|
Bill Barr Tests Negative for Integrity |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>
|
|
Monday, 11 May 2020 12:53 |
|
Borowitz writes: "In a test result that he called 'a tremendous relief,' the Attorney General, Bill Barr, has tested negative for integrity, Barr confirmed on Friday."
Bill Barr. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Bill Barr Tests Negative for Integrity
By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
11 May 20
The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report." 
n a test result that he called “a tremendous relief,” the Attorney General, Bill Barr, has tested negative for integrity, Barr confirmed on Friday.
Barr submitted to the test after learning that he had come into contact with career Justice Department prosecutors who were found to be integrity carriers.
“When I learned that there were still people at the Justice Department with integrity, I was understandably furious,” Barr told reporters. “I told them to go home at once.”
Barr said that he was putting into place new protocols that would require Justice Department employees to be tested for integrity before entering the building.
“I thought that anyone with integrity had already left the Justice Department, but apparently I was mistaken,” he said. “It’s better to be safe than sorry.”
Although he was elated to learn that he had tested negative for integrity, Barr said that he shuddered to think how close he came to contracting the dreaded virtue.
“Having integrity would have made it impossible for me to work for President Trump,” he said.

|
|
DOJ Alumni's Statement on Flynn Case, Almost 2000 Signatories |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54318"><span class="small">DOJ Alumni, Medium</span></a>
|
|
Monday, 11 May 2020 12:53 |
|
Excerpt: "Attorney General Barr has once again assaulted the rule of law, this time in the case of President Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn."
Then-national security adviser Michael Flynn talks to others in the East Room of the White House on Feb. 13, 2017. (photo: Jabin Botsford/WP)

DOJ Alumni's Statement on Flynn Case, Almost 2000 Signatories
By DOJ Alumni, Medium
11 May 20
e, the undersigned, are alumni of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) who have collectively served both Republican and Democratic administrations. Each of us proudly took an oath to defend the Constitution and pursue the evenhanded administration of justice free from partisan consideration.
Many of us have spoken out previously to condemn President Trump’s and Attorney General Barr’s political interference in the Department’s law enforcement decisions, as we did when Attorney General Barr overruled the sentencing recommendation of career prosecutors to seek favorable treatment for President Trump’s close associate, Roger Stone. The Attorney General’s intervention in the Stone case to seek political favor for a personal ally of the President flouted the core principle that politics must never enter into the Department’s law enforcement decisions and undermined its mission to ensure equal justice under the law. As we said then, “Governments that use the enormous power of law enforcement to punish their enemies and reward their allies are not constitutional republics; they are autocracies.”
Now, Attorney General Barr has once again assaulted the rule of law, this time in the case of President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn. In December 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States. Subsequent events strongly suggest political interference in Flynn’s prosecution. Despite previously acknowledging that he “had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI,” President Trump has repeatedly and publicly complained that Flynn has been mistreated and subjected to a “witch hunt.” The President has also said that Flynn was “essentially exonerated” and that he was “strongly considering a [f]ull [p]ardon.” The Department has now moved to dismiss the charges against Flynn, in a filing signed by a single political appointee and no career prosecutors. The Department’s purported justification for doing so does not hold up to scrutiny, given the ample evidence that the investigation was well-founded and — more importantly — the fact that Flynn admitted under oath and in open court that he told material lies to the FBI in violation of longstanding federal law.
Make no mistake: The Department’s action is extraordinarily rare, if not unprecedented. If any of us, or anyone reading this statement who is not a friend of the President, were to lie to federal investigators in the course of a properly predicated counterintelligence investigation, and admit we did so under oath, we would be prosecuted for it.
We thus unequivocally support the decision of the career prosecutor who withdrew from the Flynn case, just as we supported the prosecutors who withdrew from the Stone case. They are upholding the oath that we all took, and we call on their colleagues to continue to follow their example. President Trump accused the career investigators and prosecutors involved in the Flynn case of “treason” and threatened that they should pay “a big price.” It is incumbent upon the other branches of government to protect from retaliation these public servants and any others who are targeted for seeking to uphold their oaths of office and pursue justice.
It is now up to the district court to consider the government’s motion to dismiss the Flynn indictment. We urge Judge Sullivan to closely examine the Department’s stated rationale for dismissing the charges — including holding an evidentiary hearing with witnesses — and to deny the motion and proceed with sentencing if appropriate. While it is rare for a court to deny the Department’s request to dismiss an indictment, if ever there were a case where the public interest counseled the court to take a long, hard look at the government’s explanation and the evidence, it is this one. 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.
Finally, in our previous statement, we called on Attorney General Barr to resign, although we recognized then that there was little chance that he would do so. We continue to believe that it would be best for the integrity of the Justice Department and for our democracy for Attorney General Barr to step aside. In the meantime, we call on Congress to hold the Attorney General accountable. In the midst of the greatest public health crisis our nation has faced in over a century, we would all prefer it if Congress could focus on the health and prosperity of Americans, not threats to the health of our democracy. Yet Attorney General Barr has left Congress with no choice. Attorney General Barr was previously set to give testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on March 31, but the hearing was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We urge the Committee to reschedule Attorney General Barr’s testimony as soon as safely possible and demand that he answer for his abuses of power. We also call upon Congress to formally censure Attorney General Barr for his repeated assaults on the rule of law in doing the President’s personal bidding rather than acting in the public interest. Our democracy depends on a Department of Justice that acts as an independent arbiter of equal justice, not as an arm of the president’s political apparatus.
(If you are a former DOJ employee and would like to add your name to this statement, please complete this form. Protect Democracy will update this list daily with new signatories until May 25th.)
[See the list of signatories.]

|
|
|
FOCUS: They Are Giving You Death and Calling It Liberty |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48731"><span class="small">Jamil Smith, Rolling Stone</span></a>
|
|
Monday, 11 May 2020 12:04 |
|
Smith writes: "Since when should dying be the price of freedom? What kind of liberty could be won? And when we hear authority figures saying that we should accept that risk, should we feel liberated? Or just the opposite?"
A worker gives a customer a manicure at a nail salon in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., on Friday, April 24, 2020. (photo: Elijah Nouvelage/Bloomberg/Getty Images)

They Are Giving You Death and Calling It Liberty
By Jamil Smith, Rolling Stone
11 May 20
The reckless Republicans opening America up to a deadly pandemic want us to risk sacrificing our lives for their power
ince when should dying be the price of freedom? What kind of liberty could be won? And when we hear authority figures saying that we should accept that risk, should we feel liberated? Or just the opposite?
Perhaps if one might answer that question in a certain way if they volunteered for the armed forces. But even then, they risk life and limb for others’ independence, not their own. Certainly, they don’t do so for the fortunes of their commander-in-chief. However, this is what Donald Trump asks of Americans, speaking of them on Tuesday as “warriors” while acknowledging that some will be “badly affected” as the country opens up.” Casualties of an invented war, dying all the same.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the NIH epidemiologist working alongside the White House, asked an essential question on CNN Monday night. “How many deaths and how much suffering are you willing to accept to get back to what you want to be, some form of normality, sooner rather than later?” Judging by the demand for exponentially more human sacrifice from Trump and many in the Republican Party of late, the number seems unquantifiable. They actually seem to have actually stopped trying to fight it with the required urgency. Releasing a triumphant and militaristic campaign ad Tuesday that paints his virus response as unfailingly effective, Trump all but declared victory over the ongoing pandemic. He clearly wants to look like a wartime president, and a winning one. He is neither.
In less than three months, COVID-19 has killed more than 62,000 people inside the the United States. The White House expects the disease will kill up to 3,000 people in the U.S. daily by June 1. That’s more than a 9/11, every single day. The model projects that more than 134,000 total will die, per a New York Times report on Monday. Less than three months after the first fatality, we have seen macabre reports of bodies stacked in U-Hauls and warehouses and cities burying unclaimed dead in local parks. But despite the federal government itself buying 100,000 body bags last week, White House advisers like Steven Moore appear more concerned about dead companies.
Speaking about businesses closed due to stay-at-home protocols throughout the United States Moore, a member of Trump’s council on “reopening” the country, told Politico on Monday that “if they stay closed for another month, month and a half, you’re gonna have body bags of businesses that will never recover.” Quite the word choice.
The nation has no business opening up right now and most Americans are deeply wary of it, but several of Trump’s fellow Republicans have now relaxed or ended public safety protections in their states. Governors from Georgia to Missouri to Texas abandoned or declined to extend shelter-in-place orders, allowing both local customers and COVID-19 to enter their businesses. Sure enough, sharp spikes in infection rates accompanied: The Daily Beast‘s Olivia Messer reported on Tuesday that even Texas governor Greg Abbott knew what he was doing would lead to greater transmission of the disease. He did it anyway. saying on a private call that “the goal never has been to get transmission down to zero.”
Then there was Chris Christie, who during Hurricane Sandy eight years ago managed to talk like a government official interested in protecting people. Now, he talks like someone interested in coming to Donald Trump’s rescue. “Of course, everybody wants to save every life they can — but the question is, towards what end, ultimately?” he asked recently. Just off the top of my head, Chris: preventing premature death? Then anchor Dana Bash asked Christie whether Americans will need to swallow that projected 3,000-per day death toll in June. The bridge traffic aficionado told her, “They’re gonna have to.”
Death overtakes us all at some point. However, we’re now being told to numb ourselves to mass casualties and the increased possibility of our own COVID-19 infections in order help a president win re-election. Or to help some stocks rally, or even save a business from folding. That is what is happening here. “If a majority believe that we got through this, they’re not afraid anymore about their health, the health of their family and they feel like the health of the economy is heading in the right direction, then I think he’s in good shape,” former Wisconsin governor Scott Walker recently told McClatchy. “If they have doubts on either or both of those, then I think it becomes really, really tough.”
The Republican rush to “reopen” is projecting a simulacrum of the American “normal” that existed before the pandemic. The genuine article needed improvement, seeing as the pandemic has revealed the fragility of our systems in health care, education, tech, criminal justice, and throughout our federal government supply infrastructure, just to name a few. And rather than noting how it has sought to unbalance and defund many of the very systems that have proven deficient during this crisis, the GOP has kept behaving as if the coronavirus’ calamities are part of some divine plan. As such, before they ever “reopened” a single state, Republicans were demanding that we willingly embrace a lesser life before we bow out early.
Many cultish movements have deadly culminations, so it only seems natural that some of Trump’s most avid fans might be willing not merely to use the fiction of what they understand as freedom, risking their health for Dear Leader. But whether or not that is true, Republicans offer this fraudulent version of liberty because their true goal, plutocracy, is the diametrical opposite of freedom. It is a life lived to spite other lives, and often take advantage of them. They have profited from the vulnerable, whose literal freedoms are limited in various ways that, at times, overlap: communities of color, incarcerated populations, service workers, the homeless, disabled people, and others for whom liberals regularly advocate.
The right has built a thin veneer that looks like independence and freedom, but the pandemic has stripped away that myth in a matter of weeks. We can love our country enough to want to build it stronger than it was before, not paint some shoddy lacquer over top of it and call it brand new again. Why should we lay our lives down for a system this fragile and rotten, and for people this desperate?
This phase of the pandemic won’t be over until there is, at least, sufficient testing, contact tracing, and eventually, one day, a vaccine or treatment that everyone in the world can access. That won’t happen with this president. He simply won’t do it. It isn’t in his interest to make it happen. He doesn’t have adequate training in the job to accomplish it, nor does his party have any interest in helping him do it. He’d rather have us leave the house before it’s safe to go to restaurants, malls, and nail salons, just so he can lie about America being all the way back. Never mind the lady in plastic doing your nails, the bodies in the moving trucks, or the mass graves in the public park.

|
|
FOCUS: Linking The Coronavirus and Climate |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53087"><span class="small">Dan Rather, News and Guts</span></a>
|
|
Monday, 11 May 2020 10:37 |
|
Rather writes: "What can be more humbling than this virus?"
Dan Rather. (photo: CBS)

Linking The Coronavirus and Climate
By Dan Rather, News and Guts
11 May 20
oday, like many days recently, I am thinking about humility. Now let me start by recognizing that this is not a word or concept usually associated with television news anchors, and for good reason. But what can be more humbling than this virus?
It is striking fear into people all over the world, simultaneously. It seems to kill with a capriciousness that has infused even experienced medical professionals with a mixture of deep dread and grudging awe. But it must be said, again and again, that it is infecting the most vulnerable members of society at higher rates in what appears to be due to a combination of societal, economic, and health inequities.
The syncopations of life are altered rendering our neighborhoods unrecognizable. Shuttered storefronts,. Empty streets. Closed schools. Our daily rhythms of life are no more. We don’t gather at restaurants. We don’t watch live sports. We don’t plan trips to visit family and friends. We can’t even visit our sick and dying relatives in hospital. Heartbreaking and humbling. Very humbling.
Then there is the reality that we seem to be the only species on Earth affected by this new killer. The wild animals that are taking to city streets, the canals of Venice, and other locations usually crowded with people seem so confident where we are tentative. They are a reminder that the totality of nature is much bigger and more resilient than the domain of homo sapiens.
And this is ultimately one of the biggest lessons of these times. If we don’t approach the rest of our planet, and each other, with a lot more humility we increase the risk to our own health and happiness. The coronavirus is the most obvious threat, but even now the grinding mechanisms of our climate crisis are further eroding the safety of our collective future.
We may not all feel that today, but I get the sense that young people especially do. I have heard from many friends of how their children are linking the coronavirus and climate. They are worried about their future. And for very good reason. They might not all understand the vocabulary of humility and conceit but they probably understand better than many of their elders the life and death ramifications of not taking threats seriously. And what can be, or damn well better be, more humbling than that?

|
|