RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
What You Need to Know About Today's Elections in Kansas, Michigan and Missouri Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55522"><span class="small">Nathaniel Rakich and Geoffrey Skelley, FiveThirtyEight</span></a>   
Tuesday, 04 August 2020 08:43

Excerpt: "Call it Super Tuesday III: The last big primary day of the season is upon us. Today, millions of voters in Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri and Washington go to the polls."

Voters at a polling precinct. (photo: WP)
Voters at a polling precinct. (photo: WP)


What You Need to Know About Today's Elections in Kansas, Michigan and Missouri

By Nathaniel Rakich and Geoffrey Skelley, FiveThirtyEight

04 August 20

 

all it Super Tuesday III: The last big primary day of the season is upon us. Today, millions of voters in Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri and Washington go to the polls — or, more likely, fill out an absentee ballot — to decide the Republican and Democratic nominees for congressional and state office. There are over a dozen races worth watching today, but here’s the skinny on the most consequential.

Kansas

Kansas’s Republican primary for U.S. Senate might be the biggest down-ballot primary of the year. Although Kansas is normally a blood-red state, Democrats will have a real shot to win a Senate seat here for the first time since 1932 (their longest drought anywhere in the nation) if the GOP nominates former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

For reasons ranging from his quixotic pursuit of voter fraud to his far-right views on immigration, legal troubles and an incompetent campaign, Kobach is such a weak candidate that he already lost the 2018 race for governor to Democrat Laura Kelly. And internal GOP polling has reportedly found that nearly 30 percent of Republicans would support Democratic state Sen. Barbara Bollier this November if Kobach is the nominee for Senate. That’s enough to put Kobach and Bollier in a virtual tie in the few public polls of the race we’ve seen recently.

That’s not to say Republicans don’t have an alternative. The problem is, they have two: Rep. Roger Marshall and plumbing and HVAC mogul Bob Hamilton. And thanks to his ability to self-fund, Hamilton had spent the most as of July 15 ($2.7 million), saturating the airwaves with campaign ads — and that’s on top of the years’ worth of kitschy commercials his company is locally famous for.

However, Marshall has the support of the party establishment: In addition to the $2.3 million spent by Marshall’s campaign, the Senate Leadership Fund has spent $1.9 million to help him. Marshall also has the endorsements of a prominent Kansas pro-life group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and retiring Sen. Pat Roberts. But one big name has yet to weigh in: President Trump. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has reportedly urged the president to endorse Marshall, but (so far at least) he’s been unwilling to lift a finger against Kobach, his ideological doppelgänger.

A new super PAC with ties to McConnell, Plains PAC, has spent heavily ($3.3 million) this month on negative ads associating Kobach with white supremacists. But the biggest spender in the Republican primary is actually a super PAC with Democratic ties: Sunflower State PAC, which has spent $5.3 million, including on an ad “attacking” Kobach for being “too conservative” and actually attacking Marshall for being “phony” and “soft on Trump.” It’s not unheard of for parties to meddle in the other side’s primary like this to land their preferred opponent, but rarely have they gone so all-in on it.

Public polling of the race has been sparse; the latest data we have is an internal Republican poll (reported by Politico) that put Marshall at 33 percent and Kobach at 30 percent, with Marshall further behind. But you know what we say about internal polls — and be extra careful with this one; we don’t know which pollster even conducted it.

Remarkably, that is not the only race in Kansas in which a tainted nominee could cost Republicans the election in November. Dogged by allegations of adultery, unwanted sexual advances, campaign-finance violations and inflating his résumé, Rep. Steve Watkins of the 2nd Congressional District was already facing a vigorous challenge from state Treasurer Jake LaTurner, the youngest statewide elected official in the country at age 32. Then, on July 14, Watkins was charged with three felonies and a misdemeanor for voting from an address where he does not live. The scandal prompted Watkins to step down from his committee assignments in Washington and neighboring Rep. Ron Estes to endorse LaTurner. (However, Republican brass such as House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy have stuck with Watkins.)

Although this eastern Kansas district voted for Trump by 18 points in 2016, it’s looking competitive this fall — and could be especially vulnerable if Watkins wins the primary. According to a poll from LaTurner’s campaign (mind you, hardly an unbiased source), Democratic Topeka Mayor Michelle De La Isla leads Watkins 50 percent to 37 percent, while De La Isla and LaTurner are locked in a virtual tie.

Michigan

In Michigan, there are three interesting House primaries, but the one grabbing the most national attention is probably the rematch in the 13th Congressional District between Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Detroit City Council President Brenda Jones.

This is a race with a lot of history, too. After the resignation of Democratic Rep. John Conyers in December 2017, the seat hosted two elections in November 2018 — a regular race for Congress and a special election to complete Conyers’s unexpired term. Tlaib and Jones faced off in crowded primaries, with Tlaib ultimately winning the regular primary and Jones the special. Jones tried to mount a write-in campaign against Tlaib last November but lost, meaning Jones represented the district for a few weeks before Tlaib took office.

Now, though, Tlaib and Jones are the only primary contenders, which might help Jones in the majority-Black, Detroit-based district as she is African American herself. In 2018, however, African American voters didn’t coalesce around a single candidate. Instead, Tlaib, who is Palestinian American, came out on top. However, this year Jones has the endorsement of every other Democrat who ran in 2018, and she’s taken aim at Tlaib’s sometimes-controversial national profile as a member of “The Squad,” claiming Tlaib is prioritizing celebrity over her constituents.

For the moment, though, Tlaib appears to have the upper hand, in part because she held a massive 40-to-1 cash-on-hand advantage over Jones as of July 15. Tlaib has also attacked Jones for not living in the district, and it probably helps Tlaib that Jones has her fair share of controversies, too, including alleged violations of state campaign finance laws. A July survey from Target Insyghts found Tlaib ahead 52 percent to 24 percent, so it looks as if this is Tlaib’s race to lose.

Over in western Michigan, we’re also keeping an eye on the Republican primary for the 3rd Congressional District, a Grand Rapids-based seat currently held by Rep. Justin Amash, a Libertarian and former Republican who isn’t seeking reelection. The principal GOP contenders are state Rep. Lynn Afendoulis and Peter Meijer, a U.S. Army veteran and scion of the family that owns the eponymous Midwestern retail chain — which probably helps with his name recognition.

Meijer appears to have the upper hand, too, as he has support from House Republican leaders and leads the money race. As of July 15, he had raised a little over $1 million in contributions, compared to Afendoulis’s $625,000. Not to mention, he had a $400,000 to $140,000 cash edge for the home stretch (Meijer has also loaned his campaign $475,000; Afendoulis has given hers $256,000). Still, Afendoulis argues she’s the only candidate with legislative experience and is the only conservative for the job, having earned an endorsement from Susan B. Anthony List, which opposes abortion rights. She’s also questioned Meijer’s loyalty to Trump and the GOP, slamming him as a “Never Trumper” who helped Democrats by working for With Honor, a bipartisan group that aims to elect veterans to Congress.

A mid-June survey from Meijer’s campaign found him ahead of Afendoulis by 24 points, 41 percent to 17 percent, although we should take internal polls with a grain of salt. Ultimately, the Republican winner will advance to face attorney Hillary Scholten, who is unopposed in the Democratic primary. And although Trump carried this district by about 10 points in 2016, 52 percent to 42 percent, election handicappers only give the GOP a narrow advantage in the race.

In the last district we’re watching, three Republicans are vying to replace retiring GOP Rep. Paul Mitchell in Michigan’s 10th District, which lies north of Detroit in “The Thumb” and is the most Republican-leaning seat in the state.

First up, state Rep. Shane Hernandez has enjoyed the backing of groups promoting limited government like the Club for Growth and Americans for Prosperity. The Club’s political arm has spent about $1.5 million to help Hernandez, which includes ad buys featuring Mitchell endorsing Hernandez and emphasizing Hernandez’s support for Trump. Meanwhile, businesswoman Lisa McClain had spent $1.6 million on the race as of July 15 — about four times as much as her opponents — and has run ads calling herself a conservative outsider and pro-Trump Republican. McClain has also questioned Hernandez’s Trump bona fides by running an ad claiming that Hernandez opposed Trump and the idea of building a border wall in 2016. A super PAC backing McClain has also spent nearly $500,000 boosting her. A third candidate, retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Doug Slocum, has little outside support, but he’s stressed his early support for Trump and his extensive military service as a pilot in the Air Force and as commander of Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Macomb County, which is in the district.

The only recent survey of the race comes from Hernandez’s allies at the Club, which in mid-July found him narrowly leading McClain by 6 points, 33 percent to 27 percent, with Slocum in a distant third at 10 percent.

Missouri

Progressive challengers have already unseated incumbent Democratic congressmen in two districts this year — could Missouri’s 1st Congressional District be next? A Clay — either current Rep. Lacy Clay or his father, Bill — has represented St. Louis in Congress continuously since 1969, but registered nurse and Black Lives Matter activist Cori Bush is determined to bring that streak to an end. Clay defeated Bush 57 percent to 37 percent in the Democratic primary here in 2018, but it’s a much fairer fight this time around: Instead of being outspent more than three to one like she was in 2018, Bush has spent nearly $442,000 this year to Clay’s more than $548,000 (as of July 15).

In addition, outside group Fight Corporate Monopolies has dropped six figures on an ad attacking Clay for fighting the Obama administration on Wall Street reform. Generally, though, Clay has a pretty progressive voting record: He’s more liberal than 83 percent of Democrats in the current Congress, according to DW-Nominate, and, like Bush, supports both single-payer health care and the Green New Deal. On the other hand, the nationwide movement against police violence may help Bush, as she first rose to prominence amid the 2014 protests over the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, which is in the district. But whoever wins the primary will likely punch their ticket to Congress, since the 1st District is overwhelmingly Democratic.

Missourians statewide will also vote on Amendment 2, a ballot measure that would make Missouri the 39th state to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. In the face of opposition from Republican governors and legislatures, proponents of Medicaid expansion have had a lot of success recently at the ballot box — Idaho, Nebraska and Utah passed it in 2018, and Oklahoma did so just a month ago — and Missouri looks like it could follow suit. A June poll from Remington Research Group found Amendment 2 leading 47 percent to 40 percent, and as of July 27, supporters had outraised opponents by the shocking margin of $10.1 million to less than $112,000. If the amendment passes, an estimated 230,000 people would newly become eligible for Medicaid starting in 2021.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Coming Forward Ended My Career. I Still Believe Doing What's Right Matters. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55507"><span class="small">Alexander Vindman, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Monday, 03 August 2020 12:53

Vindman writes: "After 21 years, six months and 10 days of active military service, I am now a civilian. I made the difficult decision to retire because a campaign of bullying, intimidation and retaliation by President Trump and his allies forever limited the progression of my military career."

Alexander Vindman during his testimony in November last year. Trump on Twitter described Vindman as 'very insubordinate.' (photo: Rex/Shutterstock)
Alexander Vindman during his testimony in November last year. Trump on Twitter described Vindman as 'very insubordinate.' (photo: Rex/Shutterstock)


Coming Forward Ended My Career. I Still Believe Doing What's Right Matters.

By Alexander Vindman, The Washington Post

03 August 20

 

fter 21 years, six months and 10 days of active military service, I am now a civilian. I made the difficult decision to retire because a campaign of bullying, intimidation and retaliation by President Trump and his allies forever limited the progression of my military career.

This experience has been painful, but I am not alone in this ignominious fate. The circumstances of my departure might have been more public, yet they are little different from those of dozens of other lifelong public servants who have left this administration with their integrity intact but their careers irreparably harmed.

A year ago, having served the nation in uniform in positions of critical importance, I was on the cusp of a career-topping promotion to colonel. A year ago, unknown to me, my concerns over the president’s conduct and the president’s efforts to undermine the very foundations of our democracy were precipitating tremors that would ultimately shake loose the facade of good governance and publicly expose the corruption of the Trump administration.

At no point in my career or life have I felt our nation’s values under greater threat and in more peril than at this moment. Our national government during the past few years has been more reminiscent of the authoritarian regime my family fled more than 40 years ago than the country I have devoted my life to serving.

Our citizens are being subjected to the same kinds of attacks tyrants launch against their critics and political opponents. Those who choose loyalty to American values and allegiance to the Constitution over devotion to a mendacious president and his enablers are punished. The president recklessly downplayed the threat of the pandemic even as it swept through our country. The economic collapse that followed highlighted the growing income disparities in our society. Millions are grieving the loss of loved ones and many more have lost their livelihoods while the president publicly bemoans his approval ratings.

There is another way.

During my testimony in the House impeachment inquiry, I reassured my father, who experienced Soviet authoritarianism firsthand, saying, “Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.” Despite Trump’s retaliation, I stand by that conviction. Even as I experience the low of ending my military career, I have also experienced the loving support of tens of thousands of Americans. Theirs is a chorus of hope that drowns out the spurious attacks of a disreputable man and his sycophants.

Since the struggle for our nation’s independence, America has been a union of purpose: a union born from the belief that although each individual is the pilot of their own destiny, when we come together, we change the world. We are stronger as a woven rope than as unbound threads.

America has thrived because citizens have been willing to contribute their voices and shed their blood to challenge injustice and protect the nation. It is in keeping with that history of service that, at this moment, I feel the burden to advocate for my values and an enormous urgency to act.

Despite some personal turmoil, I remain hopeful for the future for both my family and for our nation. Impeachment exposed Trump’s corruption, but the confluence of a pandemic, a financial crisis and the stoking of societal divisions has roused the soul of the American people. A groundswell is building that will issue a mandate to reject hate and bigotry and a return to the ideals that set the United States apart from the rest of the world. I look forward to contributing to that effort.

In retirement from the Army, I will continue to defend my nation. I will demand accountability of our leadership and call for leaders of moral courage and public servants of integrity. I will speak about the attacks on our national security. I will advocate for policies and strategies that will keep our nation safe and strong against internal and external threats. I will promote public service and exalt the contribution that service brings to all areas of society.

The 23-year-old me who was commissioned in December 1998 could never have imagined the opportunities and experiences I have had. I joined the military to serve the country that sheltered my family’s escape from authoritarianism, and yet the privilege has been all mine.

When I was asked why I had the confidence to tell my father not to worry about my testimony, my response was, “Congressman, because this is America. This is the country I have served and defended, that all my brothers have served, and here, right matters.” 

To this day, despite everything that has happened, I continue to believe in the American Dream. I believe that in America, right matters. I want to help ensure that right matters for all Americans.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Missing in Action: Accountability Is Gone in America Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29696"><span class="small">Karen J. Greenberg, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Monday, 03 August 2020 12:53

Greenberg writes: "The country has to be given a chance to restore its long-faded commitment to accountable government. And perhaps we should acknowledge one more crucial thing: that this may prove to be our last chance."

Donald Trump, seen in the cabinet room at the White House this month. (photo: Rex/Shutterstock)
Donald Trump, seen in the cabinet room at the White House this month. (photo: Rex/Shutterstock)


Missing in Action: Accountability Is Gone in America

By Karen J. Greenberg, TomDispatch

03 August 20

 


Yes, it’s possible that a vaccine for Covid-19 could be available by spring. I mean, I wouldn’t put my money on it, but it seems at least conceivable. Here’s something I would put a few bucks on, though: when a vaccine appears, the Trump administration will have so botched things that its widespread distribution any time soon -- even in what could by then be Joe Biden’s America -- will be, to put it mildly, a challenge.

Just imagine this for a moment: what’s still the world’s richest, most powerful country didn’t have a reasonable supply of protective gear and N95 masks when the virus hit. Nor, of course, did South Korea. That country’s government, however, managed to quickly intervene, ramp up production, and ensure that South Koreans got such masks on a national scale in a way that would help shut down the disease big time. The Donald and crew? They quite literally did the opposite, turning down an offer to ramp up mask production in January that could have made all the difference. In other words, the most powerful nation on the planet that, in a World War almost three-quarters of a century earlier, had geared up production lines at a remarkable speed to produce tanks and planes, couldn’t manage to coordinate the production of N95 masks, not even with a “wartime president” in the White House.

Call that remarkable indeed. Nor could the man in the Oval Office and his top officials produce a reasonable testing program for the coronavirus or a national team of contact tracers to track down those in touch with people who got the disease as, for instance, both China and Iceland were perfectly capable of doing. Yet the same president has proven quite capable of flooding the streets of Democratic-run cities with his own army of federal agents, togged out in military-style gear, and ready to promote his election-themed version of “law and order.”

Go figure. Or, as TomDispatch regular Karen Greenberg does today, think about what else is missing in this land of ours in 2020 -- accountability -- and how we lost it.

-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch



hether you consider the appalling death toll or the equally unacceptable rising numbers of Covid-19 cases, the United States has one of the worst records worldwide when it comes to the pandemic. Nevertheless, the president has continued to behave just as he promised he would in March when there had been only 40 deaths from the virus here and he said, “I don’t take responsibility at all.”

In April, when 50,000 Americans had died, he praised himself and his administration, insisting, “I think we’ve done a great job.” In May, as deaths continued to mount nationwide, he insisted, “We have met the moment and we have prevailed.” In June, he swore the virus was “dying out,” contradicting the views and data of his just-swept-into-the-closet coronavirus task force. In July, he cast the blame for the ongoing disaster on state governors, who, he told the nation, had handled the virus “poorly,” adding, “I supplied everybody.” It was the governors, he assured the public, who had failed to acquire and distribute key supplies, including protective gear and testing supplies.

All told, he’s been a perfect model in deflecting all responsibility, even as the death toll soared over 150,000 with more than four million cases reported nationwide and no end in sight, even as he assured the coronavirus of a splendid future in the U.S. by insisting that all schools reopen this fall (and that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention back him on that).

In other words, Donald Trump and his team have given lack of accountability a new meaning in America. Their refusal to accept the slightest responsibility for Covid-19’s rampage through this country may seem startling (or simply like our new reality) in a land that has traditionally defined itself as dedicated to democratic governance, and the rule of law. It has long seen itself as committed to transparency and justice, through investigations, reports, and checks and balances, notably via the courts and Congress, designed to ensure that its politicians and officials be held responsible for their actions. The essence of democracy -- the election -- was also the essence of accountability, something whose results Donald Trump recently tried to throw into doubt when it comes to the contest this November.

Still, the loss of accountability isn’t simply a phenomenon of the Trump years. Its erosion has been coming for a long time at what, in retrospect, should seem an alarmingly inexorable pace.

In August 2020, it should be obvious that America, a still titanic (if fading) power, has largely thrown accountability overboard. With that in mind, here’s a little history of how it happened.

The War on Terror

As contemporary historians and political analysts tell it, the decision to go to war in Iraq in the spring of 2003, which cost more than 8,000 American lives and led to more than 200,000 Iraqi deaths, military and civilian, was more than avoidable. It was the result of lies and doctored information engineered to get the U.S. involved in a crucial part of what would soon enough become its “forever wars” across the Greater Middle East and Africa.

As Robert Draper recently reminded us, those in the administration of President George W. Bush who contested information about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq were ignored or silenced. Worse yet, torture was used to extract a false confession from senior al-Qaeda member Ibn Sheikh al-Libi regarding the terror organization's supposed attempts to acquire such weaponry there. Al-Libi’s testimony, later recanted, was used as yet another pretext to launch an invasion that top American officials had long been determined to set in motion.

And it wasn’t just a deceitful decision. It was a thoroughly disastrous one as well. There is today something like a consensus among policy analysts that it was possibly the “biggest mistake in American military history” or, as former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) put it four years after the invasion, “the worst foreign policy mistake in U.S. history,” supplanting the Vietnam War in the minds of many.

And that raises an obvious question: Who was held accountable for that still unending disaster? Who was charged with the crime of willfully and intentionally taking the nation to war -- and a failed war at that -- based on manufactured facts? In numerous books, the grim realities of that moment have been laid out clearly. When it comes to any kind of public censure, or trial, or even an official statement of wrongdoing, none was ever forthcoming.

Nor was there any accountability for the policy and practice of torture, “legally” sanctioned then, that took the country back to practices more common in the Middle Ages. (It’s worth noting as well that John Yoo, who wrote the memos authorizing such torture then, is now helping the Trump administration find ways to continue evading checks on the presidency.)

More than a decade ago at TomDispatch, I wrote about how the Bush administration supported such acts at the highest levels. As a result, in the early years of the war on terror, in 20 CIA “black sites,” located in eight countries, the U.S. government used torture, as a Senate Select Intelligence Committee Report of December 2014 would detail, to elicit information and misinformation from dozens of “high-value detainees.”

It should go without saying that torture violates just about every precept of the modern rule of law: the renunciation of adjudication in favor of brutality, the use of dungeon-like chambers and medieval equipment rather than the expertise of intelligence professionals gathering information, and of course the rejection of any conviction that civility and rights are valuable.

Among his first acts on entering the Oval Office, Barack Obama pledged that the United States under his leadership would “not torture.” Nonetheless, the lawyers who wrote the memos legally approving those policies were never held accountable, nor were the Bush administration officials who signed off on them (and had such techniques demonstrated to them in the White House); nor, of course, were the actual torturers and the doctors who advised them in any way censured or criminally charged in American courts.

Indeed, many of their careers only advanced as they took jobs like a federal judge, a professor at a prestigious law school, or a well-remunerated author. When suggestions for leveling criminal charges or holding congressional hearings and investigations were raised, the Obama administration decided not to proceed. Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that “the admissible evidence would not be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt,” while President Obama insisted that the administration should “look forward as opposed to looking backwards.” Accountability was once again abandoned.

And looming over the war on terror, the invasion of Iraq, and those torture policies was a refusal to hold any agency, administration, or anyone at all responsible for failing to stop 9/11 from happening in the first place. The 9/11 Commission Report might have been an initial step in that process, but as journalist Philip Shenon put it in his book The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation, the report “skirt[ed] judgements about people who almost certainly had some blame for failing to prevent September 11."

Evasion Elsewhere

It wasn’t only in relation to the war on terror that accountability vanished. The government responded to the 2007-2008 banking crisis with a similar determination to avoid it. At that time, the men who ran the nation’s largest banks had played upon the greed of investors to leverage mortgage investments until, lacking government bailouts, their companies would have gone under. In response, both the Bush and Obama administrations bandaged the losses with federal funds. Yet when it came to a classic dive into irresponsible and even illegal financial behavior, they offered stern warnings and nothing else.

Accountability had been similarly elusive for corporate crimes for decades. Take, for instance, the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill that covered 1,300 miles of Alaskan coastline with oil, while killing thousands of birds, otters, seals, and whales. Lawsuits brought by that state did result in payments of more than $1 billion after the federal government indicted ExxonMobil for violating the Clean Water Act. However, only the captain of the ship, whom many experts felt had been scapegoated, was convicted of a criminal offense.

A separate lawsuit filed on behalf of local fishermen, native Alaskans, and landowners fared less well. In our post-9/11 era of unaccountability, the penalties that had been leveled against the oil company were reconsidered. In 2008, the Supreme Court reduced a $5 billion punitive damages award by 89% to $507.5 million dollars. And in 2017, in the early months of the Trump administration, 26 years of litigation came to an abrupt end when a federal court in Alaska decided not to pursue a final ExxonMobil payment of $100 million for damages from the spill.

As it turns out, (lack of) accountability is increasingly not just a matter of the law but of politics, as the Mueller investigation of Russian interference in the presidential election of 2016 highlighted. No matter how much information Mueller and his team collected demonstrating violations of both law and policy in future president Donald Trump’s dealings with Russia, or how much information a series of career diplomats and national security officials provided on his quid pro quo approach to Ukrainian officials, escaping blame, not to mention impeachment, has proven all too easy for the president.

As Attorney General Barr told the nation, misrepresenting the essence of the Mueller report, the investigation “did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” More accurately, the report concluded that the evidence “does not exonerate” the president.

Subsequently, nine individuals, seven of them members of the Trump team, were found guilty and 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted (though charges against two of the companies have been dropped by Barr’s Department of Justice). And while five of those convicted went to jail, Donald Trump commuted the sentence of his close associate Roger Stone. Meanwhile, the prosecution of his first National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is still in turmoil after the Department of Justice directed and a federal appeals court ordered the case to be dropped. As the Flynn episode demonstrates, even when individuals were held accountable, the president and his administration have, in essence, refused to accept the judgments of the courts.

In other words, the mechanisms for shining a light on government wrongdoing are being systematically undermined and abolished. In that spirit, in April and May at the behest of the president, numerous inspectors general, tasked by law with investigating and reporting on wrongdoing in their agencies, were fired, including those for the State Department and the Intelligence Community, as well as the acting inspectors general for the departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Transportation.

In the age of Trump we’re reaching the end of the line when it comes to accountability in the halls of government. Increasingly, it’s no longer an American concept.

Once Upon a Time

It hasn’t always been this way. In the past, when government policy or the officials making it have gone rogue, broken the law, and conspired against the basic tenets of American democracy, they have, at times, paid the price. Nearly a century ago, for instance, President Warren Harding’s Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall went to prison for accepting bribes from oil companies in the Teapot Dome Scandal. In fact, the list of former government officials who have been convicted and served time in jail is long.

Fifty years later, in the Watergate scandal of Richard Nixon’s presidency, 69 individuals, including several top government officials, were indicted and 48 of them found guilty of burglarizing documents from and wiretapping Democratic Party headquarters, among other things. The trail of illegality and cover-up went right up to the office of the president, ending in impeachment proceedings, which led President Nixon to resign.

During the years of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, misuse of power was punished as well. Fourteen people in or close to his administration were convicted for their participation in the Iran-Contra scandal in which the government secretly sold weapons to Iran, an act proscribed by law, with plans to use the funds from those sales to support American-backed Contra rebels in Nicaragua (also in violation of U.S. law). True, of the 14 charged and 11 convicted, only one actually served his sentence in prison. Nonetheless, the convictions stood as a testament to a public acknowledgement of governmental wrongdoing.

Perhaps the saddest part of all is that the Trump administration has not just refused to take responsibility for anything whatsoever, but has blamed others, even those on the front lines of pandemic defense, for things that it did. Since Covid-19 struck American shores and the president and his officials failed to respond, resulting in a catastrophically high -- and climbing -- death toll, accountability has been harnessed to political whims in a new way. The president has, for instance, blamed President Obama whose pandemic office was dismantled by Trump’s own national security advisor John Bolton.

Until recently, President Trump refused to wear a mask in public and insisted -- until belatedly canceling the Republican National Convention in Jacksonville, Florida, still rife with the pandemic -- on holding a maskless, unsocial-distanced indoor rally in Tulsa despite overwhelming evidence that indoor transmission is the predominant means by which Covid-19 spreads. In doing so, he also encouraged irresponsible behavior at a local level, while supporting governors ready to imprudently reopen their state economies far too quickly and so condemn Americans there to an explosion of new cases.

It’s possible that this abdication of leadership, leading to a disastrously rising death rate, will, in the end, help Americans turn the corner from unaccountability to accountability -- and not just for the disastrous Covid-19 response. Recent street protests from Portland to Manhattan, Chicago to Kansas City, are a sign that accountability is long overdue, not just for the current era, but for this century of American life.

In March, journalist Peter Bergen was the first person to call for a 9/11-style commission to investigate the government’s response to the coronavirus, “if only to make sure the nation is prepared for the next pandemic.” Recently, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein and Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, both from California, also proposed a Covid-19 Commission “not as a political exercise to cast blame, but to learn from our mistakes so we can prevent the problems we now face from being tragically repeated... An honest analysis is the only way to adequately prepare for the next novel virus or another disaster.”

Of course, no such thing is imaginable until Donald Trump is out of office and the Senate in Democratic hands, which does look possible. In the meantime, in its own deadly fashion, the pandemic crisis may actually help turn the tide and bring accountability back to American shores. If more than 150,000 deaths, countless numbers of them preventable, don’t offer a compelling reason to hold our public officials responsible, then what would?

Whatever the punishments, however symbolic or cosmetic, crimes of this sort need to be exposed for what they are and those who carried them out officially identified and held to account. This has nothing to do with retribution. It is not about exacting punishment. It’s about shining a beam of light on deeds that have been harmful beyond imagination and must never be repeated. We as a nation need to remind ourselves of what morality, justice, and the responsible use of power can mean. The country has to be given a chance to restore its long-faded commitment to accountable government. And perhaps we should acknowledge one more crucial thing: that this may prove to be our last chance.



Karen J. Greenberg, a TomDispatch regular, is the director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law, the host of the Vital Interests Podcast, an International Security Fellow at New America, and the author of Rogue Justice: The Making of the Security State and editor of Reimagining the National Security State: Liberalism on the Brink. Julia Tedesco helped with research for this article.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Right Way to Get a Vaccine at 'Warp Speed' Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55504"><span class="small">Natalie Dean, The New York Times</span></a>   
Monday, 03 August 2020 12:53

Excerpt: "Scientists need to show us the data. And that's exactly what they're working on."

A volunteer receiving a possible coronavirus vaccine as part of a trial by the National Institutes of Health and the biotech company Moderna. (photo: Hans Pennink/AP)
A volunteer receiving a possible coronavirus vaccine as part of a trial by the National Institutes of Health and the biotech company Moderna. (photo: Hans Pennink/AP)


The Right Way to Get a Vaccine at 'Warp Speed'

By Natalie Dean, The New York Times

03 August 20

 

oronavirus vaccines are rapidly advancing through the development pipeline. The University of Oxford’s vaccine is in large trials in Britain, Brazil and South Africa. In the United States, researchers just began enrolling around 30,000 volunteers to test Moderna’s vaccine, and more trials are starting every day. Operation Warp Speed has set an ambitious goal of delivering 300 million doses of a safe, effective vaccine by January.

But the concept of developing a vaccine at “warp speed” makes many people uncomfortable. In a May survey, 49 percent of the Americans polled said they plan to get a coronavirus vaccine when one is available, 20 percent do not, and 31 percent indicated that they were not sure. The World Health Organization considers “vaccine hesitancy” a major threat to global health, and poor uptake would jeopardize the impact of a coronavirus vaccine.

This hesitancy isn’t surprising. Why should we expect Americans to agree to a vaccine before one is even available? “I think it’s reasonable to be skeptical about a vaccine that doesn’t exist yet,” Dr. Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told Today.

I’m a vaccine researcher, and even I would place myself in the “not sure” bucket. What we have right now is a collection of animal data, immune response data and safety data based on early trials and from similar vaccines for other diseases. The evidence that would convince me to get a Covid-19 vaccine, or to recommend that my loved ones get vaccinated, does not yet exist.

That data can be generated by the large trials that are just beginning, known as Phase III or efficacy trials. Some have argued that we already have enough safety and immune response data to start vaccinating people now. But this would be a big mistake. 

This is how Phase III trials work: Thousands of healthy adult volunteers are randomized to receive either a new Covid-19 vaccine or a control — a placebo or an already licensed vaccine for another disease. Then they go about their normal lives. They do not know what they have received (known as “blinding”) so the two groups behave similarly in terms of risk taking.

Participants are monitored for side effects and contacted regularly to ask about symptoms and to be tested for infection. The goal is to compare the rates of disease or infection across the two groups to measure how well the vaccine prevents Covid-19 “in the field.”

It is possible that some Covid-19 vaccines may not prevent infection entirely, but they could still prepare a person’s immune system so that, if infected, they would experience milder symptoms, or even none at all. That’s similar to the flu vaccine: It’s not perfect, but we advise people to get it because it reduces intensive care admissions and deaths.

How many people need to be protected by a vaccine before it’s recommended for widespread use? Ideally, rates of disease will be 70 percent lower in vaccinated people than in unvaccinated people. The World Health Organization says a vaccine should be at minimum 50 percent effective, averaged across age groups. (We know from influenza that vaccines don’t always work as well on older adults whose immune systems have declined.)

This benchmark is crucial because a weak vaccine might be worse than no vaccine at all. We do not want people who are only slightly protected to behave as if they are invulnerable, which could exacerbate transmission. It is also costly to roll out a vaccine, diverting attention away from other efforts that we know work, like mask-wearing, and from testing better vaccines.

The last thing Phase III trials do is examine safety. Earlier trials do this, too, but larger trials allow us to detect rarer side effects. One of those rare effects researchers are paying attention to is a paradoxical phenomenon known as immune enhancement, in which a vaccinated person’s immune system overreacts to infection. Researchers can test for this by comparing the rates of disease severe enough to require hospitalization across the two groups. A clear signal that hospitalization is higher among vaccinated participants would mark the end of a vaccine.

The speed of the trials depends on how quickly we can detect a difference between the two groups. If two vaccinated people became sick versus 10 who got a placebo, it could be because of chance. But if it were 20 compared to 100, we would feel much more confident that the vaccine was working.

Key to getting a quick result is placing the trial in outbreak hot spots where people are most likely to be infected. We can even target the highest-risk people within those areas, using mobile teams to travel to neighborhoods, bringing the trial directly to the people. Some trials explicitly prioritize essential workers like health care workers or grocery employees. Others are simply focused on enrolling large numbers of participants as fast as possible.

Combining those efforts, it could take as little as three to six months to generate enough convincing safety and efficacy data for companies to apply for expedited review by the Food and Drug Administration.

There are ways for vaccines to be approved without definitive efficacy data, based on animal or immune response data instead, but the bar is extremely high, and for good reason. A precondition is that efficacy trials are not possible, typically because the disease is so rare or sporadic that it would require hundreds of thousands of participants to be followed for many years to tell if the vaccine is effective (rabies, for example). That is not the situation here.

While there is promising data from smaller trials that measured the antibody response in people who got a vaccine, it’s not enough to approve a vaccine. We don’t know the level of antibodies needed to prevent infection from this virus. There is a history of vaccines with promising immune response data that did not pan out in the field.

With this in mind, the F.D.A. has committed to the need for traditional efficacy trial data to approve Covid-19 vaccines. And it follows the W.H.O.’s recommendation, stating that vaccines must be at least 50 percent effective to be approved.

I worry nonetheless that public pressure may mount to approve a product that doesn’t meet our standards. Other countries may decide to approve vaccines based on weaker evidence. Russia, for example, claims to be on track to approve a vaccine in just a few weeks.

We must resist the desire to rush out a product. Creating vaccines is hard, and we should be prepared for the reality that some promising ones will not meet the F.D.A.’s criteria. Researchers and the government should also commit to transparency so that people can see the results for themselves to understand the regulatory decisions.

Waiting for a better vaccine to come along may feel like torture, but it is the right move. With so many potential shots on goal, scientists are optimistic that a safe and effective vaccine is out there. We can’t afford to jeopardize the public’s health and hard-earned trust by approving anything short of that.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Trump Forecasts His Own Fraud Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51628"><span class="small">Charles M. Blow, The New York Times</span></a>   
Monday, 03 August 2020 12:28

Blow writes: "This election is in danger of being stolen. By Donald Trump."

Donald Trump at a rally. (photo: David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images)
Donald Trump at a rally. (photo: David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images)


Trump Forecasts His Own Fraud

By Charles M. Blow, The New York Times

03 August 20


In the president’s world, he is never to blame for failure.

his election is in danger of being stolen. By Donald Trump.

Trump is a win-at-all-costs kind of operator. For him, the rules are like rubber, not fixed but bendable. All structures — laws, conventions, norms — exist for others, those not slick and sly enough to evade them, those not craven enough to break them.

Trump is showing anyone who is willing to see it, in every way possible, that he is willing to do anything to win re-election, and will cry foul if he doesn’t, a scenario that could cause an unprecedented national crisis.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 Next > End >>

Page 402 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN