Today's Edition (May 5, 2021)

Course correction.

         Amid political turmoil on the right, Joe Biden continues to focus on the facts that matter. On Tuesday, he reacted to the lagging demand for vaccinations in the U.S. by announcing a new goal to administer at least one dose of a vaccine to 70% of adults in America. See NPR, “Biden Sets New Goal: At Least 70% Of Adults Given 1 Vaccine Dose By July 4.” Although that goal would have been cause for a celebration three months ago, it represents a less ambitious pace than that achieved over the last 30 days. Per NPR, reaching that goal would mean “about 100 million shots during the next 60 days — a slowdown from the earlier vaccination pace, and a recognition that those most eager to get the shot have already done so.”

          Biden’s new plan is not merely ‘flying on a wing and prayer.’ For a full explication of the administration’s mid-course correction, see WhiteHouse.gov, “Fact Sheet: President Biden to Announce Goal to Administer at Least One Vaccine Shot to 70% of the U.S. Adult Population by July 4th.” I urge you to read the “Fact Sheet” by clicking the link above. Reading the Fact Sheet made me feel renewed confidence in the administration’s ability to contain the virus. The plan outlined in the Fact Sheet exudes competence. The new plan includes the following steps:

• Increasing the availability of “walk-in” vaccinations at pharmacies.

• Moving to smaller, mobile, community-based vaccination sites.

• Expanding the number of community health workers who will administer vaccines by providing $250 million in supplemental funding.

• Increasing supply of vaccine in rural health clinics and expanding educational efforts in rural areas.

• Providing additional tools to promote vaccinations in underserved communities.

• Expanding vaccine availability to adolescents as soon as the FDA grants an emergency use authorization.

• Expanding educational and outreach efforts to increase vaccine awareness.

          There is more, but you get the picture. After yesterday’s newsletter, I heard from readers who are struggling with vaccine hesitancy in their families. Some readers were able to motivate hesitant or indifferent family members to get vaccinated, while others understandably looked the other way to maintain family peace. One reader highly recommended an online “Covid-19 Town Hall” in which experts answer questions about the coronavirus vaccines. The reader attended the townhall to increase her effectiveness in discussing the vaccine with others. There are a few open sessions left on May 5, 10, and 12 (more may be scheduled). Check out the following: American Society for Virology, “COVID-19 Vaccine Education Townhall.”

          One reason Americans elected Joe Biden is that he promised to make the pandemic his priority. The good news is that his promise was not an empty slogan but a personal undertaking that he has taken seriously. The fact that he has achieved a significant level of success has made our lives better in ways large and small. As our nation is buffeted by the ongoing politics of delusion on the right, we should not take for granted that things could be worse. Much. So, let’s not forget to be grateful for the halting return to normalcy even as we gear up for the battles to come.

Trump’s re-entry into social media?

          As I moved into Volume II of this newsletter (the Biden Administration), I made an editorial decision to avoid giving undue coverage to Trump and his base. It is true that both are important as future political threats, as are the ongoing efforts to hold Trump to account for his “high crimes and misdemeanors” while in office. But we have better things to do than to track every setback or ignominy that besets Trump—however satisfying it might be to do so. But Tuesday saw a confluence of events that make a discussion of Trump’s past misdeeds and future plans worth our time.

          On Tuesday, Trump announced he is running for president in 2024. He didn’t say those words because they would trigger campaign finance laws. Instead, he told his supporters that he would be making a decision about 2024 that would make his supporters “very happy.” See The Hill, “Trump teases 2024 decision: Supporters will be 'very happy'.” Here is what Trump said when asked if he planned to run in 2024:

          The answer is I'm absolutely enthused. I look forward to doing an announcement at the right time. As you know, it's very early. But I think people are going to be very, very happy when I make a certain announcement.

          Trump is incapable of keeping a secret. That is one reason why he was (and is) unfit to be president. It is also why Putin twice interfered in our elections to help Trump. For the man who told the Russian Foreign Minister how we learned highly-sensitive information that put at risk the life of a human intelligence source in Russia, Trump’s response to the reporter’s question can only be interpreted as, “Yes, I am declaring my candidacy for president in 2024.” As I said, the man can’t keep a secret.

          Two stories that are unfolding on Tuesday evening will affect Trump’s planned run. The first is a decision by Facebook’s Advisory Board about reinstating Trump to Facebook. The second is a decision by Attorney General Merrick Garland about whether to appeal a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who ordered the disclosure of the DOJ memo that allegedly advised Bill Barr not to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice.

Facebook’s decision to lift the ban against Trump. By the time most readers open this newsletter, Facebook’s Advisory Board will have announced its decision to readmit Trump to the Facebook Platform. See Fox News, “Facebook's Oversight Board to announce decision on Trump ban Wednesday.” I dearly hope that Facebook’s Advisory Board will prove me wrong and maintain the “indefinite” suspension of Trump for inciting the insurrection on January 6, 2021. I fear that the Advisory Board will cave to pressure to allow Trump back onto the platform.

The problem is that the Advisory Board is evaluating Trump’s insurrectionist conduct that occurred four months ago. To you and me, that seems like a recent and relevant predictor of Trump’s current unworthiness to appear on Facebook. In a company that measures time in Internet Years, four months is an immense span of time. (FYI, Internet Years = Dog Years x 10^(n+1) where “n” is the wealth of Mark Zuckerberg rounded to the nearest $10 billion. So, in Internet Years, something that happened last week is prehistoric. Something that happened four months ago occurred before the Earth was formed.)

          So, assuming the worst from the Short-Attention-Span Facebook Advisory Board, lifting the ban will allow Trump to scare off any contender foolhardy enough to believe they can raise enough money to challenge Trump. See Politico, “‘It really f--ks the other ‘24 wannabes’: How Facebook could give Trump a huge boost.” As explained in Politico, “[o]nline fundraising has become an increasingly bigger component of politics in recent cycles. And few politicians have taken more advantage of it than Trump.”

          Again, I hope my cynicism is misplaced and that the Advisory Board recognizes that Trump continues to spew the lies that incited the Capitol Insurrection. For that reason alone, he should be barred from Facebook forever. But if the Facebook Advisory Board won’t act, perhaps Attorney General Merrick Garland will.

          On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ordered the release of a DOJ legal memo that Bill Barr allegedly relied upon in deciding not to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice. In a scathing opinion, Judge Jackson said that the DOJ had “misled” the court on how the Justice Department viewed Trump’s criminal exposure for obstruction of justice. See NYTimes, “Judge Says Barr Misled on How His Justice Dept. Viewed Trump’s Actions - The New York Times.” Bill Barr and his subordinates claimed that the memo should not be disclosed to the public because it contained privileged advice designed to assist Bill Barr in deciding whether to prosecute Trump. In the most important passage in her opinion (at page 19), Judge Jackson states the following:

          In other words, the review of the document reveals that the Attorney General was not then engaged in making a decision about whether the President should be charged with obstruction of justice; the fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given.

          Judge Jackson has read the memo that Bill Barr sought to withhold and says that Bill Barr had taken “as a given” that he would not prosecute Trump. The Judge’s opinion implies that Bill Barr was not forthright with the court on two occasions. That is not a happy fact for Bill Barr’s post-retirement employment opportunities.

          Judge Jackson has given Attorney General Merrick Garland two weeks to decide whether to appeal her decision. If Garland allows the decision to stand, the public will learn why Bill Barr decided not to prosecute Trump for the crime of obstruction of justice. The tenor of Judge Jackson’s opinion suggests that the memo will reveal that Bill Barr did not engage in an impartial consideration of that question. And, assuming that Barr was acting as Trump’s personal lawyer rather than the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, that fact may require Merrick Garland to reevaluate the decision not to prosecute Trump.

          Judge Jackson’s ruling is significant and may knock Trump on his heels for some time to come—regardless of the ultimate outcome of Merrick Garland’s decisions. The Department of Justice is once again the business of pursuing justice, so we should allow the system to work. We should not be drawn down rabbit holes of speculation and innuendo. There are competent, honest people considering the question. Let’s allow them to do their job, while we focus on combatting the creeping authoritarianism sweeping through GOP-controlled states.

Concluding Thoughts.

It is difficult not to feel sympathy for Rep. Liz Cheney. She is finally speaking the truth about Trump and is being pilloried by her party for doing so. Kevin McCarthy was caught on an open microphone on Tuesday saying that he had “had it” with Cheney and was just waiting for someone to “make a motion” to remove Cheney from her leadership position. See Talking Points Memo, “Caught On Hot Mic, McCarthy Reportedly Throws Cheney Entirely Under The Bus.”

          We should remember, however, that Cheney voted against impeaching Trump over the Ukrainian bribery attempt and she began to speak out against Trump only after the events of January 6, 2021. While her present courage is laudable, it should not take incitement of an insurrection to prompt responsible leaders to condemn a president whose entire tenure was an ongoing criminal conspiracy. Liz Cheney is learning the same lesson that others before her learned—including Rep. Paul Ryan, Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Bob Corker, and too many former administration officials to name. The right time to speak out against Trump is the first time he lies. There are no “innocent lies,” no lies that can be dismissed because it is “just Trump being Trump,” and no lies that “should be taken seriously but not literally.” Trump’s incessant lying corroded the moral fiber of the Republican Party. It now exists only to perpetuate the lie that Trump won in 2020.

          Liz Cheney’s political demise is a morality tale for us all. The right time to speak out against the lies of an autocrat is the moment they leave the politician’s mouth. Having abided Trump’s lies for four years, Cheney has no allies in the party to rally to her side in her last-minute pique of conscience.  It can be exhausting to constantly refute the lies espoused by the GOP. But we must do it, lest we end up like Liz Cheney. We know better than to repeat her mistake. So, stay the course! As always, we have every reason to be hopeful, but no reason to be complacent!

          Talk to you tomorrow!