

We need a reality check .
The news earlier this week that Donald Trump , who earned $ 434 million in 2018 , paid little or no federal income taxes for years was staggering .
And those revelations are even more shocking when we compare what Trump paid in federal income taxes to other Americans .
Even when he paid a small income tax in 2016 and 2017 , it was less than the taxes paid by nearly 90 million American households with incomes greater than $ 25,000 When Trump filed his 1040 forms in 10 of the 15 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a group comprised mainly of working poor families that owe no federal income tax .
And when he paid $ 750 in income tax in 2016 and 2017 , he joined Americans who earned on average $ 20,000 to $ 25,000 , including fast-food workers , amusement park attendants , and gambling dealers .
In every instance , Trump leveraged real estate write-offs and losses to zero out all or virtually all of his taxes on incomes of tens and hundreds of millions of dollars – and went to court countless times to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the enormity of Trump ’ s tax dodges requires a deep dive into IRS databases .
They show that in 2019 , the IRS received 153,774,296 income tax returns from American individuals , couples , families , and households for income earned in 2018 .
That number doesn ’ t include most poor and very modest income Americans who didn ’ t have to file a 1040 form , because they earned less than the standard deduction of $ 12,200 for individuals and $ 24,400 for couples .
The number does include 53,359,786 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their income tax forms even though they reported no taxable income .
It also includes Donald Trump in 10 out of 15 years .
Everyone else ?
They were mainly working-poor families who filed a 1040 in order to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit , plus those with incomes just above the standard deduction , but not enough to owe income tax after taking account of tax credits for their children , child care , and perhaps some small savings .
In 2016 and 2017 , as noted , Donald Trump did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the IRS .
Those tax payments put him in the lower half of the IRS group of 5,131,634 households with taxable incomes of $ 20,000 to $ 25,000 , who paid an average of $ 994 in income tax .
Again , for perspective , $ 20,000 to $ 25,000 was the average wage income last year of cashiers and theater ushers as well as cooks and dishwashers at Taco Bell and McDonald ’ s .
That leaves 87,416,451 American households who had taxable income incomes greater than $ 25,000 and so paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you were one of the 19,121,652 individuals , couples , or families whose taxable income in 2018 was $ 50,000 to $ 75,000 – the average for flight attendants , correctional officers , postal service workers , and athletic trainers last year — you paid on average $ 4,688 in federal income tax .
That was 6.3 times as much as Donald Trump .
If you were one of the 13,149,633 American households with taxable incomes of $ 75,000 to $ 100,000 in 2018 – the average for dental hygienists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loan officers – you paid almost ten times as much in federal income tax as Donald Trump .
It will take investigators a long time to determine whether Trump legally avoided or illegally evaded tax bills on hundreds of millions of dollars in income .
Whichever it was will not change this bottom line : As president of the United States , Donald Trump demonstrates his contempt for many tens of millions of American taxpayers who pay more for the nation ’ s defense and welfare than their billionaire chief executive .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .

We need a reality check. The news earlier this week that Donald Trump, who earned $434 million in 2018, paid little or no federal income taxes for years was staggering. And those revelations are even more shocking when we compare what Trump paid in federal income taxes to other Americans. Even when he paid a small income tax in 2016 and 2017, it was less than the taxes paid by nearly 90 million American households with incomes greater than $25,000
When Trump filed his 1040 forms in 10 of the 15 years from 2000 to 2015, he joined a group comprised mainly of working poor families that owe no federal income tax. And when he paid $750 in income tax in 2016 and 2017, he joined Americans who earned on average $20,000 to $25,000, including fast-food workers, amusement park attendants, and gambling dealers. In every instance, Trump leveraged real estate write-offs and losses to zero out all or virtually all of his taxes on incomes of tens and hundreds of millions of dollars – and went to court countless times to keep it secret.
To fully grasp the enormity of Trump’s tax dodges requires a deep dive into IRS databases.
They show that in 2019, the IRS received 153,774,296 income tax returns from American individuals, couples, families, and households for income earned in 2018. That number doesn’t include most poor and very modest income Americans who didn’t have to file a 1040 form, because they earned less than the standard deduction of $12,200 for individuals and $24,400 for couples. The number does include 53,359,786 Americans with very modest incomes who filed their income tax forms even though they reported no taxable income. It also includes Donald Trump in 10 out of 15 years. Everyone else? They were mainly working-poor families who filed a 1040 in order to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, plus those with incomes just above the standard deduction, but not enough to owe income tax after taking account of tax credits for their children, child care, and perhaps some small savings.
In 2016 and 2017, as noted, Donald Trump did ante up a miserly $750 for the IRS. Those tax payments put him in the lower half of the IRS group of 5,131,634 households with taxable incomes of $20,000 to $25,000, who paid an average of $994 in income tax. Again, for perspective, $20,000 to $25,000 was the average wage income last year of cashiers and theater ushers as well as cooks and dishwashers at Taco Bell and McDonald’s.
That leaves 87,416,451 American households who had taxable income incomes greater than $25,000 and so paid more federal income tax than Donald Trump.
If you were one of the 19,121,652 individuals, couples, or families whose taxable income in 2018 was $50,000 to $75,000 – the average for flight attendants, correctional officers, postal service workers, and athletic trainers last year — you paid on average $4,688 in federal income tax. That was 6.3 times as much as Donald Trump.
If you were one of the 13,149,633 American households with taxable incomes of $75,000 to $100,000 in 2018 – the average for dental hygienists, registered nurses, accountants, and bank loan officers – you paid almost ten times as much in federal income tax as Donald Trump.
It will take investigators a long time to determine whether Trump legally avoided or illegally evaded tax bills on hundreds of millions of dollars in income. Whichever it was will not change this bottom line: As president of the United States, Donald Trump demonstrates his contempt for many tens of millions of American taxpayers who pay more for the nation’s defense and welfare than their billionaire chief executive. Here are the pertinent IRS data that prove it.
Taxable Income Number of returns Average Tax Ratio to $750 $20,000 under $25,000 5,131,634 $994 1.3 $25,000 under $30,000 5,365,983 $1,369 1.8 $30,000 under $40,000 10,584,232 $2,057 2.7 $40,000 under $50,000 9,693,8668 $2,859 3.8 $50,000 under $75,000 19,121,652 $4,688 6.3 $75,000 under $100,000 13,149,633 $7,390 9.9 $100,000 under $200,000 20,976,903 $15,277 20.4 $200,000 under $500,000 6,882,287 $47,559 63.4 $500,000 under $1,000,000 1,104,444 $156,431 208.6 $1,000,000 under $1,500,000 241,068 $313,160 417.7 $1,500,000 under $2,000,000 98,248 $464,253 619.0 $2,000,000 under $5,000,000 141,489 $816,360 1,088.5 $5,000,000 under $10,000,000 34,646 $1,872,196 2,496.3 $10,000,000 and more 22,010 $7,386,572 9,848.8 All Incomes 100,414,509 $15,322 20.4


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-03--Trump’s Illness and the Fight Over Coney Barrett

There is no realistic scenario–not even the president contracting COVID-19–in which the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court will be defeated in the U.S. Senate prior to Election Day .
The Republicans currently have the votes to put her on the Court as the replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg , and no argument or pressure campaign can dissuade them from exercising their power .
Therefore , it makes no sense for the Democrats to take political risks or throw everything but the kitchen sink at Barrett , as they did , for instance , in the nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three red state senate seats .
They have a better chance of stopping her confirmation if they can delay a vote until after the November 3rd election .
They can best achieve that with a strategy of procedural stalling and messaging focused on the unprincipled and unprecedented way the GOP is forcing this confirmation in the middle of an election .
Indeed , there are scenarios in which the president ’ s illness makes delay the more likely outcome .
Fortunately , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer seems to understand that this confirmation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one .
On Tuesday , before news broke of the president ’ s condition , Schumer tweeted that he would not meet with Barrett and lend credence to “ such an illegitimate process.
” Four and a half years ago , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to entertain Barack Obama ’ s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it was an election year .
Now he ’ s looking to push through Donald Trump ’ s nominee in a severely truncated process in the last days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standard , this is not valid .
There ’ s another reason this nomination is not legitimate .
As our editor-in-chief , Paul Glastris stated , “ A working majority of GOP senators pledged to support Trump ’ s nominee before they knew who it was !
” That , notes Glastris , is “ an admission by these GOP senators that they are not considering the nominee ’ s qualifications and not open to any arguments based on qualifications.
” Under these circumstances , the most principled position for Democrats to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normal Kabuki of a SCOTUS nomination process .
This principled stand is also a politically wise one .
It would be dangerous for Democratic Senators to , say , raise questions about how Coney Barrett ’ s religious views might influence her jurisprudence , as Senator Dianne Feinstein did at her 2017 confirmation for the appellate court , or to react to last-minute unprovable allegations from her past , as Democrats did in the Kavanaugh hearings .
But that doesn ’ t mean Senate Democrats have to passively accept Coney Barrett ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can fight hard , and with better ( though still long ) odds for success , through a disciplined approach that relies less on white-hot rhetoric than on delay .
The aim should be to push the confirmation vote past the election when conditions could be much more favorable for killing the nomination .
Successful or not , a strategy of aggressive delay can help voters see this confirmation process for what it is : a raw exercise of power that violates wise and well-established norms for filling lifelong appointments and does real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Court .
The key facts to grasp in such a delay strategy are not Coney Barrett ’ s views on Stare Decisis or the dogma of People of Praise , but the quotidian workings of Senate procedure .
So , at the risk of boring you with wonkery , here ’ s what the Senate Democrats can and should do : If events proceed as planned , on Monday , October 12 , 2020 , Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham of South Carolina will hold the first of four hearings to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ October 26 , just eight days before Election Day , the Republican-controlled committee will report her nomination favorably to the full Senate .
That doesn ’ t allow much time for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to file for cloture to begin and end debate on the nomination , and it probably requires him to either get the cooperation of the Democrats or allow for some egregious violations of the Senate rules .
The first delaying tactic the Senate Democrats should employ involves Paragraph 5 ( a ) of Senate Rule XXVI , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The purpose of the rule is to help manage senators ’ time , and it states that no committee hearings ( excepting on the Committees on Appropriations and Budget ) can be held after the Senate has been in session for two hours or past 2:00 pm without unanimous consent .
The rule also provides that any unauthorized meeting of a committee can not report out a bill or nomination .
There ’ s no way to avoid the rule , but the hearings on the confirmation of Jeff Sessions as Attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s easy to work around it .
In that case , controversy over Trump ’ s Muslim ban and the firing of acting Attorney General Sally Yates led the Democrats to invoke the two-hour rule .
Then-Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa simply canceled the day ’ s hearing and rescheduled it for 10:30 am the next morning .
Chairman Graham can do the same thing , holding morning hearings to remain in compliance with the rule , but that will push the fourth hearing to Friday the 16th , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assuming the Democrats force this one-day postponement , their next opportunity to delay will occur when the Barrett hearings commence on Tuesday the 13th .
At that point , any one of their members can invoke the rules of procedure to request “ the nomination on the agenda of the Committee…be held over until the next meeting of the Committee or for one week , whichever occurs later.
” It won ’ t be surprising if the Democrats exercise this right , considering that every one of their members on the committee just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If this rule were respected , Graham would have to put off the first hearing until Tuesday the 20th , and the committee would not be able to complete its four days of hearings until Friday the 23nd , just 11 days before Election Day .
These two stalling tactics would be sufficient in themselves to force a change in the Republicans ’ plans .
As of now , Graham wants to report out Barrett ’ s nomination 14 days after her first hearing , and if the first hearing is held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12th ) that would place the committee vote on Election Day itself .
For this reason , it ’ s very likely that Graham will simply ignore the rules of procedure , as he did in August 2019 when he wanted to push through Trump ’ s anti-asylum Secure and Protect Act before the summer recess .
To get his way , Graham had to violate the committee ’ s quorum rules , which require at least two members of the minority to be present in order to conduct official business .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t mean , however , that the Democrats should show up for the first day of the hearings .
To highlight the illegitimacy of the process , only one Democrat should appear at the initial hearing .
This would deny Graham a quorum and allow the request for a week ’ s delay .
At that point , Graham would no doubt push ahead , but in clear violation of the committee rules and the minority party ’ s rights .
Progressives like Chris Kang , chief counsel of the activist group Demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boycott the hearings entirely , but that ’ s not necessarily desirable .
There are good reasons to get Coney Barrett on the record on a variety of issues , especially her views on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act , and a boycott of the first hearing doesn ’ t preclude senators from participating in all or part of the next three .
An internal Senate Democrat memo obtained by The Intercept lays out a plethora of other stalling tactics that could be employed , some more plausible and sensible than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that a concerted effort by the minority to slow down the process has a decent chance of upsetting the Republicans ’ aggressive schedule .
And while aggressive one-on-one grilling of nominees hearings can capture public attention but be politically dangerous , debates and votes on Senate procedure don ’ t make for gripping TV and seldom put lawmakers jobs at risk .
In the event , however , that the president becomes gravely ill before November 3 or , more frighteningly , dies , the Democrats might not be alone in arguing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In such solemn circumstances , the public would be appalled if Senate Republicans did not take a pause in their headlong push .
It is not hard to imagine a few tradition-minded senators , like Lamar Alexander , who is retiring , agreeing with the Democrats that a delay would be appropriate .
For those who oppose the confirmation , there are several advantages to postponing any final vote past the election .
A New York Times/Siena College survey released over the last weekend in September showed that 56 percent of the electorate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the winner of the presidential election .
That ’ s consistent with polling taken last week .
Those numbers will only grow if Democrats pick up Senate seats in the election and the people see the Republicans moving forward in a lame-duck session relying of the support of politicians whom they ’ ve just rejected .
That ’ s doesn ’ t mean the confirmation will be stopped , but it will certainly exact a higher cost .
There could be a more tangible benefit , too .
Today , the Republicans have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and only two members , Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine , are on the record in opposition to pushing forward .
This gives Senate Republicans a narrow 51-49 majority .
That number would be reduced to 50-50 if Democrat Mark Kelly defeats incumbent Republican Martha McSally in the Arizona special election .
He would not be seated prior to the certification of the election results but he could be seated before the new Senate takes office in January , With Kelly , a former astronaut , in the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason is fairly simple .
The vice-president breaks ties in the Senate , but he can not vote on procedural questions .
That means a determined opposition of fifty can prevent the nomination from coming up for a vote .
For this to work , Sens .
Collins and Murkowski would have to vote with the Democrats not just on the Barrett vote but on the motions to move to the vote .
This is admittedly a longshot .
McConnell could hold the vote prior to the seating of Mark Kelly , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process .
It is macabre to consider , but delay could also work if an illness or death occurs in the Senate .
When Sen. Edward Kennedy died in August 2009 and was replaced by Republican Scott Brown , it nearly derailed passage of the Affordable Care Act .
The point of opposing Barrett is not to make outraged liberals feel better during the hearings .
The goal should be to get her confirmation vote postponed until after the election , which ups the chances that Joe Biden can nominate Ginsburg ’ @ @ @

There is no realistic scenario—not even the president contracting COVID-19—in which the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court will be defeated in the U.S. Senate prior to Election Day. The Republicans currently have the votes to put her on the Court as the replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and no argument or pressure campaign can dissuade them from exercising their power.
Therefore, it makes no sense for the Democrats to take political risks or throw everything but the kitchen sink at Barrett, as they did, for instance, in the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, arguably costing Democrats three red state senate seats. They have a better chance of stopping her confirmation if they can delay a vote until after the November 3rd election. They can best achieve that with a strategy of procedural stalling and messaging focused on the unprincipled and unprecedented way the GOP is forcing this confirmation in the middle of an election. Indeed, there are scenarios in which the president’s illness makes delay the more likely outcome.
Fortunately, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer seems to understand that this confirmation should not be treated as a normal one. On Tuesday, before news broke of the president’s condition, Schumer tweeted that he would not meet with Barrett and lend credence to “such an illegitimate process.”
Four and a half years ago, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to entertain Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it was an election year. Now he’s looking to push through Donald Trump’s nominee in a severely truncated process in the last days before an election. By his own standard, this is not valid.
There’s another reason this nomination is not legitimate. As our editor-in-chief, Paul Glastris stated, “A working majority of GOP senators pledged to support Trump’s nominee before they knew who it was!” That, notes Glastris, is “an admission by these GOP senators that they are not considering the nominee’s qualifications and not open to any arguments based on qualifications.”
Under these circumstances, the most principled position for Democrats to take is to refuse to engage in the normal Kabuki of a SCOTUS nomination process. This principled stand is also a politically wise one. It would be dangerous for Democratic Senators to, say, raise questions about how Coney Barrett’s religious views might influence her jurisprudence, as Senator Dianne Feinstein did at her 2017 confirmation for the appellate court, or to react to last-minute unprovable allegations from her past, as Democrats did in the Kavanaugh hearings.
But that doesn’t mean Senate Democrats have to passively accept Coney Barrett’s nomination. Quite the contrary: they can fight hard, and with better (though still long) odds for success, through a disciplined approach that relies less on white-hot rhetoric than on delay. The aim should be to push the confirmation vote past the election when conditions could be much more favorable for killing the nomination. Successful or not, a strategy of aggressive delay can help voters see this confirmation process for what it is: a raw exercise of power that violates wise and well-established norms for filling lifelong appointments and does real harm to the respect Americans have for the Court.
The key facts to grasp in such a delay strategy are not Coney Barrett’s views on Stare Decisis or the dogma of People of Praise, but the quotidian workings of Senate procedure. So, at the risk of boring you with wonkery, here’s what the Senate Democrats can and should do:
If events proceed as planned, on Monday, October 12, 2020, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham of South Carolina will hold the first of four hearings to consider Barrett’s nomination. On October 26, just eight days before Election Day, the Republican-controlled committee will report her nomination favorably to the full Senate.
That doesn’t allow much time for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to file for cloture to begin and end debate on the nomination, and it probably requires him to either get the cooperation of the Democrats or allow for some egregious violations of the Senate rules.
The first delaying tactic the Senate Democrats should employ involves Paragraph 5(a) of Senate Rule XXVI, also known as “the two-hour rule.” The purpose of the rule is to help manage senators’ time, and it states that no committee hearings (excepting on the Committees on Appropriations and Budget) can be held after the Senate has been in session for two hours or past 2:00 pm without unanimous consent. The rule also provides that any unauthorized meeting of a committee cannot report out a bill or nomination.
There’s no way to avoid the rule, but the hearings on the confirmation of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General in January 2017 show that it’s easy to work around it. In that case, controversy over Trump’s Muslim ban and the firing of acting Attorney General Sally Yates led the Democrats to invoke the two-hour rule. Then-Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa simply canceled the day’s hearing and rescheduled it for 10:30 am the next morning. Chairman Graham can do the same thing, holding morning hearings to remain in compliance with the rule, but that will push the fourth hearing to Friday the 16th, a mere 18 days before Election Day.
Assuming the Democrats force this one-day postponement, their next opportunity to delay will occur when the Barrett hearings commence on Tuesday the 13th. At that point, any one of their members can invoke the rules of procedure to request “the nomination on the agenda of the Committee…be held over until the next meeting of the Committee or for one week, whichever occurs later.” It won’t be surprising if the Democrats exercise this right, considering that every one of their members on the committee just sent Graham a letter requesting a delay.
If this rule were respected, Graham would have to put off the first hearing until Tuesday the 20th, and the committee would not be able to complete its four days of hearings until Friday the 23nd, just 11 days before Election Day.
These two stalling tactics would be sufficient in themselves to force a change in the Republicans’ plans. As of now, Graham wants to report out Barrett’s nomination 14 days after her first hearing, and if the first hearing is held on the 20th (instead of the 12th) that would place the committee vote on Election Day itself.
For this reason, it’s very likely that Graham will simply ignore the rules of procedure, as he did in August 2019 when he wanted to push through Trump’s anti-asylum Secure and Protect Act before the summer recess. To get his way, Graham had to violate the committee’s quorum rules, which require at least two members of the minority to be present in order to conduct official business. His willingness to break the rules doesn’t mean, however, that the Democrats should show up for the first day of the hearings.
To highlight the illegitimacy of the process, only one Democrat should appear at the initial hearing. This would deny Graham a quorum and allow the request for a week’s delay. At that point, Graham would no doubt push ahead, but in clear violation of the committee rules and the minority party’s rights.
Progressives like Chris Kang, chief counsel of the activist group Demand Justice, argue that Senate Democrats should boycott the hearings entirely, but that’s not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to get Coney Barrett on the record on a variety of issues, especially her views on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, and a boycott of the first hearing doesn’t preclude senators from participating in all or part of the next three.
An internal Senate Democrat memo obtained by The Intercept lays out a plethora of other stalling tactics that could be employed, some more plausible and sensible than others. It seems clear, though, that a concerted effort by the minority to slow down the process has a decent chance of upsetting the Republicans’ aggressive schedule. And while aggressive one-on-one grilling of nominees hearings can capture public attention but be politically dangerous, debates and votes on Senate procedure don’t make for gripping TV and seldom put lawmakers jobs at risk.
In the event, however, that the president becomes gravely ill before November 3 or, more frighteningly, dies, the Democrats might not be alone in arguing to push off the confirmation vote. In such solemn circumstances, the public would be appalled if Senate Republicans did not take a pause in their headlong push. It is not hard to imagine a few tradition-minded senators, like Lamar Alexander, who is retiring, agreeing with the Democrats that a delay would be appropriate.
For those who oppose the confirmation, there are several advantages to postponing any final vote past the election. A New York Times/Siena College survey released over the last weekend in September showed that 56 percent of the electorate wants Ginsburg’s replacement selected by the winner of the presidential election. That’s consistent with polling taken last week. Those numbers will only grow if Democrats pick up Senate seats in the election and the people see the Republicans moving forward in a lame-duck session relying of the support of politicians whom they’ve just rejected. That’s doesn’t mean the confirmation will be stopped, but it will certainly exact a higher cost.
There could be a more tangible benefit, too. Today, the Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate, and only two members, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, are on the record in opposition to pushing forward. This gives Senate Republicans a narrow 51-49 majority. That number would be reduced to 50-50 if Democrat Mark Kelly defeats incumbent Republican Martha McSally in the Arizona special election. He would not be seated prior to the certification of the election results but he could be seated before the new Senate takes office in January, With Kelly, a former astronaut, in the Senate Democrats could stop the nomination.
The reason is fairly simple. The vice-president breaks ties in the Senate, but he cannot vote on procedural questions. That means a determined opposition of fifty can prevent the nomination from coming up for a vote. For this to work, Sens. Collins and Murkowski would have to vote with the Democrats not just on the Barrett vote but on the motions to move to the vote.
This is admittedly a longshot. McConnell could hold the vote prior to the seating of Mark Kelly, but that would again magnify the illegitimacy of the process.
It is macabre to consider, but delay could also work if an illness or death occurs in the Senate. When Sen. Edward Kennedy died in August 2009 and was replaced by Republican Scott Brown, it nearly derailed passage of the Affordable Care Act.
The point of opposing Barrett is not to make outraged liberals feel better during the hearings. The goal should be to get her confirmation vote postponed until after the election, which ups the chances that Joe Biden can nominate Ginsburg’s replacement.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-02--Beyond Our Crises at Home, A Dangerous World Looms

The presidential debate Tuesday devolved into a political food fight , where assaulting speech became a verbal pie in the public ’ s face .
Lost in the noise was any calm substance or serious questions about foreign policy .
The 21st-century debate now produces more heat than light .
These exercises allow candidates to target a sliver of Americans in a handful of states who somehow remain undecided .
More important , they aim to excite and motivate the majority of already decided voters to go mark their ballots .
Debates are not ideological jousts about America ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly focused on domestic challenges .
The new twist in 2020 ?
An incumbent president unbecomingly used the platform to launch wild attacks on his opponent instead of telling , for example , Russia ’ s Vladimir Putin to stuff it .
Foreign policy is increasingly important to everyday life in the United States .
Most Americans understandably are more concerned right now with fighting an invisible virus , getting their kids to school and holding on to jobs .
But what happens in Wuhan does not stay in Wuhan .
Foreign policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a breath — through their masks — and look through their fogged-up glasses at the various hot spots around the globe .
They may end up feeling safer locked up at home , socially distant from troubles near and far .
Latin America provides plenty of fodder , and the usual suspects are hard at work making things tough for their neighbors and their own populations .
Cuba and Nicaragua struggle to balance their own shortages and others ’ sanctions to deliver a modicum of services and security .
The Castro successors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business in Nicaragua govern with an iron fist .
Political change threatens their power , and they avoid it at all costs .
Scoot down the map a bit to Venezuela to see an ongoing disaster — a Caracas run further into the ground by Nicolás Maduro and his ruling clique .
Nothing that has been done during the past four years has moved the leadership in Cuba , Nicaragua or Venezuela closer to the exit door .
In fact , the policies of the recent past have further entrenched these dictatorial regimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rhetoric have made it easier for Havana , Managua and Caracas to jail opposition leaders and drive its victimized citizens into neighboring countries .
To add insult to injury , Donald Trump was secretly establishing Havana business ties while courting Cuban Americans with tough anti-Cuba talk , el Nuevo Herald just revealed .
The problems go beyond Latin America .
People are on the move from Syria and Libya , desperate humans trying their hardest to escape civil wars .
In both countries , civilians are Russian and Turkish pawns caught in punishing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Azerbaijan are waging a hot war .
High-tech drones drop out of the sky to smoke dug-in tanks and artillery .
Previously unthinkable battles have become phantasmagorical viral videos .
This battle , too , is growing into an indirect Russia-Turkey conflict .
Ankara sides with the Azeris while Moscow joins its former Soviet sister state , Armenia .
France might jump in , too .
The mother of all potential foreign conflicts , however , continues to brew in one of the most volatile regions on Earth — between India and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the threshold of open conflict .
India and Pakistan have opposing claims of historic autonomy in Kashmir and Jammu .
There is also a social , cultural and geopolitical reality that animates these tensions .
Hindu nationalism increasingly drives India ’ s domestic politics , while Pakistan flexes its Muslim muscle and tightens its China ties .
With Beijing in the mix , China is both girding and goading Pakistan to rev up its revulsion toward India , especially following China ’ s recent Himalayan border skirmish with the Indian military .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either of the two most populous nations on Earth .
There was no satisfactory resolution to the military deaths or the dispute along the two nations ’ Line of Actual Control .
Tensions could flare again between nuclear-armed China , India and Pakistan .
The good news ?
Some political theorists believe possessing nukes prevents nations from using them on each other .
Elsewhere , Russia is dallying with Belarus ’ embattled President Alexander Lukashenko , with Moscow worrying a nearby domino could fall .
Turkey continues to troll Greece by testing Athens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support in the Eastern Mediterranean .
Around the world , any cross-border agitation could blow up .
U.S. presidential elections are always an opportune moment for foreign trouble-making and inflamed tensions .
Elections are exciting , but they are also distracting .
That there was no foreign-policy discussion in the first presidential debate is one sign that America is no longer watching the shop .

The presidential debate Tuesday devolved into a political food fight, where assaulting speech became a verbal pie in the public’s face. Lost in the noise was any calm substance or serious questions about foreign policy.
The 21st-century debate now produces more heat than light. These exercises allow candidates to target a sliver of Americans in a handful of states who somehow remain undecided. More important, they aim to excite and motivate the majority of already decided voters to go mark their ballots.
Debates are not ideological jousts about America’s role in the world. They are mostly focused on domestic challenges. The new twist in 2020? An incumbent president unbecomingly used the platform to launch wild attacks on his opponent instead of telling, for example, Russia’s Vladimir Putin to stuff it.
Foreign policy is increasingly important to everyday life in the United States. Most Americans understandably are more concerned right now with fighting an invisible virus, getting their kids to school and holding on to jobs. But what happens in Wuhan does not stay in Wuhan. Foreign policy matters.
Americans should, however, take a breath — through their masks — and look through their fogged-up glasses at the various hot spots around the globe. They may end up feeling safer locked up at home, socially distant from troubles near and far.
Latin America provides plenty of fodder, and the usual suspects are hard at work making things tough for their neighbors and their own populations. Cuba and Nicaragua struggle to balance their own shortages and others’ sanctions to deliver a modicum of services and security. The Castro successors in Havana and the endless Ortega family business in Nicaragua govern with an iron fist. Political change threatens their power, and they avoid it at all costs.
Scoot down the map a bit to Venezuela to see an ongoing disaster — a Caracas run further into the ground by Nicolás Maduro and his ruling clique. Nothing that has been done during the past four years has moved the leadership in Cuba, Nicaragua or Venezuela closer to the exit door. In fact, the policies of the recent past have further entrenched these dictatorial regimes.
In fact, American actions and rhetoric have made it easier for Havana, Managua and Caracas to jail opposition leaders and drive its victimized citizens into neighboring countries. To add insult to injury, Donald Trump was secretly establishing Havana business ties while courting Cuban Americans with tough anti-Cuba talk, el Nuevo Herald just revealed.
The problems go beyond Latin America. People are on the move from Syria and Libya, desperate humans trying their hardest to escape civil wars. In both countries, civilians are Russian and Turkish pawns caught in punishing proxy wars.
And now, Armenia and Azerbaijan are waging a hot war. High-tech drones drop out of the sky to smoke dug-in tanks and artillery. Previously unthinkable battles have become phantasmagorical viral videos. This battle, too, is growing into an indirect Russia-Turkey conflict. Ankara sides with the Azeris while Moscow joins its former Soviet sister state, Armenia. France might jump in, too.
The mother of all potential foreign conflicts, however, continues to brew in one of the most volatile regions on Earth — between India and Pakistan. These neighbors always seem on the threshold of open conflict. India and Pakistan have opposing claims of historic autonomy in Kashmir and Jammu. There is also a social, cultural and geopolitical reality that animates these tensions.
Hindu nationalism increasingly drives India’s domestic politics, while Pakistan flexes its Muslim muscle and tightens its China ties. With Beijing in the mix, China is both girding and goading Pakistan to rev up its revulsion toward India, especially following China’s recent Himalayan border skirmish with the Indian military. It didn’t turn out well for either of the two most populous nations on Earth. There was no satisfactory resolution to the military deaths or the dispute along the two nations’ Line of Actual Control. Tensions could flare again between nuclear-armed China, India and Pakistan. The good news? Some political theorists believe possessing nukes prevents nations from using them on each other.
Elsewhere, Russia is dallying with Belarus’ embattled President Alexander Lukashenko, with Moscow worrying a nearby domino could fall. Turkey continues to troll Greece by testing Athens’s resolve and America’s support in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Around the world, any cross-border agitation could blow up. U.S. presidential elections are always an opportune moment for foreign trouble-making and inflamed tensions. Elections are exciting, but they are also distracting.
That there was no foreign-policy discussion in the first presidential debate is one sign that America is no longer watching the shop.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-05--A Hospitalized President, A Continuity Crisis?

At the beginning of the summer , the White House Military Office sent a memo to several dozen national security stakeholders with Top Secret clearances and a need-to-know designation .
A new set of contingency instructions had been developed – significantly revised , really – for preserving the continuity of the presidency if the President or the Vice President , or both , were incapacitated by COVID-19 .
With Donald Trump battling the COVID-19 virus , these plans to deal with a COVID cluster have gone from theory to practice .
People familiar with them would only share the broad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for separating key staff into cadres .
And for presidential travel , they dictate that the Commander-in-Chief has access to a diagnostic laboratory 24/7 .
It augments the corps of physicians and nurses in the White House Medical Unit with a “ contingency cadre ” of military medical professionals who would be on standby , able to take over if the Medical Unit itself was hit by an outbreak , or if a presidential successor were to need a full team .
A negative pressure COVID-19 suite was explicitly retrofitted for the President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Military Medical Center in Bethesda , where the President flew today .
And there were revised instructions given to the entire “ EA Team ” [ Emergency Action ] that supports the military aide to the President about what to do in case the President is involuntarily incapacitated .
If a President ’ s judgment is impaired by illness and he were to issue an order to the officer who carries the President ’ s emergency satchel – the famed nuclear “ football ” – there is now a checklist of sorts that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the order .
What these new COVID-19 orders don ’ t do – what they can ’ t do – is decide what constitutes incapacity or impairment .
The hard questions that need to be answered today – right this minute with the president hospitalized– are left undiscussed even as medical contingencies are specified in detail .
The onus in law is mostly on the Vice President .
The 25th Amendment outlines the chain of presidential succession .
It gives procedures for the cabinet and the Vice President to declare a President unable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not define these terms .
The ambiguity is deliberate .
A series of strokes in 1957 left President Dwight Eisenhower virtually unable to function for days at a time .
Eisenhower presciently asked Congress to determine who would be in charge were the President involuntarily removed from office , even temporarily .
Ike also asked Congress to make transient delegations of authority legal so that the military , in particular , had a clear view of the chain of command .
The authors of the 25th Amendment , which grew out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they couldn ’ t make explicit categories about presidential fitness and that the Vice President should be in charge of drawing the line .
Section 4 of the 25th Amendment begins by ensuring that the Vice President is the affirmative and necessary vote : “ Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide , transmit… .
their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
” There are many assumptions packed into that paragraph , almost none of which have ever been tested .
Suppose Congress sets “ by law ” a select body designed to determine whether the President is incapacitated .
In that case , the Vice President has the veto over the body ’ s existence and terms of reference .
To be clear : if both the President and Vice President are not capable of serving , the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 kicks in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes over .
But exactly who would determine that – so long as the two were alive – is not clear .
What happens if the Vice President were not available to answer ?
What happens if he , too , were incapacitated ?
There is no provision for Congress to select a new Vice President if the current one can ’ t perform his duties .
Precedent says nothing .
Despite some much-mocked reports in the 1990s of secret plans for an unelected group of elders to take over , nothing like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their successors get sick at the same time – a situation we may yet see – continuity stops .
It stops , too , if a vice president wants to risk offending his boss by temporarily declaring him incapacitated ; it does not provide a norm for cases where , even in good health , the President is not a rational decision-maker .
And as the election approaches , it ’ s worth noting that there is no emergency provision to coax each state to accept replacement candidates after voting has already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s secret plans , which are maintained by the obscure Presidential Contingency Programs Office , are mainly concerned with logistics , such as back-up electrical power in the event of a natural or human-caused disaster .
But where the plans give programmatic guidance , they assume good faith among the staff .
They assume that political pressure is not brought to bear ; that the President ’ s medical condition will be disclosed to all relevant authorities which must include Congress .
These plans are analog ; they are not designed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if presidential successors act on false information that is fed to them online ?
What if a Vice President campaigns instead of quarantines while the president is ill , something Mike Pence may well do ?
The continuity plans do not include “ National Essential Functions ” – the ungainly bureaucratic term for what the government must be able to do , such as ensuring the continued functioning of the three separate branches of government .
I hope President Trump takes these dysfunctions seriously if he ’ s reelected .
I fear he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ becomes President , his national security staff will hopefully plan for emergencies that once seemed implausible and that we might face very soon .

At the beginning of the summer, the White House Military Office sent a memo to several dozen national security stakeholders with Top Secret clearances and a need-to-know designation. A new set of contingency instructions had been developed – significantly revised, really – for preserving the continuity of the presidency if the President or the Vice President, or both, were incapacitated by COVID-19.
With Donald Trump battling the COVID-19 virus, these plans to deal with a COVID cluster have gone from theory to practice. People familiar with them would only share the broad strokes, but they include new protocols for separating key staff into cadres. And for presidential travel, they dictate that the Commander-in-Chief has access to a diagnostic laboratory 24/7. It augments the corps of physicians and nurses in the White House Medical Unit with a “contingency cadre” of military medical professionals who would be on standby, able to take over if the Medical Unit itself was hit by an outbreak, or if a presidential successor were to need a full team. A negative pressure COVID-19 suite was explicitly retrofitted for the President’s use at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, where the President flew today. And there were revised instructions given to the entire “EA Team”[Emergency Action] that supports the military aide to the President about what to do in case the President is involuntarily incapacitated. If a President’s judgment is impaired by illness and he were to issue an order to the officer who carries the President’s emergency satchel – the famed nuclear “football” – there is now a checklist of sorts that the officer can consult before carrying out the order.
What these new COVID-19 orders don’t do – what they can’t do – is decide what constitutes incapacity or impairment. The hard questions that need to be answered today – right this minute with the president hospitalized– are left undiscussed even as medical contingencies are specified in detail.
The onus in law is mostly on the Vice President.
The 25th Amendment outlines the chain of presidential succession. It gives procedures for the cabinet and the Vice President to declare a President unable to fulfill his duties. But it does not define these terms. The ambiguity is deliberate. A series of strokes in 1957 left President Dwight Eisenhower virtually unable to function for days at a time. Eisenhower presciently asked Congress to determine who would be in charge were the President involuntarily removed from office, even temporarily. Ike also asked Congress to make transient delegations of authority legal so that the military, in particular, had a clear view of the chain of command. The authors of the 25th Amendment, which grew out of Ike’s concerns, believed that they couldn’t make explicit categories about presidential fitness and that the Vice President should be in charge of drawing the line.
Section 4 of the 25th Amendment begins by ensuring that the Vice President is the affirmative and necessary vote: “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit…. their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”
There are many assumptions packed into that paragraph, almost none of which have ever been tested. Suppose Congress sets “by law” a select body designed to determine whether the President is incapacitated. In that case, the Vice President has the veto over the body’s existence and terms of reference.
To be clear: if both the President and Vice President are not capable of serving, the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 kicks in, and the Speaker of the House takes over. But exactly who would determine that – so long as the two were alive – is not clear.
What happens if the Vice President were not available to answer? What happens if he, too, were incapacitated? There is no provision for Congress to select a new Vice President if the current one can’t perform his duties.
Precedent says nothing. Despite some much-mocked reports in the 1990s of secret plans for an unelected group of elders to take over, nothing like that exists. In cases where presidents and their successors get sick at the same time – a situation we may yet see – continuity stops.
It stops, too, if a vice president wants to risk offending his boss by temporarily declaring him incapacitated; it does not provide a norm for cases where, even in good health, the President is not a rational decision-maker. And as the election approaches, it’s worth noting that there is no emergency provision to coax each state to accept replacement candidates after voting has already begun.
The White House Medical Office’s secret plans, which are maintained by the obscure Presidential Contingency Programs Office, are mainly concerned with logistics, such as back-up electrical power in the event of a natural or human-caused disaster. But where the plans give programmatic guidance, they assume good faith among the staff. They assume that political pressure is not brought to bear; that the President’s medical condition will be disclosed to all relevant authorities which must include Congress.
These plans are analog; they are not designed to account for digital disorder. What happens if presidential successors act on false information that is fed to them online?
What if a Vice President campaigns instead of quarantines while the president is ill, something Mike Pence may well do?
The continuity plans do not include “ National Essential Functions” – the ungainly bureaucratic term for what the government must be able to do, such as ensuring the continued functioning of the three separate branches of government.
I hope President Trump takes these dysfunctions seriously if he’s reelected. I fear he won’t. If Joe Biden becomes President, his national security staff will hopefully plan for emergencies that once seemed implausible and that we might face very soon.