theintercept--2020-03-23--Dear Vice President Pence: Please Use the 25th Amendment to Remove Trump and Save Us From the Corona

Dear Vice President Pence: Please Use the 25th Amendment to Remove Trump and Save Us From the Coronavirus

It ’ s time .
We can ’ t wait any longer .
You need to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution .
You know what it says : “ Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide , transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office , the Vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duties of the office as Acting President.
” The truth of the matter is that President Trump does not have the mental capability to “ discharge the powers and duties of his office.
” Amid an unprecedented political , economic , and public health crisis , the commander-in-chief is unwell — and unfit .
You know this .
On Friday , you were standing next to the president in the White House briefing room when NBC correspondent Peter Alexander asked him what he had to say to Americans who “ are scared right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump responded with inexplicable rage , denouncing Alexander as a “ terrible reporter ” for asking a “ nasty ” question , and then mocking the owners of NBC — telecom giant Comcast — as “ Con-cast.
” It was an insane response to the simplest of simple questions , but don ’ t take my word for it .
“ These are psychiatric symptoms , not simply boorish behaviors , ” tweeted John Talmadge , clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center .
“ Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impaired .
He can ’ t even recognize a softball tossed his way.
” But you can , Mr. Vice President .
You later went up to the podium and answered Alexander ’ s question : “ I would say , ‘ Do not be afraid to be vigilant.
’ ” You seem to be able to do the job of president that Donald Trump is manifestly unable to do .
You have won praise for your handling of the crisis from senior Democrats like Washington Gov .
Jay Inslee — in stark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out at Inslee and called him a “ snake.
” As the New York Times has also reported , some of your former critics at the state level “ have changed their mind about Mr. Pence , who has given near-daily briefings and , they said , has become a reassuring presence even as Mr. Trump has intermittently tried to retake the stage.
” wrong I ’ m no fan of you or your far-right politics .
I am well aware of your long history of challenging the science on everything from climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this time round , you recognize the scale of the problem , the scope of the crisis , the severity of the threat posed by Covid-19 .
The president , bizarrely , inexcusably , outrageously , does not .
He is off in his own demented , fact-free , navel-gazing , alternative universe .
Again , don ’ t take my word for it .
Listen to Bandy X. Lee , clinical professor of psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine .
Trump “ dangerously lacks mental capacity , ” she told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his inability to take in information and advice , to process critical information , or to consider consequences before making impulsive , unstable , and irrational decisions that are not based in reality but fight reality.
” At press conferences , she added , he pushes “ delusional-level distortion and misinformation ” because he is “ disconnected from reality.
” His leadership , she concluded , is “ more harmful than if we had no president.
” This is a president who rambles , rants , and raves ; who spent weeks downplaying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignoring warnings from his own intelligence agencies ; who claimed to be unaware that Americans who need tests are unable to get them ; who uses press briefings not to inform the public but to regularly attack the press ; who went golfing while health professionals begged for resources and equipment ; who has repeatedly contradicted his own top scientists by pushing unproven drugs as a treatment for Covid-19 ; who tried to buy a vaccine from Germany but only for “ exclusive ” use in the United States ; who took a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter and complain about Hillary Clinton ’ s emails and Benghazi .
How is this behavior not utterly unhinged ?
How does it not justify you invoking the 25th Amendment on behalf of the American people , who are being infected by Covid-19 in rapidly increasing numbers ?
Look , I get it .
You ’ re a sycophant .
You ’ re a coward .
You ’ re afraid of standing up to a vicious boss and his cultish supporters .
But ask yourself this : Are you more afraid of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for your own life and the lives of those you love and cherish ?
This past weekend , you and your wife had to get tested for Covid-19 .
It is only a matter of time until someone you care about tests positive or — God forbid — dies from the disease .
In years to come , do you really want to look back on this historic moment and regret not having stepped in , with the clear authority granted to you under the Constitution , to do a better , saner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic than the current occupant of the Oval Office ?
Perhaps you think the supermajority required in both chambers of Congress for you to stay in office if the president resists his removal and formally declares in writing “ that no inability exists , ” makes it impossible for you to successfully invoke the 25th Amendment .
But events are moving fast .
Nothing is predictable anymore .
And , as Adam Gustafson pointed out in the Yale Law & Policy Review in 2008 , under the section 4 process , “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days of presidential power — four days to advance his own policy goals , to prove himself a capable executive , and to acclimate Congress and the public to his presence in the Oval Office .
By the time Congress is allowed to vote , the deck may already be stacked against the President.
” It is also worth noting that in 2016 , when Trump picked you as his running mate , the New York Times reported that it was because of your “ unimpeachable conservative credentials , warm relationships in Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Christian right.
” If anyone can persuade Republicans in Congress that Trump has to go , that he is mentally unable to perform his presidential duties during this historic crisis — it ’ s you .
Remember : The framers of the 25th Amendment deliberately decided against providing a definition of the “ unable to discharge ” phrase .
However , the late Birch Bayh , the senator from your state of Indiana who sponsored the 25th Amendment , made it clear that it related to mental as well as physical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Bayh said , “ that a President might be able to walk , for example , and thus , by the definition of some people , might be physically able , but at the same time he might not possess the mental capacity to make a decision and perform the powers and duties of his office.
” Do you really believe Trump has the “ mental capacity ” to protect millions of Americans from this pandemic ?
A president who tried to prevent dozens of infected Americans on a cruise ship from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he admitted , “ I like the numbers being where they are ” ?
Remember also : This is a decision for you to make , based on your own insights and experiences , with or without the assistance of medical professionals .
“ What the framers of the 25th Amendment had in mind was a judgement call by the vice president and by the cabinet , ” John D. Feerick , Fordham School of Law ’ s former dean , told me .
Feerick , who assisted in the drafting of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the framers picked the vice president and “ principal officers of the executive departments ” for this task because , as a result of their proximity to the president , they would have the greatest insight into his or her mental health and stability .
As high-level political appointees of the president , they would also have the greatest credibility in the eyes of Congress and the public , and could not be automatically dismissed as political opponents or partisans .
now .
Extreme times call for extreme measures .
Yes , Section @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before been invoked by a vice president .
But , then again , as you yourself probably realized long ago , no vice president has ever before had to deal with a president like Trump .
Last October , after your boss glibly suggested he might “ destroy and obliterate ” the Turkish economy , Daniel Gilbert , professor of psychology at Harvard University , suggested the president should be detained and examined .
“ Am I the only psychologist who finds this claim and this threat truly alarming ?
Wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Right and Left must set aside politics and agree that there is a serious problem here , ” Gilbert tweeted .
A “ serious problem ” is an understatement .
Millions of American lives are at stake .
Yet the American president is out of control , out of touch with reality .
You know it .
I know it .
Anyone with eyes and ears knows it .

Photo: Patrick Semansky/AP
Dear Mr. Vice President,
It’s time. We can’t wait any longer. You need to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
You know what it says: “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”
The truth of the matter is that President Donald Trump does not have the mental capability to “discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Amid an unprecedented political, economic, and public health crisis, the commander-in-chief is unwell — and unfit.
You know this. On Friday, you were standing next to the president in the White House briefing room when NBC correspondent Peter Alexander asked him what he had to say to Americans who “are scared right now” because of the coronavirus pandemic. Trump responded with inexplicable rage, denouncing Alexander as a “terrible reporter” for asking a “nasty” question, and then mocking the owners of NBC — telecom giant Comcast — as “Con-cast.”
It was an insane response to the simplest of simple questions, but don’t take my word for it. “These are psychiatric symptoms, not simply boorish behaviors,” tweeted John Talmadge, clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. “Trump is mentally ill, cognitively compromised, brain impaired. He can’t even recognize a softball tossed his way.”
But you can, Mr. Vice President. You later went up to the podium and answered Alexander’s question: “I would say, ‘Do not be afraid to be vigilant.’” You seem to be able to do the job of president that Trump is manifestly unable to do. You have won praise for your handling of the crisis from senior Democrats like Washington Gov. Jay Inslee — in stark contrast to your boss, who lashed out at Inslee and called him a “snake.” As the New York Times has also reported, some of your former critics at the state level “have changed their mind about Mr. Pence, who has given near-daily briefings and, they said, has become a reassuring presence even as Mr. Trump has intermittently tried to retake the stage.”
Don’t get me wrong: I’m no fan of you or your far-right politics. I am well aware of your long history of challenging the science on everything from climate change to evolution to cancer. But, this time round, you recognize the scale of the problem, the scope of the crisis, the severity of the threat posed by Covid-19.
The president, bizarrely, inexcusably, outrageously, does not. He is off in his own demented, fact-free, navel-gazing, alternative universe. Again, don’t take my word for it. Listen to Bandy X. Lee, clinical professor of psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine. Trump “dangerously lacks mental capacity,” she told me, “which he exhibits through his inability to take in information and advice, to process critical information, or to consider consequences before making impulsive, unstable, and irrational decisions that are not based in reality but fight reality.” At press conferences, she added, he pushes “delusional-level distortion and misinformation” because he is “disconnected from reality.” His leadership, she concluded, is “more harmful than if we had no president.”
This is a president who rambles, rants, and raves; who spent weeks downplaying the spread of the novel coronavirus and ignoring warnings from his own intelligence agencies; who claimed to be unaware that Americans who need tests are unable to get them; who uses press briefings not to inform the public but to regularly attack the press; who went golfing while health professionals begged for resources and equipment; who has repeatedly contradicted his own top scientists by pushing unproven drugs as a treatment for Covid-19; who tried to buy a vaccine from Germany but only for “exclusive” use in the United States; who took a break from crisis management to go on Twitter and complain about Hillary Clinton’s emails and Benghazi.
How is this behavior not utterly unhinged? How does it not justify you invoking the 25th Amendment on behalf of the American people, who are being infected by Covid-19 in rapidly increasing numbers?
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
Look, I get it. You’re a sycophant. You’re a coward. You’re afraid of standing up to a vicious boss and his cultish supporters. But ask yourself this: Are you more afraid of Trump and his MAGA base, or for your own life and the lives of those you love and cherish? This past weekend, you and your wife had to get tested for Covid-19. It is only a matter of time until someone you care about tests positive or — God forbid — dies from the disease. In years to come, do you really want to look back on this historic moment and regret not having stepped in, with the clear authority granted to you under the Constitution, to do a better, saner, more stable job of fighting the pandemic than the current occupant of the Oval Office?
Perhaps you think the supermajority required in both chambers of Congress for you to stay in office if the president resists his removal and formally declares in writing “that no inability exists,” makes it impossible for you to successfully invoke the 25th Amendment.
But events are moving fast. Nothing is predictable anymore. And, as Adam Gustafson pointed out in the Yale Law & Policy Review in 2008, under the Section 4 process, “the Acting President can enjoy at least four days of presidential power — four days to advance his own policy goals, to prove himself a capable executive, and to acclimate Congress and the public to his presence in the Oval Office. By the time Congress is allowed to vote, the deck may already be stacked against the President.”
It is also worth noting that in 2016, when Trump picked you as his running mate, the New York Times reported that it was because of your “unimpeachable conservative credentials, warm relationships in Washington and a vast reservoir of good will with the Christian right.” If anyone can persuade Republicans in Congress that Trump has to go, that he is mentally unable to perform his presidential duties during this historic crisis, it’s you.
Remember: The framers of the 25th Amendment deliberately decided against providing a definition of the “unable to discharge” phrase. However, the late Birch Bayh, the senator from your state of Indiana who sponsored the 25th Amendment, made it clear that it related to mental, as well as physical, inability. “It is conceivable,” Bayh said, “that a President might be able to walk, for example, and thus, by the definition of some people, might be physically able, but at the same time he might not possess the mental capacity to make a decision and perform the powers and duties of his office.”
Do you really believe that Trump has the “mental capacity” to protect millions of Americans from this pandemic? A president who tried to prevent dozens of infected Americans on a cruise ship from returning to the United States because, he admitted, “I like the numbers being where they are”?
Remember also: This is a decision for you to make, based on your own insights and experiences, with or without the assistance of medical professionals. “What the framers of the 25th Amendment had in mind was a judgment call by the vice president and by the cabinet,” John D. Feerick, Fordham School of Law’s former dean, told me. Feerick, who assisted in the drafting of the amendment in 1965, pointed out that the framers picked the vice president and “principal officers of the executive departments” for this task because, as a result of their proximity to the president, they would have the greatest insight into the president’s mental health and stability. As high-level political appointees of the president, they would also have the greatest credibility in the eyes of Congress and the public, and could not be automatically dismissed as political opponents or partisans.
You must act now. Extreme times call for extreme measures. Yes, Section 4 of the 25th Amendment has never before been invoked by a vice president. But, then again, as you yourself probably realized long ago, no vice president has ever before had to deal with a president like Trump.
Last October, after your boss glibly suggested he might “destroy and obliterate” the Turkish economy, Daniel Gilbert, professor of psychology at Harvard University, suggested that the president should be detained and examined. “Am I the only psychologist who finds this claim and this threat truly alarming? Wouldn’t these normally trigger a mental health hold? Right and Left must set aside politics and agree that there is a serious problem here,” Gilbert tweeted.
A “serious problem” is an understatement. Millions of American lives are at stake. Yet the American president is out of control, out of touch with reality. You know it. I know it. Anyone with eyes and ears knows it.
Sincerely,
Mehdi Hasan


theintercept--2020-03-23--What’s Wrong With Cheering Harvey Weinstein’s Reported Coronavirus Diagnosis

on Sunday that 68-year-old rapist Harvey Weinstein had tested positive for the coronavirus in a New York prison , there was some schadenfreude on social media .
Celebratory dancing memes appeared .
People spoke of “ karma.
” Others bemoaned the possibility that the virus might kill the serial abuser too soon , delivering unjust relief from his 23-year sentence .
There might indeed exist some hypothetical metaphysical comeuppance — maybe if President Donald Trump contracted a case of Covid-19 from shaking hands with fascistic Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro — but Weinstein ’ s infection is less a karmic justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the increasing inevitability of sickness for many thousands of incarcerated people , held together in crowded and unsanitary conditions .
Although unconfirmed , it is likely that Weinstein contracted the virus at Rikers Island jail , where he was held until a transfer to Wende Correctional Facility last week .
In New York City , where at least 29 incarcerated people and 17 staff in the jail system have been infected by the coronavirus , largely in the Rikers complex , the number of cases is expected to skyrocket with deadly consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual and ur-example of patriarchal violence — only ill .
But the desire to see him suffer in a cell should not draw attention away from the more pressing and urgent need to free aging , infirm and vulnerable people from incarceration , as the coronavirus is set to ravage these unprotected populations .
In this pandemic moment , the need to free as many people as possible from the U.S. ’ s glutted prison system is a public health and social justice imperative .
Despise Weinstein as we might , there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus , which is a reflection of the pandemic ’ s perilous spread within prisons .
have already been granted early or compassionate release from jails and prisons around the country as a response to the spread of the coronavirus — recognition that the pandemic will explode among prison populations , placing incarcerated people in grave peril .
On Sunday , New York Mayor Bill de Blasio announced the release of 23 older prisoners and said he was considering releasing hundreds more .
The city , meanwhile , holds thousands in dorm-like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let alone social distancing — capabilities .
That de Blasio is slowly working toward releasing several hundred people , then , is an indication of how release numbers on a city , state , and national level remain woefully insufficient .
The toothless oversight body of the New York City Board of Correction , for example , has demanded that officials order the release of 2,000 people in custody city jails , including those over 50 years old ; those with health conditions such as lung and heart disease ; those being held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a curfew ; and those serving sentences of less than a year .
And on Sunday , dozens of Rikers inmates refused to leave their dormitories to report for work duties or meals — a strike against the dire treatment inmates are receiving as the coronavirus spreads through the jail .
Their demands were not radical : They merely echoed the calls of the Board of Correction .
with a negative coronavirus test , would probably not have benefitted from the sort of moves the board and incarcerated people themselves are asking for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent and came with a hefty sentence .
But that is not to say that he deserves to become brutally ill behind bars with a virus that , by its very nature , will not affect him alone .
This is the problem with celebrating any prison illness : The existence of vile figures like Weinstein , seemingly deserving of the worst of fates , should be no hindrance to the enactment of blanket mandates to release vast numbers of incarcerated people .
The response to the pandemic has made clear what prison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : If it is deemed safe to release thousands of incarcerated people during a crisis , then the “ public safety ” grounds for their imprisonment were always spurious .
Yet supporters of prison abolition have long been challenged with the question of serial rapists and murderers : If not prison , what to do with them ?
Weinstein , a seemingly remorseless repeat abuser , is the very sort of predator that such defenses of carceral justice are built upon .
For victims of despicable predators like Weinstein , the notion that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abusers to be free is no doubt a difficult one .
Many women had publicly celebrated Weinstein ’ s lengthy sentence as a crucial step in the struggle against structural sexual violence .
The desire to see a serial abuser locked away is an understandable one .
Yet I have not been alone in the # MeToo era in challenging carceral feminism – or the reliance on the inherently racist , masculinist , and violent prison system — as the correct antidote to patriarchal sexual violence .
As Melissa Gira Grant noted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sentencing , the prison system “ doesn ’ t take sexual violence seriously because it runs on sexual violence.
” And as activist and organizer Mariame Kaba has stressed , “ Prison isn ’ t feminist.
” On the same day that news of Weinstein ’ s illness was made public , I received a message from an incarcerated contact on Rikers Island .
He said that in his building complex , 52 incarcerated people had already been quarantined .
When fellow prisoners asked about maintaining “ social distancing ” in a crowded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standing only 2 feet apart , they were told to sleep head to toe .
The sort of liberal carceral feminism , which finds mirth in Weinstein ’ s infection , fails to look at criminal justice as a violent system .
Weinstein ’ s reported coronavirus case , like every other , was not contracted in isolation — and it can not be cheered in isolation .
The conditions of its spread behind prison walls are too intolerable .

Photo: Scott Heins/Getty Images
Following the reports on Sunday that 68-year-old rapist Harvey Weinstein had tested positive for the coronavirus in a New York prison, there was some schadenfreude on social media. Celebratory dancing memes appeared. People spoke of “karma.” Others bemoaned the possibility that the virus might kill the serial abuser too soon, delivering unjust relief from his 23-year sentence.
There might indeed exist some hypothetical metaphysical comeuppance — maybe if President Donald Trump contracted a case of Covid-19 from shaking hands with fascistic Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro — but Weinstein’s infection is less a karmic justice than a window into a sprawling injustice: the increasing inevitability of sickness for many thousands of incarcerated people, held together in crowded and unsanitary conditions.
The desire to see Weinstein suffer in a cell should not draw attention away from the more pressing and urgent need to free aging, infirm, and vulnerable people from incarceration.
Although unconfirmed, it is likely that Weinstein contracted the virus at Rikers Island jail, where he was held until a transfer to Wende Correctional Facility last week. In New York City, where at least 29 incarcerated people and 17 staff in the jail system have been infected by the coronavirus, largely in the Rikers complex, the number of cases is expected to skyrocket with deadly consequences.
I wish Weinstein — a putrid individual and ur-example of patriarchal violence — only ill. But the desire to see him suffer in a cell should not draw attention away from the more pressing and urgent need to free aging, infirm and vulnerable people from incarceration, as the coronavirus is set to ravage these unprotected populations. In this pandemic moment, the need to free as many people as possible from the U.S.’s glutted prison system is a public health and social justice imperative. Despise Weinstein as we might, there’s nothing salutary about his contraction of the virus, which is a reflection of the pandemic’s perilous spread within prisons.
Hundreds of people have already been granted early or compassionate release from jails and prisons around the country as a response to the spread of the coronavirus — recognition that the pandemic will explode among prison populations, placing incarcerated people in grave peril.
On Sunday, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio announced the release of 23 older prisoners and said he was considering releasing hundreds more. The city, meanwhile, holds thousands in dorm-like incarceration, with gravely insufficient hygienic — let alone social distancing — capabilities. That de Blasio is slowly working toward releasing several hundred people, then, is an indication of how release numbers on a city, state, and national level remain woefully insufficient.
The toothless oversight body of the New York City Board of Correction, for example, has demanded that officials order the release of 2,000 people in custody city jails, including those over 50 years old; those with health conditions such as lung and heart disease; those being held for parole violations, such as missing a curfew; and those serving sentences of less than a year.
And on Sunday, dozens of Rikers inmates refused to leave their dormitories to report for work duties or meals — a strike against the dire treatment inmates are receiving as the coronavirus spreads through the jail. Their demands were not radical: They merely echoed the calls of the Board of Correction.
A healthy Weinstein, with a negative coronavirus test, would probably not have benefitted from the sort of moves the board and incarcerated people themselves are asking for: Though elderly, his conviction was recent and came with a hefty sentence. But that is not to say that he deserves to become brutally ill behind bars with a virus that, by its very nature, will not affect him alone.
This is the problem with celebrating any prison illness: The existence of vile figures like Weinstein, seemingly deserving of the worst of fates, should be no hindrance to the enactment of blanket mandates to release vast numbers of incarcerated people.
The response to the pandemic has made clear what prison reform advocates and abolitionists have long known: If it is deemed safe to release thousands of incarcerated people during a crisis, then the “public safety” grounds for their imprisonment were always spurious. Yet supporters of prison abolition have long been challenged with the question of serial rapists and murderers: If not prison, what to do with them? Weinstein, a seemingly remorseless repeat abuser, is the very sort of predator that such defenses of carceral justice are built upon.
For victims of despicable predators like Weinstein, the notion that the pandemic might lead to their convicted abusers to be free is no doubt a difficult one. Many women had publicly celebrated Weinstein’s lengthy sentence as a crucial step in the struggle against structural sexual violence. The desire to see a serial abuser locked away is an understandable one.
Yet I have not been alone in the #MeToo era in challenging carceral feminism – or the reliance on the inherently racist, masculinist, and violent prison system — as the correct antidote to patriarchal sexual violence. As Melissa Gira Grant noted in the New Republic following Weinstein’s sentencing, the prison system “doesn’t take sexual violence seriously because it runs on sexual violence.” And as activist and organizer Mariame Kaba has stressed, “Prison isn’t feminist.”
On the same day that news of Weinstein’s illness was made public, I received a message from an incarcerated contact on Rikers Island. He said that in his building complex, 52 incarcerated people had already been quarantined. When fellow prisoners asked about maintaining “social distancing” in a crowded dormitory of over 45 beds, each standing only 2 feet apart, they were told to sleep head to toe.
The sort of liberal carceral feminism, which finds mirth in Weinstein’s infection, fails to look at criminal justice as a violent system. Weinstein’s reported coronavirus case, like every other, was not contracted in isolation — and it cannot be cheered in isolation. The conditions of its spread behind prison walls are too intolerable.


theintercept--2020-03-23--After 9/11, Richard Burr Selfishly Ignored a Tip About Domestic Spying. Now He’s Betrayed Amer

After 9/11, Richard Burr Selfishly Ignored a Tip About Domestic Spying. Now He’s Betrayed Americans Again.

immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks , a House Intelligence Committee staffer named Diane Roark was assigned to handle the committee ’ s oversight of the National Security Agency .
Roark developed excellent contacts inside the NSA and soon discovered that in the weeks after 9/11 , the agency had launched a secret , illegal program to spy on Americans .
Roark wrote a memo warning the committee ’ s leadership about the new domestic spying program .
She was certain that the chair and ranking member would order an investigation as soon as she told them about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the committee ’ s staff director told her to drop the matter .
She was ordered not to talk to anyone , even other committee members , about what she had uncovered .
What Roark didn ’ t know until later was that the George W. Bush White House had only briefed the “ Gang of Eight ” – the top House and Senate leaders , including the chair and ranking member of the House intelligence committee — about the NSA program , and those leaders were now complicit in a silent coverup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roark turned in early 2002 to Richard Burr , a North Carolina Republican representative at the time and a backbench member of the Intelligence Committee who had not been briefed on the program .
She quietly arranged a private meeting with Burr to tell him about it , and she brought along her NSA contacts to back her up .
She was risking her job by ignoring orders to keep silent , but she hoped that Burr would be just as outraged as she was about the NSA program and help her fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Burr ’ s congressional office , Roark and the others told Burr in detail what they knew about the NSA program .
Burr said almost nothing in response , Roark recalled in an interview for my 2014 book , “ Pay Any Price.
” He never talked to Roark about the matter again , she said , and apparently never took any other action to stop the illegal surveillance of American citizens .
Instead of protecting the constituents he served , Burr chose to protect his political career .
He displayed cowardice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He was rewarded when he was elected to the Senate in 2004 with the full backing of the Republican Party .
Now , 18 years later , Burr has responded to another great national crisis by once again looking out for his own self-interest while ignoring the interests of the American people .

Photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images
In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, a House Intelligence Committee staffer named Diane Roark was assigned to handle the committee’s oversight of the National Security Agency. Roark developed excellent contacts inside the NSA and soon discovered that in the weeks after 9/11, the agency had launched a secret, illegal program to spy on Americans.
Roark wrote a memo warning the committee’s leadership about the new domestic spying program. She was certain that the chair and ranking member would order an investigation as soon as she told them about it.
But Roark was stunned when the committee’s staff director told her to drop the matter. She was ordered not to talk to anyone, even other committee members, about what she had uncovered. What Roark didn’t know until later was that the George W. Bush White House had only briefed the “Gang of Eight” – the top House and Senate leaders, including the chair and ranking member of the House intelligence committee — about the NSA program, and those leaders were now complicit in a silent coverup of the illegal operation.
Frustrated, Roark turned in early 2002 to Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican representative at the time and a backbench member of the Intelligence Committee who had not been briefed on the program. She quietly arranged a private meeting with Burr to tell him about it, and she brought along her NSA contacts to back her up. She was risking her job by ignoring orders to keep silent, but she hoped that Burr would be just as outraged as she was about the NSA program and help her fight back and shut it down.
Sitting in Burr’s congressional office, Roark and the others told Burr in detail what they knew about the NSA program. Burr said almost nothing in response, Roark recalled in an interview for my 2014 book, “Pay Any Price.”
He never talked to Roark about the matter again, she said, and apparently never took any other action to stop the illegal surveillance of American citizens.
Instead of protecting the constituents he served, Burr chose to protect his political career. He displayed cowardice when a courageous whistleblower sought his help. He was rewarded when he was elected to the Senate in 2004 with the full backing of the Republican Party.
Now, 18 years later, Burr has responded to another great national crisis by once again looking out for his own self-interest while ignoring the interests of the American people.
On February 4, Burr, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, received a briefing about how other countries were dealing with the threat posed by the new coronavirus. As a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, he received another briefing on February 12 from government health experts about the potential impact of an epidemic and whether the U.S. was prepared.
One day later, on February 13, Burr sold 33 stock holdings worth between $628,000 to $1.7 million, according to financial disclosure reports. ProPublica first reported on his stock sales last week. The timing of Burr’s sales allowed him to avoid financial losses when the market later declined in response to the growing Covid-19 threat.
Burr’s stock sales came as President Donald Trump was claiming that the threat of the virus was being hyped by the media and his political opponents.
Publicly, Burr joined Trump and other Republicans in downplaying the threat. But not in private. Last week, NPR obtained a recording of a February 27 talk Burr gave to an exclusive group called the Tar Heel Club, which includes North Carolina political insiders, warning of the potential impact of the virus.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
Before the Trump era of blatant corruption, Burr’s actions would most likely have been career-ending and could have led to criminal prosecution. While lawmakers are allowed to trade in stocks and securities, the STOCK Act, passed in 2012, bans them from exploiting nonpublic information for financial gain.
Burr has claimed that he did nothing wrong and has sought to tamp down public outrage over his actions by asking for the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate. But he shows no sign of being willing to resign from the Senate, and given the highly politicized nature of the Justice Department under Trump and Attorney General William Barr, it seems highly unlikely that he will face criminal prosecution.
In fact, the Washington that existed before Trump — the Washington that would have expressed outrage at Burr’s actions — is gone. In 2016, the Republican Party sold its soul and backed Trump. Once he won the presidency, Republican congressional leaders defended his racism, misogyny, lies, and corruption. Republicans have used their control of the Senate to protect him time and again. As a result, Trump has become convinced that he can do whatever he wants with no real consequences.
It was inevitable that the rest of Washington would eventually follow. Now, three and a half years into his presidency, Trump has created a poisonous new climate in which financial corruption is out in the open and only suckers follow the rules.
In fact, Burr was not the only lawmaker who sought to get out of the market early after receiving privileged government information. Transactions by four other senators — Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California; Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe; and Georgia Republicans David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler — have also come under scrutiny. Loeffler is married to the chair of the New York Stock Exchange, and they jointly sold stock beginning January 24, the day she attended a Senate briefing on Covid-19.
Between January 24 and February 14, Loeffler and her husband sold 27 stocks worth from $1.28 million to $3.1 million, according to her financial disclosure reports. They also bought stock in a company that provides software for teleconferencing, which has done well since so many Americans are now working remotely.
But Burr’s actions seem worse than any of the others’ because of the special position of trust he holds. As chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he is the custodian of many of the government’s most sensitive secrets. This episode inevitably raises questions about whether he may have secretly exploited his post for financial gain in the past as well.


theintercept--2020-03-23--Defense Production Act Needs $75 Billion Infusion in Coronavirus Stimulus, Says Rep. Ro Khanna

Rep. Ro Khanna urged a massive increase in funding for the Defense Production Act .
“ President Trump should be using the DPA to ensure we have enough ventilators and other medical equipment to deal with this crisis , ” said Khanna , a Democrat from California , in a statement to The Intercept .
“ This will take a war time-like response .
Congress should appropriate up to $ 75 billion for this purpose.
” He added , “ We need to give the President the funds to get ventilators and masks in bulk to meet the needs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became the first concrete figure applied to the debate over the Defense Production Act , with demand for personal protective equipment and ventilators threatening to significantly exacerbate the coronavirus crisis .
The legislation gives the president broad powers over supply chains , with the power to force manufacturers to address the nation ’ s pressing needs at prices negotiated using the powers of the federal government .
But the act , as written , is modest , applying caps of $ 50 million to each individual contract and a fund of $ 750 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cap can be waved by the president in an emergency . )
Even so , Trump has resisted using the legislation .
“ We ’ re a country not based on nationalizing our business .
Call a person over in Venezuela , ” Trump told reporters during a press conference on Sunday .
“ How did nationalization of their businesses work out ?
Not too well.
” Trump ’ s concerns have been echoed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ’ s spokesperson John Murphy , who told the New York Times , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for defense industry products with a single supplier , often with purely domestic production chains , and invoking it may do more harm than good in sectors such as pharmaceuticals and medical equipment.
” Lack of access to personal protective equipment has the potential to magnify the scale of the Covid-19 crisis , say health care workers , destabilizing hospitals when demand is highest .
“ Clearly , the nation ’ s health facilities are still not ready and are in even worse shape than before in some respects to handle COVID-19 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nurse and executive director of National Nurses United , in a press release .
“ We need to act now and act fast.
” Recent figures indicate that 9 percent of Italy ’ s total Covid-19 cases are health care workers , contributing to the breakdown of the hospital system in the north of the country .
The federal government ’ s own estimates indicate that we will need , at minimum , 3.5 billion N95 masks , for a cost of $ 7 billion .
Given how little we know about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a position where millions of health care workers need access to their own powered air purifying respirators , the next step up in protection .
At $ 1,800 per , the cost could run to over $ 50 billion .
Finally , ventilators cost between $ 25,000 to $ 50,000 each .
The American Hospital Association has estimated that we need 790,000 additional ventilators , which could cost over $ 40 billion .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , and many others have demanded that Trump begin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the government ’ s response .
But as a $ 1.8 trillion bipartisan coronavirus stimulus bill races toward passage , it is unclear if the legislation will include any firm appropriations for the Defense Production Act .
There is a cap of $ 750 million on the Defense Production Act fund , and orders above $ 50 million must be approved by Congress .
However , Henry Connelly , a spokesperson for Pelosi , said , “ The president can waive [ the $ 50 million ] requirement in a national emergency.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee , said , “ The Appropriations Committee is working on including language and funding in a phase-three bill to support the invocation of the Defense Production Act and ensure that needed medical supplies can be produced and distributed to communities across the country.
” Hollander did not answer questions about exactly how much money was being considered or whether there would be purchase orders for essential supplies in the stimulus .
Likewise , Connelly said , “ Democrats are looking at the full spectrum of means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the delivery of essential medical supplies and protective equipment in this next bill.
” Connelly , too , declined to provide details about the scale that Pelosi would prefer to address the problem .
It is unclear what the scale of funds to be appropriated for essential medical supplies actually is , despite the obvious need .
Some texts of the bill indicate a $ 75 billion block grant for hospitals — which Democrats are seeking to increase — but hospitals purchasing the supplies piecemeal would lead to massive price increases .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current $ 50 million cap on the size of orders in the act gives away substantial bargaining power by the federal government , given that the supplies needed run into the billions of dollars .
“ Congress should compel Trump to waive the cap and compel him to get the supplies we need , ” said Dean Baker , a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research .
“ He doesn ’ t want to do it because companies will make more money if they gouge prices than if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re going to produce these masks or respirators and will pay you the cost plus 10 percent — that ’ s less money for them .
There ’ s no reason why Congress can ’ t put the orders in the legislation .
”

On Sunday, Rep. Ro Khanna urged a massive increase in funding for the Defense Production Act. “President Trump should be using the DPA to ensure we have enough ventilators and other medical equipment to deal with this crisis,” said Khanna, a Democrat from California, in a statement to The Intercept. “This will take a war time-like response. Congress should appropriate up to $75 billion for this purpose.” He added, “We need to give the President the funds to get ventilators and masks in bulk to meet the needs of our time.”
The statement from Khanna became the first concrete figure applied to the debate over the Defense Production Act, with demand for personal protective equipment and ventilators threatening to significantly exacerbate the coronavirus crisis. The legislation gives the president broad powers over supply chains, with the power to force manufacturers to address the nation’s pressing needs at prices negotiated using the powers of the federal government. But the act, as written, is modest, applying caps of $50 million to each individual contract and a fund of $750 million. (The $50 million cap can be waved by the president in an emergency.)
Even so, Trump has resisted using the legislation. “We’re a country not based on nationalizing our business. Call a person over in Venezuela,” Trump told reporters during a press conference on Sunday. “How did nationalization of their businesses work out? Not too well.”
“This will take a war time-like response. Congress should appropriate up to $75 billion for this purpose.”
Trump’s concerns have been echoed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s spokesperson John Murphy, who told the New York Times, “The Defense Production Act was designed for defense industry products with a single supplier, often with purely domestic production chains, and invoking it may do more harm than good in sectors such as pharmaceuticals and medical equipment.”
Lack of access to personal protective equipment has the potential to magnify the scale of the Covid-19 crisis, say health care workers, destabilizing hospitals when demand is highest.
“Clearly, the nation’s health facilities are still not ready and are in even worse shape than before in some respects to handle COVID-19,” said Bonnie Castillo, a registered nurse and executive director of National Nurses United, in a press release. “We need to act now and act fast.” Recent figures indicate that 9 percent of Italy’s total Covid-19 cases are health care workers, contributing to the breakdown of the hospital system in the north of the country.
The federal government’s own estimates indicate that we will need, at minimum, 3.5 billion N95 masks, for a cost of $7 billion. Given how little we know about how Covid-19 is spread, we could be in a position where millions of health care workers need access to their own powered air purifying respirators, the next step up in protection. At $1,800 per, the cost could run to over $50 billion. Finally, ventilators cost between $25,000 to $50,000 each. The American Hospital Association has estimated that we need 790,000 additional ventilators, which could cost over $40 billion.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and many others have demanded that Trump begin to use the act as a cornerstone of the government’s response. But as a $1.8 trillion bipartisan coronavirus stimulus bill races toward passage, it is unclear if the legislation will include any firm appropriations for the Defense Production Act. There is a cap of $750 million on the Defense Production Act fund, and orders above $50 million must be approved by Congress. However, Henry Connelly, a spokesperson for Pelosi, said, “The president can waive [the $50 million] requirement in a national emergency.”
Evan Hollander, a spokesperson for the Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, said, “The Appropriations Committee is working on including language and funding in a phase-three bill to support the invocation of the Defense Production Act and ensure that needed medical supplies can be produced and distributed to communities across the country.” Hollander did not answer questions about exactly how much money was being considered or whether there would be purchase orders for essential supplies in the stimulus.
Likewise, Connelly said, “Democrats are looking at the full spectrum of means to incentivize production and increase and expedite the delivery of essential medical supplies and protective equipment in this next bill.” Connelly, too, declined to provide details about the scale that Pelosi would prefer to address the problem.
It is unclear what the scale of funds to be appropriated for essential medical supplies actually is, despite the obvious need. Some texts of the bill indicate a $75 billion block grant for hospitals — which Democrats are seeking to increase — but hospitals purchasing the supplies piecemeal would lead to massive price increases. While better than hospital-by-hospital purchases, the the current $50 million cap on the size of orders in the act gives away substantial bargaining power by the federal government, given that the supplies needed run into the billions of dollars.
“Congress should compel Trump to waive the cap and compel him to get the supplies we need,” said Dean Baker, a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “He doesn’t want to do it because companies will make more money if they gouge prices than if the government is taking over. You’re going to produce these masks or respirators and will pay you the cost plus 10 percent — that’s less money for them. There’s no reason why Congress can’t put the orders in the legislation.”
Update: March 24, 2020
On Tuesday, House Democrats added $3 billion in funding for the Defense Production Act in their version of the coronavirus stimulus bill.


theintercept--2020-03-23--If Coronavirus Deaths Start Piling Up in Rikers Island Jails, We’ll Know Who to Blame

first positive coronavirus test came in from a person in New York City ’ s custody at its Rikers Island jail complex , following weeks of warnings from doctors and advocates about the devastation the disease could wreak in the filthy , crumbling jails .
The ensuing days would be marked by a stark dichotomy : the thing that did not happen , and the thing that did .
What did not happen was any kind of urgent official response ; the people with the power to significantly reduce the number of sick and elderly people packed into unhygienic jail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What did happen was equally predictable : The virus began infecting jailed people at a furious rate .
What had been one case on Thursday had by Sunday evening ballooned to at least 29 .
We learned of the rising infections not because the city ’ s Department of Correction announced them ; the agency is still notoriously opaque and allergic to public communication , despite the urging of watchdogs and public health officials to do better in light of the health crisis .
The scale of the disease ’ s spread became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Correction , a civilian oversight body , published the number of cases in a letter it sent Saturday reiterating the urgent need to drastically reduce the number of people trapped in the city ’ s jails , where fundamental sanitation remains lacking and social distancing impossible .
Only a day later did the Department of Correction come forward with an updated number .
As the dire predictions of widespread transmission on Rikers lurch inexorably toward realization , the likelihood that many people could die because they were not released becomes clearer .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people directly responsible for those deaths — the people who knew the jails of Rikers Island were a death trap , who had the power to let people out and chose not to — will be very short .
That list includes New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ; New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio ; the five district attorneys of New York City ; and Chief Judge for the State of New York Janet DiFiore .
“ All of the evidence that people need to take bold and decisive action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Justine Olderman , director of the Bronx Defenders , a public defense organization , told The Intercept .
“ These are the people who have the power and the responsibility to make sure that what happens in the next few weeks is not a large-scale humanitarian crisis or widespread devastation and death.
” Cuomo .
According to the Board of Correction , 666 people are being held in New York City jails on technical parole violations , such as missing a curfew , failing a drug test , or failing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of address .
Cuomo could tell the Board of Parole that these issues are better taken up after the mortal danger of confinement in the septic cages of Rikers Island during a plague has passed .
Cuomo hasn ’ t done it .
Another 811 people are in city jails because they were arrested while on parole .
Their release would depend on the agreement of Cuomo ’ s parole board , the district attorney on the case , and the judge responsible that , even for people who have been convicted of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial should not warrant a sentence to death by disease contracted in a crowded jail dorm .
City jails house 551 people convicted of minor crimes that carry sentences of a year or less .
Medical professionals and public defenders have spent weeks calling for de Blasio to release these people using his executive power .
In response , the mayor has insisted on moving very slowly , evaluating each case individually with the New York Police Department .
Why the police , of all agencies , should be involved in determining who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unexplained .
But de Blasio and the cops are determining who among these people convicted of minor crimes is worthy of removal from conditions where they can not protect themselves from fatal disease .
As coronavirus speeds through Rikers , de Blasio is inching his way forward .
Late last week , he announced that , after thorough review , he had identified all of 40 people who might be considered for release should prosecutors approve .
At a press conference Sunday , he added that he would soon begin reviewing a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We ’ re all trying to make sense of a very challenging situation in an appropriate way , ” he said .
“ We are looking at each individual case .
Some of the portrayals of the situation have left out some of the complexity.
” It ’ s actually not that complicated , Rory Lancman , a New York City council member , said in an interview : State law explicitly gives the mayor ’ s correction commissioner power to relocate people serving short sentences in city jails for a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The problem isn ’ t the complexity of the situation , Lancman said , it ’ s de Blasio : “ You combine the mayor ’ s longstanding extreme reluctance to meaningfully reform the criminal justice system with his extreme reluctance to act decisively in the Covid-19 crisis generally , ” Lancman told The Intercept , “ and you end up with hundreds of people sitting on Rikers Island effectively creating a time bomb.
” of people in city jails are those awaiting trial — people who have not been charged but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of events , getting someone in this position out of jail requires an application made in court before a judge .
DiFiore , the chief judge in charge of New York state courts , has mothballed most court operations in recognition of the coronavirus ’ s public health risk .
On the public health risks of crowded dormitory detention without so much as a bar of soap , however , she has been mum .
Her office has issued no directive or guidance to judges to encourage them to facilitate the speedy processing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimate power to decide on defendants ’ applications to be allowed to weather coronavirus at home — allowing them to properly wash themselves and maintain social distancing and then return to court when their trials proceed after courts reopen .
But whether or not prosecutors support the applications also matters a great deal to their success .
Here , too , the degree of disregard is striking .
Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzales has signaled his willingness to cooperate with some of these applications .
So has Bronx District Attorney Darcel Clark .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring them cases one by one , the equivalent of evacuating the Titanic with a handful of one-man lifeboats .
Still , it ’ s more than district attorneys in Manhattan , Queens , and Staten Island are doing .
It remains possible that the blooming epidemic on Rikers Island will not turn into a catastrophe of mass fatalities .
Medical teams are working hard in city jails and , with any luck , they will be able to save lives .
If people do die on Rikers , however , it won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the power to save them were not warned .
“ It ’ s a handful of people : the mayor , the governor , judges , the city DAs , ” said Olderman , of the Bronx Defenders .
“ They could do it if they wanted to .
And they ’ re making a choice .
The death of incarcerated people that is sure to follow is going to be on their hands .
”

On Wednesday, the first positive coronavirus test came in from a person in New York City’s custody at its Rikers Island jail complex, following weeks of warnings from doctors and advocates about the devastation the disease could wreak in the filthy, crumbling jails. The ensuing days would be marked by a stark dichotomy: the thing that did not happen, and the thing that did. What did not happen was any kind of urgent official response; the people with the power to significantly reduce the number of sick and elderly people packed into unhygienic jail dorms didn’t do it. What did happen was equally predictable: The virus began infecting jailed people at a furious rate. What had been one case on Thursday had by Sunday evening ballooned to at least 29.
We learned of the rising infections not because the city’s Department of Correction announced them; the agency is still notoriously opaque and allergic to public communication, despite the urging of watchdogs and public health officials to do better in light of the health crisis. The scale of the disease’s spread became clear Saturday only because the Board of Correction, a civilian oversight body, published the number of cases in a letter it sent Saturday reiterating the urgent need to drastically reduce the number of people trapped in the city’s jails, where fundamental sanitation remains lacking and social distancing impossible. Only a day later did the Department of Correction come forward with an updated number.
“These are the people who have the power and the responsibility to make sure that what happens in the next few weeks is not a large-scale humanitarian crisis or widespread devastation and death.”
As the dire predictions of widespread transmission on Rikers lurch inexorably toward realization, the likelihood that many people could die because they were not released becomes clearer. If that comes to pass, the list of people directly responsible for those deaths — the people who knew the jails of Rikers Island were a death trap, who had the power to let people out and chose not to — will be very short.
That list includes New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo; New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio; the five district attorneys of New York City; and Chief Judge for the State of New York Janet DiFiore.
“All of the evidence that people need to take bold and decisive action has been right in front of us,” Justine Olderman, director of the Bronx Defenders, a public defense organization, told The Intercept. “These are the people who have the power and the responsibility to make sure that what happens in the next few weeks is not a large-scale humanitarian crisis or widespread devastation and death.”
Let’s begin with Cuomo. According to the Board of Correction, 666 people are being held in New York City jails on technical parole violations, such as missing a curfew, failing a drug test, or failing to notify their parole officer of a change of address. Cuomo could tell the Board of Parole that these issues are better taken up after the mortal danger of confinement in the septic cages of Rikers Island during a plague has passed. Cuomo hasn’t done it.
Another 811 people are in city jails because they were arrested while on parole. Their release would depend on the agreement of Cuomo’s parole board, the district attorney on the case, and the judge responsible that, even for people who have been convicted of crimes in the past, arrest without trial should not warrant a sentence to death by disease contracted in a crowded jail dorm.
City jails house 551 people convicted of minor crimes that carry sentences of a year or less. Medical professionals and public defenders have spent weeks calling for de Blasio to release these people using his executive power. In response, the mayor has insisted on moving very slowly, evaluating each case individually with the New York Police Department. Why the police, of all agencies, should be involved in determining who receives a medical release from jail remains unexplained. But de Blasio and the cops are determining who among these people convicted of minor crimes is worthy of removal from conditions where they cannot protect themselves from fatal disease.
As coronavirus speeds through Rikers, de Blasio is inching his way forward. Late last week, he announced that, after thorough review, he had identified all of 40 people who might be considered for release should prosecutors approve. At a press conference Sunday, he added that he would soon begin reviewing a new tranche of 200 candidates for release. “We’re all trying to make sense of a very challenging situation in an appropriate way,” he said. “We are looking at each individual case. Some of the portrayals of the situation have left out some of the complexity.”
It’s actually not that complicated, Rory Lancman, a New York City council member, said in an interview: State law explicitly gives the mayor’s correction commissioner power to relocate people serving short sentences in city jails for a “compelling reason consistent with the public interest.”
The problem isn’t the complexity of the situation, Lancman said, it’s de Blasio: “You combine the mayor’s longstanding extreme reluctance to meaningfully reform the criminal justice system with his extreme reluctance to act decisively in the Covid-19 crisis generally,” Lancman told The Intercept, “and you end up with hundreds of people sitting on Rikers Island effectively creating a time bomb.”
The largest category of people in city jails are those awaiting trial — people who have not been charged but not convicted. In the ordinary course of events, getting someone in this position out of jail requires an application made in court before a judge.
DiFiore, the chief judge in charge of New York state courts, has mothballed most court operations in recognition of the coronavirus’s public health risk. On the public health risks of crowded dormitory detention without so much as a bar of soap, however, she has been mum. Her office has issued no directive or guidance to judges to encourage them to facilitate the speedy processing of these applications.
Judges have the ultimate power to decide on defendants’ applications to be allowed to weather coronavirus at home — allowing them to properly wash themselves and maintain social distancing and then return to court when their trials proceed after courts reopen. But whether or not prosecutors support the applications also matters a great deal to their success.
Here, too, the degree of disregard is sometimes striking. Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance had approved the release of 189 people as of Sunday, Gothamist reported. But the numbers were slimmer for Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzales, who has signaled his willingness to cooperate with some of these applications. So has Bronx District Attorney Darcel Clark. The latter two are relying on public defenders to bring them cases one by one, the equivalent of evacuating the Titanic with a handful of one-man lifeboats. Still, it’s more than district attorneys in Queens, which has only released six people, and Staten Island, where the DA simply won’t answer questions, are doing.
It remains possible that the blooming epidemic on Rikers Island will not turn into a catastrophe of mass fatalities. Medical teams are working hard in city jails and, with any luck, they will be able to save lives. If people do die on Rikers, however, it won’t be because the public officials with the power to save them were not warned.
“It’s a handful of people: the mayor, the governor, judges, the city DAs,” said Olderman, of the Bronx Defenders. “They could do it if they wanted to. And they’re making a choice. The death of incarcerated people that is sure to follow is going to be on their hands.”
Update: March 24, 2020
This story has been updated with additional information about the Manhattan district attorney’s efforts to release people from custody.


theintercept--2020-03-23--Dear Vice President Mike Pence: Please Use the 25th Amendment to Remove Trump and Save Us From the C

Dear Vice President Mike Pence: Please Use the 25th Amendment to Remove Trump and Save Us From the Coronavirus

It ’ s time .
We can ’ t wait any longer .
You need to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution .
You know what it says : “ Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide , transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office , the Vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duties of the office as Acting President.
” The truth of the matter is that President Donald Trump does not have the mental capability to “ discharge the powers and duties of his office.
” Amid an unprecedented political , economic , and public health crisis , the commander-in-chief is unwell — and unfit .
You know this .
On Friday , you were standing next to the president in the White House briefing room when NBC correspondent Peter Alexander asked him what he had to say to Americans who “ are scared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
Trump responded with inexplicable rage , denouncing Alexander as a “ terrible reporter ” for asking a “ nasty ” question , and then mocking the owners of NBC — telecom giant Comcast — as “ Con-cast.
” It was an insane response to the simplest of simple questions , but don ’ t take my word for it .
“ These are psychiatric symptoms , not simply boorish behaviors , ” tweeted John Talmadge , clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center .
“ Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brain impaired .
He can ’ t even recognize a softball tossed his way.
” But you can , Mr. Vice President .
You later went up to the podium and answered Alexander ’ s question : “ I would say , ‘ Do not be afraid to be vigilant.
’ ” You seem to be able to do the job of president that Trump is manifestly unable to do .
You have won praise for your handling of the crisis from senior Democrats like Washington Gov .
Jay Inslee — in stark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out at Inslee and called him a “ snake.
” As the New York Times has also reported , some of your former critics at the state level “ have changed their mind about Mr. Pence , who has given near-daily briefings and , they said , has become a reassuring presence even as Mr. Trump has intermittently tried to retake the stage.
” wrong : I ’ m no fan of you or your far-right politics .
I am well aware of your long history of challenging the science on everything from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But , this time round , you recognize the scale of the problem , the scope of the crisis , the severity of the threat posed by Covid-19 .
The president , bizarrely , inexcusably , outrageously , does not .
He is off in his own demented , fact-free , navel-gazing , alternative universe .
Again , don ’ t take my word for it .
Listen to Bandy X. Lee , clinical professor of psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine .
Trump “ dangerously lacks mental capacity , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through his inability to take in information and advice , to process critical information , or to consider consequences before making impulsive , unstable , and irrational decisions that are not based in reality but fight reality.
” At press conferences , she added , he pushes “ delusional-level distortion and misinformation ” because he is “ disconnected from reality.
” His leadership , she concluded , is “ more harmful than if we had no president.
” This is a president who rambles , rants , and raves ; who spent weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ignoring warnings from his own intelligence agencies ; who claimed to be unaware that Americans who need tests are unable to get them ; who uses press briefings not to inform the public but to regularly attack the press ; who went golfing while health professionals begged for resources and equipment ; who has repeatedly contradicted his own top scientists by pushing unproven drugs as a treatment for Covid-19 ; who tried to buy a vaccine from Germany but only for “ exclusive ” use in the United States ; who took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter and complain about Hillary Clinton ’ s emails and Benghazi .
How is this behavior not utterly unhinged ?
How does it not justify you invoking the 25th Amendment on behalf of the American people , who are being infected by Covid-19 in rapidly increasing numbers ?
Look , I get it .
You ’ re a sycophant .
You ’ re a coward .
You ’ re afraid of standing up to a vicious boss and his cultish supporters .
But ask yourself this : Are you more afraid of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for your own life and the lives of those you love and cherish ?
This past weekend , you and your wife had to get tested for Covid-19 .
It is only a matter of time until someone you care about tests positive or — God forbid — dies from the disease .
In years to come , do you really want to look back on this historic moment and regret not having stepped in , with the clear authority granted to you under the Constitution , to do a better , saner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic than the current occupant of the Oval Office ?
Perhaps you think the supermajority required in both chambers of Congress for you to stay in office if the president resists his removal and formally declares in writing “ that no inability exists , ” makes it impossible for you to successfully invoke the 25th Amendment .
But events are moving fast .
Nothing is predictable anymore .
And , as Adam Gustafson pointed out in the Yale Law & Policy Review in 2008 , under the Section 4 process , “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days of presidential power — four days to advance his own policy goals , to prove himself a capable executive , and to acclimate Congress and the public to his presence in the Oval Office .
By the time Congress is allowed to vote , the deck may already be stacked against the President.
” It is also worth noting that in 2016 , when Trump picked you as his running mate , the New York Times reported that it was because of your “ unimpeachable conservative credentials , warm relationships in Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Christian right.
” If anyone can persuade Republicans in Congress that Trump has to go , that he is mentally unable to perform his presidential duties during this historic crisis , it ’ s you .
Remember : The framers of the 25th Amendment deliberately decided against providing a definition of the “ unable to discharge ” phrase .
However , the late Birch Bayh , the senator from your state of Indiana who sponsored the 25th Amendment , made it clear that it related to mental , as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conceivable , ” Bayh said , “ that a President might be able to walk , for example , and thus , by the definition of some people , might be physically able , but at the same time he might not possess the mental capacity to make a decision and perform the powers and duties of his office.
” Do you really believe that Trump has the “ mental capacity ” to protect millions of Americans from this pandemic ?
A president who tried to prevent dozens of infected Americans on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States because , he admitted , “ I like the numbers being where they are ” ?
Remember also : This is a decision for you to make , based on your own insights and experiences , with or without the assistance of medical professionals .
“ What the framers of the 25th Amendment had in mind was a judgment call by the vice president and by the cabinet , ” John D. Feerick , Fordham School of Law ’ s former dean , told me .
Feerick , who assisted in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointed out that the framers picked the vice president and “ principal officers of the executive departments ” for this task because , as a result of their proximity to the president , they would have the greatest insight into the president ’ s mental health and stability .
As high-level political appointees of the president , they would also have the greatest credibility in the eyes of Congress and the public , and could not be automatically dismissed as political opponents or partisans .
now .
Extreme times call for extreme measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25th Amendment has never before been invoked by a vice president .
But , then again , as you yourself probably realized long ago , no vice president has ever before had to deal with a president like Trump .
Last October , after your boss glibly suggested he might “ destroy and obliterate ” the Turkish economy , Daniel Gilbert , professor of psychology at Harvard University , suggested that the president should be detained and examined .
“ Am I the only psychologist who finds this claim and this threat truly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trigger a mental health hold ?
Right and Left must set aside politics and agree that there is a serious problem here , ” Gilbert tweeted .
A “ serious problem ” is an understatement .
Millions of American lives are at stake .
Yet the American president is out of control , out of touch with reality .
You know it .
I know it .
Anyone with eyes and ears knows it .