motherjones--2020-02-04--The Senate Impeachment Vote Is “Truth Matters” Vs. “Nothing Matters”

The lead spokesmen advocating and opposing President Donald Trump ’ s removal from office wrapped up their cases Monday by asking senators to decide if truth matters or if nothing matters .
We know how the Senate will answer on Wednesday .
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone ended President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment defense with a claim he and other Trump lawyers have repeated throughout the trial : “ The president has done nothing wrong.
” That is the crux of Trump ’ s case : Nothing to see here .
But no one can dispute that Trump asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to launch an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden , Trump ’ s 2020 rival , and to validate a nonsensical Kremlin-promoted conspiracy theory that a Ukrainian oligarch secretly possesses a Democratic National Committee server that Russia hacked in 2016 .
And even among Trump ’ s defenders , it ’ s hard to find an argument that there ’ s nothing wrong with that .
Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-Tenn. ) has said that House impeachment managers “ proved ” that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine to push Ukrainians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sen. Lisa Murkowski ( R-Alaska ) on Monday called Trump ’ s actions “ shameful and wrong , ” even as she justified plans to vote to acquit Trump .
Those senators are part of a growing group of Republicans in the upper chamber who have embraced the position that Trump ’ s actions were lamentable , even if they do not warrant impeachment .
Yet Cipollone , echoing Trump ’ s description of his July 25 phone call with Zelensky as “ perfect , ” isn ’ t offering any acknowledgement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling Republicans to get in line .
While Cipollone did not literally declare that “ nothing matters , ” the nihilism of his position is hard to miss .
Trump ’ s defense relies on the notion that the president has the power to create his own reality .
Trump ’ s lawyers insisted during the House ’ s impeachment inquiry that the administration had no obligation to comply with Democrats ’ subpoenas , and systemically stonewalled all requests for information , even fighting them in court .
In the Senate , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to assemble enough evidence to show any presidential wrongdoing , and thus had no right to seek more evidence .
Earlier Monday , a deputy White House counsel , Mike Purpura , insisted that senators had heard no evidence that Trump had asked anyone to tell the Ukrainians he would release security aid Congress had appropriated if they agreed to the investigations he wanted .
This argument is brazenly misleading : Former National Security Adviser John Bolton , as anyone following politics knows , said he was willing to testify before the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his claim , made in a book manuscript , that Trump had told him in August that he would not release the aid until Ukraine launched investigations .
But in a 51-49 vote on Friday , the Senate refused to seek testimony from Bolton or any other witness .
Purpura ignored Bolton and other witnesses , though their claims are public knowledge , because the Senate let him .
His argument , in that sense , was a simple assertion of power .
Trump and his lawyers insist that that there was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the president did nothing wrong ” and “ the call was perfect ” because they expect , with good reason , that his party will accept these claims , and ignore evidence to the contrary .
In his closing remarks Monday , Schiff took aim at that mentality .
“ America believes in a thing called truth , ” he said .
“ She does not believe we are entitled to our own alternative facts .
She recoils at those who spread pernicious falsehoods .
To her , truth matters .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the idea that here is no truth.
” This speech bears similarity to the arguments made by government prosecutors in the November trial of Trump associate Roger Stone .
who was convicted of lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks regarding Democratic emails hacked by Russia .
In a closing argument to jurors then , Assistant US Attorney Michael Marando told jurors that “ you can find any political view you want ” and “ your own truth ” online , but “ in our institutions of self governance , courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people have to testify under oath , truth still matters.
” Truth matters .
Mardondo made it a refrain during the trial , and it was so effective that one juror used the phrase in a Washington Post op-ed to explain Stone ’ s conviction .
That Schiff made similar arguments Monday is not a coincidence .
He led House Democrats ’ investigation into the Trump campaign ’ s ties to Russia , and he faulted Trump on Friday for encouraging and accepting Russian help in the 2016 election and then lying about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump–Russia scandal and who indicted Stone and a handful of other former Trump aides for making false statements about their contacts with Russia , Schiff has been at pains to highlight the pernicious effect of the rampant dishonesty of Trump and his circle .
Schiff on Monday implored GOP senators to assert values distinct from mere partisan loyalty to Trump .
“ Truth matters little to him .
What ’ s right matters even less , and decency matters not at all , ” Schiff said .
“ I do not ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right , and decency matters nothing to him , but because we have proven our case , and it matters to you .
Truth matters to you .
Right matters to you .
You are decent .
He is not who you are.
” Schiff ’ s argument is not going to convince 20 Republicans to vote to convict Trump .
It may not convince any .
But along with Cipollone ’ s closing , it will help define the votes that senators cast on Wednesday .
Do Senate Republicans agree that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are ?
Watch how they vote .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The lead spokesmen advocating and opposing President Donald Trump’s removal from office wrapped up their cases Monday by asking senators to decide if truth matters or if nothing matters. We know how the Senate will answer on Wednesday.
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone ended President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense with a claim he and other Trump lawyers have repeated throughout the trial: “The president has done nothing wrong.”
That is the crux of Trump’s case: Nothing to see here. But no one can dispute that Trump asked Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to launch an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, Trump’s 2020 rival, and to validate a nonsensical Kremlin-promoted conspiracy theory that a Ukrainian oligarch secretly possesses a Democratic National Committee server that Russia hacked in 2016. And even among Trump’s defenders, it’s hard to find an argument that there’s nothing wrong with that. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) has said that House impeachment managers “proved” that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine to push Ukrainians to investigate Biden and his son Hunter. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on Monday called Trump’s actions “shameful and wrong,” even as she justified plans to vote to acquit Trump. Those senators are part of a growing group of Republicans in the upper chamber who have embraced the position that Trump’s actions were lamentable, even if they do not warrant impeachment.
Yet Cipollone, echoing Trump’s description of his July 25 phone call with Zelensky as “perfect,” isn’t offering any acknowledgement of error by Trump. He is telling Republicans to get in line. While Cipollone did not literally declare that “nothing matters,” the nihilism of his position is hard to miss.
Trump’s defense relies on the notion that the president has the power to create his own reality. Trump’s lawyers insisted during the House’s impeachment inquiry that the administration had no obligation to comply with Democrats’ subpoenas, and systemically stonewalled all requests for information, even fighting them in court. In the Senate, the same lawyers argued that Democrats had failed to assemble enough evidence to show any presidential wrongdoing, and thus had no right to seek more evidence.
Earlier Monday, a deputy White House counsel, Mike Purpura, insisted that senators had heard no evidence that Trump had asked anyone to tell the Ukrainians he would release security aid Congress had appropriated if they agreed to the investigations he wanted. This argument is brazenly misleading: Former National Security Adviser John Bolton, as anyone following politics knows, said he was willing to testify before the Senate, where he would have presumably detailed his claim, made in a book manuscript, that Trump had told him in August that he would not release the aid until Ukraine launched investigations. But in a 51-49 vote on Friday, the Senate refused to seek testimony from Bolton or any other witness. Purpura ignored Bolton and other witnesses, though their claims are public knowledge, because the Senate let him. His argument, in that sense, was a simple assertion of power.
Trump and his lawyers insist that that there was “no quid pro quo,” that “the president did nothing wrong” and “the call was perfect” because they expect, with good reason, that his party will accept these claims, and ignore evidence to the contrary.
In his closing remarks Monday, Schiff took aim at that mentality. “America believes in a thing called truth,” he said. “She does not believe we are entitled to our own alternative facts. She recoils at those who spread pernicious falsehoods. To her, truth matters. There is nothing more corrosive to a democracy than the idea that here is no truth.”
History will not be kind to Donald Trump. Because truth matters. Right matters. And decency matters. It may be midnight in Washington, but the sun will rise again. I put my faith in the optimism of our Founders. You should too. pic.twitter.com/JJ2tGnQqxK — Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) February 3, 2020
This speech bears similarity to the arguments made by government prosecutors in the November trial of Trump associate Roger Stone. who was convicted of lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks regarding Democratic emails hacked by Russia. In a closing argument to jurors then, Assistant US Attorney Michael Marando told jurors that “you can find any political view you want” and “your own truth” online, but “in our institutions of self governance, courts of law or committee hearings, where people have to testify under oath, truth still matters.”
Truth matters. Mardondo made it a refrain during the trial, and it was so effective that one juror used the phrase in a Washington Post op-ed to explain Stone’s conviction.
That Schiff made similar arguments Monday is not a coincidence. He led House Democrats’ investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, and he faulted Trump on Friday for encouraging and accepting Russian help in the 2016 election and then lying about it. Like federal prosecutors who investigated the Trump–Russia scandal and who indicted Stone and a handful of other former Trump aides for making false statements about their contacts with Russia, Schiff has been at pains to highlight the pernicious effect of the rampant dishonesty of Trump and his circle. Schiff on Monday implored GOP senators to assert values distinct from mere partisan loyalty to Trump.
“Truth matters little to him. What’s right matters even less, and decency matters not at all,” Schiff said. “I do not ask you to convict him because truth, right, and decency matters nothing to him, but because we have proven our case, and it matters to you. Truth matters to you. Right matters to you. You are decent. He is not who you are.”
Schiff’s argument is not going to convince 20 Republicans to vote to convict Trump. It may not convince any. But along with Cipollone’s closing, it will help define the votes that senators cast on Wednesday. Do Senate Republicans agree that Trump did nothing wrong? Is he who they are? Watch how they vote.


motherjones--2020-02-04--Republicans Are Spreading Voter Fraud Disinformation in an Election They’re Not Even Running In

Conservative groups are trying to peddle conspiracy claims of voter fraud to undermine an election that doesn ’ t even involve Republicans .
Judicial Watch , a conservative advocacy group , put out a report on Monday claiming that “ Eight Iowa counties have more voter registrations than citizens old enough to register.
” Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate , who is a pro-voter-ID law conservative , refuted the claim on Twitter and linked to Iowa ’ s own numbers debunking Judicial Watch ’ s report .
“ My office has told this organization , and others who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regarding Iowa is deeply flawed and their false claims erode voter confidence in elections , ” Pate said in a statement .
“ They should stop this misinformation campaign immediately and quit trying to disenfranchise Iowa voters.
” Regardless , Judicial Watch ’ s claim has gone massively viral in the right-wing internet community .
The president of Judicial Watch , Tom Fitton , went viral with his tweet of the report , picking up over 6,000 retweets .
Fitton also put out his own statement on Monday night in which he stood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it was right-wing internet personality Charlie Kirk and Fox News host Sean Hannity who ensured that Judicial Watch ’ s disinformation reached peak virality .
Hannity ’ s tweet of the report was retweeted almost 2,000 times by his 4.5 million followers , and Kirk ’ s tweet of the information without any citation was retweeted over 40,000 times to his 15 million followers .
Judicial Watch has a long track record of pushing incorrect information , including a false voter fraud claim in 2017 .
The group has also pushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ISIS setting up a terrorist camp in Mexico and a lie about the Department of Justice organizing protests against George Zimmerman , the man who murdered Trayvon Martin .
But voter fraud is a recurring myth favored by right-wingers , and no amount of tsk-tsking and Pinocchio tests from factcheckers have been able to curb its popularity .
Julia Carie Wong , a reporter at the Guardian , pointed out that right-wing disinformation sourced to Judicial Watch ’ s report was traveling much further online than Iowa state ’ s efforts to debunk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stymie the disinfo ’ s spread as well .
Natalie Martinez , a researcher at MoveOn , noticed that Facebook was letting Judicial Watch advertise its false report , despite the company claiming to have tighter standards that bar pages from advertising false information .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Conservative groups are trying to peddle conspiracy claims of voter fraud to undermine an election that doesn’t even involve Republicans.
Judicial Watch, a conservative advocacy group, put out a report on Monday claiming that “Eight Iowa counties have more voter registrations than citizens old enough to register.”
Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, who is a pro-voter-ID law conservative, refuted the claim on Twitter and linked to Iowa’s own numbers debunking Judicial Watch’s report.
.@seanhannity It's disappointing to see you spread this #FakeNews. Their claims are FALSE. The actual numbers, compiled every month by my office and readily available for anyone to view, tell a much different story, with #FACTS: https://t.co/eq8ew0TvTg — Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate (@IowaSOS) February 3, 2020
“My office has told this organization, and others who have made similar claims, that their data regarding Iowa is deeply flawed and their false claims erode voter confidence in elections,” Pate said in a statement. “They should stop this misinformation campaign immediately and quit trying to disenfranchise Iowa voters.”
Regardless, Judicial Watch’s claim has gone massively viral in the right-wing internet community. The president of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, went viral with his tweet of the report, picking up over 6,000 retweets. Fitton also put out his own statement on Monday night in which he stood by his debunked claims of voter fraud.
But it was right-wing internet personality Charlie Kirk and Fox News host Sean Hannity who ensured that Judicial Watch’s disinformation reached peak virality. Hannity’s tweet of the report was retweeted almost 2,000 times by his 4.5 million followers, and Kirk’s tweet of the information without any citation was retweeted over 40,000 times to his 15 million followers.
Judicial Watch has a long track record of pushing incorrect information, including a false voter fraud claim in 2017. The group has also pushed other baseless hoaxes, including one about ISIS setting up a terrorist camp in Mexico and a lie about the Department of Justice organizing protests against George Zimmerman, the man who murdered Trayvon Martin.
But voter fraud is a recurring myth favored by right-wingers, and no amount of tsk-tsking and Pinocchio tests from factcheckers have been able to curb its popularity. Julia Carie Wong, a reporter at the Guardian, pointed out that right-wing disinformation sourced to Judicial Watch’s report was traveling much further online than Iowa state’s efforts to debunk it.
On the right –> tweets by Sean Hannity and Charlie Kirk spreading false information about Iowa voter rolls. On the left -> a tweet by the Iowa Secretary of State correcting the disinformation Disinformation travels farther, faster. Visualization via Hoaxy pic.twitter.com/X1rljxwn7t — Julia Carrie Wong (@juliacarriew) February 3, 2020
Technology companies are failing to stymie the disinfo’s spread as well. Natalie Martinez, a researcher at MoveOn, noticed that Facebook was letting Judicial Watch advertise its false report, despite the company claiming to have tighter standards that bar pages from advertising false information.


motherjones--2020-02-04--How Both Bernie and Pete May Be Able to Claim an Iowa Victory

Confused about what ’ s happening in Iowa ?
You ’ re not alone .
Late on Tuesday , the state Democratic party released results from 62 percent of Iowa ’ s 1,700-plus precincts , and in that limited set of numbers , we ’ re seeing a split : More caucus-goers turned out for Bernie , but Pete Buttigieg has a small lead in delegates awarded from the contest .
How can this happen ?
Yesterday , before it became clear that the state ’ s reporting process was not working as expected , I wrote about some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucuses , and how this year ’ s contest had been tinkered with in the goal of , in the state party ’ s words , making the “ most accessible , transparent , and successful caucuses ever.
” ( Oops . )
Here are some helpful excerpts : Like the Electoral College , the party ’ s rules can advantage rural areas .
One recent analysis showed that it only takes 43 participants in tiny Fremont County to win a delegate from a caucus , but in Johnson and Story counties , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes more than 200 .
In Polk , home to Des Moines and the state ’ s largest county , the number is about 150… .
The clearest boost to transparency will be the release of three official sets of numbers : Not just , as the state party has always made available , the smaller number of how many local delegates each candidate won on caucus night , but also much larger headcounts of caucus-going Iowans ’ first and final choices .
This could create the impression of two , or even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , triggering a debate about who really “ won.
” ( The caucus determines fewer than 1 percent of the pledged delegates who will select the presidential candidate ; winning Iowa , however defined , has always been more a show of force than a practical step to the nomination . )
A disconnect where one or both headcount numbers show a candidate with more supporters turning out on caucus night but emerging with fewer delegates would only highlight how the contest ’ s intricacies can work against the principle of one person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ release those headcount numbers was done at the urging of Sanders ’ camp in the wake of the 2016 election , after his supporters suspected that something similar to what ’ s happening this week occurred in that year ’ s contest : that more Sanders supporters showed up on caucus night than Hillary Clinton supporters , but that Clinton ’ s backers were concentrated in precincts where it is easier to elect delegates .
Both Buttigieg and Sanders are in New Hampshire , which on Tuesday will host the Democratic nomination process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ split holds , you can expect both of them to talk up their favorite numbers tonight—and through the next week .
Listen to Mother Jones ‘ Ari Berman and Tim Murphy discuss the fallout from the Iowa voting debacle on this week ’ s special early edition of the Mother Jones Podcast :

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Confused about what’s happening in Iowa? You’re not alone.
Late on Tuesday, the state Democratic party released results from 62 percent of Iowa’s 1,700-plus precincts, and in that limited set of numbers, we’re seeing a split: More caucus-goers turned out for Bernie, but Pete Buttigieg has a small lead in delegates awarded from the contest. How can this happen? Yesterday, before it became clear that the state’s reporting process was not working as expected, I wrote about some of the undemocratic aspects of the the Iowa caucuses, and how this year’s contest had been tinkered with in the goal of, in the state party’s words, making the “most accessible, transparent, and successful caucuses ever.” (Oops.) Here are some helpful excerpts:
Like the Electoral College, the party’s rules can advantage rural areas. One recent analysis showed that it only takes 43 participants in tiny Fremont County to win a delegate from a caucus, but in Johnson and Story counties, which both host state universities, it takes more than 200. In Polk, home to Des Moines and the state’s largest county, the number is about 150…. The clearest boost to transparency will be the release of three official sets of numbers: Not just, as the state party has always made available, the smaller number of how many local delegates each candidate won on caucus night, but also much larger headcounts of caucus-going Iowans’ first and final choices. This could create the impression of two, or even three, separate winners on caucus night, triggering a debate about who really “won.” (The caucus determines fewer than 1 percent of the pledged delegates who will select the presidential candidate; winning Iowa, however defined, has always been more a show of force than a practical step to the nomination.) A disconnect where one or both headcount numbers show a candidate with more supporters turning out on caucus night but emerging with fewer delegates would only highlight how the contest’s intricacies can work against the principle of one person, one vote.
The decision to release those headcount numbers was done at the urging of Sanders’ camp in the wake of the 2016 election, after his supporters suspected that something similar to what’s happening this week occurred in that year’s contest: that more Sanders supporters showed up on caucus night than Hillary Clinton supporters, but that Clinton’s backers were concentrated in precincts where it is easier to elect delegates.
Both Buttigieg and Sanders are in New Hampshire, which on Tuesday will host the Democratic nomination process’s next contest. If this split holds, you can expect both of them to talk up their favorite numbers tonight—and through the next week.
Listen to Mother Jones‘ Ari Berman and Tim Murphy discuss the fallout from the Iowa voting debacle on this week’s special early edition of the Mother Jones Podcast:


motherjones--2020-02-04--Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley Boycott Trump’s State of the Union

Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) and Ayanna Pressley ( D-Mass . )
, two of the most prominent progressive @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday that they would protest President Donald Trump by refusing to attend his State of @ @ @ @ @ After much deliberation , I have decided that I will not use my presence at @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s lawless conduct & subversion of the Constitution , ” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted .
@ @ @ @ @ normal , and I will not legitimize it.
” Trump will address the nation Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ trial against him , as former president Bill Clinton did in 1999 .
The Republican-majority @ @ @ @ @ to acquit Trump on Wednesday .
Minutes earlier , Pressley also tweeted that she would @ @ @ @ @ the Union .
They join several other Democrats boycotting the address , including Reps. Earl @ @ @ @ @ Cohen of Tennessee , and Frederica Wilson of Florida .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), two of the most prominent progressive Democrats in Congress, announced Tuesday that they would protest President Donald Trump by refusing to attend his State of the Union address.
“After much deliberation, I have decided that I will not use my presence at a state ceremony to normalize Trump’s lawless conduct & subversion of the Constitution,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. “None of this is normal, and I will not legitimize it.”
After much deliberation, I have decided that I will not use my presence at a state ceremony to normalize Trump’s lawless conduct & subversion of the Constitution. None of this is normal, and I will not legitimize it. Consequently, I will not be attending the State of the Union. — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 4, 2020
Trump will address the nation Tuesday night amid a Senate impeachment trial against him, as former president Bill Clinton did in 1999. The Republican-majority Senate will most likely vote to acquit Trump on Wednesday.
Minutes earlier, Pressley also tweeted that she would not attend the State of the Union. They join several other Democrats boycotting the address, including Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, Steve Cohen of Tennessee, and Frederica Wilson of Florida.


motherjones--2020-02-04--When Iowa Goes Down, New Hampshire Should Too

As the election results didn ’ t begin to trickle in Monday night , cable news and Twitter pundits unleashed an onslaught of hate onto the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses .
Thanks to snafus from a new app that precincts were asked to use to report results , the Iowa Democratic Party kept the tallies locked away Monday night , leaving even Iowans to say they may have forfeited their privileged status in future elections due to the turmoil .
“ This fiasco means the end of the caucuses as a significant American political event , ” David Yepsen , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Politico .
“ The rest of the country was already losing patience with Iowa anyway and this cooks Iowa ’ s goose .
Frankly , it should.
” Will waiting an extra day to learn the final election tallies really hamper American democracy ?
No—just look at Super Tuesday , whose big prize , California , sometimes doesn ’ t fully report election results for weeks .
But the consensus that the Iowa caucus tradition should die is spot-on , as my colleague Clint Hendler wrote in a prescient article Monday morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tortuous procedures .
And as erstwhile presidential candidate Julián Castro noted before he dropped out—and again Monday night , speaking on behalf of his new preferred candidate , Elizabeth Warren—the state is out of step with the demographics of the country , giving too much weight to white voters ’ voices in an increasingly diverse country .
So let 2020 be the last year that Iowa gets first say in presidential politics .
But if we ’ re finally going to fix our out-of-whack presidential nomination system , don ’ t let Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaints about Iowa should only be magnified when it comes to New Hampshire .
Too small ?
At least Iowa boasts a population of more than 3 million people , and the 101st largest city in the country in the state capital of Des Moines .
New Hampshire , on the other hand , is minuscule .
Just 1.3 million people live there .
Manchester , the state ’ s largest “ city , ” has barely 110,000 residents , making it the 259th largest city in the country , just behind Miami @ @ @ @ @ @ @ High Point , North Carolina .
New Hampshire must be more diverse than Iowa , right ?
Nope .
Iowa ’ s population is 90.7 percent non-Hispanic white , 4 percent black , and 6 percent Latino .
New Hampshire is 93 percent white , 1.7 percent black , and 4 percent Latino .
Both states have relatively old populations , but Iowa ’ s has a slightly higher percentage of children , while New Hampshire ’ s has a higher share of people over 65 .
Neither state will likely give up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , Republicans will also hold a competitive primary and will have a say on the operational order .
President Donald Trump has tweeted , “ As long as I am President , Iowa will stay where it is .
Important tradition !
” The state ’ s Republican governor , Kim Reynolds , rushed to defend the process Tuesday morning , saying , “ We look forward to Iowa carrying on its bipartisan legacy of service in the presidential nominating process.
” New Hampshire even has a law on the books that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country ( that ’ s one reason Iowa has clung to the outdated caucus model ) , and when a group of states tried to leapfrog the order in 2008 , it set off an arms race to move up the calendar , with the Iowa caucuses that year held just a few days into the new year .
No one wants the first vote for the 2024 contest to happen during the summer of 2023 , so any change would require coordination from the national parties and a fair bit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s a fight worth having , just so long as it doesn ’ t exclusively target Iowa .
Next week should bring the last first-in-the-nation primary for New Hampshire as well .
Let ’ s try something different in four years .
Maybe give Georgia a chance .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
As the election results didn’t begin to trickle in Monday night, cable news and Twitter pundits unleashed an onslaught of hate onto the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses. Thanks to snafus from a new app that precincts were asked to use to report results, the Iowa Democratic Party kept the tallies locked away Monday night, leaving even Iowans to say they may have forfeited their privileged status in future elections due to the turmoil. “This fiasco means the end of the caucuses as a significant American political event,” David Yepsen, a former longtime Des Moines Register reporter, told Politico. “The rest of the country was already losing patience with Iowa anyway and this cooks Iowa’s goose. Frankly, it should.”
Will waiting an extra day to learn the final election tallies really hamper American democracy? No—just look at Super Tuesday, whose big prize, California, sometimes doesn’t fully report election results for weeks. But the consensus that the Iowa caucus tradition should die is spot-on, as my colleague Clint Hendler wrote in a prescient article Monday morning explaining how caucuses disenfranchise voters with their tortuous procedures. And as erstwhile presidential candidate Julián Castro noted before he dropped out—and again Monday night, speaking on behalf of his new preferred candidate, Elizabeth Warren—the state is out of step with the demographics of the country, giving too much weight to white voters’ voices in an increasingly diverse country.
So let 2020 be the last year that Iowa gets first say in presidential politics. But if we’re finally going to fix our out-of-whack presidential nomination system, don’t let Iowa be the only casualty.
Any liberal complaints about Iowa should only be magnified when it comes to New Hampshire. Too small? At least Iowa boasts a population of more than 3 million people, and the 101st largest city in the country in the state capital of Des Moines. New Hampshire, on the other hand, is minuscule. Just 1.3 million people live there. Manchester, the state’s largest “city,” has barely 110,000 residents, making it the 259th largest city in the country, just behind Miami Gardens, Florida, and ahead of High Point, North Carolina.
New Hampshire must be more diverse than Iowa, right? Nope. Iowa’s population is 90.7 percent non-Hispanic white, 4 percent black, and 6 percent Latino. New Hampshire is 93 percent white, 1.7 percent black, and 4 percent Latino. Both states have relatively old populations, but Iowa’s has a slightly higher percentage of children, while New Hampshire’s has a higher share of people over 65.
Neither state will likely give up easily, especially since four years from now, Republicans will also hold a competitive primary and will have a say on the operational order. President Donald Trump has tweeted, “As long as I am President, Iowa will stay where it is. Important tradition!” The state’s Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, rushed to defend the process Tuesday morning, saying, “We look forward to Iowa carrying on its bipartisan legacy of service in the presidential nominating process.”
New Hampshire even has a law on the books that it must be the first primary in the country (that’s one reason Iowa has clung to the outdated caucus model), and when a group of states tried to leapfrog the order in 2008, it set off an arms race to move up the calendar, with the Iowa caucuses that year held just a few days into the new year.
No one wants the first vote for the 2024 contest to happen during the summer of 2023, so any change would require coordination from the national parties and a fair bit of strong-arming against their state counterparts. But it’s a fight worth having, just so long as it doesn’t exclusively target Iowa. Next week should bring the last first-in-the-nation primary for New Hampshire as well. Let’s try something different in four years. Maybe give Georgia a chance.


motherjones--2020-02-04--Conservatives Are Pushing Conspiracy Theories about the Iowa Caucus

Amid the chaos of the uncharacteristically late results from Monday ’ s Iowa caucuses , Republicans have been seeding the unsubstantiated narrative that the contest was somehow rigged .
As reports emerged that volunteers administering the caucus were having trouble using an app meant to help the state Democratic party tally the results , and that the party was delaying release of the results for “ quality control , ” high-profile conservatives , including ones associated with President Donald Trump ’ s campaign began baselessly lobbing claims that the election was being rigged .
Trump ’ s campaign director , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first major accounts on Twitter to suggest that a hoax was afoot , writing “ Quality control = rigged ?
🤔.
” Trump ’ s adult sons , Donald Jr. and Eric , quickly joined in by tweeting their own version of the unsubstantiated “ rigging ” hoax .
Republican National Committee spokesperson Kayleigh McEnany also claimed that Democrats were “ rigging it.
” The accusations continued into the morning , most notably when Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) suggested there was a conspiracy .
Other prominent internet right-wingers like Mike Cernovich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the handle @ ComfortablySmug , also glommed onto the baseless “ rigged ” narrative .
The theory appears to have now taken hold in right-wing circles , as Donald Trump Jr. , conservative internet personality Charlie Kirk , and others continued to boost it well into Tuesday afternoon .
Jennifer Grygiel , a communications professor at Syracuse University who specializes in social media and memes , said that the chaotic failure was perfect kindling to spur conspiracies .
Reports of the failure of the app , which was designed by a company called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unusual—that just piques this idea of questioning the narrative you ’ re being told , ” Grygiel said .
“ It doesn ’ t mean there is an actually any attempt to hack manipulate apps or anything like that , but conspiracy theorists will jump on it anyway.
” Trump allies had already set the framework for false claims of election rigging earlier in the day .
Late Monday morning , Judicial Watch , a conservative activist group with a history of spreading disinformation , published a false report alleging that “ Eight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens old enough to register , ” claiming this was evidence of voter fraud .
While Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate , a conservative Republican who has pushed strict laws requiring voters to show identification , quickly debunked the claim , the hoax still went massively viral on right-wing Twitter and Facebook .
Facebook reacted to the false information by enabling warnings on posts about Judicial Watch ’ s claims relaying that fact-checkers had deemed them untrue , but it only did so hours after the fact , long after the posts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ unwillingness or lack of ability to slow down the spread of such disinformation benefited conservatives who were working to establish a myth damaging to their political opponents .
“ Conspiracy theorists are taking advantage of platforms that have very little ways to stop the spread of this kind of information , ” Grygiel said .
“ Memers are going to create content to be shared on social media knowing that the platforms are polluted , and that there are few mechanisms to stop them from going viral .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Amid the chaos of the uncharacteristically late results from Monday’s Iowa caucuses, Republicans have been seeding the unsubstantiated narrative that the contest was somehow rigged.
As reports emerged that volunteers administering the caucus were having trouble using an app meant to help the state Democratic party tally the results, and that the party was delaying release of the results for “quality control,” high-profile conservatives, including ones associated with President Donald Trump’s campaign began baselessly lobbing claims that the election was being rigged.
Trump’s campaign director, Brad Parscale, was one of the first major accounts on Twitter to suggest that a hoax was afoot, writing “Quality control = rigged? 🤔.” Trump’s adult sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, quickly joined in by tweeting their own version of the unsubstantiated “rigging” hoax. Republican National Committee spokesperson Kayleigh McEnany also claimed that Democrats were “rigging it.”
The accusations continued into the morning, most notably when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) suggested there was a conspiracy.
What are the odds that: ➡ most anticipated poll of the year (@DMRegister) is cancelled. ➡ voting system completely crashes. ….and it has nothing to do with a Bernie blowout and a Biden crash? — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) February 4, 2020
Other prominent internet right-wingers like Mike Cernovich and Shashank Tripathi, who tweets under the handle @ComfortablySmug, also glommed onto the baseless “rigged” narrative. The theory appears to have now taken hold in right-wing circles, as Donald Trump Jr., conservative internet personality Charlie Kirk, and others continued to boost it well into Tuesday afternoon.
Jennifer Grygiel, a communications professor at Syracuse University who specializes in social media and memes, said that the chaotic failure was perfect kindling to spur conspiracies. Reports of the failure of the app, which was designed by a company called “Shadow Inc.”, were “unusual—that just piques this idea of questioning the narrative you’re being told,” Grygiel said. “It doesn’t mean there is an actually any attempt to hack manipulate apps or anything like that, but conspiracy theorists will jump on it anyway.”
“There are few mechanisms to stop them.”
Trump allies had already set the framework for false claims of election rigging earlier in the day. Late Monday morning, Judicial Watch, a conservative activist group with a history of spreading disinformation, published a false report alleging that “Eight Iowa counties have more voter registrations than citizens old enough to register,” claiming this was evidence of voter fraud.
While Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, a conservative Republican who has pushed strict laws requiring voters to show identification, quickly debunked the claim, the hoax still went massively viral on right-wing Twitter and Facebook.
Facebook reacted to the false information by enabling warnings on posts about Judicial Watch’s claims relaying that fact-checkers had deemed them untrue, but it only did so hours after the fact, long after the posts had spread.
Grygiel says tech companies’ unwillingness or lack of ability to slow down the spread of such disinformation benefited conservatives who were working to establish a myth damaging to their political opponents.
“Conspiracy theorists are taking advantage of platforms that have very little ways to stop the spread of this kind of information,” Grygiel said. “Memers are going to create content to be shared on social media knowing that the platforms are polluted, and that there are few mechanisms to stop them from going viral.”


motherjones--2020-02-04--New Podcast Episode: What the Iowa Caucus Debacle Means

We ’ re putting out the latest edition of the Mother Jones Podcast a little bit early this week in order to bring you the very latest from Iowa , where Democratic officials are still scrambling to tabulate final results from the Monday night vote , blaming “ inconsistencies ” in the reporting data .
Meanwhile , precinct-based volunteers running the contest on the ground slammed the party ’ s reporting app and said even calling in on the phones was causing problems .
Officials have said they will begin to release partial voting data later this evening .
Senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Mother Jones , and in this show we ’ ll take you right there , to his rental car , for his immediate reaction and to hear what voters are telling him about this headache-inducing vote .
You ’ ll also hear from our voting rights reporter ( and Iowa native ) Ari Berman , who analyzes what the debacle foretells for voting in America in 2020 .
And while we wait to assess the final votes , Micah Cohen , the managing editor of FiveThirtyEight , examines the trends as election @ @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
We’re putting out the latest edition of the Mother Jones Podcast a little bit early this week in order to bring you the very latest from Iowa, where Democratic officials are still scrambling to tabulate final results from the Monday night vote, blaming “inconsistencies” in the reporting data. Meanwhile, precinct-based volunteers running the contest on the ground slammed the party’s reporting app and said even calling in on the phones was causing problems. Officials have said they will begin to release partial voting data later this evening.
Senior reporter Tim Murphy has been criss-crossing Iowa for Mother Jones, and in this show we’ll take you right there, to his rental car, for his immediate reaction and to hear what voters are telling him about this headache-inducing vote.
You’ll also hear from our voting rights reporter (and Iowa native) Ari Berman, who analyzes what the debacle foretells for voting in America in 2020. And while we wait to assess the final votes, Micah Cohen, the managing editor of FiveThirtyEight, examines the trends as election season gets underway.


motherjones--2020-02-04--Man Charged With Threatening Adam Schiff Said He “Likely Was Upset” by Fox News Segment

After House Democrats introduced an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump on September 24 for allegedly abusing power to dig up dirt on former Vice President and 2020 candidate Joe Biden , Fox News , not surprisingly , responded with a torrent of rhetorical attacks against the Democrats generally and the House leadership in particular .
Network stars Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson closely interrogated the motives of Democratic leaders , like speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) and House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) , accusing Democrats of being in a state of “ hysteria.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the following days , one Arizona viewer allegedly decided to act .
According to Arizona District Court documents and reporting from The Informant , “ [ o ] n or about October 1 , 2019 , ” Jan Peter Meister , a Tucson resident and convicted sex offender , picked up the phone , dialed Schiff ’ s Capitol Hill office , and left a profanity-laden voicemail : During Meister ’ s subsequent arrest October 25 , law enforcement agents found two pistols , one rifle and about 800 rounds of ammunition—weapons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own because of his prior felony convictions .
Between the threatening phone call and the charge of unlawfully possessing weapons , Meister faces two felony counts and is pleading not guilty to both of them .
He remains incarcerated , with a trial date slated for February 11 .
A motion submitted by his lawyers requesting that the two charges be tried separately characterized Meister as a frequent Fox News viewer with an aversion to Democrats .
According to the motion , when confronted by law enforcement at his arrest , “ He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and likely was upset at something that he saw on the news.
” Though Meister said the phone call was “ out of character ” and apologized , he also declared that he “ strongly dislikes the Democrats , and feels they are to blame for the country ’ s political issues.
” The indictment is available here :

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
After House Democrats introduced an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump on September 24 for allegedly abusing power to dig up dirt on former Vice President and 2020 candidate Joe Biden, Fox News, not surprisingly, responded with a torrent of rhetorical attacks against the Democrats generally and the House leadership in particular. Network stars Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson closely interrogated the motives of Democratic leaders, like speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), accusing Democrats of being in a state of “hysteria.”
As the political storm became more intense over the following days, one Arizona viewer allegedly decided to act. According to Arizona District Court documents and reporting from The Informant, “[o]n or about October 1, 2019,” Jan Peter Meister, a Tucson resident and convicted sex offender, picked up the phone, dialed Schiff’s Capitol Hill office, and left a profanity-laden voicemail:
“Go fuck your mother, you son of a bitch cause I’m gonna fucking blow your brains out you fucking piece of shit mother, fucker, you’re a fucking piece of shit. You fucking piece of shit mother fucker. Yeah watch. I’m gonna fuck your asshole you piece of shit son of a bitch. Yeah come get me. I guarantee I’ll fuck your brains out.”
During Meister’s subsequent arrest October 25, law enforcement agents found two pistols, one rifle and about 800 rounds of ammunition—weapons he wasn’t legally allowed to own because of his prior felony convictions. Between the threatening phone call and the charge of unlawfully possessing weapons, Meister faces two felony counts and is pleading not guilty to both of them. He remains incarcerated, with a trial date slated for February 11.
A motion submitted by his lawyers requesting that the two charges be tried separately characterized Meister as a frequent Fox News viewer with an aversion to Democrats. According to the motion, when confronted by law enforcement at his arrest, “He told them that he watches Fox News and likely was upset at something that he saw on the news.” Though Meister said the phone call was “out of character” and apologized, he also declared that he “strongly dislikes the Democrats, and feels they are to blame for the country’s political issues.”
The indictment is available here:


motherjones--2020-02-04--Michigan Bill Would Force Doctors to Suggest Dangerous, Unproven “Abortion Reversal”

A Republican lawmaker in Michigan has introduced legislation that would require doctors to inform patients seeking abortions about a procedure for “ abortion reversal ” —an idea with no scientific backing that researchers say can cause serious damage .
For years , conservatives have been pushing the idea that patients who receive medical abortions—those induced with medication rather than surgery—can reverse the process by taking progesterone .
Last month , researchers at the University of California , Davis , who were studying the effect of using progesterone to reverse abortions were forced to halt the study after serious “ safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12 patients in the study had to be hospitalized due to severe vaginal bleeding .
But if the Michigan legislation becomes law , doctors would be forced to present abortion-reversing progesterone as a valid option .
“ It ’ s called the Abortion Pill Reversal bill , and it basically allows a woman to be informed that if she should change her mind during a chemical abortion , that she be provided information that a treatment is available , ” state Rep. Beth Griffin , who introduced the bill on January 22 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking a series of two pills .
Religious conservatives have argued that women who take mifepristone , the first of the two drugs , and then take the hormone progesterone instead of the second pill , misoprostol , can “ reverse ” their abortion .
Heartbeat International , one of the largest anti-abortion organizations in the world , claims that it has helped women reverse more than 450 abortions , and it promotes an abortion pill reversal hotline on their website .
Currently , eight states—Arkansas , Idaho , Kentucky , North Dakota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Utah—require abortion providers to tell patients about “ abortion reversals.
” Five of the states passed these laws in 2019 among a flurry of anti-abortion legislation nationwide .
To date , no peer-reviewed study has ever shown that an abortion can be reversed with progesterone after taking mifepristone .
In June 2019 , the American Medical Association sued North Dakota over its abortion reversal law , arguing that it forced doctors to “ provide patients with false , misleading , non-medical information.
” In September , a federal judge blocked the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lacked “ any medical or scientific evidence to support such a message.
” A final ruling has not been issued .
While the University of California researchers were unable to find any evidence that abortions could be reversed by not taking the second abortion pill , they did find that patients who only took the first pill may be at “ high risk of significant hemorrhage.
” Abortion , by comparison , is considered a “ low-risk surgery , ” according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , with a complication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Griffin ’ s bill is before Michigan ’ s House Committee on Families Children and Seniors , where it is awaiting a hearing .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A Republican lawmaker in Michigan has introduced legislation that would require doctors to inform patients seeking abortions about a procedure for “abortion reversal”—an idea with no scientific backing that researchers say can cause serious damage.
For years, conservatives have been pushing the idea that patients who receive medical abortions—those induced with medication rather than surgery—can reverse the process by taking progesterone. Last month, researchers at the University of California, Davis, who were studying the effect of using progesterone to reverse abortions were forced to halt the study after serious “safety concerns” emerged. Three of the 12 patients in the study had to be hospitalized due to severe vaginal bleeding.
But if the Michigan legislation becomes law, doctors would be forced to present abortion-reversing progesterone as a valid option.
“It’s called the Abortion Pill Reversal bill, and it basically allows a woman to be informed that if she should change her mind during a chemical abortion, that she be provided information that a treatment is available,” state Rep. Beth Griffin, who introduced the bill on January 22, told WSJM News.
Medical abortions involve taking a series of two pills. Religious conservatives have argued that women who take mifepristone, the first of the two drugs, and then take the hormone progesterone instead of the second pill, misoprostol, can “reverse” their abortion. Heartbeat International, one of the largest anti-abortion organizations in the world, claims that it has helped women reverse more than 450 abortions, and it promotes an abortion pill reversal hotline on their website. Currently, eight states—Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Utah—require abortion providers to tell patients about “abortion reversals.” Five of the states passed these laws in 2019 among a flurry of anti-abortion legislation nationwide. To date, no peer-reviewed study has ever shown that an abortion can be reversed with progesterone after taking mifepristone.
In June 2019, the American Medical Association sued North Dakota over its abortion reversal law, arguing that it forced doctors to “provide patients with false, misleading, non-medical information.” In September, a federal judge blocked the law temporarily, writing that the law lacked “any medical or scientific evidence to support such a message.” A final ruling has not been issued.
While the University of California researchers were unable to find any evidence that abortions could be reversed by not taking the second abortion pill, they did find that patients who only took the first pill may be at “high risk of significant hemorrhage.” Abortion, by comparison, is considered a “low-risk surgery,” according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, with a complication rate of less than 1 percent.
Griffin’s bill is before Michigan’s House Committee on Families Children and Seniors, where it is awaiting a hearing.


motherjones--2020-03-30--Doctors Are Being Told That Wearing Masks “Might Freak Out Patients”

As hospitals face a wave of patients with COVID-19 , Dr. Christopher Garofalo , a family physician in Massachusetts , has become increasingly concerned about physicians working without masks and other protective equipment .
In private Facebook groups for doctors , Garofalo asked them to share their experiences—and he received a torrent of responses from health care workers who said that hospital administrators forbade them from wearing the gear .
The reasons for this vary : Some administrators say hospitals are afraid the gear could spread the virus to uninfected patients ; others say administrators are worried that patients will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks .
Garofalo spoke to Mother Jones about the problem and provided some of the anonymous stories he has collected from health care workers .
His remarks have been edited for length and clarity .
On his work : I ’ m a family physician in Massachusetts .
I am a part owner of a private practice family medicine group called Family Medicine Associates of South Attleboro , which is on the Rhode Island border .
I do general family medicine within that .
And I also still deliver babies .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of family medicine .
It ’ s sort of a dying breed .
On what his office is doing right now : We have actually switched over to telemedicine .
We are doing both phone visits with patients as well as video visits with patients , which helps to decrease the transmission , but it still provides them a way to have a face-to-face visit with somebody .
The human interaction is really critically important in primary care .
We are a private office .
I don ’ t work for a hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me .
That ’ s part of the reason why I can talk to you and a lot of other docs can ’ t .
On what he began to see in physician Facebook groups : I chair a group that ’ s called the Committee for Sustainability of Private Practice .
Our goal is to keep private practice alive .
I am also on several other private practice groups .
I started seeing some things on there about physicians who were saying , “ I got yelled at by an administrator because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And it ’ s going to scare patients .
So I was told to take it off.
” One of them had actually seen an email from the administrators that said , “ We ’ re going to talk to the doctors to rein them in.
” I don ’ t know why it just hit me .
Rein them in .
Why would they want to do that ?
We try not to be arrogant , but physicians are some of the most educated people in the country .
So I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And I got responses that I had never seen before .
And everybody started flooding with this story and that story .
On what hospital administrators are telling doctors : Here are a few of the stories that physicians sent to Garofalo on Facebook .
Garofalo passed them along to Mother Jones without identifying information : • “ We are being expected to walk into ERs with no N95 respirators provided to care for non-COVID emergencies ( appendixes , hot gallbladder , etc ) and when we complain or ask for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling us tough luck .
One of our hospitals even sent an email saying do not divulge any positive cases , or else we could be found of violating HIPAA.
” • “ I was asked to remove the mask as it would frighten patients to think I was infected.
” • “ Hospital administrators have asked physicians and nurses not to take standard precautions to prevent spread of COVID—masks , staff temperature checks—that might freak out patients.
” • “ I asked specifically about what if i was concerned that i may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told that i should not wear a mask for the protection of my colleagues and patients .
on this conference call one hospitalist expressed concern that his wife has significant tracheal stenosis and he worried he might transmit the virus to her .
he stated that he had been wearing an N95 mask w/highly suspected cases .
he asked if he could reuse an N95 mask to protect his wife and was told flat out ‘ no ’ he could not , essentially because if they allow an exception in his case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exception as well.
” • “ [ The hospital has ] a supply of N95 masks that the nurse manager has locked up .
Over the last shift , I had to see 5 COVID suspects-tests pending .
I asked for one N95 to reuse as I know we have them .
they refused as those are only for aerosol procedures—the only one they define as aerosol is intubation .
Subsequently I got emails from admin to meet so they can tell me how to work with nursing directors and change my behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The ed physicians are not being given N95 , even for intubation .
One of them has reused his for 6 shifts .
There was a code on a COVID patient and nurses and respiratory therapists were unprotected during active intubation , etc .
Nurses are telling me that they have been forbidden to wear the blue paper masks for non-respiratory patients even though many are asymptomatic for up to 2 weeks .
They are told they will be fired if they do .
Pregnant social worker wore a blue mask and was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m afraid for my job as well as the staff .
They are expecting a surge and we don ’ t have enough blue paper masks and soon will run out of gowns .
I have to be anonymous for fear of retaliation.
” • “ St .
Anthony ’ s Hospital in Oklahoma City has asked us not to wear masks in the halls.
” ( Mother Jones called St. Anthony ’ s to ask about this policy , and the hospital responded , “ At SSM Health St. Anthony Hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our staff and our patients .
For this reason , we adhere to CDC best practice guidelines when determining the circumstances that require our staff to wear personal protective equipment , including masks .
Established infection prevention protocols offer guidance to our providers regarding when it is appropriate to wear personal protective gear and when it may not be appropriate , such as for prolonged periods or in public places such as hallways , where such masks may become contaminated and potentially cause risk for both patients and the provider wearing their mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ update policies as this pandemic evolves.
” ) On why these doctors are afraid to speak out : Nobody wanted to go on the record .
They did not want me to put any information in there .
They didn ’ t want to send a memo or even a screenshot , because even if you remove the names , depending upon what other information might be in there or what the format of the memo looks like , that could be discoverable and noticeable .
When they ’ re employed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or California , their paychecks come from them .
They can ’ t speak out without fear of losing their job .
If you lose your job , it ’ s not just that you could lose your livelihood .
You could also be labeled disruptive , and that can lead you to disciplinary action , which can get reported to the board of medicine , and you could lose your license .
We know that most doctors are employed by large hospital chains .
We know that administrators don ’ t value @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they can get us to work for them .
But they know they have us over a barrel .
If you as a physician are told to see more patients and you speak up , all of a sudden , you become , quote , disruptive .
You ’ re labeled disruptive .
The balance has shifted , and physicians don ’ t have the autonomy they used to have .
On his hope that hospital administrators will change their policies on doctors wearing masks : The tide has turned a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Boston basically said everybody is wearing at least a surgical mask , period .
Everybody , no matter where you are—you ’ re just wearing one .
In our office we ’ re going to do this next week .

As hospitals face a wave of patients with COVID-19, Dr. Christopher Garofalo, a family physician in Massachusetts, has become increasingly concerned about physicians working without masks and other protective equipment. In private Facebook groups for doctors, Garofalo asked them to share their experiences—and he received a torrent of responses from health care workers who said that hospital administrators forbade them from wearing the gear. The reasons for this vary: Some administrators say hospitals are afraid the gear could spread the virus to uninfected patients; others say administrators are worried that patients will be scared if they see doctors wearing masks.
Garofalo spoke to Mother Jones about the problem and provided some of the anonymous stories he has collected from health care workers. His remarks have been edited for length and clarity.
On his work: I’m a family physician in Massachusetts. I am a part owner of a private practice family medicine group called Family Medicine Associates of South Attleboro, which is on the Rhode Island border. I do general family medicine within that. And I also still deliver babies. That’s part of my old my practice of family medicine. It’s sort of a dying breed.
On what his office is doing right now: We have actually switched over to telemedicine. We are doing both phone visits with patients as well as video visits with patients, which helps to decrease the transmission, but it still provides them a way to have a face-to-face visit with somebody. The human interaction is really critically important in primary care.
We are a private office. I don’t work for a hospital. No hospital is going to fire me. That’s part of the reason why I can talk to you and a lot of other docs can’t.
On what he began to see in physician Facebook groups: I chair a group that’s called the Committee for Sustainability of Private Practice. Our goal is to keep private practice alive. I am also on several other private practice groups.
I started seeing some things on there about physicians who were saying, “I got yelled at by an administrator because I wore my mask in the hallway. And it’s going to scare patients. So I was told to take it off.” One of them had actually seen an email from the administrators that said, “We’re going to talk to the doctors to rein them in.”
I don’t know why it just hit me. Rein them in. Why would they want to do that? We try not to be arrogant, but physicians are some of the most educated people in the country. So I posted that in one of my groups. And I got responses that I had never seen before. And everybody started flooding with this story and that story.
On what hospital administrators are telling doctors: Here are a few of the stories that physicians sent to Garofalo on Facebook. Garofalo passed them along to Mother Jones without identifying information:
“We are being expected to walk into ERs with no N95 respirators provided to care for non-COVID emergencies (appendixes, hot gallbladder, etc) and when we complain or ask for a mask to be provided they’re telling us tough luck. One of our hospitals even sent an email saying do not divulge any positive cases, or else we could be found of violating HIPAA.”
“I was asked to remove the mask as it would frighten patients to think I was infected.”
“Hospital administrators have asked physicians and nurses not to take standard precautions to prevent spread of COVID—masks, staff temperature checks—that might freak out patients.”
“I asked specifically about what if i was concerned that i may be an asymptomatic carrier and was essentially told that I should not wear a mask for the protection of my colleagues and patients. On this conference call one hospitalist expressed concern that he might transmit the virus to his wife. He stated that he had been wearing an N95 mask w/highly suspected cases. he asked if he could reuse an N95 mask to protect his wife and was told flat out ‘no’ he could not, essentially because if they allow an exception in his case, they might have to allow others an exception as well.”
“[The hospital has] a supply of N95 masks that the nurse manager has locked up. Over the last shift, I had to see 5 COVID suspects-tests pending. I asked for one N95 to reuse as I know we have them. they refused as those are only for aerosol procedures—the only one they define as aerosol is intubation. Subsequently I got emails from admin to meet so they can tell me how to work with nursing directors and change my behavior. I have not responded yet. The ed physicians are not being given N95, even for intubation. One of them has reused his for 6 shifts. There was a code on a COVID patient and nurses and respiratory therapists were unprotected during active intubation, etc. Nurses are telling me that they have been forbidden to wear the blue paper masks for non-respiratory patients even though many are asymptomatic for up to 2 weeks. They are told they will be fired if they do. Social worker wore a blue mask and was told to take it off. I’m afraid for my job as well as the staff. They are expecting a surge and we don’t have enough blue paper masks and soon will run out of gowns. I have to be anonymous for fear of retaliation.”
“St. Anthony’s Hospital in Oklahoma City has asked us not to wear masks in the halls.” (Mother Jones called St. Anthony’s to ask about this policy, and the hospital responded, “At SSM Health St. Anthony Hospital, our priority always is to protect our staff and our patients. For this reason, we adhere to CDC best practice guidelines when determining the circumstances that require our staff to wear personal protective equipment, including masks. Established infection prevention protocols offer guidance to our providers regarding when it is appropriate to wear personal protective gear and when it may not be appropriate, such as for prolonged periods or in public places such as hallways, where such masks may become contaminated and potentially cause risk for both patients and the provider wearing their mask. We will continue to evaluate and update policies as this pandemic evolves.”)
On why these doctors are afraid to speak out: Nobody wanted to go on the record. They did not want me to put any information in there. They didn’t want to send a memo or even a screenshot, because even if you remove the names, depending upon what other information might be in there or what the format of the memo looks like, that could be discoverable and noticeable.
When they’re employed by the big hospital systems in Boston or Pennsylvania or California, their paychecks come from them. They can’t speak out without fear of losing their job.
If you lose your job, it’s not just that you could lose your livelihood. You could also be labeled disruptive, and that can lead you to disciplinary action, which can get reported to the board of medicine, and you could lose your license.
We know that most doctors are employed by large hospital chains. We know that administrators don’t value physicians. They value us only insomuch as they can get us to work for them. But they know they have us over a barrel. If you as a physician are told to see more patients and you speak up, all of a sudden, you become, quote, disruptive. You’re labeled disruptive. The balance has shifted, and physicians don’t have the autonomy they used to have.
On his hope that hospital administrators will change their policies on doctors wearing masks: The tide has turned a little bit. For example, Partners HealthCare in Boston basically said everybody is wearing at least a surgical mask, period. Everybody, no matter where you are—you’re just wearing one. In our office we’re going to do this next week.


motherjones--2020-03-28--What Happens When a 5-Year-Old in ICE Detention Is Considered a Coronavirus Risk

A five-year-old girl in a Pennsylvania immigration detention facility was rushed to a nearby hospital with pneumonia-like symptoms on Monday—only to be returned the facility that same day and put in isolation with her mother after being tested for COVID-19 .
The girl , who had been detained for five weeks with her parents at the Berks Family Residential Center outside Philadelphia , had been sick for some time , according to Bridget Cambria , executive director of the legal aid group Aldea .
In fact , the whole family hadn ’ t been feeling well , but when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Customs Enforcement officers called an ambulance .
When it came , Cambria said , they refused to allow her father to go with her .
The five-year-old and her mother then went to the hospital for several hours—during that time , she received a chest X-ray and a COVID-19 test—before being put back in an ambulance to head back to quarantine at Berks .
According to Cambria , the father was not allowed to join them and spent the following days terrified , unable to see his family and trying to talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the medical isolation unit .
Cambria said the girl ’ s father told her that his “ heart won ’ t stop hurting because of the stress.
” ( Cambria asked to keep the family ’ s identity private for their safety . )
An ICE spokesperson confirmed the details of the hospital visit and said “ a resident ” was taken Monday to a nearby emergency room .
The spokesperson said that after being treated and tested there , “ the family unit was safely quarantined at the Berks Family Residential Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young girl ’ s case is part of a lawsuit filed by three nonprofits that provide services to immigrant communities—Aldea , RAICES , and the Rapid Defense Network—on behalf of 37 families inside the three detention facilities where ICE holds families .
The suit asks for the immediate release of those families as a result of the coronavirus pandemic .
“ They ’ re scared , ” Cambria said .
“ They have no actual education of what this disease is , and they start to panic seeing it in the news.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demanded that ICE release adults from detention facilities before the virus spreads .
So far , two immigrants have tested positive for COVID-19 in immigration detention centers in New Jersey ; nationwide , five detention center employees have tested positive for the virus .
Advocates fear that when the virus enters these facilities , it could infect hundreds or thousands confined to those spaces , which are essentially jails .
According to Cambria , the family at Berks has been especially worried over the past week .
After the trip to the hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t updated on their daughter ’ s diagnosis , didn ’ t see any test results , and couldn ’ t even say with certainty that their daughter was indeed tested for COVID-19 at the hospital .
With permission from the family , attorneys with Aldea tried to get medical information from ICE but were unsuccessful .
The mother wasn ’ t allowed to keep any paperwork or medications that were given to her after her daughter was released from the hospital .
On Thursday , the mother and child were taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family didn ’ t know what the result of the test .
Then , on Friday afternoon , in the email response to my questions for this story , ICE officials said “ the family unit Covid-19 test results are negative.
” I informed Cambria once I received the email ; she would be the first person to tell the family that the five-year-old wasn ’ t sick with COVID-19 .
Like the nation ’ s two other family detention centers , Berks has been criticized for its unsafe and unsanitary conditions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there—all the more worrisome as the coronavirus continues to spread .
Cambria told me the families at Berks have complained that they don ’ t have access to enough sanitizer or cleaning supplies , echoing complaints at detention facilities for adults ; one Cuban asylum seeker told my colleague Noah Lanard last week that “ if coronavirus gets in here…it ’ s going to be a massacre.
” ICE officials told me that Berks has “ temporarily suspended new intakes ” and “ no residents or staff members are symptomatic.
” The agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and continuing to follow CDC guidelines .
As of Friday , 39 people were held there , ICE said .
That ’ s 14 families with children as young as six months old , Cambria said .
She urged ICE to release the families who have already been isolated for weeks so they can shelter in place outside of immigration detention centers , for the safety of the families and the ICE employees going in and out every day .
“ Children can ’ t social distance on their own .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their mouth .
They ’ re going to touch other children , ” Cambria said .
“ It ’ s not like people can go to a different room to be by themselves .
”

A five-year-old girl in a Pennsylvania immigration detention facility was rushed to a nearby hospital with pneumonia-like symptoms on Monday—only to be returned the facility that same day and put in isolation with her mother after being tested for COVID-19.
The girl, who had been detained for five weeks with her parents at the Berks Family Residential Center outside Philadelphia, had been sick for some time, according to Bridget Cambria, executive director of the legal aid group Aldea. In fact, the whole family hadn’t been feeling well, but when the girl started having difficulty breathing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers called an ambulance. When it came, Cambria said, they refused to allow her father to go with her.
The five-year-old and her mother then went to the hospital for several hours—during that time, she received a chest X-ray and a COVID-19 test—before being put back in an ambulance to head back to quarantine at Berks. According to Cambria, the father was not allowed to join them and spent the following days terrified, unable to see his family and trying to talk to them from outside the door to the medical isolation unit. Cambria said the girl’s father told her that his “heart won’t stop hurting because of the stress.” (Cambria asked to keep the family’s identity private for their safety.)
An ICE spokesperson confirmed the details of the hospital visit and said “a resident” was taken Monday to a nearby emergency room. The spokesperson said that after being treated and tested there, “the family unit was safely quarantined at the Berks Family Residential Center in accordance with CDC guidance.”
“They have no actual education of what this disease is, and they start to panic seeing it in the news.”
The young girl’s case is part of a lawsuit filed by three nonprofits that provide services to immigrant communities—Aldea, RAICES, and the Rapid Defense Network—on behalf of 37 families inside the three detention facilities where ICE holds families. The suit asks for the immediate release of those families as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. “They’re scared,” Cambria said. “They have no actual education of what this disease is, and they start to panic seeing it in the news.”
For weeks, lawyers and activists have demanded that ICE release adults from detention facilities before the virus spreads. So far, two immigrants have tested positive for COVID-19 in immigration detention centers in New Jersey; nationwide, five detention center employees have tested positive for the virus. Advocates fear that when the virus enters these facilities, it could infect hundreds or thousands confined to those spaces, which are essentially jails.
According to Cambria, the family at Berks has been especially worried over the past week. After the trip to the hospital, the girl’s parents weren’t updated on their daughter’s diagnosis, didn’t see any test results, and couldn’t even say with certainty that their daughter was indeed tested for COVID-19 at the hospital. With permission from the family, attorneys with Aldea tried to get medical information from ICE but were unsuccessful. The mother wasn’t allowed to keep any paperwork or medications that were given to her after her daughter was released from the hospital.
On Thursday, the mother and child were taken out of quarantine. Still, the family didn’t know what the result of the test. Then, on Friday afternoon, in the email response to my questions for this story, ICE officials said “the family unit Covid-19 test results are negative.” I informed Cambria once I received the email; she would be the first person to tell the family that the five-year-old wasn’t sick with COVID-19.
Cambria told me the families at Berks have complained that they don’t have access to enough sanitizer or cleaning supplies, echoing complaints at detention facilities for adults.
Like the nation’s two other family detention centers, Berks has been criticized for its unsafe and unsanitary conditions and for the lack of proper medical care there—all the more worrisome as the coronavirus continues to spread. Cambria told me the families at Berks have complained that they don’t have access to enough sanitizer or cleaning supplies, echoing complaints at detention facilities for adults; one Cuban asylum seeker told my colleague Noah Lanard last week that “if coronavirus gets in here…it’s going to be a massacre.”
ICE officials told me that Berks has “temporarily suspended new intakes” and “no residents or staff members are symptomatic.” The agency is “screening potential exposure among detainees” and continuing to follow CDC guidelines.
As of Friday, 39 people were held there, ICE said. That’s 14 families with children as young as six months old, Cambria said. She urged ICE to release the families who have already been isolated for weeks so they can shelter in place outside of immigration detention centers, for the safety of the families and the ICE employees going in and out every day.
“Children can’t social distance on their own. They’re going to put things in their mouth. They’re going to touch other children,” Cambria said. “It’s not like people can go to a different room to be by themselves.”