theintercept--2020-05-11--The End of Michael Flynn's Prosecution Was Another Triumph for America's Autocrat-in-Chief

One of the biggest challenges for journalists writing about Donald Trump is that there have been too many scandals .
That sounds counterintuitive , because reporters love covering scandals and controversies , and Trump constantly manufactures both .
But the one thing the press loves more than a scandal is a simple , straightforward narrative .
Reporters are always on the hunt for a through-line when they write about a prominent figure , a common thread that ties a series of stories together and thus , helps explain the controversy engulfing a politician or a celebrity .
Hillary Clinton had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simple , single narrative that reporters and pundits covering her presidential campaign in 2016 could revisit over and over to explore what they perceived as her character flaws : arrogance , condescension , and her apparent belief that the rules didn ’ t apply to her .
By contrast , Trump has a new scandal almost every day .
Chaos , corruption and criminality reign in Trump ’ s White House .
There are so many scandals that it is difficult for journalists to make sense of them all .
What is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s scandals together ?
It is that Trump is a would-be autocrat .
But the White House press corps is reluctant to use such plain language to describe Trump .
That hesitance has led to the greatest journalistic failure of the last four years : The American media has never found the Trump narrative .
Instead , the press generally covers each Trump scandal incrementally , with little context .
Trump coverage thus seems jumbled and frenzied ; without a narrative to follow , the initial shock over each scandal quickly dissipates .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as reporters move on and obsess over the president ’ s latest tweets .
erupted last week , when the Justice Department , in the grip of Trump ’ s malevolent private counselor Attorney General William Barr , dropped its charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn .
The action sent shockwaves through the national security and legal communities , where the move was seen for what it was : an unprecedented and raw abuse of power by Barr designed to appease Trump and protect a Trump acolyte who had lied to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian ambassador .
Barr dropped the case against Flynn despite the fact that Flynn had twice pleaded guilty .
Barr ’ s action in the Flynn case followed a similar move in February to protect Trump ’ s infamous friend Roger Stone , who was convicted in 2019 of lying to Congress and threatening a witness in another case related to the Trump-Russia scandal .
Barr forced the prosecutors in the case to reduce their sentencing recommendation to make sure that Stone wouldn ’ t spend much time in prison .
Both moves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort to erase history and reverse the outcome of the Trump-Russia investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller .
Line prosecutors withdrew from the Flynn and Stone cases as a result of Barr ’ s actions , a highly unusual act that signals how outrageous the attorney general ’ s interference was .
Justice Department officials involved in both the Flynn and Stone cases quickly and publicly condemned Barr ’ s latest move .
Mary McCord , who was acting assistant attorney general for national security from 2016 to 2017 , charged that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words in order to help falsely discredit the Flynn investigation and drop the case .
“ The account of my interview in 2017 doesn ’ t help the department support this conclusion , and it is disingenuous of the department to twist my words to suggest that it does , ” McCord wrote in a New York Times op-ed on Sunday .
Jonathan Kravis , a former prosecutor in the Stone case , wrote in the Washington Post on Monday about his decision to resign from the Justice Department three months ago in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I thought that the handling of the Stone case , with senior officials intervening to recommend a lower sentence for a longtime ally of President Trump , was a disastrous mistake that the department would not make again .
I was wrong .
Last week , the department again put political patronage ahead of its commitment to the rule of law , filing a motion to dismiss the case against former national security advisor Michael Flynn – notwithstanding Flynn ’ s sworn guilty plea and a ruling by the court that the plea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Department employees have repeated their earlier calls for Barr ’ s resignation , saying that he had “ once again assaulted the rule of law ” in the Flynn case .
to reverse the outcome of the Trump-Russia investigation as soon as he became attorney general in 2019 .
Before Mueller ’ s report was made public , Barr gave a wildly misleading summary of its findings that spun it to try to make Trump look good .
Barr ’ s obfuscation was so bad that earlier this year , a federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuit seeking the public release of the complete Mueller report said that Barr lacked credibility on Mueller ’ s findings ; since he didn ’ t trust Barr , the judge ruled that the Justice Department would have to show him the redacted portions of the report so he could decide what should remain out of the public domain .
Judge Reggie Walton wrote that Barr had “ made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After he moved to drop the Flynn case , Barr ’ s blatant abuse of power was swiftly and widely condemned by leading legal scholars , law enforcement professionals , and Democratic leaders .
“ This move embeds into official U.S. policy an extremist view of law enforcement as the enemy of the American people , ” wrote two Georgetown University law professors , Neal K. Katyal and Joshua A. Geltzer , in a Times op-ed .
“ Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his illicit Russian contacts , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat and chair of the House Intelligence Committee .
“ His lies do not now become truths .
This dismissal does not exonerate him .
But it does incriminate Bill Barr .
In the worst politicization of the Justice Department in its history.
” Sen. Elizabeth Warren , a Massachusetts Democrat and former presidential candidate , called on Barr to resign , tweeting : “ We need an Attorney General whose loyalty is to the Constitution , not the president.
” Barr ’ s action was so radical that it prompted harsh criticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has generally limited his attacks on Trump and his administration .
“ There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free , ” Obama said Friday night during a call with the Obama Alumni Association .
“ That ’ s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk .
And when you start moving in those directions , it can accelerate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in other places.
” Trump named Christopher Wray as FBI director after firing his predecessor , James Comey , but in recent days Trump has threatened to fire Wray because Wray has so far failed to get fully on board with the ongoing purge of the Justice Department and the FBI .
The FBI ’ s official statement about the Flynn case , however , suggests that Wray has gone to a Trump reeducation camp for officials who have failed to show sufficient fealty .
The bureau “ remains firmly committed to addressing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintaining the foundational principles of rigor , objectivity , accountability , and ownership in fulfilling the Bureau ’ s mission to protect the American people and defend the Constitution , ” the statement said .
Trump is almost certainly going to fire Wray anyway .
In another ongoing part of his effort to discredit the Trump-Russia investigation , Barr has launched an investigation into the Mueller investigation , run by a prosecutor of his own choosing , John Durham .
Durham is best known for being tasked by the Obama Justice Department to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ torture program .
It was obvious at the time that the Obama administration opened that investigation only reluctantly and under intense public pressure .
Obama had said that he wanted to “ look forward , not back , ” and the White House had made it quite clear that it did not want to prosecute Bush-era officials .
Durham obviously understood what the White House wanted ; he didn ’ t bring charges against any former government officials .
Certainly , Durham once again knows what the White House wants from him : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his track record of docile obedience , Durham could well deliver .
Durham ’ s findings , which were supposed to come out in May or June , may now be delayed by the pandemic , and so quite conveniently could emerge just before the November election , their release orchestrated by Barr for maximum political effect .
of the Mueller investigation , accompanied by a purge of the Justice Department , the FBI , and probably the CIA , is almost certainly just the start of what will be the complete perversion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States if Trump is reelected .
If that happens , Trump and his friends will feel free to openly commit crimes without fear of consequences .
With Barr at the Justice Department , the United States will be reduced to an autocracy , rife with self-dealing , corruption , and legal immunity for Trump lackeys .
Meanwhile , Trump and Barr will crack down on political dissent with the full force of a deeply compromised Justice Department and FBI .
There was some good press coverage of Barr ’ s action in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times .
But overall , the media gave the Flynn story the typical one-day treatment , characterizing it as yet another individual scandal in the wild ride that is the Trump administration .
The press is desperate to cover Trump the way they have always covered presidents .
But if they were willing to view the Flynn case as part of a larger narrative , their stories would say that Trump and Barr pose existential threats to the rule of the law .

Photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
One of the biggest challenges for journalists writing about Donald Trump is that there have been too many scandals.
That sounds counterintuitive, because reporters love covering scandals and controversies, and Trump constantly manufactures both. But the one thing the press loves more than a scandal is a simple, straightforward narrative. Reporters are always on the hunt for a through-line when they write about a prominent figure, a common thread that ties a series of stories together and thus, helps explain the controversy engulfing a politician or a celebrity.
Hillary Clinton had an email problem. It was a simple, single narrative that reporters and pundits covering her presidential campaign in 2016 could revisit over and over to explore what they perceived as her character flaws: arrogance, condescension, and her apparent belief that the rules didn’t apply to her.
The press generally covers each Trump scandal incrementally, with little context. Without a narrative to follow, the initial shock over each scandal quickly dissipates.
By contrast, Trump has a new scandal almost every day. Chaos, corruption and criminality reign in Trump’s White House. There are so many scandals that it is difficult for journalists to make sense of them all.
What is the narrative that ties all of Trump’s scandals together? It is that Trump is a would-be autocrat.
But the White House press corps is reluctant to use such plain language to describe Trump. That hesitance has led to the greatest journalistic failure of the last four years: The American media has never found the Trump narrative.
Instead, the press generally covers each Trump scandal incrementally, with little context. Trump coverage thus seems jumbled and frenzied; without a narrative to follow, the initial shock over each scandal quickly dissipates. Individual scandals soon turn into background noise as reporters move on and obsess over the president’s latest tweets.
Yet another Trump scandal erupted last week, when the Justice Department, in the grip of Trump’s malevolent private counselor Attorney General William Barr, dropped its charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
The action sent shockwaves through the national security and legal communities, where the move was seen for what it was: an unprecedented and raw abuse of power by Barr designed to appease Trump and protect a Trump acolyte who had lied to the FBI about his calls with the Russian ambassador. Barr dropped the case against Flynn despite the fact that Flynn had twice pleaded guilty.
Barr’s action in the Flynn case followed a similar move in February to protect Trump’s infamous friend Roger Stone, who was convicted in 2019 of lying to Congress and threatening a witness in another case related to the Trump-Russia scandal. Barr forced the prosecutors in the case to reduce their sentencing recommendation to make sure that Stone wouldn’t spend much time in prison.
Both moves are part of Barr’s Soviet-style effort to erase history and reverse the outcome of the Trump-Russia investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller. Line prosecutors withdrew from the Flynn and Stone cases as a result of Barr’s actions, a highly unusual act that signals how outrageous the attorney general’s interference was.
Justice Department officials involved in both the Flynn and Stone cases quickly and publicly condemned Barr’s latest move. Mary McCord, who was acting assistant attorney general for national security from 2016 to 2017, charged that Barr and his Justice Department misconstrued her words in order to help falsely discredit the Flynn investigation and drop the case. “The account of my interview in 2017 doesn’t help the department support this conclusion, and it is disingenuous of the department to twist my words to suggest that it does,” McCord wrote in a New York Times op-ed on Sunday.
Barr dropped the case against Flynn despite the fact that Flynn had twice pleaded guilty.
Jonathan Kravis, a former prosecutor in the Stone case, wrote in the Washington Post on Monday about his decision to resign from the Justice Department three months ago in protest. “At the time, I thought that the handling of the Stone case, with senior officials intervening to recommend a lower sentence for a longtime ally of President Trump, was a disastrous mistake that the department would not make again. I was wrong. Last week, the department again put political patronage ahead of its commitment to the rule of law, filing a motion to dismiss the case against former national security advisor Michael Flynn – notwithstanding Flynn’s sworn guilty plea and a ruling by the court that the plea was sound.”
More than 1,900 former Justice Department employees have repeated their earlier calls for Barr’s resignation, saying that he had “once again assaulted the rule of law” in the Flynn case.
Barr first started trying to reverse the outcome of the Trump-Russia investigation as soon as he became attorney general in 2019. Before Mueller’s report was made public, Barr gave a wildly misleading summary of its findings that spun it to try to make Trump look good.
Barr’s obfuscation was so bad that earlier this year, a federal judge handling a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking the public release of the complete Mueller report said that Barr lacked credibility on Mueller’s findings; since he didn’t trust Barr, the judge ruled that the Justice Department would have to show him the redacted portions of the report so he could decide what should remain out of the public domain. Judge Reggie Walton wrote that Barr had “made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary.”
After he moved to drop the Flynn case, Barr’s blatant abuse of power was swiftly and widely condemned by leading legal scholars, law enforcement professionals, and Democratic leaders. “This move embeds into official U.S. policy an extremist view of law enforcement as the enemy of the American people,” wrote two Georgetown University law professors, Neal K. Katyal and Joshua A. Geltzer, in a Times op-ed.
“Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his illicit Russian contacts,” tweeted Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat and chair of the House Intelligence Committee. “His lies do not now become truths. This dismissal does not exonerate him. But it does incriminate Bill Barr. In the worst politicization of the Justice Department in its history.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat and former presidential candidate, called on Barr to resign, tweeting: “We need an Attorney General whose loyalty is to the Constitution, not the president.”
Barr’s action was so radical that it prompted harsh criticism from former President Barack Obama, who has generally limited his attacks on Trump and his administration.
“There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free,” Obama said Friday night during a call with the Obama Alumni Association. “That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”
Trump named Christopher Wray as FBI director after firing his predecessor, James Comey, but in recent days Trump has threatened to fire Wray because Wray has so far failed to get fully on board with the ongoing purge of the Justice Department and the FBI. The FBI’s official statement about the Flynn case, however, suggests that Wray has gone to a Trump reeducation camp for officials who have failed to show sufficient fealty.
The bureau “remains firmly committed to addressing the failures under prior FBI leadership while maintaining the foundational principles of rigor, objectivity, accountability, and ownership in fulfilling the Bureau’s mission to protect the American people and defend the Constitution,” the statement said.
Trump is almost certainly going to fire Wray anyway.
In another ongoing part of his effort to discredit the Trump-Russia investigation, Barr has launched an investigation into the Mueller investigation, run by a prosecutor of his own choosing, John Durham. Durham is best known for being tasked by the Obama Justice Department to investigate the Bush administration’s post-9/11 torture program. It was obvious at the time that the Obama administration opened that investigation only reluctantly and under intense public pressure. Obama had said that he wanted to “look forward, not back,” and the White House had made it quite clear that it did not want to prosecute Bush-era officials. Durham obviously understood what the White House wanted; he didn’t bring charges against any former government officials.
Durham’s findings may now be delayed by the pandemic, and so quite conveniently could emerge just before the November election, their release orchestrated by Barr for maximum political effect.
Certainly, Durham once again knows what the White House wants from him: heads on the chopping block. With his track record of docile obedience, Durham could well deliver.
Durham’s findings, which were supposed to come out in May or June, may now be delayed by the pandemic, and so quite conveniently could emerge just before the November election, their release orchestrated by Barr for maximum political effect.
This ongoing erasure of the Mueller investigation, accompanied by a purge of the Justice Department, the FBI, and probably the CIA, is almost certainly just the start of what will be the complete perversion of the rule of law in the United States if Trump is reelected. If that happens, Trump and his friends will feel free to openly commit crimes without fear of consequences. With Barr at the Justice Department, the United States will be reduced to an autocracy, rife with self-dealing, corruption, and legal immunity for Trump lackeys. Meanwhile, Trump and Barr will crack down on political dissent with the full force of a deeply compromised Justice Department and FBI.
There was some good press coverage of Barr’s action in the Flynn case, particularly in the Times. But overall, the media gave the Flynn story the typical one-day treatment, characterizing it as yet another individual scandal in the wild ride that is the Trump administration.
The press is desperate to cover Trump the way they have always covered presidents. But if they were willing to view the Flynn case as part of a larger narrative, their stories would say that Trump and Barr pose existential threats to the rule of the law.


theintercept--2020-05-11--Conservatives Are Fighting a "No-Brainer" Ethics Rule Banning Judges From Joining the Federalist Soc

Conservatives Are Fighting a "No-Brainer" Ethics Rule Banning Judges From Joining the Federalist Society

The rule change , which was proposed by the ethical advisory arm of the federal judiciary and began circulating in January , would ban judges from being members of groups like the Federalist Society , the right-wing legal group that has been central to Trump ’ s transformation of the courts , and the American Constitution Society , a liberal legal group .
It wouldn ’ t affect the ability to attend and participate in Federalist Society and American Constitution Society panels and events ; the proposal simply says that active membership in these organizations is inconsistent with a judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are up in arms .
The left doesn ’ t care about judges ; the right does .
If you want proof , look no further than a major campaign underway in conservative circles around a new ethics rule that could undercut the power of the Federalist Society .
Haven ’ t heard of it ?
That ’ s the point .
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board slammed the rule as “ political mischief masked in high-sounding rhetoric , ” saying the draft is “ what we feared , and we hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal education in America and perhaps violating the First Amendment right of association.
” Brian Fallon , co-founder and executive director of Demand Justice , said it ’ s “ a no-brainer that a rule this modest ought to go through ” and be put into effect , and the fact that it ’ s become a lightning rod among conservatives both in and out of the legal world is evidence of “ how rotten the system has become.
” He added that they think the rule “ doesn ’ t go nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between sitting federal judges and outside special interest groups .
“ On the right , you see letters being sent , third-party actors in the conservative movement are engaging in pressuring tactics to try to influence the final outcome in what could have been a closed door process , ” Fallon said .
“ And there ’ s been nothing analogous on the left .
You ’ re not seeing individual senators speak out about this like you have on the right , you ’ re not seeing coordinated efforts from progressive media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Wall Street Journal editorial board and National Review and the usual cast of characters that swoop in to document any little development on judicial stuff on the right.
” On May 5 , the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board published a second op-ed about the draft ethics rule , arguing that the ethics committee is being used as a political weapon against Justin Walker — a 37-year-old federal judge nominated to a seat on the second most powerful court in the United States , and a Federalist Society member .
Walker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the entire conservative legal establishment , in trying to kill the draft ethics rule .
The outlet noted that their previous editorials , which have been sounding the alarm on the draft ethics rule , “ echoed in the judicial community , ” resulting with “ what we ’ re told are more than 70 letters to the Codes of Conduct Committee.
” Twenty-nine Republican senators , including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , sent a letter to the chair of the Committee on Codes of Conduct in March , urging they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Ben Sasse , R-Neb.
, in a statement from his office , told National Review that it ’ s “ wrong to target the Federalist Society , ” calling the draft rule the “ product of liberal smear campaign that will erode confidence in an independent and fair Judiciary.
” Democratic senators , for the most part , have made no effort to publicly defend the rule or weigh in on the debate .
Trump ’ s steady transformation of the courts will almost certainly be his most enduring legacy , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role .
With the help of Senate Republicans , and at times , Democrats , Trump has been filling federal judicial vacancies at breakneck speed , with the youngest , most conservative ( and in many cases , unqualified ) judges he can find .
Since entering office , Trump has appointed 193 federal judges , including two Supreme Court justices and 51 judges to federal appeals courts .
“ We ’ re going to have great judges , conservative , all picked by the Federalist Society , ” he told Breitbart as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a New York Times analysis , all but eight of these 51 judges had ties to the Federalist Society .
Despite the Federalist Society ’ s efforts to portray itself as a debate club that takes no official positions on policy , the group pushes a highly ideological vision and in many ways functions as another arm of the Republican Party .
The group promotes interpreting the Constitution according to its “ original meaning , ” under the guise of neutrality .
But in practice , these judges wield power over who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from discrimination , and who gets access to health care .
Membership in either group could “ call into question ” judicial impartiality on certain subjects the organization has a position on and “ generally frustrate the public ’ s trust in the integrity and independence of the judiciary , ” the advisory opinion said .
And next week , the U.S .
Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct will make a formal decision on whether to adopt the rule or not .
Demand Justice is trying to organize the left to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sabotage the rule , but Fallon says progressive advocates are going to need more practicing lawyers , academics with ethics backgrounds , and activists to speak out .

The left doesn’t care about judges; the right does. If you want proof, look no further than a major campaign underway in conservative circles around a new ethics rule that could undercut the power of the Federalist Society. Haven’t heard of it? That’s the point.
The rule change, which was proposed by the ethical advisory arm of the federal judiciary and began circulating in January, would ban judges from being members of groups like the Federalist Society, the right-wing legal group that has been central to Trump’s transformation of the courts, and the American Constitution Society, a liberal legal group. It wouldn’t affect the ability to attend and participate in Federalist Society and American Constitution Society panels and events; the proposal simply says that active membership in these organizations is inconsistent with a judge’s ethical obligations. And conservatives are up in arms.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board slammed the rule as “political mischief masked in high-sounding rhetoric,” saying the draft is “what we feared, and we hope judges and others blast it as undermining legal education in America and perhaps violating the First Amendment right of association.”
Brian Fallon, co-founder and executive director of Demand Justice, said it’s “a no-brainer that a rule this modest ought to go through” and be put into effect, and the fact that it’s become a lightning rod among conservatives both in and out of the legal world is evidence of “how rotten the system has become.” He added that they think the rule “doesn’t go nearly far enough” in eliminating explicit links between sitting federal judges and outside special interest groups.
“On the right, you see letters being sent, third-party actors in the conservative movement are engaging in pressuring tactics to try to influence the final outcome in what could have been a closed door process,” Fallon said. “And there’s been nothing analogous on the left. You’re not seeing individual senators speak out about this like you have on the right, you’re not seeing coordinated efforts from progressive media outlets the way the right has done with the Wall Street Journal editorial board and National Review and the usual cast of characters that swoop in to document any little development on judicial stuff on the right.”
On May 5, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board published a second op-ed about the draft ethics rule, arguing that the ethics committee is being used as a political weapon against Justin Walker — a 37-year-old federal judge nominated to a seat on the second most powerful court in the United States, and a Federalist Society member. Walker has joined hundreds of federal judges, and the entire conservative legal establishment, in trying to kill the draft ethics rule. The outlet noted that their previous editorials, which have been sounding the alarm on the draft ethics rule, “echoed in the judicial community,” resulting with “what we’re told are more than 70 letters to the Codes of Conduct Committee.”
Twenty-nine Republican senators, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, sent a letter to the chair of the Committee on Codes of Conduct in March, urging they “withdraw this flawed draft opinion.” Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., in a statement from his office, told National Review that it’s “wrong to target the Federalist Society,” calling the draft rule the “product of liberal smear campaign that will erode confidence in an independent and fair Judiciary.” Democratic senators, for the most part, have made no effort to publicly defend the rule or weigh in on the debate.
Trump’s steady transformation of the courts will almost certainly be his most enduring legacy, and the Federalist Society has played an instrumental role. With the help of Senate Republicans, and at times, Democrats, Trump has been filling federal judicial vacancies at breakneck speed, with the youngest, most conservative (and in many cases, unqualified) judges he can find. Since entering office, Trump has appointed 193 federal judges, including two Supreme Court justices and 51 judges to federal appeals courts. “We’re going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society,” he told Breitbart as a presidential candidate in 2016. According to a New York Times analysis, all but eight of these 51 judges had ties to the Federalist Society.
Despite the Federalist Society’s efforts to portray itself as a debate club that takes no official positions on policy, the group pushes a highly ideological vision and in many ways functions as another arm of the Republican Party. The group promotes interpreting the Constitution according to its “original meaning,” under the guise of neutrality. But in practice, these judges wield power over who gets to vote, who is protected from discrimination, and who gets access to health care.
Membership in either group could “call into question” judicial impartiality on certain subjects the organization has a position on and “generally frustrate the public’s trust in the integrity and independence of the judiciary,” the advisory opinion said.
And next week, the U.S. Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct will make a formal decision on whether to adopt the rule or not. Demand Justice is trying to organize the left to push back against the conservative campaign to sabotage the rule, but Fallon says progressive advocates are going to need more practicing lawyers, academics with ethics backgrounds, and activists to speak out.


theintercept--2020-05-11--A Woman Died of Covid-19 in a New Jersey Prison After Begging to Be Let Out of a Locked Shower

died of coronavirus complications in a New Jersey prison after officials moved her from an area of the prison where she was quarantined for Covid-19 symptoms into solitary confinement even though her symptoms persisted .
Tiffany Mofield died on April 29 at the troubled Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women after begging to be let out of a locked shower , saying “ she could not breathe , ” a fellow incarcerated woman who witnessed her death told The Intercept .
Mofield had spent about two weeks quarantined in an infirmary after becoming ill with symptoms consistent with Covid-19 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ she was clearly not better , as she was visibly short of breath and extremely lethargic , ” said Michelle Angelina , who is housed in the same administrative segregation unit where Mofield died .
“ She died right in front of my neighbor ’ s door and just diagonally from my door , about five feet away , ” said Angelina , who declined The Intercept ’ s offer for anonymity to protect her from retaliation .
“ Many inmates are frightened for our lives and safety as a result of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s death underscores the devastating impact the coronavirus is having as it spreads through prisons and jails , where the health of incarcerated people was often neglected before the current crisis .
Since the beginning of the outbreak , incarcerated people , their families , and advocates have warned that prison conditions would cause scores of preventable deaths .
Mofield was one of 37 people to have died so far after contracting Covid-19 in New Jersey prisons — making the state one of the deadliest for incarcerated men and women as corrections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
At least 340 incarcerated people have died so far across the country .
“ They are more concerned about ensuring that inmates serve every day of their punishment than they are about inmates ’ health and well-being , ” said Angelina .
“ That is why they sent Ms. Mofield back to the unit before she was fully well .
Ad-seg is a punitive unit.
” Mofield first passed out in the shower shortly after returning to the unit , said Angelina , who described the shower as a “ converted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the shower handcuffed to a belly belt and then locked inside , where there is no emergency call button , she said .
The night she died , Mofield once again passed out in the shower “ after begging for about five minutes to be let out , ” said Angelina .
“ No staff responded in a timely fashion.
” When someone finally did come , Mofield was almost unconscious and was carried to a wheelchair where she became unresponsive .
Angelina said that several officers “ tried their very best ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defibrillator ’ s instructions and performing CPR until paramedics arrived on the scene .
Mofield died “ just before they got her on the ambulance gurney , ” Angelina said .
“ It is the daily flaws in how the facility is operated from an administrative position that caused the circumstances that led to Ms. Mofield ’ s death , not the officers ’ fault , ” stressed Angelina .
“ Inmates should not be locked in showers , should not be handcuffed to go to and from the shower , and should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assistance in hearing range in a locked shower , begging for help because they can ’ t breathe.
” The New Jersey Department of Corrections did not respond to a request for comment .
At the time of her death , Mofield was nearing the end of a five-year sentence for an attempted bank robbery .
She was a mother of three and grandmother of four , whom friends remembered on social media as “ the life of the party ” and a “ neighborhood hero.
” Her daughter , Shatifia Cooke , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ was very big on family.
” “ I waited almost 4 years for that woman to get back out here with me , ” Cooke also wrote on Facebook .
“ I couldn ’ t wait to wake up to her cooking breakfast.
” “ I wanted you home but not like this , ” she added .
Cooke wrote in an email to The Intercept that her mother ’ s symptoms “ were ignored.
” Had her mother been taken seriously , she added , “ she would still be here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locked up she still made the best out of her situation , making everyone laugh , helping everyone get through their time away from their family , ” Cooke wrote to The Intercept .
“ Many people look down on people that are in jail thinking they are all bad people or that they did something really bad — but no , that wasn ’ t my mother.
” Cooke wrote on Facebook that her mother “ went into that prison a strong healthy woman.
” “ She had people out here that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not stopping until we get answers , ” she added .
“ We going to make a change with this one we gone show these people that these inmates are somebody and their health and lives matter too.
” Oliver Barry , an attorney retained by Mofield ’ s family , told The Intercept he filed a petition for pre-suit discovery on Monday , “ because the family has not been provided really any information regarding the circumstances of Ms. Mofield ’ s death.
” “ Right now our biggest push is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this happened , ” he added .
Nationwide , more than 25,000 people have tested positive for the coronavirus in prisons and jails , according to a tally by the UCLA School of Law .
But because of chronic lack of testing , that number is likely only a fraction of the actual figure .
After The Intercept reported last month that less than 200 incarcerated people had been tested in New Jersey despite a mounting death toll , Gov .
Phil Murphy promised “ universal testing ” for all inmates and staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 286 of the state ’ s nearly 19,000 incarcerated people had been tested , according to official figures .
In an effort to fight the spread of the virus inside prisons , Murphy also signed an executive order in early April allowing the temporary release of high-risk inmates and others convicted of nonviolent offenses .
But weeks later , less than 3 percent of those eligible had been released .
The Department of Corrections did not answer questions about whether Mofield would have been eligible for release under the order .
Mofield is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after contracting the virus at Edna Mahan prison , which can house up to 700 women .
Last month , the U.S. Department of Justice released the results of a two-year investigation that found rampant sexual assault by guards of women housed at the prison , as well as “ systemic failures in Edna Mahan ’ s policies and practices ” that enabled the abuse and violence to fester .
But as Covid-19 has swept through the prison , Angelina noted that systemic failures also impacted other aspects of the lives of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a transgender woman and previously spent 18 years in men ’ s prisons in New Jersey , noted that women in the administrative segregation unit , in particular , were treated “ more harshly and more restrictively ” than men in similar units .
“ She never would have died if she was released from ad-seg and returned to the facilities ’ general population , ” Angelina said of Mofield .
“ All of us are at heightened risk of death in ad-seg the way it is operated at this facility .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are routinely ignored .
”

A 43-year-old woman died of coronavirus complications in a New Jersey prison after officials moved her from an area of the prison where she was quarantined for Covid-19 symptoms into solitary confinement even though her symptoms persisted.
Tiffany Mofield died on April 29 at the troubled Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women after begging to be let out of a locked shower, saying “she could not breathe,” a fellow incarcerated woman who witnessed her death told The Intercept. Mofield had spent about two weeks quarantined in an infirmary after becoming ill with symptoms consistent with Covid-19, but she was moved out even though “she was clearly not better, as she was visibly short of breath and extremely lethargic,” said Michelle Angelina, who is housed in the same administrative segregation unit where Mofield died.
“She died right in front of my neighbor’s door and just diagonally from my door, about five feet away,” said Angelina, who declined The Intercept’s offer for anonymity to protect her from retaliation. “Many inmates are frightened for our lives and safety as a result of us witnessing Ms. Mofield die.”
Mofield’s death underscores the devastating impact the coronavirus is having as it spreads through prisons and jails, where the health of incarcerated people was often neglected before the current crisis. Since the beginning of the outbreak, incarcerated people, their families, and advocates have warned that prison conditions would cause scores of preventable deaths. Mofield was one of 37 people to have died so far after contracting Covid-19 in New Jersey prisons — making the state one of the deadliest for incarcerated men and women as corrections facilities nationwide have become epicenters of the pandemic. At least 340 incarcerated people have died so far across the country.
“They are more concerned about ensuring that inmates serve every day of their punishment than they are about inmates’ health and well-being,” said Angelina. “That is why they sent Ms. Mofield back to the unit before she was fully well. Ad-seg is a punitive unit.”
Mofield first passed out in the shower shortly after returning to the unit, said Angelina, who described the shower as a “converted mop closet.” Women are taken to the shower handcuffed to a belly belt and then locked inside, where there is no emergency call button, she said. The night she died, Mofield once again passed out in the shower “after begging for about five minutes to be let out,” said Angelina. “No staff responded in a timely fashion.” When someone finally did come, Mofield was almost unconscious and was carried to a wheelchair where she became unresponsive. Angelina said that several officers “tried their very best” to revive Mofield, following an automated defibrillator’s instructions and performing CPR until paramedics arrived on the scene. Mofield died “just before they got her on the ambulance gurney,” Angelina said.
“It is the daily flaws in how the facility is operated from an administrative position that caused the circumstances that led to Ms. Mofield’s death, not the officers’ fault,” stressed Angelina. “Inmates should not be locked in showers, should not be handcuffed to go to and from the shower, and should not be left to wait with no assistance in hearing range in a locked shower, begging for help because they can’t breathe.”
The New Jersey Department of Corrections did not respond to a request for comment.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
At the time of her death, Mofield was nearing the end of a five-year sentence for an attempted bank robbery. She was a mother of three and grandmother of four, whom friends remembered on social media as “the life of the party” and a “neighborhood hero.” Her daughter, Shatifia Cooke, wrote to The Intercept that her mother “was very big on family.”
“I waited almost 4 years for that woman to get back out here with me,” Cooke also wrote on Facebook. “I couldn’t wait to wake up to her cooking breakfast.”
“I wanted you home but not like this,” she added.
Cooke wrote in an email to The Intercept that her mother’s symptoms “were ignored.” Had her mother been taken seriously, she added, “she would still be here right now.”
“Even while being locked up she still made the best out of her situation, making everyone laugh, helping everyone get through their time away from their family,” Cooke wrote to The Intercept. “Many people look down on people that are in jail thinking they are all bad people or that they did something really bad — but no, that wasn’t my mother.”
Cooke wrote on Facebook that her mother “went into that prison a strong healthy woman.”
“She had people out here that loved and cared about her and we not stopping until we get answers,” she added. “We going to make a change with this one we gone show these people that these inmates are somebody and their health and lives matter too.”
Oliver Barry, an attorney retained by Mofield’s family, told The Intercept he filed a petition for pre-suit discovery on Monday, “because the family has not been provided really any information regarding the circumstances of Ms. Mofield’s death.”
“Right now our biggest push is to just find out how in the world this happened,” he added.
Nationwide, more than 25,000 people have tested positive for the coronavirus in prisons and jails, according to a tally by the UCLA School of Law. But because of chronic lack of testing, that number is likely only a fraction of the actual figure.
Share Your Coronavirus Story Click here to learn about contacting a reporter securely, or email us at coronavirus@theintercept.com
After The Intercept reported last month that less than 200 incarcerated people had been tested in New Jersey despite a mounting death toll, Gov. Phil Murphy promised “universal testing” for all inmates and staff. But as of Friday, only 286 of the state’s nearly 19,000 incarcerated people had been tested, according to official figures. In an effort to fight the spread of the virus inside prisons, Murphy also signed an executive order in early April allowing the temporary release of high-risk inmates and others convicted of nonviolent offenses. But weeks later, less than 3 percent of those eligible had been released. The Department of Corrections did not answer questions about whether Mofield would have been eligible for release under the order.
Mofield is one of two women who have died after contracting the virus at Edna Mahan prison, which can house up to 700 women. Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice released the results of a two-year investigation that found rampant sexual assault by guards of women housed at the prison, as well as “systemic failures in Edna Mahan’s policies and practices” that enabled the abuse and violence to fester.
But as Covid-19 has swept through the prison, Angelina noted that systemic failures also impacted other aspects of the lives of the women held there. Angelina, who is a transgender woman and previously spent 18 years in men’s prisons in New Jersey, noted that women in the administrative segregation unit, in particular, were treated “more harshly and more restrictively” than men in similar units.
“She never would have died if she was released from ad-seg and returned to the facilities’ general population,” Angelina said of Mofield. “All of us are at heightened risk of death in ad-seg the way it is operated at this facility. Inmates routinely threaten to commit suicide and are routinely ignored.”


theintercept--2020-05-11--With Coronavirus Spreading, Mexico Vowed to Empty Detention Centers — But Migrants Were Thrust Into

With Coronavirus Spreading, Mexico Vowed to Empty Detention Centers — But Migrants Were Thrust Into Chaos and Danger

walking for hours in a rural stretch of Texas when she saw the lights of U.S. Border Patrol vans .
She had planned to show the U.S. officials police reports of her extortion and burglary in El Salvador , papers she carried in a small pouch on her hip .
But , they told her , because of a virus that had been spreading , there was no longer asylum .
They sent her straight back to Mexico .
“ This was not a game .
I had enough proof , and I thought that I would be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who is identified by a pseudonym for her protection .
“ When you face a serious risk , they usually go over your case.
” The coronavirus , which has infected over 4 million people , has also been the justification for historic immigration restrictions .
In March , the U.S. government announced people who crossed the border unlawfully would immediately be sent back “ to protect the public health.
” Mexico , which eventually vowed to get all migrants out of its detention centers , suddenly had thousands more on its hands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on March 21 , it has sent over 20,000 migrants back , mainly to Mexico .
About a third of them are Central Americans .
The health of those migrants has been endangered for weeks , as they have been ping-ponged between detention centers , flown to countries they had fled , or bused to southern Mexican states with instructions to walk if they wished to get home .
Mexico ’ s promise , which seemed like a blessing for migrants , for many became an ordeal .
“ They ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cleanse the country of migrants , ” said María Magdalena Silva Renteria , the director of a shelter , CAFEMIN , said of the Mexican government .
As the Trump administration has made it harder to obtain asylum in recent years , Mexico has operated in lock-step .
It became a waiting ground when the U.S. restricted the number of daily asylum requests at ports of entry .
Last year , it became a temporary residence , as the U.S. forced thousands of people to wait for court dates under the so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which seals the border to asylum-seekers and other undocumented migrants , is the most extreme measure the U.S. has foisted onto Mexico .
When Mexico began emptying its detention centers in late March , it appeared to be one of the few countries that heeded advocates ’ warnings about the risk the virus posed for incarcerated people .
In the span of a month , Mexico dropped the nearly 3,800 migrants in its custody to a previously unimaginable 106 .
For some that was still too slow : Migrants desperate for release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading to one death .
And by then , Central American countries had already closed their borders , slowing deportations and leaving many in limbo .
It had taken Abigail , a middle-aged house cleaner who had never before left El Salvador , 22 days to reach Texas .
It would take her another 21 to get all the way home .
She would go through stays in two crowded Mexican detention centers , a 24-hour bus trip , and a plane ride with deportees who sometimes slipped off their face masks before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she would be forced into a month-long quarantine .
If any detainee had the coronavirus during the weeks she was locked in with them in Mexico , Abigail imagines there was no way to avoid getting it .
She had spent her nights , at best , a pinky ’ s distance from other migrants .
For a time , she slept head-to-toe with another woman on the same mattress , trying to avoid the stranger ’ s breath .
Other detainees had fevers and colds .
Abigail thinks that if her phone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead of turned off to save data , she would have seen the news that the U.S. border had closed .
“ Sometimes , when you ’ re walking , you lose your sense of time , ” she said .
“ It was only when were in the mountains , to be precise , that we turned on our phones , and on social media we saw how the virus had spread.
” Several hundred people who were detained in Mexico were transferred to local shelters or granted housing assistance , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were not .
Now , alone in a quarantine center on El Salvador ’ s coast , she is unsure what ’ s next .
“ All of my life has been dangerous , ” she said , “ but now the situation is critical , because the illness is everywhere.
” the thousands of people expelled by the U.S. over the last seven weeks , if they were not kept in Mexican custody ?
To some , Mexico offered a binary choice : wait for Mexican asylum , or go home .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ visitors ’ permits , often only after sending them to Mexico ’ s southern border , which many saw as an invitation to leave .
Never , in advocates ’ experience , had so many migrants , fearing contagion or homelessness , sought so swiftly to go home .
Many of the individuals Mexican officials did hold , either before or after they crossed the U.S. border , were unsure if they ’ d be let out , even if they asked for asylum .
The national asylum office , while still accepting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Can you imagine the stress of being locked up in the middle of a ton of people ?
I thought about it for a long time , and then I decided it ’ s better to ask for deportation , ” said Francisco Sánchez Rojel , 19 , a Honduran held in one of the centers where detainees set fire to their mattresses .
But as Central America temporarily barred deportations , not even those who wanted to fly home could .
One document , issued to a Honduran migrant in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says that once a bus left her near the Guatemalan border , she should “ continue her trip to her country of origin.
” Never mind that Guatemala had no public transport , and that she didn ’ t have permission to enter the country .
Advocates , who won a lawsuit demanding the release of at-risk migrants , struggled to find out where they went .
Hundreds of migrants left in Mexico ’ s southernmost states were sighted walking .
Some snuck through unofficial crossing points on foot , despite Guatemala ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begged for transport .
They later popped up along on the Honduran border .
Harlin Antonio López , 22 , a Honduran asylum seeker , said he was released from Mexican custody in February .
He feared having nowhere to live during the pandemic .
A shelter in Mexico City offered him a space , but the Mexican government did not approve his transfer .
When he took a train north , he was caught , then bused with other migrants to Guatemala ’ s edge and left on the road .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a time , abandoning us , ” he said .
He was determined to stay in Mexico , but other people from the buses tried to cross into Guatemala .
He said local Guatemalan residents threatened to beat them up , since they worried they carried the virus , and blocked their entry .
People deported from the U.S. had already tested positive for coronavirus , and there were fears that people coming from Mexico could as well .
Last week , the Guatemalan government reported that four minors deported from Mexico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symptoms .
“ Every day , we ’ ve got health personnel on the border to detect suspicious cases of Covid-19 , ” said Manuel Cardona Hernández , a public health official in the Guatemalan department of Petén .
“ But we ’ re a border region , in which you can cross over to Mexico by water or by river , and we have a ton of blind spots , where anybody can get through.
” Neighbors have heckled people coming home .
Sánchez Rojel said that after he walked 18 hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his deportation flight , he felt faint .
Soldiers whom he asked for help made him wait days on the roadside for a coronavirus test .
By luck , it was negative , but he understands why they — and his family — were suspicious .
“ We were like chickens in their cages in the plane , and on the bus , too .
We were on top of one another , ” he said .
“ We came as though we were not all living through a pandemic.
” announcement that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assured that the most vulnerable — children , families , the elderly , and people with chronic illnesses — were the first to be sent home .
Advocates fear that people who are left in Mexico , bereft of earnings and remittances due to the virus ’ s economic impact , will become undocumented mid-pandemic , whenever their temporary documents expire in the next few months .
“ We fought for people to be let out of the detention centers , because we thought that the risks inside were greater inside , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they do not end up homeless , ” said Sergio Otal Aznar , the project coordinator for the Jesuit Refugee Service in Mexico .
“ In the markets and streets , we see a degree of misery far higher than before.
” Mexico ’ s mercurial strategy left many migrants thousands of miles from where they intended to be during the pandemic .
The country has far fewer coronavirus cases than the U.S. , but many migrants say that does not necessarily make it safer .
They are likely to have split futures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work for coins .
Others , with more money , will refuse to stay .
The routes frequented by migrants are nearly empty now , just like Mexico ’ s detention centers .
But 24-year-old Bryan , whose name has been changed due to fear of repercussion by U.S. authorities , said migrants like him can ’ t wait .
He was deported to Honduras in March after living in the U.S. for twenty years .
He headed north within days , was caught in Mexico and sent to two detention centers before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crossed the border near Reynosa .
U.S authorities turned him back after finger-printing him .
Three days later , he planned a second attempt .
“ The coronavirus does not scare me .
I don ’ t know if it ’ s real , if it ’ s a lie .
I haven ’ t seen anyone who has died of it , ” he said .
“ My biggest concerns is my daughter and my mother .
I want to get to them .
”

Abigail had been walking for hours in a rural stretch of Texas when she saw the lights of U.S. Border Patrol vans. She had planned to show the U.S. officials police reports of her extortion and burglary in El Salvador, papers she carried in a small pouch on her hip. But, they told her, because of a virus that had been spreading, there was no longer asylum. They sent her straight back to Mexico.
“This was not a game. I had enough proof, and I thought that I would be able to get across,” said Abigail, who is identified by a pseudonym for her protection. “When you face a serious risk, they usually go over your case.”
The coronavirus, which has infected over 4 million people, has also been the justification for historic immigration restrictions. In March, the U.S. government announced people who crossed the border unlawfully would immediately be sent back “to protect the public health.” Mexico, which eventually vowed to get all migrants out of its detention centers, suddenly had thousands more on its hands.
Since the U.S. began the expulsions, on March 21, it has sent over 20,000 migrants back, mainly to Mexico. About a third of them are Central Americans. The health of those migrants has been endangered for weeks, as they have been ping-ponged between detention centers, flown to countries they had fled, or bused to southern Mexican states with instructions to walk if they wished to get home. Mexico’s promise, which seemed like a blessing for migrants, for many became an ordeal.
Since March 21, the U.S. has sent over 20,000 migrants back to Mexico.
“They’re taking advantage of the pandemic in order to cleanse the country of migrants,” said María Magdalena Silva Renteria, the director of a shelter, CAFEMIN, said of the Mexican government.
As the Trump administration has made it harder to obtain asylum in recent years, Mexico has operated in lock-step. It became a waiting ground when the U.S. restricted the number of daily asylum requests at ports of entry. Last year, it became a temporary residence, as the U.S. forced thousands of people to wait for court dates under the so-called Migrant Protection Protocols. The expulsion order, which seals the border to asylum-seekers and other undocumented migrants, is the most extreme measure the U.S. has foisted onto Mexico.
When Mexico began emptying its detention centers in late March, it appeared to be one of the few countries that heeded advocates’ warnings about the risk the virus posed for incarcerated people. In the span of a month, Mexico dropped the nearly 3,800 migrants in its custody to a previously unimaginable 106. For some that was still too slow: Migrants desperate for release set fires in their detention centers, leading to one death. And by then, Central American countries had already closed their borders, slowing deportations and leaving many in limbo.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
It had taken Abigail, a middle-aged house cleaner who had never before left El Salvador, 22 days to reach Texas. It would take her another 21 to get all the way home. She would go through stays in two crowded Mexican detention centers, a 24-hour bus trip, and a plane ride with deportees who sometimes slipped off their face masks before getting back to El Salvador, where she would be forced into a month-long quarantine.
If any detainee had the coronavirus during the weeks she was locked in with them in Mexico, Abigail imagines there was no way to avoid getting it. She had spent her nights, at best, a pinky’s distance from other migrants. For a time, she slept head-to-toe with another woman on the same mattress, trying to avoid the stranger’s breath. Other detainees had fevers and colds.
Abigail thinks that if her phone had been on during her travels, instead of turned off to save data, she would have seen the news that the U.S. border had closed. “Sometimes, when you’re walking, you lose your sense of time,” she said. “It was only when were in the mountains, to be precise, that we turned on our phones, and on social media we saw how the virus had spread.”
Several hundred people who were detained in Mexico were transferred to local shelters or granted housing assistance, but the vast majority — including Abigail — were not. Now, alone in a quarantine center on El Salvador’s coast, she is unsure what’s next. “All of my life has been dangerous,” she said, “but now the situation is critical, because the illness is everywhere.”
What happened to the thousands of people expelled by the U.S. over the last seven weeks, if they were not kept in Mexican custody? To some, Mexico offered a binary choice: wait for Mexican asylum, or go home. To others, it handed out temporary visitors’ permits, often only after sending them to Mexico’s southern border, which many saw as an invitation to leave.
Never, in advocates’ experience, had so many migrants, fearing contagion or homelessness, sought so swiftly to go home. Many of the individuals Mexican officials did hold, either before or after they crossed the U.S. border, were unsure if they’d be let out, even if they asked for asylum. The national asylum office, while still accepting applications, has ceased most other functions.
“Can you imagine the stress of being locked up in the middle of a ton of people? I thought about it for a long time, and then I decided it’s better to ask for deportation,” said Francisco Sánchez Rojel, 19, a Honduran held in one of the centers where detainees set fire to their mattresses.
But as Central America temporarily barred deportations, not even those who wanted to fly home could. One document, issued to a Honduran migrant in Reynosa, along the Texas border, says that once a bus left her near the Guatemalan border, she should “continue her trip to her country of origin.” Never mind that Guatemala had no public transport, and that she didn’t have permission to enter the country.
Guillermo Arias/AFP/Getty Images
Advocates, who won a lawsuit demanding the release of at-risk migrants, struggled to find out where they went. Hundreds of migrants left in Mexico’s southernmost states were sighted walking. Some snuck through unofficial crossing points on foot, despite Guatemala’s refusal to accept them. Others begged for transport. They later popped up along on the Honduran border.
Harlin Antonio López, 22, a Honduran asylum seeker, said he was released from Mexican custody in February. He feared having nowhere to live during the pandemic. A shelter in Mexico City offered him a space, but the Mexican government did not approve his transfer. When he took a train north, he was caught, then bused with other migrants to Guatemala’s edge and left on the road.
“They let us off the bus five at a time, abandoning us,” he said. He was determined to stay in Mexico, but other people from the buses tried to cross into Guatemala. He said local Guatemalan residents threatened to beat them up, since they worried they carried the virus, and blocked their entry.
“We were like chickens in their cages in the plane. … We came as though we were not all living through a pandemic.”
People deported from the U.S. had already tested positive for coronavirus, and there were fears that people coming from Mexico could as well. Last week, the Guatemalan government reported that four minors deported from Mexico were infected, despite having no prior symptoms.
“Every day, we’ve got health personnel on the border to detect suspicious cases of Covid-19,” said Manuel Cardona Hernández, a public health official in the Guatemalan department of Petén. “But we’re a border region, in which you can cross over to Mexico by water or by river, and we have a ton of blind spots, where anybody can get through.”
Neighbors have heckled people coming home. Sánchez Rojel said that after he walked 18 hours from Honduras’s capital, after his deportation flight, he felt faint. Soldiers whom he asked for help made him wait days on the roadside for a coronavirus test. By luck, it was negative, but he understands why they — and his family — were suspicious.
“We were like chickens in their cages in the plane, and on the bus, too. We were on top of one another,” he said. “We came as though we were not all living through a pandemic.”
Mexico, in its announcement that it had emptied its detention centers, assured that the most vulnerable — children, families, the elderly, and people with chronic illnesses — were the first to be sent home. Advocates fear that people who are left in Mexico, bereft of earnings and remittances due to the virus’s economic impact, will become undocumented mid-pandemic, whenever their temporary documents expire in the next few months.
“We fought for people to be let out of the detention centers, because we thought that the risks inside were greater inside, but there have to be alternatives, so they do not end up homeless,” said Sergio Otal Aznar, the project coordinator for the Jesuit Refugee Service in Mexico. “In the markets and streets, we see a degree of misery far higher than before.”
“In the markets and streets, we see a degree of misery far higher than before.”
Mexico’s mercurial strategy left many migrants thousands of miles from where they intended to be during the pandemic. The country has far fewer coronavirus cases than the U.S., but many migrants say that does not necessarily make it safer. They are likely to have split futures: some, like López, will work for coins. Others, with more money, will refuse to stay.
The routes frequented by migrants are nearly empty now, just like Mexico’s detention centers. But 24-year-old Bryan, whose name has been changed due to fear of repercussion by U.S. authorities, said migrants like him can’t wait. He was deported to Honduras in March after living in the U.S. for twenty years. He headed north within days, was caught in Mexico and sent to two detention centers before being released. Last month, he crossed the border near Reynosa.
U.S authorities turned him back after finger-printing him. Three days later, he planned a second attempt. “The coronavirus does not scare me. I don’t know if it’s real, if it’s a lie. I haven’t seen anyone who has died of it,” he said. “My biggest concerns is my daughter and my mother. I want to get to them.”


theintercept--2020-05-12--There’s No One Worse Than Trump On Climate and War

responsibilities of the executive office do not appear to have aged President Donald Trump much .
Unlike past presidents who have grown visibly wearier on the job , Trump seems to have not aged much over his four years in office .
Even in the face of a historic pandemic that has , at the time of this writing , killed over 80,000 people in his country , the president has projected an unflappable vanity .
Questioned about the rising death toll at an April press conference , Trump boasted , “ You can ’ t mourn it any stronger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most people no longer seem to be sharing this ghoulishly upbeat attitude .
Recent polls show that Trump ’ s support has declined over the past few months , as a wave of suffering from the pandemic ripples across the United States .
The administration is widely seen as having botched the response to the coronavirus .
And the president himself has compounded the sense of chaos with his incoherent and disturbing messaging during the crisis .
Trump has been saying insane things for years , of course , but with tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tens of millions more out of work and facing an uncertain future , the joke finally appears to be wearing thin .
Every day seems to be a pivotal turning point for American society lately , but it ’ s hard not to look ahead to one autumn day in particular as a momentous occasion that will shape this country ’ s future : Election Day .
There is not much reason to believe that the United States will have recovered by the time of the vote .
Under normal circumstances , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office would be all but assured .
But Trump also happens to be facing off against a Democratic Party that is bitterly divided — and with good reason .
The Democratic split can be attributed both to structural differences as well as those of personality , divisions that have been pored over ad nauseam and need not be relitigated here .
What should be considered is that , one way or another , this election will really be a matter of life and death for millions of people .
This is particularly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developing countries whose voices are not heard in the electoral process , even though its outcome affects them .
The question of whether Trump would be worse on balance than any Democratic candidate is worth sincerely asking .
But , when you analyze both Trump ’ s record in office and future trajectory , it hardly seems debatable .
In addition to its hideous response to the coronavirus pandemic — the suffering of which is falling overwhelmingly on the working poor and minorities — the Trump administration is willfully laying the groundwork for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be unprecedented .
Trump ran on a platform that made vaguely populist gestures at times .
But in office , he has served as a human ventilator keeping the terminally ill ideologies of neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy alive — both in their most rapacious forms .
If the forces that latched onto him get another four-year extension , we could pass beyond a point where we have much less left to rescue .
There are several fronts on which a second Trump term would guarantee escalated suffering for innocent people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy , income inequality , and the courts .
For purposes of illustration however , let me focus on two issues that I follow closely , and which progressives have historically expressed concern about : climate change and war .
has warned that major cuts in emissions need to take place within the next decade in order to avert calamity .
An administration interested in even the minimalist goal of keeping civilization functioning in the medium term should feel compelled to register a response .
Yet the Trump administration has made it a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what is necessary as aggressively as possible .
Many of its environmental policies seem to have little apparent logic beyond killing endangered species and ramping up CO2 emissions to trigger the libs .
The direst warnings from scientists seem incapable of shaking the administration off its current course .
And this problem is time-sensitive : Within roughly a decade on our present course , we will have likely passed a point beyond which catastrophic harm is unavoidable .
To be fair to Trump , past presidents had environmental policies that also brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s reasonable to ask , then , whether his approach is meaningfully worse .
But , according to climate experts who have tracked this subject for years , it is .
Trump ’ s environmental positions go beyond even those of the conservative establishment and corporate America .
They align instead with the most extreme fringe of right-wing activists and libertarians opposed to any type of regulatory action to stave off climate disaster .
“ In 2012 , the Obama administration was doing better on climate policy than a Republican administration would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not completely terrible on climate .
He would ’ ve enacted some policies , he wasn ’ t totally retrograde or an outright denialist , ” said Kert Davies , the founder and director of Climate Investigations Center .
“ When Trump ditched the Paris accords , many major corporations came out and said that this is a bad idea because they had already begun planning for a reduced-carbon future .
It tells you a lot about how fringe the president is on this issue that he ’ s not even in line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few years , in part because of the alarm over the Trump administration ’ s policies , a powerful grassroots movement has grown to force the issue on climate change .
It is having an impact .
Whereas in previous elections , it was a struggle for activists to get a single question about the issue addressed , climate policy was one of the major topics of discussion during the last set of Democratic primary debates .
The current likely Democratic nominee , Joe Biden , has made weaker commitments on this subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and been justly criticized for his shortcomings by activists .
But there is significant reason to believe that he or any Democratic president would do more than Trump on climate and also be susceptible to pressure to improve their stance in office .
On this issue , even marginal improvements happen to matter a lot .
Even with great effort , we are likely pass the red line that scientists have set : 2 degrees Celsius warming above preindustrial levels .
But keeping emissions at a point that takes us up to 2.5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more warming would make a difference — and accelerate the severity of our catastrophe .
It ’ s not hyperbole to say that every marginal increase in emissions means death and misery for millions of the most vulnerable around the world .
The absolute intransigence of the Trump administration on climate is particularly galling since there is a lot that could easily be done with a little bit of political will .
“ There is an ocean of difference between what a Trump presidency and a Biden presidency would do on climate policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one you ’ d do zero , even continue moving backwards , while on the other we ’ d at least be moving forward again .
Even if people don ’ t think Biden ’ s policies are up to Bernie ’ s ” — Biden ’ s progressive rival , Sen. Bernie Sanders , who ended his presidential campaign in April — “ there ’ s a much higher bar now.
” Davies added , “ People have woken up on this issue in a way that could not have been foreseen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate policy will be a significant node of the Democratic platform in November , and that it ’ ll be something beyond getting back into the Paris accords .
The dialogue has moved way past that.
” Party ’ s legacy on war is an ugly one .
President Barack Obama was responsible for putting in place a drone warfare program that frequently killed innocent people around the world .
After he left office , the terrifying executive powers over life and death that Obama created were then handed over to a man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperamentally fit to wield them .
While Trump occasionally expressed skepticism of U.S. militarism during his first presidential campaign , in practice he has governed with callous brutality , behaving like the ugliest imperialist possible .
Under Trump , strikes in Somalia have ramped up eight times over what they were under Obama .
In all battlefields , he has loosened rules of engagement to allow the greater killing of civilians in American wars .
Thousands have died in needlessly brutal operations in Iraq and Syria as a result of slackened targeting standards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of his way to encourage war crimes and even celebrate those who commit them .
Harming innocent civilians is one issue , at least , where he has been keeping his campaign promise .
Trump ’ s foreign policy doesn ’ t get any better when you zoom out from the actual business of killing people .
His administration has given an unprecedented blank check for unilateral Israeli land grabs in the Palestinian territories , setting the stage for institutionalized oppression unseen in the past seven decades of conflict .
Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the hidden infrastructure preventing the outbreak of nuclear wars .
His retrograde approach to these agreements is setting the stage for the renewal of a Cold War-style arms race .
Even a relatively small decision to remove restrictions on land mines will likely kill and maim innocents pointlessly for years to come .
But perhaps the single most aggressive policy Trump is still playing out is his approach toward Iran .
After tearing up the Obama-era nuclear agreement , which , whatever its shortcomings , was the most significant step to extricating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the region , Trump brought the two countries within inches of war this January after illegally assassinating an Iranian general in Iraq .
Even more shockingly , the president has maintained crushing sanctions on that country during the Covid-19 pandemic over the pleas of Iranian human rights activists , Democratic senators , and former high-ranking world officials .
A leaked Pentagon document reported in April said that these sanctions had “ crippled ” the Iranian health care system ’ s ability to respond to the disease , a development that has made even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ’ s Iran policy has already resulted in the deaths of innocent people .
In a second term , worse is almost assured .
On this issue alone , there is a staggering difference with even the most flawed Democratic position on this issue .
Anyone looking to express moral outrage over the suffering of civilians due to U.S. foreign policy need look no further than Iran today .
“ The risk of war with Iran is an issue where there is a huge partisan split , ” said Stephen Wertheim , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and author of the forthcoming book “ Tomorrow , the World : The Birth of U.S .
Global Supremacy.
” “ Trump has had many years to pivot from maximum pressure to dialogue and he has not done that with Iran , he has not selected advisers that would allow him to do that .
The Democrats , on the other hand , started out as the party that supported the nuclear deal and are likely to try to return to it once in office.
” Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some type of economic-nationalist retrenchment of American resources away from foreign conflicts .
His thoughts on this issue have never been systematized in any clear way .
But his rhetoric has sometimes given those who hope for such a policy enough material to project an image onto him as an isolationist , despite daily accumulating evidence to the contrary .
It has taken the Covid-19 pandemic and his response — blaming it almost entirely on China instead of using it to make the case for domestic retrenchment — to put the final lie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were an isolationist , if he were in favor of ‘ Fortress America , ’ he would be focused right now on building defenses in America against future pandemics , ” said Wertheim .
“ That is not what we are seeing .
The Democratic Party has also been historically invested in the dubious goal of U.S. global primacy .
Unlike in the GOP , however , there seems to be a meaningful constituency growing against the hawkishness of previous decades , at least on some important issues .
The nuclear deal negotiated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most significant step taken to extricate the U.S. from the cycle of endless war in the Middle East .
In general , though deeply flawed and deserving harsh criticism , the Democratic Party consensus is still less hawkish than Trump ’ s , who has served as an empty cipher for the most unhinged extremists in Washington , D.C. “ Retrenchment in some fashion is the direction the U.S. should be heading , and the public debate reflects that , ” said Wertheim , who is a critic of the so-called blob foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No one in the Democratic primaries was trying to sound more hawkish on foreign policy ; it was all a contest to say who was going to end endless wars .
Regardless of what happens , this is how the debate is being framed now.
” indictment of the status quo that preceded Trump is that it ultimately gave rise to his presidency .
The proposition of simply returning back to those days and calling it a job well done is untenable .
But when it comes to the question of a second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lesson we can take from history , including recent history , it ’ s that even when things are bad , they can still become much , much worse without getting better again .
The “ accelerationist ” dream of tearing things down so that something better just might be built in its place is a folly that sacrifices the weakest among us for uncertain gains .
Unless you have great personal wealth and are benefiting from Trump ’ s eye-watering tax cuts on the rich , there will not be any safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean .
Electoral politics are not the sum total of political engagement , of course .
Mutual aid and local democracy can flourish without getting involved in the dispiriting business of national elections .
For anyone who cares about large structural issues like climate change and foreign policy , however , it ’ s worth considering how a second Trump term would preclude even a long-term future that is progressive in any sense .
From a strategic perspective is also political capital in appearing to be on the right side of history at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overcome the pandemic to win the election and , as would be likely , takes the world further down the path of ruin , amid the pain that ensues it would be good for progressives to look like they had done everything in their power to stop him .
One of my favorite books is the Austrian-Jewish writer Stefan Zweig ’ s 1942 memoir , “ The World of Yesterday.
” In that book , written shortly before his death at the height of World War II , Zweig decried how the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suddenly been shattered by politics , “ as if it were a hollow clay pot breaking into a thousand pieces.
” Our world is no less fragile .
People can reasonably disagree over the perennial question of “ what is to be done.
” But , at the very least , as this pandemic is emphasizing , we should never let the delicacy of the things we take for granted slip from mind .

Photo: Photo by Doug Mills-Pool/Getty Images
The staggering responsibilities of the executive office do not appear to have aged President Donald Trump much. Unlike past presidents who have grown visibly wearier on the job, Trump seems to have not aged much over his four years in office. Even in the face of a historic pandemic that has, at the time of this writing, killed over 80,000 people in his country, the president has projected an unflappable vanity. Questioned about the rising death toll at an April press conference, Trump boasted, “You can’t mourn it any stronger than we’re mourning it.”
Most people no longer seem to be sharing this ghoulishly upbeat attitude. Recent polls show that Trump’s support has declined over the past few months, as a wave of suffering from the pandemic ripples across the United States. The administration is widely seen as having botched the response to the coronavirus. And the president himself has compounded the sense of chaos with his incoherent and disturbing messaging during the crisis. Trump has been saying insane things for years, of course, but with tens of thousands of Americans killed by disease and tens of millions more out of work and facing an uncertain future, the joke finally appears to be wearing thin.
Every day seems to be a pivotal turning point for American society lately, but it’s hard not to look ahead to one autumn day in particular as a momentous occasion that will shape this country’s future: Election Day. There is not much reason to believe that the United States will have recovered by the time of the vote. Under normal circumstances, after such a disaster, the incumbent losing office would be all but assured. But Trump also happens to be facing off against a Democratic Party that is bitterly divided — and with good reason. The Democratic split can be attributed both to structural differences as well as those of personality, divisions that have been pored over ad nauseam and need not be relitigated here.
What should be considered is that, one way or another, this election will really be a matter of life and death for millions of people. This is particularly the case for the poor and people in developing countries whose voices are not heard in the electoral process, even though its outcome affects them. The question of whether Trump would be worse on balance than any Democratic candidate is worth sincerely asking. But, when you analyze both Trump’s record in office and future trajectory, it hardly seems debatable. In addition to its hideous response to the coronavirus pandemic — the suffering of which is falling overwhelmingly on the working poor and minorities — the Trump administration is willfully laying the groundwork for global suffering on a scale that will be unprecedented.
Trump ran on a platform that made vaguely populist gestures at times. But in office, he has served as a human ventilator keeping the terminally ill ideologies of neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy alive — both in their most rapacious forms. If the forces that latched onto him get another four-year extension, we could pass beyond a point where we have much less left to rescue. There are several fronts on which a second Trump term would guarantee escalated suffering for innocent people, including health care, xenophobia, immigration policy, income inequality, and the courts. For purposes of illustration however, let me focus on two issues that I follow closely, and which progressives have historically expressed concern about: climate change and war.
Every expert has warned that major cuts in emissions need to take place within the next decade in order to avert calamity. An administration interested in even the minimalist goal of keeping civilization functioning in the medium term should feel compelled to register a response. Yet the Trump administration has made it a point of pride to do the opposite of what is necessary as aggressively as possible. Many of its environmental policies seem to have little apparent logic beyond killing endangered species and ramping up CO2 emissions to trigger the libs. The direst warnings from scientists seem incapable of shaking the administration off its current course. And this problem is time-sensitive: Within roughly a decade on our present course, we will have likely passed a point beyond which catastrophic harm is unavoidable.
To be fair to Trump, past presidents had environmental policies that also brought us to this point. It’s reasonable to ask, then, whether his approach is meaningfully worse. But, according to climate experts who have tracked this subject for years, it is. Trump’s environmental positions go beyond even those of the conservative establishment and corporate America. They align instead with the most extreme fringe of right-wing activists and libertarians opposed to any type of regulatory action to stave off climate disaster.
“In 2012, the Obama administration was doing better on climate policy than a Republican administration would have done. But even Mitt Romney was not completely terrible on climate. He would’ve enacted some policies, he wasn’t totally retrograde or an outright denialist,” said Kert Davies, the founder and director of Climate Investigations Center. “When Trump ditched the Paris accords, many major corporations came out and said that this is a bad idea because they had already begun planning for a reduced-carbon future. It tells you a lot about how fringe the president is on this issue that he’s not even in line with corporate America.”
Over the past few years, in part because of the alarm over the Trump administration’s policies, a powerful grassroots movement has grown to force the issue on climate change. It is having an impact. Whereas in previous elections, it was a struggle for activists to get a single question about the issue addressed, climate policy was one of the major topics of discussion during the last set of Democratic primary debates.
The current likely Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, has made weaker commitments on this subject so far than some of his challengers and been justly criticized for his shortcomings by activists. But there is significant reason to believe that he or any Democratic president would do more than Trump on climate and also be susceptible to pressure to improve their stance in office. On this issue, even marginal improvements happen to matter a lot. Even with great effort, we are likely pass the red line that scientists have set: 2 degrees Celsius warming above preindustrial levels. But keeping emissions at a point that takes us up to 2.5 degrees, 3 degrees, or even more warming would make a difference — and accelerate the severity of our catastrophe. It’s not hyperbole to say that every marginal increase in emissions means death and misery for millions of the most vulnerable around the world. The absolute intransigence of the Trump administration on climate is particularly galling since there is a lot that could easily be done with a little bit of political will.
Photo: AFP/Getty Images
“There is an ocean of difference between what a Trump presidency and a Biden presidency would do on climate policy,” Davies said. “In one you’d do zero, even continue moving backwards, while on the other we’d at least be moving forward again. Even if people don’t think Biden’s policies are up to Bernie’s” — Biden’s progressive rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who ended his presidential campaign in April — “there’s a much higher bar now.”
Davies added, “People have woken up on this issue in a way that could not have been foreseen years ago. It is likely that climate policy will be a significant node of the Democratic platform in November, and that it’ll be something beyond getting back into the Paris accords. The dialogue has moved way past that.”
The Democratic Party’s legacy on war is an ugly one. President Barack Obama was responsible for putting in place a drone warfare program that frequently killed innocent people around the world. After he left office, the terrifying executive powers over life and death that Obama created were then handed over to a man who was perhaps the least morally or temperamentally fit to wield them. While Trump occasionally expressed skepticism of U.S. militarism during his first presidential campaign, in practice he has governed with callous brutality, behaving like the ugliest imperialist possible.
Under Trump, strikes in Somalia have ramped up eight times over what they were under Obama. In all battlefields, he has loosened rules of engagement to allow the greater killing of civilians in American wars. Thousands have died in needlessly brutal operations in Iraq and Syria as a result of slackened targeting standards. As commander-in-chief, Trump has gone out of his way to encourage war crimes and even celebrate those who commit them. Harming innocent civilians is one issue, at least, where he has been keeping his campaign promise.
Trump’s foreign policy doesn’t get any better when you zoom out from the actual business of killing people. His administration has given an unprecedented blank check for unilateral Israeli land grabs in the Palestinian territories, setting the stage for institutionalized oppression unseen in the past seven decades of conflict. Trump has revoked arms control treaties that form part of the hidden infrastructure preventing the outbreak of nuclear wars. His retrograde approach to these agreements is setting the stage for the renewal of a Cold War-style arms race. Even a relatively small decision to remove restrictions on land mines will likely kill and maim innocents pointlessly for years to come.
But perhaps the single most aggressive policy Trump is still playing out is his approach toward Iran. After tearing up the Obama-era nuclear agreement, which, whatever its shortcomings, was the most significant step to extricating the U.S. from its endless wars in the region, Trump brought the two countries within inches of war this January after illegally assassinating an Iranian general in Iraq. Even more shockingly, the president has maintained crushing sanctions on that country during the Covid-19 pandemic over the pleas of Iranian human rights activists, Democratic senators, and former high-ranking world officials. A leaked Pentagon document reported in April said that these sanctions had “crippled” the Iranian health care system’s ability to respond to the disease, a development that has made even some hawkish anti-Iran figures queasy.
The president’s Iran policy has already resulted in the deaths of innocent people. In a second term, worse is almost assured. On this issue alone, there is a staggering difference with even the most flawed Democratic position on this issue. Anyone looking to express moral outrage over the suffering of civilians due to U.S. foreign policy need look no further than Iran today.
“The risk of war with Iran is an issue where there is a huge partisan split,” said Stephen Wertheim, deputy director of research and policy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and author of the forthcoming book “Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy.” “Trump has had many years to pivot from maximum pressure to dialogue and he has not done that with Iran, he has not selected advisers that would allow him to do that. The Democrats, on the other hand, started out as the party that supported the nuclear deal and are likely to try to return to it once in office.”
Trump has periodically given hints that he favors some type of economic-nationalist retrenchment of American resources away from foreign conflicts. His thoughts on this issue have never been systematized in any clear way. But his rhetoric has sometimes given those who hope for such a policy enough material to project an image onto him as an isolationist, despite daily accumulating evidence to the contrary. It has taken the Covid-19 pandemic and his response — blaming it almost entirely on China instead of using it to make the case for domestic retrenchment — to put the final lie to this claim.
“If Trump were an isolationist, if he were in favor of ‘Fortress America,’ he would be focused right now on building defenses in America against future pandemics,” said Wertheim. “That is not what we are seeing.
The Democratic Party has also been historically invested in the dubious goal of U.S. global primacy. Unlike in the GOP, however, there seems to be a meaningful constituency growing against the hawkishness of previous decades, at least on some important issues. The nuclear deal negotiated by the Democrats in particular was the most significant step taken to extricate the U.S. from the cycle of endless war in the Middle East. In general, though deeply flawed and deserving harsh criticism, the Democratic Party consensus is still less hawkish than Trump’s, who has served as an empty cipher for the most unhinged extremists in Washington, D.C.
“Retrenchment in some fashion is the direction the U.S. should be heading, and the public debate reflects that,” said Wertheim, who is a critic of the so-called blob foreign policy consensus in both parties. “No one in the Democratic primaries was trying to sound more hawkish on foreign policy; it was all a contest to say who was going to end endless wars. Regardless of what happens, this is how the debate is being framed now.”
The most damning indictment of the status quo that preceded Trump is that it ultimately gave rise to his presidency. The proposition of simply returning back to those days and calling it a job well done is untenable. But when it comes to the question of a second Trump term, if there is a lesson we can take from history, including recent history, it’s that even when things are bad, they can still become much, much worse without getting better again. The “accelerationist” dream of tearing things down so that something better just might be built in its place is a folly that sacrifices the weakest among us for uncertain gains. Unless you have great personal wealth and are benefiting from Trump’s eye-watering tax cuts on the rich, there will not be any safe haven from what a second term will mean.
Electoral politics are not the sum total of political engagement, of course. Mutual aid and local democracy can flourish without getting involved in the dispiriting business of national elections. For anyone who cares about large structural issues like climate change and foreign policy, however, it’s worth considering how a second Trump term would preclude even a long-term future that is progressive in any sense. From a strategic perspective is also political capital in appearing to be on the right side of history at a pivotal moment. If Trump does overcome the pandemic to win the election and, as would be likely, takes the world further down the path of ruin, amid the pain that ensues it would be good for progressives to look like they had done everything in their power to stop him.
One of my favorite books is the Austrian-Jewish writer Stefan Zweig’s 1942 memoir, “The World of Yesterday.” In that book, written shortly before his death at the height of World War II, Zweig decried how the world that he had grown up in had suddenly been shattered by politics, “as if it were a hollow clay pot breaking into a thousand pieces.” Our world is no less fragile. People can reasonably disagree over the perennial question of “what is to be done.” But, at the very least, as this pandemic is emphasizing, we should never let the delicacy of the things we take for granted slip from mind.