theintercept--2020-01-15--Truth, Lies, and the Democratic Debate

Truth, Lies, and the Democratic Debate

Wait !
Before you go on about your day , ask yourself : How likely is it that the story @ @ @ @ @ been produced by a different news outlet if The Intercept hadn ’ t done it @ @ @ @ @ of media would look like without The Intercept .
Who would hold party elites accountable @ @ @ @ @ to have ?
How many covert wars , miscarriages of justice , and dystopian technologies @ @ @ @ @ reporters weren ’ t on the beat ?
The kind of reporting we do is @ @ @ @ @ it is not easy , cheap , or profitable .
The Intercept is an independent @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have ads , so we depend on our members — 35,000 and @ @ @ @ @ hold the powerful to account .
Joining is simple and doesn ’ t need to @ @ @ @ @ can become a sustaining member for as little as $ 3 or $ 5 a @ @ @ @ @ all it takes to support the journalism you rely on .

Subscribe to the Deconstructed podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, Radio Public, and other platforms. New to podcasting? Click here.
Six of the remaining Democratic candidates met in Des Moines, Iowa, on Tuesday night for the final debate before the state holds the first caucus of the 2020 primaries on February 3. With the state of the race still fluid, the top contenders were all looking for a moment that might help them to distinguish themselves from the field. In the run-up to the debate, much of the media focus was on the apparent breakdown of the de facto nonaggression pact between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, with the latter claiming that Sanders had told her in a 2018 meeting that a woman couldn’t win a U.S. presidential election. The two clashed over Warren’s claim during the debate; Sanders repeated his denial that such an exchange took place, while Warren declined to retract the accusation. Meanwhile, the moderators once again allowed Joe Biden to avoid serious or detailed scrutiny of his record in the Senate, in particular his vociferous early support for the Iraq War.
Bernie Sanders: We have got to take on the fossil fuel industry and all of their lies.
Joe Biden: I would not meet with the supreme leader who said, “Joe Biden is a rabid dog. He should be beaten to death with a stick.”
Elizabeth Warren: The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women.
Mehdi Hasan: Welcome back to a new season of Deconstructed. I’m Mehdi Hasan and Happy New Year to you all, even though there’s nothing really that happy about it so far. On today’s show, we’re reacting to last night’s Democratic presidential debate, the last onstage showdown between the top six candidates before the Iowa caucuses in less than three weeks time.
BS: I did everything I could to prevent that war. Joe saw it differently.
JB: I was asked to bring 156,000 troops home from that war which I did.
EW: We have one general after another who comes in and says we’ve just turned the corner. We’ve turned the corner so many times we’re going in circles.
MH: Oh, and the big question of American politics was answered last night.
BS: Thirty years ago is 1990 as a matter of fact.
MH: Yes, 30 years ago is 1990. But today, let’s talk 2020 and the Democratic presidential race. If you’re a regular listener of this podcast, and I do hope you are, you’ll know that I like to talk about foreign policy. I like to point out the importance of U.S. foreign policy and I’ve been wishing for a while that these televised presidential debates devoted much more serious time and attention to foreign policy issues, especially to the endless wars and to the mess in the Middle East. Well, last night at the CNN debate in Iowa, ahead of the Iowa caucuses, and in the wake of Donald Trump’s reckless and probably illegal assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani which almost led to a full scale open conflict between the United States and the Islamic Republic. After all of that, we finally, finally got a discussion on foreign policy from the very beginning of a Democratic presidential debate.
But, and there’s always a but, it was a truly awful discussion, a right-wing discussion, a very hawkish discussion, the questions, oh, the questions, would you promise that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon as Trump did? That was a question for the Democrats on stage from the moderators. How would you stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? That was another one. Would you leave troops in the Middle East or withdraw? Are there any circumstances when you would take military action without the approval of Congress other than an attack on the U.S.? It went on and on.
The moderators from CNN and the Des Moines Register newspaper in Iowa were in full belligerent mode and spent a lot of the night sadly regurgitating right wing republican talking points on both foreign and domestic policy. For example, the classic question of “how are you going to pay for it” reared its ugly head. But here’s the thing, while there were lots of questions about troops in the Middle East and nuclear weapons and endless wars, there were no questions about how we pay for troops in the Middle East. How we pay for nuclear weapons, how we pay for these endless wars, plus the new ones that Trump wants to start, but health care, “how are you going to pay for it?” Childcare? “How are you going to pay for it?” Free college? “How are you going to pay for it?” I mean, seriously, this is bullshit. It really is.
It’s only ever progressive causes that have to be costed and paid for. Blowing shit up, killing black and brown people in faraway lands, that never has to have a price tag. There are no budgetary implications. The money never runs out for endless war. By the way, I’ve said before on air and in print that every Democrat should answer the incessant questions about “how are you going to pay for this” or “how you going to pay for that” with one word, Mexico. Mexico is going to pay for it. I mean, if the Mexicans can pay for Trump’s wall, why can’t they also pay for health care and childcare and higher education? I’m just saying.
But back to foreign policy, Bernie Sanders got the first question of the night and gave what I thought was a strong answer.
Wolf Blitzer: Senator Sanders, why are you best prepared, the best prepared person on this stage to be commander in chief?
BS: I think my record speaks to that, Wolf. In 2002, when the Congress was debating whether or not we go into a war in Iraq, invade Iraq, I got up on the floor of the house and I said that would be a disaster, it would lead to unprecedented levels of chaos in the region. And I not only voted against the war, I helped lead the effort against that war.
MH: Joe Biden then got asked the Iraq question.
WB: Vice President Biden, you talk a lot about your experience, but some of your competitors have taken issue with that experience questioning your judgment in voting to authorize the Iraq war. Why are you the best prepared person on this stage to be commander in chief?
JB: I said 13 years ago it was a mistake to give the president the authority to go to war if in fact, he couldn’t get inspectors in to Iraq to stop what was thought to be the attempt to get a nuclear weapon. It was a mistake and I acknowledge that.
MH: Now, hold on. Let’s be clear about a few things here. It wasn’t a mistake to vote for the crime that was the illegal invasion of Iraq. A mistake is forgetting to file your tax return on time or saying four plus four is nine, or expecting good customer service from Southwest Airlines. That’s a mistake. Voting for an illegal war based on a pack of lies that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people is more than a mistake. It’s something that should disqualify you from running for president, especially when we’re still even now 17 years later, dealing with the consequences of that illegal war and catastrophic occupation. But here’s the other thing about that answer Biden gave, it’s so shamelessly dishonest, and Biden has got this Trumpian habit of telling bare-faced, easily disprovable lies when it comes to the Iraq War. He often says he opposed it from the moment it started which isn’t true, and which even his own campaign team had to concede recently wasn’t true. In the debate last night, he said he voted to give the president the authority to go to war if in fact he couldn’t get inspectors into Iraq. It wasn’t really a vote for war. Are you kidding me? Joe Biden was obsessed with taking Saddam down years before George W. Bush even entered the White House. Here he is in the Senate in 1998:
JB: The only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone, start it alone, and it’s gonna require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking the son of a — taking Saddam down. You know it and I know it.
MH: And here he is in the summer of 2003, shortly after the invasion, heaping praise on bush for invading Iraq, and saying he’d carry on backing Bush over that war.
JB: Some in my own party have said that it was a mistake to go to Iraq in the first place and believe that is not worth the cost whatever benefit may flow from our engagement in Iraq. But the cost of not acting against Saddam I think would have been much greater. The President of the United States is a bold leader and he is popular. The stakes are high. And the need for leadership is great. I wish he’d use some of his stored up popularity to make what I admit is not a very popular case, but I and many others will support him when he makes the case.
MH: None of this stuff was mentioned in the debate last night, not by the moderators, and annoyingly not by Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren either. They didn’t really lay a glove on him over Iraq, and Biden got off scot free again. In fact, not only did they not go after Biden, but the two progressives on stage decided to go after each other. Here’s the exchange everyone was waiting for given the row in recent days over a conversation that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren had in private with each other in 2018 at which Warren now says Sanders told her a woman couldn’t win the presidency while Sanders denies he said anything of the sort. CNN, obviously weren’t going to let that go. Even though they weirdly never bothered to ask either senator, what was actually said that night.
Abby Phillip: Let’s now turn to an issue that’s come up in the last 48 hours. Senator Sanders, CNN reported yesterday that and Senator Sanders, Senator Warren confirmed in a statement that in 2018, you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?
BS: Well, as a matter of fact, I didn’t say it. And I don’t want to waste a whole lot of time on this because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want. Anybody knows me, knows that it’s incomprehensible, that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States.
AP: So Senator Sanders, Senator Sanders, I do want to be clear here. You’re saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman could not win the election?
BS: That is correct.
MH: CNN then turned to Warren and bizarrely acted as if Sanders hadn’t just flat out denied what he’s been accused of saying.
AP: Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?
EW: I disagreed. Bernie is my friend and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie. But look, this question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised and it’s time for us to attack it head on. And I think the best way to talk about who can win is by looking at people’s winning record. So can a woman beat Donald Trump? Look at the men on this stage. Collectively, they have last 10 elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in, are the women, Amy and me. And the only person on this stage, who has beaten an incumbent Republican, any time in the past 30 years is me.
MH: It was a great answer from Elizabeth Warren, a reminder that she knows how to stay cool and dish out some pretty nifty attacks on her rivals. But Bernie wasn’t happy about that last line from her.
BS: Just to set the record straight, I defeated an incumbent Republican running for Congress.
EW: When?
BS: 1990. That’s how I won. I beat a Republican congressman. Number two, of course —
EW: Thirty years ago.
BS: — I don’t think there’s any debate up here —
EW: Wasn’t that 30 years ago?
BS: I beat an incumbent Republican congressman.
EW: And I said I was the only one who’s beaten an incumbent Republican in 30 years.
BS: Well, 30 years ago is 1990, as a matter of fact.
MH: Let me just say two things here: number one, they’re both childishly arguing with each other about this stuff, arguing about who said what when each one basically suggesting the other is lying, while Joe Biden gets away with massive and much more consequential lies about his Iraq war record. And number two just for the pedants among you, Bernie Sanders defeated incumbent Republican House member, Peter Smith in Vermont in November 1990, 29 years and two months ago which means that technically Elizabeth Warren was wrong to say she’s the only one on stage to have beaten an incumbent Republican in 30 years, but who’s counting?
Anyways, let’s have a broader discussion now of what was and wasn’t said at last night’s debate who the winners and losers were and what’s going to happen to progressives torn between Sanders and Warren, especially in the coming Iowa caucuses. Let’s talk to two outspoken supporters of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. First up Nathan Robinson, who’s the editor of the progressive magazine Current Affairs, host of the magazine’s podcast, and he’s also author of the new book, “Why You Should Be a Socialist.” He joins me now.
Nathan Robinson, thanks for joining me on Deconstructed. What was the highlight of the night for you?
Nathan Robinson: Well, I mean, the debate was mostly pretty dull as far as these debates go. I think everyone was looking forward to that one moment where we would find out a little more about the allegation that Elizabeth Warren had made against Bernie Sanders and how each of them were going to respond to it. I mean, that’s the big moment of this debate.
MH: Yes, and I want to come to that moment, that debate in a moment. Do you think any of the candidates had a particularly bad night? Was there someone who had the worst night of all of the six on there?
NR: Well, you know, Joe Biden probably wouldn’t have had a very good night if it weren’t for the fact that he had a great night. And what I mean by that is Joe Biden’s performance was really pretty weak. It was probably in the bottom tier of his performances. He actually seemed to earn the name sleepy Joe that Trump gives him. But he had a great night in the sense that the other candidates didn’t attack him and he was the front runner, right? So —
MH: Bizarre, why didn’t they attack him, Nathan? Why don’t, why haven’t Warren, Warren and Sanders, and I said we’ll come to their spat about, you know what was said or not said in 2018. But what was weird was they don’t attack him in any of the debates. We were told by Team Bernie all week long in the run up to this debate that we were going to see an attack on Biden’s Iraq War record, there wasn’t really one.
NR: No, I mean, he made the point that he’s made at every debate right, where he makes this mild criticism where he says Joe was on the wrong side, I was on the right side. But he just repeated his standard attack, and it’s not much of an attack. But he didn’t, you know, point his finger at Joe and say, you know, the blood of Iraqis is on your hands.
MH: Or even that your judgment was so bad, it should be disqualifying.
NR: Yes.
MH: Which was basically what Obama said in 2008 to Hillary Clinton.
NR: And is also pretty true, right? I mean, it’s probably the greatest atrocity that the United States has committed in this century and so it should be more serious than it is. So it is — I find it bizarre that Bernie Sanders doesn’t go after Biden more. It’s really, really strange.
MH: And Warren too. I mean, the both of them. It’s mad. She got a history of bad blood with him over the bankruptcy bill. I really thought during this race that she would go after him and neither of them — On Morning Joe, the other day, she was asked about Biden’s record, she dodged the question. It’s very weird and self destructive.
NR: It is. I mean, the thing is, this is a primary, he’s the front runner, if you’re not going to make the case for why the front runner is bad and why people shouldn’t vote for him and why his record is terrible, and he wouldn’t be a good president, how are you ever going to get yourself above where he’s at? And instead, of course, they’ve now turned on each other.
MH: Yes. And turning on each other, they had this exchange, as you said that everyone was waiting for. CNN asked the question to Bernie about whether he said a woman can’t be president, can’t win, he denied saying that. They then turned to Elizabeth Warren and acted as if he hadn’t denied saying that and said, what did she make of it when he said it, as if it was fact. What did you make of that whole exchange?
NR: Well, I mean, I think Bernie responded as well as he could have which is that he said, “Well, I actually encouraged Elizabeth Warren to run in 2015, and I wasn’t going to run because I wanted her to run.” And of course, Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes. So saying, “Why on earth would I say a woman couldn’t win when I’ve been saying for years that a woman could be president?” And then as you say, they turned to Elizabeth Warren after that, and said, “How did you feel when Bernie Sanders told you a woman couldn’t be president?” and Warren didn’t answer that, right? She didn’t renew the allegation.
MH: I thought she did?
NR: Well, I don’t think she said, I don’t think she said I mean, I don’t think she said how she felt when Bernie told her.
MH: Yes, but she’s sticking to her line that he said it. She said, yeah, she disagreed —
NR: Yeah, she’s not walking it back, right, but she’s not doing what we might have expected which is like elaborating on what exactly was said.
MH: True, we never got to the bottom of what actually was said. It was weird. It was a weird journalistic misjudgment for none of those moderators to jump in and say, could you tell us what was said exactly? What was the exact phrasing? It’s bizarre to leave that hanging and none of the other candidates obviously —
NR: Right, it’s so important because that, everything depends on what Bernie was saying. Because —
MH: Yeah, was it a misunderstanding? Has one of them misremembered the conversation?
NR: And you could ask her, is there any chance that you, that he was just making a comment about how pervasive sexism is, and you interpreted that to mean a woman couldn’t win? And so Warren very quickly moved away from the actual allegation that is being made, and towards this sort of pitch for female candidates and for herself —
MH: And it was a good pitch. She got a lot of plaudits, both in the hall and online. She was very strong. She came well-prepped for that. Do you think she’s done damage to Bernie Sanders in the last day or two?
NR: Oh, I think so. I think so. Absolutely. I mean, I think, you know, from a position of being a credible progressive, a person who has a big progressive fan base and then launching an allegation of sexism, right, a fairly serious allegation. Now, she may not intend it as an allegation of sexism, but all the headlines of course are “Bernie Sanders thought a woman couldn’t be President.” I mean, that’s a very serious thing to try and tar someone with. So I think it absolutely —
MH: What would you say, what would you say, Nathan, to Warren supporters who say this started with Bernie Sanders at the weekend, we were told, Politico got hold of this script that his phone bankers, his volunteers were using in which they were, “trashing her” to use the Senator’s own phrase, that she was disappointed to hear that “Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me.”
NR: Yeah, I mean, the script seemed to say basically give volunteers a response if voters said, “Well, why shouldn’t I vote for this other candidate?” Right? And it said, “Well, you know, Elizabeth Warren, she can’t build the base like Bernie can build the base.” And Warren said, you know, “Bernie sent volunteers out to trash me.” Now, notably, Bernie Sanders has never said anything negative about Elizabeth Warren, right. There was this this volunteer script, it’s not clear that he knew anything about it. And then, of course, after she said he was trashing her, then she released like, pressed the nuclear button which is to say Bernie Sanders told me that a woman couldn’t be president. And so it’s a fairly extreme, I think breaking of the pact of non-aggression that has sort of stood between them where they really haven’t said negative things about each other.
MH: Does it mean that they can’t be on each other’s tickets now? When I had Bernie on the show a few months ago, he was suggesting that she might be a vice presidential pick?
NR: I think it was everyone’s assumption, right, that whoever out of the two of them won, the other one would probably be on the ticket to unify the progressive wing. I think it would be very hard now. There was a moment, if you noticed, at the end of the debate, where Warren approached Sanders and Sanders extended his hand, and Warren did not take it, and they seemed to have a kind of acrimonious exchange. I think it would be very, very difficult for if Bernie wins, for example, for him to pick someone who’s accused him outright of being a sexist who doesn’t think a woman can be president and did something that damaging to then pick that person as a VP.
MH: Although if he did pick her as a VP, he’d be showing the world that he does believe a woman can be president. That’s the job of the VP, to be president in waiting. In terms of trashing Warren, what do you say to people who say the Bernie supporters have been particularly anti-her because they want him to be the only progressive candidate. I’ve seen people have a go at you saying that Current Affairs, your magazine in the past was full of praise for Elizabeth Warren and her ideas and her policies, and since she became a threat to Bernie, you turned on her. I’ve seen people accuse you.
NR: I mean, it’s a little frustrating because actually, I think that’s a sign of my open mindedness. I tried. I was very positive about Elizabeth Warren. And in fact, I said that if Elizabeth Warren was winning, if she started winning the early states, that Bernie should drop out and endorse her. I was frustrated by a number of things that Elizabeth Warren said and did, things she said on foreign policy, the way she backed away from Medicare for All. And as I looked into her record, things that made me you know, and I documented at length things that I think she said that aren’t true or misleading. And I was kind of soured on her by her actions and her record, but I feel like I gave Warren a really fair shake. And I think that when Sanders supporters are frustrated with Warren, it’s not because they’re pathologically anti-Warren. It’s because they’ve been frustrated with her and this incident kind of is the culmination of that where she’s lost a really vicious attack against a candidate who has never said anything bad about her.
MH: Just, you mentioned about dropping out and endorsing one another. In terms of winning the nomination, progressives want either Sanders or Warren. If one of them doesn’t make the top three in Iowa next month, should they just drop out and throw their support behind the other to stop the corporate wing of the party, the Biden, the Buttigieg?
NR: Yeah, I mean, I think that has to happen, right? One progressive has to win. And if we continue with two in the race, then we’re losing the central advantage that comes from having multiple centrist candidates which is that the vote is split between Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar a little bit. So yeah, we have to really quickly, progressives, if they’re going to take this nomination away from the front runner, Biden, we have to unify behind one candidate. So whichever candidate is ahead, the other candidate needs to do everything they can to support the candidate who’s ahead and can win.
MH: Last question, your new book is called “Why You Should be a Socialist.” Tell us in a sentence, why Americans should vote for a socialist for president, vote for Bernie Sanders.
NR: Well, in the United States, the people who have been, who’ve called themselves socialists, who have rallied under that banner have been on the right side of history from Eugene Debs opposing the war in 1917, to Martin Luther King in the 1960s to Bernie Sanders who was a fantastic mayor of Burlington and people didn’t think a socialist mayor would be a good mayor but it turned out he was. There’s a great American tradition of socialism. It’s always stood up for civil liberties. It’s always stood up for economic justice. It doesn’t have a record that people should be ashamed of and it’s something that we want to carry forth.
MH: Nathan Robinson, thanks for joining me on Deconstructed.
NR: Thanks so much. Nice to be with you.
[Music interlude.]
MH: That was Nathan Robinson, Bernie Sanders supporter, editor of Current Affairs magazine, author of the book “Why You Should be a Socialist.” I’m joined now by Murshed Zaheed, a Democratic Party strategist, former advisor and aide to then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and a strong supporter of Senator Elizabeth Warren. Murshed Zaheed, thanks so much for joining me on Deconstructed. What did you make of tonight’s debate? Was there a moment that stood out for you?
Murshed Zaheed: I have to say, I am beyond pleasantly surprised by the incredible performance of Senator Elizabeth Warren today. I have seen every one of these debates, I believe, this is by far the strongest performance she has ever had. And I think it’s the strongest performance of any candidate during this entire campaign season. Think about the intense pressure that she has been under for last 48-72 hours and the dramatic day yesterday until the statement came out and talk about the kind of nerve that she was under, the pressure that was she was facing and the way she came out the first 30 or 40 minutes. She crushed it.
MH: Interesting. So obviously, you’re a big supporter of Elizabeth Warren. I’m not surprised to hear you say she had a great night and she won the debate. So let me ask you this instead: who do you think had the worst night?
MZ: I think Bernie had a hard time. I think, I have to say I was very surprised the way Bernie reacted to the question about the one-on-one interaction, the dinner that Senator Warren and Senator Sanders had. I really thought that was a golden moment for him to take the high road and take the graceful road. Really —
MH: What should he have said? I mean, should he not, he doesn’t believe he said it, so why shouldn’t he would deny it?
MZ: I think he should have just pivoted and said that Elizabeth and I, we agree on most things, and I believe she could, I believe a woman can be president, and let’s not get caught up in semantics.
MH: She could have done the same too, though.
MZ: No —
MH: When she was asked the question, she doubled down and said he doesn’t believe a woman could be president.
[Crosstalk.]
MH: They both could have de-escalated.
MZ: That’s not true. I mean, if you think about it, it was Bernie who set the tone. But I also think Buttigieg had a hard time. I think Buttigieg does not look serious at all. He looked —
MH: We agree on that. It was not one of his good nights not that he’s had that many good nights.
MZ: Yeah, he’s just tossing out word salad left and right and really has no idea what the heck he’s talking about. And every answer he gave just opens up to further questioning and attacks on him.
MH: Consultant speak, his answers are all consultant speak. You tweeted earlier tonight during the debate, “Sad to see,” you said. “Sad to see Bernie is coming unglued, unhinged on the stage.” That’s a pretty vicious attack on a candidate who you yourself backed I believe in 2016. Unhinged, what’s the basis for that?
MZ: Absolutely. I mean, look, that was the instant reaction, and I was not the only one. He got into semantics of that he said-she said debate. It’s never a good position, good dynamics for a guy to be in when he is in a position that he has to be in a he said, she said position and he could have taken the graceful route and say that “We obviously, we had a misunderstanding. I don’t see it that way, but I also hear and appreciate where Senator Warren is coming from and I ultimately agree a woman can be president,” and just let it go.
MH: But here’s what I don’t get it. For me, I felt like they were both being a little bit childish. There was that weird, awkward moment where they argued about whether Senator Warren was right to say she was the only person on stage to have defeated a Republican incumbent in 30 years. And then they were arguing whether 1990 was 30 years ago or not. Why didn’t she let that go?
MZ: Look, I believe Elizabeth. She’s right that a woman can win and she’s right that a woman should win. And here’s why I think that, you know, I think it is time in terms of where this country, it is time for the moment we’re in.
MH: But Murshed, we never got to the bottom tonight of who said what in that conversation. The moderators didn’t actually ask either of them what was exactly said, but here’s what I don’t get: clearly these two friends got into a fight tonight, got into a spat tonight. And what I don’t get, as you say, she’s a fighter and she is a fighter. And yet I didn’t see her go after Joe Biden very much tonight. Why didn’t she go after Joe Biden in a much tougher way?
MZ: It was not just her. Bernie Sanders didn’t do much —
MH: — Neither of them went after Biden. Why?
MZ: I think that’s a good question that you all need to ask both campaigns. I think that’s a great question. I’m in total agreement with you. I would like to see be discussed Biden’s record on bankruptcy issues. I would like to see be discussed Biden’s terrible record when it comes to our foreign policy in terms of how he cheerleaded Bush going to war against Iraq. I want to discuss all of that. And I’m frankly stunned that we didn’t get a chance to see that. Perhaps it could be attributed to the way CNN set up the debate. You know, they asked a lot of these questions that are clearly tilted towards the right, you know —
MH: Very much so. I agree with that. I was saying that on the show earlier. In terms of winning the nomination, progressives want either Sanders or Warren as the candidate. If one of them doesn’t make the top three in Iowa next month, should they just drop out and throw their support behind the other in order to stop Biden and/or Buttigieg?
MZ: I think everybody should compete hard with everything they have, as long as they have the resources. If they have the resources to compete, they have ideas to share, they should keep competing. And I have been in enough politics for a long time to know that I’m not going to make predictions of what is going to happen in 18 days or 17 days and who should do what, you know —
MH: Not a prediction. I’m just wondering whether you’re worried that they’re going to carry on splitting the left vote and allow a corporate-wing candidate through the middle.
MZ: My focus is on President Warren — Senator Warren and the campaign she’s running and she’s right in the thick of it. People have tried to pronounce her campaign dead over and over again, yet she keeps coming back. And she just keeps coming back. And she keeps coming back despite dealing with misogyny and sexism in all ends and despite facing attacks from the right, from the left, from the — I mean, the hard, hard, hard left, the corporate media, the White House, everywhere. I mean, you can see right now, President Trump, Donald Trump Jr. is essentially taking Bernie Sanders’ side on Twitter right now. They’re taking hits from everybody. Here she is within two three points and as good a chance as anyone. So, I’m not ready to really think beyond Iowa and New Hampshire. You can have me on your show then and I can give you another opinion then.
MH: Last question, if you had to summarize in a sentence, a single sentence why someone should vote for Elizabeth Warren in Iowa next month, what would you say?
MZ: In Elizabeth Warren, we are going to for the first time have a Democratic president in the White House who’s going to use every strategic tool and executive tool at our disposal to enact a progressive vision in America.
MH: Murshed Zaheed, thanks for joining me on Deconstructed.
MZ: Thank you so much for having me, Mehdi, really, really appreciate the work you’re doing.
MH: Thanks so much, have a great night.
[Music interlude.]
MH: That was Murshed Zaheed, Democratic Party strategist, former advisor to Harry Reid, and a strong supporter, as you heard there, of Senator Elizabeth Warren. And that’s our show. Deconstructed is a production of First Look Media and The Intercept. Our producer is Zach Young. Our theme music was composed by Bart Warshaw. Betsy Reed is The Intercept’s editor in chief.
And I’m Mehdi Hasan. You can follow me on Twitter @mehdirhasan. If you haven’t already, please do subscribe to the show so you can hear it every week. Go to theintercept.com/deconstructed to subscribe from your podcast platform of choice, iPhone, Android, whatever. If you’re subscribed already, please do leave us a rating or review – it helps new people find the show. And if you want to give us feedback, email us at Podcasts@theintercept.com. Thanks so much! See you next week.


theintercept--2020-01-15--The Search for Clean Air Amid Australia’s Smoky Fires

of sadness drones loudest when the air in Canberra is safe to breathe .
The first two weeks of 2020 have been a pendulum swing between fighting and fleeing from smoke , and a near-perfect likeness of the idyllic life we had before fire season .
With the sadness , there is also relief on the good days and hope that the worst is over .
And then the city is blanketed in smoke again .
We see it .
We smell it .
This fog of death , loss , terror , and suffering stretching for miles in every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this time ?
And beneath it all , another uncertainty : What is all this smoke doing to my children ?
To measure the health risks of air pollution , the Australian Capital Territory ( ACT ) uses an Air Quality Index ( AQI ) based on measurements of the concentration of particulate matter .
An AQI of 67 to 99 is considered “ fair , ” 100 to 149 is “ poor , ” 150 to 200 is “ very poor , ” and 200+ is “ hazardous.
” The AQI hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Canberra , the capital city of Australia .
That was the day that fires chased us home from the beach .
When we got to our house , I stuffed paper towels in the crevices of the doors , but it was wasn ’ t enough .
That night , I didn ’ t sleep .
It was sweltering .
And every breath tasted like sticky tar .
It got better for a few days .
Then on January 4 , soaring temperatures and high winds meant another stretch of losing battles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smoke , and the AQI reached 4,400 on January 5 .
Our kindly landlord had fitted all of our doors with foam sealing , and he ’ d told us of a DIY air-filtration technique : hanging wet towels over fans .
But our house could not withstand the onslaught .
We fled .
Old Parliament House and the science museum , our favorite places to take Audrey , age 4 , and Julian , age 2 , on bad weather days , had shut their doors due to air quality .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I asked my wife , Ariane , to shoot video on her phone .
She could barely see it through the smoke .
We ended up at Canberra Outlet Centre , an indoor mall that looks exactly like you would imagine it .
It was a lot better than outside , but the smoke had permeated every inch of it .
More than half of the stores had closed .
We fed the children and left .
The workers who cooked their fish and chips were wearing breathing masks .
We ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there , we drove to the Crowne Plaza Hotel .
Its soaring lobby , too , was filled with smoke .
I realized that any building with a door would suffer the same fate , especially hotels and malls with doors that are used by many .
But our room on the second floor smelled clean .
We ’ d found our haven for the night .
The air was still bad the next morning .
It was Monday .
The Department of Home Affairs , which is responsible for emergency management , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the hazardous air .
The National Gallery of Australia sealed its doors , not only to protect staff and patrons , but also the priceless paintings on display .
When we got home , the house smelled OK. Maybe I was just used to it .
I put a TV show on for my daughter .
My son began playing with the toys from which he ’ d briefly been separated .
The towels I ’ d hung over the fans were of course dry by now .
The blades of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powder .
The eastern-facing doors had been rammed by high winds overnight .
When I opened the main entrance , dirt and debris fell to the floor .
A few days later , our air purifier was delivered .
As glad as I was to have it , my heart sank when the ring circling the control panel showed red .
This meant our house ’ s air quality was “ poor.
” But it smelled fine .
When I related this to our landlord , he said , “ Yeah , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , those fine particles find a way in no matter what you do.
” The fine particles , known as PM2.5 , contain toxins linked to respiratory ailments , cancer , and heart disease .
They are small enough to penetrate the blood system and the body ’ s tissues .
They have no odor , and health experts say they are harmful in particular to the infirm , the elderly , and children .
An elderly woman had died from respiratory distress upon setting foot on the smoke-filled tarmac at the Canberra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after bushfire smoke inundated Glenn Innes , New South Wales .
Air purifiers remain sold out everywhere in town , but my wife had found one online .
Now , our little air-cleaning robot was puffing up a storm .
Before long , the light turned from red to orange ( fair ) .
Then yellow ( good ) .
Then blue ( very good ) .
With a blue ring of light atop its knee-high , cylindrical frame , the air purifier reminded me of R2D2 , who saved Luke Skywalker ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve turned the corner , I thought .
R2 is here .
From then on , if I saw blue , we were winning .
Any other color , we were losing , or at least that became my view and , soon , my preoccupation .
the things you get used to , ” I said .
“ Yeah , ” said Bill , a baseball coach and longtime player for the Ainslie Gungahlin Bears .
We were on the ball field at Madura Oval , looking at our phones to check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ batting practice .
I downloaded Air Matters and later found that it allowed me to monitor air quality in other cities in Australia and around the world on a single dashboard .
For the next few days , I periodically compared Canberra ’ s air quality to that of the notoriously polluted city of Delhi , India .
Ours usually was worse , and not by a little .
At the National Arboretum , I befriended a man named Chris , who , like me , was stupid enough to accompany his children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climb steeply up to a corkscrew-shaped slide .
It was a good-air day .
Chris told me that he had extended family members now living with him because they had lost their homes , or abandoned them hoping that they can still be saved .
To rescue stranded relatives , he ’ d driven four hours through some of the most-affected , coastal areas of New South Wales in a pickup truck loaded with fuel containers .
“ It ’ s like this only once every 20 years , ” he said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ engulfed the mountains on which we stood .
On January 18 , 2003 , three fires combined into one and roared into Canberra ’ s suburbs , destroying nearly 500 homes , killing four people and injuring 470 .
Fire experts said it was the fastest-moving bushfire ever documented , advancing 20 kilometers per hour on a panicked and unprepared city thanks to 80 kilometer-per-hour winds .
January 10 , 2020 was a good-air day .
Our day care center was open , and , even better , the air was safe enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As normal as things looked , we couldn ’ t forget that 150 bushfires were still burning and that the weekend forecast included very hot temperatures and swift wind currents .
And of course , we followed the news reports .
Twenty-seven people had lost their lives , all the lost homes , the wildlife , the farm animals .
What can I say ?
It ’ s mind-numbing .
“ Blue !
” I announced as we entered the house after bringing the kids home from the pool .
We ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in .
When the kids were asleep , I positioned R2 in the hallway , equidistant from their bedroom doors .
I let it run for hours , then moved it to other parts of the house , just briefly , to check the air quality .
It was yellow in places : “ good ” as opposed to “ very good.
” I re-taped the doors and taped up some windows that I hadn ’ t done before .
Ariane awakened me at 9:30 a.m. She needed me to watch the kids @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market .
I checked my phone and said , “ Are you sure ?
It ’ s 172 [ unhealthy ] .
” I noticed that R2 was still in the hall and had been switched off , perhaps by my son who loves to push buttons .
I moved it into the room where the kids were : the TV room , which is the largest in the house .
I texted Ariane : “ Air purifier has had a red light for the last 20 minutes .
I plugged it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As the air quality outside worsened and the red light persisted , I got more and more anxious .
This was the first time the AQI had reached “ very unhealthy ” since R2 had arrived .
I had already closed two doors : the one to the hallway and the one to the kitchen .
The other egress was a wide entryway that had no door .
It led to the dining room and the only door we currently use to exit the house .
I began blocking the dining room ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For the bottom third , I used a quilted blanket draped over two chairs .
The top two-thirds : a mosaic of the children ’ s artwork , including a giant treasure map that Audrey felt was too important for non-treasure-hunting use .
“ I need to keep it there to help make the air better , ” I explained .
The light turned yellow when I was 95 percent finished with my wall .
Audrey said , “ How will we eat ?
” “ We can get to the dining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
The light soon turned blue .
“ What is all this ?
” Ariane said when she came home from the farmers market .
“ It was the only way I could turn things around .
It was stuck on red.
” “ Did you have to use the kids ’ artwork ?
” “ And some of it is not the right way , ” Audrey said , pointing to a drawing of hers that was turned on its side .
She ’ d objected and I ’ d refused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think your artwork looks beautiful in this context , while also showing its utility , ” I said .
“ You can just get a mattress bag , ” Ariane said .
“ It will work a lot better.
” By dinnertime , the AQI had reached 550 .
Worse than Delhi .
Ariane wanted us to eat like a normal family at the dining room table .
“ It ’ s right by the door , the air is bad there , ” I said .
“ Well , put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she said , referring to R2 .
I did , but R2 did not move off red .
“ Guess what , kids ?
We ’ re having a picnic !
” I said .
We ’ d be eating in the parlor with the kitchen door closed .
When I powered up R2 in the parlor , it was red there too .
It had only been away for 10 minutes .
As the children ate and the air quality gradually improved , Ariane and I reopened the discussion we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the weekend .
It would cost us $ 2,000 , and I didn ’ t think it was worth the expense .
After dinner , we piled everyone into the master bedroom with R2 .
“ Oh shit , ” I said , when I switched it on .
Red .
But that improved over the next 20 minutes , during which I left to borrow a ladder so I could tape plastic over an inward-blowing fan on the ceiling above the toilet .
I also rewet the towels and draped them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the bedroom , Ariane informed me that Audrey had repeated my “ Oh shit ” thrice .
bad-air day .
During a five-minute drive to interview climate scientist William Steffen , I thought briefly about canceling .
The AQI was approaching 400 and I ’ d just dropped off my children with a relative who hadn ’ t sealed up her house .
Sometimes I feel like I ’ m being a paranoid alarmist — other times , I feel like I ’ m failing to protect my family from danger .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I thought to myself and kept driving .
The day before , Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison had made big news by publicly recognizing the reality of climate change .
Professor Steffen was not impressed .
“ Acknowledgment needs to be followed up with action , of course .
And we ’ ll see what happens there .
I ’ m not optimistic.
” He said Australia needs to increase its targets for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions , and take steps to meet them .
Since 1997 , seven prime ministers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
Australia had signed the 2016 Paris Agreement , promising to reduce emissions by 26 percent by 2030 .
But emissions have gone up each year since then .
I asked Steffen if he embraced the sentiment expressed by novelist Richard Flanagan in his op-ed , “ Australia Is Committing Climate Suicide.
” Steffen agreed with Flanagan ’ s condemnation of their government ’ s failure on climate policy — and said that Australia might be “ one of the first countries that really comes apart as the climate shifts.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , was just a way of saying things have gotten out of hand .
I quoted the prime minister , who had said Australia is responsible for only 1.23 percent of global emissions , and that if Australia shut down its fossil fuel industries tomorrow , China would make up for that in about nine days .
“ It ’ s a collective action problem , ” he said .
“ Just like in any civilized country , you have an income tax .
So , if you look at my share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax that I pay , it ’ s tiny .
So based on the prime minister ’ s argument , I should write to the Australian Tax Authority and say I want to no longer pay my income tax .
It ’ s too small to matter.
” “ We have one planet , one climate , and we ’ re one species , ” he said .
“ We ’ ve got to get over this stupid nationalistic crap that ’ s out there stopping us from taking action , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too late to prevent a 2-degree [ Celsius ] increase ?
” I asked , referring to global temperature averages .
“ No , I think we can just make 2 .
It ’ s too late to prevent 1.5.
” My next question assumed that a 2-degree increase would bring bushfires twice as bad as what we have now , with a 1.1-degree increase .
Steffen interrupted .
“ I think it ’ s going to be three or four times as bad.
” He explained that regions with climates similar to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worsening fires , while other regions will suffer from hurricanes , cyclones , and floods of increasing severity .
“ Wherever you are in the world , the climate you are used to is changing.
” As I packed up my video gear , we chatted about the smoke .
Steffen said he had gone out jogging that morning , when the AQI was 150 .
“ But once it was up to 350 , 400 , when I took the dog for a walk , I had my mask.
” “ Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” I asked .
“ Typically , because it ’ s calmer .
So the wind hasn ’ t come in yet .
And the fires aren ’ t immediately at our doorstep , so most of the smoke is being blown in from some distance.
” He said the AQI is generally at its lowest around dawn , “ unless there is a front and it just blows through the night and the day , so you just have to check it all the time.
” The AQI had been 78 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We were at a birthday party for a family friend , outdoors , at a tennis club across the street from our house .
For the first time , little Julian understood the drill .
When he saw that candles were being placed on the cake , he said , “ Sing ‘ Happy Birthday.
’ ” He and I practiced quietly a few times , and when the real thing came , he landed most of the song in tune .
The CanberraAir app revised its figures in the late morning , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little , still in the moderate range .
I jumped into a doubles tennis match .
Ariane took Julian home for his nap , while Audrey sat on a bench next to the court eating popcorn and watching Netflix on my phone .
Shortly after noon , Ariane sent me two text messages : Air at hazard level now .
Better to come home .
I didn ’ t see them , so Ariane came back for Audrey .
As I said my goodbyes , I offered our house to the remaining guests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No one came .
The grandmothers each thanked me but said they ’ d be going soon anyway .
The grandfather grabbed a racquet and took my place on the court .
When I got home , I did not like the state of things .
Ariane and Audrey were in the parlor with R2 , who was orange .
Julian was in the master bedroom still napping .
I moved R2 into the bedroom in order to check .
Orange there as well .
“ We ’ re going back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With the constant creep of smoke-poisoned air , there were some rooms we couldn ’ t afford to protect .
A second air purifier will be delivered to our home soon .

The background din of sadness drones loudest when the air in Canberra is safe to breathe. The first two weeks of 2020 have been a pendulum swing between fighting and fleeing from smoke, and a near-perfect likeness of the idyllic life we had before fire season. With the sadness, there is also relief on the good days and hope that the worst is over. And then the city is blanketed in smoke again. We see it. We smell it. This fog of death, loss, terror, and suffering stretching for miles in every direction. How long will it stay this time? And beneath it all, another uncertainty: What is all this smoke doing to my children?
To measure the health risks of air pollution, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) uses an Air Quality Index (AQI) based on measurements of the concentration of particulate matter. An AQI of 67 to 99 is considered “fair,” 100 to 149 is “poor,” 150 to 200 is “very poor,” and 200+ is “hazardous.”
The AQI hit 4,650 on New Year’s Day in Canberra, the capital city of Australia. That was the day that fires chased us home from the beach. When we got to our house, I stuffed paper towels in the crevices of the doors, but it was wasn’t enough. That night, I didn’t sleep. It was sweltering. And every breath tasted like sticky tar.
It got better for a few days. Then on January 4, soaring temperatures and high winds meant another stretch of losing battles for our firefighters. In came the smoke, and the AQI reached 4,400 on January 5.
The workers who cooked our fish and chips were wearing breathing masks. We’d left ours in the car.
Our kindly landlord had fitted all of our doors with foam sealing, and he’d told us of a DIY air-filtration technique: hanging wet towels over fans. But our house could not withstand the onslaught. We fled. Old Parliament House and the science museum, our favorite places to take Audrey, age 4, and Julian, age 2, on bad weather days, had shut their doors due to air quality. As I drove past new Parliament House, I asked my wife, Ariane, to shoot video on her phone. She could barely see it through the smoke.
We ended up at Canberra Outlet Centre, an indoor mall that looks exactly like you would imagine it. It was a lot better than outside, but the smoke had permeated every inch of it. More than half of the stores had closed. We fed the children and left. The workers who cooked their fish and chips were wearing breathing masks. We’d left ours in the car.
From there, we drove to the Crowne Plaza Hotel. Its soaring lobby, too, was filled with smoke. I realized that any building with a door would suffer the same fate, especially hotels and malls with doors that are used by many. But our room on the second floor smelled clean. We’d found our haven for the night.
The air was still bad the next morning. It was Monday. The Department of Home Affairs, which is responsible for emergency management, had told staff to stay home due to the hazardous air. The National Gallery of Australia sealed its doors, not only to protect staff and patrons, but also the priceless paintings on display.
When we got home, the house smelled OK. Maybe I was just used to it. I put a TV show on for my daughter. My son began playing with the toys from which he’d briefly been separated. The towels I’d hung over the fans were of course dry by now. The blades of the fans were coated with fine, black powder. The eastern-facing doors had been rammed by high winds overnight. When I opened the main entrance, dirt and debris fell to the floor.
A few days later, our air purifier was delivered. As glad as I was to have it, my heart sank when the ring circling the control panel showed red. This meant our house’s air quality was “poor.” But it smelled fine.
When I related this to our landlord, he said, “Yeah, when it’s really thick like that, those fine particles find a way in no matter what you do.”
The fine particles, known as PM2.5, contain toxins linked to respiratory ailments, cancer, and heart disease. They are small enough to penetrate the blood system and the body’s tissues. They have no odor, and health experts say they are harmful in particular to the infirm, the elderly, and children.
An elderly woman had died from respiratory distress upon setting foot on the smoke-filled tarmac at the Canberra airport. An asthmatic teenager had died after bushfire smoke inundated Glenn Innes, New South Wales.
Air purifiers remain sold out everywhere in town, but my wife had found one online. Now, our little air-cleaning robot was puffing up a storm. Before long, the light turned from red to orange (fair). Then yellow (good). Then blue (very good).
With a blue ring of light atop its knee-high, cylindrical frame, the air purifier reminded me of R2D2, who saved Luke Skywalker’s life countless times. We’ve turned the corner, I thought. R2 is here. From then on, if I saw blue, we were winning. Any other color, we were losing, or at least that became my view and, soon, my preoccupation.
Photo: Eric Byler for The Intercept
“It’s funny the things you get used to,” I said.
“Yeah,” said Bill, a baseball coach and longtime player for the Ainslie Gungahlin Bears. We were on the ball field at Madura Oval, looking at our phones to check the air quality before a round of batting practice.
“What app do you use?”
“It’s called Air Matters.”
“Mine is CanberraAir,” I said.
I downloaded Air Matters and later found that it allowed me to monitor air quality in other cities in Australia and around the world on a single dashboard. For the next few days, I periodically compared Canberra’s air quality to that of the notoriously polluted city of Delhi, India. Ours usually was worse, and not by a little.
At the National Arboretum, I befriended a man named Chris, who, like me, was stupid enough to accompany his children through narrow tunnels made of rope that climb steeply up to a corkscrew-shaped slide. It was a good-air day.
Chris told me that he had extended family members now living with him because they had lost their homes, or abandoned them hoping that they can still be saved. To rescue stranded relatives, he’d driven four hours through some of the most-affected, coastal areas of New South Wales in a pickup truck loaded with fuel containers.
“It’s like this only once every 20 years,” he said.
It had been 17 years since bushfires engulfed the mountains on which we stood. On January 18, 2003, three fires combined into one and roared into Canberra’s suburbs, destroying nearly 500 homes, killing four people and injuring 470. Fire experts said it was the fastest-moving bushfire ever documented, advancing 20 kilometers per hour on a panicked and unprepared city thanks to 80 kilometer-per-hour winds.
When the kids were asleep, I positioned R2 in the hallway, equidistant from their bedroom doors. I let it run for hours. I re-taped the doors and taped up some windows I hadn’t done before.
January 10, 2020 was a good-air day. Our day care center was open, and, even better, the air was safe enough for the children to play outside. As normal as things looked, we couldn’t forget that 150 bushfires were still burning and that the weekend forecast included very hot temperatures and swift wind currents. And of course, we followed the news reports. Twenty-seven people had lost their lives, all the lost homes, the wildlife, the farm animals. What can I say? It’s mind-numbing.
“Blue!” I announced as we entered the house after bringing the kids home from the pool. We’d left just as the smoke was rolling in.
When the kids were asleep, I positioned R2 in the hallway, equidistant from their bedroom doors. I let it run for hours, then moved it to other parts of the house, just briefly, to check the air quality. It was yellow in places: “good” as opposed to “very good.” I re-taped the doors and taped up some windows that I hadn’t done before.
Ariane awakened me at 9:30 a.m. She needed me to watch the kids as she was off to the farmers market. I checked my phone and said, “Are you sure? It’s 172 [unhealthy].”
“Yeah, it’s OK, I won’t be long.”
I noticed that R2 was still in the hall and had been switched off, perhaps by my son who loves to push buttons.
I moved it into the room where the kids were: the TV room, which is the largest in the house.
The air quality indicator glowed red.
I texted Ariane: “Air purifier has had a red light for the last 20 minutes. I plugged it in behind where the kids are sitting.”
As the air quality outside worsened and the red light persisted, I got more and more anxious. This was the first time the AQI had reached “very unhealthy” since R2 had arrived. I had already closed two doors: the one to the hallway and the one to the kitchen. The other egress was a wide entryway that had no door. It led to the dining room and the only door we currently use to exit the house.
I began blocking the dining room’s entryway with anything I could find. For the bottom third, I used a quilted blanket draped over two chairs. The top two-thirds: a mosaic of the children’s artwork, including a giant treasure map that Audrey felt was too important for non-treasure-hunting use.
“I need to keep it there to help make the air better,” I explained.
R2 was reading orange: “fair.”
The light turned yellow when I was 95 percent finished with my wall. Audrey said, “How will we eat?”
“We can get to the dining room through the kitchen,” I said. The light soon turned blue.
“What is all this?” Ariane said when she came home from the farmers market.
“It was the only way I could turn things around. It was stuck on red.”
“Did you have to use the kids’ artwork?”
“And some of it is not the right way,” Audrey said, pointing to a drawing of hers that was turned on its side. She’d objected and I’d refused to fix it.
“But Audrey, I think your artwork looks beautiful in this context, while also showing its utility,” I said.
“You can just get a mattress bag,” Ariane said. “It will work a lot better.”
“Guess what, kids? We’re having a picnic!” I said. We’d be eating in the parlor with the kitchen door closed.
By dinnertime, the AQI had reached 550. Worse than Delhi. Ariane wanted us to eat like a normal family at the dining room table.
“It’s right by the door, the air is bad there,” I said.
“Well, put the thing in there for 10 minutes,” she said, referring to R2.
I did, but R2 did not move off red.
“Guess what, kids? We’re having a picnic!” I said. We’d be eating in the parlor with the kitchen door closed.
When I powered up R2 in the parlor, it was red there too. It had only been away for 10 minutes.
As the children ate and the air quality gradually improved, Ariane and I reopened the discussion we’d had about flying to Brisbane for the weekend. It would cost us $2,000, and I didn’t think it was worth the expense.
After dinner, we piled everyone into the master bedroom with R2.
“Oh shit,” I said, when I switched it on. Red.
But that improved over the next 20 minutes, during which I left to borrow a ladder so I could tape plastic over an inward-blowing fan on the ceiling above the toilet. I also rewet the towels and draped them over the fans. When I returned to the bedroom, Ariane informed me that Audrey had repeated my “Oh shit” thrice.
Photo: Chu Chen/Xinhua via Getty Images
Monday was another bad-air day. During a five-minute drive to interview climate scientist William Steffen, I thought briefly about canceling. The AQI was approaching 400 and I’d just dropped off my children with a relative who hadn’t sealed up her house. Sometimes I feel like I’m being a paranoid alarmist — other times, I feel like I’m failing to protect my family from danger.
“For the common good,” I thought to myself and kept driving.
The day before, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison had made big news by publicly recognizing the reality of climate change. Professor Steffen was not impressed. “Acknowledgment needs to be followed up with action, of course. And we’ll see what happens there. I’m not optimistic.”
He said Australia needs to increase its targets for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, and take steps to meet them. Since 1997, seven prime ministers had suffered defeats after trying to do that. Australia had signed the 2016 Paris Agreement, promising to reduce emissions by 26 percent by 2030. But emissions have gone up each year since then.
I asked Steffen if he embraced the sentiment expressed by novelist Richard Flanagan in his op-ed, “Australia Is Committing Climate Suicide.”
Steffen agreed with Flanagan’s condemnation of their government’s failure on climate policy — and said that Australia might be “one of the first countries that really comes apart as the climate shifts.” But the word “suicide,” he said, was just a way of saying things have gotten out of hand.
I quoted the prime minister, who had said Australia is responsible for only 1.23 percent of global emissions, and that if Australia shut down its fossil fuel industries tomorrow, China would make up for that in about nine days.
“It’s a collective action problem,” he said. “Just like in any civilized country, you have an income tax. So, if you look at my share of the Australian revenue, my income tax that I pay, it’s tiny. So based on the prime minister’s argument, I should write to the Australian Tax Authority and say I want to no longer pay my income tax. It’s too small to matter.”
I laughed.
“We have one planet, one climate, and we’re one species,” he said. “We’ve got to get over this stupid nationalistic crap that’s out there stopping us from taking action,” he said.
“It’s really too late to prevent a 2-degree [Celsius] increase?” I asked, referring to global temperature averages.
“No, I think we can just make 2. It’s too late to prevent 1.5.”
My next question assumed that a 2-degree increase would bring bushfires twice as bad as what we have now, with a 1.1-degree increase. Steffen interrupted. “I think it’s going to be three or four times as bad.” He explained that regions with climates similar to Australia’s will be dealing with worsening fires, while other regions will suffer from hurricanes, cyclones, and floods of increasing severity.
“Wherever you are in the world, the climate you are used to is changing.”
As I packed up my video gear, we chatted about the smoke. Steffen said he had gone out jogging that morning, when the AQI was 150. “But once it was up to 350, 400, when I took the dog for a walk, I had my mask.”
“Why is it better in the early morning?” I asked.
“Typically, because it’s calmer. So the wind hasn’t come in yet. And the fires aren’t immediately at our doorstep, so most of the smoke is being blown in from some distance.”
He said the AQI is generally at its lowest around dawn, “unless there is a front and it just blows through the night and the day, so you just have to check it all the time.”
Ariane sent me two text messages: “Air at hazard level now. Better to come home.” Then: “Can you bring Audrey home.”
The AQI had been 78 (moderate) the morning before. We were at a birthday party for a family friend, outdoors, at a tennis club across the street from our house. For the first time, little Julian understood the drill. When he saw that candles were being placed on the cake, he said, “Sing ‘Happy Birthday.’” He and I practiced quietly a few times, and when the real thing came, he landed most of the song in tune.
The CanberraAir app revised its figures in the late morning, and it had only gone up a little, still in the moderate range. I jumped into a doubles tennis match.
Ariane took Julian home for his nap, while Audrey sat on a bench next to the court eating popcorn and watching Netflix on my phone. Shortly after noon, Ariane sent me two text messages:
Air at hazard level now. Better to come home. Can you bring Audrey home.
I didn’t see them, so Ariane came back for Audrey. As I said my goodbyes, I offered our house to the remaining guests, including three grandparents and four children. No one came. The grandmothers each thanked me but said they’d be going soon anyway. The grandfather grabbed a racquet and took my place on the court.
When I got home, I did not like the state of things. Ariane and Audrey were in the parlor with R2, who was orange. Julian was in the master bedroom still napping.
“How’s the air for Julian?” I asked.
I moved R2 into the bedroom in order to check. Orange there as well. “We’re going back to submarine mode,” I announced. With the constant creep of smoke-poisoned air, there were some rooms we couldn’t afford to protect.
A second air purifier will be delivered to our home soon.


theintercept--2020-01-15--At the Iowa Debate, Bernie Sanders’s Most Vociferous Opponent Was CNN

August 2015 Fox News debate , the company ’ s chair , Rupert Murdoch , issued a directive to debate moderator Megyn Kelly : The Donald Trump thing has gone on long enough , it ’ s time to take him down .
Kelly took a bat to candidate Trump , listing off his most misogynistic remarks , asking how he could explain them to voters .
But Trump ended up winning that war .
Democrats assembled in Iowa Tuesday night for the opportunity to take him on in the upcoming general election .
This time , though , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bat and swung it hard at Sen. Bernie Sanders .
The Vermont independent had topped the important Iowa poll last week , compounding fears that have only recently emerged among the party establishment that he may be on course for the nomination .
In contrast to Sanders ’ s treatment , former Vice President Joe Biden , the national front-runner , was barely touched — either by moderators or his rivals .
CNN moderator Abby Phillip opened a line of questioning on the recent feud between Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders , Sen. Warren confirmed in a statement that in 2018 you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election .
Why did you say that ?
” The moderator ’ s use of Warren to confirm a version of the story that originally came from Warren ’ s account of the meeting at the time signaled which side CNN was taking in the he-said/she-said , but it was confirmed by the framing of the question — “ Why did you say that ?
” — rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders denied the accusation , noting that he had been ready to stand aside for Warren to run in 2016 , though she declined to .
Phillip pressed to be clear he was denying the charge , then pivoted to Warren , and waved away his denial with such force — “ Sen .
Warren , what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman could not win the election ?
” — that Sanders and the audience laughed .
After the debate , the candidates shook hands — all except @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand back and the two had a tense exchange that couldn ’ t be heard as the mics had been cut off , but left both walking tersely off , Sanders turning his back on Warren .
with a long discussion of war in Iran and Iraq , which included no mention of the costs of occupation.Yet CNN moderators did eventually ask Sanders how he would pay for Medicare for All , among other plans .
Host Wolf Blitzer asked why the government should do anything to lower drug prices when nobody trusts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how he would keep his plans “ from bankrupting the country ?
” In another moment , moderators interrupted Sanders as he sought to link his opposition to Trump ’ s newly negotiated U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement — setting himself apart from the rest of the field , particularly Warren — with calls for stronger labor protections and environmental provisions to address the climate emergency .
“ Aren ’ t moderate improvements better than no improvements ?
” asked Brianne Pfannenstiel , a Des Moines Register reporter and co-moderator .
After Sanders explained his opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trade deal .
“ Are you unwilling to compromise ?
” “ The AFL-CIO does .
The Machinists Union does not .
And every environmental organization in this country , including the Sunrise Organization , who are supporting my candidacy , opposes it , ” Sanders said .
That ’ s when the CNN hosts jumped in , telling Sanders to stay on the topic of trade because climate change would be addressed later .
“ They are the same in this issue , ” he fired back .
One instance when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit Biden — came at the outset of the debate , when moderators asked questions about the war in Iraq and the potential coming war with Iran .
Sanders used the opportunity to hit Biden for his support of the Iraq war and to remind viewers that he opposed it , just as he opposed the Vietnam war .
Biden , attempting to end weeks of rough press , ultimately acknowledged his vote for the war was a “ mistake , ” one he said was hoodwinked into by the Bush administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use the congressional authorization for the use of force to attack .
The Sanders moment , however , only came after Blitzer started a question to Sanders by saying , “ Iran ’ s Ayatollah [ Ali ] Khamenei has again called for all U.S. troops to be pulled out the Middle East , something you ’ ve called for as well.
” Despite the pummeling by moderators , a staffer for the Sanders campaign said it had its best fundraising hour of any debate thus far , with more than 15,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which totaled $ 1.7 million by the end of the night , accounted for 43 percent of all money raised on the Democratic fundraising site ActBlue during that period of time .

Ahead of the August 2015 Fox News debate, the company’s chair, Rupert Murdoch, issued a directive to debate moderator Megyn Kelly: The Donald Trump thing has gone on long enough, it’s time to take him down. Kelly took a bat to candidate Trump, listing off his most misogynistic remarks, asking how he could explain them to voters. But Trump ended up winning that war.
Democrats assembled in Iowa Tuesday night for the opportunity to take him on in the upcoming general election. This time, though, it was CNN moderators who brought out the bat and swung it hard at Sen. Bernie Sanders. The Vermont independent had topped a major Iowa poll last week, compounding fears that have only recently emerged among the party establishment that he may be on course for the nomination.
In contrast to Sanders’s treatment, former Vice President Joe Biden, the national frontrunner, was barely touched — either by moderators or his rivals.
CNN moderator Abby Phillip opened a line of questioning on the recent feud between Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren: “CNN reported yesterday, and, Sen. Sanders, Sen. Warren confirmed in a statement that in 2018 you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?”
The moderator’s use of Warren to confirm a version of the story that originally came from Warren’s account of the meeting at the time signaled which side CNN was taking in the “he said, she said,” but it was confirmed by the framing of the question — “Why did you say that?” — rather than asking whether he said it.
Sanders denied the accusation, noting that he had been ready to stand aside for Warren to run in 2016, though she declined to. Phillip pressed to be clear he was denying the charge, then pivoted to Warren, and waved away his denial with such force — “Sen. Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?” — that Sanders and the audience laughed.
After the debate, the candidates shook hands — all except Warren and Sanders. Warren pulled her hand back, and the two had a tense exchange that couldn’t be heard as the mics had been cut off, but left both walking tersely off, Sanders turning his back on Warren.
The debate opened with a long discussion of war in Iran and Iraq, which included no mention of the costs of occupation. Yet CNN moderators did eventually ask Sanders how he would pay for Medicare for All, among other plans. Host Wolf Blitzer asked why the government should do anything to lower drug prices when nobody trusts the government. Philip later asked Sanders how he would keep his plans “from bankrupting the country.”
The CNN hosts jumped in, telling Sanders to stay on trade because climate change would be addressed later. “They are the same in this issue,” he fired back.
In another moment, moderators interrupted Sanders as he sought to link his opposition to Trump’s newly negotiated U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement — setting himself apart from the rest of the field, particularly Warren — with calls for stronger labor protections and environmental provisions to address the climate emergency. “Aren’t moderate improvements better than no improvements?” asked Brianne Pfannenstiel, a Des Moines Register reporter and co-moderator. After Sanders explained his opposition, Pfannenstiel noted that the AFL-CIO supported the trade deal: “Are you unwilling to compromise?”
“The AFL-CIO does. The Machinists Union does not. And every environmental organization in this country, including the Sunrise organization, who are supporting my candidacy, opposes it,” Sanders said. That’s when the CNN hosts jumped in, telling Sanders to stay on the topic of trade because climate change would be addressed later. “They are the same in this issue,” he fired back.
One instance when Sanders did seem to triumph — and hit Biden — came at the outset of the debate, when moderators asked questions about the war in Iraq and the potential coming war with Iran. Sanders used the opportunity to hit Biden for his support of the Iraq War and to remind viewers that he opposed it, just as he opposed the Vietnam War. Biden, attempting to end weeks of rough press, ultimately acknowledged his vote for the war was a “mistake,” one he said he was hoodwinked into by the Bush administration’s claims that it did not intend to use the congressional authorization for the use of force to attack.
The Sanders moment, however, only came after Blitzer started a question to Sanders by saying, “Iran’s Ayatollah [Ali] Khamenei has again called for all U.S. troops to be pulled out of the Middle East, something you’ve called for as well.”
Despite the pummeling by moderators, a staffer for the Sanders campaign said it had its best fundraising hour of any debate thus far, with more than 15,000 contributions. The campaign said the donations, which totaled $1.7 million by the end of the night, accounted for 43 percent of all money raised on the Democratic fundraising site ActBlue during that period of time.


theintercept--2020-01-15--Trump vs. Iran: What Now?

Trump vs. Iran: What Now?

administration ’ s assassination of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani , tensions between the United States and Iran rose to the @ @ @ @ @ , January 13 , The Intercept ’ s Jeremy Scahill moderated a discussion on the @ @ @ @ @ a live audience in New York , with Intercept senior columnist Mehdi Hasan , reporter @ @ @ @ @ editor Vanessa Gezari , and senior news editor Ali Gharib .
Why did Trump kill @ @ @ @ @ this mean for Iran ?
What do we know about Suleimani from the leaked Iranian @ @ @ @ @ Intercept ?
Will Trump ’ s current posture hold , or will he order more @ @ @ @ @ rest of us — especially the left and the anti-war movement — do to stop @ @ @ @ @ ?

Following the Trump administration’s assassination of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, tensions between the United States and Iran rose to the boiling point. On Monday, January 13, The Intercept’s Jeremy Scahill moderated a discussion on the unfolding crisis in front of a live audience in New York, with Intercept Senior Columnist Mehdi Hasan, reporter Murtaza Hussain, National Security Editor Vanessa Gezari, and Senior News Editor Ali Gharib.
Why did Trump kill Suleimani, and what does this mean for Iran? What do we know about Suleimani from the leaked Iranian spy cables obtained by The Intercept? Will Trump’s current posture hold, or will he order more violence? What can the rest of us — especially the left and the anti-war movement — do to stop this dangerous conflict from reescalating?


theintercept--2020-01-15--Trump Supporter Who Discussed Surveillance of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch Has History of Stalking,

Trump Supporter Who Discussed Surveillance of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch Has History of Stalking, Mental Health Issues

The startling messages show the extent to which the Giuliani associates were willing to at least entertain extreme tactics from a campaign donor who has courted controversy and even unsettled others , including fellow supporters of the president .
The messages , released Tuesday by the House Intelligence Committee relating to its ongoing impeachment inquiry , show Hyde claiming to know Yovanovitch ’ s location and movements in Kyiv , while implying that he was in contact with local security services in Ukraine who could be paid to go after the ambassador .
Newly released private WhatsApp messages between Lev @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s , and Robert F. Hyde , a donor to President Donald Trump ’ s campaign and aspiring GOP lawmaker , reveal what appears to be an effort to surveil the former ambassador to Ukraine , whose ouster was sought by Giuliani as part of a plan to pressure the Ukrainian government into pursuing political investigations at the White House ’ s behest .
The Intercept obtained police records showing that Hyde violated a restraining order issued by a Washington , D.C. , Superior Court judge at the request of a Republican consultant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intimidated her family over the last year .
In one of the reports , an officer disclosed that Connecticut police confiscated Hyde ’ s firearms in connection to his violation of the restraining order .
Hyde was reported to authorities for “ unsettling behavior ” and trespassing at a church in Connecticut , according to a separate police report last summer .
Asked for comment , Hyde texted The Intercept , “ Bull Schiff is still crying ?
!
Lol .
Tell him to go whistleblow himself.
” He did not respond to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s other acquaintances noted that he has a history of erratic behavior .
Jeffrey Peterson , a technology entrepreneur , said Hyde came to meet with him recently , then disappeared , only to resurface months later .
Hyde , Peterson said , “ has been trying to reestablish contact with me ever since , not really comfortable with him.
” Hyde publicized that he was placed in a psychiatric facility in Florida last May , following an incident at the Trump National Doral Miami resort .
A report written by the Doral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hyde expressed fear for his life and told officers that he “ was scared due to several painting workers and landscape working trying to do harm to him because they weren ’ t working.
” Hyde posted about his facility stay in a now-deleted Instagram video .
“ I don ’ t know what that nine days was in that facility , and they wanted to keep me 10 and I finally got out , but here I am , ” Hyde said in the video following his release .
The caption for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confinement under Florida ’ s Baker Act , which allows individuals showing signs of mental illness who could pose a danger to themselves or others to be involuntarily submitted to a mental health facility .
Shortly after his release , in a now-deleted Facebook post , Hyde wondered if Dan Coats , Trump ’ s former Director of National Intelligence , “ effed with me in DC a month ago ” and “ probably initiated my disappearance for awhile.
” Last year , Hyde began a campaign for Congress , seeking the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D-Conn .
The former owner of a landscaping company , Hyde describes himself as a “ U.S .
Marine Corps Iraqi Freedom war veteran ” and “ an ardent support of our duly elected president , President Trump ” on his campaign website .
Hyde has other legal issues , according to records , including an eviction from a commercial property in Simsbury , Connecticut , where his former business was located .
In 2011 , Hyde was arrested in Avon , Connecticut , for reckless endangerment in connection a tree that fell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work sites .
He also owes more than $ 2,000 in child support payments , according to the Hartford Courant , despite donating thousands of dollars to Trump and the Republican National Committee .
Hyde ’ s tone toward women has also sparked a minor scandal in his political campaign .
In December , after Sen. Kamala Harris , D-Calif. , suspended her presidential bid , Hyde tweeted that Harris was “ brought to her knees , ” followed by the message : “ Must be a hard one to swallow .
# @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was swiftly condemned by both parties .
The Connecticut Republican Party returned Hyde ’ s donation of $ 750 in response to his “ vile comments on Twitter.
” In the newly released WhatsApp messages , Hyde wrote to Parnas , “ Wow .
Can ’ t believe Trumo [ sic ] hasn ’ t fired this bitch , ” in reference to Yovanovitch .
Throughout 2018 and much of early 2019 , Parnas and his business partner , Igor Fruman , worked closely with Giuliani to oust Yovanovitch , a career diplomat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plot to use the Ukrainian government to investigate Trump ’ s political adversaries , including former Vice President Joe Biden , his son Hunter , and the Democratic National Committee .
As part of the effort , Parnas and Fruman committed to raising $ 20,000 for then-Rep. Pete Sessions , R-Texas , in exchange for a letter from Sessions to the State Department demanding Yovanovitch ’ s ouster .
The WhatsApp messages between Hyde and Parnas reveal a new dimension to the continued focus of Giuliani ’ s focus on Yovanovitch .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Hyde wrote to Parnas last March .
In another batch of messages , Hyde claimed , “ That address I sent you checks out .
It ’ s next to the embassy.
” Other Hyde messages conveyed an eerie level of knowledge about Yovanovitch ’ s activities : “ She ’ s talked to three people .
Her phone is off .
Computer is off .
She ’ s next to the embassy .
Not in the embassy .
Private security .
Been there since Thursday.
” Parnas ’ s lawyer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediately respond to request from The Intercept .
In a statement to the Washington Post , he said , “ There is no evidence that Mr. Parnas participated , agreed , paid money or took any other steps in furtherance of Mr. Hyde ’ s proposals.
” Hyde also sent several cryptic messages that implied he knew of “ security forces ” in Ukraine who could be tapped for assistance .
“ They are willing to help if we/you would like a price .
Guess you can do anything in Ukraine with money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Whether Hyde truly had special access to Yovanovitch remains unclear .
The WhatsApp messages were sent last March as the Giuliani-backed campaign to force Ukraine to investigate the Bidens escalated .
In April , Trump ordered Yovanovitch to be recalled to Washington , and she was terminated from her post in early May .
In November , during the impeachment hearing , Yovanovitch testified that she had been advised by the State Department that she faced threats to her security last year .
Hyde ’ s various social media profiles are filled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Eric Trump , Corey Lewandowski , Roger Stone , Sarah Sanders , and a variety of Republican lawmakers .
On multiple occasions , his photo has been snapped at federal government offices and at Trump-owned properties in New Jersey , Florida , and Washington , D.C. As CNN reported , Hyde “ posed for a selfie with Trump on Easter Sunday , April 21 , 2019 , the same day Trump first called Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.
” Last year , Hyde texted photos to Emilie Munson , a Connecticut-based journalist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Giuliani , Fruman , and Parnas .

The man who relayed information about Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch’s location to Rudy Giuliani’s Ukrainian associates was a known stalker with mental health issues.
Newly released private WhatsApp messages between Lev Parnas, an associate of Giuliani’s, and Robert F. Hyde, a donor to President Donald Trump’s campaign and aspiring GOP lawmaker, reveal what appears to be an effort to surveil the former ambassador to Ukraine, whose ouster was sought by Giuliani as part of a plan to pressure the Ukrainian government into pursuing political investigations at the White House’s behest.
The messages, released Tuesday by the House Intelligence Committee relating to its ongoing impeachment inquiry, show Hyde claiming to know Yovanovitch’s location and movements in Kyiv, while implying that he was in contact with local security services in Ukraine who could be paid to go after the ambassador.
The startling messages show the extent to which the Giuliani associates were willing to at least entertain extreme tactics from a campaign donor who has courted controversy and even unsettled others, including fellow supporters of the president.
The Intercept obtained police records showing that Hyde violated a restraining order issued by a Washington, D.C., Superior Court judge at the request of a Republican consultant who says that Hyde stalked her and intimidated her family over the last year. In one of the reports, an officer disclosed that Connecticut police confiscated Hyde’s firearms in connection to his violation of the restraining order. Hyde was reported to authorities for “unsettling behavior” and trespassing at a church in Connecticut, according to a separate police report last summer.
Asked for comment, Hyde texted The Intercept, “Bull Schiff is still crying?! Lol. Tell him to go whistleblow himself.” He did not respond to other allegations against him.
Hyde’s other acquaintances noted that he has a history of erratic behavior. Jeffrey Peterson, a technology entrepreneur, said Hyde came to meet with him recently, then disappeared, only to resurface months later. Hyde, Peterson said, “has been trying to reestablish contact with me ever since, not really comfortable with him.”
Hyde publicized that he was placed in a psychiatric facility in Florida last May, following an incident at the Trump National Doral Miami resort. A report written by the Doral Police Department at the time notes that Hyde expressed fear for his life and told officers that he “was scared due to several painting workers and landscape working trying to do harm to him because they weren’t working.”
Hyde posted about his facility stay in a now-deleted Instagram video. “I don’t know what that nine days was in that facility, and they wanted to keep me 10 and I finally got out, but here I am,” Hyde said in the video following his release. The caption for the video and the police report reference confinement under Florida’s Baker Act, which allows individuals showing signs of mental illness who could pose a danger to themselves or others to be involuntarily submitted to a mental health facility.
Shortly after his release, in a now-deleted Facebook post, Hyde wondered if Dan Coats, Trump’s former Director of National Intelligence, “effed with me in DC a month ago” and “probably initiated my disappearance for awhile.”
Last year, Hyde began a campaign for Congress, seeking the Republican nomination to challenge Rep. Jahana Hayes, D-Conn. The former owner of a landscaping company, Hyde describes himself as a “U.S. Marine Corps Iraqi Freedom war veteran” and “an ardent support of our duly elected president, President Trump” on his campaign website.
Hyde has other legal issues, according to records, including an eviction from a commercial property in Simsbury, Connecticut, where his former business was located. In 2011, Hyde was arrested in Avon, Connecticut, for reckless endangerment in connection a tree that fell on power lines near one of his work sites. He also owes more than $2,000 in child support payments, according to the Hartford Courant, despite donating thousands of dollars to Trump and the Republican National Committee.
Hyde’s tone toward women has also sparked a minor scandal in his political campaign. In December, after Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., suspended her presidential bid, Hyde tweeted that Harris was “brought to her knees,” followed by the message: “Must be a hard one to swallow. #KamalaHarris #heelsup.” The inflammatory message was swiftly condemned by both parties. The Connecticut Republican Party returned Hyde’s donation of $750 in response to his “vile comments on Twitter.”
In the newly released WhatsApp messages, Hyde wrote to Parnas, “Wow. Can’t believe Trumo [sic] hasn’t fired this bitch,” in reference to Yovanovitch.
Throughout 2018 and much of early 2019, Parnas and his business partner, Igor Fruman, worked closely with Giuliani to oust Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who was viewed as an obstacle to a plot to use the Ukrainian government to investigate Trump’s political adversaries, including former Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter, and the Democratic National Committee.
As part of the effort, Parnas and Fruman committed to raising $20,000 for then-Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, in exchange for a letter from Sessions to the State Department demanding Yovanovitch’s ouster.
The WhatsApp messages between Hyde and Parnas reveal a new dimension to the continued focus of Giuliani’s focus on Yovanovitch. “She under heavy protection outside Kiev,” Hyde wrote to Parnas last March. In another batch of messages, Hyde claimed, “That address I sent you checks out. It’s next to the embassy.” Other Hyde messages conveyed an eerie level of knowledge about Yovanovitch’s activities: “She’s talked to three people. Her phone is off. Computer is off. She’s next to the embassy. Not in the embassy. Private security. Been there since Thursday.”
Parnas’s lawyer, Joseph A. Bondy, did not immediately respond to request from The Intercept. In a statement to the Washington Post, he said, “There is no evidence that Mr. Parnas participated, agreed, paid money or took any other steps in furtherance of Mr. Hyde’s proposals.”
Hyde also sent several cryptic messages that implied he knew of “security forces” in Ukraine who could be tapped for assistance. “They are willing to help if we/you would like a price. Guess you can do anything in Ukraine with money …” Parnas responded, “Lol.”
Whether Hyde truly had special access to Yovanovitch remains unclear. The WhatsApp messages were sent last March as the Giuliani-backed campaign to force Ukraine to investigate the Bidens escalated. In April, Trump ordered Yovanovitch to be recalled to Washington, and she was terminated from her post in early May. In November, during the impeachment hearing, Yovanovitch testified that she had been advised by the State Department that she faced threats to her security last year.
Hyde’s various social media profiles are filled with pictures of him with the president, Eric Trump, Corey Lewandowski, Roger Stone, Sarah Sanders, and a variety of Republican lawmakers. On multiple occasions, his photo has been snapped at federal government offices and at Trump-owned properties in New Jersey, Florida, and Washington, D.C. As CNN reported, Hyde “posed for a selfie with Trump on Easter Sunday, April 21, 2019, the same day Trump first called Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.”
Last year, Hyde texted photos to Emilie Munson, a Connecticut-based journalist, including images of himself smoking cigars with Giuliani, Fruman, and Parnas.
https://twitter.com/rfhyde1/status/1213125706210779138