msnbc--2020-12-01--Congress needs to go full post-Watergate as soon as Trump leaves

Stop me if this sounds familiar : President Donald Trump has done or said a thing that has set Twitter ablaze .
You send a link to your group chat .
Someone responds , `` How is that legal ? ''
Maybe it should n't be .
Maybe it is n't .
Either way , it 's a question Congress must answer in its next session .
Trump spent four years riding roughshod over norms and standards that have been in place for decades .
It turns out that just kind of hoping the country 's chief executive follows the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of impeachment does n't cut it in the face of concerted malice .
And to make sure it does n't happen with future presidents , Congress needs to undertake the kind of government overhaul not seen since Watergate .
After President Richard Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment and removal , Congress took it upon itself to enact changes that could prevent similar abuses .
They included the establishment of the Federal Election Commission , the passage of the Privacy Act of 1974 and the creation of the federal inspectors general system .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of these attempts to wrest power back from the executive branch have slowly retracted .
Congressional authority over spending , declaring war and acting as a guardrail on the presidency were all eroding before Trump was inaugurated .
Once in office , Trump did what he 's done for years as a businessman — skillfully exploit every loophole available to him while blowing holes in other protections to create new loopholes .
That 's taken the form of tweeting demands for investigations of his political opponents , finding ways to keep generating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and refusing to hand over documents to Congress that could show wrongdoing on his part .
Not all of the norms he 's violated can be upheld via legislation — and not all of them should be , lest they overcompensate and erase the divisions of power Congress is now trying to reinforce .
But that still leaves plenty to tackle in 2021 .
Some of the bigger changes have already made their way into draft legislation .
House Democratic leadership introduced the Protecting Our Democracy Act on Sept. 23 , almost a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced its formal impeachment inquiry into Trump .
Among the 12 sections in the bill are provisions to : add new layers of accountability for acting officials , Trump 's preference over Senate-confirmed appointees ; add time limits on emergency declarations by the president , like the one Trump declared on the southern U.S. border ; and limit presidential interference in Justice Department investigations .
The bill , if passed and signed into law , would also strengthen the independence of inspectors general , who have been a target of Trump 's ire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Political appointees who violate the Hatch Act 's bans on partisan campaign activities — as Trump 's appointees have been very willing to do — would face consequences , too .
The bill would give the Office of Special Counsel the authority to levy `` an administrative fine of up to $ 50,000 '' against employees who are n't disciplined by the president for their violations .
Even that comprehensive legislation would still leave a bunch of the loopholes that Trump has taken advantage of , though , including those involving presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ releasing tax returns in 1974 , trying to prove his claim that `` I 'm not a crook . ''
Last year , California 's Supreme Court struck down a state law that would have forced candidates to disclose their tax returns in order to appear on the ballot .
But Congress can still mandate that presidential campaigns turn over candidates ' taxes to the FEC when filing their candidacies .
That change and others will work best if Congress acts against its own selfish interests and does something many politicians on both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FEC some teeth .
The commission has been a punchline in Washington since I was a kid .
Its long-standing practice of appointing three Democrats and three Republicans means paralyzing deadlock is common .
It also spent most of the 2020 election cycle without the minimum members needed for a quorum , emphasizing its uselessness .
And it 's not clear when the two belated nominees — who would still leave the FEC one commissioner short — will get a vote .
Given the lessons learned from Trump 's impeachment and subsequent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the partisan nature of the process does n't allow presidential abuses to continue .
That could include a number of options , from setting clearer standards for the Justice Department to investigate sitting presidents into law to reviving the defunct independent counsel role .
But much of this agenda hinges on two factors , unfortunately .
First , these bills have to pass through both the House and the Senate , the latter of which may still be controlled by Republicans come January .
If Sen. Mitch McConnell is still majority leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democracy Act would reach President Joe Biden 's desk quickly approach zero .
Second , real reform would require members of both parties to accept that these rules need to apply equally to their own candidates , as well as their opponents .
For the good of the country , though , we have to fix these deficiencies before we encounter a nightmare scenario : someone as confident at bending the rules as Trump , but with the focus and determination to follow through .
The time to safeguard against this future candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we would lament what we might have deterred .

Stop me if this sounds familiar: President Donald Trump has done or said a thing that has set Twitter ablaze. You send a link to your group chat. Someone responds, "How is that legal?"
Maybe it shouldn't be. Maybe it isn't. Either way, it's a question Congress must answer in its next session.
Trump spent four years riding roughshod over norms and standards that have been in place for decades. It turns out that just kind of hoping the country's chief executive follows the laws and is cowed by the threat of impeachment doesn't cut it in the face of concerted malice. And to make sure it doesn't happen with future presidents, Congress needs to undertake the kind of government overhaul not seen since Watergate.
After President Richard Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment and removal, Congress took it upon itself to enact changes that could prevent similar abuses. They included the establishment of the Federal Election Commission, the passage of the Privacy Act of 1974 and the creation of the federal inspectors general system. But in the decades since then, many of these attempts to wrest power back from the executive branch have slowly retracted.
Congressional authority over spending, declaring war and acting as a guardrail on the presidency were all eroding before Trump was inaugurated. Once in office, Trump did what he's done for years as a businessman — skillfully exploit every loophole available to him while blowing holes in other protections to create new loopholes. That's taken the form of tweeting demands for investigations of his political opponents, finding ways to keep generating profit from his businesses while in office and refusing to hand over documents to Congress that could show wrongdoing on his part.
Congress needs to undertake the kind of government overhaul not seen since Watergate.
Not all of the norms he's violated can be upheld via legislation — and not all of them should be, lest they overcompensate and erase the divisions of power Congress is now trying to reinforce. But that still leaves plenty to tackle in 2021.
Some of the bigger changes have already made their way into draft legislation. House Democratic leadership introduced the Protecting Our Democracy Act on Sept. 23, almost a year to the day after the House announced its formal impeachment inquiry into Trump. Among the 12 sections in the bill are provisions to: add new layers of accountability for acting officials, Trump's preference over Senate-confirmed appointees; add time limits on emergency declarations by the president, like the one Trump declared on the southern U.S. border; and limit presidential interference in Justice Department investigations.
The bill, if passed and signed into law, would also strengthen the independence of inspectors general, who have been a target of Trump's ire in the aftermath of the impeachment saga. Political appointees who violate the Hatch Act's bans on partisan campaign activities — as Trump's appointees have been very willing to do — would face consequences, too. The bill would give the Office of Special Counsel the authority to levy "an administrative fine of up to $50,000" against employees who aren't disciplined by the president for their violations.
Even that comprehensive legislation would still leave a bunch of the loopholes that Trump has taken advantage of, though, including those involving presidential taxes. Nixon set the standard for releasing tax returns in 1974, trying to prove his claim that "I'm not a crook." Last year, California's Supreme Court struck down a state law that would have forced candidates to disclose their tax returns in order to appear on the ballot. But Congress can still mandate that presidential campaigns turn over candidates' taxes to the FEC when filing their candidacies.
That change and others will work best if Congress acts against its own selfish interests and does something many politicians on both sides are loath to do: give the FEC some teeth. The commission has been a punchline in Washington since I was a kid. Its long-standing practice of appointing three Democrats and three Republicans means paralyzing deadlock is common. It also spent most of the 2020 election cycle without the minimum members needed for a quorum, emphasizing its uselessness. And it's not clear when the two belated nominees — who would still leave the FEC one commissioner short — will get a vote.
Given the lessons learned from Trump's impeachment and subsequent Senate acquittal, Congress needs to ensure that the partisan nature of the process doesn't allow presidential abuses to continue. That could include a number of options, from setting clearer standards for the Justice Department to investigate sitting presidents into law to reviving the defunct independent counsel role.
But much of this agenda hinges on two factors, unfortunately. First, these bills have to pass through both the House and the Senate, the latter of which may still be controlled by Republicans come January. If Sen. Mitch McConnell is still majority leader, the odds that the Protecting Our Democracy Act would reach President Joe Biden's desk quickly approach zero. Second, real reform would require members of both parties to accept that these rules need to apply equally to their own candidates, as well as their opponents.
For the good of the country, though, we have to fix these deficiencies before we encounter a nightmare scenario: someone as confident at bending the rules as Trump, but with the focus and determination to follow through. The time to safeguard against this future candidate is now, not later, when we would lament what we might have deterred.


msnbc--2020-12-01--Figliuzzi: ‘Presidential pardon is perhaps the most lawful way to obstruct justice in our system’

NYT : Trump has discussed pardons for his three eldest children and Giuliani

Figliuzzi: ‘Presidential pardon is perhaps the most lawful way to obstruct justice in our system’
The New York Times reports Rudy Giuliani discussed the possibility of a pre-emptive pardon before President Trump leaves office. Former FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Frank Figliuzzi weighs in, describing Trump’s use of presidential pardons as an obstruction of justice to protect himself.Dec. 1, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-01--Dr. Kavita Patel: ‘Dr. Atlas did more damage in 130 days than you could possibly imagine’

Dr. Kavita Patel: ‘Dr. Atlas did more damage in 130 days than you could possibly imagine’
Former health policy director for the Obama White House Dr. Kavita Patel and health and medicine reporter for the Washington Post Lenny Bernstein speak to the dangers of not having adequate leadership in the federal government as the country is consumed by a surging pandemicDec. 1, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-01--South Dakota Covid patient hopes antibody therapy ‘mitigates symptoms’

Covid-19 positive patients at Sanford USD Medical Center in Sioux Falls, S.D., are getting experimental antibody therapy in the hopes that it will keep them out of the ICU. NBC News’ Dasha Burns reports on what some are calling the “bridge to the vaccine.”Dec. 1, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-01--Giving Tuesday: Steve Kornacki teams up with the Gap to support Boys & Girls Clubs of America

This Giving Tuesday, NBC News’ Steve Kornacki and his viral khaki pants are working with Gap to donate to the Boys & Girls Clubs of America’s Workforce Readiness Program. Now through December 31st, for every qualifying post shared, Gap has offered to donate $10 to the Boys & Girls Club of America for every dance challenge video posted with #ShareTheGapDream. To learn more details and see how you can play a role, visit NBCNews.com/GivingTuesday.Dec. 1, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-01--Chuck: Dilemma facing GOP is Trump 'still wants to lead the party'

Chuck Todd says that, "the dilemma facing the GOP is that President Trump is signaling he, in losing, still wants to lead the party even after he leaves the White House."Dec. 1, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-01--Biden calls on Congress to pass Covid-19 relief package 'right now'

IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.


msnbc--2020-12-01--Barr: Justice Department found no evidence of fraud that would change election outcome

Attorney General William Barr told the Associated Press that the Department of Justice has found no evidence of fraud that would change the result of the presidential election. NBC's Pete Williams has details.Dec. 1, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-02--DOJ investigating potential pay-for-presidential pardon scheme

The U.S. Justice Dept. is conducting an investigation into allegations of a bribery scheme for a presidential pardon, according to court documents unsealed Tuesday. Tom Winter joins The ReidOut for more.Dec. 2, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-01--The toxic legacy of Trump Covid adviser Atlas is worse than the sum of his mistakes

As of Monday , radiologist Scott W. Atlas is no longer deranging the federal government ’ s pandemic response , and we will all be the better for it .
President Donald Trump first saw Atlas , who is a senior fellow at Stanford University ’ s conservative Hoover Institution , on Fox News .
Once ensconced in the White House as an official coronavirus adviser , Atlas was more than happy to gloss over Trump ’ s Covid-19 hunches with a goo of science-y language and “ own the libs ” dudgeon .
Atlas had his own hunches , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sound ( he was a strong advocate for keeping schools open ) , some of which turned out to be dangerous ( in the face of mounting evidence that masks work , he insisted the opposite ) , and some of which turned out to be disastrous ( he believed that increased testing misallocated resources , that college students should be left to their own devices , and that the president should both resist bureaucratic efforts to expand testing in the fall and encourage efforts to resist state lockdowns as cases rose ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing hobbled state efforts to curtail a predictable rise in cases as college students going back and forth between home and school spread the virus , largely because many people who spread the virus don ’ t show symptoms .
Herd immunity , a controversial Covid-19 containment strategy that Atlas pushed early on , is clearly not something this diagnostic radiologist understands .
It turns out that the virus is orders of magnitude deadlier than Atlas first thought , and that Americans do not want the virus to tear through communities unchecked until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many mistakes are not the problem — not exactly .
Scientists get things wrong , and plenty have made mistakes during this pandemic .
But the difference between Scott Atlas and most scientists is that most scientists adjust their beliefs to fit the evidence , whereas Atlas simply dug in .
A scientist should approach public communication humbly , as a privilege .
Atlas approached it as an exercise in partisanship .
Scientists are already facing an uphill battle because the public is often persuaded by loud , repetitive , certainty-hardened voices .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a crank .
Inside government , he drove policy decisions that contributed to suffering and death .
Technically , he was appointed a “ special government employee , ” which administrations past have used to bring unique experts into government service during emergencies .
The day he was named to the coronavirus task force , Trump called him “ a very famous man who ’ s also very highly respected.
” ( He was marginally respected by a specific conservative clique and only Fox News-famous . )
I can ’ t see into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can run an experiment on myself .
If I was asked to serve on the coronavirus task force , a position to which I would bring no unique perspective or expertise , what would I do ?
I can fake it as well as anyone , and yeah , I ’ d be close to the seat of power .
Power and influence are seductive , as is the chance to help influence the course of history and to know stuff before other people do .
A job like that would most likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like I was famous and highly respected .
But I ’ d like to think I would resist it .
Because what good is fame if you can ’ t live with the broader consequences of your actions ?
Atlas is now famous .
He will never not be famous .
He ’ s so famous he has developed a celebrity-thin skin , which tends to happen : The more pretend power you get , the more your ego defenses become vulnerable to criticism .
I wonder if there ’ s some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his last television appearances , Atlas correctly noted that elderly Americans are suffering in isolation , and that government lockdowns can be harmful .
Then he said that Americans should gather with their relatives for Thanksgiving because “ for many people it might be their final Thanksgiving , believe it or not.
” I could try to spell out the illogic and cruelty in this statement .
Or I could simply ask you to imagine a healthy grandmother who contracts Covid-19 because her family listened to Atlas ’ s advice , then suffers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dies before Christmas .
And then , two weeks later , your grandmother ’ s best friend , who didn ’ t get visitors during Thanksgiving , gets the first shot of a vaccine .

As of Monday, radiologist Scott W. Atlas is no longer deranging the federal government’s pandemic response, and we will all be the better for it.
President Donald Trump first saw Atlas, who is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s conservative Hoover Institution, on Fox News. Once ensconced in the White House as an official coronavirus adviser, Atlas was more than happy to gloss over Trump’s Covid-19 hunches with a goo of science-y language and “own the libs” dudgeon.
Atlas had his own hunches, some of which turned out to be sound (he was a strong advocate for keeping schools open), some of which turned out to be dangerous (in the face of mounting evidence that masks work, he insisted the opposite), and some of which turned out to be disastrous (he believed that increased testing misallocated resources, that college students should be left to their own devices, and that the president should both resist bureaucratic efforts to expand testing in the fall and encourage efforts to resist state lockdowns as cases rose).
In reality, a lack of testing hobbled state efforts to curtail a predictable rise in cases as college students going back and forth between home and school spread the virus, largely because many people who spread the virus don’t show symptoms. Herd immunity, a controversial Covid-19 containment strategy that Atlas pushed early on, is clearly not something this diagnostic radiologist understands. It turns out that the virus is orders of magnitude deadlier than Atlas first thought, and that Americans do not want the virus to tear through communities unchecked until we get vaccinated.
Outside of government, Atlas would be a crank. Inside government, he drove policy decisions that contributed to suffering and death.
But Atlas’ many mistakes are not the problem — not exactly. Scientists get things wrong, and plenty have made mistakes during this pandemic. But the difference between Scott Atlas and most scientists is that most scientists adjust their beliefs to fit the evidence, whereas Atlas simply dug in.
A scientist should approach public communication humbly, as a privilege. Atlas approached it as an exercise in partisanship. Scientists are already facing an uphill battle because the public is often persuaded by loud, repetitive, certainty-hardened voices. Outside of government, Atlas would be a crank. Inside government, he drove policy decisions that contributed to suffering and death.
Technically, he was appointed a “special government employee,” which administrations past have used to bring unique experts into government service during emergencies. The day he was named to the coronavirus task force, Trump called him “a very famous man who’s also very highly respected.” (He was marginally respected by a specific conservative clique and only Fox News-famous.)
A scientist should approach public communication humbly, as a privilege. Atlas approached it as an exercise in partisanship.
I can’t see into Atlas’s brain, but I can run an experiment on myself. If I was asked to serve on the coronavirus task force, a position to which I would bring no unique perspective or expertise, what would I do? I can fake it as well as anyone, and yeah, I’d be close to the seat of power. Power and influence are seductive, as is the chance to help influence the course of history and to know stuff before other people do. A job like that would most likely make me feel, in the moment, like I was famous and highly respected.
But I’d like to think I would resist it. Because what good is fame if you can’t live with the broader consequences of your actions?
Atlas is now famous. He will never not be famous. He’s so famous he has developed a celebrity-thin skin, which tends to happen: The more pretend power you get, the more your ego defenses become vulnerable to criticism. I wonder if there’s some lesson in that.
In one of his last television appearances, Atlas correctly noted that elderly Americans are suffering in isolation, and that government lockdowns can be harmful. Then he said that Americans should gather with their relatives for Thanksgiving because “for many people it might be their final Thanksgiving, believe it or not.”
I could try to spell out the illogic and cruelty in this statement. Or I could simply ask you to imagine a healthy grandmother who contracts Covid-19 because her family listened to Atlas’s advice, then suffers a lonely and painful deterioration in December and dies before Christmas. And then, two weeks later, your grandmother’s best friend, who didn’t get visitors during Thanksgiving, gets the first shot of a vaccine.


msnbc--2020-12-01--Giving Tuesday: Hunger rates surge during pandemic


msnbc--2020-12-01--Giving Tuesday: World Central Kitchen provides over 30 million meals in more than 400 cities

Giving Tuesday: World Central Kitchen provides over 30 million meals in more than 400 cities
CEO of World Central Kitchen, Nate Mook, joins MSNBC on the eighth anniversary of the Giving Tuesday movement to discuss the history of giving back after natural disasters and the more recent missions, man-made disasters.Dec. 1, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-02--NYT: Trump has discussed pardons for his three eldest children and Giuliani

Election official tears into Trump , senators for inciting violence

NYT: Trump has discussed pardons for his three eldest children and Giuliani
The New York Times reports President Trump has discussed with his advisers pardons for his three eldest children and Rudy Giuliani.Dec. 2, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-02--AG Barr breaks with Trump on voter fraud allegations

Attorney General William Barr said Tuesday that there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, defying the president's ongoing efforts to reverse the results. The panel discusses.Dec. 2, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-02--Trump and crew cash in with election fraud 'scare stories'

Meacham: Pence probably saved the republic, but I don't always want to count on one person to do it


msnbc--2020-12-02--‘Catastrophic:’ Bryan Stevenson on lame duck Trump ramping up federal executions

“What we have seen is a really dramatic example of reckless political use of this power in a way that is unprecedented in American history. These executions are being expedited on a schedule for political points,” says “Just Mercy” author Bryan Stevenson on Trump push for federal executions before leaving office.Dec. 2, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-02--Georgia election official excoriates Trump, senators for silence on violent threats


msnbc--2020-12-02--Fmr. FBI lawyer: Why would Trump's kids need 'pre-emptive pardons'?


msnbc--2020-12-02--Presidential pardons are meant to do something alien to Trump: Show mercy

It should surprise relatively nobody that President Donald Trump is reportedly considering issuing a preemptive pardon to Rudy Giuliani , his chief legal punching bag since Election Day .
The New York Times didn ’ t have details on Tuesday about exactly which crimes Giuliani would potentially be forgiven for , but the possibility was “ discussed with the president as recently as last week.
” It would make total sense that this would be the alleged reward for one of the president ’ s staunchest supporters .
Trump has also reportedly asked about the possibility of preemptively pardoning two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
Even more intriguing and puzzling was a federal court record that was partially unsealed on Tuesday evening .
According to the heavily redacted document , the Justice Department is investigating a potential plot that would have traded campaign donations for a presidential pardon .
As of now we do n't know the details about whether the president was ever aware of the conspiracy , or if any of the lawyers involved are connected to the president .
Both the alleged scheme and the former New York City mayor being in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's seeming belief in how a pardon should be used .
Watching it all play out feels like watching a Nobel Peace Prize being used as a weapon to induce blunt force trauma — not just unethical , but against the very ideal on which the thing was created .
The presidential power of the pardon , baked into the Constitution as it is , is more or less absolute .
After a lengthy debate over potential limits , that ’ s where the Framers landed , having rejected limits like requiring Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grantee was convicted of a crime .
In the end , the delegates to the conventions put their names to a document affirming that presidents “ shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States , except in cases of impeachment.
” The rationale behind that expansive ability makes sense even now .
No system of justice is perfect in its manufacturing or deliverance , no matter how many laws are drafted by legislators listening to the better angels of their nature .
It will always be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the crimes committed ; some laws on the books will always be unjust .
The pardon was designed as a small-r-republican version of the British monarch ’ s ability to grant reprieves , which for centuries was the only flexibility provided under the law ’ s rigid mores .
Chief Justice John Marshall in 1833 framed the president ’ s authority as a form of mercy , writing that pardons are “ an act of grace , proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws , which exempts the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.
” That in and of itself is a noble concept , offering something the criminal justice system lacks all too often .
It ’ s the moral underpinning of past pardons like presidents Jimmy Carter ’ s and Gerald Ford 's mass forgiveness of Vietnam draft dodgers .
It ’ s what prompted President Barack Obama to issue over 600 grants of commutation on the way out the door , including 330 on his last day , bringing his total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years in office .
The vast majority of the Americans to see their sentences reduced during Obama ’ s last week were imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses .
The pile also included clemency for Chelsea Manning , convicted in 2013 of violating the Espionage Act by providing American military and diplomatic secrets to Wikileaks , and retired Marine general James Cartwright , who pled guilty in 2016 to lying during a leak probe .
Freedom from the carceral system was in these cases the more just option , offering presidents a path toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfortunate then that Trump has decided to use this power only in the interests of himself and his followers .
Trump has claimed otherwise , of course .
He ’ s wielded his much-touted use of the power on behalf of Alice Marie Johnson — who Kim Kardashian West lobbied for Trump to release from prison — to claim that he had more love for Black Americans than any other president .
( Johnson was invited to speak at the Republican National Convention and was featured heavily in Trump campaign ads . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ amplified what former President George W. Bush called “ a massive injustice in the system ” in his memoir , “ Decision Points , ” where he wrote , “ If you had connections to the president , you could insert your case into the last-minute frenzy .
Otherwise , you had to wait for the Justice Department to conduct a review and make a recommendation.
” According to a recent piece in the New Yorker on death row inmates who had no real chance of having their cases adjudicated anytime soon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pardon requests is in rough shape these days : “ The Office of the Pardon Attorney , like so many federal agencies under Trump , lacks a permanent chief and a sense of mission .
Rosalind Sargent-Burns , the interim director , supervises a staff that is reportedly demoralized by the White House ’ s lack of interest.
” The result is that Trump , according to Pew Research , has so far granted clemency less frequently than any president since William McKinley , who was assassinated partway through his term in 1901 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s time in office ends , he ’ ll leave behind a backlog of almost 14,000 petitions for clemency .
In the few times he ’ s doled out pardons , it ’ s been to right-wing celebrities and supporters like his first national security adviser , Michael Flynn , and former Arizona sheriff and known racist Joe Arpaio .
He ’ s reduced the sentences of white-collar criminals like former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich and pardoned junk bond seller Michael Milken .
He ’ s intervened in cases of U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s let political operative Roger Stone off the hook for lying during the Russia investigation .
It ’ s become common practice for lawyers seeking a reprieve for their clients to appear on Fox News to appeal directly to the president .
The question arises over whether there can — or should — be anything done to constrain the president ’ s powers .
In the short term , the answer appears to be a resounding “ no.
” Even if Giuliani is one of the unnamed conspirators in the DOJ investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing that can be done about it if Trump wants to go through with pardoning him — or any of pardons he has on his mind before he exits , for that matter .
( The late Chief Justice William Taft — himself a former president — once wrote that impeachment is the best course of action to remove an executive who abuses the pardon , but ... it ’ s a bit late in the game for that . )
Looking to the future , the most important reform I can see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a self-pardon for federal crimes committed before or during their time in office , something that Trump has reportedly raised in discussions with advisors .
Such a law would almost certainly snake its way up to the Supreme Court , forcing a decision on whether there ’ s any line that a president can ’ t cross in his dispensation of pardons .
But more broadly , the fact remains that any prescriptive that would tie the hands of a future Trump-like president would bind a more judicious president as well .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sort of blanket preemptive pardons that would apply to Giuliani and that Ford granted President Richard Nixon after his resignation , covering past crimes that have yet to be revealed .
To do so would close off a necessary window for merciful absolution .
It seems a risk that we have to accept then , that the person we choose to faithfully execute our laws has the greater good and compassion in mind when offering the state ’ s forbearance .

It should surprise relatively nobody that President Donald Trump is reportedly considering issuing a pre-emptive pardon to Rudy Giuliani, his chief legal punching bag since Election Day. The New York Times didn’t have details on Tuesday about exactly which crimes Giuliani would potentially be forgiven for, but the possibility was “discussed with the president as recently as last week.”
Watching it all play out feels like watching a Nobel Peace Prize being used as a weapon to induce blunt force trauma.
It would make total sense that this would be the alleged reward for one of the president’s staunchest supporters. Trump has also reportedly asked about the possibility of pre-emptively pardoning two of his children and his son-in-law, too.
Even more intriguing and puzzling was a federal court record that was partially unsealed on Tuesday evening. According to the heavily redacted document, the Justice Department is investigating a potential plot that would have traded campaign donations for a presidential pardon. As of now we don't know the details about whether the president was ever aware of the conspiracy, or if any of the lawyers involved are connected to the president.
Both the alleged scheme and the former New York City mayor being in the running for a pardon fit with Trump's seeming belief in how a pardon should be used. Watching it all play out feels like watching a Nobel Peace Prize being used as a weapon to induce blunt force trauma — not just unethical, but against the very ideal on which the thing was created.
The presidential power of the pardon, baked into the Constitution as it is, is more or less absolute. After a lengthy debate over potential limits, that’s where the framers landed, having rejected limits like requiring Senate approval or granting pardons only after the grantee was convicted of a crime. In the end, the delegates to the conventions put their names to a document affirming that presidents “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
It’s unfortunate that Trump has decided to use this power only in the interests of himself and his followers.
The rationale behind that expansive ability makes sense even now. No system of justice is perfect in its manufacturing or deliverance, no matter how many laws are drafted by legislators listening to the better angels of their nature. It will always be the case that some sentences are too harsh for the crimes committed; some laws on the books will always be unjust. The pardon was designed as a small-r-republican version of the British monarch’s ability to grant reprieves, which for centuries was the only flexibility provided under the law’s rigid mores.
Chief Justice John Marshall in 1833 framed the president’s authority as a form of mercy, writing that pardons are “an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.” That in and of itself is a noble concept, offering something the criminal justice system lacks all too often.
It’s the moral underpinning of past pardons like Presidents Jimmy Carter’s and Gerald Ford's mass forgiveness of Vietnam draft dodgers. It’s what prompted President Barack Obama to issue over 600 grants of commutation on the way out the door, including 330 on his last day, bringing his total to more than 1,700 in his eight years in office.
The vast majority of the Americans to see their sentences reduced during Obama’s last week were imprisoned for nonviolent drug offenses. The pile also included clemency for Chelsea Manning, convicted in 2013 of violating the Espionage Act by providing American military and diplomatic secrets to WikiLeaks, and retired Marine Gen. James Cartwright, who pleaded guilty in 2016 to lying during a leak probe. Freedom from the carceral system was in these cases the more just option, offering presidents a path toward healing societal ills.
It’s unfortunate then that Trump has decided to use this power only in the interests of himself and his followers. Trump has claimed otherwise, of course. He’s wielded his much-touted use of the power on behalf of Alice Marie Johnson — who was released from prison after Kim Kardashian West lobbied the president — to claim that he had more love for Black Americans than any other president. (Johnson was invited to speak at the Republican National Convention and was featured heavily in Trump campaign ads.)
In practice, though, he has amplified what former President George W. Bush called “a massive injustice in the system” in his memoir, “Decision Points,” where he wrote: “If you had connections to the president, you could insert your case into the last-minute frenzy. Otherwise, you had to wait for the Justice Department to conduct a review and make a recommendation.”
It’s become common practice for lawyers seeking a reprieve for their clients to appear on Fox News to appeal directly to the president.
According to a recent piece in the New Yorker on death row inmates who had no real chance of having their cases adjudicated anytime soon, the DOJ’s team that evaluates pardon requests is in rough shape these days: “The Office of the Pardon Attorney, like so many federal agencies under Trump, lacks a permanent chief and a sense of mission. Rosalind Sargent-Burns, the interim director, supervises a staff that is reportedly demoralized by the White House’s lack of interest.”
Trump has so far granted clemency just 45 times, which, according to Pew Research, is less frequently than any president since William McKinley, who was assassinated partway through his term in 1901. Justice Department records show that when Trump’s time in office ends, he’ll leave behind a backlog of almost 14,000 petitions for clemency.
In the few times he’s doled out pardons, it’s been to right-wing celebrities and supporters like his first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He’s reduced the sentences of white-collar criminals like former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and pardoned junk bond seller Michael Milken. He’s intervened in cases of U.S. troops accused of war crimes. He’s let political operative Roger Stone off the hook for lying during the Russia investigation. It’s become common practice for lawyers seeking a reprieve for their clients to appear on Fox News to appeal directly to the president.
The question arises over whether there can — or should — be anything done to constrain the president’s powers. In the short term, the answer appears to be a resounding “no.” Even if Giuliani is one of the unnamed conspirators in the DOJ investigation revealed on Tuesday, there’s nothing that can be done about it if Trump wants to go through with pardoning him — or any of pardons he has on his mind before he exits, for that matter. (The late Chief Justice William Taft — himself a former president — once wrote that impeachment is the best course of action to remove an executive who abuses the pardon, but ... it’s a bit late in the game for that.)
Looking to the future, the most important reform I can see would be preventing presidents from issuing a self-pardon for federal crimes committed before or during their time in office, something that Trump has reportedly raised in discussions with advisors. Such a law would almost certainly snake its way up to the Supreme Court, forcing a decision on whether there’s any line that a president can’t cross in his dispensation of pardons.
But more broadly, the fact remains that any prescriptive that would tie the hands of a future Trump-like president would bind a more judicious president as well. That includes a law that would cut off the sort of blanket pre-emptive pardons that would apply to Giuliani and that Ford granted Richard Nixon after his resignation, covering past crimes that have yet to be revealed. To do so would close off a necessary window for merciful absolution. It seems a risk that we have to accept then, that the person we choose to faithfully execute our laws has the greater good and compassion in mind when offering the state’s forbearance.


msnbc--2020-12-02--The need for K.I.N.D. is more urgent because of Covid-19

The need for K.I.N.D. is more urgent because of Covid-19
This Giving Tuesday, consider donating to Kids in Need of Desks. In Malawi classrooms, desks have become a key factor in maintaining social distance between the students. Learn how you can help at lastworddesks.msnbc.com.Dec. 2, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-02--Charlie Sykes calls this time ‘the most dangerous 60 days of the Trump presidency’

'The Social Dilemma ' looks at the impact of tech on our daily lives

Editor-at-large at The Bulwark Charlie Sykes warns that between now and Joe Biden’s inauguration, there will be no norm that Trump is not willing to violateDec. 2, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-03--Dr. Vin Gupta: Cancel your travel plans

Dr. Vin Gupta: Cancel your travel plans

Dr. Vin Gupta says the next few months will be crucial as virus cases skyrocket and hospitalizations rise across the United States.Dec. 3, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-02--The average person will not be vaccinated ‘until at least the least the middle of 2021,’ says Dr. Re

The average person will not be vaccinated ‘until at least the least the middle of 2021,’ says Dr. Redlener
Dr. Irwin Redlener, physician and MSNBC public healthy analyst, discusses the complicated process of rolling out the coronavirus vaccine including when certain groups will be able to get it, and how to assure the public that it is safeDec. 2, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-02--Legacy civil rights groups feel left out of Biden transition

"There are a range of cabinet-level positions for which we can find very qualified Black Americans," Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) spoke on the need for diversity and representation in Biden's cabinet choices.Dec. 2, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-02--Mark Kelly sworn in as U.S. senator after flipping Arizona seat

Mark Kelly sworn in as U.S. senator after flipping Arizona seat
Former NASA astronaut Mark Kelly was sworn in as a U.S. senator by Vice President Mike Pence after flipping the Arizona seat formerly held by Sen. John McCain in a special election.Dec. 2, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-03--'A fool': MAGA fans turn on Barr after debunking Trump's fraud


msnbc--2020-12-02--Feds looking into alleged scheme to trade money for Trump pardon

There is a potential bribery scheme happening at the highest level of government. Former U.S. Attorney and FBI Official Chuck Rosenberg joins Chris Jansing to break down what federal officials are investigating about an alleged offer for a presidential pardon.Dec. 2, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-02--Why GOP's instant dismissal of Barr's election fraud denial is so concerning

On Tuesday , President Donald Trump ’ s loyal attorney general , Bill Barr , said he has “ not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.
” This would have been disastrous for Trump if facts actually mattered .
Fortunately for the president , the grievance movement he is building rests more on raw belief than any actual evidence that would hold up in a court of law .
Cults , after all , are built and sustained on faith , not data .
On cue , much of Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lou Dobbs of the Fox Business Network lashed out at Barr , saying he is “ either a liar or a fool , ” while other Trump-friendly media outlets labelled the one-time loyalist “ just another card-carrying swamp rat.
” None of this is especially surprising , since actual evidence of fraud is beside the point for much of Trump ’ s base .
They simply can not believe that it is possible that he lost .
“ Does anyone believe that Biden got 15 million more votes than Obama in 2012 ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a candidate who would go days/weeks while hardly campaigning.
” In the pro-Trump publication “ American Greatness , ” the theft of the election is treated as a matter of uncontestable fact .
“ The question is not whether the Democrats tried to steal the election ; they did , ” writes author Bruce Bawer .
“ At this point , there ’ s no honest question about that .
The only question is whether there ’ s enough time to prove it in court , and whether the judges involved will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative website RedState published a piece that stated “ without a doubt , this election was stolen , ” based on “ circumstantial evidence.
” “ The enthusiasm for the Trump team seemed insurmountable , ” ’ the author insists .
“ There is no way Biden and Harris jumped over that by holding rallies for 10 people at a time .
I ’ ll die on that hill.
” For Republicans , the long nightmare of Trump is not even close to being over .
Despite his defeat , it seems increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP hostage , insisting that they continue to support his claim that the election was stolen from him .
In the days immediately after the vote , some Republicans told themselves that there was no harm in indulging Trump , because , surely , he would eventually come around .
But far from psychologically adapting to his defeat , Trump has used the last month to launch a multifront attack on the election .
And despite his serial legal defeats in court , he and his supporters have escalated their rhetoric about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to overthrow the government , and rampant fraud .
He has also continued to raise massive amounts of money to combat the “ theft ” of the election .
Some Republicans are reportedly “ quietly rattled ” that Trump ’ s false claims could hurt turnout in the Jan. 5 runoffs in Georgia that will determine control of the Senate .
But the fallout will last far longer .
Even after he leaves office , Trump ’ s lies about the election are likely to be a litmus test for the GOP .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ governors who have followed the law and certified election results .
He has denounced Georgia ’ s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger as an “ enemy of the people.
” Indeed , Trump ’ s insistence that he was stabbed in the back could shape right-wing politics for decades .
In the short term , there is no longer any easy exit strategy for Republicans .
Trump ’ s denialism won ’ t end with the certification of the state votes ; it won ’ t end with the counting of the Electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t end on Jan. 20 with his departure from the White House .
Trump reportedly will boycott the inauguration and may stage a counter-event to announce that he is running in 2024 .
( Speaking of litmus tests : Will Vice President Mike Pence attend the formal inauguration or the Trumpian anti-inauguration ?
What will other GOP senators do ? )
What would another Trump campaign mean ?
If he says he ’ s running , Republicans will find themselves married to his election trutherism for another four , or perhaps even eight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about fraud will be central to that campaign — a chant at every rally ; the juice behind massive fundraising appeals ; the centerpiece of any post-presidential media enterprise ; and the subject of thousands of tweets .
There are scattered signs of resistance , but if this is going to be yet another test of the GOP ’ s integrity , it ’ s probably best to keep your optimism in check .
After four years of Trump , the habit of ignoring reality is no longer simply a reflex ; it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right ’ s political culture .
Indeed , ignoring the reality of the coronavirus was a dress rehearsal for ignoring the reality of an American election .
It makes sense then that most Republican officials remain afraid to offend the president or his MAGA base .
And even as he slides closer to defeat , Trump continues to stoke doubt and the anger .
In just the last few days we have seen : • A member of the president ’ s legal team claimed he was merely joking when he suggested that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cybersecurity head Chris Krebs be “ taken out at dawn and shot ” for defending the integrity of the election .
• A prominent conservative attorney in Georgia called on Trump to declare martial law because the Communist Chinese were plotting to overthrow the government .
• A well-known Christian conservative author and broadcaster said to Trump in an interview : `` I 'd be happy to die in this fight .
This is a fight for everything .
God is with us . ''
• Trump ’ s former lawyer retweeted a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act , set up `` military tribunals , '' cancel the electoral college vote and postpone the Jan. 20 Inauguration .
• Trump ’ s former national security adviser Michael Flynn , who was pardoned by the president last week , endorsed a manifesto calling on Trump “ to immediately declare a limited form of Martial Law and temporarily suspend the Constitution and civilian control of these federal elections for the sole purpose of having the military oversee a national re-vote.
” • Trump himself called on Georgia ’ s governor to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call off the election .
It won ’ t be needed .
We will all WIN !
” All of that was too much for one of Georgia ’ s top election officials .
Gabriel Sterling , the voting implementation manager with the Georgia secretary of state 's office and a Republican , made an emotional plea for decency and called out Trump ’ s own rhetoric .
“ Mr .
President , you have not condemned these actions or this language , ” he said .
“ Stop inspiring people to commit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to get hurt , someone is going to get shot , someone is going to get killed .
And it ’ s not right .
It has to stop , ” Sterling said .
But it won ’ t , because Trump thinks this is working for him .
And he ’ s counting on Republicans to go along with him , because they have so many times before .

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump’s loyal attorney general, Bill Barr, said he has “not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
If this is going to be yet another test of the GOP’s integrity, it’s probably best to keep your optimism in check.
This would have been disastrous for Trump if facts actually mattered. Fortunately for the president, the grievance movement he is building rests more on raw belief than any actual evidence that would hold up in a court of law.
Cults, after all, are built and sustained on faith, not data.
On cue, much of Trump’s supporters denounced the attorney general. Lou Dobbs of the Fox Business Network lashed out at Barr, saying he is “either a liar or a fool,” while other Trump-friendly media outlets labelled the one-time loyalist “just another card-carrying swamp rat.”
Why did President Trump fill his Cabinet with so many “swamp rats?” https://t.co/FxmWph8zEG — Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) December 1, 2020
None of this is especially surprising, since actual evidence of fraud is beside the point for much of Trump’s base. They simply cannot believe that it is possible that he lost. “Does anyone believe that Biden got 15 million more votes than Obama in 2012?” Eric Trump tweeted. “This from a candidate who would go days/weeks while hardly campaigning.”
Does anyone believe that Biden got 15 million more votes than Obama in 2012? This from a candidate who would go days/weeks while hardly campaigning. — Eric Trump (@EricTrump) November 28, 2020
In the pro-Trump publication “American Greatness,” the theft of the election is treated as a matter of uncontestable fact. “The question is not whether the Democrats tried to steal the election; they did,” writes author Bruce Bawer. “At this point, there’s no honest question about that. The only question is whether there’s enough time to prove it in court, and whether the judges involved will dare to make honest rulings.”
The conservative website RedState published a piece that stated “without a doubt, this election was stolen,” based on “circumstantial evidence.”
“The enthusiasm for the Trump team seemed insurmountable,”’ the author insists. “There is no way Biden and Harris jumped over that by holding rallies for 10 people at a time. I’ll die on that hill.”
This would have been disastrous for Trump if facts actually mattered.
For Republicans, the long nightmare of Trump is not even close to being over. Despite his defeat, it seems increasingly likely that Trump will continue to hold the GOP hostage, insisting that they continue to support his claim that the election was stolen from him.
In the days immediately after the vote, some Republicans told themselves that there was no harm in indulging Trump, because, surely, he would eventually come around. But far from psychologically adapting to his defeat, Trump has used the last month to launch a multifront attack on the election. And despite his serial legal defeats in court, he and his supporters have escalated their rhetoric about conspiracies, rigged machines, communist plots to overthrow the government, and rampant fraud. He has also continued to raise massive amounts of money to combat the “theft” of the election.
Some Republicans are reportedly “quietly rattled” that Trump’s false claims could hurt turnout in the Jan. 5 runoffs in Georgia that will determine control of the Senate. But the fallout will last far longer.
Even after he leaves office, Trump’s lies about the election are likely to be a litmus test for the GOP. Trump has already threatened primary challenges against governors who have followed the law and certified election results. He has denounced Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger as an “enemy of the people.”
Indeed, Trump’s insistence that he was stabbed in the back could shape right-wing politics for decades. In the short term, there is no longer any easy exit strategy for Republicans. Trump’s denialism won’t end with the certification of the state votes; it won’t end with the counting of the Electoral College votes; and it won’t end on Jan. 20 with his departure from the White House.
Trump reportedly will boycott the inauguration and may stage a counter-event to announce that he is running in 2024. (Speaking of litmus tests: Will Vice President Mike Pence attend the formal inauguration or the Trumpian anti-inauguration? What will other GOP senators do?)
What would another Trump campaign mean? If he says he’s running, Republicans will find themselves married to his election trutherism for another four, or perhaps even eight, years. Trump’s lies about fraud will be central to that campaign — a chant at every rally; the juice behind massive fundraising appeals; the centerpiece of any post-presidential media enterprise; and the subject of thousands of tweets.
There are scattered signs of resistance, but if this is going to be yet another test of the GOP’s integrity, it’s probably best to keep your optimism in check. After four years of Trump, the habit of ignoring reality is no longer simply a reflex; it is now at the center of the right’s political culture. Indeed, ignoring the reality of the coronavirus was a dress rehearsal for ignoring the reality of an American election. It makes sense then that most Republican officials remain afraid to offend the president or his MAGA base.
And even as he slides closer to defeat, Trump continues to stoke doubt and the anger. In just the last few days we have seen:
A member of the president’s legal team claimed he was merely joking when he suggested that the Department Homeland Security’s former cybersecurity head Chris Krebs be “taken out at dawn and shot” for defending the integrity of the election.
A prominent conservative attorney in Georgia called on Trump to declare martial law because the Communist Chinese were plotting to overthrow the government.
PATRIOT ALERT:
Information being received NOW that Communist China purchased Dominion Voting in October 8 for $400M.
Efforts underway to verify. If true, this confirms other evidence that Communists intend to overthrow our government to get our precious land.
NOT ON OUR WATCH. — Lin Wood (@LLinWood) December 1, 2020
A well-known Christian conservative author and broadcaster said to Trump in an interview: "I'd be happy to die in this fight. This is a fight for everything. God is with us."
This is the type of stuff you hear people say while they’re holed up in a cave in Tora Bora. https://t.co/cMmxEqqSrN — Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) December 1, 2020
Trump’s former lawyer retweeted a call for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, set up "military tribunals," cancel the electoral college vote and postpone the Jan. 20 Inauguration.
Donald Trump's former lawyer literally retweets a call for a coup and "military tribunals" in the United States instead of recognizing the results of the 2020 election pic.twitter.com/HazZvXrixW — Ben Jacobs (@Bencjacobs) December 1, 2020
Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was pardoned by the president last week, endorsed a manifesto calling on Trump “to immediately declare a limited form of Martial Law and temporarily suspend the Constitution and civilian control of these federal elections for the sole purpose of having the military oversee a national re-vote.”
Trump himself called on Georgia’s governor to “Do something,” and to “call off the election. It won’t be needed. We will all WIN!”
Do something @BrianKempGA. You allowed your state to be scammed. We must check signatures and count signed envelopes against ballots. Then call off election. It won’t be needed. We will all WIN! https://t.co/UiJrlyBGiK — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 1, 2020
All of that was too much for one of Georgia’s top election officials. Gabriel Sterling, the voting implementation manager with the Georgia secretary of state's office and a Republican, made an emotional plea for decency and called out Trump’s own rhetoric. “Mr. President, you have not condemned these actions or this language,” he said. “Stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence. Someone is going to get hurt, someone is going to get shot, someone is going to get killed. And it’s not right. It has to stop,” Sterling said.
But it won’t, because Trump thinks this is working for him. And he’s counting on Republicans to go along with him, because they have so many times before.


msnbc--2020-12-02--Why every American should care about Biden's pick to lead the DOD

As we ’ re waiting for President-elect Joe Biden to select a secretary of defense , Washington is playing its favorite parlor game : Why shouldn ’ t it be the perceived front-runner , Michèle Flournoy ?
After all , Flournoy has been widely regarded as the most qualified candidate for the job in the Obama administration , for the Clinton administration , and now for those speculating on a Biden cabinet .
In what is sure to be a closely divided Senate , ensuring support for Biden administration appointees means that any controversy could derail a nominee .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and others as pretextual claims for those who would have never said yes .
Critics from the left have criticized Flournoy ’ s ties to the defense industry , her long service in the Pentagon and her policy views , which have been squarely within the mainstream of national security thinking in the United States .
At the same time , new candidates have emerged , including former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and retired Gen. Lloyd Austin , a former CENTCOM commander .
Other candidates have been floated and then faded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an Iraq War veteran who lost her legs in service to the country .
But in evaluating who is qualified for the job of secretary of defense , it ’ s important to recognize what the job is .
The Department of Defense has been named the largest employer on the planet , with specialized health care and human capital needs .
It runs a logistics and transportation enterprise that dwarfs any commercial shipper , commissioning and building its own ships , planes and ground vehicles .
It is also one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet .
It runs a communications infrastructure that runs from the depths of the oceans to outer space .
The Department has been involved in every major national security crisis from Russian nuclear standoffs to hunting down the mastermind of 9/11 to maintaining peace on the Korean peninsula .
And even trickier , the secretary of defense must navigate an increasingly partisan political environment .
Picking someone for this job is a truly consequential task .
Over time , U.S. presidents have considered , nominated and parted ways with a range of candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been disqualifying can shed some light on the current debates over the candidates under consideration by Biden .
First , what kinds of things are truly disqualifying ?
Rarely has someone been formally nominated for the position and then been rejected , or had to withdraw their nomination .
In 1989 , George H.W .
Bush nominated John Tower , a senator from Texas , to be secretary of defense .
The Senate , in a rare rebuke to one of its own , rejected the nomination over allegations of drunkenness , womanizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of dollars in campaign contributions from defense industry .
Recently , President Donald Trump nominated Patrick Shanahan , the sitting deputy secretary of defense , for the top job , but had to withdraw his nomination in the face of credible allegations of domestic abuse .
Historically , there were concerns about using one ’ s position for self-enrichment .
Rules are in place to ensure that nominees do not have conflicts of interest with their personal finances , from requiring disclosure or divestiture , to the practice of placing one ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some potential candidates would take themselves out of consideration to avoid the scrutiny of their financial and business doings .
In the Clinton administration , respected former Adm. Bobby Inman angrily withdrew his nomination , purportedly over criticism he received from conservatives , though it was speculated that he was actually trying to avoid scrutiny over some of his corporate activities .
But more recently , the disqualifying criteria come in the vetting process for the nominee and are informally set in reaction to past controversies .
For example , at the beginning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Defense Comptroller William Lynn was nominated to be the No .
2 leader at the Pentagon , but the choice drew criticism because Lynn had served as a senior executive for Raytheon and had registered as a lobbyist for the company .
As a result , the Obama administration stopped appointing lobbyists .
For many Democrats , partisan affiliation also matters , in large part because Democratic presidents have called on Republicans to lead the DOD .
From 1997 to 2015 , the secretary of defense was Republican , with the exception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly two years in the Obama administration .
For many in the national security community , this lack of consideration for qualified Democrats has been incredibly frustrating .
And on a more positive note , the president-elect has made commitments to having a government that reflects the diversity of America , including in his national security appointments , a sector that has been historically dominated by white men .
Over time , we have seen the integration of minorities and women into the armed forces .
We saw the highest post in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then-Gen. Colin Powell as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff .
But we have yet to see a woman in either of the top two positions at the Department of Defense , civilian or military .
Biden has also made a point of choosing people for his other national security appointments with reputations as good managers , who are kind and show strong mentorship .
With all these criteria , it ’ s hard to imagine that anyone would qualify , which may explain why Flournoy has been the front-runner for so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are entitled to pick Cabinet secretaries with whom they get along and who will provide them honest counsel , and that relationship may win out over the other considerations .
But the question remains : When the president gives clear direction , will the secretary of defense execute that direction capably and effectively , even if the secretary would have personally chosen a different approach ?
In Washington , unless you are the president , you ’ re generally serving at someone else ’ s pleasure .
It comes down to which candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry it out .
Flournoy has a long history of being able to carry out the president ’ s will , even as that approach has changed over time .
The question for the president-elect is whether he trusts she would do so for him .

As we’re waiting for President-elect Joe Biden to select a secretary of defense, Washington is playing its favorite parlor game: Why shouldn’t it be the perceived front-runner, Michèle Flournoy? After all, Flournoy has been widely regarded as the most qualified candidate for the job in the Obama administration, for the Clinton administration, and now for those speculating on a Biden cabinet.
In evaluating who is qualified for the job of secretary of defense, it’s important to recognize what the job is.
In what is sure to be a closely divided Senate, ensuring support for Biden administration appointees means that any controversy could derail a nominee. Some arguments will be made in good faith, and others as pretextual claims for those who would have never said yes.
Critics from the left have criticized Flournoy’s ties to the defense industry, her long service in the Pentagon and her policy views, which have been squarely within the mainstream of national security thinking in the United States. At the same time, new candidates have emerged, including former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and retired Gen. Lloyd Austin, a former CENTCOM commander. Other candidates have been floated and then faded, like Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., an Iraq War veteran who lost her legs in service to the country.
But in evaluating who is qualified for the job of secretary of defense, it’s important to recognize what the job is. The Department of Defense has been named the largest employer on the planet, with specialized health care and human capital needs. It runs a logistics and transportation enterprise that dwarfs any commercial shipper, commissioning and building its own ships, planes and ground vehicles.
It is also one of the largest consumers of fuel on the planet. It runs a communications infrastructure that runs from the depths of the oceans to outer space. The Department has been involved in every major national security crisis from Russian nuclear standoffs to hunting down the mastermind of 9/11 to maintaining peace on the Korean peninsula. And even trickier, the secretary of defense must navigate an increasingly partisan political environment.
On a positive note, the president-elect has made commitments to having a government that reflects the diversity of America, including in his national security appointments.
Picking someone for this job is a truly consequential task. Over time, U.S. presidents have considered, nominated and parted ways with a range of candidates. Understanding what has and has not been disqualifying can shed some light on the current debates over the candidates under consideration by Biden.
First, what kinds of things are truly disqualifying? Rarely has someone been formally nominated for the position and then been rejected, or had to withdraw their nomination. In 1989, George H.W. Bush nominated John Tower, a senator from Texas, to be secretary of defense. The Senate, in a rare rebuke to one of its own, rejected the nomination over allegations of drunkenness, womanizing and, the final straw, receiving millions of dollars in campaign contributions from defense industry. Recently, President Donald Trump nominated Patrick Shanahan, the sitting deputy secretary of defense, for the top job, but had to withdraw his nomination in the face of credible allegations of domestic abuse.
Historically, there were concerns about using one’s position for self-enrichment. Rules are in place to ensure that nominees do not have conflicts of interest with their personal finances, from requiring disclosure or divestiture, to the practice of placing one’s investments in a blind trust. Some potential candidates would take themselves out of consideration to avoid the scrutiny of their financial and business doings. In the Clinton administration, respected former Adm. Bobby Inman angrily withdrew his nomination, purportedly over criticism he received from conservatives, though it was speculated that he was actually trying to avoid scrutiny over some of his corporate activities.
But more recently, the disqualifying criteria come in the vetting process for the nominee and are informally set in reaction to past controversies. For example, at the beginning of the Obama administration, former Department of Defense Comptroller William Lynn was nominated to be the No. 2 leader at the Pentagon, but the choice drew criticism because Lynn had served as a senior executive for Raytheon and had registered as a lobbyist for the company. As a result, the Obama administration stopped appointing lobbyists.
With all these criteria, it’s hard to imagine that anyone would qualify.
For many Democrats, partisan affiliation also matters, in large part because Democratic presidents have called on Republicans to lead the DOD. From 1997 to 2015, the secretary of defense was Republican, with the exception of Leon Panetta, who served for nearly two years in the Obama administration. For many in the national security community, this lack of consideration for qualified Democrats has been incredibly frustrating.
And on a more positive note, the president-elect has made commitments to having a government that reflects the diversity of America, including in his national security appointments, a sector that has been historically dominated by white men. Over time, we have seen the integration of minorities and women into the armed forces. We saw the highest post in the military held by a Black man, then-Gen. Colin Powell as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
But we have yet to see a woman in either of the top two positions at the Department of Defense, civilian or military. Biden has also made a point of choosing people for his other national security appointments with reputations as good managers, who are kind and show strong mentorship.
With all these criteria, it’s hard to imagine that anyone would qualify, which may explain why Flournoy has been the front-runner for so long.
It is true that presidents are entitled to pick Cabinet secretaries with whom they get along and who will provide them honest counsel, and that relationship may win out over the other considerations. But the question remains: When the president gives clear direction, will the secretary of defense execute that direction capably and effectively, even if the secretary would have personally chosen a different approach? In Washington, unless you are the president, you’re generally serving at someone else’s pleasure. It comes down to which candidate is most able to anticipate that and carry it out. Flournoy has a long history of being able to carry out the president’s will, even as that approach has changed over time. The question for the president-elect is whether he trusts she would do so for him.


msnbc--2020-12-02--State-by-state breakdown of coronavirus travel restrictions

Guidance on traveling and travel restrictions varies across the United States as the country faces new surges in Covid-19 cases @ @ @ @ @ between regions highlights the ability of states to take different approaches while dealing with the @ @ @ @ @ of the Northeast and most of the mid-Atlantic states have implemented statewide travel restrictions , @ @ @ @ @ , including two of the biggest , Texas and Florida , have no such restrictions @ @ @ @ @ Washington introduced tough travel restrictions in November , requiring all out-of-state visitors and returning residents @ @ @ @ @ on arrival .
States hit the hardest when the epidemic began in the United States @ @ @ @ @ New York , New Jersey and Connecticut , also have some of the most stringent @ @ @ @ @ opting for statewide restrictions , some local officials have imposed restrictions on travel to the @ @ @ @ @ the interactive map below to see the latest guidance on travel and possible travel restrictions @ @ @ @ @ updated weekly .

Matt Marshall and Naitian Zhou and Kanwal Syed

Guidance on traveling and travel restrictions varies across the United States as the country faces new surges in Covid-19 cases.
The patchwork of restrictions between regions highlights the ability of states to take different approaches while dealing with the coronavirus pandemic.
While all of the Northeast and most of the mid-Atlantic states have implemented statewide travel restrictions, more than half the states, including two of the biggest, Texas and Florida, have no such restrictions.
States hit the hardest when the epidemic began in the United States last spring, such as New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, have some of the most stringent travel restrictions.
Instead of opting for statewide restrictions, some local officials have imposed restrictions on travel to the most populous cities.
Check the interactive map below to see the latest guidance on travel and possible travel restrictions. This map will be updated weekly.


msnbc--2020-12-02--Tracking coronavirus case surges in the United States

Covid-19 cases are once again rising across the country .
But not all upticks are the same .
In states @ @ @ @ @ South Dakota , new cases have risen steadily since July , with daily counts as @ @ @ @ @ highs .
In states such as Maryland , New York and Texas , new daily @ @ @ @ @ the spring surges , but they began to tick up again this fall .
NBC @ @ @ @ @ are seeing prolonged or dramatic case increases as the country heads into a winter President-elect @ @ @ @ @ final presidential debate as “ dark.
” The charts below show each state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ cases .
Areas highlighted in red represent periods where the rate of new cases exceeds @ @ @ @ @ longer the red line , the longer cases have been increasing and the more rapidly @ @ @ @ @ The charts will update daily before 11 a.m. Eastern .

Measuring stress levels at hospital intensive care units can help hospitals plan and manage their surge capacity. The stress level is based on the share of ICU hospital beds used by Covid patients. Low-stress hospitals have less than 10% of critical care beds occupied by Covid patients, while high-stress hospitals have from 30% to 59%.


msnbc--2020-12-02--Does your state have a mask mandate? See the latest guidance in every state

In the age of Covid-19 , the act of wearing a mask in public has become another front in America ’ s bitter culture wars .
But even amid the partisan divide , a growing number of states — including some led by Republican governors — now mandate face coverings .
More than half the states had issued mask requirements as of Dec. 2 , a move that public health experts say will help stop the spread of the coronavirus as cases surge in many regions .
Arkansas Gov .
Asa Hutchinson , a Republican who had resisted a statewide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as did Colorado Gov .
Jared Polis , a Democrat .
But some political squabbles show no sign of abating : Georgia 's governor in July sued Atlanta 's mayor over the city 's mask law , a day after he banned local governments from requiring the coverings .
Between July and late November , several new states issued mask mandates , including Utah , Minnesota , Wisconsin , Vermont , Indiana and Ohio .
Here ’ s a look at where masks are now mandated by state governments , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll update this page in the days ahead .

Daniel Arkin and Savannah Smith and Anna Sundberg and Ashley Capoot and Charlotte Li and Jiachuan Wu and Kanwal Syed

In the age of Covid-19, the act of wearing a mask in public has become another front in America’s bitter culture wars. But even amid the partisan divide, a growing number of states — including some led by Republican governors — now mandate face coverings.
More than half the states had issued mask requirements as of Dec. 10, a move that public health experts say will help stop the spread of the coronavirus as cases surge in many regions.
Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a Republican who had resisted a statewide mask requirement, issued one in July, as did Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat.
But some political squabbles show no sign of abating: Georgia's governor in July sued Atlanta's mayor over the city's mask law, a day after he banned local governments from requiring the coverings.
Between July and late November, several new states issued mask mandates, including Utah, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont, Indiana and Ohio.
Here’s a look at where masks are now mandated by state governments, according to NBC News’ reporting. We’ll update this page in the days ahead.


msnbc--2020-12-03--As Covid rages, Trump rages about the election for 46 minutes

Lawrence : ‘ Your generosity for K.I.N.D .
has left me in awe ’

America's Covid-19 crisis continues to get worse every single day. But as Trump's CDC issued a new dire warning to the general public, the president spent his time continuing his baseless attacks on the 2020 election and his loss to Joe Biden.Dec. 3, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-03--Inside the 25 days that shook the Trump presidency

Meacham: Pence probably saved the republic, but I don't always want to count on one person to do it 08:18


msnbc--2020-12-03--Rep. Katie Porter: ‘Gravely concerned’ Mnuchin & Powell split on economic relief

Rep. Katie Porter joins Lawrence O’Donnell to discuss how Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin “showed so much disdain” during his testimony before the House Financial Services Committee on his decision to end Federal Reserve emergency lending programs.Dec. 3, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-03--Health officials encouraged to go rogue, defy bad local leadership as Covid crisis worsens

Rachel Maddow reports on the White House Coronavirus Task Force being so alarmed by the pace and deadliness of the spread of Covid-19 that they're encouraging local health officials to go around leaders who aren't taking the virus seriously in order to encourage extreme precautions.Dec. 3, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-02--Tim O’Brien: Trump’s ‘mind is on fire with the reality’ that he will no longer have the presidential

Tim O’Brien: Trump’s ‘mind is on fire with the reality’ that he will no longer have the presidential safety-net
Senior columnist at Bloomberg Opinion Tim O’Brien analyzes how the president continues to react to his election loss and his deep fears about his legal jeopardy once he leaves officeDec. 2, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-03--Daily coronavirus deaths in the U.S. hit a record high

The U.S. reported 2,777 coronavirus-related deaths on Wednesday, according to NBC News tally, and the U.S. had nearly 205,000 new cases of Covid-19 on the same day. The Morning Joe panel discusses the latest virus statistics.Dec. 3, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-03--Mitch McConnell actually cried today. Lawrence was not moved.

Mitch McConnell actually cried today. Lawrence was not moved.
Lawrence O’Donnell says Mitch McConnell was literally crying on the Senate floor when Republicans in Georgia were standing up to Donald Trump’s election lies.Dec. 3, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-03--There's no denying anymore that Israel's 'nation state' law is racist

A court in Israel clarified something Monday with its decision to cite the country 's controversial `` nation state '' law : Israel has enshrined racism as one of its basic principles .
The lawsuit asked the northern Israeli city of Carmiel to reimburse Arab parents for the costs of driving their kids to school each day , because Arabic-language schooling is n't available inside the city limits .
In its dismissal of the case , the court all but said the city could n't risk attracting more Arab residents — a decision that it used the `` nation state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hate writing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict— mostly because it 's a subject that produces a black hole of misunderstandings and prompts people to ignore nuance , especially online .
There 's a lot that makes that the case — but setting aside the anti-Semitism against Israelis , the violence carried out over the last 70 years , the blockade of Gaza and the resulting humanitarian crisis , and everything else that makes this issue so contentious , we should be able to agree on one thing : The court 's decision is racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` nation state '' law were right to call the law racist when it was narrowly passed in 2018 .
The act is one of what are known as Israel 's `` basic laws , '' measures that serve as de facto articles in the state 's unfinished constitution .
These laws form the underpinning of the government — most involve the structure of the organs of the state .
( The 1992 Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty is special in that its text mandates that its provisions supersede any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Under the terms of the `` nation state '' law , `` the right to exercise national self-determination '' in Israel is `` unique to the Jewish people '' — meaning only Jews can decide the makeup of the state and society , blocking out the nearly 2 million Arabs who call Israel their home .
It also declares that the `` state views Jewish settlement as a national value and will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development . ''
For Israelis who want their country to be a multiethnic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minorities from taking part in choices that affect the country — while is also expands into Palestinian territories — is problematic , to say the least .
The basic law also downgraded Arabic from an official language , which it had been since the country 's founding , to a `` special status '' language , furthering the sense that the law cements Arab Israelis as second-class citizens .
Those concerns are now playing out in Carmiel , a town in Galilee that is 94 percent Jewish and 6 percent Arab .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years in Israel as Arab families move into Jewish-majority areas , trying to find affordable housing — circumventing the restraints on growth placed on Palestinian cities — and to improve their lives .
Once there , they 've found a lack of services to accommodate them and their children , if not outright discrimination .
In Carmiel , the majority of the city 's 500 Arab school-age children are forced to attend school outside the city limits so they can learn in Arabic .
Carmiel 's government is scattershot about its policies here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the parents for this hardship , unless forced to in court , and it no longer funds any busing of the students to Arabic-language schools .
Dozens of parents petitioned the government in March to apply its reimbursement policy more evenly or provide the needed transportation , but to no avail .
A lawsuit filed in November sought to force the city to reimburse the family of two children , ages 6 and 10 , about US $ 7,500 for their travel .
The Krayot Magistrates Court dismissed the suit Monday and ordered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the defendants , the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported .
The chief registrar , Yaniv Luzon , reportedly wrote in the court 's decision that one reason the suit could n't go forward was that `` Carmiel , a Jewish city , was meant to establish Jewish settlement in the Galilee . ''
It only follows then , he wrote , that establishing an Arabic-language school and paying for rides for Arab students `` could change the demographic balance and damage the city 's character . ''
While he gave seven reasons for dismissing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cited the basic law 's settlement provision to argue that a city 's demographic makeup is `` an appropriate , dominant '' factor when local governments set rules and regulations .
Imagine a court saying that in the United States .
Substitute the words `` white '' for `` Jewish '' and `` Black '' for `` Arab . ''
This is the same sort of logic that divided America 's cities with redlining , keeping white suburbs free of Black residents and preventing Black upward mobility .
It 's not a direct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of the power dynamic , it 's a valid one .
Nareman Shehadeh-Zoabi , a lawyer with the civil rights group Adalah , The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights , agreed .
She told Haaretz that the court 's `` ruling states that giving equal rights to the Arab residents of Carmiel will send a message that will invite more Arab residents to live in the city , and through this logic sanctions a racist , discriminatory policy . ''
`` These are precisely the frightening consequences we warned about when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said .
It 's up to Israeli politicians to correct this injustice .
Unfortunately , it seems like the political will to push back against this racism does n't exist in Israel at the moment .
The Kahol Lavan party , part of the governing coalition that seems all but set to collapse , introduced a draft Basic Law on Equal Rights and the Prevention of Discrimination .
In theory , the bill 's explicit declaration that Arab Israelis would have equality under Israeli law would help attract potential voters who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law .
But the bill was withdrawn Wednesday for fear that it would n't have the votes to pass , possibly embarrassing party leader Benny Gantz instead of bolstering him .
A panel of Israel 's High Court of Justice is scheduled to consider over a dozen petitions against the law this month .
It 's not clear whether the court has the authority to overturn basic laws — the court only relatively recently claimed the right to review — but it may be able to , in theory , if it finds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Law on Human Dignity and Liberty .
Meanwhile , President-elect Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats have a rough time ahead of them politically if they speak out .
Republicans and evangelicals are ready and waiting to pounce the first time the Biden administration criticizes anything Israel does .
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu , whose Likud party and its allies championed the bill , has clearly thrown in his lot with the GOP in recent years , as his embrace of President Donald Trump made clear .
But this law is wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be free to say as much without being labeled as anti-Semitic .
We here in America need to be able to clearly say that this is the modern equivalent of a `` separate but equal '' policy — racist , wrong and untenable for a country that touts itself as the only democracy in the Middle East .

A court in Israel clarified something Monday with its decision to cite the country's controversial "nation state" law: Israel has enshrined racism as one of its basic principles.
The court all but said the city couldn't risk attracting more Arab residents — a decision that it used the "nation state" law to justify.
The lawsuit asked the northern Israeli city of Carmiel to reimburse Arab parents for the costs of driving their kids to school each day, because Arabic-language schooling isn't available inside the city limits. In its dismissal of the case, the court all but said the city couldn't risk attracting more Arab residents — a decision that it used the "nation state" law to justify.
I normally hate writing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict— mostly because it's a subject that produces a black hole of misunderstandings and prompts people to ignore nuance, especially online. There's a lot that makes that the case — but setting aside the anti-Semitism against Israelis, the violence carried out over the last 70 years, the blockade of Gaza and the resulting humanitarian crisis, and everything else that makes this issue so contentious, we should be able to agree on one thing: The court's decision is racist.
It proves that critics of the "nation state" law were right to call the law racist when it was narrowly passed in 2018. The act is one of what are known as Israel's "basic laws," measures that serve as de facto articles in the state's unfinished constitution. These laws form the underpinning of the government — most involve the structure of the organs of the state. (The 1992 Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty is special in that its text mandates that its provisions supersede any other law that might violate it.)
Under the terms of the "nation state" law, "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people" — meaning only Jews can decide the makeup of the state and society, blocking out the nearly 2 million Arabs who call Israel their home. It also declares that the "state views Jewish settlement as a national value and will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development."
The majority of the city's 500 Arab school-age children are forced to attend school outside the city limits so they can learn in Arabic.
For Israelis who want their country to be a multiethnic democracy, a law that specifically bans minorities from taking part in choices that affect the country — while is also expands into Palestinian territories — is problematic, to say the least. The basic law also downgraded Arabic from an official language, which it had been since the country's founding, to a "special status" language, furthering the sense that the law cements Arab Israelis as second-class citizens.
Those concerns are now playing out in Carmiel, a town in Galilee that is 94 percent Jewish and 6 percent Arab. It's a problem that has lurked for years in Israel as Arab families move into Jewish-majority areas, trying to find affordable housing — circumventing the restraints on growth placed on Palestinian cities — and to improve their lives. Once there, they've found a lack of services to accommodate them and their children, if not outright discrimination.
Substitute the words "white" for "Jewish" and "Black" for "Arab." This is the same sort of logic that divided America's cities with redlining, keeping white suburbs free of Black residents and preventing Black upward mobility.
In Carmiel, the majority of the city's 500 Arab school-age children are forced to attend school outside the city limits so they can learn in Arabic. Carmiel's government is scattershot about its policies here — it doesn't reimburse many of the parents for this hardship, unless forced to in court, and it no longer funds any busing of the students to Arabic-language schools. Dozens of parents petitioned the government in March to apply its reimbursement policy more evenly or provide the needed transportation, but to no avail.
A lawsuit filed in November sought to force the city to reimburse the family of two children, ages 6 and 10, about US$7,500 for their travel. The Krayot Magistrates Court dismissed the suit Monday and ordered the plaintiffs to pay legal fees to the defendants, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported. The chief registrar, Yaniv Luzon, reportedly wrote in the court's decision that one reason the suit couldn't go forward was that "Carmiel, a Jewish city, was meant to establish Jewish settlement in the Galilee." It only follows then, he wrote, that establishing an Arabic-language school and paying for rides for Arab students "could change the demographic balance and damage the city's character."
While he gave seven reasons for dismissing the case, Luzon's ruling specifically cited the basic law's settlement provision to argue that a city's demographic makeup is "an appropriate, dominant" factor when local governments set rules and regulations.
Imagine a court saying that in the United States. Substitute the words "white" for "Jewish" and "Black" for "Arab." This is the same sort of logic that divided America's cities with redlining, keeping white suburbs free of Black residents and preventing Black upward mobility. It's not a direct comparison, historically speaking — but in terms of the power dynamic, it's a valid one.
Nareman Shehadeh-Zoabi, a lawyer with the civil rights group Adalah, The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights, agreed. She told Haaretz that the court's "ruling states that giving equal rights to the Arab residents of Carmiel will send a message that will invite more Arab residents to live in the city, and through this logic sanctions a racist, discriminatory policy."
"These are precisely the frightening consequences we warned about when we opposed the nation-state law," she said.
It's up to Israeli politicians to correct this injustice. Unfortunately, it seems like the political will to push back against this racism doesn't exist in Israel at the moment. The Kahol Lavan party, part of the governing coalition that seems all but set to collapse, introduced a draft Basic Law on Equal Rights and the Prevention of Discrimination. In theory, the bill's explicit declaration that Arab Israelis would have equality under Israeli law would help attract potential voters who are wary of the "nation state" law. But the bill was withdrawn Wednesday for fear that it wouldn't have the votes to pass, possibly embarrassing party leader Benny Gantz instead of bolstering him.
A panel of Israel's High Court of Justice is scheduled to consider over a dozen petitions against the law this month. It's not clear whether the court has the authority to overturn basic laws — the court only relatively recently claimed the right to review — but it may be able to, in theory, if it finds that the law clashes with the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty.
Meanwhile, President-elect Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats have a rough time ahead of them politically if they speak out. Republicans and evangelicals are ready and waiting to pounce the first time the Biden administration criticizes anything Israel does. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose Likud party and its allies championed the bill, has clearly thrown in his lot with the GOP in recent years, as his embrace of President Donald Trump made clear.
But this law is wrong, and American politicians and diplomats should be free to say as much without being labeled as anti-Semitic. We here in America need to be able to clearly say that this is the modern equivalent of a "separate but equal" policy — racist, wrong and untenable for a country that touts itself as the only democracy in the Middle East.