THE CASE AGAINST DONALD TRUMP – SIMPLIFIED

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on January 15, 2021.

Let’s start with the basics. The US Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances consisting of three equal branches of government – legislative (Article I), executive (Article II), and judicial (Article III). On January 6, 2021, the head of the executive branch, Donald Trump, incited a mob to attack the legislative branch and then did nothing to stop it. As a result, Congress was unable to perform its constitutional duty, which was to certify the election of the candidate who beat him – President-elect Joe Biden.

That’s an impeachable offense for which the Senate can and should convict Trump and bar him from ever holding federal office again.

The Facts are Undisputed

  • Pre-election polls showed Trump losing decisively to Biden. So months before November 3, Trump launched a pre-emptive attack on the election itself by claiming that he could lose only if it was “rigged.”

  • Trump lost the election by more than seven million popular votes and 74 electoral votes. Continuing his assault on the right of the people to select their president, he refused to concede, claiming falsely that the election had been “stolen” from him. “Stop the Steal” became the rallying cry.

  • Trump and his allies then filed more than 60 unsuccessful court challenges seeking to reverse the outcome of a legitimate election. In none of those cases did any court find any evidence of the widespread fraud that he blamed repeatedly for his loss. Even Trump’s loyal attorney general, William Barr, who went in search of such fraud, found nothing worth pursuing.

  • When the courts and Barr refused to call the election into question, Trump pressured state election officials to overturn the will of 81 million voters who wanted him out of office.

  • As the date for congressional certification of Biden’s win approached, Trump pressured Vice President Mike Pence – as presiding officer of the session – to act unconstitutionally and decline to certify the vote.

  • When Pence refused, Trump spoke for more than an hour to an organized mob of thousands whom he had called to the Capitol on the day of certification for a “Stop the Steal” rally. He continued to lie about the election, saying:
  • “We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.”

  • “We won this election, and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election.”
  • “I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so, because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election… All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people.”

The Law is Clear

  • Impeachable conduct – “Treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors” – encompasses a defeated presidential candidate’s attempted coup d’etat against the legitimate constitutional government of the United States. Constitutional scholars across the political spectrum have echoed Prof. Michael Stokes Parkman’s view: “If Trump’s misconduct is not impeachable, nothing is.”

  • Proof of a crime is not required for impeachment, but Trump probably committed several federal felonies. “Seditious conspiracy” is an agreement by at least two people to hinder the execution of federal law or to seize federal property. The agreement need not be express and can be inferred by willful participation in the unlawful plan with intent to further it. Conviction can lead to imprisonment for up to 20 years. “Inciting rebellion or insurrection” against the authority of the United States can result a 10-year prison term.

  • The felony-murder rule might even apply. In some circumstances, a person who engages in a violent felony can be held responsible for deaths that occur during the course of that crime. For example, suppose two people try to rob a bank and a bank security guard pulls out a gun and kills one robber while the other is waiting in the getaway car. The driver of the getaway car could be held liable for the death of his fellow robber. Trump’s incitement led to five deaths, including the mob’s murder of a Capitol Police officer.

What’s the Defense?

Trump is throwing everything against the wall in the hope that something will stick. Nothing will. His defenders rely principally on the First Amendment, but there is no constitutional right to incite an insurrection. According to the US Supreme Court, the Constitution does not protect conduct that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.”

  • Although Trump claims that his January 6 speech to the mob was “totally appropriate,” it wasn’t, especially in the context of the speeches preceding his. Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, called for “trial by combat.” Donald Trump Jr. told the mob, “If you’re going to be the zero and not the hero, we’re coming for you, and we’re going to have a good time doing it.”

  • Members of the mob were already heading toward the Capitol when Trump himself exhorted them, “We fight like hell. If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore… Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun… We’re going to the Capitol. We’re going to try and give them [Republicans] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country…”

  • But even if Trump’s words and deeds did not meet the Supreme Court’s test, the First Amendment still wouldn’t save him. High-level government officials can be held accountable for their speech in ways that private citizens cannot. As Prof. Ilya Somin notes, “Donald Trump himself has fired numerous cabinet officials and other subordinates because they expressed views he didn’t like.” And for the same reasons that impeachment does not require proof of a president’s criminality, the fact that his speech might not lead to civil or criminal liability is not a defense anyway.

During the House debate on impeachment, some Republicans complained that the process had not involved hearings and witnesses. There was no need. Trump’s impeachable conduct occurred in plain sight. Newspapers and allied governments around the world correctly labeled the attack on the Capitol an attempted coup.

Finally, unlike a criminal proceeding, conviction in the Senate does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The purpose of impeachment is to get a president out of office and then, by subsequent majority vote in the Senate, assure that he never returns.

Saving American Democracy Begins with Truth and Accountability

Most Republicans argue that Trump’s impeachment undermines efforts to unify the country. The opposite is true.

A US president encouraged a mob to attack a co-equal branch of government and then watched the violence unfold for hours on television. But in the eyes of most Republicans, Trump remains blameless. Although 70 percent of the GOP believe that the mob was undermining democracy and must be held accountable, 70 percent also say that the president who incited it is somehow protecting democracy. Even more of them – 87 percent – say that Trump should not be removed from office.

Without accountability for subverting the nation’s political system, unity is impossible. That requires a common understanding and acceptance of facts. America’s body politic cannot heal without first ridding itself of the infection that Trump’s lies have caused. Impeachment is a necessary first step in that cleansing process.

As Trump and his allies dissemble in the days ahead, remember that the vote to impeach him was bipartisan. Ten Republicans, including Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) – the GOP’s No. 3 leader in the House and a reliable Trump defender throughout his presidency, finally broke away from Trump’s spell. On January 12, Rep. Cheney declared:

On January 6, 2021 a violent mob attacked the United States Capitol to obstruct the process of our democracy and stop the counting of presidential electoral votes. This insurrection caused injury, death and destruction in the most sacred space in our Republic. 

“Much more will become clear in coming days and weeks, but what we know now is enough. The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution. 

“I will vote to impeach the President.”

The prosecution rests.

INSURRECTION TIMELINE: FIRST THE COUP AND THEN THE COVER-UP – UPDATED

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on Jan. 13, 2021.

Every minute a damning new fact emerges, and the case against Donald Trump gets stronger. That will continue. Meanwhile, we’ve added a few new bombshell items to the BillMoyers.com Insurrection Timeline. The new items appear with an asterisk (*).

The Department of Defense’s January 8, 2021 initial press release purports to “memorialize the planning and execution timeline” of the deadly insurrection that it calls the “January 6, 2021 First Amendment Protests in Washington, DC.”

[Late in the afternoon on January 11, 2021, the Defense Department changed the title of its January 8 memorandum and reissued it “to more appropriately reflect the characterization of the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6.” The retitled summary is the “January 6, 2021 Violent Attack at the U.S. Capitol.”]

The memo’s minute-by-minute account creates a false illusion of transparency. In truth, its most noteworthy aspects are the omission of Trump’s central role in the insurrection and the effort to shift blame away from Trump and his new Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller.

Who is Christopher Miller?

By November 9, every news organization declared that former Vice President Joe Biden had won the election. On that day, Trump fired Acting Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and replaced him with Miller, an Army retiree who worked for a defense contractor until Trump tapped him as his assistant in 2018. Miller’s promotion began a departmental regime change that embedded three fierce Trump loyalists as top Defense Department officials: Kash Patel (former aide to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA)), retired army Gen. Anthony Tata (pro-Trump Fox News pundit), and Ezra Cohen-Watnick (former assistant to Trump’s first national security adviser, Mike Flynn).

At such a late date in Trump’s presidency, many asked, why the shake-up at the Department of Defense? We may be learning the answer.

Prior to the Attack

The department’s January 8, 2021 memo ignores Trump’s central role in igniting and then encouraging the January 6 insurrection. In fact, the only reference to Trump appears in a January 3 entry when Miller and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Milley meet with him and he concurs in activation of the DC National Guard “to support law enforcement.”

Other than that, Trump is conspicuously absent, along with the most important parts of the story. In the date and time entries that follow, only those in italics and preceded with “(DoD Memo)” summarize items from the Defense Department’s January 8 memorandum. The memo ignores every other fact set forth in this post.

Dec. 19, 2020: Trump tweets: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

Jan. 3, 2021: Replying to a tweet from one of the rally organizers, Trump tweets: “I will be there. Historic day.”

Jan. 4: The National Park Service increases the crowd estimate on the January 6 rally permit to 30,000 – up from the original 5,000 in December.

*Jan. 5: Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) receives a call from White House Political Director Brian Jack asking him to speak at the “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6. Brooks agrees.

January 6, 2021

8:17 a.m.: Trump tweets: “States want to correct their votes, which they now know were based on irregularities and fraud, plus corrupt process never received legislative approval. All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!”

Noon: Trump begins to address the mob and continues speaking for more than 90 minutes.

  • “We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.”
  • “We won this election, and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election.”
  • “I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so, because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election… All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people.”

1:00 p.m.: While Trump continues his rant to the mob, some members of Trump’s crowd have already reached the US Capitol building where Congress assembles in joint session to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory. An initial wave of protesters storms the outer barricade west of the Capitol building. As the congressional proceedings begin, Pence reads a letter saying that he won’t intervene in Congress’s electoral count: “My oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority.”

1:11 p.m.:  Trump ends his speech by urging his followers to march down Pennsylvania Avenue:“We fight like hell. If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore… Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun… We’re going to the Capitol. We’re going to try and give them [Republicans] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.”

The Attack

If the District of Columbia were a state, its governor alone could have deployed the National Guard to crush the riot. Instead, Trump and his Defense Department had that responsibility, and an unprecedent assault on a sacred institution of government succeeded, if only for a few hours.

(DoD Memo) 1:26 p.m.: The Capitol Police orders the evacuation of the Capitol complex.

1:30 p.m.: The crowd outside the building grows larger, eventually overtaking the Capitol Police and making its way up the Capitol steps. Suspicious packages – later confirmed to be pipe bombs – are found at Republican National Committee headquarters and Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington.

(DoD Memo) 1:34 p.m.: DC Mayor Muriel Bowser asks Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy – who reports to Miller – for more federal help to deal with the mob.

Bowser is told that the request must first come from the Capitol Police.

(DoD Memo) 1:49 p.m.: The Capitol Police chief asks the commanding general of the DC National Guard for immediate assistance.

*Also at 1:49 p.m.: Trump retweets a video of the rally, which includes his previous statements that: “our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you came up with, we will stop the steal. . . You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”

*Shortly after 2:00 p.m.: While the senators are in a temporary holding room after the Senate chamber is evacuated, Trump tries to call Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), but mistakenly reaches Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), who hands the phone to Tuberville. Trump then tries to convince Tuberville to make additional objections to the Electoral College vote in an effort to block Congress’ certification of Biden’s win. The call is cut off because senators are asked to move to a secure location.

2:15 p.m.: Trump’s mob breaches the Capitol building – breaking windows, climbing inside, and opening doors for others to follow.

(DoD Memo) 2:22 p.m.: Army Secretary McCarthy discusses the situation at the Capitol with Mayor Bowser and her staff.

They are begging for additional National Guard assistance. Note the time. It’s been almost an hour since Bowser requested help.

2:24 p.m.: Trump tweets: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”

After erecting a gallows on the Capitol grounds, the mob shouts, “Hang Mike Pence.” Rioters create another noose from a camera cord seized during an attack on an on-site news team.

2:26 p.m.: Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund  joins a conference call with several officials from the DC government, as well as officials from the Pentagon, including Lt. Gen. Walter E. Piatt, director of the Army Staff. Piatt later issues a statement denying the statements attributed to him.

“I am making an urgent, urgent immediate request for National Guard assistance,” Sund says. “I have got to get boots on the ground.”

The DC contingent is flabbergasted when Piatt says that he could not recommend that his boss, Army Secretary McCarthy, approve the request. “I don’t like the visual of the National Guard standing a police line with the Capitol in the background,” Piatt says. Again and again, Sund says that the situation is dire.

(Memo) 2:30 p.m.: Miller, Army Secretary McCarthy, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff meet to discuss Mayor Bowser’s request.

(Memo) 3:04 p.m.: Miller gives “verbal approval” to full mobilization of the DC National Guard (1,100 members).

It has now been more than 90 minutes since Mayor Bowser first asked Army Secretary McCarthy for assistance. It took an hour for Defense Department officials to meet and another half-hour for them to decide to help. And Bowser still doesn’t know the status of her request.

(Memo) 3:19 p.m.: Pelosi and Schumer call Army Secretary McCarthy, who says that Bowser’s request has now been approved.

(Memo) 3:26 p.m.: Army Secretary McCarthy calls Bowser to tell her that her request for help has been approved.

The Defense Department’s notification of approval to Bowser came two hours after her request.

While Miller and his team were slow-walking Mayor Bowser’s request, she had sought National Guard assistance from Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (D) and Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (R). At about the same time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called Northam directly for help and he agreed.

3:29 p.m.: Gov. Northam announces mobilization of Virginia’s National Guard. But there’s a hitch. Federal law requires Defense Department authorization before any state’s National Guard can cross the state border onto federal land in DC. That approval doesn’t come until almost two hours later.

(Memo) 3:47 p.m. Governor Hogan mobilizes his state’s National Guard and 200 state troopers.

The Defense Department “repeatedly denies” Hogan’s request to deploy the National Guard at the Capitol. As he awaits approval, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) callsHogan from the undisclosed bunker to which he, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have been evacuated. Hoyer pleads for assistance, saying that the Capitol Police is overwhelmed and there is no federal law enforcement presence.

4:17 p.m.: Trump tweets a video telling rioters, “I know your pain, I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side… It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us — from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil.”

(Memo) 4:18 p.m.: Miller gives voice approval to notifying surrounding states to muster and be prepared to mobilize their National Guard personnel.

(Memo) 4:32 p.m.: Miller gives verbal authorization to “re-mission” DC National Guard from city posts where most have been directing traffic and monitoring subway stations “to conduct perimeter and clearance operations” in support of the Capitol Police force. 

4:40 p.m.: More than 90 minutes after Governor Hogan had requested federal approval to send his state’s National Guard troops to DC, Army Secretary McCarthy calls and asks, “Can you come as soon as possible?” Hogan responds, “Yeah. We’ve been waiting. We’re ready.”

5:40 p.m.: The first DC National Guard personnel arrive at the Capitol.

(Memo) 5:45 p.m.: Miller signs formal authorization for out-of-state National Guard personnel to muster and gives voice approval for deployment to support the Capitol Police.

The first Maryland National Guard personnel don’t arrive at the Capitol until January 7 at 10:00 a.m. The first Virginia National Guard members arrive at Noon.

6:01 p.m.: Trump tweets: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”

*7:00 p.m.: Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, intends to call Sen. Tuberville but, like Trump five hours earlier, he reaches Sen. Lee. Unaware that he has reached the wrong number, Giuliani leaves a voicemail message saying, “Sen. Tuberville? Or I should say Coach Tuberville. This is Rudy Giuliani, the President’s lawyer. I’m calling you because I want to discuss with you how they’re trying to rush this hearing and how we need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down so we can get these legislatures to get more information to you. I know they’re reconvening at 8 tonight, but it … the only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow — ideally until the end of tomorrow.”

When Congress resumes the session at 8:06 p.m., Tuberville votes in favor of objections to certifying Biden’s election.

(Memo) 8:00 p.m.: The DC Capitol Police declare the Capitol building secure.

The Aftermath of the Attack

8:31 p.m.: After widespread media reports that Pence, not Trump, had actually given the order to deploy the National Guard, Kash Patel – Miller’s chief of staff and former top aide to Rep. Nunes – tells the New York Times, “The acting secretary and the president have spoken multiple times this week about the request for National Guard personnel in D.C. During these conversations, the president conveyed to the acting secretary that he should take any necessary steps to support civilian law enforcement requests in securing the Capitol and federal buildings.”

But according to the Defense Department’s January 8 memo, the only such conversation with Trump occurred on January 3.

Jan. 7: Trump releases a video in which he lies, saying, “I immediately deployed the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders.” Defense Department officials confirm that they did not speak to Trump on January 6.

Jan. 8: Trump tweets: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

Shortly thereafter, he tweets again: “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Jan. 9: Twitter issues a statement saying that it has banned Trump because his “statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate… and encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a ‘safe’ target, as he will not be attending.”

Twitter’s statement continues, “The use of the words ‘American Patriots’ to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol. The mention of his supporters having a ‘GIANT VOICE long into the future’ and that ‘They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!’ is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an ‘orderly transition’ and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.”

The statement concludes: “Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.”

*Jan. 12: Preparing to board Marine One for Andrews Air Force Base en route to a speech in Alamo, Texas, Trump says, “And on the impeachment, it’s really a continuation of the greatest witch hunt in the history of politics.  It’s ridiculous.  It’s absolutely ridiculous. This impeachment is causing tremendous anger, and you’re doing it, and it’s really a terrible thing that they’re doing.  For Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to continue on this path, I think it’s causing tremendous danger to our country and it’s causing tremendous anger.”

*Also on Jan. 12: As he prepares to board Air Force One, Trump says, “So if you read my speech — and many people have done it, and I’ve seen it both in the papers and in the media, on television — it’s been analyzed, and people thought that what I said was totally appropriate.

And if you look at what other people have said — politicians at a high level — about the riots during the summer, the horrible riots in Portland and Seattle, in various other — other places, that was a real problem — what they said. But they’ve analyzed my speech and words and my final paragraph, my final sentence, and everybody, to the T, thought it was totally appropriate.”

*Also on Jan. 12: Speaking to his Texas audience, Trump says, “Before we begin, I’d like to say that free speech is under assault like never before. The 25th Amendment is of zero risk to me but will come back to haunt Joe Biden and the Biden administration. As the expression goes: Be careful what you wish for.  The impeachment hoax is a continuation of the greatest and most vicious witch hunt in the history of our country, and it is causing tremendous anger and division and pain — far greater than most people will ever understand, which is very dangerous for the USA, especially at this very tender time.”

*Also on Jan. 12: The House Judiciary Committee issues a 76-page report of the events before, during and after the January riot that culminated in the deaths of five Americans, including a US Capitol Police officer. It concludes, “President Trump has falsely asserted he won the 2020 presidential election and repeatedly sought to overturn the results of the election. As his efforts failed again and again, President Trump continued a parallel course of conduct that foreseeably resulted in the imminent lawless actions of his supporters, who attacked the Capitol and the Congress. This course of conduct, viewed within the context of his past actions and other attempts to subvert the presidential election, demonstrate that President Trump remains a clear and present danger to the Constitution and our democracy.” 

*Jan. 13: As the article of impeachment and House Report head to the House floor for a vote, CNN reports that members of Congress, under pressure from Trump, are “scared” and “fear for their lives and their families.” Appearing on MSNBC, Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) says, “I had a lot of conversations with my Republican colleagues. … A couple of them broke down in tears … saying that they are afraid for their lives if they vote for this impeachment.”

The fight to save American democracy is now down to a single defining question:

Which side are you on?

INSURRECTION TIMELINE: FIRST THE COUP AND THEN THE COVER-UP

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on January 11, 2021.

The Department of Defense’s January 8, 2021 press release purports to “memorialize the planning and execution timeline” of the deadly insurrection that it calls the January 6, 2021 First Amendment Protests in Washington, DC.”

The memo’s minute-by-minute account creates a false illusion of transparency. In truth, its most noteworthy aspects are the omission of Trump’s central role in the insurrection and the effort to shift blame away from Trump and his new Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller.

Who is Christopher Miller?

By November 9, every news organization declared that former Vice President Joe Biden had won the election. On that day, Trump fired Acting Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and replaced him with Miller, an Army retiree who worked for a defense contractor until Trump tapped him as his assistant in 2018. Miller’s promotion began a departmental regime change that embedded three fierce Trump loyalists as top Defense Department officials: Kash Patel (former aide to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA)), retired army Gen. Anthony Tata (pro-Trump Fox News pundit) and Ezra Cohen-Watnick (former assistant to Trump’s first national security adviser, Mike Flynn).

At such a late date in Trump’s presidency, many asked why the shake-up at the Department of Defense? We may be learning the answer.

Prior to the Attack

The department’s January 8, 2021 memo ignores Trump’s central role in igniting and then encouraging the January 6 insurrection. In fact, the only reference to Trump appears in a January 3 entry, when Miller and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Milley meet with him and he concurs in activation of the DC National Guard “to support law enforcement.”

Other than that, Trump is conspicuously absent, along with the most important parts of the story. In the date and time entries that follow, only those in italics and preceded with “(DoD Memo)” summarize items from the Defense Department’s January 8 memorandum. The memo ignores every other fact set forth in this post.

Dec. 19, 2020: Trump tweets: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

Jan. 3, 2021: Replying to a tweet from one of the rally organizers, Trump tweets: “I will be there. Historic day.”

Jan. 4: The National Park Service increases the crowd estimate on the January 6 rally permit to 30,000 — up from the original 5,000 in December.

January 6, 2021:

8:17 a.m.: Trump tweets: “States want to correct their votes, which they now know were based on irregularities and fraud, plus corrupt process never received legislative approval. All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!”

Noon: Trump begins to address the mob and continues speaking for more than 90 minutes.

  • “We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.”
  • “We won this election, and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election.”
  • “I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so, because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people.”

1:00 p.m.: While Trump continues his rant to the mob, some members of Trump’s crowd have already reached the US Capitol Building where Congress assembles in joint session to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory. An initial wave of protesters storms the outer barricade west of the Capitol Building. As the congressional proceedings begin, Pence reads a letter saying that he won’t intervene in Congress’s electoral count: “My oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority.”

1:10 p.m.: Trump ends his speech by urging his followers to march down Pennsylvania Avenue. “We’re going to the Capitol. We’re going to try and give them [Republicans] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country…If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

The Attack

If the District of Columbia were a state, its governor alone could have deployed the National Guard to crush the riot. Instead, Trump and his Defense Department had that responsibility, and an unprecedented assault on a sacred institution of government succeeded, if only for a few hours.

(DoD Memo) 1:26 p.m.: The Capitol Police orders the evacuation of the Capitol complex.

1:30 p.m.: The crowd outside the building grows larger, eventually overtaking the Capitol Police and making its way up the Capitol steps. Suspicious packages — later confirmed to be pipe bombs — are found at Republican National Committee headquarters and Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington.

(DoD Memo) 1:34 p.m.: DC Mayor Muriel Bowser 

 Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy— who reports to Miller — for more federal help to deal with the mob.

Bowser is told that the request must first come from the Capitol Police.

(DoD Memo) 1:49 p.m.: The Capitol Police chief asks the commanding general of the DC National Guard for immediate assistance.

2:15 p.m.: Trump’s mob breaches the Capitol building – breaking windows, climbing inside and opening doors for others to follow.

(DoD Memo) 2:22 p.m.: Army Secretary McCarthy discusses the situation at the Capitol with Mayor Bowser and her staff.

They are begging for additional National Guard assistance. Note the time. It’s been almost an hour since Bowser requested help.

2:24 p.m.: Trump tweets: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”

After erecting a gallows on the Capitol grounds, the mob shouts, “Hang Mike Pence.” Rioters create another noose from a camera cord seized during an attack on an onsite news team.

2:26 p.m.: Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund joins a conference call with several officials from the DC government, as well as officials from the Pentagon, including Lt. Gen. Walter E. Piatt, director of the Army Staff. Piatt later issues a statement denying the statements attributed to him.

“I am making an urgent, urgent immediate request for National Guard assistance,” Sund says. “I have got to get boots on the ground.” 

The DC contingent is flabbergasted when Piatt says that he could not recommend that his boss, Army Secretary McCarthy, approve the request. “I don’t like the visual of the National Guard standing a police line with the Capitol in the background,” Piatt says. Again and again, Sund says that the situation is dire.

(DoD Memo) 2:30 p.m.: Miller, Army Secretary McCarthy and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff meet to discuss Mayor Bowser’s request.

(DoD Memo) 3:04 p.m.: Miller gives “verbal approval” to full mobilization of the DC National Guard (1,100 members).

It has now been more than 90 minutes since Mayor Bowser first asked Army Secretary McCarthy for assistance. It took an hour for Defense Department officials to meet and another half hour for them to decide to help. And Bowser still doesn’t know the status of her request.

(DoD Memo) 3:19 p.m.: Pelosi and Schumer call Army Secretary McCarthy, who says that Bowser’s request has now been approved.

(DoD Memo) 3:26 p.m.: Army Secretary McCarthy calls Bowser to tell her that her request for help has been approved.

The Defense Department’s notification of approval to Bowser came two hours after her request.

While Miller and his team were slow-walking Mayor Bowser’s request, she had sought National Guard assistance from Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (D) and Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (R). At about the same time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called Northam directly for help and he agreed.

3:29 p.m.: Gov. Northam announces mobilization of Virginia’s National Guard. But there’s a hitch. Federal law requires Defense Department authorization before any state’s National Guard can cross the state border onto federal land in DC. That approval doesn’t come until almost two hours later.

(DoD Memo) 3:47 p.m. Governor Hogan mobilizes his state’s National Guard and 200 state troopers

The Defense Department “repeatedly denies” Hogan’s request to deploy the National Guard at the Capitol. As he awaits approval, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) calls Hogan from the undisclosed bunker to which he, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have been evacuated. Hoyer pleads for assistance, saying that the Capitol Police is overwhelmed and there is no federal law enforcement presence.

4:17 p.m.: Trump tweets a video telling rioters, “I know your pain, I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side…It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us — from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil.”

(DoD Memo) 4:18 p.m.: Miller gives voice approval notifying surrounding states to muster and be prepared to mobilize their National Guard personnel.

(DoD Memo) 4:32 p.m.: Miller gives verbal authorization to “re-mission” DC National Guard from city posts where most have been directing traffic and monitoring subway stations “to conduct perimeter and clearance operations” in support of the Capitol Police force. 

4:40 p.m.: More than 90 minutes after Governor Hogan had requested federal approval to send his state’s National Guard troops to DC, Army Secretary McCarthy calls and asks, “Can you come as soon as possible?” Hogan responds, “Yeah. We’ve been waiting. We’re ready.”

 5:40 p.m.: The first DC National Guard personnel arrive at the Capitol.

(DoD Memo) 5:45 p.m.: Miller signs formal authorization for out-of-state National Guard personnel to muster and gives voice approval for deployment to support the Capitol Police.

The first Maryland National Guard personnel don’t arrive at the Capitol until January 7 at 10:00 a.m. The first Virginia National Guard members arrive at noon.

6:01 p.m.: Trump tweets: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”

(DoD Memo) 8:00 p.m.: The DC Capitol Police declare the Capitol Building secure.

The Aftermath of the Attack

8:31 p.m.: After widespread media reports that Pence, not Trump, had actually given the order to deploy the National Guard, Kash Patel — Miller’s chief of staff and former top aide to Rep. Nunes — tells the New York Times, “The acting secretary and the president have spoken multiple times this week about the request for National Guard personnel in D.C. During these conversations, the president conveyed to the acting secretary that he should take any necessary steps to support civilian law enforcement requests in securing the Capitol and federal buildings.” 

But according to the Defense Department’s January 8 memo, the only such conversation with Trump occurred on January 3.

 Jan. 7: Trump releases a video in which he lies, saying, “I immediately deployed the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders.” Defense Department officials confirm that they did not speak to Trump on January 6.

Jan. 8: Trump tweets: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

Shortly thereafter, he tweets again: “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Jan. 8: Twitter issues a statement saying that it has banned Trump because his “statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate…and encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a ‘safe’ target, as he will not be attending.”

Twitter’s statement continues, “The use of the words ‘American Patriots’ to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol. The mention of his supporters having a ‘GIANT VOICE long into the future’ and that ‘They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!’ is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an ‘orderly transition’ and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.” 

The statement concludes: “Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.”

Understand what is happening. The US Department of Defense is reframing an attack on the Capitol and attempted coup as a “First Amendment Protest.” That benign label isn’t just a dog whistle. It’s a megaphone that blesses a violent insurrection, disguising it as the exercising of a constitutional right. 

Another cover-up is underway. Another false narrative is in the works. And another agency of the federal government has revealed that Trump has co-opted it.

The fight to save American democracy is now down to a single defining question:

Which side are you on?

[Note: Late in the afternoon on January 11, 2021, the Defense Department changed the title of its January 8 memorandum and reissued it “to more appropriately reflect the characterization of the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6.” The new title is “Planning and Execution Timeline for the National Guard’s Involvement in the January 6, 2021 Violent Attack at the U.S. Capitol”]

INCITING INSURRECTION: It Wasn’t Just Trump

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on January 9. 2021.

“Trump Incites Mob.”

The headline in Thursday morning’s New York Times – echoed in major newspapers around the world – got it only half right.

A sitting president incited a mob to attack a co-equal branch of government. The failed coup killed five people, including a US Capitol Police officer. More than 50 DC Metropolitan Police officers suffered injuries.

Trump is now the focus of public attention, but he’s not the only enemy within. The Capitol Police arrested only 14 of the hundreds of people at the scene. To put that paltry number in context, at the nonviolent climate change protests in 2018, there were more arrests than that. Even a cursory investigation of the numerous “coincidental” security failures on January 6 suggests the makings of another Trump scandal.

  • Trump now claims that he deployed the National Guard “immediately.” That’s a lie.
  • Officers were filmed taking selfies with rioters and appearing to help them move back barricades and open doors.
  • As three protesters were looking for the office of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), a Capitol Police officer tried to direct them.

As bad as those scenes are, the sordid truth behind them is almost certainly worse.

Now Trump’s devoted allies who spent years helping him sell lies, stir anger, and sow division feign shock and outrage at the cumulative consequences of their actions. Many are lawyers who twice took oaths to defend the US Constitution – first as attorneys entering the bar and then as elected representatives entrusted with the solemn function of governing.

The hypocrisy is stunning.

The Ambitious Dead-Enders

Trump lost 61 out of 62 court cases challenging the election results. Recycling his baseless claims as objections to congressional certification of the Electoral College outcome – even after his mob had overrun both houses of Congress – 139 members of the House’s GOP caucus voted to disenfranchise voters in one or more states.

That’s 65 percent of the House Republicans.

In the Senate, Texas’s Ted Cruz (JD, Harvard ‘95) and Missouri’s Josh Hawley (JD, Yale ‘06) led another six Republicans in the same futile act. In addition to Cruz and Hawley, three are lawyers: Louisiana Senator John Kennedy (UVA ’77), Wyoming’s Cynthia Lummis(JD, Wyoming ’85), and Florida’s Rick Scott (JD, SMU ‘78). The non-lawyers were Sens. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Roger Marshall (R-KS). and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL).

An equally culpable group is trying belatedly to salvage what’s left of their legacies. Going into the certification vote, six more senators had signaled their intention to join at least one objection. Among them, Tennessee’s Bill Haggerty is a lawyer. (JD, Vanderbilt, ’84). The others are not: Ron Johnson (R-WI), James Lankford (R-OK), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Mike Braun (R-IN), and Kelly Loeffler (R-GA). After the siege of the Capitol, these six reversed course and voted to certify Biden’s win.

Along with the date – January 6, 2021 – all of their names will live in infamy.

The Too-Late Revisionists

After years of enabling Trump’s excesses – or being complicit by their silence – a larger group now proclaims that Trump has gone too far down a road that they helped him pave. Here’s just a small sample of that rogue’s gallery.

Vice President Mike Pence (JD, Indiana University ’86)

Jan. 2, 2021: Four days before the mob invaded the Capitol building, Pence issued a statement embracing Republican objections to the certification of Biden’s win: “Vice President Pence shares the concerns of millions of Americans about voter fraud and irregularities in the last election. The Vice President welcomes the efforts of members of the House and Senate to use the authority they have under the law to raise objections and bring forward evidence before the Congress and the American people on January 6th.”

But after rioters forced his evacuation from the Senate chamber, Pence changed his tune.

Jan. 6, 2021: “The violence and destruction taking place at the US Capitol Must Stop and it Must Stop Now. Anyone involved must respect Law Enforcement officers and immediately leave the building,” Pence tweeted. He vowed to prosecute those involved “to the fullest extent of the law.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (JD, Kentucky, ’67)

Nov. 9, 2020: Every major news organization had declared Biden the winner, but McConnell went to the Senate floor and refused to acknowledge his victory. “This process will reach its resolution,” he said.

Dec. 15, 2020: McConnell finally acknowledged President-elect Joe Biden’s win – afterRussian President Vladimir Putin did.

But weeks of refusing to recognize Biden’s win had resulted in a “process” reaching a “resolution” that McConnell did not like and could not change – the fracturing of the GOP.

Jan. 6, 2021: McConnell voted in favor of certifying Biden’s win, saying, “We cannot simply declare ourselves a national board of elections on steroids. We’ll either hasten down a poisonous path where only the winners of an election actually accept the results or show we can still muster the patriotic courage that our forebears showed, not only in victory, but in defeat.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (JD, Harvard, ’94)

Nov. 10, 2020: When a reporter asked Pompeo about transition planning and the implications for national security, he said, “There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.” Alluding to Trump’s baseless claims of widespread fraud, he added, “The world is watching what’s taking place. We’re going to count all the votes… When the process is complete, there will be electors selected. There’s a process.”

But when the “process” morphed into an attack on the Capitol, Pompeo suddenly saw that his connection to Trump might now compromise his own presidential prospects in 2024.

Jan. 6, 2021: “The storming of the U.S. Capitol today is unacceptable. Lawlessness and rioting — here or around the world — is always unacceptable,” Pompeo tweeted. “Let us swiftly bring justice to the criminals who engaged in this rioting.”

Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham (JD, South Carolina, ’81)

Mid-November 2020: As states were certifying Biden’s victory, Graham made curious phone calls to election officials in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada – all of which Trump had lost.

Dec. 14, 2020: Graham finally acknowledged Biden’s victory.

But it was too late to stop Trump’s runaway train, so Graham jumped off.

Jan. 6, 2021: Explaining his vote to confirm electoral votes in favor Biden – after the Capitol had cleared away the mob and cleaned away the resulting damage – Graham said, “Trump and I, we’ve had a hell of a journey. I hate it to end this way. Oh my God, I hate it. From my point of view he’s been a consequential president. But today, first thing you’ll see. All I can say, is count me out, enough is enough.”

Former Attorney General William Barr (JD, George Washington ’77)

From his first days as attorney general, Barr acted as Trump’s personal attorney rather than the people’s attorney in charge of the United States Department of Justice. As the election approached, he parroted Trump’s “rigged election” narrative.

June to September 2020: For months prior to the election, Barr repeated Trump’s lies that mail-in voting was rife with fraud. But at a House Judiciary Committee hearing in July, he admitted that only “common sense” to support his claims – no evidence. In September, he complained about states making mail-in voting easier due to the pandemic, saying, “People trying to change the rules to this, to this methodology – which, as a matter of logic is very open to fraud and coercion — is reckless and dangerous and people are playing with fire.”

When it became clear that Barr had been holding one of the matches, he backpedaled.

Dec. 1, 2020: Contradicting Trump publicly, Barr said that federal authorities had uncovered no widespread election fraud on a scale that would have changed the outcome.

Jan. 6, 2021: “From former Attorney General Bill Barr: ‘The violence at the Capitol Building is outrageous and despicable. Federal agencies should move immediately to disperse it,’” Barr’s former Justice Department spokesperson tweeted.

Jan. 7, 2021: In a statement to the Associated Press, Barr said that Trump’s conduct was a “betrayal of his office and supporters… orchestrating a mob to pressure Congress is inexcusable.”

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone (JD, University of Chicago, ’91)

Jan. 21, 2020: During Trump’s impeachment proceedings, Cipollone failed to recognize that the White House counsel’s client is the office of the presidency, not Trump personally. During the Senate trial, he was caught lying repeatedly on Trump’s behalf.

But now Cipollone has bigger problems.

Jan. 6, 2021: A West Wing staffer told a friend that “White House Counsel Pat Cipollone is urging White House officials not to speak to Trump or enable his coup attempt in any way, so they could reduce the chance they could be prosecuted for treason under the Sedition Act. ‘They’re being told to stay away from Trump,’ the friend said,” according to Vanity Fair’s Gabriel Sherman. “Cipollone’s purported concern that Trump was committing treason – a federal crime….” The White House declined to comment.

Jan. 8, 2021: Sources ”familiar with his thinking” tell CNN that Cipollone was considering resigning. A “source close to Cipollone” was already trying to rewrite his legacy: “He’s there out of a sense of duty. Pat is a true public servant dedicated to the rule of law and his country.”

Or perhaps Cipollone realized that if he drafts Trump’s self-pardon, he’ll risk being drawn into a criminal conspiracy.

The Rest

The list of 13th-hour conversions of Trump’s most loyal backers goes on and on. All of these bad actors on Trump’s behalf are the sum of their decisions for years. They put allegiance to Trump ahead of duty to country. They infected the body politic with his lies. And they offered false soundbites to feed a hungry and sometimes complicit media.

In the final days of a seditious presidency, the consequences burst into public view. Now those enablers pretend that Trump’s brazen attack on yet another fundamental American institution is surprising. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao (McConnell’s wife) and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos resigned in protest. The Wall Street Journal editorial board called on Trump to resign to avoid a second impeachment. But they and their fellow Trump loyalists over the last four years cannot rewrite their legacies by criticizing or leaving his administration a few days before it ends.

That’s why simply “moving on” from Trump and his accomplices is not an option. The United States must demonstrate to the world that even an American president is not above the law. The country has a chance to cleanse itself only by learning the depth and breadth of Trump’s four-year assault on democracy and the rule of law.

The siege of the Capitol may be the most dramatic chapter in the Trump tragedy so far, but it’s not the whole story. The culpability of those who have been complicit for years must be revealed, even if America’s only recourse to their wrongdoing is sunlight.

In our democracy – now more than ever – it’s an essential disinfectant.

TRUMP’S COUP

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on Jan. 4, 2021.

The attack on American democracy is an inside job. Trump’s one-hour rant directed at Georgia officials who have certified President elect Joe Biden’s win isn’t an isolated event. It’s just one front in a battle to make Trump king. The scary part is that he has a lot of people helping him.

The tape of Trump’s conversation on Saturday, January 2, is akin to listening to a delusional mob boss. Let’s put it in context.

Trump Lost the Election

Biden won in a landslide – by seven million popular votes and 74 electoral votes. To change the Electoral College outcome, Trump needed to win at least three swing states that he lost. In 60 cases that he and his allies subsequently filed challenging the results in those states, he lost all but one insignificant lawsuit in Pennsylvania. (That case related to a state-ordered deadline extension for submitting personal identification for mailed-in ballots.) In that sole Trump victory, there was no claim of voter fraud and the affected ballots had no impact on the outcome. Biden won Pennsylvania by more than 80,000 votes.

There are no facts to the contrary. None.

Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, and Christopher Krebs, the person who led the federal government’s efforts to secure the election, confirmed that there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud or cheating. Trump fired Krebs. Barr resigned.

There are no facts to the contrary. None.

Trump Lost Georgia

Biden won Georgia. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who voted for Trump, had the ballots counted three times, including once by hand. Trump then lost every lawsuit that he and his allies filed to challenge the outcome. His final margin of defeat was 11,779 votes.

There are no facts to the contrary. None.

So after pushing false conspiracy theories that every court rejected, Trump told Raffensperger on Saturday to reverse the will of Georgia voters:

“I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.”

But Trump’s demand came with a threat.

“You know, and I watched you this morning and you said, uh, well, there was no criminality.  But I mean, all of this stuff is very dangerous stuff. When you talk about no criminality, I think it’s very dangerous for you to say that.”

You watched me? Dangerous to tell the truth? Raffensperger has previously reported threats to himself and his family.

Trump has been down this road before – calling election officials in Michigan and summoning Pennsylvania state legislators to the White House while his ally, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), made curious phone calls to election officials in Georgia and Nevada. None of that worked either.

Trump Has Ambitious Enablers

Now Trump is seeking anything that might aid the futile publicity stunt that more than 140 Republican members of the House are planning for January 6. That’s when Congress will convene to recognize officially President-elect Joe Biden’s victory. In every election for the last 150 years, it has been a non-event. Notwithstanding the oath that every member of Congress takes to uphold the US Constitution, Trump’s congressional enablers plan to turn the proceeding into a dangerous, anti-democratic circus.

The Trump infection in the House has spread to the Senate where Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) was the first to declare his support for what promises to be the most undemocratic spectacle in the history of that body. Hawley knows better. He attended a private boys’ prep school in Kansas City, graduated from Stanford University in 2002, and got his law degree from Yale in 2006. He clerked for Chief Justice John Roberts and served as an appellate litigator at one of the world’s biggest law firms, Hogan & Hartson (now Hogan Lovells). Before winning his Senate seat in 2018, he was Missouri’s attorney general.

Not willing to cede Trump’s base of support for a future presidential run to Hawley, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) corralled 10 Republican senators to join him in the farce. He knows better too. Cruz attended private high school, graduated from Princeton University in 1992, and got his law degree from Harvard in 1995. He clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and then served as Texas solicitor general, arguing cases in the US Supreme Court.

As of this writing, the Hawley-Cruz group comprises a “Dirty Dozen” for which Vice President Mike Pence has provided his stamp of approval. Pence has his eye on Trump’s anti-democratic base of support too and will perform the ceremonial role of Congress’ presiding officer when all electoral votes opened, cast, and counted on January 6.

Whenever the Republican nonsense ends, Pence will declare Biden the winner. He has no choice. On January 20, Trump will leave office. The US Constitution sets that non-negotiable date.

So What’s Trump’s Plan B?

In the race to the bottom, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) – one of the 140 House Republicans spearheading Trump’s drive to autocracy – complained about his federal appellate court loss Saturday. His lawsuit sought to give Pence the power to throw out the election results and keep Trump in power. Rather than respect the judicial outcome, he told Newsmax that it was time to take to the streets:

“The bottom line is the court is saying, ‘We’re not going to touch this. You have no remedy. Essentially, the ruling would be ‘You have to go to the streets and be as violent as antifa, BLM.’”

Facing the reality of becoming just another citizen with overwhelming legal and financial problems on Inauguration Day, Trump was encouraging supporters to follow Gohmert’s suggestion long before he made it.

“Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” he tweeted on December 19.

On Sunday, January 3, Trump tweeted again: “I will be there. Historic day!”

So will Proud Boys – the far-right white chauvinists linked to violence at other Trump rallies. But their chairman says they may attend “incognito” and wearing “all black” – mimicking the antifa protesters with whom they frequently clash. An organizer for Proud Boys posted a video saying,

“We will be blending in as one of you. You won’t see us. You’ll even think we are you. We are going to smell like you, move like you, and look like you. The only thing we’ll do that’s us is think like us! Jan 6th is gonna be epic.”

Trump’s gambit to remain in office will fail. The final outcome of his effort to burn down the house of democracy on his way out the door is less certain. He has ignited a fire that cannot easily be contained.

Who Says 74 Million People Can’t Be Wrong?

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on Dec. 8, 2020.

President-elect Joe Biden won a landslide victory. Because of the time required to count the unprecedented number of mail-in ballots, it has taken weeks for the magnitude of his win to become apparent. But with a commanding lead of more than seven million votes and counting, he has already achieved the second highest percentage margin of victory since Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole in 1996. Biden won the Electoral College vote by a margin of 306 to 232.

Yet a November 13-17 Reuters/Ipsos poll revealed that 52 percent of Republicans said that Trump had “rightfully won,” compared to only 29 percent who said Biden had. Even now — early December — 88 percent of congressional Republicans refuse to say who won the election. Two of them — Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) — say incorrectly that Trump won.

That’s the “Trump effect” on democracy. 

As the election results have become clearer, Trump has added to his already stunning post-presidential legal exposure by trying systematically to interfere with the election and reverse his loss. As with many of his most brazen anti-democratic actions, he has proceeded loudly and in plain sight.

And I’m not referring solely to his ongoing false claims of systematic voter fraud that even his loyal attorney general, William Barr, has debunked. Or to the dozens of frivolous lawsuits that Trump and his GOP allies have filed and lost: To date, his post-election litigation record consists of one inconsequential win in Pennsylvania and 47 losses in courts across the country.

No, I’m referring to Trump personally pressuring specific officials to reverse the results in swing states that he lost. He is urging them to ignore the voice of the people who voted him out of office, as well as the judges who have upheld that result. Many of those officials are Republicans who voted for Trump, and his scorched-earth rhetoric has now endangered the lives of some of them.

Arizona

Nov. 17: After suffering a series of litigation losses in Arizona, Trump’s loyal ally, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), admits that he called Gov. Doug Ducey (R) recently to discuss his concerns with mail-in voting. 

Nov 30: Seven seconds into Gov. Doug Ducey’s (R) public signing ceremony for the certification of Biden’s election victory in Arizona, Trump calls him. Ducey ignores the call, and it goes to voicemail as the ceremony continues. Trump then posts an angry tweet attacking Ducey. 

Georgia

Nov. 13: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)) calls Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who is in charge of certifying Biden’s win in Georgia. Raffensperger says he was stunned that Graham appeared to suggest that he find a way to toss legally cast ballots.

Nov. 16: Appearing on CNN, Raffensperger confirms that Graham’s call seemed directed at rejecting legally cast ballots. “It sure looked like he was wanting to go down that road,” Raffensperger says. He explains that Graham had asked whether he could check signatures on mail-in ballots during Georgia’s recount and use a high frequency of mismatches to justify throwing away mail-in ballots in certain counties. He took Graham’s comments as “an implication of look hard and see how many ballots you could throw out.

Graham denies that he suggested that Raffensperger toss legal ballots, calling that characterization “ridiculous.” Responding to Graham’s denial, Raffensperger points out that Trump’s lawsuit, filed the same day, sought to use a similar tactic to stop the inclusion of absentee ballots in the state.

Nov. 20: In recent days and in the midst of a hand recount of the votes, Raffensperger and his wife have been receiving death threats, including a text to him that reads: “You better not botch this recount. Your life depends on it.” But he certifies Biden’s election victory, and Gov. Brian Kemp (R) certifies the state’s slate of electors for Biden.

Dec. 5: After losing another statewide recount that Trump had requested after Raffensperger’s certification, Trump calls Kemp, urging the governor to persuade the state legislature to overturn the result. Kemp declines Trump’s request.

Michigan

Nov. 17: Two Republican election officials on the Wayne County canvassing board refuse to vote in favor of a routine certification of the popular vote in the county that Biden won by more than 300,000 votes, thereby deadlocking the board. Trump then tweets praise for the outcome. But later that evening, those officials reverse their decisions and vote to certify the result. Trump calls one of the officials to express gratitude for her support.

Nov. 18: Within 24 hours of Trump’s call, the two Republicans on the Wayne County canvassing board announce that they are rescinding their votes to certify the election results. But the ploy fails because no decertification process exists.

Nov. 19-20: Some Trump loyalists float the far-fetched idea that GOP-controlled state legislatures could ignore the popular vote and appoint a slate of Electoral College electors favorable to Trump. In an effort to actualize that plan, Trump invites GOP leaders in Michigan’s Republican-controlled legislature to the White House. After meeting with Trump the next day, the Michigan leaders say that Biden’s victory remains intact, having won the state by more than 150,000 votes.

Nevada

Nov. 17: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says that he called an election official in Nevada to discuss his concerns with mail-in voting, but can’t recall whom. Arizona’s secretary of state, who is responsible for administering and certifying elections, tweets that Graham hadn’t spoken with her.

Pennsylvania

Nov. 24: Pennsylvania certifies election results that give Biden a victory margin of more than 80,000 votes in the state.

Nov. 25: After losing lawsuits aimed at reversing Biden’s win, Trump summons several Republican state legislators to the White House.

Dec. 3: More than 60 GOP Pennsylvania House members and seven GOP senators send a letter to every member of Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation, asking them to “object, and vote to sustain such objection, to the Electoral College votes received from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

Imagine What Might Have Been

On November 15, after Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger and his wife began receiving death threats on their personal phones, Raffensperger published an op-ed that included this passage:

“By all accounts, Georgia had a wildly successful and smooth election. We finally defeated voting lines and put behind us Fulton County’s now notorious reputation for disastrous elections. This should be something for Georgians to celebrate, whether their favored presidential candidate won or lost. For those wondering, mine lost — my family voted for him, donated to him and are now being thrown under the bus by him.”

The new movie, Mank, depicts episodes in the life of Herman Mankiewicz, who wrote the screenplay for Orson Wells’ classic film, Citizen Kane. It includes a 1934 party at William Randolph Hearst’s mansion where someone glibly dismisses Hitler’s rise to power in Germany, musing, “Forty million Germans can’t be wrong.”

Well, they were.

Raffensperger was one of 74 million people who voted for Trump. 

The Pandemic Worsens, Dr. Atlas Shrugs and Biden Acts

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on Nov. 11, 2020.

The coronavirus did not stop for the election. It intensified. COVID-19 deaths in America now exceed 235,000 and are increasing at the rate of a 9/11 attack every three days. But help is on the horizon.

On November 9, President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. named 13 experts to his Transition COVID-19 Advisory Board. He did not include Dr. Scott Atlas. That omission alone could save thousands of lives.

For months, Dr. Atlas — a radiologist with no experience or training in infectious diseases or public health — has been the most influential voice on Trump’s coronavirus task force. Three days before the election, he gave a 28-minute television interview to Russia’s propaganda network. Once again, he pushed Trump’s dangerous falsehoods that placed winning re-election ahead of public health.

RT, formerly known as Russia Today, is an international television and digital news network financed by the Russian government. It was a central player in Russia’s campaign to help Trump win the 2016 election. A registered foreign agent, RT America continues to promote Russian propaganda aimed at influencing US public opinion, policy and laws. Both Facebook and Twitter have labeled RT as controlled by the Russian state.

The RT interviewer’s first question to Dr. Atlas referred to the “Democrat-leaning mainstream media.”

Dr. Atlas and the COVID Hospital Crisis

Oct. 31: As RT interviews Dr. Atlas, COVID-19 hospitalizations are surging. Across the country, including Idaho, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin, medical resources are stretched and strained. An emergency notification system warns Utah residents that hospitals were “nearly overwhelmed.”

Speaking from the White House, Dr. Atlas tells RT: “We have no real problem, although occasionally there’s a hospital that’s overcrowded…We haven’t had a problem like that.”

Nov. 2: Hospital leaders warn that Iowa had entered a COVID-19 “danger zone.”

Nov. 4: Minnesota issues a “red alert” based on the demand for ICU beds.

Dr. Atlas and Face Masks

Sept. 16: CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield tells Congress, “We have clear scientific evidence they work, and they are our best defense. I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine.”

Oct. 31: In his RT interview, Dr. Atlas complains that Twitter deleted his tweet challenging the efficacy of face masks. “[The] Constitution is under threat,” he says, defending his tweet.

“If they can delete a senior adviser on the White House Coronavirus Task Force, then that’s obviously quite something,” the interviewer responds with delight.

Nov. 4: At a White House gathering that includes several hundred supporters, no social distancing and few face masks, Trump falsely declares that he won re-election. Among those present is Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows, who routinely shuns face masks and isn’t wearing one.

Nov. 6: Meadows tests positive for COVID-19. Five other White House aides and a campaign adviser have also tested positive in the days before and after the election.

Nov. 9: After experiencing symptoms, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson, who also attended Trump November 4 gathering at the White House, tests positive for COVID-19.

Dr. Atlas and “Herd Immunity”

Oct. 31: In his RT interview, Dr. Atlas goes on to say, “The country is off the rails because there’s this hysteria that has been fueled by the faces of public health expertise here that have been not only wrong, but more interested, I believe, in their own public stature than anything else.”

He reiterates his view that the best way to deal with the pandemic aligns with the Great Barrington Declaration, which endorses so-called herd immunity: reopening society while trying to protect high-risk individuals. But even the RT interviewer interjects that the World Health Organization rejects the Great Barrington Declaration.

Dr. Atlas and Trump’s False Talking Points

Oct. 31: Dr. Atlas parrots Trump’s false claim that President Obama’s administration had left the country unprepared for a pandemic. He fails to note that Trump disbanded the pandemic response team. He doesn’t mention that Trump eliminated the position held by an American epidemiologist who was embedded in China’s disease control agency and whose job was to train “Chinese field epidemiologists…deployed to the epicenters of outbreaks to help track, investigate, and contain diseases.” And he ignores the fact that Trump disregarded the pandemic “Playbook” — that was its title — that the Obama administration had created for a COVID-19-type pandemic.

Dr. Atlas also repeats Trump’s absurd claim that America could have done worse, citing a March estimate that more than two million Americans could have died from COVID-19. But he doesn’t mention that the estimate was a warning to governments and individuals of what would happen if they did nothing to control the pandemic.

The RT interviewer asks Dr. Atlas why, for example, South Korea — an advanced democracy that confirmed its first COVID-19 diagnosis on the same day as the US — suffered only about 460 deaths from the coronavirus while the US had more than 230,000. He responds that it was “treacherous ground” to compare countries’ experiences with the coronavirus.

It is treacherous indeed — for Trump. The US accounts for 20 percent of the world’s COVID-19 cases and deaths but has only four percent of the world’s population. In fact, among 150 nations, the US has the world’s eleventh highest death rate. According to the Columbia University National Center for Disaster Preparedness, the US suffered between 130,000 and 210,000 avoidable deaths.

Dr. Atlas and Dr. Fauci

Oct. 31: Later on the same day that RT publishes Dr. Atlas’ interview, the Washington Post publishes an interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert whom Trump sidelined. Citing current infection trends, he warns, “We’re in for a whole lot of hurt. It’s not a good situation.”

Dr. Fauci laments that Dr. Atlas is the only medical person with whom Trump meets personally on a regular basis. “I have real problems with that guy. He’s a smart guy who’s talking about things that I believe he doesn’t have any real insight or knowledge or experience in. He keeps talking about things that when you dissect it out and parse it out, it doesn’t make any sense.”

Nov. 1: Dr. Atlas apologizes for doing the RT interview. Claiming not to know that RT America is a registered foreign agent of the Russian state, he tweets regret “for allowing himself to be taken advantage of.” But he shows no remorse for statements that epidemiologists and public health experts have condemned as dangerous.

Dr. Atlas and Irony

During his interview, Dr. Atlas railed against those who refuse to accept facts that contradict what they want to believe. He lambasted people unable to admit that they’re wrong. But when asked about Dr. Fauci’s comment that Dr. Atlas is an outlier on epidemiological and public health issues relating to the pandemic, he said, “I’m proud to be an outlier, especially when the ‘in-liers’ are completely wrong…I’m not afraid to be a contrarian because I know I’m right.”

Willing to let others die on his lonely hill of intellectual certainty, Dr. Atlas boasted of his “25 years of medical science experience at the highest levels of academic medicine” — a reference to his position as a professor and neuroradiologist at the Stanford University Medical Center from 1998 to 2012 and current affiliation as a senior fellow at its Hoover Institution. Stanford might want to do something about that.

A large group of Stanford Medical School’s doctors and researchers has already tried. They published an open letter criticizing Dr. Atlas for spreading what they characterize as “falsehoods and misrepresentations of science” relating to the coronavirus.

After the inauguration, President Biden can add government employees, including undoubtedly Dr. Fauci, to what will then become the new White House Coronavirus Task Force. But until then, the nation is at the mercy of Trump and Dr. Atlas. By that time, America could be suffering COVID-19 deaths equivalent to a 9-11 attack every single day.

The Pandemic Election: Combatting Chaos

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on Oct. 27, 2020.

When Trump leaves office, he will lose the US Department of Justice as his personal law firm. He will lose Attorney General William Barr as his wingman. And he will lose his power to undermine the rule of law. That’s the prism through which to view all of his re-election efforts.

In fact, the moment that Trump is no longer president, he’ll face potential criminal charges:

  • He is “Individual-1” in the federal case against Michael Cohen involving hush-money payoffs to porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign.
  • He is at the center of obstruction of justice crimes outlined in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, which noted specifically that “a President does not have immunity [from prosecution] after he leaves office.”
  • The Trump Organization is the subject of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.’s investigation into potential financial crimes and insurance fraud.

Trump is also a defendant in several civil cases that threaten him financially:

  • The New York attorney general is probing whether the Trump Organization overvalued real estate to get bank loans and tax breaks. The Internal Revenue Services is interested in his federal income tax returns.
  • State attorneys general and hotel and restaurant operators are pursuing claims that Trump abused the presidency for personal financial gain.
  • E. Jean Carroll is suing Trump for monetary damages after he publicly denied her rape allegations and allegedly damaged her reputation. In another defamation case, Summer Zervos, a former contestant on “The Apprentice,” claims that Trump sexually assaulted her.

So when Trump declares at rallies and in tweets that the election is rigged, remember that he’s using every lever at his disposal to rig the election himself. But Americans can resist his assault on democracy. Among every citizen’s most potent weapons is this: forewarned is forearmed.

Suppress the Vote

Mail-in Voting

High turnout is Trump’s mortal electoral enemy. To lessen the impact of the pandemic, many states have expanded access to mail-in voting. Trump and his Republican allies have been working tirelessly to undermine those efforts.

June 15: A Trump political hack, Louis DeJoy, becomes postmaster general and immediately implements changes that slow mail delivery, including prohibiting overtime, reducing the number of automated sorting machines, and removing numerous mail collection boxes. In July, on-time delivery of first-class mail, which includes election ballots, plunges from 90 percent to below 80 percent.

June to Present: Without any evidence, Trump claims more than 100 times that mail-in ballots will lead to massive voter fraud and a rigged 2020 election. Attorney General William Barr echoes those false claims.

July to Present: The Trump campaign and the Republican party file lawsuits in Iowa, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and the Navajo Nation in Arizona seeking to block those states’ programs that make mail-in voting easier. Trump and the GOP also intervene to help defend Ohio’s Republican secretary of state against a lawsuit challenging his reduction in ballot drop box sites to just one per county, thereby making voting more difficult. In Texas, Trump loyalist Gov. Greg Abbott has ordered a similar reduction.

Many of Trump’s strategies are playing out in the critical battleground state of Pennsylvania, which Trump won in 2016 by only 44,000 votes out of six million cast. This time, the Democrats’ mail-in advantage is more than 1 million ballots. So the Trump campaign has tried to halt the use of ballot drop boxes altogether, used cell phone cameras to monitor voters picking up and completing mail-in ballots, and surveilled voters in Philadelphia — a Democratic stronghold — by videotaping ballot drop boxes.

Mail-in voters have a remedy: Follow all instructions carefully and submit ballots promptly. Time is running short, so explore alternatives in your state here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/how-to-vote-2020/.

Suppress In-Person Voting

Trump is enlisting an “army” to intimidate Democrats during early voting and on Election Day.

Aug. 20: Trump repeats his persistent lie that the election would be rife with fraud and says that he wants “sheriffs and law enforcement” at the polls. Trying to recruit 50,000 volunteers in 15 contested states to monitor polling places, he tweets, “Volunteer to Be a Trump Election Poll Watcher,” including a link to the “ArmyforTrump.com” website.

Sept. 8: At a rally in North Carolina on September 8, Trump tells the crowd, “Be poll watchers when you go there. Watch all the thieving and stealing and robbing they do. Because this is important. We win North Carolina, we win.”

Sept. 29: In the first presidential debate, Trump says, “I am encouraging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully, because that’s what has to happen — I am urging them to do it.”

In-person voters have a remedy: Any attempt to “intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right” of another person to vote is a federal crime and violates similar laws in most states. If you see something, say something to one of these organizations:

  • Election Protection Hotline: 1-866-OUR-VOTE or 1-888-VE-Y-VOTA (en Español)
  • US Department of Justice Voting Rights Hotline: 800-253-3931; TTY line 877-267-8971
  • Local and state officials, including poll workers, county clerks, elections commissioners, and state boards of elections

Deceive the Public

In 2016, almost 139 million people voted. As of October 26, 2020, more than 40 million voters had already mailed in their completed ballots. When election night ends, millions of mail-in ballots will not yet have been counted.

Because Democrats’ requests for mail-in ballots vastly outnumbered requests from Republicans, most of those uncounted votes will be for former Vice President Joe Biden. That means Trump could be ahead on election night based on reported in-person and partial mail-in vote totals. He might declare himself the winner, even though Biden had won a landslide victory based on the mail-in votes not yet tallied.

There’s nothing new about this post-Election Day “Blue Shift.” “On election night in 2012, Barack Obama trailed Mitt Romney by some 30,000 votes at the moment Mr. Obama was projected to win his re-election bid,” The New York Times editorial board reminded us recently. “By the time the votes were tallied, Mr. Obama had five million more votes than Mr. Romney.”

In 2018, the phenomenon was even more pronounced. As polling places closed and states reported vote totals, the anticipated “Blue Wave” for Democrats in Congress seemed absent. The party’s net gain in the House was only 26 seats. But by the time all mail-in votes were counted a few weeks later, the Democrats had flipped 41 seats.

Litigate the Outcome

“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court,” Trump said of the election when he nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett in September. “And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices….” Trump thinks Justice Barrett will be his voter suppression ally. Soon we’ll find out.

In Pennsylvania, the Republican party sued and lost its effort to block the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s order extending the deadline to receive mail-in ballots by three days. The GOP’s appeal to the US Supreme Court resulted in a 4-4 tie — with Chief Justice John Roberts joining liberal members of the Court, so the three-day extension remained. But on the Friday evening before Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s scheduled confirmation vote in the Senate, Republicans asked the Court to take another look at the case — and do it quickly. And it asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to order that any ballots received after 8:00 pm on Election Day be kept separate from other ballots.

In addition to Pennsylvania, more than a dozen other lawsuits in key battleground states are already in the US Supreme Court’s pipeline, including cases involving Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas. Biden could win by sufficiently large margins that litigation becomes irrelevant to his Electoral College victory. But if he doesn’t, the resulting court fights — coupled with Trump’s incendiary tweetstorms and post-election rallies — could make the 2000 contest for Florida culminating in Bush v. Gore look quaint.

Of course, Trump could win the election fair and square. But he and his enablers know that’s unlikely. Nothing else explains their behavior. For example, five members of Vice President Mike Pence’s staff, including his chief of staff and his longtime political adviser, recently tested positive for COVID-19. But rather than follow CDC guidelines to quarantine for 14 days, Pence is campaigning in battleground states. Apparently, the White House regards spreading the coronavirus as essential work.

The Election Will End, Eventually

On October 25, Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows told CNN, “We are not going to control the pandemic.” Even if Trump were not surrendering the country to COVID-19, it would still be around on January 20, 2021—when Chief Justice Roberts inaugurates the winner of the Pandemic Election. The US Constitution sets that date and, regardless of whatever chaos envelops the nation after November 3, it is immutable.

Read all installments of Steven Harper’s Pandemic Timeline.

Pandemic Timeline: America’s Dangerous Doctor

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on Oct. 23, 2029.

Dr. Scott Atlas is a radiologist and senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He has no expertise in infectious diseases, epidemiology or public health. But Dr. Atlas does say the things that Trump wants to hear. So now he is a leading voice on the White House Coronavirus Task Force.

Dr. Atlas and Testing

Widespread testing for COVID-19 is essential to containing the pandemic. That’s because pre-symptomatic individuals can transmit the virus to others and because 40 percent of infected individuals may never experience symptoms but can still be contagious.

June 20 – 22: At his rally in Tulsa, Trump says, “When you do testing to that extent, you’re going to find more people; you’re going to find more cases. So I said to my people, slow the testing down please.” Immediately the medical community flags his remarks as both absurd and antithetical to any COVID-19 containment strategy. So to limit the damage, his advisers claim that he was, of course, just kidding. Trump responds, “I don’t kid, let me just tell you, let me make it clear.”

July 13: Asked about America’s disproportionately large number of COVID-19 infections, Trump doubles down, “We test more than anybody, by far. And when you test, you create cases. So we’ve created cases.”

Throughout July: Dr. Atlas is informally advising the White House after Trump sees him on Fox echoing Trump’s views on the need to reopen schools and railing against the “frenzy” of mass testing.

Aug. 3:  Appearing on Fox News, Dr. Atlas says, contrary to all evidence, that “people are kidding themselves” about the value of testing individuals who don’t have symptoms. 

Aug. 10: Trump introduces Dr. Atlas as the newest member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force.

Aug. 24: The Centers for Disease Prevention and Control quietly revises its online guidance to reduce COVID-19 testing for individuals with recent exposure to COVID-19 but who do not exhibit symptoms.

Aug. 26: CNN reports that individuals at the top levels of the Trump administration pushed for the CDC’S change in guidance: “It’s coming from the top down.” According to The New York Times, “[T]he shift came as a directive to the Atlanta-based CDC from higher-ups in Washington at the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services.”Likewise, ABC News reports that people in the trenches are horrified by the CDC’s revised testing guidance because it gives the impression that asymptomatic people cannot transmit the disease, whereas the universal view of the scientific community is that asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals are driving community spread.

Sept. 9: A group of 78 researchers and doctors from Stanford Medical School publishes an open letter criticizing Dr. Atlas for spreading what they characterize as “falsehoods and misrepresentations of science” relating to the coronavirus.

Sept. 16 – 17: Dr. Atlas’ lawyer — who represented Trump personally in the Russia investigation and other matters — threatens to sue the Stanford researchers and doctors who signed the September 9 letter. In response, more than 100 Stanford doctors, scientists, public health experts and faculty members send a letter to Dr. Atlas’ legal team, saying that such threats will not intimidate or silence them.

Sept. 18: The CDC reverses itself in response to universal backlash from medical and public health organizations, including the American Medical AssociationAssociation of American Medical CollegesInfectious Diseases Society of America, and American Academy of Pediatrics. Revising its guidance again, the CDC urges, “Due to the significance of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, this guidance further reinforces the need to test asymptomatic persons, including close contacts of a person with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Dr. Atlas and Face Masks

Face masks are effective in mitigating the spread of COVID-19.

Sept. 16: Testifying before Congress, CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield says, “We have clear scientific evidence they work, and they are our best defense. I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine.” 

Oct. 17: Dr. Atlas tweets, “Masks work? NO…—” followed by a series of misrepresentations about the science behind the effectiveness of masks in combating the pandemic,” reports CNN.

Oct. 18: Twitter removes Dr. Atlas’ tweet denigrating face masks because it violates the platform’s COVID-19 Misleading Information Policy, which prohibits sharing false or misleading content related to COVID-19 that could lead to harm.

Oct. 18: Appearing on CBS’ 60 Minutes, Dr. Anthony Fauci discusses the use of face masks: “The benefit of masks has been supported by evidence that, under certain conditions, the virus can travel more than the six feet suggested by social distancing guidelines. Tiny, aerosolized droplets can float, like cigarette smoke, across a room. Over time, without good ventilation, they can build up and pose a risk of infection. Research shows a mask can reduce that risk.”

Dr. Atlas and “Herd Immunity”

The “Great Barrington Declaration” calls for allowing the coronavirus to spread naturally to achieve so-called “herd immunity” — the theoretical point at which enough people have been infected to stall transmission in the community. The declaration urges that those who are not vulnerable, such as younger Americans, should resume normal activities, while those who are at high risk protect themselves from infection. But it offers no method for implementation, and it would produce a disastrous surge in COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, unknown long-term side effects and perhaps as many as one million American deaths.

Oct. 5: The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration meet with Dr. Atlas and Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar. In a subsequent email to The Hill, Dr. Atlas says that he supports the declaration, saying, “Their targeted protection of the vulnerable and opening schools and society policy matches the policy of the President and what I have advised.”

Oct. 15: Eighty doctors, public-health professionals and medical researchers co-sign a public letter warning that the so-called herd-immunity approach is a dangerous fallacy. By Oct. 18, more than 2,000 colleagues add their signatures to the letter as a show of support.

Also on Oct. 15: Appearing on Fox, Dr. Atlas touts the Great Barrington Declaration, saying, “We just had a declaration written and the thrust of the declaration is exactly aligned with the president, that is opening schools, opening society, and protecting the high-risk people, the seniors.”

Also on Oct. 15: Dr. Fauci condemns the strategy of herd immunity: “If you let infections rip as it were and say, ‘Let everybody get infected that’s going to be able to get infected and then we’ll have herd immunity.’ Quite frankly that is nonsense, and anybody who knows anything about epidemiology will tell you that that is nonsense and very dangerous.” 

He goes on to explain that the Great Barrington Declaration “assumes people who are vulnerable to serious illnesses live in facilities like nursing homes where they can be protected, but “that doesn’t work.” Dr. Fauci notes that “roughly one-third of the population is prone to developing serious side effects from COVID-19,” including the elderly, the obese and those with underlying health conditions, and not all of those people live in institutional facilities. “By the time you get to herd immunity, you will have killed a lot of people that would’ve been avoidable,” he said.

Dr. Fauci adds that Dr. Redfield and Dr. Deborah Birx, the Trump administration’s coronavirus task force coordinator, share his view. “All three of us are very clearly against that,” he says.

Also on Oct. 15: Appearing on CNN, the head of the World Health Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit confirms, “Herd immunity as an approach by letting the virus circulate is dangerous, it leads to unnecessary cases and it leads to unnecessary deaths.”

Oct. 19: On a phone call with his re-election campaign staff that also includes reporters, Trump blasts Dr. Fauci. “People are tired of hearing Fauci and all these idiots — these people, these people that have gotten it wrong,” Trump says. “If I listened to him, we’d have 500,000 deaths,” and then adds seconds later, “If we listened to him, we’d have 700-800,000 deaths right now…And yet, we keep him…Every time he goes on television, there’s always a bomb, but there’s a bigger bomb if you fire him.” Then Trump issues two tweets attacking Dr. Fauci, one of which refers to his errant first pitch at the Washington Nationals’ opening day baseball game.

Trump’s earlier attacks are the reason that, since April, Dr. Fauci has needed an armed security detail as protection from Trump supporters who are threatening him and his family.

The Trump-Atlas Strategy

Dr. Atlas has aided and abetted Trump efforts to confuse the public and discredit the nation’s leading infectious disease and public health experts. Minimal testing, no face masks and an ethically dubious and impractical effort to achieve herd immunity is not a strategy for combatting COVID-19. It’s a plan for unconditional surrender.

Read all installments of Steven Harper’s Pandemic Timeline.

Trump’s COVID-19 Coverup and The Cleveland Clinic

The Cleveland Clinic boasted that co-hosting the first presidential debate along with Case Western Reserve University was an honor for both institutions and the city. As the health security adviser to the Commission on Presidential Debates, it publicized protocols to protect everyone at their site on the Health Education Campus and at subsequent debates. It knew those protocols would also protect members of the public with whom all attendees would later come into contact.

Then the Cleveland Clinic failed to follow its own rules, and Donald Trump’s COVID-19 cover up began.

The Rules

The Clinic required all attendees to obtain a negative COVID-19 PCR test — the most reliable diagnostic tool — within 72 hours of the debate on September 29. It also required all audience members to wear masks. Neither rule should have been controversial.

After all, on July 14, Trump called himself “probably the most tested person in the world.” On July 21, press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said that he was tested for COVID-19 “multiple times a day.” Likewise, for months the nation’s top medical and scientific experts have urged the public to use face masks, especially in large indoor gatherings.

The Trump Outbreak Timeline

The typical incubation period between exposure to the coronavirus and the onset of COVID-19 symptoms is five to six days. During the six days prior to Trump’s first symptoms on October 1, all of the individuals in bold had close contact with him and subsequently tested positive for the disease on or before October 7.

Sept. 25: Trump and Ronna McDaniel, chair of the Republican National Committee, mingled with the RNC leadership team at the Trump International Hotel in Washington DC. McDaniel returned to her home in Michigan and, a few days later, became ill. 

Sept. 25: Trump traveled aboard Air Force One with Hope Hicks and others to a rally in Newport News, Virginia, where the audience did not wear face masks or maintain social distancing.

Sept. 26: Trump held what Dr. Anthony Fauci later called a “super-spreader event in the White House” for his new US Supreme Court nominee. There were few facemasks in the crowd, which did not maintain social distancing at either the private indoor reception or the larger outdoor gathering in the Rose Garden. Among the participants later testing positive for COVID-19 were Trump’s wife MelaniaSen. Thom Tillis (R-NC)Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), former Gov. Chris Christie(R-NJ), University of Notre Dame President John Jenkins, KayleighMcEnany, three of McEnany’s aides (Chad GilmartinKaroline Leavitt and Jalen Drummond), former counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway, megachurch pastor Greg Laurie and New York Times photojournalist Al Drago.

Also on Sept. 26: TrumpHicksMcEnany and others took Air Force One to a rally in Middletown, Pennsylvania. Few in the audience wore face masks and there was no social distancing.

Sept. 27TrumpMelaniaMcEnany and US Coast Guard Admiral Charles Ray attended a reception for Gold Star families in the White House. Most attendees did not wear face masks or maintain social distancing.

Sept. 27 – 29: For several hours, Trump and his advisers met in the White House in preparation for the first presidential debate. At various times, participants who later tested positive for COVID-19 were HicksConwayStephen Miller, Christie and campaign manager Bill Stepien. No one wore face masks and participants did not maintain social distancing.

The Debate Debacle

Sept. 29: Trump, Melania, HicksMiller and Stepien flew with others aboard Air Force One to Cleveland. But the entourage arrived too late for COVID-19 testing that the Cleveland Clinic required. So the Clinic relied on assurances from the campaign that Trump and others had satisfied the requirement. Debate moderator Chris Wallace later said, “There was an honor system when it came to the people that came into the hall from the two campaigns.”

After entering the debate hall, Trump family members and chief of staff Mark Meadows then removed their face masks. A Cleveland Clinic doctor wearing a white lab coat approached Trump’s group to ask that they put them on, but she was waved off. When the doctor walked off the floor, a debate hall staffer told her, “That’s all you can do.”

The Coverup

Sept. 30: McDaniel tested positive for COVID-19. That evening, Hicks began to feel ill after attending a Trump fundraiser and rally in Minnesota.

Oct. 1: Hicks tested positive for COVID-19, but the White House kept her diagnosis quiet. Trump continued on to a fundraiser at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, where he held an indoor roundtable for about 20 big donors and an outdoor event including 200 people.

That evening, Bloomberg broke the story that Hicks had tested positive for COVID-19. Two hours later, Trump confirmed her diagnosis on Fox News without mentioning that he too had already tested positive. Nor did anyone inform former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign.

As the virus spread throughout the White House, Trump asked an adviser not to disclose the results of their own positive test. “Don’t tell anyone,” he said. By October 7, at least 34 White House staff members and other individuals who had been in close contact with Trump between September 25 and October 1 tested positive for COVID-19.

Oct. 5: Reporters asked Trump’s physician, Dr. Sean Conley, when Trump had last tested negative for COVID-19.

“I don’t want to go backwards,” he said, ignoring the medical importance of that information for tracing Trump’s contacts prior to the onset of his symptoms. 

Also on Oct. 5: The New York Times reported that the White House was not using the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control to perform contact tracing for the Trump outbreak. Instead, the White House medical unit was in charge and “limited its efforts to notifying people who came in close contact with Mr. Trump in the two days before his Covid diagnosis Thursday evening [October 1].” That meant excluding two Trump rallies, the super-spreader event in the White House Rose Garden and, depending how precisely the White House calculated the “two days before his COVID diagnosis,” possibly the presidential debate itself. {Emphasis added]

Oct. 9: White House deputy press secretary Brian Morgenstern refused repeatedly to answer when Trump had last tested negative for COVID-19:

The Clinic’s Continuing Failure

The Cleveland Clinic’s initial response to Trump’s positive test scandal was to minimize the problem.

Oct. 2: “As health advisor to the Commission on Presidential Debates and the host site, we had requirements to maintain a safe environment that align with CDC guidelines – including social distancing, hand sanitizing, temperature checks and masking. Most importantly, everyone permitted inside the debate hall tested negative for COVID-19 prior to entry. Individuals traveling with both candidates, including the candidates themselves, had been tested and tested negative by their respective campaigns. Based on what we know about the virus and the safety measures we had in place, we believe there is low risk of exposure to our guests. Out of an abundance of caution, we are reaching out to our guests to address any questions and concerns.”

Oct. 2 – 6: As the White House outbreak grew and Trump refused to reveal when he had last tested negative for COVID-19 prior to the debate, scrutiny of the Clinic’s actions intensified. 

Oct. 6: The Cleveland Clinic issued a statement trying to shift the blame: “Prior to the first debate, we worked closely with the CPD to create health and safety requirements. These are the same requirements that we have recommended be implemented at each of the other host sites. They include testing, social distancing, hand sanitizing, temperature checks and masking. Any questions regarding the recommendations and requirements, including their implementation and enforcement, should be directed to the CPD.” (Emphasis added)

The Cleveland Clinic is one of the premier medical institutions in the world. But it accepted the word of a serial liar, wilted as he defied rules that applied to everyone else and compromised the health of the public. In the process, it facilitated a Trump coverup that endures to this day.

After four years of Trump’s mendacity, bullying and victims, the Cleveland Clinic has only itself to blame for the resulting stain on its reputation.

Barr Battles the Rule of Law

This article appears in the Fall 2020 issue of Litigation – The Journal of the Section of Litigation of the American Bar Association. It was republished at BillMoyers.com on Oct. 8, 2020.

By Steven J. Harper

“With your law degrees, you will have immense power to do great harm,” Harvard Law Professor Duncan Kennedy admonished our one-L torts class in 1976.

A few months later, former President Richard M. Nixon (JD, Duke, ’37) — who thought Watergate had been a political “witch hunt” — uttered his infamous line, “Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” And his former attorney general, John N. Mitchell (JD, Fordham, ’38), was headed to prison.

More than 40 years after that class, United States Attorney General William P. Barr (JD, George Washington, ’77) has driven home the gravity of Prof. Kennedy’s admonition. When the story of the Trump era is written, history will pose a single defining question to every American lawyer: In the fight to preserve the rule of law, which side were you on?

America has seen which side William Barr is on. As the nation’s top law enforcement officer, the attorney general represents the “People of the United States.” Early in his tenure, Barr jettisoned that role.

Operating as Trump’s personal advocate, Barr has abused the power of his office to undermine the Trump-Russia investigation. Although troublesome, Barr’s actions are best viewed as a case study in his modus operandi. What Barr has done to that investigation and its key players, he can do to anything and anyone. That makes Barr’s methods ominous for the rule of law itself.

Hiring Barr was no accident. Early in 2017, before special counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment, Trump feared that he was losing control of the Trump-Russia investigation. He was furious at then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ (JD, Alabama, 73) for recusing himself from the ongoing probe. Referring to his former personal attorney, notorious fixer, and top aide to Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy (R-WI) during the investigations of communist activity in the 1950s, Trump lamented, “Where’s my Roy Cohn?”

A year later, he got his answer. Barr sent Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (JD, Harvard, ’89) an unsolicited 19-page memo challenging the premise of Mueller’s obstruction of justice investigation and urging that the special counsel should not even be permitted to question Trump. In William Barr, Trump had finally found his Roy Cohn.

First came the lies and deceptions. According to The Washington Post, as of July 9, 2020, Trump had made more than 20,000 “false or misleading claims” since assuming office. Like Trump, Barr understands the rhetorical and psychological concepts of primacy and repetition. Whoever speaks first and most frequently on an important topic has the upper hand in controlling the resulting narrative, regardless of its veracity.

From his first days in office, Barr has reinforced Trump’s false assertions that the Trump-Russia investigation never should have happened. In the maelstrom that followed, truth became a casualty. So it’s important to start with a brief reprise of the Mueller report’s key conclusions:

“[T]he Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome.” (Vol. I, p. 5)

The Trump campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” (Vol. I, p. 5)

Trump tried repeatedly to obstruct the investigation into his campaign ties to Russia.

And Mueller concluded, “[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment… Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” (Vol. II, p. 2)

Barr’s dissembling prevented the truth from gaining traction. Two days after Mueller gave Barr his final report confidentially — including summaries suitable for public dissemination — Barr sent a letter to Congress with his own misleading “summary” of Mueller’s findings. It was so deceptive that Mueller himself complained to Barr immediately, saying that Barr’s letter “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions.” The result, Mueller wrote, “is public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.”

But public confusion was the objective because it led to public indifference. For another three weeks, Barr did not release even a redacted version of Mueller’s report, and Mueller’s dissenting letter to Barr did not surface until two weeks after that. During the intervening month-and-a-half, Barr’s mischaracterizations became the only story of Mueller’s findings, and they stuck. Primacy gave Barr the edge and repetition then took over.

Immediately, Trump used Barr’s spin to reinforce his big lie. “No collusion, No obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION,” Trump tweeted — three lies in a single post.

Then Barr made things worse — or from Trump’s perspective, better. Two hours before releasing a redacted version of Mueller’s report, Barr held a press conference to spin its conclusions again. He repeated Trump’s false “no collusion” meme four times.

On obstruction, Barr also made this disingenuous claim: “The White House fully cooperated with the special counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the president took no act that in fact deprived the special counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation.”

Here’s the truth:

From its inception, Trump attacked Mueller’s investigation and repeatedly pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House counsel Don McGahn (JD, Widener, ’94) to curtail or terminate it. (Vol. II, pp. 77-120)

Trump refused Mueller’s requests for an interview. (Vol. II, pp. C-1-2)

Mueller said Trump’s written answers to his questions were “inadequate.” (Vol. II, C-2)

Trump dangled pardons aimed at influencing key witnesses, including his former national security adviser Mike Flynn, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort (JD, Georgetown, ’74), and a person whose name was initially redacted from Mueller’s report but who we now know is Trump’s longtime confidant, Roger Stone. Trump also tried to influence and intimidate his former personal attorney, Michael Cohen (JD, Thomas M. Cooley, ’91). (Vol. II, pp. 120-156)

The Rule of Law

In 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote that a well-informed electorate is a prerequisite to democracy. Barr kneecapped the truth. When the redacted version of Mueller’s report finally appeared, The Washington Post awarded him “Three Pinocchios” for his “incomplete or misleading” descriptions of Mueller’s investigation and conclusions. But Barr had withheld even a redacted version so long that his false spin had irrevocably infected the body politic.

Fortunately, the rule of law has courageous defenders who honor the oath that every attorney takes to uphold the rule of law. In an opinion on a Freedom of Information Act request for an unredacted copy of Mueller’s report, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton blasted Barr’s pre-release “distortions” and “lack of candor.” In a remarkable ruling, the respected federal judge wrote that he could not trust the attorney general of the United States:

“The speed by which Attorney General Barr released to the public the summary of Special Counsel Mueller’s principal conclusions, coupled with the fact that Attorney General Barr failed to provide a thorough representation of the findings in the Mueller Report, causes the Court to question whether Attorney General Barr’s intent was to create a one-sided narrative about the Mueller Report — a narrative that is clearly in some respects substantively at odds with the redacted version of the Mueller Report.” (Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. US Dept. of Justice, No-19-810 RBW, slip op. p. 17-18 (D.D.C. Mar 5, 2020)

Judge Walton could not reconcile “certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report.” The inconsistencies caused him “to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr 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.” (Op. p. 19)

The court’s Mar. 5, 2020 rebuke came a year too late. As Jonathan Swift wrote more than two centuries ago, “Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it.” With Barr’s help, Trump created a narrative that was at odds with the evidence set forth in Mueller’s report. Barr had fired his first bullet at the rule of law and it was a bulls-eye.

But lies and false spin were just Barr’s opening gambit. Trump wanted the entire investigation discredited — destroyed root and branch. Barr quickly weaponized the Justice Department. He used his prosecutorial powers as a vehicle to pursue Trump’s attacks on those responsible for launching the investigation in the first place.

In a revealing exchange on May 1, 2019, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA, California-Hasting, ’89) asked Barr if “the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone.”

Barr stuttered, stammered, and asked her to repeat the question.

“It seems you’d remember something like that and be able to tell us,” she pressed.

“I’m trying to grapple with the word ‘suggest,’” Barr said. “I mean there have been discussions of, of matters out there, that, uh, they’ve not asked me to open an investigation.”

“Perhaps they suggested?” Harris offered.

“I don’t know. I wouldn’t say ‘suggest’,” Barr hesitated.

“Hinted?” she continued.

“I don’t know,” he replied.

“Inferred?”

Barr didn’t answer.

“You don’t know,” Harris said.

“No,” Barr mumbled.

Delegitimizing the Investigators

Sen. Harris might have sensed where Trump and Barr were heading. Unable to erase the proof that Mueller had found, they focused on undermining the investigation itself as illegitimate and attacking the investigators as “corrupt.”

Immediately after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in May 2017, acting Director Andrew McCabe (JD, Washington Univ. – St. Louis, ’93) authorized the Trump-Russia counterintelligence probe. Two years later, McCabe became a poster child for Trump and Barr’s abuse of power. Even prior to Barr’s appointment, a team of prosecutors had investigated whether McCabe had lied to investigators about improper media leaks concerning an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Those prosecutors concluded that they could not win a conviction, so Trump’s chosen US attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie Liu (JD, Yale, ’98), brought in another team to go after McCabe.

For months, Liu’s office asked the judge handling the matter — U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton once again — for more time. By then, Barr was the attorney general. In a closed-door session on Sept. 30, 2019, Walton warned prosecutors to stop stringing McCabe along:

“I don’t think people like the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted. I just think it’s a banana republic when we go down that road…”

Judge Walton added, “I just think the integrity of the process is being unduly undermined by inappropriate comments and actions by people at the top of our government. I think it’s very unfortunate. And I think as a government and as a society we’re going to pay a price at some point for this.” (9/30/2019 Tr., p. 5)

Eventually, the case against McCabe fell apart again and a grand jury refused to indict him. But for months, Barr left McCabe twisting in the wind of legal uncertainty. Once again, defenders of the rule of law rose to the challenge. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) won a court order requiring the release of the devastating Sept. 30 transcript of Judge Walton’s earlier comments. On Feb. 14, 2020 — the day that transcript became public — the Justice Department finally informed McCabe that he would not face charges.

As Barr’s efforts to investigate the investigators failed to produce Trump’s desired outcome, he assigned new teams to keep trying. For example, Mueller had concluded that the FBI had opened its Trump-Russia investigation appropriately in late July 2016. (Mueller Rep., Vol. I, pp. 88-89, fn. 465) Despite knowing Mueller and claiming to respect him as a friend and colleague for years, Barr appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham (JD, Connecticut, ’75) to second-guess that finding. Barr also asked foreign leaders in the United Kingdom and Italy for help in gathering information that Trump hoped would discredit Mueller’s work. Trump personally made such a request of the Australian prime minister.

Likewise, in December 2019, the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz (JD, Harvard, ’87), completed an 18-month investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. Although his 400-page report found that the FBI had adequate reasons for opening the probe, Barr nevertheless asserted that the FBI’s reasons were insufficient and publicly attacked Horowitz’s conclusion.

Undermining the Convictions

Finally, beyond using the power of his office to pursue Trump’s perceived enemies, Barr has deployed the Justice Department to help Trump’s convicted friends. It was the final step in wiping the Russia investigation from the history books altogether. But Barr’s manipulations also have profound implications for the rule of law.

When Mueller closed up shop in 2019, then-U.S. Attorney Liu (whose office supervised the McCabe investigation) assumed control of several special counsel prosecutions and earlier referrals, including cases against Roger Stone and Mike Flynn. But after Liu failed to get McCabe indicted, Barr replaced her with his old friend and confidant, Timothy Shea (JD, Georgetown ’91) — just as the Justice Department was finalizing its sentencing recommendation in Stone’s case.

In 2017, Stone had lied to the House Intelligence Committee about his role concerning Trump campaign contacts with Russia. Then he threatened a witness who was going to expose him. A jury deliberated for about seven hours before convicting Stone on all seven counts of lying to Congress and witness tampering.

As Shea replaced Liu in the District of Columbia U.S. attorney’s office, career prosecutors handling Stone’s case filed a brief that followed federal sentencing guidelines recommending seven to nine years in prison. Immediately, Trump tweeted that Stone’s plight was “horrible,” “unfair,” and a “miscarriage of justice.” Hours later, an official at Justice Department headquarters said that the DC office’s recommendation was “extreme” and “excessive” and that a new memorandum would outline the government’s revised position.

Defending the rule of law, four of the federal prosecutors who signed the sentencing memorandum resigned immediately from the case. Jonathan Kravis (Yale, JD, ’04) — one of Stone’s prosecutors at trial — resigned from the Justice Department altogether. That left Shea and his assistant who was newly assigned to the Stone case to file a revised memorandum asserting that the government’s previously recommended sentence “could be considered excessive and unwarranted.”

The following day, Trump congratulated Barr for “taking charge” of the Stone case, “which perhaps should not even been brought.”

Defenders of the rule of law fought back. Appearing on national television, the former chief of the criminal fraud section of the Justice Department, Andrew Weissmann (JD, Columbia, ’84) — an appointee of President George H. W. Bush — said he could think of no instance where he had even heard of the attorney general reaching into a single criminal case to weigh in on a sentencing submission. Former Attorney General Eric Holder (JD, Columbia, ’76) called Barr’s direct intervention “unprecedented, wrong, and ultimately dangerous.”

“Public confusion was the objective, because it led to public indifference”

The most damning criticism came from Donald Ayer (JD, Harvard, ’75), who had served as President George H. W. Bush’s deputy attorney general and Barr’s boss at one point. On Feb. 17, 2020, Ayer wrote in The Atlantic:

“All of this conduct — including Barr’s personal interventions to influence or negate independent investigations or the pursuit of criminal cases, and his use of the department’s resources to frustrate the checks and balances provided by other branches — is incompatible with the rule of law as we know it…”

Ayer concluded: “Bill Barr’s America is not a place that anyone, including Trump voters, should want to go. It is a banana republic where all are subject to the whims of a dictatorial president and his henchmen. To prevent that, we need a public uprising demanding that Bill Barr resign immediately, or failing that, be impeached.”

Trump and Barr were undeterred. Trump attacked Stone’s judge, Amy Berman Jackson (JD, Harvard, JD ’79), calling her “the Judge that put Paul Manafort in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, something that not even mobster Al Capone had to endure.” That was another Trump lie. Prison officials had made the decision about Manafort’s federal housing. But Barr did not defend Jackson against Trump’s attack, and the Judicial Code of Conduct prevented her from defending herself.

Instead, Barr gave an interview during which he sent Trump a message — the tweets were making it “impossible” for him to do his job. Since then, Barr’s view of his job has become even clearer: obliterate all trace of the Russia investigation. Mike Flynn became a stunning example of Barr’s methods.

Moving to Drop Charges After a Guilty Plea

On Dec. 1, 2017, Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. On Dec. 18, 2018, he again acknowledged his crimes in open court. Judge Emmett G. Sullivan (JD, Howard Univ., ’71) did not hide his disgust.

“[Y]ou lied to the FBI about three different topics, and you made those false statements while you were serving as the national security advisor, the President of the United States’ most senior national security aid. I can’t minimize that,” the judge said. “Two months later you again made false statements in multiple documents filed pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act. So, all along you were an unregistered agent of a foreign country, while serving as the national security advisor to the President of the United States. I mean, arguably, that undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably, you sold your country out.”

But after Barr became attorney general two months later, he appointed the U.S. attorney in St. Louis, Jeff Jensen (JD, St. Louis Univ., ’98), to review Flynn’s case. In June 2019, Flynn retained new a lawyer — Sidney Powell (JD, North Carolina, ’78), a far-right conspiracy theorist. Powell wrote directly to Barr, urging him to conduct an internal review and throw out Flynn’s conviction. A week later, Trump congratulated Flynn for retaining Powell, tweeting that she was a “GREAT LAWYER.”

Shortly before the July 2019 trial at which Flynn was supposed to be a cooperating witness against his former business associate, he suddenly became uncooperative and prosecutors did not call him to testify. Powell then asked Judge Sullivan to nullify Flynn’s conviction on the grounds that prosecutors had engaged in misconduct — claims that the judge rejected. As Flynn’s sentencing approached in early January 2020, prosecutors withdrew their earlier recommendation of probation and urged Flynn’s incarceration for as long as six months.

As with Roger Stone, things then changed abruptly and mysteriously in Flynn’s favor. And as with Stone, Barr and his confidant, interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia Timothy Shea, made it happen. On May 7, Shea’s office took the unprecedented step of moving to drop all charges against Flynn. Shea alone signed the motion with no line prosecutors joining. It included no affidavits or declarations supporting its many new factual allegations. No motion to vacate the government’s prior, contrary filings and representations accompanied the filing.

The defenders of the rule of law stepped forward again. One of Flynn’s prosecutors withdrew from the case and Judge Sullivan invited amicus briefs on the unusual motion. Then he assigned a former federal judge to oppose the Justice Department’s move and to determine whether Flynn should be found in criminal contempt for lying to the court when he had pled guilty — twice.

Flynn’s attorney sought a writ of mandamus in the District of Columbia circuit court of appeals. That, in turn, forced Judge Sullivan to hire an attorney, Beth Wilkinson (JD, Virginia, ’87), to answer the mandamus petition. The circle was complete: A judge defending the rule of law now needed his own lawyer to defend himself.

In her brief on Judge Sullivan’s behalf, Wilkinson wrote, “It is unprecedented for an Acting U.S. Attorney to contradict the solemn representations that career prosecutors made time and again, and undermine the district court’s legal and factual findings, in moving on his own to dismiss the charge years after two different federal judges accepted the defendant’s plea.”

What began in March 2019 with Barr’s false spin and outright lies to assuage a president’s obsession with the Russia investigation had exploded into a multidimensional assault on the rule of law itself. No limiting principle has guided Barr’s abuses, but he has encountered resistance. Individually and together, attorneys — especially litigators — have stepped forward:

More than 1,000 former federal prosecutors from Republican and Democratic administrations signed an open letter stating that, but for the fact that Trump was a sitting president, Mueller’s proof would have led to Trump’s indictment for obstruction of justice.

In connection with Roger Stone’s sentencing, more than 2,600 former prosecutors and other DOJ attorneys from Republican and Democratic administrations signed an open letter condemning Barr for “interference in the fair administration of justice,” “openly and repeatedly flouting” the fundamental principle of “equal justice under law,” and calling on Barr to resign. They wrote, “Governments that use the enormous power of law enforcement to punish their enemies and reward their allies are not constitutional republics; they are autocracies.”

The president of the New York State Bar Ass’n issued a statement saying, “The intervention by senior Department of Justice officials in the sentencing of Roger Stone is an assault on a bedrock principle of the rule of law — the apolitical administration of justice. Our nation was founded on the principle that everyone must be treated equally in the eyes of the law…”

More than 2,000 former Justice Department officials from Republican and Democratic administrations signed an open letter stating that Barr had “once again assaulted the rule of law” in seeking the dismissal of Flynn’s case. “Attorney General Barr’s repeated actions to use the Department as a tool to further President Trump’s personal and political interests have undermined any claim to the deference that courts usually apply to the Department’s decisions about whether or not to prosecute a case,” they wrote.

Judge Sullivan and the appeals court received numerous amicus briefs supporting the district court’s exercise of judgment when deciding whether to accept the government’s motion to dismiss the federal criminal charges against Flynn. Filings in support of the judge came from former federal judges, former Watergate prosecutors, legal scholars, and the New York City Bar Ass’n.

ABA President Judy Perry Martinez issued a statement declaring, “Public officials who personally attack judges or prosecutors can create a perception that the system is serving a political or other purpose rather than the fair administration of justice. It is incumbent upon public officials and members of the legal profession, whose sworn duty it is to uphold the law, to do everything in their power to preserve the integrity of the justice system.”

What’s next? Federal judges enjoy lifetime tenure that prevents Trump from purging the bench of his perceived judicial enemies. But Trump and his key Senate enabler with a law degree, Sen. Mitch McConnell (JD, Kentucky, ’67), have boasted about filling federal judgeships at a brisk pace. Those judges must demonstrate their independence. With their actions, they have a unique opportunity to reaffirm that “equal justice under law” and “no one is above the law” are not empty platitudes, but guiding principles of our democracy.

Pundits often understate Barr’s conduct as violating “norms.” It is more accurate to say that he and Trump are at war with the rule of law. Federal judges and litigators throughout the country have become first-responders in the fight. The front lines have formed in courtrooms throughout the country, but lawyers away from the immediate field of battle are also making a difference.

So which side are you on?

In this war, there are no bystanders.

Trump’s Newest Pre-Existing Condition: COVID-19

[This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on October 6, 2020.]

In 2018, health care was the major issue that swept Democrats into control of the House of Representatives. Still foremost among voters’ concerns today is protection for those with pre-existing medical conditions. Almost three-fourths of Americans favor preserving those protections, which the Affordable Care Act does.

So for four years, Donald Trump has lied about his commitment to keeping those protections in place. The truth is that at every turn, his administration has sought to eliminate them altogether. In fact, in a case set for oral argument before the US Supreme Court on November 10, the Trump administration is urging the Court to invalidate the entire ACA, including protections for pre-existing conditions.

Trump himself has a new pre-existing condition: COVID-19. So do several people who were in close proximity to him prior to his diagnosis, including (so far) his wife Melania, adviser Hope Hicks, press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and three of her assistants, former Gov. Chris Christie, campaign manager Bill Stepien, former counselor Kellyanne Conway, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), personal assistant Nicholas Luna, Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel, and University of Notre Dame President John Jenkins.

COVID-19: The Newest Pre-Existing Condition

Under the ACA, Americans with confirmed health problems “cannot be denied coverage, be charged significantly higher premiums, be subjected to an extended waiting period, or have their benefits curtailed by insurance companies,” according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid.

Even before the pandemic, as many as 133 million Americans under age 65 had at least one pre-existing medical condition. Today more than half of all Americans say that they or someone they know has one. Those conditions include but are not limited to cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, asthma, obesity, pregnancy, depression and other diagnosed mental and physical disorders.

But that was before February. Since then, an additional seven-and-a-half million Americans — including the president of the United States — have developed what is now a new pre-existing medical condition: COVID-19. And every day, 40,000 more are testing positive for the virus. To achieve “herd immunity” — which some members of the White House Coronavirus Task Force have pushed — 65 to 70 percent of a population has to become infected, according to the chief scientist for the World Health Organization.

That’s more than 200 million Americans.

The Cost of COVID: Calculating Health Care Premiums

It’s too early for experts to know the full scope of the pandemic’s damage to human health, but what they do know is profoundly disturbing. The list of prolonged problems is already significant, as is the increasing number of people who have them. Myocarditis, lung scarring, breathing problems, weakness, fatigue and blood clots have continued to cause trouble, even after minor cases of the disease have resolved. “Long haulers” are still suffering weeks or months after tests no longer detect the virus in them.

Many COVID-19 survivors, including some who are quite young, will require ongoing and wide-ranging types of medical care. Without the ACA, insurance companies will be free to resume using worst-case cost projections when setting premiums for anyone with a COVID-19 diagnosis. They will price millions of people out of the market.

Pre-Existing Opinions: The ACA and the New Supreme Court Justice

On September 24, two days before Trump announced Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination publicly at a Rose Garden super-spreader event that featured no social distancing and few masks, he issued a legally meaningless Executive Order. It proclaimed that he supported affordable health care for those with pre-existing conditions. But by then, he had already offered Judge Barrett the US Supreme Court position, she had accepted and her hostility to the ACA was a matter of public record.

Judge Barrett’s overarching judicial philosophy follows that of her mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia, who co-authored a vigorous dissent in the seminal ACA case in which Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal justices in a 5-4 decision upholding the law. In a January 2017 book review, Judge Barrett expressed her opposition to that decision: “Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”

Make no mistake: If Trump’s legal position prevails in the courts, the ACA and its protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions will disappear. Period. Because in the last four years, Trump and his fellow Republicans — including Sens. Lee and Tillis, who attended the Rose Garden super-spreader event and received a positive COVID-19 test result six days later — have failed to enact anything to take their place.

Save Your Health Care: Vote the Remedy

We, the people, who overwhelmingly favor health care for all Americans, have recourse. But the only thing that will preserve access to coverage is a pre-emptive strike by voters across the entire electoral field.

A Democratically controlled Congress, including the Senate, could send President Biden legislation to undo the damage that a Supreme Court ruling could inflict on Americans’ health care for years to come. The mission would be far easier for Biden to achieve than it was for President Obama because a vast majority of the public supports its key provisions, especially protection for those with pre-existing conditions.

US Supreme Court decisions have momentous implications for everyday lives. Few are as far reaching and personal as health care. But voters can still have the last word — provided they speak first in November.

Read all installments of Steven Harper’s Pandemic Timeline.

Crime Scenes: Trump’s Super-Spreader Rallies

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on Sept. 30, 2020.

On February 7, Donald Trump confessed to knowing the truth about the coronavirus.

“You just breathe the air and that’s how it’s passed. And so that’s a very tricky one. That’s a very delicate one. It’s also more deadly than even your strenuous flusThis is deadly stuff,” he admitted to journalist Bob Woodward. (Emphasis supplied) Here’s the tape:

Then he lied to the public for months because the truth didn’t fit his re-election campaign message that all would soon be well. The result: America has only about four percent of the world’s population but more than 20 percent of worldwide deaths from COVID-19.

Trump is now holding super-spreader campaign rallies that ignore social distancing and face masks — the nation’s most formidable weapons in fighting the virus. To Trump, those public health measures are a nuisance because they remind people that the pandemic is still ravaging the country. To the coronavirus, Trump’s rallies are gifts that keeps on giving.

Tulsa, Oklahoma

June 13-20: In the days preceding Trump’s first pandemic-era rally, COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations in Oklahoma, especially Tulsa, are soaring. In fact, six White House staffers in the state for rally preparations (including two secret service agents) test positive for the virus.

June 20: Shortly before Trump’s rally begins, Trump staffers concerned about his desire for good campaign crowd optics remove social distancing stickers that the venue’s management had placed on every other seat to keep them open. More than 6,000 people attend the indoor event. Defying guidance from the Centers for Disease Control, most are not wearing masks or social distancing, despite ample space for the latter. Among the attendees is Trump surrogate Herman Cain, 74, who co-chairs Black Voices for Trump. Cain is not wearing a mask.

Aftermath: New COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations in Tulsa soar, which the Tulsa Health Department attributes to Trump’s rally. On July 2, Herman Cain is hospitalized with COVID-19. Less than a month later, he dies from the infection.

Phoenix, Arizona

June 23: As Arizona becomes a COVID-19 hotspot, Trump holds an indoor rally at a megachurch.

Number of attendees: 3,000. No social distancing. Few masks.

Aftermath: Hospitalizations and deaths due to COVID-19 rise, peaking in mid-July, consistent with a rally-induced surge.

Freeland, Michigan

Sept. 10: After a three-month pause, Trump resumes campaign rallies in Michigan, which requires face masks in “crowded outdoor spaces” and whose governor urges social distancing. During his appearance, Trump calls on the governor to “open up” the state.

Number of attendees: Between 5,000 and 10,000. No social distancing. Few masks.

Aftermath: On September  24, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services reports the first known COVID-19 case involving someone who attended Trump’s rally. The department’s spokesperson cautions that more cases could come: “Outbreaks are not necessarily determined within 14 days of when exposure occurred. It takes time for people to be tested and for local health department to complete case investigations.”

Shoes Waiting to Drop

As in Freeland, Michigan, public health officials in the following cities await the aftermath of recent Trump rallies where he failed to honor CDC, state and local guidelines aimed at limiting the spread of the virus.

Minden, Nevada

Sept. 12: Trump supporters pack the Minden-Tahoe airport tarmac for Trump’s rally, which violates the state’s months-long ban on gatherings of more than 50 people.

Number of attendees: More than 5,000. No social distancing. Few masks.

Henderson, Nevada

Sept. 13: Trump holds an indoor rally. Asked whether he is concerned about the health risks, Trump says, “I’m on a stage and it’s very far away. And so I’m not at all concerned.”

Number of attendees: Several thousand. No social distancing. Only those standing behind Trump are required to wear masks because their faces would appear on television as he spoke.

Phoenix, Arizona

Sept. 14: Defying a Maricopa County order requiring face masks, Trump holds an indoor rally.

Number of attendees: Several hundred. No social distancing. Few masks.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Sept. 15: At a nationally televised town hall, an audience member confronts Trump on his disregard for the public’s health, saying, “The wearing of masks has proven to lessen the spread of Covid. Why don’t you support a national mask-wearing mandate? Why don’t you wear a mask more often?”

In response, Trump lies: “Well, I do wear them when I have to and when I’m in hospitals and other locations.” Then he says, “A lot of people don’t want to wear masks.” Pressed to name them, he responds, “Waiters.”

The next day, CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield calls masks a more potent weapon against the virus than a vaccine. Trump immediately attacks him: “As far as the mask is concerned, he made a mistake.” 

Mosinee, Wisconsin

Sept. 17: In Marathon County, which is experiencing a record outbreak of COVID-19 cases, Trump holds a rally that violates the state’s social distancing and face mask guidance.

Number of attendees: 5,000. No social distancing. Few masks. 

Bemidji, Minnesota 

Sept. 18: COVID-19 cases are spiking and hospitalizations are trending upward. Nevertheless, Trump defies Minnesota’s 250-person limit for large gatherings in the state.

Number of attendees: Several thousand. No social distancing. Few masks.

Fayetteville, North Carolina

Sept. 19: With new COVID-19 infections averaging more than 1,000 per day and a statewide face mask requirement in effect, Trump holds a rally

Number of attendees: Several thousand. No social distancing. Few masks.

Swanton, Ohio

Sept. 21: As COVID-19 infections in Ohio remain stubbornly high and an outdoor face mask requirement remains in effect whenever six-foot social distancing is not possible, Trump holds a rally outside Toledo.

Number of attendees: Several thousand. No social distancing. Few masks.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Sept. 22: Violating state face mask requirements and restrictions on gatherings of more than 250 people, Trump holds a rally where he mocks former Vice President Joe Biden for wearing a face mask.

Number of attendees: Several thousand. No social distancing. Few masks.

Jacksonville, Florida 

Sept. 24: As Trump holds a rally there, Florida is averaging more than 2,500 new COVID-19 infections per day.

Number of attendees: Several thousand. No social distancing. Few masks.

Newport News, Virginia

Sept. 25: Hours before Trump’s rally, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) and his wife test positive for COVID-19. Defying the governor’s executive order that bans gatherings of more than 250 people and the Virginia Department of Public Health’s admonition that the planned rally “poses a concerning health risk,” Trump presses ahead.

Number of attendees: More than 3,000. No social distancing. About half of the crowd wears masks.

Middletown, Pennsylvania

Sept. 26: Number of attendees:  Several thousand. No social distancing. Few masks.

It’s a Crime

  • Murder: The unlawful killing of another human being. Under the Model Penal Code, murder includes intentional killing, as well as conduct exhibiting extreme recklessness.
  • Manslaughter: The act of killing another human being in a way that is less culpable than murder. Manslaughter includes reckless homicide.
  • Reckless: Behavior that is so careless that it is considered an extreme departure from the care a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances.

Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump killed any particular individual may be difficult. But his conduct is akin to a person who fires a gun into a crowded room. That’s a crime.

The CDC urges social distancing to prevent the spread of the virus. Throughout the world, face masks are saving lives. Trump still flouts both longstanding public health measures, even in states and localities that require them.

By January 1, total coronavirus fatalities in the US are projected to reach 371,000. Widespread use of face masks could save almost 100,000 of them. Social distancing could save even more. Trump could prevent thousands of American deaths, and he could begin by stopping his super-spreader rallies.

But he won’t.

Read all installments of Steven Harper’s Pandemic Timeline.

Republicans Fill Justice Ginsburg’s Seat with Hypocrisy

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on Sept. 22, 2020.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died 45 days before the election. As her strength waned, she dictated this statement to her granddaughter: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

It says something unfortunate about the state of the republic that she voiced such concerns on her deathbed.

Less than 90 minutes later, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that Trump’s nominee would get a vote on the Senate floor because “Americans…expanded our majority in 2018.” He didn’t mention that only one-third of all senators ever faced re-election in the 2018 midterms, or that voters in that election repudiated Republicans nationwide as they put Democrats in control of the House where every seat was in play.

Less than 12 hours after McConnell’s statement, Trump tweeted that Republicans should confirm her replacement “without delay” to serve the will of “the people who so proudly elected us.” He didn’t mention that “the people” who voted for him didn’t constitute even a plurality of the popular vote in 2016. Almost three million more wanted his opponent.

Meanwhile, US deaths from COVID-19 passed the 200,000 mark, evidence of his reckless disregard for public health mounts and polls consistently show former Vice President Joe Biden with a commanding lead over Trump.

The McConnell Rule

McConnell has moved quickly before, but in the opposite direction. Within hours after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death on Feb. 13, 2016 — nine months prior to the presidential election — he announced, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

Almost every Republican in the Senate followed his lead.

McConnell is now facing what at times has been a surprisingly competitive race to retain his Senate seat. At least eight other senators who lined up behind him in 2016 are also now in tough re-election contests. Here’s what they said back then:

  • Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination. You can use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right. We are setting a precedent here today. Republicans are.” (Mar. 10, 2016) Here’s the tape:


Lindsey Graham

Watch Senator Lindsay Graham

  • Cory Gardner (R-CO): “We stand at a pivotal point in our nation’s history…[T]he next president of the United States should have the opportunity to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.…[T]he American people deserve a role in this process as the next Supreme Court Justice will influence the direction of this country for years to come.” (Mar. 16, 2016)
  • Thom Tillis (R-NC): “We are in the middle of a presidential election, and the Senate majority is giving the American people a voice to determine the direction of the Supreme Court.” (Mar. 16, 2016)
  • Dan Sullivan (R-AK): “The next Supreme Court justice could fundamentally change the direction of the Court for years to come. Alaskans deserve to have a voice in that direction through their vote, and we will ensure that they have one.” (Mar. 16, 2016)
  • Steve Daines (R-MT): The American people have already begun voting on who the next president will be and their voice should continue to be reflected in a process that will have lasting implications on our nation. The US Senate should exercise its constitutional powers by not confirming a new Supreme Court justice until the American people elect a new president and have their voices heard.” (Mar. 16, 2016) By “have already begun voting,” Daines was referring to the primaries.
  • Joni Ernst (R-IA): “In the midst of a critical election, the American people deserve to have a say in this important decision that will impact the course of our country for years to come.” (Mar. 16, 2016)
  • David Perdue (R-GA): “What’s at stake here is the balance of our nation’s highest court and the direction of our country for decades. I remain firm in my decision to exercise my Constitutional authority and withhold consent on any nominee to the Supreme Court submitted by President Obama.” (Mar. 16, 2016)
  • John Cornyn (R-TX): “At this critical juncture in our nation’s history, Texans and the American people deserve to have a say in the selection of the next lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. The only way to empower the American people and ensure they have a voice is for the next president to make the nomination to fill this vacancy.” (Mar. 16, 2016)

Similar arguments in 2016 came from others now facing re-election and holding what are considered “safe” Republican seats, including Sens. Mike Rounds (R-SD), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV), and Tom Cotton (R-AR), who is on Trump’s short list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Rejecting Principle for Political Expediency

Now that McConnell has reversed a rule that he created to block President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, will Republicans continue to play Calvinball with him? This time, they’re tied to an unpopular, uncontrollable president who has crashed through democracy’s guardrails repeatedly.

Graham made his decision. Now chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will consider the nomination, he has promised to move it forward. In 2016, he proposed the remedy for such hypocrisy: “You can use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right.”

Tillis and Cornyn are also on board. In July, Ernst said she would support hearings for any Trump nominee this year.

The Day of Reckoning

For Republican senators in close re-election races, the abandonment of principle in favor of personal loyalty to an unpopular president is a gamble: Will energizing Trump’s shrinking base outweigh the loss of moderates they hope to sway?

The alternative is to speak out now, as Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has:

“Given the proximity of the presidential election…I do not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election. In fairness to the American people, who will either be re-electing the President or selecting a new one, the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the President who is elected on November 3rd.”

So far, only Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who is not up for re-election, has followed Collins’ lead.

In fact, all Republican senators — not just those facing re-election — face a dilemma. They know that if Trump were not a sitting president, he would be on the receiving end of criminal indictments. If they want to retain a shred of personal integrity and help preserve the public’s faith in America’s foremost governmental institution — the Supreme Court — they will defy him. But that means incurring the wrath of a vengeful president who cares only about himself.

However they resolve the dilemma, some individual senators will sacrifice their careers in the process. Those who choose Trump over country will put an ugly capstone on their legacies. That’s the price many Republicans will pay for allowing their party to become Trump’s host species.

It’s also why, as the fable goes, you don’t pick up a poisonous snake. It always has the last word: “You knew what I was when you picked me up.”

Read all installments of Steven Harper’s Pandemic Timeline.

 

COVID on Campus and Coming to a Community Near You

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on Sept. 15, 2020.

COVID-19 has infected more than 88,000 students, faculty and staff at colleges and universities in all 50 states. Since late August alone, more than 61,000 cases have been reported. And the fall semester has only begun.

Trump Lied, People Died

Beginning on January 22, 2020, and continuing to this day, Trump has downplayed the COVID-19 threat for personal political gain. Along with everyone else, campuses and their communities across the country are suffering the consequences.

  • What Trump knew on Feb. 7: In a taped conversation with journalist Bob Woodward, Trump says, “You just breathe the air and that’s how it’s passed. And so that’s a very tricky one. That’s a very delicate one. It’s also more deadly than even your strenuous flus.” (Emphasis supplied)
  • What Trump said on Mar. 9: Trump tweets that COVID-19 is no worse than the common flu. He repeats the false claim often.
  • What Trump knew on Mar. 19: In another taped conversation with Woodward, Trump says, “I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic…Now it’s turning out it’s not just old people, Bob. But just today, and yesterday, some startling facts came out. It’s not just old, older… young people, too, plenty of young people.” (Emphasis supplied)
  • What Trump said on June 23: Trump complains that COVID-19 testing is “showing young people that don’t have a problem.”
  • And said again on July 30: Trump says that young people are “almost immune” to the virus.

Alabama, College Football, and COVID-19

The University of Alabama is a case study in the challenges now facing schools, their communities and the country because Trump lied.

July 7: At the White House, Trump assembles a group to push the reopening of classrooms for in-person instruction this fall. The attendees include the chancellor of the University of Alabama System, Finis St. John IV. As St. John speaks, statewide COVID-19 hospitalizations in Alabama are spiking to more than 1,000 — a new record. Nevertheless, he says, the university’s board of trustees has committed to reopening, adding, “We are planning to play the [football] season.” 

July 12: Alabama’s seven-day average for COVID-19 hospitalizations has risen to 1,160 and its seven-day average of new infections is 1,524. Meanwhile, CDC data for the entire country indicate that hospitalizations of COVID-19 patients aged 18 to 29 are increasing at a greater rate than for patients over 65.

July 24: The CDC’s website summarizes a study involving COVID-19-positive patients who developed symptoms, but were never sick enough to be hospitalized: “35% had not returned to their usual state of health when interviewed 2–3 weeks after testing. Among persons aged 18–34 years with no chronic medical conditions, one in five had not returned to their usual state of health.”

“COVID-19 can result in prolonged illness, even among young adults without underlying chronic medical conditions,” the CDC says. “Effective public health messaging targeting these groups is warranted.…Nonhospitalized COVID-19 illness can result in prolonged illness and persistent symptoms, even in young adults and persons with no or few chronic underlying medical conditions.”

July 27: A study published in JAMA Cardiology finds that out of 100 adult patients in Germany who had recovered from COVID-19, 60 percent had ongoing myocarditis — inflammation of the heart muscle that can lead to cardiac arrest, especially with exertion.

Aug. 3: The mother of a freshman football player at Indiana University posts on Facebook about her son’s battle against COVID-19: “My son was negative when he got tested at the beginning of volunteer workouts. Within three weeks he and multiple others tested positive.…Here was a kid in perfect health, great physical condition and due to the virus ended up going to the ER because of breathing issues. After 14 days of hell battling the horrible virus…Now we are dealing with possible heart issues!”

Aug. 8: The Mid-American athletic conference becomes the first NCAA Division I football conference to cancel its fall football season. Among the concerns are unknown long-term health effects of COVID-19, including myocarditis, on student athletes.

Aug. 10: Myocarditis has been found in at least five Big Ten Conference athletes, in addition to several cases spread across other conferences.

Aug. 11: Leaders of the Big Ten and Pac-12 — two of the “Power Five” football conferences — review a study by the director of sports cardiology at Ohio State University. He evaluated 26 competitive athletes referred to the school’s sports medicine clinic after testing positive for COVID-19. Although none of the athletes required hospitalization and almost all of them experienced mild or no symptoms, 15 percent were stricken with myocarditis. Because of potential medical risks to student athletes, the Big 10 and the Pac-12 postpone their fall seasons.

Roll Tide

The University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa enrolls 38,000 students. Its football program generates almost $100 million in annual revenue. The university’s estimated economic impact on the city of Tuscaloosa is $2 billion, of which approximately $200 million is attributed to football.

Aug. 16: On the weekend before classes begin, large crowds gather at bars on “the strip” in Tuscaloosa. State guidelines require facemasks, but few are wearing them. The school’s athletic director posts a photo, noting that irresponsible behavior is putting fall sports are at risk:

Aug. 19-24: During the first five days after classes resume, 562 students at the university test positive for COVID-19.

Aug. 24: Tuscaloosa Mayor Walt Maddox orders bars to shut down and restaurants to suspend bar service for two weeks. He says that the spike in campus infections could threaten both the city’s health-care system and the local economy. The university places a moratorium on in-person student events and restricts access to fraternity houses.

Aug 28 – Sept. 3: The university is suffering one of the nation’s largest campus outbreaks. It reports 846 new COVID-19 cases, bringing the total number since August 19 to 1,899.Isolation bed space is at 40 percent of capacity, including three dorms and part of a hotel.

Sept. 1: Trump makes a phone call to the commissioner of the Big Ten, urging reversal of the conference’s earlier decision to postpone fall athletics.

Communities at Risk and Students with Nowhere to Go

Sept. 2: The university issues a press release titled “Leading medical experts caution universities that are considering closing.” An infectious disease expert and associate dean of Global Health in the UAB School of Medicine says, “There is a strong feeling among public health and infectious disease experts that it is safer to keep students on a college campus where there is COVID-19 spread rather than closing campus and sending students home en masse.”

Dr. Ricky Friend, dean of the University of Alabama College of Community Health Science,says, “From an epidemiologic standpoint, the 18- to 25-year old group is not going to suffer much disease burden. But they will spread the virus…”

Also on Sept. 2: On NBC’s Today show, Dr. Anthony Fauci discusses the problem of COVID-19 outbreaks on campuses: “When you send them home, particularly when you’re dealing with a university where people come from multiple different locations, you could be seeding the different places with infection.”

Sept. 4: Mayor Maddox allows Tuscaloosa bars to reopen at 50 percent capacity (up to 100 people) and allows restaurants to serve alcohol to seated customers.

Sept. 9: Harvard researchers review 3,222 COVID-19 cases of young adults (age 18-34) hospitalized nationwide between April 1 and June 30. Among that group, 88 died — about 2.7 percent, 21 percent required intensive care, and 10 percent needed a ventilator for breathing.

Sept. 10: Trump publicly urges colleges and universities to “stay open” and hopes that the Big Ten will reverse its earlier decision and play football.

Sept. 11: The University of Alabama reports that from September 4 to 10 (including Labor Day weekend) there were 294 new COVID-19 cases at its Tuscaloosa campus, a decline from the prior week. But Tuscaloosa County overall is experiencing a dangerous number of new daily cases based on criteria set by a “multidisciplinary team of technologists, epidemiologists, health experts, and public policy leaders.”

Sept. 16: The Big Ten announces that its football season will resume on the weekend of October 23-24.

Aboard the “Flying Dutchman”

Some schools with outbreaks have moved entirely to on-line instruction and sent their students home, creating new danger to others. At the University of Alabama, students can return home “if they are able to safely isolate and if they don’t have vulnerable family members at home,” according to Dr. Friend. Others schools are confining students to their rooms.

Those with no place to go now have time to read about the Flying Dutchman. According to legend, crew members of the ghost ship committed such a dreadful crime that they were stricken with a plague. Unable to find a port that would take them in, their eternal punishment was to sail the seas forever.

The students’ crime was believing the President of the United States, who is still lying to them.

Read all installments of Steven Harper’s Pandemic Timeline.

 

Dr. Hahn’s Betrayal: The FDA in Crisis

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on Sept. 9, 2020.

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for assuring the safety and efficacy of any new medical treatment. But Donald Trump and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn have destroyed the agency’s credibility. In fact, drug manufacturers are now reassuring the public that they won’t even submit any COVID-19 vaccine for FDA approval unless they believe it is safe and effective.

That’s upside down.

For Dr. Hahn, a Washington outsider who worked his way up the ranks of academic medicine, the slide down has been swift.

#1: Dr. Hahn’s Hydroxychloroquine Debacle

Mar. 19, 2020: Trump tells the public that the FDA has approved hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 when, in fact, it has not.

Mar. 21: Trump tweets that the FDA should “MOVE FAST” to put hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin “in use IMMEDIATELY. PEOPLE ARE DYING.”

Mar. 25: The Mayo Clinic warns physicians that some patients taking hydroxychloroquine as an experimental COVID-19 treatment are at increased risk for sudden cardiac death.

Mar. 28: Despite growing concerns from physicians about the drugs’ safety and efficacy, the FDA authorizes their emergency use on a limited basis for COVID-19 patients.

Mar. 30: Appearing on Fox & Friends, Trump boasts that he pressured Dr. Hahn into approving the treatment: “[H]ydroxychloroquine is something that I have been pushing very hard. I got the very early approval from the FDA. It was going to take a long time, and Dr. Stephen Hahn, the head of the FDA, gave us an early approval, a very quick approval, a 24-hour approval.…And I got it done, because I said: ‘Look, some of these people are very sick and they’re not going to make it. Let’s do it. Let’s get it done.”

Apr. 24: The FDA cautions against using hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine due to potential heart problems, stating that the drugs “have not been shown to be safe and effective for treating or preventing COVID-19.” (Emphasis supplied)

June 15: The FDA revokes the emergency use authorization for the drugs, stating that they are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 and have potentially fatal side effects.

#2:  Dr. Hahn’s Reluctance to Expose Trump’s Lies

July 4: Trump makes the dangerously false claim that 99 percent of COVID-19 cases in the US are harmless.

July 5: Appearing on CNN, Dr. Hahn is asked about Trump’s bogus “99 percent harmless” claim. “I’m not gonna get into who’s right and who’s wrong,” he says.

#3: Dr. Hahn’s Convalescent Plasma Disaster 

July 30: Trump urges patients who have recovered from COVID-19 to donate blood for use in a Mayo Clinic study of convalescent plasma as a potential treatment for the virus. “It’s had tremendous response so far,” Trump says.

Aug. 12: Prior to peer-review of their plasma study, Mayo Clinic researchers post the results online. They suggest only potentially slight improvement in some patient outcomes — about five out of every 100, or five percent — and include critical caveats:

  • Many patients in the study were on other therapeutics, including steroids (50 percent) and remdesivir (30 percent), making it impossible to know which treatments were effective.
  • Patients received plasma containing different levels of COVID-19 antibodies at different times, so treatment protocols varied widely.
  • The study did not compare treated patients with untreated patients, so the net impact of plasma was still uncertain.

Even so, the White House presses the FDA for emergency approval, which remains on hold because Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), argue that the data are too weak to support treatment for COVID-19.

Aug. 19: Asked about reports that the FDA was on the brink of approving convalescent plasma until the NIH said the evidence was sufficient, Trump says that he is surprised:

“Well, I hear great things about it…And it could be a political decision, because you have a lot of people over there that don’t want to rush things because they want to — they want to do it after November 3rd…But I’ve heard fantastic things about convalescent plasma. And I’ve heard numbers way over 50 percent success. And people are dying, and we should have it approved if it’s good. And I’m hearing it’s good. I heard from people at the FDA that it’s good…I’m going to check that right after this conference.”

Aug. 23: Announcing the FDA’s emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma and referring specifically to the Mayo Clinic study, Trump says, “[I]t has proven to reduce mortality by 35 percent. It’s a tremendous number.”

Trump’s claim is false. The mortality reduction was five percent, not 35 percent. Nevertheless, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar repeats it: “I just want to emphasize this point because I don’t want you to gloss over this — this number. We dream, in drug development, of something like a 35 percent mortality reduction. This is a major advance in the treatment of patients. This is a major advance.”

Then Dr. Hahn joins the chorus: “What that means is — and if the data continue to pan out — 100 people who are sick with COVID-19, 35 would have been saved because of the administration of plasma.…if you’re one of those 35 out of 100 people who these data suggest or show survive as a result of it, this is pretty significant for that person and their family.”

The FDA promotes the lie on Twitter.

Aug. 23: Dr. Hahn receives withering criticism from the medical community for misleading the public about the Mayo Clinic’s findings. Trump’s false claim perplexes even the scientists who worked on the study.

Aug. 24: In an obscure tweet, Dr. Hahn tries to walk back the 35 percent claim: “I have been criticized for remarks I made Sunday night about the benefits of convalescent plasma. The criticism is entirely justified. What I should have said better is that the data show a relative risk reduction not an absolute risk reduction.”

Aug. 25: “I can assure the American people that this decision [to approve convalescent plasma for COVID-19] was made based upon sound science and data,” Dr. Hahn says.

Sept. 1: Based on the Mayo Clinic study, the NIH finds, “There are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19.…[It] should not be considered standard of care for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.”

Sept. 4: Undaunted by the NIH’s conclusion, Trump insists, “The convalescent plasma has had a tremendous impact already.”

And Now Comes a Potential Vaccine

Any new vaccine that doesn’t work and/or generates harmful side effects can undermine public confidence in all vaccines. That’s why the FDA approval requires a series of phased evaluations culminating in a Phase 3 clinical trial that enrolls thousands of individuals. Some are treated, others get a placebo, and all are monitored during a process that typically requires years. Ending a trial early is possible where the preliminary outcomes are overwhelmingly positive, but it can leave insufficient time to reveal all adverse effects that may not become apparent until millions have already received the vaccine.

July 27: Pfizer and Moderna begin Phase 2/3 trials of their potential COVID-19 vaccines. Each trial seeks up to 30,000 volunteers who will get two shots spaced 21 or 28 days apart.

July 30: Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows tells House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that the FDA would probably give emergency approval to a COVID-19 vaccine before the end of Phase 3 trials in the US, perhaps as early as late September, according to later reporting by The New York Times. Senior administration officials claim that Meadows was misunderstood or being misrepresented.   

Aug. 6: Trump asserts that it’s possible to have a vaccine before Election Day.

Aug. 22: In a tweet tagging Dr. Hahn, Trump attacks: “The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics. Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd. Must focus on speed, and saving lives! @SteveFDA.”

Aug. 26: Moderna reports that it has enrolled 15,239 volunteers for its trial. Pfizer has also crossed the 50 percent enrollment threshold only recently.

Also on Aug. 26: The Infectious Disease Society of America warns Dr. Hahn that approving a vaccine before completing Phase 3 trials “could significantly undermine COVID-19 vaccination efforts and seriously erode confidence in all vaccines in the current atmosphere of vaccine hesitancy.” (Emphasis in original)

Aug. 30: Dr. Hahn tells the Financial Times that the FDA could consider emergency use authorization or approval for a COVID-19 vaccine before Phase 3 trials are completed.

Sept. 3: At a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, Trump says that a vaccine “will be delivered before the end of the year, in my opinion, before the end of the year, but it really might even be delivered before the end of October.”

Sept. 4: Trump says that he has spoken to the head of Pfizer and “it expects to have the results of its trial very, very shortly — next month — but very shortly. We remain on track to deliver a vaccine before the end of the year and maybe even before November 1st. We think we can probably have it sometime during the month of October.” Trump says that Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson have potential vaccines that are all “doing very well. They’re all in final stages, and I think you’re going to see results that are shockingly good.” 

Also on Sept. 4: Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson are preparing an unusual joint public statement pledging not even to seek FDA approval of any COVID-19 vaccine until it is proven to be safe and effective.

Sept. 8: Along with six other drug manufacturers, Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson issue a joint pledge that they would “stand with science” and not seek approval of a vaccine until it had been thoroughly vetted for safety and efficacy. They do not rule out seeking emergency authorization, but promise that any potential COVID-19 vaccine would be based on “large, high quality clinical trials.”

Dr. Hahn’s Short Leash

The next step is October 22, when NIH’s Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviews the “development, authorization and/or licensure” of a coronavirus vaccine. Board members are not government employees. Typically, they are experts in vaccine science and biostatistics who teach at major medical schools. So Dr. Fauci says that he’s “not concerned about political pressure” in the process.

But he should be. DSMB guidance isn’t binding on Dr. Hahn or his boss, HHS Secretary Azar. Neither of them has committed to follow it.

And Trump’s heavy hand is everywhere. Dr. Hahn is not allowed to speak to the press unless Azar’s deputy, Michael Caputo, is on the line. Caputo has no background in health care, but he has known Trump since the 1980s, when he worked briefly for a lobbying and political consulting firm started by Paul Manafort, Charlie Black and Roger Stone — whom Caputo considered a mentor. During Trump’s impeachment, Caputo wrote a book and produced a documentary, both titled The Ukraine Hoax. As Trump began to distrust Azar, Caputo became HHS’s principal spokesperson on April 15.

Acknowledging the pressure to move quickly, Dr. Hahn was asked on September 1 whether he would resign if pushed to approve a vaccine based on politics rather than science.

“I think all options are on the table,” he said. “I hope we won’t be in that position.”

When Dr. Hahn has been in a similar position, he’s caved. Repeatedly. So now he has the biggest problem of his professional life. Even if medical science supports accelerated approval of a COVID-19 vaccine, many Americans still won’t trust the decision because he made it. That means they won’t get the vaccine.

Trump doesn’t care, but Dr. Hahn should.

Read all installments of Steven Harper’s Pandemic Timeline.

America Needs a CDC Whistleblower — Now

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on Sept. 1, 2020.

As the Republican National Convention wrapped up its opening day and the pandemic continued to ravage the nation, the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control quietly revised its website to call for less COVID-19 testing.

No press release.

No media briefing.

And no underlying scientific basis for the change.

That’s because the science of controlling the pandemic points in the opposite direction. Until August 24, so did the CDC. For Americans’ public health, the revision is a giant leap backward. An enraged medical community demands answers, and the country needs to know how it happened.

Why Does it Matter to Public Health?

A COVID-19 test reveals whether an individual is infected. That’s particularly important for those who have been exposed to the virus but don’t have symptoms. They could be pre-symptomatic and highly contagious. The CDC estimates that 50 percent of COVID-19’s spread occurs prior to the onset of symptoms for those who develop them. Or they could be among the estimated 40 percent of infected individuals who never develop any symptoms but nevertheless can infect others who get sick and even die.

A test is the only way to identify those pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic people, isolate them and trace their contacts with others. And that’s the only way to stop a pandemic.

Why Does it Matter to Trump?

As more testing increased the reported number of COVID-19 cases in the US, Trump didn’t like it. He said it made him look bad compared to other world leaders, almost all of whom did a better job controlling the pandemic and saving their citizens’ lives.

June 20-22: At his rally in Tulsa, Trump said, “[W]hen you do testing to that extent, you’re going to find more people; you’re going to find more cases. So I said to my people, slow the testing down please.” Immediately, critics flagged his remarks as absurd and medically and dangerous for any COVID-19 containment strategy. But when his advisers claimed that he was kidding, Trump responded, “I don’t kid, let me just tell you, let me make it clear.”

What Happened?

Week of July 3: The CDC updated its guidance to urge that anyone in recent contact with an infected person should get tested for COVID-19, specifically including those without symptoms. It emphasized “the potential for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission” as an important factor in spreading the virus.

“Anyone who thinks they may be infected — independent of symptoms — should get a test,” CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield told ABC News.

Aug. 3:  Dr. Scott Atlas, a radiologist with no expertise in infectious diseases or epidemiology, appeared on Fox News. He said that “people are kidding themselves” about the value of testing individuals who don’t have symptoms. For weeks, Dr. Atlas had been informally advising the White House after Trump saw him on Fox echoing Trump’s views on the need to reopen schools and railing against the “frenzy” of mass testing.

Aug. 10: Trump introduced Dr. Atlas as the newest member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. 

Aug. 24: The CDC quietly revised its online guidance to reduce COVID-19 testing. Where previously it had recommended testing for individuals with recent exposure to COVID-19 — even if they had no symptoms — the guidance now said the opposite:

“If you have been in close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with a COVID-19 infection for at least 15 minutes but do not have symptoms, you do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or State or local public health officials recommend you take one.”

Who Did It?

Aug. 26: “The people in the trenches are horrified by this,” according to a person who works with the White House Task Force. “It gives the impression that asymptomatic people cannot transmit the disease, which is not true. Community spread is driven by asymptomatic people.”

  • People at the top levels of the Trump administration pushed for the change, according toa health official close to the process: “It’s coming from the top down.”
  • The New York Times reported that “the shift came as a directive to the Atlanta-based CDC from higher-ups in Washington at the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services.”

Later on Aug. 26: Assistant Secretary for Health and Human Services (HHS) Dr. Brett Giroir, the Trump administration’s COVID-19 “testing czar,” tried to explain the CDC’s abrupt reversal.

“There is no direction from President Trump, the vice president or the secretary [of HHS], about what we need to do, when,” Dr. Giroir began defensively. Then he named the medical experts who “discussed extensively” the new guidance that received final approval at an August 20 White House Task Force meeting: Dr. Atlas, Dr. Redfield, FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious diseases expert. Notably omitted from Dr. Giroir’s list was the White House coronavirus response coordinator, Dr. Deborah Birx.

Let’s call the roll:

  • Dr. Atlas’ hostility toward widespread testing was a matter of public record.
  • Dr. Redfield was muzzled. The CDC directed all questions about the change to HHS, which set off alarm bells, suggesting that HHS, not the CDC, initiated and ordered the change. But on July 23, Dr. Redfield had already compromised his personal reputation and his agency’s credibility: The CDC put its imprimatur on a public relations piece that HHS had written to help Trump push schools to reopen, even if they had not satisfied previously recommended CDC guidance.
  • Dr. Hahn didn’t speak publicly about the change. Neither did Dr. Birx.
  • Dr. Fauci didn’t even attend the August 20 meeting. When CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta asked him about it, he said, “I was under general anesthesia in the operating room and was not part of any discussion or deliberation regarding the new testing recommendations….I am concerned about the interpretation of these recommendations and worried it will give people the incorrect assumption that asymptomatic spread is not of great concern. In fact, it is.”

Also on Aug. 26: Across the country, doctors and epidemiologists blasted the CDC’s reversal:

  • The American Medical Association called the CDC change a “recipe for community spread.”
  • The Association of American Medical Colleges warned that the new guidelines were “irresponsible” and “will result in less testing at exactly the time when we need moretesting in order to control the pandemic.…These CDC guidelines go against the best interests of the American people and are a step backward in fighting the pandemic.” (Emphasis in original)
  • The Infectious Diseases Society of America called for the “immediate reversal of the abrupt revision.”

Aug. 26 at 10:00 pm: Amid growing criticism, the CDC released a statement under Dr. Redfield’s name purporting to “clarify” the new guidance. It added more confusion:

  • “Everyone who needs a COVID-19 test, can get a test. Everyone who wants a test does not necessarily need a test; the key is to engage the needed public health community in the decision with the appropriate follow-up action.” (Emphasis in original)

The statement also noted that the new guidelines were “coordinated in conjunction with the White House Coronavirus Task Force,” asserting that they “received appropriate attention, consultation and input from task force experts.” Importantly, the CDC website didn’t change a single word of its new guidance: A person exposed to someone with COVID-19 still did “not necessarily need a test.”

Aug. 27-28: Physician groups and public health organizations across the country continued to denounce the new guidance:

  • The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America “vehemently” disagreed with the new guidelines and urged the CDC to rescind them.
  • The American Public Health Association was “deeply concerned” with the “dramatic shift from previous federal guidelines” and worried that “this change was the result of political pressure.”
  • The American Academy of Pediatrics urged the CDC to reverse its “inexplicable decision” because it was a “dangerous step backward in our efforts to control this deadly virus.”

The National Association of County and City Health Officials and the Big Cities Health Coalition, representing the nation’s nearly 3,000 local health departments and 30 of the country’s largest, most urban departments, respectively, wrote directly to Drs. Redfield and Giroir. They were “incredibly concerned with both the impact and the process of the guidance change” and urged reversal because it is “inconsistent with the science and the data.” And they dispelled the Trump administration’s claim that the new guidance somehow empowered local public health officials:

  • “While it has been touted that this is to empower these leaders, in many ways, CDC’s guidance change will make their ability to respond to the pandemic even harder. Our members have stressed the vital importance of testing all close contacts and to do so with clear and consistent messaging. Without clear data backing up the rationale behind the revision, this change has put them in a position to say they will not be following the CDC guidelines.”

Who Will Tell Americans the Truth?

Trump wanted fewer tests. Now he’ll get fewer tests. The new guidance gives cover to colleges, schools and workplaces that don’t want to test, contact trace, or close when they get outbreaks. It creates confusion for medical and public health professionals and adds new doubts about insurance coverage for COVID-19 testing.

But superficially, and for a short time, any decline in newly confirmed infections could fuel the false hope that the pandemic is receding. Trump can use such illusory progress as another deceptive COVID-19 talking point, just as early voters begin to cast ballots in September.

Reducing the number of tests won’t reduce the number of COVID-19 illnesses, hospitalizations or body bags. It will do the opposite, just as insufficient testing in the US caused irreparable damage at the outset of the pandemic. Trump’s early denials of COVID-19’s seriousness, combined with his failure to implement a nationwide testing program, started America down the road to its current catastrophe: The US has only four percent of the world’s population but more than 20 percent of the world’s COVID-19 deaths.

According to the latest projection that the White House has often cited, by December 1, the country will have a total of 317,000 COVID-19 fatalities and the virus will become the leading cause of death in the United States.

The CDC’s new guidance repeats Trump’s earlier “see no evil” tragedy. Once again, individuals who are unaware of their infections will unwittingly infect others. Many more will get sick and some will die as the pandemic rages uncontrollably — but more surreptitiously — throughout the land.

Eventually, the truth behind the CDC’s reversal will come out. But given the staggering public health implications, sooner would be far better than later because the health of millions hangs in the balance. To rephrase Trump’s plea four years ago:

“Potential CDC whistleblowers, if you’re listening…”

Read all installments of Steven Harper’s Pandemic Timeline.

Five Reasons to Care About the Trump-Putin Attack on Democracy

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on Aug. 24, 2020.

A Note from Bill Moyers:

The evidence is spread across nearly 1,000 pages, proving that Russia, with top Trump henchmen playing right along, sought to spread confusion and distrust among American voters, influence the outcome of the election, and undermine the legitimacy of our democracy. Vladimir Putin, according to the report – the same Putin before whom Trump groveled long before he became president – even ordered the hacking of Democratic organizations.

And the Russians are up to some of the same tricks in the 2020 election now underway.  

The report is indeed long and detailed.  Its implications are potent.

A bombshell explodes in our midst and few people seem to notice or care.

It sinks out of sight, and an embattled democracy misses yet another wake-up call.

This time it was a stunning report from the Senate Intelligence Committee.  A Republican – yes, Republican — majority controls the committee, but by a 14-1 bi-partisan vote the Senators agreed that Donald Trump and his allies worked with Russian spies in 2016 in an effort to help Trump win the presidency.

To help you grasp the essentials, we asked the able Steven Harper to prepare a “brief” highlighting key elements of it.

***

The Senate Intelligence Committee just released the fifth and final volume in its three-and-a-half year investigation into Russian election interference. Over 940 pages, it proves that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin joined forces in the 2016 US presidential election to attack our democracy. From now through Election Day, the Report’s  bipartisan findings should dominate headlines throughout the country.

Because it’s happening again. In fact, it never stopped.

#1: Trump’s Campaign Manager was a “Grave Counterintelligence Threat”

Putin has the leading role in the story. His supporting cast for this first episode included:

Oleg Deripaska: Russian oligarch, a top Putin confidant, and Paul Manafort’s former business partner

Paul Manafort: Joined the Trump campaign in March 2016, served as campaign chairman from May to August 2016, and remained in contact with Trump representatives thereafter

Konstantin Kilimnik: Deripaska’s associate and Manafort’s business partner

This chain of influence from Putin to Trump was:

Putin→Deripaska→Kilimnik→Manafort→Trump

While Paul Manafort was managing Trump’s campaign, he was in constant contact with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, the manager of his political consulting business in Ukraine:

“Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer.” (Report, p. iv)

Kilimnik was also Manafort’s primary liaison to Oleg Deripaska, Manafort’s former business partner to whom he owed millions of dollars. As one of Putin’s top oligarchs and close confidants, Deripaska conducts political influence operations, frequently in foreign countries where he does business:

  • “The Russian government coordinates with and directs Deripaska on many of his influence operations.” (Report, p. vi)
  • “From approximately 2004 to 2009, Manafort implemented these influence operations on behalf of Deripaska, including a broad, multi-million dollar political influence campaign directed at numerous countries of interest to Deripaska and the Russian government.” (Report, p. vi)
  • Manafort “shared sensitive internal polling data” and “campaign strategy” with Kilimnik, including information about the “‘battleground’ states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.” (Report, pp. vi, 80)

All of that and more led the Senate Intelligence Committee to this remarkable finding:

  • “Taken as a whole, Manafort’s high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska, represented a grave counterintelligence threat.” (Report, p. vii, 30)

The Committee also found information suggesting that Kilimnik may have been connected to Russia’s “hack-and-leak operation targeting the 2016 US election,” but that section of the Report is redacted. So is the section raising the “possibility of Manafort’s potential connection to the hack-and-leak operations.” (Report, pp. 29, 89-91)

Which takes us to the next bombshell.

#2: Trump Lied to Mueller

Again with Putin in the leading role, his supporting players in this episode were:

Russia’s Military Intelligence Unit (GRU): The GRU is Russia’s military intelligence service. Before entering politics, Putin was a senior officer in the Soviet KGB, another Soviet intelligence agency.

Wikileaks: An international organization that publishes news leaks and classified information, often from anonymous sources

Julian Assange: The founder of Wikileaks

Roger Stone: Trump’s long-time adviser and confidant who has known Trump for 40 years and began urging him to run for President in 1988. During the 1980s, Stone and Paul Manafort were business partners and worked for Trump on various matters.

This chain of influence from Putin to Trump was:

Putin→Russian Military Intelligence (GRU)→Wikileaks/Assange→Stone→Trump

In Putin’s hack-and-leak operation, Russian military intelligence (GRU) penetrated the computer systems of both the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Wikileaks then disseminated the stolen emails at the direction of its founder, Julian Assange, who was in contact with Trump’s long-time confidant Roger Stone. One key question in the Trump-Russia story has always been whether Stone communicated directly with Trump about Wikileaks’ planned dissemination of those emails. In response to special counsel Robert Mueller’s written questions on that subject, Trump answered:

  • “I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with [Stone], nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign.” Trump further claimed that he had “no recollection of the specifics of any conversations I had with Mr. Stone between June 1, 2016 and November 8, 2016.” (Report, p. 245)

Relying on detailed records and testimony, the Senate Intelligence Committee didn’t buy it:

  • “Despite Trump’s recollection, the Committee assesses that Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his Campaign about Stone’s access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions.” (Report, p. 245)

In November 2019, Stone was convicted of lying to Congress in connection with the Trump-Russia investigation, but Trump commuted his sentence.

#3: During Trump’s Impeachment, Congressional Republicans Knew the Truth and Didn’t Care

In December 2019, the House of Representatives impeached Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was accused of withholding crucial military aid from Ukraine as it defended its struggling democracy against Putin’s attacks. In exchange for aid that Congress had already appropriated and that the Defense Department had approved, Trump wanted Ukraine’s newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to pursue investigations into former Vice President Joseph Biden’s son, Hunter, and into the false conspiracy theory — promoted by Russia — that Ukraine, rather than Russia, had interfered in the 2016 US presidential election.

For this episode, the chain of influence seeking to shift blame for Russian election interference went from Putin all the way to congressional Republicans and others defending Trump:

Putin→Trump→GOP

When Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee sat through Trump’s impeachment proceedings, they heard evidence that had a familiar ring.

They knew that when Trump had asked Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelensky to pursue groundless claims that Ukraine — rather than Russia — had meddled in the 2016 US election, Trump was promoting Russian propaganda that Putin, Deripaska, Kilimnik, and Manafort had pushed into public discourse years earlier:

  • “From late 2016 until at least January 2020,” one of Russia’s foreign political influence operations “sought to discredit investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 US elections and spread false information about the events of 2016.” (Report, p. 106)
  • “Manafort, Kilimnik, Deripaska, and others associated with Deripaska participated in these influence operations. As part of these efforts, Manafort and Kilimnik both sought to promote the narrative that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 US election.” (Report, p. 106)
  • “These influence efforts took place in the larger context of existing Russian information operations targeting Ukraine and the United States.” (Report, p. 107)
  • “Manafort embraced and promoted the narrative of Ukraine’s alleged involvement in the 2016 elections. For example, in a February 2017 meeting with Donald Trump Jr.,        Manafort discussed how Ukraine, not Russia had meddled in the election.” (Report, p. 112)

As Trump’s impeachment proceeded, Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee knew that their congressional colleagues and Trump’s lawyers were parroting that Russian propaganda in the House hearings and at the Senate trial.

They knew that the Ukraine scandal of 2020 was a sequel to the 2016 election interference story.

They knew what Trump had done, knowingly, in 2016.

They knew that this time he was abusing the awesome powers of the presidency. Trump had put the quid pro quo bluntly: “I’d like you to do us a favor though….”

And they voted to acquit him.

#4: The Cover-Up Continues

The final chain of influence is still running — from Putin through Trump and Senate Republicans to the general public:

Putin→Trump→GOP→American voters

There was already plenty of other news dominating the media when, on the second day of the Democratic National Convention, the Senate Intelligence Committee released its 940-page volume of findings. With the ongoing convention, pandemic, post office crisis, economic recession, and widespread racial unrest, the Report did not receive the wide and deep coverage that it deserved. Within hours, a handful of the Committee’s findings became brief filler material for cable news programs. Within days, the story was hardly mentioned at all.

Republicans were hoping that no one would read the Report. Now Trump and his minions have a week of Republican National Convention coverage to keep the truth buried as they reassert Trump’s Big Lie that the whole Trump-Russia investigation was a “hoax.” It wasn’t.

Among other things, the Senate Intelligence Committee found, just as special counsel Robert Mueller had:

  • “The Committee found that the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.” (Report, p. v)

It found that Putin wanted Trump to win and worked to achieve that objective. It found that Manafort was a “grave intelligence threat.” It found that despite Trump’s claimed lack of recollection in sworn answers to Mueller, he had communicated with Roger Stone about Wikileaks document dumps targeting Hillary Clinton during the campaign. It found voluminous evidence of other episodes that together painted a damning picture of Trump-Russia cooperation during the 2016 campaign. And it described the obstacles that Trump and his defenders erected in obtaining additional evidence that the Committee sought.

But according to the “Additional Views” of five Democrats on the Committee, the Report did not seek “to draw overarching conclusions about its investigation, opting instead to let the reader determine the significance of these events.” (Report, p. 943) Perhaps that approach facilitated near unanimity among the Committee members, all but one of whom voted in favor of the Report. But it created an opening for all Republicans to distort it.

Only Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) voted against the Report. He also joined five of the eight Republicans on the Committee who voted for it — Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Tom Cotton (R-AK), John Cornyn (R-TX), and Ben Sasse (R-NE) — in appending a set of GOP talking points under the guise of “Additional Views.” Those talking points are at odds with the facts in the Report itself. The six Republican senators opened with this line:

“[T]he Committee found no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government in its efforts to meddle in the election…”

And they closed with this refrain:

“After more than three years of investigation by this Committee, we can now say with no doubt, there was no collusion.” (Emphasis in original) (Report, pp. 941-942)

They know better. They know collusion when they see it. They just refuse to see it.

They know that Russia wanted Trump to win in 2016 and that his campaign welcomed the help.

They know that campaign manager Paul Manafort made himself a “grave counterintelligence threat” by working with a Russian intelligence officer and a Putin oligarch to secure Trump’s election victory.

They know that Trump and 18 of his associates had at least 140 contacts with Russian nationals and Wikileaks or their intermediaries during the campaign and presidential transition.

They know that Trump and others on his behalf obstructed the investigation into the campaign’s interactions with Russia.

They know that there is no fact-based narrative of innocence for Trump.

They know that their misleading new talking points perpetuate public confusion and a coverup that continues to this day.

$5: It’s Happening Again

Perhaps most important of all, based on warnings from Trump’s own intelligence community, they know that Russia is pursuing the same objective in 2020 — to help Trump win again:

“We assess that Russia is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden and what it sees as an anti-Russia ‘establishment.’… For example, pro-Russia Ukrainian parliamentarian Andriy Derkach is spreading claims about corruption… to undermine former Vice President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party. Some Kremlin-linked actors are also seeking to boost President Trump’s candidacy on social media and Russian television.”

Senate Republicans know that Trump himself has declared publicly his desire for any assistance he can get.

They have known all of this while repeatedly blocking the implementation of a key recommendation in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Report that would send every campaign a simple message: If you see something, say something. In June 2020, Senate Republicans forced removal of a provision from the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act that would have required that all presidential campaign officials report to the FBI any contacts with foreign nationals trying to make campaign donations or coordinate with a campaign. The reporting provision died in the Senate that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) controls.

And they know that what happened before is happening again in Sen. Ron Johnson’s (R-WI) Biden-Ukraine investigation. He is scrutinizing a Ukrainian gas company’s hiring of Hunter Biden onto its board and the activities of a lobbying firm it hired in Washington. Even then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) warned Johnson privately in December that he could be aiding Russian efforts to sow public distrust in the US political system.

Undeterred by the prospect of becoming a megaphone for Russian disinformation, Johnson hopes to issue his report by mid-September — just before early voting begins in many states.

So now that we all know what those Senate Republicans have known for months, what are we going to do about it? If Trump and Republicans have their way, Trump’s ongoing chaos will smother the story.

That can’t happen. From now until all of the votes in the 2020 election are counted, the truth deserves banner headlines, a trending internet hashtag, and what producers call the “A” block on news programs. Democracy in America cannot go gentle into Trump’s good night.

PANDEMIC TIMELINE: 10 Things to Know About Trump’s Post Office Scandal

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on Aug. 19, 2020.

Don’t be fooled by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s tactical retreat. The crisis isn’t over. Ten facts frame the story of how Trump is using the pandemic and the Postal Service to undermine the integrity of the presidential election.

#1: The Postal Service Isn’t a Business

The US Constitution empowered Congress “to establish post offices and post roads.” The Postal Service’s stated mission is to “serve the American people and, through the universal service obligation, bind our nation together” by providing “trusted, safe and secure communications and services between our Government and the American people, businesses and their customers, and the American people with each other.”

The Postal Service is meant to be self-sustaining, but congressionally imposed rules make that difficult. Those rules include delivering mail daily, keeping postage rates the same for all parts of the country, and pre-funding retiree health benefits. Trump complains that the Service “loses billions.” So does every other federal agency. Investments in US battleships and fighter jets have yet to show a financial profit.

#2: The Postal Service is the Most Respected Government Agency

On April 9, 2020, the Postal Service’s public approval rating was 91 percent — higher than any other federal agency. On Oct. 1, 2019, its rating was 90 percent.

#3: Interfering with the Mail is a Federal Crime

“Whoever knowingly and willfully obstructs or retards the passage of the mail, or any carrier or conveyance carrying the mail, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.” 18 U.S. Code Sec. 1701

Interfering with an election is also crime under federal and state laws.

#4: Trump Replaced the Entire Leadership of the Postal Service

The historically non-partisan US Postal Service Board of Governors now consists entirely of Trump appointees. The chairman of the board is Robert Duncan whose official biography on the Postal Service’s website boasts that from 2007 to 2009, he chaired the Republican National Committee where he “raised an unprecedented $428 million and grew the donor base to 1.8 million – more donors than at any time in RNC history.”

On May 6, 2020, the Board of Governors named Louis DeJoy postmaster general. He has contributed more than $1.2 million to the Trump Victory Fund and millions more to Republican Party organizations and candidates. Most recently, he chaired the finance committee for the 2020 Republican National Convention. DeJoy still holds a multi-million dollar investment in a Postal Service contractor, as well as options to buy stock in Amazon, which is both a competitor and a customer.

#5: Most Trump Voters Plan to Vote in Person, But Most Biden Voters Plan to Vote by Mail

On June 11, a Politico/Morning Consult poll revealed that only 28 percent of Democrats said that they would cast in-person ballots in November, compared to 63 percent of Republicans. At the same time, Florida Democrats already had a 300,000-person mail-in ballot registration advantage over Republicans. By August 18, the Democrats’ mail-in ballot advantage was more than 660,000 voters.

In 2016, Trump won Florida by 113,000 votes.

#6: DeJoy Interfered with the US Mail

On June 17, two days after DeJoy began work as postmaster general, the Postal Service notified the American Postal Workers Union of plans to remove 671 automated mail sorters (more than 10 percent of the total) from operation throughout the country “over the next several months.” Some machines have the capacity to sort up to 30,000 mail items — including letters and ballots — with only two postal workers running them, according machine technicians. It would take about 30 employees over their entire shifts to do the same work by hand. The map below shows the locations of the targeted machines. Note especially the swing states of Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the newest swing state — Texas:

On July 13, DeJoy announced major operational changes leading to slower and less reliable mail delivery. The changes included prohibiting overtime and curtailing other measures that local postmasters have used to ameliorate staffing shortages.

In late July, the Postal Service sent letters to election officials in 46 states and the District of Columbia warning that, under the Service’s delivery standards, their deadlines relating to mail-in voting may result in ballots not being returned in time to be counted.

On August 7, DeJoy released a memo reorganizing the Postal Service, reassigning or displacing 23 executives, implementing a hiring freeze, and seeking early retirements. Analysts said that the structure centralized power around DeJoy and de-emphasizes decades of institutional postal knowledge.

On August 13, social media buzzed with photographs of government workers removing mail collection boxes throughout the country. On the same day, DeJoy issued an internal memo to his staff, acknowledging that his operational changes had produced “unintended consequences that impacted our overall service levels.”

#7: Trump Lied

Before Trump was caught lying about it, on August 4 and August 9 he said that he hadn’t spoken with DeJoy about the Post Office.

#8: Trump Confessed

As many states’ expanded use of mail-in voting during the pandemic, Trump has repeatedly asserted that the Postal Service cannot handle the increased volume of mail-in ballots expected for the November election. On August 13, he confessed to withholding the funds it needed to do the job:

“They want $25 billion, billion, for the post office,” Trump said on Fox Business. “Now they need that money in order to have the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots… But if they don’t get those two items, that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting because they’re not equipped to have it.

“Now, if we don’t make a deal, that means they don’t get the money. That means they can’t have universal mail-in voting, they just can’t have it.”

#9: DeJoy Bowed to Pressure, But Trump is Still Undermining Faith in the Democratic Process

On August 18, DeJoy was facing public outrage, growing bipartisan pressure, imminent litigation from at least 20 states, and appearances before Senate and House committees when he issued a statement suspending his operational changes until after the November election. He didn’t say what would happen to automated sorting machines that have already been dismantled and removed, mail collection boxes that have disappeared from city streets, or his reorganization at the highest levels of the agency. Later that day, several states filed lawsuits against Trump and DeJoy seeking to reverse all of DeJoy’s changes.

With DeJoy as his cornerman, Trump’s persistent one-two punches against mail-in voting and the Postal Serve are working. According to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 51 percent of voters do not believe that mail-in ballots will be counted accurately. Likewise, voters are evenly split — 45/45 — on whether the overall election results will be counted accurately. A recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll revealed that 62 percent of Biden voters plan to cast mail-in ballots, compared to only 24 percent of Trump voters. Conversely, only 36 percent of Biden voters plan to vote in person, compared to 72 percent of Trump voters.

Trump’s tactics are part of a broader strategy aimed at creating post-election chaos if he loses.

”The RNC and Trump campaign advisers are now mapping out their post-election strategy… as they anticipate weeks-long legal fights in an array of states,” according to The Washington Post. “The campaign plans to have lawyers ready to mobilize in every state and expects legal battles could play out after Election Day….” Trump has already planted litigation seeds in Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, including challenges to states’ expanded use of ballot drop boxes to bypass mail delivery altogether.

#10: Trump’s Victims Go Beyond Democracy and the Right to Vote

In his myopic focus on winning re-election, Trump declared war on the US Postal Service, democracy and the right to vote. But he also declared war on a paralyzed woman in Philadelphia who has received mail only twice in the past three weeks and has been waiting for an oxygen tube that she ordered three weeks ago.

He declared war on veterans who receive approximately 80 percent of their outpatient prescriptions from the Department of Veterans Affairs in the mail, including a diabetic in rural Michigan who went without medication for three days as he waited nearly two weeks for its arrival. Every work day, more than 330,000 veterans receive a prescription package by mail.

He declared war on the owners of the Maple Leaf Cheese and Chocolate Haus in Wisconsin, who worry that their cheese will go bad because deliveries formerly taking two to three days now take twice as long.

He declared war on millions of Americans who rely on the post office for prescription drugs, Social Security checks, government assistance payments, tax refunds, and even coronavirus stimulus checks that bear Trump’s name.

He declared war on all citizens who tremble at the thought of having to choose between preserving their health and exercising their right to vote.

As with his botched response to COVID-19, Trump declared war on all of us. His postmaster general may have issued a statement that gave Trump and his defenders a new talking point, but make no mistake: The war continues and it may last well beyond Election Day.

Read all installments of Steven Harper’s Pandemic Timeline.

Pandemic Timeline: The Pandemic, The Post Office, and Another Trump Attack on Democracy

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on Aug. 12, 2020.

As the pandemic rages throughout the country, voting by mail has become a particularly appealing option. But a big turnout is Donald Trump’s electoral enemy, so his administration has launched an attack on the US Postal Service — making it a central player in the preservation of American democracy.

Trump Installs Loyalists and Threatens Funding

Aug 20, 2019: With the confirmation of Ron Bloom, four of the seven members of the US Postal Service Board of Governors are now Trump appointees. The chairman is Robert Duncan, whose official biography on the USPS website boasts that from 2007 to 2009, he was chairman of the Republican National Committee, where he “raised an unprecedented $428 million and grew the donor base to 1.8 million – more donors than at any time in RNC history.”

Oct. 16, 2019: Postmaster General Megan Brennan, one of the remaining non-Trump board members, retires effective Jan. 31, 2020. She later agrees to remain until a replacement is found.

March 2020: The Postal Service projects that to maintain nationwide delivery of essential mail and parcels, including prescriptions, food and household necessities, its operations will lose $2 billion per month through the coronavirus recession.

Also in March: Trump threatens to veto the first bipartisan coronavirus relief package because it includes a $13 billion grant to keep the Postal Service on firm financial footing. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin warns legislators that the USPS provision will blow up the entire bill. Over his objections, the final legislation includes on a $10 billion loan, without which the USPS will become “financially illiquid” by Sept. 30, 2020. But the terms of that loan are subject to Mnuchin’s approval and, in subsequent negotiations with the Postal Service, he seeks terms that will pull the agency into the White House’s sphere of influence.

April 30: Less than a week before the Board of Governors announces the appointment of a highly partisan postmaster general, former inspector general of the Postal Service, David C. Williams, resigns as vice-chairman of the board.

May 6: The Board of Governors announces that Louis DeJoy will become the new postmaster general, starting June 15. According to Federal Election Commission records, DeJoy has contributed more than $1.2 million to the Trump Victory Fund and millions more to Republican Party organizations and candidates. He also chairs the finance committee for the 2020 Republican National Convention.

May 15: Deputy Postmaster General Ron Stroman, the last of the non-Trump appointees on the Board of Governors, resigns effective June 1. According to later reporting by The Washington Post, both Williams and Stroman have resigned over Mnuchin’s involvement with the Postal Service, including efforts to influence the appointment of the new postmaster general.

July 13: DeJoy announces major operational changes that will lead to slower and less reliable mail delivery.

July 29: The Treasury Department and the Postal Service agree to terms whereby the Postal Service will receive the $10 billion loan that Congress had appropriated four months earlier.

Trump and His Loyalists Intensify the Attack

Aug. 4: Asserting that Florida’s mail-in voting system works but that Nevada’s newly enacted law requiring all voters to receive mail-in ballots will be fraught with problems, Trump says, “Florida has got a great Republican governor…” Then he adds, “I mean, in Nevada, where you have a governor — he said, ‘Let’s just send out millions of ballots,’ and the Post Office cannot be prepared; I haven’t spoken to the Post Office about it, but I don’t know how they could possibly be prepared.” (Emphasis supplied)

Florida’s population exceeds 21 million — seven times that of Nevada.

Also on Aug. 4: The Trump campaign and the RNC sue to block Nevada’s new mail-in voting law.

Aug. 5: “Nevada is a big state,” Trump says. “It’s an important state. It’s a very political state, and the governor happens to be a Democrat. And I don’t believe the Post Office can be set up. They were given no notice. I mean, you’re talking about millions of votes. No, it’ll be a — it’s a catastrophe waiting to happen.” (Emphasis supplied)

Aug. 7: In prepared remarks before an open meeting of the Postal Service’s Board of Governors, DeJoy says, “I serve at the pleasure of the Governors of the Postal Service, a group that is bipartisan by statute and that will evaluate my performance in a nonpartisan fashion.”

Every member of the Board of Governors is now a Trump appointee.

Noting that the Postal Service “has ample capacity to deliver all election mail securely and on-time in accordance with our delivery standards,” DeJoy also warns that he “cannot correct the errors of the Election Boards if they fail to deploy processes that take our normal processing and delivery standards into account.” (Emphasis supplied)

Also on Aug. 7: Top Senate Democrats urge the Postal Service’s inspector general to investigate DeJoy’s operational changes that have “led to slower and less reliable delivery” throughout the country.

Also on Aug. 7: DeJoy releases a memo reorganizing the Postal Service, reassigning or displacing 23 executives, implementing a hiring freeze, and seeking early retirements. Analysts say the structure centralizes power around DeJoy and de-emphasizes decades of institutional postal knowledge, according to The Washington Post.

Coronavirus Relief Stalemate Explained

Amid growing concerns about the reliability of the Postal Service, some states are expanding the use of drop boxes to bypass mail delivery of completed ballots. Trump is attacking on that front too. In the battleground state of Pennsylvania, the Trump campaign has sued Pennsylvania’s secretary of state and all 67 counties’ boards of elections to bar their use in November.

Another sinister factor may lurk behind Trump’s assaults, even though Trump, his family members, and senior administration officials have cast mail-in ballots repeatedly over the years. On Aug. 7, 2020, the director of the US National Counterintelligence and Security Center warned that Russia is once again actively trying to help Trump win an American election. And although Russian intelligence officers have penetrated some states’ electronic voting infrastructures, they can’t hack a paper ballot.

So now you know all of the reasons why Democratic leaders in Congress have been demanding that the new coronavirus relief bill include ample funds for the Postal Service. You know why they’re asking the USPS inspector general to investigate DeJoy’s operational changes that “threaten the well-being of millions of Americans that rely on the Postal Service for delivery of Social Security checks, prescriptions, and everyday mail of all kinds’ and “appear to pose a potential threat to mail-in ballots and the 2020 general election.”

You know why Trump is resisting Congress’ funding demands for the Postal Service. And you know why DeJoy’s responses to congressional concerns about his recent actions have been “seriously lacking.”

Faced with dismal pre-election polls, Trump is aiming at the heart of democracy: the right to vote. For November, almost 80 percent of voters have a mail-in option. Impairing the delivery of those ballots is the ultimate voter suppression tactic.

Read all installments of Steven Harper’s Pandemic Timeline.

The Pandemic Timeline Twentieth Chapter! The Trump Virus

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on Aug. 5, 2020.

The Trump Virus

Try as he might, Trump cannot rebrand the virus. He blames China, but COVID-19 in America will always be the Trump Virus. He has distinguished the country in ways that are remarkable:

  • Although the United States comprises only four percent of the world’s population, it has almost 25 percent of worldwide COVID-19 infections and deaths.
  • As a result, Canada, the European Union, and most of the rest of the world have banned US travelers.
  • While the virus rages out of control in the US, other countries have contained it — reopening businesses and schools, recovering economically, and using testing and contact tracing to deal with relatively small outbreaks as they occur.

This Pandemic Timeline series began in March with a simple question: “How Many Will Die from Donald Trump’s Lies?” The twentieth installment now weaves together the earlier strands to provide the answer: more every day. Trump is the reason.

The Trump Virus Playbook

Trump seeks to dictate every news cycle, dominate every confrontation and deflect responsibility for his every mistake. In doing so, he has undermined the advice of medical professionals and rejected science-based guidelines that leaders throughout the world have implemented successfully to control COVID-19.

After disbanding President Obama’s pandemic response team, Trump refused to follow its Playbook for Early Response to High-Consequence Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Biological Incidents. Instead, he:

  • Lied that President Obama had left America’s pandemic cupboards “bare”
  • Lied about the seriousness of the pandemic and the resulting deaths
  • Falsely compared COVID-19 to the seasonal flu
  • Lied about the extent of US testing and tracing
  • Lied about the timing and significance of his so-called travel bans
  • Attacked and blamed the World Health Organization and China for his failings
  • Refused to wear a facemask and made them new weapons in his culture wars
  • Violated CDC social distancing guidance in favor of television optics
  • Subverted social distancing and facemasks at campaign rallies in Oklahoma and Arizona
  • Promoted a bogus and dangerous miracle cure
  • Suggested ingesting or injecting poison as a possible remedy for the virus
  • Pressured governors to reopen states prior to compliance with CDC guidelines
  • Threatened to withhold funds from schools that didn’t reopen classrooms in the fall
  • Attacked the nation’s leading expert on infectious diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci
  • Destroyed the integrity and independence of the CDC itself

And Trump isn’t finished. Recently, he doubled down on his dangerous pitch for hydroxychloroquine, promoting a dubious doctor who agrees with his false claims that masks aren’t necessary and that hydroxychloroquine cures COVID-19. She also claims that modern medicine uses alien DNA for research and that women’s gynecological problems come from their sex dreams involving witches and demons.

At every opportunity, Trump and loyal accomplices led by White House Coronavirus Task Force Chairman Vice President Mike Pence told lies that helped the virus explode and, to this day, remain uncontrolled.

The Trump Virus Loyalty Test

Trump’s motive is clear: win re-election at any price. Because polls show him losing by wide margins, he desperately needs a recovering economy. That means people must feel safe enough to send their children to school and go back to work. But forcing states to reopen businesses and schools too soon invites an endless cycle: reopen-outbreak-close-reopen-outbreak-close again…and so on and so on and so on.

And Trump’s lies — that COVID-19 isn’t that bad, that bogus miracle cures work, that masks infringe on individual freedom, that social distancing isn’t necessary, that businesses and schools can reopen safely without adhering to CDC guidelines — are actually prolonging the epidemic and hurting his re-election prospects. Only 30 percent of Americans now trust Trump on COVID-19 and the vast majority are Republicans.

On June 20, Trump surrogate Herman Cain attended the infamous campaign rally in Tulsa where Trump’s staffers hadremoved signs previously placed on auditorium seats to create social distance among mostly unmasked audience members. Cain posted a photo on Twitter:

Less than two weeks later, he was hospitalized with COVID-19. He died on July 30.

Herman Cain was among the most enthusiastic members of Trump’s political base. But the virus is shrinking that base. In counties where deaths from the virus are increasing, voters are moving away from him. It turns out that disastrous pandemic policy is not only bad economic policy, but also bad politics.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump boasted that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and his core supporters would still vote for him. Those supporters now face his ultimate loyalty test: Trump is shooting directly at them. Will they still vote for him?

Herman Cain passed Trump’s test, but along with more than 150,000 Americans who have succumbed to the Trump Virus, and thousands more to come, he won’t be voting in November.

Read all installments of Steven Harper’s Pandemic Timeline.

Dr. Redfield’s Retreat: Compromising the CDC

This post first appeared at BillMoyers.com on July 29, 2020.

The director of the CDC has capitulated. Under the guise of “guidance,” Dr. Robert Redfield recently released a full-throated promotion of Trump’s latest pandemic talking points urging all schools to reopen in the fall. If he had based his action on the evolving medical evidence relating to COVID-19, it would have been appropriate. He didn’t. Instead, Dr. Redfield surrendered the independence and credibility of the CDC at a time when the country most needs scientific voices it can trust.

Dr. Redfield Plants His Flag

Mar. 29, 2018: A week after his appointment as CDC director, Dr. Redfield gives an emotional agency-wide address describing the honor of leading the best “science-based, data-driven agency in the world.” It is “science-based and data-driven, and that’s why the CDC has the credibility around the world that it has.”

May 19, 2020: The CDC issues guidance for ways “schools can help protect students, teachers, administrators, and staff and slow the spread of COVID-19.” Steps include personal hygiene, the use of cloth face coverings, staying home when appropriate, staggered scheduling, back-up staffing plans, modified seating layouts to allow social distancing, physical barriers, and closing communal spaces.

June 8: The American Association of School Superintendents estimates that compliance with the CDC’s recommendations will cost each school district in the country $1.8 million that they have not budgeted — a cost so prohibitive that some districts are scrapping plans for in-person classes entirely in the fall.

June 9: The American Federation of Teachers estimates that reopening schools safely and with the proper academic and emotional support in place will cost an additional $1.2 million per school, bringing the total necessary federal assistance to least $116.5 billion.

June 23: In response to a request from Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-LA), the Council of Chief State School Officers estimates that the cost to reopen schools safely will require $158 billion to $245 billion in federal assistance over the next two years. The House has passed a relief package that includes $100 billion for K-12 education, but the GOP-controlled Senate has no plans to consider the legislation. Among Republicans, only Sen. Alexander is making a major push for additional federal aid.

Dr. Redfield Moves His Flag Backward

July 7: Surrounded by supporters and members of his administration, including Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, Trump announces that he wants all students returning to classrooms in the fall.

July 8: An internal 69-page CDC document details how schools can reopen safely. It cautions that “full sized, in-person classes, activities, and events” where “students are not spaced apart, share classroom materials or supplies, and mix between classes and activities” present the “highest risk” of increasing the spread of COVID-19. The document is not released publicly.

Also on July 8: Trump tweets disapproval of the CDC’s May 19 guidance: “I disagree with @CDCgov on their very tough & expensive guidelines for opening schools. While they want them open, they are asking schools to do very impractical things. I will be meeting with them!!!”

Also around July 8: After Trump’s critical comments, the Department of Health and Human Services convenes a working group to develop a statement pushing Trump’s agenda for reopening schools. CDC experts are “cut off from direct communication with the working group” after their input is interpreted as being “too cautious,” according to later reporting by The New York Times. The group still communicates directly with Dr. Redfield’s office, but “the CDC was by no means in charge.”

July 9: Dr. Redfield says that the CDC will issue “additional reference documents” to aid communities trying to reopen grades K through 12. But, he suggests, “it’s not a revision of the guidelines.”

July 12: Appearing on CNN, DeVos refuses to say whether schools should follow CDC guidelines in reopening. “The CDC guidelines are just that, meant to be flexible and meant to be applied as appropriate for the situation,” she says. “Kids need to be in school. They need to be learning, they need to be moving ahead.” Pressed repeatedly on whether schools should implement remote learning if there’s a flare-up of COVID-19 cases in their districts, DeVos says, “I think the go-to needs to be kids in school, in person, in the classroom.”

July 16: A South Korean study of more than 5,700 COVID-19 cases involving individuals who had contacts with 59,000 people concludes that children from ages 10 to 19 can spread COVID-19 at least as easily as adults.

Dr. Redfield Surrenders His Flag

 July 23: Trump cancels the Republican National Convention in Jacksonville, saying, “The timing for this event is not right. It’s just not right with what’s happening lately — the flare-up in Florida — to have a big convention. It’s not the right time.”

Elaborating on his reasons, Trump later says, “Well, there’s nothing more crowded than a convention. A convention — I mean, you’ve seen them. And even though you try and keep people away from each other, it’s just not that kind of a thing. They probably can’t do that. It just doesn’t work for them. So it’s a very hard — so I think we’re setting an example…”

But during the briefing, Trump also proclaims that “every district should be actively making plans to open” their schools in the fall and threatens to withhold federal money from those that don’t, saying, “If schools do not reopen, the funding should go to parents to send their child to public, private, charter, religious, or homeschool of their choice.”

According to later reporting by The New York Times, “[O]ne White House official raised the question of sending inconsistent messages, asking how the president could continue pushing for schools to reopen if he was backing down from holding his own convention. Other aides, however, said opening schools was essential, and a mass gathering of Trump supporters — the majority of whom would be over 50 — was not…”

Nearly one-third of the nation’s apparently expendable public school teachers are over 50.

That same evening (July 23): The CDC publishes new “guidance” that includes an opening statement written by the Department of Health and Human Services’ “working group” titled “The Importance of Reopening America’s Schools This Fall.” It repeatedly describes children as being at low risk for COVID-19 infection or transmission, ignoring the contrary conclusions of the South Korean study published on July 16.

The director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, Dr. Ashish Jha, describes the new guidance as thin on what parents and teachers need most — “clear information on the risks to children of all ages, as well [as] to school staff.” Noting that it doesn’t mention a testing strategy and dismisses the importance of screening children for symptoms, Dr. Jha sees little “in the way of a strategy to prevent infections. I think that’s hugely problematic.” More succinctly, the deputy director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security calls the CDC’s new statement a “sales job.”

The new guidance recommends that even in communities with “substantial, uncontrolled transmission, schools should work closely with local health officials to make decisions on whether to maintain school operations.” But, Dr. Jha notes, the CDC separately recommends that residents of such communities “shelter in place.” “It’s nonsensical that you would ask a community to shelter in place but keep schools open,” he tells the Times.

Dr. Redfield Surrenders the CDC

By acceding to Trump’s demands that put the entire nation at risk, Dr. Redfield has now damaged not only his professional reputation, but also the independence and credibility of the CDC.

Only 30 percent of registered voters trust Trump to tell the truth about COVID-19, and not coincidentally, about the same number (31 percent) believe that it’s safe to send kids to school in the fall. Before Dr. Redfield sacrificed himself and his agency on Trump’s political altar, 61 percent trusted the CDC. But now that Trump has co-opted Dr. Redfield and the White House is writing politically-based guidance published with the CDC’s imprimatur, to whom do most Americans turn now?

Creating that quandary may have been Trump’s real objective.

“If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer,” German-American philosopher and political theorist Hannah Arendt, author of Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil,explained in a 1974 interview. “And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.”

Read all installments of Steven Harper’s Pandemic Timeline.

 

Anatomy of a Character Assassination: Trump Goes All-In Against Dr. Fauci

This post first appeared on at BillMoyers.com on July 22, 2020.

Donald Trump has targeted a new pandemic villain: Dr. Anthony Fauci. Among his transgressions, the nation’s leading infectious disease physician relied on facts and science to contradict Trump’s talking points and criticize his policies. Even worse, he has outperformed Trump in public opinion polls.

So rather than declare war on a coronavirus outbreak that he has mismanaged at every turn, Trump has attacked Dr. Fauci and the truth.

Round 1: Trump vs. Dr. Fauci on Hydroxychloroquine

Mar. 19: Despite the absence of scientific evidence proving its safety or effectiveness, Trump touts hydroxychloroquine as a cure for COVID-19.

Mar. 20: At a White House Coronavirus Task Force briefing, a reporter asks Dr. Fauci if hydroxychloroquine is effective in treating the virus. “The answer is no,” he says, “and the evidence that you’re talking about…is anecdotal evidence.” A month later, the FDA cautions against using the drug because of dangerous and potentially fatal side effects. On June 15, the FDA revokes its temporary emergency use authorization as a COVID-19 treatment.

Mar. 21-Apr. 1: Dr. Fauci becomes what Politico calls a “fringe MAGA target” and by April 1 is receiving federal security protection.

Apr. 5: At a press briefing, Trump again touts hydroxychloroquine, repeatedly saying, “What do you have to lose?” When a reporter asks Dr. Fauci about the dangers of using the drug, Trump interrupts and refuses to let him answer.

April 8 Poll

Dr. Fauci’s COVID-19 approval rating:

Overall: 78 percent overall

Republicans: 77 percent

Democrats: 81 percent

Independents: 79 percent

 

Trump’s COVID-19 approval rating: 46 percent

 

Round 2: Trump vs. Dr. Fauci on Reopening

Apr. 11-12: Trump spends much of Easter weekend on the phone asking informal advisers, “What do you think of Fauci?” Trump say that he has made Dr. Fauci a “star” by placing him at the center of the administration’s public response to COVID-19, including daily press briefings.

Apr. 12: Appearing on CNN’s State of the Union, Dr. Fauci says that a stronger early response by the Trump administration could have saved lives. Later that evening, Trump shares a tweet that includes this hashtag: #FireFauci.

Apr. 16-17: After threatening to force states to reopen before they have satisfied CDC guidelines for doing so safely, Trump tells governors that it’s their decision. The next day, Trump tweets, “LIBERATE MINNESOTA!”, “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” and “LIBERATE VIRGINIA” — all states planning not to reopen anytime soon.

Apr. 27: The White House Coronavirus Task Force holds its last public briefing for two months. When the next briefing occurs on June 26, Trump is not present.

Also at the end of April: Chief of staff Mark Meadows starts banning Dr. Fauci from most television appearances.

May 8: Trump repeats what he has been saying regularly since February — that the virus would just “go away.”

May 11: Trump declares victory over COVID-19 and again urges states to reopen.

May 12: Appearing before the Senate, Dr. Fauci testifies to “really serious” consequences if states reopen businesses and schools too early. He warns that COVID-19 will not simply “disappear” and a second wave is “entirely conceivable and possible.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) attacks Dr. Fauci, saying, “I don’t think you’re the end-all. I don’t think you’re the one person that gets to make a decision.”

Also on May 12: Fox News’ Tucker Carlson blasts Dr. Fauci as “the chief buffoon of the professional class.”

Mid-May: Trump stops receiving personal briefings from Dr. Fauci.

May 20 Poll

Dr. Fauci’s COVID-19 approval rating:

Overall: 68 percent (down from 78 percent in April)

Republicans: 51 percent (down from 77 percent)

Democrats: 86 percent (up from 81 percent)

Independents: 66 percent (down from 79 percent)

 

Trump’s COVID-19 approval rating: 41 percent

 

Round 3: Trump vs. Dr. Fauci — and the Horse He Rode In On

From early June to July 15: Trump does not speak with Dr. Fauci at all.

June 23: At a House hearing, Rep. David McKinley (R-WVA) asks Dr. Fauci if he regrets not advising the public more forcefully to wear masks earlier. “I don’t regret that because let me explain to you what happened,” Dr. Fauci answers. “At that time, there was a paucity of equipment that our healthcare providers needed, who put themselves daily in harm’s way of taking care of people who are ill. We did not want to divert masks and PPE away from them to be used by the people.”

July 12: A White House official releases a statement to several news outlets saying that “several White House officials are concerned about the number of times Dr. Fauci has been wrong on things.” It includes a lengthy list of Dr. Fauci’s comments from early in the outbreak and is presented in the style of a campaign’s opposition research document.

July 14: During a Fox News interview, Trump says, “[T]he same people that say wear a mask are people that said, a long time ago, don’t wear a mask, masks are bad. They said they’re not good. So, you know, like Dr. Fauci, surgeon general, a lot of people — a lot of people…”

July 14-15: In a USA Today op-ed that Trump reportedly authorized and encouraged (though the administration denied it), White House trade adviser Peter Navarro writes that Dr. Fauci “has been wrong on everything I have interacted with him on.” The next day, USA Today adds a note to the online version of the op-ed, noting that several of his claims “were misleading or lacked context. As such, Navarro’s op-ed did not meet USA TODAY’s fact-checking standards.”

July 15: Asked about Navarro’s op-ed, Trump says, “He made a statement representing himself. He shouldn’t be doing that.”

Also on July 15: Stephen Moore, a member of Trump’s task force on reopening the economy, tells USA Today that Moore and his team are preparing a memo that highlights Dr. Fauci’s record, claiming that he has been wrong in predicting the course of pandemics. “It’s time for him to go away,” Moore says.

Also on July 15: In a series of interviews with The Atlantic, Dr. Fauci describes the intensifying effort to discredit him as “bizarre.” “I cannot figure out in my wildest dreams why they would want to do that.”

July 15 Poll

Voters who trust Dr. Fauci’s COVID-19 information

Overall: 65 percent (compared to 78 percent approval in April)

Republicans: 39 percent (compared to 77 percent approval in April)

Democrats: 86 percent (compared to 81 percent approval in April)

Independents: 67 percent (compared to 79 percent approval in April)

 

Voters who trust Trump’s COVID-19 information:

Overall: 30 percent

Republicans: 71 percent

Democrats: 4 percent

Independents: 27 percent

July 17: In a Fox News interview airing on July 19, Trump calls Dr. Fauci “a little bit of an alarmist.” Trump also repeats the misleading claim that Dr. Fauci had opposed the public’s use of face masks before recommending them on April 3, omitting Dr. Fauci’s reasons: Widespread public demand for face masks would have diverted the limited supply of medical-grade masks away from hospital workers and first responders treating infected patients.

No Split Decision: The Longer Trump Wins, the More America Loses

So far, Trump is still losing his credibility war against Dr. Fauci. But as with past targets, Trump’s politicization playbook is working with some people. On April 8, Dr. Fauci’s overall approval rating was 78 percent. Today, only 65 percent trust him. However, the shift has been almost entirely among Republicans (77 percent approval in April down to only 39 percent who trust Dr. Fauci now) and, to a lesser extent, Independents (79 percent approval in April down to 67 percent who trust him today).

The pandemic, on the other hand, doesn’t respond to Trump’s talking points. On April 8, there were “only” 430,000 COVID-19 infections in the US and 15,000 deaths. Today almost four million infections in the US have resulted in more than 140,000 deaths. Based on current projections, more than 224,000 Americans will have died from the virus by November 1.

Millions remain out of work and the economy is in shambles. Banned from traveling to Europe, Canada, and most of the world where leaders have controlled the virus by following the very recommendations that Dr. Fauci is still urging, Americans have become international pariahs.

As Trump’s rhetoric persuades too many Americans to push back against masks, social distancing and necessary closings, infections surge to new heights. Hospitals are once again running out of ICU beds and personal protective equipment. Testing backlogs are once again delaying results for so long that they become useless in contact tracing and containment efforts. And saddest of all, refrigerated vans are once again serving as temporary morgues in communities where sickness and death are overwhelming.

In his war against Dr. Fauci, time is not on Trump’s side. Back on April 8, only 29 percent of respondents to Quinnipiac University’s poll had been infected with COVID-19 or knew someone personally who had. By July 15, that number had soared to 53 percent. Harsh reality is en route to many of Dr. Fauci’s new skeptics. When it hits closer to home, maybe they will trust him again. Perhaps they will heed his new warnings, follow his recommendations and become part of the COVID-19 solution.

“[A] risk for you is not just isolated to you.…[Y]ou have an individual responsibility to yourself. But you have a societal responsibility.…[T]his is part of a process that we can be either part of the solution or part of the problem.”

– Dr. Anthony Fauci, June 26, 2020

Read all installments of Steven Harper’s Pandemic Timeline.

 

WHY TRUMP LET ROGER STONE OFF THE HOOK

I’m reposting this from February 2020 — with three important new timeline entries at the end.:

[The following post first appeared at Dan Rather’s News & Guts on Feb. 16, 2020.]

Back in 2017, Roger Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee. Then he threatened a witness who was going to expose him. A jury deliberated for slightly more than seven hours before convicting him on all seven counts of lying to Congress and witness tampering.

On Feb. 10, career prosecutors recommended a prison sentence of seven to nine years. As Trump tried publicly to get him a lighter one, Attorney General William Barr was working behind the scenes to help. Former Attorney General Eric Holder called Barr’s direct intervention “unprecedented, wrong and ultimately dangerous.”

Why is Trump so concerned about Roger Stone and what is Barr’s role in the growing scandal?

The Facts

Aug. 6, 2015: The Trump campaign says it fired Stone, although Stone claims he quit. Either way, Stone remains a prominent Trump surrogate, maintaining regular contact with Trump and the campaign through the November 2016 election.

June 14, 2016: On the day that the DNC announces that its computer system has been hacked, Stone calls Trump.

July 18 or 19: Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen is in Trump’s office when Stone calls, according to Cohen’s later congressional testimony. Over Trump’s speakerphone, Stone tells Trump that he has just spoken by phone with WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange, who lives in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Stone says to expect within a couple of days “a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” According to Cohen, Trump responds “to the effect of ‘wouldn’t that be great.’”

July 22: As the Democratic Convention begins, WikiLeaks releases close to 20,000 emails sent to or received by several top Democratic Party officials.

On or shortly after July 22, 2016: Paul Manafort directs his deputy, Rick Gates, to contact Stone for information about any additional releases and other damaging information WikiLeaks has regarding the Clinton campaign.

Late July 2016: During a ride with Trump to LaGuardia Airport, Gates and two secret service agents are in the car when Stone calls Trump on the phone. After Trump hangs up, he tells Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming. By late summer, the Trump campaign is planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and political messaging based on WikiLeaks’ possible release of Clinton emails.

July 31: Stone calls Trump and they speak for ten minutes.

Aug. 2:  Stone emails Manafort about the “word” coming from the “friend” in the embassy (Assange).

Aug. 3: Stone emails Manafort that he has an idea “to save Trump’s ass” and asks Manafort to call him.

Aug. 16: Stone emails Steve Bannon, who is about to be named the Trump campaign’s CEO. “Trump can still win — but time is running out,” Stone says, adding that he knows how to “win” this, but “it ain’t pretty.”

Sept. 21: On The Joe Piscopo Show, a local New York City radio program, Stone says that he spoke with Trump late the prior evening around 1:00 or 1:30 am.

Oct. 3: Stone messages Erik Prince, who is acting as an outside adviser to the Trump campaign. “Spoke to my friend in London last night,” Stone says, and a “payload” is coming.

Oct. 7: In a joint statement, the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence say that the US Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian government directed the hacking of both Clinton campaign and DNC emails.

Meanwhile, according to Jerome Corsi, Stone calls him on the morning on Oct. 7, claiming to have advance knowledge about the “Access Hollywood” tapes containing Trump’s vulgar comments about women. Stone says, “If you have any way to get to Assange to start dropping, tell him to start dumping.”

At 3:30 pm (ET) — 30 minutes after the release of the intelligence community’s warning about Russian election interference — the “Access Hollywood” tapes become public. At 4:30 pm (ET), WikiLeaks begins publishing stolen emails from the account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta.

Shortly after WikiLeaks’s release of the emails, an associate of Steve Bannon sends a text message to Stone that reads “well done.” In subsequent conversations with senior Trump campaign officials, Stone claims credit for having correctly predicted the October 7, 2016 release, according to his later indictment.

Nov. 2: Stone says he talks to Trump about once a week, on average, according to The Guardian.

The Lies

Nov. 20, 2018: In sworn answers to special counsel Robert Mueller’s written questions, Trump says that he has no recollection of discussing WikiLeaks with Roger Stone between June 1, 2016 and Nov. 8, 2016. (Mueller Rep. Vol. II, App. pp. C-18-19)

Jan. 31, 2019: During an interview with The New York Times, reporter Maggie Haberman asks Trump, “Did you ever talk to him [Stone] about WikiLeaks? Because that seemed —“

Trump: “No.”

Haberman: “You never had conversations with him.”

Trump: “No, I didn’t. I never did.”

Haberman: “Did you ever tell him to — or other people to get in touch with them?”

Trump: “Never did.”

The Fix

Dec. 10, 2019: Trump announces plans to nominate US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jesse Liu to become the Treasury Department’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial crimes. As the US attorney in DC, Liu had been managing several of special counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutions and referrals, including those involving Mike Flynn, Roger Stone, and Rick Gates.

Jan. 30, 2020: Attorney General William Barr names Timothy Shea, one of his closest advisers, to replace Liu as interim US attorney for the District of Columbia.

Awaiting Senate confirmation of her new post, Liu becomes a senior counsel to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

Feb. 10-11: Based on federal sentencing guidelines, career prosecutors in Shea’s office handling Stone’s case recommend a prison sentence of seven to nine years. Trump protests:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1227122206783811585

Hours later, the Justice Department says that its recommendation is “extreme” and “excessive” and that a new memorandum will outline its revised position. Shortly thereafter, the four federal attorneys who signed the original sentencing memorandum resign from the case. Jonathan Kravis — one of Stone’s prosecutors at trial — resigns from the Justice Department altogether.

As the day ends, Shea and Assistant US Attorney John Crabb Jr., who is newly assigned to the Stone case, file a revised memorandum acknowledging that the sentencing guideline factors set forth in the original memo were “perhaps technically applicable.” But the memo asserts that the previously proposed sentence of 87 to 108 months “could be considered excessive and unwarranted.”

The same day, Trump withdraws Liu’s nomination for the Treasury Department position and on Feb. 13, she resigns.

Feb. 12: Trump congratulates Barr for “taking charge” of the Stone case, “which perhaps should not even been brought”:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1227561237782855680

Feb. 13: After Barr lets Trump know some of what he plans to say, Barr tells ABC News that Trump’s tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job…”

The New Entries 

July 9, 2020: Attorney General William Barr declares that Roger Stone’s prosecution was “righteous.”

July 10, 2020: After learning that his appeals to remain out of prison have been denied and that he surrender to the Bureau of Prisons on July 14, Roger Stone tells reporter Howard Fineman, “I had 29 or 30 conversations with Trump during the campaign period. He knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him. It would have eased my situation considerably. But I didn’t. They wanted me to play Judas. I refused.”

Also on July 10, 2020: Shortly after Fineman’s interview with Stone becomes public, Trump commutes Stone’s sentence and he becomes a free man.

America is getting a first-hand look at what Barr thinks his job is. In the Stone case, Trump’s tweets outed him. Autocrats can punish their enemies and reward their friends. With the help of savvy accomplices, the rule of law can die at their hands — before our very eyes.