msnbc--2020-12-15--Republicans lost in 2020. Their response: Make it even harder to vote next time.

The last month should really be inspiring a series of `` look at your life , look at your choices '' moments for the Republican Party writ large .
It would be a nice change of pace from the weeks of flailing we 've seen from elected officials and party luminaries .
But instead of searching their souls , Republicans around the country are doubling down on the lies and attacks on democracy that got us here in the first place .
Remember the last time a Republican nominee lost the White House ?
Back then , the Republican National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ autopsy '' to examine what went wrong with Mitt Romney 's candidacy and how to prevent it from happening again .
There were some pretty sensible ideas in that report , including how to improve messaging beyond the GOP base ( `` The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself '' ) and outreach to minorities ( `` If we want ethnic minority voters to support Republicans , we have to engage them and show our sincerity '' ) .
But then Donald Trump declared himself a candidate just over two years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report by the metaphorical head and proceeded to smash them against a very large rock , convincing his fellow Republicans that actually , going all in on core constituencies is a good idea .
A new version of the 2013 autopsy might well recommend that Republicans , among other things , go back to promoting democracy as a core belief .
But given how deeply invested the Republican National Committee of 2020 is in pumping out Trump 's lies about election fraud and the willingness of more than half of Republican members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to overturn the election 's results , I do n't think it would somehow get through to any more people than the last attempt .
Trump was met with zero resistance as he systematically laid the groundwork over the last nine months for his claims that the election was rigged .
Instead , he got support from Republicans at all levels of government .
Several standouts in the party correctly said not only that the vote was fair , but also that it ran much more smoothly than had been predicted .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and threatened .
I argued ahead of Election Day that Nov. 3 would mark the start of a new war on voting rights — and I was more correct than I 'd expected .
Rather than separating themselves from Trump 's lies as November fades into memory , GOP lawmakers are picking up the ball and running with it , continuing to lie to their constituents to crack down on voting rights .
Trump 's attacks on mail-in ballots , which everyone who is an expert on voting said were false , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters — particularly Black and brown voters .
Michigan legislators are reported to be looking into overturning the ballots of the two-thirds of the state 's voters who approved a 2018 initiative allowing no-excuse absentee ballots .
In Pennsylvania , election bills are being prepped that The New York Times says are designed `` to stiffen identification requirements for mail ballots , tighten standards for signature matching and , in one case , to repeal the law that allows anyone to vote absentee without an excuse . ''
Meanwhile , Georgia is proving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new assault in the run-up to the state 's Senate runoff elections in January .
Republicans are already prepping a slew of measures to make voting more difficult .
That includes a proposal to required voter ID for absentee ballots , which gave me a headache when I tried to consider how that might actually work .
Already , 4 of the 10 most populous counties in Georgia are rolling back the number of early voting locations that will be available .
Lest you think this is limited to state lawmakers , national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich weighed in on Twitter , taking aim as so many others have at Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger , a fellow Republican who has said repeatedly that there was no systemic voter fraud in Georgia .
We should n't be at all surprised , though .
It was n't Trump who first put this instinct into Republicans ' heads .
The current morass is built upon years of tapping into , as Adam Serwer noted at The Atlantic , a belief among the Republican base `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because Democratic voters are not truly American . ''
The result has been decades of legislation that makes it more difficult for Americans , especially minorities , to vote .
Even Raffensperger , who 's become a hero of the last election , backs the idea that voters should somehow show ID to vote by mail .
Without the protections of the Voting Rights Act , and supported by a glut of newly appointed judges , federal courts have been fine with states ' making it harder and harder to vote .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ autopsy report told NPR in 2016 that she hoped `` Trump will lose in November , Republicans will lose the Senate , and the GOP will be forced to rebuild with conservatives focused on the power of ideas . ''
That clearly did n't happen .
And though Trump may have lost last month and the Senate might still flip in January , it does n't seem any more likely that the Republican Party will stop filling its supporters ' heads with garbage .
Honestly , about the only upside I can offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer have to take Republican lies about preventing voter fraud seriously .
We can instead feel free to call them out for what they are : a way to keep as many people from voting as possible .

The last month should really be inspiring a series of "look at your life, look at your choices" moments for the Republican Party writ large. It would be a nice change of pace from the weeks of flailing we've seen from elected officials and party luminaries. But instead of searching their souls, Republicans around the country are doubling down on the lies and attacks on democracy that got us here in the first place.
Remember the last time a Republican nominee lost the White House? Back then, the Republican National Committee cranked out a 100-page "election autopsy" to examine what went wrong with Mitt Romney's candidacy and how to prevent it from happening again.
There were some pretty sensible ideas in that report, including how to improve messaging beyond the GOP base ("The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself") and outreach to minorities ("If we want ethnic minority voters to support Republicans, we have to engage them and show our sincerity").
But then Donald Trump declared himself a candidate just over two years later, grabbed the ideas in that report by the metaphorical head and proceeded to smash them against a very large rock, convincing his fellow Republicans that actually, going all in on core constituencies is a good idea.
GOP lawmakers are picking up the ball and running with it, continuing to lie to their constituents to crack down on voting rights.
A new version of the 2013 autopsy might well recommend that Republicans, among other things, go back to promoting democracy as a core belief. But given how deeply invested the Republican National Committee of 2020 is in pumping out Trump's lies about election fraud and the willingness of more than half of Republican members of the House to sign onto a lawsuit to overturn the election's results, I don't think it would somehow get through to any more people than the last attempt.
Trump was met with zero resistance as he systematically laid the groundwork over the last nine months for his claims that the election was rigged. Instead, he got support from Republicans at all levels of government. Several standouts in the party correctly said not only that the vote was fair, but also that it ran much more smoothly than had been predicted. For their heresy, they have been ostracized and threatened.
I argued ahead of Election Day that Nov. 3 would mark the start of a new war on voting rights — and I was more correct than I'd expected. Rather than separating themselves from Trump's lies as November fades into memory, GOP lawmakers are picking up the ball and running with it, continuing to lie to their constituents to crack down on voting rights.
Trump's attacks on mail-in ballots, which everyone who is an expert on voting said were false, have become an excuse for new restrictions on voters — particularly Black and brown voters. Michigan legislators are reported to be looking into overturning the ballots of the two-thirds of the state's voters who approved a 2018 initiative allowing no-excuse absentee ballots. In Pennsylvania, election bills are being prepped that The New York Times says are designed "to stiffen identification requirements for mail ballots, tighten standards for signature matching and, in one case, to repeal the law that allows anyone to vote absentee without an excuse."
Meanwhile, Georgia is proving to be a testing ground for this new assault in the run-up to the state's Senate runoff elections in January. Republicans are already prepping a slew of measures to make voting more difficult. That includes a proposal to required voter ID for absentee ballots, which gave me a headache when I tried to consider how that might actually work. Already, 4 of the 10 most populous counties in Georgia are rolling back the number of early voting locations that will be available.
Lest you think this is limited to state lawmakers, national Republicans are in on the act, too. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich weighed in on Twitter, taking aim as so many others have at Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a fellow Republican who has said repeatedly that there was no systemic voter fraud in Georgia.
Why is Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger working so hard to add drop boxes and take other steps to make it harder for Republicans to win. Is he really that intimidated by Stacey Abrams? — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) December 13, 2020
We shouldn't be at all surprised, though. It wasn't Trump who first put this instinct into Republicans' heads. The current morass is built upon years of tapping into, as Adam Serwer noted at The Atlantic, a belief among the Republican base "that Democratic victories do not count, because Democratic voters are not truly American." The result has been decades of legislation that makes it more difficult for Americans, especially minorities, to vote. Even Raffensperger, who's become a hero of the last election, backs the idea that voters should somehow show ID to vote by mail.
About the only upside I can offer from this mess is that now we no longer have to take Republican lies about preventing voter fraud seriously.
Without the protections of the Voting Rights Act, and supported by a glut of newly appointed judges, federal courts have been fine with states' making it harder and harder to vote.
One of the authors of the GOP's autopsy report told NPR in 2016 that she hoped "Trump will lose in November, Republicans will lose the Senate, and the GOP will be forced to rebuild with conservatives focused on the power of ideas." That clearly didn't happen. And though Trump may have lost last month and the Senate might still flip in January, it doesn't seem any more likely that the Republican Party will stop filling its supporters' heads with garbage.
Honestly, about the only upside I can offer from this mess is that now we no longer have to take Republican lies about preventing voter fraud seriously. We can instead feel free to call them out for what they are: a way to keep as many people from voting as possible.


msnbc--2020-12-15--Endorsed the overthrow of an election? Lose the media's endorsement — and coverage

In yet another sign of a party in crisis , in the House of Representatives , 126 Republicans , more than two thirds of the entire conference , signed an amicus brief supporting the Texas attorney general ’ s lawsuit to halt the seating of electors from four battleground states .
That suit died as quickly as it was stitched together ; at least seven members of the Supreme Court swatted it away like an annoying relative .
But the fact that the motions were filed in the first place , and that it received such support , should make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state of our political system in this moment .
Why are some Republicans doing this ?
The Republicans who signed on to the doomed dumb diatribe included the House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy , who spent a day avoiding questions about it — only to join it when it became clear that fealty to the personality cult of President Donald Trump once again took precedence over common sense in his party .
If you forage through the lawsuit to find even the tiniest morsel of evidence , you will starve .
The suit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a slate for President-elect Biden , and Biden will be inaugurated Jan. 20 .
It 's frustrating for worried Americans to read things about how Republicans have become anti-democracy ; Republicans are vitiating norms ; the efforts to keep them in line won ’ t work .
I assure you , it also frustrates to write them .
Statements like these are more often than not followed by common-sense questions like : Why does this keep happening ?
Why are Republicans waging a war on democracy allowed to get away with it ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The answer is obvious , but not simple : There are no incentives , at the federal or local level , for Republicans who want power to act any differently .
Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann noticed back in 2006 that House Republicans lacked “ institutional patriotism ” — that is , a sense that their own work as lawmakers contributed meaningfully to democracy as a collective ; they had been gerrymandered into office and the only significant political pressure they faced was a risk that they would be shamed for not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment , which was inevitably a divisive cultural issue .
Since they faced no competition in elections , they were completely insulated from the consequence of their actions .
The decline of local news , as an industry , and as a check and balance , has played a role here .
There are far fewer political reporters around to keep up with congressional shenanigans .
And because of the stranglehold that the perception of political bias has on editorial decisions , egregiously undemocratic actions aren ’ t covered close to the point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Orlando Sentinel apologized to its readers for endorsing Michael Waltz ’ s congressional bid after he endorsed the short-lived Texas bid , on the grounds that his indifference to the good amounted to a “ cowardly betrayal of American ideals.
” Waltz ’ s Democratic opponent , the Sentinel had earlier written , was “ dismal.
” In addition , “ We were impressed this year , as we were in 2018 , with Waltz ’ s seeming pragmatism , though less impressed with his willingness to crash a congressional hearing during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; give a congressman a dumb political stunt , take a congressman who does dumb political stunts .
But the Sentinel ’ s retraction is remarkable .
And to the extent that local news editors , producers and reporters care about the people they serve , it can be a lesson .
The lesson is that subverting democracy is really dangerous .
These members — all 126 of them — should be asked , as often as possible , why they participated .
Why did they consent to throw out tens of millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that aligning with Trump was a better move than choosing to nobly accept his loss and move on ?
There should be no coverage of their earmarks , or their constituent work , or their local bridge-building , until they are all harassed by reporters and pressure groups about their decision .
Changing the incentives is not going to come from the top .
( I don ’ t know what to make of Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell ’ s petition to not seat any of the Republicans who signed on to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — but I admire his moral clarity . )
Another source of pressure can and should come from brave Republicans .
RightWisconsin , a conservative website , served as an example of this when it issued a correction Dec. 11 for an early 2020 endorsement of Rep. Tom Tiffany : '' In the endorsement editorial , editor James Wigderson described Tiffany as a 'solid conservative legislator ’ and ‘ a candidate whom they know will fight for conservative principles in Washington.
’ '' the group stated on its website .
`` Tiffany was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deserving of Republican votes in the February 18 GOP primary.
’ It ’ s clear from the evidence Tiffany is not ‘ a solid conservative legislator ’ and ‘ a candidate whom they know will fight for conservative principles in Washington.
’ As for being ‘ the only candidate deserving of Republican votes in the February 18 GOP primary , ’ apparently the 1980s teenage singer Tiffany Darwish was the Tiffany that was meant . ''
How does a party in thrall to a cult of personality clear its conscience ?
Slowly .

In yet another sign of a party in crisis, in the House of Representatives, 126 Republicans, more than two thirds of the entire conference, signed an amicus brief supporting the Texas attorney general’s lawsuit to halt the seating of electors from four battleground states. That suit died as quickly as it was stitched together; at least seven members of the Supreme Court swatted it away like an annoying relative.
If you forage through the lawsuit to find even the tiniest morsel of evidence, you will starve.
But the fact that the motions were filed in the first place, and that it received such support, should make everyone of us stop and reassess the state of our political system in this moment. Why are some Republicans doing this?
The Republicans who signed on to the doomed dumb diatribe included the House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who spent a day avoiding questions about it — only to join it when it became clear that fealty to the personality cult of President Donald Trump once again took precedence over common sense in his party.
If you forage through the lawsuit to find even the tiniest morsel of evidence, you will starve. The suit failed; the Electoral College will seat a slate for President-elect Biden, and Biden will be inaugurated Jan. 20.
It's frustrating for worried Americans to read things about how Republicans have become anti-democracy; Republicans are vitiating norms; the efforts to keep them in line won’t work. I assure you, it also frustrates to write them. Statements like these are more often than not followed by common-sense questions like: Why does this keep happening? Why are Republicans waging a war on democracy allowed to get away with it? Why aren’t they facing consequences?
There are no incentives, at the federal or local level, for Republicans who want power to act any differently.
The answer is obvious, but not simple: There are no incentives, at the federal or local level, for Republicans who want power to act any differently. Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann noticed back in 2006 that House Republicans lacked “institutional patriotism” — that is, a sense that their own work as lawmakers contributed meaningfully to democracy as a collective; they had been gerrymandered into office and the only significant political pressure they faced was a risk that they would be shamed for not betting on the hot horse of the moment, which was inevitably a divisive cultural issue. Since they faced no competition in elections, they were completely insulated from the consequence of their actions.
The decline of local news, as an industry, and as a check and balance, has played a role here. There are far fewer political reporters around to keep up with congressional shenanigans. And because of the stranglehold that the perception of political bias has on editorial decisions, egregiously undemocratic actions aren’t covered close to the point of representation.
On Dec. 11, the Orlando Sentinel apologized to its readers for endorsing Michael Waltz’s congressional bid after he endorsed the short-lived Texas bid, on the grounds that his indifference to the good amounted to a “cowardly betrayal of American ideals.” Waltz’s Democratic opponent, the Sentinel had earlier written, was “dismal.” In addition, “We were impressed this year, as we were in 2018, with Waltz’s seeming pragmatism, though less impressed with his willingness to crash a congressional hearing during Trump’s impeachment proceedings.”
Well; give a congressman a dumb political stunt, take a congressman who does dumb political stunts. But the Sentinel’s retraction is remarkable. And to the extent that local news editors, producers and reporters care about the people they serve, it can be a lesson.
The lesson is that subverting democracy is really dangerous. These members — all 126 of them — should be asked, as often as possible, why they participated. Why did they consent to throw out tens of millions of votes? Why did they think that aligning with Trump was a better move than choosing to nobly accept his loss and move on? There should be no coverage of their earmarks, or their constituent work, or their local bridge-building, until they are all harassed by reporters and pressure groups about their decision.
Changing the incentives is not going to come from the top. (I don’t know what to make of Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell’s petition to not seat any of the Republicans who signed on to the letter — Congress has rules against sedition — but I admire his moral clarity.)
Another source of pressure can and should come from brave Republicans. RightWisconsin, a conservative website, served as an example of this when it issued a correction Dec. 11 for an early 2020 endorsement of Rep. Tom Tiffany:
"In the endorsement editorial, editor James Wigderson described Tiffany as a 'solid conservative legislator’ and ‘a candidate whom they know will fight for conservative principles in Washington.’" the group stated on its website. "Tiffany was also described as ‘the only candidate deserving of Republican votes in the February 18 GOP primary.’ It’s clear from the evidence Tiffany is not ‘a solid conservative legislator’ and ‘a candidate whom they know will fight for conservative principles in Washington.’ As for being ‘the only candidate deserving of Republican votes in the February 18 GOP primary,’ apparently the 1980s teenage singer Tiffany Darwish was the Tiffany that was meant."
How does a party in thrall to a cult of personality clear its conscience? Slowly.


msnbc--2020-12-15--Andrew Weissman calls Bill Barr’s legacy at the Department of Justice ‘horrific’

Dr. Vin Gupta : 'Do n't let your guard down just because you got vaccinated '

Former FBI general counsel Andrew Weissmann explains that even though there is a lot of speculation behind Attorney General Bill Barr’s resignation, the real story is his lasting impact on the Justice DepartmentDec. 15, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-16--‘There’s now one pro-democracy political party’: Steve Schmidt announces he’s a Democrat

On becoming a Democrat, former Republican strategist Steve Schmidt says “At the end of the day, there's now one pro-democracy political party in the United States of America and that's the Democratic Party. And I am a member of that party because of that. I'm a single issue voter. I believe in democracy."Dec. 16, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-16--Trump supporters vandalize historic Black churches in D.C.

This weekend in Washington, D.C., two historic Black churches were vandalized reportedly by a group from the Proud Boys. Rev. William H. Lamar says there’s been ‘unchecked’ violence against the church.Dec. 16, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-16--Fmr. Commissioner of NJ Dept. of Health: ‘No chance’ for you to get covid-19 from vaccines

There’s been mistrust on the effectiveness of the covid-19 vaccine, including high amounts of mistrust from Black Americans. Former New Jersey Dept. of Health Commissioner Shereef Elnahal says that’s ‘earned mistrust’ unfortunately, and that’s important to clear up some facts: “There's no chance for you to get covid-19 from any of the vaccines being presented ... Because the virus isn't in the vaccine."Dec. 16, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-15--McConnell on Senate floor: 'I want to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden'

Sen. Mitch McConnell acknowledged and congratulated President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on the Senate floor after the Electoral College officially cast their votes. NBC's Monica Alba and Geoff Bennett discuss the impact the senator's message will have.Dec. 15, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-15--Tim Alberta: Biden ‘on paper is tailor-made for this moment’

Tim Alberta: Biden ‘on paper is tailor-made for this moment’
Chief political correspondent for POLITICO Tim Alberta, former Congresswoman Donna Edwards, and Washington Post national political reporter Matt Viser discuss how President-elect Joe Biden can govern a country that is so deeply dividedDec. 15, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-15--Biden to select Buttigieg for transportation secretary

President-elect Joe Biden will nominate Pete Buttigieg, his one time 2020 rival for transportation secretary. Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., dropped out of the Democratic primary to endorse Biden right before Super Tuesday. Transportation secretary is a key cabinet role, and it comes as the president-elect has promised a renewed focus on climate change as well as rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure.Dec. 15, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-15--FDA expected to grant emergency authorization to Moderna Covid vaccine

NBC's Tom Costello reports on the effectiveness of Moderna's coronavirus vaccine as the Food and Drug Administration is expected to grant emergency authorization for its production.Dec. 15, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-15--This Dr. Jill Biden debacle is right-wing conservative panic at its worst

For reasons that remain mysterious ( hint , it ’ s sexism ! )
The Wall Street Journal decided to publish a humiliating op-ed from a guy whose main credential seems to be that he is a man .
This man had some unsolicited advice for future first lady Jill Biden .
The essay carries the energy of a man at a bus stop you accidentally made eye contact with who is now sharing every opinion he ’ s ever had with you as you silently point to your earphones , to no avail .
For the analogy to really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a major newspaper deciding to publish his ramblings .
“ Madame First Lady — Mrs. Biden — Jill — kiddo : a bit of advice on what may seem like a small but I think is a not unimportant matter , ” Joseph Epstein , the author of the op-ed , wrote .
“ Any chance you might drop the ‘ Dr. ’ before your name ?
‘ Dr .
Jill Biden ’ sounds and feels fraudulent , not to say a touch comic.
” Epstein , who is committed to intersectionality even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we should start using the phrase “ rarer than a contemporary university honorary-degree list not containing an African-American woman ” to “ denote rarity.
” After facing mountains of backlash , The Wall Street Journal refused to apologize and instead doubled down , calling the backlash to the piece “ identity politics.
” If misogyny is a former adjunct professor you ’ ve never heard of referring to a Ph.D.-holding future first lady as `` kiddo , '' sexist gaslighting is the male Wall Street Journal editorial editor Paul A. Gigot standing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women ’ s accomplishments as a “ relatively minor issue ” and categorizing the Biden ’ s team ’ s request for an apology and a correction as “ Trumpian.
” This honestly feels more offensive to Team Trump than Team Biden because Donald-accused-by-26-women-of-sexual-misconduct-Trump would hate to know his name is being used to describe anyone fighting to eradicate sexism , a core and defining part of his brand .
And leaving no sexist stone unturned , the right-wing extremist Ben Shapiro , true to his well-documented trolling and misogynistic roots , piled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all time , tweeting that “ only people with Ph.D. 's in hard sciences and medical doctors should be called ‘ doctor.
’ ” Wow .
Where do we even begin ?
This absolute tidal wave of misguided men publicly documenting their sophomoric feelings about self-determined and defining women feels embarrassing .
But it ’ s not original .
What Epstein , the Wall Street Journal and Shapiro are doing is not unique ; it ’ s conforming to a culture that regularly diminishes or flat-out erases women ’ s contributions .
Research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less likely to be introduced as doctors than their male counterparts , by a lot .
The study found that when men introduced other men they referred to their title as doctor 72 percent of the time .
When it was women , they referred to them as doctors 49.2 percent of the time .
Female doctors are paid less despite being better at their job and better at keeping people alive .
These attacks on female Ph.D. holders also come during a year where submissions of academic papers by women have decreased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased by 50 percent from men .
And it ’ s not like academia was an equal playing field before the pandemic caused women to lose their jobs way more and to work inside the home way more , too .
Data consistently has shown that female researchers are far less likely to be credited in academic papers than men .
Women are also half as likely to be called by their last names than their male peers .
This infantilizes women and belittles their accomplishments , making them less likely to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advance in their fields .
But of course , male discomfort with Dr. Biden calling herself by her preferred title is even more enraging to those against progress because she ’ ll be first lady , a role that requires women to obey some of the most archaic conceptions of womanhood .
First ladies are still expected to play a subservient and supportive role rather than an emancipated one .
When Hillary Clinton had the audacity to try to bring America ’ s health care system to the standards of the industrialized world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would later inspire Obamacare , a policy that revolutionized our health care system , she became the subject of so much violence that she needed extra security and ended up having to give up on the project .
Michelle Obama faced misogynoir , a vicious and specific kind of racialized sexism targeted at Black women , and received mountains of criticism for simply asking people to ( gasp ! )
“ move ” when she traveled around the country doing controversial things like planting gardens , improving school lunches and having a dance-off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lady , Melania Trump , couldn ’ t better fulfill the outdated feminine stereotype , as a version of female empowerment that 's palatable , especially to men : a conventionally attractive woman who appears to be ornamental to her husband , launching shallow and ineffective programs like “ Be Best ” and traveling to Africa dressed in colonial cosplay .
Trump ’ s daughter Ivanka arguably had much more enterprising projects .
We ’ ve learned from studies like the Shriver Report on the 21st century man that men want their daughters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partners , not so much .
While they value independence and entrepreneurship in their daughters , male subjects in the study weren ’ t as welcoming when it came to their wives .
As Tracy Moore of Jezebel put it : “ For them , a wife is a reflection ON you , while a daughter is an extension OF you .
... A daughter ... is a direct extension of your genes .
Caring about your daughter ’ s smarts over her looks likely ensures that the legacy that you , Man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into wanting for yourself : intelligence , capability , rather than beefcake-itude.
” I saw the unique treatment reserved for first ladies firsthand when I reported from Trump ’ s inauguration in 2016 .
I ’ ll never forget when Melania Trump came on the big screen right after the camera panned to Hillary Clinton .
Naturally , as I expected , the crowd booed Clinton .
But instead of going from boos to cheers for Melania , it went from boos to catcalls and whistles from the men in the crowd .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be happier to have a woman whose value appears to be attractive and silent rather than ambitious and pioneering .
We ’ ve seen right-wing conservatives panic at the idea of losing a parody of their definition of masculinity in Trump , and now we ’ re seeing them panic at the idea of also losing their definition of femininity in a first lady .
While Melania Trump may have tried ( and very much failed ) to keep her frustrations about some of the frivolous and domesticating duties of a first lady @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ornamental — she ’ ll be self-determining .
And she ’ ll be the first first lady to keep her day job .
Just like Vice President-elect Kamala Harris , whose name conservatives have deliberately fumbled to discredit her , these women are not here to fit the mold ; they ’ re coming to the White House to rebuild it for the generations of women who will come after them .
These scared men better learn how to say their names .
History books certainly will .

For reasons that remain mysterious (hint, it’s sexism!) The Wall Street Journal decided to publish a humiliating op-ed from a guy whose main credential seems to be that he is a man. This man had some unsolicited advice for future first lady Jill Biden.
The essay carries the energy of a man at a bus stop you accidentally made eye contact with who is now sharing every opinion he’s ever had with you as you silently point to your earphones, to no avail. For the analogy to really work though, add to the equation a major newspaper deciding to publish his ramblings.
These women are not here to fit the mold; they’re coming at the White House to rebuild it for the generations of women who come after them.
“Madame First Lady — Mrs. Biden — Jill — kiddo: a bit of advice on what may seem like a small but I think is a not unimportant matter,” Joseph Epstein, the author of the op-ed, wrote. “Any chance you might drop the ‘Dr.’ before your name? ‘Dr. Jill Biden’ sounds and feels fraudulent, not to say a touch comic.” Epstein, who is committed to intersectionality even in the throws of misogyny, added that we should start using the phrase “rarer than a contemporary university honorary-degree list not containing an African-American woman” to “denote rarity.”
After facing mountains of backlash, The Wall Street Journal refused to apologize and instead doubled down, calling the backlash to the piece “identity politics.” If misogyny is a former adjunct professor you’ve never heard of referring to a Ph.D.-holding future first lady as "kiddo," sexist gaslighting is the male Wall Street Journal editorial editor Paul A. Gigot standing by him, classifying the disregard for women’s accomplishments as a “relatively minor issue” and categorizing the Biden’s team’s request for an apology and a correction as “Trumpian.”
This honestly feels more offensive to Team Trump than Team Biden because Donald-accused-by-26-women-of-sexual-misconduct-Trump would hate to know his name is being used to describe anyone fighting to eradicate sexism, a core and defining part of his brand.
And leaving no sexist stone unturned, the right-wing extremist Ben Shapiro, true to his well-documented trolling and misogynistic roots, piled onto possibly the most inarticulate argument of all time, tweeting that “only people with Ph.D.'s in hard sciences and medical doctors should be called ‘doctor.’”
If you're at a dinner and somebody introduces himself as "Dr. Smith," you'd be rather upset to learn that he had a doctorate in musicology if you were to suffer a stroke at the table. — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) December 14, 2020
Wow. Where do we even begin? This absolute tidal wave of misguided men publicly documenting their sophomoric feelings about self-determined and defining women feels embarrassing. But it’s not original. What Epstein, the Wall Street Journal and Shapiro are doing is not unique; it’s conforming to a culture that regularly diminishes or flat-out erases women’s contributions.
What Epstein, the Wall Street Journal and Shapiro are doing is not unique; it’s conforming to a culture that regularly diminishes or flat-out erases women’s contributions.
Research from linguists shows that women M.D.s are less likely to be introduced as doctors than their male counterparts, by a lot. The study found that when men introduced other men they referred to their title as doctor 72 percent of the time. When it was women, they referred to them as doctors 49.2 percent of the time. Female doctors are paid less despite being better at their job and better at keeping people alive.
These attacks on female Ph.D. holders also come during a year where submissions of academic papers by women have decreased by 50 percent, while they've increased by 50 percent from men.
Women’s submissions of academic papers has dropped since covid while men’s have soared by 50%. What fresh hell https://t.co/cqO3Gsp12P via @SBalaghi — Liz Plank (@feministabulous) April 26, 2020
And it’s not like academia was an equal playing field before the pandemic caused women to lose their jobs way more and to work inside the home way more, too. Data consistently has shown that female researchers are far less likely to be credited in academic papers than men. Women are also half as likely to be called by their last names than their male peers. This infantilizes women and belittles their accomplishments, making them less likely to get the awards and accolades they need to advance in their fields.
But of course, male discomfort with Dr. Biden calling herself by her preferred title is even more enraging to those against progress because she’ll be first lady, a role that requires women to obey some of the most archaic conceptions of womanhood.
First Ladies are still expected to play a subservient and supportive role rather than an emancipated one.
First ladies are still expected to play a subservient and supportive role rather than an emancipated one. When Hillary Clinton had the audacity to try to bring America’s health care system to the standards of the industrialized world by crafting a health care policy that would later inspire Obamacare, a policy that revolutionized our health care system, she became the subject of so much violence that she needed extra security and ended up having to give up on the project.
Michelle Obama faced misogynoir, a vicious and specific kind of racialized sexism targeted at Black women, and received mountains of criticism for simply asking people to (gasp!) “move” when she traveled around the country doing controversial things like planting gardens, improving school lunches and having a dance-off with Big Bird.
The current first lady, Melania Trump, couldn’t better fulfill the outdated feminine stereotype, as a version of female empowerment that's palatable, especially to men: a conventionally attractive woman who appears to be ornamental to her husband, launching shallow and ineffective programs like “Be Best” and traveling to Africa dressed in colonial cosplay. Trump’s daughter Ivanka arguably had much more enterprising projects.
We’ve learned from studies like the Shriver Report on the 21st century man that men want their daughters to be girl bosses, but their romantic partners, not so much.
We’ve learned from studies like the Shriver Report on the 21st century man that men want their daughters to be bosses, but their romantic partners, not so much. While they value independence and entrepreneurship in their daughters, male subjects in the study weren’t as welcoming when it came to their wives. As Tracy Moore of Jezebel put it: “For them, a wife is a reflection ON you, while a daughter is an extension OF you. ... A daughter ... is a direct extension of your genes. Caring about your daughter’s smarts over her looks likely ensures that the legacy that you, Man Filling Out Survey, have been socialized into wanting for yourself: intelligence, capability, rather than beefcake-itude.”
I saw the unique treatment reserved for first ladies firsthand when I reported from Trump’s inauguration in 2016. I’ll never forget when Melania Trump came on the big screen right after the camera panned to Hillary Clinton. Naturally, as I expected, the crowd booed Clinton. But instead of going from boos to cheers for Melania, it went from boos to catcalls and whistles from the men in the crowd. It was like they couldn’t be happier to have a woman whose value appears to be attractive and silent rather than ambitious and pioneering.
We’ve seen right-wing conservatives panic at the idea of losing a parody of their definition of masculinity in Trump, and now we’re seeing them panic at the idea of also losing their definition of femininity in a first lady. While Melania Trump may have tried (and very much failed) to keep her frustrations about some of the frivolous and domesticating duties of a first lady, Jill Biden won’t be ornamental — she’ll be self-determining. And she’ll be the first first lady to keep her day job.
Just like Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, whose name conservatives have deliberately fumbled to discredit her, these women are not here to fit the mold; they’re coming to the White House to rebuild it for the generations of women who will come after them. These scared men better learn how to say their names. History books certainly will.


msnbc--2020-12-15--Barr's tragic tenure was summed up in one letter

Recently-resigned Attorney General William Barr left the Justice Department just like he came in — with a lie .
His lack of honesty and steadfast refusal to understand his duty to serve justice and the people , not the president ’ s personal and political agenda , will be the legacy of his time in office .
Barr landed the attorney general job after auditioning via a memo that was circulated through the Justice Department and the White House counsel ’ s office , in which he advocated for a previously fringe vision of expansive executive power .
Barr made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not obstruct justice .
At the time , I wrote that Barr should not be confirmed : '' No matter what Barr ’ s intentions , the appearance of impropriety — of ingratiating himself with a president whose desire to install a wingman as attorney general — means that the public perception will always equate Barr , if confirmed , with President Donal Trump ’ s desire to hold himself above the law .
There will be no public confidence in decisions about potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant loss of public confidence will inevitably erode the credibility of the department ’ s work in other areas as well .
The future of the Justice Department , and that of all Americans , will be impaired if it appears the department is being used as a tool to protect this president . ''
I did not go far enough .
Barr ’ s intentions , whatever they may have been , never involved being the sort of fierce , independent leader the Justice Department needs at all times .
He never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and integrity that would , we assume , have led him to avoid even the appearance of impropriety as he conducted department business .
Instead , Barr charted a course toward actual impropriety .
And in his resignation , Barr shamelessly defended his actions in a manner that would likely have made even President Richard Nixon ’ s attorney general , John Mitchell , blush .
Barr was sworn in shortly before special counsel Robert Mueller concluded his investigation into the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia .
Barr stonewalled requests for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead delivering what he represented as a summary in a dramatic press conference .
Now that we ’ ve seen the redacted version of the report Barr was ultimately forced to release , his version can only be characterized as deliberately misleading .
Barr claimed that Mueller failed to establish a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign and did not conclude Trump obstructed justice .
That provoked the usually taciturn Mueller to object to Barr ’ s summary , writing that it `` did not fully capture the context , nature , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By keeping the actual conclusions of the Mueller report from public view for weeks , Barr permitted Trump to dull their impact , lulling the public into the belief the report was a “ complete and total exoneration.
” The report actually concluded that a great deal of relevant evidence regarding the campaign ’ s interaction with Russia and its representatives was withheld from investigators and that they could not “ rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on ( or cast in a new light ) the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mueller laid out multiple instances of obstruction of justice by Trump , although he declined to declare that Trump should be prosecuted .
( This is because of the now-infamous Justice Department memo stating that a sitting president can not be indicted . )
In other words , Mueller 's report was far from the absolution Barr represented .
Barr ’ s letter of resignation as attorney general , which he submitted to the president on Dec. 14 , trumpeted the Trump administration ’ s “ accomplishments ” with about as much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report .
Along his path , from start to finish , Barr undermined the Justice Department ’ s mission in far too many ways to detail completely here .
Suffice it to say , there was an emphasis on helping the president ’ s cronies and enforcing his agenda .
Barr moved to dismiss charges against retired Gen. Michael Flynn ( despite his prior guilty plea ) , sought a reduced sentence for Roger Stone ( which Trump subsequently commuted in its entirety ) and lied about what he claimed was the resignation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman — before Berman publicly corrected him .
Barr ’ s actions tarnished the rule of law and ignored the intention of the Founding Fathers that no man , not even and perhaps especially not the president , should be above it .
So the closing act of Barr ’ s tenure came as no surprise .
Barr ’ s resignation letter is a genuflection to the president , not the expression of gratitude for the opportunity to serve that typifies departures from the Department of Justice .
In it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rank and file for their service , and instead jumps straight into the deep end , thanking Trump for the opportunity to “ update ” him on voter fraud just before he tendered his resignation .
That should have been a short meeting , because there is no evidence of systematic voter fraud in this election and plainly none significant enough to alter the outcome .
That ’ s just a fever dream the sycophants surrounding this president have fanned , at the expense of the republic .
If ever a president needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strict separation between the Department of Justice and the White House on matters involving the prosecution of criminal cases , it was this one .
But Barr was perceived both inside and outside the department as doing the president ’ s bidding to such an extreme that prosecutors resigned from cases , and even from the department , over concerns of abuse of power .
In February , all four of the prosecutors assigned to the Stone case resigned from it .
In May , it was the Flynn case that pushed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided to drop it .
A senior prosecutor in the Durham investigation resigned in September .
With the floodgates open , veteran prosecutors signed their names to letters rebuking Barr for politicizing the Justice Department .
Sixteen assistant U.S. attorneys from across the country responsible for helping protect the election signed a letter criticizing Barr for changing longstanding policies against interference in elections after the head of the election crimes unit stepped down when the changes were instituted .
And Barr will be forever captured in photos , walking in lockstep behind Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make way for a presidential photo opportunity Barr will go down in history as the worst attorney general of our lifetimes .
He consistently chose to enable a president who did not believe in the rule of law , regardless of the damage it did to the country .
Barr could have held the line , but he didn ’ t .
Even while lying sick in a hospital bed , President George W. Bush 's Attorney General John Ashcroft understood the importance of circumscribing executive action through the rule of law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there can be no laundering of Barr ’ s reputation as attorney general .
The mistakes of his tenure must be acknowledged , confronted openly , counted one by one , fixed where possible and learned from .
That is the only path forward if the Justice Department is going to resume its role as the people ’ s lawyers , not the president ’ s .
Career prosecutors , people who value the department 's independence and integrity and their own role as public servants , people who pursue their cases without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law and the evidence , will not miss Bill Barr .
He has sullied the Justice Department 's honor at the moment when it needs its integrity the most .
The country faces the dual challenges of whether and how members of the Trump administration will be held accountable for misconduct at the same time that pervasive issues of racial injustice demand transformation of the criminal justice system .
The Justice Department can only be effective if the public trusts its impartiality when it makes hard calls — and it will have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both of these issues .
Trump and Barr have damaged the public ’ s faith in its prosecutors , leaving to the next attorney general the challenge of restoring the department ’ s integrity while facing serious questions .

Recently-resigned Attorney General William Barr left the Justice Department just like he came in — with a lie. His lack of honesty and steadfast refusal to understand his duty to serve justice and the people, not the president’s personal and political agenda, will be the legacy of his time in office.
Barr asserted the remarkable claim that a president could not obstruct justice.
Barr landed the attorney general job after auditioning via a memo that was circulated through the Justice Department and the White House counsel’s office, in which he advocated for a previously fringe vision of expansive executive power. Barr made the remarkable claim that a president could not obstruct justice. At the time, I wrote that Barr should not be confirmed:
"No matter what Barr’s intentions, the appearance of impropriety — of ingratiating himself with a president whose desire to install a wingman as attorney general — means that the public perception will always equate Barr, if confirmed, with President Donal Trump’s desire to hold himself above the law. There will be no public confidence in decisions about potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, or about obstruction of justice. Such a significant loss of public confidence will inevitably erode the credibility of the department’s work in other areas as well. The future of the Justice Department, and that of all Americans, will be impaired if it appears the department is being used as a tool to protect this president."
I did not go far enough. Barr’s intentions, whatever they may have been, never involved being the sort of fierce, independent leader the Justice Department needs at all times. He never felt the gravitational pull of departmental tradition and integrity that would, we assume, have led him to avoid even the appearance of impropriety as he conducted department business. Instead, Barr charted a course toward actual impropriety. And in his resignation, Barr shamelessly defended his actions in a manner that would likely have made even President Richard Nixon’s attorney general, John Mitchell, blush.
Barr charted a course that ran straight into actual impropriety.
Barr was sworn in shortly before special counsel Robert Mueller concluded his investigation into the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia. Barr stonewalled requests for public access to the report itself, instead delivering what he represented as a summary in a dramatic press conference.
Now that we’ve seen the redacted version of the report Barr was ultimately forced to release, his version can only be characterized as deliberately misleading. Barr claimed that Mueller failed to establish a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign and did not conclude Trump obstructed justice. That provoked the usually taciturn Mueller to object to Barr’s summary, writing that it "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the investigation.
By keeping the actual conclusions of the Mueller report from public view for weeks, Barr permitted Trump to dull their impact, lulling the public into the belief the report was a “complete and total exoneration.” The report actually concluded that a great deal of relevant evidence regarding the campaign’s interaction with Russia and its representatives was withheld from investigators and that they could not “rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.”
By keeping the actual conclusions of the Mueller report from public view for weeks, Barr permitted Trump to dull the impact.
Additionally, Mueller laid out multiple instances of obstruction of justice by Trump, although he declined to declare that Trump should be prosecuted. (This is because of the now-infamous Justice Department memo stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted.) In other words, Mueller's report was far from the absolution Barr represented.
Barr’s letter of resignation as attorney general, which he submitted to the president on Dec. 14, trumpeted the Trump administration’s “accomplishments” with about as much accuracy as his summary of the Mueller report.
Along his path, from start to finish, Barr undermined the Justice Department’s mission in far too many ways to detail completely here. Suffice it to say, there was an emphasis on helping the president’s cronies and enforcing his agenda. Barr moved to dismiss charges against retired Gen. Michael Flynn (despite his prior guilty plea), sought a reduced sentence for Roger Stone (which Trump subsequently commuted in its entirety) and lied about what he claimed was the resignation of former Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman — before Berman publicly corrected him. Barr’s actions tarnished the rule of law and ignored the intention of the Founding Fathers that no man, not even and perhaps especially not the president, should be above it.
So the closing act of Barr’s tenure came as no surprise. Barr’s resignation letter is a genuflection to the president, not the expression of gratitude for the opportunity to serve that typifies departures from the Department of Justice. In it, Barr does not thank the career rank and file for their service, and instead jumps straight into the deep end, thanking Trump for the opportunity to “update” him on voter fraud just before he tendered his resignation. That should have been a short meeting, because there is no evidence of systematic voter fraud in this election and plainly none significant enough to alter the outcome. That’s just a fever dream the sycophants surrounding this president have fanned, at the expense of the republic.
If ever a president needed an attorney general who insisted on a strict separation between the Department of Justice and the White House on matters involving the prosecution of criminal cases, it was this one. But Barr was perceived both inside and outside the department as doing the president’s bidding to such an extreme that prosecutors resigned from cases, and even from the department, over concerns of abuse of power.
In February, all four of the prosecutors assigned to the Stone case resigned from it. In May, it was the Flynn case that pushed a prosecutor to step down, after Barr decided to drop it. A senior prosecutor in the Durham investigation resigned in September. With the floodgates open, veteran prosecutors signed their names to letters rebuking Barr for politicizing the Justice Department. Sixteen assistant U.S. attorneys from across the country responsible for helping protect the election signed a letter criticizing Barr for changing longstanding policies against interference in elections after the head of the election crimes unit stepped down when the changes were instituted. And Barr will be forever captured in photos, walking in lockstep behind Trump before protestors in Lafayette Square were gassed to make way for a presidential photo opportunity
Barr will go down in history as the worst attorney general of our lifetimes. He consistently chose to enable a president who did not believe in the rule of law, regardless of the damage it did to the country. Barr could have held the line, but he didn’t. Even while lying sick in a hospital bed, President George W. Bush's Attorney General John Ashcroft understood the importance of circumscribing executive action through the rule of law.
Presidents are not kings. So there can be no laundering of Barr’s reputation as attorney general. The mistakes of his tenure must be acknowledged, confronted openly, counted one by one, fixed where possible and learned from. That is the only path forward if the Justice Department is going to resume its role as the people’s lawyers, not the president’s.
Career prosecutors, people who value the department's independence and integrity and their own role as public servants, people who pursue their cases without fear or favor based solely on the law and the evidence, will not miss Bill Barr. He has sullied the Justice Department's honor at the moment when it needs its integrity the most.
The country faces the dual challenges of whether and how members of the Trump administration will be held accountable for misconduct at the same time that pervasive issues of racial injustice demand transformation of the criminal justice system.
The Justice Department can only be effective if the public trusts its impartiality when it makes hard calls — and it will have to make hard calls to move forward on both of these issues. Trump and Barr have damaged the public’s faith in its prosecutors, leaving to the next attorney general the challenge of restoring the department’s integrity while facing serious questions.


msnbc--2020-12-15--Four things to know about how the FBI handles sexual assault in the ranks

On Dec. 10 , the Associated Press published a report about sexual misconduct allegations within the FBI .
I devoted 25 years to the bureau , helped lead internal inquiries there , and just wrote a book about the FBI ’ s code of excellence .
Regardless of how well I understand that the FBI is an imperfect institution staffed with typically flawed human beings , whenever I read a report like this , I still feel like I ’ ve been punched in the gut .
That ’ s why I was compelled to dig deeply into the facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ column .
Because even when the news media gets the facts right , a story can unintentionally mislead and distract us from understanding what those facts mean about the FBI and its internal processes — and what they do n't mean .
Sexual misconduct has no place in the FBI or any setting ; the fact that it occurs should be reported in the media .
A main objective in reporting these events is often to create accountability and to improve the systems that handle them when they do occur .
But if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clarity and accuracy , the public is not being given the full picture .
I ’ m sharing what I know from my experience , and what I ’ ve learned about current matters , because while facts matter , so does context .
There are four things about the recent article , and its sensationalized headline , “ Under the Rug , ” that cause the public to misperceive how seriously the FBI takes such matters and distracts from understanding the systemic realities behind the facts .
First , numbers alone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imply a trend or pattern where none exists .
The article cited six allegations of sexual misconduct over the last five years .
Let me be clear : One corroborated allegation is too many .
And , for the purposes of this column , and because I believe that survivors of sexual misconduct must be heard and believed , I accept that each survivor 's account is true .
That means that six FBI employees disgraced their badge , the symbol that I carried with pride every day .
Second , the article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notoriously tight lid on such allegations ” and that “ federal law enforcement officials are afforded anonymity even after the disciplinary process runs its course , ” without explaining why that is the case .
The truth is that the bureau is precluded from telling us precisely what happened in each case , and what they did about it , for two reasons : pending litigation and the federal privacy act .
The privacy act generally precludes the FBI , even when it might desperately want to , from disclosing details of any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means we can ’ t see the internal investigative file related to the accuser , nor any statements or evidence provided by the accuser .
Third , the article doesn ’ t provide any detail about the FBI ’ s rigorous reporting and response process .
Here ’ s what I know , from my sources regarding the cases cited in the report , as well as from my own career experience involving such matters .
The FBI jumps on allegations like this , and , in these cases they immediately initiated inquiries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s investigative response in the cases reported in the article as “ immediate.
” The article further says that none of the accused employees appears to have been disciplined , but that one case resulted in an agent “ losing his security clearance.
” The report concedes that the accused employees were “ quietly transferred or retired.
” I acknowledge that sounds nefarious without further explanation .
In at least one case in the article , my sources advise that the time it took for the FBI to receive the allegation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the accused to decide to retire was a few days .
Swiftly confronting an employee with strong enough evidence to cause them to decide to end their career may not seem like discipline , and it may be an attempt by that employee to avoid inevitable termination — but there is no mechanism to force an employee to stay on the job long enough to be fired .
Having an accused employee leave the bureau because they realize they are facing dismissal from an agency that won ’ t tolerate their conduct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , it ’ s evidence of strong internal investigations and may support the safety and security of the bureau ’ s people and culture .
As for the one case where investigation caused an agent to lose his clearance , when that happens , the employee has effectively lost his job , because all FBI employees must have a clearance .
They can appeal the loss of their clearance , but they must do so from home .
As for accused employees being “ transferred , ” the reporter is likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do with an employee who remains under DOJ Inspector General investigation when the IG decides to take the inquiry away from the FBI ’ s internal investigators .
Such IG investigations can take years — yes , years — and the FBI makes the wise decision to separate the accused from the accuser while awaiting results of the ridiculously long IG inquiry .
This is certainly a part of the process that needs much improvement .
Fourth , the article cites an uncorroborated statement that FBI officials `` allow people they know are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement-related fields.
” Yet , in my own experience , an exception to the privacy act allows the FBI , upon an expressed request , to advise another law enforcement agency that an employee retired or resigned under inquiry .
The problem is that too many law enforcement agencies don ’ t bother to request that inquiry .
Further , if the FBI knows an employee is a “ criminal , ” it is obligated to refer that matter to appropriate authorities .
But the only case in the article that seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resulted in an acquittal of the accused .
The FBI is , as the article states , “ male-dominated , ” and FBI Director Chris Wray has taken tangible steps to promote women to key positions .
When allegations surfaced of inappropriate conduct at the FBI Academy , he appointed Renae McDermott as assistant director over training .
Women also lead large field offices like Los Angeles and San Diego , and key headquarters divisions including counterterrorism and Integrity and Compliance .
When the recent news article became public , Wray quickly issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees .
In his email , Wray included these words : “ Along with my leadership team , I remain committed to ensuring allegations of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment are thoroughly reviewed , that full investigations are initiated where appropriate , and that we take swift and appropriate actions — including , where warranted , immediate reassignment of those in supervisory positions during investigation and adjudication .
Due process and fair investigation are important .
But we won ’ t hesitate to impose sanctions where misconduct is substantiated , including … dismissal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to report allegations , including a dedicated sexual misconduct hotline .
These are all facts that might have provided more balance and context to give the public a comprehensive picture of how the bureau functions , so they can gauge their confidence in the bureau for themselves .
Once again , sexual misconduct is deplorable , and people on every level of any organization should conscientiously work to prevent it .
While the FBI is not perfect , its code of conduct is solid and thorough .
Now , of course , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to prove that they deserve that confidence , and our trust .

On Dec. 10, the Associated Press published a report about sexual misconduct allegations within the FBI. I devoted 25 years to the bureau, helped lead internal inquiries there, and just wrote a book about the FBI’s code of excellence. Regardless of how well I understand that the FBI is an imperfect institution staffed with typically flawed human beings, whenever I read a report like this, I still feel like I’ve been punched in the gut.
I’m sharing what I know from my experience because while facts matter, so does context.
That’s why I was compelled to dig deeply into the facts, check with sources and write this column. Because even when the news media gets the facts right, a story can unintentionally mislead and distract us from understanding what those facts mean about the FBI and its internal processes — and what they don't mean.
Sexual misconduct has no place in the FBI or any setting; the fact that it occurs should be reported in the media. A main objective in reporting these events is often to create accountability and to improve the systems that handle them when they do occur. But if those systems themselves are not reported with clarity and accuracy, the public is not being given the full picture.
I’m sharing what I know from my experience, and what I’ve learned about current matters, because while facts matter, so does context. There are four things about the recent article, and its sensationalized headline, “Under the Rug,” that cause the public to misperceive how seriously the FBI takes such matters and distracts from understanding the systemic realities behind the facts.
First, numbers alone, without reference points or context, can imply a trend or pattern where none exists. The article cited six allegations of sexual misconduct over the last five years. Let me be clear: One corroborated allegation is too many. And, for the purposes of this column, and because I believe that survivors of sexual misconduct must be heard and believed, I accept that each survivor's account is true. That means that six FBI employees disgraced their badge, the symbol that I carried with pride every day.
Let me be clear: One corroborated allegation is too many.
Second, the article claims that the FBI “keeps a notoriously tight lid on such allegations” and that “federal law enforcement officials are afforded anonymity even after the disciplinary process runs its course,” without explaining why that is the case. The truth is that the bureau is precluded from telling us precisely what happened in each case, and what they did about it, for two reasons: pending litigation and the federal privacy act. The privacy act generally precludes the FBI, even when it might desperately want to, from disclosing details of any of its employees’ files. That means we can’t see the internal investigative file related to the accuser, nor any statements or evidence provided by the accuser.
Third, the article doesn’t provide any detail about the FBI’s rigorous reporting and response process. Here’s what I know, from my sources regarding the cases cited in the report, as well as from my own career experience involving such matters. The FBI jumps on allegations like this, and, in these cases they immediately initiated inquiries. One knowledgeable source described the FBI’s investigative response in the cases reported in the article as “immediate.” The article further says that none of the accused employees appears to have been disciplined, but that one case resulted in an agent “losing his security clearance.” The report concedes that the accused employees were “quietly transferred or retired.” I acknowledge that sounds nefarious without further explanation.
In at least one case in the article, my sources advise that the time it took for the FBI to receive the allegation, gather evidence, confront the accused and for the accused to decide to retire was a few days.
Swiftly confronting an employee with strong enough evidence to cause them to decide to end their career may not seem like discipline, and it may be an attempt by that employee to avoid inevitable termination — but there is no mechanism to force an employee to stay on the job long enough to be fired.
Having an accused employee leave the Bureau because they realize they are facing dismissal from an agency that won’t tolerate their conduct is not necessarily a bad thing.
Having an accused employee leave the bureau because they realize they are facing dismissal from an agency that won’t tolerate their conduct is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it’s evidence of strong internal investigations and may support the safety and security of the bureau’s people and culture. As for the one case where investigation caused an agent to lose his clearance, when that happens, the employee has effectively lost his job, because all FBI employees must have a clearance. They can appeal the loss of their clearance, but they must do so from home.
As for accused employees being “transferred,” the reporter is likely referring to what the FBI decides to do with an employee who remains under DOJ Inspector General investigation when the IG decides to take the inquiry away from the FBI’s internal investigators. Such IG investigations can take years — yes, years — and the FBI makes the wise decision to separate the accused from the accuser while awaiting results of the ridiculously long IG inquiry. This is certainly a part of the process that needs much improvement.
Fourth, the article cites an uncorroborated statement that FBI officials "allow people they know are criminals to retire and pursue careers in law enforcement-related fields.” Yet, in my own experience, an exception to the privacy act allows the FBI, upon an expressed request, to advise another law enforcement agency that an employee retired or resigned under inquiry. The problem is that too many law enforcement agencies don’t bother to request that inquiry. Further, if the FBI knows an employee is a “criminal,” it is obligated to refer that matter to appropriate authorities. But the only case in the article that seems to have been adjudicated in criminal court resulted in an acquittal of the accused.
The FBI is, as the article states, “male-dominated,” and FBI Director Chris Wray has taken tangible steps to promote women to key positions. When allegations surfaced of inappropriate conduct at the FBI Academy, he appointed Renae McDermott as assistant director over training. Women also lead large field offices like Los Angeles and San Diego, and key headquarters divisions including counterterrorism and Integrity and Compliance. When the recent news article became public, Wray quickly issued a reminder via email to all FBI employees. In his email, Wray included these words:
“Along with my leadership team, I remain committed to ensuring allegations of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment are thoroughly reviewed, that full investigations are initiated where appropriate, and that we take swift and appropriate actions — including, where warranted, immediate reassignment of those in supervisory positions during investigation and adjudication. Due process and fair investigation are important. But we won’t hesitate to impose sanctions where misconduct is substantiated, including … dismissal from duty.” Wray also provided ways to report allegations, including a dedicated sexual misconduct hotline.
These are all facts that might have provided more balance and context to give the public a comprehensive picture of how the bureau functions, so they can gauge their confidence in the bureau for themselves. Once again, sexual misconduct is deplorable, and people on every level of any organization should conscientiously work to prevent it. While the FBI is not perfect, its code of conduct is solid and thorough. Now, of course, it’s up to the FBI to continue to prove that they deserve that confidence, and our trust.


msnbc--2020-12-16--Why some Mar-a-Lago neighbors are 'up in arms' over Trump's return

Why some Mar-a-Lago neighbors are 'up in arms ' over Trump 's return

Why some Mar-a-Lago neighbors are 'up in arms' over Trump's return
The neighbors of Trump's Mar-a-Lago private club in Palm Beach, Fla., have a message for the outgoing president, according to new Washington Post reporting, and the message is they don't want him for a neighbor. Reporter Carol Leonnig discusses.Dec. 16, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-16--Sen. McConnell finally recognizes Biden's victory

After weeks of delay, the top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, acknowledged on Tuesday that Joe Biden will be the next president, following an Electoral College vote that officially certified his win on Monday.Dec. 16, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-16--Graham: Trump should name special counsel to probe Bidens

MSNBC National Security Analyst Jeremy Bash reacts to reports Trump is considering pushing the DOJ to name a special counsel to look into Hunter Biden, something Lindsey Graham told FOX News he supports.Dec. 16, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-16--What we know and don't know about huge Russian hack on U.S.

What we know and don't know about huge Russian hack on U.S.
MSNBC International Affairs Analyst and former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul lays out what we can say for sure about Moscow's huge hack on multiple federal government agencies.Dec. 16, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-16--White House security chief loses leg to severe Covid, suffers ‘staggering’ medical costs

More than four dozen people connected to the White House have contracted Covid-19. One of those people ended up in the hospital for three months—with staggering medical bills.Dec. 16, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-16--Glenn Kirschner: ‘It’s going to start raining pardons’

Glenn Kirschner: ‘It’s going to start raining pardons’
Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner joins Lawrence O’Donnell to discuss Attorney General William Barr’s resignation letter and why he thinks Barr “already has his presidential pardon in his back pocket.”Dec. 16, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-16--Jeffrey Rosen, Barr's replacement as A.G. has record of protecting Trump and friends

Jeffrey Rosen, Barr's replacement as A.G. has record of protecting Trump and friends
Rachel Maddow looks at the role Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, who is set to replace Bill Barr as attorney general, played in minimizing the criminal referral of Donald Trump's Ukraine scheme for which he was impeached, and other times Rosen helped Trump and his friends.Dec. 16, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-16--There is a psychological reason the horrors of Covid don't seem to be sinking in

The past year has left us feeling like an overstimulated nerve : We 've been rubbed raw , our sensors deadened , threatening to go fully numb as Covid-19 has killed more than 300,000 people in the United States .
It 's why , even as the pandemic is at its worst point yet , with an average of more than 2,000 deaths a day , it does n't feel the same as it did in the spring .
The ( kind of ) good news : If you 're feeling disconnected from the horror that 's taking place every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're not alone .
The bad news : It turns out your brain literally can not handle what 's happening — the scope of the pandemic is too big for humans to comfortably process .
That 's because the human brain is n't wired to process large numbers .
And by large numbers , I do n't mean things that can be counted in the billions or the quintillions — though those are definitely super difficult to wrap your mind around when you 're thinking about things like the size of the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Milky Way .
No , I 'm talking about large numbers like , well , anything bigger than three .
Yes , three .
That 's what I learned from talking with Daniel Casasanto , an associate professor of human development and psychology at Cornell University .
His work at the Experience and Cognition Laboratory involves studying cognitive diversity , or how different people experience the world as reflected in our brains .
Tracking the difference between approximate amounts bigger than three is easy enough that human babies and animals can do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long as the ratio between them is big enough .
( Like , say , a pile of food that 's much larger than the one next to it . )
But when it comes to large exact numbers , like 48 or 3,472 ?
Those we do n't handle very well .
`` Large numbers are weird : We invented them very recently in human history , '' Casasanto said .
Being able to understand large , exact numbers is `` an extremely recent , rare and hard-won ability that we never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
We just do n't have a deep understanding of what those numbers mean , especially when we are n't able to compare them next to something else .
We make up for that through the use of metaphors in our language to find a way to compare this abstract idea — `` seven-ness , '' as Casasanto put it — to something concrete , like the idea of seven apples that we can see and touch .
Or we use spatial terms — big , small , high , low — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number with an easier reference point in mind .
That makes it hard , though , to conceptualize just how bad things are as the coronavirus has surged — 200,000 new cases a day is n't easily pictured , even while you understand that it 's `` a lot . ''
Some research even suggests that our inability to understand large numbers plays into how we react to mass deaths .
Paul Slovic , a psychologist at the University of Oregon , has researched the `` psychic numbing '' that humans experience when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that `` the statistics of mass murder or genocide , no matter how large the numbers , fail to convey the true meaning of such atrocities . ''
`` The numbers fail to spark emotion or feeling and thus fail to motivate action , '' he said .
In part that 's because the bigger the number of people affected , the less it feels that any response a single person can make does much to help .
A study that Slovic and other researchers published in 1997 had subjects imagine they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fund .
Two of the projects would provide clean water to save the lives of 4,500 hypothetical refugees in one of two camps — the first held 11,000 people ; the larger was home to 250,000 people .
Even though the same number of people would have been saved in each camp , subjects were less willing to fund the project at the larger camp .
You can see why that 's a problem when you 're trying to keep track of something as massive as a pandemic , especially when you 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behaviors to stop the spread .
Some steps are being taken , though , to break through the fog .
First , there 's been a surge in memes and tweets trying to contextualize the sheer number of the deaths that are taking place .
One published on Dec. 8 compared the pandemic deaths to the deadliest single days in U.S. history : Another , from MSNBC producer Adam Weinstein , compared the recent death toll to the lives lost at Pearl Harbor on the anniversary of the attack : Casasanto said mapping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on space to comprehend numbers .
There 's a reason The New York Times ' front page listing the first 100,000 people to have died of Covid-19 hit so hard in May — it transformed an abstract idea into something concrete , making it easier to see the horror in a way the number alone did n't quite manage to .
Casasanto used the example of a graphic showing a church , standing in for an entire 500-person congregation .
`` You put 600,000 churches on a page , that 's going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about all of those churches upon churches , '' Casasanto told me .
`` Imagine a whole church congregation dying .
Now imagine all of those church congregations dying . ''
And finally , the less abstract a number is , the more empathy it evokes .
We may never get a collection of all 300,000 faces of the people we 've lost this year .
For now , it helps to focus on their names , instead of just the number that represents them .
That 's why I 'm grateful for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which continue to tell the stories of as many people who have died this year as they can .
Beyond serving as memorials to the dead , these obituaries serve a broader function , keeping us tethered to the human cost of the pandemic .

The past year has left us feeling like an overstimulated nerve: We've been rubbed raw, our sensors deadened, threatening to go fully numb as Covid-19 has killed more than 300,000 people in the United States. It's why, even as the pandemic is at its worst point yet, with an average of more than 2,000 deaths a day, it doesn't feel the same as it did in the spring.
It turns out your brain literally cannot handle what’s happening.
The (kind of) good news: If you're feeling disconnected from the horror that's taking place every few seconds around the country, you're not alone. The bad news: It turns out your brain literally cannot handle what's happening — the scope of the pandemic is too big for humans to comfortably process.
That's because the human brain isn't wired to process large numbers. And by large numbers, I don't mean things that can be counted in the billions or the quintillions — though those are definitely super difficult to wrap your mind around when you're thinking about things like the size of the federal budget or how many stars are in the Milky Way.
No, I'm talking about large numbers like, well, anything bigger than three. Yes, three.
That's what I learned from talking with Daniel Casasanto, an associate professor of human development and psychology at Cornell University. His work at the Experience and Cognition Laboratory involves studying cognitive diversity, or how different people experience the world as reflected in our brains.
Tracking the difference between approximate amounts bigger than three is easy enough that human babies and animals can do it, he told me, so long as the ratio between them is big enough. (Like, say, a pile of food that's much larger than the one next to it.) But when it comes to large exact numbers, like 48 or 3,472? Those we don't handle very well.
"Large numbers are weird: We invented them very recently in human history," Casasanto said. Being able to understand large, exact numbers is "an extremely recent, rare and hard-won ability that we never got very good at," he said. We just don't have a deep understanding of what those numbers mean, especially when we aren't able to compare them next to something else.
We make up for that through the use of metaphors in our language to find a way to compare this abstract idea — "seven-ness," as Casasanto put it — to something concrete, like the idea of seven apples that we can see and touch. Or we use spatial terms — big, small, high, low — as a way to think about a number with an easier reference point in mind.
Being able to understand large, exact numbers is “an extremely recent, rare and hard-won ability that we never got very good at.”
That makes it hard, though, to conceptualize just how bad things are as the coronavirus has surged — 200,000 new cases a day isn't easily pictured, even while you understand that it's "a lot."
Some research even suggests that our inability to understand large numbers plays into how we react to mass deaths. Paul Slovic, a psychologist at the University of Oregon, has researched the "psychic numbing" that humans experience when confronting mass atrocities. What he found is that "the statistics of mass murder or genocide, no matter how large the numbers, fail to convey the true meaning of such atrocities."
"The numbers fail to spark emotion or feeling and thus fail to motivate action," he said.
In part that's because the bigger the number of people affected, the less it feels that any response a single person can make does much to help. A study that Slovic and other researchers published in 1997 had subjects imagine they were deciding which of four projects to fund. Two of the projects would provide clean water to save the lives of 4,500 hypothetical refugees in one of two camps — the first held 11,000 people; the larger was home to 250,000 people. Even though the same number of people would have been saved in each camp, subjects were less willing to fund the project at the larger camp.
You can see why that's a problem when you're trying to keep track of something as massive as a pandemic, especially when you're trying to persuade people to change their behaviors to stop the spread.
Some steps are being taken, though, to break through the fog. First, there's been a surge in memes and tweets trying to contextualize the sheer number of the deaths that are taking place. One published on Dec. 8 compared the pandemic deaths to the deadliest single days in U.S. history:
Hard to believe we are here. And that it’s going to only get worse. Stay HOME. Wear a mask.
(Yes, I’m the original creator.) pic.twitter.com/Edo3p4E7fW — Carey B (@CareyComments) December 8, 2020
Another, from MSNBC producer Adam Weinstein, compared the recent death toll to the lives lost at Pearl Harbor on the anniversary of the attack:
U.S. DEATHS, PEARL HARBOR, 7 DEC 1941: 2,403
U.S. DEATHS, COVID, 1 DEC 2020: 2,473
U.S. DEATHS, COVID, 2 DEC 2020: 2,733
U.S. DEATHS, COVID, 3 DEC 2020: 2,706
U.S. DEATHS, COVID, 4 DEC 2020: 2,563
U.S. DEATHS, COVID, 5 DEC 2020: 2,445 — Adam Weinstein (@AdamWeinstein) December 7, 2020
Casasanto said mapping onto graphics also helps leverage our reliance on space to comprehend numbers. There's a reason The New York Times' front page listing the first 100,000 people to have died of Covid-19 hit so hard in May — it transformed an abstract idea into something concrete, making it easier to see the horror in a way the number alone didn't quite manage to.
The front page of The New York Times for May 24, 2020 pic.twitter.com/d14JhFp4CP — The New York Times (@nytimes) May 24, 2020
Casasanto used the example of a graphic showing a church, standing in for an entire 500-person congregation. "You put 600,000 churches on a page, that's going to have a lot bigger impact, thinking about all of those churches upon churches," Casasanto told me. "Imagine a whole church congregation dying. Now imagine all of those church congregations dying."
And finally, the less abstract a number is, the more empathy it evokes. We may never get a collection of all 300,000 faces of the people we've lost this year. For now, it helps to focus on their names, instead of just the number that represents them.
That's why I'm grateful for outlets like BuzzFeed News and NBC News, which continue to tell the stories of as many people who have died this year as they can. Beyond serving as memorials to the dead, these obituaries serve a broader function, keeping us tethered to the human cost of the pandemic.


msnbc--2020-12-17--‘We want them infected’: Chris Hayes on emails revealing truth of Trump Covid plan

Most people will still have to wait weeks , months for Covid-19 vaccine

Chris Hayes: "Donald Trump and our government under his leadership explicitly pursued a strategy to spread the virus, to get more people sick. They took the side of Covid. They had the same aims as the virus. They were—as I said before—objectively pro-Covid.”Dec. 17, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-16--Chuck Rosenberg explains why opening a special counsel investigation into Hunter Biden doesn’t make

Chuck Rosenberg explains why opening a special counsel investigation into Hunter Biden doesn’t make sense right now
Former senior FBI official Chuck Rosenberg believes there is no reason for the Trump administration to open a special counsel investigation into Hunter Biden and analyzes the motive behind Trump considering oneDec. 16, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-17--‘We want them infected:’ Trump HHS appointee pushed for herd immunity

Public financial disclosure should not be new to Thomas: Fmr. ethics officer on new report on gifts 07:43


msnbc--2020-12-17--Daily Beast: Value of Kelly Loeffler’s mansion mysteriously dropped $6 million overnight

The Daily Beast is reporting that Sen. Kelly Loeffler saved around half a million dollar in the last five years in property taxes after an unexplained drop, $6 million, in her home value.Dec. 17, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-17--Anjanette Young on wrongful police house raid: ‘They didn’t care about what was happening to me’

Anjanette Young, who was handcuffed by the Chicago Police during a wrongful house raid, says that she wants to see accountability for what happened: "It didn't feel like any man in there cared anything about me as a woman or a female … They didn’t care about what was happening to me.”Dec. 17, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-17--Sen. Blumenthal says Russian cyberattack is ‘virtually an act of war’

“What made me so alarmed, and scared, and frankly angry was the apparent scope and magnitude of this breach,” says Sen. Blumenthal on the Russian cyberattack on the U.S. government. “This attack was virtually an act of war.”Dec. 17, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-16--Kansas mayor resigns after threats related to mask mandate

After Dodge City, Kansas Mayor Joyce Warshaw passed a mask mandate, she began receiving threats to her and her family, leading to her resignation. "I have changed my affiliation, and I am non-affiliated now, simply because the Republican party isn't the Republican party that I know," stated Warshaw, who was previously a Republican.Dec. 16, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-16--Michael Steele: Trump allies will still ‘be beholden to the noise around their feet’

Michael Steele: Trump allies will still ‘be beholden to the noise around their feet’
Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele and Washington Post White House bureau chief Philip Rucker discuss the influence a former President Trump will have on Capitol Hill once he leaves officeDec. 16, 2020