alternet--2020-10-18--Evangelical 'prophets' predicted Trump would appoint 3 Supreme Court justices. What else were they r

Evangelical 'prophets' predicted Trump would appoint 3 Supreme Court justices. What else were they right about?

Yea , verily .
The prophecy seemeth nigh unto fulfillment .
The one about Donald Trump appointing three Supreme Court justices .
No , it 's not in the Bible , but it 's part of a body of predictions about Trump that have been delivered since 2011 by a collection of charismatic and Pentecostal Christian prophets .
With the hearings for Amy Coney Barrett effectively concluded , the residents of evangelical Trumpland are finding joy in her seeming imminent confirmation , which has strengthened Trump 's aura of charismatic legitimacy at a time of crisis for his presidency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ October 2015 by evangelical prophet Mark Taylor , who not only predicted that Trump would be elected , but that during his term , he would appoint three justices to the highest court : `` The Supreme Court shall lose three , and my President shall pick new ones directly from MY TREE ! ''
Its dubious literary quality notwithstanding , Taylor 's seeming bullseye hit has galvanized supporters well outside the narrow apostolic-charismatic niche .
Followers of these prophets usually overlook their failed predictions : that Mitt Romney would be elected in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton would be prosecuted for `` rape and prostitution . ''
A hit is worth much more than a miss in this milieu .
These believers , as pointed out by religion scholar James A. Beverley in his 2020 book `` God 's Man in the White House , '' do not expect infallibility .
But they are currently basking in an aura of seeming divine favor .
As those who have been following the so-called Trump prophecies are aware , Taylor was not the only one who anticipated his rise .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a reality TV show host , Kim Clement declared that `` Trump shall become a trumpet '' for God 's voice .
By 2016 , these prophecies formed one of the founding verities of the evangelical revival that swept Trump into office , a movement that includes the president 's pastor , Paula White Cain , and appeals to a larger swath of alienated America .
Like many , I struggled at first to understand Trump 's appeal .
As an academic who studies charisma as well as a person who grew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often labeled a cult ( Prophet is my given surname ) , I have often thought about what might explain the unwavering loyalty of his followers , even in the face of his failure to deliver on most of his populist promises , such as bringing back their jobs .
Some explain such devotion with the pseudoscientific `` brainwashing without bars '' narrative , which relies on the popular cult construct .
But these are blunt-force tools that obscure more than they reveal .
The study of charisma , on the contrary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as to its potential end .
Trump 's appeal eventually came into focus for me when I realized that he had fashioned himself as the savior he knew such people were seeking by capitalizing on the charismatic potential of white Christian nationalism , which overlaps with evangelicalism .
Although Trump and his inner circle view the prophets with some suspicion , there are clear resonances between the prophets and Trump 's public image .
His MAGA slogan ( `` Make America Great Again '' ) echoes Taylor 's 2011 prediction that God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , respect , and restoration to America . ''
Other prophets predicted that Trump would stand up to banking elites , and in 2015 Clement declared that the president elected in 2016 would be a `` strong figure '' who would `` clean up the mess '' in government .
Like a canny charismatic leader , Trump sotto voce embraced the authority of these predictions , for example , by promising to `` drain the swamp . ''
The prophets have continued to support Trump through his presidency , even going so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They excuse his failings by portraying him as a morally weak and imperfect tool that is yet being used by God .
But charismatic authority is inherently unstable , and unforeseen events may expose a leader 's weaknesses .
The power of charisma ends when the leader 's failures become so apparent that followers have no choice but to withdraw their identification .
The events of spring 2020 , including the pandemic , natural disasters and economic crisis , have whittled down his support , although the base remains energized .
The mysterious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ QAnon is using elements of the prophecies to shore up the president 's charismatic authority .
Barrett 's nomination to the Supreme Court would certainly strengthen the base 's convictions .
Over on Elijahlist.com , a website that amalgamates contemporary prophecies , Steve and Derene Shultz are trumpeting the June 2018 prediction by prophet Charlie Shamp that a female justice would be appointed , a new `` Deborah , '' a warlike biblical prophetess .
Could this prophecy have had anything to do with Trump 's vow to appoint a woman after Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett is confirmed or not , how might the prophecies influence the endgame of the Trump presidency ?
Charismatic leaders who feel threatened , especially with loss of authority and even their freedom , may attempt to prolong their power by further inflaming tensions , including inciting violence .
Although the contemporary prophets themselves advocate prayer rather than violence , the white nationalists threatening to challenge election results may ignore them .
The history of prophetic movements tells us that if Trump fails to secure a second term , a variety of reactions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and begin to withdraw their identification .
Others will fight the cognitive dissonance and blame dark powers .
The prophets will develop a new timeline for the restoration .
Some Christian nationalists may for a time refuse to `` stand down , '' but eventually they will develop other perspectives .
There is no one-size-fits-all method of de-conversion from a religious or ideological position .
The best way to limit post-election violence would be to give his supporters a face-saving way to back down from their prophecy-inflated reality .
It may not work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first step in beginning to heal the schisms upon which Trump has so cannily capitalized .

Yea, verily. The prophecy seemeth nigh unto fulfillment. The one about Donald Trump appointing three Supreme Court justices. No, it's not in the Bible, but it's part of a body of predictions about Trump that have been delivered since 2011 by a collection of charismatic and Pentecostal Christian prophets. With the hearings for Amy Coney Barrett effectively concluded, the residents of evangelical Trumpland are finding joy in her seeming imminent confirmation, which has strengthened Trump's aura of charismatic legitimacy at a time of crisis for his presidency.
The prophecy in question was given in October 2015 by evangelical prophet Mark Taylor, who not only predicted that Trump would be elected, but that during his term, he would appoint three justices to the highest court: "The Supreme Court shall lose three, and my President shall pick new ones directly from MY TREE!"
Its dubious literary quality notwithstanding, Taylor's seeming bullseye hit has galvanized supporters well outside the narrow apostolic-charismatic niche. Followers of these prophets usually overlook their failed predictions: that Mitt Romney would be elected in 2012, or that Bill and Hillary Clinton would be prosecuted for "rape and prostitution." A hit is worth much more than a miss in this milieu. These believers, as pointed out by religion scholar James A. Beverley in his 2020 book "God's Man in the White House," do not expect infallibility. But they are currently basking in an aura of seeming divine favor.
As those who have been following the so-called Trump prophecies are aware, Taylor was not the only one who anticipated his rise. In 2007, when Trump was nothing more than a reality TV show host, Kim Clement declared that "Trump shall become a trumpet" for God's voice. By 2016, these prophecies formed one of the founding verities of the evangelical revival that swept Trump into office, a movement that includes the president's pastor, Paula White Cain, and appeals to a larger swath of alienated America.
Like many, I struggled at first to understand Trump's appeal. As an academic who studies charisma as well as a person who grew up in a religious group that was often labeled a cult (Prophet is my given surname), I have often thought about what might explain the unwavering loyalty of his followers, even in the face of his failure to deliver on most of his populist promises, such as bringing back their jobs. Some explain such devotion with the pseudoscientific "brainwashing without bars" narrative, which relies on the popular cult construct. But these are blunt-force tools that obscure more than they reveal.
The study of charisma, on the contrary, offers insight into his continuing popularity as well as to its potential end. Trump's appeal eventually came into focus for me when I realized that he had fashioned himself as the savior he knew such people were seeking by capitalizing on the charismatic potential of white Christian nationalism, which overlaps with evangelicalism. Although Trump and his inner circle view the prophets with some suspicion, there are clear resonances between the prophets and Trump's public image. His MAGA slogan ("Make America Great Again") echoes Taylor's 2011 prediction that God would use Trump "to bring honor, respect, and restoration to America."
Other prophets predicted that Trump would stand up to banking elites, and in 2015 Clement declared that the president elected in 2016 would be a "strong figure" who would "clean up the mess" in government. Like a canny charismatic leader, Trump sotto voce embraced the authority of these predictions, for example, by promising to "drain the swamp." The prophets have continued to support Trump through his presidency, even going so far as to predict a second term. They excuse his failings by portraying him as a morally weak and imperfect tool that is yet being used by God.
But charismatic authority is inherently unstable, and unforeseen events may expose a leader's weaknesses. The power of charisma ends when the leader's failures become so apparent that followers have no choice but to withdraw their identification. The events of spring 2020, including the pandemic, natural disasters and economic crisis, have whittled down his support, although the base remains energized. The mysterious "Q" at the heart of QAnon is using elements of the prophecies to shore up the president's charismatic authority.
Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court would certainly strengthen the base's convictions. Over on Elijahlist.com, a website that amalgamates contemporary prophecies, Steve and Derene Shultz are trumpeting the June 2018 prediction by prophet Charlie Shamp that a female justice would be appointed, a new "Deborah," a warlike biblical prophetess. Could this prophecy have had anything to do with Trump's vow to appoint a woman after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death?
Whether Barrett is confirmed or not, how might the prophecies influence the endgame of the Trump presidency? Charismatic leaders who feel threatened, especially with loss of authority and even their freedom, may attempt to prolong their power by further inflaming tensions, including inciting violence. Although the contemporary prophets themselves advocate prayer rather than violence, the white nationalists threatening to challenge election results may ignore them.
The history of prophetic movements tells us that if Trump fails to secure a second term, a variety of reactions are possible. Some will blame him and begin to withdraw their identification. Others will fight the cognitive dissonance and blame dark powers. The prophets will develop a new timeline for the restoration. Some Christian nationalists may for a time refuse to "stand down," but eventually they will develop other perspectives. There is no one-size-fits-all method of de-conversion from a religious or ideological position. The best way to limit post-election violence would be to give his supporters a face-saving way to back down from their prophecy-inflated reality. It may not work all at once, but it's the first step in beginning to heal the schisms upon which Trump has so cannily capitalized.


alternet--2020-10-18--Mitch McConnell waited too long to distance himself from Trump — and now it will cost him: report

According to a report from USA Today , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) and fellow Republican senators waited too long to put some distance between themselves and unpopular President Donald Trump and that will likely cost McConnell his power and GOP control of the Senate .
With the election a little more than two weeks away and Trump appearing to be heading to defeat , members of the Republican Party have begun to openly suggest they are facing a `` bloodbath '' on November 3rd .
According to the USA Today report , conservatives lawmakers have only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
According to Jessica Taylor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report , `` It just shows that these senators are pulled in two different directions .
They ca n't irritate the very conservative Trump base but they also need independents to win the general election .
It 's a no-win situation for them in many regards . ''
The report notes that McConnell is pushing through the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett and scheduling a vote of COVID-19 relief this coming week in an effort to give GOP candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the president .
`` McConnell , known for bringing home the political bacon to Kentucky , looked to give GOP colleagues a way out when he announced the Senate 's schedule was shifting , '' the report stated .
`` As a general rule , presidential candidates have coattails that help down-ballot candidates of their own party because they help expand the participation of like-minded voters .
But that was n't the case in 2016 with Trump , '' the report continued .
`` Four years ago , a number of senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaking with him over the Hollywood Access tape in which the then-reality show star Trump was caught on a hot mic bragging about groping women . ''
This go-around it appears that Republican Senators from North Carolina , Maine , Colorado , Nebraska , Arizona and Georgia could be out of a job after election day because they failed to disavow the president — thereby handing control of the Senate to the Democrats .
You can read more here .

According to a report from USA Today, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and fellow Republican senators waited too long to put some distance between themselves and unpopular President Donald Trump and that will likely cost McConnell his power and GOP control of the Senate.
With the election a little more than two weeks away and Trump appearing to be heading to defeat, members of the Republican Party have begun to openly suggest they are facing a "bloodbath" on November 3rd. According to the USA Today report, conservatives lawmakers have only themselves to blame for the coming debacle.
According to Jessica Taylor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, "It just shows that these senators are pulled in two different directions. They can't irritate the very conservative Trump base but they also need independents to win the general election. It's a no-win situation for them in many regards."
The report notes that McConnell is pushing through the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett and scheduling a vote of COVID-19 relief this coming week in an effort to give GOP candidates something to brag about while avoiding mention of the president.
"McConnell, known for bringing home the political bacon to Kentucky, looked to give GOP colleagues a way out when he announced the Senate's schedule was shifting," the report stated.
"As a general rule, presidential candidates have coattails that help down-ballot candidates of their own party because they help expand the participation of like-minded voters. But that wasn't the case in 2016 with Trump," the report continued. "Four years ago, a number of senators publicly disavowed Trump, many of them breaking with him over the Hollywood Access tape in which the then-reality show star Trump was caught on a hot mic bragging about groping women."
This go-around it appears that Republican Senators from North Carolina, Maine, Colorado, Nebraska, Arizona and Georgia could be out of a job after election day because they failed to disavow the president — thereby handing control of the Senate to the Democrats.
You can read more here.


alternet--2020-10-18--Senate Democrats try to save federal workforce from Trump's harebrained payroll tax scheme

Senate Democrats are trying to save federal workers from having big docks in their pay next spring by allowing them to opt out of the mandatory Trump scheme to give them a payroll tax holiday .
Trump spent the whole of the year obsessing about `` terminating '' payroll taxes as stimulus in the coronavirus pandemic , somehow not grasping the basic issue that people who lost their jobs because of the virus are n't paying payroll taxes anyway .
He was so intent on making this thing that no one thought would be helpful that his administration finally just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only people they could—federal workers .
The difficulty is that they 'll have to pay the money back in the first quarter of next year , while we 're still going to be in this pandemic .
Democrats want them to be able to opt out and continue to have the withholdings .
`` During this time of heightened uncertainty , our public servants deserve the ability to choose what makes most sense for them and for their pocketbooks .
That 's why the President 's payroll tax deferral must be made optional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland , said in a statement .
These are the payroll taxes that fund Social Security .
Trump has vowed to `` terminate '' payroll taxes entirely , a plan that could `` terminate '' Social Security by 2023 , the chief actuary for the program says .
That 's if there was n't a substitute funding plan in place .
Given that they have n't managed a substitute plan for the Affordable Care Act in a decade , it 's hard to imagine Republicans coming up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Congress have been urging the administration to allow federal employees to opt out—they 've done so in both the House and Senate , and private sector employees and employers have been given that choice .
Other than the House and Senate , only the semi-governmental , semi-private Postal Service has been given the option .
Even Louis DeJoy , Trump 's corrupt toady postmaster general , opted out of suspending withholding .
Federal employee unions have also been asking the administration to allow them to give the withholding a pass .
Treasury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing last month that that was a `` reasonable '' request , but he has n't acted on it , and he and the Office of Management and Budget have kept the policy in place .
So all federal employees who earn less than $ 4,000 per biweekly paycheck with get the 6.2 % bump in pay , but will have to repay that starting in January , with larger withholdings from their paychecks—the regular withholding plus the clawback .
So they wo n't be able to spend this `` extra '' pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in January when their paychecks will be smaller .
Which is stupid .
But it 's Trump 's big idea so of course it 's stupid .
`` The President 's payroll tax deferral scheme is nothing more than a scam on hardworking federal employees—making their paychecks look bigger until the end the of the year when they 'll be hit with a surprise increase in their payroll taxes right after the holidays , '' American Federation of Government Employees President Everett Kelley said in a statement .
The Democrats ' legislation might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reverse the policy for the remainder of the year , but again , Trump wanted this .
He seems to believe that all the federal employees will be so grateful to him for giving them a temporary bonus they 'll vote for him or something .
Which shows just how untethered from reality the man is .

Senate Democrats are trying to save federal workers from having big docks in their pay next spring by allowing them to opt out of the mandatory Trump scheme to give them a payroll tax holiday. Trump spent the whole of the year obsessing about "terminating" payroll taxes as stimulus in the coronavirus pandemic, somehow not grasping the basic issue that people who lost their jobs because of the virus aren't paying payroll taxes anyway. He was so intent on making this thing that no one thought would be helpful that his administration finally just gave in and imposed it on the only people they could—federal workers. The difficulty is that they'll have to pay the money back in the first quarter of next year, while we're still going to be in this pandemic.
Democrats want them to be able to opt out and continue to have the withholdings. "During this time of heightened uncertainty, our public servants deserve the ability to choose what makes most sense for them and for their pocketbooks. That's why the President's payroll tax deferral must be made optional," lead sponsor of the bill, Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, said in a statement. These are the payroll taxes that fund Social Security. Trump has vowed to "terminate" payroll taxes entirely, a plan that could "terminate" Social Security by 2023, the chief actuary for the program says. That's if there wasn't a substitute funding plan in place. Given that they haven't managed a substitute plan for the Affordable Care Act in a decade, it's hard to imagine Republicans coming up with a Social Security plan.
Members of Congress have been urging the administration to allow federal employees to opt out—they've done so in both the House and Senate, and private sector employees and employers have been given that choice. Other than the House and Senate, only the semi-governmental, semi-private Postal Service has been given the option. Even Louis DeJoy, Trump's corrupt toady postmaster general, opted out of suspending withholding. Federal employee unions have also been asking the administration to allow them to give the withholding a pass. Treasury Sec. Steven Mnuchin said in a hearing last month that that was a "reasonable" request, but he hasn't acted on it, and he and the Office of Management and Budget have kept the policy in place.
So all federal employees who earn less than $4,000 per biweekly paycheck with get the 6.2% bump in pay, but will have to repay that starting in January, with larger withholdings from their paychecks—the regular withholding plus the clawback. So they won't be able to spend this "extra" pay now because they'll need it starting in January when their paychecks will be smaller. Which is stupid. But it's Trump's big idea so of course it's stupid. "The President's payroll tax deferral scheme is nothing more than a scam on hardworking federal employees—making their paychecks look bigger until the end the of the year when they'll be hit with a surprise increase in their payroll taxes right after the holidays," American Federation of Government Employees President Everett Kelley said in a statement.
The Democrats' legislation might be enough of a nudge for Mnuchin to reverse the policy for the remainder of the year, but again, Trump wanted this. He seems to believe that all the federal employees will be so grateful to him for giving them a temporary bonus they'll vote for him or something. Which shows just how untethered from reality the man is.


alternet--2020-10-18--Historian warns America is already in its own 'slow-motion Reichstag Fire'

Donald Trump continues to make it clear that he does not intend to leave office peacefully if he is defeated by Joe Biden and the Democrats on Election Day .
Moreover , Donald Trump considers any election in which he is not the `` winner '' to be null and void .
Trump 's appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court is an obvious quid pro quo to secure his `` reelection '' if his attorneys and other agents can sufficiently sabotage the vote on Election Day and beyond .
On Thursday , Trump again followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his supporters at a rally in North Carolina that U.S. Marshalls essentially executed Michael Reinoehl , an anti-fascist activist accused of killing a right wing paramilitary member during protests in Oregon last August .
Celebrating the extra-judicial killings of one 's political `` enemies '' is a common feature of fascist authoritarian regimes and the types of leaders admired and imitated by Donald Trump .
Donald Trump 's commitment to and use of political violence is a matter of public record .
Two of the most recent examples include how Trump 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and possibly murder Michigan Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer .
During his debate with Joe Biden , Trump also commanded white supremacist paramilitaries to be prepared to attack his and their `` enemies '' if he loses on Election Day or is otherwise removed from office .
Trump also wants Joe Biden and other leading Democrats imprisoned and perhaps even executed because he deems them to be `` guilty '' of `` treason '' and a `` coup '' attempt against him .
Donald Trump and his Attorney General William Barr have also threatened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American people if they dare to protest the outcome of the 2020 Election if Trump somehow finds some extra-legal ( if not outright illegal ) way to stay in office .
Because he is a political sadist and master of misery and pain , Donald Trump is using the coronavirus pandemic as a weapon to physically and emotionally abuse the American people in order to make them more compliant and subservient to his regime .
Like other autocrats and authoritarians , he is also using the economic and human devastation caused by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his family , and allies as a way of guaranteeing the latter 's loyalty .
In all , as with his obsessive rhetoric about `` law and order , '' like other fascist authoritarians Donald Trump and his regime define the `` law '' in ways that benefit themselves and disregard the law when it does not serve their interests .
Through that logic democracy is a tool for the Trump regime to stay in power indefinitely if they `` win '' and to disregard the outcome on Election Day and beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the American people .
Trump 's strategy of attacking America 's democratic norms , institutions , and culture is a constant torrent where the targets are corrupted , weakened , and then finally routed through sheer exhaustion .
In a new essay at The Bulwark , senior Democratic Party strategist James Carville summarizes this existential moment of crisis for the United States as : The Trump regime has created a defense in depth against the American people .
A key part of Trump 's defensive strategy consists of how those Americans and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climactic assault on the country 's democracy have been lulled into a type of complacency and surrender .
As wielded by Donald Trump and other fascist authoritarians , the poison they have injected into the country 's body politic and democracy is actually quite slow acting , where the victim becomes used to chronic pain before finally succumbing .
Why does America 's mainstream news media continue to avoid describing Donald Trump and his regime as fascist authoritarians ?
What are they afraid of ?
How has that evasion helped to empower and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump and his regime used the coronavirus — and the pain and social injustice it has revealed and made worse — as a weapon against democracy and the American people ?
In an effort to answer these questions , I recently spoke with Timothy Snyder .
He is a Professor of History at Yale University and the author of the bestselling books `` On Tyranny : Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century '' and `` The Road to Unfreedom : Russia , Europe , America . ''
His new book is `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Hospital Diary . ''
At the end of this conversation , Timothy Snyder warns that the United States is in the midst of a years-long slow-motion Reichstag Fire emergency that Election Day 2020 may not resolve .
You can also listen to my conversation with Timothy Snyder on my podcast `` The Truth Report '' or through the player embedded below .
Donald Trump 's attacks on democracy are escalating .
He continues to say that he will not respect the outcome of the election if he loses to Joe Biden and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voices who have been warning about Trump and authoritarianism and fascism for several years .
You are foremost among them .
Why did more people not listen to the warnings ?
It is structural .
At present it is harder to reach people who do not already agree with you .
This is true even for those of us with a public platform and big audience .
More contact is virtual and less in person .
It is also harder to surprise people .
Ultimately , it is very hard to reach people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a person 's mind is already made up one way or another .
The second answer is that many Americans really like authoritarianism .
Sure , the conventional wisdom says that Americans like freedom .
Some of them do .
Some of them do not .
The Americans who do not like freedom are not going to be reached or otherwise have their minds changed .
It is as simple as that .
In my view , it is less about reaching people and more about getting them to take action .
People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you preach to the choir ? ''
To get people to do things .
It is not enough to have the correct idea .
If people act , even if it is a small thing , that makes a difference .
And of course , there is the challenge of the American exceptionalism consensus .
The belief that America is insulated from authoritarianism because of our institutions took a long time to fight through .
That myth was the direct target of my book `` On Tyranny . ''
Why are so many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class continually surprised by Donald Trump 's cruelty and assaults on democracy and norms ?
Trump is not changing .
He is only getting worse .
Why be surprised ?
Such a reaction is very crippling and ultimately counterproductive .
It helps Trump to win .
That denial is a function of what I describe as `` the politics of eternity . ''
There is an ongoing stream of small to medium-level provocations from authoritarian movements and leaders .
Those actions give a positive hit to their supporters and a negative hit to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the experience , be it pleasant or unpleasant .
What you are describing is how many in the news media and elsewhere wait for Donald Trump to do the latest most outrageous thing — and then it is reported as being outrageous .
That gives them a hit of sorts , a jolt to the system .
Then they wait for the next outrageous thing , and so on .
But the problem is that there is no thinking or theory to offer context for what is happening .
Too many people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's `` institutions '' are going to solve the problems of authoritarianism and Trumpism .
Or history is somehow on America 's side .
If a person does not have some way of theorizing what Donald Trump is , then everything he does is a surprise to them .
If you lack the theoretical framework to understand Trump and what is happening , then you will also lack an understanding of how to push back against it .
You are helpless .
So many of the discussions are still focused on Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we need to be able to do is to say what Trump is .
Once you say what Trumpism really is , then you can start to fight it .
We talk about the pandemic as though it is a series of failures .
No , the pandemic is not a series of failures .
It is the `` achievement '' that Donald Trump is going to be most remembered for .
More than 200,000 people dead from the pandemic is a type of `` achievement '' for Trump .
It took real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'm not saying that he intended it from beginning to end .
I 'm not saying that there was a plot in January that 300,000 will be dead in December .
What I am saying is that outcome is a result of the decisions made by Donald Trump .
If the American people and most of the mainstream news media and other observers keep seeing Donald Trump in terms of omissions such as `` he is not a normal politician '' then we do not see and understand him for what he really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump is a white man .
He is old .
He wears a tie .
What could he possibly be except somewhere in the zone of normal ?
That erroneous assumption contributes to why so many people are still surprised by his behavior .
Donald Trump is evil .
His movement is evil .
They meet all the criteria for evil .
Yet , there is a willful avoidance of using that language to describe him by the mainstream news media , political elites , and other opinion leaders and public voices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his movement are evil , then there is an obligation to do something about it .
To my eyes , that avoidance is a defense mechanism that will not save them or anyone else from Trump and his movement .
Evil is a helpful word to use here .
I have been using that language in my new book `` Our Malady . ''
There is an almost taboo-like hesitation to move into truly ethical judgments in our discussions of Trump and his movement .
As long as we are avoiding discussions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is normalized .
Avoiding that language of good and evil also leaves the public with a hope that this crisis will somehow turn back to normal .
There is a psychological dynamic at work here too .
If a person did not name Trumpism as evil before , then it is hard to name it as such later on .
If a political commentator or other observer did not see the danger of Trump and his movement back in 2016 then they are probably not getting it correct now even at this late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear , '' though , is very well taken .
But I 'd push that out in a different direction .
Fear is also an important concept here .
Trump is running for reelection based on fear – much more so than in 2016 .
In 2016 , it was a mix .
Trump and his campaign were talking about infrastructure .
They were trying to go to the left of the Democrats on some issues .
Whereas in 2020 , it 's now just pure fear .
A fear that Black people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the suburbs , and they are going to burn down the cities .
The pandemic is either Black people 's fault or it is a conspiracy , or it is not really happening .
Fear is being consciously created and then manipulated .
The Democrats are really running against a Reichstag Fire .
The Democrats are not really running against a political party and Donald Trump 's campaign .
How can we better explain to the Democrats that Trumpism is a type of political and social movement , and normal politics , those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in America ?
History shows that people can learn to like pain .
They can also learn to like inflicting pain on others .
That is what the Democrats are up against .
They are not competing against some theory of politics where voters and the public are purely rational and motivated by `` the issues . ''
Donald Trump is a president who happily circulates as much pain as he can on the rationale that his people are going to suffer for him — and they 're going to enjoy suffering because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffering more .
Trump 's supporters are suffering for a cause which is other people , Black people , immigrants , some Other , suffering more than they are .
Should the Democrats therefore imitate Donald Trump and the Republicans ?
The fact that there is now a Trump death cult does not mean that there should then be a Biden death cult .
That would be absurd on any number of levels .
The coronavirus intersects with American fascism , Donald Trump , and his movement – including the Republican Party as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense of that relationship ?
Because I was so close to death , the significance of those observations and experiences was brought home to me more than it would have been otherwise .
America 's racial and economic inequality is all the more obvious in life or death situations .
The coronavirus of course reveals those disparities in an even more stark light .
Even before 2020 begins we are in a system where America does not have universal health care .
Why ?
Because there is some type of practical everyday consensus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care in this country .
Such disparities in treatment are racial : In America we do not have a right to health care because then that would mean that Black people and Brown people and immigrants and so on would also have access to health care and then somehow abuse it — so goes the racist logic and history in this country .
Health care in the United States overlaps with race for white people in another way as well .
The argument that is made to white people is `` you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rugged individualists . ''
In that imaginary , white people know not to talk about pain or disease .
There is the sadism then of some white people being pleased because they suffer less than other people .
And you have the masochism of those same white people being willing to suffer , basically for nothing .
When the first reports of the coronavirus begin in March and April it was clear that it is taking the life of Blacks and Hispanics and Native Americans at a much higher rate than whites .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is much more fatal .
In America white people live longer than Black people .
Once that fact is widely known it becomes normalized .
For many white people , it is normal for Black people and Brown people to suffer more than them .
What do we know about the connections between a humane society and authoritarianism ?
There is a strong connection .
In my new book `` Our Malady '' I explore this .
For example , on an individual level , when you ca n't talk , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When you ca n't move , you do not have freedom of assembly .
When you do not think that you are going to have a future , then freedom is no longer a meaningful concept .
If you can not afford health care , you 're afraid .
If you 're ashamed to talk about health care , you 're less free .
If you 're aware of that the access to health care is going to be competitive and somebody who 's less sick than you might come ahead of you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connections or whatever it might be , then you are less free .
Pandemic or not , it all creates a situation where there is not an unnecessary reservoir of anxiety and fear .
And that totally unnecessary reservoir of anxiety and fear can be directed to other places .
The talent that Donald Trump has is to either generate that anxiety or to take the anxiety and fear that already exists in America and to direct it in the ways that he wants to .
Authoritarianism works through taking abuse and trauma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump understands that he can not win a free and fair election .
Trump knows that the pandemic and the economic downturn can give him the sources of energy that he just might be able to use to stay in power some other way than an election .
Donald Trump is in `` the worse , the better '' territory now , because he understands abuse , pain , trauma , fear and related things .
Evil understands evil .
Trump understands that the more anxiety and fear is out there , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn the election in his direction and then pick up the pieces .
Election Day is imminent .
How do you respond to those critics who would say that , `` You were talking about a Reichstag Fire !
It did n't happen !
You are an alarmist .
Hysterical !
None of that happened ! ''
What would you tell such people ?
Obviously , we are in a slow-motion Reichstag Fire right now .
That is what is happening .
Donald Trump is not as skilled as Hitler .
He does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He does n't have the same level of confidence as Hitler , but he 's clearly looking for that Reichstag Fire emergency .
Trump tried to make Black Lives Matter into that emergency .
`` Antifascists '' and `` thugs '' and `` law and order '' and so on is part of that effort .
Donald Trump keeps trying to make the Reichstag Fire work .
If Trump is not successful , then that is a credit to the people who are resisting .
Donald Trump is not involved in a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the constant search of an emergency .
Whether Trump and his allies can line up the emergency politics with the emergency , I do not know .
But that is all that Trump and his allies have got on their side — and it all they are going to have through to Election Day .

Donald Trump continues to make it clear that he does not intend to leave office peacefully if he is defeated by Joe Biden and the Democrats on Election Day. Moreover, Donald Trump considers any election in which he is not the "winner" to be null and void. Trump's appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court is an obvious quid pro quo to secure his "reelection" if his attorneys and other agents can sufficiently sabotage the vote on Election Day and beyond.
On Thursday, Trump again followed the authoritarian's playbook when he bragged to his supporters at a rally in North Carolina that U.S. Marshalls essentially executed Michael Reinoehl, an anti-fascist activist accused of killing a right wing paramilitary member during protests in Oregon last August.
Celebrating the extra-judicial killings of one's political "enemies" is a common feature of fascist authoritarian regimes and the types of leaders admired and imitated by Donald Trump.
Donald Trump's commitment to and use of political violence is a matter of public record. Two of the most recent examples include how Trump's followers in Michigan allegedly planned to kidnap and possibly murder Michigan Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer. During his debate with Joe Biden, Trump also commanded white supremacist paramilitaries to be prepared to attack his and their "enemies" if he loses on Election Day or is otherwise removed from office.
Trump also wants Joe Biden and other leading Democrats imprisoned and perhaps even executed because he deems them to be "guilty" of "treason" and a "coup" attempt against him. Donald Trump and his Attorney General William Barr have also threatened to use the United States military against the American people if they dare to protest the outcome of the 2020 Election if Trump somehow finds some extra-legal (if not outright illegal) way to stay in office.
Because he is a political sadist and master of misery and pain, Donald Trump is using the coronavirus pandemic as a weapon to physically and emotionally abuse the American people in order to make them more compliant and subservient to his regime. Like other autocrats and authoritarians, he is also using the economic and human devastation caused by the coronavirus pandemic to personally enrich himself, his family, and allies as a way of guaranteeing the latter's loyalty.
In all, as with his obsessive rhetoric about "law and order," like other fascist authoritarians Donald Trump and his regime define the "law" in ways that benefit themselves and disregard the law when it does not serve their interests. Through that logic democracy is a tool for the Trump regime to stay in power indefinitely if they "win" and to disregard the outcome on Election Day and beyond if they are voted out of office by the American people.
Trump's strategy of attacking America's democratic norms, institutions, and culture is a constant torrent where the targets are corrupted, weakened, and then finally routed through sheer exhaustion.
In a new essay at The Bulwark, senior Democratic Party strategist James Carville summarizes this existential moment of crisis for the United States as:
Very seldom in American history have there been periods when people can nobly wage a crusade to create real and lasting change. But when these crusades do occur, when those moments arrive, what we do to vanquish the threat to freedom builds something everlasting into the framework of our society.
The American Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, Seneca Falls, Stonewall, and Selma, were all historical flashpoints where Americans displayed their patriotism against oppressive forces in a resounding way. These movements overthrew an empire, ended slavery, staved off totalitarianism, and paved the way for the establishment of fundamental civil rights and liberties for women, LGBTQ+ and black Americans.
We find ourselves again at such a turning point. Donald Trump's authoritarian presence behind the Resolute Desk is amongst the gravest threats America has ever faced from within. And Americans have risen to meet this threat.
The Trump regime has created a defense in depth against the American people. A key part of Trump's defensive strategy consists of how those Americans and others who are expecting one dramatic and climactic assault on the country's democracy have been lulled into a type of complacency and surrender.
As wielded by Donald Trump and other fascist authoritarians, the poison they have injected into the country's body politic and democracy is actually quite slow acting, where the victim becomes used to chronic pain before finally succumbing.
Why does America's mainstream news media continue to avoid describing Donald Trump and his regime as fascist authoritarians? What are they afraid of? How has that evasion helped to empower and normalize Trumpism?
In what ways have Donald Trump and his regime used the coronavirus — and the pain and social injustice it has revealed and made worse — as a weapon against democracy and the American people?
In an effort to answer these questions, I recently spoke with Timothy Snyder. He is a Professor of History at Yale University and the author of the bestselling books "On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century" and "The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America." His new book is "Our Malady: Lessons in Liberty from a Hospital Diary."
At the end of this conversation, Timothy Snyder warns that the United States is in the midst of a years-long slow-motion Reichstag Fire emergency that Election Day 2020 may not resolve.
You can also listen to my conversation with Timothy Snyder on my podcast "The Truth Report" or through the player embedded below.
Donald Trump's attacks on democracy are escalating. He continues to say that he will not respect the outcome of the election if he loses to Joe Biden and the Democrats. There are some public voices who have been warning about Trump and authoritarianism and fascism for several years. You are foremost among them. Why did more people not listen to the warnings?
It is structural. At present it is harder to reach people who do not already agree with you. This is true even for those of us with a public platform and big audience. More contact is virtual and less in person. It is also harder to surprise people. Ultimately, it is very hard to reach people before an algorithm does. By then a person's mind is already made up one way or another.
The second answer is that many Americans really like authoritarianism. Sure, the conventional wisdom says that Americans like freedom. Some of them do. Some of them do not. The Americans who do not like freedom are not going to be reached or otherwise have their minds changed. It is as simple as that.
In my view, it is less about reaching people and more about getting them to take action. People sometimes ask me, "Why do you preach to the choir?" To get people to do things. It is not enough to have the correct idea. If people act, even if it is a small thing, that makes a difference.
And of course, there is the challenge of the American exceptionalism consensus. The belief that America is insulated from authoritarianism because of our institutions took a long time to fight through. That myth was the direct target of my book "On Tyranny."
Why are so many journalists and other members of the political class continually surprised by Donald Trump's cruelty and assaults on democracy and norms? Trump is not changing. He is only getting worse. Why be surprised? Such a reaction is very crippling and ultimately counterproductive. It helps Trump to win.
That denial is a function of what I describe as "the politics of eternity." There is an ongoing stream of small to medium-level provocations from authoritarian movements and leaders. Those actions give a positive hit to their supporters and a negative hit to their opponents.
Everyone becomes addicted to the experience, be it pleasant or unpleasant. What you are describing is how many in the news media and elsewhere wait for Donald Trump to do the latest most outrageous thing — and then it is reported as being outrageous. That gives them a hit of sorts, a jolt to the system. Then they wait for the next outrageous thing, and so on. But the problem is that there is no thinking or theory to offer context for what is happening.
Too many people are still defaulting to these ideas that America's "institutions" are going to solve the problems of authoritarianism and Trumpism. Or history is somehow on America's side. If a person does not have some way of theorizing what Donald Trump is, then everything he does is a surprise to them. If you lack the theoretical framework to understand Trump and what is happening, then you will also lack an understanding of how to push back against it. You are helpless.
So many of the discussions are still focused on Donald Trump and what he is not. What we need to be able to do is to say what Trump is. Once you say what Trumpism really is, then you can start to fight it.
We talk about the pandemic as though it is a series of failures. No, the pandemic is not a series of failures. It is the "achievement" that Donald Trump is going to be most remembered for.
More than 200,000 people dead from the pandemic is a type of "achievement" for Trump. It took real effort to make that happen.
I'm not saying that he intended it from beginning to end. I'm not saying that there was a plot in January that 300,000 will be dead in December. What I am saying is that outcome is a result of the decisions made by Donald Trump. If the American people and most of the mainstream news media and other observers keep seeing Donald Trump in terms of omissions such as "he is not a normal politician" then we do not see and understand him for what he really is, whatever that may be.
Donald Trump is a white man. He is old. He wears a tie. What could he possibly be except somewhere in the zone of normal? That erroneous assumption contributes to why so many people are still surprised by his behavior.
Donald Trump is evil. His movement is evil. They meet all the criteria for evil. Yet, there is a willful avoidance of using that language to describe him by the mainstream news media, political elites, and other opinion leaders and public voices. If they admit that Donald Trump and his movement are evil, then there is an obligation to do something about it. To my eyes, that avoidance is a defense mechanism that will not save them or anyone else from Trump and his movement.
Evil is a helpful word to use here. I have been using that language in my new book "Our Malady." There is an almost taboo-like hesitation to move into truly ethical judgments in our discussions of Trump and his movement. As long as we are avoiding discussions of good and evil then his behavior is normalized. Avoiding that language of good and evil also leaves the public with a hope that this crisis will somehow turn back to normal.
There is a psychological dynamic at work here too. If a person did not name Trumpism as evil before, then it is hard to name it as such later on. If a political commentator or other observer did not see the danger of Trump and his movement back in 2016 then they are probably not getting it correct now even at this late point.
I think your word "fear," though, is very well taken. But I'd push that out in a different direction.
Fear is also an important concept here. Trump is running for reelection based on fear – much more so than in 2016. In 2016, it was a mix. Trump and his campaign were talking about infrastructure. They were trying to go to the left of the Democrats on some issues. Whereas in 2020, it's now just pure fear. A fear that Black people are going to rape white women in the suburbs, and they are going to burn down the cities. The pandemic is either Black people's fault or it is a conspiracy, or it is not really happening. Fear is being consciously created and then manipulated. The Democrats are really running against a Reichstag Fire. The Democrats are not really running against a political party and Donald Trump's campaign.
How can we better explain to the Democrats that Trumpism is a type of political and social movement, and normal politics, those old rules, no longer apply here in America?
History shows that people can learn to like pain. They can also learn to like inflicting pain on others. That is what the Democrats are up against. They are not competing against some theory of politics where voters and the public are purely rational and motivated by "the issues."
Donald Trump is a president who happily circulates as much pain as he can on the rationale that his people are going to suffer for him — and they're going to enjoy suffering because of their idea that other people are suffering more. Trump's supporters are suffering for a cause which is other people, Black people, immigrants, some Other, suffering more than they are.
Should the Democrats therefore imitate Donald Trump and the Republicans? The fact that there is now a Trump death cult does not mean that there should then be a Biden death cult. That would be absurd on any number of levels.
The coronavirus intersects with American fascism, Donald Trump, and his movement – including the Republican Party as a whole. How are you making sense of that relationship?
Because I was so close to death, the significance of those observations and experiences was brought home to me more than it would have been otherwise. America's racial and economic inequality is all the more obvious in life or death situations. The coronavirus of course reveals those disparities in an even more stark light.
Even before 2020 begins we are in a system where America does not have universal health care. Why? Because there is some type of practical everyday consensus that it is OK to have bad health care in this country. Such disparities in treatment are racial: In America we do not have a right to health care because then that would mean that Black people and Brown people and immigrants and so on would also have access to health care and then somehow abuse it — so goes the racist logic and history in this country.
Health care in the United States overlaps with race for white people in another way as well. The argument that is made to white people is "you are the frontiersmen, you're the rugged individualists." In that imaginary, white people know not to talk about pain or disease. There is the sadism then of some white people being pleased because they suffer less than other people. And you have the masochism of those same white people being willing to suffer, basically for nothing.
When the first reports of the coronavirus begin in March and April it was clear that it is taking the life of Blacks and Hispanics and Native Americans at a much higher rate than whites. Now that we have more numbers, it is much more fatal. In America white people live longer than Black people.
Once that fact is widely known it becomes normalized. For many white people, it is normal for Black people and Brown people to suffer more than them.
What do we know about the connections between a humane society and authoritarianism?
There is a strong connection. In my new book "Our Malady" I explore this.
For example, on an individual level, when you can't talk, you do not have freedom of speech. When you can't move, you do not have freedom of assembly. When you do not think that you are going to have a future, then freedom is no longer a meaningful concept.
If you cannot afford health care, you're afraid. If you're ashamed to talk about health care, you're less free. If you're aware of that the access to health care is going to be competitive and somebody who's less sick than you might come ahead of you because they have better insurance and better connections or whatever it might be, then you are less free. Pandemic or not, it all creates a situation where there is not an unnecessary reservoir of anxiety and fear. And that totally unnecessary reservoir of anxiety and fear can be directed to other places.
The talent that Donald Trump has is to either generate that anxiety or to take the anxiety and fear that already exists in America and to direct it in the ways that he wants to. Authoritarianism works through taking abuse and trauma and pushing it in other directions.
Donald Trump understands that he cannot win a free and fair election. Trump knows that the pandemic and the economic downturn can give him the sources of energy that he just might be able to use to stay in power some other way than an election. Donald Trump is in "the worse, the better" territory now, because he understands abuse, pain, trauma, fear and related things. Evil understands evil. Trump understands that the more anxiety and fear is out there, the larger the chances he must somehow turn the election in his direction and then pick up the pieces.
Election Day is imminent. How do you respond to those critics who would say that, "You were talking about a Reichstag Fire! It didn't happen! You are an alarmist. Hysterical! None of that happened!" What would you tell such people?
Obviously, we are in a slow-motion Reichstag Fire right now. That is what is happening. Donald Trump is not as skilled as Hitler. He doesn't work as hard as Hitler. He doesn't have the same level of confidence as Hitler, but he's clearly looking for that Reichstag Fire emergency. Trump tried to make Black Lives Matter into that emergency. "Antifascists" and "thugs" and "law and order" and so on is part of that effort. Donald Trump keeps trying to make the Reichstag Fire work.
If Trump is not successful, then that is a credit to the people who are resisting. Donald Trump is not involved in a political campaign; it is emergency politics in the constant search of an emergency. Whether Trump and his allies can line up the emergency politics with the emergency, I do not know. But that is all that Trump and his allies have got on their side — and it all they are going to have through to Election Day.


alternet--2020-10-18--Trump Jr. says dad’s ‘next move’ is to ‘break up’ the FBI: ‘He has to get rid of these things’

Donald Trump Jr. on Sunday called on his father to `` break up '' the FBI if he wins a second term .
During an interview on Fox News , host Maria Bartiromo asked the president 's son what his father would do if the FBI does not do his bidding by smearing the son of Democratic nominee Joe Biden and by preventing Democrats from increasing the use of mail-in ballots .
`` We have to keep fighting , '' Trump replied .
`` We 're fighting with one leg and two arms tied behind our back .
You know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media that 's willing to at this point , not even just boost the other side , but literally run cover for what would arguably be the biggest corruption scheme in American political history .
This is the stuff that makes Watergate look like kindergarten . ''
According to the younger Trump , the FBI tried to `` knowingly peddle '' information about his father 's connections to Russia .
`` They refuse to acknowledge their own corruption , '' he explained .
`` And the reality is , I think , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ break up the highest level of the FBI .
He has to get rid of these things .
And more importantly , maybe break up the swamp in general . ''
`` You know , why is the Department of the Interior headed out of Washington ? ''
Trump asked .
`` Why do n't we spread all of those things up throughout America ? ''
`` That 's Donald Trump 's next move , '' he predicted , `` if I 'm him and if he wins , which I think he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is disgusting .
This is the stuff of communist China ! ''
Watch the video below from Fox News .
Donald Trump Jr. : Dad 's 'next move ' is to 'break up ' FBI

Donald Trump Jr. on Sunday called on his father to "break up" the FBI if he wins a second term.
During an interview on Fox News, host Maria Bartiromo asked the president's son what his father would do if the FBI does not do his bidding by smearing the son of Democratic nominee Joe Biden and by preventing Democrats from increasing the use of mail-in ballots.
"We have to keep fighting," Trump replied. "We're fighting with one leg and two arms tied behind our back. You know, we don't have the mainstream media that's willing to at this point, not even just boost the other side, but literally run cover for what would arguably be the biggest corruption scheme in American political history. This is the stuff that makes Watergate look like kindergarten."
According to the younger Trump, the FBI tried to "knowingly peddle" information about his father's connections to Russia.
"They refuse to acknowledge their own corruption," he explained. "And the reality is, I think, when Donald Trump wins, he has to break up the highest level of the FBI. He has to get rid of these things. And more importantly, maybe break up the swamp in general."
"You know, why is the Department of the Interior headed out of Washington?" Trump asked. "Why don't we spread all of those things up throughout America?"
"That's Donald Trump's next move," he predicted, "if I'm him and if he wins, which I think he will. Because what's going on is disgusting. This is the stuff of communist China!"
Watch the video below from Fox News.


alternet--2020-10-18--Who decides when vaccine studies are done? These internal documents show Fauci plays a key role

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation 's top infectious disease official , will oversee most of the ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials in the U.S. , but not that of the current front-runner made by Pfizer , documents obtained by ProPublica show .
According to a draft charter spelling out how most of the advanced COVID-19 vaccine trials will be monitored , Fauci is the “ designated senior representative '' of the U.S. government who will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the results .
That puts Fauci in the room with the companies — including Moderna , Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca — in deciding whether the vaccines are ready to seek approval from the Food and Drug Administration .
Fauci 's role , which has not been previously reported and was confirmed for ProPublica by the National Institutes of Health , could offer some reassurance in the face of widespread concerns that President Donald Trump wants to rush through an unproven vaccine .
As Sen. Kamala Harris , the Democratic nominee for vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's debate , “ If the public health professionals , if Dr. Fauci , if the doctors tell us that we should take it , I 'll be the first in line to take it . ''
But there 's a big caveat .
Fauci does n't have the same hands-on role for the vaccine that seems poised to show results soonest : Pfizer 's .
That 's because Pfizer opted not to accept government funding and participate in the federal program to develop a coronavirus vaccine , known as Operation Warp Speed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost $ 2 billion deal with Pfizer to preorder up to 600 million doses of the company 's vaccine , but it is n't contributing money to the vaccine 's development like it is for other companies . )
“ ( We ) offered opportunities for collaboration with Pfizer , '' said a spokesperson for the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , a branch of the NIH .
“ Pfizer chose to conduct their Phase 3 study without Operation Warp Speed or NIH support . ''
Pfizer 's CEO , Albert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his company would be ready to apply for authorization would be the third week of November .
While Pfizer might know by the end of October if its vaccine is effective , it would need additional time to gather sufficient safety data to present to the FDA , Bourla said in an open letter on the company 's website .
Fauci 's role in overseeing the companies that are participating in Operation Warp Speed arises from a unique arrangement that the government set up to monitor the trials .
Typically , clinical trials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientists , known as a data safety monitoring board or DSMB , to watch out for safety concerns or early signs of success .
But all of the vaccine trials in Operation Warp Speed are sharing a common DSMB whose members were selected by Fauci 's agency , the NIAID .
They 're also sharing a network of clinical trial sites where some volunteers are recruited for the studies .
A DSMB is responsible for making recommendations such as halting the trial if there is a safety concern or letting the manufacturer know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an application to the FDA .
Ordinarily , a DSMB 's recommendation goes to the company running the trial .
In this case , the U.S. government — which gets two representatives , one from the NIAID and one from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority — will also have a seat at the table in deciding what to do next .
“ Once the DSMB makes a decision , the DSMB provides the recommendation to not only the study sponsor but also to the '' U.S. government , whose “ designated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NIAID confirmed in an email .
Fauci declined to be interviewed .
That 's not the same as saying Fauci has the last word .
The company and the government are supposed to reach a consensus , the agency said .
But if they ca n't all agree , the ultimate decision belongs with the company .
Still , it would be an improbably brazen move for a company to move ahead over Fauci 's objection , given his public stature , experts said .
“ These are the most important trials in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fishbowl , '' said Dr. Eric Topol , director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute .
“ I do n't think any sponsor would dare defy the DSMB 's recommendation . ''
While the mechanics of a DSMB may be unfamiliar to most members of the public , people probably know and trust Fauci , according to Amy Pisani , executive director of the national nonprofit organization Vaccinate Your Family .
“ ( He 's ) the sweetheart of the nation right now , '' Pisani said .
“ I do think people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Having Fauci with oversight is terrific , '' Topol added .
“ The more people who are experts looking at it , the better .
You ca n't be careful enough . ''
Other members of the DSMB for the COVID-19 vaccines , though not as well known as Fauci , are also widely respected in their fields .
DSMB members are typically kept confidential to shield them from outside influence , but ProPublica has been able to identify a few members .
The charter obtained by ProPublica described the group , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as having expertise in “ biostatistics , clinical trials , infectious diseases , vaccine development and ethics . ''
The panel 's chair is Dr. Richard Whitley , a professor of pediatrics , microbiology , medicine and neurosurgery at the University of Alabama at Birmingham .
His role became public when the university announced it , though the webpage was later taken down .
His leadership provides another level of comfort in the trustworthiness of the trials to those who know him .
“ He is not only famously bright but he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. William Schaffner , professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt Medicine .
“ He 'll look at the data and tell you exactly what he thinks . ''
Susan Ellenberg , professor of biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania and a former director at the FDA , told ProPublica in an interview that many people , including herself , were worried the NIH might be “ pushed by the political leadership at HHS to release data '' from trials prematurely , which could undermine the integrity of a trial .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Human Services , is the NIH 's parent agency .
Her concern was that political leaders might not understand scientific arguments to not disrupt the trials when wanting to have data “ to be able to move quickly in an urgent situation , '' she said .
At the time of the interview , Ellenberg had not identified herself as a member of the NIH 's DSMB , but later acknowledged that she was a member .
Dr. Malegapuru William Makgoba , an immunologist based in South Africa , is one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Makgoba is well known for his work on public health initiatives around HIV/AIDS , including the South African AIDS Vaccine Initiative .
Makgoba confirmed his role on the DSMB but declined to comment further .
The common DSMB appears to be unprecedented , if only because there have not previously been multiple vaccines in development for the same disease at the same time .
Experts said the arrangement offers benefits such as bolstering the evidence available to show that any one shot is safe and effective .
Standardizing trial measurements should make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head , which may be useful for knowing whether one is better or worse than another in certain subgroups , such as the elderly or people with compromised immune systems , according to Vanderbilt 's Schaffner .
“ To me , it 's better for public health to have a fairly common assessment , '' said Dr. Gregory Glenn , president of research and development at Novavax , which has received $ 1.6 billion from Operation Warp Speed and hopes to begin its Phase 3 trial in the U.S. this month as part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There may also be some benefits from a safety perspective .
If a potential safety issue appears in one trial , having a common data safety monitoring board for multiple trials means that the board knows to look out for that same issue across all the trials , said Dr. Tal Zaks , chief medical officer of Moderna .
“ When AstraZeneca had an adverse side effect , we have a DSMB looking at our trial — the fact that it 's the same DSMB means that there 's not one DSMB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Zaks said .
( ProPublica 's board chairman , Paul Sagan , is a member of Moderna 's board and a company stockholder . )
AstraZeneca 's trial has been put on hold in the U.S. while the company and the FDA investigates what happened with a participant who had a bad reaction .
It 's not yet clear whether the reaction was due to the vaccine or unrelated .
“ AstraZeneca is committed to working with governments and key partners to ensure we develop and gain regulatory approval for an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' the company said in a statement .
AstraZeneca added that another benefit of joining the government 's consortium was that its large network of trial sites can help reach minority communities that are historically less represented in clinical trials and also more vulnerable to COVID-19 .
Pfizer 's decision not to participate means that it and the other companies may miss out on some of these benefits of pooling resources .
“ It 's at least unfortunate , and not very sporting , as the British would say , '' Schaffner said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be advantages to Pfizer 's going solo .
“ One of the greatest risks to this process is the perception of political influence , and in that regard , having parallel efforts , especially efforts seen as independent of one another and/or independent of perceived sources of political influence , is a good thing , '' said Mani Foroohar , an analyst at the investment bank SVB Leerink .
Pfizer declined to comment on its decision not to join the government 's shared DSMB and trial network .
Whether it 's Pfizer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Operation Warp Speed , the final say on whether a vaccine is ready for public use belongs to the FDA .
The FDA has promised to present the data to an advisory committee of external experts in a public meeting .
A preliminary meeting will be held on Oct. 22 to discuss , generally , the standards the FDA will seek to see before authorizing any vaccine .
The agency has also committed to holding advisory committee meetings to review data from individual vaccine candidates .
Between the independent trial safety monitoring boards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ any kind of hanky-panky there that people are worried about is going to ( go through ) multiple checkpoints , '' Fauci said in an interview with Dr. Howard Bachner on the JAMA Network podcast on Sept. 25 .
“ The big elephant in the room is , is somebody going to try to make a political end run to interfere with the process ?
… If you look at the standard process of how these things work , I think you can feel comfortable that it is really unlikely that that @ @ @ @ @ @

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease official, will oversee most of the ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials in the U.S., but not that of the current front-runner made by Pfizer, documents obtained by ProPublica show.
According to a draft charter spelling out how most of the advanced COVID-19 vaccine trials will be monitored, Fauci is the “designated senior representative" of the U.S. government who will be part of the first look at the results. That puts Fauci in the room with the companies — including Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca — in deciding whether the vaccines are ready to seek approval from the Food and Drug Administration.
Fauci's role, which has not been previously reported and was confirmed for ProPublica by the National Institutes of Health, could offer some reassurance in the face of widespread concerns that President Donald Trump wants to rush through an unproven vaccine. As Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for vice president, put it at last week's debate, “If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I'll be the first in line to take it."
But there's a big caveat. Fauci doesn't have the same hands-on role for the vaccine that seems poised to show results soonest: Pfizer's. That's because Pfizer opted not to accept government funding and participate in the federal program to develop a coronavirus vaccine, known as Operation Warp Speed. (The government did make an almost $2 billion deal with Pfizer to preorder up to 600 million doses of the company's vaccine, but it isn't contributing money to the vaccine's development like it is for other companies.)
“(We) offered opportunities for collaboration with Pfizer," said a spokesperson for the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a branch of the NIH. “Pfizer chose to conduct their Phase 3 study without Operation Warp Speed or NIH support."
Pfizer's CEO, Albert Bourla, said Friday that the earliest his company would be ready to apply for authorization would be the third week of November. While Pfizer might know by the end of October if its vaccine is effective, it would need additional time to gather sufficient safety data to present to the FDA, Bourla said in an open letter on the company's website.
Fauci's role in overseeing the companies that are participating in Operation Warp Speed arises from a unique arrangement that the government set up to monitor the trials. Typically, clinical trials set up their own independent panels of scientists, known as a data safety monitoring board or DSMB, to watch out for safety concerns or early signs of success. But all of the vaccine trials in Operation Warp Speed are sharing a common DSMB whose members were selected by Fauci's agency, the NIAID. They're also sharing a network of clinical trial sites where some volunteers are recruited for the studies.
A DSMB is responsible for making recommendations such as halting the trial if there is a safety concern or letting the manufacturer know that there's enough evidence to submit an application to the FDA. Ordinarily, a DSMB's recommendation goes to the company running the trial. In this case, the U.S. government — which gets two representatives, one from the NIAID and one from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority — will also have a seat at the table in deciding what to do next.
“Once the DSMB makes a decision, the DSMB provides the recommendation to not only the study sponsor but also to the" U.S. government, whose “designated senior representative" is Fauci, the NIAID confirmed in an email. Fauci declined to be interviewed.
That's not the same as saying Fauci has the last word. The company and the government are supposed to reach a consensus, the agency said. But if they can't all agree, the ultimate decision belongs with the company.
Still, it would be an improbably brazen move for a company to move ahead over Fauci's objection, given his public stature, experts said. “These are the most important trials in medical history, this is the ultimate fishbowl," said Dr. Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. “I don't think any sponsor would dare defy the DSMB's recommendation."
While the mechanics of a DSMB may be unfamiliar to most members of the public, people probably know and trust Fauci, according to Amy Pisani, executive director of the national nonprofit organization Vaccinate Your Family. “(He's) the sweetheart of the nation right now," Pisani said. “I do think people have faith in Anthony Fauci."
“Having Fauci with oversight is terrific," Topol added. “The more people who are experts looking at it, the better. You can't be careful enough."
Other members of the DSMB for the COVID-19 vaccines, though not as well known as Fauci, are also widely respected in their fields. DSMB members are typically kept confidential to shield them from outside influence, but ProPublica has been able to identify a few members. The charter obtained by ProPublica described the group, which has about a dozen members, as having expertise in “biostatistics, clinical trials, infectious diseases, vaccine development and ethics."
The panel's chair is Dr. Richard Whitley, a professor of pediatrics, microbiology, medicine and neurosurgery at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. His role became public when the university announced it, though the webpage was later taken down.
His leadership provides another level of comfort in the trustworthiness of the trials to those who know him. “He is not only famously bright but he is famously independent and outspoken," said Dr. William Schaffner, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt Medicine. “He'll look at the data and tell you exactly what he thinks."
Whitley declined to comment.
Susan Ellenberg, professor of biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania and a former director at the FDA, told ProPublica in an interview that many people, including herself, were worried the NIH might be “pushed by the political leadership at HHS to release data" from trials prematurely, which could undermine the integrity of a trial. HHS, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is the NIH's parent agency. Her concern was that political leaders might not understand scientific arguments to not disrupt the trials when wanting to have data “to be able to move quickly in an urgent situation," she said.
At the time of the interview, Ellenberg had not identified herself as a member of the NIH's DSMB, but later acknowledged that she was a member.
Dr. Malegapuru William Makgoba, an immunologist based in South Africa, is one of a few international members of the DSMB. Makgoba is well known for his work on public health initiatives around HIV/AIDS, including the South African AIDS Vaccine Initiative. Makgoba confirmed his role on the DSMB but declined to comment further.
The common DSMB appears to be unprecedented, if only because there have not previously been multiple vaccines in development for the same disease at the same time. Experts said the arrangement offers benefits such as bolstering the evidence available to show that any one shot is safe and effective.
Standardizing trial measurements should make the vaccines easier to compare head to head, which may be useful for knowing whether one is better or worse than another in certain subgroups, such as the elderly or people with compromised immune systems, according to Vanderbilt's Schaffner.
“To me, it's better for public health to have a fairly common assessment," said Dr. Gregory Glenn, president of research and development at Novavax, which has received $1.6 billion from Operation Warp Speed and hopes to begin its Phase 3 trial in the U.S. this month as part of the NIH's clinical trial network.
There may also be some benefits from a safety perspective.
If a potential safety issue appears in one trial, having a common data safety monitoring board for multiple trials means that the board knows to look out for that same issue across all the trials, said Dr. Tal Zaks, chief medical officer of Moderna. “When AstraZeneca had an adverse side effect, we have a DSMB looking at our trial — the fact that it's the same DSMB means that there's not one DSMB that has to go educate another DSMB," Zaks said. (ProPublica's board chairman, Paul Sagan, is a member of Moderna's board and a company stockholder.)
AstraZeneca's trial has been put on hold in the U.S. while the company and the FDA investigates what happened with a participant who had a bad reaction. It's not yet clear whether the reaction was due to the vaccine or unrelated.
“AstraZeneca is committed to working with governments and key partners to ensure we develop and gain regulatory approval for an effective vaccine as quickly as possible," the company said in a statement.
AstraZeneca added that another benefit of joining the government's consortium was that its large network of trial sites can help reach minority communities that are historically less represented in clinical trials and also more vulnerable to COVID-19.
Pfizer's decision not to participate means that it and the other companies may miss out on some of these benefits of pooling resources. “It's at least unfortunate, and not very sporting, as the British would say," Schaffner said.
At the same time, there could be advantages to Pfizer's going solo. “One of the greatest risks to this process is the perception of political influence, and in that regard, having parallel efforts, especially efforts seen as independent of one another and/or independent of perceived sources of political influence, is a good thing," said Mani Foroohar, an analyst at the investment bank SVB Leerink.
Pfizer declined to comment on its decision not to join the government's shared DSMB and trial network.
Whether it's Pfizer or one of the companies participating in Operation Warp Speed, the final say on whether a vaccine is ready for public use belongs to the FDA.
The FDA has promised to present the data to an advisory committee of external experts in a public meeting. A preliminary meeting will be held on Oct. 22 to discuss, generally, the standards the FDA will seek to see before authorizing any vaccine. The agency has also committed to holding advisory committee meetings to review data from individual vaccine candidates.
Between the independent trial safety monitoring boards and the public advisory committee meetings, “any kind of hanky-panky there that people are worried about is going to (go through) multiple checkpoints," Fauci said in an interview with Dr. Howard Bachner on the JAMA Network podcast on Sept. 25. “The big elephant in the room is, is somebody going to try to make a political end run to interfere with the process? … If you look at the standard process of how these things work, I think you can feel comfortable that it is really unlikely that that is going to happen."


alternet--2020-10-18--Serving oligarchs: Republicans have installed judges to cement minority rules

The analogy of judges being like umpires calling balls and strikes has been used to argue that judges merely apply the law according to the rules , leaving no room for bias .
The misleading nature of this claim has never been more apparent .
Objectivity in judging is a myth .
As Justice Cardozo noted , `` We ( judges ) may try to see things as objectively as we please , nonetheless we can never see them with any eyes except our own . ''
A test of principled judging is doctrinal consistency .
As Ryan Grim and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test , notably regarding the Voting Rights Act of 1965 .
When Sonia Sotomayor said at her Supreme Court confirmation hearings that her experience as a Latina woman informs her judging , she broke the rules of the game and had to recant in support of the guise of neutrality .
The charade continues .
Serving oligarchs , the Republicans have installed judges to cement minority rule.Dahlia Lithwick notes that Barrett `` has clothed herself in a cloak of neutrality '' contending that this posture will free her to do `` pernicious work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is sworn to uphold . ''
Barrett proudly claims to be a constitutional originalist , as if this is beyond reproach , which it most certainly is not .
Originalism is both historically and logically problematic .
Purportedly constraining judges , it may actually serve to unleash them .
Ronald Dworkin 's responsibility theory posits that judging with integrity demands honest and transparent inquiry , analysis and reasoning .
Dworkin asserts that any honest consideration of judging must recognize the centrality of interpretation .
Under the common law judges do make law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is `` found '' .
The making of judicial law can be as corrupted as the making of legislation , and as unappetizing as seeing sausage made .
Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse 's presentation on Dark Money shed light on the anti-democratic influences distorting the law .
The Court lacks basic disclosure requirements fundamental to judicial integrity .
Litigants appearing before the Court should wear badges demanding an end to the flow of dark money .
As this would be disallowed , the public must fight secret plutocratic law .
The unprecedented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fully investigate Barrett 's record and conflicts .
It was pathetic that Senator Whitehouse could only conclude his remarks with a plea to Barrett to `` please think about these things '' when she is on the Court .
With hypocrite in chief Lindsay Graham presiding over Barrett 's confirmation hearing precedent and principle were , unsurprisingly , conveniently discarded .
Sandra O'Connor decried unseemly law , by which she meant that which went against public opinion .
Today 's Court cares little about public sentiment as it routinely rules against it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Merrick Garland in 2016 to install Neil Gorsuch in 2017 a nail was put in the coffin of the venerable Court .
Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Barrett 's confirmation process further stained the Court .
The disrespect shown to RBG following her death is abhorrent , and with Trump 's overt politicization of Barrett 's seat marks a new low point for the Court .
Right wing court-packing has been going on for decades , as has judicial activism by Republican appointed judges .
Barrett is a prime example .
Serving oligarchs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minority rule .
Welcome to the new judicial order where stare decisis and neutrality are ( ab ) used as swords for the rich .
Know the rules and play by them .
Stop going to a knife fight with an olive branch .
Pack the court if you can democrats .
If you fail to do so you will be rendered impotent by the right wing activist federal courts .
//www.takebackthecourt.today/antidemocracy-scorecard Team Trump 's plan to steal the election using the Court to seal the deal is in plain sight .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Amy Barrett all worked for George W Bush to stop the recount .
They may soon vote together to stop the actual counting .
Senator Feinstein will surely thank them for their excellent leadership if they do .
Barrett 's cagey responses to the senate judiciary committee further expose the discrepancy between judicial theory vs practice .
Her refusal to abstain from potential upcoming election challenges before the Court evince a false understanding of the recusal standard .
Like her mentor Scalia in Bush v. Gore , she speaks only to actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shield , ignoring that the standard for recusal is the appearance of bias .
The purpose is to uphold public confidence in the independence and integrity of judicial decision making .
There is now little reason for the people to have such confidence .
As the judiciary heads further to the right it is evident it no longer serves the values of the majority of the people .
Equal justice under the law is now just a reminder of how wildly the federal judiciary misses the strike zone .

The analogy of judges being like umpires calling balls and strikes has been used to argue that judges merely apply the law according to the rules, leaving no room for bias. The misleading nature of this claim has never been more apparent.
Objectivity in judging is a myth. As Justice Cardozo noted, "We (judges) may try to see things as objectively as we please, nonetheless we can never see them with any eyes except our own." A test of principled judging is doctrinal consistency. As Ryan Grim and others argue, Judge Barrett fails that test, notably regarding the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
When Sonia Sotomayor said at her Supreme Court confirmation hearings that her experience as a Latina woman informs her judging, she broke the rules of the game and had to recant in support of the guise of neutrality. The charade continues.
Serving oligarchs, the Republicans have installed judges to cement minority rule.Dahlia Lithwick notes that Barrett "has clothed herself in a cloak of neutrality" contending that this posture will free her to do "pernicious work that will undercut the very ideals she is sworn to uphold."
Barrett proudly claims to be a constitutional originalist, as if this is beyond reproach, which it most certainly is not. Originalism is both historically and logically problematic. Purportedly constraining judges, it may actually serve to unleash them.
Ronald Dworkin's responsibility theory posits that judging with integrity demands honest and transparent inquiry, analysis and reasoning. Dworkin asserts that any honest consideration of judging must recognize the centrality of interpretation. Under the common law judges do make law, unlike the civil law tradition where law is "found". The making of judicial law can be as corrupted as the making of legislation, and as unappetizing as seeing sausage made.
Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's presentation on Dark Money shed light on the anti-democratic influences distorting the law. The Court lacks basic disclosure requirements fundamental to judicial integrity. Litigants appearing before the Court should wear badges demanding an end to the flow of dark money. As this would be disallowed, the public must fight secret plutocratic law.
The unprecedented rush to confirm Barrett denied an opportunity to fully investigate Barrett's record and conflicts. It was pathetic that Senator Whitehouse could only conclude his remarks with a plea to Barrett to "please think about these things" when she is on the Court. With hypocrite in chief Lindsay Graham presiding over Barrett's confirmation hearing precedent and principle were, unsurprisingly, conveniently discarded.
Sandra O'Connor decried unseemly law, by which she meant that which went against public opinion. Today's Court cares little about public sentiment as it routinely rules against it. When McConnell stole the seat from Merrick Garland in 2016 to install Neil Gorsuch in 2017 a nail was put in the coffin of the venerable Court. Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Barrett's confirmation process further stained the Court. The disrespect shown to RBG following her death is abhorrent, and with Trump's overt politicization of Barrett's seat marks a new low point for the Court.
Right wing court-packing has been going on for decades, as has judicial activism by Republican appointed judges. Barrett is a prime example.
Serving oligarchs, the Republicans have installed judges to cement minority rule.
Welcome to the new judicial order where stare decisis and neutrality are (ab)used as swords for the rich. Know the rules and play by them. Stop going to a knife fight with an olive branch. Pack the court if you can democrats. If you fail to do so you will be rendered impotent by the right wing activist federal courts. //www.takebackthecourt.today/antidemocracy-scorecard
Team Trump's plan to steal the election using the Court to seal the deal is in plain sight.
In 2000, John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Barrett all worked for George W Bush to stop the recount. They may soon vote together to stop the actual counting. Senator Feinstein will surely thank them for their excellent leadership if they do.
Barrett's cagey responses to the senate judiciary committee further expose the discrepancy between judicial theory vs practice. Her refusal to abstain from potential upcoming election challenges before the Court evince a false understanding of the recusal standard. Like her mentor Scalia in Bush v. Gore, she speaks only to actual bias, wearing her robe as a shield, ignoring that the standard for recusal is the appearance of bias. The purpose is to uphold public confidence in the independence and integrity of judicial decision making. There is now little reason for the people to have such confidence.
As the judiciary heads further to the right it is evident it no longer serves the values of the majority of the people. Equal justice under the law is now just a reminder of how wildly the federal judiciary misses the strike zone.


alternet--2020-10-18--We need to smash the GOP pipeline that produces sycophantic senators. Here's how to do it

Thom Tillis is one of the worst of the worst .
The Republican senator from North Carolina has always been a mindless zealot for the conservative cause , but while he 's now fighting for his political life as he seeks reelection in a race that could decide control of the Senate , it 's critical we remember that craven cowards like him do n't just spring forth from nowhere .
Rather , they 're cultivated and groomed by the dark architects of the GOP agenda—and the favorite petri dish for the Kochs and their ilk are our state legislatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incubated : For many years before he joined the Senate in 2015 , he was a member of the North Carolina state House and was ultimately rewarded for his fealty by getting elevated to speaker .
While he ruled the roost , Tillis did every awful thing imaginable : He blocked Medicaid expansion .
He endorsed `` personhood '' legislation , passed a law requiring women seeking abortions to undergo invasive ultrasounds , and argued states had the right to ban certain types of birth control .
He pushed to open up North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said climate change is n't real , and passed a law preventing the state from considering climate science on sea-level rise when making policy .
And most notoriously , he enacted a massive voter suppression package that a federal court later struck down , saying it had sought to `` target African Americans with almost surgical precision . ''
With a record like this , it 's no wonder he was perfect fodder when Republicans were looking for a Senate candidate six years ago , and it 's likewise no surprise that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump sycophant so ably .
But here 's the worst part : Thom Tillis never faced a single Democratic opponent in each of his four elections to the legislature .
He was unopposed in the general election every single time .
And this is n't an isolated story .
Far , far too many Republican lawmakers get off with little or no opposition year in and year out .
It 's why the GOP has been so successful in developing its farm system , producing an endless string of zealots eager to wreck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It 's also precisely why we have to crush this pipeline—half of all members of the Senate got their start in state legislatures .
The good news is that North Carolina Democrats have put up a fantastic array of candidates for both the state House and Senate this year , and it offers us a three-fer : We can stop the next generation of Thom Tillises , we can develop our own bench , and we can flip both legislative chambers in this crucial swing state right before redistricting starts .

Thom Tillis is one of the worst of the worst. The Republican senator from North Carolina has always been a mindless zealot for the conservative cause, but while he's now fighting for his political life as he seeks reelection in a race that could decide control of the Senate, it's critical we remember that craven cowards like him don't just spring forth from nowhere.
Rather, they're cultivated and groomed by the dark architects of the GOP agenda—and the favorite petri dish for the Kochs and their ilk are our state legislatures. That's exactly where Tillis was incubated: For many years before he joined the Senate in 2015, he was a member of the North Carolina state House and was ultimately rewarded for his fealty by getting elevated to speaker.
While he ruled the roost, Tillis did every awful thing imaginable: He blocked Medicaid expansion. He endorsed "personhood" legislation, passed a law requiring women seeking abortions to undergo invasive ultrasounds, and argued states had the right to ban certain types of birth control. He pushed to open up North Carolina's coasts to offshore drilling, said climate change isn't real, and passed a law preventing the state from considering climate science on sea-level rise when making policy. And most notoriously, he enacted a massive voter suppression package that a federal court later struck down, saying it had sought to "target African Americans with almost surgical precision."
With a record like this, it's no wonder he was perfect fodder when Republicans were looking for a Senate candidate six years ago, and it's likewise no surprise that he's performed his duties as a willing Trump sycophant so ably.
But here's the worst part: Thom Tillis never faced a single Democratic opponent in each of his four elections to the legislature. He was unopposed in the general election every single time. And this isn't an isolated story. Far, far too many Republican lawmakers get off with little or no opposition year in and year out. It's why the GOP has been so successful in developing its farm system, producing an endless string of zealots eager to wreck democracy and bow down before Trump.
It's also precisely why we have to crush this pipeline—half of all members of the Senate got their start in state legislatures. The good news is that North Carolina Democrats have put up a fantastic array of candidates for both the state House and Senate this year, and it offers us a three-fer: We can stop the next generation of Thom Tillises, we can develop our own bench, and we can flip both legislative chambers in this crucial swing state right before redistricting starts.