thebulwark--2020-05-14--All He Does Is Fight

All He Does Is Fight

One of the chief selling points about Donald Trump in 2016 , one that persuaded many initially dubious Republicans , was the argument that “ he fights.
” Some of us tried to counter that his battles nearly always concerned his own fragile ego , not the cause of conservatism , nor even the Republican Party , but these objections were swept aside .
He was anointed the right ’ s champion , willing to do or say anything to get ( back ) at their enemies , or so they believed , and they were gratified .
Since January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the limits of fighting .
There were ample reasons before now to recoil from Trump ’ s style of combat .
It is so consistently cruel , witless , below-the-belt , and unhinged ( e.g .
his recent tweets implying that MSNBC host Joe Scarborough is guilty of murder ) , that it tainted by association any reasonable arguments that might be advanced for conservative ideas .
But in his handling of the coronavirus pandemic , we ’ ve witnessed that even when a dire emergency calls for traits other than bellicosity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do .
This is proving to be a catastrophe for the nation , and also for Trump ’ s own self-interest .
Who doubts that if , in January and February , when his intelligence briefers were warning of a public health disaster , Trump had adjusted his style just a bit , he would now be enjoying the kind of approval boost that other world leaders have banked ?
If , instead of minimizing the threat , trusting Xi Jinping to handle it , and lashing out at Democrats for exaggerating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he had attempted just a simulacrum of traditional leadership , he might now be coasting to reelection rather than bleeding support .
Disasters are opportunities as well as challenges , and while no president welcomes calamity on his watch , most recognize the chance to burnish their standing .
Bill Clinton lamented , after his two terms were complete , that he never faced a major crisis .
He was apparently regretting that the peace and prosperity the nation enjoyed during his tenure denied him the chance to be considered a great president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make it into the first tier in historians ’ rankings .
Confronting intelligence about an imminent world health crisis , Trump could have convened a special session of Congress ( before lockdowns ) .
With the unmatched optics of a joint session , he could have announced travel restrictions , requested a huge investment in testing , contact tracing , and supported isolation , and recommended the temporary relaxation of regulations to speed treatments and streamline supply chains .
He could have called upon Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader McConnell to chair a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distribution of testing and other medical supplies nationwide .
If he were truly rising above his instincts and were able to utter a few unifying words , there is no telling how different things might feel now .
He might have said : We have deep disagreements in this country .
There are bitter feelings between the parties .
But this is not a time for grievances .
We are facing a crisis .
It will hit all of us in different ways , some more grievously than others .
It will require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will call upon Americans ’ volunteer spirit and generosity .
I wish I could say it will be easy , but that just isn ’ t true .
This is a new threat and we have much to learn .
But one thing is certain : We will face this not as Democrats or Republicans , but as Americans .
American creativity , innovation , and flexibility have permitted us to meet great challenges before .
This time is no different .
If we unite , nothing will stop us .
In addition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such an approach would have buoyed national morale and set us on a path to control the outbreak .
But this president can ’ t choose comity even when it is blazingly obvious that nothing would better serve his own interests .
He fights not because he ’ s anyone ’ s knight in shining armor ; he fights because it ’ s the only mode he knows .
Since the disease began spreading , Trump has failed to develop a plan of action .
He has punted responsibility to governors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He has lied and dithered and hawked quack cures .
He has created confusion by forcing government agencies to waste time dealing with his callow son-in-law on a matter of urgent national concern .
But above all , he searched for someone to punch .
While the situation cried out for competent coordination and planning , for calm briefings with experts , he looked only for foils .
He fought with Democrats , exclaiming on February 28 that “ this is their new hoax.
” He tangled with insufficiently “ grateful ” governors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say .
.
.
don ’ t call the governor of Washington .
Don ’ t call the woman from Michigan.
” He disparaged frontline medical professionals , wondering on March 29 whether they were stealing masks ( “ Are they going out the back door ?
” ) .
He had a spat with congressional leadership in late February when they proposed an initial coronavirus package more than three times the size of Trump ’ s request ( “ Pelosi ’ s incompetent.
” He ’ s “ Cryin ’ Chuck Schumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gushing praise and began to blame China for the virus , encouraging the use of nicknames like “ Wuhan virus.
” He picked a fight with the Postal Service , poured out tweetstorms about his predecessor , whom he accused of dark crimes , and above all , from before dawn till after dark every single day , he battled the press .
The death toll mounts .
The economic damage is unprecedented .
Yes , he fights – and we all lose .

One of the chief selling points about Donald Trump in 2016, one that persuaded many initially dubious Republicans, was the argument that “he fights.” Some of us tried to counter that his battles nearly always concerned his own fragile ego, not the cause of conservatism, nor even the Republican Party, but these objections were swept aside. He was anointed the right’s champion, willing to do or say anything to get (back) at their enemies, or so they believed, and they were gratified.
Since January, we have witnessed a vivid lesson in the limits of fighting. There were ample reasons before now to recoil from Trump’s style of combat. It is so consistently cruel, witless, below-the-belt, and unhinged (e.g. his recent tweets implying that MSNBC host Joe Scarborough is guilty of murder), that it tainted by association any reasonable arguments that might be advanced for conservative ideas. But in his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, we’ve witnessed that even when a dire emergency calls for traits other than bellicosity, fighting is all he knows how to do. This is proving to be a catastrophe for the nation, and also for Trump’s own self-interest.
Who doubts that if, in January and February, when his intelligence briefers were warning of a public health disaster, Trump had adjusted his style just a bit, he would now be enjoying the kind of approval boost that other world leaders have banked? If, instead of minimizing the threat, trusting Xi Jinping to handle it, and lashing out at Democrats for exaggerating the danger to harm him politically, he had attempted just a simulacrum of traditional leadership, he might now be coasting to reelection rather than bleeding support.
Disasters are opportunities as well as challenges, and while no president welcomes calamity on his watch, most recognize the chance to burnish their standing. Bill Clinton lamented, after his two terms were complete, that he never faced a major crisis. He was apparently regretting that the peace and prosperity the nation enjoyed during his tenure denied him the chance to be considered a great president, since only wartime presidents seem to make it into the first tier in historians’ rankings.
Confronting intelligence about an imminent world health crisis, Trump could have convened a special session of Congress (before lockdowns). With the unmatched optics of a joint session, he could have announced travel restrictions, requested a huge investment in testing, contact tracing, and supported isolation, and recommended the temporary relaxation of regulations to speed treatments and streamline supply chains. He could have called upon Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader McConnell to chair a task force to coordinate the production and distribution of testing and other medical supplies nationwide. If he were truly rising above his instincts and were able to utter a few unifying words, there is no telling how different things might feel now. He might have said:
We have deep disagreements in this country. There are bitter feelings between the parties. But this is not a time for grievances. We are facing a crisis. It will hit all of us in different ways, some more grievously than others. It will require courage and sacrifice and patience. It will call upon Americans’ volunteer spirit and generosity. I wish I could say it will be easy, but that just isn’t true. This is a new threat and we have much to learn. But one thing is certain: We will face this not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans. American creativity, innovation, and flexibility have permitted us to meet great challenges before. This time is no different. If we unite, nothing will stop us.
In addition to enhancing Trump’s leadership credibility, such an approach would have buoyed national morale and set us on a path to control the outbreak. But this president can’t choose comity even when it is blazingly obvious that nothing would better serve his own interests. He fights not because he’s anyone’s knight in shining armor; he fights because it’s the only mode he knows.
Since the disease began spreading, Trump has failed to develop a plan of action. He has punted responsibility to governors, while claiming complete power for himself. He has lied and dithered and hawked quack cures. He has created confusion by forcing government agencies to waste time dealing with his callow son-in-law on a matter of urgent national concern. But above all, he searched for someone to punch.
While the situation cried out for competent coordination and planning, for calm briefings with experts, he looked only for foils. He fought with Democrats, exclaiming on February 28 that “this is their new hoax.” He tangled with insufficiently “grateful” governors who asked for supplies. “I say . . . don’t call the governor of Washington. Don’t call the woman from Michigan.” He disparaged frontline medical professionals, wondering on March 29 whether they were stealing masks (“Are they going out the back door?”). He had a spat with congressional leadership in late February when they proposed an initial coronavirus package more than three times the size of Trump’s request (“Pelosi’s incompetent.” He’s “Cryin’ Chuck Schumer”). He reversed his previous gushing praise and began to blame China for the virus, encouraging the use of nicknames like “Wuhan virus.” He picked a fight with the Postal Service, poured out tweetstorms about his predecessor, whom he accused of dark crimes, and above all, from before dawn till after dark every single day, he battled the press.
The death toll mounts. The economic damage is unprecedented.
Yes, he fights – and we all lose.


thebulwark--2020-05-14--Michael Flynn Can’t Just Walk Away from His Guilty Pleas

The judge presiding over the criminal case against former national security advisor Michael Flynn ruled on Tuesday that interested outsiders will be permitted to submit friend-of-the court briefs regarding the Department of Justice ’ s motion to dismiss the case .
Then , on Wednesday , the judge—Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia—appointed a retired judge , John Gleeson , to act as amicus curiae to present arguments against DOJ ’ s dismissal motion and to address whether Flynn should be held in contempt for perjury under 18 U.S.C .
§ 401 in connection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the FBI .
Sullivan is signaling that Flynn can not have it both ways .
Flynn , recall , lied to the FBI regarding his contacts with the former Russian ambassador in the midst of DOJ ’ s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election .
He admitted to his lies in a signed “ statement of offense.
” He accepted and signed a plea agreement admitting his guilt .
And , in two separate proceedings before federal judges—on December 1 , 2017 and again on December 18 , 2018—he pleaded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lies and their materiality .
He has been awaiting sentencing .
In the past few days , Trump supporters have assailed Sullivan as an out-of-line political hack who is unscrupulously willing to tolerate FBI wrongdoing .
Trump critics , meanwhile , are hailing the possibility that the judge will thwart Attorney General Bill Barr ’ s bid to let Flynn walk free of his crimes without President Trump having even to bother with a pardon .
The reality is that Judge Sullivan is a highly respected jurist with a reputation for holding government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rule 48 ( a ) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires “ leave of court ” before the government can successfully dismiss a criminal case , so Sullivan has broad discretion here .
By allowing others to argue against Barr ’ s motion , he is just doing his job .
There is nothing sinister lurking in his courtroom .
Unfortunately , the same can not be said for the DOJ itself .
Barr ’ s motion to dismiss the Flynn case post-conviction is highly unusual for a number of reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Flynn did not lie or that he was coerced into lying about lying by bad actors within the government .
Rather , Barr ’ s DOJ takes the position that Flynn ’ s admitted lies to the Russian ambassador about discussing possibly lifting Russian sanctions after Obama left office were not “ material ” to the government ’ s investigation into Russian interference in the recent election in the first place .
Flynn ’ s conviction for lying to federal law enforcement about discussing sanctions removal with the Russian ambassador is hardly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests that were at the heart of Robert Mueller ’ s nearly 450-page report of Russian interference on Trump ’ s behalf—interference which Mueller warned Congress is ongoing for the election in November .
Just last month , the Senate Intelligence Committee—chaired by Republican Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina—released its own 158-page report detailing similar conclusions that Russia engaged in broad efforts to influence the 2016 presidential race in Trump ’ s favor .
In short , Russia ’ s interference in 2016 to help Trump can be taken as empirical fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way , water is wet too . )
Barr ’ s claim that Flynn ’ s lie amounted to nothing is sinister , however , because it plays into the attorney general ’ s shameless mission to gaslight the American public and the world about the very basis for Flynn ’ s guilty plea : DOJ ’ s investigation into Russian interference in the election so Trump could win .
Recall that Barr auditioned for his current job in an unsolicited , 20-page memorandum to Trump back in June 2018 , in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record because he was not at DOJ then—that Trump “ made the accurate observation that Flynn ’ s call with the Russian Ambassador was perfectly proper and made the point that Flynn , who had now suffered public humiliation from losing his job , was a good man.
” And of course , Barr famously demolished Mueller ’ s work by issuing a four-page “ summary ” weeks before the release of the actual report , mischaracterizing Mueller ’ s findings as “ no evidence of collusion , ” when Mueller expressly rejected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy had not been identified .
Barr then stepped off his federal law enforcement post to trot around the globe to Italy and Australia in a reported attempt to drum up allegations that his own FBI team improperly targeted Trump and his campaign team during the Russia probe .
He also refused without justification to accept the painstaking conclusions of DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz that political bias did not infect the FBI ’ s actions on Russia .
Instead , Barr shoveled untold taxpayer dollars at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut , to re-do Horowitz ’ s work—presumably with a hopeful eye towards reaching a different conclusion .
Barr also tried to bury the whistleblower report of Trump ’ s quid-pro-quo scheme with Ukraine—despite a federal law unequivocally requiring that it be turned over to Congress—a missive that led to Trump ’ s impeachment .
And just today , Barr got his hands on a declassified list of Obama-era public servants from acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell .
The list purportedly includes the names of government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flynn ’ s phone calls with the Russian ambassador—the very calls that prompted his plea of guilty .
Given that the government and Flynn agree on dismissal of his case , Sullivan ’ s call for amicus briefs and Judge Gleeson ’ s involvement is not good news for Flynn .
Sullivan no doubt wants to hear the other point of view—some 2,000 former DOJ officials have condemned Barr ’ s dismissal motion and urged his resignation—on the theory that the public interest and the interests of justice demand it .
Flynn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robert Mueller ’ s office , after all , which was created precisely to avoid conflicts of interest with President Trump himself .
Once Barr took over this case—as well as the matter of Roger Stone , in which he recently intervened over career prosecutors to recommend a last-minute sentence reduction—the entire purpose of having an independent prosecutor was undermined .
Barr is biased in favor of his boss .
That said , Judge Sullivan will presumably allow briefs—and possibly testimony—in support of Flynn too , including expressions of the viewpoint that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The judge will have to take care so that the proceedings don ’ t become a circus .
But Sullivan is used to harshness of public scrutiny , having presided over the 2008 trial of Senator Ted Stevens , who was convicted of ethics violations but had his conviction dismissed after a DOJ probe found evidence of prosecutorial misconduct .
Sullivan held four prosecutors in contempt and appointed a lawyer to investigate their actions .
One of the accused DOJ lawyers committed suicide in the midst of the investigation .
If Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fake news ” as they aver , Judge Sullivan ’ s friend-of-the-court maneuver should hardly spook them .
It ’ s not Sullivan but rather Barr who is on an unmistakable mission to blink reality by denying the facts laid out in hundreds of pages crafted by career government officials from both sides of the aisle .
Putin helped Trump in 2016 .
No amount of investigating the investigators can change that fact .
What Barr ’ s stewardship can change , however , is the credibility and legitimacy of the Department of @ @ @

The judge presiding over the criminal case against former national security advisor Michael Flynn ruled on Tuesday that interested outsiders will be permitted to submit friend-of-the court briefs regarding the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the case. Then, on Wednesday, the judge—Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia—appointed a retired judge, John Gleeson, to act as amicus curiae to present arguments against DOJ’s dismissal motion and to address whether Flynn should be held in contempt for perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 401 in connection with his statement under oath—twice—that he lied to the FBI. Sullivan is signaling that Flynn cannot have it both ways.
Flynn, recall, lied to the FBI regarding his contacts with the former Russian ambassador in the midst of DOJ’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He admitted to his lies in a signed “statement of offense.” He accepted and signed a plea agreement admitting his guilt. And, in two separate proceedings before federal judges—on December 1, 2017 and again on December 18, 2018—he pleaded guilty under oath, admitting to his lies and their materiality. He has been awaiting sentencing.
In the past few days, Trump supporters have assailed Sullivan as an out-of-line political hack who is unscrupulously willing to tolerate FBI wrongdoing. Trump critics, meanwhile, are hailing the possibility that the judge will thwart Attorney General Bill Barr’s bid to let Flynn walk free of his crimes without President Trump having even to bother with a pardon.
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 reality is that Judge Sullivan is a highly respected jurist with a reputation for holding government lawyers’ feet to the fire. Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires “leave of court” before the government can successfully dismiss a criminal case, so Sullivan has broad discretion here. By allowing others to argue against Barr’s motion, he is just doing his job. There is nothing sinister lurking in his courtroom.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the DOJ itself.
Barr’s motion to dismiss the Flynn case post-conviction is highly unusual for a number of reasons, including that it does not assert that Flynn did not lie or that he was coerced into lying about lying by bad actors within the government. Rather, Barr’s DOJ takes the position that Flynn’s admitted lies to the Russian ambassador about discussing possibly lifting Russian sanctions after Obama left office were not “material” to the government’s investigation into Russian interference in the recent election in the first place.
Flynn’s conviction for lying to federal law enforcement about discussing sanctions removal with the Russian ambassador is hardly immaterial to the myriad law-enforcement and national-security interests that were at the heart of Robert Mueller’s nearly 450-page report of Russian interference on Trump’s behalf—interference which Mueller warned Congress is ongoing for the election in November. Just last month, the Senate Intelligence Committee—chaired by Republican Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina—released its own 158-page report detailing similar conclusions that Russia engaged in broad efforts to influence the 2016 presidential race in Trump’s favor.
In short, Russia’s interference in 2016 to help Trump can be taken as empirical fact at this point. (By the way, water is wet too.)
Barr’s claim that Flynn’s lie amounted to nothing is sinister, however, because it plays into the attorney general’s shameless mission to gaslight the American public and the world about the very basis for Flynn’s guilty plea: DOJ’s investigation into Russian interference in the election so Trump could win.
Recall that Barr auditioned for his current job in an unsolicited, 20-page memorandum to Trump back in June 2018, in which he stated—without access to the actual factual record because he was not at DOJ then—that Trump “made the accurate observation that Flynn’s call with the Russian Ambassador was perfectly proper and made the point that Flynn, who had now suffered public humiliation from losing his job, was a good man.”
And of course, Barr famously demolished Mueller’s work by issuing a four-page “summary” weeks before the release of the actual report, mischaracterizing Mueller’s findings as “no evidence of collusion,” when Mueller expressly rejected that non-legal terminology to conclude instead that sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy had not been identified.
Barr then stepped off his federal law enforcement post to trot around the globe to Italy and Australia in a reported attempt to drum up allegations that his own FBI team improperly targeted Trump and his campaign team during the Russia probe.
He also refused without justification to accept the painstaking conclusions of DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz that political bias did not infect the FBI’s actions on Russia. Instead, Barr shoveled untold taxpayer dollars at the appointment of a separate independent counsel, U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut, to re-do Horowitz’s work—presumably with a hopeful eye towards reaching a different conclusion.
Barr also tried to bury the whistleblower report of Trump’s quid-pro-quo scheme with Ukraine—despite a federal law unequivocally requiring that it be turned over to Congress—a missive that led to Trump’s impeachment.
And just today, Barr got his hands on a declassified list of Obama-era public servants from acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell. The list purportedly includes the names of government officials who sought access to information about Flynn’s phone calls with the Russian ambassador—the very calls that prompted his plea of guilty.
Given that the government and Flynn agree on dismissal of his case, Sullivan’s call for amicus briefs and Judge Gleeson’s involvement is not good news for Flynn. Sullivan no doubt wants to hear the other point of view—some 2,000 former DOJ officials have condemned Barr’s dismissal motion and urged his resignation—on the theory that the public interest and the interests of justice demand it. Flynn’s indictment came out of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office, after all, which was created precisely to avoid conflicts of interest with President Trump himself. Once Barr took over this case—as well as the matter of Roger Stone, in which he recently intervened over career prosecutors to recommend a last-minute sentence reduction—the entire purpose of having an independent prosecutor was undermined. Barr is biased in favor of his boss.
That said, Judge Sullivan will presumably allow briefs—and possibly testimony—in support of Flynn too, including expressions of the viewpoint that he was the victim of government misconduct. The judge will have to take care so that the proceedings don’t become a circus. But Sullivan is used to harshness of public scrutiny, having presided over the 2008 trial of Senator Ted Stevens, who was convicted of ethics violations but had his conviction dismissed after a DOJ probe found evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. Sullivan held four prosecutors in contempt and appointed a lawyer to investigate their actions. One of the accused DOJ lawyers committed suicide in the midst of the investigation.
If Trump’s allies are truly averse to “fake news” as they aver, Judge Sullivan’s friend-of-the-court maneuver should hardly spook them. It’s not Sullivan but rather Barr who is on an unmistakable mission to blink reality by denying the facts laid out in hundreds of pages crafted by career government officials from both sides of the aisle.
Putin helped Trump in 2016. No amount of investigating the investigators can change that fact. What Barr’s stewardship can change, however, is the credibility and legitimacy of the Department of Justice itself.


thebulwark--2020-05-14--The Pandemic and the GOP’s Science Problem

Recent headlines highlight Dr. Rick Bright , the federal scientist whose terminal sin was challenging Donald Trump ’ s coronavirus quackery .
But the GOP ’ s aversion to expertise did not originate with Trump—or his disastrous response to COVID-19 .
“ It ’ s hard to know , ” writes Max Boot , “ exactly when the Republican Party assumed the mantle of the ‘ stupid party.
’ ” But one might look to the 1970s as the gateway to a politically calculated dismissal of scientific knowledge .
Having allied with evangelicals over social issues , the GOP ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honor fundamentalists ’ most fundamental premise : creationism .
Evangelicals flocked—and the GOP became an anti-evolutionary haven .
As recently as last year , Gallup found that 55 percent of self-identified Republicans—as compared to 40 percent of the general population—agree with the statement “ God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.
” Conservative media vilified evolutionary science .
“ Everybody that believes in Darwinism is corrupt , ” pronounced Rush Limbaugh in 2010 .
“ Liberals love anything that allows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God.
” It ’ s no longer just the party ’ s base that professes disbelief in evolution .
In 2011 , presidential candidate Jon Huntsman tweeted : “ I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming .
Call me crazy.
” Within the GOP , it was .
By 2016 , eleven of the serious GOP presidential aspirants were on the record as refusing to opine on evolution or rejecting it outright .
A twelfth—Jeb Bush—said it shouldn ’ t be taught in public schools .
( Interestingly , Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about his beliefs on evolution—or , at the least , not to have given a coherent answer . )
This progression fed a widening attack on knowledge rooted in what GOP strategist Stuart Stevens labels his party ’ s “ toxic fantasies ” : “ Government is bad .
Establishment experts are overrated or just plain wrong .
Science is suspect.
” One additive , the anti-vaccination movement , combined a distrust of science , an adamant libertarianism disdainful of public health , and an insistence on parental rights often rooted in fundamentalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , anti-vaxxers like Michele Bachmann became an ardent minority within the party .
The World Health Organization lists opposition to vaccines among the top ten threats to global health .
But here ’ s Trump in a presidential debate : “ Just the other day .
.
.
a child , a beautiful child went to have the vaccine , and came back , and a week later got a tremendous fever , got very , very sick , now is autistic.
” Creationism and anti-vaccinationism did not , in themselves , transform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , once unleashed , spreads its political contagions .
Until COVID-19 , the paradigmatic example of GOP antagonism toward science was another of the WHO ’ s top-ten threats : climate change .
Republican opposition to climate science goes back decades , and is partly attributable to donors and corporate interests funding projects to sow doubt about scientific research—just as they had previously attempted to debunk concerns about the health hazards of pollution and smoking cigarettes .
By 2016 , the official GOP platform proclaimed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the U.N. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about climate change—is “ unreliab [ le ] ” and “ not an unbiased scientific institution.
” Some Republicans , unsatisfied with fighting against proposed climate policies or challenging the science , flatly dismiss climate change as a “ hoax.
” Observes Paul Krugman : “ Republicans are the world ’ s only major climate-denialist party.
” Indeed .
Limbaugh and Fox News traffic in denialism , and a 2018 Yale survey found that only 26 percent of conservative Republicans believe that humans contribute to climate change .
Once Trump became president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an aggressive federal effort to suppress scientific knowledge .
In an extensive account of such efforts , based on a survey of scientists at sixteen federal agencies , the Union of Concerned Scientists noted in 2018 that “ many survey respondents .
.
.
report censorship of their work , especially work related to climate change.
” This included deleting references to climate change from websites and reports , and insinuating denialism into government documents .
Of a government warning that unchecked warming could devastate the economy , Trump said , “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result , reports the New York Times , is that “ parts of the federal government will no longer fulfill what scientists say is one of the most urgent jobs of climate science studies : reporting on the future effects of a rapidly warming planet .
.
.
” Forget the overwhelming consensus of scientists that accelerating climate change could soon become catastrophic—or the evidence of melting ice caps , rising sea levels , proliferating droughts , burgeoning wildfires .
Suppressing climate science propitiates important Republican constituencies : the fossil-fuel industry ; a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; and base voters resentful of perceived elites .
COVID-19 has dramatized this subordination of knowledge to politics—including Trump ’ s dismissal of repeated scientific warnings .
As of today we have suffered more than 84,000 deaths .
Yet little more than two months ago , Trump was describing Democrats ’ critiques of his COVID-19 response as their “ new hoax , ” bragging that “ we have lost nobody to coronavirus , ” and predicting that the number of cases “ within a couple of days is going to be down to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Limbaugh and Fox—particularly Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity—derided science as a hoax .
Once again , partisans believed them : Polling throughout March showed that most Republicans dismissed COVID-19 as a major public health threat .
Events proved otherwise .
In late April , Vox reported a sophisticated statistical analysis by three economists from the University of Chicago which suggested that , in the early stages of the pandemic , areas with more Hannity viewers had more cases and deaths from COVID-19 .
As death enveloped us , Trump resorted to anti-scientific magical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hydroxychloroquine , seems to increase fatalities ; another , self-injecting cleaning products , surely would .
Yet many of his followers swallowed this dangerous nonsense—some literally .
From the beginning , Trump ’ s criminally callous calculus was obvious : Acknowledging the pandemic jeopardized a re-election campaign premised on economic prosperity .
But most telling was his comfort in ignoring the admonitions of science—and the consistent failure of congressional Republicans to object .
Nor did they protest when Trump bullied scientists who spoke politically inconvenient truths—Dr .
Nancy Messonnier of the CDC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield , who forecast its return this winter ; and , of course , Dr .
Bright .
As Dr. Anthony Fauci—whose candor reportedly caused Trump to begin excluding him from White House briefings—acknowledged , “ You don ’ t want to go to war with the president , but you ’ ve got to walk the fine balance of making sure you continue to tell the truth.
” In early May , the president barred members of the coronavirus task force , notably including Dr. Fauci , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; a few days later , under pressure , Trump said that he would allow Fauci to testify before the Senate—but not the House .
Says former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy , “ They are doing everything they can to undermine science at a time when it is critically important.
” These efforts to suppress science-based information serve Trump ’ s resolve to reopen the economy without widespread testing .
Last week , it emerged that Trump has rejected CDC guidelines for reopening , in part because religious conservatives object to any restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is encouraging states to reopen their economies in violation of the public health criteria laid out in his own White House guidelines , released to much fanfare in April—including , critically , the requirement of a 14-day decline in coronavirus cases .
Already , many states are opening without such a decline ; in some states , the trajectory of cases is actually rising .
In response , on Tuesday an obviously troubled Dr. Fauci told the Senate of his deep concern that , if states and localities don ’ t follow the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House guidelines but instead “ jump over those various checkpoints and prematurely open up .
.
.
we will start to see little spikes that might turn into outbreaks.
” So , Fauci testified , premature economic reopening not only might cause needless “ suffering and death , ” but “ paradoxically .
.
.
could even set you back on the road to try to get economic recovery.
” As the fight over reopening continues , the battle lines are being drawn for the GOP ’ s next epic clash with scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dead .
A familiar cast of science deniers now claim that the death toll is grossly exaggerated .
Reports the New York Times : “ Climate-change skeptics have employed techniques perfected in the fight over global warming to raise doubts about the deadliness of the virus .
Others , including Mr. Trump ’ s media allies as well as some in the anti-vaccine movement , have repurposed fringe theories about ‘ deep state ’ bureaucrats undermining the president.
” To the contrary , as Fauci told the Senate , American fatalities from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , despite the warnings , Trump is pushing ahead .
Even before this , epidemiologists working for FEMA projected the daily death count might reach 3,000 by June 1 .
A team from the University of Washington estimated nearly 135,000 deaths by August—more than doubling its original projection .
Trump will not own this carnage alone .
So will his party .
The GOP began claiming ownership when it first resolved to treat scientific knowledge as a liberal fiction .

Recent headlines highlight Dr. Rick Bright, the federal scientist whose terminal sin was challenging Donald Trump’s coronavirus quackery. But the GOP’s aversion to expertise did not originate with Trump—or his disastrous response to COVID-19.
“It’s hard to know,” writes Max Boot, “exactly when the Republican Party assumed the mantle of the ‘stupid party.’” But one might look to the 1970s as the gateway to a politically calculated dismissal of scientific knowledge.
Having allied with evangelicals over social issues, the GOP’s political class found it expedient to honor fundamentalists’ most fundamental premise: creationism. Evangelicals flocked—and the GOP became an anti-evolutionary haven. As recently as last year, Gallup found that 55 percent of self-identified Republicans—as compared to 40 percent of the general population—agree with the statement “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.”
Conservative media vilified evolutionary science. “Everybody that believes in Darwinism is corrupt,” pronounced Rush Limbaugh in 2010. “Liberals love anything that allows them to say there’s no God.”
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…
It’s no longer just the party’s base that professes disbelief in evolution. In 2011, presidential candidate Jon Huntsman tweeted: “I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.” Within the GOP, it was. By 2016, eleven of the serious GOP presidential aspirants were on the record as refusing to opine on evolution or rejecting it outright. A twelfth—Jeb Bush—said it shouldn’t be taught in public schools. (Interestingly, Donald Trump seems not to have been asked about his beliefs on evolution—or, at the least, not to have given a coherent answer.)
This progression fed a widening attack on knowledge rooted in what GOP strategist Stuart Stevens labels his party’s “toxic fantasies”: “Government is bad. Establishment experts are overrated or just plain wrong. Science is suspect.”
One additive, the anti-vaccination movement, combined a distrust of science, an adamant libertarianism disdainful of public health, and an insistence on parental rights often rooted in fundamentalism. From Kentucky to Oregon to California, anti-vaxxers like Michele Bachmann became an ardent minority within the party.
The World Health Organization lists opposition to vaccines among the top ten threats to global health. But here’s Trump in a presidential debate: “Just the other day . . . a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back, and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic.”
Creationism and anti-vaccinationism did not, in themselves, transform federal policy. But disdain for science, once unleashed, spreads its political contagions.
Until COVID-19, the paradigmatic example of GOP antagonism toward science was another of the WHO’s top-ten threats: climate change. Republican opposition to climate science goes back decades, and is partly attributable to donors and corporate interests funding projects to sow doubt about scientific research—just as they had previously attempted to debunk concerns about the health hazards of pollution and smoking cigarettes.
By 2016, the official GOP platform proclaimed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the U.N. body that attempts to summarize scientific findings about climate change—is “unreliab[le]” and “not an unbiased scientific institution.” Some Republicans, unsatisfied with fighting against proposed climate policies or challenging the science, flatly dismiss climate change as a “hoax.” Observes Paul Krugman: “Republicans are the world’s only major climate-denialist party.”
Indeed. Limbaugh and Fox News traffic in denialism, and a 2018 Yale survey found that only 26 percent of conservative Republicans believe that humans contribute to climate change.
Once Trump became president, disbelief mutated into something more dangerous: an aggressive federal effort to suppress scientific knowledge. In an extensive account of such efforts, based on a survey of scientists at sixteen federal agencies, the Union of Concerned Scientists noted in 2018 that “many survey respondents . . . report censorship of their work, especially work related to climate change.”
This included deleting references to climate change from websites and reports, and insinuating denialism into government documents. Of a government warning that unchecked warming could devastate the economy, Trump said, “I don’t believe it.” One result, reports the New York Times, is that “parts of the federal government will no longer fulfill what scientists say is one of the most urgent jobs of climate science studies: reporting on the future effects of a rapidly warming planet. . .”
Forget the overwhelming consensus of scientists that accelerating climate change could soon become catastrophic—or the evidence of melting ice caps, rising sea levels, proliferating droughts, burgeoning wildfires. Suppressing climate science propitiates important Republican constituencies: the fossil-fuel industry; a donor class exemplified by the Koch brothers; and base voters resentful of perceived elites.
COVID-19 has dramatized this subordination of knowledge to politics—including Trump’s dismissal of repeated scientific warnings. As of today we have suffered more than 84,000 deaths. Yet little more than two months ago, Trump was describing Democrats’ critiques of his COVID-19 response as their “new hoax,” bragging that “we have lost nobody to coronavirus,” and predicting that the number of cases “within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero.”
Once again, Limbaugh and Fox—particularly Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity—derided science as a hoax. Once again, partisans believed them: Polling throughout March showed that most Republicans dismissed COVID-19 as a major public health threat. Events proved otherwise. In late April, Vox reported a sophisticated statistical analysis by three economists from the University of Chicago which suggested that, in the early stages of the pandemic, areas with more Hannity viewers had more cases and deaths from COVID-19.
As death enveloped us, Trump resorted to anti-scientific magical thinking. One of his quack cures, hydroxychloroquine, seems to increase fatalities; another, self-injecting cleaning products, surely would. Yet many of his followers swallowed this dangerous nonsense—some literally.
From the beginning, Trump’s criminally callous calculus was obvious: Acknowledging the pandemic jeopardized a re-election campaign premised on economic prosperity. But most telling was his comfort in ignoring the admonitions of science—and the consistent failure of congressional Republicans to object.
Nor did they protest when Trump bullied scientists who spoke politically inconvenient truths—Dr. Nancy Messonnier of the CDC, who predicted the spread of COVID-19; CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield, who forecast its return this winter; and, of course, Dr. Bright. As Dr. Anthony Fauci—whose candor reportedly caused Trump to begin excluding him from White House briefings—acknowledged, “You don’t want to go to war with the president, but you’ve got to walk the fine balance of making sure you continue to tell the truth.”
In early May, the president barred members of the coronavirus task force, notably including Dr. Fauci, from appearing before Congress without express approval; a few days later, under pressure, Trump said that he would allow Fauci to testify before the Senate—but not the House. Says former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, “They are doing everything they can to undermine science at a time when it is critically important.”
These efforts to suppress science-based information serve Trump’s resolve to reopen the economy without widespread testing. Last week, it emerged that Trump has rejected CDC guidelines for reopening, in part because religious conservatives object to any restrictions on church services. Instead, he is encouraging states to reopen their economies in violation of the public health criteria laid out in his own White House guidelines, released to much fanfare in April—including, critically, the requirement of a 14-day decline in coronavirus cases. Already, many states are opening without such a decline; in some states, the trajectory of cases is actually rising.
In response, on Tuesday an obviously troubled Dr. Fauci told the Senate of his deep concern that, if states and localities don’t follow the “very well thought out” White House guidelines but instead “jump over those various checkpoints and prematurely open up . . . we will start to see little spikes that might turn into outbreaks.” So, Fauci testified, premature economic reopening not only might cause needless “suffering and death,” but “paradoxically . . . could even set you back on the road to try to get economic recovery.”
As the fight over reopening continues, the battle lines are being drawn for the GOP’s next epic clash with scientists: a fight over the number of the dead. A familiar cast of science deniers now claim that the death toll is grossly exaggerated. Reports the New York Times: “Climate-change skeptics have employed techniques perfected in the fight over global warming to raise doubts about the deadliness of the virus. Others, including Mr. Trump’s media allies as well as some in the anti-vaccine movement, have repurposed fringe theories about ‘deep state’ bureaucrats undermining the president.”
To the contrary, as Fauci told the Senate, American fatalities from COVID-19 are likely underreported. And yet, despite the warnings, Trump is pushing ahead.
Even before this, epidemiologists working for FEMA projected the daily death count might reach 3,000 by June 1. A team from the University of Washington estimated nearly 135,000 deaths by August—more than doubling its original projection.
Trump will not own this carnage alone. So will his party. The GOP began claiming ownership when it first resolved to treat scientific knowledge as a liberal fiction.


thebulwark--2020-05-14--The Curious Case of the People Who Want to “Reopen” America—But Not Wear Masks

The coronavirus , you may have heard , is a biological weapon engineered in a Chinese lab and unleashed—accidentally ?
—on America by the godless communists .
At least , according to Alex Jones .
That ’ s one theory , anyway .
Another is that , yes , the virus was engineered in a Chinese laboratory , but the research was paid for by Anthony Fauci .
Here ’ s Rudy Giuliani—former mayor of New York City , former Republican presidential candidate , and personal lawyer for the current president : Or , there ’ s another possibility , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of a global plot being executed by Bill Gates , the World Health Organization , the Clintons , and George Soros .
Here ’ s the president ’ s favorite cable news network , One America News , just asking questions : What is the point of this plot ?
Securing the global bleachbit supply ?
Distracting the world from how awful Skype and Microsoft Office have gotten ?
The general verdict seems to be “ population control , ” though it ’ s not clear what that ’ s supposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the likes of Gates , Soros , and the Clintons .
After all , if you ’ re a globalist , a pandemic that radically curtails international travel for an indefinite period of time doesn ’ t make a ton of sense .
Then there ’ s another theory : That the coronavirus is the poison fruit of the vaccination tree .
As anti-vax superstar Judy Mikovits explains , the vaccination regime which science—sorry , “ science ” —has foisted on America over the last two generations has weakened our natural immune systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the coronavirus has become a much bigger deal than it would have been had we simply let nature take its course .
The Mikovits view is a far cry from the Giuliani view , but it does share one common element : She , too , blames Anthony Fauci .
Though in this case , her complaint is that Fauci is part of the corrupt , pro-vaccination cabal that has buried the work of courageous truth-tellers .
Like herself .
You might think that these disparate factions would be at war with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Anthony Fauci .
After all , if the coronavirus is a bioweapon that has been unleashed on America by the ChiComs , then some batty old lady claiming that it ’ s the inevitable consequence of giving kids MMR shots is part of the coverup .
And , conversely , if you ’ re an anti-vaxxer , then the bioweapon story is also part of a coverup : Anyone who believes it is trying to alibi Big Pharma just as surely as Fauci is .
Yet in vivo , these groups all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggests that not one of these people actually believes what they ’ re selling .
Here is another tell : Not one of these groups blames Donald Trump for the current state of affairs .
If you believe that the Chinese military has committed an act of war against America , then it would seem that the president of the United States has some duty to respond .
Or to at least acknowledge the provocation .
Instead , Donald Trump has offered mostly praise for the Chinese regime .
Yet Alex Jones and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a president who is , by their own lights , at best a dupe and at worst complicit in the deadliest attack on American soil in our nation ’ s history .
But what if you think that there is a conspiracy on the part of some American citizens and various non-state actors to carry out what amounts to a coup—this is the OAN view .
In that case , the single person responsible for stopping this shadowy group would be President Trump—and his failure to take down Gates , Soros , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either a dereliction of duty or evidence that he ’ s part of the scheme .
OAN , of course , has nothing but praise for Trump .
And if you believe that Anthony Fauci is the figurehead of a disastrous regime of vaccinations that caused this pandemic , and yet the president stands at the podium with Fauci , day after day , and promises that he himself is pushing relentlessly forward in the search for a coronavirus vaccine which we will all have sooner than many people expect , well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is on .
And it isn ’ t yours .
Yet Mikovits and the anti-vaxxers find no fault with Trump .
The lesson here is that these stories aren ’ t really about vaccines or bioweapons or population control .
Instead , they ’ re meta-parables about how the people telling them see themselves and feel about their place in the world .
It would be sad if it weren ’ t dangerous to the rest of us .
The bigger problem is that this sort of performative thinking isn ’ t limited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cleavages that have opened up in the public space over the last month : one over “ reopening ” America , another over wearing masks .
In a rational world , the Venn diagram between people who insist on “ reopening ” the country immediately and the people who are militantly in favor of wearing masks in public would look something like this : This would be a fairly intuitive situation .
If you want to end the lockdown immediately , then you will want to take any nominal precautions that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wearing a mask is a low-cost , high-benefit way to reduce the spread of the coronavirus , and hence make it possible to ease restrictions while lowering the chances of another outbreak .
But in reality , that is not what we ’ ve seen .
Instead , we more or less have this : We have a “ don ’ t wear masks ” movement that overlaps almost entirely with the “ reopen immediately ” movement .
There are only two possible explanations for why this might be .
The first is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hammers .
The second is that when people tell you what they think about “ reopening ” and “ masks , ” they aren ’ t actually talking about the coronavirus .
They ’ re telling a story about how they see themselves and their place in the world .
I realize that this is a false choice .
And when you see people nodding along as Judy Mikovits claims that “ wearing the mask literally activates your own virus ” it can be very difficult to tease out which way the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I lean toward the latter explanation .
This need for storytelling , rather than engaging with the reality of our problem , is new .
In the aftermath of 9/11 there were a handful of fringe groups that came up with conspiracy theories about how the terrorist attacks had been an inside job , or the work of the Mossad , or a hoax .
But these sentiments were limited to a fraction of a percentage of the population .
Instead , we saw a large rally effect in which the vast majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and resolve commingled with a great deal of tolerance .
People embraced their elected leaders and venerated the heroes on the line .
There was a serious study of what actually happened .
There was an uptick in crimes against and bullying of American Muslims immediately following 9/11 , but the magnitude was not nearly as high as we feared it might be and this ill effect quickly dissipated .
The post-9/11 American esprit de corps did not last forever , but it lasted for better than a year .
We are barely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country is already deeply divided .
Yes , there is a solid majority in favor easing mitigation measures at a prudential pace .
And yes , close to three-quarters of Americans say they plan to wear masks in at least some situations .
But that means there is a non-trivial number of Americans—maybe it ’ s 1-in-10 , maybe it ’ s 1-in-4—who are living in the bottom part of that second Venn diagram , where they don ’ t view the pandemic as an event to be managed , but as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In part , this is an artifact of how successful the mitigation measures have been : Because the death toll has been held to the scores of thousands , many people have the luxury of talking and acting however they like without facing real-world consequences .
They can hang out in the bottom of that second Venn diagram if it makes them feel better .
( Not everyone hanging out there has been so fortunate . )
But the existence of this impulse is worrisome on its own .
As America ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or so years and we have become—just objectively speaking—a less serious country , one of the stories we have told ourselves was that we could become a serious people again if we faced a big enough shock or a stern enough test .
That the steely , strong , serious America of the last century—the America that survived the Depression and crushed the Nazis and put men on the moon—was still somewhere within us , just waiting to be awakened .
That our true , best selves just needed a call to action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The reaction of this vocal and sizable minority to the pandemic suggests that this story might not be true , either .
Yes , many people have risen to meet the challenge of the moment—most notably doctors , nurses , and other health care workers , but also grocery store and delivery workers and others .
And yes , there have been hopeful signs of the American can-do spirit of crisis entrepreneurialism , as in the rise of the mask-making cottage industry .
But the restless grumbling of the open-it-all-up , masks-be-damned crowd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their actions endanger them and us , but also because of what it says about the American character .

The coronavirus, you may have heard, is a biological weapon engineered in a Chinese lab and unleashed—accidentally?—on America by the godless communists. At least, according to Alex Jones.
That’s one theory, anyway. Another is that, yes, the virus was engineered in a Chinese laboratory, but the research was paid for by Anthony Fauci. Here’s Rudy Giuliani—former mayor of New York City, former Republican presidential candidate, and personal lawyer for the current president:
Fauci gave $3.7 million to the Wuhan laboratory. We paid for the damn virus that’s killing us.
Or, there’s another possibility, which is that the virus is actually part of a global plot being executed by Bill Gates, the World Health Organization, the Clintons, and George Soros. Here’s the president’s favorite cable news network, One America News, just asking questions:
Recent reports claim the remdesivir patent is controlled by mainland China, Bill Gates, and the WHO, while the Clintons may have a stake in it as well. The entire cover-up is allegedly backed by globalist billionaire George Soros.
What is the point of this plot? Securing the global bleachbit supply? Distracting the world from how awful Skype and Microsoft Office have gotten? The general verdict seems to be “population control,” though it’s not clear what that’s supposed to mean or why it would appeal to the likes of Gates, Soros, and the Clintons. After all, if you’re a globalist, a pandemic that radically curtails international travel for an indefinite period of time doesn’t make a ton of sense.
Then there’s another theory: That the coronavirus is the poison fruit of the vaccination tree. As anti-vax superstar Judy Mikovits explains, the vaccination regime which science—sorry, “science”—has foisted on America over the last two generations has weakened our natural immune systems to the point where a pathogen such as the coronavirus has become a much bigger deal than it would have been had we simply let nature take its course.
The Mikovits view is a far cry from the Giuliani view, but it does share one common element: She, too, blames Anthony Fauci. Though in this case, her complaint is that Fauci is part of the corrupt, pro-vaccination cabal that has buried the work of courageous truth-tellers. Like herself.
You might think that these disparate factions would be at war with one another as much as they are against Anthony Fauci. After all, if the coronavirus is a bioweapon that has been unleashed on America by the ChiComs, then some batty old lady claiming that it’s the inevitable consequence of giving kids MMR shots is part of the coverup.
And, conversely, if you’re an anti-vaxxer, then the bioweapon story is also part of a coverup: Anyone who believes it is trying to alibi Big Pharma just as surely as Fauci is.
Yet in vivo, these groups all seem to be holding hands.
Which suggests that not one of these people actually believes what they’re selling.
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…
Here is another tell: Not one of these groups blames Donald Trump for the current state of affairs.
If you believe that the Chinese military has committed an act of war against America, then it would seem that the president of the United States has some duty to respond. Or to at least acknowledge the provocation.
Instead, Donald Trump has offered mostly praise for the Chinese regime.
Yet Alex Jones and his followers have nary a cross word for a president who is, by their own lights, at best a dupe and at worst complicit in the deadliest attack on American soil in our nation’s history.
But what if you think that there is a conspiracy on the part of some American citizens and various non-state actors to carry out what amounts to a coup—this is the OAN view. In that case, the single person responsible for stopping this shadowy group would be President Trump—and his failure to take down Gates, Soros, the Clintons, et al. is either a dereliction of duty or evidence that he’s part of the scheme.
OAN, of course, has nothing but praise for Trump.
And if you believe that Anthony Fauci is the figurehead of a disastrous regime of vaccinations that caused this pandemic, and yet the president stands at the podium with Fauci, day after day, and promises that he himself is pushing relentlessly forward in the search for a coronavirus vaccine which we will all have sooner than many people expect, well, then: You know which side Trump is on. And it isn’t yours.
Yet Mikovits and the anti-vaxxers find no fault with Trump.
The lesson here is that these stories aren’t really about vaccines or bioweapons or population control. Instead, they’re meta-parables about how the people telling them see themselves and feel about their place in the world.
It would be sad if it weren’t dangerous to the rest of us.
The bigger problem is that this sort of performative thinking isn’t limited to conspiracy-minded cranks.
Consider two of the cleavages that have opened up in the public space over the last month: one over “reopening” America, another over wearing masks.
In a rational world, the Venn diagram between people who insist on “reopening” the country immediately and the people who are militantly in favor of wearing masks in public would look something like this:
This would be a fairly intuitive situation.
If you want to end the lockdown immediately, then you will want to take any nominal precautions that will allow reopening as quickly as possible. Wearing a mask is a low-cost, high-benefit way to reduce the spread of the coronavirus, and hence make it possible to ease restrictions while lowering the chances of another outbreak.
But in reality, that is not what we’ve seen. Instead, we more or less have this:
We have a “don’t wear masks” movement that overlaps almost entirely with the “reopen immediately” movement.
There are only two possible explanations for why this might be. The first is that people are dumber than a bag of hammers.
The second is that when people tell you what they think about “reopening” and “masks,” they aren’t actually talking about the coronavirus. They’re telling a story about how they see themselves and their place in the world.
I realize that this is a false choice. And when you see people nodding along as Judy Mikovits claims that “wearing the mask literally activates your own virus” it can be very difficult to tease out which way the causality runs.
But on balance, I lean toward the latter explanation.
This need for storytelling, rather than engaging with the reality of our problem, is new.
In the aftermath of 9/11 there were a handful of fringe groups that came up with conspiracy theories about how the terrorist attacks had been an inside job, or the work of the Mossad, or a hoax. But these sentiments were limited to a fraction of a percentage of the population.
Instead, we saw a large rally effect in which the vast majority of people held hands and demonstrated solidarity and resolve commingled with a great deal of tolerance. People embraced their elected leaders and venerated the heroes on the line. There was a serious study of what actually happened. There was an uptick in crimes against and bullying of American Muslims immediately following 9/11, but the magnitude was not nearly as high as we feared it might be and this ill effect quickly dissipated.
The post-9/11 American esprit de corps did not last forever, but it lasted for better than a year.
We are barely 12 weeks into the COVID-19 pandemic and the country is already deeply divided.
Yes, there is a solid majority in favor easing mitigation measures at a prudential pace. And yes, close to three-quarters of Americans say they plan to wear masks in at least some situations. But that means there is a non-trivial number of Americans—maybe it’s 1-in-10, maybe it’s 1-in-4—who are living in the bottom part of that second Venn diagram, where they don’t view the pandemic as an event to be managed, but as an opportunity to posture and perform.
In part, this is an artifact of how successful the mitigation measures have been: Because the death toll has been held to the scores of thousands, many people have the luxury of talking and acting however they like without facing real-world consequences. They can hang out in the bottom of that second Venn diagram if it makes them feel better. (Not everyone hanging out there has been so fortunate.)
But the existence of this impulse is worrisome on its own.
As America’s decadence has increased over the last 30 or so years and we have become—just objectively speaking—a less serious country, one of the stories we have told ourselves was that we could become a serious people again if we faced a big enough shock or a stern enough test. That the steely, strong, serious America of the last century—the America that survived the Depression and crushed the Nazis and put men on the moon—was still somewhere within us, just waiting to be awakened. That our true, best selves just needed a call to action, a grave, existential summons.
The reaction of this vocal and sizable minority to the pandemic suggests that this story might not be true, either. Yes, many people have risen to meet the challenge of the moment—most notably doctors, nurses, and other health care workers, but also grocery store and delivery workers and others. And yes, there have been hopeful signs of the American can-do spirit of crisis entrepreneurialism, as in the rise of the mask-making cottage industry.
But the restless grumbling of the open-it-all-up, masks-be-damned crowd should concern us, not only because their actions endanger them and us, but also because of what it says about the American character.


thebulwark--2020-05-14--Was Bill Barr Allowed to Intervene in the Flynn Case?

President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr have decided to jump into the middle of the criminal case against General Michael Flynn – a case that grew out of an ill-advised phone call between Flynn and the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak – and dismiss the charge that he lied to the FBI even though he has already pled guilty .
Twice .
There ’ s quite a lot wrong with this , including dubious logic .
Consider this extraordinary statement from the government ’ s filing : “ Whether or not Mr. Flynn had been entirely candid with the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create a predicate for believing he had committed a crime or was beholden to a foreign power.
” That is , of course , complete nonsense .
Having contact with a foreign government official and then lying about it to your superiors is probably the single biggest counterintelligence red flag there is .
When Flynn – the incoming national security advisor – lied to the vice president-elect about his contacts with the Russian ambassador , he was immediately compromised because , of course , the Russians knew he had lied , while his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The FBI had every reason to be concerned and even the acting attorney general , Sally Yates , thought this had created “ a compromise situation for Flynn.
” But the biggest problem with the government ’ s volte face is this : Why was the Attorney General involved in Flynn ’ s case at all when he had a disabling conflict of interest ?
Barr made it clear that he was the driving force behind dismissing the case against Flynn and that it was done at his direction .
But this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea .
His boss , President Trump , has been demanding Flynn ’ s exoneration for more than two years .
Those demands have reached a crescendo in recent weeks .
The Department of Justice , however , has rules about conflicts of interest .
Barr ’ s predecessor as attorney general , Jeff Sessions , fell from President Trump ’ s good graces by recognizing he had a conflict of interest and recusing himself from what became the Mueller Investigation .
So it ’ s not surprising that Barr was hesitant to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t make it right .
These regulations prevent Justice Department employees from participating in a case if they have a political relationship with “ any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.
” If there is even the appearance of a conflict that is “ likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution , ” that employee must be recused .
But President Trump – Bill Barr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleged unfairness of the Flynn prosecution one of his campaign issues and part of his attack on the “ witch hunt ” Mueller Investigation .
In fact , Trump won ’ t shut up about Flynn .
He ’ s even said he might bring him back into the administration once his name has been cleared .
So there is no question that the President has a “ specific and substantial interest ” in seeing the charges dismissed , if only to save him the political embarrassment of issuing a pardon .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all deciding that the charges against Flynn should be dropped .
He had a gross and obvious conflict of interest .
Even if he had sought the advice of an ethics official – and there is no evidence that he did – it would have been impossible , under Justice Department regulations , for him to ethically involve himself in the decision to drop the Flynn case .
Barr ’ s defense to all this is that he ’ s not doing President Trump ’ s bidding .
“ I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he explained .
“ I ’ m doing my duty under the law , as I see it.
” But that ’ s irrelevant .
It doesn ’ t matter how sincere Barr was when he acted if DOJ regulations barred from acting in the first place .
Of course , Flynn ’ s lawyers aren ’ t going to object to the government ’ s motion to drop the case .
But Judge Sullivan doesn ’ t have to rubber-stamp the dismissal .
He can and should order Barr to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , both about the reasons for the government ’ s decision and about Barr ’ s conflict of interest .
If Judge Sullivan decides that Barr did violate Justice Department regulations and should have recused himself , then he should deny the government ’ s motion and consider referring the matter to the Virginia State bar for possible discipline .
And this isn ’ t an empty threat .
Lawyers are , first and foremost , officers of the court ( that ’ s what makes them lawyers ) and are subject to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jurisdiction in which they are registered to practice .
And this applies to all lawyers , no matter how lofty .
On Monday , for example , the Supreme Court of Indiana suspended the sitting Indiana attorney general ’ s law license for 30 days because of a finding of misconduct .
Judge Sullivan certainly has something in mind .
He has taken the apparently unprecedented step of inviting amicus briefs on the government ’ s motion to dismiss the case .
Maybe Bill Barr is as honest and forthright as he claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demands to free Flynn have attached an indelible stink to Barr ’ s actions that can never be removed .
They make the Department of Justice appear to be a political tool and an arm of Trump ’ s 2020 campaign .
Judge Sullivan apparently has some questions about that .
And I wouldn ’ t want to be Bill Barr if the judge doesn ’ t like the answers .

President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr have decided to jump into the middle of the criminal case against General Michael Flynn – a case that grew out of an ill-advised phone call between Flynn and the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak – and dismiss the charge that he lied to the FBI even though he has already pled guilty. Twice.
There’s quite a lot wrong with this, including dubious logic. Consider this extraordinary statement from the government’s filing: “Whether or not Mr. Flynn had been entirely candid with the future Vice President or Press Secretary did not create a predicate for believing he had committed a crime or was beholden to a foreign power.”
That is, of course, complete nonsense. Having contact with a foreign government official and then lying about it to your superiors is probably the single biggest counterintelligence red flag there is. When Flynn – the incoming national security advisor – lied to the vice president-elect about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, he was immediately compromised because, of course, the Russians knew he had lied, while his boss, President-elect Trump, did not. The FBI had every reason to be concerned and even the acting attorney general, Sally Yates, thought this had created “a compromise situation for Flynn.”
But the biggest problem with the government’s volte face is this: Why was the Attorney General involved in Flynn’s case at all when he had a disabling conflict of interest?
Barr made it clear that he was the driving force behind dismissing the case against Flynn and that it was done at his direction. But this wasn’t entirely Barr’s idea. His boss, President Trump, has been demanding Flynn’s exoneration for more than two years. Those demands have reached a crescendo in recent weeks.
The Department of Justice, however, has rules about conflicts of interest. Barr’s predecessor as attorney general, Jeff Sessions, fell from President Trump’s good graces by recognizing he had a conflict of interest and recusing himself from what became the Mueller Investigation. So it’s not surprising that Barr was hesitant to remove himself from the Flynn case—but that doesn’t make it right.
These regulations prevent Justice Department employees from participating in a case if they have a political relationship with “any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.” If there is even the appearance of a conflict that is “likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution,” that employee must be recused.
But President Trump – Bill Barr’s boss – has made the alleged unfairness of the Flynn prosecution one of his campaign issues and part of his attack on the “witch hunt” Mueller Investigation. In fact, Trump won’t shut up about Flynn. He’s even said he might bring him back into the administration once his name has been cleared. So there is no question that the President has a “specific and substantial interest” in seeing the charges dismissed, if only to save him the political embarrassment of issuing a pardon.
In short, Bill Barr had no business at all deciding that the charges against Flynn should be dropped. He had a gross and obvious conflict of interest. Even if he had sought the advice of an ethics official – and there is no evidence that he did – it would have been impossible, under Justice Department regulations, for him to ethically involve himself in the decision to drop the Flynn case.
Barr’s defense to all this is that he’s not doing President Trump’s bidding. “I’m doing the law’s bidding,” he explained. “I’m doing my duty under the law, as I see it.” But that’s irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how sincere Barr was when he acted if DOJ regulations barred from acting in the first place.
Of course, Flynn’s lawyers aren’t going to object to the government’s motion to drop the case. But Judge Sullivan doesn’t have to rubber-stamp the dismissal. He can and should order Barr to come into his courtroom and answers his questions, both about the reasons for the government’s decision and about Barr’s conflict of interest. If Judge Sullivan decides that Barr did violate Justice Department regulations and should have recused himself, then he should deny the government’s motion and consider referring the matter to the Virginia State bar for possible discipline.
And this isn’t an empty threat. Lawyers are, first and foremost, officers of the court (that’s what makes them lawyers) and are subject to discipline by the supreme court of the jurisdiction in which they are registered to practice. And this applies to all lawyers, no matter how lofty. On Monday, for example, the Supreme Court of Indiana suspended the sitting Indiana attorney general’s law license for 30 days because of a finding of misconduct.
Judge Sullivan certainly has something in mind. He plans on taking the apparently unprecedented step of inviting amicus briefs on the government’s motion to dismiss the case. He’s also appointed a retired federal judge, John Gleeson, as an amicus curiae tasked both with opposing the government’s motion to dismiss and determining whether Flynn should be held in contempt of court for perjury. That’s a reasonable question since Flynn admitted the facts underlying his guilty plea under oath on two different occasions. If the attorney general thought he was making the Flynn case go away, he definitely miscalculated.
Maybe Bill Barr is as honest and forthright as he claims. But President Trump’s incessant demands to free Flynn have attached an indelible stink to Barr’s actions that can never be removed. They make the Department of Justice appear to be a political tool and an arm of Trump’s 2020 campaign. Judge Sullivan apparently has some questions about that. And I wouldn’t want to be Bill Barr if the judge doesn’t like the answers.


Dear Reader

I haven ’ t checked in my OED ( it ’ s just too hard for someone my age , even with the magnifying glass ) but I think the word “ prequel ” is a fairly recent invention .
Sequel : that ’ s a word we all know .
Sequels have been around a long time ; I ’ ve even written several , over the years .
But suddenly I ’ m hearing the word “ prequel ” from readers .
In 1993 , I wrote a book called The Giver which was intended for a young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old .
Its almost immediate success ( it was awarded the 1994 Newbery Medal , and has sold millions of copies now , in thirty-some languages ) took me by surprise .
Set in the somewhat distant future , it depicted a world that had gone awry and become devoid of empathy or compassion , a world in which individual human lives had little value .
I had thought of it as a fairly straightforward adventure story .
But young people didn ’ t read it quickly and move on to the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They found something in the book that resonated at the same time that it puzzled them .
How had that happened ?
they asked me—first in letters , now in emails .
What went wrong ?
How can we keep this from happening ?
I ’ ve given them simplistic answers .
Verbal shrugs .
It would have been gradual , I told them .
It would have involved small compromises .
In order to be safe .
.
.
we ’ ll give up this small freedom .
In order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll sacrifice this .
I thought that perhaps the book might be a teaching vehicle , a cautionary tale .
Choices are important , I told kids .
You will be the ones to vote , in the future .
Be aware of what you ’ re voting for—or against .
Weigh the choices .
Consider the implications , the compromises .
Don ’ t be silenced .
Don ’ t let your humanity be nibbled away .
Open your eyes , I told them , the way Jonas , the 12-year-old protagonist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aware .
In his own dwelling , there were the necessary reference volumes that each household contained : a dictionary , and the thick community volume which contained descriptions of every office , factory , building , and committee .
And the Book of Rules , of course .
The books in his own dwelling were the only books that Jonas had ever seen .
He had never known that other books existed .
The boy lives in a world with no literature , no history .
How did this happen ?
readers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a school board in an Alaskan borough voted to remove five classic books from the school curriculum .
Inappropriate content , they said .
The boy in the book discovers , suddenly , that the solemn ceremony—a toast , an anthem , a goodbye speech—celebrating the elderly before they are taken though a special door of the Releasing Room is a disguise for something more sinister : Young readers asked me : Don ’ t they care ?
When did they stop caring ?
How could they .
.
.
?
Recently our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that many more people , thousands of them , mostly elderly , will die in the coming months as a result , urged that restrictions intended to mitigate the pandemic be lifted quickly .
On March 9 , he said in a tweet : There are no newspapers in the fictional world of The Giver .
No television , no radio .
Readers asked me : How do they find out stuff ?
How do they know what ’ s going on ?
There is great anger in our Country caused in part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting of the news .
The Fake News Media , the true Enemy of the People , must stop the open & obvious hostility & report the news accurately & fairly .
That will do much to put out the flame of Anger and Outrage and we will then be able to bring all sides together in Peace and Harmony .
Fake News Must End !
The short answer , Dear Reader , is : they don ’ t .
Somehow the free press , the exchange of ideas , the dispersal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Would you please write a prequel to The Giver so we could find out how all that happened ?
Dear Reader : guess what .
You don ’ t need a prequel .
You ’ re living in one .

I haven’t checked in my OED (it’s just too hard for someone my age, even with the magnifying glass) but I think the word “prequel” is a fairly recent invention. Sequel: that’s a word we all know. Sequels have been around a long time; I’ve even written several, over the years.
But suddenly I’m hearing the word “prequel” from readers.
In 1993, I wrote a book called The Giver which was intended for a young audience, for readers maybe 10-14 years old. Its almost immediate success (it was awarded the 1994 Newbery Medal, and has sold millions of copies now, in thirty-some languages) took me by surprise. Set in the somewhat distant future, it depicted a world that had gone awry and become devoid of empathy or compassion, a world in which individual human lives had little value. I had thought of it as a fairly straightforward adventure story.
But young people didn’t read it quickly and move on to the next thing, the way they often do. They found something in the book that resonated at the same time that it puzzled them. How had that happened? they asked me—first in letters, now in emails. What went wrong? How can we keep this from happening?
I’ve given them simplistic answers. Verbal shrugs. It would have been gradual, I told them. It would have involved small compromises.
In order to be safe . . . we’ll give up this small freedom.
In order to be comfortable . . . we’ll sacrifice this.
I thought that perhaps the book might be a teaching vehicle, a cautionary tale. Choices are important, I told kids. You will be the ones to vote, in the future. Be aware of what you’re voting for—or against. Weigh the choices. Consider the implications, the compromises. Don’t be silenced. Don’t let your humanity be nibbled away.
Open your eyes, I told them, the way Jonas, the 12-year-old protagonist, does in the story. Become aware.
In his own dwelling, there were the necessary reference volumes that each household contained: a dictionary, and the thick community volume which contained descriptions of every office, factory, building, and committee. And the Book of Rules, of course. The books in his own dwelling were the only books that Jonas had ever seen. He had never known that other books existed.
The boy lives in a world with no literature, no history. How did this happen? readers asked me.
In April 2020, a school board in an Alaskan borough voted to remove five classic books from the school curriculum. Inappropriate content, they said.
Dear Reader: That’s how.
The boy in the book discovers, suddenly, that the solemn ceremony—a toast, an anthem, a goodbye speech—celebrating the elderly before they are taken though a special door of the Releasing Room is a disguise for something more sinister:
Jonas stared at him. “Release is always like that? For people who break the rules three times? For the Old? Do they kill the Old, too?”
Young readers asked me: Don’t they care? When did they stop caring? How could they . . . ?
Recently our president, despite the prediction by scientists that many more people, thousands of them, mostly elderly, will die in the coming months as a result, urged that restrictions intended to mitigate the pandemic be lifted quickly. On March 9, he said in a tweet:
So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on.
Dear Reader: That’s how.
There are no newspapers in the fictional world of The Giver. No television, no radio. Readers asked me: How do they find out stuff? How do they know what’s going on?
On October 29, 2018, Donald Trump tweeted:
There is great anger in our Country caused in part by inaccurate, and even fraudulent, reporting of the news. The Fake News Media, the true Enemy of the People, must stop the open & obvious hostility & report the news accurately & fairly. That will do much to put out the flame of Anger and Outrage and we will then be able to bring all sides together in Peace and Harmony. Fake News Must End!
The short answer, Dear Reader, is: they don’t. Somehow the free press, the exchange of ideas, the dispersal of information—all of that was gradually gnawed away.
Would you please write a prequel to The Giver so we could find out how all that happened?
Dear Reader: guess what. You don’t need a prequel. You’re living in one.