truthout--2020-11-30--Trump Responds to Expert’s “60 Minutes” Interview With More False Fraud Claims

The former head of the Department of Homeland Security ’ s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ( CISA ) , Christopher Krebs , doubled down on his conclusion that the election was not rife with fraud .
“ There was no indication or evidence that there was any sort of hacking or compromise of election systems on , before or after November 3 , ” Krebs told CBS ’ s “ 60 Minutes ” on Sunday .
Krebs , who was terminated from his position earlier this month by President Donald Trump after his agency challenged the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 60 Minutes ” that CISA spent years “ gaming out every possible scenario ” for how the election could be interfered with .
He also called Trump ’ s complaints of fraud “ sensational ” and “ nonsense ” during the interview .
“ I have confidence in the security of this election because I know the work that we ’ ve done for four years in support of our state and local partners , ” Krebs said .
“ I know the work that the intelligence community has done , the Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI has done , that my team has done .
I know that these systems are more secure .
I know based on what we have seen that any attacks on the election were not successful.
” Krebs was appointed to his role at CISA by Trump and approved unanimously by the Senate in 2018 .
Under his watch , CISA set up a “ rumor control ” website that sought to correct the record on a number of errant claims made about the election .
After Trump made false claims that voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of votes , CISA , along with other security agencies in the federal government , put out an official statement contradicting his assertions , describing this year ’ s election as “ the most secure in American history.
” Trump fired Krebs via tweet shortly after , on November 17 .
Trump responded to Krebs ’ s comments on Sunday evening by repeating allegations of fraud but still refused to provide evidence for his claims .
“ Our 2020 Election , from poorly rated Dominion to a Country FLOODED with unaccounted for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secure EVER !
” Trump wrote in a tweet .
Soon after that tweet was issued , Twitter placed a disclaimer on Trump ’ s tweet that read , “ This claim about election fraud is disputed.
” Trump ’ s legal team and efforts by the president ’ s allies throughout the U.S. have thus far failed to prove in courtrooms across the country that fraud of any kind actually occurred .
Over the Thanksgiving weekend , a three-judge panel on the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to overturn the results in Pennsylvania were without justification of any kind .
“ Free , fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy .
Charges of unfairness are serious .
But calling an election unfair does not make it so , ” Judge Stephanos Bibas , a Trump appointee , wrote .
“ Charges require specific allegations and then proof .
We have neither here.
” In a second ruling from over the weekend , the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court dismissed a lower Republican state judge ’ s ruling issued last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be halted .
Noting in their ruling that those constitutional concerns were only brought forward after Trump lost the presidential election in the state , the state ’ s high court unanimously ruled that the certification process should continue unimpeded .
“ Unsatisfied with the results of that wager , they would now flip over the table , scattering to the shadows the votes of millions of Pennsylvanians , ” Justice David Wecht wrote in a concurring statement with the three-page order .
“ It is not our role to lend legitimacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subvert the will of Pennsylvania voters .
President-elect Joe Biden defeated Trump in the state of Pennsylvania by about 80,000 votes .
Overall , Biden currently leads Trump by more than 6.3 million ballots in the popular vote count , and won the presidency through the Electoral College vote of 306 to 232 .

The president’s complaints issued on Twitter immediately resulted in the social media site placing a disclaimer on them.
The former head of the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Christopher Krebs, doubled down on his conclusion that the election was not rife with fraud.
“There was no indication or evidence that there was any sort of hacking or compromise of election systems on, before or after November 3,” Krebs told CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday.
Krebs, who was terminated from his position earlier this month by President Donald Trump after his agency challenged the president’s claims on election fraud, told “60 Minutes” that CISA spent years “gaming out every possible scenario” for how the election could be interfered with. He also called Trump’s complaints of fraud “sensational” and “nonsense” during the interview.
“I have confidence in the security of this election because I know the work that we’ve done for four years in support of our state and local partners,” Krebs said. “I know the work that the intelligence community has done, the Department of Defense has done, that the FBI has done, that my team has done. I know that these systems are more secure. I know based on what we have seen that any attacks on the election were not successful.”
Krebs was appointed to his role at CISA by Trump and approved unanimously by the Senate in 2018. Under his watch, CISA set up a “rumor control” website that sought to correct the record on a number of errant claims made about the election. After Trump made false claims that voting machines from Dominion Voting Systems had deleted millions of votes, CISA, along with other security agencies in the federal government, put out an official statement contradicting his assertions, describing this year’s election as “the most secure in American history.”
Trump fired Krebs via tweet shortly after, on November 17.
Trump responded to Krebs’s comments on Sunday evening by repeating allegations of fraud but still refused to provide evidence for his claims.
“Our 2020 Election, from poorly rated Dominion to a Country FLOODED with unaccounted for Mail-In ballots, was probably our least secure EVER!” Trump wrote in a tweet.
Soon after that tweet was issued, Twitter placed a disclaimer on Trump’s tweet that read, “This claim about election fraud is disputed.”
Trump’s legal team and efforts by the president’s allies throughout the U.S. have thus far failed to prove in courtrooms across the country that fraud of any kind actually occurred.
Over the Thanksgiving weekend, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that an attempt by the president’s lawyers to overturn the results in Pennsylvania were without justification of any kind.
“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so,” Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee, wrote. “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
In a second ruling from over the weekend, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court dismissed a lower Republican state judge’s ruling issued last week that had called for the certification process to be halted.
Noting in their ruling that those constitutional concerns were only brought forward after Trump lost the presidential election in the state, the state’s high court unanimously ruled that the certification process should continue unimpeded.
“Unsatisfied with the results of that wager, they would now flip over the table, scattering to the shadows the votes of millions of Pennsylvanians,” Justice David Wecht wrote in a concurring statement with the three-page order. “It is not our role to lend legitimacy to such transparent and untimely efforts to subvert the will of Pennsylvania voters.
President-elect Joe Biden defeated Trump in the state of Pennsylvania by about 80,000 votes. Overall, Biden currently leads Trump by more than 6.3 million ballots in the popular vote count, and won the presidency through the Electoral College vote of 306 to 232.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-11-30--Progressives Demand a Pentagon Chief Outside of Military-Industrial Complex

A coalition of progressive anti-war groups on Monday warned President-elect Joe Biden against selecting Michèle Flournoy as his defense secretary , characterizing the former Pentagon official ’ s ties to the military-industrial complex and record — specifically her support for Obama ’ s troop surge in Afghanistan and NATO assault on Libya — as unacceptable and disqualifying .
“ We urge President-elect Joe Biden and U.S. senators to choose a secretary of defense who is unencumbered by a history of advocating for bellicose military policies and is free of financial ties to the weapons industry , ” reads a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Progressive Democrats of America ( PDA ) , RootsAction.org , and World Beyond War .
“ Flournoy ’ s record includes emphatic support for the failed and tragic military surge in Afghanistan , troops on the ground in Syria , and military intervention in Libya — policies resulting in geopolitical disasters and tremendous human suffering , ” the statement continues .
“ Flournoy has opposed a ban on arms sales to Saudi Arabia , while that country has continued to inflict massive suffering and death in Yemen.
” The coalition , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a major nationwide grassroots campaign ” to prevent Flournoy ’ s confirmation , also expressed alarm at the potential nominee ’ s militaristic rhetoric toward China .
In the June 2020 issue of Foreign Affairs , Flournoy wrote that the U.S. should be able to credibly “ threaten to sink all of China ’ s military vessels , submarines , and merchant ships in the South China Sea within 72 hours.
” Formerly the under secretary of defense for policy in the Obama administration , Flournoy is widely considered the Biden team ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Other top contenders , according to the Wall Street Journal , include former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson , a Lockheed Martin board member , and Gen. Lloyd Austin , a Raytheon board member .
After serving in the Obama White House , Flournoy in 2017 co-founded the consultancy firm WestExec Advisors with Antony Blinken , Biden ’ s secretary of state nominee .
As The American Prospect reported in July , when asked about its client list , “ WestExec would only divulge that it began working with ‘ Fortune 100 types @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial services , including global-asset managers ; aerospace and defense ; emerging U.S. tech ; and nonprofits.
” Flournoy is also currently on the board of the massive weapons contractor Booz Allen Hamilton , a fact the progressive coalition spotlighted as an example of the “ revolving door that enables military contractors with close ties to government officials to propel us further into a costly , unnecessary , and dangerous high-tech arms race.
” “ The people of the United States need a Secretary of Defense who is untethered to the weapons industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the progressive organizations argue .
“ Michèle Flournoy should not be put in charge of the Pentagon , and neither should anyone else failing to meet those qualifications.
” Lamenting that Flournoy “ has received unequivocal support from numerous individuals who are respected in progressive circles ” — including leaders of the Ploughshares Fund and Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists — RootsAction.org co-founder Norman Solomon wrote in an op-ed for Common Dreams Monday morning that progressives should instead “ emphatically challenge every odious aspect of the Biden administration , every step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , co-founder of the Los Angeles chapter of PDA , put it , “ Progressives may be tempted to trade truth for access to the powerful and privileged , thinking they can influence the course of events if they bite their tongue when Flournoy talks of fighting and prevailing in a war with China.
” “ But this sort of thinking is misguided , ” said Winograd .
“ The power progressives hold must be wielded now before it ’ s too late , before Flournoy is crowned and the U.S. slips further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-tech arms race — or worse , another endless war , this one with a nuclear-armed nation of over 1.3 billion people.
” We urge President-Elect Joe Biden and U.S .
Senators to choose a Secretary of Defense who is unencumbered by a history of advocating for bellicose military policies and is free of financial ties to the weapons industry .
Michèle Flournoy does not meet those qualifications and is ill-suited to serve as Secretary of Defense .
Flournoy ’ s record includes emphatic support for the failed and tragic military surge in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Syria , and military intervention in Libya — policies resulting in geopolitical disasters and tremendous human suffering .
Flournoy has opposed a ban on arms sales to Saudi Arabia , while that country has continued to inflict massive suffering and death in Yemen .
While urging a U.S. pivot to Asia that would include ramping up a Cold War with China , Flournoy has called for a boost in spending on cyberwarfare and drones , as well as more troop deployments to the South China Sea to conduct roving war games near two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Flournoy ’ s approach to China is potentially catastrophic .
On January 15 , 2020 , she told Congressthe U.S. must prepare to fight and prevail in a future conflict with China by credibly threatening to sink the entire Chinese navy in 72 hours and investing heavily in unmanned systems .
At a time when we must work with China to fight the coronavirus and save the planet from an existential climate crisis , Flournoy ’ s approach would undermine such efforts by preparing for war with China .
Security consultants who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouraged by her intention to restart arms control talks with Russia or her skepticism on nuclear “ modernization ” need to look more closely at Flournoy ’ s congressional testimony and essays on investing in space-based weapons systems that could increase the chances of nuclear war on earth .
The revolving-door aspects of Flournoy ’ s career have raised additional concerns .
For instance , as The American Prospect recently reported : “ Since Flournoy joined the board of weapons contractor Booz Allen Hamilton , Saudi Arabia ’ s embassy in Washingtonpaidthe company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while Flournoy ’ s Center for a New American Security accepted millions from foreign governments , including the United Arab Emirates whichdonated $ 250,000 in return for a report on missile defense.
” As the Project On Government Oversight noted in a November 2020 report , Ms. Flournoy “ co-founded the second-most heavily contractor-funded think tank in Washington , the highly influential Center for a New American Security.
” Following a stint as an undersecretary of defense , “ she rotated to the Boston Consulting Group , after which the firm ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to $ 32 million in three years.
” In addition , Ms. Flournoy “ joined the board of Booz Allen Hamilton , a consulting firm laden with defense contracts .
In 2017 she co-founded WestExec Advisors , helping defense corporations market their products to the Pentagon and other agencies.
” In the interests of national and world security , we must close the revolving door that enables military contractors with close ties to government officials to propel us further into a costly , unnecessary , and dangerous high-tech arms race .
The people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Defense who is untethered to the weapons industry and committed to ending the arms race .
Michèle Flournoy should not be put in charge of the Pentagon , and neither should anyone else failing to meet those qualifications .
We are opposed to her being nominated , and we are prepared to launch a major nationwide grassroots campaign so that every senator will hear from large numbers of constituents demanding that she not be confirmed .

A coalition of progressive anti-war groups on Monday warned President-elect Joe Biden against selecting Michèle Flournoy as his defense secretary, characterizing the former Pentagon official’s ties to the military-industrial complex and record — specifically her support for Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan and NATO assault on Libya — as unacceptable and disqualifying.
“We urge President-elect Joe Biden and U.S. senators to choose a secretary of defense who is unencumbered by a history of advocating for bellicose military policies and is free of financial ties to the weapons industry,” reads a new statement signed by CodePink, Our Revolution, Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), RootsAction.org, and World Beyond War.
“Flournoy’s record includes emphatic support for the failed and tragic military surge in Afghanistan, troops on the ground in Syria, and military intervention in Libya — policies resulting in geopolitical disasters and tremendous human suffering,” the statement continues. “Flournoy has opposed a ban on arms sales to Saudi Arabia, while that country has continued to inflict massive suffering and death in Yemen.”
The coalition, which said it is “prepared to launch a major nationwide grassroots campaign” to prevent Flournoy’s confirmation, also expressed alarm at the potential nominee’s militaristic rhetoric toward China. In the June 2020 issue of Foreign Affairs, Flournoy wrote that the U.S. should be able to credibly “threaten to sink all of China’s military vessels, submarines, and merchant ships in the South China Sea within 72 hours.”
Formerly the under secretary of defense for policy in the Obama administration, Flournoy is widely considered the Biden team’s leading candidate for Pentagon chief. Other top contenders, according to the Wall Street Journal, include former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, a Lockheed Martin board member, and Gen. Lloyd Austin, a Raytheon board member.
After serving in the Obama White House, Flournoy in 2017 co-founded the consultancy firm WestExec Advisors with Antony Blinken, Biden’s secretary of state nominee. As The American Prospect reported in July, when asked about its client list, “WestExec would only divulge that it began working with ‘Fortune 100 types,’ including large U.S. tech; financial services, including global-asset managers; aerospace and defense; emerging U.S. tech; and nonprofits.”
Flournoy is also currently on the board of the massive weapons contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, a fact the progressive coalition spotlighted as an example of the “revolving door that enables military contractors with close ties to government officials to propel us further into a costly, unnecessary, and dangerous high-tech arms race.”
“The people of the United States need a Secretary of Defense who is untethered to the weapons industry and committed to ending the arms race,” the progressive organizations argue. “Michèle Flournoy should not be put in charge of the Pentagon, and neither should anyone else failing to meet those qualifications.”
Lamenting that Flournoy “has received unequivocal support from numerous individuals who are respected in progressive circles” — including leaders of the Ploughshares Fund and Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists — RootsAction.org co-founder Norman Solomon wrote in an op-ed for Common Dreams Monday morning that progressives should instead “emphatically challenge every odious aspect of the Biden administration, every step of the way.”
As Marcy Winograd, co-founder of the Los Angeles chapter of PDA, put it, “Progressives may be tempted to trade truth for access to the powerful and privileged, thinking they can influence the course of events if they bite their tongue when Flournoy talks of fighting and prevailing in a war with China.”
“But this sort of thinking is misguided,” said Winograd. “The power progressives hold must be wielded now before it’s too late, before Flournoy is crowned and the U.S. slips further into decline, mired in a high-stakes high-tech arms race — or worse, another endless war, this one with a nuclear-armed nation of over 1.3 billion people.”
Read the coalition’s full statement:
We urge President-Elect Joe Biden and U.S. Senators to choose a Secretary of Defense who is unencumbered by a history of advocating for bellicose military policies and is free of financial ties to the weapons industry. Michèle Flournoy does not meet those qualifications and is ill-suited to serve as Secretary of Defense. Flournoy’s record includes emphatic support for the failed and tragic military surge in Afghanistan, troops on the ground in Syria, and military intervention in Libya — policies resulting in geopolitical disasters and tremendous human suffering. Flournoy has opposed a ban on arms sales to Saudi Arabia, while that country has continued to inflict massive suffering and death in Yemen. While urging a U.S. pivot to Asia that would include ramping up a Cold War with China, Flournoy has called for a boost in spending on cyberwarfare and drones, as well as more troop deployments to the South China Sea to conduct roving war games near two nuclear powers — China and North Korea. Flournoy’s approach to China is potentially catastrophic. On January 15, 2020,she told Congressthe U.S. must prepare to fight and prevail in a future conflict with China by credibly threatening to sink the entire Chinese navy in 72 hours and investing heavily in unmanned systems. At a time when we must work with China to fight the coronavirus and save the planet from an existential climate crisis, Flournoy’s approach would undermine such efforts by preparing for war with China. Security consultants who have endorsed Flournoy and who may be encouraged by her intention to restart arms control talks with Russia or her skepticism on nuclear “modernization” need to look more closely at Flournoy’s congressional testimony and essays on investing in space-based weapons systems that could increase the chances of nuclear war on earth. The revolving-door aspects of Flournoy’s career have raised additional concerns. For instance, as The American Prospect recently reported: “Since Flournoy joined the board of weapons contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, Saudi Arabia’s embassy in Washingtonpaidthe company $3 million for consulting fees, while Flournoy’s Center for a New American Security accepted millions from foreign governments, including the United Arab Emirates whichdonated$250,000 in return for a report on missile defense.” As the Project On Government Oversight noted in a November 2020 report, Ms. Flournoy “co-founded the second-most heavily contractor-funded think tank in Washington, the highly influential Center for a New American Security.” Following a stint as an undersecretary of defense, “she rotated to the Boston Consulting Group, after which the firm’s military contracts expanded from $1.6 million to $32 million in three years.” In addition, Ms. Flournoy “joined the board of Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting firm laden with defense contracts. In 2017 she co-founded WestExec Advisors, helping defense corporations market their products to the Pentagon and other agencies.” In the interests of national and world security, we must close the revolving door that enables military contractors with close ties to government officials to propel us further into a costly, unnecessary, and dangerous high-tech arms race. The people of the United States need a Secretary of Defense who is untethered to the weapons industry and committed to ending the arms race. Michèle Flournoy should not be put in charge of the Pentagon, and neither should anyone else failing to meet those qualifications. We are opposed to her being nominated, and we are prepared to launch a major nationwide grassroots campaign so that every senator will hear from large numbers of constituents demanding that she not be confirmed.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-11-30--Biden Wants More “Special Ops” in Afghanistan, Threatening to Prolong the War

This month , I learned from young Afghan Peace Volunteer friends in Kabul that an insurgent group firing rockets into the city center hit the home of one volunteer ’ s relatives .
Everyone inside was killed .
On November 24 , word arrived of two bomb blasts in the marketplace city of Bamiyan , in central Afghanistan , killing at least fourteen people and wounding forty-five .
These explosions have come on the heels of other recent attacks targeting civilians .
On November 2 , at least nineteen people were killed and at least twenty-two wounded by gunmen opening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 24 , at least two dozen students died , and more than 100 were wounded in an attack on a tutoring center .
“ The situation in our country is very bad and scary , ” one young Afghan friend wrote to me .
“ We are all worried.
” I imagine that ’ s an understatement .
A new report released by Save the Children , regarding violations against children in war zones , says Afghanistan accounts for the most killing and maiming violations , with 874 children killed and 2,275 children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nations started collecting this data in 2005 , more than 26,000 children have died .
Under President Donald Trump , the United States signed a “ peace ” deal with the Taliban in February 2020 .
It pertains to troop withdrawal and a Taliban pledge to cut ties with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan .
The agreement hasn ’ t contributed toward a more peaceful life for Afghans , and already a U.N. report indicates the Taliban has continued its ties with insurgent groups .
Now , Afghans face constant battles between insurgent groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , NATO forces , various powerful Afghan warlords and paramilitaries organized by various mafias which control the drug industry and other profitable enterprises .
Under President Biden , the United States would likely abide by Trump ’ s recent troop withdrawals , maintaining a troop presence of about 2,000 .
But Biden has indicated a preference for intensified Special Operations , surveillance and drone attacks .
These strategies could cause the Taliban to nullify their agreement , prolonging the war through yet another presidency .
Mujib Mashal , a correspondent for The New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When he was interviewed recently by one of his colleagues , he recalled being a little boy in the early 1990s , living through a civil war in Kabul , when rockets constantly bombarded his neighborhood .
Taliban groups were fighting various mujahideen .
Mujib ’ s father cultivated a vegetable garden outside their home .
One day , a rocket hit the garden , cutting an apple tree in half and burrowing deep into the ground .
Mujib remembers how his father watered the area where the rocket hit , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rust and never explode .
Now he worries that Afghanistan is headed toward an explosion of violence .
“ And the fear is that in that space of war , things only get more extreme , ” he told the Times .
“ The violence only gets more extreme .
The brutality gets more extreme .
That if this slips into another generational conflict , what we ’ ve seen over the past forty years in terms of the brutality will probably pale in comparison to what will come.
” I recently watched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June of this year by Dr. Zaher Wahab , an Afghan professor in Portland , Oregon , who laments the intensifying havoc and violence war is causing in Afghanistan .
He and his wife lived there for six years , until about a year ago , when they concluded that the city was unlivable .
Dr. Wahab believes there is no military solution to Afghanistan ’ s woes and calls for the United States to demilitarize as soon as possible .
But he also offers ways forward .
Wahab urges forming a multinational @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Afghanistan , including efforts to clear mines and clean up unexploded ordnance .
Billions of dollars would be needed , commensurate to the sums spent on funding the war .
He believes the United Nations should form a peacekeeping presence in Afghanistan relying on non-NATO countries .
The publication of the “ Afghanistan papers ” late last year highlighted the failure of the United States to accomplish any of its stated missions in Afghanistan .
John Sopko , the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction , expressed his astonishment over the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the part of U.S. military and civilian personnel in Afghanistan .
Despite its failures , the United States continues to bomb Afghan civilian areas .
In 2019 , the U.S. dropped 7,423 bombs and other munitions on Afghanistan .
For Afghan civilians , ongoing war means continued bereavement , displacement , and despair .
Bereft of income or protection , many Afghan householders join militias , pledging their support and possibly their willingness to fight or even die .
Hence the rise of the Afghan Local Police , numerous militias fighting for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting forces , including “ ghost soldiers ” who appear in name only , CIA-trained paramilitaries , and military contractors working for NATO contingents .
U.S. Army Major Danny Sjursen , retired , notes that in the 2020 election , neither presidential candidate questioned status quo norms about U.S. foreign policy being based on threat , force , and killing .
Sjursen assures that pressure to change must , necessarily , flow from the grass roots .
The United States has landed in Afghanistan like a rocket in a garden .
It refuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and even U.S. voters can ’ t budge it .
Normal life can ’ t continue with us there .
Meanwhile , an inevitably arriving Taliban-led government — one already in control of most of the country — is growing more fanatic and deadly .
Many U.S. voters , and too many Afghans , weren ’ t yet born when the current war was begun by the United States in 2001 .
Much of the U.S. public regards the Afghan people with deadly indifference .
Year after year , President after President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and futility we ’ ve caused in Afghanistan isn ’ t our fault .
We don ’ t hold ourselves accountable .
But the forever wars , illegal and immoral , bankrupt our economy and our society as well .
The military contractors become a sort of mafia .
They are like a bomb in our garden , liable to explode .
And , unlike our Afghan counterparts , it ’ s not a bomb we can complain about .
After all , we put it there .

Biden wants more Special Operations and drones, which could lead the Taliban to nullify their agreement and prolong war.
This month, I learned from young Afghan Peace Volunteer friends in Kabul that an insurgent group firing rockets into the city center hit the home of one volunteer’s relatives. Everyone inside was killed. On November 24, word arrived of two bomb blasts in the marketplace city of Bamiyan, in central Afghanistan, killing at least fourteen people and wounding forty-five.
These explosions have come on the heels of other recent attacks targeting civilians. On November 2, at least nineteen people were killed and at least twenty-two wounded by gunmen opening fire at Kabul University. On October 24, at least two dozen students died, and more than 100 were wounded in an attack on a tutoring center.
“The situation in our country is very bad and scary,” one young Afghan friend wrote to me. “We are all worried.” I imagine that’s an understatement.
A new report released by Save the Children, regarding violations against children in war zones, says Afghanistan accounts for the most killing and maiming violations, with 874 children killed and 2,275 children maimed in 2019.
Since the United Nations started collecting this data in 2005, more than 26,000 children have died.
Under President Donald Trump, the United States signed a “peace” deal with the Taliban in February 2020. It pertains to troop withdrawal and a Taliban pledge to cut ties with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The agreement hasn’t contributed toward a more peaceful life for Afghans, and already a U.N. report indicates the Taliban has continued its ties with insurgent groups.
Now, Afghans face constant battles between insurgent groups, U.S. forces, Afghan government forces, NATO forces, various powerful Afghan warlords and paramilitaries organized by various mafias which control the drug industry and other profitable enterprises.
Under President Biden, the United States would likely abide by Trump’s recent troop withdrawals, maintaining a troop presence of about 2,000. But Biden has indicated a preference for intensified Special Operations, surveillance and drone attacks. These strategies could cause the Taliban to nullify their agreement, prolonging the war through yet another presidency.
Mujib Mashal, a correspondent for The New York Times, was born in Kabul. When he was interviewed recently by one of his colleagues, he recalled being a little boy in the early 1990s, living through a civil war in Kabul, when rockets constantly bombarded his neighborhood.
Taliban groups were fighting various mujahideen. Mujib’s father cultivated a vegetable garden outside their home. One day, a rocket hit the garden, cutting an apple tree in half and burrowing deep into the ground.
But it didn’t explode.
Mujib remembers how his father watered the area where the rocket hit, for years, hoping the bomb would eventually rust and never explode. Now he worries that Afghanistan is headed toward an explosion of violence.
“And the fear is that in that space of war, things only get more extreme,” he told the Times. “The violence only gets more extreme. The brutality gets more extreme. That if this slips into another generational conflict, what we’ve seen over the past forty years in terms of the brutality will probably pale in comparison to what will come.”
I recently watched a video of a talk given in June of this year by Dr. Zaher Wahab, an Afghan professor in Portland, Oregon, who laments the intensifying havoc and violence war is causing in Afghanistan. He and his wife lived there for six years, until about a year ago, when they concluded that the city was unlivable.
Dr. Wahab believes there is no military solution to Afghanistan’s woes and calls for the United States to demilitarize as soon as possible. But he also offers ways forward.
Wahab urges forming a multinational trust fund to justly assist with reconstruction in Afghanistan, including efforts to clear mines and clean up unexploded ordnance. Billions of dollars would be needed, commensurate to the sums spent on funding the war. He believes the United Nations should form a peacekeeping presence in Afghanistan relying on non-NATO countries.
The publication of the “Afghanistan papers” late last year highlighted the failure of the United States to accomplish any of its stated missions in Afghanistan. John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction, expressed his astonishment over the “hubris and mendacity” he had witnessed on the part of U.S. military and civilian personnel in Afghanistan.
Despite its failures, the United States continues to bomb Afghan civilian areas. In 2019, the U.S. dropped 7,423 bombs and other munitions on Afghanistan.
For Afghan civilians, ongoing war means continued bereavement, displacement, and despair. Bereft of income or protection, many Afghan householders join militias, pledging their support and possibly their willingness to fight or even die. Hence the rise of the Afghan Local Police, numerous militias fighting for various warlords, the Afghan governments’ fighting forces, including “ghost soldiers” who appear in name only, CIA-trained paramilitaries, and military contractors working for NATO contingents.
Afghanistan is a cauldron waiting to explode.
U.S. Army Major Danny Sjursen, retired, notes that in the 2020 election, neither presidential candidate questioned status quo norms about U.S. foreign policy being based on threat, force, and killing. Sjursen assures that pressure to change must, necessarily, flow from the grass roots.
The United States has landed in Afghanistan like a rocket in a garden. It refuses to rust, it poisons the Earth, and even U.S. voters can’t budge it. Normal life can’t continue with us there.
Meanwhile, an inevitably arriving Taliban-led government — one already in control of most of the country — is growing more fanatic and deadly.
Many U.S. voters, and too many Afghans, weren’t yet born when the current war was begun by the United States in 2001. Much of the U.S. public regards the Afghan people with deadly indifference.
Year after year, President after President, Americans continue to pretend the despair and futility we’ve caused in Afghanistan isn’t our fault. We don’t hold ourselves accountable.
But the forever wars, illegal and immoral, bankrupt our economy and our society as well. The military contractors become a sort of mafia. They are like a bomb in our garden, liable to explode.
And, unlike our Afghan counterparts, it’s not a bomb we can complain about. After all, we put it there.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-11-30--Biden’s Pick to Lead Budget Office Has Pushed for Social Security Cuts in Past

Reports late Sunday that President-elect Joe Biden has decided to nominate Neera Tanden , head of the corporate-backed think tank Center for American Progress , to lead his budget office drew an icy reception from progressives , who pointed to the Democratic operative ’ s history of attacking policies such as Medicare for All and voicing support for Social Security cuts .
If confirmed as director of the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) , Tanden would be charged with crafting the Biden administration ’ s spending agenda — a task that has taken on even greater significance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic calamity that calls for sweeping stimulus measures .
As Common Dreams reported last week , a coalition of progressive lawmakers and advocacy groups is warning Biden against selecting any deficit hawks to serve in his cabinet — specifically training their focus on austerity proponent Bruce Reed , an architect of Bill Clinton ’ s destructive “ welfare reform ” plan and head of an Obama-era commission that recommended deep cuts to Social Security .
While news that Reed is out of the running for OMB chief was welcomed by progressives , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reed in the Clinton White House — also sparked concerns given her past comments on healthcare policy and Social Security .
“ Everything toxic about the corporate Democratic Party is embodied in Neera Tanden , ” tweeted Briahna Joy Gray , former national press secretary for Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ ( I-Vt. ) 2020 presidential campaign .
A Clinton loyalist with a penchant for demonizing progressives , Tanden was an architect of the Affordable Care Act and has since endorsed healthcare proposals like “ Medicare for America , ” a plan single-payer proponents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would leave intact the most predatory elements of the for-profit system .
As a representative of Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 campaign , Tanden clashed with National Nurses United over Medicare for All during that year ’ s Democratic platform fight .
Tanden also has a history of expressing support for Social Security and Medicare cuts , as The Daily Poster ’ s Walker Bragman documented .
“ We should have savings on entitlements , and the Center for American Progress has put forward ideas on proposals to reform the beneficiary structure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies aren ’ t as excited about that as we are , ” Tanden said in a 2012 C-SPAN appearance .
“ But we ’ ve put those ideas on the table .
We think that those are legitimate ideas that need to be part of a proposal where everyone ’ s at the table .
We don ’ t just ask middle-class Americans to sacrifice .
We ask all Americans.
” Though she ’ s frequently described in the media as a progressive , “ leaked internal emails reveal Tanden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is typically considered ‘ progressive , ' ” Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs noted in 2018 .
“ She advised the Clinton campaign against a $ 15 minimum wage , and in one disturbing instance , as Glenn Greenwald has reported , argued ‘ that Libyans should be forced to turn over large portions of their oil revenues to repay the U.S. for the costs incurred in bombing Libya , on the grounds that Americans will support future wars only if they see that the countries attacked by the U.S. pay for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Reports late Sunday that President-elect Joe Biden has decided to nominate Neera Tanden, head of the corporate-backed think tank Center for American Progress, to lead his budget office drew an icy reception from progressives, who pointed to the Democratic operative’s history of attacking policies such as Medicare for All and voicing support for Social Security cuts.
If confirmed as director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Tanden would be charged with crafting the Biden administration’s spending agenda — a task that has taken on even greater significance amid the coronavirus pandemic and an unprecedented economic calamity that calls for sweeping stimulus measures.
As Common Dreams reported last week, a coalition of progressive lawmakers and advocacy groups is warning Biden against selecting any deficit hawks to serve in his cabinet — specifically training their focus on austerity proponent Bruce Reed, an architect of Bill Clinton’s destructive “welfare reform” plan and head of an Obama-era commission that recommended deep cuts to Social Security.
While news that Reed is out of the running for OMB chief was welcomed by progressives, the selection of Tanden — who worked under Reed in the Clinton White House — also sparked concerns given her past comments on healthcare policy and Social Security.
“Everything toxic about the corporate Democratic Party is embodied in Neera Tanden,” tweeted Briahna Joy Gray, former national press secretary for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) 2020 presidential campaign.
A Clinton loyalist with a penchant for demonizing progressives, Tanden was an architect of the Affordable Care Act and has since endorsed healthcare proposals like “Medicare for America,” a plan single-payer proponents have rejected as a false solution that would leave intact the most predatory elements of the for-profit system. As a representative of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, Tanden clashed with National Nurses United over Medicare for All during that year’s Democratic platform fight.
Tanden also has a history of expressing support for Social Security and Medicare cuts, as The Daily Poster’s Walker Bragman documented.
“We should have savings on entitlements, and the Center for American Progress has put forward ideas on proposals to reform the beneficiary structure of Social Security — some of our progressive allies aren’t as excited about that as we are,” Tanden said in a 2012 C-SPAN appearance. “But we’ve put those ideas on the table. We think that those are legitimate ideas that need to be part of a proposal where everyone’s at the table. We don’t just ask middle-class Americans to sacrifice. We ask all Americans.”
FLASHBACK: Neera Tanden and her Center for American Progress pushed cuts to Social Security after the 2010 midterms. New from @dailyposter: https://t.co/mhLxYvEmpe pic.twitter.com/monUoNSMie — Walker Bragman (@WalkerBragman) November 30, 2020
Though she’s frequently described in the media as a progressive, “leaked internal emails reveal Tanden’s own political instincts to depart from what is typically considered ‘progressive,'” Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs noted in 2018.
“She advised the Clinton campaign against a $15 minimum wage, and in one disturbing instance, as Glenn Greenwald has reported, argued ‘that Libyans should be forced to turn over large portions of their oil revenues to repay the U.S. for the costs incurred in bombing Libya, on the grounds that Americans will support future wars only if they see that the countries attacked by the U.S. pay for the invasions,'” Robinson wrote.
When it comes to OMB, the best thing you can say is that @neeratanden is not at all a deficit hawk, and that matters in that position. CAP took a risk to buck the White House in 2013 and come out against their deficit hysteria https://t.co/Xc3E45abWc pic.twitter.com/NwvwT7NSoL — Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) November 30, 2020
News that Biden intends to nominate Tanden for OMB came as the president-elect began to assemble a team of economic advisers which will inherit a crisis that has pushed millions into permanent unemployment, shuttered businesses across the nation, and left countless Americans unable to afford basic necessities. “The former vice president has picked Cecilia Rouse, a Princeton University labor economist, to be chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers,” the Wall Street Journal reported. “The president-elect has selected Adewale ‘Wally’ Adeyemo, a former senior international economic adviser during the Obama administration, to serve as Ms. Yellen’s top deputy at the Treasury Department. And he will turn to two campaign economic advisers, Jared Bernstein and Heather Boushey, to serve as members of the CEA alongside Ms. Rouse.” Justin Wolfers, a professor at the University of Michigan, praised Biden’s emerging team of economic advisers — which the former vice president is expected to formally announce this week — as “damn solid.” “This is a group that is individually and collectively committed to both full employment, and boosting wages,” said Wolfers. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich offered a similar assessment, tweeting, “Excellent. All committed to full employment, boosting wages, reducing inequality.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-11-30--Trump FCC Nominee Could Threaten the Agency’s Independence

When there are only five people in charge of a major federal agency , the personal agenda of even one of them can have a profound impact .
That ’ s why EFF is closely watching the nomination of Nathan Simington to the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) .
Simington ’ s nomination appears to be the culmination of a several-month project to transform the FCC and expand its purview in ways that threaten our civil liberties online .
The Senate should not confirm him without asking some crucial questions about whether and how he will help ensure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress gave it , which is to expand broadband access , manage the public ’ s wireless spectrum to their benefit , and protect consumers when they use telecommunications services .
There ’ s good reason to worry : Simington was reportedly one of the legal architects behind the president ’ s recent executive order seeking to have the FCC issue “ clarifying ” regulations for social media platforms .
The executive order purports to give the FCC authority to create rules to which social media platforms must adhere in order to enjoy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most important law protecting our free speech online .
Section 230 protects online platforms from liability for the speech of their users , while protecting their flexibility to develop their own speech moderation policies .
The Trump executive order would upend that flexibility .
As we ’ ve explained at length , this executive order was based on a legal fiction .
The FCC ’ s role is not to enforce or interpret Section 230 ; its job is to regulate the United States ’ telecommunications infrastructure : broadband , telephone , cable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various infrastructural means of delivering information to and from homes and businesses in the U.S .
Throughout the Trump administration , the FCC has often shirked that duty — most dramatically , by abandoning any meaningful defense of net neutrality .
Simington ’ s nomination seems to be an at-the-buzzer shot by an administration that ’ s been focused on undermining our protections for free speech online , instead of upholding the FCC ’ s traditional role of ensuring affordable access to the Internet and other communications technologies , and ensuring that those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific users or uses .
The FCC Is Not the Speech Police — and Shouldn ’ t Be Let ’ s take a look at the events leading up to Simington ’ s nomination .
Twitter first applied a fact-check label to a tweet of President Trump ’ s in May , in response to his claims that mail-in ballots were part of a campaign of systemic voter fraud .
As a private company , Twitter has the First Amendment right to implement such fact-checks , or even to choose not to carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The White House responded with its executive order that , among other things , directed the FCC to draft regulations that would narrow the Section 230 liability shield .
As a result , it perverted the FCC ’ s role : it ’ s supposed to be a telecom regulator , not the social media police .
The White House executive order reflects a long-running ( and unproven ) claim in conservative circles that social media platforms are biased against conservative users .
Some lawmakers and commentators have even claimed that their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platforms of their liability protections under Section 230 .
As early as 2018 , Sen. Ted Cruz incorrectly told Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg that in order to be shielded by 230 , a platform had to be a “ neutral public forum.
” In the years since then , members of Congress have introduced multiple bills purporting to condition platforms ’ 230 immunity on “ neutral ” moderation policies .
As we ’ ve explained to Congress , a law demanding that platforms moderate speech in a certain way would be unconstitutional .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ inherent flaw as the bills : the government can not dictate online platforms ’ speech policies .
It ’ s not the FCC ’ s job to police social media , and it ’ s also not the president ’ s job to tell it to .
By design , the FCC is an independent agency and not subject to the president ’ s demands .
But when Republican FCC commissioner Michael O ’ Rielly correctly pointed out that government efforts to control private actor speech were unconstitutional , he was quickly punished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] , “ the First Amendment protects us from limits on speech imposed by the government – not private actors – and we should all reject demands , in the name of the First Amendment , for private actors to curate or publish speech in a certain way.
” The White House responded by withdrawing O ’ Rielly ’ s nomination and nominating Simington , one of the drafters of the executive order .
During a transition of power , it ’ s customary for independent agencies like the FCC to pause on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far adhered to that tradition , only moving forward items that have unanimous support .
Every item the FCC has voted on since the election had the support of the Chair , the other four commissioners , and industry and consumer groups .
For example , the FCC has moved forward on freeing up of 5.9 Ghz spectrum for unlicensed uses , a move applauded by EFF and most experts .
But we worry that in nominating Simington , the administration is attempting to pave the way for a future FCC to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move into policing social media platforms ’ policies .
We ’ re glad to see Fight for the Future , Demand Progress , and several other groups rightfully calling on the Senate to not move forward on Nate Simington ’ s nomination .
The FCC ’ s Real Job Is More Important Than Ever There ’ s no shortage of work to do within FCC ’ s traditional role and statutory mandate .
The FCC must begin to address the pressure test that the COVID-19 pandemic has posed to the U.S. telecommunications infrastructure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now rely on home Internet subscriptions for work , education , and socializing .
Millions of families either have no home Internet access at all or lack sufficient access to meet this new demand .
The new FCC has a monumental task in front of itself .
During his Senate confirmation hearing , Simington gave no real indication on how he plans to work on the real issues facing the agency : broadband access , remote school challenges , spectrum management , improving competition , and public safety rules , for example .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing are that he plans to continue the Trump-era policy of refusing to regulate large ISPs and that he refuses to recuse himself from decisions on the misguided executive order that he helped write .
Before the Simington confirmation hearing started , Trump again urged Republicans to quickly confirm his nominee on a partisan basis .
In response , Senator Richard Blumenthal called for a hold on Simington ’ s nomination , indicating real concern for the FCC ’ s independence from the White House .
That means the Senate would need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to confirm Trump ’ s nominee .
Sen. Blumenthal ’ s concerns are real and important .
President Trump effectively fired his own commissioner ( O ’ Rielly ) for expressing basic First Amendment principles .
Before it confirms Simington , the Senate ought to consider what the nomination means for the future of the FCC .
As the pandemic continues to worsen , there are too many mission critical issues for the FCC to tackle for it to continue with Trump ’ s misguided war on Section 230 .

When there are only five people in charge of a major federal agency, the personal agenda of even one of them can have a profound impact. That’s why EFF is closely watching the nomination of Nathan Simington to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Simington’s nomination appears to be the culmination of a several-month project to transform the FCC and expand its purview in ways that threaten our civil liberties online. The Senate should not confirm him without asking some crucial questions about whether and how he will help ensure that the FCC does the public interest job Congress gave it, which is to expand broadband access, manage the public’s wireless spectrum to their benefit, and protect consumers when they use telecommunications services.
There’s good reason to worry: Simington was reportedly one of the legal architects behind the president’s recent executive order seeking to have the FCC issue “clarifying” regulations for social media platforms. The executive order purports to give the FCC authority to create rules to which social media platforms must adhere in order to enjoy liability protections under Section 230, the most important law protecting our free speech online. Section 230 protects online platforms from liability for the speech of their users, while protecting their flexibility to develop their own speech moderation policies. The Trump executive order would upend that flexibility.
As we’ve explained at length, this executive order was based on a legal fiction. The FCC’s role is not to enforce or interpret Section 230; its job is to regulate the United States’ telecommunications infrastructure: broadband, telephone, cable television, satellite, and all the various infrastructural means of delivering information to and from homes and businesses in the U.S. Throughout the Trump administration, the FCC has often shirked that duty — most dramatically, by abandoning any meaningful defense of net neutrality. Simington’s nomination seems to be an at-the-buzzer shot by an administration that’s been focused on undermining our protections for free speech online, instead of upholding the FCC’s traditional role of ensuring affordable access to the Internet and other communications technologies, and ensuring that those technologies don’t unfairly discriminate against specific users or uses.
The FCC Is Not the Speech Police — and Shouldn’t Be
Let’s take a look at the events leading up to Simington’s nomination. Twitter first applied a fact-check label to a tweet of President Trump’s in May, in response to his claims that mail-in ballots were part of a campaign of systemic voter fraud. As a private company, Twitter has the First Amendment right to implement such fact-checks, or even to choose not to carry someone’s speech for any reason.
The White House responded with its executive order that, among other things, directed the FCC to draft regulations that would narrow the Section 230 liability shield. As a result, it perverted the FCC’s role: it’s supposed to be a telecom regulator, not the social media police.
The White House executive order reflects a long-running (and unproven) claim in conservative circles that social media platforms are biased against conservative users. Some lawmakers and commentators have even claimed that their biased moderation practices somehow strip social media platforms of their liability protections under Section 230. As early as 2018, Sen. Ted Cruz incorrectly told Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg that in order to be shielded by 230, a platform had to be a “neutral public forum.” In the years since then, members of Congress have introduced multiple bills purporting to condition platforms’ 230 immunity on “neutral” moderation policies. As we’ve explained to Congress, a law demanding that platforms moderate speech in a certain way would be unconstitutional. The misguided executive order has the same inherent flaw as the bills: the government cannot dictate online platforms’ speech policies.
It’s not the FCC’s job to police social media, and it’s also not the president’s job to tell it to. By design, the FCC is an independent agency and not subject to the president’s demands. But when Republican FCC commissioner Michael O’Rielly correctly pointed out that government efforts to control private actor speech were unconstitutional, he was quickly punished. O’Rielly wrote [pdf], “the First Amendment protects us from limits on speech imposed by the government – not private actors – and we should all reject demands, in the name of the First Amendment, for private actors to curate or publish speech in a certain way.” The White House responded by withdrawing O’Rielly’s nomination and nominating Simington, one of the drafters of the executive order.
During a transition of power, it’s customary for independent agencies like the FCC to pause on controversial actions. The current FCC has so far adhered to that tradition, only moving forward items that have unanimous support. Every item the FCC has voted on since the election had the support of the Chair, the other four commissioners, and industry and consumer groups. For example, the FCC has moved forward on freeing up of 5.9 Ghz spectrum for unlicensed uses, a move applauded by EFF and most experts. But we worry that in nominating Simington, the administration is attempting to pave the way for a future FCC to go far beyond its traditional mandate and move into policing social media platforms’ policies. We’re glad to see Fight for the Future, Demand Progress, and several other groups rightfully calling on the Senate to not move forward on Nate Simington’s nomination.
The FCC’s Real Job Is More Important Than Ever
There’s no shortage of work to do within FCC’s traditional role and statutory mandate. The FCC must begin to address the pressure test that the COVID-19 pandemic has posed to the U.S. telecommunications infrastructure. Much of the U.S. population must now rely on home Internet subscriptions for work, education, and socializing. Millions of families either have no home Internet access at all or lack sufficient access to meet this new demand. The new FCC has a monumental task in front of itself.
During his Senate confirmation hearing, Simington gave no real indication on how he plans to work on the real issues facing the agency: broadband access, remote school challenges, spectrum management, improving competition, and public safety rules, for example. The only things we learned from the hearing are that he plans to continue the Trump-era policy of refusing to regulate large ISPs and that he refuses to recuse himself from decisions on the misguided executive order that he helped write. Before the Simington confirmation hearing started, Trump again urged Republicans to quickly confirm his nominee on a partisan basis.
In response, Senator Richard Blumenthal called for a hold on Simington’s nomination, indicating real concern for the FCC’s independence from the White House. That means the Senate would need to bypass his filibuster if it truly wanted to confirm Trump’s nominee.
Sen. Blumenthal’s concerns are real and important. President Trump effectively fired his own commissioner (O’Rielly) for expressing basic First Amendment principles. Before it confirms Simington, the Senate ought to consider what the nomination means for the future of the FCC. As the pandemic continues to worsen, there are too many mission critical issues for the FCC to tackle for it to continue with Trump’s misguided war on Section 230.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Any and all original material on the EFF website may be freely distributed at will under the Creative Commons Attribution License, unless otherwise noted. All material that is not original to EFF may require permission from the copyright holder to redistribute.


truthout--2020-11-30--To Solve the COVID Crisis, We Must Push Biden to Put People Over Profits

As infectious disease experts had warned over the summer , the fall brought another rise in COVID-19 cases in the United States .
It is a third surge in what is still the first wave as the number of daily new cases only flattened slightly in the spring before rising again in June .
As of the writing of this article , the number of daily new cases is averaging 177,000 and close to 2,000 people are dying each day .
The COVID-19 pandemic has reached a crisis level in multiple states .
In El Paso , Texas , hospitals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city ’ s convention center was converted into a hospital , and some patients are being transported nearly 600 miles away to Austin .
States are also running out of medical staff to care for the influx of patients .
The governor of North Dakota is allowing nurses who have tested positive for COVID-19 to work in coronavirus wards .
In Iowa , one school district is asking school staff to volunteer at the local hospital where workers are “ overwhelmed , ” and paramedics report COVID-19 patients who would have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home .
The Trump administration has failed to take appropriate steps since the beginning of the pandemic to stop the spread of the virus .
It politicized the virus by threatening to withhold funding to Democratic-led states .
President Trump refused to take COVID-19 seriously and even mocked people for wearing masks .
He pushed businesses to reopen and sided with the employers over the needs of workers to be protected , clearly putting profits over people .
Harvard epidemiologist Robert Hahn tried to quantify the impact of President Trump ’ s rejection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s behavior and estimates it contributed to thousands of deaths between April and July .
Public health officials at the University of Washington in Seattle predict more than 500,000 people will die from COVID-19 by the end of February if we do not change course .
They report that over 100,000 lives could be saved if more people simply wore masks .
There is a lot of hope that the incoming Biden administration will take more effective actions to mitigate the spread of the virus .
Joe Biden has already appointed a COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first bullet point in the updated Biden-Harris COVID-19 plan is “ Listen to science.
” But will the Biden administration really listen to science if that requires putting people ’ s needs above corporate profits ?
Throughout his campaign , Joe Biden made it clear that his focus was on reopening businesses and schools .
This was also Trump ’ s focus , so it remains to be seen if the Biden approach will be substantively different .
Perhaps the first warning sign came in the form of Biden ’ s response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the media that a national shutdown of four to six weeks with financial support for workers , businesses , and local and state governments was needed to slow the spread .
Osterholm cited the examples of Australia and New Zealand , two countries that have been effective in controlling the pandemic , and that both used national shutdowns .
The European Union , which is also experiencing a large surge in COVID-19 cases , is using national shutdowns to slow the spread , with positive effect .
In response to Osterholm ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ task force member , said : “ A national lockdown or shutdown is not on the table .
The President-elect has no intention of implementing a national lockdown.
” And in a recent press conference , President-elect Biden said , “ I am not going to shut down the economy , period.
” It is also concerning that the updated Biden-Harris COVID-19 plan does not mention providing economic relief to families and workers .
While it prioritizes testing , personal protective equipment and funds to make businesses safer , it says nothing about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or covering health care costs for people .
What Demands Should We Make of the Biden Administration ?
Three infectious disease epidemiology professors at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health — Emily Gurley , Stefan Baral and David Celentano — all agree that a big impediment to controlling the pandemic to date is the lack of a national strategy .
Celentano told Truthout that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) would normally coordinate that strategy , but it “ has been sidelined and muzzled .
Thus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal response.
” Baral said the CDC needs to develop a clear national strategy with actions the states must take , sign off on state plans , and provide technical and financial support to implement them .
Gurley lamented the widespread lack of agreement about what the goals at a national level should be — something that needs to happen in order for the CDC to be able to develop an effective national strategy .
“ We all agree that if there aren ’ t hospital beds , that ’ s bad , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree about what is bad but not on what the goals should be.
” As far as Osterholm ’ s proposal for a national shutdown with financial support , all agreed that shutdowns are effective at reducing the number of cases but expressed doubt that it could be done in the United States because adequate financial support would not be provided and people would not comply .
Celentano wrote , “ Yes , a total shut down of 4-6 weeks would be highly effective , even now , but it is probably not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economic impact that would ensue.
” Gurley said people must have an incentive to stay at home and that means paying them to do so .
( Alameda County in the California Bay Area is doing this . )
Baral said the uneven implementation of shutdowns has created vast inequities because governments have failed to make sure people have a safe place to quarantine , paid leave and the ability to meet their basic necessities .
Each of the epidemiologists stressed the importance of protecting essential workers and their families .
Last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times titled , “ Here ’ s How to Crush the Virus Until Vaccines Arrive , ” Osterholm and Neel Kashkari , president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis , argued the United States has the savings to safely take on more debt to finance the COVID-19 relief necessary to support the public during a shutdown .
They warn , “ History will judge us harshly if we miss this life- and economy-saving opportunity to get it right this time.
” Congress has missed this opportunity in a major way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who need it the most .
As we experience this exponential rise in COVID-19 cases , we are also in a period where the meager protections provided in the CARES Act are disappearing .
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities reports the economy is weakening and poverty is rising , especially for Black and Latinx people .
The major winners of the CARES Act were the millionaires and billionaires .
The Institute for Policy Studies found that billionaires have gained nearly $ 1 trillion in wealth since March while their workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in pay or working conditions .
Sadly , all signs point to the Biden administration making the same mistake in not prioritizing the basic needs of the people .
This is going to continue to contribute to preventable hardship and deaths and prolong the recession .
Seventy percent of the national gross domestic product relies on consumer spending , so the most effective way to stimulate economic recovery is from the bottom up .
When people who have unmet needs are given money , they immediately spend it on food and other goods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economist Milton Friedman understood that giving people money directly , “ helicopter money , ” is a powerful tool to stabilize economies .
So , what do we do now , given the current situation ?
Baral outlined a partial plan with three components .
First , make testing more available and “ align it with people ’ s lived realities.
” One reason there is such widespread community transmission of the virus is that people are not aware they are COVID-19 positive .
People , particularly in low-income communities , still face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not having a car to use for the drive-through testing centers or not being able to get a doctor ’ s order .
Others are not getting tested for fear of losing their job if they are positive .
The second component would be providing isolation units where people can quarantine if they test positive and don ’ t have a place to stay .
These units , which could be hotel rooms or vacant dorms or apartments , would provide food , bathrooms , internet and television for people while they stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Baral pointed to the massive outbreaks that are occurring at homeless shelters and said he receives many calls from people who are underhoused .
This pandemic is defined by inequity , he emphasized .
The best predictor of how a person will fare is the square footage per person per household , a measure of affluence .
Those with more space are less affected .
And the third component is paid leave to quarantine .
Instead of blaming and shaming people , everyone needs to feel secure in not working if that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both people who have been exposed to COVID-19 and those who test positive .
People who are at high risk for severe disease because of their health status and who don ’ t have access to a low-risk job environment should also receive support so they can quarantine .
These three steps would make a big difference in mitigating the spread of the virus as we wait for an effective vaccine , but an essential factor that will determine our overall success is trust .
People need to trust the system has their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comply with restrictions on their lives , cooperate with contact tracing and get vaccinated .
Baral warns that police should not be employed to implement public health polices because that destroys trust .
Instead of a punitive approach , we need an empowering approach that gives people what they need to protect themselves .
In Spain , for example , masks must be worn on all public transportation , so they make free masks available if passengers need them .
Our privatized health care system , which puts profits first , has eroded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a national public system , such as Medicare for All , would start to change that .
Another benefit of a national health care system is that public health is integrated into the system as it is in some of the counties that have handled the pandemic well .
Gurley , who focuses on contact tracing , explained that here a person will be notified of their test result by one part of the health care system and then the public health department may or may not follow up with them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ battle every time someone is diagnosed , ” she said .
One can only imagine how difficult it must be for epidemiologists to watch the current crisis and know there are straightforward public health measures that could contain it and save lives .
Gurley ended our conversation with these words : “ We have to have some drastic measures to even change course a bit.
” Will a Biden administration do that ?
Given the power of the medical-industrial complex over the government and other corporate interests that oppose shutting businesses down , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unless we organize and mobilize to demand them .
The pandemic will be with us for the foreseeable future .
Even when an effective vaccine is approved , it will take time to manufacture and administer enough doses to reduce viral transmission .
For now , we need to continue to take measures to prevent transmission of the virus and demand that beyond the Biden-Harris COVID-19 plan , Congress and the White House must also meet the economic , housing and health care needs of everyone .
Access to tests , places to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trust through a health care system that puts people ’ s health over corporate profits will put us on the best path to containing this pandemic .

As infectious disease experts had warned over the summer, the fall brought another rise in COVID-19 cases in the United States. It is a third surge in what is still the first wave as the number of daily new cases only flattened slightly in the spring before rising again in June. As of the writing of this article, the number of daily new cases is averaging 177,000 and close to 2,000 people are dying each day.
The COVID-19 pandemic has reached a crisis level in multiple states. In El Paso, Texas, hospitals have run out of beds even though the city’s convention center was converted into a hospital, and some patients are being transported nearly 600 miles away to Austin. States are also running out of medical staff to care for the influx of patients. The governor of North Dakota is allowing nurses who have tested positive for COVID-19 to work in coronavirus wards. In Iowa, one school district is asking school staff to volunteer at the local hospital where workers are “overwhelmed,” and paramedics report COVID-19 patients who would have been hospitalized before this surge are being sent home.
The Trump administration has failed to take appropriate steps since the beginning of the pandemic to stop the spread of the virus. It politicized the virus by threatening to withhold funding to Democratic-led states. President Trump refused to take COVID-19 seriously and even mocked people for wearing masks. He pushed businesses to reopen and sided with the employers over the needs of workers to be protected, clearly putting profits over people.
Harvard epidemiologist Robert Hahn tried to quantify the impact of President Trump’s rejection of public health measures on people’s behavior and estimates it contributed to thousands of deaths between April and July. Public health officials at the University of Washington in Seattle predict more than 500,000 people will die from COVID-19 by the end of February if we do not change course. They report that over 100,000 lives could be saved if more people simply wore masks.
There is a lot of hope that the incoming Biden administration will take more effective actions to mitigate the spread of the virus. Joe Biden has already appointed a COVID-19 task force of public health experts and the first bullet point in the updated Biden-Harris COVID-19 plan is “Listen to science.” But will the Biden administration really listen to science if that requires putting people’s needs above corporate profits?
Throughout his campaign, Joe Biden made it clear that his focus was on reopening businesses and schools. This was also Trump’s focus, so it remains to be seen if the Biden approach will be substantively different.
Perhaps the first warning sign came in the form of Biden’s response when COVID-19 Task Force member Michael Osterholm told the media that a national shutdown of four to six weeks with financial support for workers, businesses, and local and state governments was needed to slow the spread. Osterholm cited the examples of Australia and New Zealand, two countries that have been effective in controlling the pandemic, and that both used national shutdowns. The European Union, which is also experiencing a large surge in COVID-19 cases, is using national shutdowns to slow the spread, with positive effect.
Will the Biden administration really listen to science if that requires putting people’s needs above corporate profits?
In response to Osterholm’s statement, Celine Gounder, another task force member, said: “A national lockdown or shutdown is not on the table. The President-elect has no intention of implementing a national lockdown.” And in a recent press conference, President-elect Biden said, “I am not going to shut down the economy, period.”
It is also concerning that the updated Biden-Harris COVID-19 plan does not mention providing economic relief to families and workers. While it prioritizes testing, personal protective equipment and funds to make businesses safer, it says nothing about stopping evictions, providing monthly support checks or covering health care costs for people.
What Demands Should We Make of the Biden Administration?
Three infectious disease epidemiology professors at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health — Emily Gurley, Stefan Baral and David Celentano — all agree that a big impediment to controlling the pandemic to date is the lack of a national strategy.
Celentano told Truthout that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would normally coordinate that strategy, but it “has been sidelined and muzzled. Thus, it devolved to the states with no federal response.”
Baral said the CDC needs to develop a clear national strategy with actions the states must take, sign off on state plans, and provide technical and financial support to implement them.
Gurley lamented the widespread lack of agreement about what the goals at a national level should be — something that needs to happen in order for the CDC to be able to develop an effective national strategy. “We all agree that if there aren’t hospital beds, that’s bad,” she said. “We can agree about what is bad but not on what the goals should be.”
As far as Osterholm’s proposal for a national shutdown with financial support, all agreed that shutdowns are effective at reducing the number of cases but expressed doubt that it could be done in the United States because adequate financial support would not be provided and people would not comply. Celentano wrote, “Yes, a total shut down of 4-6 weeks would be highly effective, even now, but it is probably not politically possible, with a focus on the economic impact that would ensue.”
The updated Biden-Harris COVID-19 plan does not mention providing economic relief to families and workers.
Gurley said people must have an incentive to stay at home and that means paying them to do so. (Alameda County in the California Bay Area is doing this.) Baral said the uneven implementation of shutdowns has created vast inequities because governments have failed to make sure people have a safe place to quarantine, paid leave and the ability to meet their basic necessities. Each of the epidemiologists stressed the importance of protecting essential workers and their families.
Last August, in an op-ed in The New York Times titled, “Here’s How to Crush the Virus Until Vaccines Arrive,” Osterholm and Neel Kashkari, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, argued the United States has the savings to safely take on more debt to finance the COVID-19 relief necessary to support the public during a shutdown. They warn, “History will judge us harshly if we miss this life- and economy-saving opportunity to get it right this time.”
Congress has missed this opportunity in a major way by failing to provide support to the people who need it the most. As we experience this exponential rise in COVID-19 cases, we are also in a period where the meager protections provided in the CARES Act are disappearing. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities reports the economy is weakening and poverty is rising, especially for Black and Latinx people.
The major winners of the CARES Act were the millionaires and billionaires. The Institute for Policy Studies found that billionaires have gained nearly $1 trillion in wealth since March while their workers risk their lives each day without improvements in pay or working conditions.
Sadly, all signs point to the Biden administration making the same mistake in not prioritizing the basic needs of the people. This is going to continue to contribute to preventable hardship and deaths and prolong the recession. Seventy percent of the national gross domestic product relies on consumer spending, so the most effective way to stimulate economic recovery is from the bottom up. When people who have unmet needs are given money, they immediately spend it on food and other goods. Even the “free market” economist Milton Friedman understood that giving people money directly, “helicopter money,” is a powerful tool to stabilize economies.
So, what do we do now, given the current situation? Baral outlined a partial plan with three components. First, make testing more available and “align it with people’s lived realities.” One reason there is such widespread community transmission of the virus is that people are not aware they are COVID-19 positive. People, particularly in low-income communities, still face barriers to being tested, such as not having a car to use for the drive-through testing centers or not being able to get a doctor’s order. Others are not getting tested for fear of losing their job if they are positive.
Billionaires have gained nearly $1 trillion in wealth since March while their workers risk their lives each day without improvements in pay or working conditions.
The second component would be providing isolation units where people can quarantine if they test positive and don’t have a place to stay. These units, which could be hotel rooms or vacant dorms or apartments, would provide food, bathrooms, internet and television for people while they stay there, as well as medical supervision.
Baral pointed to the massive outbreaks that are occurring at homeless shelters and said he receives many calls from people who are underhoused. This pandemic is defined by inequity, he emphasized. The best predictor of how a person will fare is the square footage per person per household, a measure of affluence. Those with more space are less affected.
And the third component is paid leave to quarantine. Instead of blaming and shaming people, everyone needs to feel secure in not working if that is what they require. This includes both people who have been exposed to COVID-19 and those who test positive. People who are at high risk for severe disease because of their health status and who don’t have access to a low-risk job environment should also receive support so they can quarantine.
These three steps would make a big difference in mitigating the spread of the virus as we wait for an effective vaccine, but an essential factor that will determine our overall success is trust. People need to trust the system has their best interests in mind before they will comply with restrictions on their lives, cooperate with contact tracing and get vaccinated.
Instead of a punitive approach, we need an empowering approach that gives people what they need to protect themselves.
Baral warns that police should not be employed to implement public health polices because that destroys trust. Instead of a punitive approach, we need an empowering approach that gives people what they need to protect themselves. In Spain, for example, masks must be worn on all public transportation, so they make free masks available if passengers need them.
Our privatized health care system, which puts profits first, has eroded trust in the system. Transitioning quickly to a national public system, such as Medicare for All, would start to change that.
Another benefit of a national health care system is that public health is integrated into the system as it is in some of the counties that have handled the pandemic well. Gurley, who focuses on contact tracing, explained that here a person will be notified of their test result by one part of the health care system and then the public health department may or may not follow up with them. “We are always fighting an uphill battle every time someone is diagnosed,” she said.
One can only imagine how difficult it must be for epidemiologists to watch the current crisis and know there are straightforward public health measures that could contain it and save lives. Gurley ended our conversation with these words: “We have to have some drastic measures to even change course a bit.”
Will a Biden administration do that? Given the power of the medical-industrial complex over the government and other corporate interests that oppose shutting businesses down, we are unlikely to see strong measures unless we organize and mobilize to demand them. The pandemic will be with us for the foreseeable future. Even when an effective vaccine is approved, it will take time to manufacture and administer enough doses to reduce viral transmission.
For now, we need to continue to take measures to prevent transmission of the virus and demand that beyond the Biden-Harris COVID-19 plan, Congress and the White House must also meet the economic, housing and health care needs of everyone. Access to tests, places to quarantine, paid sick leave and rebuilding trust through a health care system that puts people’s health over corporate profits will put us on the best path to containing this pandemic.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-12-01--Sources Say Trump, Giuliani Have Talked About Pardoning

Rudy Giuliani , President Donald Trump ’ s personal lawyer , has reportedly engaged in conversations with the president regarding receiving a preemptive pardon from him before he leaves office .
Two sources with knowledge of the conversations between Giuliani and Trump spoke to the New York Times about them .
According to these sources , the president and his lawyer spoke as recently as last week regarding the matter .
Giuliani and Trump have also discussed the issue previously , but the sources said they were not sure which of the two brought the topic up first .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could want a preemptive pardon for .
However , as recently as this year federal investigators were looking into Giuliani ’ s business dealings in Ukraine , including his work with his former ( now indicted ) associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman , related to attempts to have former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch removed from her position and other matters concerning to Trump ’ s impeachment .
Preemptive pardons are rare in American politics , but not unprecedented — the charge of a crime is not required for someone to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for instance , received a full pardon from Gerald Ford for all activities he had conducted while in office .
The possibility of Trump pardoning Giuliani will likely be one of many pardon-related discussions to be had in the coming weeks , by politicians and pundits alike , as the president ’ s time in office winds down .
Some sources in the White House have also said that Trump is looking into preemptively pardoning himself before he leaves the White House ; constitutional scholars are split on whether it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After the report from theTimes was published , Giuliani denied that he and Trump had discussed the matter .
“ # FakeNews NYT lies again , ” Giuliani wrote .
“ Never had the discussion they falsely attribute to an anonymous source .
Hard to keep up with all their lies.
” Trump and his allies have frequently made similar criticisms against media that use anonymous sources .
But the Times ’ standards for doing so are strict , usually requiring a high-ranking editor , like a deputy managing editor for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of an anonymous source that is central to a story .
At least one other editor must know who a source is before a writer is allowed to publish their story .
Meanwhile , Giuliani ’ s own track record for honesty is subpar , to say the least .
According to PolitiFact ’ s file on the president ’ s lawyer , 51 percent of statements the organization has fact-checked have come back with a rating of “ mostly false ” or worse .
Only 18 percent of Giuliani ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and just 28 percent of his statements that were checked by the organization have been rated “ mostly true ” or “ true .
”

Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, has reportedly engaged in conversations with the president regarding receiving a preemptive pardon from him before he leaves office.
Two sources with knowledge of the conversations between Giuliani and Trump spoke to the New York Times about them. According to these sources, the president and his lawyer spoke as recently as last week regarding the matter.
Giuliani and Trump have also discussed the issue previously, but the sources said they were not sure which of the two brought the topic up first. The sources were also uncertain of what Giuliani could want a preemptive pardon for. However, as recently as this year federal investigators were looking into Giuliani’s business dealings in Ukraine, including his work with his former (now indicted) associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, related to attempts to have former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch removed from her position and other matters concerning to Trump’s impeachment.
Preemptive pardons are rare in American politics, but not unprecedented — the charge of a crime is not required for someone to receive a blanket pardon. Richard Nixon, for instance, received a full pardon from Gerald Ford for all activities he had conducted while in office.
The possibility of Trump pardoning Giuliani will likely be one of many pardon-related discussions to be had in the coming weeks, by politicians and pundits alike, as the president’s time in office winds down. Some sources in the White House have also said that Trump is looking into preemptively pardoning himself before he leaves the White House; constitutional scholars are split on whether it’s even legal to do such a thing.
After the report from theTimes was published, Giuliani denied that he and Trump had discussed the matter. “#FakeNews NYT lies again,” Giuliani wrote. “Never had the discussion they falsely attribute to an anonymous source. Hard to keep up with all their lies.”
Trump and his allies have frequently made similar criticisms against media that use anonymous sources. But the Times’ standards for doing so are strict, usually requiring a high-ranking editor, like a deputy managing editor for the publication, to sign off on the use of an anonymous source that is central to a story. At least one other editor must know who a source is before a writer is allowed to publish their story.
Meanwhile, Giuliani’s own track record for honesty is subpar, to say the least. According to PolitiFact’s file on the president’s lawyer, 51 percent of statements the organization has fact-checked have come back with a rating of “mostly false” or worse. Only 18 percent of Giuliani’s statements have been deemed “half true,” and just 28 percent of his statements that were checked by the organization have been rated “mostly true” or “true.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.