motherjones--2020-05-18--A Top Obama-Biden Aide Slams Trump for Missing the Moment for “Economic Dignity”

Gene Sperling was a top economic adviser to both President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama .
In those positions , he was deeply involved in many of the key economic policy battles of the past few decades .
During the Clinton years , he helped bring about an expansion of the earned income tax credit—a major anti-poverty measure—and the creation of the Children ’ s Health Insurance Program .
In the Obama White House , he worked closely with the president and vice president to rescue the economy after the crash of 2008 , and he battled fiercely with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care , and the debt ceiling .
Sperling has long been known in Washington as a leading economic policy wonk .
Such people tend to be seen as men and women who focus on numbers and who argue about theories the rest of us can barely understand .
But in his new book , out this month , Economic Dignity , Sperling challenges that stereotype .
In a well-written and accessible style , Sperling argues that the main goal of economic policy should not focus on measurements such as the the Gross @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These are just means to an end , he insists .
The ultimate aim for economic policy , he says , ought to be developing and strengthening a society in which people live worthwhile lives , enjoying family , pursuing purpose and happiness , feeling important and autonomous .
This is not how the average economist talks .
Has Sperling goner soft ?
In a conversation with him about his new book , I ask Sperling how he defines “ economic dignity ” and how Donald Trump ’ s response to the economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to this standard .
His definition is basic : “ I talk about three pillars .
One , the capacity to care for family and be there for life ’ s most precious moments , happy or sad .
Two , do each of us have a first and second chance to pursue potential purpose and meaning ?
And , three , very important , do we have the power and protections to contribute to the economy with respect and not [ be victims of ] domination and humiliation.
” Noting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of low-wage worker , Sperling remarks , ” I do believe this is our economic dignity moment.
” And , no surprise , Trump is not meeting the challenge .
Sperling notes that the pandemic relief bills that have been coming out of Congress have “ taken some small steps in the right direction ” when it comes to economic dignity .
They have included paid sick leave for about half of Americans and expanded the usually lousy unemployment benefits for laid-off workers .
But , he points out , instead of implementing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sick leave for all , “ there ’ s been this focus on money to large companies without accountability ” and proposals to help business executives deduct meals .
“ More than anything we need to keep working families and children whole , ” Sperling explains .
In his book , Sperling makes the case that a fixation on stats about jobs or median wages discounts the human story of the economy .
He says , “ You will miss the fact that what crushes a lot of people ’ s sense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or a single time when everything falls apart .
And instead of us having a sort of economic dignity net to catch people , we see people lose their jobs , their houses , their health case .
It is just not the case in other countries that a plant closing or losing your job is this devastating to one ’ s larger economic security and economic dignity .
We ’ re taking baby or small steps there .
The real question is whether this moment is going to compel a national movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can a President Biden then seize that moment.
” That is , if there is a President Biden .
But back to the book .
In it , Sperling offers a statement that might come across as sacrilegious to many economists : “ Economic growth by itself should never be considered an appropriate ultimate end goal for economic policy.
” Can he sell this to other economic policy wonks ?
Sperling , the optimist , thinks so .
He insists that goal of economic policy should be to raise up all people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t lift all boats : “ Growth goes up and just goes to the 1 percent—that can ’ t be your end goal .
If you look at rising wages , you might miss the degree of domination and humiliation people suffer at work.
” Poultry workers are not allowed to go to the bathroom during their shifts .
Female janitors face high rates of sexual violence .
“ When we see Amazon warehouse workers treated through micro-efficiency analysis and not recognized for their full humanity we know we have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explains .
One bottom line , Sperling says , is that people must have “ the economic power to say take this job and shove it , ” whether or not that can fit into a labor trend statistic .
But is he using his economic dignity catch-phrase as merely cover for the usual set of progressive Democratic policy initiatives ?
No , he says , explaining that he is attempting to establish a North Star or an overarching values-frame : “ It ’ s not just about putting food on the table @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be at the table .
Be at the bedtime story .
Be at the bedside of your parents in their final days .
These are the things that are equally meaningful to all of us , regardless of our economic station .
We should have an economic policy that allows all people to appreciate that .
And we don ’ t .
Economic deprivation denies people these basic life experiences.
” Sperling considers the “ greatest dignity wound ” for a parent is “ to not be able to care for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they did not have full health care.
” He believes that should be seen as a first-tier economic policy challenge .
But he recalls that when he was in the Obama White House a member of congress—he won ’ t say who—once called him and said , “ Can you get President Obama to stop talking about health care and focus on the economy.
” This was a clarifying experience for Sperling : “ I thought , ‘ wow , not only are they ranking health care lower than I did , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the economy.
’ And the idea that the economy is a separate thing with productivity and GDP metrics as opposed to whether people can live their lives with this form of economic dignity—I think that was the moment when I said to myself , ‘ when I leave [ government ] I want to step back and remind people… [ that we should ] focus on what matters most in people ’ s lives…even if they can ’ t find it in the most recent monthly economic metric . '
” During @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consulted with several of the Democratic candidates on policy .
He certainly has a relationship with Joe Biden and members of his policy crew .
So how is he now counseling Biden ?
Sperling won ’ t tell .
But with his book in hand , he does have plenty of public advice for Biden , should the ex-veep become the top dog in the White House .
Keeping with the old adage that one should never let a crisis go to waste , Sperling notes that January 2021 would be a propitious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the jobs lost during the coronavirus pandemic will return .
“ That means the next president will have a mandate that is broadly shared to create the new jobs , ” Sperling says .
It ’ s no secret that Biden has been considering plans for a New Deal-ish FDR-sized presidency .
Any major push for jobs will come with the opportunity to talk about…yes , economic dignity .
It will be a good time , Sperling points outs , to ask these questions : “ Is it right that people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than one of ten of them can take a week of paid leave off for their own children ?
Is it right that health care workers don ’ t often have paid sick leave ?
Or that one in eight working women come back to work after a birth within one week ?
” For now , economic dignity is an idea that Sperling eloquently describes in his book .
He ’ s hoping that in several months it could become the guiding principle for a new presidency .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Gene Sperling was a top economic adviser to both President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama. In those positions, he was deeply involved in many of the key economic policy battles of the past few decades. During the Clinton years, he helped bring about an expansion of the earned income tax credit—a major anti-poverty measure—and the creation of the Children’s Health Insurance Program. In the Obama White House, he worked closely with the president and vice president to rescue the economy after the crash of 2008, and he battled fiercely with congressional Republicans over budgets, taxes, health care, and the debt ceiling.
Sperling has long been known in Washington as a leading economic policy wonk. Such people tend to be seen as men and women who focus on numbers and who argue about theories the rest of us can barely understand. But in his new book, out this month, Economic Dignity, Sperling challenges that stereotype. In a well-written and accessible style, Sperling argues that the main goal of economic policy should not focus on measurements such as the the Gross Domestic Product or the unemployment rate. These are just means to an end, he insists. The ultimate aim for economic policy, he says, ought to be developing and strengthening a society in which people live worthwhile lives, enjoying family, pursuing purpose and happiness, feeling important and autonomous.
Listen to the latest episode of the Mother Jones Podcast: Subscribe using Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
This is not how the average economist talks. Has Sperling goner soft? In a conversation with him about his new book, I ask Sperling how he defines “economic dignity” and how Donald Trump’s response to the economic calamity caused by the coronavirus pandemic measures up to this standard. His definition is basic: “I talk about three pillars. One, the capacity to care for family and be there for life’s most precious moments, happy or sad. Two, do each of us have a first and second chance to pursue potential purpose and meaning? And, three, very important, do we have the power and protections to contribute to the economy with respect and not [be victims of] domination and humiliation.” Noting that the coronavirus crisis has highlighted the importance of low-wage worker, Sperling remarks, ” I do believe this is our economic dignity moment.” And, no surprise, Trump is not meeting the challenge.
Sperling explains in this clip:
Sperling notes that the pandemic relief bills that have been coming out of Congress have “taken some small steps in the right direction” when it comes to economic dignity. They have included paid sick leave for about half of Americans and expanded the usually lousy unemployment benefits for laid-off workers. But, he points out, instead of implementing hazard pay and ensuring health care and sick leave for all, “there’s been this focus on money to large companies without accountability” and proposals to help business executives deduct meals. “More than anything we need to keep working families and children whole,” Sperling explains.
In his book, Sperling makes the case that a fixation on stats about jobs or median wages discounts the human story of the economy. He says, “You will miss the fact that what crushes a lot of people’s sense of economic dignity is often a single moment or a single time when everything falls apart. And instead of us having a sort of economic dignity net to catch people, we see people lose their jobs, their houses, their health case. It is just not the case in other countries that a plant closing or losing your job is this devastating to one’s larger economic security and economic dignity. We’re taking baby or small steps there. The real question is whether this moment is going to compel a national movement toward a stronger economic dignity net and can a President Biden then seize that moment.”
That is, if there is a President Biden. But back to the book. In it, Sperling offers a statement that might come across as sacrilegious to many economists: “Economic growth by itself should never be considered an appropriate ultimate end goal for economic policy.” Can he sell this to other economic policy wonks? Sperling, the optimist, thinks so. He insists that goal of economic policy should be to raise up all people. A rising tide, he notes, doesn’t lift all boats: “Growth goes up and just goes to the 1 percent—that can’t be your end goal. If you look at rising wages, you might miss the degree of domination and humiliation people suffer at work.” Poultry workers are not allowed to go to the bathroom during their shifts. Female janitors face high rates of sexual violence. “When we see Amazon warehouse workers treated through micro-efficiency analysis and not recognized for their full humanity we know we have a lot further to go,” he explains.
One bottom line, Sperling says, is that people must have “the economic power to say take this job and shove it,” whether or not that can fit into a labor trend statistic.
But is he using his economic dignity catch-phrase as merely cover for the usual set of progressive Democratic policy initiatives? No, he says, explaining that he is attempting to establish a North Star or an overarching values-frame: “It’s not just about putting food on the table, it’s about whether you can be at the table. Be at the bedtime story. Be at the bedside of your parents in their final days. These are the things that are equally meaningful to all of us, regardless of our economic station. We should have an economic policy that allows all people to appreciate that. And we don’t. Economic deprivation denies people these basic life experiences.”
Sperling considers the “greatest dignity wound” for a parent is “to not be able to care for a sick child or a child with disabilities because they did not have full health care.” He believes that should be seen as a first-tier economic policy challenge. But he recalls that when he was in the Obama White House a member of congress—he won’t say who—once called him and said, “Can you get President Obama to stop talking about health care and focus on the economy.” This was a clarifying experience for Sperling: “I thought, ‘wow, not only are they ranking health care lower than I did, it doesn’t even qualify as about the economy.’ And the idea that the economy is a separate thing with productivity and GDP metrics as opposed to whether people can live their lives with this form of economic dignity—I think that was the moment when I said to myself, ‘when I leave [government] I want to step back and remind people…[that we should] focus on what matters most in people’s lives…even if they can’t find it in the most recent monthly economic metric.'”
During the 2020 presidential campaign, Sperling has consulted with several of the Democratic candidates on policy. He certainly has a relationship with Joe Biden and members of his policy crew. So how is he now counseling Biden? Sperling won’t tell. But with his book in hand, he does have plenty of public advice for Biden, should the ex-veep become the top dog in the White House. Keeping with the old adage that one should never let a crisis go to waste, Sperling notes that January 2021 would be a propitious time for a victorious Biden. Not all the jobs lost during the coronavirus pandemic will return. “That means the next president will have a mandate that is broadly shared to create the new jobs,” Sperling says. It’s no secret that Biden has been considering plans for a New Deal-ish FDR-sized presidency. Any major push for jobs will come with the opportunity to talk about…yes, economic dignity. It will be a good time, Sperling points outs, to ask these questions: “Is it right that people who care for our children, that less than one of ten of them can take a week of paid leave off for their own children? Is it right that health care workers don’t often have paid sick leave? Or that one in eight working women come back to work after a birth within one week?”
Here’s Sperling’s vision:
For now, economic dignity is an idea that Sperling eloquently describes in his book. He’s hoping that in several months it could become the guiding principle for a new presidency.


motherjones--2020-05-19--How Bill Barr Deceitfully Rewrites History to Give Trump What He Craves

Bill Barr is at it again .
Donald Trump ’ s attorney general is trying to depict himself as a nonpartisan , just-doing-my-job law enforcement official , even as he ruthlessly and relentlessly pursues a political agenda designed to rewrite history and save his boss .
Barr has spent over a year crusading to discredit the Trump-Russia investigation and nullify Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s probe .
In recent weeks , his Justice Department has moved to limit the sentencing for Roger Stone , the longtime Trump confidant convicted of lying to Congress in the Russia probe , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Flynn , Trump ’ s first national security adviser who had already pleaded guilty of lying to the FBI .
Barr has repeatedly voiced suspicions about the origins of the FBI ’ s Russia investigation—providing support to Trump and other conspiracy theorists who claim it was all a set-up engineered by a supposed Deep State to thwart Trump .
He has assigned John Durham , the US attorney for Connecticut , to investigate the investigation and pressed governments overseas for information to bolster Trump ’ s crackpot claim that the Russia inquiry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bureaucratic warfare to discredit a probe that confirmed Russia attacked the 2016 election to help Trump and that landed top Trump lieutenants in the slammer .
The big goal : to erase this double-taint on Trump ’ s presidency , for that is what Trump desperately craves .
( Barr ’ s stance also has the effect of drawing attention from the fact that Russia , according to top intelligence officials , is back for a repeat performance and intervening in the 2020 election . )
Barr conducts this deceitful game slyly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undefined term Trump tosses about to suggest , without evidence , that President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden spied on him and his campaign and used the FBI to mount a phony investigation of his campaign ’ s contacts with Russia .
( A recent FBI inspector general ’ s report , which criticized the FBI for one aspect of this investigation , concluded that the bureau ’ s probe had not been politically motivated . )
Barr ’ s statements and actions have fueled the right ’ s paranoid fantasy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation itself , not the Russian attack , the Trump campaign ’ s false denials of Russian involvement , or the interactions between Trump ’ s circle and Russia during the 2016 election .
Yet as Barr enables and empowers this nonsense , he is endeavoring to come across reasonable .
On Monday , during a press conference , Barr stated , “ As to President Obama and Vice President Biden , whatever their level of involvement based on the information I have today , I don ’ t expect Mr. Durham ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation of either man.
” The media took the bait .
Fox News posted a story headlined , “ Barr says he does not expect criminal investigation of Obama or Biden as result of Durham probe.
” NPR did the same : “ Barr Doesn ’ t Expect Russia Probe To Lead To Criminal Investigation Of Obama Or Biden.
” You see what Barr did there ?
He addressed Trump ’ s cockamamie “ Obamagate ” hogwash as a legitimate question .
By generating headlines that place Obama and Biden in the vicinity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helped spread the impression that Trump and his campaign are trying to convey : these guys are crooked .
To some , it might seem Barr was throwing cold water on Trump ’ s new line of attack .
Yet Barr was treating it as a serious matter , not dismissing it as hokum .
For Trump and others looking to orchestrate a bogus scandal to exploit in the fight against Biden , Barr was keeping hope alive .
In this public appearance , Barr also provided Trump ’ s conservative chorus of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened to the president in the 2016 election and throughout the first two years of his administration was abhorrent , ” Barr said .
“ It was a grave injustice and it was unprecedented in American history.
” Here was the attorney general confirming Trump ’ s claim of victimhood , saying , yes , there was a witch hunt .
Moreover , Barr maintained that during 2016 campaign , federal law enforcement officials advanced a “ false and utterly basis Russian collusion narrative against the president.
” Wait a second .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was echoing the essence of the “ Obamagate ” bunk : the FBI conspired against Trump in 2016 .
The bureau , however , throughout the campaign did nothing to advance a narrative against Trump .
In fact , it did the opposite .
After the FBI ( not the Obama White House ) launched an investigation of Russian interference in the election and possible connections between Trumpers and Moscow in late July 2016—once again , the IG said this probe was not started for any political purpose—the bureau kept this sensitive inquiry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do by law and regulations ) .
It pushed out no narratives on this front .
Everything was hush-hush .
Moreover , during the campaign , the FBI did publicly confirm its investigation of Hillary Clinton ’ s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state , and FBI chief Jim Comey , in an unprecedented move , issued a blistering criticism of Clinton , when he announced that criminal investigation would not yield a prosecution .
His actions did advance an FBI “ narrative ” unfavorable for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a fashion .
When House Democrats in September 2016 pressed Comey on whether there was any investigation of contacts between Trump ’ s crew and Russia , the FBI director refused to answer the question and reveal the ongoing probe .
And when the New York Times caught wind of the investigation , the FBI downplayed the inquiry , telling the newspaper ( via unnamed officials ) that there were no conclusive links between Trump and the Russian government and that Moscow ’ s war on the election was aimed at disrupting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As it turned out , the Trump campaign had met with a Russian emissary and been told Moscow was trying to secretly help Trump ’ s presidential bid , and Trump , through his lawyer , had privately sought assistance from Vladimir Putin ’ s office for a huge business venture in Moscow , while Trump was campaigning for the presidency . )
So the FBI , contrary to Barr ’ s assertion , did not orchestrate a Trump-Russia narrative to shape the 2016 election .
I know this for a fact .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown a copy of what ’ s now known as the Steele dossier .
These memos , written by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele , who had been hired by a research firm paid by the Democrats , contained allegations that Russia was seeking to covertly influence the election to boost Trump and that Trump was in cahoots with the Kremlin and possibly compromised by Moscow .
I interviewed Steele , who told me , accurately , that the FBI was investigating allegations in his memos .
I contacted the bureau to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was pursuing this matter and conducting some sort of Trump-Russia investigation .
All I received was a no-comment .
The bureau was not encouraging any reporting on this .
And after I posted an article revealing the FBI ’ s investigation and Steele ’ s memos , I obtained a copy of the documents and sent them to the FBI ( which already had them ) to prove I had the dossier and to see if now the bureau might discuss the memos .
Once again , nothing .
We should long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ active steps to quash Trump ’ s presidential bid .
It did not leak damning information about its Trump-Russia investigation .
It did not leak the Steele memos .
Yet it has become an article of faith within the dark fever swamps of the Trumpian right that the FBI—and now the story includes Obama and Biden—plotted to hatch a fake investigation to block Trump from winning the election .
( Some of Trump ’ s conspiracy mongering promotes the unfounded notion that Ukraine , not Russia , hacked the Democrats to subvert the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to these disinformation peddlers that the FBI ( and Obama ! )
did not use this investigation during the campaign to stop Trump .
Of course , there ’ s another inconvenient data point for this gang : the FBI ’ s big October Surprise undermined Clinton , not Trump .
Less than two weeks before Election Day , Comey notified GOP lawmakers that the bureau had revived its once-laid-to-rest investigation of Clinton ’ s emails , and though nothing panned out , the announcement reanimated a controversy and hobbled the final days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , how can one argue that the FBI was run by a cabal of Trump-haters who would do anything—including manufacturing a fraudulent probe—to prevent him from reaching the White House ?
If this were the case , why did these Deep Staters and Obama and Biden go through such machinations but then not pull the trigger and use the Trump-Russia investigation against Trump ?
Why did they follow the rules and say and leak nothing ?
Well , logic is not at play in all this .
Obamagate is a fiction designed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you by the guy who exploited racist birtherism as a path into presidential politics and who then led red-faced supporters in angry and demagogic chants of “ lock her up.
” Trump and his minions have been engineering false counter-narratives since the campaign to hide truths that are in plain sight .
Reality , facts—they don ’ t matter .
Neither do rules and norms .
Nearly a hundred thousand dead Americans don ’ t count .
The only thing of consequence is the spin and the story , true or not , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has become the chief driver of Trump ’ s say-whatever-it-takes bus .
He is the Roy Cohn Trump has yearned for .
After the Justice Department took steps to dump the Flynn case , Barr , during a media interview , noted , with a chuckle , that “ history is written by the winners.
” But Barr is a clever and wily fellow who knows that formula can be flipped .
He is adhering to the rule employed by authoritarians that George Orwell described in 1984 : “ Who controls the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his immense power as the head of the Justice Department , Barr is attempting mightily to rewrite history to improve Trump ’ s chance of being a winner in the fall .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Bill Barr is at it again. Donald Trump’s attorney general is trying to depict himself as a nonpartisan, just-doing-my-job law enforcement official, even as he ruthlessly and relentlessly pursues a political agenda designed to rewrite history and save his boss.
Barr has spent over a year crusading to discredit the Trump-Russia investigation and nullify Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe. In recent weeks, his Justice Department has moved to limit the sentencing for Roger Stone, the longtime Trump confidant convicted of lying to Congress in the Russia probe, and attempted to drop entirely the case against Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser who had already pleaded guilty of lying to the FBI. Barr has repeatedly voiced suspicions about the origins of the FBI’s Russia investigation—providing support to Trump and other conspiracy theorists who claim it was all a set-up engineered by a supposed Deep State to thwart Trump. He has assigned John Durham, the US attorney for Connecticut, to investigate the investigation and pressed governments overseas for information to bolster Trump’s crackpot claim that the Russia inquiry was a hoax. Barr has waged bureaucratic warfare to discredit a probe that confirmed Russia attacked the 2016 election to help Trump and that landed top Trump lieutenants in the slammer. The big goal: to erase this double-taint on Trump’s presidency, for that is what Trump desperately craves. (Barr’s stance also has the effect of drawing attention from the fact that Russia, according to top intelligence officials, is back for a repeat performance and intervening in the 2020 election.)
Barr conducts this deceitful game slyly, playing footsie with “Obamagate”—the undefined term Trump tosses about to suggest, without evidence, that President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden spied on him and his campaign and used the FBI to mount a phony investigation of his campaign’s contacts with Russia. (A recent FBI inspector general’s report, which criticized the FBI for one aspect of this investigation, concluded that the bureau’s probe had not been politically motivated.) Barr’s statements and actions have fueled the right’s paranoid fantasy that the real scandal is the Russia investigation itself, not the Russian attack, the Trump campaign’s false denials of Russian involvement, or the interactions between Trump’s circle and Russia during the 2016 election. Yet as Barr enables and empowers this nonsense, he is endeavoring to come across reasonable.
On Monday, during a press conference, Barr stated, “As to President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man.” The media took the bait. Fox News posted a story headlined, “Barr says he does not expect criminal investigation of Obama or Biden as result of Durham probe.” NPR did the same: “Barr Doesn’t Expect Russia Probe To Lead To Criminal Investigation Of Obama Or Biden.” You see what Barr did there? He addressed Trump’s cockamamie “Obamagate” hogwash as a legitimate question. By generating headlines that place Obama and Biden in the vicinity of “criminal investigation,” he helped spread the impression that Trump and his campaign are trying to convey: these guys are crooked. To some, it might seem Barr was throwing cold water on Trump’s new line of attack. Yet Barr was treating it as a serious matter, not dismissing it as hokum. For Trump and others looking to orchestrate a bogus scandal to exploit in the fight against Biden, Barr was keeping hope alive.
In this public appearance, Barr also provided Trump’s conservative chorus of conspiracy with direct sustenance. “What happened to the president in the 2016 election and throughout the first two years of his administration was abhorrent,” Barr said. “It was a grave injustice and it was unprecedented in American history.” Here was the attorney general confirming Trump’s claim of victimhood, saying, yes, there was a witch hunt. Moreover, Barr maintained that during 2016 campaign, federal law enforcement officials advanced a “false and utterly basis Russian collusion narrative against the president.”
Wait a second. No such thing happened. Barr, though was echoing the essence of the “Obamagate” bunk: the FBI conspired against Trump in 2016. The bureau, however, throughout the campaign did nothing to advance a narrative against Trump. In fact, it did the opposite. After the FBI (not the Obama White House) launched an investigation of Russian interference in the election and possible connections between Trumpers and Moscow in late July 2016—once again, the IG said this probe was not started for any political purpose—the bureau kept this sensitive inquiry a secret (as it was compelled to do by law and regulations). It pushed out no narratives on this front. Everything was hush-hush. Moreover, during the campaign, the FBI did publicly confirm its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state, and FBI chief Jim Comey, in an unprecedented move, issued a blistering criticism of Clinton, when he announced that criminal investigation would not yield a prosecution. His actions did advance an FBI “narrative” unfavorable for Clinton.
Trump was not inconvenienced in such a fashion. When House Democrats in September 2016 pressed Comey on whether there was any investigation of contacts between Trump’s crew and Russia, the FBI director refused to answer the question and reveal the ongoing probe. And when the New York Times caught wind of the investigation, the FBI downplayed the inquiry, telling the newspaper (via unnamed officials) that there were no conclusive links between Trump and the Russian government and that Moscow’s war on the election was aimed at disrupting American democracy not electing Trump. (As it turned out, the Trump campaign had met with a Russian emissary and been told Moscow was trying to secretly help Trump’s presidential bid, and Trump, through his lawyer, had privately sought assistance from Vladimir Putin’s office for a huge business venture in Moscow, while Trump was campaigning for the presidency.)
So the FBI, contrary to Barr’s assertion, did not orchestrate a Trump-Russia narrative to shape the 2016 election. I know this for a fact. In late October 2016, I was shown a copy of what’s now known as the Steele dossier. These memos, written by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who had been hired by a research firm paid by the Democrats, contained allegations that Russia was seeking to covertly influence the election to boost Trump and that Trump was in cahoots with the Kremlin and possibly compromised by Moscow. I interviewed Steele, who told me, accurately, that the FBI was investigating allegations in his memos. I contacted the bureau to see if it would confirm—perhaps on background—that it was pursuing this matter and conducting some sort of Trump-Russia investigation. All I received was a no-comment. The bureau was not encouraging any reporting on this. And after I posted an article revealing the FBI’s investigation and Steele’s memos, I obtained a copy of the documents and sent them to the FBI (which already had them) to prove I had the dossier and to see if now the bureau might discuss the memos. Once again, nothing.
We should long be past debating whether the FBI took active steps to quash Trump’s presidential bid. It did not leak damning information about its Trump-Russia investigation. It did not leak the Steele memos. Yet it has become an article of faith within the dark fever swamps of the Trumpian right that the FBI—and now the story includes Obama and Biden—plotted to hatch a fake investigation to block Trump from winning the election. (Some of Trump’s conspiracy mongering promotes the unfounded notion that Ukraine, not Russia, hacked the Democrats to subvert the election.) It does not matter to these disinformation peddlers that the FBI (and Obama!) did not use this investigation during the campaign to stop Trump. Of course, there’s another inconvenient data point for this gang: the FBI’s big October Surprise undermined Clinton, not Trump. Less than two weeks before Election Day, Comey notified GOP lawmakers that the bureau had revived its once-laid-to-rest investigation of Clinton’s emails, and though nothing panned out, the announcement reanimated a controversy and hobbled the final days of Clinton’s campaign.
After that, how can one argue that the FBI was run by a cabal of Trump-haters who would do anything—including manufacturing a fraudulent probe—to prevent him from reaching the White House? If this were the case, why did these Deep Staters and Obama and Biden go through such machinations but then not pull the trigger and use the Trump-Russia investigation against Trump? Why did they follow the rules and say and leak nothing? Well, logic is not at play in all this. Obamagate is a fiction designed to deflect and distract, brought to you by the guy who exploited racist birtherism as a path into presidential politics and who then led red-faced supporters in angry and demagogic chants of “lock her up.” Trump and his minions have been engineering false counter-narratives since the campaign to hide truths that are in plain sight. Reality, facts—they don’t matter. Neither do rules and norms. Nearly a hundred thousand dead Americans don’t count. The only thing of consequence is the spin and the story, true or not, that can be sold. And Barr has become the chief driver of Trump’s say-whatever-it-takes bus. He is the Roy Cohn Trump has yearned for.
After the Justice Department took steps to dump the Flynn case, Barr, during a media interview, noted, with a chuckle, that “history is written by the winners.” But Barr is a clever and wily fellow who knows that formula can be flipped. He is adhering to the rule employed by authoritarians that George Orwell described in 1984: “Who controls the past controls the future.” Using and abusing his immense power as the head of the Justice Department, Barr is attempting mightily to rewrite history to improve Trump’s chance of being a winner in the fall.


motherjones--2020-05-20--Progressives Are Fighting for the Heart and Mind of Joe Biden’s Foreign Policy

When Joe Biden ’ s campaign released an ad last month bashing Donald Trump ’ s slow response to the coronavirus pandemic , the response was immediate and damning—from progressive Democrats .
Asian American advocacy groups were quick to notice the spot ’ s language— ” Trump rolled over for the Chinese , ” the ad ’ s grim narration notes at one point—which was trading on xenophobia at a time of rising racism against Asian Americans .
What came next is an example of the slow-footed but consistent way Biden and his advisers have responded to the progressive left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listened and—ever so slightly—adjusted .
When Biden released a follow-up ad last week , no mention was made of “ the Chinese ” or of Trump ’ s travel ban , which Biden ’ s campaign had blasted as “ not exactly airtight ” in the first ad .
Democrats have not united around a standard message on China even as Republicans have grown increasingly harsh in their rhetoric about the Chinese Communist Party and its leader , Xi Jinping .
Biden ’ s ability to pivot from a hawkish ad to one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a whole was reassuring to progressives who have sought to find common ground with his campaign since Bernie Sanders , his chief Democratic primary rival , ended his presidential bid last month .
“ I think the shift in messaging shows they heard the concerns loud and clear , ” Matt Duss , Sanders ’ foreign policy adviser , said .
Foreign policy had been a backwater issue for much of the Democratic presidential primary and has only recently emerged as a general election issue as Biden and Trump have traded barbs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus .
Instead the spotlight went to intra-party friction on domestic issues such as health care , economic reform , and criminal justice .
When the Biden campaign rolled out six “ unity task forces ” with Sanders last week , the focus was limited to those key domestic policy issues on which Sanders , and the progressive movement more broadly , has noticeable contrasts with Biden .
“ There could have been eight or 10 working groups , ” Faiz Shakir , Sanders ’ campaign manager , said .
“ You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can chew , and we chose areas where there has been healthy debate in the Democratic Party.
” But behind the scenes , progressive groups have kept in touch with Biden ’ s advisers to test out how much his views have changed since he left government , most recently on a Wednesday call with two of his foreign policy advisers .
This formal conversation had been preceded by a number of informal conversations that liberal operatives have had with Biden advisers such as Jake Sullivan , who served on Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While the lack of public-facing working groups has been a source of irritation for scholars and activists seeking an audience with the campaign , key left-leaning players have not struggled to connect with the Biden camp .
Biden is not perfectly aligned with Sanders and other Democrats like Elizabeth Warren on foreign policy .
No one has forgotten that he voted for the Iraq War .
But on issues where there is a growing consensus within the party , such as reducing US military commitments overseas and ending support for Saudi Arabia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has moved toward the progressive view that US interventions abroad often cause more harm than good and that climate change and pandemics ought to be a greater national security priority than counterterrorism .
Last year , Biden called on the United States to end its material support for Saudi Arabia ’ s catastrophic intervention into Yemen ’ s civil war , a reversal of the Obama administration ’ s decision to support the Saudis with funding , weapons , and mid-air refueling .
Biden , who once nearly took on a “ mentor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Salman , has been much more critical of Saudi leadership in recent months , saying last year that , as president , he would make Saudi Arabia into a “ pariah.
” His shift on Saudi Arabia mirrors a turn within the party , especially among former Obama officials , away from the longtime US ally .
In November 2018 , 30 senior Obama national security officials signed a letter urging an end to American support for the war in Yemen .
Among the signatories were three former Biden advisers—Tony Blinken , Colin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key roles coordinating foreign policy issues for the campaign .
The same officials Biden might turn to for advice in a future administration have often been forthright about their own evolution on issues like Saudi Arabia through public forums such as the Pod Save the World podcast from Crooked Media .
Those conversations show “ a level of self-accountability that you have never seen from the architects of the Iraq War , ” Duss said , “ which was obviously a far bigger and vastly more consequential blunder.
” There are still areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive flank is much starker .
Last year , Sanders argued in favor of conditioning US aid to Israel on a “ change ” in policies in the Gaza Strip , where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ’ s government has expanded the construction of settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law .
Biden said the idea of conditioning aid to one of America ’ s closest allies was “ absolutely outrageous ” and doubled down on his position as recently as this week .
At a virtual fundraiser hosted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jewish studies professor , Biden said , “ Criticism of Israel ’ s policy is not anti-Semitism.
” But in a possible nod to controversies that have engulfed liberals like Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-Minn. ) , he added , “ But too often that criticism from the left morphs into anti-Semitism.
” A May 11 letter from dozens of progressive and antiwar advocacy groups outlined other flashpoint issues , including an increase in refugee admissions , a slimmer Pentagon budget , and support for a repeal of the 2001 Authorization for Use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to end America ’ s “ forever wars ” and said the United States “ should not impose regime change on other countries , ” but it ’ s not clear that he is as bullish as progressives are when it comes to cutting defense spending .
In November , he told Military Times that the United States can “ maintain a strong defense and protect our safety and security for less , ” but said the central question is “ not how much we invest—it ’ s how we invest.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security promises Biden will or won ’ t make , of equal concern is who he might appoint to key posts within his administration with broad jurisdiction over the country ’ s foreign policy agenda .
Given that he was once chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the face of a number of Obama ’ s diplomatic missions , there ’ s good reason to believe a President Biden would personally oversee many of his own initiatives or appoint longtime , like-minded loyalists to his cabinet and other high-level roles .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who serve as assistant secretaries or in policy positions in the Defense Department or CIA , could be key figures for progressives to exercise influence over .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
When Joe Biden’s campaign released an ad last month bashing Donald Trump’s slow response to the coronavirus pandemic, the response was immediate and damning—from progressive Democrats. Asian American advocacy groups were quick to notice the spot’s language—”Trump rolled over for the Chinese,” the ad’s grim narration notes at one point—which was trading on xenophobia at a time of rising racism against Asian Americans.
What came next is an example of the slow-footed but consistent way Biden and his advisers have responded to the progressive left on matters of foreign policy. They listened and—ever so slightly—adjusted. When Biden released a follow-up ad last week, no mention was made of “the Chinese” or of Trump’s travel ban, which Biden’s campaign had blasted as “not exactly airtight” in the first ad.
Democrats have not united around a standard message on China even as Republicans have grown increasingly harsh in their rhetoric about the Chinese Communist Party and its leader, Xi Jinping. Biden’s ability to pivot from a hawkish ad to one more subdued in its treatment of China as a whole was reassuring to progressives who have sought to find common ground with his campaign since Bernie Sanders, his chief Democratic primary rival, ended his presidential bid last month.
“I think the shift in messaging shows they heard the concerns loud and clear,” Matt Duss, Sanders’ foreign policy adviser, said.
Foreign policy had been a backwater issue for much of the Democratic presidential primary and has only recently emerged as a general election issue as Biden and Trump have traded barbs over China and the origin of the coronavirus. Instead the spotlight went to intra-party friction on domestic issues such as health care, economic reform, and criminal justice. When the Biden campaign rolled out six “unity task forces” with Sanders last week, the focus was limited to those key domestic policy issues on which Sanders, and the progressive movement more broadly, has noticeable contrasts with Biden. “There could have been eight or 10 working groups,” Faiz Shakir, Sanders’ campaign manager, said. “You can’t bite off more than we can chew, and we chose areas where there has been healthy debate in the Democratic Party.”
But behind the scenes, progressive groups have kept in touch with Biden’s advisers to test out how much his views have changed since he left government, most recently on a Wednesday call with two of his foreign policy advisers. This formal conversation had been preceded by a number of informal conversations that liberal operatives have had with Biden advisers such as Jake Sullivan, who served on Biden’s national security team during the Obama administration. While the lack of public-facing working groups has been a source of irritation for scholars and activists seeking an audience with the campaign, key left-leaning players have not struggled to connect with the Biden camp.
Biden is not perfectly aligned with Sanders and other Democrats like Elizabeth Warren on foreign policy. No one has forgotten that he voted for the Iraq War. But on issues where there is a growing consensus within the party, such as reducing US military commitments overseas and ending support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, Biden has moved toward the progressive view that US interventions abroad often cause more harm than good and that climate change and pandemics ought to be a greater national security priority than counterterrorism.
Last year, Biden called on the United States to end its material support for Saudi Arabia’s catastrophic intervention into Yemen’s civil war, a reversal of the Obama administration’s decision to support the Saudis with funding, weapons, and mid-air refueling. Biden, who once nearly took on a “mentor” role to Saudi prince Mohammed bin Salman, has been much more critical of Saudi leadership in recent months, saying last year that, as president, he would make Saudi Arabia into a “pariah.”
His shift on Saudi Arabia mirrors a turn within the party, especially among former Obama officials, away from the longtime US ally. In November 2018, 30 senior Obama national security officials signed a letter urging an end to American support for the war in Yemen. Among the signatories were three former Biden advisers—Tony Blinken, Colin Kahl, and Jake Sullivan—who now play key roles coordinating foreign policy issues for the campaign. The same officials Biden might turn to for advice in a future administration have often been forthright about their own evolution on issues like Saudi Arabia through public forums such as the Pod Save the World podcast from Crooked Media. Those conversations show “a level of self-accountability that you have never seen from the architects of the Iraq War,” Duss said, “which was obviously a far bigger and vastly more consequential blunder.”
There are still areas where the divide between Biden and the progressive flank is much starker. Last year, Sanders argued in favor of conditioning US aid to Israel on a “change” in policies in the Gaza Strip, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has maintained a blockade. Biden said the idea of conditioning aid to one of America’s closest allies was “absolutely outrageous” and doubled down on his position as recently as this week. At a virtual fundraiser hosted by a former ambassador to Israel and a Jewish studies professor, Biden said, “Criticism of Israel’s policy is not anti-Semitism.” But in a possible nod to controversies that have engulfed liberals like Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), he added, “But too often that criticism from the left morphs into anti-Semitism.”
A May 11 letter from dozens of progressive and antiwar advocacy groups outlined other flashpoint issues, including an increase in refugee admissions, a slimmer Pentagon budget, and support for a repeal of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Biden has promised to end America’s “forever wars” and said the United States “should not impose regime change on other countries,” but it’s not clear that he is as bullish as progressives are when it comes to cutting defense spending. In November, he told Military Times that the United States can “maintain a strong defense and protect our safety and security for less,” but said the central question is “not how much we invest—it’s how we invest.”
But for all the concern over the national security promises Biden will or won’t make, of equal concern is who he might appoint to key posts within his administration with broad jurisdiction over the country’s foreign policy agenda. Given that he was once chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the face of a number of Obama’s diplomatic missions, there’s good reason to believe a President Biden would personally oversee many of his own initiatives or appoint longtime, like-minded loyalists to his cabinet and other high-level roles. But some lower-level appointments, such as those who serve as assistant secretaries or in policy positions in the Defense Department or CIA, could be key figures for progressives to exercise influence over.


motherjones--2020-05-20--Why State Department Employees Despise Mike Pompeo

The most shocking thing about President Donald Trump ’ s decision to fire State Department Inspector General Steve Linick on Friday was how routine and predictable it felt .
Linick , the fourth independent watchdog the president has recently purged , had been investigating Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his wife , Susan , for allegedly misusing staff and had been wrapping up a probe into Trump officials ’ efforts last year to accelerate arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates .
Already unpopular within Pompeo ’ s inner circle thanks to a series of reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials , Linick experienced the same fate that ’ s befallen other qualified , independent-minded bureaucrats in the Trump era .
To the increasingly morose staff of State Department lifers , Linick ’ s demise was one of many sad reminders of how the paranoid regime Pompeo has put into place privileges loyalty over competence .
“ If your body is numb all over , can you still respond to shock ?
” says Tom Countryman , a longtime foreign service officer who served as acting undersecretary for arms control and international security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think it would be difficult to shock State Department employees at this point with anything the president or secretary does.
” In recent months , Pompeo has not even tried to disguise his lack of interest in defending career diplomats from Trump .
He didn ’ t stand up for Marie Yovanovitch—the former ambassador to Ukraine who was pushed out as part of a baseless conspiracy theory painting her as disloyal—after Trump slimed her on Twitter .
Despite being pushed internally by an adviser to issue a statement of support for Yovanovitch , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried to get a response from him in January about it , but Pompeo threw a fit and deflected—far from the first time he ’ s been hostile to the news media when pressed with a tough question .
Part of the reason Pompeo apparently soured on Linick was a “ pattern of unauthorized disclosures , or leaks , ” from the IG ’ s office , Brian Bulatao , the State Department ’ s undersecretary for management , told the Washington Post .
Bulatao also bizarrely criticized Linick for “ not promoting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laying out basic principles of respect and dedication , through training sessions and other activities.
” Pompeo ’ s own defense of the firing was even stranger .
He told the Post that Linick , who took over as State ’ s internal watchdog in 2013 , was not “ performing a function ” that was “ additive for the State Department.
” Linick might not have been beloved—few inspectors general are—but he at least had a track record of fairness , investigating Hillary Clinton ’ s use of private email and Pompeo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Saudis with equal aplomb .
If there was some persuasive justification for canning him , Trump offered no sign of it on Monday when reporters asked about it .
He made no mention of an “ ethos statement ” or “ additive ” function .
In fact , Trump said that he had “ never heard of ” Linick and only fired him after Pompeo recommended it .
While Trump has wide latitude to fire inspectors general for any reason , it is against the law for the secretary of State to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from conducting an investigation .
Pompeo has said he was not aware Linick was investigating whether he misused staff , but he acknowledged during a press conference Wednesday that he had answered questions in writing related to the arms sales probe .
Congressional Democrats have already opened their own investigations into the circumstances of Linick ’ s ouster , and moderate Republicans such as Sens .
Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) and Susan Collins ( R-Maine ) voiced concerns about Trump ’ s decision to remove him seemingly without cause .
In an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ J. Akard , a former adviser to Vice President Mike Pence , as Linick ’ s replacement , despite Akard ’ s existing role as director of State ’ s Office of Foreign Missions .
Akard , a political appointee , will now “ have oversight of and access to all confidential inspector general information , including whistleblower complaints and identities , ” Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-Iowa ) wrote in a letter to Trump on Monday .
Morale in the State Department had already been low in 2018 when Pompeo took over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive who was widely unpopular among State ’ s rank and file .
After promising to restore the “ swagger ” to the department during his first speech as secretary , Pompeo has done the opposite—overseeing a brain drain among career staff and watching his own internal approval ratings plummet .
Senate Republicans , and even Trump himself , have made no secret of their effort to encourage him to run for the open Senate seat in Kansas , though Pompeo has so far refused to enter the race .
“ I hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Maybe Tillerson wasn ’ t so bad , ' ” says Alexandra Bell , a former Obama State Department official who now serves as senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation .
While Tillerson sparked anger by instituting a 16-month hiring freeze and pushing through an unpopular restructuring plan , he was not particularly close with Trump and was valued in some circles for his efforts to push back against the president ’ s isolationist leanings .
Pompeo , on the other hand , is joined at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pertaining to Iran .
But like Tillerson , Pompeo has become neglectful , even scornful , when it comes to filling important State positions with career staff .
Several crucial roles lack permanent appointees , including the undersecretary for civilian security , democracy and human rights , as well as the assistant secretary positions overseeing the Europe and South Asia bureaus .
Laura Kennedy , a retired foreign service officer who served as ambassador to Turkmenistan under George W. Bush , said the practice of leaving so many positions without a qualified appointee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competence , the importance , and the value of career officials.
” Since Trump took office , that kind of behavior has been the norm .
More donors , party bigwigs , and other inexperienced diplomats have been added to the ambassadorial ranks under Trump than at any point in nearly eight decades .
Think of folks like Gordon Sondland , the bumbling hotelier who Trump named ambassador to the European Union before coming to regret it once Sondland emerged as a crucial witness during Trump ’ s impeachment hearings .
Pompeo has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friends , too .
On Tuesday , NBC News reported that Pompeo and his wife would regularly host billionaires , Supreme Court justices , and business titans for lavish dinners in Foggy Bottom .
The list of invitees was short on actual diplomats or foreign service officers , raising concerns internally that Pompeo was using the dinners to shore up his political base at the government ’ s expense .
If he does end up running for the Senate , the decision will come soon .
The filing deadline is June 1 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swan song at the State Department .
If so , don ’ t expect the department ’ s staff to mourn a change in leadership .
“ It ’ s a very unhappy bunch these days , ” Kennedy says .
“ I don ’ t think anyone ’ s swaggering .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The most shocking thing about President Donald Trump’s decision to fire State Department Inspector General Steve Linick on Friday was how routine and predictable it felt. Linick, the fourth independent watchdog the president has recently purged, had been investigating Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his wife, Susan, for allegedly misusing staff and had been wrapping up a probe into Trump officials’ efforts last year to accelerate arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Already unpopular within Pompeo’s inner circle thanks to a series of reports showing retaliation by State higher-ups against career officials, Linick experienced the same fate that’s befallen other qualified, independent-minded bureaucrats in the Trump era. To the increasingly morose staff of State Department lifers, Linick’s demise was one of many sad reminders of how the paranoid regime Pompeo has put into place privileges loyalty over competence.
“If your body is numb all over, can you still respond to shock?” says Tom Countryman, a longtime foreign service officer who served as acting undersecretary for arms control and international security under President Barack Obama. “I think it would be difficult to shock State Department employees at this point with anything the president or secretary does.”
In recent months, Pompeo has not even tried to disguise his lack of interest in defending career diplomats from Trump. He didn’t stand up for Marie Yovanovitch—the former ambassador to Ukraine who was pushed out as part of a baseless conspiracy theory painting her as disloyal—after Trump slimed her on Twitter. Despite being pushed internally by an adviser to issue a statement of support for Yovanovitch, Pompeo reportedly declined. An NPR reporter tried to get a response from him in January about it, but Pompeo threw a fit and deflected—far from the first time he’s been hostile to the news media when pressed with a tough question.
Part of the reason Pompeo apparently soured on Linick was a “pattern of unauthorized disclosures, or leaks,” from the IG’s office, Brian Bulatao, the State Department’s undersecretary for management, told the Washington Post. Bulatao also bizarrely criticized Linick for “not promoting Pompeo’s professional ethos statement, laying out basic principles of respect and dedication, through training sessions and other activities.” Pompeo’s own defense of the firing was even stranger. He told the Post that Linick, who took over as State’s internal watchdog in 2013, was not “performing a function” that was “additive for the State Department.”
Linick might not have been beloved—few inspectors general are—but he at least had a track record of fairness, investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of private email and Pompeo’s support for weapon sales to the Saudis with equal aplomb. If there was some persuasive justification for canning him, Trump offered no sign of it on Monday when reporters asked about it. He made no mention of an “ethos statement” or “additive” function. In fact, Trump said that he had “never heard of” Linick and only fired him after Pompeo recommended it.
While Trump has wide latitude to fire inspectors general for any reason, it is against the law for the secretary of State to “prevent or prohibit” an IG from conducting an investigation. Pompeo has said he was not aware Linick was investigating whether he misused staff, but he acknowledged during a press conference Wednesday that he had answered questions in writing related to the arms sales probe. Congressional Democrats have already opened their own investigations into the circumstances of Linick’s ouster, and moderate Republicans such as Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) voiced concerns about Trump’s decision to remove him seemingly without cause. In an all-too-familiar twist, Trump tapped Ambassador Stephen J. Akard, a former adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, as Linick’s replacement, despite Akard’s existing role as director of State’s Office of Foreign Missions. Akard, a political appointee, will now “have oversight of and access to all confidential inspector general information, including whistleblower complaints and identities,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote in a letter to Trump on Monday.
Morale in the State Department had already been low in 2018 when Pompeo took over for Rex Tillerson, a former oil executive who was widely unpopular among State’s rank and file. After promising to restore the “swagger” to the department during his first speech as secretary, Pompeo has done the opposite—overseeing a brain drain among career staff and watching his own internal approval ratings plummet. Senate Republicans, and even Trump himself, have made no secret of their effort to encourage him to run for the open Senate seat in Kansas, though Pompeo has so far refused to enter the race.
“I hear people joking around at State now, ‘Maybe Tillerson wasn’t so bad,'” says Alexandra Bell, a former Obama State Department official who now serves as senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.
While Tillerson sparked anger by instituting a 16-month hiring freeze and pushing through an unpopular restructuring plan, he was not particularly close with Trump and was valued in some circles for his efforts to push back against the president’s isolationist leanings. Pompeo, on the other hand, is joined at the hip with Trump on policy, especially pertaining to Iran. But like Tillerson, Pompeo has become neglectful, even scornful, when it comes to filling important State positions with career staff. Several crucial roles lack permanent appointees, including the undersecretary for civilian security, democracy and human rights, as well as the assistant secretary positions overseeing the Europe and South Asia bureaus. Laura Kennedy, a retired foreign service officer who served as ambassador to Turkmenistan under George W. Bush, said the practice of leaving so many positions without a qualified appointee represents “an unprecedented swipe at the competence, the importance, and the value of career officials.”
Since Trump took office, that kind of behavior has been the norm. More donors, party bigwigs, and other inexperienced diplomats have been added to the ambassadorial ranks under Trump than at any point in nearly eight decades. Think of folks like Gordon Sondland, the bumbling hotelier who Trump named ambassador to the European Union before coming to regret it once Sondland emerged as a crucial witness during Trump’s impeachment hearings. Pompeo has cultivated this kind of elite circle of friends, too. On Tuesday, NBC News reported that Pompeo and his wife would regularly host billionaires, Supreme Court justices, and business titans for lavish dinners in Foggy Bottom. The list of invitees was short on actual diplomats or foreign service officers, raising concerns internally that Pompeo was using the dinners to shore up his political base at the government’s expense.
If he does end up running for the Senate, the decision will come soon. The filing deadline is June 1, meaning this could be Pompeo’s swan song at the State Department. If so, don’t expect the department’s staff to mourn a change in leadership.
“It’s a very unhappy bunch these days,” Kennedy says. “I don’t think anyone’s swaggering.”


motherjones--2020-05-20--Jared Kushner Had One Job: Solve America’s Supply Crisis. He Helped Private Companies Instead.

On March 29 , President Trump held a press briefing to tout “ Project Airbridge , ” the administration ’ s new effort to organize and pay for airlifts of personal protective equipment and other medical supplies from abroad .
The first of Project Airbridge ’ s “ big , great planes ” coming from Asia had landed in New York that day , Trump said , bringing in “ 2 million masks and gowns , over 10 million gloves , and over 70,000 thermometers , ” which would be distributed to virus hot spots across the country .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s biggest medical supply distributors joined him at the podium to pay tribute to the administration and talk about the project .
“ They ’ re big people , ” Trump declared of the executives working together with the administration to deliver “ record amounts of lifesaving equipment.
” The origins of Project Airbridge lie with MIT experts , who originally proposed a government led and funded airlift of supplies , according to the Washington Post .
But it was seized upon by Trump ’ s son-in-law , Jared Kushner , who ran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included his former roommate and people from private-equity companies and consulting firms like McKinsey .
( “ Young geniuses ” Trump called them . )
Unhappy employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA ) dubbed them “ the children.
” Yet less than two months later , after many glowing PR hits , the administration decided to put an end to Project Airbridge as members of Congress and the media started demanding answers about how the supplies were being distributed , who received them , and whether the White House was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than public health .
On April 21 , 10 Democratic senators , led by Elizabeth Warren , asked the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services to investigate the project .
“ The novelty and complexity of this arrangement demands heightened scrutiny and transparency , ” they wrote in a letter .
“ However , the administration ’ s implementation of Project Airbridge has been completely opaque.
” The short-lived Project Airbridge is an example of how the Trump administration has taken advantage of the pandemic to boost some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing little more than offer hard-hit states photo ops and the chance to compete against each other to pay exorbitant prices for PPE .
And while the project did little to ameliorate national shortages of PPE , it may have a lasting impact on everything from health care costs to the consolidation of corporate power .
The companies involved in Project Airbridge are some of the biggest in the world , including McKesson , Cardinal Health , Medline , and Henry Schein .
They are the huge intermediaries of the health care system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supplies , which they buy from wholesalers and then sell to hospitals , clinics , and government agencies .
Yet through Project Airbridge , the Trump administration gave these enormous firms a sweetheart deal free of much if any oversight .
Ostensibly run through FEMA , Project Airbridge arranged for FedEx and UPS to airlift PPE and other medical supplies from Asia to the US in just a couple of days , as opposed to the 30 or 40 days cargo ships require .
Through the public-private partnership , the supply companies were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus hot spots as determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
The other half they got to sell to existing customers or elsewhere on the private market .
These taxpayer-funded cargo flights saved the companies at least $ 91 million in shipping costs , the Washington Post found—savings the administration did not require them to pass on to hospitals or states buying their products .
But the perks of Project Airbridge didn ’ t end there .
In normal times , collaboration between companies that dominate such a large share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antitrust investigation .
But the administration gave big distributors a pass on some enforcement of antitrust laws while they worked on the project .
Those are fair trade measures designed to prevent big corporations from engaging in anticompetitive practices , such as price fixing , bid rigging , or conspiring to push smaller competitors out of the market .
In early April , the Justice Department said it would allow the companies to collaborate because of the extraordinary demands of responding to the coronavirus pandemic .
When assistant attorney general for the antitrust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Makan Delrahim approved the antitrust waiver , he indicated that the companies would be helping HHS to “ understand competitive prices for these supplies and medications ” and “ negotiate competitive prices.
” The companies pledged not to engage in “ profiteering , ” although DOJ never said how it would ensure that didn ’ t happen .
Laura Alexander , vice president of policy at the American Antitrust Institute , says the arrangement is troubling .
“ The very companies that [ sought ] permission to engage in coordination are those that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and anticompetitive collaboration , ” she says .
Yossi Sheffi , director of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics , told me that the basic premise of Project Airbridge was a good one because the companies have huge networks and reliable sources in Asia .
But he acknowledges it may lead to more corporate consolidation .
“ I think it ’ s a classic case of efficiency fighting corporate justice , ” Sheffi said .
“ In the good , nice world it would be that every supplier would get their part.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government to take a much bigger , centralized role by purchasing the supplies so states , cities , and hospitals weren ’ t forced to bid against each other to buy them from those big companies .
The Trump administration refused to do that .
“ We ’ re not a shipping clerk , ” Trump said 10 days before the federal government began subsidizing cargo flights from Asia .
As a result , PPE supply chains are still plagued with shortages , high prices , and scammers .
In early April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Professionals found that the cost of an N95 mask had soared 1,513 percent from pre-pandemic prices .
The cost of an isolation gown went up 2,000 percent higher .
In addition , the Trump administration has refused to disclose how the supplies secured through Project Airbridge were distributed .
The administration is “ bringing stuff back from China to the United States and then they ’ re delivering it to private companies in the United States , not to the states , ” Illinois Gov .
J.B. Pritzker told PBS NewsHour last month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us bid against each other for those goods that are owned by the private companies.
” The Washington Post found that many of the areas hardest hit by COVID couldn ’ t confirm they ’ d received any supplies via Airbridge and that the supplies that were delivered were a fraction of what the administration had promised .
In April , for instance , Vice President Mike Pence claimed the project was delivering 22 million masks a day .
The Post found that the number of masks delivered was actually 2.2 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Project Airbridge and how much the companies may have profited from the arrangement are unclear .
DOJ was tasked with overseeing the collaboration , but it did not respond to questions from Mother Jones .
McKesson , Henry Schein , and Medline did not respond to requests for comment .
Cardinal directed questions to DOJ and FEMA , which also did not respond to a request for comment .
After failing to get any information from FEMA or the White House , senators Warren and Richard Blumenthal ( D-Conn. ) wrote directly to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ [ T ] he American people need an explanation for how these supplies are obtained , priced , and distributed through Project Air Bridge , ” they wrote to the companies ’ CEOs .
“ Unfortunately , neither the administration nor your company has explained critical details , such as the content of any existing contracts or financial agreements.
” Without a coordinated effort from the federal government , local governments and hospitals were left at the mercy of the distributors .
“ They have a state-sanctioned cartel , ” says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Open Markets Institute , a nonprofit that fights corporate monopolies .
“ The fact that the states have to bid and compete against each other to get a product from a monopolist is an atrocity.
” The histories of some of these companies do not instill confidence in their public service ethos .
Cardinal Health serves nearly 90 percent of the country ’ s hospitals , selling medical products and prescription drugs .
It also manufactures surgical apparel like gloves and gowns .
Based in Dublin , Ohio , and Dublin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uses to avoid millions in US taxes , the company paid $ 26.8 million in 2015 to settle a lawsuit with the Federal Trade Commission over allegations that it had illegally monopolized 25 local health care markets and forced hospitals and clinics to pay inflated prices .
A few months ago , Cardinal paid nearly $ 9 million to settle bribery charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission related to its work in China .
It earned $ 145 billion in revenue in 2019 .
McKesson , which has more than $ 200 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from opioids to vaccines to lab supplies .
In 2012 , the company agreed to pay $ 151 million in a multistate settlement over allegations that it had overcharged the Medicaid program by inflating prescription drug prices .
It paid more than $ 190 million to the federal government in a related settlement that same year .
In 2014 , McKesson paid $ 18 million to settle claims that it allegedly filed false claims with the CDC related to its handling of childhood vaccine shipments .
Henry Schein was established in New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Today , after a long string of mergers and acquisitions , it has more than $ 13 billion in revenue and controls at least 40 percent of the dental supplies and equipment industry .
In 2013 , it paid $ 1.14 million to settle a case with the Department of Health and Human services over kickbacks to physicians .
In 2019 , the company agreed to pay out nearly $ 40 million to settle a class-action suit alleging that it had conspired with the nation ’ s other two largest dental suppliers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of companies charging lower prices into the market .
Medline Industries is an Illinois-based private company with nearly $ 12 billion in revenue that sells everything from Curad bandages to wheelchairs .
In 2011 , the company paid out more than $ 90 million to settle a whistleblower suit that alleged it paid kickbacks to hospitals and health care providers to get them to buy their products .
Both Cardinal and McKesson have also already paid out millions for failing to report suspicious orders of opioids from pharmacies , with billions more in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , McKesson revealed in financial disclosures that it has received a grand jury subpoena from DOJ relating to a criminal investigation into the pharmaceutical industry ’ s role in the opioid epidemic .
Both McKesson and Cardinal are still in the middle of a massive probe into what state officials have called the largest price-fixing scheme in US history .
More than forty state attorneys general have filed a civil antitrust suit against some of the nation ’ s biggest drug companies accusing them of colluding to raise prices on a host @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,000 percent .
Distributors Cardinal and McKesson are not named as defendants in the lawsuits , but the lawsuit argues that they reaped a windfall from the scheme and failing to notify authorities about suspicious activity by the drug manufacturers .
“ It was the fox guarding the hen house , ” Michael E. Cole , a Connecticut assistant attorney general leading the case , told the Washington Post last year .
In October , a federal judge allowed a securities class action to proceed against McKesson alleging that it was a knowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These are the companies the Trump administration subsidized with free shipping flights from China—and relied on for advice on drug prices .
The collaboration is “ really the latest example of a huge risk of major profiteering from this crisis , ” Hubbard says .
US antitrust enforcement has been lax for years , but the trend has accelerated since Trump took office .
The criminal fines levied for antitrust violations by the DOJ have fallen 80 percent during the first two years of the Trump administration according to a recent study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of the Open Markets Institute , explains that the near-monopoly power in the medical supplies industry may be partly why the country is suffering from such massive shortages of the very equipment needed to combat the pandemic .
Medline and Cardinal Health together control nearly 60 percent of the market for surgical apparel manufacturing , for instance .
When there ’ s no competition , big corporations can raise prices as much as they want and have an incentive to keep supplies scarce to justify keeping prices high , she says .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the DOJ ’ s antitrust waivers given through Project Airbridge may allow medical distribution behemoths to completely crush what ’ s left of their competition during the pandemic , further weakening supply chains .
For instance , Medline told ABC News in April that it was selling PPE at a loss and wasn ’ t charging customers extra for the expedited service it got through Project Airbridge .
That might just be welcome corporate do-gooderism during a national crisis .
But Diana Moss , president of the American Antitrust Institute , says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known as “ predatory pricing ” in antitrust parlance .
It ’ s a time-honored way of forcing smaller competitors out of the market because they can ’ t afford to match the artificially low prices .
Moss doesn ’ t want to imply that this is Medline ’ s strategy , but in general , “ That ’ s exactly the kind of conduct we worry about ” with the antitrust immunity DOJ granted to the Project Airbridge companies , she says .
“ That would be a big red flag.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supply , a family-owned medical supply business in Kansas , says Project Airbridge “ absolutely ” put his firm at a competitive disadvantage : “ Companies like mine will find new market spaces and adapt .
But there will be sectors of the marketplace that believe smaller companies don ’ t have the same access to critical PPE supplies as the large companies engaged in this project.
” It ’ s not just PPE or ventilators missing in action as a result of the medical supply market concentration .
The coronavirus is particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortage of dialysis equipment .
Just two companies make more than 75 percent of the dialysis equipment , and they ’ re failing to keep up with demand .
If and when there ’ s a COVID-19 vaccine , experts say the country will need 300 million to 600 million syringes to administer it .
A single manufacturer , Becton , Dickinson and Company , controls 64 percent of the US syringe market .
BD has been repeatedly sued over allegations of anticompetitive behavior .
It ’ s currently embroiled in a class-action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups and conspired with four of the Project Airbridge distributors to jack up syringe prices .
“ These companies need tremendous oversight , ” says Hubbard .
“ So no , these companies just can ’ t be trusted.
” In late April , Kushner told Fox News , “ The federal government rose to the challenge and this is a great success story and I think that that ’ s really what needs to be told.
” Less than two weeks later , even as health care facilities struggled to obtain protective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victory and quietly disclosed that it was putting an end to Project Airbridge .
According to notes obtained by NBC News , a FEMA official from the group organizing the pandemic response reassured workers concerned about PPE shortages in the future that Project Airbridge could still be revived “ if urgent needs arise .
”

On March 29, President Trump held a press briefing to tout “Project Airbridge,” the administration’s new effort to organize and pay for airlifts of personal protective equipment and other medical supplies from abroad. The first of Project Airbridge’s “big, great planes” coming from Asia had landed in New York that day, Trump said, bringing in “2 million masks and gowns, over 10 million gloves, and over 70,000 thermometers,” which would be distributed to virus hot spots across the country. The heads of some of the country’s biggest medical supply distributors joined him at the podium to pay tribute to the administration and talk about the project. “They’re big people,” Trump declared of the executives working together with the administration to deliver “record amounts of lifesaving equipment.”
The origins of Project Airbridge lie with MIT experts, who originally proposed a government led and funded airlift of supplies, according to the Washington Post. But it was seized upon by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who ran a volunteer shadow coronavirus task force that included his former roommate and people from private-equity companies and consulting firms like McKinsey. (“Young geniuses” Trump called them.) Unhappy employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) dubbed them “the children.”
Yet less than two months later, after many glowing PR hits, the administration decided to put an end to Project Airbridge as members of Congress and the media started demanding answers about how the supplies were being distributed, who received them, and whether the White House was making distribution decisions based on politics rather than public health. On April 21, 10 Democratic senators, led by Elizabeth Warren, asked the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services to investigate the project. “The novelty and complexity of this arrangement demands heightened scrutiny and transparency,” they wrote in a letter. “However, the administration’s implementation of Project Airbridge has been completely opaque.”
The short-lived Project Airbridge is an example of how the Trump administration has taken advantage of the pandemic to boost some of the country’s biggest companies while doing little more than offer hard-hit states photo ops and the chance to compete against each other to pay exorbitant prices for PPE. And while the project did little to ameliorate national shortages of PPE, it may have a lasting impact on everything from health care costs to the consolidation of corporate power.
The companies involved in Project Airbridge are some of the biggest in the world, including McKesson, Cardinal Health, Medline, and Henry Schein. They are the huge intermediaries of the health care system, distributors of prescription drugs and medical supplies, which they buy from wholesalers and then sell to hospitals, clinics, and government agencies. Yet through Project Airbridge, the Trump administration gave these enormous firms a sweetheart deal free of much if any oversight.
Ostensibly run through FEMA, Project Airbridge arranged for FedEx and UPS to airlift PPE and other medical supplies from Asia to the US in just a couple of days, as opposed to the 30 or 40 days cargo ships require. Through the public-private partnership, the supply companies were supposed to sell half the goods to virus hot spots as determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The other half they got to sell to existing customers or elsewhere on the private market. These taxpayer-funded cargo flights saved the companies at least $91 million in shipping costs, the Washington Post found—savings the administration did not require them to pass on to hospitals or states buying their products. But the perks of Project Airbridge didn’t end there.
In normal times, collaboration between companies that dominate such a large share of the market could trigger a federal antitrust investigation. But the administration gave big distributors a pass on some enforcement of antitrust laws while they worked on the project. Those are fair trade measures designed to prevent big corporations from engaging in anticompetitive practices, such as price fixing, bid rigging, or conspiring to push smaller competitors out of the market. In early April, the Justice Department said it would allow the companies to collaborate because of the extraordinary demands of responding to the coronavirus pandemic. When assistant attorney general for the antitrust division (and former Google lobbyist) Makan Delrahim approved the antitrust waiver, he indicated that the companies would be helping HHS to “understand competitive prices for these supplies and medications” and “negotiate competitive prices.” The companies pledged not to engage in “profiteering,” although DOJ never said how it would ensure that didn’t happen.
Laura Alexander, vice president of policy at the American Antitrust Institute, says the arrangement is troubling. “The very companies that [sought] permission to engage in coordination are those that have a long history of anticompetitive conduct and anticompetitive collaboration,” she says.
Yossi Sheffi, director of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, told me that the basic premise of Project Airbridge was a good one because the companies have huge networks and reliable sources in Asia. But he acknowledges it may lead to more corporate consolidation. “I think it’s a classic case of efficiency fighting corporate justice,” Sheffi said. “In the good, nice world it would be that every supplier would get their part.”
“It’s a classic case of efficiency fighting corporate justice. In the good, nice world it would be that every supplier would get their part.”
One solution would have been for the government to take a much bigger, centralized role by purchasing the supplies so states, cities, and hospitals weren’t forced to bid against each other to buy them from those big companies. The Trump administration refused to do that. “We’re not a shipping clerk,” Trump said 10 days before the federal government began subsidizing cargo flights from Asia. As a result, PPE supply chains are still plagued with shortages, high prices, and scammers. In early April, the Society for Healthcare Organization Procurement Professionals found that the cost of an N95 mask had soared 1,513 percent from pre-pandemic prices. The cost of an isolation gown went up 2,000 percent higher.
In addition, the Trump administration has refused to disclose how the supplies secured through Project Airbridge were distributed. The administration is “bringing stuff back from China to the United States and then they’re delivering it to private companies in the United States, not to the states,” Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker told PBS NewsHour last month. “They’re letting all of us bid against each other for those goods that are owned by the private companies.” The Washington Post found that many of the areas hardest hit by COVID couldn’t confirm they’d received any supplies via Airbridge and that the supplies that were delivered were a fraction of what the administration had promised. In April, for instance, Vice President Mike Pence claimed the project was delivering 22 million masks a day. The Post found that the number of masks delivered was actually 2.2 million a day.
The inner workings of Project Airbridge and how much the companies may have profited from the arrangement are unclear. DOJ was tasked with overseeing the collaboration, but it did not respond to questions from Mother Jones. McKesson, Henry Schein, and Medline did not respond to requests for comment. Cardinal directed questions to DOJ and FEMA, which also did not respond to a request for comment.
After failing to get any information from FEMA or the White House, senators Warren and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wrote directly to the medical distributors to ask for specifics. “[T]he American people need an explanation for how these supplies are obtained, priced, and distributed through Project Air Bridge,” they wrote to the companies’ CEOs. “Unfortunately, neither the administration nor your company has explained critical details, such as the content of any existing contracts or financial agreements.”
Without a coordinated effort from the federal government, local governments and hospitals were left at the mercy of the distributors. “They have a state-sanctioned cartel,” says Sally Hubbard, director of enforcement strategy with the Open Markets Institute, a nonprofit that fights corporate monopolies. “The fact that the states have to bid and compete against each other to get a product from a monopolist is an atrocity.”
“The fact that the states have to bid and compete against each other to get a product from a monopolist is an atrocity.”
The histories of some of these companies do not instill confidence in their public service ethos. Cardinal Health serves nearly 90 percent of the country’s hospitals, selling medical products and prescription drugs. It also manufactures surgical apparel like gloves and gowns. Based in Dublin, Ohio, and Dublin, Ireland, a tax haven it uses to avoid millions in US taxes, the company paid $26.8 million in 2015 to settle a lawsuit with the Federal Trade Commission over allegations that it had illegally monopolized 25 local health care markets and forced hospitals and clinics to pay inflated prices. A few months ago, Cardinal paid nearly $9 million to settle bribery charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission related to its work in China. It earned $145 billion in revenue in 2019.
McKesson, which has more than $200 billion in annual revenues, distributes everything from opioids to vaccines to lab supplies. In 2012, the company agreed to pay $151 million in a multistate settlement over allegations that it had overcharged the Medicaid program by inflating prescription drug prices. It paid more than $190 million to the federal government in a related settlement that same year. In 2014, McKesson paid $18 million to settle claims that it allegedly filed false claims with the CDC related to its handling of childhood vaccine shipments.
Henry Schein was established in New York in 1932 as a small pharmacy. Today, after a long string of mergers and acquisitions, it has more than $13 billion in revenue and controls at least 40 percent of the dental supplies and equipment industry. In 2013, it paid $1.14 million to settle a case with the Department of Health and Human services over kickbacks to physicians. In 2019, the company agreed to pay out nearly $40 million to settle a class-action suit alleging that it had conspired with the nation’s other two largest dental suppliers to fix prices and to block the entry of companies charging lower prices into the market.
Medline Industries is an Illinois-based private company with nearly $12 billion in revenue that sells everything from Curad bandages to wheelchairs. In 2011, the company paid out more than $90 million to settle a whistleblower suit that alleged it paid kickbacks to hospitals and health care providers to get them to buy their products.
Both Cardinal and McKesson have also already paid out millions for failing to report suspicious orders of opioids from pharmacies, with billions more in settlements in the pipeline. Late last year, McKesson revealed in financial disclosures that it has received a grand jury subpoena from DOJ relating to a criminal investigation into the pharmaceutical industry’s role in the opioid epidemic.
“It was the fox guarding the hen house.”
Both McKesson and Cardinal are still in the middle of a massive probe into what state officials have called the largest price-fixing scheme in US history. More than forty state attorneys general have filed a civil antitrust suit against some of the nation’s biggest drug companies accusing them of colluding to raise prices on a host of common generic drugs by well over 1,000 percent. Distributors Cardinal and McKesson are not named as defendants in the lawsuits, but the lawsuit argues that they reaped a windfall from the scheme and failing to notify authorities about suspicious activity by the drug manufacturers. “It was the fox guarding the hen house,” Michael E. Cole, a Connecticut assistant attorney general leading the case, told the Washington Post last year. In October, a federal judge allowed a securities class action to proceed against McKesson alleging that it was a knowing participant in the generic drug price-fixing scheme.
These are the companies the Trump administration subsidized with free shipping flights from China—and relied on for advice on drug prices. The collaboration is “really the latest example of a huge risk of major profiteering from this crisis,” Hubbard says.
US antitrust enforcement has been lax for years, but the trend has accelerated since Trump took office. The criminal fines levied for antitrust violations by the DOJ have fallen 80 percent during the first two years of the Trump administration according to a recent study by the American Antitrust Institute.
Hubbard, of the Open Markets Institute, explains that the near-monopoly power in the medical supplies industry may be partly why the country is suffering from such massive shortages of the very equipment needed to combat the pandemic. Medline and Cardinal Health together control nearly 60 percent of the market for surgical apparel manufacturing, for instance. When there’s no competition, big corporations can raise prices as much as they want and have an incentive to keep supplies scarce to justify keeping prices high, she says.
Consumer advocates and small businesses also fear that the DOJ’s antitrust waivers given through Project Airbridge may allow medical distribution behemoths to completely crush what’s left of their competition during the pandemic, further weakening supply chains. For instance, Medline told ABC News in April that it was selling PPE at a loss and wasn’t charging customers extra for the expedited service it got through Project Airbridge. That might just be welcome corporate do-gooderism during a national crisis. But Diana Moss, president of the American Antitrust Institute, says that selling goods below cost is also known as “predatory pricing” in antitrust parlance. It’s a time-honored way of forcing smaller competitors out of the market because they can’t afford to match the artificially low prices. Moss doesn’t want to imply that this is Medline’s strategy, but in general, “That’s exactly the kind of conduct we worry about” with the antitrust immunity DOJ granted to the Project Airbridge companies, she says. “That would be a big red flag.”
Dennis Clock, owner of Clock Medical Supply, a family-owned medical supply business in Kansas, says Project Airbridge “absolutely” put his firm at a competitive disadvantage: “Companies like mine will find new market spaces and adapt. But there will be sectors of the marketplace that believe smaller companies don’t have the same access to critical PPE supplies as the large companies engaged in this project.”
It’s not just PPE or ventilators missing in action as a result of the medical supply market concentration. The coronavirus is particularly damaging to kidneys, causing a national shortage of dialysis equipment. Just two companies make more than 75 percent of the dialysis equipment, and they’re failing to keep up with demand. If and when there’s a COVID-19 vaccine, experts say the country will need 300 million to 600 million syringes to administer it. A single manufacturer, Becton, Dickinson and Company, controls 64 percent of the US syringe market. BD has been repeatedly sued over allegations of anticompetitive behavior. It’s currently embroiled in a class-action suit alleging that it bribed medical purchasing groups and conspired with four of the Project Airbridge distributors to jack up syringe prices. “These companies need tremendous oversight,” says Hubbard. “So no, these companies just can’t be trusted.”
In late April, Kushner told Fox News, “The federal government rose to the challenge and this is a great success story and I think that that’s really what needs to be told.” Less than two weeks later, even as health care facilities struggled to obtain protective equipment, the administration in effect declared victory and quietly disclosed that it was putting an end to Project Airbridge. According to notes obtained by NBC News, a FEMA official from the group organizing the pandemic response reassured workers concerned about PPE shortages in the future that Project Airbridge could still be revived “if urgent needs arise.”