Democrats Bring It

I've backed off my criticism of the Dems in recent years, and I think Jamie Raskin (D-MD08) puts my reasoning into words in pretty good shape (at about 5:50, 8:01, and especially 20:53).

"We are the democracy". We're the party in favor of getting everybody out to vote. We're the party of freedom - the freedoms of self-determination - choice and opportunity - as well as FDR's four freedoms. We're the party that wants everybody to have a real shot at making their lives what they they need their lives to be.

Today's Trigger Attempt

Dear Florida,

Fuck you.

Your pal,

Mike

My note is not about this exceedingly stoopid "legislation". It's about what I think is the exceedingly stoopid attempt by an exceedingly dick-headed politician to get "the libs" to freak out.

The problem with that is this:

I can stone fucking guarantee there are people all over this country who think he's right to do it, and I'll bet dollars to dingleberries something like it pops up again in seemingly random places.

Florida bill would require bloggers who write about governor to register with the state

TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — Florida Sen. Jason Brodeur (R-Lake Mary) wants bloggers who write about Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and other members of the Florida executive cabinet or legislature to register with the state or face fines.

Brodeur’s proposal, Senate Bill 1316: Information Dissemination, would require any blogger writing about government officials to register with the Florida Office of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics.

In the bill, Brodeur wrote that those who write “an article, a story, or a series of stories,” about “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature,” and receives or will receive payment for doing so, must register with state offices within five days after the publication of an article that mentions an elected state official.

If another blog post is added to a blog, the blogger would then be required to submit monthly reports on the 10th of each month with the appropriate state office. They would not have to submit a report on months when no content is published.

For blog posts that “concern an elected member of the legislature” or “an officer of the executive branch,” monthly reports must disclose the amount of compensation received for the coverage, rounded to the nearest $10 value.

If compensation is paid for a series of posts or for a specific amount of time, the blogger would be required to disclose the total amount to be received, upon publication of the first post in said series or timeframe.

Additional compensation must be disclosed later on.

Failure to file these disclosures or register with state officials, if the bill passes, would lead to daily fines for the bloggers, with a maximum amount per report, not per writer, of $2,500. The per-day fine is $25 per report for each day it’s late.

The bill also requires that bloggers file notices of failure to file a timely report the same way that lobbyists file their disclosures and reports on assessed fines. Fines must be paid within 30 days of payment notice, unless an appeal is filed with the appropriate office. Fine payments must be deposited into the Legislative Lobbyist Registration Trust Fund if it concerns an elected member of the legislature.

For writing about members of the executive branch, fines would be made payable to the Executive Branch Lobby Registration Trust Fund or, if it concerns both groups, the fine may be paid to both related trust funds in equal amounts.

Explicitly, the blogger rule would not apply to newspapers or similar publications, under Brodeur’s proposed legislation.

In addition to the blogger regulations, the bill also removes provisions of state statutes to require judicial notices of sales to be published on publicly accessible websites, and specifies that a government agency can publish legally required advertisements and public notices on county sites if the cost is not paid by or recovered from an individual.

Should the bill pass, it would take effect immediately upon approval.

East Palestine Update

Obama put safety regulations in place for trains carrying HazMat, and then Norfolk Southern lobbied successfully to get them scrubbed when Trump was POTUS.

Ohio Republicans own the Governorship, a 2-to-1 edge in the Congressional Delegation, super majorities in both houses of the state legislature - and the Mayor of East Palestine is Republican as well.

But somehow, when something like this happens - almost exactly what Dems and liberals warned us would fucking happen - then we hear that passive shit ("mistakes were made"), and the shittier shit about how the poor pitiful folk in rural America have been ignored and dismissed by squabbling politicians on both sides.

Sick to fucking death of that fucking shit.

At least for now, people in East Palestine are mad at the right people, but the question remains - will they make the connection to the dumb decisions they've been making when it comes to voting for the assholes who actually don't care about what happens to them?

‘Evacuate Us!’ Fear and Anxiety Boil Over as Residents Confront Train Company on Derailment

As a representative for Norfolk Southern tried to apologize and outline its recovery efforts, residents shouted over him at a meeting in East Palestine, Ohio, demanding that the company “do the right thing.”

EAST PALESTINE, Ohio — Frustrations boiled over on Thursday night in the largest public confrontation yet between the people of East Palestine and the operator of the freight train that derailed nearly a month ago, with angry residents in an emotional town hall lashing out at the lone representative from Norfolk Southern who took questions at the meeting.

As Darrell Wilson, a top government relations official for Norfolk Southern, tried repeatedly to apologize to the community and outline the company’s recovery efforts, residents interrupted and shouted over him, demanding that he commit to getting them out of the area, and that the company “do the right thing.”

“We are sorry,” Mr. Wilson said. “We’re very sorry for what happened. We feel horrible about it.”

“Evacuate us!” one person yelled, over Mr. Wilson’s apologies. “Get my grandchildren out of here!” another man yelled. “If you care about us, get our grandkids out.”

Standing before Mr. Wilson and an assortment of environmental, health and political officials in the auditorium of East Palestine High School, residents vented and pleaded, describing how their families were still living in hotels or experiencing lingering health problems, including repeated vomiting and rashes.

They told the officials how they felt trapped, with few resources to move away from the homes they had spent their lives building, and demanded more answers about the validity of the testing done on their air, water and soil.

Norfolk Southern had abruptly pulled out of a previously scheduled meeting last month, citing unspecified threats to officials.

The fiery clash underscored how deeply anxiety and mistrust still run in East Palestine, a town of about 4,700 people, after the derailment on Feb. 3. The decision to burn the train’s cargo of vinyl chloride and other chemicals in order to avert the threat of an explosion heightened fears in the community about the long-term consequences of chemical exposure, and the meeting on Thursday night appeared to do little to assuage them.

Earlier on Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency said it had instructed Norfolk Southern to test for dioxins, toxic pollutants that could have formed after the chemical burn-off. And last month, the E.P.A. issued an order that not only demanded that the company pay for all cleanup associated with the disaster, but also required that it “attend and participate in public meetings at E.P.A.’s request” — including Thursday’s town hall.

But the continued discontentment with both the rail company and government agencies was evident just minutes into the meeting.

“Why did you wait so long?” one man yelled out as Debra Shore, the E.P.A. regional administrator, explained the February order and the requirement to test for dioxins. As the director of the Ohio E.P.A., Anne M. Vogel, reiterated that testing of the water had yet to show high levels of contaminants, another woman yelled out: “What about private wells? We’ll just stay here and die.”

And as E.P.A. officials reiterated that dioxin testing had begun, people yelled out, “Start now!” and “It’s too late!”

Dioxins can cause cancer, interfere with hormones and cause damage to reproductive and immune systems, according to the E.P.A. While the toxic pollutants are already present in many environments — they can be byproducts of burning fuel, among other things — the E.P.A. has been working for decades to reduce their production.

Ms. Shore also said the agency was working to approve a plan that would remove the railroad tracks, as well as the contaminated soil underneath. And she acknowledged that the derailment had upended homes that had been there for generations, pledging that her agency and others were committed to the recovery effort.

“We owe it to everyone, to everyone affected by the Norfolk Southern train derailment, to ensure that you continue to build those roots, that future generations can continue to proudly call this area home,” she said. “That is what E.P.A. is working toward. And we will not be leaving until you are satisfied.”

It is Norfolk Southern that has faced the largest barrage of demands and intensifying scrutiny from lawmakers and officials, who are furious over not only the derailment, but also the consequences of the decision to burn off some of the toxic chemicals carried by the train.

Mr. Wilson, the company representative, repeatedly struggled to speak over the angry crowd on Thursday, even as he pledged that Norfolk Southern would continue to support the community and that it had signed a lease in the town.

“They're sending a representative because they’re scared,” said Courtney Miller, 35, who lives about 100 yards from the derailment site, she said. “They’re scared because we’re mad, we’re upset.”

“These people care, and I can’t leave them,” she added, her voice choking up. “So I will stand here and stomp my feet and be as loud as I can, until somebody does something and gets these people out of here. It’s not safe.”

While the company’s chief executive, Alan H. Shaw, separately made a trip to meet with local officials and some railroad employees last month, some residents were disappointed to not be able to confront him on Thursday.

At one point, someone in the crowd could be heard asking, “Where’s Alan?” Another person passed out T-shirts mocking the company’s logo, rebranding it as “Nofolk sufferin” and replacing the logo’s horse with a broken train.

Candice Desanzo, 43, who came to the meeting with her 1- and 2-year-old sons, said she was worried about their health and determined to speak to Mr. Shaw directly.

“If I did somebody wrong, I’m going to stand up and I’m going to face my wrongs,” she said. “And I’m just one simple human being — they’re a corporation.”

Like other residents, she expressed frustration with the race to ensure that trains were back running through the town as soon as the evacuation order had been lifted.

“Every time I hear a train, it makes me sick now,” she said. “It’s just mind-blowing to me how really ignorant they’ve been to us in every possible way that they could when they should be doing everything that they possibly can to help us.”

Mr. Shaw is also set to testify before a key Senate committee next week as lawmakers and state officials demand more information about what led to the derailment and the possible long-term effects on the region’s environment and public health.

“You’re going to determine the finish line — you’re going to determine when it’s made right,” Representative Bill Johnson, Republican of Ohio, said on Thursday, pledging a separate House hearing on the environmental response, along with a field hearing in the region.

President Biden, speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill on Thursday after meeting with Senate Democrats, said that he “would be out there at some point” when asked if he would visit Ohio. He also confirmed that he would support legislation championed by the state’s two senators — Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, and J.D. Vance, a Republican — and other lawmakers that would toughen railway safety regulations.

Both residents and rail workers have focused their concerns on the possibility of harmful exposure to the train’s cargo and any other chemicals that seeped into the community’s environment. In the days after the derailment, residents complained about migraines, rashes and a persisting chemical odor, even as preliminary data from government officials did not show significant levels of vinyl chloride or other dangerous chemicals.

On Wednesday, Jonathon Long, the chairman of the union branch that represents Norfolk Southern employees, including those helping clean up the site of the derailment, wrote to Gov. Mike DeWine of Ohio condemning the railroad company and its treatment of its workers. He said he had been told that some of the workers were not given appropriate protective gear to wear, despite the threat of possible exposure, and that others had continued to complain about migraines and nausea days after the derailment.

As of Thursday, about 2.1 million gallons of wastewater and 1,400 tons of solid waste have been hauled away from the site of the derailment, according to data provided by Mr. DeWine’s office. Out of tests done on 151 private well systems, 57 samples have been verified and do not show worrisome contaminant levels, matching similar results from the municipal water systems.

Today's Pix

click

↘️ ⬇️ ↙️

COVID-19 Update

(From 12-08-2020)

USC research showed that people born during or just after the 1918 flu pandemic faced increased heart disease risk more than 60 years later.

The legacy of the novel coronavirus could be worse.

For nearly a year, the novel coronavirus and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic have dominated headlines across the world, and justifiably so. With nearly 68 million cases reported and more than 1.5 million deaths worldwide as of December 7, 2020, the short-term impact of this disease has been stark and devastating.

But as health care providers, researchers and public health professionals across the globe grapple with the immediate challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic — preventing viral transmission, identifying cases, successfully treating the disease and creating an effective vaccine — scientists’ thoughts also turn to the future and the long-term health issues the pandemic might present to the more than 43 million people who have survived SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Many COVID-19 survivors will face sequelae, or the aftereffects of infection, predicts Pinchas Cohen, dean of the USC Leonard Davis School. Damage to the lungs, brain and heart has already been observed in survivors, and “our medical system is going to be highly impacted,” he says. However, the true extent of any long-term effects will likely take years to measure accurately.

While many questions remain about what the aftermath of the pandemic will look like, we can take a few clues from history, say USC University Professors Eileen Crimmins and Caleb Finch.

“I think that COVID is setting us up for a hundred years of problems,” predicted Crimmins, who holds the AARP Chair in Gerontology at the USC Leonard Davis School.

Looking to the past

A little more than 100 years ago, the world faced another pandemic that gripped the world’s attention. The culprit then was an H1N1 influenza virus that became known as the “Spanish flu.”

In total, the 1918–1919 pandemic claimed at least 50 million lives, after having infected around half a billion people—one-third of the world’s population at the time. Approximately 675,000 people died in the U.S., with the flu first identified in this country in soldiers stationed at an Army base in Kansas during the spring of 1918.

The mortality patterns of the 1918 flu differed from COVID-19, Crimmins says. In both pandemics, individuals over age 65 were at particular risk, but children younger than 5 and adults between 20 and 40 years of age also faced a high rate of death from the 1918 flu.

“1918 was particularly hard on young adults, those in the childbearing years, [while] COVID-19 is particularly hard on older adults,” Crimmins says.

But beyond the high death toll, the full impact of the 1918–1919 pandemic wouldn’t be realized until more than 60 years later. In 2009, Finch and Crimmins published a study examining epidemiological data on individuals born in 1919, who were newborns or second- or third-trimester fetuses during the height of the pandemic. The data revealed that these individuals had approximately 25% more heart disease after age 60, as well as increased diabetes risk, compared to a similar cohort of individuals not born in 1919, including those who were older infants during the pandemic.

While the researchers didn’t have data on exactly which people were exposed to the flu either in utero or as infants in 1918–1919, the results were nevertheless strikingly different between the two age cohorts. In addition to higher levels of ischemic heart disease as well as diabetes in those who could have been exposed prenatally, U.S. census data indicated that the cohort of children born in early 1919 attained less education and had lower economic productivity over their lifetime, suggesting a higher level of developmental impairment or other long-term health issues in those with prenatal flu exposure at the height of the outbreak. Adult height (as recorded at World War II enlistment) was also slightly lower for the 1919 birth cohort than for those born in adjacent years, which suggests that overall growth was also negatively affected.

“The fact that this cohort of people had elevated risks of disease even more than six decades after the pandemic indicates that maternal exposure to the influenza virus appears to have had wide-ranging and long-lasting health effects on offspring,” Crimmins says. Subsequent studies have shed further light on the potential for inflammation to cause indelible damage, especially to the heart.

Crimmins and Finch hypothesize that one mechanism of this could be the increase in inflammatory response, including an increase in the protein interleukin-6 (IL-6), resulting in developmental changes affecting the fetus. An increase in IL-6, which can cross the blood-brain barrier, has been observed with COVID-19, with such an increase part of the dangerous “cytokine storms” seen in severely ill patients. But there are other mechanisms linked to the novel coronavirus that provide additional cause for concern, says Finch, who holds the ARCO/William F. Kieschnick Chair in the Neurobiology of Aging at the Leonard Davis School.

Effects could be widespread and long term

While the most well-known hallmark of COVID-19 is a marked deterioration in lung function, health care providers and COVID-19 survivors have reported many other startling and dangerous effects of the illness, including heart damage, blood clotting that results in strokes, cognitive difficulty, general debilitation and weakness. A number of survivors report being among those known as “long-haulers” — individuals who continue to suffer from ill effects long after the virus is no longer detectable in their bodies.

This array of wide-ranging effects throughout the body may be due to the affinity of the virus for the angiotensin-converting enzyme-2, or ACE2, receptor, Finch says. ACE2 receptors are widely present in cells of the alveoli—tiny, saclike structures in the lungs that play a key role in the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide as we breathe. The receptors are also found on cells in many tissue types throughout the body, including within the heart, blood vessels, kidneys, liver and gastrointestinal tract.

“[ACE2 receptors] are found in cells everywhere,” he says. “You can anticipate a very broad number of consequences.”

Under healthy circumstances, ACE2 plays an important role in modulating the activity of the protein angiotensin II in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) pathway, a process regulating body functions such as blood pressure, wound healing and inflammation. However, the “spike” proteins of SARS-CoV-2 bind to a cell’s ACE2 receptors like a key into a lock, granting the virus access to the cell, enabling the virus to replicate itself and subverting normal ACE2 function in the process. This allows angiotensin II activity to go unchecked, which likely contributes to tissue injury, especially in the heart and lungs.

“It creates cell death and a fibrous response,” Finch explains, “so the lung tissue is displaced by scar tissue, in effect. This also has a clotting consequence that’s been unknown for the influenza series.”

“What’s happening to people’s lungs now seems totally different [than with the 1918 flu],” Crimmins says, explaining that people who died from the 1918 flu tended to die of secondary infections following the illness, including bacterial pneumonia. In comparison, COVID-19 deaths appear to be more directly attributable to deterioration of lung function. “The lungs just fall apart,” she says.

According to a recent study published in JAMA, even asymptomatic people who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection have been found to have signs of tissue damage, including myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart. Could this be a precursor to an increased risk of heart disease or other health issues in the future, such as those seen with people born in 1919?

With people of all ages affected, “We may have a century of COVID damage,” Finch warns.

An epidemic of mistrust

Amid the ongoing threat to health, the current pandemic also echoes the 1918–1919 influenza in the debates surrounding societal responses to the illness, increasing the risk for more infection and thus more long-term impact.

The sound bites are familiar, according to news articles from 1918 and 1919. Scientists and public health officials urged the shutdown of crowded gathering spaces; supported mandates to wear masks; and promoted isolation, quarantine and hygiene as the main weapons in the battle against the illness. Those opposing such public health measures made assertions about the futility of or harm caused by wearing masks, as well as the economic risks of shutting down businesses. People fought against the idea that the pandemic was a serious threat—even though there was not yet a vaccine for influenza, nor were there antibiotics to treat resulting secondary infections. However, the media landscape was not nearly as varied, nor as constant and pervasive, as it is today.

In 2020, individuals’ behavior in response to the pandemic has closely correlated with the kinds of mass media outlets they trust, according to a study published in BMJ Global Health by USC PhD in gerontology students Erfei Zhao and Qiao Wu and co-authored by Crimmins and associate professor of gerontology and sociology Jennifer Ailshire.

Zhao, Wu and colleagues analyzed response data from the Understanding America Study’s COVID-19 panel on how often participants performed five virus-mitigating behaviors during the coronavirus pandemic: (1) wearing a face mask, (2) washing hands with soap or using hand sanitizer several times per day, (3) canceling or postponing personal or social activities, (4) avoiding eating at restaurants, (5) and avoiding public spaces, gatherings or crowds. In addition, the team also looked at risky health behaviors, including going out to a bar, club or other place where people gather; going to another person’s residence; having outside visitors such as friends, neighbors or relatives at one’s home; attending a gathering with more than 10 people, such as a party, concert or religious service; or having close contact (within six feet) with someone who doesn’t live with the respondent.

Using CNN as an example of a left-leaning news source and Fox News as a news source on the right side of the political spectrum, the study identified the relative amount of trust participants reported in either news source with the risky or positive behaviors they engaged in. Risky behaviors were highest among participants who reported more trust in Fox News, followed closely by those who reported trusting neither outlet. Positive behaviors were more frequently reported among those who trusted CNN more than Fox News.

The results imply that behavior sharply differs along media bias lines, indicating that partisan narratives are likely getting in the way of solid health messaging that encourages healthy behavior change.

“In such a highly partisan environment, false information can be easily disseminated. Health messaging, which is one of the few effective ways to slow down the spread of the virus in the absence of a vaccine, is being damaged by politically biased and economically focused narratives,” say Zhao and Wu.

Prevention today for a better tomorrow

Looking beyond the scientific unknowns or misinformation in popular media, one thing is clear, according to Crimmins and Finch: Preventing as much further infection as possible will be our best bet for staving off the worst long-term outcomes.

In addition to personal health behaviors, public policy changes and increased research support can help identify other ways to help those most at risk of infection and complications. More basic science research is needed to understand how viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 affect people of different ages and health histories, which could provide insight on how to better address COVID-19 and any future pandemics. And new policies and programs at both the local and national levels could help older people as well as people of lower socioeconomic status, who often face increased risk due to denser living conditions or more exposure to the public through their work.

“Biological factors may strongly affect how people respond to infection with COVID-19, but social rather than biological factors primarily determine the likelihood that people of different ages get infected with COVID-19, get diagnosed with the disease, and get treated in a timely fashion,” Crimmins wrote in a paper published in Public Policy & Aging Report.

In an analysis of positive health behaviors by age, Crimmins and her team found that older adults in the U.S., though slow to adopt preventive measures when the pandemic first started, have now improved their rate of mask-wearing, hand-washing and maintaining physical distance from others. Until an effective vaccine is released, much of the immediate power to prevent further infection lies with individuals and their health behaviors. Keeping the possibility of long-term complications in mind, people of all ages should learn from history and take fighting the virus seriously, Crimmins and Finch say.

Why does COVID-19 cause ongoing health problems?

Organ damage could play a role. People who had severe illness with COVID-19 might experience organ damage affecting the heart, kidneys, skin and brain. Inflammation and problems with the immune system can also happen. It isn't clear how long these effects might last. The effects also could lead to the development of new conditions, such as diabetes or a heart or nervous system condition.

The experience of having severe COVID-19 might be another factor. People with severe symptoms of COVID-19 often need to be treated in a hospital intensive care unit. This can result in extreme weakness and post-traumatic stress disorder, a mental health condition triggered by a terrifying event.

What are the risk factors for post-COVID-19 syndrome?

You might be more likely to have post-COVID-19 syndrome if:

• You had severe illness with COVID-19, especially if you were hospitalized or needed intensive care.
• You had certain medical conditions before getting the COVID-19 virus.
• You had a condition affecting your organs and tissues (multisystem inflammatory syndrome) while sick with COVID-19 or afterward.
• Post-COVID-19 syndrome also appears to be more common in adults than in children and teens. However, anyone who gets COVID-19 can have long-term effects, including people with no symptoms or mild illness with COVID-19.

What should you do if you have post-COVID-19 syndrome symptoms?

If you're having symptoms of post-COVID-19 syndrome, talk to your health care provider. To prepare for your appointment, write down:

• When your symptoms started
• What makes your symptoms worse
• How often you experience symptoms
• How your symptoms affect your activities

Your health care provider might do lab tests, such as a complete blood count or liver function test. You might have other tests or procedures, such as chest X-rays, based on your symptoms. The information you provide and any test results will help your health care provider come up with a treatment plan.

In addition, you might benefit from connecting with others in a support group and sharing resources.

ICYMI

Meet Tennessee State Representative Paul Sherrell (R - Pokacuzzin County).

Mr Sherrell has proposed bringing back lynching as a form of punishment for certain crimes in The Volunteer State.

Today's Life Lesson

When it seems like Garland isn't moving fast enough to keep up with your average tree stump, I try to remember that not everybody in the DOJ is in tune with the US Constitution as it stands today. There are rats and termites eating away at the structure of every foundational institution holding our little experiment in democratic self-government in an upright position.

American democracy is the oldest one on the planet, because there's strength and resiliency built into it. But that doesn't make it inviolate or invincible - the Law Of Impermanence has not been repealed. 

The guys who first put this joint together knew the whole thing was dependent on people behaving in an honorable way. They warned us about it repeatedly, especially as contained in The Federalist Papers.

eg: The Federalist #71

There are some who would be inclined to regard the servile pliancy of the Executive to a prevailing current, either in the community or in the legislature, as its best recommendation. But such men entertain very crude notions, as well of the purposes for which government was instituted, as of the true means by which the public happiness may be promoted. The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests. It is a just observation, that the people commonly INTEND the PUBLIC GOOD. This often applies to their very errors. But their good sense would despise the adulator who should pretend that they always REASON RIGHT about the MEANS of promoting it. They know from experience that they sometimes err; and the wonder is that they so seldom err as they do, beset, as they continually are, by the wiles of parasites and sycophants, by the snares of the ambitious, the avaricious, the desperate, by the artifices of men who possess their confidence more than they deserve it, and of those who seek to possess rather than to deserve it. When occasions present themselves, in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection. Instances might be cited in which a conduct of this kind has saved the people from very fatal consequences of their own mistakes, and has procured lasting monuments of their gratitude to the men who had courage and magnanimity enough to serve them at the peril of their displeasure.

There's more, but it's hard to dig it out of all that 18th century language.

So anyway, it's possible Garland has to contend with "the enemy within" as he tries to sort through all the Trump shit.

Months of disputes between Justice Department prosecutors and FBI agents over how best to try to recover classified documents from Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club and residence led to a tense showdown near the end of July last year, according to four people familiar with the discussions.

Prosecutors argued that new evidence suggested Trump was knowingly concealing secret documents at his Palm Beach, Fla., home and urged the FBI to conduct a surprise raid at the property. But two senior FBI officials who would be in charge of leading the search resisted the plan as too combative and proposed instead to seek Trump’s permission to search his property, according to the four people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a sensitive investigation.

Prosecutors ultimately prevailed in that dispute, one of several previously unreported clashes in a tense tug of war between two arms of the Justice Department over how aggressively to pursue a criminal investigation of a former president. The FBI conducted an unprecedented raid on Aug. 8, recovering more than 100 classified items, among them a document describing a foreign government’s military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities.

Starting in May, FBI agents in the Washington field office had sought to slow the probe, urging caution given its extraordinary sensitivity, the people said.

Some of those field agents wanted to shutter the criminal investigation altogether in early June, after Trump’s legal team asserted a diligent search had been conducted and all classified records had been turned over, according to some people with knowledge of the discussions.

The idea of closing the probe was not something that was discussed or considered by FBI leadership and would not have been approved, a senior law enforcement official said.

This account reveals for the first time the degree of tension among law enforcement officials and behind-the-scenes deliberations as they wrestled with a national security case that has potentially far-reaching political consequences.

The disagreements stemmed in large part from worries among officials that whatever steps they took in investigating a former president would face intense scrutiny and second-guessing by people inside and outside the government. However, the agents, who typically perform the bulk of the investigative work in cases, and the prosecutors, who guide agents’ work and decide on criminal charges, ultimately focused on very different pitfalls, according to people familiar with their discussions.

On one side, federal prosecutors in the department’s national security division advocated aggressive ways to secure some of the country’s most closely guarded secrets, which they feared Trump was intentionally hiding at Mar-a-Lago; on the other, FBI agents in the Washington field office urged more caution with such a high-profile matter, recommending they take a cooperative rather than confrontational approach.

Both sides were mindful of the intense scrutiny the case was drawing and felt they had to be above reproach while investigating a former president then expected to run for reelection. While trying to follow the Justice Department playbook for classified records probes, investigators on both sides braced for Trump to follow his own playbook of publicly attacking the integrity of their investigation, according to people with knowledge of their discussions.

The FBI agents’ caution also was rooted in the fact that mistakes in prior probes of Hillary Clinton and Trump had proved damaging to the FBI, and the cases subjected the bureau to sustained public attacks from partisans, the people said.

Prosecutors countered that the FBI failing to treat Trump as it had other government employees who were not truthful about classified records could threaten the nation’s security. As evidence surfaced suggesting that Trump or his team was holding back sensitive records, the prosecutors pushed for quick action to recover them, according to the people familiar with the discussions.

While the people who described these sensitive discussions disagreed on some particulars, they agreed on many aspects of the dispute.

Spokespeople for the Justice Department and the FBI declined to comment for this story. Attorney General Merrick Garland, asked about this report at a Senate hearing Wednesday, said he could not describe the investigation but added that in his experience as a prosecutor “there is often a robust discussion and it’s encouraged among investigators and prosecutors.”

It is not unusual for FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors to disagree during an investigation about how aggressively to pursue witnesses or other evidence. Often, those disagreements are temporary flare-ups that are debated, decided and resolved in due course.

While the FBI tends to have great discretion in the day-to-day conduct of investigations, it is up to prosecutors to decide whether to file criminal charges — and, like the prosecutors, the director of the FBI ultimately reports to the attorney general. The Mar-a-Lago case was unusual not just for its focus on a former president, but in the way it was closely monitored at every step by senior Justice Department officials. Garland said he “personally approved” the search of Trump’s property.

Attorney General Merrick Garland defended FBI and Justice Department employees on Aug. 11 following an FBI search at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort. (Video: The Washington Post)
It’s unclear how the investigation may have been reshaped if the two sides had settled their disputes differently. Had the criminal investigation been closed in June, as some FBI field agents discussed, legal experts said it’s unlikely agents would have yet recovered the items found in the FBI’s raid of Trump’s residence.

Some inside the probe argued the infighting delayed the search by months, ultimately reducing the time prosecutors had to reach a decision on possible charges. Others contend the discussions were necessary to ensure the investigation proceeded on the surest footing, enabling officials to gather more evidence before they executed the search, people familiar with the dynamics said.

In November, before prosecutors had finished their work and decided whether to charge Trump or anyone else, he announced his campaign to retake the White House in 2024, leading Garland to appoint a special counsel, Jack Smith, to complete the investigation.

A collision course

From the moment the FBI and Justice Department received a formal referral on Feb. 7 from the National Archives and Records Administration to investigate missing classified records that could be in Trump’s possession, FBI investigators and federal prosecutors knew they were taking on a highly charged and sensitive case.

Archives officials reported that, after they had pleaded with Trump’s representatives for months, the former president had in January returned 15 boxes of government records he had stored at Mar-a-Lago since his presidency ended. Sifting through the boxes’ contents, archivists were shocked by what they found: 184 classified documents consisting of 700 pages. Archives officials said they had reason to believe Trump still had more sensitive or classified documents he took from the White House.

Prosecutors in the Justice Department’s national security division needed to answer two immediate questions: Was national security damaged by classified records being kept at Trump’s Florida club, and were any more sensitive records still in Trump’s possession?

Prosecutors and FBI agents were set on a collision course in April, when Trump through his lawyers tried to block the FBI from reviewing the classified records the Archives found. That set off alarm bells for prosecutors because it signaled he might be seeking to hide something, according to people familiar with the case. In preliminary interviews with witnesses in April and May, including Trump associates and staff, investigators were told of many more boxes of presidential records at Mar-a-Lago that could contain classified materials — similar in packaging to the boxes shipped there from the White House, and to those returned to the Archives in January, the people said.

Workers load boxes of newspapers and other items into a truck at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on Jan. 14, 2021, in D.C. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
The prosecutors and FBI agents began clashing in previously unreported incidents in early May, the people said. Jay Bratt, the prosecutor leading the department’s counterespionage work, advocated seeking a judge’s warrant for an unannounced search at the property to quickly recover any sensitive documents still there.

The FBI often conducts raids of properties without advance notice when investigators have reason to believe evidence is being withheld or could be destroyed. Some prosecutors saw guideposts in a related case a decade earlier, when Army Gen. David H. Petraeus lied to FBI agents about whether he had given classified information to a book author with whom he was having an affair. Agents executed a search warrant at Petraeus’s house and retrieved a cache of notebooks in which the prominent general improperly had stored extensive amounts of classified information.

But FBI agents viewed a Mar-a-Lago search in May as premature and combative, especially given that it involved raiding the home of a former president. That spring, top officials at FBI headquarters met with prosecutors to review the strength of evidence that could be used to justify a surprise search, according to two people familiar with their work.

Encountering resistance, Bratt agreed for the time being to subpoena Trump. On June 3, Bratt and a small number of FBI agents visited Mar-a-Lago to meet with Trump’s lawyer and collect any classified records the Trump team had found to comply with the subpoena. That day, Trump’s lawyer, Evan Corcoran, handed over an expandable envelope containing 38 classified records and produced a letter signed by another lawyer, Christina Bobb, asserting that a diligent search had been conducted and all classified records had been turned over.

Some FBI field agents then argued to prosecutors that they were inclined to believe Trump and his team had delivered everything the government sought to protect and said the bureau should close down its criminal investigation, according to some people familiar with the discussions.

But they said national security prosecutors pushed back and instead urged FBI agents to gather more evidence by conducting follow-up interviews with witnesses and obtaining Mar-a-Lago surveillance video from the Trump Organization.

The government sought surveillance video footage by subpoena in late June. It showed someone moving boxes from the area where records had been stored, not long after Trump was put on notice to return all such records, according to people familiar with the probe. That evidence suggested it was likely more classified records remained at Mar-a-Lago, the people said, despite the claim of Trump’s lawyers. It also painted for both sides a far more worrisome picture — one that would soon build the legal justification for the August raid.

By mid-July, the prosecutors were eager for the FBI to scour the premises of Mar-a-Lago. They argued that the probable cause for a search warrant was more than solid, and the likelihood of finding classified records and evidence of obstruction was high, according to the four people.

But the prosecutors learned FBI agents were still loath to conduct a surprise search. They also heard from top FBI officials that some agents were simply afraid: They worried taking aggressive steps investigating Trump could blemish or even end their careers, according to some people with knowledge of the discussions. One official dubbed it “the hangover of Crossfire Hurricane,” a reference to the FBI investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible connections to the Trump campaign, the people said. As president, Trump repeatedly targeted some FBI officials involved in the Russia case.

A rift within the FBI

Against that backdrop, Bratt and other senior national security prosecutors, including Assistant Attorney General Matt Olsen and George Toscas, a top counterintelligence official, met about a week before the Aug. 8 raid with FBI agents on their turf, inside an FBI conference room.

The prosecutors brought with them a draft search warrant and argued that the FBI had no other choice but to search Mar-a-Lago as soon as practically possible, according to people with knowledge of the meeting. Prosecutors said the search was the only safe way to recover an untold number of sensitive government records that witnesses had said were still on the property.

Steven M. D’Antuono, then the head of the FBI Washington field office, which was running the investigation, was adamant the FBI should not do a surprise search, according to the people.

D’Antuono said he would agree to lead such a raid only if he were ordered to, according to two of the people. The two other people said D’Antuono did not refuse to do the search but argued that it should be a consensual search agreed to by Trump’s legal team. He repeatedly urged that the FBI instead seek to persuade Corcoran to agree to a consensual search of the property, said all four of the people.

Tempers ran high in the meeting. Bratt raised his voice at times and stressed to the FBI agents that the time for trusting Trump and his lawyer was over, some of the people said. He reminded them of the new footage suggesting Trump or his aides could be concealing classified records at the Florida club.

D’Antuono and some fellow FBI officials complained how bad it would look for agents with “FBI” emblazoned on their jackets to invade a former president’s home, according to some people with knowledge of the meeting. The FBI’s top counterintelligence official, Alan E. Kohler Jr., then asked the senior FBI agents to consider how bad it would look if the FBI chose not to act and government secrets were hidden at Mar-a-Lago, the people said.

D’Antuono also questioned why the search would target presidential records as well as classified records, particularly because the May subpoena had only sought the latter.

“We are not the presidential records police,” D’Antuono said, according to people familiar with the exchange.

Later, D’Antuono asked if Trump was officially the subject of the criminal investigation.

“What does that matter?” Bratt replied, according to the people. Bratt said the most important fact was that highly sensitive government records probably remained at Mar-a-Lago and could be destroyed or spirited away if the FBI did not recover them soon.

FBI agents on the case worried the prosecutors were being overly aggressive. They found it worrisome, too, that Bratt did not seem to think it mattered whether Trump was the official subject of the probe. They feared any of these features might not stand up to scrutiny if an inspector general or congressional committee chose to retrace the investigators’ steps, according to the people.

Jason Jones, the FBI’s general counsel who is considered a confidant of FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, agreed the team had sufficient probable cause to justify a search warrant. D’Antuono agreed, too, but said they should still try to persuade Corcoran to let them search without a warrant, the people said.

The disagreement over seeking Corcoran’s consent centered partly on how each side viewed Trump’s lawyer. The prosecutors — as well as some officials at FBI headquarters — were highly suspicious of him and feared that appealing to Corcoran risked that word would spread through Trump’s circle, giving the former president or his associates time to hide or destroy evidence, according to people familiar with the internal debate.

Some FBI agents, on the other hand, had more trust in Corcoran — a former federal prosecutor who had recently returned to practicing law and represented Stephen K. Bannon, a former Trump adviser, against criminal contempt charges. The agents drafted a possible script they could use to pitch to Trump’s lawyer on a consensual search. D’Antuono’s team said they could keep surveillance on Mar-a-Lago and act quickly if they saw any scramble to move evidence. The prosecutors refused, saying it was too risky, the people said.

In the meeting, some attendees viewed Toscas, a Justice Department veteran who had worked with the FBI through the Crossfire Hurricane and Clinton email investigations, as a prosecutor whose words would carry special weight with the FBI agents. He told D’Antuono he had shared the agents’ skepticism, but was now “swayed” that the evidence was too strong not to get a search warrant, according to people familiar with the discussion.

“George, that’s great, but you haven’t swayed me,” D’Antuono replied.

Jones, the FBI’s general counsel, said he planned to recommend to Deputy FBI Director Paul Abbate that the FBI seek a warrant for the search, the people said. D’Antuono replied that he would recommend that they not.

The raid

But prosecutors appeared unwilling to wait and debate further, according to people familiar with the discussions. Olsen, the assistant attorney general for national security, appealed to senior officials in FBI headquarters to push their agents to conduct the raid. Abbate handed down his instructions a day later: The Washington field office led by D’Antuono would execute the surprise search.

On Aug. 5, FBI agents quietly sought and received approval from a federal magistrate judge in Florida to search Mar-a-Lago for documents. The search was planned for the following Monday, Aug. 8.

Prosecutors remained somewhat on guard until the day of the raid, as they continued to hear rumblings of dissent from the Washington field office, according to three people familiar with the case. Some of the people said prosecutors heard some FBI agents wanted to call Corcoran once they arrived at Mar-a-Lago and wait for him to fly down to join them in the search; prosecutors said that would not work.

Just days before the scheduled search, prosecutors got a request from FBI headquarters to put off the search for another day, according to people familiar with the matter. The FBI told prosecutors the bureau planned to announce big news that week — charges against an Iranian for plotting to assassinate former national security adviser John Bolton — and did not want the impact of that case to be overshadowed or complicated by media coverage of the Mar-a-Lago raid. It is common for the Justice Department and FBI to fine-tune the timing of certain actions or announcements to avoid one law enforcement priority competing with another. But prosecutors, fatigued by months of fighting with agents in the FBI’s field office, wanted no delay, no matter the reason, the people said. The search would proceed as scheduled.

FBI agents found ways to make the search less confrontational than it otherwise could have been, according to people familiar with the investigation: The search would take place when Trump was in New York and not in Palm Beach; the Secret Service would receive a heads-up a few hours before FBI agents arrived to avoid any law enforcement conflict; and agents would wear white polo shirts and khakis to cut a lower profile than if they wore their traditional blue jackets with FBI insignia.

On Aug. 8, FBI agents scoured Trump’s residence, office and storage areas, and left with more than 100 classified records, 18 of them top-secret. Prosecutors claimed vindication in the trove of bright color-coded folders that agents recovered.

Some documents were classified at such a restricted level that seasoned national security investigators lacked the proper authorization to look at them, leading to consternation on the prosecution team. They involved highly restricted “special access programs” that require Cabinet-level sign-off even for officials with top-secret clearances to review. The documents described Iran’s missile program and records related to highly sensitive intelligence aimed at China, The Washington Post previously has reported.

In late fall, Bratt and his team began sketching out the evidence that potentially pointed to Trump’s obstruction, with an expectation that the prosecutors together would soon make a recommendation on whether to charge the former president, according to people familiar with the case. Bratt’s team began to button up witness accounts and stress-test factual evidence against the law.

Meanwhile, in late October, amid news reports that Trump was looking to soon announce another bid for the presidency, Garland told aides he was seriously contemplating appointing a special counsel to take over the investigation, as well as a separate criminal probe looking at Trump and his allies’ effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election — a rare procedure designed to ensure public faith in fair investigations.

On Nov. 15, Trump took the stage in the Mar-a-Lago ballroom — at the same property where FBI agents had searched three months earlier — and announced that he would run for president again in 2024. The Justice Department’s national security division leaders who had pushed the FBI to be more aggressive pursuing Trump did not finish the investigation or reach a charging decision before a new chief took over.

On Nov. 18, Garland sent word to the prosecutors working on both of the probes to come to Justice Department headquarters for a meeting that morning. He wanted to privately inform them that he planned later that day to appoint a special counsel. Garland told them they could choose their next steps, but he hoped they would join the special counsel’s team for the good of the two investigations, people familiar with the conversation said.

Just after 2 p.m., Garland stood before cameras to announce he had appointed Smith to take over the investigations. Flanked by three of his top deputies, Garland said the Justice Department had the integrity to continue the investigations fairly but that turning them over to an outside prosecutor was “the right thing to do.”

“The extraordinary circumstances presented here demand it,” he added.

Today's Toot

Mastodon's embedding code still sucks really bad. So I'll just post screen shots until they get it unfucked.

Supership 79

Today's Brian

Brian Tyler Cohen

Marjorie Taylor Green is not the Speaker Of the House - but Kevin McCarthy has to coddle her in order to keep the Loudmouth Caucus in line, which means she's calling the shots, so yeah - at the very least, she's The Shadow Speaker.

Marjorie Taylor Green is also not the head of the GOP, but she's the Queen Of The Wingnuts, and so yeah - she kinda is in charge of the party's immediate fortune, so she's calling the shots there too.

Greene has captured a significant minority voting bloc, which gives her enormously out-sized power. Right now, she's still more or less sheltered by being Trump's surrogate, so the question is: How long before she's able to cut him loose so she can go whole hog on her own?

And is everybody good with the Rick Scott thing?

How much more clearly do Republicans have to say it? Right now, we have the basics in place for good solid civic stability - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid - and the GOP is absolutely intent on killing it all off. Why is that?

Who's Your Daddy?

House approves measure targeting Biden rule allowing money managers to consider ESG in retirement investing

The House on Tuesday approved a resolution that would repeal a Biden administration rule for retirement investments, marking the latest flashpoint in Republicans’ crusade against environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution was approved 216-204, with Rep. Jared Golden (Maine) as the only Democrat voting with Republicans in favor of the measure.

But while a Democratically controlled Senate and White House mean that the measure is unlikely to amount to more than messaging, it is part of a broader Republican effort to oppose ESG investing.

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) in a floor speech on Tuesday characterized the regulation as being part of a “woke ESG agenda.”

“Democrats and their radical environmental NGO allies will continue to work in the shadows, strong-arming and intimidating corporations and investors alike, using any means necessary, to conscript the life savings of pensioners and retirees to implement a dangerous … investment strategy,” Burgess said.

The Biden rule Republicans are seeking to repeal clarifies that money managers can weigh climate change and other ESG factors when they make investment decisions.

ESG is a broad term for attempts to invest in an environmentally conscious or otherwise ethically manner. Proponents argue this type of investing allows people to do well for themselves while also doing good for the world, and also contend that it could mitigate some of the financial risks caused by climate change.

But many Republicans argue that ESG investing could harm the fossil fuel industry — and that consideration of additional factors by money managers could come at the expense of profits.

The Dirty Fuels Cartel is a senior partner in the ownership structure of the GOP, and their yacht money is sacrosanct.

The Trump administration previously imposed a rule that said money managers could only make investments based on financial considerations.

And there's the kicker - profit über alles.

But critics said that rule was confusing, and the Biden administration contends in its rule that its predecessor discouraged managers’ consideration of ESG factors “even in cases where it is in the financial interest of plans to take such considerations into account.”

“The Trump rule, it’s extremely convoluted and just confusing,” said Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow, a group that seeks to use shareholder power to push action on climate and environmental issues.

- more -