A laughingstock
Jul 22, 2022
Today's Tweet
My crush on Barbara McQuade continues unabated
Important point made at tonight’s Jan 6 hearing — Trump did not record his message telling mob to go home until after it had become clear that the attack would fail.
— Barb McQuade (@BarbMcQuade) July 22, 2022
One Thing I Learned
As the US Capitol was under attack - as we were watching an outright attempt to kill American democracy - in the middle of the worst 3 hours in all of this country's history - that's when Jared Kushner decided it was a good time to go take a shower.
Fooling Nobodies
Jan. 6 video shows Missouri who Josh Hawley really is
Josh Hawley is a laughingstock.
Josh Hawley is a laughingstock.
During Thursday night’s televised hearings of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, coup attempt at the U.S. Capitol, Rep. Elaine Luria played video of Missouri’s junior senator that will surely follow him the rest of his life.
In the clip, Hawley sprints across a hallway as he and his fellow senators are evacuated after insurrectionists had breached the Capitol building. When it went across the screen, the audience in the room with the committee erupted in laughter.
Of course, Twitter immediately dogpiled. Hawley’s name was the No. 1 trending topic in politics that evening as users shared the hashtag #HawlinAss along with GIFs of a galloping Forrest Gump.
“From now on, if political reporters ask Josh Hawley if he’s planning to run, he’s going to have to ask them to clarify,” quipped one.
A signature Hawley issue is masculinity — as in, how little of it American men seem to have these days. It’s a frequent topic in his speeches and on his podcast, where “the left-wing attack on manhood” is a dire threat to our society. Regnery Publishing is set to release his book “Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs” next year. Twitter didn’t see much bravado as he ran from the mob on Luria’s video.
But funny as the visual was, there is absolutely nothing amusing about Jan. 6, 2021. A bipartisan Senate report concluded seven people died as a result of the attack. Two more Metropolitan Police officers took their own lives shortly after. About 150 members of law enforcement were injured, and it’s impossible to know how many others caught up in the horrific event will carry scars for life, of body and mind.
We said that day Hawley has blood on his hands for his role in perpetuating the lies that drove thousands of people to violence. That remains true.
Beyond the physical toll, though, is the damage Jan. 6 continues to inflict on our democracy and our shared sense of truth. The House committee is systematically demonstrating how too many Republicans in Donald Trump’s orbit allowed him to incite the riot, which he had promised in advance “will be wild,” and were then unable to get him to call his fans off until unimaginable damage had already been done.
SHAMELESS SENATOR STOLE COPYRIGHTED PHOTOGRAPH
Hawley has become one of the defining figures of that day. A famous photo captured by Francis Chung shows him raising a fist in solidarity with the crowds that would soon be breaking through doors, looting offices and assaulting law enforcement. Luria quoted a Capitol Police officer who was there and told the committee that Hawley’s gesture “riled up the crowd, and it bothered her greatly because he was doing it in a safe space protected by the officers and the barriers.”
And later that day, when the Senate reconvened after the halls of the Capitol had been cleared and secured, Hawley took to the floor to be the first voice calling to throw out millions of Americans’ votes cast fairly and legally for the rightful winner in a presidential election. And never forget: He was joined in his campaign to discard ballots by Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall.
Chung’s photo of Hawley and his salute has become iconic. Taking a page from the Trump playbook, Hawley has embraced the famous image, flagrantly violating copyright laws by slapping it on T-shirts and camouflage beer koozies, and selling them on his political campaign’s fundraising website. Politico, owner of the image, sent a cease-and-desist demanding the merchandise be removed from sale. Of course, Hawley refused — a defiance shameful and shameless in equal measure.
Shame, clearly, is not a motivating factor for any number of Republicans still caught up in Trumpworld. Hawley has never apologized for attempting to reinstall a man who everyone around him knew had lost the election, as witness testimony continues to confirm. Surely the Yale and Stanford grad isn’t gullible enough to believe the craven lies about tampering with voting machines and dead people casting ballots that ooze through social media.
We realize Hawley’s conscience won’t make him suddenly do the right thing and tell the Jan. 6 committee what he knew and when he knew it. But as GOP Rep. Liz Cheney said Thursday while announcing more public hearings to come: “Doors have opened, new subpoenas have been issued, and the dam has begun to break. … We have considerably more to do.” The committee has delivered on its promises so far.
Since Trump left office, many insiders have revealed in interviews and tell-alls that his administration really was as unethical and chaotic as its worst detractors claimed all along. (Gee, thanks guys, but why couldn’t you have come clean back before the damage was done?) History will not look kindly upon the dead-enders who continued to defend Trump long after it became apparent his conduct was indefensible. When Cheney is saying even more birds are singing, believe her.
Sen. Josh Hawley might not fear a little mockery of his hasty flight from Capitol marauders. But he might be justified if he’s afraid of what emails or text messages some previously-loyal staffer might be considering turning over to the House committee. Stay tuned to the hearings.
The Scampering Of Mr Hawley
Hawley’s effort to reap political rewards from Jan. 6 scampers off (WaPo)
Given everything that’s happened since, it’s easy to forget the role that Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) played in validating Donald Trump’s effort to undermine the 2020 election results.
In the weeks after states submitted their electoral vote slates to Washington on Dec. 14 of that year, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) sought to keep his caucus from joining an effort to reject some of those electors. Over on the House side, there was a quick competition to demonstrate loyalty to Trump by announcing plans to object to submitted slates. But contesting electors needed both one member of the House and one member from the Senate to have a shot at success, and McConnell didn’t want that to happen.
It didn’t work. And the first senator to defy McConnell was the junior senator from Missouri.
Hawley was making a calculated political play that, for a year and a half, he’s managed to keep afloat. But one clip that aired during the House select committee hearing on Thursday evening might have made that water-treading impossible.
On Dec. 30, 2020, Hawley’s office released a statement announcing that he would object to the electors submitted by Pennsylvania. He tried to rationalize it by blaming technology companies, a favorite target of his, and raising objections to how votes were cast in the Keystone state, a question that had already been resolved by the state’s courts.
The plan was obvious. Hawley, an ambitious young politician, wanted to be able to be the guy who delivered for Trump’s base. Other senators knew it, too: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), similarly ambitious if less young, quickly came up with a plan for offering his own, slightly different objection. The race was on.
As he entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Hawley gave that infamous fist pump to the crowd of people outside — some eventual rioters among them. In the aftermath of the riot, there was a lot of criticism of Hawley’s gesture of encouragement, serving as it did as a reminder of his role in encouraging rioters to think that the electoral-vote counting should be derailed. After keeping a low profile for a bit, Hawley eventually began selling a mug showing the fist pump — continuing to do so even after the copyright-holder for the photo threatened to sue.
And why not? He’d weathered the immediate negative effects of his involvement in the riot, it seemed. Republican opinions on the day’s events had shifted and loyalty to Trump continued to be valuable currency. Even on the evening of Jan. 6 itself, Hawley was still hoping that eventuality might arrive. While at least one member of the Senate Republican caucus decided not to object to the submitted electors, Hawley didn’t. He still objected. Even after Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) shouted at him, “You have caused this!”, Hawley — standing in front of a fuming Romney — objected to the electoral slate.
This, it seems, was the bet. Hawley bet it would all work out politically, that he could wave away concerns like Romney’s over the short term and be a hero to the base for standing firm for years to come. And until, oh, about 9 p.m. on Thursday, it looked like it could work.
Then committee member Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) turned the hearing’s attention to Hawley’s actions inside the Capitol that day.
She started by showing the fist-pump photo, noting that a Capitol Police officer had expressed frustration at his doing so, since “he was doing it in a safe space, protected by the officers and the barriers.” Then Luria inserted the dagger.
“Later that day, Senator Hawley fled, after those protesters he helped to rile up stormed the Capitol,” she said. “See for yourself.”
Video of Hawley dashing across a hallway aired on a large screen at the front of the hearing room. Then it aired again, this time in slow motion.
The hearing was theoretically predicated on proving Trump had chosen not to act in response to the rioters on that day. This little aside about Hawley did not obviously have anything to do with that. It didn’t help the committee’s case against Trump, certainly. It was at least in part an overt effort to embarrass Hawley, contrasting his proud demonstration of allegiance with the soon-to-be rioters with his eventually becoming just another elected official who suddenly and unexpectedly found himself at the rioters’ mercy.
There is a sense in which airing the Hawley video fit with the committee’s efforts, though. The committee wants to exact a cost for those who sought to upend the results of the 2020 election. They want, if only unofficially, to make it impossible for Trump to be reelected as president. It’s safe to assume they understand the narrow path Hawley has been trying to walk and understood that airing that footage would in no way help him succeed. The senator loves to seem tough. That video seemed anything but.
Hawley wants the visual of his involvement in Jan. 6 to be that fist pump: the guy willing to fight for Trump. Instead, it is now that slow-motion video: the guy who thought he was cleverly leveraging Trump’s base for his own purposes, only to see things suddenly unfold in a dramatically different way.
In the weeks after states submitted their electoral vote slates to Washington on Dec. 14 of that year, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) sought to keep his caucus from joining an effort to reject some of those electors. Over on the House side, there was a quick competition to demonstrate loyalty to Trump by announcing plans to object to submitted slates. But contesting electors needed both one member of the House and one member from the Senate to have a shot at success, and McConnell didn’t want that to happen.
It didn’t work. And the first senator to defy McConnell was the junior senator from Missouri.
Hawley was making a calculated political play that, for a year and a half, he’s managed to keep afloat. But one clip that aired during the House select committee hearing on Thursday evening might have made that water-treading impossible.
On Dec. 30, 2020, Hawley’s office released a statement announcing that he would object to the electors submitted by Pennsylvania. He tried to rationalize it by blaming technology companies, a favorite target of his, and raising objections to how votes were cast in the Keystone state, a question that had already been resolved by the state’s courts.
The plan was obvious. Hawley, an ambitious young politician, wanted to be able to be the guy who delivered for Trump’s base. Other senators knew it, too: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), similarly ambitious if less young, quickly came up with a plan for offering his own, slightly different objection. The race was on.
As he entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Hawley gave that infamous fist pump to the crowd of people outside — some eventual rioters among them. In the aftermath of the riot, there was a lot of criticism of Hawley’s gesture of encouragement, serving as it did as a reminder of his role in encouraging rioters to think that the electoral-vote counting should be derailed. After keeping a low profile for a bit, Hawley eventually began selling a mug showing the fist pump — continuing to do so even after the copyright-holder for the photo threatened to sue.
And why not? He’d weathered the immediate negative effects of his involvement in the riot, it seemed. Republican opinions on the day’s events had shifted and loyalty to Trump continued to be valuable currency. Even on the evening of Jan. 6 itself, Hawley was still hoping that eventuality might arrive. While at least one member of the Senate Republican caucus decided not to object to the submitted electors, Hawley didn’t. He still objected. Even after Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) shouted at him, “You have caused this!”, Hawley — standing in front of a fuming Romney — objected to the electoral slate.
This, it seems, was the bet. Hawley bet it would all work out politically, that he could wave away concerns like Romney’s over the short term and be a hero to the base for standing firm for years to come. And until, oh, about 9 p.m. on Thursday, it looked like it could work.
Then committee member Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) turned the hearing’s attention to Hawley’s actions inside the Capitol that day.
She started by showing the fist-pump photo, noting that a Capitol Police officer had expressed frustration at his doing so, since “he was doing it in a safe space, protected by the officers and the barriers.” Then Luria inserted the dagger.
“Later that day, Senator Hawley fled, after those protesters he helped to rile up stormed the Capitol,” she said. “See for yourself.”
Video of Hawley dashing across a hallway aired on a large screen at the front of the hearing room. Then it aired again, this time in slow motion.
The hearing was theoretically predicated on proving Trump had chosen not to act in response to the rioters on that day. This little aside about Hawley did not obviously have anything to do with that. It didn’t help the committee’s case against Trump, certainly. It was at least in part an overt effort to embarrass Hawley, contrasting his proud demonstration of allegiance with the soon-to-be rioters with his eventually becoming just another elected official who suddenly and unexpectedly found himself at the rioters’ mercy.
There is a sense in which airing the Hawley video fit with the committee’s efforts, though. The committee wants to exact a cost for those who sought to upend the results of the 2020 election. They want, if only unofficially, to make it impossible for Trump to be reelected as president. It’s safe to assume they understand the narrow path Hawley has been trying to walk and understood that airing that footage would in no way help him succeed. The senator loves to seem tough. That video seemed anything but.
Hawley wants the visual of his involvement in Jan. 6 to be that fist pump: the guy willing to fight for Trump. Instead, it is now that slow-motion video: the guy who thought he was cleverly leveraging Trump’s base for his own purposes, only to see things suddenly unfold in a dramatically different way.
All In The Game
People who shape the political narratives at any given time are well-compensated for their efforts to make this candidate or that issue a "winner".
And they'll never have to feel the pain they cause the rest of us as a result of them caring about nothing but moving the needle even a tiny bit in the direction of whoever's paying them to do it.
Washington DC is the one place in the world where there's never a recession - business is always booming no matter what befalls "the little people" as a result of their fuckery.
Here's your soundtrack for that theme - Jimmie Spheeris
And here's your podcast to go with it - The Professional Left, episode 660
On Bannon
...on Donner and Blitzen!
Sorry.
Glenn Kirschner - Justice Matters
Maybe I'm missing some nuance that legal beagles are schooled in, but to my under-educated brain, this seems like it should be pretty strictly Manichean.
Q: Did Bannon show up as ordered by a legit subpoena?
A: No
Q: Does he have a legit reason for not showing up?
A: No
Conclusion: Put that fucker in jail.
Jul 21, 2022
Fixing A Hole
And since it's a good and sensible idea, we can expect Joe Manchin and asshole Republicans to vote against it.
Opinion - The new proposal to prevent a future coup is surprisingly good
As we reported this week, a bipartisan group of senators has been negotiating over complicated reforms designed to thwart a rerun of Donald Trump’s coup attempt. The reforms revise the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which governs how Congress counts presidential electors.
Now, the bill’s text has been released. It’s very similar to what we reported on previously, and the proposal turns out to be a surprisingly good one. All it needs is 60 votes in the Senate.
The simplest way to grasp what this proposal does is to look at what Trump attempted in 2020, and what another losing candidate could attempt next time. What does the new bill do to prevent these things?
Here goes.
Trump pressured state legislatures to appoint electors for him in defiance of the popular vote (they refused). He pushed congressional Republicans to object to Joe Biden’s electors (which partly succeeded, but not by enough). He pressured his vice president to illegally delay that electoral count so he could go back to pressuring the states again (which was rebuffed).
An imitator might attempt a variation on that scheme. He might get a future state legislature to appoint fake electors for him despite losing the popular vote, with the complicity of a corrupt Republican governor — say, a Gov. Doug Mastriano of Pennsylvania — who would certify those electors.
That imitator might then prevail on the Congress — say, one controlled by a House Speaker Jim Jordan and a Senate Majority Leader Ted Cruz — to count the electors appointed by that legislature and certified by that rogue governor. That could tip a close election.
So here’s how the new proposal would address all these points.
First, and importantly, the proposal would require a state to appoint presidential electors in the manner dictated by the state’s laws as they existed before Election Day. As long as every state’s laws require appointment of electors in keeping with the popular vote, this would prevent a state legislature from appointing electors in defiance of that vote.
Second, the proposal would require the governor to certify the correct electors by a hard deadline before Congress counts them. This is supposed to prevent a governor from certifying the electors for the losing candidate.
What if a state legislature and governor simply ignored those requirements and their constitutional duty?
Well, the proposal would allow an aggrieved candidate to trigger expedited judicial review by a federal three-judge panel, subject to expedited Supreme Court appeal. Under the proposal, Congress would be required to count the electors that the courts deemed the correct one.
Here’s the basic principle at play: The aim is to close off manipulation of the process at both the state and congressional ends. In the proposal, Congress bars state legislatures and governors at the front end from breaking their own laws (or the Constitution) dictating the appointment of electors. If they do so anyway, it triggers automatic judicial review and then requires Congress to count the correct electors at the back end.
“This proposal effectively constrains both state officials and Congress to count the true electors,” legal scholar Matthew Seligman, an expert on the ECA, tells us.
The proposal also clarifies that the vice president’s role is purely ceremonial (to preclude disrupting the count). And whereas the ECA currently requires one member from each congressional chamber to force a vote on whether to invalidate electors, the proposal would require one-fifth of each chamber to force that vote.
All this raises difficult questions. For example, can we count on the federal courts to do the right thing?
The problem is someone has to have the last word on which presidential electors count. If not federal courts, would you prefer that last word fall to Speaker Jordan and Majority Leader Cruz?
You could also fall back on state courts as the first judicial backstop. “But state supreme courts can be dominated by partisans too,” Seligman says, “and any such litigation would ultimately end up in the Supreme Court anyway.”
Another thorny issue: Can a current Congress bind a future Congress to count only electors the courts deem legitimate?
That’s a hard question. But it’s plausible a future Congress would have to repeal this new law to relieve itself of that obligation. Which it could do, but that would require a presidential signature, and all that would be hard to pull off amid a contested post-election crisis.
Which raises a final question: What if every actor in the system is corrupted?
What if a state legislature and governor certify the wrong electors? What if a corrupted Congress wants to count those electors? And what if the federal courts — including the Supreme Court — bless those wrong electors as well?
The process of writing this bill has revealed that if enough actors are determinedly corrupt and dominate all corners of the system, there’s no bulletproof set of protections. In the end, making this as difficult as possible may be the only option.
The bill does that, according to Adav Noti, vice president and legal director of the Campaign Legal Center. But, Noti cautions, if all those actors “conspire to subvert an election, there’s not a whole lot you can put on paper that will stop that.”
And that’s when the street fighting starts. If it hasn’t started already.
(Joe Manchin and asshole Republicans - sorry for that bit of redundancy)
In the end, we have to realize that our democracy - our entire civilization - is wholly dependent on honorable people behaving honorably.
And that brings me back to what I was lamenting 15 years ago.
ie: I'm afraid we're moments away from the point where this glorious ideal we call America will be all but dead, and we'll just be arguing over who gets to do what with the corpse.
But - I can still be hopeful, even as my optimism is sorely tested.
WaPo: (pay wall)
As we reported this week, a bipartisan group of senators has been negotiating over complicated reforms designed to thwart a rerun of Donald Trump’s coup attempt. The reforms revise the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which governs how Congress counts presidential electors.
Now, the bill’s text has been released. It’s very similar to what we reported on previously, and the proposal turns out to be a surprisingly good one. All it needs is 60 votes in the Senate.
The simplest way to grasp what this proposal does is to look at what Trump attempted in 2020, and what another losing candidate could attempt next time. What does the new bill do to prevent these things?
Here goes.
Trump pressured state legislatures to appoint electors for him in defiance of the popular vote (they refused). He pushed congressional Republicans to object to Joe Biden’s electors (which partly succeeded, but not by enough). He pressured his vice president to illegally delay that electoral count so he could go back to pressuring the states again (which was rebuffed).
An imitator might attempt a variation on that scheme. He might get a future state legislature to appoint fake electors for him despite losing the popular vote, with the complicity of a corrupt Republican governor — say, a Gov. Doug Mastriano of Pennsylvania — who would certify those electors.
That imitator might then prevail on the Congress — say, one controlled by a House Speaker Jim Jordan and a Senate Majority Leader Ted Cruz — to count the electors appointed by that legislature and certified by that rogue governor. That could tip a close election.
So here’s how the new proposal would address all these points.
First, and importantly, the proposal would require a state to appoint presidential electors in the manner dictated by the state’s laws as they existed before Election Day. As long as every state’s laws require appointment of electors in keeping with the popular vote, this would prevent a state legislature from appointing electors in defiance of that vote.
Second, the proposal would require the governor to certify the correct electors by a hard deadline before Congress counts them. This is supposed to prevent a governor from certifying the electors for the losing candidate.
What if a state legislature and governor simply ignored those requirements and their constitutional duty?
Well, the proposal would allow an aggrieved candidate to trigger expedited judicial review by a federal three-judge panel, subject to expedited Supreme Court appeal. Under the proposal, Congress would be required to count the electors that the courts deemed the correct one.
Here’s the basic principle at play: The aim is to close off manipulation of the process at both the state and congressional ends. In the proposal, Congress bars state legislatures and governors at the front end from breaking their own laws (or the Constitution) dictating the appointment of electors. If they do so anyway, it triggers automatic judicial review and then requires Congress to count the correct electors at the back end.
“This proposal effectively constrains both state officials and Congress to count the true electors,” legal scholar Matthew Seligman, an expert on the ECA, tells us.
The proposal also clarifies that the vice president’s role is purely ceremonial (to preclude disrupting the count). And whereas the ECA currently requires one member from each congressional chamber to force a vote on whether to invalidate electors, the proposal would require one-fifth of each chamber to force that vote.
All this raises difficult questions. For example, can we count on the federal courts to do the right thing?
The problem is someone has to have the last word on which presidential electors count. If not federal courts, would you prefer that last word fall to Speaker Jordan and Majority Leader Cruz?
You could also fall back on state courts as the first judicial backstop. “But state supreme courts can be dominated by partisans too,” Seligman says, “and any such litigation would ultimately end up in the Supreme Court anyway.”
Another thorny issue: Can a current Congress bind a future Congress to count only electors the courts deem legitimate?
That’s a hard question. But it’s plausible a future Congress would have to repeal this new law to relieve itself of that obligation. Which it could do, but that would require a presidential signature, and all that would be hard to pull off amid a contested post-election crisis.
Which raises a final question: What if every actor in the system is corrupted?
What if a state legislature and governor certify the wrong electors? What if a corrupted Congress wants to count those electors? And what if the federal courts — including the Supreme Court — bless those wrong electors as well?
The process of writing this bill has revealed that if enough actors are determinedly corrupt and dominate all corners of the system, there’s no bulletproof set of protections. In the end, making this as difficult as possible may be the only option.
The bill does that, according to Adav Noti, vice president and legal director of the Campaign Legal Center. But, Noti cautions, if all those actors “conspire to subvert an election, there’s not a whole lot you can put on paper that will stop that.”
And that’s when the street fighting starts. If it hasn’t started already.
Today's Tweet
The road to dystopia is paved with people telling us we're overreacting.
All the people who laughed off the “worrywarts” years ago for freaking out about the Funny Dancing Robot Dogs (tm) should be forced to watch this video once a day for the remainder of the year. pic.twitter.com/WBIrlGah3w
— Sean Chiplock (@sonicmega) July 20, 2022
COVID-19 Update
Cases: 566,914,206
Deaths: 6,381,111
US
Cases: 90,050,839
Deaths: 1,025,755
WaPo: (pay wall)
Biden tests positive for covid-19, White House says
President Biden tested positive for the coronavirus Thursday morning and is experiencing “very mild symptoms,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.
Jean-Pierre said Biden has begun taking Paxlovid and will isolate at the White House, consistent with CDC guidelines.
Biden “will continue to carry out all of his duties fully during that time,” she said. “He has been in contact with members of the White House staff by phone this morning, and will participate in his planned meetings at the White House this morning via phone and Zoom from the residence.”
Jean-Pierre said Biden would continue to work in isolation until he tests negative.
She said the White House Medical Unit would inform all close contacts of Biden during the day Thursday, including any members of Congress and any members of the media who interacted with him during travel Wednesday.
Biden, 79, is fully vaccinated and boosted, and as president has access to some of the best medical care in the world.
But elderly people often suffer more serious symptoms than younger individuals, and Biden’s positive test is likely to send tremors through the political world and the international community until the course of his disease is clearer.
Throughout his presidency, Biden has taken precautions, including holding meetings via Zoom, wearing a mask during close encounters and conducting gatherings in a socially distanced manner. But the precautions were relaxed somewhat as the pandemic has begun to recede.
Despite covid-19 having increasingly seeped into Biden’s inner circle — infecting everyone from his family members to many of his top advisers — the president had, until Thursday, managed to avoid the illness.
The White House had strict protocols in place to help protect the septuagenarian president, often including masking and staying at least six feet from Biden when indoors.
As each new Biden aide or relative tested positive — Vice President Harris, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Biden’s sister, Valerie Biden Owens, and his daughter, Ashley Biden, to name a few — they were not deemed a “close contact,” and the president managed to avoid major exposure.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)