Skip to content

Month: August 2020

The worst person in the world

Stephen Miller Is an Immigration Hypocrite. I Know Because I'm His Uncle. -  POLITICO Magazine

This excerpt from the new book about the monstrous Stephen Miller explains why he and Trump have bonded. It’s not just about their grotesque racism and xenophobia. It’s also this:

Miller loved Las Vegas. According to one of his friends who shared photographs with the author, he spent time there with family and friends wearing brightly colored outfits inspired by De Niro’s character [in Casino]. He appeared to study De Niro’s gestures—the loose hands, the fingertips-on-fingertips, the head tics—and incorporate them into his persona. Years later, he’d stand at podiums and conjure the old mobster in himself. “All these conservative guys can’t help themselves, it’s such a horrible cliché but they love the mafia,” recalls one classmate. “The mobster is the perfect encapsulation of the conservative worldview, where there’s no real law and order apart from ‘might makes right.’”

Two peas in a pod, I’d say.

In 2009, Miller joined then senator Jeff Sessions’s office as communications director amid confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Miller wore a gold pinkie ring with a gemstone and skinny ties. “That was very memorable, because the Hill was usually pretty buttoned up,” says a former staffer. “Skinny ties weren’t really in yet.” Another recalled that he wore Italian-looking pointed-toe shoes. He smelled of smoke, speedily clinking down the hallways. He was imperious, striding into the offices of older aides, plopping his feet up on their desks and launching into pedantic diatribes. He was a fringe figure, ideological and a bit scary, bombarding people with emails late at night with “FYIs.”

Former Senate aides spoke on the condition of anonymity, fearing retaliation. Two describe him as “vindictive.” One says he was like “an aggressive, nasty street fighter.” “He wants to project that he will do whatever he needs to do—and that anyone who crosses him will regret it.” Miller showed little interest in working with Democrats or moderate Republicans. “He was a lone wolf.” He told another aide: “You’re not a real Republican.” (Miller did not respond to repeated requests to be interviewed for the book from which this excerpt is adapted.)

Sotomayor was Obama’s first nominee to the court, and the first of Latin American heritage. Miller went to work trying to derail her nomination. Years earlier, Sotomayor had said, “I would hope that a wise Latina with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Sessions grilled her about the comment. “Aren’t you saying you expect your heritage and background to influence your decision-making?” he asked. “You have evidenced a philosophy of the law that suggests that a judge’s background and experiences can and should…impact their decision, which I think goes against the American ideal and oath that a judge takes to be fair to every party.”

Reporter John Stanton was covering Capitol Hill for Roll Call. He recalls getting calls from Miller, pitching him stories about why he thought Sotomayor was not qualified, calling her a “lesbian” or claiming “her position as a Latina woman created conflicts of interest because she would rule with a racial bias.” Stanton thought it was crazy. He says Miller’s comments about Sotomayor were nastier than those he made about men he disparaged. “He always had an axe to grind, particularly against Latina women but Latinos in general,” Stanton says.

Through lengthy press releases and emails, Miller also focused on attacking legislation that sought to assist the marginalized, such as federal spending on food stamps for the poor in 2012. Perhaps he remembered the words in one of his favorite books, The Way Things Ought to Be. “The poor in this country are the biggest piglets at the mother pig and her nipples,” Rush Limbaugh wrote. “The poor feed off of the largesse of this government and they give nothing back. Nothing. They’re the ones who get all the benefits in this country. They’re the ones that are always pandered to.”

Battling programs for the poor, Miller cast Sessions as a champion of the poor. Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler wrote a piece fact-checking a Sessions chart on welfare spending in 2013. The chart claimed the government spends the equivalent of $168 in cash every day for each household in poverty. Kessler concluded that it was “misleading.” He gave Sessions three Pinocchios. Miller contacted Kessler and insisted that he publish a four-paragraph response: “Who watches the Post’s watchman? Your piece is disappointingly anti-intellectual…. Unlike your post, our analysis is honest, accurate and, most importantly, a constructive step towards helping those in need.”

Miller knew how to twist arms and wear people down, pressing buttons when they wouldn’t budge. Miller told Stanton, “You have to write a story that favors me because you did a story that helps out those guys.” And he was willing to play dirty if he didn’t get his way, according to Stanton, calling Stanton’s boss to complain about him. “[Miller] has this idea that through the force of his own will, he can just change reality. I hate to say it, but sometimes he has.”

The article goes on to detail how Miller teamed up with the most outrageous bigots in the GOP, especially Ann Coulter, to completely decimate any serious Latino outreach in the Republican Party.

Not that white Republican voters weren’t eager to hear it. The anti-immigrant base has been around forever and they were gaining clout in the arty before Miller came along. But he’s a uniquely malevolent force who found his way into the inner sanctum of executive power under his kindred spirit Donald Trump. It’s is a partnership made in hell.

Blood on their hands

Hydroxychloroquine sales

I thought separating families and putting kids in cages was the worst thing Trump has done. This is very stiff competition for that title:

On March 19, as President Donald Trump was in the White House briefing room hailing a drug known as hydroxychloroquine as a “game changer,” 57-year-old Sheila Staten was in Froedtert Hospital, struggling to breathe. 

Hydroxychloroquine would not be a game changer for Staten. The Milwaukee resident died six days later of heart and kidney failure, hooked up to a ventilator and swollen beyond recognition.

Staten, the fifth person in Milwaukee County to die from COVID-19, was one of thousands of people across the country who were given the antimalarial drug in the early months of the pandemic as Trump and many of his supporters extolled its virtues.

But as prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine boomed, reports of serious adverse events linked to the drug during the first half of the year more than doubled, according to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel analysis of newly released data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s adverse events reporting system.

That’s despite the fact that overall adverse event reports for all drugs remained flat. 

In the first half of 2019, the FDA recorded 3,251 adverse events where the patient was taking hydroxychloroquine — also known by its brand name Plaquenil — or the related drug chloroquine. More than 2,441 of the reports were deemed “serious” because they included outcomes such as hospitalization, disability or death. 

In the first half of 2020, the number of adverse events involving the drugs jumped to 6,588, including 6,233 that were deemed “serious.”

Meanwhile, reports of patient deaths that involved hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine or Plaquenil nearly quadrupled, from 75 to 293. Of the 293 deaths, more than half listed COVID-19 as a reason for using the medication.

The reports likely represent only a fraction of the true problem. The FDA’s largely voluntary system has been plagued by substantial underreporting and has been the subject of several critical U.S. General Accountability Office examinations dating back to the 1970s.

Now that hydroxychloroquine and dozens of other drugs are being repurposed as potential COVID-19 remedies, there are doubts about whether health regulators can accurately track the potential damage caused by the drugs. 

The numbers show a remarkable increase in reports of deaths, said Michael Carome, a physician and director of the health research group of Public Citizen, a patient advocacy and watchdog organization.

Carome, a former FDA advisory committee member, said the increases were due to the “reckless promotion” of the drugs by President Trump. 

Here’s a little trip down memory lane:

Those are just a few of the numerous instances where the president hyped this drug.

We know that tens of thousands of people are dead that shouldn’t be because of Trump’s ignorance and incompetence in leading the country in this crisis. But this is something else again. It is specifically tied to his promotion of this drug based on Fox News and wishful thinking so that he could “get it over with” and go back to his one true love: rallies.

I don’t know how many people died because of Trump’s insane desire to play scientist. But it would appear that it’s more than died on 9/11.

Someone should have to pay for this. I’m sure the temporary king …. er, the president is immune because he seems to be immune from everything. But what about Laura Ingraham and her crew, who are still pimping this drug despite everything? Is there no legal remedy for selling snake oil on national TV?

Or maybe this guy? It was just this week:

Will he get what’s coming to him?

Work release inmate arrested for escape; Mother & girlfriend also charged |  KTVE - myarklamiss.com

If the nation manages to oust Donald Trump from the presidency in November — and he actually agrees to leave in January — the new administration and the Congress will have its hands full just trying to keep the country from falling even deeper into a depression and halting the death toll from the pandemic. Foreign policy will have to be dealt with immediately, as will the assessment of the damage to the administrative state. Our failed public health response to the coronavirus is a deadly wakeup call: The federal government has atrophied under the insane fiscal and political priorities inflicted upon it over the past couple of decades by nihilist Republicans and impotent Democrats. And that’s just for starters.

But one of the most important priorities must be to re-establish democratic and ethical norms in the wake of Trump’s brazen corruption. Congress can make new laws and the president can create executive orders, but if they want to get the job done there must be some accountability for this crime spree.

It’s hard to know where to start, but as you may recall there’s a report that lays out in great detail Donald Trump’s attempts to obstruct justice in the Russia investigation. It even makes a very strong case that he can be prosecuted after he leaves office for committing these crimes.

If investigators want to look further, there’s the matter of all the taxpayer money that has gone into Trump’s pockets virtually every weekend, when he leaves Washington to promote his properties and play golf. (He has spent a third of his days as president at his own resorts and hotels.) We know that we have been forced to pay him at least $1 million for hotel rooms alone, at prices raised far beyond the “cost” that the Trump Organization claims it charges. That is likely the tip of the iceberg.

We found out in the last couple of weeks that Trump had his ambassador to the U.K. try to convince the British government to steer the British Open golf tournament to one of his resorts in Scotland. Depending on what was offered in return, that could look an awful lot like bribery. It’s certainly something an investigator might want to look into.

God knows how much of that sort of thing has been going on. Trump was impeached for extorting a foreign government to help his re-election campaign, after all. He clearly believes he’s above the law.

Whether the Department of Justice will look into any of that, under some more normal future leadership, is another question. I have my doubts. The prevailing establishment view about such things was articulated by Joe Biden earlier this week:

Joe Biden says that he believes prosecuting a former president would be a “very unusual thing and probably not very … good for democracy,” but he would not stand in the way of a future Justice Department pursuing criminal charges against President Trump after he leaves office …

“Look, the Justice Department is not the president’s private law firm. The attorney general is not the president’s private lawyer. I will not interfere with the Justice Department’s judgment of whether or not they think they should pursue the prosecution of anyone that they think has violated the law,” Biden told NPR’s Lulu Garcia-Navarro.

Biden said the right thing about leaving such considerations to the attorney general. That’s the way these things are supposed to work. But his personal attitude reflects an outdated view of what is and is not “good for democracy.” Once upon a time, we assumed that the only reason any administration would prosecute a former president would be as an authoritarian move to consolidate power, as we’ve seen in banana republics and totalitarian regimes. It was a real concern.

That’s not what we’re dealing with now. Unfortunately, Americans elected a president who is both stupid and corrupt, and his party has acted as accomplices to his crimes. If he is allowed to simply carry on after leaving office, with no accountability for what he’s done, it will just make everyone more cynical about government and enable future Republican criminals to pick up where Trump left off. After all, they’ve been passing that baton to each other since Richard Nixon was let off the hook 45 years ago.

Nonetheless, unless the Southern District of New York really does have something up its sleeve, I don’t expect federal prosecutors to pursue any of this, even though they should. After Bill Barr’s egregious performance as Trump’s Roy Cohn, I would guess any new attorney general will opt to avoid the appearance of partisanship. (Barr’s blatant behavior may have the perverse effect of inoculating Trump’s inner circle against retaliation.)

Maybe the Congress will make a stab at it and put together some kind of joint congressional committee, like the Church Committee that investigated the CIA, NSA and FBI in the 1970s, to untangle the whole Trumpian mess and publish a report about everything that happened. That would be worthwhile and I hope they do it, but I suspect that’s the most we can expect from the federal government.

There is some hope, however, that Trump will be held accountable and possibly even held criminally liable for his corruption. After the Supreme Court ruled this term that Trump could not withhold his tax returns from grand jury subpoena in a state criminal matter, the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which has jurisdiction over the Trump Organization, revealed that it has already obtained a whole boatload of documents from Deutsche Bank, which loaned the Trumps billions of dollars when no other bank would touch them. According to its filing with the court seeking Trump’s tax records, prosecutors are not simply looking at hush-money payments to porn stars, but at potentially major fraud charges.

We already knew from the New York Times’ 13,000-word examination about the massive criminal tax fraud scheme concocted by Fred Trump, Donald’s father. Considering the lengths to which he’s gone to hide his tax returns, it’s fair to suspect that Fred’s son has adopted similar practices. According to exposés by ProPublica and WNYC for their series “Trump, Inc.”, the Trump Organization may have misled banks, investors and buyers in many of their real estate licensing deals. There are many questions about money laundering and Trump’s odd special relationship with Deutsche Bank.

Much as I would love to see Trump held accountable for his crimes as president, it would be poetic justice to see his business exposed as a scam and see him prosecuted for ripping off taxpayers and clients. Apparently that won’t happen unless Manhattan DA Cy Vance Jr. can get his hands on those tax returns. Trump will fight that to the end, so there’s no telling whether anything will come of it. But at least someone, somewhere, is trying to bring him to justice. It’s hard to imagine how anyone can have faith in the system ever again if Donald Trump walks away scot-free after everything he’s done.

My Salon column reprinted with permission

Unpresidented sabotage

Postal vehicles’ tires slashed. Photo: Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department (2014).

(That’s ˈsabəˌtäZH for Donald Trump and Dinesh D’Souza.)

Donald Trump’s psychologist niece, Mary Trump, relates in her book a conversation with her aunt, Maryanne Trump Berry, the now-president’s sister.

“Does anybody even believe the bullshit that he’s a self-made man?” Mary Trump asks. “What has he even accomplished on his own?”

“Well,” Maryanne said, as dry as the Sahara, “he has had five bankruptcies.”

If you are still hunkered down at home sheltering against a pandemic scourge and watching savings wither, if you worry about eviction or if your children can return to school without bringing home a deadly pathogen, you know this firsthand: one thing the acting president is good at is running things into the ground. Public health officials are alarmed. The coronavirus now largely under control in other developed countries is still spreading here. It has killed 160,000 Americans so far. It is killing 1,200 per day. Maybe 300,000 casualties by December 1, per one influential model.

And that is just Trump being incompetent. Lately, he is going out of his way not only to secure himself a second term and avoid prosecution under a Joe Biden Department of Justice. Through deliberate sabotage he hopes to preserve for the near future control of the government by a white, Republican minority.

U.S. Post Office

Trump’s and his party’s animosity towards USPS was already legend before 2020 rolled around. With a deadly virus driving voters to vote by mail, Trump, as we have discussed, is actively trying to sabotage the mail service.

Slate’s Jordan Weissman writes that the slowdown in mail service engineered by the current postmaster general has become a major issue in the next coronavirus relief bill:

On Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told told White House negotiators that the next coronavirus relief bill would have to include more funding for the financially battered agency and scrap rules that have created massive delivery delays, which many worry could disrupt voting by mail this year by preventing Americans from getting their ballots in on time. The pair also met with Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, the Trump donor and former logistics executive who, shortly after being appointed this year, imposed a series of cost-cutting measures that have slowed service to a crawl.

Afterward, Schumer called the conversation “heated” and told reporters that the party would continue pressing the issue. “We will advocate strongly for money so that they can hire all the people necessary, both overtime and new people, to make sure that every single ballot is counted,” he said. “That is a sine qua non for us.”

Even if Pelosi and Schumer succeed in getting the funding they want, they will need to be sure to cut off avenues for Trump and his lackeys to avoid actually spending it or running out the clock on doing so.

U.S. Census

Trump tried and failed in court to include a citizenship question on this year’s census forms, something critics argued was designed to produce an undercount of non-white residents. He issued a memorandum in July intended to exclude unauthorized immigrants from the census count for the purpose of drawing congressional districts. Common Cause and other advocacy groups filed a federal lawsuit to stop him in court.

This week, the administration announced amidst the pandemic it would cut short field operations for the 2020 census by a month. Data collection will end September 30. Vox’s Nicole Narea writes:

It’s likely Monday’s decision will mean that hard-to-count populations, which include renters, low-income people, and children under the age of 5, could be undercounted, eroding their political power and undercutting their federal funding over the next decade:

Jamelle Bouie recounts how slaveholders influenced the apportionment of representatives in the new republic and states the obvious about Trump’s census gambits:

The goal is to freeze political representation in place as much as possible; to keep demographic change — the growing share of Americans who are Black, Hispanic and Asian-American — from swamping the Republican Party’s ability to win national elections with a white, heavily rural minority.

Immigration trap

Catherine Rampell points to new under Trump to sabotage admission of new immigrants. It set booby traps for applicants:

Last fall, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services introduced perhaps its most arbitrary, absurd modification yet to the immigration system: It began rejecting applications unless every single field was filled in, even those that obviously did not pertain to the applicant.

“Middle name” field left blank because the applicant does not have a middle name? Sorry, your application gets rejected. No apartment number because you live in a house? You’re rejected, too.

No address given for your parents because they’re dead? No siblings named because you’re an only child? No work history dates because you’re an 8-year-old kid?

All real cases, all rejected.

Who needs a steel border wall when you can erect one from paperwork and red tape? Rampell asks. There are as many ways to keep out undesirable Others as there are to keep undesirables from voting.

TikTok and WeChat

Not only does the sabatour-in-chief target people and public services he does not like, but private Internet platforms. Josephine Wolff writes at the New York Times that Trump’s actions to silence platforms known for mocking him are right out of China’s playbook:

The one thing my students all invariably know about China is that you can’t use Facebook there, or YouTube or Google. For at least a decade, China has maintained strict control over the internet and aggressively blocked foreign tech platforms within its borders.

So when President Trump issued two executive orders Thursday night that all but ban two Chinese social media networks — the video app TikTok and the messaging app WeChat — from operating in the United States, citing national security concerns, the decision seemed straight out of China’s own playbook.

[…]

But make no mistake: the president’s executive orders are not about cybersecurity — they are a retaliatory jab in the ongoing tensions between China and the United States. In fact, the ban’s greatest impact will probably not be on the bottom lines of TikTok and WeChat’s parent companies, but instead on promoting a fundamentally Chinese view of internet security.

What else might Trump sabotage with another four years to wreak havoc, or even in the few months left after a humiliating loss in November?

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 3rd Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV mechanics guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

Snotty, low-class Trumpies

Matt and Mercedes Schlapp at home in Alexandria, Va. To some Republicans, the Schlapps are a conservative “it couple.” To others, they’re opportunists.

Is there any other kind?

Trump campaign adviser Mercedes Schlapp attempted to clean up her disastrous interview with CNN’s Brianna Keilar by penning an op-ed about the network’s supposed “dishonesty” for the website RealClearPolitics. But she made at least one major mistake.

As The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman—channeling The Princess Bride’s Inigo Montoya—put it in a tweet, “I don’t think Brianna Keilar’s husband is who ⁦@mercedesschlapp⁩ appears to think he is when she slams him in this piece.” 

In that piece, Schlapp wrote that she was “disturbed to learn that Brianna Keilar’s husband is a ferocious opponent of the president, a former director of the National Security Council under President Obama, and a man who tweets, among other things, that Donald Trump makes him ‘throw up.’” 

Given that Keilar’s husband, Fernando Lujan, is an active-duty Green Beret officer in the U.S. military, it was a questionable strategy to begin with. But Schlapp also appeared to have several of her facts wrong. 

Calling the op-ed “riddled with lies,” Keilar said in a statement that what she found “most despicable” was Schlapp’s attempt to “character assassinate my husband, an active duty military officer, and mistaking him for someone else in the process.”

“I don’t know what tweet you’re talking about, but it’s not my husband’s,” she added, noting that Lujan not only served on the National Security Council under President Obama but stayed on during the Trump administration and was promoted in 2017. “He has served and sacrificed for his country in ways that you and I can’t begin to fathom,” Keilar wrote, concluding, “Get your facts straight and don’t mess with my family.” 

In support of his colleague, CNN host Jake Tapper tweeted, “@mercedesschlapp is entitled to her opinion about @brikeilarcnn or me or anyone else in the news media. But to smear with lies Brianna’s husband, an active duty Green Beret, as part of her political vendetta is truly despicable. Truly vile.” 

And yet remarkably, Schlapp’s husband, the CPAC chairman and Trump-boosting lobbyist Matt Schlapp, was undeterred by Keilar’s powerful rebuke, tweeting at her, “Hey @brikeilarcnn get your facts straight on how voting works and dont mess w my family. America was better when CNN actually covered the news instead of covering for socialism.”

There is nothing the crude, stupid, and sophomoric Matt and Mercedes Schlapp (who the New York Times called “the Trump era it couple”,) won’t do for Dear Leader.

The End of the American Century (and it’s no cause for celebration)

Pin by irene on Politics and Social items | Statue of liberty ...

Thank you, Wade Davis, for an unforgettable, pitch perfect description of our time and the end of the American Century. Comparable to Masha Gessen at their best, Davis’s essay should be must reading for anyone interested in understanding this fraught moment and where we might be headed:

COVID-19 didn’t lay America low; it simply revealed what had long been forsaken. As the crisis unfolded, with another American dying every minute of every day, a country that once turned out fighter planes by the hour could not manage to produce the paper masks or cotton swabs essential for tracking the disease. The nation that defeated smallpox and polio, and led the world for generations in medical innovation and discovery, was reduced to a laughing stock as a buffoon of a president advocated the use of household disinfectants as a treatment for a disease that intellectually he could not begin to understand…

The end of the American era and the passing of the torch to Asia is no occasion for celebration, no time to gloat. In a moment of international peril, when humanity might well have entered a dark age beyond all conceivable horrors, the industrial might of the United States, together with the blood of ordinary Russian soldiers, literally saved the world. American ideals, as celebrated by Madison and Monroe, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Kennedy, at one time inspired and gave hope to millions.

If and when the Chinese are ascendant, with their concentration camps for the Uighurs, the ruthless reach of their military, their 200 million surveillance cameras watching every move and gesture of their people, we will surely long for the best years of the American century. For the moment, we have only the kleptocracy of Donald Trump. Between praising the Chinese for their treatment of the Uighurs, describing their internment and torture as “exactly the right thing to do,” and his dispensing of medical advice concerning the therapeutic use of chemical disinfectants, Trump blithely remarked, “One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.” He had in mind, of course, the coronavirus, but, as others have said, he might just as well have been referring to the American dream.

Barr’s Hail Mary

Barr agrees to testify before House Judiciary Committee on July 28 - Axios

Bill Barr has justified his toadying for Trump as a principled objection to partisan investigation of a presidential candidate or a president. He seems to have been completely treaumatized by the Nixon case and Iran-Contra and came to believe that ny investigation of a Republican president is an assault on the separation of powers and the constitution. (He has no similar objections to investigating Democrats like Bill and Hillary Clinton because well, they deserve it.)

Anyway, his tenure as Trump’s AG had been almost exclusively devoted to taking care of the boss and whining about immorality and antifa. And he isn’t done yet.

This op-ed by Ryan Goodman and Andrew Weissman in the NY Times explains:

Today, Wednesday, marks 90 days before the presidential election, a date in the calendar that is supposed to be of special note to the Justice Department. That’s because of two department guidelines, one a written policy that no action be influenced in any way by politics. Another, unwritten norm urges officials to defer publicly charging or taking any other overt investigative steps or disclosures that could affect a coming election.

Attorney General William Barr appears poised to trample on both. At least two developing investigations could be fodder for pre-election political machinations. The first is an apparently sprawling investigation by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, that began as an examination of the origins of the F.B.I. investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The other, led by John Bash, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, is about the so-called unmasking of Trump associates by Obama administration officials. Mr. Barr personally unleashed both investigations and handpicked the attorneys to run them.

But Justice Department employees, in meeting their ethical and legal obligations, should be well advised not to participate in any such effort.

The genesis of the department’s admirable practice of creating a protective shell surrounding an election recognizes that unelected officials at the Justice Department should not take action that could distort an election and influence the electorate. If someone is charged immediately before an election, for instance, that person has no time to offer a defense to counter the charges. The closer the election, the greater the risk that the department is impermissibly acting based on political considerations, which is always prohibited.

It is not mere conjecture that Mr. Barr could weaponize these investigations for political purposes. In both cases, he has already run roughshod over another related longstanding department practice. It holds that department officials should refrain from making public allegations of wrongdoing before prosecutors decide to bring charges, particularly since no charges may emanate from the investigation.

Mr. Barr and President Trump have shown no compunction in publicly discussing these investigations, suggesting wrongdoing by Democrats and deep staters. Mr. Barr promised on Fox News that “there will be public disclosure in some form” in the Durham probe. It should be no surprise that Mr. Barr has followed the lead of his boss; after all, Mr. Trump urged Ukraine to announce an investigation into Mr. Biden, an action that was at the center of his impeachment.

Not so long ago, Mr. Barr and Mr. Trump denounced Jim Comey’s negative public commentary in the 2016 election on Hillary Clinton. Indeed, the president claimed that Mr. Comey’s violation of these bedrock policies contributed to his being fired. During his nomination hearing, Mr. Barr told a Senate committee that he would adhere to these policies.

“If you are not going to indict someone, then you do not stand up there and unload negative information about the person,” he testified. “That is not the way the Department of Justice does business.” He also “completely” agreed with Rod Rosenstein when Mr. Rosenstein wrote in a memo that Mr. Comey’s transgressions during an election season were “a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.”

Indeed, in his nomination testimony, Mr. Barr captured the risk of an attorney general acting for political purposes. Members of the incumbent party, he said, “have their hands on the levers of the law enforcement apparatus of the country, and you do not want it used against the opposing political party.”

He was correct then and is wrong now.

Nevertheless, Mr. Barr may claim that an extraordinary public justification exists for releasing a report, citing the Mueller report as precedent. But there is a very clear difference: The Mueller report was not issued in the run-up to any election.

Mr. Barr has another move to try to justify his actions. He recently told a conservative radio host that the policy on interference with an election applies only to indictments of “candidates or perhaps someone that’s sufficiently close to a candidate, that it’s essentially the same.”

That’s an invention. The policy itself refers to actions that give “an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”

Mr. Barr himself recognizes the political effect of department actions beyond those against a candidate. In February, in response to the Justice Department inspector general’s recommendation for a clear policy to open or take actions in significant political investigations, Mr. Barr issued a directive that centralized his control over such investigations. The new Barr requirements covered investigations that “may have unintended effects on our elections” and notably included candidates, senior campaign staff members, advisers, members of official campaign advisory committees or groups, and foreign-national donors.

Take an example from the Mueller investigation. The special counsel’s office knew it could not indict Russian military intelligence officials for the 2016 hacking operation in the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections. That’s right: The office could not indict the Russians — not only political candidates or aides. Such matters were so politically fraught that such an action by the special counsel might affect the election.

A key consideration should not be lost: There’s no urgency for the department to take any overt investigative steps or make disclosures until after the election. Even if there has been criminal wrongdoing — which is by no means clear — charges can still be brought in November after the election.

What can be done if Mr. Barr seeks to take actions in service of the president’s political ambitions? There are a variety of ways for Justice Department employees in the Trump era to deal with improper requests. Employees who witness or are asked to participate in such political actions — who all swore an oath to the Constitution and must obey department policies — can refuse, report and, if necessary, resign. Other models include speaking with Congress under subpoena or resigning and then communicating directly to the publicReputable organizations are at the ready to advise whistle-blowers about the risks and benefits of pursuing these paths.

Above all, with the election around the corner, it’s critical to ensure its integrity and that the Justice Department steer clear of political interference.

I have absolutely no hope that Barr won’t do everything in his power to ensure his smears drop before the election. In fact, I would assume they will be timed as perfectly as he can make them. He has proved repeatedly that he is nothing more than a partisan hitman whose job is to protect the president and his friends and assassinate his enemies. But what these two are saying is that the career DOJ officials should refuse to give him cover. It will be interesting to see if they do.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

“We’re respected again as a country. You know, we’re respected again. You may not feel it. Although I think you do. You may not see it. You don’t read it about it from the fake news. But this country is respected again.” — Trump, today

Uhm… no:

And Another Thing!

and another thing! - Daffy Duck Angry | Meme Generator

Digby’s absolutely right about Leonhardt’s article in the NY Times today that attempts to analyze the failure of the United States re: Covid-19. Most of it does have to to do with Trump’s incompetence. And a considerable amount also has to do with a cult mentality around Trump, not the radical individualism that Leonhardt posits. And Leonhardt also missed another reason for the failure of the US which is only tangentially related to Trump’s incompetence.

Trump’s comprehensive corruption directly led to the failure of the American pandemic response. The full story of how supplies were diverted to try to boost his re-election chances hasn’t yet been told. Nor the complete story of how Kushner’s pals and others from the Trump family’s inner circle profited mightily from this awful tragedy. But when it comes out, even the most cynical of us Trump watchers will be utterly appalled.