dailysignal--2020-08-13--After Losing Both Her In-Laws to COVID-19, Janice Dean Is Calling for an Investigation of New York

Janice Dean is Fox News ’ senior meteorologist .
She lost both of her in-laws to COVID-19 , and then was pulled from testifying at hearings on New York nursing home deaths .
Why was she prevented from testifying , and what does she think of how New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo has handled COVID-19 ?
Dean joins the podcast to discuss .
We also cover these stories : • Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned of China ’ s growing threat to the free world .
• The United Kingdom ’ s gross domestic product went down by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decline any major economy has ever seen .
• Hoboken , New Jersey , is considering implementing a $ 250 fine for not wearing a mask outside .
“ TheDaily Signal Podcast ” is available on Ricochet , Apple Podcasts , Pippa , Google Play , and Stitcher .
All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts .
If you like what you hear , please leave a review .
You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [ email protected ] .
Enjoy the show !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Find our five-minute survey at dailysignal.com/survey .
Again , that ’ s dailysignal.com/survey .
Rachel del Guidice : I ’ m joined today on “ The Daily Signal Podcast ” by Fox News ’ senior meteorologist , Janice Dean .
Janice , it ’ s wonderful to have you with us on “ The Daily Signal Podcast.
” Janice Dean : I appreciate the interest .
Thank you for having me .
Del Guidice : Well , thank you so much for making the time to be with us .
You did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Can you tell us what happened ?
Dean : We put my father-in-law in a nursing home .
He had bigger health issues than my mother-in-law did .
He needed some rehab and he had dementia , so we were trying to get him in better shape to join my mother-in-law in her assisted living facility , which was close to our home here on Long Island .
They weren ’ t in their respective eldercare facilities for very long .
Sean and I , my husband , for months and months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what to do because they couldn ’ t take care of themselves .
They couldn ’ t take care of each other .
They lived in a four-story walk-up in Brooklyn for 60 years that was rent-controlled .
At first , we had aides going into their apartment to take care of them , but there were still trips to the ER .
Then finally we found a nice place that was close to us that would take both of them once Mickey , my father-in-law , got better .
Then not long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrangements COVID-19 came in play .
My father-in-law died at the end of March , and we didn ’ t even know he was sick .
We weren ’ t able to visit him .
We were getting fairly regular updates and Sean was talking to him , but again , he had dementia , so it was hard for him to keep a conversation .
But we got a call on a Saturday morning and the aide said his dad wasn ’ t feeling well , he had a fever , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back saying he was dead , and that we should phone the funeral home .
We had no clue he was even sick , and then we didn ’ t even know he had died of COVID until we saw the death certificate .
With his mom , my husband had to deliver the news to his mom that his dad had passed away , and she didn ’ t , obviously , take that very well .
I think from that point on she wasn ’ t doing very well emotionally .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ living residence , and they brought her to the hospital where she was diagnosed with COVID , and she died in the hospital .
One of the things that I ’ m very vocal about is the fact that her number does not count .
Now , finally , after all these months we ’ re starting to see articles about the fact that we think that the numbers are hidden , and that the 6,000 number of deaths in nursing homes is actually probably double that amount because they aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital .
Del Guidice : That ’ s tragic .
We ’ re very sorry for your guys ’ loss .
Before we get into more of what happened following their deaths , can you talk a little bit about what your in-laws were like as people , how long you had known them before their deaths ?
Dean : I met my husband in 2002 and we dated for many years , and I of course met his parents .
I remember the first day that I met Mickey .
He was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shape for many , many years of his life , and many years that I knew of him .
He ran 800 races and documented each one in a little notebook , or several notebooks .
I remember the day I first met Mickey , he had just finished a run , and he was standing by his car with his shirt off .
My husband said , “ That ’ s my dad .
He ’ s always the guy with his shirt off , ” and so I just remember that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mickey .
Mickey was also a firefighter .
My husband ’ s a firefighter as well .
He had 23 years on the job before he retired .
He was also in the U.S. Air Force .
He was stationed in Hawaii at Hickam , and he and my mother-in-law were pen pals .
I do believe , if folklore is true , that his dad actually proposed to his mom through the letters that he wrote her when he was in Hawaii .
My mother-in-law was a devoted grandmother .
She loved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who is a little bit older than my kids , growing up she was Mickey ’ s little pet .
They went everywhere together .
They loved Long Island , Silver Point Beach Club , Atlantic Beach—where my husband grew up and became a lifeguard .
They were true New Yorkers , born and bred , and they are the definition of New York tough .
Del Guidice : Thank you so much for sharing about them and just the kind of people that they were .
Going into the situation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of looking at it from a wider angle , what do you think of how New York and especially Gov .
Andrew Cuomo have handled COVID-19 ?
Dean : I think he does deserve praise in that he has brought the number of cases down , and through social distancing , and people just in general listening to the rules and regulations , we are now , I guess , an example of looking good .
But I ’ ve always used the example of the fire is out , or at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that doesn ’ t mean that the house didn ’ t burn down in the process .
That ’ s how I look at it in terms of my family .
We have lost not one , but two parents in the process .
The fact that he goes around and continues to tout his squashing of the curve , or the flattening of the curve , and his COVID mountain poster , and doing this sort of victory lap on the fact that New York is doing so well kind of ignores @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks and months we weren ’ t doing very well .
We lost over 30,000 people , and 6,000 of those , more if you really dig deep , were in the nursing homes .
For 46 days , there was a mandate in place that Gov .
Cuomo signed that stated that COVID-positive patients were to be put in nursing homes .
The governor knew this .
He even was on the record as quoted , “ A fire through dry grass , ” and that ’ s exactly what happened in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it got through the walls , and it took our most vulnerable .
So I think the cover-up is happening right now , especially with the numbers .
For many weeks Gov .
Cuomo was never being asked the question about the nursing homes .
I think he got used to not having to answer to that question .
When he does get asked , he blames everybody except the person that signed the order , and that is Andrew Cuomo .
Del Guidice : You ’ ve been very outspoken about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you had reached out and wanted to testify about what happened during hearings in New York .
Can you tell us what happened ?
I know you were disinvited to those .
Can you take us through ?
You were invited , and then this didn ’ t work out .
Can you tell us what happened ?
Dean : I found out that there were hearings in New York .
There were two separate hearings about the nursing home tragedy in upstate New York in the Senate .
I contacted my friend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how I would be able to get myself on the list because I had a story to tell .
I believe that laws change not because of lawmakers talking about what they want to do in the Senate or grilling Howard Zucker with questions and him not answering them .
That doesn ’ t change the laws .
It ’ s the stories of people that have experienced the losses .
So I wanted to make sure that I was able to tell my story in front of the lawmakers in upstate New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record , my husband ’ s story as well , of course .
I wrote the letters , and I wrote the emails , and I filled out the documents .
I was told by Assemblyman Kevin Byrne , who was the only one that got back to me , that he had talked to the chair and that even though I couldn ’ t be on the August 3rd list of witnesses , the chair would put me on the list for August 10th .
I was to get an email , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came .
I emailed my friend , Councilman Joe Borelli , and he broke the news to me that they were disinviting me , that I was no longer on the list .
Then I got word from Assemblyman Kevin Byrne that that indeed was the situation , that they had taken me off the list .
It was actually in writing that they were uncomfortable with me as a witness and that ’ s why they took me off .
Del Guidice : This happened … the same day of the hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dean : They took me off the list , I believe , on Friday and never sent me anything until the actual hearings .
When the hearings were on I received a generic email that was , “ We couldn ’ t accommodate you due to time.
” And like I said , it was very generic .
It was just sort of a “ thanks , but no thanks.
” I think someone probably guilted them into saying [ that ] , “ You should probably tell her something.
” Del Guidice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about talking about how there should be a full and bipartisan investigation into New York ’ s nursing home deaths .
Why do you think [ that ] and why should this happen ?
Dean : Because Gov .
Cuomo doesn ’ t want it to happen , and the only investigation we ’ ve had so far is one done by his administration that basically said he did nothing wrong .
It had nothing to do with his mandate that was put in place for 46 days of putting COVID patients into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nursing care workers and the visitors that brought the virus into their homes .
We were never allowed to go see my in-laws as visitors , so that does not ring true .
I just think there needs to be a bipartisan investigation where there is subpoena powers involved , and people like Howard Zucker have to go on the record and answer those questions in front of lawmakers and families .
And not just on a state level .
It probably should be on a federal level .
Why not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t the only state that had this mandate in place .
There ’ s four others , including New York , Pennsylvania , California , Michigan , New Jersey .
They all had the same mandate of putting COVID-positive patients into nursing homes .
Del Guidice : How do you think New York lawmakers and Gov .
Cuomo could reform the COVID-19 situation in this state ?
Dean : I think they have to learn from their mistakes , and perhaps even on a broader scale look at our nursing homes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for any kind of virus .
If this happens again , how are they prepared ?
There are stories of not enough [ personal protective equipment ] , workers have stories .
I ’ ve heard from nursing care workers that are afraid to tell their stories .
They don ’ t want to lose their jobs .
Just the way people are treated .
Of course there are some nursing homes that are an example of a safe place for our elderly .
There are examples in New York that defied the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t allow COVID-positive patients into nursing homes , and there are success stories .
I think we have to look to those stories to make a change because there is going to be another time and another place where we ’ re going to have to protect our elderly .
Del Guidice : Given your situation and everything that ’ s happened , everything that you ’ ve witnessed , has coronavirus become really politicized ?
Has that been more important than actually going to families and putting needs and wants of families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lines have been drawn in that area ?
Dean : I think it ’ s the time and the place we are living in that has added to the confusion and the agony of all of this .
Everything is political these days .
You can ’ t have an opinion without it being political .
I believe the fact that I wasn ’ t allowed to testify at the hearings was political because of where I work , even though I ’ m the weatherperson , and I ’ m the least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shouldn ’ t matter where I work .
My family was affected by this .
So I think both sides have a problem with this .
It ’ s not just a Republican or a Democrat .
But when it comes to our loved ones , this is not about politics .
I ’ m sure there are a lot of families that voted for Cuomo that have lost their loved ones that want answers .
Unfortunately , it ’ s the times that we ’ re living in where everything is politicized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot more so when it comes to losing our loved ones and trying to get our message across .
Del Guidice : As you mentioned , Janice , many Americans have lost loved ones in nursing homes .
What ’ s your advice to them on how to advocate for their family members in nursing homes and how to support them during this pandemic ?
Dean : You know , it ’ s , use your voice .
Call your councilman .
It didn ’ t work for me .
Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that they didn ’ t have me come and speak has actually given me a bigger platform .
More people know my story .
More people know the story of how my in-laws lost their lives during this tragic time .
But as I mentioned , it ’ s the stories , and getting in front of people , getting in front of lawmakers , writing those letters , and trying to be as dedicated enough and getting involved in the cause .
I know it ’ s hard now because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pandemic .
It ’ s hard to get out there and protest .
I was invited to a lot of protests , and I would have loved to have gone with my signs .
There ’ s something to that .
That ’ s an important part of having a voice .
It ’ s difficult right now with the times that we are in .
But the messages do get through , and the emails do get to people .
I just think there is safety in numbers , so if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to change , I truly believe that that can happen .
Del Guidice : Lastly , Janice , how has mainstream media responded to your story ?
I know you said that you have been given a bigger platform because of what did happen , unfortunately , but how ’ s the mainstream responded to it ?
Dean : I ’ ve had a few interviews .
I don ’ t think CNN is going to be calling me any time tomorrow .
You know , I wish there was more .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ were asking the questions of Gov .
Cuomo when he ’ s on NBC , and ABC , and on the newspapers .
There are a few publications .
There are a few places that are getting the message across .
I wrote an op-ed for USA Today , and I ’ m really glad that they published that .
They didn ’ t edit me at all .
They let me tell my story .
I ’ m grateful for that .
I ’ ve had some local radio , and TV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state have been interested in the story now .
We ’ ll see , but certainly not enough to raise awareness in mainstream media .
Del Guidice : Janice , thank you so much for taking the time to come on and tell your story and the story of your in-laws .
It ’ s been great to have you with us .
Dean : I appreciate the interest .
Thank you .

Janice Dean is Fox News’ senior meteorologist. She lost both of her in-laws to COVID-19, and then was pulled from testifying at hearings on New York nursing home deaths. Why was she prevented from testifying, and what does she think of how New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has handled COVID-19? Dean joins the podcast to discuss.
We also cover these stories:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned of China’s growing threat to the free world.
The United Kingdom’s gross domestic product went down by 20.4%, which is the sharpest decline any major economy has ever seen.
Hoboken, New Jersey, is considering implementing a $250 fine for not wearing a mask outside.
“TheDaily Signal Podcast” is available on Ricochet, Apple Podcasts, Pippa, Google Play, and Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!
We want to improve your podcast experience. Find our five-minute survey at dailysignal.com/survey. Again, that’s dailysignal.com/survey.
Rachel del Guidice: I’m joined today on “The Daily Signal Podcast” by Fox News’ senior meteorologist, Janice Dean. Janice, it’s wonderful to have you with us on “The Daily Signal Podcast.”
Janice Dean: I appreciate the interest. Thank you for having me.
Del Guidice: Well, thank you so much for making the time to be with us. You did lose both of your in-laws to COVID-19. Can you tell us what happened?
Dean: We put my father-in-law in a nursing home. He had bigger health issues than my mother-in-law did. He needed some rehab and he had dementia, so we were trying to get him in better shape to join my mother-in-law in her assisted living facility, which was close to our home here on Long Island.
They weren’t in their respective eldercare facilities for very long. Sean and I, my husband, for months and months just were having a hard time deciding what to do because they couldn’t take care of themselves. They couldn’t take care of each other. They lived in a four-story walk-up in Brooklyn for 60 years that was rent-controlled.
At first, we had aides going into their apartment to take care of them, but there were still trips to the ER. Then finally we found a nice place that was close to us that would take both of them once Mickey, my father-in-law, got better.
Then not long after they were in their new living arrangements COVID-19 came in play. My father-in-law died at the end of March, and we didn’t even know he was sick. We weren’t able to visit him.
We were getting fairly regular updates and Sean was talking to him, but again, he had dementia, so it was hard for him to keep a conversation.
But we got a call on a Saturday morning and the aide said his dad wasn’t feeling well, he had a fever, and three hours later we get a call back saying he was dead, and that we should phone the funeral home.
We had no clue he was even sick, and then we didn’t even know he had died of COVID until we saw the death certificate.
With his mom, my husband had to deliver the news to his mom that his dad had passed away, and she didn’t, obviously, take that very well.
I think from that point on she wasn’t doing very well emotionally. Then she got sick in her assisted living residence, and they brought her to the hospital where she was diagnosed with COVID, and she died in the hospital.
One of the things that I’m very vocal about is the fact that her number does not count. Now, finally, after all these months we’re starting to see articles about the fact that we think that the numbers are hidden, and that the 6,000 number of deaths in nursing homes is actually probably double that amount because they aren’t counting the nursing home deaths in the hospital.
Del Guidice: That’s tragic. We’re very sorry for your guys’ loss. Before we get into more of what happened following their deaths, can you talk a little bit about what your in-laws were like as people, how long you had known them before their deaths?
Dean: I met my husband in 2002 and we dated for many years, and I of course met his parents. I remember the first day that I met Mickey. He was a runner. He was in great shape for many, many years of his life, and many years that I knew of him. He ran 800 races and documented each one in a little notebook, or several notebooks.
I remember the day I first met Mickey, he had just finished a run, and he was standing by his car with his shirt off. My husband said, “That’s my dad. He’s always the guy with his shirt off,” and so I just remember that being quite funny and very true to Mickey.
Mickey was also a firefighter. My husband’s a firefighter as well. He had 23 years on the job before he retired.
He was also in the U.S. Air Force. He was stationed in Hawaii at Hickam, and he and my mother-in-law were pen pals. I do believe, if folklore is true, that his dad actually proposed to his mom through the letters that he wrote her when he was in Hawaii.
My mother-in-law was a devoted grandmother. She loved her grandkids.
My niece, Danielle, who is a little bit older than my kids, growing up she was Mickey’s little pet. They went everywhere together. They loved Long Island, Silver Point Beach Club, Atlantic Beach—where my husband grew up and became a lifeguard. They were true New Yorkers, born and bred, and they are the definition of New York tough.
Del Guidice: Thank you so much for sharing about them and just the kind of people that they were.
Going into the situation in New York as a whole, kind of looking at it from a wider angle, what do you think of how New York and especially Gov. Andrew Cuomo have handled COVID-19?
Dean: I think he does deserve praise in that he has brought the number of cases down, and through social distancing, and people just in general listening to the rules and regulations, we are now, I guess, an example of looking good.
But I’ve always used the example of the fire is out, or at least it’s almost out, but that doesn’t mean that the house didn’t burn down in the process. That’s how I look at it in terms of my family. We have lost not one, but two parents in the process.
The fact that he goes around and continues to tout his squashing of the curve, or the flattening of the curve, and his COVID mountain poster, and doing this sort of victory lap on the fact that New York is doing so well kind of ignores the fact that for many, many weeks and months we weren’t doing very well.
We lost over 30,000 people, and 6,000 of those, more if you really dig deep, were in the nursing homes.
For 46 days, there was a mandate in place that Gov. Cuomo signed that stated that COVID-positive patients were to be put in nursing homes. The governor knew this. He even was on the record as quoted, “A fire through dry grass,” and that’s exactly what happened in the nursing homes. The virus spread, it got through the walls, and it took our most vulnerable.
So I think the cover-up is happening right now, especially with the numbers. For many weeks Gov. Cuomo was never being asked the question about the nursing homes. I think he got used to not having to answer to that question. When he does get asked, he blames everybody except the person that signed the order, and that is Andrew Cuomo.
Del Guidice: You’ve been very outspoken about what happened to your in-laws, and you had reached out and wanted to testify about what happened during hearings in New York.
Can you tell us what happened? I know you were disinvited to those. Can you take us through? You were invited, and then this didn’t work out. Can you tell us what happened?
Dean: I found out that there were hearings in New York. There were two separate hearings about the nursing home tragedy in upstate New York in the Senate. I contacted my friend, Councilman Joe Borelli, and asked how I would be able to get myself on the list because I had a story to tell.
I believe that laws change not because of lawmakers talking about what they want to do in the Senate or grilling Howard Zucker with questions and him not answering them. That doesn’t change the laws. It’s the stories of people that have experienced the losses.
So I wanted to make sure that I was able to tell my story in front of the lawmakers in upstate New York and put my story on the record, my husband’s story as well, of course.
I wrote the letters, and I wrote the emails, and I filled out the documents. I was told by Assemblyman Kevin Byrne, who was the only one that got back to me, that he had talked to the chair and that even though I couldn’t be on the August 3rd list of witnesses, the chair would put me on the list for August 10th.
I was to get an email, an invitation, on Friday that never came. I emailed my friend, Councilman Joe Borelli, and he broke the news to me that they were disinviting me, that I was no longer on the list. Then I got word from Assemblyman Kevin Byrne that that indeed was the situation, that they had taken me off the list. It was actually in writing that they were uncomfortable with me as a witness and that’s why they took me off.
Del Guidice: This happened … the same day of the hearing that you were supposed to testify.
Dean: They took me off the list, I believe, on Friday and never sent me anything until the actual hearings.
When the hearings were on I received a generic email that was, “We couldn’t accommodate you due to time.” And like I said, it was very generic. It was just sort of a “thanks, but no thanks.” I think someone probably guilted them into saying [that], “You should probably tell her something.”
Del Guidice: You’ve been really open about talking about how there should be a full and bipartisan investigation into New York’s nursing home deaths. Why do you think [that] and why should this happen?
Dean: Because Gov. Cuomo doesn’t want it to happen, and the only investigation we’ve had so far is one done by his administration that basically said he did nothing wrong.
It had nothing to do with his mandate that was put in place for 46 days of putting COVID patients into nursing homes. Rather, it was the nursing care workers and the visitors that brought the virus into their homes. We were never allowed to go see my in-laws as visitors, so that does not ring true.
I just think there needs to be a bipartisan investigation where there is subpoena powers involved, and people like Howard Zucker have to go on the record and answer those questions in front of lawmakers and families. And not just on a state level. It probably should be on a federal level.
Why not a 911-style commission hearing? Because New York wasn’t the only state that had this mandate in place. There’s four others, including New York, Pennsylvania, California, Michigan, New Jersey. They all had the same mandate of putting COVID-positive patients into nursing homes.
Del Guidice: How do you think New York lawmakers and Gov. Cuomo could reform the COVID-19 situation in this state?
Dean: I think they have to learn from their mistakes, and perhaps even on a broader scale look at our nursing homes and how they are still not safe for any kind of virus.
If this happens again, how are they prepared? There are stories of not enough [personal protective equipment], workers have stories. I’ve heard from nursing care workers that are afraid to tell their stories. They don’t want to lose their jobs. Just the way people are treated.
Of course there are some nursing homes that are an example of a safe place for our elderly. There are examples in New York that defied the governor’s orders and didn’t allow COVID-positive patients into nursing homes, and there are success stories.
I think we have to look to those stories to make a change because there is going to be another time and another place where we’re going to have to protect our elderly.
Del Guidice: Given your situation and everything that’s happened, everything that you’ve witnessed, has coronavirus become really politicized? Has that been more important than actually going to families and putting needs and wants of families first? Where would you say the lines have been drawn in that area?
Dean: I think it’s the time and the place we are living in that has added to the confusion and the agony of all of this. Everything is political these days. You can’t have an opinion without it being political.
I believe the fact that I wasn’t allowed to testify at the hearings was political because of where I work, even though I’m the weatherperson, and I’m the least political person that works there. It shouldn’t matter where I work. My family was affected by this.
So I think both sides have a problem with this. It’s not just a Republican or a Democrat. But when it comes to our loved ones, this is not about politics. I’m sure there are a lot of families that voted for Cuomo that have lost their loved ones that want answers.
Unfortunately, it’s the times that we’re living in where everything is politicized, unfortunately, and it’s a lot more so when it comes to losing our loved ones and trying to get our message across.
Del Guidice: As you mentioned, Janice, many Americans have lost loved ones in nursing homes. What’s your advice to them on how to advocate for their family members in nursing homes and how to support them during this pandemic?
Dean: You know, it’s, use your voice. Call your councilman. It didn’t work for me. Well, I shouldn’t say that because the fact that they didn’t have me come and speak has actually given me a bigger platform. More people know my story. More people know the story of how my in-laws lost their lives during this tragic time.
But as I mentioned, it’s the stories, and getting in front of people, getting in front of lawmakers, writing those letters, and trying to be as dedicated enough and getting involved in the cause.
I know it’s hard now because we’re in a time of a pandemic. It’s hard to get out there and protest. I was invited to a lot of protests, and I would have loved to have gone with my signs. There’s something to that. That’s an important part of having a voice.
It’s difficult right now with the times that we are in. But the messages do get through, and the emails do get to people. I just think there is safety in numbers, so if there’s enough of us that want to change, I truly believe that that can happen.
Del Guidice: Lastly, Janice, how has mainstream media responded to your story? I know you said that you have been given a bigger platform because of what did happen, unfortunately, but how’s the mainstream responded to it?
Dean: I’ve had a few interviews. I don’t think CNN is going to be calling me any time tomorrow. You know, I wish there was more. I wish there were more people that were asking the questions of Gov. Cuomo when he’s on NBC, and ABC, and on the newspapers.
There are a few publications. There are a few places that are getting the message across. I wrote an op-ed for USA Today, and I’m really glad that they published that. They didn’t edit me at all. They let me tell my story. I’m grateful for that.
I’ve had some local radio, and TV, and newspaper publications in New York state have been interested in the story now. We’ll see, but certainly not enough to raise awareness in mainstream media.
Del Guidice: Janice, thank you so much for taking the time to come on and tell your story and the story of your in-laws. It’s been great to have you with us.
Dean: I appreciate the interest. Thank you.


dailysignal--2020-08-12--Parents, Educators, Doctors Join Trump in New Push to Reopen Schools

Dr. Melanie McGraw Piasecki is both a pediatrician and a mother of three who wants to see kids back in school after the COVID-19 lockdown that shuttered classrooms in the spring and is on the cusp of doing so this fall across the country .
“ My children did not have a particularly great experience in the spring , particularly my youngest , who was in first grade at the time , ” Piasecki , of Charlotte , North Carolina , said Wednesday at a White House event .
“ I think the online learning for the young ones , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Her children ’ s school is moving to a hybrid model , a mix of in-classroom and remote learning .
“ In terms of being a pediatrician , I just think the science is so clear that the risk of death or hospitalization for children with this virus is so , so low , ” Piasecki said .
“ We know the risks of missing school are catastrophic .
We probably don ’ t even know how high they are yet , and they cover so many different areas.
” Piasecki was among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and education officials—who attended the White House event to advocate the reopening of schools .
“ We are 100 % with you , ” President Donald Trump said , referring to children ’ s return to school .
Vice President Mike Pence , Education Secretary Betsy DeVos , presidential counsel Kellyanne Conway , and new White House medical adviser Dr. Scott Atlas also were part of the event .
“ The concept of every other day [ school attendance ] seems a little ridiculous , right ?
” Trump asked Piasecki .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ do it , you do it .
The concept of going back—even from a management standpoint from the school—every other day seems very strange.
” Piasecki explained the thinking behind it , but said she ’ s generally supportive of returning to school .
“ The idea is they are going to take half the student body on ‘ A ’ days and half the student body on ‘ B ’ days so they can socially distance in the facility ; then if you ’ re home , you ’ ll be watching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump responded : “ But you ’ d rather see them go back period , right ?
You ’ d rather not see that ?
” Trump secured $ 13 billion for states to spend on K-12 education , and is asking Congress to approve another $ 70 billion for K-12 schools .
Keeping schools closed harms earning potential for students , said Paul Peterson , director of the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University .
“ For every year you spend in school , in the future you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earnings , ” Peterson said at the White House gathering , adding : At this point , Trump said : “ So sitting in isolation with a computer , looking at a laptop , is not the same as being out there in the real world ?
” Peterson said the COVID-19 pandemic changed his mind about the effectiveness of remote learning .
“ At one point , Mr. President , I thought digital learning was the future , ” Peterson said .
“ But , we have learned through this COVID crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learning to the point where you can really engage young people .
They have got to be in that classroom .
They have to be with their peers .
”

Dr. Melanie McGraw Piasecki is both a pediatrician and a mother of three who wants to see kids back in school after the COVID-19 lockdown that shuttered classrooms in the spring and is on the cusp of doing so this fall across the country.
“My children did not have a particularly great experience in the spring, particularly my youngest, who was in first grade at the time,” Piasecki, of Charlotte, North Carolina, said Wednesday at a White House event. “I think the online learning for the young ones, it just doesn’t work.”
Her children’s school is moving to a hybrid model, a mix of in-classroom and remote learning.
“In terms of being a pediatrician, I just think the science is so clear that the risk of death or hospitalization for children with this virus is so, so low,” Piasecki said. “We know the risks of missing school are catastrophic. We probably don’t even know how high they are yet, and they cover so many different areas.”
Piasecki was among nine Americans—including parents, doctors, teachers, and education officials—who attended the White House event to advocate the reopening of schools.
“We are 100% with you,” President Donald Trump said, referring to children’s return to school.
Vice President Mike Pence, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, presidential counsel Kellyanne Conway, and new White House medical adviser Dr. Scott Atlas also were part of the event.
“The concept of every other day [school attendance] seems a little ridiculous, right?” Trump asked Piasecki. “If you’re going to do it, you do it. The concept of going back—even from a management standpoint from the school—every other day seems very strange.”
Piasecki explained the thinking behind it, but said she’s generally supportive of returning to school.
“The idea is they are going to take half the student body on ‘A’ days and half the student body on ‘B’ days so they can socially distance in the facility; then if you’re home, you’ll be watching it on technology,” she said.
Trump responded: “But you’d rather see them go back period, right? You’d rather not see that?”
The doctor answered: “That’s right.”
Trump secured $13 billion for states to spend on K-12 education, and is asking Congress to approve another $70 billion for K-12 schools.
Keeping schools closed harms earning potential for students, said Paul Peterson, director of the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University.
“For every year you spend in school, in the future you will earn 10% more in lifetime earnings,” Peterson said at the White House gathering, adding:
So, if we lock down schools for a year, we assign this generation to a 10% earning loss for the rest of their life. This is profound. The costs are vastly greater than people have appreciated, to say nothing about the importance of young people being together with one another.
At this point, Trump said: “So sitting in isolation with a computer, looking at a laptop, is not the same as being out there in the real world?”
Peterson said the COVID-19 pandemic changed his mind about the effectiveness of remote learning.
“At one point, Mr. President, I thought digital learning was the future,” Peterson said. “But, we have learned through this COVID crisis that we haven’t got digital learning to the point where you can really engage young people. They have got to be in that classroom. They have to be with their peers.”


dailysignal--2020-08-13--Watch Out for the New Censors

Watch Out for the New Censors

Until the Trump era , there was a pretty broad consensus in America around free speech .
If you didn ’ t like something someone said , you could debate them and prove their point was not worthy .
The solution to bad arguments was to use our free speech rights to win an argument .
The notion of censoring political debate does not have deep roots in our system .
The Trump era changed all that .
The left views President Donald Trump as an existential threat .
Quaint notions such as free speech are no longer in vogue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to drive him from office .
Running a news company in this environment is , to say the least , challenging .
The newest challenge we are facing at my company , The Daily Caller , is an attack on our fact-check site , CheckYourFact.com .
The Daily Caller has millions of readers , many of whom do not trust the traditional corporate media .
Supplying these readers with reliable , accurate information to counter some of the bogus information on the web is a service we were excited to perform .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tell the truth , no matter where it leads .
This means calling out politicians or other influencers when they get things wrong .
We knew going in that addressing these misstatements with a fair , thorough , and nonpartisan approach was key to our success .
It ’ s the only way we can develop a trusted relationship with our readers .
And that trusted relationship , the faith people have in your desire and ability to call it straight , is the only real asset of any news organization .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to : No .
1 : Transparency in our fact checks so readers could see as much of the information we rely on as possible .
No .
2 : A strong corrections policy so we can correct mistakes when we make them .
No .
3 : Obtaining a commitment of fairness from each author , including an agreement to refrain from partisan political activity .
No .
4 : Posting our methodology with details on our selection , writing , and research process .
With all this in place , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fact-Checking Network operated by the Poynter Institute , the world ’ s leading organization for ethics in journalism .
Upon launching Check Your Fact , I fully expected to engage in debates about our work .
Interestingly , though , our work has been nearly free of controversy .
Nobody wants to debate us about our fact checks .
That ’ s probably because they are consistently fair , thorough and completely nonpartisan .
Instead , we have seen something much more insidious .
Many on the political left are outraged by our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to shut us down .
Their newest attack is that The Daily Caller can ’ t do fact checks because it has “ taken tens of thousands of dollars to help Republican campaigns raise money.
” As the site ’ s publisher , this came as a shock to me .
We have never taken a single contribution from the Republican Party .
Then I realized they were talking about the advertising we sell .
Almost every news company sells advertising .
And , especially during election years , almost all news companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s important to be very transparent when you do sell political advertising , so the ads we have been attacked for running all say “ a message from our sponsor ” right at the top .
When was the last time near any election that you watched a local or national news program and didn ’ t see a political ad ?
By the logic of the attacks against us , mindlessly parroted by numerous left-wing commentators , any news company that takes a political ad—meaning virtually every news company—is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , preposterous .
Running properly labeled political advertising has been a staple of the news business for decades .
So , why the controversy ?
First , the Trump campaign is one of the advertisers in question .
To many on the hard left , running ads for that campaign is akin to working with the devil .
They want us to tip the scales and refuse to take ads from the Trump campaign .
There are two candidates for president .
We are happy to run ads for either one ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each and think it ’ s eminently reasonable for each to do so , considering our audience is politically engaged and covers a broad cross section of political America , from liberals to conservatives .
Ironically , if we refused to sell ads to one side , we would be tipping the scales in a partisan direction .
The second goal of the critics is to silence us altogether .
To many on the left , the fact that The Daily Caller is running fact checks is just offensive .
We have no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality , if this group would bother to read the content they hope to censor , they should be celebrating our Check Your Fact operation and thanking us for the work we are doing .
Our site is popular with conservatives and Trump voters .
Yet we regularly publish fact checks that point out misstatements by the president , correct some of the crazier right-wing disinformation on the web , and defend Democrats from unfair attacks .
With the trust our readers place in us , we are the perfect outlet to correct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may rely upon .
In a rational world , this would be celebrated .
In the real world , the partisans on the left who are coming after us have never even read our work .
They just want to censor us based on their preconceived notions .
It ’ s not going to work .

Until the Trump era, there was a pretty broad consensus in America around free speech. If you didn’t like something someone said, you could debate them and prove their point was not worthy. The solution to bad arguments was to use our free speech rights to win an argument.
The notion of censoring political debate does not have deep roots in our system. The Trump era changed all that. The left views President Donald Trump as an existential threat. Quaint notions such as free speech are no longer in vogue when compared to the broader moral calling to drive him from office.
Running a news company in this environment is, to say the least, challenging. The newest challenge we are facing at my company, The Daily Caller, is an attack on our fact-check site, CheckYourFact.com.
The Daily Caller has millions of readers, many of whom do not trust the traditional corporate media. Supplying these readers with reliable, accurate information to counter some of the bogus information on the web is a service we were excited to perform. Our goal on fact checks was simple: Tell the truth, no matter where it leads.
This means calling out politicians or other influencers when they get things wrong. We knew going in that addressing these misstatements with a fair, thorough, and nonpartisan approach was key to our success. It’s the only way we can develop a trusted relationship with our readers.
And that trusted relationship, the faith people have in your desire and ability to call it straight, is the only real asset of any news organization.
To do our job well, we committed to:
No. 1: Transparency in our fact checks so readers could see as much of the information we rely on as possible.
No. 2: A strong corrections policy so we can correct mistakes when we make them.
No. 3: Obtaining a commitment of fairness from each author, including an agreement to refrain from partisan political activity.
No. 4: Posting our methodology with details on our selection, writing, and research process.
With all this in place, we applied and were accepted to the International Fact-Checking Network operated by the Poynter Institute, the world’s leading organization for ethics in journalism.
Upon launching Check Your Fact, I fully expected to engage in debates about our work. Interestingly, though, our work has been nearly free of controversy. Nobody wants to debate us about our fact checks. That’s probably because they are consistently fair, thorough, and completely nonpartisan.
Instead, we have seen something much more insidious. Many on the political left are outraged by our mere existence, and they are trying to shut us down.
Their newest attack is that The Daily Caller can’t do fact checks because it has “taken tens of thousands of dollars to help Republican campaigns raise money.” As the site’s publisher, this came as a shock to me. We have never taken a single contribution from the Republican Party.
Then I realized they were talking about the advertising we sell. Almost every news company sells advertising. And, especially during election years, almost all news companies sell advertising to political candidates and committees.
It’s important to be very transparent when you do sell political advertising, so the ads we have been attacked for running all say “a message from our sponsor” right at the top.
When was the last time near any election that you watched a local or national news program and didn’t see a political ad? By the logic of the attacks against us, mindlessly parroted by numerous left-wing commentators, any news company that takes a political ad—meaning virtually every news company—is somehow disqualified.
This is, of course, preposterous. Running properly labeled political advertising has been a staple of the news business for decades.
So, why the controversy?
First, the Trump campaign is one of the advertisers in question. To many on the hard left, running ads for that campaign is akin to working with the devil. They want us to tip the scales and refuse to take ads from the Trump campaign.
There are two candidates for president. We are happy to run ads for either one; we have offered to do so for each and think it’s eminently reasonable for each to do so, considering our audience is politically engaged and covers a broad cross section of political America, from liberals to conservatives.
Ironically, if we refused to sell ads to one side, we would be tipping the scales in a partisan direction.
The second goal of the critics is to silence us altogether. To many on the left, the fact that The Daily Caller is running fact checks is just offensive. We have no right, in their minds.
In reality, if this group would bother to read the content they hope to censor, they should be celebrating our Check Your Fact operation and thanking us for the work we are doing.
Our site is popular with conservatives and Trump voters. Yet we regularly publish fact checks that point out misstatements by the president, correct some of the crazier right-wing disinformation on the web, and defend Democrats from unfair attacks.
With the trust our readers place in us, we are the perfect outlet to correct some of this information that conservatives otherwise may rely upon. In a rational world, this would be celebrated. In the real world, the partisans on the left who are coming after us have never even read our work.
They just want to censor us based on their preconceived notions. It’s not going to work.


dailysignal--2020-08-14--How the Media Drives Radical ‘Wokeness’

How the Media Drives Radical ‘Wokeness’

“ Fake news ” isn ’ t the only media problem in 2020 .
An important analysis in media trends of the past decade shows how activist journalism is promoting radical racial “ wokeness.
” There was a time when the woke ideology was firmly ensconced in the ivory tower and limited to radical corners of our university system .
But now it ’ s everywhere , and America seemingly can ’ t stop talking about race , racism , and anti-racism all the time .
More than that , the George Floyd protests have turned into the 1619 riots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is being called into question as a part of some grand racial reckoning .
But where is all of this coming from ?
An in-depth analysis at Tablet magazine from Zach Goldberg , a doctoral candidate in political science at Georgia State University , shows that at the very least , America ’ s most elite media institutions have been the conduit for these ideas to become ubiquitous .
Once obscure academic jargon like “ white privilege ” and “ microaggression , ” Goldberg notes in his Aug. 4 piece , has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word “ racism ” has been redefined .
As I wrote in my analysis of Ibram X. Kendi , Robin DiAngelo , and the “ anti-racist ” movement , racism is “ not just an individual act of discrimination or prejudice toward a person or a people based on their race.
” Instead , racism is a “ collective condition leading to inequities in society.
” Being racially colorblind or demanding equal treatment under the law now are considered racist if societal inequities persist .
In his Tablet piece , Goldberg lays out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” has been disseminated among Americans .
The chief culprit being media , more specifically elite media institutions such as The New York Times and The Washington Post .
That process accelerated over the summer , Goldberg writes , as countless articles in these elite publications , typically portrayed as straight news , “ illustrate a prevailing new political morality on questions of race and justice that has taken power at the Times and Post—a worldview sometimes abbreviated as ‘ wokeness ’ that combines the sensibilities of highly educated and hyperliberal white professionals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical race theory.
” “ Wokeness ” is a term most Americans were mostly unfamiliar with even a few years ago , but now its prevailing ideas are everywhere .
Wokeness , which combines elements of Marxist ideology and critical race theory , increasingly has become the dominant ethos of America ’ s higher education institutions , newsrooms , and boardrooms .
To those who may think that coverage of race and racism revived after the election of President Donald Trump in 2016 , Goldberg ’ s analysis shows that this surge actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the beginning of President Barack Obama ’ s second term in office in 2013 .
“ In 2011 , the terms racist/racists/racism accounted for 0.0027 % and 0.0029 % of all words in The New York Times and The Washington Post , respectively , ” Goldberg writes , adding : What we see over the past decade is a continual dramatic increase in usages of ‘ racism ’ and its variations .
Moreover , the graph shows that this increase occurred a half decade before the arrival of Donald Trump .
By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and just under 0.03 % of all words published in the Times and Post—an increase of over 700 % and just under 1,000 % , respectively , from 2011 .
One can see how this has led to a transformation of public opinion , especially on the American left .
“ In 2011 , just 35 % of white liberals thought racism in the United States was ‘ a big problem , ’ according to national polling , ” Goldberg writes .
“ By 2015 , this figure had ballooned to 61 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017.
” This development coincided with a large increase in white liberals saying that they knew someone whom they considered racist .
This perception didn ’ t change among nonwhite Democrats , though , and if anything , the trend was downward .
Goldberg writes that it ’ s possible that these changes in opinion represent a genuine explosion of racism in America , and that white liberals are particularly perceptive to it .
However , he argues , it ’ s more likely that “ ascendant progressive notions about race , reflected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editorializing on the subject from leading national media outlets , encouraged white liberals to label a larger number of behaviors and people as racist.
” Goldberg ’ s analysis demonstrates how elite institutions are generating broad cultural shifts in American society and how the radicalism of college campuses no longer is contained to college campuses .
America ’ s most powerful newsrooms not only are biased , they are actively engaging in widespread activism and leading the charge in America ’ s cultural revolution—whether this trend reflects the opinion of the majority of @ @ @ @

“Fake news” isn’t the only media problem in 2020.
An important analysis in media trends of the past decade shows how activist journalism is promoting radical racial “wokeness.”
There was a time when the woke ideology was firmly ensconced in the ivory tower and limited to radical corners of our university system. But now it’s everywhere, and America seemingly can’t stop talking about race, racism, and anti-racism all the time.
Want better access to more videos from The Daily Signal? Subscribe to our YouTube channel! Just go here: https://www.youtube.com/dailysignal
More than that, the George Floyd protests have turned into the 1619 riots, where the very idea of America is being called into question as a part of some grand racial reckoning.
But where is all of this coming from?
An in-depth analysis at Tablet magazine from Zach Goldberg, a doctoral candidate in political science at Georgia State University, shows that at the very least, America’s most elite media institutions have been the conduit for these ideas to become ubiquitous.
Once obscure academic jargon like “white privilege” and “microaggression,” Goldberg notes in his Aug. 4 piece, has been picked up by liberal journalists while the word “racism” has been redefined.
As I wrote in my analysis of Ibram X. Kendi, Robin DiAngelo, and the “anti-racist” movement, racism is “not just an individual act of discrimination or prejudice toward a person or a people based on their race.”
Instead, racism is a “collective condition leading to inequities in society.”
Being racially colorblind or demanding equal treatment under the law now are considered racist if societal inequities persist.
In his Tablet piece, Goldberg lays out just how rapidly and widely “wokeness” has been disseminated among Americans. The chief culprit being media, more specifically elite media institutions such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.
That process accelerated over the summer, Goldberg writes, as countless articles in these elite publications, typically portrayed as straight news, “illustrate a prevailing new political morality on questions of race and justice that has taken power at the Times and Post—a worldview sometimes abbreviated as ‘wokeness’ that combines the sensibilities of highly educated and hyperliberal white professionals with elements of Black nationalism and academic critical race theory.”
“Wokeness” is a term most Americans were mostly unfamiliar with even a few years ago, but now its prevailing ideas are everywhere. Wokeness, which combines elements of Marxist ideology and critical race theory, increasingly has become the dominant ethos of America’s higher education institutions, newsrooms, and boardrooms.
To those who may think that coverage of race and racism revived after the election of President Donald Trump in 2016, Goldberg’s analysis shows that this surge actually began years earlier, coinciding more closely with the beginning of President Barack Obama’s second term in office in 2013.
“In 2011, the terms racist/racists/racism accounted for 0.0027% and 0.0029% of all words in The New York Times and The Washington Post, respectively,” Goldberg writes, adding:
What we see over the past decade is a continual dramatic increase in usages of ‘racism’ and its variations. Moreover, the graph shows that this increase occurred a half decade before the arrival of Donald Trump. By 2019, they would constitute 0.02% and just under 0.03% of all words published in the Times and Post—an increase of over 700% and just under 1,000%, respectively, from 2011.
One can see how this has led to a transformation of public opinion, especially on the American left.
“In 2011, just 35% of white liberals thought racism in the United States was ‘a big problem,’ according to national polling,” Goldberg writes. “By 2015, this figure had ballooned to 61% and further still to 77% in 2017.”
This development coincided with a large increase in white liberals saying that they knew someone whom they considered racist.
This perception didn’t change among nonwhite Democrats, though, and if anything, the trend was downward.
Goldberg writes that it’s possible that these changes in opinion represent a genuine explosion of racism in America, and that white liberals are particularly perceptive to it.
However, he argues, it’s more likely that “ascendant progressive notions about race, reflected in a steady drumbeat of reporting and editorializing on the subject from leading national media outlets, encouraged white liberals to label a larger number of behaviors and people as racist.”
Goldberg’s analysis demonstrates how elite institutions are generating broad cultural shifts in American society and how the radicalism of college campuses no longer is contained to college campuses.
America’s most powerful newsrooms not only are biased, they are engaging in widespread activism and leading the charge in America’s cultural revolution—whether or not this trend reflects the opinion of the majority of Americans.


dailysignal--2020-08-17--COVID-19 Cases, Deaths Remain Concentrated: Heritage’s Tracker—and New Graphic Tool—Provide Context

As Heritage Foundation researchers have demonstrated throughout the pandemic , the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. has been heavily concentrated in a small number of states—and among a small number of counties within those states .
Even though the U.S. saw a rapid rise in cases during June and July , the overall levels of concentration have remained fairly consistent .
As our research has pointed out , state-level figures do not adequately describe the concentrated nature of the spread of COVID-19 .
As of Aug. 11 , the 30 counties with the most COVID-19 deaths , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cases in the U.S. and 43 % of all deaths , much greater than their 17 % share of the U.S. population .
That is , just 1 % of the counties in the U.S. , representing 17 % of the population , are responsible for almost half of the country ’ s COVID-19 deaths .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
Of those 30 counties , 23 are in the Northeast corridor between Philadelphia and Boston , the passageway served by a commuter railway system that runs through Manhattan .
Overall , only about 10 % of the counties in the U.S. contain 90 % of all the COVID-19 deaths , even though these counties include 60 % of the population .
Throughout the pandemic , there have been many U.S. counties with relatively few COVID-19 deaths .
For instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of all counties ( 16 % of the population ) had one or fewer COVID-19 deaths .
As of Aug. 11 , 37 % of all counties ( 5 % of the population ) have no more than one COVID-19 death each .
While these numbers obviously have declined since May , many counties still have a relatively small number of COVID-19 deaths .
In particular , as of Aug. 11 , 58 % of all counties ( 12 % of the population ) have five or fewer COVID-19 deaths .
Heritage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see more detail on these concentrations among the counties with the most deaths as well as those with the fewest .
For instance , the graphic allows users to select data from the five counties with the most deaths , all the way up to the 50 counties with the most deaths .
It also allows visitors to select data from counties with zero deaths , all the way to counties with 10 or fewer .
Once a category is selected , the graphic provides the percentage of counties represented by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contained in those counties , and the percentage of all U.S. COVID-19 deaths in those counties .
For example , as of Aug. 11 , 68.2 % of all counties are reporting 10 or fewer deaths .
These counties represent 16.7 % of the population , and account for only 2.9 % of total COVID-19 deaths in the U.S .
In contrast , the five counties with the most COVID-19 deaths represent just 0.2 % of all counties , but they account for 18 % of all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6.5 % .
A list of the 50 counties with the most deaths is also provided , and this list has not changed very much since April .
New York , for instance , recorded 32,477 deaths as of Aug. 11 .
The five counties of New York City saw 23,561 recorded deaths from COVID-19 .
Excluding Richmond County ( Staten Island ) , four of these counties are in the top 10 counties with the most recorded COVID-19 deaths .
Nassau County in New York also makes the Top 5 .
Compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hotspots , it is clear that New York City ’ s outbreak is , so far , much more severe .
For comparison , California recorded 10,650 COVID-19 deaths .
Los Angeles County makes the Top 5 of most deaths from COVID-19 at 4,967 deaths , and the greater Los Angeles region recorded 7,257 deaths—less than one-third of the deaths to date in New York City .
Now that COVID-19 testing has increased dramatically and many state and local governments have relaxed stay-at-home orders , it is even more critical to study the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To make studying these trends easier , The Heritage Foundation now has two interactive COVID-19 trackers .
One tracks trends in cases , the other tracks trends in deaths .
The trackers describe whether the trend of cases—or deaths—is increasing or decreasing over the prior 14 days , and provides a visual depiction of new cases—or deaths—during this time period .
These tools help put the concentrated nature of the pandemic in perspective with county-level data .
They show just how difficult it can be to use only one metric to gauge whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are invited to explore the information in the tracker and check back frequently for updates , as well as explore the other visual tools on Heritage ’ s COVID-19 resources page .

As Heritage Foundation researchers have demonstrated throughout the pandemic, the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. has been heavily concentrated in a small number of states—and among a small number of counties within those states.
Even though the U.S. saw a rapid rise in cases during June and July, the overall levels of concentration have remained fairly consistent.
As our research has pointed out, state-level figures do not adequately describe the concentrated nature of the spread of COVID-19.
As of Aug. 11, the 30 counties with the most COVID-19 deaths, for example, account for 26% of all the cases in the U.S. and 43% of all deaths, much greater than their 17% share of the U.S. population. That is, just 1% of the counties in the U.S., representing 17% of the population, are responsible for almost half of the country’s COVID-19 deaths.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
Of those 30 counties, 23 are in the Northeast corridor between Philadelphia and Boston, the passageway served by a commuter railway system that runs through Manhattan.
Overall, only about 10% of the counties in the U.S. contain 90% of all the COVID-19 deaths, even though these counties include 60% of the population.
Throughout the pandemic, there have been many U.S. counties with relatively few COVID-19 deaths. For instance, as of May 11, 64% of all counties (16% of the population) had one or fewer COVID-19 deaths. As of Aug. 11, 37% of all counties (5% of the population) have no more than one COVID-19 death each.
While these numbers obviously have declined since May, many counties still have a relatively small number of COVID-19 deaths. In particular, as of Aug. 11, 58% of all counties (12% of the population) have five or fewer COVID-19 deaths.
Heritage’s new interactive graphic allows individuals to see more detail on these concentrations among the counties with the most deaths as well as those with the fewest.
For instance, the graphic allows users to select data from the five counties with the most deaths, all the way up to the 50 counties with the most deaths. It also allows visitors to select data from counties with zero deaths, all the way to counties with 10 or fewer.
Once a category is selected, the graphic provides the percentage of counties represented by the category, the percentage of the population contained in those counties, and the percentage of all U.S. COVID-19 deaths in those counties.
For example, as of Aug. 11, 68.2% of all counties are reporting 10 or fewer deaths. These counties represent 16.7% of the population, and account for only 2.9% of total COVID-19 deaths in the U.S.
In contrast, the five counties with the most COVID-19 deaths represent just 0.2% of all counties, but they account for 18% of all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S., nearly three times their population share of 6.5%.
A list of the 50 counties with the most deaths is also provided, and this list has not changed very much since April. New York, for instance, recorded 32,477 deaths as of Aug. 11.
The five counties of New York City saw 23,561 recorded deaths from COVID-19. Excluding Richmond County (Staten Island), four of these counties are in the top 10 counties with the most recorded COVID-19 deaths. Nassau County in New York also makes the Top 5.
Compared to other places that have been considered hotspots, it is clear that New York City’s outbreak is, so far, much more severe.
For comparison, California recorded 10,650 COVID-19 deaths. Los Angeles County makes the Top 5 of most deaths from COVID-19 at 4,967 deaths, and the greater Los Angeles region recorded 7,257 deaths—less than one-third of the deaths to date in New York City.
Now that COVID-19 testing has increased dramatically and many state and local governments have relaxed stay-at-home orders, it is even more critical to study the trends in deaths along with cases. To make studying these trends easier, The Heritage Foundation now has two interactive COVID-19 trackers. One tracks trends in cases, the other tracks trends in deaths.
The trackers describe whether the trend of cases—or deaths—is increasing or decreasing over the prior 14 days, and provides a visual depiction of new cases—or deaths—during this time period.
These tools help put the concentrated nature of the pandemic in perspective with county-level data. They show just how difficult it can be to use only one metric to gauge whether a county—or state—is doing well.
Readers are invited to explore the information in the tracker and check back frequently for updates, as well as explore the other visual tools on Heritage’s COVID-19 resources page.


dailysignal--2020-08-18--3 Things to Know About Trump COVID-19 Adviser Under Attack by the Left

Despite an accomplished career at the Stanford University Medical Center , including writing a leading textbook in his field , Dr. Scott Atlas , the president ’ s new appointee to the White House coronavirus task force , is being dismissed by some liberal commentators as just a political hack .
CNN in several segments labeled Atlas as a “ Fox News guest , ” claiming President Donald Trump ’ s new adviser is “ unscientific ” and part of an “ echo chamber , ” according to tracking by the Media Research Center , a conservative media-watchdog group .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguing against expanded COVID-19 testing ” at White House meetings , Politico reported .
He also has opposed government mandates to wear masks .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
Although an adviser to two establishment Republican presidential candidates in the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in the medical world .
Here are three things to know about the new doctor on the White House coronavirus task force .
Atlas is a radiologist affiliated with multiple hospitals in the Stanford , California , area , according to U.S. News & World Report .
They include Stanford Health Care-Stanford Hospital and Lucile Packard Children ’ s Hospital Stanford .
The specialty involves reading X-rays , CT scans , and MRIs .
Atlas was a professor and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center from 1998 to 2012 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Atlas trained more than 100 neurologists , according to the university , which said many of those he trained are now leaders in their field .
Atlas has lectured throughout the world on MRI advances and spoken about economic issues related to technological innovation .
In the private sector , Atlas has advised startup entrepreneurs and companies in life sciences and medical technology , according to Stanford .
Atlas earned a bachelor of science degree in biology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and his medical degree from the University of Chicago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early 2008 , Atlas was a health care policy adviser to the Republican presidential campaign of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani .
Four years later , Atlas was a health care policy adviser to the presidential campaign of Republican nominee Mitt Romney , the former Massachusetts governor who is now the junior senator from Utah .
Atlas is a senior fellow at Stanford University ’ s Hoover Institution , a conservative think tank .
He is also a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies , a research institute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Hoover and Stanford websites , Atlas “ investigates the impact of government and the private sector on access , quality , and pricing in health care , global trends in health care innovation , and key economic issues related to the future of technology-based medical advances.
” Atlas has testified before the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee as well as Congress ’ Joint Economic Committee .
He has briefed directors of federal agencies and members of the House GOP Doctors ’ Caucus , Stanford University says .
Atlas ’ books include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Six-Point Plan for Comprehensive Reform at Lower Cost , ” published this year .
Another book , “ In Excellent Health : Setting the Record Straight on America ’ s Health Care System , ” was published in 2012 .
Atlas also wrote the leading textbook in his field , “ Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain and Spine.
” The fifth edition was released in 2016 ; the book has been translated from English into Mandarin , Spanish , and Portuguese , according to Stanford .
Atlas has written for more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to Stanford .
He has been an editor , an associate editor , and a member of the editorial and scientific boards of several other journals , as well as a member of national and international scientific societies during the past three decades .
He served on the nominating committee for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for several years .
While commentators on CNN have criticized Atlas for being an analyst on Fox News Channel , he has been interviewed and provided analysis to numerous left-leaning and mainstream media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These other outlets include BBC Radio , “ The PBS NewsHour , ” The Wall Street Journal , The New York Times , Forbes magazine , CNN , USA Today , London ’ s Financial Times , Italy ’ s Corriere della Sera , Brazil ’ s Correio Braziliense , Argentina ’ s La Nacion , and India ’ s The Hindu .

Despite an accomplished career at the Stanford University Medical Center, including writing a leading textbook in his field, Dr. Scott Atlas, the president’s new appointee to the White House coronavirus task force, is being dismissed by some liberal commentators as just a political hack.
CNN in several segments labeled Atlas as a “Fox News guest,” claiming President Donald Trump’s new adviser is “unscientific” and part of an “echo chamber,” according to tracking by the Media Research Center, a conservative media-watchdog group.
Atlas has “irritated other aides by arguing against expanded COVID-19 testing” at White House meetings, Politico reported.
He also has opposed government mandates to wear masks.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
White House spokesman Judd Deere told Politico:
We are all in this fight together, and only the media has distorted and diminished Dr. Atlas’ highly acclaimed career, simply because he has come to serve the president. Dr. Atlas, like all of the medical experts in the administration, is working to carry out the president’s number one priority: protecting the health and safety of the American people.
Although an adviser to two establishment Republican presidential candidates in the past, Atlas has had a largely mainstream role in the medical world.
Here are three things to know about the new doctor on the White House coronavirus task force.
1. Specialty in Radiology
Atlas is a radiologist affiliated with multiple hospitals in the Stanford, California, area, according to U.S. News & World Report. They include Stanford Health Care-Stanford Hospital and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford.
The specialty involves reading X-rays, CT scans, and MRIs. Atlas was a professor and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center from 1998 to 2012.
In that and previous academic positions, Atlas trained more than 100 neurologists, according to the university, which said many of those he trained are now leaders in their field.
Atlas has lectured throughout the world on MRI advances and spoken about economic issues related to technological innovation.
In the private sector, Atlas has advised startup entrepreneurs and companies in life sciences and medical technology, according to Stanford.
Atlas earned a bachelor of science degree in biology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and his medical degree from the University of Chicago School of Medicine.
2. Political Activity
In 2007 and early 2008, Atlas was a health care policy adviser to the Republican presidential campaign of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Four years later, Atlas was a health care policy adviser to the presidential campaign of Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is now the junior senator from Utah.
Atlas is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank. He is also a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, a research institute also housed at Stanford.
According to the Hoover and Stanford websites, Atlas “investigates the impact of government and the private sector on access, quality, and pricing in health care, global trends in health care innovation, and key economic issues related to the future of technology-based medical advances.”
Atlas has testified before the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee as well as Congress’ Joint Economic Committee. He has briefed directors of federal agencies and members of the House GOP Doctors’ Caucus, Stanford University says.
3. Publications and Media
Atlas’ books include “Restoring Quality Health Care: A Six-Point Plan for Comprehensive Reform at Lower Cost,” published this year. Another book, “In Excellent Health: Setting the Record Straight on America’s Health Care System,” was published in 2012.
Atlas also wrote the leading textbook in his field, “Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain and Spine.” The fifth edition was released in 2016; the book has been translated from English into Mandarin, Spanish, and Portuguese, according to Stanford.
Atlas has written for more than 120 scientific publications and leading medical journals, according to Stanford. He has been an editor, an associate editor, and a member of the editorial and scientific boards of several other journals, as well as a member of national and international scientific societies during the past three decades.
He served on the nominating committee for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for several years.
While commentators on CNN have criticized Atlas for being an analyst on Fox News Channel, he has been interviewed and provided analysis to numerous left-leaning and mainstream media outlets as well, according to Stanford.
These other outlets include BBC Radio, “The PBS NewsHour,” The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Forbes magazine, CNN, USA Today, London’s Financial Times, Italy’s Corriere della Sera, Brazil’s Correio Braziliense, Argentina’s La Nacion, and India’s The Hindu.


dailysignal--2020-08-18--Trump Pardons Susan B. Anthony on 100th Anniversary of Women’s Suffrage

President Donald Trump issued a posthumous pardon Tuesday to celebrated women ’ s suffragist Susan B. Anthony to mark the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution recognizing the right of women to vote .
Anthony was arrested in 1872 for voting in an election at a time in America when only men could vote .
She was indicted , convicted of illegal voting , and sentenced to pay a fine of $ 100 and court costs .
Earlier Tuesday , Trump signed a proclamation declaring August to be National Suffrage Month .
During that event , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full and complete pardon ” for Anthony , who died in 1906 .
“ She was never pardoned .
Did you know that ?
” Trump said .
“ What took so long ?
She was [ found ] guilty for voting and we ’ re going to be signing a full and complete pardon.
” Marjorie Dannenfelser , president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List and a member of the Women ’ s Suffrage Centennial Commission , celebrated the pardon and attended the earlier event .
“ Susan B. Anthony fought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dignity to all people , ” Dannenfelser said in a written statement , adding : She and her compatriots provide us with the model of how to advocate for the voiceless and disenfranchised in our own time .
It is her courageous example that inspired the formation of SBA List and continues to inspire our work today .
We are deeply moved and grateful to President Trump for honoring the legacy of this great American hero and we pledge never to tire in carrying on her unfinished work .
Also at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Heritage Foundation President Kay C. James ; Heather Higgins , president of Independent Women ’ s Voice ; Karen Hill , CEO of the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park ; Anna Laymon , acting executive director of the Women ’ s Suffrage Centennial Commission ; lawyer Cleta Mitchell , a former member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives ; Penny Nance , president of Concerned Women for America ; Colleen Shogan , deputy director for national and international outreach at the Library of Congress ; and Debra Wall , deputy archivist of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Woman Suffrage Association , Anthony unsuccessfully lobbied for women ’ s right to vote to be included in the platform of the 1872 Republican National Convention , which nominated President Ulysses S. Grant for a second term .
The platform included softer , ambiguous language about the party ’ s “ obligations to the loyal women of America for their noble devotion to the cause of freedom ” and hope for “ their admission to wider fields of usefulness.
” Anthony also reached out to the Democrat-endorsed candidate newspaper editor and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Liberal Republican Party , who outright rejected the notion of women ’ s suffrage .
Anthony voted for Grant and the Republican ticket in the election on Nov. 5 , 1872 .
She was arrested two weeks later .
Two young men who registered Anthony to vote were interviewed for a hearing to determine whether she broke the law .
Her two-day trial in June 1973 , Anthony said , was “ the greatest judicial outrage history has ever recorded.
” The 19th Amendment was ratified 100 years ago Tuesday , on @ @ @ @ @

President Donald Trump issued a posthumous pardon Tuesday to celebrated women’s suffragist Susan B. Anthony to mark the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution recognizing the right of women to vote.
Anthony was arrested in 1872 for voting in an election at a time in America when only men could vote. She was indicted, convicted of illegal voting, and sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and court costs.
Earlier Tuesday, Trump signed a proclamation declaring August to be National Suffrage Month. During that event, Trump first said he would sign a “full and complete pardon” for Anthony, who died in 1906.
“She was never pardoned. Did you know that?” Trump said. “What took so long? She was [found] guilty for voting and we’re going to be signing a full and complete pardon.”
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List and a member of the Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commission, celebrated the pardon and attended the earlier event.
“Susan B. Anthony fought to expand the promise of human rights and dignity to all people,” Dannenfelser said in a written statement, adding:
She and her compatriots provide us with the model of how to advocate for the voiceless and disenfranchised in our own time. It is her courageous example that inspired the formation of SBA List and continues to inspire our work today. We are deeply moved and grateful to President Trump for honoring the legacy of this great American hero and we pledge never to tire in carrying on her unfinished work.
This morning, President @realDonaldTrump was joined by @FLOTUS, @SBAJovita, and more as he signed a proclamation in honor of the centennial anniversary of women's suffrage!
Behind the scenes of today's signing: https://t.co/A68ueVC88u pic.twitter.com/VON03M5duV — The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 19, 2020
Also at the event were other prominent female leaders, including Heritage Foundation President Kay C. James; Heather Higgins, president of Independent Women’s Voice; Karen Hill, CEO of the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park; Anna Laymon, acting executive director of the Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commission; lawyer Cleta Mitchell, a former member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives; Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America; Colleen Shogan, deputy director for national and international outreach at the Library of Congress; and Debra Wall, deputy archivist of the United States.
As leader of the National Woman Suffrage Association, Anthony unsuccessfully lobbied for women’s right to vote to be included in the platform of the 1872 Republican National Convention, which nominated President Ulysses S. Grant for a second term.
The platform included softer, ambiguous language about the party’s “obligations to the loyal women of America for their noble devotion to the cause of freedom” and hope for “their admission to wider fields of usefulness.”
Anthony also reached out to the Democrat-endorsed candidate newspaper editor and publisher Horace Greeley, presidential nominee of the Liberal Republican Party, who outright rejected the notion of women’s suffrage.
A criticism of Trump’s decision to pardon Susan B Anthony is that a pardon wasn’t needed because she wouldn’t admit she did anything wrong. That misses the point that by pardoning her, Trump says that the US govt now agrees with her. Her prosecutor now nods to her victory. — GianCarlo Canaparo (@GCanaparo) August 18, 2020
Anthony voted for Grant and the Republican ticket in the election on Nov. 5, 1872. She was arrested two weeks later.
Two young men who registered Anthony to vote were interviewed for a hearing to determine whether she broke the law.
Her two-day trial in June 1973, Anthony said, was “the greatest judicial outrage history has ever recorded.”
The 19th Amendment was ratified 100 years ago Tuesday, on Aug. 18, 1920.


dailysignal--2020-08-19--How America’s Culture Wars Erupted Into Presidential Impeachments

Last year ’ s impeachment of President Donald Trump was an aberration from past historical impeachments in one major respect , but it fit perfectly in another respect .
Unlike the Trump impeachment , the previous two presidential impeachments and one near-impeachment involved allegations of actual crimes .
However , what all impeachments had in common is they occurred when the United States was experiencing a culture war of sorts , as I explain in my new book “ Abuse of Power : Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump.
” What follows are adapted excerpts from the book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that of Richard Nixon , mainly because it was successful ( in driving him from office before even a final House vote ) , but also because it was bipartisan .
Tapes showed that , at a minimum , Nixon was aware of a vast criminal cover-up by White House officials to interfere with an FBI investigation of the Watergate scandal .
It was enough that Arizona ’ s Barry Goldwater and other Republican senators told Nixon he wouldn ’ t have their support in a Senate trial .
Nixon resigned after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but before the full House voted .
What Nixon had going for him was that his conduct wasn ’ t so different from what we later learned of John F. Kennedy , Lyndon Johnson , and Franklin Roosevelt .
But being the guy who got caught shouldn ’ t be an excuse from accountability .
The Trump impeachment most closely resembles the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson—largely because it was based heavily on policy disagreements .
After the Civil War , Republicans held both the presidency and a supermajority in Congress .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a Tennessee Democrat and Union loyalist , to be his vice president in his 1864 reelection campaign .
Johnson turned out to be a horrible president and a racist , even by the standards of those days .
He was showing leniency to the defeated South , which Lincoln would have done had he lived .
But he also blocked civil rights and voting rights measures for freed slaves , which Lincoln wouldn ’ t have done .
Republicans wanted to impeach Johnson , but they needed a pretext .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass the Tenure of Office Act to require Senate approval to fire any Senate-confirmed federal official .
It was an impeachment trap , and Johnson willingly walked into it by firing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton .
The Republicans impeached him .
But Johnson survived in the Senate trial , with one vote short of the required two-thirds to remove .
Today , most historians view the Johnson impeachment as a discredited affair , since the Supreme Court later found the Tenure of Office Act to be unconstitutional in the 1926 case of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Johnson impeachment might stand up better to historical scrutiny than our last undefined impeachment .
The Johnson impeachment was tied to an actual duly enacted federal law that , even if later found unconstitutional , was in place at the time .
Arguably , both the Bill Clinton and Donald Trump impeachments had more to do with a partisan desire to punish a president than to protect the country from wrongdoing .
A major difference is that the Clinton offense was an identifiable felony , and the 42nd president paid a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton was found in civil contempt of a federal court , paid a $ 90,000 fine , and was made to surrender his law license as part of a deal with the independent counsel , Robert Ray , in which he admitted to making misleading statements under oath .
Also , in light of the recent # MeToo movement , several commentators and left-leaning media outlets began to reconsider the Clinton impeachment , as the power disparity between a president and an intern was vast , even if the relationship was consensual .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ midst of a culture war of sorts .
The Johnson impeachment occurred during post-Civil War Reconstruction .
The impeachment process for Nixon , a Republican , came during the antiwar movement and the emergence of the New Left .
Clinton , a Democrat , was the first baby boomer president who came from that antiwar generation .
Just as today , where Trump ’ s critics see him as too indecent and unsophisticated to be president , many on the right could not believe Clinton , someone they viewed as a draft-dodging , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had beaten a president with impeccable character and war hero status : George H.W .
Bush .
Where the Trump impeachment stands alone is that the previous three presidential impeachment inquiries were all based on actual alleged violations of the law .
Further , all eight federal judges removed by the U.S. Senate were impeached for allegedly breaking the law .
A notable impeachment attempt came in 1970 , when House Republican Leader Gerald Ford of Michigan pushed to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas , also someone widely disliked for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ford ’ s famous words from that effort were repeated during the Trump impeachment process : Ford—a president-to-be , who with some irony in 1974 ascended to the office upon Nixon ’ s resignation—was a man of great decency and moral character .
But he was simply wrong on this account .
Such words taken literally would mean that if a House could muster a majority , it could impeach a president over not just political differences , but for a president ’ s religious beliefs or race .
That would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oath .
The Whig majority in Congress wanted to impeach President John Tyler and accused him of starting an illegal investigation , withholding information from government agents , withholding actions necessary to “ the just operation of government , ” and “ shameless duplicity , equivocation , and falsehood.
” Republicans pushed an impeachment investigation of President Grover Cleveland , a Democrat , claiming he was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors for misusing the appointment power .
Some Republicans tried to impeach President Harry Truman , a Democrat , accusing him of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States , ” “ repeatedly withholding information from Congress , ” and “ making reckless and inaccurate public statements , which jeopardized the good name , peace , and security of the United States.
” Remember those impeachments ?
No .
Because they didn ’ t happen .
Leadership is not only about being the loyal opposition and fighting the good fight .
It ’ s also about walking your party hard-liners back from the precipice .
The Constitution makes impeachment relatively easy and removal very difficult .
Still , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite requiring no more than a simple majority vote .
Normalizing House impeachment as some type of supercensure likely will have the effect of desensitizing the public to a legitimately impeachable offense—such as actual high crimes by a future president .

Last year’s impeachment of President Donald Trump was an aberration from past historical impeachments in one major respect, but it fit perfectly in another respect.
Unlike the Trump impeachment, the previous two presidential impeachments and one near-impeachment involved allegations of actual crimes.
However, what all impeachments had in common is they occurred when the United States was experiencing a culture war of sorts, as I explain in my new book “Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump.” What follows are adapted excerpts from the book.
Legacy of Impeachments
The impeachment inquiry to model was that of Richard Nixon, mainly because it was successful (in driving him from office before even a final House vote), but also because it was bipartisan.
Tapes showed that, at a minimum, Nixon was aware of a vast criminal cover-up by White House officials to interfere with an FBI investigation of the Watergate scandal.
It was enough that Arizona’s Barry Goldwater and other Republican senators told Nixon he wouldn’t have their support in a Senate trial. Nixon resigned after the House Judiciary Committee passed articles of impeachment, but before the full House voted.
What Nixon had going for him was that his conduct wasn’t so different from what we later learned of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Franklin Roosevelt. But being the guy who got caught shouldn’t be an excuse from accountability.
The Trump impeachment most closely resembles the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson—largely because it was based heavily on policy disagreements.
After the Civil War, Republicans held both the presidency and a supermajority in Congress. President Abraham Lincoln—in his worst decision—tapped Johnson, a Tennessee Democrat and Union loyalist, to be his vice president in his 1864 reelection campaign.
Johnson turned out to be a horrible president and a racist, even by the standards of those days. He was showing leniency to the defeated South, which Lincoln would have done had he lived. But he also blocked civil rights and voting rights measures for freed slaves, which Lincoln wouldn’t have done.
Republicans wanted to impeach Johnson, but they needed a pretext. So, they overrode Johnson’s veto to pass the Tenure of Office Act to require Senate approval to fire any Senate-confirmed federal official.
It was an impeachment trap, and Johnson willingly walked into it by firing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. The Republicans impeached him. But Johnson survived in the Senate trial, with one vote short of the required two-thirds to remove.
Today, most historians view the Johnson impeachment as a discredited affair, since the Supreme Court later found the Tenure of Office Act to be unconstitutional in the 1926 case of Myers v. United States.
That said, the Johnson impeachment might stand up better to historical scrutiny than our last undefined impeachment. The Johnson impeachment was tied to an actual duly enacted federal law that, even if later found unconstitutional, was in place at the time.
Arguably, both the Bill Clinton and Donald Trump impeachments had more to do with a partisan desire to punish a president than to protect the country from wrongdoing.
Culture Wars
A major difference is that the Clinton offense was an identifiable felony, and the 42nd president paid a price beyond the legacy of impeachment.
Clinton was found in civil contempt of a federal court, paid a $90,000 fine, and was made to surrender his law license as part of a deal with the independent counsel, Robert Ray, in which he admitted to making misleading statements under oath.
Also, in light of the recent #MeToo movement, several commentators and left-leaning media outlets began to reconsider the Clinton impeachment, as the power disparity between a president and an intern was vast, even if the relationship was consensual.
Each presidential impeachment took place in the midst of a culture war of sorts.
The Johnson impeachment occurred during post-Civil War Reconstruction. The impeachment process for Nixon, a Republican, came during the antiwar movement and the emergence of the New Left.
Clinton, a Democrat, was the first baby boomer president who came from that antiwar generation.
Just as today, where Trump’s critics see him as too indecent and unsophisticated to be president, many on the right could not believe Clinton, someone they viewed as a draft-dodging, pot-smoking, womanizing, scandal-plagued reprobate who had beaten a president with impeccable character and war hero status: George H.W. Bush.
Where the Trump impeachment stands alone is that the previous three presidential impeachment inquiries were all based on actual alleged violations of the law.
Further, all eight federal judges removed by the U.S. Senate were impeached for allegedly breaking the law.
Impeachments Tried and Failed
A notable impeachment attempt came in 1970, when House Republican Leader Gerald Ford of Michigan pushed to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, also someone widely disliked for a detestable personal character and questionable financial dealings.
Ford’s famous words from that effort were repeated during the Trump impeachment process:
An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.
Conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office.
Ford—a president-to-be, who with some irony in 1974 ascended to the office upon Nixon’s resignation—was a man of great decency and moral character. But he was simply wrong on this account.
Such words taken literally would mean that if a House could muster a majority, it could impeach a president over not just political differences, but for a president’s religious beliefs or race.
That would be totally outside the spirit of their constitutional oath.
The Whig majority in Congress wanted to impeach President John Tyler and accused him of starting an illegal investigation, withholding information from government agents, withholding actions necessary to “the just operation of government,” and “shameless duplicity, equivocation, and falsehood.”
Republicans pushed an impeachment investigation of President Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, claiming he was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors for misusing the appointment power.
Some Republicans tried to impeach President Harry Truman, a Democrat, accusing him of “attempting to disgrace the Congress of the United States,” “repeatedly withholding information from Congress,” and “making reckless and inaccurate public statements, which jeopardized the good name, peace, and security of the United States.”
Remember those impeachments? No. Because they didn’t happen.
Leadership is not only about being the loyal opposition and fighting the good fight. It’s also about walking your party hard-liners back from the precipice.
The Constitution makes impeachment relatively easy and removal very difficult. Still, the House has seldom pulled the trigger, despite requiring no more than a simple majority vote.
Normalizing House impeachment as some type of supercensure likely will have the effect of desensitizing the public to a legitimately impeachable offense—such as actual high crimes by a future president.