thebulwark--2020-05-07--Trump Is Gambling for His Political Future with American Lives

President Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus pandemic is now running headlong into a silent majority of opposition .
This has become apparent not just in a handful of polls , but in the full trend line of polling data that has emerged since early April .
And now , as spring prepares to become summer , Trump and his red-state gubernatorial allies are about to take a huge gamble .
If the “ reopening ” leaves the heartland states ( the South , the Plains and the Midwest ) relatively unscathed in terms of COVID-19 , jumpstarting an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Republicans will have a better than even chance to hold both the White House and the Senate .
But if the Trump-inspired push to reopen leads to COVID-19 spreading into the heartland states , then the higher ages and rates of smoking , obesity , and diabetes there could become the kindling for a political fire .
And the shock to the economy from a botched reopening would not only deny Trump re-election , but probably lead to the Republicans losing control of the Senate , too .
At this stage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not the other way around .
But over the last fortnight the polling data has revealed a strong predisposition in the electorate to not trust Trump when it comes to confronting the pandemic .
His public prestige has been slipping at a startling pace as April closes .
What this means is that if events do not turn in Trump ’ s favor , he has no reservoir of goodwill to draw on with an electorate in the face of hard times .
Let ’ s parse the polling data , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden , but for how the public is starting to settle in its view of Trump as a crisis leader—which is likely to be how the referendum on his presidency will be decided .
Trump seems to be gambling that protesters demanding an immediate reopening of the economy speak for the American people .
The polling data says otherwise .
A Washington Post-University of Maryland poll taken April 14-19 , revealed that 65 percent of the public felt that it would be June or later before people could safely gather in public .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of respondents were worried about being infected by COVID-19 and that 26 percent knew someone who had been infected ( up from 11 percent in March ) .
In addition , only 37 percent of Americans felt that the economy would recover quickly , while 63 percent believed that the economy would recover slowly .
In an April 13-15 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll , 73 percent were very or somewhat worried that they or someone in their family might catch COVID-19 .
Moreover , only 36 percent trusted what Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent who did not ) .
This while 60 percent said they trusted Dr. Anthony Fauci ( while 8 percent did not ) .
Comparing Trump ’ s numbers with those of respondents ’ governors , 66 percent trusted the information the public got from their governors—putting Trump ’ s trustworthiness at a staggering -30 relative to the governors .
Underscoring those results was an Axios/Ipsos poll taken April 17-20 , which found that 64 percent of respondents were now wearing a mask when they went outside ( up from 56 percent who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week ’ s poll ) and 72 percent felt that returning to normal pre-coronavirus life was taking too big a risk .
Meanwhile , 92 percent reported that they were practicing social distancing .
An AP-NORC poll taken April 16-20 , found that 87 percent of the public felt that the stay-at-home measures were about right—or did not go far enough .
In this poll , only 28 percent of those in that same poll saw Donald Trump as their source of information on the coronavirus crisis and only 23 percent said they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independents , this number was 12 percent .
When you boil down all of the polling data you see that Trump and his political allies have built for themselves a trap .
If the pandemic does not recede and the economy does not recover this summer and early fall , then they have nothing to run on .
Because the voters have already signaled that if things aren ’ t in good shape , they do not trust the president .
So as of the end of April : • Only a quarter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make the decision on when and how to re-open ; • Only about a third of voters believed Trump was providing credible information ; • By margins greater than 4-to-1 the public supported the effectiveness of the stay at home measures ; • And by just shy of a 2-to-1 margin , the public recommended opening the economy slowly and carefully with an eye on testing and protecting public health .
In other words : He has already placed a bet in opposing the views of large majorities of the public .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ borne out by results ?
Because it is one thing to suffer through hard times while the people are with you , and vice versa .
To wind up in hard times while explicitly defying the wishes of the people is another thing entirely .
In the April 21-26 Washington Post/University of Maryland poll , 60 percent of respondents said they were worried about catching COVID-19 .
In the crosstabs this translated to 67 percent of women , 62 percent of independents , 66 percent of moderates , and 71 percent of Hispanics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is facing trouble with seniors , too .
In a Quinnipiac poll of Florida voters released on April 22 , only 18 percent of Florida voters said that they relied upon Trump for accurate information on coronavirus Trump trailed Biden by 10 percent among Floridians over the age of 65 .
There have been other data points that echo this finding .
A Morning Consult poll from mid-April found that by a 6-1 ratio , seniors prioritized defeating the coronavirus over healing the economy .
The NBC News poll of April 13-15 found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead of Trump by 9 percent .
This is big news : In 2016 , Trump was +7 over Hillary Clinton among seniors , which marks a swing of -16 points .
My point is not to argue that the electorate has rendered a final verdict on Trump that can not change between now and November , but rather to note that Trump ’ s Republicans can ’ t win with a significant erosion of support among independents , seniors , and married white women in the suburbs .
And there has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level of support Trump is drawing from each of those pools .
That trend is not yet irreversible .
But the erosion is significant and is accompanied by an energized Democratic base .
Which suggests that Trump is close to the point where he needs either a vaccine or an effective treatment and something portending a V-shaped recovery in place by Election Day .
Events could still rescue Trump and the Republicans .
But they are probably the only thing which can save them .
His conduct during the pandemic has put him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Americans that he is unlikely to be seen as a good president who ’ s been dealt a hard hand , or given the benefit of the doubt .

President Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic is now running headlong into a silent majority of opposition. This has become apparent not just in a handful of polls, but in the full trend line of polling data that has emerged since early April.
And now, as spring prepares to become summer, Trump and his red-state gubernatorial allies are about to take a huge gamble.
If the “reopening” leaves the heartland states (the South, the Plains and the Midwest) relatively unscathed in terms of COVID-19, jumpstarting an economic recovery—even an incomplete one—then Trump’s Republicans will have a better than even chance to hold both the White House and the Senate.
But if the Trump-inspired push to reopen leads to COVID-19 spreading into the heartland states, then the higher ages and rates of smoking, obesity, and diabetes there could become the kindling for a political fire. And the shock to the economy from a botched reopening would not only deny Trump re-election, but probably lead to the Republicans losing control of the Senate, too.
At this stage of the race, events control Donald Trump, not the other way around.
But over the last fortnight the polling data has revealed a strong predisposition in the electorate to not trust Trump when it comes to confronting the pandemic. His public prestige has been slipping at a startling pace as April closes. What this means is that if events do not turn in Trump’s favor, he has no reservoir of goodwill to draw on with an electorate in the face of hard times.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Let’s parse the polling data, not for the horse-race numbers on Trump versus Biden, but for how the public is starting to settle in its view of Trump as a crisis leader—which is likely to be how the referendum on his presidency will be decided.
Trump seems to be gambling that protesters demanding an immediate reopening of the economy speak for the American people.
The polling data says otherwise.
A Washington Post-University of Maryland poll taken April 14-19, revealed that 65 percent of the public felt that it would be June or later before people could safely gather in public.
This same poll also found that 57 percent of respondents were worried about being infected by COVID-19 and that 26 percent knew someone who had been infected (up from 11 percent in March). In addition, only 37 percent of Americans felt that the economy would recover quickly, while 63 percent believed that the economy would recover slowly.
In an April 13-15 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 73 percent were very or somewhat worried that they or someone in their family might catch COVID-19. Moreover, only 36 percent trusted what Donald Trump said about the coronavirus (versus 52 percent who did not). This while 60 percent said they trusted Dr. Anthony Fauci (while 8 percent did not).
Comparing Trump’s numbers with those of respondents’ governors, 66 percent trusted the information the public got from their governors—putting Trump’s trustworthiness at a staggering -30 relative to the governors.
Underscoring those results was an Axios/Ipsos poll taken April 17-20, which found that 64 percent of respondents were now wearing a mask when they went outside (up from 56 percent who said they wore masks in their prior week’s poll) and 72 percent felt that returning to normal pre-coronavirus life was taking too big a risk. Meanwhile, 92 percent reported that they were practicing social distancing.
An AP-NORC poll taken April 16-20, found that 87 percent of the public felt that the stay-at-home measures were about right—or did not go far enough. In this poll, only 28 percent of those in that same poll saw Donald Trump as their source of information on the coronavirus crisis and only 23 percent said they trusted information from President Trump.
Among independents, this number was 12 percent.
When you boil down all of the polling data you see that Trump and his political allies have built for themselves a trap. If the pandemic does not recede and the economy does not recover this summer and early fall, then they have nothing to run on. Because the voters have already signaled that if things aren’t in good shape, they do not trust the president.
So as of the end of April:
Only a quarter of the electorate appeared to trust Trump to make the decision on when and how to re-open;
Only about a third of voters believed Trump was providing credible information;
By margins greater than 4-to-1 the public supported the effectiveness of the stay at home measures;
And by just shy of a 2-to-1 margin, the public recommended opening the economy slowly and carefully with an eye on testing and protecting public health.
In other words: He has already placed a bet in opposing the views of large majorities of the public. If that bet isn’t objectively borne out by results?
Think Herbert Hoover.
Because it is one thing to suffer through hard times while the people are with you, and vice versa.
To wind up in hard times while explicitly defying the wishes of the people is another thing entirely.
In the April 21-26 Washington Post/University of Maryland poll, 60 percent of respondents said they were worried about catching COVID-19. In the crosstabs this translated to 67 percent of women, 62 percent of independents, 66 percent of moderates, and 71 percent of Hispanics.
Other polls have suggested that Trump is facing trouble with seniors, too. In a Quinnipiac poll of Florida voters released on April 22, only 18 percent of Florida voters said that they relied upon Trump for accurate information on coronavirus Trump trailed Biden by 10 percent among Floridians over the age of 65.
There have been other data points that echo this finding. A Morning Consult poll from mid-April found that by a 6-1 ratio, seniors prioritized defeating the coronavirus over healing the economy.
The NBC News poll of April 13-15 found that among seniors nationally, Biden was ahead of Trump by 9 percent. This is big news: In 2016, Trump was +7 over Hillary Clinton among seniors, which marks a swing of -16 points.
My point is not to argue that the electorate has rendered a final verdict on Trump that cannot change between now and November, but rather to note that Trump’s Republicans can’t win with a significant erosion of support among independents, seniors, and married white women in the suburbs. And there has been both long-term and short-term erosion in the level of support Trump is drawing from each of those pools.
That trend is not yet irreversible. But the erosion is significant and is accompanied by an energized Democratic base. Which suggests that Trump is close to the point where he needs either a vaccine or an effective treatment and something portending a V-shaped recovery in place by Election Day.
Events could still rescue Trump and the Republicans.
But they are probably the only thing which can save them. His conduct during the pandemic has put him at odds with a significant enough majority of Americans that he is unlikely to be seen as a good president who’s been dealt a hard hand, or given the benefit of the doubt.


thebulwark--2020-05-07--Injustice for Kavanaugh Is Injustice for Biden Too

During the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings , some conservatives , including supposedly Trump-despising ones , declared themselves “ radicalized.
” “ Kavanaugh snapped something in me ” announced Sohrab Ahmari in a since-deleted tweet .
The Democrats had demonstrated their depravity , others said .
On the strength of this revelation , they ran into the arms of Donald Trump .
What is the logic of that response ?
If the Democrats and progressives resorted to irresponsible character assassination , trafficked in loose accusations , and failed to respect due process , how is the correct response to do exactly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adopting a moral code that says : “ He is a liar and a cheat ; therefore I must be one ?
” If that is the standard , then we are consigned to an endless cycle of slander , with each side pointing to the other ’ s previous outrage to justify itself .
And let ’ s not mince words , the left has a large store of grievances , too .
As Amanda Carpenter notes , the Republican party impeached Bill Clinton for perjury and all-around smuttiness , yet is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Oval Office .
It has even backed a credibly accused child molester for a Senate seat .
Enter Tara Reade , a former Biden staffer with a dubious story of abuse .
The right is gorging on schadenfreude .
“ MeToo Hypocrites Who ’ ve Gone Silent for Joe Biden ” sneered a New York Post columnist .
Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called Nancy Pelosi a hypocrite .
“ You can ’ t say one thing about every other time she has commented about any accusation and now say it is OK. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tara Reade situation.
” And the Wall Street Journal ’ s Bill McGurn noted the discomfort of figures like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and actress/MeToo heroine Alyssa Milano , who have stood by Biden only to take arrows from other progressives .
( Milano has wobbled . )
Andrew Sullivan recalled that it was none other than Joe Biden who took the lead , during the Obama administration , in revising standards of proof in sexual assault cases on college campuses .
Biden is now claiming simply that he never did what Tara Reade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posit that he didn ’ t .
Too bad .
If he were to attempt to defend himself , by his own campus logic , he would be barred any knowledge of what he was precisely accused of , even the identity of his accuser ; he would be unable to see the results of any investigation ; and his own claims of innocence would be rejected if the woman merely subjectively felt as if she were being abused , regardless of his own intent .
Despite the due process concerns , Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexual misconduct , as he made clear again on Wednesday .
But hold on , doesn ’ t it matter if Biden is actually innocent ?
Yes , he was part of an administration that tore down some crucial protections for the accused .
Yes , Democrats entertained absurd allegations about Justice Kavanaugh .
Yes , they condemned Bob Packwood while excusing Teddy Kennedy .
Yes , Democrats filleted Clarence Thomas while giving Bill Clinton a pass ( or many ) .
And yet , what have we become if we are indifferent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settle scores ?
As a policymaker , Joe Biden needs to be held accountable for his poor judgment about standards of proof in sexual misbehavior cases .
It ’ s quite a different matter to say that he personally should face a false accusation to achieve poetic justice .
Did conservatives not object , fairly , in the Kavanaugh case that a decades-old accusation is nearly impossible to verify ?
Did they not protest that Kavanaugh ’ s whole adult life , which contained not a hint of scandal , was evidence that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Feminist Linda Hirshman has written that she plans to vote for Joe Biden though she “ believe [ s ] Tara Reade , ” just as she “ believed Anita Hill.
” She must not have looked closely at Reade ’ s story , or , rather , stories .
In 2019 , Reade claimed that Biden had made her “ uncomfortable ” by touching her neck and shoulders 27 years ago .
But in March of this year , Reade , a Bernie Sanders acolyte , suddenly changed her story to one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feed revealed a highly suspicious motive .
In response to Ryan Grim , who speculated that a match-up between Sanders and Biden would bring extra scrutiny to Biden , she tweeted “ Yup .
Timing… wait for it….tic toc.
” So many details of her account strain credulity .
In her telling , the sexual assault took place after she had already filed a sexual harassment claim .
So we are expected to credit that Biden , knowing this , still elected to push her up against a wall and reach into her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been rebuked for being too physically affectionate with women and men .
But in his long career , he has never been accused of sexual misconduct of any kind .
As with Kavanaugh , this is critical evidence .
Predators don ’ t pounce just once .
Reade is a woman with a weird Putin fixation , a clear motive to damage Biden , and a story full of holes .
Conservatives were right to object that the “ believe women ” mantra , if taken as categorical , leads to terrible miscarriages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lie .
But if conservatives are sincere , they will see that Biden is the Kavanaugh here , and that injustice is injustice .

During the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, some conservatives, including supposedly Trump-despising ones, declared themselves “radicalized.” “Kavanaugh snapped something in me” announced Sohrab Ahmari in a since-deleted tweet. The Democrats had demonstrated their depravity, others said. On the strength of this revelation, they ran into the arms of Donald Trump.
What is the logic of that response? If the Democrats and progressives resorted to irresponsible character assassination, trafficked in loose accusations, and failed to respect due process, how is the correct response to do exactly the same thing to them? Are they adopting a moral code that says: “He is a liar and a cheat; therefore I must be one?” If that is the standard, then we are consigned to an endless cycle of slander, with each side pointing to the other’s previous outrage to justify itself.
And let’s not mince words, the left has a large store of grievances, too. As Amanda Carpenter notes, the Republican party impeached Bill Clinton for perjury and all-around smuttiness, yet is wedded to the serial sexual abuser in the Oval Office. It has even backed a credibly accused child molester for a Senate seat.
Enter Tara Reade, a former Biden staffer with a dubious story of abuse. The right is gorging on schadenfreude. “MeToo Hypocrites Who’ve Gone Silent for Joe Biden” sneered a New York Post columnist. Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called Nancy Pelosi a hypocrite. “You can’t say one thing about every other time she has commented about any accusation and now say it is OK. She endorsed Joe Biden after knowing the Tara Reade situation.” And the Wall Street Journal’s Bill McGurn noted the discomfort of figures like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and actress/MeToo heroine Alyssa Milano, who have stood by Biden only to take arrows from other progressives. (Milano has wobbled.)
Andrew Sullivan recalled that it was none other than Joe Biden who took the lead, during the Obama administration, in revising standards of proof in sexual assault cases on college campuses.
Biden is now claiming simply that he never did what Tara Reade said he did. Let’s posit that he didn’t. Too bad. If he were to attempt to defend himself, by his own campus logic, he would be barred any knowledge of what he was precisely accused of, even the identity of his accuser; he would be unable to see the results of any investigation; and his own claims of innocence would be rejected if the woman merely subjectively felt as if she were being abused, regardless of his own intent.
Despite the due process concerns, Biden continues to support those rules on campus sexual misconduct, as he made clear again on Wednesday.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But hold on, doesn’t it matter if Biden is actually innocent? Yes, he was part of an administration that tore down some crucial protections for the accused. Yes, Democrats entertained absurd allegations about Justice Kavanaugh. Yes, they condemned Bob Packwood while excusing Teddy Kennedy. Yes, Democrats filleted Clarence Thomas while giving Bill Clinton a pass (or many). And yet, what have we become if we are indifferent to actual innocence in our rush to settle scores?
As a policymaker, Joe Biden needs to be held accountable for his poor judgment about standards of proof in sexual misbehavior cases. It’s quite a different matter to say that he personally should face a false accusation to achieve poetic justice.
Did conservatives not object, fairly, in the Kavanaugh case that a decades-old accusation is nearly impossible to verify? Did they not protest that Kavanaugh’s whole adult life, which contained not a hint of scandal, was evidence that he was not a sexual predator?
Feminist Linda Hirshman has written that she plans to vote for Joe Biden though she “believe[s] Tara Reade,” just as she “believed Anita Hill.” She must not have looked closely at Reade’s story, or, rather, stories. In 2019, Reade claimed that Biden had made her “uncomfortable” by touching her neck and shoulders 27 years ago. But in March of this year, Reade, a Bernie Sanders acolyte, suddenly changed her story to one of criminal sexual assault.
Her Twitter feed revealed a highly suspicious motive. In response to Ryan Grim, who speculated that a match-up between Sanders and Biden would bring extra scrutiny to Biden, she tweeted “Yup. Timing… wait for it….tic toc.”
So many details of her account strain credulity. In her telling, the sexual assault took place after she had already filed a sexual harassment claim. So we are expected to credit that Biden, knowing this, still elected to push her up against a wall and reach into her underwear—in a public place?
Biden has been rebuked for being too physically affectionate with women and men. But in his long career, he has never been accused of sexual misconduct of any kind. As with Kavanaugh, this is critical evidence. Predators don’t pounce just once. Reade is a woman with a weird Putin fixation, a clear motive to damage Biden, and a story full of holes. Conservatives were right to object that the “believe women” mantra, if taken as categorical, leads to terrible miscarriages of justice. Of course some women lie. But if conservatives are sincere, they will see that Biden is the Kavanaugh here, and that injustice is injustice.


thebulwark--2020-05-08--Flynn Dismissal: Bill Barr Thumbs His Nose at Justice

Attorney General Bill Barr ’ s decision to throw his colleagues under the bus by moving to dismiss the criminal charges against former national security advisor Mike Flynn—who already pleaded guilty—is a doozy .
Barr ’ s request has immediately been slayed in cyberspace for its political overtones , and for good reason .
Just three months ago , recall , the Department of Justice overrode a sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone , another Trump ally indicted as a result of Robert Mueller ’ s investigation of Russian interference in the last presidential election .
With today ’ s announcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unabashedly destroyed any pretense of independent judgment on behalf of the DOJ .
The federal law enforcement apparatus serves at the political whims and pleasures of the president .
So much for DOJ ’ s stated mission of “ ensur [ ing ] fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.
” Of course , Flynn ’ s fate is hardly sealed .
The U.S. district judge who accepted his guilty pleas for lying to federal officials about his contacts with Russian operatives must sign off on Barr ’ s request .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ called Flynn ’ s crime “ a very serious offense ” at a December 18 hearing , and told him that “ arguably , you sold your country out.
” Sullivan added , “ I ’ m not hiding my disgust , my disdain , for this criminal offense , ” and refused to rule out jail time for Flynn .
Importantly , Judge Sullivan is also steeped in the rule of law—and the reason we have it in the first place .
Consider the law that makes it a crime to lie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ § 1001 .
Flynn basically admitted that , to borrow the words of the statute , he “ knowingly and willfully falsifie [ d ] , conceal [ ed ] , or cover [ ed ] up by any trick , scheme , or device a material fact ” or made a “ materially false , fictitious , or fraudulent statement or representation ” to FBI agents who were trying to get to the bottom of Russia ’ s attacks on America ’ s presidential election .
To be specific , Flynn admitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , during an interview with the FBI in the White House on January 24 , 2017 , he In today ’ s filing , DOJ does not deny that Flynn lied .
It instead claims that “ the Government is not persuaded that the January 24 , 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn ’ s statements were material even if untrue.
” “ Materiality ” is an important concept in American law that finds its way into the rules of evidence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , patent law , and even civil procedural rules .
The notion is a commonsensical one : not all facts matter .
To take a simple example , if a yellow car runs a red light and hits a red car , it is not material that the second car was painted red .
But it is material that the traffic light was red .
Only if the light was red is the yellow car ’ s driver at fault , thereby empowering a court of law to order payment of money damages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The lies weren ’ t about what Flynn had for breakfast that day .
They went to the heart of Mueller ’ s mission , as authorized by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein , to look into established interference by the Russians for the benefit of the Trump campaign .
Keep in mind that this last bit—that Russia interfered , that Trump benefited , and that his campaign was aware of the goodies flowing from Vladimir Putin & Co.—are established facts .
But now , Bill Barr ’ s DOJ is taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advisor ’ s lies about his contacts with Russia are not relevant to anything that really matters ?
That his lies are no big deal ?
Or that , at a minimum , they not worth using the power of the U.S. government to hold Flynn accountable for his confessed lawbreaking ?
This is , in fact , a very big deal .
Society ’ s overwhelming rejection of lying to government officials stretches across countless cultures and goes back at least to the Old Testament .
The idea is that witnesses must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with legal proceedings so that laws can be enforced fairly and meaningfully .
Only if laws are enforced fairly and meaningfully will people bother to abide by them .
Incentivizing witnesses to tell the truth fosters a civilized society based on fair rules that are fairly applied based on facts , not politics .
Perjury law is also tethered to a core value system that most of us hope to teach our children .
If people don ’ t abide by laws , society falls into chaos .
Perjury first found its way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it was defined as “ a deliberate lie ” in a courtroom that is punishable as a crime .
The modern “ materiality ” component ensures that little white lies don ’ t land people in jail ; only the big ones that really matter do .
Bill Barr ’ s shrugging off of Flynn ’ s established lying to Barr ’ s own FBI—and his nose-thumbing at his longtime friend and former colleague Robert Mueller ’ s careful work as a prosecutor with regulatory independence from Donald Trump—is a swipe at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in America .
Once again , this administration ’ s self-dealing means that it now falls to the judicial system to remind us of the most fundamental of our collective values in the age of Trump .

Attorney General Bill Barr’s decision to throw his colleagues under the bus by moving to dismiss the criminal charges against former national security advisor Mike Flynn—who already pleaded guilty—is a doozy. Barr’s request has immediately been slayed in cyberspace for its political overtones, and for good reason.
Just three months ago, recall, the Department of Justice overrode a sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone, another Trump ally indicted as a result of Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the last presidential election. With today’s announcement about the Flynn case, Barr has unabashedly destroyed any pretense of independent judgment on behalf of the DOJ. The federal law enforcement apparatus serves at the political whims and pleasures of the president. So much for DOJ’s stated mission of “ensur[ing] fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”
Of course, Flynn’s fate is hardly sealed. The U.S. district judge who accepted his guilty pleas for lying to federal officials about his contacts with Russian operatives must sign off on Barr’s request. The fiercely independent Judge Emmet Sullivan already called Flynn’s crime “a very serious offense” at a December 18 hearing, and told him that “arguably, you sold your country out.” Sullivan added, “I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain, for this criminal offense,” and refused to rule out jail time for Flynn.
Importantly, Judge Sullivan is also steeped in the rule of law—and the reason we have it in the first place.
Consider the law that makes it a crime to lie to the FBI, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Flynn basically admitted that, to borrow the words of the statute, he “knowingly and willfully falsifie[d], conceal[ed], or cover[ed] up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact” or made a “materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” to FBI agents who were trying to get to the bottom of Russia’s attacks on America’s presidential election.
To be specific, Flynn admitted (with the aid of counsel) that, during an interview with the FBI in the White House on January 24, 2017, he
falsely stated that he did not ask Russia’s Ambassador to the United States . . . to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia. FLYNN also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian Ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of FLYNN’s request.
In today’s filing, DOJ does not deny that Flynn lied. It instead claims that “the Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue.”
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
“Materiality” is an important concept in American law that finds its way into the rules of evidence, corporate and securities law, contract law, patent law, and even civil procedural rules. The notion is a commonsensical one: not all facts matter. To take a simple example, if a yellow car runs a red light and hits a red car, it is not material that the second car was painted red. But it is material that the traffic light was red. Only if the light was red is the yellow car’s driver at fault, thereby empowering a court of law to order payment of money damages to the red car’s driver.
In Flynn’s case, Robert Mueller’s prosecutorial team believed that Flynn’s
false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the Campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
The lies weren’t about what Flynn had for breakfast that day. They went to the heart of Mueller’s mission, as authorized by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, to look into established interference by the Russians for the benefit of the Trump campaign.
Keep in mind that this last bit—that Russia interfered, that Trump benefited, and that his campaign was aware of the goodies flowing from Vladimir Putin & Co.—are established facts. But now, Bill Barr’s DOJ is taking the position that a sitting national security advisor’s lies about his contacts with Russia are not relevant to anything that really matters? That his lies are no big deal? Or that, at a minimum, they not worth using the power of the U.S. government to hold Flynn accountable for his confessed lawbreaking?
This is, in fact, a very big deal.
Society’s overwhelming rejection of lying to government officials stretches across countless cultures and goes back at least to the Old Testament. The idea is that witnesses must give true and accurate answers in connection with legal proceedings so that laws can be enforced fairly and meaningfully. Only if laws are enforced fairly and meaningfully will people bother to abide by them. Incentivizing witnesses to tell the truth fosters a civilized society based on fair rules that are fairly applied based on facts, not politics. Perjury law is also tethered to a core value system that most of us hope to teach our children. If people don’t abide by laws, society falls into chaos.
Perjury first found its way into English statutory law in 1563, when it was defined as “a deliberate lie” in a courtroom that is punishable as a crime. The modern “materiality” component ensures that little white lies don’t land people in jail; only the big ones that really matter do.
Bill Barr’s shrugging off of Flynn’s established lying to Barr’s own FBI—and his nose-thumbing at his longtime friend and former colleague Robert Mueller’s careful work as a prosecutor with regulatory independence from Donald Trump—is a swipe at the heart of the rule of law in America.
Once again, this administration’s self-dealing means that it now falls to the judicial system to remind us of the most fundamental of our collective values in the age of Trump.


thebulwark--2020-05-08--Our Part in the Global Vaccine Hunt

Our Part in the Global Vaccine Hunt

COVID-19 anywhere is COVID-19 everywhere.
” That ’ s Melinda Gates ’ s sound bite-sized summation of the case for robust global cooperation in the search for , and production of , an effective coronavirus vaccine .
She ’ s not wrong of course , but her formulation—and the early signals coming from the emerging international consortium of which her foundation is a part—might leave insufficient room for the exigencies of domestic politics .
A clearer description of what exactly such cooperation will entail , most especially regarding control over distribution , would improve the chances of U.S. participation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the context of the announcement of a new international effort to produce and deploy a vaccine to stop the pandemic .
Her foundation , together with the European Union , the World Health Organization , prominent nonprofits promoting global vaccination campaigns , and a large roster of world leaders—including Boris Johnson , Angela Merkel , Shinzo Abe , and Emmanuel Macron—committed themselves to supporting a coordinated international response to completing this immense and complicated endeavor .
Their goal is to ensure “ equitable access ” across the globe , by which they mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be constrained because rich nations have cornered the world ’ s production capacity .
Notable absentees were the United States , Russia , and India .
China ’ s ambassador to the EU participated in an online pledging campaign but committed no financial support .
It is undeniable that the pandemic demands an international perspective .
No country can fully protect itself from harm—physical or economic—by securing vaccinations for just its own population .
Until vaccination is widespread globally , the virus will continue to spread across national boundaries and precipitate costly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Further , because vaccination rates may not reach 100 percent in many countries ( for various reasons ) , and the virus might mutate , partially vaccinated populations may not be invulnerable to new infections and outbreaks seeded by travel from unvaccinated areas .
The world ’ s high-income countries , including the United States , also have much to gain from a cooperative effort .
Working together will allow them to share the logistical and financial burdens of executing the many complex steps that are necessary for successful discovery and deployment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promising candidates , running the necessary clinical trials , scaling up manufacturing capacity in dispersed locations ( even before it is known which vaccines will work ) , ensuring supply chains are sufficient for mass deployment , setting aside the funding required to purchase doses for the world ’ s entire population—all of this and more will be hastened and strengthened when conducted within a coordinated international plan of action .
Further , a go-it-alone strategy would be risky , even for the United States .
Vaccine research is a highly unpredictable business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the best approach is to support multiple early candidates because it is not possible to know in advance which ones will fail and which will succeed .
While the United States is the global leader on vaccine research and can access substantial production capacity , that is no guarantee of getting to a successful candidate first , or of having the wherewithal to produce a sufficient domestic supply without the need for cross-national cooperation .
The worldwide scramble to line up vaccine candidates with scaled production is already underway , and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries will find the right formula before the U.S. government does .
It is because of concerns about controlling available supply that the United States might balk at joining a coordinated international effort .
This is not to suggest that there are not legitimate questions of prioritization , especially in the early stages of a vaccination campaign .
For instance , it might makes sense , and save more lives , if all of the world ’ s front-line medical personnel and high-risk populations were vaccinated first before supply is diverted to lower-risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-income countries .
Still , as reasonable as such a plan might be , it may not be realistic to expect the United States—or the U.K. , Japan , or Germany for that matter—to finance the research and production of a vaccine only to have some of the supply it made possible shipped to other countries at the expense of the health of its own population .
In the thick of a pandemic , such a move could stir popular resentment that might compound the world ’ s already substantial list of problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not necessary to decide such questions .
There are many steps that must be completed first before deciding how to prioritize cross-national distribution of available supply .
If that controversial issue can be set aside for later discussion , it should be possible for the United States to not only participate in but to lead a global vaccination campaign , which would benefit citizens the world over and would of course also be in our own interest .
No other country can match the United States ’ s financial resources , scientific expertise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And even the Trump administration should be able to grasp the importance and historic value of our country leading a successful campaign to end a pandemic that is causing so much harm to health and economic well-being all over the world .

COVID-19 anywhere is COVID-19 everywhere.” That’s Melinda Gates’s sound bite-sized summation of the case for robust global cooperation in the search for, and production of, an effective coronavirus vaccine. She’s not wrong of course, but her formulation—and the early signals coming from the emerging international consortium of which her foundation is a part—might leave insufficient room for the exigencies of domestic politics. A clearer description of what exactly such cooperation will entail, most especially regarding control over distribution, would improve the chances of U.S. participation.
Gates’s comments were made in the context of the announcement of a new international effort to produce and deploy a vaccine to stop the pandemic. Her foundation, together with the European Union, the World Health Organization, prominent nonprofits promoting global vaccination campaigns, and a large roster of world leaders—including Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel, Shinzo Abe, and Emmanuel Macron—committed themselves to supporting a coordinated international response to completing this immense and complicated endeavor. Their goal is to ensure “equitable access” across the globe, by which they mean that availability in lower-income countries should be not be constrained because rich nations have cornered the world’s production capacity. Notable absentees were the United States, Russia, and India. China’s ambassador to the EU participated in an online pledging campaign but committed no financial support.
It is undeniable that the pandemic demands an international perspective. No country can fully protect itself from harm—physical or economic—by securing vaccinations for just its own population. Until vaccination is widespread globally, the virus will continue to spread across national boundaries and precipitate costly lockdowns that slow the world economy. Further, because vaccination rates may not reach 100 percent in many countries (for various reasons), and the virus might mutate, partially vaccinated populations may not be invulnerable to new infections and outbreaks seeded by travel from unvaccinated areas.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The world’s high-income countries, including the United States, also have much to gain from a cooperative effort. Working together will allow them to share the logistical and financial burdens of executing the many complex steps that are necessary for successful discovery and deployment of a vaccine. Settling on the most promising candidates, running the necessary clinical trials, scaling up manufacturing capacity in dispersed locations (even before it is known which vaccines will work), ensuring supply chains are sufficient for mass deployment, setting aside the funding required to purchase doses for the world’s entire population—all of this and more will be hastened and strengthened when conducted within a coordinated international plan of action.
Further, a go-it-alone strategy would be risky, even for the United States. Vaccine research is a highly unpredictable business. As many vaccine experts have said, the best approach is to support multiple early candidates because it is not possible to know in advance which ones will fail and which will succeed. While the United States is the global leader on vaccine research and can access substantial production capacity, that is no guarantee of getting to a successful candidate first, or of having the wherewithal to produce a sufficient domestic supply without the need for cross-national cooperation. The worldwide scramble to line up vaccine candidates with scaled production is already underway, and is messy. It is possible that other countries will find the right formula before the U.S. government does.
It is because of concerns about controlling available supply that the United States might balk at joining a coordinated international effort. This is not to suggest that there are not legitimate questions of prioritization, especially in the early stages of a vaccination campaign. For instance, it might makes sense, and save more lives, if all of the world’s front-line medical personnel and high-risk populations were vaccinated first before supply is diverted to lower-risk groups, such as healthy individuals in high-income countries.
Still, as reasonable as such a plan might be, it may not be realistic to expect the United States—or the U.K., Japan, or Germany for that matter—to finance the research and production of a vaccine only to have some of the supply it made possible shipped to other countries at the expense of the health of its own population. In the thick of a pandemic, such a move could stir popular resentment that might compound the world’s already substantial list of problems.
At this stage, it is not necessary to decide such questions. There are many steps that must be completed first before deciding how to prioritize cross-national distribution of available supply.
If that controversial issue can be set aside for later discussion, it should be possible for the United States to not only participate in but to lead a global vaccination campaign, which would benefit citizens the world over and would of course also be in our own interest. No other country can match the United States’s financial resources, scientific expertise, and private-sector engagement and scaling capacity. And even the Trump administration should be able to grasp the importance and historic value of our country leading a successful campaign to end a pandemic that is causing so much harm to health and economic well-being all over the world.


thebulwark--2020-05-08--Can Biden Compete with Trump Digitally?

Can Biden Compete with Trump Digitally?

The digital divide exposed by COVID-19 plagues rural Americans , minorities , the poor—and Joe Biden .
Biden ’ s pre-existing condition was a lack of digital capacity .
Now the virtual world foisted on us by this pandemic has prioritized digital communication—licensing Donald Trump ’ s relentless dishonesty .
The New York Times cites an example : A doctored video concocted by the Trump campaign , splicing Biden ’ s speeches to portray him as hopelessly senescent , generated 5 million views the day it was posted in March .
Biden has 5.3 million Twitter followers to Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fans to Trump ’ s 29.2 million .
The potential consequences became obvious in 2016 , when Trump ’ s campaign invested heavily in the cheapest means of messaging : digital advertising and communication .
The Trump team flattened Clinton in cyberspace .
Using Facebook marketing tools , Trump ’ s digital director Brad Parscale mined granular data on millions of Facebook users .
He then microtargeted disparate groups most likely respond to individualized messages with a specific purpose—arousing support for Trump or suppressing turnout for Clinton .
The New Yorker cites an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Hillary Clinton referring to African Americans as “ superpredators.
” Overall , Trump placed 5.9 million ads on Facebook ; Clinton just 66,000 .
In return for this massive investment , Facebook dispatched an employee to help Trump use its data to maximum effect .
Little wonder that a Facebook executive later opined in a memo that Trump “ got elected because he ran the single best digital ad campaign I ’ ve ever seen.
” For 2020 , Parscale has boasted , “ we have turned the RNC into one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history.
” And on Thursday—perhaps forgetting how the Star Wars movies end—Parscale tweeted out a warning that the Trump campaign ’ s digital efforts were a weaponized Death Star : But what makes Trump so insidious , said McKay Coppins on CNN , is “ that we have not had a president , at least in a couple generations , this willing to say things that are flatly untrue .
.
.
.
The Trump campaign is actively trying to .
.
.
make it so that there is no common set of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separate out what ’ s true and what ’ s not.
” Trump , Coppins reports , will spend over $ 1 billion in “ what could be the most extensive disinformation campaign in U.S. history.
” Once again , Facebook will help .
Remarkably , it refuses to hold political advertising to the same standards of honesty required of commercial advertisers .
It ’ s okay for Trump to seek reelection by lying about Biden ; it ’ s only wrong if GE lies about a toaster oven .
Facebook ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ falsehoods Trump pays it to propagate .
But , as Coppins notes , Trump ran 14,000 different ads on impeachment alone—there ’ s simply no way for reporters to keep up .
Now lying is cheaper than ever : Because of the pandemic , Facebook has lowered its advertising rates .
In this environment , deceptions can outrun truth .
In 2018 , the New Yorker reports , three MIT computer scientists found that fake news stories spread faster on Twitter than legitimate articles , This invites Trump ’ s mendacious hyperbole .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign , ” David Plouffe told the Times : “ you look at groups of voters who aren ’ t going to vote for Trump , and you design communication that makes it intolerable for those voters to vote for Biden.
” But another goal is to inflame occasional voters who might be predisposed toward Trump .
Trump has numerous weapons .
Using smartphones ’ unique IDs , he can microtarget potential voters based on their locations .
He can take data on a key voting segment and , through Facebook , identify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relates , the campaign has developed a texting platform that can send anonymous messages to millions of voters without their permission .
This is mind control on steroids .
Already Trump ’ s followers prioritize emotional gratification over truth—accepting disinformation bonds them with their leader .
That ’ s how totalitarianism starts : Loyalists not only countenance untruths , they crave them .
To counteract Biden ’ s digital shortfall , his campaign has beefed up its Facebook advertising in battleground states , and several independent groups are supplementing this effort in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s relentless dishonesty poses a question with profound implications for democracy itself : How can Democrats win without following suit ?
A group of progressive digital experts founded by Tara McGowan , Acronym , proposes an answer : Weaponize truth .
Unlike Trump , McGowan told me , “ Democrats don ’ t need to spread disinformation in order to win .
They need to invest in getting the facts to voters .
Our hypothesis is that if we can reach them with actual news which supports our message , we can educate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its affiliated super-PAC , dubbed Pacronym ) is testing ads with 1.9 million voters across five battleground states , part of a projected $ 75 million campaign .
One focus is “ laying out the facts ” on Trump ’ s handling of COVID-19 by identifying voters without fixed political beliefs , then sending them “ boosted news ” —actual stories from mainstream media .
Quicker and cheaper than producing political ads , this method amplifies factual reportage far beyond its original reach .
The results intrigue .
In one test , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s early denigration of the pandemic , but strongly to reports about healthcare workers deprived of the means to protect themselves .
Other ads juxtapose clips of Trump bragging about high TV ratings for his COVID-19 briefings with the mounting death toll for the pandemic itself , and his rosy predictions about the economy with the financial catastrophe faced by millions of Americans .
This raises the ultimate question : Can Trump lie his way out of an all-enveloping pandemic ?
McGowan and her team are betting that he can not .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past claims and promises , despite the video record .
But reality bites .
Unemployment claims skyrocket ; the Trump-era stock market gains evanesce ; the death toll passes 75,000 .
Truth may , at last , be too hard to erase .
The pandemic is writing its own story .
Come November , we will see how it ends .

The digital divide exposed by COVID-19 plagues rural Americans, minorities, the poor—and Joe Biden.
Biden’s pre-existing condition was a lack of digital capacity. Now the virtual world foisted on us by this pandemic has prioritized digital communication—licensing Donald Trump’s relentless dishonesty.
The New York Times cites an example: A doctored video concocted by the Trump campaign, splicing Biden’s speeches to portray him as hopelessly senescent, generated 5 million views the day it was posted in March. Biden has 5.3 million Twitter followers to Trump’s 79.4 million; 1.9 million Facebook fans to Trump’s 29.2 million.
The potential consequences became obvious in 2016, when Trump’s campaign invested heavily in the cheapest means of messaging: digital advertising and communication.
The Trump team flattened Clinton in cyberspace. Using Facebook marketing tools, Trump’s digital director Brad Parscale mined granular data on millions of Facebook users. He then microtargeted disparate groups most likely respond to individualized messages with a specific purpose—arousing support for Trump or suppressing turnout for Clinton. The New Yorker cites an example: an ad playing old audio of Hillary Clinton referring to African Americans as “superpredators.”
Overall, Trump placed 5.9 million ads on Facebook; Clinton just 66,000. In return for this massive investment, Facebook dispatched an employee to help Trump use its data to maximum effect. Little wonder that a Facebook executive later opined in a memo that Trump “got elected because he ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen.”
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
For 2020, Parscale has boasted, “we have turned the RNC into one of the largest data-gathering operations in United States history.” And on Thursday—perhaps forgetting how the Star Wars movies end—Parscale tweeted out a warning that the Trump campaign’s digital efforts were a weaponized Death Star:
For nearly three years we have been building a juggernaut campaign (Death Star). It is firing on all cylinders. Data, Digital, TV, Political, Surrogates, Coalitions, etc. In a few days we start pressing FIRE for the first time. pic.twitter.com/aJgCNfx1m0 — Brad Parscale – Download our Trump 2020 App today! (@parscale) May 7, 2020
But what makes Trump so insidious, said McKay Coppins on CNN, is “that we have not had a president, at least in a couple generations, this willing to say things that are flatly untrue. . . . The Trump campaign is actively trying to . . . make it so that there is no common set of facts . . . no way to separate out what’s true and what’s not.”
Trump, Coppins reports, will spend over $1 billion in “what could be the most extensive disinformation campaign in U.S. history.” Once again, Facebook will help. Remarkably, it refuses to hold political advertising to the same standards of honesty required of commercial advertisers. It’s okay for Trump to seek reelection by lying about Biden; it’s only wrong if GE lies about a toaster oven.
Facebook’s rationale is that journalists will expose the falsehoods Trump pays it to propagate. But, as Coppins notes, Trump ran 14,000 different ads on impeachment alone—there’s simply no way for reporters to keep up. Now lying is cheaper than ever: Because of the pandemic, Facebook has lowered its advertising rates.
In this environment, deceptions can outrun truth. In 2018, the New Yorker reports, three MIT computer scientists found that fake news stories spread faster on Twitter than legitimate articles,
in part because they were more likely to provoke an immediate emotional response in users. The same phenomenon appears to hold true for other social-media platforms and to apply to misinformation as well as fearmongering, rage bait, and racist propaganda, all of which go viral more readily than calm, patient deliberation.
This invites Trump’s mendacious hyperbole. “If you’re the Trump campaign,” David Plouffe told the Times: “you look at groups of voters who aren’t going to vote for Trump, and you design communication that makes it intolerable for those voters to vote for Biden.” But another goal is to inflame occasional voters who might be predisposed toward Trump.
Trump has numerous weapons. Using smartphones’ unique IDs, he can microtarget potential voters based on their locations. He can take data on a key voting segment and, through Facebook, identify similar voters nationwide. Further, Coppins relates, the campaign has developed a texting platform that can send anonymous messages to millions of voters without their permission.
This is mind control on steroids. Already Trump’s followers prioritize emotional gratification over truth—accepting disinformation bonds them with their leader. That’s how totalitarianism starts: Loyalists not only countenance untruths, they crave them.
To counteract Biden’s digital shortfall, his campaign has beefed up its Facebook advertising in battleground states, and several independent groups are supplementing this effort in a coordinated overall strategy. But Trump’s relentless dishonesty poses a question with profound implications for democracy itself: How can Democrats win without following suit?
A group of progressive digital experts founded by Tara McGowan, Acronym, proposes an answer: Weaponize truth.
Unlike Trump, McGowan told me, “Democrats don’t need to spread disinformation in order to win. They need to invest in getting the facts to voters. Our hypothesis is that if we can reach them with actual news which supports our message, we can educate and persuade.”
Accordingly, Acronym (and its affiliated super-PAC, dubbed Pacronym) is testing ads with 1.9 million voters across five battleground states, part of a projected $75 million campaign. One focus is “laying out the facts” on Trump’s handling of COVID-19 by identifying voters without fixed political beliefs, then sending them “boosted news”—actual stories from mainstream media. Quicker and cheaper than producing political ads, this method amplifies factual reportage far beyond its original reach.
The results intrigue. In one test, voters reacted with indifference to Trump’s early denigration of the pandemic, but strongly to reports about healthcare workers deprived of the means to protect themselves. Other ads juxtapose clips of Trump bragging about high TV ratings for his COVID-19 briefings with the mounting death toll for the pandemic itself, and his rosy predictions about the economy with the financial catastrophe faced by millions of Americans.
This raises the ultimate question: Can Trump lie his way out of an all-enveloping pandemic? McGowan and her team are betting that he cannot.
We have already seen Trump denying his own past claims and promises, despite the video record. But reality bites. Unemployment claims skyrocket; the Trump-era stock market gains evanesce; the death toll passes 75,000. Truth may, at last, be too hard to erase. The pandemic is writing its own story.
Come November, we will see how it ends.


thebulwark--2020-05-08--Actually, the Orange Man Is Bad

Actually, the Orange Man Is Bad

This week America tallied the 75,000th official death from COVID-19—the real number won ’ t be known until after the crisis has passed and will be much higher .
Last week the 30 millionth unemployment claim was submitted .
Amidst this death and destruction the president of the United States has been spending his days pecking around on his iPhone , tweeting that certain cable TV hosts are murderers and dogs and that the husband of his top strategist is a “ moonface ” loser .
Oh , and he claimed—again—that the opposition party and the American media are “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is impossible to imagine a circumstance in which such behavior would be viewed as acceptable in normal life .
Imagine sitting at a funeral service and seeing somebody standing a short distance away yelling and caterwauling about how the mourners or the priest were “ dogs ” and “ The Enemy of the People !
” Would you think that man was in full control of his faculties ?
Or what if you ’ re working over at Initech and your friend Don from accounting started shitposting on social media about one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Intertrode ?
Would this strike you as professional behavior for an adult in the workplace ?
Hell : What if the principal at your kid ’ s school started ranting and raving publicly about parents he didn ’ t like .
Would the PTA shrug ?
Or would they ride his ass out on a rail ?
We sit at the most consequential moment in a generation and it is now clear that it is not the case that President Trump doesn ’ t want to change his behavior .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it even for a single day .
The malignant self-obsession and childish vitriol only scratches the surface of the man ’ s flaws .
His compulsions aren ’ t hidden or covered up .
They are broadcast for the entire country to see , for hours on end , every day , late into the night .
Here is where the final corruption takes place .
Trump ’ s behavior is so far outside the realm of acceptable that even his supporters have been forced to concede it .
And so , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have chosen to embrace his vile abnormality and wear it as a badge of honor , turning it into a rallying cry to attack anyone who is bothered by the behavior .
As if , by taking ownership of this fact , it somehow invalidates it .
To these Trump supporters , and cos-play non-supporters , it is only the simpleminded folk who cling to the superstitious belief that a bad man having the most important job in the world is a serious concern .
Those of us who are bothered by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t able to see the big picture .
The view of these sophisticates is that yes this man is bad , but also maybe having him in charge can be .
.
.
not bad .
Maybe even good .
For as bad as President Orange Man is , there are more pressing matters that serious people must consider .
For instance : What if a daytime CNN anchor uses hyperbole ?
Or a Washington Post columnist publishes a tweet that contradicts a tweet she tweeted three years ago ?
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is a liberal who needs to be owned ?
Are Republicans and conservatives—and even conscientious non-Trump supporters—supposed to obsess over every little thing the leader of the free world says and does and ignore the bigger game that ’ s afoot ?
Just because 2,000 Americans are dying from a pandemic every day ?
This conceit is endlessly fascinating to me .
It ’ s the old debate trick of performatively conceding the lesser point in order to win the broader point—but in reverse .
Trump ’ s people concede the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue the ephemera .
So they employ the MAGAfied “ Orange Man Bad ” retort on social media as a way of stepping over his badness to address something else , rather than engage with it .
The Orange Man Bad practitioners would argue that they are simply trying to expose the shallowness of Trump ’ s opposition , the weakness of their argumentation .
And while the phenomena of # resistance members opposing a policy that they might otherwise support were it not for the Bad Orange Man being behind it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political matter , conceding that the president is bad is not the strongest turf for pointing out your foe ’ s weak argumentation .
So yes , trolls , it is true that my anti-Trump arguments are occasionally influenced by the fact that the president is one of the worst humans I have ever had the displeasure of encountering in my life .
I do not look at every issue in the imaginary vacuum where this is not the case .
You got me .
Last week Ben Shapiro , someone who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debater , tweeted asking “ What ’ s [ Biden ’ s ] case for being president , other than Orange Man Bad ?
” And while I could come up with a substantive argument for Biden on the merits , it led me to wonder : Doesn ’ t the question actually answer itself ?
The badness is enough .
The badness is so bad that it ’ s all that really matters in our politics right now .
Trump supporters themselves have acknowledged with great specificity the badness .
A Clinical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s fans thought he was more sadistic and narcissistic than 90 percent of people .
Trump surrogates have said he ’ s a “ pathological liar ” who “ doesn ’ t know the difference between truth and lies , ” a “ narcissist at a level I don ’ t think this country has ever seen ” and is of course , “ utterly a moron.
” Oh wait that was just Constitutional Conservative Ted Cruz—on a single day .
We could spend hours listing every other description of Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his current supporters over the years .
But there ’ s not much point .
Because the plain fact is that Donald Trump is not just a bad man .
He is an avatar for iniquity and immorality and selfishness .
He runs the table on the seven deadly sins and demonstrates not a trace of any of the four cardinal virtues .
He possesses not a single character trait that you would want your child to fully emulate .
He cares about nothing and no one besides himself .
The country is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is utterly aloof to their suffering .
So I write this simply to let those who are unwilling to stand up to him for whatever reason know that on this one matter we wholeheartedly concur : The Orange Man is bad indeed .

This week America tallied the 75,000th official death from COVID-19—the real number won’t be known until after the crisis has passed and will be much higher.
Last week the 30 millionth unemployment claim was submitted.
Amidst this death and destruction the president of the United States has been spending his days pecking around on his iPhone, tweeting that certain cable TV hosts are murderers and dogs and that the husband of his top strategist is a “moonface” loser. Oh, and he claimed—again—that the opposition party and the American media are “The Enemy of the People!”
It is impossible to imagine a circumstance in which such behavior would be viewed as acceptable in normal life. Imagine sitting at a funeral service and seeing somebody standing a short distance away yelling and caterwauling about how the mourners or the priest were “dogs” and “The Enemy of the People!”
Would you think that man was in full control of his faculties?
Or what if you’re working over at Initech and your friend Don from accounting started shitposting on social media about one of your company’s competitors, Intertrode?
Would this strike you as professional behavior for an adult in the workplace?
Hell: What if the principal at your kid’s school started ranting and raving publicly about parents he didn’t like.
Would the PTA shrug? Or would they ride his ass out on a rail?
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
We sit at the most consequential moment in a generation and it is now clear that it is not the case that President Trump doesn’t want to change his behavior. It’s that he is congenitally incapable to moderate it even for a single day.
The malignant self-obsession and childish vitriol only scratches the surface of the man’s flaws. His compulsions aren’t hidden or covered up. They are broadcast for the entire country to see, for hours on end, every day, late into the night.
Here is where the final corruption takes place. Trump’s behavior is so far outside the realm of acceptable that even his supporters have been forced to concede it.
And so, because they are unwilling to abandon Trump, they have chosen to embrace his vile abnormality and wear it as a badge of honor, turning it into a rallying cry to attack anyone who is bothered by the behavior.
“Orange Man Bad,” they say.
As if, by taking ownership of this fact, it somehow invalidates it.
To these Trump supporters, and cos-play non-supporters, it is only the simpleminded folk who cling to the superstitious belief that a bad man having the most important job in the world is a serious concern. Those of us who are bothered by the insane ravings of a narcissistic imbecile aren’t able to see the big picture.
The view of these sophisticates is that yes this man is bad, but also maybe having him in charge can be . . . not bad. Maybe even good. For as bad as President Orange Man is, there are more pressing matters that serious people must consider.
For instance: What if a daytime CNN anchor uses hyperbole?
Or a Washington Post columnist publishes a tweet that contradicts a tweet she tweeted three years ago?
What if, somewhere in the universe, there is a liberal who needs to be owned?
Are Republicans and conservatives—and even conscientious non-Trump supporters—supposed to obsess over every little thing the leader of the free world says and does and ignore the bigger game that’s afoot?
Just because 2,000 Americans are dying from a pandemic every day?
Get real, bro.
This conceit is endlessly fascinating to me. It’s the old debate trick of performatively conceding the lesser point in order to win the broader point—but in reverse. Trump’s people concede the most significant matter just so that they can argue the ephemera.
So they employ the MAGAfied “Orange Man Bad” retort on social media as a way of stepping over his badness to address something else, rather than engage with it.
The Orange Man Bad practitioners would argue that they are simply trying to expose the shallowness of Trump’s opposition, the weakness of their argumentation.
And while the phenomena of #resistance members opposing a policy that they might otherwise support were it not for the Bad Orange Man being behind it has certainly been known to exist, as a political matter, conceding that the president is bad is not the strongest turf for pointing out your foe’s weak argumentation.
So yes, trolls, it is true that my anti-Trump arguments are occasionally influenced by the fact that the president is one of the worst humans I have ever had the displeasure of encountering in my life. I do not look at every issue in the imaginary vacuum where this is not the case. You got me.
Last week Ben Shapiro, someone who has made his mark as a skilled debater, tweeted asking “What’s [Biden’s] case for being president, other than Orange Man Bad?”
And while I could come up with a substantive argument for Biden on the merits, it led me to wonder: Doesn’t the question actually answer itself?
The badness is enough. The badness is so bad that it’s all that really matters in our politics right now.
Trump supporters themselves have acknowledged with great specificity the badness. A Clinical Psychological Science study showed that even Trump’s fans thought he was more sadistic and narcissistic than 90 percent of people.
Trump surrogates have said he’s a “pathological liar” who “doesn’t know the difference between truth and lies,” a “narcissist at a level I don’t think this country has ever seen” and is of course, “utterly a moron.”
Oh wait that was just Constitutional Conservative Ted Cruz—on a single day.
We could spend hours listing every other description of Donald Trump’s manifest character flaws uttered by his current supporters over the years. But there’s not much point.
Because the plain fact is that Donald Trump is not just a bad man. He is an avatar for iniquity and immorality and selfishness. He runs the table on the seven deadly sins and demonstrates not a trace of any of the four cardinal virtues. He possesses not a single character trait that you would want your child to fully emulate. He cares about nothing and no one besides himself.
The country is suffering from his badness. And he is utterly aloof to their suffering.
So I write this simply to let those who are unwilling to stand up to him for whatever reason know that on this one matter we wholeheartedly concur:
The Orange Man is bad indeed.


thebulwark--2020-05-09--Bill Barr Wants Us to Pretend Flynn’s Lies Don’t Matter

Attorney General William Barr ’ s motion to dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn has justifiably provoked , “ in addition to outrage , a sense of utter demoralization ” within the law enforcement community .
Barr ’ s arguments are so convoluted and wrong that they don ’ t even begin to make sense , either as a matter of law or common sense .
It is now up to U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan to decide whether or not to grant the motion and dismiss the case .
Judge Sullivan can do the country a great service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves and , ultimately , denying the motion .
The issue is not overly complicated .
One doesn ’ t need to be an expert in criminal law to see through Barr ’ s specious argument .
On November 30 , 2017 , Flynn pleaded guilty to “ willfully and knowingly ” making two “ materially false , fictitious , and fraudulent ” statements to agents of the FBI : 1 ) Flynn falsely denied asking Sergey Kislyak , then Russia ’ s ambassador to the United States , on December 29 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day ; and 2 ) Flynn falsely denied that he had asked the Russian ambassador to delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution .
According to the government ’ s Statement of the Offense , which was part of Flynn ’ s plea agreement , at the time Flynn told these lies , the FBI had an open investigation into Russia ’ s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals associated with the Campaign [ i.e.
, the 2016 Trump presidential campaign ] and Russia , and whether there was any coordination between the Campaign and Russia ’ s efforts.
” None of this is disputed in Barr ’ s motion to dismiss the charges against Flynn .
Rather , Barr claims that the case should be dismissed because the DOJ does not believe that Flynn ’ s statements were “ material [ to the underlying investigation ] even if untrue.
” Materiality is an essential element of the crime to which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lie to be a crime , it must be material to the underlying investigation .
As Barr ’ s motion points out , the materiality threshold ensures that misstatements to investigators are criminalized only when linked to the particular subject of their investigation .
At the time Flynn made his statements , the government was pursuing two related counterintelligence investigations , codenamed Crossfire Hurricane and Crossfire Razor .
Crossfire Hurricane , opened in July of 2016 , focused on whether individuals associated with the Trump campaign were coordinating , wittingly or unwittingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election .
The Crossfire Razor investigation arose out of Crossfire Hurricane .
Crossfire Razor was the FBI ’ s codename for Flynn .
According to a January 4 , 2017 draft FBI closing memorandum , the subject of the investigation was whether Flynn “ may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.
” It would seem obvious that a secret conversation between Flynn and the Russian ambassador @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ linked ” to the subject of the investigation of whether Flynn “ coordinated activities ” with Russia in a manner that could be a threat to national security , but goes to the very heart of it .
But if that weren ’ t enough , think about what the FBI already knew before it interviewed Flynn on January 24 , 2017 : • The FBI not only knew that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kislyak , they had full transcripts of the discussions , obtained through routine , entirely legal electronic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13 , 2017 , Trump ’ s transition spokesman Sean Spicer had laid out a timeline that the FBI knew to be false , claiming that Flynn ’ s communications with the Russian ambassador had been nothing more than holiday greetings and routine discussion of “ the logistics of setting up a call ” with the president of Russia .
“ That was it , plain and simple ” ; • On January 15 , 2017 , Vice President-elect Mike Pence , specifically citing Flynn as the source of his information , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discuss anything having to do with the United States ’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure on Russia.
” Flynn ’ s conversations , according to Pence , “ had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions.
” In other words , at the time they conducted the interview , the FBI knew that Flynn had discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador in a way that arguably undermined the policy of his own government , and that Flynn had likely lied to the future vice president and the future White House spokesman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a brain could understand that this turn of events not only justified an interview with Flynn , but required one .
Failing to conduct the interview in these circumstances would have been a shocking dereliction of duty .
But Barr has come up with a convoluted , specious argument that even if Flynn lied about his dealings with Russia , the lies weren ’ t “ material.
” It goes something like this : Before Flynn ’ s late-December call with Kislyak , the FBI had planned to close the Crossfire Razor investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any “ derogatory information.
” Even though the closing memorandum was still in draft form , had not yet been approved , and the investigation had not yet been closed , the Crossfire Razor investigation was somehow “ no longer justifiably predicated.
” Neither the discovery of the secret communications between Flynn and Russia nor the fact that Flynn had lied about them to Pence and Spicer changed anything .
In other words , because the investigation hadn ’ t found any derogatory information about Flynn until they did find some , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” And because the government investigators thought about closing the investigation before they obtained new incriminating evidence , the investigation should have been considered closed even though it was open .
This is just rubbish .
The Crossfire Razor investigation was open when the FBI interviewed Flynn .
And at the time of the interview , the FBI knew that Flynn had held secret discussions with Russia about national security matters , and then lied about it repeatedly .
They had to interview him .
Moreover , the umbrella investigation under which Crossfire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was also still open .
Secret conversations with Russia about sanctions imposed by the Obama administration were potentially highly relevant to the issue of possible coordination with Russia ’ s interference in the 2016 election .
At the very least , such dealings would raise the question of possible payback for Russia ’ s help with the election .
There are at least two likely explanations for Barr ’ s taking such an obviously bogus position .
The most obvious is that he was—yet again—acting primarily to please Trump , his mentor and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps equally likely , is that Barr doesn ’ t like the way the FBI conducted the interview .
Barr clearly believes that rather than handing Flynn the rope with which he could hang himself , the FBI should have told him in advance that they knew there was a disconnect between the facts and what Flynn had told Spicer and Pence , and steered him onto safe ground .
But that wouldn ’ t provide a legal rationale for dismissing the case , so Barr had to make one up .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it really doesn ’ t matter what pretext Barr offers for his actions .
What matters is that he is subverting justice .
Judge Sullivan should not let him get away with it .

Attorney General William Barr’s motion to dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn has justifiably provoked, “in addition to outrage, a sense of utter demoralization” within the law enforcement community.
Barr’s arguments are so convoluted and wrong that they don’t even begin to make sense, either as a matter of law or common sense.
It is now up to U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan to decide whether or not to grant the motion and dismiss the case. Judge Sullivan can do the country a great service by demanding that the government prosecutors explain themselves and, ultimately, denying the motion.
The issue is not overly complicated. One doesn’t need to be an expert in criminal law to see through Barr’s specious argument.
On November 30, 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to “willfully and knowingly” making two “materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent” statements to agents of the FBI:
1) Flynn falsely denied asking Sergey Kislyak, then Russia’s ambassador to the United States, on December 29, 2016 to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day; and
2) Flynn falsely denied that he had asked the Russian ambassador to delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution.
According to the government’s Statement of the Offense, which was part of Flynn’s plea agreement, at the time Flynn told these lies, the FBI had an open investigation into Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election, “including the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Campaign [i.e., the 2016 Trump presidential campaign] and Russia, and whether there was any coordination between the Campaign and Russia’s efforts.”
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
None of this is disputed in Barr’s motion to dismiss the charges against Flynn. Rather, Barr claims that the case should be dismissed because the DOJ does not believe that Flynn’s statements were “material [to the underlying investigation] even if untrue.”
Materiality is an essential element of the crime to which Flynn pled guilty. In order for a lie to be a crime, it must be material to the underlying investigation. As Barr’s motion points out, the materiality threshold ensures that misstatements to investigators are criminalized only when linked to the particular subject of their investigation.
At the time Flynn made his statements, the government was pursuing two related counterintelligence investigations, codenamed Crossfire Hurricane and Crossfire Razor.
Crossfire Hurricane, opened in July of 2016, focused on whether individuals associated with the Trump campaign were coordinating, wittingly or unwittingly, with the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
The Crossfire Razor investigation arose out of Crossfire Hurricane. Crossfire Razor was the FBI’s codename for Flynn. According to a January 4, 2017 draft FBI closing memorandum, the subject of the investigation was whether Flynn “may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.”
It would seem obvious that a secret conversation between Flynn and the Russian ambassador about national security issues is not only “linked” to the subject of the investigation of whether Flynn “coordinated activities” with Russia in a manner that could be a threat to national security, but goes to the very heart of it.
But if that weren’t enough, think about what the FBI already knew before it interviewed Flynn on January 24, 2017:
The FBI not only knew that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kislyak, they had full transcripts of the discussions, obtained through routine, entirely legal electronic surveillance of Kislyak;
On January 13, 2017, Trump’s transition spokesman Sean Spicer had laid out a timeline that the FBI knew to be false, claiming that Flynn’s communications with the Russian ambassador had been nothing more than holiday greetings and routine discussion of “the logistics of setting up a call” with the president of Russia. “That was it, plain and simple”;
On January 15, 2017, Vice President-elect Mike Pence, specifically citing Flynn as the source of his information, said that Flynn and Kislyak “did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure on Russia.” Flynn’s conversations, according to Pence, “had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions.”
In other words, at the time they conducted the interview, the FBI knew that Flynn had discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador in a way that arguably undermined the policy of his own government, and that Flynn had likely lied to the future vice president and the future White House spokesman about those conversations.
Anybody with half a brain could understand that this turn of events not only justified an interview with Flynn, but required one. Failing to conduct the interview in these circumstances would have been a shocking dereliction of duty.
But Barr has come up with a convoluted, specious argument that even if Flynn lied about his dealings with Russia, the lies weren’t “material.” It goes something like this:
Before Flynn’s late-December call with Kislyak, the FBI had planned to close the Crossfire Razor investigation because it hadn’t turned up any “derogatory information.” Even though the closing memorandum was still in draft form, had not yet been approved, and the investigation had not yet been closed, the Crossfire Razor investigation was somehow “no longer justifiably predicated.” Neither the discovery of the secret communications between Flynn and Russia nor the fact that Flynn had lied about them to Pence and Spicer changed anything.
In other words, because the investigation hadn’t found any derogatory information about Flynn until they did find some, the investigation was “no longer justifiably predicated.” And because the government investigators thought about closing the investigation before they obtained new incriminating evidence, the investigation should have been considered closed even though it was open.
This is just rubbish.
The Crossfire Razor investigation was open when the FBI interviewed Flynn. And at the time of the interview, the FBI knew that Flynn had held secret discussions with Russia about national security matters, and then lied about it repeatedly. They had to interview him.
Moreover, the umbrella investigation under which Crossfire Razor was established, Crossfire Hurricane, was also still open. Secret conversations with Russia about sanctions imposed by the Obama administration were potentially highly relevant to the issue of possible coordination with Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. At the very least, such dealings would raise the question of possible payback for Russia’s help with the election.
There are at least two likely explanations for Barr’s taking such an obviously bogus position.
The most obvious is that he was—yet again—acting primarily to please Trump, his mentor and mob boss.
Less obvious, but perhaps equally likely, is that Barr doesn’t like the way the FBI conducted the interview. Barr clearly believes that rather than handing Flynn the rope with which he could hang himself, the FBI should have told him in advance that they knew there was a disconnect between the facts and what Flynn had told Spicer and Pence, and steered him onto safe ground. But that wouldn’t provide a legal rationale for dismissing the case, so Barr had to make one up.
At the end of the day, however, it really doesn’t matter what pretext Barr offers for his actions. What matters is that he is subverting justice.
Judge Sullivan should not let him get away with it.