31 December 20
Progressivism Is Not Dead, It’s Just Beginning
You find out who you are in times of adversity. We’re fighting for progress and for our values as we turn the page on a new era of challenges in the face of relentless pressure.
Progress, real lasting progress never comes easily, but come it does to those with clear vision and sustained sense of purpose.
Embrace this fight — stand with RSN.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611
It's Live on the HomePage Now: Bernie Sanders Is Right, Larry Summers Is Wrong  n November 12, 1999 Treasury Secretary Larry Summers joined President Bill Clinton to proclaim a bright new future for the American economy. The occasion was the signing ceremony for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, best known for its partial repeal of 1933’s Glass-Steagall legislation — until then a critical firewall separating commercial and investment banking. Gramm-Leach-Bliley having passed with strong bipartisan support, Summers was in an effusive mood:Let me welcome you all here today for the signing of this historic legislation. With this bill, the American financial system takes a major step forward towards the 21st century, one that will benefit American consumers, business, and the national economy for many years to come…. I believe we have all found the right framework for America’s future financial system.
Despite the general atmosphere of consensus, Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed the House 362-57-15 — not everyone was convinced of the bill’s merits. One independent Congressman from Vermont had demurred rather forcefully during the House debate preceding its passage: I believe this legislation, in its current form, will do more harm than good. It will lead to fewer banks and financial service providers; increased charges and fees for individual consumers and small businesses; diminished credit for rural America; and taxpayer exposure to potential losses should a financial conglomerate fail. It will lead to more mega-mergers; a small number of corporations dominating the financial service industry; and further concentration of economic power in our country.
As progressive bloggers Pam Martens and Russ Martens rightly point out, much of what Bernie Sanders had argued would soon be proven correct. Barely a decade later, consolidation among big banks and financial institutions would remain in overdrive and the bright new economic future predicted by Summers and Clinton would come crashing down as the American public was called upon to bail out failing financial institutions. The chain of events spanning the repeal of Glass-Steagall to the 2009 crash prompted no less than the New York Times editorial board to admit it had been wrong to endorse the zeitgeist of deregulation. Being wrong, even catastrophically so, has of course never been much of an impediment in American politics provided that the mistakes benefit the right people. Summers would soon find himself back at the commanding heights of government courtesy of Barack Obama (ironically enough during the meltdown of the very consensus he had helped to inaugurate). He also reportedly served in an advisory capacity for President-elect Joe Biden (who, incidentally, voted for Gramm-Leach-Bliley back in 1999) as recently as last May. With Congress debating the prospect of $2,000 direct payments to Americans, and Sanders now threatening to halt a major defense bill until the Senate votes on the relief checks, the former Treasury Secretary has thus, predictably, emerged as a leading critic. “I don’t think the $2,000 checks make much sense,” Summers told Bloomberg News on Christmas Eve, adding: In a way that’s quite unprecedented, we have stimulus already, much more than filling out the hole. And given that lots of the hole is from the fact not that people don’t want to spend but that they can’t spend — they can’t take a flight or go to a restaurant — I don’t necessarily think that the priority should be on promoting consumer spending beyond where we are now. So I’m not even sure that I’m so enthusiastic about the $600 checks and I think taking them to $2,000 would actually be a pretty serious mistake that would risk a temporary overheat.
True to form, Summers couldn’t resist topping off his observations with a partisan snipe: “I have to say that when you see the two extremes agreeing, you can almost be certain that something crazy is in the air.” The former Treasury Secretary is right, of course, that many Americans can’t spend. But for an unthinkable number the cause of the restraint has less to do with travel moratoriums or restaurant closures than it does with having no money. Most haven’t received direct cash aid from the federal government since a round of $1,200 checks went out last spring, and according to one recent analysis, as many as twenty-six million adults are now so low on cash and behind on their rent that they’re quite literally beginning to starve. This is to say nothing of a probable eviction wave, the possibility of widespread utility shutoffs, or the positively paltry benefits currently going to the unemployed. No analysis of the present situation which takes a pass on these realities is worth a damn and (again true to form) Summers made a series of cold and technocratic arguments instead. Met with justified backlash, he took to the op-ed pages this weekend and, in a moment of accidental lucidity, managed to pepper his observations with some pretty fair questions: Some argue that while $2,000 checks may not be optimal support for the post-Covid economy, taking stimulus from $600 to $2,000 is better than nothing. They need to ask themselves whether they would favor $5,000, or $10,000 — or more. There must be a limiting principle…. Perhaps bringing them somewhat above benchmark levels makes sense. But further adding to earnings when losses are being replaced seven times over seems hard to justify — especially at a time when pent-up savings totals $1.6 trillion and is rising. If writing universal checks is a good idea, why not do it after household incomes have reverted to normal?
Putting aside Summers’s baffling implication that there is already too much economic relief going out to households, some of these are good questions. $2,000 definitely won’t be enough money for millions of Americans and there are plenty of worse ideas than the federal government topping up incomes that have been stagnant for decades once the pandemic is over. Nonetheless, these are not the issues at hand or the dynamics currently on the table. As New York Magazine’s Eric Levitz quite succinctly put it: “Donald Trump is not about to force Republican senators to support federalizing unemployment insurance. It’s $2,000 checks for almost all, or inadequate aid to the poor.” This is the choice at hand — which means that, as has been the case in almost every economic policy debate for the past thirty years, Bernie Sanders is right and Larry Summers is wrong. |
Anthony Fauci receives his vaccination last week. The U.S. has had 19.7m recorded cases of Covid-19 and more than 342,400 people have died. (photo: Patrick Semansky/Getty)
Fauci Calls for Extra Resources as US Misses Covid Vaccination Target
Amanda Holpuch, Guardian UK
Holpuch writes: "The top infectious disease expert in the US, Anthony Fauci, called on the federal government on Thursday to deploy more resources to vaccinate Americans after the country missed its goal to get 20 million people inoculated by the end of the year, amid scenes in some areas of chaos, understaffing and senior citizens waiting outside for hours in hope of a life-saving jab."
“We would have liked to see it run smoothly and have 20m doses into people today, by the end of 2020, which was the projection,” Fauci said.
“Obviously it didn’t happen, and that’s disappointing,” he told NBC in an interview.
The US failure to meets its end-of-year vaccine distribution goal comes as concerns grow about the newly identified strain of Covid-19 circulating in the UK, which was reported to have reached the US this week, with cases in Colorado and California.
More than 14m vaccine doses had been distributed in the US, but only 2.1 million people have been vaccinated, said leaders of the federal vaccine program, Operation Warp Speed, at a Wednesday news conference.
The chief adviser to Operation Warp Speed, Moncef Slaoui, said: “We know it should be better and we are working hard to make it better.”
Terry Beth Hadler was so eager to get vaccinated that the 69-year-old piano teacher stood in line overnight in a parking lot in Florida with hundreds of other senior citizens.
She waited 14 hours and a brawl nearly erupted before dawn on Tuesday when people cut in line outside the library in Bonita Springs where officials were offering shots on a first-come, first-served basis to those 65 or older.
“I’m afraid that the event was a super-spreader,” she said. “I was petrified.”
Overworked, underfunded state public health departments are scrambling to patch together plans for administering vaccines. Counties and hospitals have taken different approaches, leading to long lines, confusion, frustration and jammed phone lines.
A multitude of logistical concerns have complicated the process of trying to beat back the scourge that has killed over 340,000 Americans.
Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, noted the vaccine supply was limited.
“It may not be today for everyone, may not be next week. But over the next many weeks, as long as we continue getting the supply, you’re going to have the opportunity to get this,” he said on Wednesday.
Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Niaid), said to ramp up vaccine distribution, the federal government needs to provide more resources to the local governments tasked with administering the vaccine.
“Namely, the states, the cities, the counties, the places where the vaccine is actually going into the arms of individuals,” Fauci said. “We have to support the local groups, the states and the cities to help them get this task done.”
Ashish Jha, a health policy researcher and dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, echoed Fauci in pointing out that states are not getting adequate financial or technical support from the federal government.
Jha said the Trump administration, principally the Department of Health and Human Services, has set states up to fail.
“There’s a lot states still need to do,” he said. “But you need a much more active role from the federal government than what they have been willing to do. They’ve largely said to states, ‘This is your responsibility. Figure it out.”’
James McCarthy, chief physician executive at Memorial Hermann in Houston, said the hospital system there had administered about half of the roughly 30,000 doses that it has received since 15 December.
The system had to create a complicated plan from scratch.
“We can’t just hand it out like candy,” McCarthy said.
The US has had 19.7m recorded cases of Covid-19 and more than 342,400 people have died from the infection, according to Johns Hopkins University, significantly more than any other country.
December has been the nation’s deadliest month since the pandemic began in early 2020, and health officials have warned January could be worse.
More than 3,740 US coronavirus deaths were reported on Wednesday in the US, the highest death toll in a day yet, surpassing a record 24 hours for deaths the day before.
Meanwhile, Fauci said it was “inevitable” that the new variant, called B.1.1.7, would arrive in the US because of the high level of infections in the country.
He said that while it is concerning that the new variant is shown to be more efficient at spreading person to person, it has not shown signs of being more harmful and it has not shown an ability to evade the protection of the vaccines being used. “The good news is that it does not appear to be more virulent, namely making people more sick and leading to more deaths,” Fauci said.
The new variant was identified in a Colorado man in his 20s working as a national guard member supporting a care home. He had no travel history, according to the state’s health department.
Although the new variant had not been found in the US until this week, the CDC said it was probably already circulating through the country.
The agency said it had not identified the variant in its sequencing efforts, but its labs have access to only a sliver of the country’s Covid-19 cases and may not have picked it up yet.
The US has recorded more coronavirus cases and deaths than any other country. On Tuesday, President-elect Joe Biden slammed the Trump administration’s vaccine distribution efforts.
Fauci said vaccine distribution would probably ramp up in the first weeks of January.
“Hopefully as we look forward to 2021, as we get well into the year, with a combination of vaccines and proper adherence to public health measures, we can end this thing and crush it, the same way we have done with other outbreaks like polio and measles and other important infectious disease,” Fauci said. “So that’s the aim and hopefully we’ll accomplish it.”
U.S. Census Director Steven Dillingham. (photo: Ross D. Franklin/AP)
Census Bureau to Miss Deadline, Jeopardizing Trump Plan
Mike Schneider, Associated Press
Schneider writes: "The Census Bureau will miss a year-end deadline for handing in numbers used for divvying up congressional seats, a delay that could undermine President Donald Trump's efforts to exclude people in the country illegally from the count if the figures aren't submitted before President-elect Joe Biden takes office."
The Census Bureau plans to deliver a population count of each state in early 2021, as close to the missed deadline as possible, the statistical agency said in a statement late Wednesday.
“As issues that could affect the accuracy of the data are detected, they are corrected,” the statement said. “The schedule for reporting this data is not static. Projected dates are fluid.”
It will be the first time that the Dec. 31 target date is missed since the deadline was implemented more than four decades ago by Congress.
Internal documents obtained earlier this month by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform show that Census Bureau officials don’t expect the apportionment numbers to be ready until days after Biden is inaugurated on Jan. 20.
Once in office, Biden could rescind Trump’s presidential memorandum directing the Census Bureau to exclude people in the country illegally from numbers used for divvying up congressional seats among the states. An influential GOP adviser had advocated excluding them from the apportionment process in order to favor Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.
“The delay suggests that the census bureau needs more time to ensure the accuracy of census numbers for all states,” said Terri Ann Lowenthal, a former congressional staffer who specializes in census issues.
By law the Commerce Department must present the president by year’s end with population figures from the 2020 census, data then used to determine how many seats in Congress each state gets. The president then is required to submit the numbers to Congress in early January. The Commerce Department oversees the Census Bureau, which conducts the once-a-decade head count of every U.S. resident.
However, there are no penalties for missing the deadline.
“For the Census Bureau, goals No. 1 , 2 and 3 are completeness, accuracy and usefulness. They like to maintain the schedule, but that can’t be a priority for them,” said Kenneth Prewitt, a former Census Bureau director during President Bill Clinton’s administration.
Besides deciding how many House seats each state gets, the census is used for determining how $1.5 trillion in federal funding is distributed each year.
Trump’s July order on apportionment was challenged in more than a half dozen lawsuits around the U.S., but the Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that any challenge was premature, allowing the plan to move forward. The Census Bureau hasn’t publicly revealed how it plans to determine who is in the country illegally since the Supreme Court last year prohibited a citizenship question from being added to the census questionnaire.
After the pandemic caused hiring shortages and prompted the Census Bureau to suspend field operations in the spring, the statistical agency asked Congress for extensions. The requests included one that would push the deadline for handing in the apportionment numbers from the end of the year to next spring.
At the time, Trump said, “This is called an act of God. This is called a situation that has to be. They have to give it.”
The request passed the Democratic-controlled House but went nowhere in the Republican-controlled Senate after Trump issued his order.
A coalition of municipalities and advocacy groups sued the Trump administration after it changed the schedule once again to shorten census field operations by a month and return to the Dec. 31 deadline for handing in the apportionment numbers. The plaintiffs argued the count was shortened by the Commerce Department so that census data-crunching happened while Trump was still in office, and they said it would cause minorities to be undercounted.
They also worried that the shortened field operations and data processing would jeopardize the count’s accuracy and completeness. Bureau statisticians have been given only half the time originally planned to crunch the numbers, and Census Bureau director Steven Dillingham said last month that agency statisticians had found anomalies in the 2020 data that have popped up in past censuses.
The Census Bureau’s watchdog agency on Wednesday said it was concerned about lapses in quality control checks meant to detect falsifications by census takers. The Office of Inspector General said the Census Bureau failed to complete 355,000 re-interviews of households to verify their information was accurate.
Even top Census Bureau officials internally questioned being able to meet the Dec. 31 deadline, with associate director Tim Olson telling colleagues in an email that anyone who thought the census numbers could be crunched by year’s end “has either a mental deficiency or a political motivation.” The email was disclosed in the litigation.
Former Census Bureau director John Thompson said the quality of the data is “the overarching issue” facing the Census Bureau.
“If these are not addressed, then it is very possible that stakeholders including the Congress may not accept the results for various purposes including apportionment,” said Thompson, who oversaw 2020 census preparation as the agency’s leader during the Obama administration.
He said in an email that missing the Dec. 31 target date “means that the Census Bureau is choosing to remove known errors from the 2020 Census instead of meeting the legal deadline.”
Democrat Jon Ossoff. (photo: John Bazemore/Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
'She's Been Campaigning With a Klansman': Jon Ossoff Calls Out Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler
Louise Hall, The Independent
Hall writes: "Democratic Senate candidate Jon Ossoff has hit back at Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler's criticism of Democratic Rev Raphael Warnock saying she has been 'campaigning with a Klansman.'"
Campaign previously insisted senator had ‘no idea’ she had posed with white supremacist in photograph
The comments came after Sen Loeffler, who is facing Rev Warnock in the Georgia run-off special election in January, labelled reports of alleged abuse at a camp overseen by Democratic candidate Rev Warnock “disgusting” and “disqualifying”.
On Wednesday Mr Ossoff, who is running against Republican incumbent David Perdue in the regular election, addressed whether he thought the allegations would impact the election race early next week.
“Rev Warnock addressed this issue a year ago, and here’s the bottom line: Kelly Loeffler has been campaigning with a Klansman,” Mr Ossoff said in an interview with Fox News.
“She is stooping to these vicious personal attacks to distract from the fact that she’s been campaigning with a former member of the Ku Klux Klan,” he added.
“I mean, we deserve better than that here in Georgia.”
The comment referenced Sen Loeffler’s appearance in a picture with a former Ku Klux Klan member at a rally last month. The senator's campaign said she had ‘no idea’ who it was with when it was taken.
“Kelly had no idea who that was, and if she had she would have kicked him out immediately because we condemn in the most vociferous terms everything that he stands for,” Stephen Lawson, Sen Loeffler’s campaign spokesman told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution at the time.
The Georgia senator faced significant backlash when the photo of her alongside Chester Doles, a long-time white supremacist who spent decades in the Ku Klux Klan and was associated with a racist skinhead gang called the Hammerskins, emerged online.
Rev Warnock also released a statement expressing skepticism at Sen Loeffler’s campaign's response saying the senator “runs a campaign based on dividing and misleading Georgians.”
Neither Sen Loeffler nor Rev Warnock’s campaign immediately responded to The Independent’s request for further comment.
The Georgia runoff elections will place in Georgia on 5 January 2021, and could determine which party holds power of the senate.
If Democrats manage to secure both seats in the January Election, Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris would have a deciding vote whenever there is a 50-50 tie in the Senate.
Roger Stone is one of a number of former Trump officials to receive a presidential pardon. (photo: AFP)
Jack Goldsmith and Matt Gluck | Trump's Circumvention of the Justice Department Clemency Process
Jack Goldsmith and Matt Gluck, Lawfare
Excerpt: "Last week, President Trump granted 49 pardons and commutations. This brings his total number of grants of clemency to 94."
ast week, President Trump granted 49 pardons and commutations. This brings his total number of grants of clemency to 94. The new grants confirm a judgment we made six months ago (after Trump had granted clemency to 34 people): The clemency system is dominated by insider access to the president and almost exclusively serves the president’s personal and political goals and whims.
We have significantly updated our chart of pardons and commutations in light of these new ones. The chart seeks to track patterns about the likely aims of and explanations for the president’s pardons—including whether they advance Trump’s political agenda, were influenced by a personal connection to Trump, had a connection to something Trump saw on television or were based on Trump’s admiration for a celebrity. Our judgments are based on (and thus are limited by) what is in news reports; our categorizations thus could shift based on additional reporting. While the general pattern of a corrupt pardon process is clear, judgments in individual cases are often qualitative and inferential. We have linked the stories on which we rested these judgments, and readers can decide for themselves.
Here, we seek to drill down on the scale of backdoor access and self-serving pardons by looking at the extent to which Trump’s 94 pardons and commutations circumvented the standard pardon attorney process in the Justice Department.
(Note that Trump has actually granted clemency to just 87 people. But he has granted clemency 94 times, sometimes to the same person in stages. For example, on July 10, he commuted Roger Stone’s 40-month prison sentence, two-year supervised release and $20,000 fine; and then, on Dec. 23 he issued Stone a full pardon.)
It is not news that Trump has disregarded the role usually played by the Office of the pardon attorney. The Washington Post reported in Feb. 2020 that the White House advisors, led by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, had taken “more direct control over pardons and commutations, with President Trump aiming to limit the role of the Justice Department in the clemency process.” And the Post reported just last week that “rather than consult with the Justice Department’s pardon attorney for recommendations, Trump has routinely subverted the process and largely favored political allies and those who are well-connected for clemency.” Lots of evidence, detailed in columns D-G in our chart, indicates that personal contacts with Trump explain a lot of the pardons.
What is missing, however, is a focused judgment in each of the 94 cases whether the pardon attorney weighed in with a positive recommendation. As we show below, and in Column C in the chart, in most cases there is concrete evidence—based on information in a public Justice Department database—that the pardon attorney did not recommend clemency, even before one looks at the evidence about the characteristics of the clemency grant and how it served Trump’s goals.
The Justice Department Pardon Process
Since the 19th century, the Justice Department has processed pardon requests and advised the president on various forms of clemency, including full pardons and sentence commutations. The current system is governed by Justice Department regulations and is managed by the department’s pardon attorney, who reports to the White House through the deputy attorney general. This process is not constitutionally compelled. Presidents have the authority to issue pardons without consulting the Justice Department (or anyone else). Many prior presidents have circumvented the pardon attorney or significantly altered the process—and there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. This typically happens, for example, in clemency actions that relate to high-stakes presidential policy decisions, such as Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon, or Barack Obama’s clemency initiative (which in part led the pardon attorney to resign). Other times, the president circumvents the pardon attorney in more questionable contexts, such as many of Bill Clinton’s last-day self-serving pardons. The aim of the pardon attorney process is to regularize and standardize pardon considerations, especially for cases where the sentence is completed; to ensure integrity in the consideration of pardons; and to protect the White House from being inundated with pardon requests and from issuing unvetted and potentially controversial pardons.
The regulations specify that “a pardon is granted on the basis of the petitioner's demonstrated good conduct for a substantial period of time after conviction and service of sentence.” The Justice Department has a strong (but waivable) presumption against even considering an application for pardon until “at least five years after the date of the release of the petitioner from confinement or, in case no prison sentence was imposed, until the expiration of a period of at least five years after the date of the conviction of the petitioner.”
In determining whether a petition for a pardon should be granted, the pardon attorney considers four factors: (1) outstanding post-conviction conduct, character and reputation; (2) the seriousness of the offense (with more serious offenses requiring longer waits, and special hesitation pardons for “a prominent individual or notorious crime”); (3) the extent to which petitioner has accepted responsibility for the crime, displayed remorse and sought atonement; and (4) the “purpose for which pardon is sought may influence disposition of the petition.”
The process for vetting a pardon petition for favorable consideration is a lengthy one, and typically takes over a year and often several years. The FBI has to investigate and write a report on the case. The U.S. attorney in the district of conviction and the sentencing judge, and occasionally the assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department component responsible for the case, are consulted and they weigh in as well. “The views of the United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General are given considerable weight in determining what recommendations the Department should make to the President,” according to the regulations. A similar process of consultation takes place with commutation petitions before the pardon attorney considers making a favorable recommendation. After receiving this input, the pardon attorney makes recommendations to the deputy attorney general. The petitions that the deputy approves are “presented for action to the President with a report and recommendation from the Department, and the substance of the recommendation by the United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General is included in this report.” There are other layers of review. (We thank Margaret Love for guiding us on the intricacies of the pardon attorney office and process.)
Many people think this Justice Department process is broken—that its criteria for clemency are misplaced or too demanding, and that the process takes far too long. Some criminal justice experts have applauded Trump for skirting the pardon attorney to grant clemency in at least a few instances. We take no position on these normative questions here; we simply use news reports and the known factors about the Justice Department process to assess which of Trump’s pardons likely were based on pardon attorney recommendations. Obviously, one might think that the Justice Department process is broken and also think that Trump’s insider method is unattractive as well.
Assessing the Justice Department’s Involvement
The Justice Department has a searchable database of all pardon or commutation petitions filed since 1989. Each petition is assigned a docket number. The date of the petition is not indicated, though the docket numbers are in chronological order. When a petition for clemency is filed with the pardon attorney, it is automatically and invariably entered into this database. If a case is not docketed in the database, then it has not been filed with the pardon attorney—and the pardon attorney thus could not have recommended clemency to the president in that case.
Of 94 grants of clemency made during Trump’s tenure, 41 lacked a petition in the database (marked “never in database” on the chart). These include some of the most prominent and controversial grants of clemency, including those issued to Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Charles Kushner and the four Blackwater contractors—Nicholas Slatten, Paul Slough, Evan Liberty and Dustin Heard. Persons in this category clearly were not recommended by the pardon attorney. This leaves 53 out of 94 cases to be explained.
There are other cases in which the person granted clemency had a petition in the system, but that petition did not support the clemency granted. First, the person pardoned might have had a petition in the database that was marked denied, and then Trump subsequently granted a pardon without submission of a new petition. This is what happened, for example, with Patrick Nolan, whose petition for clemency was denied in 2008, but who received a pardon from Trump on May 15, 2019, without submitting a new petition.
Similarly, the person pardoned might have at one time submitted a petition that was “administratively closed” as a final action (which means that Justice Department consideration stopped for some reason, typically for lack of follow-up by the petitioner), and did not submit a new petition before Trump granted the pardon. This is what happened, for example, with Conrad Black, whose petition for commutation was administratively closed in 2009 and who received a pardon from Trump on May 15, 2019, without submitting a new petition. We also include the pardon grants to Dwight and Steven Hammond—who had petitions for clemency in the database, and were granted clemency, but who did not petition for pardons, which they also received—in this category. And we include both Alice Johnson’s commutation and her later pardon in this category since her earlier petitions had been denied and neither of her clemency grants were supported by a petition from the pardon attorney. We designate these cases as “no pending petition” and concluded that they could not have been recommended by the pardon attorney. There have been 15 such cases. This leaves 38 cases to be explained.
In addition, Trump sometimes granted partial clemency to someone who had a petition pending, but then later granted clemency again without the submission of a new petition. An example is Crystal Munoz, whose first petition for commutation was denied in 2016; Munoz applied again during the Trump administration and on February 18, 2020 received a commutation of the remaining 14 months of her prison sentence; and then received a second commutation (issued on December 22, 2020) of her supervised release without submitting a new petition. This last grant of clemency was not supported by a new petition and thus was almost certainly not recommended by the pardon attorney. There are three such “no new petition” examples in the chart. That leaves 35 cases to be explained.
We conclude that an additional four were probably not recommended by the pardon attorney based on the following logic. As noted above, docket numbers for petitions are not dated. But we are reliably informed that any case assigned a docket number higher than 291,000 would likely have been filed after June 2020, and thus far too late (labeled as “too late” in the database) for a possible pardon to be fully investigated and a recommendation sent to the White House in the ordinary course. This is a very conservative estimate: the pardon process typically takes longer than a year, and our ignorance of actual filing dates for petitions numbered up to 291,000 means we cannot capture in this analysis the petitions filed in the first half of the year that are also almost certainly too late.
Of the people in the database who were granted pardons or commutations, four (Christopher Wade, Cesar Lozada, Joseph Martin Stephens and Christopher II X) had docket numbers higher than 291,000 and thus were too late to be processed in the ordinary course. Of course, the process can go more quickly in the exceptional case if the White House intervenes and insists. But given the timing, and the White House’s articulated disdain for the pardon attorney process—making it less likely that the White House would find value in a quick Justice Department approval—we conclude that these four were likely not recommended by the pardon attorney. That leaves 31 cases to explain.
Seven of these 31 cases, we think, were probably recommended by the pardon attorney. CNN reported that the pardon attorney recommended five people whom Trump pardoned on July 29, 2019—Michael Tedesco, Roy Wayne McKeever, John Richard Bubala, Chalmer Lee Williams and Rodney Takumi. In addition, these five decisions satisfy the traditional pardon attorney criteria and the petitions for these decisions were filed with enough time for the pardon attorney process to run its course.
We think two other clemency decisions were also probably recommended by the pardon attorney, but here we are making a judgment call. Trump’s Dec. 22, 2020 pardon of Alfred Crum was supported by former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the relevant U.S. attorney, which is what would happen in a normal case. The facts of the case meet the traditional Justice Department criteria: Crum is an elderly man who pleaded guilty a long time ago to a relatively trivial crime and maintained a clean record for almost 70 years. And Crum has no apparent connection to Trump. We draw a similar conclusion for similar reasons about Trump’s Dec. 23, 2020 pardon of Russell Plaisance, though we are a bit less certain here. This pardon also involved an old conviction for a relatively trivial crime; it was supported by the prosecuting attorney; and we have found no connection between Trump and Plaisance. While Plaisance’s pardon was posthumous, which is unusual for a pardon attorney recommendation, the fact that he died less than a month before the pardon was granted suggests that his case might have been already pending at the White House with a favorable recommendation. Neither of these cases had the kind of support that might suggest direct advocacy to the White House on their behalf.
That leaves 24 cases. These are the hardest cases about which to reach firm conclusions, even after a very thorough examination. These pardons could in theory have been recommended by the pardon attorney because they were in the Justice Department database, and the applications were filed in time to be investigated in the ordinary course. That said, various characteristics of each clemency grant—including the close connections to Trump, the general non-satisfaction of Justice Department criteria, and the existence of Trump’s alternate vetting process in the White House—make it unlikely that the pardon attorney would have recommended these grants, especially the ones in recent years. Scattered reporting suggests (but only suggests) that many grants of clemency among these 24—concerning, for example, Kristian Saucier, Dwight and Steven Hammond, Crystal Munoz, Tynice Hall, Judith Negron, and others—were unsupported by the pardon attorney. Relatedly, “a source close to the pardons office did not believe that the pardon attorney had given [the applications of Bernard B. Kerik and Rod R. Blagojevich] full-throated support,” which suggests that the pardon attorney might have sent their files to the White House without recommendation.
We doubt that any of these 24 cases had traditional pardon attorney support. (We are least sure in this judgment about the pardon for Rebekah Charleston.) The pardon attorney surely would not have picked out and made Trump-convenient recommendations in these cases in the ordinary course of business, so if any of these cases were accompanied by pardon attorney analysis, that almost surely happened on White House command.
We mark these cases as “Probably Not” in the chart, but in truth it is hard to make firm judgments here.
In sum, we believe, based on current news reporting, that seven of the 94 Trump grants came on recommendation from the pardon attorney, and that the rest either clearly did not or probably did not. (See Column C on our chart.) Our other data (in Columns D, E, F and G in the chart) indicate that at least 84 out of 94 Trump pardons had a personal or political connection to the president (i.e., at least one hit in Columns D, E, F or G). This conclusion reveals anomalies in the chart for two grants. We assess that Joseph Martin Stephens (too late) and William J. Plemons Jr. (never in database) did not receive recommendations from the pardon attorney, and yet we cannot clearly identify any connection between these recipients and Trump. Which raises the question: How did these candidates come to Trump’s attention? The answer, we suspect, lies in the fact that both grants of clemency were supported by “business associates.” If we knew more about the identity of those associates we could draw a connection to Trump. But we do not.
A man hangs images of murdered journalists during a demonstration against the murder of a journalist Anabel Flores outside the Government of Veracruz building in Mexico City, February 11, 2016. (photo: Edgar Garrido/Reuters)
Mexico Was the Most Dangerous Country for Journalists in 2020
teleSUR
Excerpt: "Reporters Without Borders (RSF) on Tuesday published its annual report on journalists who have been killed while carrying out their work, noting that Mexico ranks first among the most dangerous countries for journalists."
Over the last year, 50 journalists were killed around the world. Eight of them died in Mexico.
Mexico recorded 8 journalists killed in 2020, thus consolidating an average of 9 journalists murdered each year over the past five years.
The RSF report noted the "savage" deaths of Julio Valdivia, who was found decapitated in Veracruz, and Victor Alvarez, who was cut to pieces in Acapulco.
Honduras was placed as the second deadliest country in the Americas with at least 3 journalists shot dead.
This year, 50 journalists have been killed worldwide. RSF noted that 68 percent of the deaths occurred in countries considered to be at peace while 84 percent of the journalists were deliberately targeted and eliminated.
The most dangerous news coverages continue to be investigations into local corruption, the mafia, and organized crime.
After recalling that 937 journalists were assassinated over the last 10 years, RSF pointed out that the number of journalists killed in war zones decreased this year.
Activist Catherine Coleman Flowers stands in front of a pit of waste behind a home in White Hall, Alabama. (photo: WSFA 12 News)
The Environmental Justice Issue No One Wants to Talk About
Angely Mercado, Grist
Mercado writes: "Environmental justice is having a moment. The term, which encompasses the many ways by which low-income people and communities of color suffer an unequal burden from pollution, contamination, and climate change, has seen a surge in use, largely due to the recent American political campaign."
Democratic primary candidates frequently mentioned environmental justice (or environmental racism) in their stump speeches, campaign pledges, and in debates — an indication that ideas that were not in the political discourse a decade ago, may shape some future climate policies. Environmental justice came up frequently enough in the primary that the first-ever Presidential Environmental Justice Forum was held in November 2019 and drew Senators Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren, as well as billionaire activist Tom Steyer. It’s been a big focus of President-elect Joe Biden’s climate platform and was discussed frequently as he unveiled his climate team in earlier this month. Beyond the race for the presidency, the racial unrest of the past summer, as well as the patterns of infections and death due to COVID-19, focused attention on a number of systemic issues in the U.S., including unfair environmental impacts felt by Black and brown Americans.
Into that political and social moment comes the book Waste: One Woman’s Fight Against America’s Dirty Secret, written by Catherine Coleman Flowers, an environmental health researcher, MacArthur “Genius” Fellow, and a founding director of the Center for Rural Enterprise and Environmental Justice. (She’s also a 2017 Grist Fixer.) The book pulls the curtains back on how poor communities and communities of color in Lowndes County, Alabama — located between Selma and the state capital Montgomery — are reckoning with a lack of adequate sewage infrastructure and the health crises that accompany it.
Flowers moved back to Alabama, where she grew up, roughly 20 years ago, after living in Oklahoma, North Carolina, Washington, D.C., and Detroit. She returned to help Lowndes County build its local economy, but she would instead get a lesson in environmental racism.
As a Black woman who grew up with parents who lived through Jim Crow, Flowers rubbed elbows with community organizers and civil rights activists throughout her childhood. Early in Waste, she recalls how she became a student activist for racial equality during her college years in the late 1970s and early ‘80s. She learned how to organize and protest alongside other civil rights legends, working for voting rights and access to education for Black students.
Those formative experiences would make her a skilled activist whose talents would come in handy throughout her life. As a military wife, she was forced to advocate for her husband after a brain injury. As a public school teacher in D.C., she worked for fairer treatment of her students. And as an economic development consultant returning to Lowndes County, she encountered the waste problem she’s now spent two decades of her life on.
Flowers recalls growing up poor in Lowndes County and being accustomed to seeing outhouses and the use of slop jars. But she was under the impression that homes had been upgraded over time, while she was studying in college, getting married, and navigating her early adulthood. “I didn’t yet fully grasp how little things had changed in Lowndes County since I’d been gone, or that in some ways they were worse,” she writes.
In the early 2000s, Flowers and other community organizers met a pastor whose small church did not have a functioning septic tank. When the local government found out, the pastor had to suspend worship services in his church and was also threatened with arrest if he did not make repairs that he couldn’t afford. Though donations would eventually come in to help revive the church, Flowers points out that the systematic issues that allow poverty to be criminalized in the South (and elsewhere in the U.S.) are part of the reason why she is still campaigning for better waste management today.
Over the years, Flowers has taken journalists, celebrities, American politicians, and international leaders to the homes of Lowndes County residents, so they can see the situation first hand. During 2016 visit from New Jersey Senator Cory Booker to Lowndes County, the senator and a National Geographic production team had to spray their clothing with an insecticide that the crew often used when shooting in tropical countries in order to tour the property surrounding the home of one resident, which included an open sewage pit on the ground.
“We reached the pit, and Booker stared in disbelief,” Flowers recalls in Waste. “I had once filmed the pit because it was often full of both sewage and life. Mosquitoes were visible, and so were the bulging eyes of frogs semi-submerged in the human effluent.”
Because mosquitoes and other insects are attracted to moisture, the waste pits in the back of people’s homes put them at risk for parasites, including hookworm. The gastrointestinal parasite was thought to have been eradicated in the country decades ago thanks to increased access to medicine and plumbing. Because hookworm eggs are found in human waste, the prevalence of open waste pits Lowndes County led to residents testing positive for it when a research team from Baylor College of Medicine studied the population. A lack of waste management is often associated with developing countries in the Global South, as is the parasite. But Flowers reminds her readers that conditions hospitable to hookworm do exist within the United States.
Flowers told me that she wanted readers to see the issues in her book as problems that can get much worse if governments in this country don’t invest in better infrastructure for basic necessities, like access to modern plumbing. She worries that future infectious diseases will spread even more as climate change scrambles weather patterns in the South.
“People that are impacted the most will be those living around raw sewage,” she told Grist. “We see this already with the death rates for people that don’t have [regular] access to water — they can’t wash their hands. We’re also seeing parasites that are living and thriving that we thought had been eliminated. And they’re going to be moving further north as the climate changes.”
Waste’s epilogue delves into the current moment we’re in, with the U.S. and the world at the mercy of the coronavirus. Flowers explains how COVID-19 has swept through Lowndes County, disproportionately infecting the very people most affected by the lack of sanitation infrastructure. She tells the story of Pamela Rush, a single mother living in a trailer with no access to wastewater management, who opened her doors to environmental justice activists and politicians including Bernie Sanders, so that they could see her living conditions with their own eyes. Through Flowers’ advocacy, Rush was set to relocate to a new home with a septic system — but she succumbed to COVID-19 before she could move.
The book closes with Flowers thinking of the effort to come after the pandemic, connecting the dangerous waste pools throughout Lowndes County to the Confederate statues that dot the South — a reminder that the fight for environmental justice is inextricably linked to the fight for racial justice.
“To some, those monuments are invisible. To me they’re as visible as the sewage that pools behind Pam Rush’s trailer,” she writes. “It’s time to dismantle those monuments too.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.