text stringlengths 237 126k | date_download stringdate 2022-01-01 00:32:20 2023-01-01 00:02:37 ⌀ | source_domain stringclasses 60 values | title stringlengths 4 31.5k ⌀ | url stringlengths 24 617 ⌀ | id stringlengths 24 617 ⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sarah Margon is a well-known leader of that community and worked for many years as a Democratic Senate staffer (most notably for former senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin). She served as Washington director of Human Rights Watch and most recently as foreign policy director for the Open Societies Foundation. Yet her nomination to lead the State Department’s human rights bureau has sat dormant for 258 days, held up by Republicans on the very committee for which she once worked. | null | null | null | null | null |
Progressive-era reformers envisioned other solutions to the problem of an undemocratic, reactionary court
The U.S. Supreme Court surrounded by snow in D.C. on Wednesday. (Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg News)
By Leon Fink
Leon Fink, author of “Undoing the Liberal World Order: Progressive Visions and Political Realities Since World War II," serves as distinguished professor of history emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
There is widespread hand-wringing about the state of the U.S. Supreme Court, but, so far, few substantial policies have been proposed to reform what longtime court reporter Linda Greenhouse has called a “weaponized Supreme Court [that] could reshape American life in profound ways.” Defiance of federal law in the Texas abortion case may only be the beginning of a deluge of forthcoming changes.
What steps might a Democratic-controlled Congress take to curb the influence of the court? Most journalistic commentary has centered on “court-packing” ideas harking back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ultimately foiled attempt in 1937 to expand the court from nine to as many as 15 justices to prevent it from undoing his New Deal programs. This was (and remains) a messy solution — as is the call for limiting the terms of the justices. Proposals like this only draw public scrutiny away from an undemocratic, reactionary judicial branch and toward seemingly hyperpartisan executive authority. In fact, historical antecedents to Roosevelt’s court-packing plan may actually be more instructive.
The evidence is well laid-out by the legal and civil rights historian Stephen F. Lawson. Over a decade before FDR put forth his controversial idea, the court had drawn increasing public alarm for appearing to privilege property rights above all else. Beginning with Lochner v. New York (1905), the court struck down state regulations on working hours. Then it annulled limitations on union blacklisting in Kansas in 1915, overturned the federal child labor law in 1918 and ruled against a minimum wage for women workers in Washington, D.C., in 1923. Chief Justice and former president William Howard Taft, who served on the Court from 1921 to 1930, applauded these decisions and derided reform proposals as “socialist raids on property rights.”
As the court increasingly detached itself from public opinion on key issues of national welfare, liberal reformers pushed back. As early as 1912, Bull Moose presidential candidate Theodore Roosevelt accused the court of converting the Constitution into a document for the protection of corporate privilege. Led by the American Federation of Labor, the 1922 Cleveland Conference for Progressive Political Action similarly denounced the court for having “nullified righteous laws of state and nation for the protection of human rights, exalt[ing] judge-made laws above the statutes.” The liberal New Republic magazine condemned the bench for turning constitutional precedent into “mere mystic words of a dead scholasticism.”
Intellectually, critics were able to draw on the doctrine of legal realism, a perspective that insisted on examining the law as it operated in real life — including inevitably politically-influenced decisions of the judiciary — rather than as an abstract endowment of its own. Most famously associated with the jurisprudence of Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter, legal realism provided less a road map than a temperament suited to reformers determined to knock the courts down a peg in the constitutional balance of power.
By the early 1920s, a bruising political battle over court reform centered on two competing proposals. Wisconsin’s Progressive Sen. Robert “Fighting Bob” LaFollette introduced a constitutional amendment in 1922 that, though never put on the floor for a vote, would have given Congress the right to reenact any law ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Drawing on long-standing populist opposition to the court itself, the proposal immediately drew opposition not only from conservatives, who imagined opponents overturning due process, but also from some of the leading legal realists who preferred to put their faith in reformed law school education.
A more modest and initially more politically promising reform initiative emerged from libertarian Republican Sen. William Borah (Idaho). Particularly disturbed by close decisions such as the 5-4 child labor override in 1918 that, Borah thought, bred a “distrust in the solidity and worth of our Federal judicial system,” his plan required at minimum a 7-2 court majority before a state or federal statute was held unconstitutional — what we might call a supermajority judicial qualifier. Supporters of LaFollette’s proposed congressional oversight quickly warned that the Supreme Court would surely hold Borah’s act unconstitutional.
As Progressives quarreled among themselves, Reps. James Frear (R-Wis.) and Fiorello LaGuardia (R-N.Y.) pushed a compromise plan: A constitutional amendment that would empower Congress to set the number of justices required to declare statutes unconstitutional and also allow Congress to reverse such rulings by a two-thirds vote. But even before any of these proposed reforms made it before the hostile House Rules Committee, they all failed to win majority congressional backing.
Although none of these reform measures succeeded at the time — the exceptions being Nebraska and North Dakota, where supermajorities are required to this day to overturn state legislation — they clearly anticipated FDR’s disdain for court decisions that appeared to repeal the expressed will of the people. Moreover, although FDR’s decision to opt for court expansion over the extended process of amending the Constitution also did not play well politically, it effectively stopped the court for decades from countermanding legislative authority on economic matters.
Today’s Supreme Court, with a majority of Federalist Society-endorsed and Republican-appointed jurists endorsing what the late Justice Antonin Scalia championed as constitutional originalism, is very far from the legal realist spirit that dominated the court from the 1930s to the 1970s. Those frustrated with the Supreme Court today can learn from Progressive Party reformers a century ago and the debate over judicial review, including the supermajority idea espoused by Borah. Such a change would not only take the sting from the current right-wing majority, but ensure that the courts intervene far less often in the legislative process. If the court ruled such an act unconstitutional, then it would be time to take LaFollette’s congressional review plan out of mothballs. | null | null | null | null | null |
The election lie that laid the groundwork for Trump and Jan. 6
Robert Welch’s charges of a rigged election in 1952 helped push the GOP into the world of conspiracy theory
Trump supporters protest outside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2020, the day a mob stormed the building. (Olivier Douliery/AFP/Getty Images)
Edward H. Miller is an associate teaching professor at Northeastern University and the author of "A Conspiratorial Life: Robert Welch, the John Birch Society, and the Revolution of American Conservatism."
One year ago today, preparations were being made for Joe Biden to take the oath of office to become the 46th president of the United States. The stage where Biden would swear his oath was being assembled. But President Donald Trump still would not concede. Instead, he had tweeted repeatedly over two months that Democratic “fraud” had stolen the election from him and the American people.
This claim, of course, was pure myth, but it laid the groundwork for Trump to incite an insurrection to steal the election for real. Today, 71 percent of Republicans believe that Biden did not legitimately win the 2020 election.
As we mark the anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection, it is critical that we recognize that the canards of election fraud have antecedents worth studying. Understanding this history may help us guard against distortions of reality by people who have contempt for democracy.
Trump’s was not the first notorious “rigged” election theory put forward by a Republican. In 1952, Robert Welch, the eventual founder of the John Birch Society, argued that the 1952 Republican primary was stolen from Robert Taft by Dwight D. Eisenhower, setting the stage for Welch to make the false claim that Eisenhower, the widely respected military hero who planned D-Day and helped the United States win World War II, was a Communist.
Like other conservatives of the postwar right, Welch found an early hero in Taft, who was first elected to the U.S. Senate from Ohio in 1938 and whose offensive against “New Deal socialism” sustained their resolve.
Taft, son of President William Howard Taft, had followed his father into public service. Bald with rimless glasses and vested business suits, the younger Taft looked the Midwestern lawyer he was.
Robert Taft was a remnant of a once-hegemonic Republican Party. Despite a string of disastrous defeats between 1930 and 1936, Midwestern Republicans of Taft’s ilk remained steadfast to their fundamental principles. They became the core of the right-wing postwar Republicans. They were strong in the small towns of rural America; they were strong on Main Street USA. They regarded the New Deal and the Fair Deal — Franklin D. Roosevelt’s and Harry S. Truman’s economic and political policies, which were extremely popular — as wasteful and increasingly dictatorial.
Taft refused to adjust to “internationalist” foreign policies and wanted to move American foreign policy away from Europe after the United States became more fully embroiled in European affairs during and after World War II through the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Taft believed that postwar involvement in Europe diminished the independence and sovereignty of the United States and made the United States more likely to adopt even more economic and social policies modeled on Europe’s.
At the time of his support for Taft, Welch was a successful candy manufacturer who had created the Sugar Daddy and would go on to establish, in 1958, the John Birch Society, the most successful anti-communist organization of the postwar era. He observed that “Taft has undisputed qualifications for the presidency” and wanted him to be president in 1952 because Taft sought to “roll back” the New Deal and Fair Deal and “liberate” those nations that were steamrolled into Communism by Stalin.
Taft swept the 1952 primaries in the Midwest, winning in Illinois, Ohio, Nebraska, Wisconsin and South Dakota. But Eisenhower was about to enter the race.
Despite the general’s war record and moderate conservative politics, Welch believed that Eisenhower was a leftist because many of his associates were leftist subversives at best.
Welch suggested that Eisenhower was drawing extreme left-wing support. In an undelivered address, Welch wrote, “As Republicans, with the goal of restoring decency and economy to our government and some common sense to our economic thinking, we are supposed to be fighting the socialists and the sympathizers with Communism, not to be getting in bed with them.” He added: “To see them getting in bed with us, or with one of our leading candidates, calls for some sober thought.”
Eisenhower was a vigorous 62-year-old. His wide grin exuded warmth. His career reached its apogee as commanding general, European Theater of Operations, under Army Chief of Staff George Marshall. On D-Day, Eisenhower gained a reputation for decisive action. He also knew how Washington worked.
His reason for running was personal. He wanted to stop Taft because he feared that a Taft presidency would not support NATO, which Eisenhower believed was necessary to secure the postwar peace. The United States had just fought a war to establish collective security, but Taft did not believe in collective security.
Welch did not think Eisenhower could win the nomination. Midwestern and Western power brokers of the Old Guard who voted against NATO dominated the Republican Party. Eisenhower’s support came from the East, which, Welch believed, had sold the United States down the river at Yalta and lost China. Moreover, the Old Guard would never swallow a “Democratic general” who befriended New York and Boston banking and corporate leaders. Even though Ike himself was also from the Midwest, the eastern establishment elites of finance, communications and corporate business loved him for his efficiency, contempt for crass politicians, skill for compromise and aptitude with the media.
The party regulars backed Taft. The Los Angeles Times, the McCormick papers, the Wall Street Journal, the Omaha World Herald all backed Taft, too.
But Welch’s prediction crumpled as Eisenhower began mollifying the Old Guard. He opposed centralized government, criticized corruption in the federal bureaucracy and bemoaned the loss of China and the secrecy of Yalta. Eisenhower said, “If we had been less soft and weak, there would probably have been no war in Korea!”
Soon polls showed that Eisenhower was the favorite among the rank-and-file, but he also polled well among Democrats. Eisenhower won primaries in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oregon and Minnesota.
On the eve of the convention, Taft had 530 delegates and Eisenhower 427.
Then Eisenhower displayed his ruthlessness. Although Taft had the Southern delegations locked down, Ike’s campaign manager, Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., demonstrated his mastery of procedure. Lodge intimidated undecided delegates and successfully challenged the credentials of Taft delegations from Texas, Georgia and Louisiana.
Eisenhower got the nomination on the first ballot. Taft favorites, including Welch, claimed the election was stolen.
Looking back, Welch suggested that the Communists were behind the Eisenhower steal and his candidacy from the start. In his assessment, they had stolen the Texas, Georgia and Louisiana delegations. And for good measure, Richard Nixon, Eisenhower’s choice for vice president, and Calif. Gov. Earl Warren “stole” California for Eisenhower.
Welch charged that a corrupt bargain was struck when Nixon and Eisenhower promised Warren the position of chief justice of the United States in return for the California delegation at the Republican convention.
It was pure myth. Lodge, like his father, was an exemplary wheeler-dealer, and Eisenhower secured more delegates at a time when national conventions mattered more and presidential primaries mattered less than they do today.
Welch’s charges of a rigged election pushed him further into the world of conspiracy theory, and he began the conspiracist John Birch Society. Over the ensuing decades, the Republican Party increasingly embraced Welch-like notions, especially in the 1970s and 1980s. Today, we all live in Welchland.
Eisenhower, the true winner of the 1952 Republican presidential nomination, once declared, “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” But we the people must be guardians at the watchtower if our democracy is to endure. | null | null | null | null | null |
Militia groups were hiding in plain sight on Jan. 6. They’re still dangerous.
White supremacist and militant right-wing organizations were a critical part of the mob that stormed the Capitol
Broken glass and debris at the U.S. Capitol the day after Trump supporters breached the building on Jan. 6, 2021. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)
By Kathleen Belew
Kathleen Belew is author of "Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America" and is assistant professor of history at the University of Chicago.
As we mark the anniversary of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, and as different judicial processes attempt to deliver their various forms of accountability, we still lack an adequate understanding of one of the day’s imminent dangers: the threat of militias to American democracy.
The invasion of the Capitol is best understood as the collision of three streams of right-wing activity: the Trump base (itself containing a range of extremism), the QAnon movement, and white power and militant right groups. This third segment — although probably smaller than the others involved that day — was highly organized, connected, outfitted with tactical gear and weapons and well-trained. These activists often led the charge, and they were the first to breach the Capitol. Their own ideology, which descends from decades of violent white-power organizing, reveals them to be dangerous, intent on the destruction of democracy and the propagation of race war.
One question that stands out: Why did these activists who attended the Jan. 6 action mostly not wear Nazi and Klan gear or carry symbols of organized white power? Why, instead, did they show up in yellow and black, in paramilitary gear, and carrying militia flags?
I have spent 16 years researching the history of white-power and militia activity. One consistent attribute of the militant right is that it is fundamentally opportunistic: White power and militia groups tack not only to the prevailing winds that point toward likely scapegoats, but also toward cultural acceptability. Even before Jan. 6, these groups received information (in the form of condemnation from politicians and other sources) that outright racist mobilizations would not curry favor with a broad group of supporters. Although the groups donned white polo shirts and khakis in Charlottesville for the Unite the Right rally in 2017, most politicians condemned their openly racist and antisemitic message. This point was surely driven home later by the federal jury verdict in Sines v. Kessler, which in November found the organizers of the Unite the Right rally liable for $25 million in damages.
But militias, as the scholar Joe Lowndes has documented, have not received similar condemnation. Even before Jan. 6, militia groups appeared regularly in semi-legitimate and legitimate settings, at anti-mask actions and even at Black Lives Matter protests.
And on the day of the electoral vote count, even groups that espouse white power ideology cloaked their most offensive symbols.
Leaving Trump in office after Jan. 6 will just encourage white nationalists
This shows us, once again, that Jan. 6 was meant as a recruitment and radicalization action — an attempt to raise awareness about the militant right and bring people into the fold. For this reason, the pressing work ahead will be clarifying the threat that extralegal militias pose to people, governance and institutions.
To be sure, some militias are distinct from some forms of white power activism. But there is a large degree of overlap, and militias are not separate enough to earn the label of neutrality. The word “militia” holds a special place for many Americans because it calls back to our Constitution, to our early history and to the role of militias in the Revolutionary War. However, those militias were incorporated into National Guard units in the early 20th century. The militias on the scene now do not have a clear lineage to the well-regulated bodies enumerated in the Constitution. Furthermore, as the legal scholar Mary McCord has shown, all 50 states ban such groups in one way or another.
I warned of right-wing violence in 2009. Republicans objected. I was right.
The militias we face today are, quite simply, extralegal, unregulated private armies.
These private armies often show up saying they are there to “keep order.” They have provided private security for politicians (like the 1st Amendment Praetorian members who have accompanied former Trump adviser Mike Flynn, and the Proud Boys with Roger Stone).
They have also done things like detain protesters at the behest of police in Portland, Ore.
They have provided security for a GOP event in Colorado Springs, and then showed up there and elsewhere to pack school board and town council meetings to pressure local communities about to ban racially inclusive curriculums and masking.
Not only does this range of activity show that militias remain active as a local and national political threat, but too often, these groups do real harm with real casualties. Consider the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville: Part of the reason police did not protect counterprotesters who were beaten and killed was because, according to then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe, they were far outgunned by militias.
Extralegal private armies prevented police from ensuring safety? That is neither law nor order.
Extralegal private armies intimidated local communities to defy public health guidance in schools? That is neither health nor safety.
And extralegal private armies attempting to stop us from teaching and learning our own history? That is a direct attack upon our knowledge of civics, sense of community and the very tools we will need to overcome the threat of Jan. 6. This is to say nothing of the larger canvas of police violence and white supremacy, the problem of veteran and active-duty military participation in militia and other militant right groups, and the clear and present danger these groups pose to democracy. A recent report from BuzzFeed News documented at least 28 elected officials with ties to the Oath Keepers.
Without an understanding of what a militia is, someone might believe joining such a group is an exercise related to patriotism, or heritage. Instead, it is downright terrifying: elected officials with ties to extralegal, unregulated private armies.
This is a threat to Americans, to our democracy and to our institutions. Part of the work of the courts, the January 6 commission and our public conversation about the day is to understand the degree of culpability in our halls of governance that allowed the riot. But part must also be to reckon with violent militia groups themselves, and with the continued presence of extralegal private armies across the nation. | null | null | null | null | null |
By Jacqueline Alemany and Theodoric Meyer7:23 a.m.
If there’s one thing that has become clear in the year since the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection, it’s that the most violent assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812 was not the turning point away from Trump that some Republicans expected. Instead, more and more GOPers have embraced his false claims of election fraud and whitewashed the violence that wracked the Capitol that day. | null | null | null | null | null |
In an auspicious event for mystery readers, Syndicate is reprinting all 12 of Joseph Hansen’s pioneering Dave Brandstetter novels over 12 months. “Fadeout,” the first in the series featuring the comfortably gay World War II vet and L.A. insurance investigator, was published in 1970. As Michael Nava points out in his insightful new introduction, that’s when gay sex was a criminal act in 49 of the 50 states. Through grit and shear talent, Hansen found a wide audience. Nava writes, “It is his art, ultimately, and not simply his subject matter, that makes Joseph Hansen one of the great masters of California noir.” Crime fiction fans who don’t know Hansen’s work are in for a treat. (Syndicate/Soho Crime, Jan. 11) | null | null | null | null | null |
The Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office says a dump site with empty Amazon boxes led law enforcement to a home with piles of thousands of stolen packages. (Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office)
Police said they believe the packages were stolen from an Amazon distribution center in Oklahoma City. Authorities said they suspect Cerqueira and Perez, two third-party drivers, loaded extra pallets into a truck when they arrived at the warehouse. Instead of taking the merchandise to the U.S. Postal Service or UPS so the items could be delivered, Tye said, the men allegedly took the packages to the home in Luther. There, police said, some items were opened for their own use and others were possibly sold online. | null | null | null | null | null |
Indeed, he declared: “Proceedings in both chambers [for the counting of electoral votes on Jan. 6] were disrupted for hours — interfering with a fundamental element of American democracy: the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. Those involved must be held accountable, and there is no higher priority for us at the Department of Justice.” This seems to echo the legal theory advanced by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) that Trump is guilty of “obstruction of Congress,” which would not require proof that Trump is responsible for violence to succeed in court.
Indeed, Garland could have been much more explicit about the nonviolent elements of the coup attempt that took place before Jan. 6. He did not talk about Donald Trump’s attempts to strong-arm the Georgia secretary of state or to lean on Michigan election officials. He did not discuss the former president’s unacceptable pressure on Justice Department officials to declare the election fraudulent. And he did not talk about schemes to have the vice president violate his oath and stop the electoral vote count, although he did make generic promises to “defend our democratic institutions from attack.” | null | null | null | null | null |
That percentage jumped significantly since 2017 and includes more than half the Republicans we surveyed.
Supporters of President Donald Trump take over balconies and inauguration scaffolding at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
By Noam Lupu
Luke Plutowski
Elizabeth J. Zechmeister
Recently, for the first time, the United States was added to a list of “backsliding democracies,” by the Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Other similar organizations have also reported that the United States’ democratic institutions have eroded.
Former president Donald Trump’s effort to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, a campaign that culminated in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol one year ago, looms large in these assessments. Many — including top military officers — feared a coup on U.S. soil. Some experts consider the insurrection itself to have been an attempted coup. Since then, some Trump allies, including former national security adviser Michael Flynn, have openly embraced the idea of a military takeover, and high-profile political observers now argue that U.S. democracy is deep into a constitutional crisis and that the “next coup has already begun.”
Would Americans accept a forceful takeover of the state? Our research provides some troubling answers.
'MAGA' voters are angry at efforts to build a full, equal, multiethnic U.S. democracy
Peaceful transfers of power and trust in elections lie at the heart of democracy
A basic tenet of functioning democracies is that those who lose an election accept defeat. Election losers are willing to play by the rules if they believe they can win the next time around. The key to a strong democracy, wrote political scientist Adam Przeworski, is a form of “institutionalized uncertainty” — as long as we cannot know who will win the next election, both sides have good reasons to preserve the system that allows them to compete.
All this also rests on the premise that elections are fair and that both sides see them as legitimate. Political scientist Pippa Norris has found that when the public loses its faith in elections, citizens stop voting, turning instead to protesting and other forms of expression, and increasingly embrace other ways to change the political regime.
This seems to be happening in the United States.
Americans’ support for coups has increased sharply
For over two decades, our research team, LAPOP Lab at Vanderbilt University, has been studying democratic attitudes and values across the Americas, using nationally representative surveys that we field every other year. The U.S. survey uses online interviews with Web-based national samples of 1,500 respondents.
Since 2010, the survey has asked a question that reads, “Some people say that under some circumstances it would be justified for the military of this country to take power by a coup d’etat (military coup). In your opinion would a military coup be justified when there is a lot of corruption?” Respondents could answer either “yes, it would be justified” or “no, it would not be justified.”
For a number of years, a sizable minority of Americans, just over 1 in 4, said yes, a military coup would be justifiable. That figure cut across party lines, with both Democrats and Republicans expressing slightly more support than independents. It seemed surprisingly high for a country with a well-established tradition of civilian rule, but further testing revealed that respondents fully understood what a military takeover of the state would mean.
Still, several facts provided reassurance. For one, the U.S. rate in 2017 (the last year the question was asked before 2021) was one of the lowest out of all the countries in the Americas; in six countries, including Canada, more than 2 in 5 said a coup could be justifiable. And the share of Americans who said they could tolerate a coup appeared to be declining.
History tells us there are four key threats to U.S. democracy
Our newly-released 2021 survey found something different.
The share of Americans willing to tolerate a coup increased from 28 percent in 2017 to 40 percent in 2021. That’s a 43 percent increase, and the highest rate we’ve seen in the United States since we began asking the question more than a decade ago. It’s also one of the largest increases we’ve seen in this measure across the Americas. Compared to other countries we study, the U.S. now ranks near the middle on this measure, just higher than Brazil and Mexico — countries with relatively recent histories of authoritarian rule.
Anti-democratic attitudes and trust in elections are now deeply divided by party
Another particularly striking finding from our 2021 study is that tolerance for coups has become quite different by party. In each of four previous rounds of our survey, the share of Democrats and the share of Republicans who believed a military coup could be justified differed by less than 10 percentage points. In 2017, the gap was only two percentage points, with 31 percent of Republicans and 29 percent of Democrats agreeing. That division widened considerably in 2021. Now, 54 percent of Republicans express tolerance toward a military takeover of the state, compared to just 31 percent of Democrats.
Another of our survey questions, asking respondents if they “trust elections in this country,” also documents a growing gulf between parties. Those who identify with the party of the sitting president typically trust elections slightly more, but this round, that gap widened considerably. In 2021, 79 percent of Democrats reported that they trust elections while just 27 percent of Republicans did. That’s a gulf of 52 percentage points — a dramatic difference from the 14 percentage points just two years ago, in 2019, when 40 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of Republicans said they trusted elections.
What makes a coup possible?
Recent coups in Sudan, Mali and Myanmar have made headlines, as have stories about democratic erosion in countries like Brazil, India, Nicaragua, and elsewhere. Democracies backslide when institutions and norms degrade and those who anticipate being on the losing side of elections subvert electoral processes and democracy itself.
Our data reveal that Americans are increasingly tolerant of such antidemocratic moves, and this tolerance is concentrated among the most recent electoral losers, Republicans. Although democratic institutions were able to ensure a peaceful transfer of power in 2021, our findings suggest that — among the mass public — American democracy may not be as resilient as many had previously thought.
Noam Lupu (@NoamLupu) is associate professor of political science and associate director of LAPOP Lab at Vanderbilt University.
Luke Plutowski is senior statistician at LAPOP Lab at Vanderbilt University.
Elizabeth J. Zechmeister (@ejzech) is Cornelius Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science and director of LAPOP Lab at Vanderbilt University. | null | null | null | null | null |
Burton Lustine, auto dealer
Burton Lustine, 87, the president of the Lustine Automotive Group with car dealerships throughout the Washington area, died Oct. 28 at a hospital in La Jolla, Calif. The cause was heart disease, said Janelle Straszheim, the personal representative of his estate.
Mr. Lustine, a resident of Potomac, Md., was born in University Park, Md. He had a second home in California.
In the 1960s, he joined his father, Philip, in the family auto business, which the elder Mr. Lustine had founded in 1923. Burton Lustine expanded the operation, presiding over Lustine Toyota, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram and other automotive operations.
William Spaulding, D.C. Council member
William Spaulding, 97, a Democratic member of the D.C. Council for 12 years who had also taught at Howard University, the University of the District of Columbia and in the D.C. public schools, died Nov. 1 at a hospital in Lanham, Md. The cause was heart ailments, said a daughter, Deirdre Spaulding-Yeoman.
Mr. Spaulding, a District resident, was born in Hallsboro, N.C. He taught mechanical drawing in the D.C. schools from 1947 to 1952 and at Howard from 1950 to 1960. He also served as an engineer at the National Security Agency from 1952 to 1974.
He was elected to the D.C. Council from Ward 5 in 1974 and served until 1986. He helped draft legislation that established UDC, where he later taught. His community service work included efforts to support the reintegration of prison inmates into society.
Robert Toth, aerospace engineer
Robert Toth, 89, a standards engineer who was the founder of R.B. Toth Associates, which provided advice and guidance on international standards for organizations in aerospace and other businesses, died Nov. 23 at his home in Alexandria. The cause was leukemia, said a son, Michael Toth.
Mr. Toth was born in Charleston, W.Va., and worked early in his career for RCA, the Chrysler Corp. and Martin Marietta. He came to the Washington area in 1975 as the founder and president of the Aerospace Industries Association.
He founded R.B. Toth Associates in 1981. His son took over the business in 2008. | null | null | null | null | null |
There is no shortage of hard-to-believe elements about the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6 of last year, but one of the things that may be hardest to believe is that many Americans claim to think former president Donald Trump bears no blame for what occurred.
For most observers, it seems safe to say, this is a surreal assertion. That there had never before been a mob of outraged individuals who swarmed into the Capitol on any January 6, the day on which electoral votes had been counted for decades, was not a coincidence. Never before had the losing candidate in a presidential election repeatedly claimed that he’d won, much less a losing candidate with an Internet-powered megaphone and a political base centered so squarely on his personal piques and interests.
Donald Trump spent months before the 2020 election sowing the seeds for his subsequent dishonesty. Since before the 2016 election, he’d claimed that voter fraud is rampant in the United States, which it isn’t. As the coronavirus pandemic upended election officials’ plans, Trump transitioned his rhetoric from false claims about in-person voting to false claims about mail-in ballots. Going into Nov. 3, 2020, experts fully expected the pattern that followed: Democrats, more wary of the virus, disproportionately cast votes by mail that in many places would be counted more slowly — meaning a predictable shift toward the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. But for weeks before and then on the night of the election itself, Trump tried to derail this counting, insisting that only the votes already counted, ones that favored him, were enough to constitute victory.
He had help. Recognizing that Trump’s obsessions quickly created small opportunities for profit, his allies quickly constructed a system to amplify the idea that the election had been stolen. It is important to reiterate that all of these assertions about rampant fraud either still lack any credible evidence or have been explicitly debunked. After 15 months of review, there’s been no concrete demonstration that the vote was systematically subverted in one single county, much less a state or a collection of states. But it remained profitable in attention and money for Trump and his allies to say it had been.
By mid-December 2020, Trump’s attention turned to Jan. 6. That may be because the Lincoln Project, an effort led by former Republicans that centered on needling the president, had identified the day as the one on which Vice President Mike Pence would be forced to certify Trump’s loss. But Trump began explicitly encouraging people to come to Washington on that day and object to the election he said was stolen. (At a rally in Georgia two days before the riot, the WiFi password for press was “SeeYouJan6!”) So they came, by the thousands. The White House was involved in planning a series of events that day, most obviously the rally at the Ellipse — during which Trump encouraged attendees to march to the Capitol as he again made false claims about the election being stolen.
Again, it’s weird to even have to restate all of this. Obviously the crowd that day was furious about an election they thought had been stolen and obviously Trump had encouraged them to be there. It’s useful to remember that scale was important; had 30 Proud Boys shown up to try to storm the Capitol, it wouldn’t have worked. When hundreds of people decided to, it did. And those people were there and mad because of Trump. He opened the spigot fully on Nov. 3, 2020, and the Capitol was flooded two months later.
How? How can Americans actually believe that Trump is not culpable for what occurred, given how obvious that culpability is?
Misinformation. As should be obvious, false claims about both the election and the riot itself have been central to the effort to distance Trump from that violence. That takes many forms, from sloppy efforts to rationalize his claims about fraud to dishonest presentations about what actually occurred that day.
Central to that latter effort has been Fox News’s Tucker Carlson. He’s repeatedly elevated unproven or disproved claims about the instigation of the riot, including in a three-part series centered on alleging that government actors made it happen. Yahoo News’s Jon Ward looked closely at the series finding — unsurprisingly — that Carlson does not make his purported case. This is not a new development for one of Carlson’s claims.
One form of misinformation that’s been rampant since Jan. 6 is misinformation by omission, a simple failure by right-wing outlets to cover what happened in any great detail. Fox News, for example, covered the impeachment that followed the riot sparingly. In that recent Post-Maryland poll, about a sixth of Republicans said that they didn’t think any police had been injured by those engaged in the riot, a deviation from reality that can perhaps be explained in part by the lack of attention paid to that detail in conservative media. Many on the right have isolated images like shots of rioters walking through the Capitol that day as evidence that the riot was mostly peaceful — a belief held by more than a third of Republicans.
Rationalization. It’s also been the case since shortly after the riot that some Trump supporters have sought to rationalize what occurred by comparing it to violence and vandalism that emerged after some protests during the summer of 2020.
This is not a great comparison, for several reasons, including that the scale of that violence was often wildly overstated in the conservative media (again, see Fox) and that the Capitol riot was predicated on a demonstrably false claim about the election. Regardless, it’s a weird defense of the rioters to insist that they somehow saw such actions as justifiable, given what they believed had occurred the previous summer, as though robbing banks is justified by a series of burglaries.
It’s long been a feature of Trump support that his claims and behavior needs to be slotted into some category of acceptability. By January 2021, this process had been streamlined through repeated use. So it’s not that the actions were necessarily rationalized in this way by those engaged in the riot as it unfolded (though some did) as much as that this rationalization was applied after the fact to diversify culpability. | null | null | null | null | null |
Opinion: NASA forestland should be added to Patuxent Research Refuge
A family fishes at Cash Lake at the Patuxent Research Refuge on July 11 in Laurel. (Amanda Voisard for The Washington Post)
By Ann Swanson
Joel Dunn
Ann Swanson is executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative Commission. Joel Dunn is president and chief executive of Chesapeake Conservancy, a regional conservation nonprofit.
The Biden administration recently issued its first progress report on the “America the Beautiful” initiative, a multiagency effort to support conservation and to achieve a goal of conserving 30 percent of lands and waters across the nation by 2030.
The America the Beautiful initiative responds to an urgent call to action by scientists and conservationists around the world to protect nature and wildlife. When coupled with the challenges of achieving the Chesapeake Bay Program’s goals to protect forests and expand tree canopy, conservationists in Maryland — including the authors of this opinion — were surprised to learn that NASA, a federal agency, plans to divest a 105-acre forested property from the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt. It was even more shocking to discover that rather than protecting this valuable forestland known as “Area 400” and transferring it to the Patuxent Research Refuge (PRR), directly adjacent to the property and owned by another federal agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NASA’s intent is to sell the property on the open market. On Dec. 27, the Public Buildings Reform Board concurred, recommending its “disposal.”
With sky-high demand for real estate in the D.C. metro area, a private sale of NASA’s Area 400 will almost inevitably lead to development and the permanent loss of around 100 acres of forestland. This outcome is completely unacceptable and flies in the face of the nation’s America the Beautiful initiative and the bay region’s goals for forest retention and tree canopy retention and expansion.
Area 400 has been undisturbed for decades and is a mixed forest, featuring mature upland hardwood trees. The fact that the property is adjacent to the PRR makes Area 400 especially valuable, because it extends wildlife habitat and serves as a buffer against noise and light pollution from nearby roads and development. PRR itself is home to an abundance of diverse wildlife and vegetation. More than 200 species of birds have been spotted in the refuge, along with hundreds and hundreds of other species, including bats, foxes, turtles, frogs, beavers, lots of fish and endless insects.
Look at a Google Earth image of the Baltimore-Washington corridor, and you can’t miss the green blob squeezed between the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, Route 50 and Interstate 97. This is some of the region’s last intact forestland and includes the refuge. It is rather amazing that such a diversity of wildlife can exist in a landscape that is otherwise highly developed.
In addition to serving as vital habitat for wildlife, the forestland in and around the refuge serves an important role in the health of the Chesapeake Bay by filtering out pollutants that would otherwise flow into rivers and into bodies of water, including our beloved Chesapeake Bay. The headwaters of the Patuxent River flow through this natural landscape, as does a portion of the headwaters of the Anacostia River. The forest floor serves like a natural sponge. Former Maryland state senator Bernie Fowler, who died last month, taught us the importance of the forest and many other things during his annual “wade-ins” to the Patuxent River.
This forested area is also vital for human health. Forests filter out air pollutants and sequester carbon from the atmosphere, which is important for the health of nearby communities. In addition, PRR has become a popular destination for many area residents to explore nature and hike around the refuge’s trails. Were it not for the refuge and surrounding forested areas, many of these nearby and diverse communities would completely lack any meaningful access to nature.
The obvious and best solution for NASA is to transfer the Area 400 property to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to manage as a part of the PRR. This would permanently preserve the conservation values of the property as forestland and wildlife habitat, and it would maintain green space for nearby communities. Importantly, conserving Area 400 would maintain a significant swath of forestland that will support the long-term health of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. By selling the property, NASA will all but ensure the development of Area 400 and permanent loss of forests. NASA should ensure a conservation outcome by transferring the property to the Patuxent Research Refuge.
As the cherry on top of this victory, let’s name this the Bernie Fowler Forest, dedicated to one of Maryland’s greatest champions of conservation and the Chesapeake Bay. | null | null | null | null | null |
The Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office said a dump site with empty Amazon boxes led law enforcement to a home with piles of thousands of stolen packages. (Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office)
Police said they believe the packages were stolen from an Amazon distribution center in Oklahoma City. Authorities said they suspect Cerqueira and Perez loaded extra pallets into a truck when they arrived at the warehouse. Instead of taking the merchandise to the U.S. Postal Service or UPS so the items could be delivered, Tye said, the men allegedly took the packages to the home in Luther. There, police said, some items were opened for their own use and others were possibly sold online. | null | null | null | null | null |
The Capitol itself has long been a popular focal point for violence. In 1954, Puerto Rican nationalists opened fire from the House gallery and wounded five congressmen. In 1971, in opposition to the Vietnam War, the Weather Underground detonated a bomb in the men’s bathroom underneath the Senate chamber, saying the goal was to “freak out the warmongers.” In 1983, self-described communists exploded a bomb under a bench outside the Senate majority leader’s office, purportedly in retaliation for U.S. intervention in Grenada and Lebanon.
Political violence cooled a bit following the Civil War but increased again as Northern voters lost the will to enforce civil rights for African Americans. After the contested 1876 election, President Ulysses S. Grant mobilized the military to defend the Capitol if it was besieged by supporters of Samuel J. Tilden.
The Justice Department estimates that as many as 2,500 people could ultimately be charged with federal crimes related to the attack on the Capitol; so far, only 704 have faced prosecution. Attorney General Merrick Garland asked Wednesday for the public’s help in identifying hundreds of suspects who were photographed but haven’t been arrested, including about 250 who are believed to have assaulted police officers. Especially worrisome is that no one has been apprehended for placing pipe bombs with timers outside the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee. | null | null | null | null | null |
A year after the attack on the Capitol, data scientists say artificial intelligence can help forecast insurrection — with some big concerns
For the data scientists who watched it unfold, the reaction was a little different: We’ve been thinking about this for a long time.
The sentiment comes from a small group working in a cutting-edge field known as unrest prediction. The group takes a promising if fraught approach that applies the complex methods of machine-learning to the mysterious roots of political violence. Centered since its inception a number of years ago on the developing world, its systems since last Jan. 6 are slowly being retooled with a new goal: predicting the next Jan. 6.
“We now have the data — and opportunity — to pursue a very different path than we did before,” said Clayton Besaw, who helps run CoupCast, a machine-learning-driven program based at the University of Central Florida that predicts the likelihood of coups and electoral violence for dozens of countries each month.
The efforts have acquired new urgency with the recent sounding of alarms in the United States. Last month, three retired generals warned in a Washington Post op-ed that they saw conditions becoming increasingly susceptible to a military coup after the 2024 election. Former president Jimmy Carter sees a country that “now teeters on the brink of a widening abyss.” Experts have worried about various forms of subversion and violence.
The provocative idea behind unrest prediction is that by designing an AI model that can quantify variables — a country’s democratic history, democratic “backsliding,” economic swings, “social-trust” levels, transportation disruptions, weather volatility and others — the art of predicting political violence can be scientific than ever.
Some ask whether any model can really process the myriad and often local factors that play into unrest. To advocates, however, the science is sufficiently strong and the data robust enough to etch a meaningful picture. In their conception, the next Jan. 6 won’t come seemingly out of nowhere as it did last winter; the models will give off warnings about the body politic as chest pains do for actual bodies.
CoupCast is a prime example. The United States was always included in its model as a kind of afterthought, ranked on the very low end of the spectrum for both coups and election violence. But with new data from Jan. 6, researchers reprogrammed the model to take into account factors it had traditionally underplayed, like the role of a leader encouraging a mob, while reducing traditionally important factors like long-term democratic history.
Its risk assessment of electoral violence in the United States has gone up as a result. And although data scientists say America’s vulnerability still trails, say, a fragile democracy like Ukraine or a backsliding one like Turkey, it’s not nearly as low as it once was.
Another group, the nonprofit Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, or ALCED, also monitors and predicts crises around the world, employing a mixed-method approach that relies on both machine-learning and software-equipped humans.
“There has been this sort of American exceptionalism among the people doing prediction that we don’t need to pay attention to this, and I think that needs to change,” said Roudabeh Kishi, the group’s director of research and innovation. ACLED couldn’t even get funding for U.S.-based predictions until 2020, when it began processing data in time for the presidential election. In October 2020, it predicted an elevated risk for an attack on a federal building.
Meanwhile, PeaceTech Lab, a D.C.-based nonprofit focused on using technology in resolving conflict, will in 2022 relaunch Ground Truth, an initiative that uses AI to predict violence associated with elections and other democratic events. It had focused overseas but now will increase efforts domestically.
“For the 2024 election God knows we absolutely need to be doing this,” said Sheldon Himelfarb, chief executive of PeaceTech. “You can draw a line between data and violence in elections.”
The science has grown exponentially. Past models used simpler constructs and were regarded as weak. Newer ones use such algorithmic tools as gradient boosting, which fold in weaker models but in a weighted way that makes them more useful. They also run neural networks that study decades of coups and clashes all over the world, refining risk factors as they go.
“There are so many interacting variables,” said Jonathan Powell, an assistant professor at UCF who works on CoupCast. “A machine can analyze thousands of data points and do it in a local context the way a human researcher can’t.”
Many of the models, for instance, find income inequality not to be correlated highly with insurrection; drastic changes in the economy or climate are more predictive.
And paradoxically social-media conflict is an unreliable indicator of real-world unrest. (One theory is that when violence is about to take place, many people are either too busy or too scared to unleash screeds online.)
Part of the issue, he said, is that despite the available data, much electoral violence is local. “We ran a set in one country where we found that the possibility of violence could be correlated to the number of dogs outside, because worried people would pull their dogs in off the streets,” Bellish said. “That’s a very useful data point. But it’s hyperlocal and requires knowing humans on the ground. You can’t build that into a model.” Even ardent unrest-predictor advocates say that forecasting highly specific events, as opposed to general possibilities over time, is very unlikely.
Others admit the real world can sometimes be too dynamic for models. “Actors react,” said ACLED’s Kishi. “If people are shifting their tactics, a model trained on historical data will miss it.” She noted as an example the group’s tracking of a new Proud Boys strategy to appear at school-board meetings.
“One problem with the weather comparison is it doesn’t know it’s being forecast,” Schrodt conceded. “That’s not true here.” For instance, a prediction of a low risk could prompt a group mulling an action to deliberately initiate it as a surprise tactic.
But he said the main challenges stem from a generational and professional resistance. “An undersecretary with a master’s from Georgetown is going to think in terms of diplomacy and human intelligence, because that’s what they know,” Schrodt said. He imagines a very slow transition to these models.
The Pentagon, CIA and State Department have been moving on this front. The State Department in 2020 created a Center for Analytics, the CIA hires AI consultants and the military has embarked on several new projects. Last month, commanders in the Pacific announced they had built a software tool that seems to determine in advance which U.S. actions might upset China. And in August, Gen. Glen VanHerck, NORAD and NORTHCOM commander, disclosed the latest trials of the Global Information Dominance Experiment, in which an AI trained on past global conflict predicts where new ones are likely to happen.
Advocates say this reluctance is a mistake. “It’s not perfect, and it can be expensive,” said PeaceTech’s Himelfarb. “But there’s enormous unrealized potential to use data for early warning and action. I don’t think these tools are just optional anymore.” | null | null | null | null | null |
Stephen Crout, music director, conductor
Stephen Crout, 77, who founded the Washington Concert Opera in 1986 and served as music director of the Washington Ballet from 1989 to 2001, died Nov. 23 at a hospital in Washington. The cause was an abdominal tumor, said his husband, Peter Russell.
Mr. Crout was born in Elmira, N.Y., and moved to the Washington area from New York City in 1980 to join the music staff of the Washington National Opera. He later became chorus master and chief of its music staff. He led the Washington Concert Opera until 2001.
George Bolling, Army colonel
George Bolling, 81, a retired Army colonel who served in combat roles during the war in Vietnam and retired in 1985 as a signal officer assigned on missions for the White House, died Nov. 15 at a hospital in Frederick, Md. The cause was respiratory failure, said his brother, Frank Bolling.
Col. Bolling was born in Kingsport, Tenn., and joined the Army in 1962. On his Army retirement, he held civilian communications jobs with Comsat and MCI. He had lived in Northern Virginia before settling in Frederick.
Patricia Calkins, political staffer, volunteer
Patricia Calkins, 92, a volunteer in the altar guild and the thrift shop at All Saints Episcopal Church in Chevy Chase, Md., died Nov. 24 at her home in Chevy Chase. The cause was respiratory failure, said a daughter, Carolyn Calkins.
Mrs. Calkins was born Patricia Painton in Elmira, N.Y., and had lived in the Washington area for 68 years. She was an office manager for U.S. representatives from New York and later worked for the National Republican Congressional Committee and in the Ford White House in the 1970s. She was a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution. | null | null | null | null | null |
Yes, Meghan was awarded just $1.35 in her suit against a British tabloid. But that’s only part of the story.
But he said that a number would have still be generated “forensically” or simply “dealt with by sticking a thumb in the air” and landing on a figure both parties agree to. He guessed it would be north of $100,000.
Damages awarded in other cases involving high profile figures taking on media outlets — and winning — can vary widely, but they generally are not eye-popping sums like some cases in America.
The sums awarded in these case are usually dwarfed by legal fees, which can easily balloon into the hundreds of thousands. Meghan is set to receive £300,000 ($406,000) in legal fees by Friday, according to a court order, an installment for what could be a much larger figure. In England, the default is for the loser’s side to pay a substantial portion of the winner’s legal fees, which in this case is estimated to be over $2 million. | null | null | null | null | null |
LaVerne Gill, journalist, pastor
The Rev. LaVerne Gill, 74, a Washington journalist, University of the District of Columbia professor and a United Church of Christ pastor, died Oct. 30 at a hospital in Reston, Va. The cause was heart ailments, said her husband, Tepper Gill.
Rev. Gill was born LaVerne McCain in Washington. From 1985 to 1994, she was president of McCain Media., which published a weekly newspaper covering politics and community affairs in Washington’s Black community. She also produced programs for radio and television, provided on-air commentary and wrote books.
Earlier in her career, she was a member of the staff of Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), a business teacher at UDC and a budget analyst at the Federal Reserve Board. From 1999 to 2008, she was a teacher and pastor at the Webster Township United Church of Christ in Michigan. She later returned to the Washington area and lived in Reston.
Virginia Saba, nurse, professor
Virginia Saba, 95, a U.S. Public Health Service nurse from 1963 to 1985 and a professor at Georgetown University’s nursing school from 1985 to 2011, died Nov. 11 at a hospital in Indianapolis, where she was attending a professional conference.
She suffered complications of injuries sustained in an accidental fall, said Caroline Scully, a niece and executor of her estate.
Dr. Saba was born Virginia Joseph in Adams, Mass., moved to the Washington area in 1963 and was a resident of Arlington, Va. She also taught at the Graduate School of Nursing at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., from 1994 to 2014. She developed a computer-based system of standardized nursing terminology and was the chief executive of a nursing informatics company.
James Morton, Foreign Service officer
James Morton, 84, a Foreign Service officer from 1964 until he retired in 1987 and who had served as a political affairs officer in postings including in Europe, the Pacific and Central Asia, died Nov. 19 at his home in Eastport, Maine. The cause was a stroke, said his wife, Colleen Morton.
Mr. Morton was born in Rockford, Ill. In retirement, he was a Foreign Service consultant. He moved to Maine from Silver Spring, Md., in 2012. | null | null | null | null | null |
What does Jan. 6 say about American democracy — and the prospects for war?
Trump supporters held a peaceful rally outside the Allegheny County Elections Warehouse in Pittsburgh on Nov. 6, 2020, as ballot checking proceeded inside. Two months later, a mob of Trump supporters attacked the Capitol as Congress met to confirm President Biden’s electoral college victory. (Photo by Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)
By Jacob S. Hacker
Jacob Hacker is a professor of political science at Yale University and the co-author (with Paul Pierson) of “Let Them Eat Tweets: How the Right Rules in an Age of Extreme Inequality.”
How you label the events of Jan. 6, 2021 — an “insurrection,” a “riot,” an “assault,” an “attempted coup” — says a lot about how you view American politics. Like a Rorschach test, the dramatic images of that day evoke horror and revulsion in some, indifference or even approval in others.
Perhaps even more important, though, is what you think Jan. 6 foretells about American politics. Was it a temporary deviation brought on by an idiosyncratic moment and man, a grim marker of the new normal, or a harbinger of much worse to come?
Journalists and social scientists tend to approach these questions in very different ways, and two timely books, “The Steal: The Attempt to Overturn the 2020 Election and the People Who Stopped It” by Mark Bowden and Matthew Teague and “How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them” by Barbara F. Walter, exemplify these contrasts. One is a gripping ground-level narrative of the weeks after Donald Trump lost the popular vote; the other, a rigorous yet readable analysis of the prospects for a second American civil war. One ends on a hopeful note — brave election officials, many of them Republicans, certified the results. The other describes a frighteningly plausible scenario in which the Biden presidency presages large-scale violent conflict within the United States.
Regarding one big point, however, these accounts agree: 2020 was a lucky break. The guardrails held, but only barely. Without fundamental reforms, they may not hold longer. And the very forces that weakened those guardrails make repairing them extremely hard. Whether the outcome is civil war or — far more likely, in my view — a democracy that’s increasingly undemocratic, Jan. 6 may come to be seen as a critical test of foresight and fortitude that too many in power failed.
“The Steal” is a marvel of reporting: tightly wound, as you might expect from Bowden, the author of “Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War,” but also panoramic — a kaleidoscope of stories about how officials and activists in pivotal states like Arizona and Georgia responded to Trump’s false claims of election fraud. To Bowden and Teague’s credit, they give zero credence to these claims. Yet they provide sincere, if not sympathetic, insight into the thinking of those who believe them and how they acted on those beliefs.
The result is a narrative that mirrors the way elections are actually run in the United States: state by state, county by county, precinct by precinct. Rather than focus on the president’s wild claims and increasingly comical legal challenges, “The Steal” centers on the people doing the decentralized work of American elections: manning polling stations, counting ballots, certifying results, considering legal challenges and overseeing all these activities on behalf of the parties.
In 2020 on the Republican side, that oversight veered more and more into interference. As Election Day stretched into Election Week, GOP activists — linked via social media, validated by Trump and his echo chamber, and motivated by a toxic mix of disinformation and distrust — ramped up their harassment of election workers who, for the most part, performed heroically under terrible circumstances. Despite the pandemic and the resulting deluge of mail-in ballots, despite threats of foreign meddling and ample domestic meddling by Republican lawmakers who tried, before the election, to make voting harder, the biggest barrier to an accurate, timely count in 2020 wasn’t technical but tactical: how to get the job done without getting fired, ostracized, threatened with harm (against you or your family), forced into hiding or worse.
Consider the post-election pyrotechnics in Delaware County, Pa., a sprawling suburban and exurban region near Philadelphia known as Delco. Delco is one of those once-red places that has trended blue as the suburbs of big cities have become more diverse and more linked to the urban knowledge economy. It also contains many rock-ribbed Republican outposts whose denizens are resentful of the change, despite their reliable overrepresentation in state politics thanks to GOP gerrymandering and the clustering of Democrats in those same big cities (where most of their votes are “wasted” in deep-blue districts).
To handle the crush of mail-in votes, Delco purchased sophisticated machines to count the ballots. In Pennsylvania, as in many states, early-arriving ballots couldn’t be removed from their envelopes until the polls opened, making expedited processing essential. Watching the machines to identify problems was like watching a computer to identify viruses — the envelopes moved so fast they were invisible — so Republican poll watchers shifted their focus to a supposedly nefarious “back room” they couldn’t see into clearly. When election workers moved their activities out of the room, the activists claimed that fake ballots were hidden in a locked closet inside. One of the activists, a burly poll watcher named Greg Stenstrom, grew so agitated he had to be sent outside by police. (Stenstrom, a White man who insisted he would “get into a fight” to stay put, was allowed to walk away by a deputy sheriff who knew him — one wonders how a Black man the officer didn’t know would have fared in the same encounter.)
In nearby Erie, Pa., the threat of violence was more tangible. After right-wing propagandists accused the local postmaster — ironically, a hardcore Trumpist — of election fraud, the man was doxed on social media, chased through a parking lot, confronted at home and forced to hide with his family. Across the country, similar scenarios played out. In Republican-controlled states, the backlash would soon help fuel another round of hyperpartisan gerrymandering and voting restrictions designed to protect GOP power in blue-shifting districts, as well as a worrisome new trend: the rewriting of state electoral rules to ensure that partisan elected officials had the final say over contested outcomes.
GOP activists’ greatest ire was reserved for Republicans who had the temerity to certify results that conflicted with Trump’s “big lie.” Whether or not you voted for the president, acknowledging reality made you a Never Trumper. After years of fomenting outrage against the system, the Republican Party was reaping the whirlwind: a new generation of candidates dedicated to a false narrative, and a set of aggressive, organized and often armed grass-roots allies who believed that one party should be purged of any dissidents and the other destroyed. In Delco, the disorderly poll watcher Stenstrom, now teamed up with a Facebook-savvy activist named Leah Hoopes, saw every responsible move by fellow Republicans as betrayal. The two concluded, in Bowden and Teague’s words, that “it was all a sham” — “that, at least in their corner of Pennsylvania, every vote, every government policy, every appointment, every government contract, was prearranged and that, in essence, everybody in power was corrupt.”
The internal monologues of disillusioned citizens like Stenstrom and Hoopes are what make “The Steal” so readable and revealing. They are also a little frustrating. It’s never entirely clear if you are hearing their voices or Bowden and Teague’s. I don’t expect everyone to share my footnote fetish, but I did crave greater clarity about when I was reading a more or less verbatim recounting of interviews as opposed to a journalistic reconstruction.
Far more important, Bowden and Teague say nothing about how the overwrought suspicions, patent misbeliefs, and elaborate but false theories articulated by these radicalized voters might be effectively countered. Here is where the limits of the journalistic approach loom large — and the need for a deeper diagnosis becomes apparent.
Walter’s “How Civil Wars Start” is the civil-conflict equivalent of “How Democracies Die” by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt — a much-needed warning that uses cross-national research to examine the United States. Given how prescient Levitsky and Ziblatt were, and how expert Walters is (she is a leading scholar of civil wars), it is a warning to heed.
I’ve been skeptical of the notion that the United States is on the verge of another civil war. Walter has made me reconsider. Her biggest contribution is to update the image most of us have of intrastate wars — an image she shows is woefully obsolete. Today, deadly conflicts within nations rarely involve armed forces on both sides. Compared with the past, moreover, they’re much more likely to occur in weak democracies (as opposed to weak dictatorships). They’re also highly contingent on the role of social media and the quality of political leadership, for good or ill.
A second American civil war, then, wouldn’t look anything like the first. It would involve right-wing paramilitaries, not secessionist states, and it would be decentralized, drawn-out and defined by terrorism — think Northern Ireland, not North vs. South. Above all, it will happen, or not, based on what we do now, which makes Walter’s warning even more valuable. This is a book that everyone in power should read immediately.
Besides delivering an up-to-date view of civil wars, Walter provides a state-of-the-art accounting of why they begin. Three factors emerge as critical: eroding political institutions; extreme racial and ethnic factionalization, especially when previously privileged groups are losing power; and the capacity of prominent leaders to foment violence, with social media their current (and highly effective) weapon of choice. These are all factors that put the United States at risk.
So how should those in power respond? Unlike Bowden and Teague, Walter has answers, lots of them: Make make our democracy work better, restrict and break up social media, crack down on armed right-wing groups, such as the Proud Boys and Three Percenters. Walter is careful to not imply that the heroic Republicans who certified the 2020 election can be counted on to stand in their way (many of them have lost office or seen their authority stripped, in any case). Nothing less than systemic reform of our democracy and sweeping counter-terrorism will defuse the threat in a nation awash in firearms. Most of those whose countries descend into civil war think it can’t happen — until it does. Walter wants us to know it can happen here, and act accordingly.
This is a bracing, vital message, but it leaves us with a problem too little acknowledged by journalists and scholars, even ones as able as the authors of these excellent books. What happens when the greatest threat to democracy and civil order emerges from a party that, outside the presidency, has dominated American politics for the past few decades? Walter’s long list of good prescriptions would be a lot more useful if there were doctors in the house (or, more to the point, the Senate) who could start administering them. Instead, serious political reform — including the Democrats’ stalled voting rights bill — depends on changing the extra-constitutional yet entrenched Senate filibuster in the most malapportioned upper house in the developed world. Trump’s defeat notwithstanding, virtually every institution of American government overrepresents the White, rural and Republican places where the most radicalized citizens now live.
The most immediate risk, in my view, isn’t civil war but increasingly hegemonic control of state governments and the national government by a party systematically advantaged by America’s aging institutions — institutions that the party’s leaders are ever more aggressively tilting in their favor. Add to this the corrosive effects of ethno-nationalism, disinformation and mistrust, and you have the great conundrum that is American politics today: A year after the light of democracy shone through the broken windows of the Capitol, most of those on one side of the aisle continue to gamble that safeguarding their power is more important than preserving their republic. | null | null | null | null | null |
This combination of album covers shows “30” by Adele, left, and “Dangerous: The Double Album,” by Morgan Wallen. Adele’s album “30” recorded the highest album sales debut in four years and Wallen’s “Dangerous: The Double Album” ended 2021 as both the top country album of the year and the most popular album across all genres, with 3.2 million equivalent album units earned during the year. (Columbia Records, left, and Big Loud Records-Republic Records via AP) (Uncredited/(Columbia Records/Big Loud Records-Republic Records)
Drake’s “Certified Lover Boy” was 2021’s most popular rap album in the U.S., with 1.97 million equivalent album units earned. Masked Wolf’s “Astronaut in the Ocean” was the most-consumed rap song of 2021. Bad Bunny's “El Último Tour Del Mundo” was the top Latin album. | null | null | null | null | null |
FILE - The main jury panel sits in the jury box waiting to be dismissed after deliberating during Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking trial, Tuesday, Dec. 21, 2021 in New York. Prosecutors on Wednesday, Jan. 5, 2022, urged the judge who presided over the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell to conduct an inquiry into a juror’s reported claims that he was a victim of sexual abuse. (Elizabeth Williams via AP, File) | null | null | null | null | null |
Hadley Green joins The Post’s video department as a breaking news editor
Announcement from Editorial Video Director Micah Gelman and Breaking News Senior Producer Nicki DeMarco:
We are thrilled to announce Hadley Green is joining the Video department as a breaking news editor. Hadley transitions to a full-time role after her summer internship, which extended into a contract role this past fall.
Working as an embed in Metro, Hadley filed stories on the precarious return to the classroom for the first day of school in D.C. and explained the basics of the Virginia elections. She worked closely with Emily Davies to tell the moving story about Coach Kevin McGill, who uses football to help guide his young team members away from gun violence.
During her internship, Hadley collaborated with every part of Video. She edited dispatches from survivors of the Surfside condo collapse, produced explainers on the science of the coronavirus and clipped live breaking news.
Outside of work, Hadley enjoys traveling, rock climbing and hiking. She moved to D.C. this summer from North Carolina after completing a master’s in journalism at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Hadley’s first day in her full-time role was Jan. 3. Please join us in congratulating her. | null | null | null | null | null |
Rioters scale a wall at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (Jose Luis Magana/AP)
Some Georgia Republicans planned to spend the anniversary of the attack on the U.S. Capitol praying — not just for those killed or hurt during the Jan. 6 riot, but for the “‘J6’ Prisoners” and “J6 Patriots” who stormed the building in a futile attempt to keep President Donald Trump in power.
Several Washington Post journalists covered the Jan. 6 insurrection in real time. These are the moments that still stand out to them, one year since the attack. (Casey Silvestri/The Washington Post)
Over the past year, federal authorities have charged more than 725 people in connection to the assault on the Capitol. On Wednesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland promised to hold accountable everyone who engaged in “the assault on our democracy,” no matter their involvement, as prosecutions continue.
The day before Cobb County Republicans scrapped their event, Trump canceled a news conference he had planned to hold on Jan. 6 at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. He blamed the cancellation on “the total bias and dishonesty of the January 6th Unselect Committee of Democrats, two failed Republicans, and the Fake News Media,” referring to Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois — the two Republicans who bucked their party by agreeing to serve on the committee investigating Jan. 6. Instead, Trump promised to address issues related to the Capitol riot at a Jan. 15 rally in Arizona.
In Washington, a right-wing group is moving forward with plans for a small vigil outside the D.C. jail Thursday evening to support people who were charged in the insurrection and are being held there — people the demonstrators call “political prisoners.”
A good chunk of the Cobb County GOP prayer vigil had been dedicated to live-streaming Trump’s Mar-a-Lago news conference, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. The final part of the event was to have been a candlelight vigil for the “J6 Patriots held in DC Prison.”
Conservatives have been divided on how to characterize the Capitol riot leading up to the Jan. 6 anniversary. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) on Wednesday called the event a terrorist attack, and Karl Rove, who served in the George W. Bush administration, urged Republicans in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece to condemn the riot and those refusing to acknowledge it. Meanwhile, Fox News host Tucker Carlson fired back at Cruz for calling the riot a terrorist attack, and House members Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) announced they would hold a news conference Thursday to give “a Republican response on the anniversary” of what they called “the January 6th protests.” | null | null | null | null | null |
Those latter words were spoken on Jan. 6, 2021 — not by some alarmist Biden partisan but by then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). A solid majority of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, agreed. What’s still overdue is corresponding legislative action: Congress should reform the 1887 law, known as the Electoral Count Act (ECA), before it’s used to justify more subversion of democracy.
The key is to clarify that the states, not Congress, are the ultimate arbiters of their elections for presidential electors, and that the electoral votes they send to Washington will be unquestionably counted except for rare problems such as a constitutionally ineligible elector. Congress should specifically renounce any authority to reexamine the popular vote that produced a state’s otherwise undisputed electors — i.e., the authority Mr. Cruz and Mr. Hawley would have usurped a year ago. This was the original intent of the Electoral Count Act, enacted to obviate any more congressionally improvised commissions such as the one that settled the 1876-1877 Hayes-Tilden dispute.
Jennifer Rubin: Fixing the Electoral Count Act is no substitute for voting reform
Buttressing that reform should be others, such as stipulating that the vice president has no power to accept or reject votes while presiding over the count — as another, even more spurious, attempted Trump-world legal theory had it. Indeed, Vice President Mike Pence’s refusal to wield this nonexistent power led to death threats from the mob. | null | null | null | null | null |
Sarah Margon is a well-known leader of that community and worked for many years as a Democratic Senate staffer (most notably for former senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin). She served as Washington director of Human Rights Watch and most recently as foreign policy director for the Open Society Foundations. Yet her nomination to lead the State Department’s human rights bureau has sat dormant for 258 days, held up by Republicans on the very committee for which she once worked. | null | null | null | null | null |
Free to State with Paul Clement, Jonah Goldberg, Stephen Hayes & Nadine Strossen
Experts examine interpretations of the First Amendment on Thursday, Jan. 6 (The Washington Post)
In our highly charged and deeply divided political climate, the debate over the meaning of freedom of speech and the First Amendment has become more polarized. On the one-year anniversary of the unlawful siege on the U.S. Capitol, join Washington Post Live on Thursday, Jan. 6 for a robust series of discussions focused on interpretations of the First Amendment in this era of increasing partisanship and political rancor.
Provided by Kirkland & Ellis.
Paul Clement is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Kirkland & Ellis. Paul served as the 43rd U.S. Solicitor General from June 2005 until June 2008. He has argued over 100 cases before the Supreme Court, including a number of important First Amendment cases. He also serves as a Distinguished Lecturer in Law at Georgetown University Law Center.
Jonah Goldberg is the editor in chief ofThe Dispatch. He holds the Asness Chair in Applied Liberty at the American Enterprise Institute and was previously senior editor at National Review, where he had worked for two decades. He is also the host of the podcast “The Remnant with Jonah Goldberg.”
A best-selling author, his nationally syndicated column appears regularly in over a hundred newspapers across the United States. He is also a weekly columnist for the Los Angeles Times. He was the founding editor of National Review Online and appears regularly on NPR's "Morning Edition."
The Atlantic magazine has identified Goldberg as one of the top 50 political commentators in America. Among his awards, in 2011 he was named the Robert J. Novak Journalist of the Year at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He has written on politics, media, and culture for a wide variety of leading publications and has appeared on numerous television and radio programs.
He is the author of the recentNew York Times bestseller Suicide of the West(Crown Forum, 2018), as well as two previous New York Times bestsellers: The Tyranny of Clichés (Sentinel HC, 2012) and Liberal Fascism (Doubleday, 2008).
Stephen F. Hayes is CEO and Editor of The Dispatch, a conservative digital media company he started with Jonah Goldberg and Toby Stock in 2019. He is the author of two New York Times best sellers: The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America and Cheney: The Untold Story of America’s Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President.
Hayes worked at The Weekly Standard magazine for nearly two decades, first as a reporter/writer and eventually as editor-in-chief. His work has been featured in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Reason, National Review and many other publications. Hayes has written extensively about national politics, international affairs and the country’s current political leadership.
Hayes spent 12 years as a Fox News contributor, featured prominently in the network’s coverage of Supreme Court nominations, major presidential speeches, and primary and general election nights. Before joining FOX, Hayes was part of CNN’s “Best Political Team on Television,” which won a Peabody Award for its coverage of the 2008 elections. Other media appearances have included: NPR’s Talk of the Nation, TODAY, Good Morning America, Meet the Press, ABC’s “This Week,” FOX News Sunday, CNN's "State of the Union," The O’Reilly Factor, The McLaughlin Group, HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
Hayes is a native of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, and a graduate of DePauw University in Greencastle, Indiana. He studied public policy at Georgetown University and received an MS from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. He previously worked as a senior writer at National Journal’s Hotline and as director of The Fund for American Studies’ Institute on Political Journalism at Georgetown University. He lives in rural Maryland with his wife and four children.
Nadine Strossen
New York Law School Professor Emerita Nadine Strossen, past national President of the American Civil Liberties Union (1991-2008), is a leading expert and frequent speaker/media commentator on constitutional law and civil liberties, who has testified before Congress on multiple occasions. She serves on the advisory boards of the ACLU, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Heterodox Academy, and National Coalition Against Censorship, and is a Founding Member of the Academic Freedom Alliance. The National Law Journal has named Strossen one of America’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers.” Her 2018 book HATE: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship was selected by Washington University as its 2019 “Common Read.”
Content from Knight Foundation
Free speech for all? Americans’ views on free expression post-2020
A landmark survey from the Knight Foundation and Ipsos shows that overwhelming majorities of Americans agree on the principles of free speech and recognize their importance to a healthy democracy. But at the same time, they sharply disagree on how those principles should be applied and protected, with their views shaped by factors such as partisan affiliation and race.
Yanna Krupnikov
Yanna Krupnikov integrates psychology and political science in order to identify points at which new information can have the most profound effect on the way people form political opinions, make political choices, and, ultimately, take political actions. Some of her research, which has been recently published in a book, argues that political independents really aren’t independent but are ashamed of both parties and so choose to claim independence rather than associate with Republicans or Democrats.
Interviewed by Evette Alexander
Evette Alexander joined Knight Foundation in January 2019. She oversees a portfolio of research and evaluation efforts that inform the foundation’s impact strategies and thought leadership.
Previously, she served in various internal and external roles as a strategist and senior researcher working to cultivate insights that simplify complexity and enable critical decision-making. | null | null | null | null | null |
Israel is one of the first countries to put Pfizer’s Paxlovid anti-viral pill into use, and doctors affiliated with the four publicly funded health-care networks here are now dispensing more than 100 courses a day, less than a week after the pill won approval. The drug is being dispatched to qualified patients’ homes almost as soon as they test positive for the virus.
Doctors say there’s still much to learn about a treatment that was originally tested on unvaccinated people infected with the delta variant but is being used here mostly to treat vaccinated patients who have contracted omicron, which seems to be more transmissible but causes less acute illness. Israel is seeing some of its highest infection rates of the past two years, and hospital administrators are warning that beds are filling up. | null | null | null | null | null |
LONDON — When Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, won her long-running legal battle against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday, she hailed it as “a victory not just for me, but for anyone who has ever felt scared to stand up for what’s right.”
The headline-grabbing paltry sum, however, is not the whole story, and Meghan will be receiving much more from the tabloid — but for violation of her copyright rather than privacy. | null | null | null | null | null |
John Davison, teacher, coach
John Davison, 73, a history teacher and soccer coach at the private St. Albans School in Washington, died Dec. 1 at a residential care facility in Potomac, Md. The cause was Lewy body dementia, said a daughter, Kelly Tuchman.
Mr. Davison, a resident of Cabin John, Md., was born in Brooklyn and grew up in the Washington area. He was on the St. Albans faculty from 1977 to 2012. In addition to his soccer coaching duties at St. Albans, he was co-founder and co-director of Georgetown International Youth Soccer and author of a children’s book for soccer instruction, “Little Paul the Soccer Ball.”
Sheila Rohrbach, homemaker
Sheila Rohrbach, 81, a Washington-area homemaker, died Nov. 9 at a hospital in Rockville, Md. The cause was leukemia, said a daughter, Sarah Peter.
Mrs. Rohrbach, a Rockville resident, was born Sheila Sheehan in Washington.
Hugo Plaag, supermarket executive
Hugo Plaag, 92, director of risk management for Giant Food who retired in 1996 after 36 years with the company, died Nov. 16 at a convalescent facility in Blowing Rock, N.C. The cause was respiratory failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, said a son, Eric Plaag.
Mr. Plaag was born in Trenton, N.J. A former resident of Springfield, Va., he moved to Williamsburg, Va., in 2015 and to Blowing Rock in August. He was a 54-year member of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Joan Vorrasi, law school officer
Joan Vorrasi, 74, an administrative officer at Catholic University’s law school for 50 years, died Nov. 3 at a hospital in Silver Spring, Md. The cause was cancer, said a daughter, Kelly Vorrasi.
Mrs. Vorrasi, a resident of Rockville, Md., was born Joan Sheehan in Washington. Her jobs at the law school, where she worked until shortly before her death, included director of student life and special events, but she also worked in alumni relations, admissions and career services. | null | null | null | null | null |
Wilbur Davidson Jr., postal official
Wilbur Davidson Jr., 79, a retired U.S. Postal Service official whose specialties included stamp and philatelic marketing programs, died Nov. 20 at a hospital in Alexandria, Va. The cause was amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, said a nephew, Brian Lowit.
Mr. Davidson, a resident of Arlington, Va., was born in Washington. He retired in 1993 after more than 20 years with the Postal Service. After that, he worked five years for Elvis Presley Enterprises in Tennessee as the senior licensing manager of international copyright and trademark programs.
James Raber, naval architect
James Raber, 81, who worked for 40 years for the Navy Department as a civilian naval architect died Nov. 21 at his home in Alexandria, Va. The cause was brain cancer, said a daughter, Christianna Raber.
Mr. Raber was born in Bloomington, Ill. He retired from the Navy Department about 20 years ago. He was a coach of youth soccer and basketball leagues in Northern Virginia.
Judy Van Rest, institute executive
Judy Van Rest, 75, executive vice president of the International Republican Institute (IRI), a nonpartisan organization that promotes the development of democracies around the world, died Nov. 24 at a hospital in Washington. The cause was covid-19, said a niece, Emily Elahi.
Ms. Van Rest, who lived in Alexandria, Va., was born in Kansas City, Kan. Early in her career, she was a regional director with the Peace Corps, chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management and a staff member in the White House office for intergovernmental affairs.
As executive vice president of IRI from 2004 to 2021, Ms. Van Rest helped in 2006 to found the Women’s Democracy Network, which works globally to empower women in the democratic process. | null | null | null | null | null |
The effort to bring salaries on the campus in line with pay at other institutions has been criticized for excluding unionized faculty.
More than 600 Howard University faculty members will get pay raises in the new year, the institution has said. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)
More than 600 Howard University faculty will get raises in the new year, part of a multiyear effort to bring salaries at the historically Black campus up to par with pay at other institutions, officials said.
The pay increases will benefit faculty members throughout the academic hierarchy, from lecturers to instructors to professors. But the measure has attracted criticism from the university’s fledgling union of more than 100 non-tenure-track faculty members who are excluded from this round of raises as they continue to negotiate with Howard the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.
The size of the raises will vary by discipline, but eligible full-time employees can expect their wages to grow by an average of 20 percent, said Anthony K. Wutoh, Howard’s provost. The university plans to spend an additional $17 million next year — funded in part by recent philanthropy — to provide pay increases.
Colleges move exams online, urge boosters as coronavirus cases rise and omicron fears grow
“Many institutions of higher education have yet to implement staff raises since the pandemic,” Howard President Wayne A.I. Frederick said in a statement. Officials pointed to a handful of other recent initiatives aimed at supporting faculty, including a 3 percent raise for employees in the spring, efforts to avoid mass layoffs and furloughs, and the decision to use a portion of the school’s endowment to fully fund the employee pension plan.
“We felt this was an important step not only to ensure the financial wellness of our staff but also to demonstrate our ongoing gratitude for the hard work and dedication that is instrumental to the functioning of our institution,” Frederick said.
Wutoh said the upcoming raises are “the most significant step” in an effort launched in 2018 to pay faculty members at least the median of what educators are paid at Howard’s peer institutions — private, urban campuses with hospitals, including Georgetown, George Washington and Tulane universities. Officials committed to addressing the pay gaps over a four-to-five-year period.
Senior, full professors lag the furthest behind their peers at other universities, Wutoh said. Professors on the campus are paid an average of $115,952 per year — more than $92,000 less than what Georgetown professors earn and about $66,000 less than GWU professors, according to 2018-2019 school year salary data compiled by the Chronicle of Higher Education.
“Never before have the majority of Howard University faculty been paid at the median of our peer institutions,” Frederick wrote to the campus.
On heels of tenure debate, non-tenured faculty at Howard U. decry working conditions
The raises, however, leave out union employees. University officials said those faculty members are not eligible because their union, the Service Employees International Union, has the exclusive right to negotiate their salary packages. The university is in talks with the union regarding a collective bargaining agreement, Wutoh said.
“Those negotiations have included and will include bargaining over faculty wages, raises and conditions of employment,” said Kimberly Holmes-Iverson, a spokeswoman for the campus, adding that the university “will continue to bargain in good faith.”
But Cyrus Hampton, a union member and master instructor in Howard’s English department, said he suspects that campus leaders are trying to dissuade employees from joining the contingent of about 140 unionized non-tenure-track faculty members, including lecturers and master instructors.
“It’s a commonplace for union busters to tell people that raises cannot be given during contract negotiations,” Hampton said. “There is nothing barring the university from making pay raises during contract negotiations to people who are having their contracts negotiated.” | null | null | null | null | null |
Ginsberg, 49, will be the fourth and final managing editor on The Post’s masthead. He joins Cameron Barr, named senior managing editor by Buzbee in October; Managing Editor Krissah Thompson; and Managing Editor and Chief Product Officer Kat Downs Mulder. Thompson and Downs were named managing editors by Buzbee’s predecssor, Martin Baron. It was previously announced that current Managing Editor Tracy Grant will return to reporting in 2022.
As National editor since 2017, Ginsberg oversaw The Post’s coverage of President Donald Trump and his administration, including the Russia investigation, two impeachments and the Capitol insurrection, as well as the pandemic and protests after the killing of George Floyd in 2020. Post reporters have won five Pulitzer Prizes under his supervision, for coverage of the Russia investigation, Secret Service, Trump’s fraudulent charitable activities, climate change and allegations against Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore.
Ginsberg said in an interview that in his new position he intends to do “what I’ve always done: Work with the best journalists to do the best journalism. I’ve seen a lot of changes at The Post and this is by far the most exciting time. We have huge ambitions … [but] the core of our mission is still the same — to hold power to account.”
In a memo to The Post staff announcing Ginsberg’s appointment, Buzbee and Barr cited his role in developing stories that grew into books published under the newspaper’s auspices, such as those about the Mueller investigation and Trump’s two impeachments. A series about George Floyd’s life and a forthcoming biography grew out of brainstorming sessions that Ginsberg conducted, they said. | null | null | null | null | null |
FILE— Jennifer Garner presents the award for outstanding performance by a male actor in a supporting role at the 26th annual Screen Actors Guild Awards at the Shrine Auditorium & Expo Hall on Sunday, Jan. 19, 2020, in Los Angeles. Garner has been named Woman of the Year by Harvard University’s Hasty Pudding Theatricals, based not just on her career as an actor, but also because of her record as a philanthropist and entrepreneur, the organization said Thursday, Jan. 6, 2022. (AP Photo/Chris Pizzello-Invision, File) | null | null | null | null | null |
Israel is one of the first countries to put Pfizer’s Paxlovid anti-viral pill into use, and doctors affiliated with the four publicly funded health-care networks here are now dispensing more than 100 courses a day, less than a week after the pill won approval. The drug is being dispatched to qualified patients’ homes almost as soon as they test positive for the coronavirus.
Doctors say there’s still much to learn about a treatment that was originally tested on unvaccinated people infected with the delta variant but is being used here mostly to treat vaccinated patients who have contracted the omicron variant, which seems to be more transmissible but causes less acute illness. Israel is seeing some of its highest infection rates of the past two years, and hospital administrators are warning that beds are filling up.
“It’s very involved,” said Galia Rahav, a physician at Sheba Medical Center outside Tel Aviv who has been consulting with HMOs on Paxlovid. “Sometimes you have to talk to them for an hour. I had a patient yesterday whose daughter is a pharmacist, and we finally decided he wouldn’t take it.”
And so, he recalled, the sore throat and fever he developed last week were scary. The positive coronavirus result that arrived by text message late Friday was terrifying. He feared he might end up on a ventilator.
“Israel is a very small country with a well-organized health-care system,” said Hajioff, the prime minister’s spokesman. “We are very quick at adapting and at collecting data that is useful to us and to other countries as well.” | null | null | null | null | null |
After snowstorm, thousands without power in Virginia struggle to stay warm
“We’re still dealing with the storm from earlier in the week,” she said. “I’m scared it could be even longer for us getting our power back.” In a video Hogan made Thursday morning and posted on social media, she showed herself in her one-bedroom apartment at the motel with her breath puffing in the cold air. She said on the video, “it’s 30-degrees in my living room. … Dominion, please, come turn on our power.” | null | null | null | null | null |
Opinion: Biden finally says what needs to be said about the Big Lie
On the anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection, Joe Biden gave what may wind up being the most important speech of his career. That’s not only because it took on the central problem of his presidency — the ongoing attack on American democracy and Donald Trump’s role in it — but also because Biden was more clear and emphatic on this subject than he has ever been before.
We have been far too easy on those who embrace or even simply tolerate this idea, perhaps because it has completely taken over the Republican Party, and we still approach any question on which Republicans and Democrats disagree as though it must be given an even-handed, both-sides treatment.
That has to end, and what many journalists do — simply point out the fact that Biden won the election when quoting a Republican who says otherwise — is not nearly enough. We have to treat those who claim Trump won in precisely the same way we do those who say the earth is flat or that Hitler had some good ideas. They are not only deluded, they are either participating in, or at the very least directly enabling, an assault on our system of government with terrifying implications for the future. They are America’s enemies. And they have to be treated that way.
Thankfully, Biden seems to have come to understand the urgency of the situation and the importance of calling out Trump directly and not mincing words about his lie. Here’s part of what he said Thursday morning:
You can’t love your country only when you win. You can’t obey the law only when it’s convenient. You can’t be patriotic when you embrace and enable lies. Those who stormed this Capitol, and those who instigated and incited, and those who called on them to do so, held a dagger at the throat of America and American democracy. They didn’t come here out of patriotism or principle. They came here in rage. Not in service of America, but rather in service of one man. | null | null | null | null | null |
If Jan. 6 had been a movie, the cops would’ve been the heroes
Police clear the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, 2021. (Katherine Frey/The Washington Post)
But one year later, Jan. 6 is a political melee of subpoenas, hearings, arguments and whitewashing while the heroes of that day remain profoundly shook. They are understaffed, overworked and — largely — uncured. For at least 140 police officers who were crushed, beaten, shocked with stun guns, slashed, shoved, dragged and stomped defending the nation’s Capitol from insurrectionists a year ago, one of America’s darkest days didn’t end when the sun set.
“They were left hanging there with very little in the way of resources,” said Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-Va.), whose constituent Howard Liebengood was one of the Capitol Police officers who battled for four hours in grueling, hand-to-hand combat to protect the Capitol. He took his own life three days later.
The way official D.C. prepared for the Jan. 6 riot is what White privilege looks like
That victory came at a cost. Capitol Police Capt. Carneysha C. Mendoza, went from having a meal with her 10-year-old that day to walking into a hellscape.
“They’ve taken such a professional drubbing, that they weren’t ready, they weren’t prepared,” said Terrance W. Gainer, a former chief of the Capitol Police and a retired Senate sergeant-at-arms. He’s been talking to some of the officers who were there that day. “I’ve heard a lot of them say, ‘I feel like I disappointed everybody.’”
As the Capitol riot unfolded, one man felt uniquely betrayed
“You have a heart attack while on duty? It’s paid for, 100 percent. No issue. You break your leg on duty? Paid for 100 percent,” said Steve Hough, a law enforcement officer who helps run Blue H.E.L.P., a police mental health advocacy group. “But when someone breaks their mind? Or injures their mind while in the throes of doing their duty? They say, ‘Nope.’”
The Attack: A Washington Post investigation of the Jan. 6 insurrection | null | null | null | null | null |
Market-based reforms aren’t working, the author argues. Here’s what does.
The recent announcement by former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg that he was donating $750 million to help expand charter schools in 20 U.S. metropolitan areas sparked another round of discussion in parts of the education world about the best way to improve public schools.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Bloomberg declared that “American public education is broken” and that charter schools — which are publicly funded but operated outside of traditional school districts — are the answer.
This piece looks at a different answer. It was written by Donald Cohen, who just published a book with co-author Allen Mikaelian titled “The Privatization of Everything,” that looks at the consequences of privatization on just about every part of our lives, including education.
Cohen is the founder and executive director of In the Public Interest, a national resource and policy center on privatization and responsible contracting. He is also a founding board member of the Partnership for Working Families, a former political director of the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, and founder and executive director of the Center on Policy Initiatives, a San Diego-based think tank and policy organization.
The problem(s) with Bloomberg’s $750 million investment in charter schools
By Donald Cohen
Trying to fix public education with market-based reform is like using a hammer to cook an omelet. It’s just the wrong tool.
That’s one of the main points in “The Privatization of Everything,” a new book that I co-authored with Allen Mikaelian, which explains why market rules don’t apply to every single aspect of human activity — and this includes education.
The recent announcement by former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg that he’s investing $750 million to expand student enrollment in charter schools was a harsh reminder that the decades-long experiment with market-based education reform isn’t working. Charter schools have been in existence for decades, but they haven’t proved to be the panacea their supporters claimed. To the contrary, many communities see them as harming district schools that educate most American schoolchildren.
That’s why what a growing number of public schools are doing to actually improve educational outcomes — and create strong ties among families, students, educators, and communities along the way — is so promising and refreshing.
Over the past few years, public schools from places as diverse as the suburbs of Tampa and Los Angeles have been implementing what’s called the “community school” approach. Community schools bring together local nonprofits, businesses and public services to offer a range of support and opportunities to students, families and nearby residents. Their goal is to support the entirety of a student’s well-being to ensure they are healthy, safe and in a better position to learn. These benefits then extend to the surrounding community — which has been especially crucial during the pandemic.
Research shows that community schools following best practices improve student educational outcomes, provide as much as one-third more learning time, and reduce racial and economic achievement gaps.
In the 2018-2019 school year, Gibsonton Elementary School outside Tampa improved its grade on Florida’s annual academic report card from a “D” to a “C.” How? By focusing on nonacademic issues that interfere with student learning but are often ignored by traditional school improvement approaches.
Why community schools are part of the answer
For example, when the school asked parents why their children weren’t showing up, they learned that many students didn’t feel safe walking to school in the dark. Gibsonton then organized an effort to have the local government install new streetlights near campus. Attendance immediately improved, which — among other things — helped improve standardized test scores.
In rural Truth or Consequences, N.M., Hot Springs High School is using the community-school approach to reengage students who stopped showing up to online or hybrid learning. After learning what was holding the students back during the last school year, the school launched tutoring, mentoring and other learning opportunities to address their needs, instantly improving attendance and academic performance. Nearly 80 students who had previously stopped attending school began showing up to classes again.
A Rand study released in 2020 found that 113 of New York City’s public schools using the community-school approach experienced improvements in attendance, graduation rates, math scores and the rate at which students advance grade levels.
Many of these schools are succeeding because the community school approach treats public education as the public good that it is. Like ensuring everyone has clean water and quality health care, we can ensure every student gets a great education only if we commit to doing it together.
Like public fire departments, public education benefits all of us, even if we don’t have school-age children. And like with coronavirus vaccines and other public health measures, no child should be excluded — there should be no winners and losers.
In the “school choice” marketplace, charter schools compete with other schools for the education dollars that come with each student. This competition has a downside. While charter schools are legally required to accept all students without discrimination, the reality is often different. Some charters use a variety of schemes to keep out new or move out existing students who are more costly to educate, like special education students. For example, a 2016 study found that at least 253 charter schools in California were at the time potentially violating the law by maintaining exclusionary admission requirements for students.
13 ways charter schools shape enrollment
And while some charter schools outperform their nearby district schools, some don’t. Some students are able to leave their neighborhood public school if it’s struggling and attend a charter school — but the majority can’t do that — and the district are often worse off because the funding follows the student out of the classroom and into the hands of charter management organizations, some of them for-profit.
A former D.C. charter school board member calls for change
Community schools reach out and listen to parents, and that is what most parents really want. As the news release for Bloomberg’s new funding cites, 80 percent of the parents surveyed recently by the National Parents Union said that after the eye-opening experience of the 2020-21 school year, they want schools to ask for more parental input and feedback.
In his recent op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg concludes, “We need a new, stronger model of public education that is based on evidence, centered on children, and built around achievement, excellence and accountability for all.” I agree. | null | null | null | null | null |
Transcript: Free to State with Paul Clement, Jonah Goldberg, Stephen Hayes & Nadine Strossen
MS. ELLISON: Hello, and welcome to Washington Post Live. I’m Sarah Ellison, a reporter here at The Post. Our program today is called “Free to State,” and we’re going to be talking about the First Amendment and freedom of speech. We are very lucky to have with us today Stephen Hayes and Jonah Goldberg. They are the co-founders of The Dispatch. Well, warm welcome to you both. Thank you for joining us.
MR. HAYES: Thanks for having us, Sarah.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thanks for having us.
MS. ELLISON: Jonah, I want to start with you. You have called yourself close to a First Amendment absolutist but not a free speech absolutist. Can you explain to us the difference?
MR. GOLDBERG: Sure. I'm trying to remember the last time I said that. Look, I'm someone who thinks that the First Amendment's protections are primarily intended and designed for expressly political speech, and I think that one of the problems we've gotten into as a culture is that we've forgotten that. And the arguments for defending outlandish speech, obscene speech, pornography, historically the reason--the argument for defending those sorts of things is to say, well, as long as we're protecting these things way out on the periphery, we'll never get regulation of our core speech rights, which have to do with politics, questioning and criticizing the government, criticizing power, and whatnot. And I think that one of the problems starting in the 1960s we've had is we’ve flipped that around, and we think the most important part of the First Amendment is to protect boutique, often, you know, deliberately provocative and obscene speech like pornography, while we think it's perfectly fine to regulate core, essential to democracy political speech through things like campaign finance reform, and other things.
Don't forget, you know, the Obama Justice Department argued before the Supreme Court that you could actually--that the government could actually ban books within a certain time period before an election. That's crazy to me. And so, I'm very passionate about protecting political speech rights. But if some town wants to have community standards about what constitutes obscenity, or if a college campus has a certain set of speech codes about decency, I'm not saying that they should necessarily flout the First Amendment. But I think that they can have a certain amount of freedom to protect community standards, as long as they don't touch on these core political speech rights.
MS. ELLISON: I want to get to the protests that we've seen, whether it is over vaccines, Black Lives Matter. Obviously, January 6th is a different kind of gathering, and an insurrection. What do people--when we're talking about those sorts of events, and people start to talk about the First Amendment, what do they get right, and what do they get wrong?
MR. GOLDBERG: If you’re still going to me?
MS. ELLISON: Yeah, Jonah, start.
MR. GOLDBERG: I think, yeah, I mean, look, I mean, the First Amendment protects a lot of things other than just simply speech. It's freedom of assembly, it's freedom of worship. I think that we've tended to define down what the First Amendment means to be essentially about, again, expression. We also tend to define the First Amendment as--basically as some right that adheres to journalists more than it does to everybody else. But the simple fact is that from the text, the meaning, the history of it, there is no professional carveout for journalists. We all have the right to commit journalism. We have all the same rights to free speech. That doesn't mean as a prudential matter that journalists can't have a certain amount of deference, you know, in terms of the common law, in terms of, you know, how judges try to like not get in the way of a free press. But I think that we have confused a lot of the--or we've conflated a lot of the rights in the First Amendment and sort of staggered them with different emphasis. I am just as passionate about the right to freedom of worship as I am about the right to freedom of the press as I am about the right of freedom of assembly. And you don't get the sense that those all get the same respect and deference in popular culture and in the media in general.
MS. ELLISON: Stephen, I want to come to you. Recently, Marjorie Taylor Greene was banned from Twitter for her comments about COVID misinformation. Obviously, former President Donald Trump was banned from a variety of social media platforms. I want to ask you, were those--in your view, were those necessary actions, or is that a step toward censorship?
MR. HAYES: Well, I mean, I don't think there's any question that it is a step toward censorship. I mean, that is what they're doing. In effect, they’re saying, we are not going to permit these views on our platforms. But de-platforming is something very different when you're talking about private companies. Twitter has every right to de-platform Donald Trump or Margorie Taylor Greene, or whomever. Facebook has a right to monitor what's being--the conversations that are being had on its platform Meta. And I think that's--to me, that's very clear. That's part of this--you know, in all of the murkiness around these issues these days, and the reason that we're having this conversation, that part at least is clear.
What I think is more difficult is the sort of the obligations and the wisdom or the prudence of these companies in taking those steps. And one of the reasons that we have seen growing calls for censorship, sort of a growing movement away from free speech in particular on the right is this sense that there are two sets of rules. Facebook and Twitter going after prominent conservatives, de-platforming them, shutting down individual posts. There was a controversy this week where Facebook effectively shut down a children's book--conservative children's book publisher, later calling it an error. And for a lot of conservatives, not unreasonably, they see this, these kinds of mistakes or errors in--all heading in the same direction, or usually heading in the same direction. And the response from conservatives--too many conservatives, in my view--has been to say, okay, we need to take away these protections for these tech companies under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. I think it’s the wrong answer. But there's a reason that you're hearing it more and more from conservatives.
I would say there's a sort of a parallel move. I mean, they're not the same, and I don't want to directly compare them. But you've seen, I think, a fraying of the free speech coalition on the left as well. If you look at the kinds of things that have been coming out of the ACLU, for instance, the ACLU seems today to be as devoted to kind of promoting wokeism as it does to promoting the kinds of core civil liberties like free speech that the ACLU had been for decades known to promote. And I think that's the concern, is you have these two groups on--one on the right, one on the left--both making similar arguments for opposite outcomes in some ways, but that could lead to the same kinds of conclusions. And I think that would be less speech.
MS. ELLISON: So, I feel like you might have answered that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Could I just add one point on that? I’m sorry.
MS. ELLISON: Yeah, no, go ahead.
MR. GOLDBERG: I have COVID brain, so maybe I misunderstood the question that you asked me before. But, you know, this is one of the great concerns that I've got, is that we are now getting essentially a very strange consensus between the right and the left, that both believe that the government should step in to do more content moderation of large internet platforms. They want very different kinds of moderation. But they both think that the state has the power, the authority, and the ability to create bureaucracies that can run the content flow on places like Facebook and Twitter better than these private companies have, which is, I think, insane, and really scary on the merits. And the weirdest part about it is that there's--it's not just a bipartisan consensus, Facebook and a lot of these platforms want it, too. Every morning, I watch ads on Morning Joe and MSNBC, from Facebook, begging the federal government to regulate it, because they understand that if they can get the government to get in and create regulations for social media platforms, it will entrench them as the largest incumbent and serve as a barrier to entry for smaller media platforms to be able to get--to become big. And whenever you see this kind of sweeping corporate bipartisan consensus starting to emerge, that's when you should get nervous, because it means there's a certain amount of groupthink going on, particularly when it's--you should be nervous when it's focusing around core free speech and liberty issues.
MS. ELLISON: Well, I mean, for either one of you, do you think the platform should be held legally responsible for harm, quote-unquote "harmful content" that they might amplify? Or do--or what about the news network? I mean, do you think that there should be additional legal liability? Well, let's talk about the platforms first. Either one of you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Steve, you want to go?
MR. HAYES: I mean, no, I don't, Jonah. There's a reason I didn't go to law school, and it's because I would have to answer questions like this. Look, honestly, I don't--I don't know. I don't want to dodge the question. But let me just announce that I'm dodging the question in order to be more honest about it. I'm uncomfortable with those kinds of--attaching those kinds of legal consequences to journalistic entities. And, you know, I suppose the devil would be in the details. I think my colleague David French, who is actually a lawyer, would argue that the devil is in the details there. But, you know, I guess my basic view is more speech is good speech, and that would be sort of--if you enhance the legal vulnerabilities of these companies, whether the tech companies or journalism companies, you create a disincentive. You create disincentives for them to allow free speech. And I think that's problematic for our--for our overall national discussion.
MS. ELLISON: And, Jonah, what about Congress's role?
MR. GOLDBERG: I have very little faith in Congress. I--you know, a normal obsession of mine these days is--or I should say, a particular obsession of mine is that Congress is completely inadequate to the tasks it's supposed to--it's supposed to take on. It has lost the ability to play the role that the Founding Fathers imagined for it. It is the first branch of government. It is supposed to be where politics happens. And instead, it's become this ridiculous theater for partisan performative nonsense. It's even forgetting how to just do basic legislation.
So, it makes me very nervous, the idea that they're going to come up with finely tuned rules and regulations that can make this stuff work. I mean, to answer the question that Steve tried to dodge, part of the problem is, is that people--I mean, the mythmaking around Section 230 is such that people don't seem to understand that if you got rid of section 230, it would get rid of comment sections. It would destroy places like, I don't know, Yelp, because you couldn't--you would basically be saying that the platform hosting a comment is responsible for the content of all of those comments. So, the first thing you'd have to do is just get rid of those kinds of comments. And I think that that's--that is not something that a lot of people actually want, and creating some sort of bureaucracy to police that sort of thing seems to me to be simply, first of all, a grotesque violation of conservative principles, but also just an invitation for endless fights about the government picking winners and losers in various, you know, debates and arguments on the internet. And that, that seems like making all of our problems worse.
MS. ELLISON: So, let me try to pin both of you down then. If Congress doesn't have a role, and we don't think that there's really good legislation that could be passed, is there any--what is the answer for speech on the platforms? Is there any remedy that you would feel comfortable with other than just additional speech and allowing good speech to drown out bad speech? And I guess I'll go to Jonah first now.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah, I mean, like--I'm not saying that Congress doesn't have a role. I'm saying it's inadequate to the task to live up to the role that it has, and I think it'll make things worse. That said, I'm very much interested in having, you know, legislatures look at some of these algorithms that--you know, part of my beef about almost all social media is it tries to monetize dopamine hits by making people angry rather than informed. And it has completely corrupted--I shouldn't say completely--it has fueled a lot of corruption of journalism on the right and on the left that aims at basically just riling people up with bad information, exaggerated information, misinformation. And if there's a way to look at some of those kinds of algorithms and business models, particularly on things like on TikTok and Instagram, I'm all in favor of it. But my hunch is, is that the revelations would have a better effect than the legislation, because the social stigma that comes with finding out that people are--like, say Facebook is hurting teenage girls has driven more changes than, you know, the threat of legislation would, if that makes any sense.
MS. ELLISON: Sure.
MR. HAYES: I guess I'm probably even more skeptical than Jonah is that Congress has a role here. I mean, it's hard for me to see what Congress could do in legislation that would both further these political debates and keep the government from ultimately being the ultimate content arbiter, and that's a bad role. I mean, conservatives used to be furious even at the suggestion that government have a role in content moderation, particularly of private companies. I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh back in the days, in the 1990s, and Rush Limbaugh would go on and on about the fairness doctrine and the left promoting the fairness doctrine and this would cripple talk radio and it would cripple Rush Limbaugh. And now you have, as Jonah mentioned earlier, folks on the right, this post-liberal right, in effect, saying, yeah, government should be involved in all of that, and we want the power. Then you just have these competing interests on the left and the right in effect saying, we have the power to shut down these debates, whether you're talking about regulating tech companies, whether you're talking about imposing some kind of fairness doctrine. It's all very impractical. And I think the--as messy and ugly as things are right now, it's easy to see them getting worse with the hand of government.
MS. ELLISON: I want to turn for a moment. We don't have much more time but you both just left Fox News recently over objections to Tucker Carlson's January 6th documentary. Do you feel that Fox News contributed to the violence that erupted on January 6th, one year ago? Stephen, I’ll start with you.
MR. HAYES: Look, there were--there were people making arguments on Fox News in the runup to January 6th, in the post-election period, that I think were deeply irresponsible and created the impression among Fox News viewers that the president had rightfully won an election that he lost. It wasn't Fox News alone, to be sure. This was prominent on talk radio. You had any of a number of digital native media companies on the right, as Jonah suggested earlier, in effect trying to monetize this outrage.
And what happened was, as the--as the President and his advisors lost court case after court case as their conspiracy theories were disproven and debunked in really an embarrassing sort of way, the hardest of hardcore Trump supporters, including people on Fox News, including people like Sean Hannity, sort of doubled and tripled down. And I think that gave people the impression that Trump had won an election he had lost, and it contributed to the environment on January 6th, no question about it.
MS. ELLISON: Jonah?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah, look, I agree with Steve. Steve and I have had these conversations a lot. I should say that the Tucker Carlson stuff was the final straw for me. It wasn't the--you know, it wasn't but for that, you know, I would have--things have been going south for me in my views on Fox News for quite a while. That said, I don't think it was--it's--Fox News, people paint sometimes with too broad a brush, because, while I think Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingram and the other Fox primetime types on the opinion side people have a lot to answer for in the climate that they helped foster, which they're still fostering, that I think is irresponsible and untrue, it's worth pointing out that on the news side, you know, our former colleague and friend, you know, Bret Baier, was reporting the truth and reporting the facts and saying that the election--you know, and reporting that the election was not stolen, that there was no basis to these claims about massive fraud.
The problem is, is that the loudest voices, the highest rated voices, the most influential voices on Fox are all on the opinion side. And it used to be understood that opinion was supposed to be primarily informed by fact, and instead opinion at a lot of places--but I think it's particularly bad at--you know, in Fox world these days--the business model at a lot of places now is to tell people what they want to hear, rather than what they need to hear. And if you have an opinion that differs from the president of the United States’ fraudulent narrative, people don't want to hear it, it's not going to get aired, certainly not in primetime. And so you get this echo chamber effect. And I think that is deeply pernicious. It's not the--but when we talk about Fox News, we need to be clear that part of it is actually just a sort of a failure of policy rather than the actual policy where they let the opinion people ride high in the saddle without much guidance or supervision or control. And the news people have to try to clean up the mess, and it's--I think it's just a deeply dysfunctional and tragic situation over there.
MS. ELLISON: It pains me to say that we have run out of time. I have so many questions for you both. But thank you very much for the time you've given us this morning. Jonah Goldberg, Stephen Hayes, thank you for joining us. I'm going to ask the audience to stick with me. We'll be back in a few minutes with Paul Clement and Nadine Strossen.
MS. ALEXANDER: Good afternoon, and thanks for joining Free to State. I'm Evette Alexander, director of learning and impact at the Knight Foundation. As a foundation, we believe our free speech and expression rights underpin Knight’s mission to foster informed and engaged communities for a healthy democracy. And this morning, on the one-year anniversary of the insurrection, we released results of a new survey of 4,000 Americans by our partners at Ipsos, which reveals exactly where we agree and disagree on issues of free speech and the First Amendment and in a post-2020 society.
Here with me today to discuss those findings is one of our advisors on the study, Yanna Krupnikov, professor of political science at Stony Brook University. She's a political psychologist and author of two books, "Independent Politics," and "The Other Divide: Polarization and Disengagement in American Politics," coming in March 2022.
Yanna, a large majority of Americans agree that the events of January 6th were not a legitimate expression of First Amendment rights, whereas the racial justice protests of 2020 were. But we also see pretty strong agreement on the importance of speech to our democracy, a recognition of various ways it produces value for our society, and a desire to see racist speech prohibited in a variety of institutional settings. Does the common ground we have as Americans surprise you at all?
MS. KRUPNIKOV: I think that there's something comforting in the common ground that the survey and the report finds. In particular, it is comforting that even in a particularly divisive time, people still agree on these broad, sometimes abstract principles of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. What I think makes this survey especially important, however, is the fact that it pushes these questions forward. Rather than just asking about principles, it asks people what they might do in specific situations. And so there's something I think surprising in the idea that while Americans agree on the fundamental values and principles, they continue to disagree when we actually give them very specific situations in which they have to apply those principles. So, it's simultaneously a surprising aspect, but also a comforting one in the agreement on the fundamentals.
MS. ALEXANDER: Yes, and we also saw some disagreement along party lines as to what constitutes legitimate speech. For example, when it comes to posting false information about COVID online, and we disagree on what groups in the U.S. have an easier time exercising their speech rights. The data showed that party affiliation was driving most of that divide, but that independent Americans were a bit all over the place in terms of their views. Your work deals in political psychology, so how do you see these views on free speech and expression being shaped and molded over time?
MS. KRUPNIKOV: There is a tendency in American politics to focus on the two parties, and especially on the extremes within those two parties. But in the survey, a sizeable proportion of people either identify as independent, or say they’re something else. They're not giving us a party. And so how those people respond to questions, these independents, these something else, is also extraordinarily important. So, the fact that they are all over the place allows us to see how people who don't necessarily have a partisan connection, feel about these different questions. And so, what we see is that they are sometimes less beholden to strong cues from party elites. Sometimes they don't necessarily even want to answer the question, in large part because they really haven't thought about it. But looking at this particular group allows us to see how people experience politics without necessarily following kind of extreme and strong partisan cues. So, their responses being all over the place gives us an indication of what happens when people aren't necessarily responding to heavily politicized information.
MS. ALEXANDER: And speaking of heavily politicized information, we did have some pretty high-profile events in 2020 that related to speech and expression--the pandemic, the racial justice protests, the insurrection. And obviously, media coverage of those events differed. And you found in your research, it was again borne out in the survey data, that there's a relationship between media consumption and having more extreme partisan views. Can you say more about that?
MS. KRUPNIKOV: Returning to this idea of partisan divides, and divisions and difference between partisans and independents, one of the things that is especially important is how much attention people are paying to politics and to political news. Politics is often not something that people experience firsthand. It's something that they hear about when they watch the news. It's something that they see on social media from others. And so, the extent to which people are paying attention, the extent to which people are consuming media is certainly going to affect how they perceive political events, and actually how they fit those political events into a freedom of speech perspective.
So, some of the disconnect we see between the values people apply when thinking about freedom of expression, and their opinions on these really important freedom of expression events, like protests, for example, are going to heavily depend on what information they're receiving from the media, and how much attention they're paying to this information. So, somebody who is, let's say, heavily partisan and heavily invested in following the news is going to be much more likely to take an extreme partisan position than somebody who is, let's say, a very casual news observer, somebody who isn't paying as much attention. So, we are going to see bigger divides amongst people who are paying more attention to the news.
MS. ALEXANDER: And you know, in closing, what should we take away from this survey in terms of where Americans are on these issues and how it might inform educators, policymakers, or even tech companies?
MS. KRUPNIKOV: I think one thing to take away from it is that public opinion is complicated. It is not a simple translation of let's just ask people what they think and do the following. The survey suggests a tremendous amount of nuance. People feel differently about values than they do about actual events. People feel differently, depending on their life experiences, depending on how much they follow the news. So, I think the takeaway from the survey is that addressing questions of freedom of expression is not a simple public opinion question. Rather, it is something that requires a return to the actual fundamental values that we apply to freedom of expression ideas, and I think this survey really bears the complicated nuance of this particular issue out.
MS. ALEXANDER: Yeah, certainly not one size fits all. Well, that's all we have time for today. But we do invite you to visit kf.org to see the findings of the report and learn more about where Americans stand on free expression and in a post-2020 world. And now I'll turn it back over to The Washington Post.
MS. ELLISON: Welcome back. If you are just joining us, I'm Sarah Ellison, a reporter here at The Post. Joining me now is Paul Clement, a former U.S. Solicitor General and current partner at Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C. And also with us is Nadine Strossen, former president of the ACLU, and a New York Law School professor emerita. Welcome to you both.
MS. STROSSEN: Thank you so much, Sarah.
MR. CLEMENT: Great to be here.
MS. ELLISON: Paul, I want to start with you. Do Americans today truly understand what the First Amendment does and does not protect?
MR. CLEMENT: Well, it's hard to say. I think, you know, people, still, I think, you know, talk about the First Amendment, but sometimes they're talking about First Amendment values, and other times they're talking about the First Amendment itself. I mean, I think one of the most foundational things to know about the First Amendment is that it's only a restriction on government action. So, when people talk about social media platforms not respecting First Amendment rights, you know, they're really being a little bit inaccurate there, because private actors do not violate the First Amendment if they don't allow a wide spectrum of speech. But the government is the entity that the First Amendment principally is concerned with, and principally protects against the government abridging speech. So, I think that's one foundational thing people should understand in this area.
Nadine, I want to come to you. We had a lot of audience members writing in to ask us the question should the government seek to reinterpret or even rewrite the First Amendment for the 21st century? How would you respond to that question?
MS. STROSSEN: The First Amendment really has stood the test of time, Sarah. It is written in broad language. I would contend the framers who wrote other provisions in the Constitution very specifically and narrowly, we can infer deliberately chose open, textured language for the grand freedoms, the fundamental freedoms in the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, to use another First Amendment provision that's very much in the news, especially today.
Now, those open textured terms have been subject to differing interpretations over time. And it wasn't until the second half of the 20th century that the Supreme Court came to very strongly and consistently protect free speech, including for controversial speech. It's no coincidence that the strong protection of the strong interpretation of those terms in the First Amendment really gained traction during the Civil Rights Movement, because throughout our history, civil rights protesters, women suffragists, labor organizers, people who are challenging government policies, seeking reform in the name of social justice and human rights, were the ones who were censored. And so when the Supreme Court began, finally, to really strongly enforce First Amendment broad guarantees, the main beneficiaries have been those who have been challenging the status quo, and that continues to be true to this day.
MS. ELLISON: Paul, I want to sort of put the same question to you but add how have our interpretations of free speech changed or evolved over time, and particularly now in this era that we see as one of, you know, very heightened polarization?
MR. CLEMENT: Yeah, I would certainly join Nadine in saying that, you know, that we should keep the First Amendment that we have. I do think that the language was written purposely broadly. And I think the Supreme Court has interpreted it in a way that keeps it up to date with changes in technology. I mean, you know, it’s almost cartoonish to suggest that the that the First Amendment would protect printing presses but not online speech and the like.
And I think we now have a situation where, from the perspective of the courts, there's still a pretty broad agreement among conservative jurists and liberal jurists about the importance of the First Amendment, even in a digital age, even in an age of polarization and divisiveness. So, I think where I'm sort of seeing the consensus break down is less with the way that courts are applying the First Amendment and more in the way that other people are sort of perceiving the First Amendment and First Amendment values. You know, as Nadine suggests, you know, the traditional view, and of when I was going to law school, was that the First Amendment was principally a protection for minority rights. It's a kind of anti-majoritarian provision, and so there was a strong commitment to free speech principles on the left, and there was kind of a begrudging sort of acknowledgment of them on the right. And I think over the course of my legal career, I started seeing that shift a little bit, where, if anything, there's a stronger commitment to First Amendment values on the right than the left. But certainly, on both extremes, I think people are beginning to question the value of the First Amendment in ways that, you know, I certainly wouldn’t have seen coming 20 years ago.
MS. ELLISON: Yeah, I mean--
MS. STROSSEN: Can I add something to that, Sarah?
MS. ELLISON: Of course.
MS. STROSSEN: Because I've been attending unpopular, controversial speech for my entire adult lifetime. By definition, it's not going to be subject to censorship unless it's unpopular. And I really agree with a statement that, among others, the journalist Nat Hentoff said, which is most people tend to believe in "freedom of speech for me--but not for thee." They want to make an exception to the broad language in the First Amendment for whatever speech they consider the most controversial, the most dangerous, the most threatening. So and today, actually, we get a lot of consensus about disinformation is so dangerous, and it should be suppressed. Of course, there's enormous disagreement about what is disinformation and what is accurate information.
To underscore a point that Paul made, which I think is really so telling, on the United States Supreme Court, which is deeply divided on so many issues, the court has been pretty much unanimous, or with a very strong consensus across the whole broad ideological spectrum, about consistently protecting freedom of speech for even the most controversial speech, including hate speech. And in contrast, the public is deeply divided. I submit that the difference between the court’s agreement on fundamental First Amendment principles and the public's division is that the court understands the legal principles. I think there is so much misunderstanding and ignorance about what the First Amendment does and does not protect that accounts for a large part of the hostility or suspicion towards the First Amendment on the part of the general public.
MS. ELLISON: Yeah, I mean, I think that you're right about that. We--you brought up hate speech, and I want to go to an audience question that we have. Actually, this is from Cindy who's watching from Norway. And she said is all hate speech considered free speech? Are there any legal limitations to what is allowed? And I will allow either one of you to respond to that, but I think, Nadine, you did bring up the point.
MS. STROSSEN: And I wrote an entire book on this subject. It's a great question, and it shows an understanding that is not revealed by the too many public officials, as well as members of the public who say hate speech is not free speech. Or conversely, too many libertarians say hate speech is free speech. But the truth is, some is protected, and some is not protected.
The law is very sensible. One basic premise of our law is that government may never suppress speech solely because of disapproval of the content, the idea, the viewpoints. So, the mere fact that somebody is saying something hateful is never enough of a justification to suppress it. However, if we move beyond the content, the viewpoint of the message, and we look at it in its overall context, the Supreme Court has supported what is often called the emergency principle, if in particular facts and circumstances speech with any message, including a hateful message, directly causes or threatens certain specific, imminent serious harm, then it can and should be suppressed. So, to use an example that's very current today, if speech intentionally incites imminent violent or lawless conduct that is likely to happen imminently, then that speech may be punished. So, if a hateful message satisfies the strict emergency standard or punishable incitement, it can be punished; likewise, if a hateful message satisfies the standard for a true threat. So we have to look at the details of the overall context.
MS. ELLISON: Paul, you mentioned--go ahead.
MR. CLEMENT: Yeah, the only thing I would add is that, you know, is Nadine is absolutely right. But you can hear just the way she formulates the doctrine here, that it does sort of err on the side of protecting the speech. So, you know, the threat really has to be imminent, and you know--you know, fighting words have to be truly fighting words. So, in a sense, the First Amendment doesn't say that all hate speech is protected all of the time in every context. But it still, by adopting a very demanding test, does protect a fair degree of hate speech, and I think that reflects the idea that, you know, even if everybody could agree that they'd like more restrictions on hate speech, they wouldn't necessarily agree on what constitutes hate speech. And those create the kind of dynamics that the First Amendment addresses, because people don't agree on those questions. The last thing we want is the government making all the calls on where the line is. And so, you know, going, you know, back, you know, roughly 100 years to as Nadine says, when the First Amendment really got seriously applied by the Supreme Court, I think these tests do err on the side of allowing more speech, not less speech.
MS. ELLISON: So, Paul, what do you think are the greatest threats to freedom of expression today?
MR. CLEMENT: So honestly, I think the greatest threat is this kind of weakening public consensus about free speech values, because it's all well and good for the Supreme Court to be unanimous or nearly unanimous in protecting free speech. And I think the justices recognize that because the First Amendment is an anti-majoritarian provision, you know, they won't expect their First Amendment decisions to all be popular. If you--you know, just to invoke one of them, if you're protecting the right to somebody to engage in really offensive speech at the funeral of a military member, I mean, that's not going to be a popular decision to say that that speech can go forward. The Supreme Court gets that, and I think the Supreme Court is willing to apply the First Amendment to protect free speech, even where it's not popular. But in the long run, we're not going to have the courts be able to be fully committed to First Amendment values, unless there's a societal consensus that backs it up and recognizes that, you know, not just the First Amendment text is important, but the values that underlie it continue to be important in our society, and that the solution to most issues is not government regulation of speech, but more speech.
MS. ELLISON: So that brings me to--or brings us to social media platforms in the private sector, which is where a lot of this conversation is happening today. And, Paul, I'm wondering if you think that social media companies should be held legally responsible for harmful content that they--or, you know, harmful content that they help amplify, or what is largely viewed as harmful content? I'd be curious to your response to that.
MR. CLEMENT: So, I would say two things. I mean, first, as I already indicated, I think when you're thinking about social media platforms, you know, it's wrong to think about that as when they engage in content moderation, or take certain people and, you know, take them off their services and the like. I think it's wrong to think of that as a direct sort of First Amendment violation, because they're not state actors, although it certainly does implicate broader free speech values.
And then I guess the second thing I would say here is, you know, I would be careful what you wish for. At the end of the day, there's going to be some First Amendment limits on what the government can do in regulating the social media companies. But even in the realm of where there is perhaps, you know, a government ability to relax certain immunities and the rest, I mean, you do have to be careful what you wish for here, because this seems like another universe where the traditional First Amendment remedy of more speech, not less speech, is probably the better answer in the long run from a First Amendment standpoint.
MS. ELLISON: Nadine, I'm curious if you would concur with that, or what you would say,
MS. STROSSEN: I do. And I'm kind of smiling, because I've looked recently at Paul's amazingly long and distinguished record of advocacy before the Supreme Court. Paul, I think we were never on the same side, on any issue, and so it's really remarkable that we are so much in agreement on this particular issue. I think that that's noteworthy.
In terms of government regulation, when the internet first hit the public and political and media radar screen in the early 1990s, the first thing Congress did was to pass a law to try to rein it in. And that's the traditional response to every new medium throughout history. Those of us who celebrate human rights and free speech get very excited, but those who are afraid about too much free speech, you know, reaching too many people get nervous. And I'm very proud that in the Supreme Court's landmark decision, the first one about freedom of speech, or for that matter, any freedom online, it upheld unanimously the ACLU position against government restriction in a case called Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union. I continue to believe that the government can only do more harm than good to intervene in trying to decide what speech is too harmful to take away from private sector entities the same right that you are exercising, Sarah, through The Washington Post, that your prior guests were exercising through The Dispatch, to decide what views to air, what views not to air, what speakers to air, what speakers not to air. I think it's especially dangerous that we--that we have to remember that there are incentives now for the social media platforms to allow third-party voices, people who never would have had access to the kind of outlets that they can have through social media. We have a disposition psychologically, it seems, to always look at the negative. And I think we take for granted the enormous, unprecedented, positive--appealing to my liberal friends and colleagues--I mean, just think of the social justice movements that could never have gotten traction were it not for social media free of government interference--the Black Lives Matter movement, the #MeToo movement, a whole host of political candidates who are relatively unknown, unfunded, minority candidates in unprecedented numbers, female candidates in unprecedented numbers. We cannot lose sight of the enormous positive potential of social media, and we should use the traditional remedies of more speech, more education, more information to counter the negative speech on this medium, as on all others.
MS. ELLISON: We don't have a lot of time left, but I want to ask you about a specific instance, Paul, and it's relevant for January 6th. What about something as specific as Donald Trump's Twitter feed when he was president? And he was talking about how the results of the election were not valid, and he continued to talk about that. What's the right remedy for that specific instance?
MR. CLEMENT: Well, I guess I would--you know, not to sound like a broken record, but I'd go back to the fundamental principle that, you know, Twitter, Facebook, whoever you want to talk about, I mean, they're not--they're not the government. And, you know, if there was some government agency, and you know, they shut down the president or the president's challenger, or you know, the incumbent or the challenger in some election, in the wake of some election, if the government itself did it, I think that would be, you know, profoundly troubling, and we would want to very much err on the side--even if there was a broad consensus, that what the, you know, the person that whose speech was being suppressed, was, you know, incorrect, and even wildly incorrect--I think if it were the government, we would clearly want to err on the side of not allowing the suppression of speech.
But when it comes to private actors, I think we have to recognize that they do have just a different calculus and a different freedom. And if they want to decide that that's not speech that they want to be associated with, that they want to carry, you know, I think that’s--they're entitled to that view. And that view may be controversial. That view may cause some people to want to cancel their accounts with that provider, and it may drive some people to alternative providers. And none of that strikes me as particularly problematic, and none of that--you know, and all of that strikes me as actually quite consistent with First Amendment principles and First Amendment values. And I think it gets back to this fundamental difference that, you know, if a private entity doesn't want to carry speech, that's its right. And if the government wants to suppress speech, that's a serious First Amendment problem.
MS. ELLISON: I'm so sorry to say that we are in fact out of time. I have many more questions for you both, and I know you have a lot more to offer on this topic. But I have to thank you, and I'll let you go this morning. Thank you for joining us.
MS. STROSSEN: Thank you for having us.
MS. ELLISON: So, I’m Sarah Ellison. This is Washington Post Live. Please check out our other programming on WashingtonPostLive.com. You can register for future programs. It’s Sarah Ellison. Thank you very much for joining us for Free to State, and have a great day. | null | null | null | null | null |
Race in America: Voting Rights with Martin Luther King III
The family of Martin Luther King Jr. is calling for “no celebration” on MLK Day if Congress has not passed voting rights legislation. On Friday, Jan. 14 at 1:00 p.m. ET, Martin Luther King III, the late civil rights leader’s eldest son and the chair of the Drum Major Institute, discusses his push around voting rights, what he thinks Congress should do about the filibuster and the lessons from his father’s enduring legacy.
Provided by representatives of Martin Luther King III.
Martin Luther King, III, Chairman of the Drum Major Institute, is the eldest son of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr and has dedicated his life to furthering his father’s message of nonviolent social change. Following in his father’s footsteps, Martin served as the fourth President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference 1997 to 2004, where he led conversations around police brutality. He now serves as the Chairman of the Drum Major Institute, which works to democratize the King legacy and encourage all people to recognize their power in realizing Dr. King’s dream. | null | null | null | null | null |
After snowstorm, thousands in Virginia struggle to stay warm without power: ‘30 degrees in my living room’
“We’re still dealing with the storm from earlier in the week,” she said. “I’m scared it could be even longer for us getting our power back.” In a video Hogan made Thursday morning and posted on social media, she showed herself in her one-bedroom apartment at the motel with her breath puffing in the cold air. She said on the video, “it’s 30 degrees in my living room … Dominion, please, come turn on our power.”
Stafford County, Va., resident Cory Hogan was without power for four days after a major snowstorm hit the Northeast in early January. (Cory Hogan)
D.C. Councilmember Mary Che (Ward 3), who chairs the committee that oversees snow removal, said that based on calls and emails her office received, the city’s Department of Public Works “would get at best a C” on plowing streets after Monday’s storm — a poor mark she believes is warranted because of how long it took to get to some streets, misinformation on the online snow-truck tracker and a lack of enforcement on getting residents and business owners to shovel sidewalks in a timely manner. | null | null | null | null | null |
Opinion: Biden finally says what needs to be said about the ‘big lie’
President Biden delivers remarks on the first anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
We have been far too easy on those who embrace or even simply tolerate this idea, perhaps because it has completely taken over the Republican Party, and we still approach any question on which Republicans and Democrats disagree as though it must be given an evenhanded, both-sides treatment.
That has to end, and what many journalists do — simply point out the fact that Biden won the election when quoting a Republican who says otherwise — is not nearly enough. We have to treat those who claim Trump won in precisely the same way we do those who say the Earth is flat or that Hitler had some good ideas. They are not only deluded, they are either participating in, or at the very least directly enabling, an assault on our system of government with terrifying implications for the future. They are the United States’ enemies. And they have to be treated that way.
Thankfully, Biden appears to have come to understand the urgency of the situation and the importance of calling out Trump directly and not mincing words about his lie. Here’s part of what he said Thursday morning:
You can’t love your country only when you win. You can’t obey the law only when it’s convenient. You can’t be patriotic when you embrace and enable lies. Those who stormed this Capitol, and those who instigated and incited, and those who called on them to do so, held a dagger at the throat of America -- at American democracy. They didn’t come here out of patriotism or principle. They came here in rage. Not in service of America, but rather in service of one man. | null | null | null | null | null |
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) listens as Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) speaks during a business meeting with the select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on Dec. 13, Luria says she is planning to run for reelection. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) announced she would run for reelection in Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District on Thursday — specifically, and deliberately, at 1:46 p.m., exactly a year from the moment Luria was evacuated from her office during the Jan. 6 insurrection and learned police reported pipe bombs had been found on Capitol Hill.
“It’s a very big responsibility and a very big responsibility for our democracy, for my constituents here in the district, and it does motivate me to understand that my service is incredibly important," Luria said in an interview, "and we can’t allow those who would not uphold the rule of law to take over Congress in the future. That really is the foundation of why I’m motivated to continue this service.”
The contest in the 2nd Congressional District is likely to be one of the most closely watched in the nation, as Luria seeks to defend the seat she flipped blue in 2018 while national Republicans pour huge resources into seeking to regain it. The district — still anchored in the historically swing-voter-heavy Virginia Beach after redistricting — remains highly competitive. President Biden would have won the district by under 2 percentage points in 2020. But former president Donald Trump would have won it by 5 points in 2016, according to the Virginia Public Access Project.
The Congressional Leadership Fund — the House GOP’s super PAC — announced this week that it’s backing Virginia Del. Jen Kiggans (R-Virginia Beach), a former Navy helicopter pilot and registered nurse who leads the Republican field in fundraising.
“While I listened to the shouts of the throngs of rioters overrunning the capitol," Luria wrote, "as they attacked both the physical seat of our government and the core foundations of our democracy, I said these words, ‘I don’t recognize our country today and the members of Congress who have supported this anarchy do not deserve to represent their fellow Americans.’ "
Luria, a former Navy commander who lives in Norfolk, was drawn into Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott’s (D) 3rd District and said she was still evaluating the logistics of whether to relocate. But she stressed she also owns a home in Virginia Beach, has run a small business in based in both Virginia Beach and Norfolk, and in her last tour in the Navy commanded a unit in Virginia Beach. Members of Congress aren’t required to live in the districts they represent.
Military issues are likely to feature heavily in the campaign, especially considering the candidates’ military backgrounds. Luria emphasized her work on funding and equipping the military to confront threats abroad including from China — she was one of the first Democrats to support boosting top line military funding by $25 billion despite calls from the liberal wing of the party to slash it.
She has one Democratic challenger in the primary, Neil Smith, who announced his run on Sunday saying he believed competition would be healthy and Democratic voters deserved to have an alternative to Luria. | null | null | null | null | null |
Nick Jensen has been a mainstay on the blue line this season. (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)
“Big picture, everything is what I wanted, if I had to guess,” said Jensen, who is on the third year of his four-year, $10 million extension. “I came in and everything has trended upward for me which is good instead of coming in and slowly trending downward.”
“Now that I have a kid I try to be as happy as I can at home. I can’t go home and bring that to them because that is not fair to them,” Jensen said. His first child — Lorenzo — was born in March 2020. “As far as getting out of it, there is not a secret to it. I believe if you give all your effort every shift eventually you are going to push through.”
“You are the last guy back on the blue line, and if you have the confidence to do it, try to shake and bake a guy at the blue line, that is a pretty good sign … probably right where I find most of my confidence,” Jensen said.
“You saw how much I counted on Nick Jensen last year and how much I relied on him,” Laviolette said. “To see what type of defender he is, to see how much a competitor he is. He is quick and fast and closes hard and is difficult to play against. His skating is excellent and I haven’t noticed a lot of change.” | null | null | null | null | null |
He graduated from Yale University in 1954, served in the Air Force, then in 1960 received a law degree from Columbia University, where he was editor in chief of the law review. He began his legal career as a clerk to Judge E. Barrett Prettyman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and joined Arnold & Porter in 1962.
Away from the office, Mr. Hawke was a lover of opera, Italian Renaissance painting, photography and summers on Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., where he enjoyed fishing. When the bluefish were running and he’d caught enough, he was known to fire up his smoker and soak the blues in a closely-guarded, top secret brine that won awards at Martha’s Vineyard agricultural fairs. | null | null | null | null | null |
Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.) listens as Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) speaks during a meeting with the Jan. 6 committee on Dec. 13. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
A previous version of this article incorrectly referred to Virginia state Sen. Jen A. Kiggans (R-Virginia Beach) as a delegate. The article has been corrected.
Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) announced she would run for reelection in Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District on Thursday — specifically, and deliberately, at 1:46 p.m., exactly a year from the moment Luria was evacuated from her office during the Jan. 6 insurrection and learned that police had reported that pipe bombs were found on Capitol Hill.
“It’s a very big responsibility and a very big responsibility for our democracy, for my constituents here in the district, and it does motivate me to understand that my service is incredibly important,” Luria said in an interview, “and we can’t allow those who would not uphold the rule of law to take over Congress in the future. That really is the foundation of why I’m motivated to continue this service.”
The contest in the 2nd Congressional District is likely to be one of the most closely watched in the nation, as Luria seeks to defend the seat she flipped blue in 2018, while national Republicans pour huge resources into seeking to regain it. The district — still anchored in the historically swing-voter-heavy Virginia Beach after redistricting — remains highly competitive. President Biden would have won the district by under 2 percentage points in 2020. But Donald Trump would have won it by 5 points in 2016, according to the Virginia Public Access Project.
The Congressional Leadership Fund — the House GOP’s super PAC — announced this week that it’s backing Virginia state Sen. Jen A. Kiggans (R-Virginia Beach), a former Navy helicopter pilot and registered nurse who leads the Republican field in fundraising.
“While I listened to the shouts of the throngs of rioters overrunning the capitol,” Luria wrote, “as they attacked both the physical seat of our government and the core foundations of our democracy, I said these words, ‘I don’t recognize our country today and the members of Congress who have supported this anarchy do not deserve to represent their fellow Americans.’ ”
Luria, a former Navy commander who lives in Norfolk, was drawn into Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott’s (D) 3rd District and said she was still evaluating the logistics of whether to relocate. But she stressed she also owns a home in Virginia Beach, has run a small business based in both Virginia Beach and Norfolk, and in her last tour in the Navy commanded a unit in Virginia Beach. Members of Congress aren’t required to live in the districts they represent.
Military issues are likely to feature heavily in the campaign, especially considering the candidates’ military backgrounds. Luria emphasized her work on funding and equipping the military to confront threats abroad including from China — she was one of the first Democrats to support boosting top-line military funding by $25 billion, despite calls from the liberal wing of the party to slash it.
She has one Democratic challenger in the primary, Neil Smith, who announced his run Sunday saying that he believed competition would be healthy and that Democratic voters deserved to have an alternative to Luria. | null | null | null | null | null |
Indeed, he declared: “Proceedings in both chambers [for the counting of electoral votes on Jan. 6] were disrupted for hours — interfering with a fundamental element of American democracy: the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. Those involved must be held accountable, and there is no higher priority for us at the Department of Justice.” He did not confine those remarks to the violence on Jan. 6, but rather echoed the legal theory advanced by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) that Trump may be guilty of “obstruction of Congress,” which would not require proof that Trump is responsible for violence.
Jennifer Rubin: What Merrick Garland should say about Jan. 6
Garland could have been more explicit about the nonviolent elements of the coup attempt that took place before Jan. 6. He did not talk about Donald Trump’s attempts to strong-arm the Georgia secretary of state or to lean on Michigan election officials. He did not discuss the former president’s unacceptable pressure on Justice Department officials to declare the election fraudulent. And he did not talk about schemes to have the vice president violate his oath and stop the electoral vote count, although he did broadly promise to “defend our democratic institutions from attack.” His sweeping pledge to investigate interference in counting electoral votes, at the very least, did not wall-off pre-Jan. 6 as the basis for criminal investigation and prosecution. | null | null | null | null | null |
The scene outside the U.S Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (Shay Horse/NurPhoto/Getty Images)
One year ago today, rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol, set on overturning the results of the 2020 election. Since then, the basic facts of the insurrection have been in contention and democracy itself has remained under siege.
On today’s episode of Post Reports, politics reporters Dan Balz, Roz Helderman and Amy Gardner join guest host Cleve Wootson to discuss how the spirit of the insurrection has seeped into America’s bloodstream.
To hear more about what it was like inside and around the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, check out our award-winning episode, “Four hours of insurrection.” The episode includes interviews with Capitol Police officers, politicians and Post reporters who were at the Capitol that day.
And hear investigative reporter Aaron Davis describe what law enforcement entities knew before the insurrection took place and why they failed to protect the Capitol that day. This story was part of The Post’s landmark Jan. 6 investigation, “The Attack.” | null | null | null | null | null |
The New York Times reportedly will acquire the Athletic. (Don Emmert/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images)
The New York Times reported Thursday that the company reached an agreement to purchase the Athletic, the subscription-based sports journalism start-up, in a deal valued at around $550 million.
The sides reportedly had been in talks for months about an acquisition.
It was seen as an audacious endeavor, fueled by Silicon Valley hubris. In 2017, co-founder Alex Mather promised to “wait every local paper out and let them continuously bleed. We will suck them dry of their best talent at every moment.” Ironically, he made that comment to the New York Times, and he later apologized for the remark.
Nonetheless, the news of late mostly has been about the Athletic’s attempts to market itself to potential buyers such as Axios and the New York Times. Adding the Athletic’s million-plus subscribers will further the Times’s goal of reaching 10 million paid digital-only subscribers by 2025. (As of November, it said it had 8.4 million subscribers, 7.6 million of them digital-only.) In recent years, the Times has purchased a number of other smaller media companies, including Wirecutter and the production company behind the podcast “Serial.” | null | null | null | null | null |
The warning comes as D.C., Maryland and Virginia all reported record highs in inpatient coronavirus hospitalizations on Thursday, according to U.S. Health and Human Services data, which includes confirmed and suspected cases. Virginia has its highest count of inpatients with covid-19 — 3,126 — since mid-January 2021, while Maryland had 3,403 inpatients and D.C. had 847 inpatients, up from record highs set the previous day.
“We’re seeing a lot of individuals that present to the [emergency room] simply not knowing what to do if they get covid. But the reality is many of them don’t need to be in the hospital," Ashley said. "They don’t need to present to the [emergency room], they don’t need to call 911, they don’t need an ambulance to show up to their house, they just need to stay home.”
By Thursday, 32 percent of the nearly 60,000 daily tests conducted statewide were positive, well above the 5 percent threshold the World Health Organization says signals an outbreak is under control. The 10 new testing sites will be at hospitals and operational by the end of next week, Hogan said. Additionally, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the state will open an emergency testing site at St. Agnes Hospital in Baltimore.
The seven-day average of new cases per 100,000 in Maryland was 208.84 on Thursday, down slightly from the previous few days, but still among the highest level it’s been throughout the pandemic. That number was 170.43 in Virginia on Thursday, a record for that state. Updated numbers for the District were not available Thursday afternoon, but the city had recorded a seven-day average of new cases per 100,000 of 299.11 Wednesday, only slightly lower than the record high seen the day before.
The chief physician at the Sentara health care group said the system’s 12 hospitals in Virginia and northeast North Carolina have seen hospitalizations triple during the 10 days after Christmas to more than 600 patients Thursday — the highest total yet during the pandemic.
Patrons can be exempt from the mandate if they provide a medical or religious reason, Bowser said — but those who do will need to also show proof of a negative coronavirus test from within the past 24 hours. Asked about businesses who are concerned about enforcing the mandate, or people becoming hostile toward the new rules, Bowser said the city looking for their best effort and acknowledged some people may try to use the exemptions as a way to bypass the mandate. Officials have also said it’s not incumbent on businesses to prove that a patron’s vaccine card or proof of vaccination is real.
“We’ve seen with this experience with omicron variant how contagious it has been — but also the very different experience people who are vaccinated have — in transmitting the virus and also in becoming very sick or dying," Bowser said. “The vaccine to participate in higher-risk activities is so key to how we keep our businesses open.” | null | null | null | null | null |
Opinion: Why it matters that Pence and his aides may cooperate with the Jan. 6 committee
Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
Mike Pence and his former aides can almost certainly help resolve some of the darkest questions about what Donald Trump and his co-conspirators really envisioned happening on Jan. 6. Which is why it’s surprising that Axios is now reporting that the former vice president and his advisers are being cooperative with the House select committee examining the insurrection.
Among the advisers who have testified are former chief of staff Marc Short and former press secretary Alyssa Farah. According to Axios, Short reportedly would not have done this without Pence’s direct approval.
As Axios reports, Pence’s advisers “have been particularly cooperative” as the committee focuses on what Trump “was doing during the more than three hours the Capitol was under attack.”
That may seem like a no-brainer: Of course Pence and his advisers can shed light on that time period. But if they do, it might help pick the lock on a bunch of other unresolved — and under-appreciated — unknowns about Jan. 6 and the lead-up to it.
Let’s note the obvious: This may be a leak designed to make Pence and his advisers appear more cooperative than they’re actually being. But it’s worth pointing out that such a leak would put them in the crosshairs of Trump and right-wing media, not to mention others refusing cooperation with the committee, such as former Trump advisers Mark Meadows and Stephen K. Bannon, who are being hailed on the right for their heroic resistance.
Be that as it may, what makes this truly interesting is what the committee really wants to know from Pence and his confidantes.
First, let’s recall an under-appreciated but important fact: As the violence raged, Pence adamantly refused entreaties by his security detail to be removed from the Capitol.
The committee plainly wants to know what Pence feared might happen if he did leave the premises. Note that back in August, the committee requested from the National Archives all documents and communications regarding Pence’s “movements and protection” on that day, an apparent effort to shed light on that question (among other things).
It is likely Pence feared that if he were removed, Trump and his co-conspirators might somehow manage to secure a delay in the count of electors. Remember, Trump and consigliere Rudolph W. Giuliani pressured at least one GOP senator to keep seeking the delay while the violence continued.
That would have been central to executing the scheme that had apparently been put in motion. Securing a delay was pivotal to getting a few states to revisit their vote tallies and, hopefully, send new presidential electors. It would be useful to know from Pence how far he feared this might get if he were removed.
Second, there has been a great deal of confusion around just how Pence responded to the long pressure campaign on him to abuse his official role on Jan. 6 to refuse to count Joe Biden’s electors. This, too, was meant to secure that delay.
Let’s underscore that achieving this delay was at the heart of the procedural coup attempt. Recall that a Senate report released in October detailed that a Trump co-conspirator at the Justice Department tried to get an official department letter sent to multiple states won by Biden, pressuring them to hold special sessions to consider appointing alternate electors.
That fizzled, and the pressure on Pence to secure that delay continued.
On Jan. 6, Pence announced that he would not go along with the scheme. A big question is whether, this having been established, Trump and his allies came to see the violence as an instrumental way of securing the delay that Pence had refused to execute.
Hearing from Pence and his advisers on this point would be highly illuminating, to say the least.
Pence has tried to create the impression that he adamantly resisted the pressure on him to abuse his role in that way. But subsequent reporting from The Post’s Bob Woodward and Robert Costa has poked holes in this story: He did apparently try to find a way to execute that scheme, even discussing it with former vice president Dan Quayle, before concluding he could not.
It’s clear that the committee wants to establish just how seriously Pence and his advisers considered this scheme. If Pence had carried it out, it’s not clear what would have happened, but we probably would have lurched into a sustained constitutional crisis.
What all these unknowns have in common is this: Filling them in will shed a lot more light on just how close we came to a much worse meltdown than even the one we did live through. There may be no one who can illuminate that with more clarity than Pence and his advisers. | null | null | null | null | null |
Opinion: Delegations to Congress must represent the voters
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) shows a crossed out congressional map that he vetoed last month after the General Assembly approved it. (Brian Witte/AP)
Regarding Richard B. Karel’s Jan. 2 Local Opinions essay, “Maryland’s gerrymandering is not shocking — or wrong”:
Maryland’s gerrymandering has been a sore point for me since the redistricting of a decade ago.
Maryland’s 6th Congressional District, which covered mostly rural (and mostly Republican) Western Maryland, was redrawn to include parts of considerably less rural (and considerably more Democratic) Montgomery County, thus eliminating a Republican from Maryland’s delegation to Congress, which former governor Martin O’Malley admitted was the intent. This redistricting was brought to Maryland voters as a referendum on the November 2012 ballot (Question 5), but that year there were two other issues that received far more media attention: marriage equality (Question 6) and in-state tuition for “dreamers” (Question 4). Question 5, although it affected every voter in the state, was completely lost in the shuffle, and the manner in which the question was worded was not at all clear on the impact it would have.
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) is, perhaps, a hypocrite for not condemning partisan gerrymandering that favors Republicans. But that doesn’t mean that exacerbating Maryland’s gerrymandering to move Democratic-leaning Annapolis into the Republican leaning 1st District isn’t wrong. It is wrong. Disenfranchising voters on any basis is wrong. Gerrymandering in State X to benefit Party A does not justify gerrymandering in State Y to benefit Party B.
As a lifelong Republican, I’m distressed by how far the GOP has been driven off the rails by extremists, and I’m not a particular fan of likely soon-to-be-unseated Rep. Andy Harris. But for good or for ill, state delegations to Congress must represent the voters in their state and not serve as pawns in national partisan politics.
Cynthia D. Brandt Campagna, | null | null | null | null | null |
Opinion: Ending the war in Ethiopia
Filsan Abdi poses for a portrait at a hotel in Nairobi on Dec. 28, 2021. (Luis Tato/For The Washington Post)
Much of the humanitarian issue in the region is due to the lack of agency held by soldiers of either side, and that has led to general hatred for innocent Tigrayans. But that is who the Tigray People’s Liberation Front claims to represent, so this much is horrible but impossible to avoid. How can the current administration hold its citizens responsible for their attitudes when doing so comes with a risk of little to no change and a division between this newly established democracy and every citizen?
The good intentions with which the article seemed to have been written will not make up for the tragedy Ms. Filsan’s proposals could carry. The most immediate way to end this abuse of power by both militaries and go on to repair the relationships between the Tigray and other ethnic groups of Ethiopia is to end this civil war.
Ebenezer Amare, Woodbridge | null | null | null | null | null |
The ‘Putin Doctrine’ Becomes Clear in Ukraine and Kazakhstan
By Hal Brands | Bloomberg
For most Westerners, the news that Russia has sent troops to quell a popular uprising in Kazakhstan may seem like a minor event in a far corner of the world. But seen in the context of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s rule, and of his coercion of Ukraine, it takes on a more sinister significance. Thirty years after the Soviet collapse ushered in the post-Cold War era, Putin has articulated a vision — call it the Putin Doctrine — meant to bring that era decisively to a close.
Putin’s vision is most evident from the draft treaties his government proposed as its price for not (again) invading Ukraine. Those proposals amount to a demand for an internationally acknowledged Russian sphere of interest encompassing the former Soviet Union and much of Eastern Europe.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization would be required to cease all further expansion to the east, and to foreswear assistance to countries, such as Ukraine, that are presently outside the alliance. It would have to severely circumscribe training and exercises in areas that Moscow deems sensitive, and refrain from deploying American nuclear weapons anywhere in Europe. Most striking, it would have to commit to leaving the Eastern European countries that joined the alliance after 1997 virtually defenseless.
The upshot would be a badly weakened NATO and an Eastern Europe in which countries must defer to Russian wishes or suffer the consequences.
Putin’s demands have led to suggestions that he is a 19th-century man living in the 21st century. In reality, coercion and geopolitical aggrandizement never really go out of style. Yet Putin is indeed trying to turn back the clock by rolling back the post-Cold War order.
After the Soviet collapse, the animating theme of U.S. policy was promotion of an expanding liberal international order that would relegate autocratic spheres of influence to history. Within Europe, America sought a continent whole, free and at peace — one in which all countries could choose their own geopolitical alignments and political systems.
This vision combined soaring idealism with cold strategic calculus. It was meant to allow the countries of Eastern Europe to determine their own fates after decades, or even centuries, of subordination to larger powers. At the same time, allowing former Soviet allies or even countries that had once been part of the Soviet Union to join NATO would strengthen Washington’s hand in any future confrontation with Russia.
This project reached its apogee between 2003 and 2005, when NATO completed its second and largest round of post-Cold War expansion and “color revolutions” replaced corrupt rulers with Western-leaning leaders in Georgia and Ukraine. In retrospect, however, this was also when a once-prostrate Russia began recovering its geopolitical strength, and when Putin began pushing back.
The Russian leader gave fair warning at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, in an angry tirade accusing a hegemonic America of overstepping boundaries in Europe and beyond. The same year, Russian hackers launched a major cyberattack in Estonia after its government removed a Soviet-era monument — a symbolic reminder that the Baltic states could not so easily escape their past. In the years since, Putin has developed a multipronged approach to restoring Russia’s dominance in its “near abroad.”
The modernization of a once-decrepit military gave Putin the ability to prevent nearby states from drifting into the Western orbit: In 2008 and 2014, Moscow vivisected Georgia and then Ukraine when they appeared to be slipping away. Russia has simultaneously used cyberattacks, disinformation and other destabilization programs to keep vulnerable neighbors in disarray, and to undermine the institutions — NATO and the European Union — that Putin sees as encroaching on his flank.
Putin also formed the Eurasian Economic Union, a free-trade pact of five members including Kazakhstan, as a way of binding former Soviet states to Moscow, and invested more heavily in the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a loose military alliance with similar motives. Putin has accompanied these measures with ideological and historical justifications for coercing small states. In 2021, he published an essay arguing that Ukraine is an artificial entity with no right to political or geopolitical autonomy.
As all of this indicates, the Putin Doctrine has become more assertive over time. A country whose influence recoiled rapidly after the Cold War is now calling for a bipolar division of Europe and using force along its periphery.
Whether the Putin Doctrine will succeed is another question. Putin grabbed large chunks of eastern Ukraine in 2014 but drove the western half of the country toward a NATO that was finally getting serious about defending its eastern members. Today, Finland and Sweden are openly flirting with joining, or at least moving closer to NATO if Russia once again invades Ukraine. The U.S. has warned that it would respond to a Russian attack by putting more military assets in Eastern Europe, in addition to imposing economic sanctions.
These costs may not deter Putin, who appears ever-more committed to breaking the resistance of Ukraine and unraveling the post-Cold War order in Eastern Europe. But the chief legacy of the Putin Doctrine could be ironic: The harder Russia pushes to restore a sphere of influence, the more strategically encircled it will become.
Hal Brands is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, the Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Most recently, he is the co-author of “The Lessons of Tragedy: Statecraft and World Order.” | null | null | null | null | null |
911 call from fatal car crash involving WFT’s Deshazor Everett provides details of accident
Washington Football Team defensive back Deshazor Everett (22) during the second half of an NFL football game against the Las Vegas Raiders, Sunday, Dec. 5, 2021, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/Rick Scuteri)
When the dispatcher asked if the person in the car was out of the vehicle, the man responded: “I cannot tell. I think he has gone into like the thick woods or something like that.” She followed up by asking if anyone was thrown from the vehicle and the witness said: “I don’t think so. I don’t believe so. I think they were just trapped inside.”
Soon after, the other male witness is heard in the background saying: “He’s like all the way in the ditch,” before pleading: “Just get somebody. Just get some help.”
The second witness then got on the call and told the dispatcher directly that the driver is trapped in the vehicle. After reassuring him that help was on the way, the dispatcher tried to get more information about the driver, but the second witness told her that he didn’t know if the driver was injured.
The witness said that he was in his own car at the time of the accident and that Everett was driving behind him, so he wasn’t able to see what happened with Everett’s car. As the dispatcher updated him that responders were nearing the location, the witness yelled to others in the background, “They’re here, they’re here,” before again urging the dispatcher, “Please tell him to hurry. Please tell him to hurry.”
As she informed him that “at least six units” of responders were coming, the witness is heard saying to someone, “They’re out? … Okay, the girl is out of the car. Is he out of the car?” A voice in the background told him he wasn’t sure, and the second man, while still on with the dispatcher, said: “Okay, can you go make sure he’s okay, out of the car?”
After hearing the conversation in the background, the dispatcher asked how many people were in the vehicle and the second witness said, “It was him and his girlfriend.” He added that one person was trapped inside.
Moments later, sirens can be heard in the background and he told the dispatcher: “They see me, they see me.”
Peters, the longtime girlfriend of Everett and an occupational therapist from Montgomery County, Md., was taken to StoneSprings Hospital where she was pronounced dead.
Everett was transported to Reston Hospital Center and later released, according to Coach Ron Rivera. He was placed on Washington’s reserve/non-football injury list, ending his season, but on Tuesday was moved to the reserve/covid-19 list after testing positive for the coronavirus. The extent of his injuries from the crash is unclear.
Thursday afternoon, Everett issued his first public comments since the accident, tweeting: “Thank you for all of your prayers, continue to pray for Olivia’s family and me. Thank you all Folded hands #Live4Liv”
“It’s hard,” safety Kam Curl said the week after the accident. “ … It’s an impact when he’s not in the building because you look forward to seeing ‘Shaze every day. It’s hard but you gotta stay positive, pray for him.”
Everett’s attorney, Kaveh Noorishad of the Northern Virginia-based firm Noorishad Law, P.C., released a statement Wednesday regarding the accident: | null | null | null | null | null |
Transcript: Jan. 6: One Year Later with Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.)
MS. ALEMANY: Good afternoon, and welcome to Washington Post Live. I’m Jackie Alemany, a congressional correspondent and author of the Early 202, The Post’s early morning political newsletter. Today we’re going to focus on the one-year anniversary of the attack on the U.S. Capitol and the congressional investigation of that insurrection. My guest is Illinois Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger, one of two Republicans on that January 6th Committee.
Welcome back to Washington Post Live, Congressman Kinzinger. Always good to have you on.
REP. KINZINGER: Yeah, thanks. Good to be with you. Thanks for having me.
MS. ALEMANY: President Biden went after Donald Trump this morning in a pretty forceful speech. He denounced the web of lies spread by Trump and his supporters. Will Republicans and your colleagues embrace President Biden’s characterization today of the January 6th riot, and should they?
REP. KINZINGER: Well, certainly they should. Will they? Probably not, at least not in the near-term future. I mean, I think we have to look at this and say who's the audience?
And you know, I very recently have had to come to the realization that, look, 60-70 percent of my party is going to believe that Donald Trump won the election. And even if they don't believe it, it's become a political identity, and a political identity has become a personal identity. And to lose your personal identity is a scary thing for a lot of people. So, I don't know if it's going to change their mind.
But the thing I am heartened by, in a time of real disheartening times, is the fact that still over 60-70 percent of Americans--it should be 100--recognize that Joe Biden did win, and that's the kind of margins you need to keep winning elections to put bulwarks down. I thought the president's speech was necessary. I thought, you know, going after a former president is obviously rare, but necessary, particularly with an ongoing crisis. I just don't know if it's going to change my colleagues’ minds, because they already know that January 6th was what it was, and they know that Joe Biden won. They just don't say it.
MS. ALEMANY: So, do you believe that Biden's address was constructive to the political dialogue?
REP. KINZINGER: Yeah, I mean, I think there's going to be people that are ticked off by it, but those are the people that, you know, when you expose lies, when you expose conspiracy, it's uncomfortable for them. I think it was necessary, because we cannot accept what is happening as a nation. The president, whether you voted for him or not, speaks on behalf of the nation. And so I think it was necessary, constructive to an extent. But I think we live in such polarized times that the idea of really shifting polls one way or another is not going to be the case. What we have to look at--and this is a real focus of the January 6th Committee--is how does history record this in five and 10 years. And that's why a full accounting, as well as holding people responsible is so important, as well as identifying the rot that led to this moment.
MS. ALEMANY: And I want to get to the House Select Committee investigating the insurrection, which I've been covering since its inception in July. Chairman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the committee, said he wants former Vice President Mike Pence to volunteer before the committee. Are you preparing for Pence to cooperate, and what would that look like, exactly? An interview? Written questions?
REP. KINZINGER: I think it would be--I mean, I would love to have an interview with the vice president. Maybe it's written questions. I think the vice president obviously knows a lot. He had direct conversations with Donald Trump. He was there on January 6th. I'm sure he would have been privy to some number of potentially discussions prior to January 6th. And so, his cooperation will certainly be helpful if it comes through. A lot of--as it's been widely reported, you know, he has some former staff members that have been helpful. And I think the key with all of this is, you know, we can get focused and channelized on specific people. And I understand that, and it’s important. But there's over 300, as we well know, people that we've already interviewed, that we have information from, each bringing a piece of the puzzle. And the key now is to look down at this whole scrambled, you know, pile of puzzle pieces that we have and put it together and make a picture.
MS. ALEMANY: Critics of the committee argue that it hasn't uncovered any new information that isn't already publicly known. If they're wrong, can you give us an example of something new that the committee has uncovered as a part of the investigation that you think is important for the public to know?
REP. KINZINGER: Yeah, I don't want to get ahead of the committee in terms of information that's not out there in the public. But there's a lot of things, for instance, as we see, just I think, you know, really headline grabbing is Fox News hosts’ texts, not just post-insurrection but pre-insurrection, expressing concern--Sean Hannity expressing concern for what's going to happen with January 6th.
Here's the trick, though, of kind of the Trumpist, we'll call them, is no matter what information we put out, they'll say this is old information. It's Donald Trump's oldest trick in the book, where if he says something outright, it certainly can't be a scandal because he said it. Or if he didn't say it, and information comes out, you just repeat it and say, yeah, that's old information or something is a partisan witch hunt. We've been through this a hundred times. That's his tactics.
But the truth is, I think the vast majority of the American people want to know what we uncover. Because, look, again, we can look today on the anniversary of January 6th--and it's important and mourn the event of January 6th. But what has changed? I'll tell you, the only thing that's changed is people have gotten more hardened in their political corners, politicians have gotten even more cowardice in terms of speaking out. And quite honestly, the one thing that concerns me the most is January 6th taught a lesson. It taught a lesson of what not to do and what to do. You see the linchpins of what could change an election outcome, or at least create a constitutional crisis in 2024, which is why we need to take a look at the Electoral Count Act in seriousness and get that fixed.
MS. ALEMANY: And you just mentioned that you don't think that the committee necessarily must hear from the former Vice President Mike Pence. You've also said previously that you didn't think it was necessary to hear from former President Trump directly. Do you feel like the committee has a sufficient amount of new information to move forward to make your case, or do you feel like there are some--still some key missing pieces?
REP. KINZINGER: I feel like personally, if we had to make the case today, we could do it. There's still some pieces we'd like to get, particularly Archives pieces, more interviews with people. I think the reason with, when you talk about Donald Trump or Mike Pence is, we have--so far this has been a--and it will continue to be--a very nonpartisan committee, not just bipartisan. It's nonpartisan. I think history will write down not just the events of January 6th, but the fact that this is a Select Committee that really is working in unison, and together. You can imagine how much--how chaotic it would be if there were people trying to gum up the works of legitimate investigation. And so, you know, as this thing goes on, I think we'll get more and more information. But the key to this--since we're obviously not looking--it doesn't mean we can't do criminal referrals. We need to be clear about that. But this isn't a criminal investigation. It's an investigation for accountability, to figure out what we need to do to prevent it from happening again. And I think laying that out in front of the American people is going to be essential. And even if somebody doesn't want to read it, their kids will someday.
MS. ALEMANY: Well, on the topic of criminal referrals, you've said that you thought a really important question and key to being able to flesh out a potential criminal referral for the former president would be finding out what Trump knew exactly prior to the insurrection and the breach by pro-Trump supporters of the Capitol. Do you think that question has been answered? Do you have sufficient information, do you think, at this point, to move forward with some criminal referrals?
REP. KINZINGER: Well, you know, I'm one of the few--well, I guess there's a handful of us on the committee that aren't lawyers--so to reach a threshold of, you know, can--is this a criminal referral, I don't know. And we have time to continue to get more and more information. And one of the things I'm interested in, which we have more work to do on that front, is, what is the role of foreign governments in this, whether it's misinformation online, spreading misinformation? Is there any money that ended up that organized this from foreign governments? That's going to be important as well.
But, you know, in terms of reaching that threshold, I'll leave that up to the lawyers. But the bottom line is, we deserve these answers. We deserve the truth. And from Donald Trump, for that 180 minutes that he was sitting in the dining room watching television, we can say in the best-case scenario that he was frozen by indecision, which we know he's very indecisive. So, could that be realistic? Maybe. We also could--and I think this is more realistic, although I’ll let the facts bear that out--he could have been gleefully excited about what was happening. And his call to Kevin McCarthy, where he says, well, they seem to be more concerned about election fraud than you are, that would lead some at least anecdotal evidence to that. But if the president knew that violence was either going to happen, or could potentially happen on January 6th, and went ahead with his speech, where he said, we're going to march down to the Capitol, we have to fight, those kinds of words have now a different meaning. And the lawyers in the Justice Department will have to figure out where that leads to culpability, again, taking into account we still have a lot more information to get, particularly calls the president made, visitor logs, et cetera, that we could hopefully get with the with the Archive records.
MS. ALEMANY: Do you feel like the committee has the fullest picture possible of the 187 minutes that Trump was paralyzed by indecision, the time from when violence at the Capitol started to when he finally put out his first tweet?
REP. KINZINGER: No, we don't have that full picture. And you know, we may never get that full picture, because, again, there may be moments when he was by himself--in fact, could be a lot of moments when he was by himself. But we can get a pretty good idea of who has – who communicated to him, maybe an order he needed to give, or what did he communicate back. Every person that we interview that may be able to shed light on some part of this, whether it's talking to somebody who talked to him, any of those things will come together in this piece that people smarter than me will be able to lay out in a story, in a evidentiary trail, that'll be very important.
But I think one thing we do know--and this is an important question not just for January 6th accountability, I think for every member of government going forward--is what is the purpose of your oath? Okay? You take an oath to the Constitution, to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Is that just words we say? Is it meaningless? And maybe it is to some people. I have a feeling it is to some people. It's simply something you have to utter to get your job, particularly in Congress lately, it seems like. But when the president takes that oath, and then certainly abdicated that oath for at least three hours--now, I would argue that you could go all the way back to prior to the election, where the president was casting doubt on the election, and then certainly, after the election--look to self-govern, we need one basic thing. We don't have to agree on anything at all, except for one basic thing, that when you vote, your vote is going to count, and the results are going to be accurate. We do that really well in the United States. When you convince almost half of the country that that didn't happen, you set yourself, guaranteed, on a path to violence, because as you've seen in authoritarian regimes and in democracies, everywhere around the world and in history, if you believe your voice has been taken away, which is what our vote is, that's really the only time we actually get a voice in government. When you believe that has been taken away, it is just a matter of time until you turn to violence.
MS. ALEMANY: And, Congressman Kinzinger, you mentioned the issue of foreign interference being at play here in the leadup to January 6th. What countries, exactly, were trying to interfere?
REP. KINZINGER: Well, I can't give that information yet. I think when we look at misinformation, the role it's played, the chaos that has ensued, not particular to January 6th--because, again, I don't want to get ahead of what we report, if and when we do on this subject--but if you look at the 2016 election, the 2018 election, you look at chaos with COVID--I mean, there's--straight up we know that, you know, probably many of us got that text message at the beginning of COVID that said so and so has somebody that they know in government that said there's going to be a nationwide government shutdown in 48 hours, and it created some panic. And I had probably 50 people text me, you know, have you talked to DHS? What that does, we know for a fact that that was actually incited by both China and Russia. And so I think it is safe to say without revealing anything that we know, it is safe to say that China and Russia, without necessarily even picking sides, benefit, in their mind at least, from chaos. And so there's a lot of incentive for them to create chaos. They've made it clear.
And the thing we have to grapple with as a free and open society--I don't know if we're capable of grappling with this right now as divided as we are--is what is First Amendment protected speech? Is it really First Amendment protected speech to--for a commander in chief to lie? Is it protected speech to incite violence and incite riot? And since we have such a free and open society, and Russia and China don't, are we fighting on a level playing field if we can't fight back with our own information? Those are things we have to grapple with that I don't have the answers to, and I certainly hope we can get to a point where we're grown up enough that we recognize that each other is not the enemy. You can really dislike each other certainly in politics, but we're fighting real competitors, real enemies out there that would seek to do us real harm.
MS. ALEMANY: And I want to get to the topic of interview requests and outstanding potential subpoenas that the committee might have. Late Tuesday the committee shared text messages that Fox News’ Sean Hannity was sending to Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows before, during, and after the riot. Is Hannity cooperating with the committee?
REP. KINZINGER: He hasn't cooperated yet. We'd love him to, obviously. We will see what position he takes. I'm sure he's going to try to claim a First Amendment, you know, freedom of press situation. Of course, he has called himself not a journalist. And a question probably more for you and other journalists is, at what point do you go from being a journalist to an advocate, particularly when you're finding one side of the debate and advocating and advising them, et cetera. So, the committee will pursue everything we need to on that. I think it's a--it's a very intriguing part of this investigation, and certainly not all of it. But I think that'll say a lot. I think when, you know, the Supreme Court takes up the Archives case, I hope they expedite it. They really should, and we can get that adjudicated and see, you know, a lot of the documents of which I don't even remember what all the requests were with the--with the Archives, but see the information. By the way, with Archives, that's the American people's stuff. That's why it goes to the Archive. So, we're not asking for Donald Trump to open Mar-a-Lago and give us his bin of personal effects. This is the American people's stuff.
MS. ALEMANY: Will you see cooperation from other Fox News personalities, people like Laura Ingram, or Brian Kilmeade, who were also in touch with Mark Meadows on that day?
REP. KINZINGER: I can't answer that, because I don't know the depth of that involvement. I only know some of the--I don't have all of the evidence that I've seen with--in terms of their involvement. I'll tell you this, if it's necessary, if it will add to the investigation, and if we can do it in a right way, we certainly will. There is--there is going to be no stone left unturned. And I think, you know, the interesting thing at the beginning of this committee, we started to have people question, well, what are you guys doing? We're not seeing much. And of course, we didn't do hearings at the beginning. We had the one and that's it.
But if you look at what this investigation is, it's kind of this iceberg theory--right?--where you’re seeing a little bit of it, but most of the work is underneath. And I think we'll start to see that. We’re potentially going to do very public hearings here in the next month or so, where it's important to lay that information out for people. So, we're looking forward to that. Because, again, telling that story is important. But I think it's also important to recognize when we go through kind of selective leaks, drip drip drip, new information kind of every day, the American people naturally tune that out. And that's what we don't want, is for the horror of the day of January 6th and the horror of what was done to the leadup and post, we don't want that to end up going over callous fears and giving credence to again when the president--former president likes to say, oh, this is old information, because it's certainly not.
MS. ALEMANY: And requests for information and interviews for--from Congressman Scott Perry and Jim Jordan to people who were involved with the operation to overturn the results of the election and were also in touch with President Trump on January 6th were made a few weeks ago, but they have rebuffed the requests. At least Scott Perry has. Jim Jordan was a little bit milquetoast about it. Where do those requests stand? And will the committee move forward with subpoenas in order to get them to comply with the investigation?
REP. KINZINGER: So, what's the latest, I don't necessarily have an update on. I'm sure that now that we're kind of back from the holidays, there'll be some movements and probably some news out of that in the next, I don't know, week is a guess. But I don't know. And I think it's important. There's a lot of nuance in terms of what can Congress do to subpoena fellow congressman, what can they require him to say. It's not a matter of protecting our own. It's really constitutional questions. That's what we're wading through right now.
I'm of the firm belief that being a member of Congress does not protect you from the DOJ. It certainly doesn't protect you from an inquiry of Congress. We have an Ethics Committee, as an example, that looks into ethics, potential ethics violations every day. We can police ourselves on those things. We have to. And so in my mind, we need this information. And we need to--we need it pretty ricky-tick, because if members of Congress knew what was going to happen, or if they had an inkling of what was going to happen, that's important, both from an election perspective--because their voters have to reelect them or not--but that is important for the future of the institution. Because one of the things, Jackie, that concerns me--and you know that institution well--when you violate a norm, you know, when people watch C-SPAN or they watch us if they cover anything live when we call each other the gentleman or the gentlewoman, you know, and we have all these kind of what seem to be antiquated things, there's a reason, because that is all in place to take the passions of America that exist out there and distill that into a building called the Capitol which we should hold in reverence and I fear was really damaged on January 6. And then we distill that into persuasive arguments, and those persuasive arguments let the steam out of the passion and come to solutions.
When that is being violated, when 147 members of the Republican Party vote against certifying an election, which was unheard of--I mean, you always had one or two that did it in the past to make a point--you know, the problem is in 2024, if the Republicans lose again, are those 147 members, whoever of those that are left, are they going to be able to turn around and now recertify an election? Is the new base going to be that if you're truly a conservative, you can't certify an election? And every norm that is violated, degenerates a place meant to actually distill really, really intense passions. And if members of Congress are involved in that, we have to know so we can take disciplinary action, and also so that potentially DOJ could do their thing with it.
MS. ALEMANY: What evidence has the committee seen so far about current members of Congress aiding or abetting, or who might have simply been in touch with those who participated in the riot?
REP. KINZINGER: You're really good, and I wish I could give you some good information that, you know, hasn't been reported. But again, I have to say, I don't want to get out ahead of the committee on that. We do have a lot of work to do. I can look at what's out there in open source, though, and talk about, you know, Lauren Boebert live tweeting the location of the speaker. Normally saying, you know, the speaker is taken out of the chamber, or the speakers, you wouldn't think anything about it. Except that morning she tweeted, today is 1776. What was in 1776? The revolution, right? And it harkens to--and this is what's important for people that may not be in the right wing kind of media or social ecosystem, is there's been building--which is why I think it's going to take a long time to come out of this--there has been building for a long time what started as legitimate grievances, some of them saying, okay, you know, George W. Bush's National Guard memo, things like that, that are fake that are reported, we don't compete in a fair media environment. I remind my Republican colleagues that we still won half or more of the elections in that environment.
But what happened is, is then was used, that little piece of kind of unfairness was used by profit hogs. And that's what these--you know, these kind of flame-throwing podcasters, radio hosts that do nothing but stir up an anger. You know, Rush Limbaugh at least was open about saying I'm an entertainer. Some of these now pretend like they're not entertainers. They are profit making money. And what happened is, over time, what started as maybe a legitimate grievance grew into illegitimate grievances, and that's where we're sitting today. And you have a whole host of people that believe they'll never get a fair shake, who believe the system is rigged against them. And I would implore my Democratic colleagues to find your allies that you have. We have to have a natural alliance, an unnatural alliance at the moment. If you look at opposition movements against authoritarianism all through history, you can track whether they'll fail or whether they'll succeed by whether people with very different views can work together for a limited amount of time. That's the moment we're in right now. And I think that's yet to be answered.
MS. ALEMANY: How much cooperation have you received from members of Congress who have voluntarily come forward to provide information?
REP. KINZINGER: As far as I know, not much. You know, I think what we get from people that maybe not--I guess I don't want to call them targets, because I think there's a legal term for that--but you know, people we're interested in talking to are--a lot of what you're going to get are people that maybe have stories from the day or whatever. We've heard them. That's important to hear. It's important for people to come in with particular expertise, I think of my friend, Denver Riggleman. He's a former member of Congress. But he came in. He worked in intel and the radicalization issues in the Air Force. He's been extremely helpful in some of this online stuff that's occurring. So yeah, that kind of information can come in. But in terms of the people that we’re interested in and saying that they have a role, you know, did they know, obviously I think it's pretty evident that they wouldn't--they wouldn't be super eager to cooperate with us. But you know, look, it's--I like to remind people anytime they think this committee is unfair, which is I think ironic, because it's actually one of the--it is the most nonpartisan probably committee in existence of this Congress. But when they say that, I remind people that, at Kevin McCarthy's behest, John Katko negotiated a January 6th Commission that was made of former members that, you know, didn't have a political motive, evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, and they voted it down. And I think they hopefully regret that now, because it's going to be very damaging.
MS. ALEMANY: And, Congressman, we only have five more minutes. So, I'm going to try to squeeze in as many questions as possible. But I want to talk a little bit about the final products of the committee. Can you speak to what exactly the public hearings are going to look like? I know they're currently under discussion still. But are they going to feature live witnesses providing testimony, video footage? Can you describe what the American public should expect?
REP. KINZINGER: Yeah, it hasn’t taken a final formation, so I'm not going to be speaking with any, you know, amazing knowledge about what's going to happen. But I can foresee the use of multimedia, the use of the videos as important because it brings the emotion and the picture of the moment. You look at what we did with the first hearing where, you know, you have these people telling their stories. We recognize that this is less about going in and particularly gathering information necessary, and as much about telling the American people the story. So maybe people involved in that day and maybe people that have some expertise on radicalization or things that they saw occurring, you know, on the lead up to January 6th.
What we don't want to do is bore people. And I don't mean that from the perspective of this is entertainment. I mean it from the perspective of we have to continue to get people's attention for something, because we could afford as a country to move on from January 6th had we taken full accountability for it. But the conditions that led to it, I would argue not only aren't even gone; the conditions are even more fertile for something like this to happen again in 2024. So and the final product, again, we don't want a very long, boring thing that nobody reads. I think the 9/11 Commission put out a report that opened with talking about failures of imagination, and that caught a lot of people's attention.
MS. ALEMANY: And two final quick questions for you. Are there any other--are there any other legislative proposals being discussed to update and strengthen our constitutional guardrails other than the Electoral Vote Count Act? And how are you going to change minds for the--that subset of people who do not believe that the committee should exist and who have bought into the whitewashing of what happened on January 6th?
REP. KINZINGER: Well, the way to change their mind is, I think, constant streams of truth. You know, as a regular Sunday schooler attender as a kid, I learned that the greatest disinfectant to lies and conspiracy is truth. And it may take some time. I don't think anybody purposely wants to be misled. But when you have bought your identity as your political affiliation--and by the way, it's a stupidest thing to make friends off of, is what they believe in politics. I mean, make friends with somebody you enjoy getting a beer with, not somebody that has the same political views, because that forces you into a box where you can't change. I look at that kind of stuff and say, you know, it's going to take time for some of those people to come around. I'm okay with it. I'm going to fight hard even when I'm out of Congress, mercifully out of Congress in a year. I have this movement, Country First, country1st.com, focused on telling people about the importance of primaries, et cetera. And so that's going to be important. But I think I've missed what was the first part of your question?
MS. ALEMANY: Any other legislative proposals outside of the updating the Electoral Vote Count Act?
REP. KINZINGER: No. And I think that's going to be essential for the--for the moment. I also think it's essential to make people aware of the attack that's happening on lower-level officials, whether they're secretaries of state, whether--you know, Brad Raffensperger in Georgia, love him or hate him, he needs to win. And I fully support him, because he has stood for truth in the--in the midst of, you know, really relentless attacks. There are some people that won't, and there are some people that this movement is trying to install that would do nothing but actually help them. That's going to be the most important in the near term.
MS. ALEMANY: Unfortunately, we are all out of time. We're going to have to leave it there. But we hope you'll come back soon and join us again.
REP. KINZINGER: Anytime. Thanks, good talking to you.
MS. ALEMANY: Thanks, Congressman. Really appreciate it.
I’m Jackie Alemany. As always, thanks for watching. To check out what interviews we have coming up, please head to WashingtonPostLive.com to register and find out more information about all upcoming programming. And tune in at 3:45 today for another interview with a member of the January 6th Select Committee, Chairman Bennie Thompson. Thanks so much. | null | null | null | null | null |
“We’re seeing a lot of individuals that present to the [emergency room] simply not knowing what to do if they get covid. But the reality is many of them don’t need to be in the hospital,” Ashley said. “They don’t need to present to the [emergency room], they don’t need to call 911, they don’t need an ambulance to show up to their house, they just need to stay home.”
By Thursday, 32 percent of the nearly 60,000 daily tests conducted statewide were positive, well above the 5 percent threshold the World Health Organization says signals an outbreak is under control. The 10 new testing sites will be at hospitals and operational by the end of next week, Hogan said. Additionally, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the state will open an emergency testing site at Saint Agnes Hospital in Baltimore.
The seven-day average of new cases per 100,000 in Maryland was 208.84 on Thursday, down slightly from the previous few days, but still among the highest level it’s been throughout the pandemic. That number was 170.43 in Virginia on Thursday, a record for that state. Updated numbers for the District were not available Thursday afternoon, but the city had recorded a seven-day average of new cases per 100,000 of 299.11 on Wednesday, only slightly lower than the record high seen the day before.
The chief physician at the Sentara Healthcare group said the system’s 12 hospitals in Virginia and northeast North Carolina have seen hospitalizations triple during the 10 days after Christmas to more than 600 patients Thursday — the highest total yet during the pandemic.
Patrons can be exempt from the mandate if they provide a medical or religious reason, Bowser said — but those who do will need to also show proof of a negative coronavirus test from within the past 24 hours. Asked about businesses who are concerned about enforcing the mandate, or people becoming hostile toward the new rules, Bowser said the city is looking for their best effort and acknowledged some people may try to use the exemptions as a way to bypass the mandate. Officials have also said it’s not incumbent on businesses to prove that a patron’s vaccine card or proof of vaccination is real.
“We’ve seen with this experience with omicron variant how contagious it has been — but also the very different experience people who are vaccinated have — in transmitting the virus and also in becoming very sick or dying,” Bowser said. “The vaccine to participate in higher-risk activities is so key to how we keep our businesses open.” | null | null | null | null | null |
That said, amending the ECA is necessary to prevent several tactics the Trump coup plotters considered in 2020. First, the law must make crystal clear that the vice president has no power to stop or alter the electoral vote counting. Second, the number of lawmakers needed to consider challenges should be much higher, not just a single senator or House member, as is currently required. Third, the ECA should prevent state legislatures from submitting alternative slates of electors separate from those chosen by voters themselves. (And election challenges should receive an expedited review by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.) These measures are critical to prevent a successful “peaceful” coup, which is entirely possible if Republicans under the MAGA leader’s thumb win the House majority. | null | null | null | null | null |
(Don Emmert/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images)
The New York Times announced Thursday that the company has reached an agreement to purchase the Athletic, the subscription-based sports journalism start-up, in an all-cash deal valued at $550 million. The sides reportedly had been in talks for months about an acquisition.
“Acquiring The Athletic puts us in a position to be a global leader in sports journalism and offer English speakers around the world another reason to turn to the Times Company to meet their daily news and life needs," Meredith Kopit Levien, president and chief executive officer of the New York Times Co., said in a statement. "The Times already provides distinctive sports coverage for a general interest audience as part of our core report. As a stand-alone product, The Athletic will enable us to offer much more — extensive coverage for fans who seek a deep connection to and understanding of their favorite teams, leagues and players. With one of the largest dedicated teams of reporters covering sports globally and a commitment to everyday reporting, The Athletic is a great complement to The Times.”
The Athletic’s co-founders, Alex Mather and Adam Hansmann, will stay with the company, the statement said, with the Athletic becoming a subsidiary of the Times and continuing to operate separately. Mather and Hansmann will report to Times Co. executive David Perpich, who will become the Athletic’s publisher.
It was seen as an audacious endeavor, fueled by Silicon Valley hubris. In 2017, Mather promised to “wait every local paper out and let them continuously bleed. We will suck them dry of their best talent at every moment.” Ironically, he made that comment to the New York Times, and he later apologized.
“[As] the pandemic has set in and as the sports calendar has remained frozen in place … tough decisions are necessary to guarantee our long-term viability through a period of slower growth and overall uncertainty,” Mather told the staff in an email announcing the cutbacks.
“We started The Athletic to bring fans closer to the teams, players and leagues they love through deep, immersive journalism and storytelling," Mather and Hansmann said in the New York Times statement on Thursday. "Today marks a thrilling milestone for that dream, one realized because of the hard work of every single one of our employees. We are proud to have The Athletic become part of The Times Company’s family of subscription products. When we founded the company, we hoped to become the sports page for every city in the world. We’re excited to continue serving our avid subscribers as we grow and scale with the help of the most important journalistic organization and the leader in digital subscription news.”
The Athletic reportedly spent much of 2021 trying to market itself to potential buyers such as Axios and the New York Times. Adding the Athletic’s million-plus subscribers will further the Times’s goal of reaching 10 million paid digital-only subscribers by 2025. (As of November, it said it had 8.4 million subscribers, 7.6 million of them digital-only.) In recent years, the Times has purchased a number of other smaller media outlets, including Wirecutter and the production company behind the podcast “Serial.” | null | null | null | null | null |
Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) walks with her father former vice president Richard B. Cheney on the one anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol on Thursday. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
Ahead of the chamber’s noon session, Rep. Adam B. Schiff huddled at length with the two Cheneys — Liz is one of two Republicans that serve alongside the California Democrat on the committee investigating Jan. 6. Schiff, who knows what its like to be detested by the other party, told the former vice president and onetime Wyoming congressman: “It’s good to see you again.”
Following a brief moment of silence and remarks by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Liz Cheney was embraced by several Democratic congresswomen. At several points she introduced her colleagues who serve alongside her on the Jan. 6 committee, including Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), to the former vice president by simply saying, “this is my father … this is dad.”
“It was great coming back. I think Liz is doing a hell of a job and I’m here to support her,” Cheney told reporters upon leaving the House floor.
In 2007, when Democrats took the House majority, Cheney had become such a political boogeyman to liberals that more than two dozen House Democrats co-sponsored a resolution of impeachment against the vice president for his role in the Iraq War. Pelosi and Hoyer had to maneuver to squelch debate on the matter.
“Well, we were very honored by his being there,” said Pelosi, who held Cheney’s hand when speaking to him on the floor earlier in the day. “He has the right to be on the floor as a former member of the House and I was happy to welcome him back and to congratulate him on the courage of [his daughter].”
The former vice president’s embrace of Pelosi’s leadership on Jan. 6 matters is jarring for veterans of the Senate, where for her eight years he served as the president of that chamber and frequently visited with GOP senators to plot strategy.
Mike DeBonis contributed to this story | null | null | null | null | null |
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) speaks at the Maggie L. Walker house in Richmond after receiving a report from the Commission to Examine Racial and Economic Inequity in Virginia Law on Jan. 6. (Gregory S. Schneider/TWP)
Gov. Ralph Northam (D) created the commission last year. An earlier version of the panel had issued two reports in 2020 on racist language that persists in the state’s vast code of laws, from statutes created more than a century ago during the oppression of Jim Crow to more recent legal language that discriminated based on race.
Northam reconstituted the commission last year amid the coronavirus pandemic and charged it with identifying areas of economic discrimination. The 10 members — who include lawyers, judges and business leaders — expanded their mission to take in issues related to rural life and environmental conservation.
“This report, like those that preceded it, tells a sad story of the many different ways in which people of color in Virginia have disproportionately less access to economic opportunity, disproportionately worse life outcomes in rural communities and a disparate lack of conservation investment and access to outdoor space and fresh air,” said commission vice chairman Andrew Block, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.
Commission chairwoman Cynthia Hudson, a former chief deputy state attorney general, called the work “daunting,” but said she felt “extreme satisfaction” at having a chance for “policy building at the advancement of equity in our commonwealth.”
He said he hoped his successor — Gov.-elect Glenn Youngkin (R), who takes office on Jan. 15 — would consider the panel’s findings. “The new administration has a tremendous opportunity and I hope they will build on the progress all of you have made,” he said.
Members of the General Assembly, which convenes Jan. 12, might also use the recommendations to propose laws. The House of Delegates will be under Republican control while the Senate has a Democratic majority. | null | null | null | null | null |
The footage had in fact caught what astronomers later concluded was a meteor exploding over western Pennsylvania around 11:20 a.m. on Saturday, producing an energy blast equivalent to 30 tons of TNT. The bolide — a meteor brighter than Venus — is believed to have weighed about 1,000 pounds, measured a yard in diameter and shot through the atmosphere at 45,000 mph, NASA said Tuesday.
Meteors have entertained people in Michigan, Puerto Rico and beyond in recent years. The most recent fireball prompted joking comparisons to the new film “Don’t Look Up,” which features astronomers trying to warn the world about a comet streaking toward Earth and satirizes indifference to climate change.
Then someone at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration noticed light recorded by an optical instrument on the GOES-16 satellite, which monitors the eastern part of North America. At the time of the noise, the satellite’s Geostationary Lightning Mapper registered four flashes moving north to south. Lightning moves more randomly than that, Cooke said — but the pattern was consistent with a meteor breaking apart and producing flares.
When the scientists saw that an infrasound station had recorded noise around the same time as the Geostationary Lightning Mapper, the mystery appeared to be solved. | null | null | null | null | null |
A combination of images from a NASA computer animation depicts the unfolding of components of the James Webb Space Telescope. (NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Conceptual Image Lab/AP)
January 4, 2022|Updated January 4, 2022 at 6:44 p.m. EST
NASA’s revolutionary James Webb Space Telescope has transformed itself into what looks like a giant kite, successfully deploying a tennis-court-size sun shield designed to keep it operating at extremely cold temperatures. This was the most nerve-racking phase of the $10 billion mission so far, one flagged repeatedly by officials who had reviewed plans for the telescope and wondered if such a novel design could reliably work.
The effort to unfurl and then tighten the five-layer, 70-foot-wide sun shield — which NASA describes as providing protection against solar radiation equal to SPF 1 million — took several days, with commands sent from the Operations Center at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore.
The deployment concluded midday Tuesday with the “tensioning” of the fifth and final layer, a process involving mechanical release devices that account for more than half of the 344 potential single-point failures on this complex mission.
On Dec. 22, NASA astrophysicist Tom Greene said a successful deployment of the Webb will help scientists answer some of life's biggest questions. (Reuters)
At one point, NASA project managers put deployments on pause to analyze readings from the solar array that were somewhat different from what they had expected and made technical adjustments. Durning said it’s important to avoid overtaxing the team, which is working 12-hour shifts that sometimes have to be extended.
All the major deployments to date — including that of the solar arrays needed to power the observatory — have gone splendidly, Durning said.
“I am thrilled,” he said. “I’ve been on the job 15 years. To see it unfurl in space, it’s awe-inspiring.”
After the sun shield deployment was complete Tuesday, he texted a postscript: “15 years of anticipation of this moment and it did not disappoint.”
The $10 billion, long-delayed telescope, conceived in the 1980s and under development since the mid-1990s, will study the universe in the infrared portion of the spectrum, gathering light outside the range of the Hubble Space Telescope. Detecting light in that part of the spectrum requires extremely cold temperatures — below minus-380 degrees Fahrenheit. The astronomical ambition of opening that new window on the universe drove the unusual design of the telescope.
Heidi Hammel, a planetary astronomer who will use the telescope to study objects within our solar system, said in an email that she remains jittery about the deployments still to come — including the secondary mirror that reflects light from the main mirror and is crucial to any observations.
Keith Parrish, observatory manager for the telescope at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., said: “We’ll take each of our deployments as a touchdown. But the game is still going.” | null | null | null | null | null |
A tree with MS-13 graffiti. (Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post)
The 12 defendants were all charged in Virginia state court in 2020, but those cases have not gone to trial. Instead, authorities have accused them of involvement in a multistate conspiracy under federal law. Eight are accused of murder in aid of racketeering, a crime punishable by death.
All are described by authorities as members or associates of the Sitios Locos Salvatruchas clique, part of the loosely-organized, El Salvador-based MS-13 gang. The accused were transporting cocaine from New York to the D.C. area for sale in restaurants and night clubs, authorities said.
Two of the victims were badly beaten and shot to death in a wooded area of Woodbridge in June 2019, authorities said. Two months later, another man was shot and killed nearby while going to meet an acquaintance. The fourth man was gunned down in Dumfries as he was walking down the street in September 2019. | null | null | null | null | null |
Nicholas Kristof is found ineligible to run for governor in Oregon
Eligibility dispute
in bid for governor
In a statement Thursday, Oregon Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, a fellow Democrat, said her office was rejecting Kristof’s filing for governor because he does not meet the constitutional requirements to serve. She said a gubernatorial candidate must have been a “resident within this state” for three years before the election.
Fagan cited in particular that Kristof voted in New York in the 2020 election. “Oregon statute provides directly that . . . if a person casts a ballot in another state, they are no longer a resident of Oregon. It’s very, very simple,” the Associated Press quoted Fagan as saying.
Kristof vowed to challenge the decision in court. “A failing political establishment in Oregon has chosen to protect itself, rather than give voters a choice,” Kristof tweeted.
In launching his campaign, Kristof, 62, spoke of his roots in Yamhill, Ore.
Kristof had a 37-year career at the Times, where he was a foreign correspondent and a columnist who won the Pulitzer Prize. He had been on a leave of absence from the newspaper since June, and he resigned in early October.
— Amy B Wang
N.Y. man accused of
secretly aiding Egypt
A New York man has been arrested on charges that he worked as a secret and unregistered agent of the Egyptian government, including by sharing information with American law enforcement officials about political opponents of President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi, the Justice Department said Thursday.
Girgis pleaded not guilty on Thursday before a federal magistrate in Manhattan and was released on his own recognizance.
A six-page indictment made public Thursday says Girgis acted at the “direction and control” of multiple Egyptian government officials between at least 2014 and 2019. Prosecutors say he provided to American law enforcement officials information about the president’s opponents that he had received from Egyptian government officials, and then reported back to Cairo.
Hunters kill wolves
outside Yellowstone
An estimated 94 wolves remain in Yellowstone. But with months to go in Montana’s wolf hunting season, park officials said they expect that more wolves will die after roaming from Yellowstone, where hunting is prohibited.
Park Superintendent Cam Sholly urged Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) to shut down hunting and trapping in the area. Gianforte, an avid hunter and trapper, did not directly address the request to halt hunting in a Wednesday response to Sholly.
World War II mail delivered 76 years later: A letter sent from a U.S. soldier stationed in Germany to his mother in Massachusetts has been delivered 76 years after it was sent. Army Sgt. John Gonsalves, 22 at the time, wrote to his mother in Woburn in December 1945 after the official end of World War II, WFXT-TV reported Wednesday. The letter would sit unopened for more than 75 years before being found in a U.S. Postal Service distribution facility in Pittsburgh. Gonsalves died in 2015. His mother is also dead. But the Postal Service found an address for his widow, Angelina, whom the soldier met five years after he sent the letter. | null | null | null | null | null |
Democrats spent the day recounting from the congressional chambers the terror they felt last year; Republicans, with few exceptions, avoided the proceedings. The current Republican congressional leadership did not participate, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) traveling to Georgia for a funeral, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) working outside of Washington. | null | null | null | null | null |
Novak Djokovic is no doubt spending his time detained in an immigration hotel outside Melbourne doing yoga and tai chi, stretching, meditating and adhering to every facet of the strict training regimen that has helped him become the world’s No. 1 tennis player.
Djokovic has been chasing tennis perfection since childhood — the last two decades, in the form of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, champions who are elder by four years, in the case of Federer, and 11 months, in the case of Nadal. | null | null | null | null | null |
“We have a framework that would have been good sitting on a shelf somewhere,” George said, referring to his work with the NIL committee. “... I don’t think the NCAA is performing their role. And to allow the NIL to get out of hand like it’s gotten, is not acceptable. We as an industry have to embrace getting this back together so we have some guidelines that are consistent across our industry.” | null | null | null | null | null |
Transcript: Jan. 6: One Year Later with Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.)
MR. CAPEHART: Good afternoon. I’m Jonathan Capehart, opinion writer for The Washington Post. Welcome to Washington Post Live and our look at January 6th: One Year Later. This very moment a year ago today, supporters of then President Donald Trump were engaged in a pitched battle with Capitol Hill Police, on a day when Congress was due to certify the election of Joe Biden as the next president of the United States. How the shocking insurrection came to pass, and how to prevent it from happening again, is being investigated by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. Joining me is the chair of that committee, Congressman Bennie Thompson, Democrat from Mississippi.
Chairman Thompson, welcome to Washington Post Live.
REP. THOMPSON: Thank you for having me, Jonathan.
MR. CAPEHART: So, Chairman Thompson, today President Biden gave a forceful speech commemorating the anniversary of the insurrection, taking direct aim at former President Trump and the big lie. As powerful as his speech was, do you think it will be helpful or hurtful to your efforts in your investigation?
REP. THOMPSON: Well, to be honest with you, first of all, thank you for having me. The truth is always good. The truth and sunlight is the best disinfectant that I can imagine. And so for President Biden to talk as forceful about our values as Americans, and what we stand for, and the fact that had it not been for the invitation of Donald Trump to bring people to Washington on January 6th, what we saw a year ago would not have happened.
MR. CAPEHART: Of course, Donald Trump issued a response to President Biden's speech. He called it, quote, "a distraction," and said, quote, "Democrats want to own this day of January 6th so they can stoke fears and divide America." You were in the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. Your reaction to the former president?
REP. THOMPSON: I'm not surprised at his response. But when I talked to groups, I asked them to reflect back on last January 6th and tell me what they saw with their own eye. Did they see Black Lives Matter movement people there, did--people representing antifa present, were there CIA or FBI persons. They said, no, that was just a bunch of people there with Trump paraphernalia on, attacking law enforcement and breaking into the Capitol. So, the notion for all of us is you saw what played out on January 6th with your own eyes. So, the distraction would be for somebody to tell you that what you saw with your own eyes didn't happen. And so that's part of the big lie. The big lie brought a lot of people to Washington under the guise of stopping the steal, and they were weaponized at that rally to come to the Capitol and do just what they did. And Donald Trump has to be the principal author of what occurred because he invited people to Washington on January 6th, and he said it was going to be wild. And indeed, it was wild.
MR. CAPEHART: Yesterday, former Trump White House press secretary and former Melania Trump's chief of staff, Stephanie Grisham, testified before your committee. She told CNN in an interview this morning that she saw Trump watching the fighting on television, even rewinding to watch some of it again. What else have you learned about Donald Trump's actions during the insurrection? What have you learned about his role leading up to it?
REP. THOMPSON: Well, to be honest with you, we learn every day from patriotic Americans who come forward and tell us what they know. And so we now know that his children encouraged him to try to stop it. We know that members of Congress, senators who contacted him. We know that for 187 minutes he actually made several cuts of a tape encouraging people to go home. But it was not right, because he didn't say what he needed to say.
So, we now have information, based on our request, that the tapes will probably be available to us once that court decision is resolved in the Trump v. Thompson case, as you know, is before the Supreme Court now. So, we're learning things every day.
We know that there was communication with people at the Willard Hotel. We know that members of Congress were texting on January 6th, based on the information that Mark Meadows provided the committee. So, we are getting information, probably not as fast as we would like it, but nonetheless on a daily basis we are learning new things about what went on, on January 6th.
MR. CAPEHART: You hit on three big things that I want to talk to you about. And I'm going to go to the first one you mentioned, and that is the videotapes, the versions of the videos that exist of what the White House finally released of Trump on that day. You've requested them from the National Archives, as you mentioned. You know, whether you get them is now sitting there at the Supreme Court. But when you get them--I should say, if you get them, depending on what the court decides--what exactly are you looking for?
REP. THOMPSON: Well, to be honest with you, you’re a commander in chief of the largest democracy, the best superpower in the world. And if you’re seeing the United States Capitol under attack by people who you sent there, and it takes you 187 minutes for you to say this is wrong, you need to go home.
And as my vice chair has said, you know that borders on dereliction of duties, and it might necessitate a referral for the Department of Justice to look at. So, we will not just with that, but any other instance of we think illegal activity, we will refer--or criminal activity--we will make a referral. So you can’t just watch TV and rewind the TV for 187 minutes and expect people not to think that you are complicit in what’s going on by not trying to stop it.
MR. CAPEHART: So then, what Stephanie Grisham told CNN is what she told--what she told the committee yesterday?
REP. THOMPSON: That’s correct. Well, yes, yes.
MR. CAPEHART: I mean, feel free to share anything else she might have said.
REP. THOMPSON: Well, she did tell us that, and she’s already gone and said it to CNN. I can say that we were told the same story.
MR. CAPEHART: Okay. You mentioned Mark Meadows. And what I find interesting about Mark Meadows, a former chief of staff to then President Trump, is that he--you asked him--you subpoenaed him, he started to cooperate, he handed over documents, and then decided never mind, he wasn’t going to comply with the subpoena. He has since been held in contempt, and I have another question about that. But what do you--what do you make of his reversal in cooperating?
REP. THOMPSON: Well, as you know, he put out his book, and there were certain references in his book that the president called fake news. And basically, the president went after him, and I am convinced that up until the president went after him and said that his book and what he was saying in the book about what was occurring was not true, he was working with them. But after that, he cut off all communication. And obviously, we had 9,000 pages of documents that included texts and other information that implicated not just Mark Meadows, but it told us about other members of Congress who also was communicating with him on January 6th.
MR. CAPEHART: So, am I wrong? Because I was sitting there thinking he's trying to have it both ways. He gave you a treasure trove of information, and then decided I'm not going to--I'm not going to testify. But we'll leave that aside, because I have a ton more questions for you.
Let's talk about--well, I'll come back to--I'll come back to your vice chair in a minute. I want to go to sitting members of Congress, because the committee has invited Congressman Jim Jordan and Congressman Scott Perry to voluntarily cooperate. I'm wondering, will the committee subpoena them if they do not voluntarily cooperate with the committee?
MR. THOMPSON: Well, you know, there's no real legislative history where a committee has subpoenaed another sitting member. And so, we're working through that. If we can get the necessary authorities and assurances that go with it, we'll do it. Both those individuals are important. They've been implicated. And to this illegal activity that occurred on January 6th, they have knowledge. Mr. Perry actually tried to get a friend of his to be appointed attorney general so that that person could send letters to other states, telling them not to certify the election, because of Justice Department perceived irregularities haven't occurred. Thank goodness that didn't happen--only because members of the Justice Department said if you do this, we are going to resign. You should not politicize the department. So, there's important information that we need to glean. Jim Jordan’s role is clear there. He has acknowledged telephone calls to the White House. Sometimes he said he did, sometimes he said he didn't. But he was on tape both times saying that. So, we need to hear from him voluntarily, if so. And if we can come up with the real authority, we'll bring him before the committee, along with Mr. Perry.
MR. CAPEHART: And I’m glad you used that word again--authority--because I wrote down what you said earlier, if you get the necessary authorities and assurances. What authorities do you not as Congress have the ability to subpoena sitting members of Congress?
REP. THOMPSON: Well, there's the Speech and Debate Clause that members of Congress have. As members, we have a Speech and Debate Clause that protects us from a lot of things. And if that Speech and Debate Clause says, you can't subpoena me to testify before a committee, then that happened. A lot of times members of Congress get sued. And in part of the defense in the suits is the same Speech and Debate Clause reference that members of Congress have. So, it's a fairly standard reference that we were speaking from. But obviously, if we can get around it, we will.
MR. CAPEHART: Chairman, does the committee have evidence about current members of Congress aiding or abetting or who were in touch with those who participated in the insurrection?
REP. THOMPSON: We do. We have information that members hosted people who came to Washington on that day in their office. We have information that before the actual certification, people came earlier, were giving tours in the Capitol. We have pictures of members taking pictures with people who came to the rally. So, members in various forms or another engaged people who came. Now there's a smaller subset of members that have been identified who probably did more to encourage the stop the steal part of coming to Washington that we'll continue to work on.
MR. CAPEHART: These tours that you mentioned, tours of the Capitol, were--these were tours that were given the day before?
REP. THOMPSON: Yes, we have, as you know, members of Congress--before COVID and a lot of other things--it was not unusual for members of Congress to give guided tours of the Capitol. As to whether or not those tours brought into giving people directions where Speaker Pelosi’s office would be, for instance, or Whip Clyburn’s office, or Leader Hoyer’s office, we're just not sure. But we know there was member participation. And that's part of the body of our work, to see whether or not we can connect the dots between those tours and the people who broke into the Capitol.
MR. CAPEHART: One more question on this, because, you know, there are other members of Congress who went on television right after the insurrection saying the day before they saw members giving tours. What was interesting about that--and I would love for you to confirm this--wasn't--was the Capitol locked down because of COVID to public tours a year ago today and yesterday?
REP. THOMPSON: My understanding is it was, but members still had exclusive ability to bring guests into the Capitol.
MR. CAPEHART: Okay. Former Vice President Mike Pence, has he been officially asked to voluntarily cooperate with the committee? First question.
REP. THOMPSON: Not officially. Both the vice chair and myself have gone on record saying that if he voluntarily came and offered himself to the committee to talk to us, we would welcome it. At some point, he might get the formal invitation from the committee saying we'd love to hear from you. Because he, in his own right, stood up to Donald Trump by saying I'm not going to break the law just because you lost the election. And I think that has value. Now obviously, since that time, he's kind of pulled back on some of his opinions as to what happened on January 6th. But for the sake of the job he did on January 6th, it was a darn good job. And to the point that the same insurrectionists who broke into the Capitol, wanted to hang him because he did not do what Donald Trump wanted him to do.
MR. CAPEHART: My follow-up question was going to be is Mike Pence already cooperating with the committee, either directly or through intermediaries?
REP. THOMPSON: Well, you know, there are some staff of the vice president and other things that we are talking to. But to my knowledge, he's not participating in any of that at this point.
MR. CAPEHART: But staff to staff, just staff to staff contact.
REP. THOMPSON: Oh, yeah. We’re--we are talking to staff of just about everybody you can imagine. And actually, over 90 percent of the people we're engaging, they're talking to us. So, the Steve Bannons and Mark Meadows and others of the world are a distinct minority in participation that others are giving the committee by coming forward with information.
MR. CAPEHART: Sean Hannity, have you heard that the committee has asked for him to voluntarily cooperate? Last I heard, his lawyer said, we're looking at the letter and you know, wondering about the constitutionality of it. Have you heard anything from his lawyer since then?
REP. THOMPSON: Not officially. It's just basically what we hear in the media and other things. But we think, again, because of the information we've been provided, thanks to Mr. Meadows, we would not have known that Sean Hannity was communicating with the president. But Mark Meadows gave us this treasure trove of information. And once we started going through it, you know, we're saying, whoa, what is all this? And so now, we know members of Congress, Jim Jordan and others, was communicating on that day. We know that children of Donald Trump was trying to get him to do something to calm what was going on at the White House down. So, we have a lot of information, thanks to Mark Meadows, that we would not have had. And so, again, we will just follow the facts of that information, and we'll go to wherever it leads us.
Now, so your vice chair, Congresswoman Liz Cheney, of Wyoming said that this was a key question for the committee. This was back in December. She said, did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress's official proceeding to count electoral votes? And basically, she was quoting a felony statute. My question to you is, have you seen evidence that Donald Trump engaged in criminal wrongdoing that day?
REP. THOMPSON: Well, you know, the good part about being Ben Thompson is I'm not a lawyer. I’m just a humble public servant. But I do know right from wrong, and I know what appearances are. So, if you invite people to Washington, you put people on the stage for them to listen to, and you point them to the United States Capitol, and they go and tear up the place and people get killed, members of Congress are threatened, and then for 187 minutes you do nothing--now, my vice chairperson is an excellent attorney. She makes a legitimate argument. So, what can happen is, we'll look at it, and then we'll say to the Department of Justice, we are not a criminal thing, in terms of our work, but here's some things we think you ought to look at. If we come to that conclusion as a committee, there will be absolutely no reluctance on our part to make the referral to Department of Justice, just as we did with Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows.
MR. CAPEHART: I'm jumping in because I had questions about this. So, have you seen evidence that you have already handed over to the Department of Justice?
REP. THOMPSON: No, we've not at this point. We're not there yet.
MR. CAPEHART: Is your committee in contact with the Department of Justice?
REP. THOMPSON: Well, there's a firewall that's there. When we make a criminal referral to DOJ, we are out of the picture. And the only two referrals that we have made thus far, have been a contempt referral for Steve Bannon and Mark Meadow. There probably will be others. But as of this point, those are the only two referrals that we've made, and it's out of our hands after the referral is made.
MR. CAPEHART: Right. And the referral is made once it's voted on by the entire House of Representatives.
REP. THOMPSON: Right.
MR. CAPEHART: Well, Chairman Thompson--
REP. THOMPSON: That is in terms of the contempt. But another kind of referral does not require a vote of the House.
MR. CAPEHART: Oh, that's right. Yes, yes. Right. You we're talking about criminal referral. That was--that was my mistake.
MR. CAPEHART: Chairman Thompson, does the committee have enough solid evidence to ask Donald Trump to voluntarily cooperate with the committee?
REP. THOMPSON: I think we are getting close to making a decision on that matter. We have not discussed Donald Trump specifically. And if at that point we do, there won't be any reluctance on our part to make a decision. We just haven't discussed that specific point at this point.
MR. CAPEHART: And the way the sequencing works, you have to ask him to voluntarily cooperate before you discuss whether to subpoena him?
REP. THOMPSON: Well, Jonathan, you know, if you are this great patriot, if you love America, why wouldn't you want to voluntarily come and tell us what you know? If you saw what went on a year ago and feel as bad about what you saw as most of us do, we think you'd want to come and tell us and help us make sure that it not happen again. But if there's some reluctance or hesitancy on your part to come and tell us, then it causes us to pause as to whether or not you have more to hide about this subject than to share with the public.
MR. CAPEHART: Alright, Chairman Thompson, I have three minutes and three questions. First question, there were reports that not only will there be televised hearings in the future, that they will be in prime time. Is that true?
REP. THOMPSON: Yes.
MR. CAPEHART: And please define prime time. What time?
REP. THOMPSON: I would say--I'd say late evening. You know, historically, congressional committees have done their work during the day. Well, we think January 6th and what happened is so important, we need to give the greatest number of Americans an opportunity to see firsthand what we have uncovered as a committee.
MR. CAPEHART: And are we talking in the next few weeks we will see televised hearings, or a month or so?
REP. THOMPSON: A month or so.
MR. CAPEHART: A month or so.
REP. THOMPSON: But you will probably see two, three or four hearings in a row. So, I'm talking about like Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. We're not talking about one hearing one week, one hearing another week. I mean, we will have enough research that we think sharing it with the public at that time will be in the best interest of saving our democracy.
MR. CAPEHART: And when will we see a final report?
REP. THOMPSON: We'll do an interim report first, probably early spring, with the final report sometime early fall.
MR. CAPEHART: And, Chairman Thompson, my last question for you is this. I have been in other venues saying that your committee, watching what you're doing, it's like watching someone put together a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle of the ocean or of clouds, and that the Select Committee has 985 of those 1,000 pieces in place already. Is my characterization, from where you sit as chairman, is that true? Do you have most of the pieces in place?
REP. THOMPSON: We have a number of the pieces in place. But one of the challenges that we've been given as a committee, to make sure that we document the facts and circumstances, that we are absolutely true and correct. And that's what we're trying to do. Our report will be picked apart, and rightfully so. But we don't want them to ever say that the factual part of the report is not accurate. And so we want to make sure that when we push it out, it can stand scrutiny.
MR. CAPEHART: Congressman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, chair of the January 6th Select Committee, thank you so much for coming to Washington Post Live.
REP. THOMPSON: Thank you for having me.
MR. CAPEHART: And thank you as always for joining us. To check out what interviews we have coming up, head to WashingtonPostLive.com to register and find out more. Once again, I’m Jonathan Capehart, opinion writer for The Washington Post. Thank you for watching Washington Post Live. | null | null | null | null | null |
Washington Football Team defensive back Deshazor Everett. (AP Photo/Rick Scuteri)
When the dispatcher asked whether the person in the car was out of the vehicle, the man responded: “I cannot tell. I think he has gone into like the thick woods or something like that.” She followed up by asking whether anyone was thrown from the vehicle and the witness said: “I don’t think so. I don’t believe so. I think they were just trapped inside.”
Soon after, the other male witness was heard in the background saying, “He’s like all the way in the ditch,” before pleading: “Just get somebody. Just get some help.”
The second witness then got on the call and told the dispatcher directly that the driver was trapped in the vehicle. After reassuring him that help was on the way, the dispatcher tried to get more information about the driver, but the second witness told her that he didn’t know whether the driver was injured.
The witness said that he was in his own car at the time of the accident and that Everett was driving behind him, so he wasn’t able to see what happened with Everett’s car. As the dispatcher updated him that responders were nearing the location, the witness yelled to others in the background, “They’re here, they’re here,” before again urging the dispatcher: “Please tell him to hurry. Please tell him to hurry.”
As she informed him that “at least six units” of responders were coming, the witness was heard saying to someone: “They’re out? . . . Okay, the girl is out of the car. Is he out of the car?” A voice in the background told him he wasn’t sure, and the second man, while still on with the dispatcher, said: “Okay, can you go make sure he’s okay, out of the car?”
After hearing the conversation in the background, the dispatcher asked how many people were in the vehicle, and the second witness said, “It was him and his girlfriend.” He added that one person was trapped inside.
Moments later, sirens could be heard in the background, and he told the dispatcher: “They see me. They see me.”
Peters, the longtime girlfriend of Everett and an occupational therapist from Montgomery County, Md., was taken to StoneSprings Hospital Center, where she was pronounced dead.
Everett was transported to Reston Hospital Center and later released, according to Coach Ron Rivera. He was placed on Washington’s reserve/non-football injury list, ending his season, but on Tuesday was moved to the reserve/covid-19 list after he tested positive for the coronavirus. The extent of his injuries from the crash is unclear.
On Thursday afternoon, Everett issued his first public comments since the accident, tweeting: “Thank you for all of your prayers, continue to pray for Olivia’s family and me. Thank you all Folded hands #Live4Liv”
“It’s hard,” safety Kam Curl said the week after the accident. “. . . It’s an impact when he’s not in the building because you look forward to seeing ’Shaze every day. It’s hard but you got to stay positive, pray for him.”
Everett’s attorney, Kaveh Noorishad of Northern Virginia-based firm Noorishad Law, P.C., released a statement Wednesday regarding the accident: | null | null | null | null | null |
Nick Jensen has been a mainstay on the Capitals' blue line this season. (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)
Nick Jensen hit his fair share of low points early in his tenure with the Washington Capitals. His game wasn’t coming together, the stress was high, and the days were mentally draining. It was tough to put on a happy facade during the time the defenseman spent with his family away from the ice.
Thoughts raced through Jensen’s head: Could he play in the NHL? Would he get sent to the minors?
Now, nearly three years after the Capitals acquired Jensen from the Detroit Red Wings at the 2019 trade deadline, he’s flourishing.
Jensen had a strong campaign last season and continued his steady play into this one, averaging, 19:31 of ice time. He has three goals and seven assists in 32 games, and his plus-minus of plus-19 is one of the best in the league.
“Probably in the beginning there was a little concern that it wasn’t working with the team and the coaching staff, but we got through and here we are,” General Manager Brian MacLellan said. “He’s doing what we thought he was going to do.”
Jensen, 31, still has stretches when he doesn’t like his game, but the recent lulls aren’t close to what they were a few years ago. He was a healthy scratch at points in the 2019-20 season, raising questions about his future in Washington. Now it’s all about working on the finer points of his game.
“Big picture, everything is what I wanted, if I had to guess,” said Jensen, who is in the third season of the four-year, $10 million contract extension he signed soon after joining the Capitals. “I came in and everything has trended upward for me.”
At his low points, he tried to leave his struggles at the rink.
“Now that I have a kid, I try to be as happy as I can at home. I can’t go home and bring that to them, because that is not fair to them,” said Jensen, whose first child, Lorenzo, was born in March 2020. “As far as getting out of it, there is not a secret to it. I believe if you give all your effort every shift, eventually you are going to push through.”
Jensen is highly self-aware of his in-game skills. He knows he is not a player who will force offense, nor does the team need or want him to. Jensen is more focused on maximizing each shift and being a dependable defender.
When Jensen is at his best, he sticks to his strengths. He shuts down the opponent with his defense partner and prevents lengthy attacking shifts. He wants to be in the middle of the action, disrupting the play and forcing turnovers. He also pushes himself on the penalty kill, getting in front of the puck and using his body.
For Jensen, confidence comes with in-game reps. He is at his peak when he’s at the other team’s blue line, navigating around opposing forwards and getting shots to the net. Many defensemen get nervous while stationed there, Jensen said, because one slip-up can lead to an odd-man rush the other way.
“You are the last guy back on the blue line, and if you have the confidence to do it, try to shake and bake a guy at the blue line, that is a pretty good sign … [and] probably right where I find most of my confidence,” Jensen said.
Some of that comes from the change in coaches from Todd Reirden to Peter Laviolette. MacLellan said Laviolette has more confidence in Jensen than the previous staff did, allowing Jensen more leeway and flexibility as he adjusted to a new system.
“You saw how much I counted on Nick Jensen last year and how much I relied on him,” Laviolette said. “... He is quick and fast and closes hard and is difficult to play against. His skating is excellent, and I haven’t noticed a lot of change.”
Part of Jensen’s consistency last season came from being paired with Zdeno Chara. Chara’s leadership and communication skills helped push Jensen’s game forward. They complemented each other on the ice and were heavily relied upon in the defensive zone.
This season, Jensen’s solid play has continued with Dmitry Orlov.
“They are generating offense, so even based on the matchup in the zone, they are still having a good year and getting able to produce offensively,” Laviolette said. “To me, the strength of Nick and the strength of the pair has been the defensive pair and the way they defend.”
Note: Forwards T.J. Oshie and Nicklas Backstrom returned to practice Thursday after both missed Sunday’s overtime loss to New Jersey with a non-covid-19 illness. Orlov also returned to practice after sitting out Wednesday with an upper-body injury.
Laviolette said Orlov should be available for Friday’s game at St. Louis. Laviolette said he didn’t know whether Oshie or Backstrom would travel for the Capitals’ two-game road trip; Washington visits Minnesota on Saturday.
Forwards Alex Ovechkin, Evgeny Kuznetsov and Carl Hagelin and defenseman John Carlson also missed Thursday’s practice. The Capitals said all four took “maintenance days.” | null | null | null | null | null |
Novak Djokovic is no doubt spending his time detained in an immigration hotel in Melbourne doing yoga and tai chi, stretching, meditating and adhering to every facet of the strict training regimen that has helped him become the world’s No. 1 tennis player.
Djokovic has been chasing tennis perfection since childhood — the past two decades, in the form of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, champions who are elder by five-plus years, in the case of Federer, and 11 months, in the case of Nadal. | null | null | null | null | null |
Opinion: With omicron, let’s not fight the last war
More significant is the distinction between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. The U.K. analysis, which looked at AstraZeneca, Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, estimated that people with two doses of the vaccine plus a booster shot are 88 percent less likely to be hospitalized than those without vaccinations.
Even if you get the virus, if you are double-vaccinated and boosted, you are still an estimated 81 percent less likely to be hospitalized than if you are unvaccinated. If you get the virus and have had two doses of the vaccine, no booster, you are estimated to be 65 percent less likely to need to be hospitalized. In the United States at least, hospitalization numbers are misleading. For instance, the New York Times reported this week that at two major New York hospitals, around 50 percent to 65 percent of “covid hospitalizations” were people coming to the hospital for other reasons and then, once there, testing positive for covid.
U.S. health officials have also noted the growing evidence that omicron is less severe than delta. In South Africa, where omicron was first identified, even though relatively few have been vaccinated, people were less likely — 80 percent lower, according to one preprint study posted in December 2021 — to be hospitalized for omicron than for other variants. In addition, the Biden administration has ordered 20 million treatment courses of the Pfizer covid pill, though we need more.
The early data — and it is early — suggests two conclusions. First, omicron is far less lethal than the previous variants of the virus. Second, the vaccines, especially with a booster, are highly effective at preventing serious illness and death. That means we are in a fundamentally different situation than we were in March 2020 when the coronavirus was sweeping around the world. We do not need lockdowns, school closures or onerous travel restrictions. Instead, we need to make an even sharper distinction between the vaccinated and those who are not, coupled with sensible measures to slow the spread of the virus so that the health-care system is not overburdened.
Beyond vaccines, the key is mass testing and good masks. The epidemiologist Michael Mina has long argued that the focus on PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests — as opposed to rapid tests — has been misguided, that from a public health standpoint, what matters is not whether you have the virus but whether you are spreading it to others. Rapid antigen tests determine that pretty effectively. But compared with Europe, tests in the United States cost more and are not as easily accessible. Similarly, we should make masks that are cheap, high quality and widely available.
Germany’s leading virologist said that omicron could become the first “post-pandemic” coronavirus variant, which would likely make this disease an endemic one, not so lethal, and one that we will live with such as the flu. We can’t be sure of this because with so many unvaccinated people — about 26 percent of Americans still have not received one dose — the virus still has plenty of space to replicate and thus mutate. But it does appear that at least for now, for the vaccinated majority, the post-pandemic future has arrived — if we are willing to accept it. | null | null | null | null | null |
Correction: A previous version of this article misspelled the name of Richard B. Cheney’s old company. It is Halliburton, not Haliburton.
Cheney and his daughter Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) are among the few Republicans who have joined Democrats in condemning last year’s attack on the Capitol as an assault on Democracy and blaming former president Donald Trump for that deadly day.
The House observed a moment of silence on Jan. 6 to commemorate the 1-year anniversary of the Capitol insurrection. (The Washington Post)
Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) also applauded Cheney for his daughter’s courage during a lengthier conversation in which both men were overheard talking about other news of day such as testing frequently for the coronavirus.
Back in 2004, at a time when Sen. Patrick J. Leahy and other Democrats accused Cheney’s old company, Halliburton, of profiting off the Iraq War, the Vermont Democrat approached the vice president on the Senate floor.
“F--- yourself,” he told Leahy before complaining about the Democrat’s recent comments about him. | null | null | null | null | null |
Child, woman found fatally shot at home in Prince George’s, juvenile suspect in custody, police say
A child and a woman were found fatally shot at a home in the Clinton, Md., area, and a juvenile suspect is in custody in a what police say appeared to be a domestic-related incident Thursday evening, Prince George’s County police said.
An man was also shot and suffered non-life-threatening injuries, police said.
Officers responded to a home in the 8500 block of Wendy Street about 5:50 p.m. and found the woman and child dead inside a home, police said. | null | null | null | null | null |
Manning hopes games like this will be a learning experience for Reese, comparing this tough matchup with what he faced his freshman year when Kansas faced Maryland’s Len Bias.
“I walked away from that game impressed by Lenny Bias, but I also walked away saying, ‘You know what? If I can keep up with him, if I can compete with him, I’m going to have a chance to do something special,’ ” Manning said.
He added that he hopes “Julian will walk away with that type of mentality — of being able to battle somebody that big and that strong, and for stretches, be able to hold your own.”
The Illini (11-3, 4-0) picked up 26 second-chance points on their 19 offensive rebounds. They were also fueled by Trent Frazier’s strong outside shooting in the second half to complement Cockburn’s post presence. Frazier hit 4 of 6 attempts from three-point range after halftime, and his three-pointers on back-to-back possessions midway through the second half capped a 12-0 Illinois run that forced a Maryland timeout.
In the loss against the Hawkeyes, the Terps managed to climb back to a five-point lead early in the second half, and Maryland mustered a similar comeback Thursday, taking advantage of Cockburn’s foul trouble. The Illini’s advantage grew to as many as 14 points in the first half, but then Scott seized control. He scored 12 points in the final five minutes of the first half, including the three-pointer that lifted the Terps ahead for the first time. Maryland headed to the locker room with the lead, but that soon disappeared.
Scott, a junior who entered this season as a potential breakout star in the Big Ten, began his junior year with a few lackluster offensive performances. Through the first six games, he averaged just under 10 points with 39.6 percent shooting from the field and only 27.3 from three-point range. But lately, he has surged.
Maryland has had a dominant run against the Illini since joining the Big Ten in 2014. Entering Thursday’s matchup, the Terps held a 7-2 advantage against Illinois during that stretch, including a three-game winning streak. Even with last season’s undermanned Maryland squad, the Terps picked up a road win against an Illinois team that went on to win the Big Ten tournament and earn a No. 1 seed in the NCAA tournament. When the Terps and Illini battled at the top of the conference during the 2019-20 season, Maryland won here in a February game that at the time determined the leader of the Big Ten. | null | null | null | null | null |
The thing is: Carlson shouldn’t have bought it. This, after all, was hardly the first time Cruz labeled Jan. 6 a terrorist attack. He did so the very next day, saying in a tweet that it was “a despicable act of terrorism.” Even more than four months after the riot, when voting against the creation of a bipartisan Jan. 6 commission, Cruz was still using that word. “The January 6 terrorist attack on the Capitol was a dark moment in our nation’s history,” Cruz’s May 28 statement began. | null | null | null | null | null |
Manning hopes games such as this will be a learning experience for Reese, comparing this tough matchup to what he faced as a freshman when his Kansas team played Maryland’s Len Bias.
“I walked away from that game impressed by Lenny Bias, but I also walked away saying: ‘You know what? If I can keep up with him, if I can compete with him, I’m going to have a chance to do something special,’ ” Manning said.
He added that he hopes “Julian will walk away with that type of mentality — of being able to battle somebody that big and that strong and, for stretches, be able to hold your own.”
The Illini (11-3, 4-0) picked up 26 second-chance points on their 19 offensive rebounds. They also were fueled by Trent Frazier’s strong outside shooting in the second half to complement Cockburn’s post presence. Frazier hit 4 of 6 attempts from three-point range after halftime, and his threes on back-to-back possessions midway through the second half capped a 12-0 Illinois run that forced a Maryland timeout.
In the loss against the Hawkeyes, the Terps managed to climb back to a five-point lead early in the second half, and Maryland mustered a similar comeback Thursday, taking advantage of Cockburn’s foul trouble. The Illini’s advantage grew to 14 points in the first half, but then Scott seized control. He scored 12 points in the final five minutes of the first half, including the three-pointer that lifted the Terps ahead for the first time of the evening. Maryland headed to the locker room up 34-30, but that soon disappeared.
Scott, a junior who entered this season as a potential breakout star in the Big Ten, began his junior year with a few lackluster offensive performances. Through the first six games, he averaged just under 10 points with 39.6 percent shooting from the field and only 27.3 from three-point range. But lately he has surged.
Maryland has had a dominant run against the Illini since joining the Big Ten in 2014. Entering Thursday’s matchup, the Terps were 7-2 against Illinois during that stretch, including a three-game winning streak. Even with last season’s undermanned Maryland squad, the Terps picked up a road win against an Illinois team that went on to win the Big Ten tournament and earn a No. 1 seed in the NCAA tournament. When the Terps and Illini battled at the top of the conference during the 2019-20 season, Maryland won here in a February game that at the time determined the leader of the Big Ten. | null | null | null | null | null |
Kazakh authorities have, without evidence, called the dead demonstrators armed suspects and extremists.
After receiving a Wednesday request from Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) dispatched some 2,500 peacekeepers to the country, the group’s secretary general told Russian state news agency RIA. Russian troops were on the ground as of Thursday.
Stanislav Zas, the CSTO official, said the forces were there to protect infrastructure — Russia leases a rocket launch site in Kazakhstan — and would not be used to disperse demonstrations.
President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, whose troops will be deployed as part of the CSTO intervention force, told state media Thursday that demonstrators had tried to seize control of major airports in Kazakhstan to block the deployment of the alliance’s forces.
While the CSTO has long been seen as Russia’s answer to NATO, its first joint action is in reaction to a domestic protest rather than combating an attack from an external force. Kazakhstan and the bloc’s other members have attempted to cast the intervention as a bid to protect the state against “foreign-trained terrorist gangs,” though they have provided no evidence to back the allegations.
The United States is monitoring the Moscow-led deployment and looking out for reports of potential human rights violations, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said at a Thursday briefing. “We have questions about the nature of this request and whether it … was a legitimate invitation or not. We don’t know at this point,” she said.
Tokayev, the Kazakh president, declared a two-week national state of emergency Wednesday, instituting an overnight curfew as well as a ban on mass gatherings. The restrictions come as the country’s sizable Orthodox Christian community prepares to celebrate Christmas on Friday.
“Today, more than ever, it is important for us to show unity and solidarity in order to ensure peace and stability in the country,” Tokayev said in a statement of congratulations to Orthodox Christians. “I am sure that together we will overcome all difficulties and trials, preserving our main asset — the unity of our people!”
Internet services have severely disrupted since midday Wednesday, global Internet monitor NetBlocks said, with connectivity at about 5 percent of normal levels as of Friday morning.
Kazakh authorities have oscillated between cracking down on protesters and giving in to some demands. On Thursday, they announced a 180-day cap on the price of vehicle fuel. The demonstrations began after the government lifted a price cap on liquefied petroleum gas, which powers most vehicles in the country’s west.
Oil and gas production, a significant part of Kazakhstan’s economy, has stuttered as the unrest continues. U.S. energy giant Chevron, which owns half of a joint venture that runs the major Tengiz oil field, said Thursday that production had been cut after protests disrupted its logistics. | null | null | null | null | null |
That’s something Bengals rookie Ja'Marr Chase might, well, chase as he moves along. Last week, Chase had 266 yards receiving, the most in a single game by a rookie. He now has 1,429 yards receiving the season, passing Minnesota’s Justin Jefferson’s 1,400 in 2020, a Super Bowl era mark. With 45 more yards at Cleveland on Sunday, he will surpass the Houston Oilers’ Bill Groman’s 1,473 in 1960 for the all-time rookie record. | null | null | null | null | null |
Transportation officials said there were no immediate reports of big crashes on any major highways, but drivers are advised to allow extra time and slow down, as roads may have icy spots. Snow crews were out throughout the area treating highways, roads, bridges and ramps before the snow fell in the early morning hours.
Chris Geldart, the D.C. deputy mayor for public safety, said Friday morning that the city’s snow crew was out early Thursday evening clearing the main roads first and then working on the side streets in residential areas.
In Virginia, the Department of Transportation advised drivers to stay home, if possible, because “travel is hazardous.” On Monday, Interstate 95 was shut down in both directions overnight because of multiple crashes in the snowstorm, and drivers were stuck in their vehicles without food and water.
The Post’s Capital Weather Gang said the snow moved out of the region fast, but temperatures were forecast to reach only the upper 20s to low 30s. | null | null | null | null | null |
Habitat for Humanity is 3D printing houses. The first one is in Virginia.
April Stringfield and her son Azayveon at the groundbreaking this summer for their Habitat for Humanity 3-D printed house in Williamsburg, Va. They moved into the home in December. (Consociate Media)
The single mom and hotel housekeeper was the recipient of Habitat for Humanity’s first 3-D printed home in Williamsburg, Va. last month. She and her son, Azayveon Stringfield, 13, spent their first night in the three-bedroom, two-bath house on Dec. 27.
The walls of Stringfield’s 1,200-square foot home were built over 28 hours last August as a tube-shaped printer nozzle traveled along a circuit to lay down 167 one-inch layers of concrete, said Janet V. Green, CEO for Habitat for Humanity Peninsula and Greater Williamsburg.
A similar project is now almost finished in Tempe, Ariz., and 3-D homes soon won’t be considered a novelty, said Green.
Home prices swing widely across the country, but the average home in America costs in the range of $316,000 according to Zillow.
Stringfield purchased her home directly from Habitat for Humanity in Williamsburg, so she will send the organization her monthly mortgage payment, said Green.
Stringfield’s new home was a collaboration between Habitat for Humanity and Alquist 3-D — an Iowa-based 3D-printer construction company.
“Our goal is to help solve the housing crisis in America,” said Alquist 3-D founder Zack Mannheimer. “April is the first to move into a home like this, but this is just the beginning. There will be many more.”
“I have fond memories of concrete,” she said. “So I decided, ‘Why not give a 3-D-printed home a try?’”
“It was really cool to see the concrete come out of the nozzle,” said Stringfield. | null | null | null | null | null |
In theory, this seems to be the point, to test out that age-old question: What’s more important, love or money? In practice, the series is exactly like any other awkward dating show you might have seen in the last 20 years. There’s manipulation, fighting, questionable decisions, lots of champagne, a pool party where people strip off their clothes and a contestant being seriously overserved until they break down weeping in a bathroom. | null | null | null | null | null |
The observation is true in the universe of “Rebelde” — a beloved Mexican telenovela adapted from Argentina’s “Rebelde Way” — and in real life. The Televisa series, which premiered in 2004, gave way to a chart-topping pop group that helped propel the show’s cast to superstardom. RBD released nine studio albums (including Portuguese and English-language efforts) and garnered Latin Grammy nod in the process, sold out huge venues and earned comparisons to Menudo, another legendary Latin pop outfit. The group disbanded in 2009 but maintains a loyal fan base that enthusiastically celebrates milestones such as last year’s arrival of RBD’s music on streaming services and a virtual concert reunion. | null | null | null | null | null |
Your creditor says fix it with the bureaus. The credit bureaus say it’s often the data finishers’ fault, arguing they’re just the receiver of the bad info — a point that shouldn’t absolve them of responsibility, considering they are making millions selling our data. The finger-pointing by these companies makes you want to give all of them your middle finger.
The report focused on issues submitted to the CFPB complaint portal. From January 2020 to September 2021, the CFPB received more than 700,000 complaints about the three bureaus The most common issue involved incorrect information on people’s reports, and communities of color and low-income communities tended to submit complaints at a higher rate, the report said. | null | null | null | null | null |
Many of those who remain on campus, however, are feeling the aftershocks of a presidential term that has been described as “tumultuous” and “rocky,” said Zach Schonfeld, the managing editor of the GW Hatchet, the university’s student-run newspaper, who covered the ups-and-downs of LeBlanc’s tenure.
For many, the problems started about a year after LeBlanc’s arrival, when his administration invested in consulting services from the Disney Institute — the professional development arm of the Walt Disney Co. — to administer campus surveys. More backlash came in 2019 after LeBlanc unveiled now-defunct plans to cut undergraduate enrollment by 20 percent over five years and increase the number of students studying science, technology, engineering and math — a plan that faculty members said was made without their being consulted and which they said could make the campus less racially and economically diverse.
LeBlanc also has been celebrated for his commitment to sustainability and financial aid. The faculty senate commended him for overseeing a “deeply meaningful” bicentennial celebration and developing academic tracks for students to take classes across disciplines. LeBlanc renegotiated the university’s relationship with George Washington University Hospital and Universal Health Systems, and helped to oversee the hospital’s expansion into Southeast Washington.
A jolt of energy could come in the form of Mark Wrighton, the university’s interim president, who will lead the university on an interim basis for up to 18 months. “The immediate priority will be to build momentum,” he said.
Wrighton left Wash University after more than 20 years in 2019, and GW approached him about the possibility of leading the institution in June, he said. He said he’s aware of the issues facing the university and is ready to confront them. | null | null | null | null | null |
What to watch with your kids: ‘American Underdog,’ ‘The Book of Boba Fett’ and more
Zachary Levi as Kurt Warner in “American Underdog: The Kurt Warner Story.” (Michael Kubeisy/Lionsgate)
Crowd-pleasing sports biopic emphasizes faith, perseverance.
“American Underdog: The Kurt Warner Story” is an earnest biopic about NFL Hall of Famer Kurt Warner (Zachary Levi), who had an unlikely path to football stardom, and his relationship with his wife, Brenda (Anna Paquin). Content is mild overall. There’s some drinking (all by characters of legal age) at bars, parties, and meals. Language includes a few jokes about Kurt’s age, a couple of uses “dang,” and an unfinished “son of a . . . !” While there’s no off-field violence, the story of how a child became blind could be upsetting, as could a scene of mass destruction in the aftermath of a tornado that tragically killed many people, including two of the movie’s characters. While there are no overt love scenes, Kurt and Brenda kiss, canoodle, and make out several times. Families who watch can discuss the movie’s themes of gratitude, perseverance, and teamwork. The movie is directed by the Erwin Brothers, who are best known for their faith-based movies, including “I Can Only Imagine” and “I Still Believe;” this one is more “faith lite,” but the main characters are committed Christians who believe in their faith’s ability to guide their lives. (109 minutes)
Seal Team (TV-Y7)
Action-packed animated ocean adventure has violence, peril.
“Seal Team” is an animated comedy about a determined seal named Quinn (voiced by Jessie T. Usher) who assembles a platoon to fight back against a gang of sharks. Characters use insults (“stupid,” “dummy,” etc.), there are moments of violence/peril and some scenes could be scary for younger viewers. An electric eel is used as a weapon, as is a pistol shrimp. A character is eaten by a shark off screen, which is what drives the plot forward to stop the sharks. Another character is thought to be eaten by sharks but later returns. A couple of characters flirt and discuss their failed relationship. A minor character smokes a cigar. Characters use teamwork, perseverance and wits to outsmart the villains while also learning to overcome and forgive themselves for past mistakes. (100 minutes)
Available on Netflix.
Mosley (PG)
Animated animal rights adventure has threat, cruelty.
The new Zealand-Chinese co-production “Mosley” is an animated adventure with some animal cruelty and scenes of threat. Central to the story are mythical farm animals called “thoriphants.” They’re depicted as being worked hard, even mistreated, by humans. With his family under threat, a thoriphant named Mosley (voice of writer-director Kirby Atkins) goes in search of a tribe of thoriphants who broke free from their human masters. There’s a parallel with enslavement and emancipation that could prompt discussions among families. Mosley is pursued by a tracker, and some scenes feature threat and violence, including falls from heights and a collapsing cave. The tracker fires arrows at thoriphants, and one dies as a result. There’s no strong language, but the phrase “serious as a heart attack” is used. The main thoriphant family is kind, loving and brave. The tribe elders that Mosley meets are at one point deceptive but overall kindhearted. There is only one major female character, Mosley’s pregnant partner, Bera (Lucy Lawless), who encourages Mosley to go on his journey.
Available on demand.
(TV-14)
Popular bounty hunter shows ethics in pulpy action series.
“The Book of Boba Fett” is an action series set in the Star Wars universe that stars one of its most popular characters. Boba Fett, played by Temuera Morrison (“Moana,” “The Mandalorian”), is a former bounty hunter and aspiring Tattoine crime boss who lives by a moral code that involves violence only when necessary. That violence includes action sequences involving martial arts and guns that pop up throughout the series. (7 roughly half-hour episodes)
Available on Disney Plus. | null | null | null | null | null |
Aligning health and economic priorities makes sense — if we choose the right ones
Public health and economic well-being can go hand in hand, unless we pursue economic growth at all costs.
Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical adviser to the president. (Andrew Harnik/AP)
By Josh Mentanko
Josh Mentanko is assistant program director of the Councils of European and Latin American Studies at Yale University’s MacMillan Center for International Studies.
When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reduced the time recommended for quarantine after exposure to covid-19 from 10 days to five, it was quickly criticized for subordinating public health to the economy.
But public health and economic well-being are inextricably intertwined — something that became very clear 50 years ago when international leaders attempted to resolve both global economic and health challenges.
After decades of economic growth following World War II, many economies began to slow down by the 1970s. The 1973 oil shock helped precipitate inflation and unemployment, together known as “stagflation,” throughout the developed economies of Western Europe and the United States.
Stagflation in developed nations meant less demand for commodities, leading to less favorable terms of trade for the developing countries that were economically dependent upon exports. Western banks, flush with petrodollars, were only too happy to fill in the gaps by providing loans to developing countries. When the United States and other countries raised their interest rates near the end of the decade to combat inflation on the home front, the interest rates on debt repayment crushed the economies of developing countries across Africa and Latin America.
But this crisis also created a moment in which radically new ideas about global relationships proliferated.
The 1970s saw the cresting of what journalist and historian Vijay Prashad has called the “third world political project.” Newly decolonized countries in Africa and Asia sought to organize their interests collectively within international institutions like the United Nations through voting blocs like the “Group of 77,” established in 1964. Despite having politically decolonized over a century earlier, many Latin American countries allied themselves to the third world political project because they shared the problems of economic dependency on and deteriorating terms of trade with developed nations.
In the early 1970s, these developing countries promoted a New International Economic Order (NIEO), an interlocking series of proposals for reforming terms of trade. In 1972, Mexican President Luis Echeverría presented the United Nations with the NIEO’s newly written Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, and two years later, the U.N. General Assembly officially adopted it.
The Charter, and the NIEO more generally, sought to reframe the goal of development as the satisfaction of “basic needs” instead of the pursuit of economic growth at all costs. Orienting development toward the satisfaction of basic needs implied rethinking the productive structures of the economy so that they produced more equitable outcomes within and between nations.
Soon, public health became part of this economic conversation. By the late 1960s, the postwar ethos of top-down disease eradication was also being challenged. Danish physician Halfdan Mahler became director general of the World Health Organization in 1973 and assumed a key role as an advocate for a public health grounded in the resources, needs and local technologies of individual communities. The WHO slogan during this period was “universal primary care for all by 2000.” Like reorienting the productive economy around basic needs instead of growth, this slogan implied that grass-roots communities should define health and attendant needs for themselves rather than remain bound by the top-down models of health that failed to meet pressing issues and made them dependent on imported medical technology.
In other words, in both the economy and global health, proposals aiming to liberate the developing world from unfavorable trade relations and its dependence on the technology of the developed world proliferated throughout the 1970s. These movements to reform the economy and global health were not on parallel tracks but promoted a unified vision of health and economic well-being.
Delegates to the International Conference on Primary Health Care in Alma-Ata in September 1978 affirmed that “health, which is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, is a fundamental human right and that the attainment of the highest possible level of health is a most important world-wide social goal.”
The national representatives at Alma-Ata — physicians and public health and development experts — defined primary care as “essential health care based on practical, scientifically sound and socially acceptable methods and technology made universally accessible to individuals and families in the community through their full participation and at a cost that the community and country can afford to maintain at every stage of their development.”
The Alma-Ata delegates also explicitly linked the struggle for universal primary care to the NIEO. “Economic and social development, based on a New International Economic Order, is of basic importance to the fullest attainment of health for all and to the reduction of the gap between the health status of the developing and developed countries,” claimed the Declaration of Alma-Ata.
In places where community-directed primary health care took off, such as Costa Rica, the long-term benefits for public health have been notable. In a recent article for the New Yorker, Atul Gawande writes that “Although Costa Rica’s per-capita income is a sixth that of the United States — and its per-capita health-care costs are a fraction of ours — life expectancy there is approaching eighty-one years.” Meanwhile, in the United States, health expectancy in 2020 was 77.3 years, according to the CDC.
In the end, though, the pressure to service rising foreign debt obligations ate away at developing nations’ ability to pursue unified efforts to reform the economy and health in the 1980s. In particular, the idea of strengthening national health systems was at odds with the need to trim national budgets to satisfy international creditors. A vision of “selective primary care” instead of “comprehensive primary care” narrowed the ambition of primary care to pincer-like interventions. The 1980s saw the triumph, instead, of “neoliberal global health” focused on distributing cost-effective technologies and building public-private partnerships.
The reaction against the CDC’s updated quarantine policy showed that, in their gut, many Americans believe that economic well-being depends on achieving individual and community health. Making policies to recognize this reality may not require replacing our economic priorities with health-focused ones, but instead by making political arguments about how you can’t have one without the other. | null | null | null | null | null |
FILE - This photo provided by the North Korean government, shows what it says a test launch of a hypersonic missile in North Korea on Jan. 5, 2022. Independent journalists were not given access to cover the event depicted in this image distributed by the North Korean government. The content of this image is as provided and cannot be independently verified. Korean language watermark on image as provided by source reads: “KCNA” which is the abbreviation for Korean Central News Agency. (Korean Central News Agency/Korea News Service via AP, File) (朝鮮通信社/KCNA via KNS) | null | null | null | null | null |
Local transportation officials said there were no immediate reports of big crashes on any major highways, but drivers are advised to allow extra time and slow down, as roads may have icy spots. Snow crews were out throughout the area treating highways, roads, bridges and ramps before the snow fell in the early morning hours.
In D.C., Chris Geldart, the deputy mayor for public safety, said Friday morning that the city’s snow crew was out early Thursday evening clearing the main roads first and then working on the side streets in residential areas.
In Virginia, the governor declared a state of emergency Wednesday in advance of Friday’s storm. Officials advised people to stay off the roads to avoid a repeat of Monday’s traffic nightmare on Interstate 95 when it was shut down overnight because of multiple crashes in the snowstorm, and drivers were stuck in their vehicles without food and water.
The Virginia Department of Transportation urged drivers to stay home, if possible, because “travel is hazardous.”
The Post’s Capital Weather Gang said the snow moved out of the region fast, but temperatures were forecast to reach only the upper 20s to low 30s. The storm is part of a larger system that moved up the East Coast in the early morning, dumping mainly between two and four inches in the D.C. region to as much as eight inches in parts of New England. | null | null | null | null | null |
“Not all heroes wear capes thank you, Davante!” the company tweeted.
But the biggest surprise came when the CEO of Alto, an upscale ride-sourcing service operating in Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami and D.C., offered Williams a part-time role supervising and training the company’s drivers.
Alto confirmed Williams has been extended a part-time offer with the luxury ride-share company in an email to The Post.
“DaVante is exactly the type of customer and safety focused leader we are looking to help lead our DC presence,” Alto’s Chief Customer Officer Alex Halbardier said in the email.
Williams, who left his house early Tuesday morning without checking the news or any weather alerts, said he picked up the teenager at Union Station a little past 2 a.m. The girl — the fourth customer of the morning — shared that her parents had ordered her an Uber home after her train ride was canceled because of a derailment.
But what should have been a two-and-a-half-hour ride under normal circumstances quickly became a day-long journey to the girl’s home, Williams said. About 20 miles after getting onto I-95, Williams came across “tons” of cars and trailers with their brake lights on.
First, his GPS indicated he would reach his destination about an hour and a half late. But as hours went by, Williams and the teenager realized they would likely be stuck there for much longer.
Williams said he is scheduled to visit Alto’s D.C. office on Friday to formally accept the job offer. | null | null | null | null | null |
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) speaks at the Maggie L. Walker house in Richmond on Jan. 6. (Gregory S. Schneider/The Washington Post)
Gov. Ralph Northam (D) created the commission last year. An earlier version of the panel had issued two reports in 2020 on racist language that persists in the state’s vast code of laws, from statutes created more than a century ago during the oppression of Jim Crow to more-recent legal language that discriminated based on race.
Northam reconstituted the commission last year amid the coronavirus pandemic and charged it with identifying areas of economic discrimination. The 10 members — including lawyers, judges and business leaders — expanded their mission to take in issues related to rural life and environmental conservation.
“This report, like those that preceded it, tells a sad story of the many different ways in which people of color in Virginia have disproportionately less access to economic opportunity, disproportionately worse life outcomes in rural communities and a disparate lack of conservation investment and access to outdoor space and fresh air,” said Andrew Block, the commission’s vice chair and a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.
Commission chair Cynthia Hudson, a former chief deputy state attorney general, called the work “daunting” but said she felt “extreme satisfaction” at having a chance for “policy building at the advancement of equity in our commonwealth.”
He said he hoped his successor — Gov.-elect Glenn Youngkin (R), who takes office on Jan. 15 — would consider the panel’s findings. “The new administration has a tremendous opportunity, and I hope they will build on the progress all of you have made,” he said.
Members of the General Assembly, which will convene Wednesday, might also use the recommendations to propose laws. The House of Delegates will be under Republican control, while the Senate has a Democratic majority. | null | null | null | null | null |
First Look with The Post’s Jonathan Capehart, E.J. Dionne, Paul Kane & Jennifer Rubin
Jonathan Capehart hosts a reporter debrief, followed by a roundtable discussion with Post opinions columnists (The Washington Post)
Washington Post Live’s “First Look” offers a smart, inside take on the day’s politics. Jonathan Capehart will host a reporter debrief followed by a roundtable discussion with Washington Post columnists. Tune in for news and analysis you can’t get anywhere else on Friday, January 7 at 9:00 a.m. ET.
Paul Kane has covered Congress since 2000, when he started at Roll Call with a beat focused on the Senate. He started with The Washington Post in 2007, covering the 2008 financial crisis and the Obama-Republican fiscal wars. He began writing a regular column, @PKCapitol, on Congress and its interactions with the Trump administration in 2017. He’s covered Washington’s response to the global pandemic, the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, two impeachments and now writes about the Biden administration’s legislative agenda on Capitol Hill.
Jennifer Rubin writes reported opinion for The Washington Post. She covers politics and policy, foreign and domestic, and provides insight into the conservative movement, the Republican and Democratic parties, and threats to Western democracies. Rubin, who is also an MSNBC contributor, came to The Post after three years with Commentary magazine. Prior to her career in journalism, Rubin practiced labor law for two decades, an experience that informs and enriches her work. She is a mother of two sons and lives with her husband in D.C. She is the author of “Resistance: How Women Saved Democracy from Donald Trump.” Sign up to receive Jennifer Rubin’s latest columns in your inbox as soon as they’re published. | null | null | null | null | null |
Chinese officials have promised that the 2022 Winter Olympics — to be held Feb. 4 to 20 and followed by the Paralympics March 4-13 — will be a “safe, streamlined and splendid” global event.
But that won’t be easy. With less than four weeks to go, China is struggling to enforce its strict zero-covid policy amid record global infections from the omicron variant, make sure there is enough snow in a region of the country where it is scarce, and deal with the United States and its allies staging a diplomatic boycott.
Officials say the biggest challenge will be maintaining snow quality to meet strict requirements so “snow cannons” and “snow guns” are being used to produce different densities of snow. Wu Gaosheng, manger of the National Alpine Ski Center, told Chinese state media in November that a team of Chinese and foreign personnel was working 24 hours a day to produce enough snow for the event.
Chinese officials have said that journalists will be free to cover the Winter Olympics and in its bid, Beijing promised media “seeking to report on the Games would have freedom to report.”
According to Beijing’s contract with the International Olympic Committee, organizers must ensure that “there shall be no restrictions or limitations on the freedom of the media to provide independent news coverage” of the Games, the Paralympics and “related events.”
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has said that athletes will be free to express themselves during the Games as long as they abide by IOC rules barring any demonstrations during sporting events or medal ceremonies.
The United States, Canada, Australia, Britain and others have said that they will not be sending government representatives to the Olympic Games as a way of protesting China’s continued suppression of Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. Japan has also said that it will not send cabinet members. | null | null | null | null | null |
Briana Kirkland is demanding “accountability for Trump’s central role in inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection,” according to the lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Washington. The officer was forced to take a year off work after suffering a traumatic brain injury while fending off the pro-Trump mob that breached the Capitol, the complaint says. At one point, she was outnumbered 450 to 1 at one of the Capitol doors and only armed with a baton, the lawsuit alleges.
Kirkland’s lawsuit comes as President Biden forcefully denounced Trump for his role in the Capitol riot, as well as spreading falsehoods about the 2020 presidential election. In a speech from the Capitol’s Statuary Hall, Biden unleashed a torrent of attacks against his immediate predecessor. Though he did not call out Trump by name, Biden made 16 references to the “former president,” whom he squarely blamed for undermining America’s democracy.
Other similar legal actions have been brought against Trump by other Capitol Police officers, who have argued that the former president and his confidants should be held responsible for the violent attack on officers working on Jan. 6 and the physical and emotional trauma they suffer. In August, seven Capitol Police officers sued Trump and more than a dozen alleged Jan. 6 participants, saying the defendants are responsible for the officers being “violently assaulted, spat on, tear-gassed, bear-sprayed, subjected to racial slurs and epithets, and put in fear for their lives.” This week, Moore sued Trump and accused him of inflicting “physical and emotional injuries” by inciting the riot.
Kirkland was assigned to the Senate side of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, according to the complaint. Her unit was told that morning to “gear up” in their hard gear and helmets when they heard that members of the extremist group the Proud Boys were headed toward to Capitol from the White House, the lawsuit says. She and about 20 other Capitol Police officers formed a line against what was an “increasingly hostile crowd” in the early afternoon.
That’s when rioters began to push and shove Kirkland, outnumbering her 450-to-one, the lawsuits says. They sprayed substances and threw items at her and her colleagues.
As rioters and police battled for control of bike rack barriers that were being used as weapons by the mob, she recalled an interaction with one Trump supporter who had “a murderous look in his eyes.” When Kirkland thought the rioter was going to pull her to the ground, she feared she might die, the lawsuit alleges.
Later in the day, Kirkland assisted emergency personnel in their efforts to get to Ashli Babbitt, the rioter who was fatally shot by police.
Hours later, she had a headache, “but didn’t recall being struck in the head,” according to the lawsuit. The next morning, her vision went “completely black.” She would later see fireworks whenever she opened up her eyes, the complaint says. | null | null | null | null | null |
Opinion: Fairfax County can be a trailblazer for student equity
Fairfax County Public Schools buses. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
By Abby Comey
Abby Comey is a senior at the College of William & Mary.
In late November, thousands of high school students from across the country convened online for the 28th annual Student Diversity Leadership Conference (SDLC). For five days, they held hard conversations, forged cross-cultural alliances and unearthed powerful self-discoveries. Though these students represent a range of identities, they all have one thing in common: They attend independent schools.
By excluding public schools from its program, the conference undermines its own values of diversity and inclusion. More disturbing, by not offering their own alternative, public school systems fail their students.
Every public school district in the country should hold an annual diversity leadership conference. Fairfax County, with its revamped budget and sprawling district lines, should be the first.
I attended SDLC as a freshman in high school in 2015. In a massive conference center, for the first time in my life, I was a racial minority. I spent time in my home group — where I learned about identity categorizations such as ability and gender identity — and my affinity group — where I talked about whiteness with all the other White students at the conference. I took part in my first protest, as all 2,000 of us stood with hands raised above our heads.
I came back a changed person. I understood gender as a spectrum, reverse racism as a dangerous myth and police brutality as pressing and real. I was eager to share what I’d been awakened to, and folks were eager to listen. I attended a progressive prep school with a willingness to talk seriously about what diversity means.
But my school’s embrace of anti-racist, anti-ableist and queer-affirming work reveals SDLC’s foundational flaw: It reaches only schools already energized about equity.
Fairfax County has work to do. This October, The Post published an opinion by three LGBTQIA+ students that denounced the county’s banning of two queer-themed books from school libraries. In 2017, researchers at George Mason University found that Black teachers face discrimination in the hiring process.
Although it is among the wealthiest districts in the country, the FCPS student population proves surprisingly diverse. In its most recent Equity Profile, FCPS defines 28 percent of its students as “economically Disadvantaged,” 14 percent as “Students with Disabilities” and 17 percent as “English Learners.” The racial breakdown reveals that 37 percent of students are White, 27 percent are Hispanic, 20 percent are Asian and 10 percent are Black.
Imagine if we filled a ballroom with students from across the county. Imagine if we asked them to talk to one another about their experiences, about their grief and joy, dreams and truths.
SDLC changed my life, but it didn’t change my school, which was already on the path to change. An annual FCPS student diversity leadership conference has the power to inspire progress in our schools because it would target students in a diverse and often inequitable district.
In the past three years, Fairfax County Public Schools has devoted more resources to diversity and inclusion than ever before. In 2019, the school board launched an annual equity symposium for administrators, teachers and office staff. In May 2020, after the murder of George Floyd, the board announced its plans to develop an Anti-Racism, Anti-Bias Curriculum Policy. These changes, though necessary, center on teachers and administrators, not students.
Yet there is one new program that mirrors SDLC’s mission to empower a new generation of anti-racist leaders. Student Equity Ambassador Leaders, or SEALs, are representatives from Fairfax County high schools who “participate in cross-regional committees such as student-led professional learning and school-based equity coalitions” to give students a voice in the county’s quest to foster equity. Though the program is a step toward greater student engagement, SEALs meet sporadically and work under administrative watch. SDLC provides an intensive and private space for students to grow together independent of adult influence.
Whether its slew of new programs reflects a genuine desire to better its schools or a desperate need for positive press, the district’s recent interest in equity and anti-racism reflects progress within the administration. Now we need to see progress among students. The annual symposium engages adults; the SEALs program gives kids a seat at the table during administrative discussions. Students need the time and space to have hard conversations outside the adult gaze.
They need a new table. They need SDLC. | null | null | null | null | null |
Opinion: Gov.-elect Youngkin’s proposed CRT executive order opposes the spirit of the Virginia Constitution
Gov.-elect Glenn Youngkin, pictured on the campaign trail in June 2021, is considering an executive order related to critical race theory when he takes office on Jan. 15. (Michael Blackshire/The Washington Post)
By Catherine Ward
Catherine Ward is a student at the University of Virginia School of Law.
Virginia Gov.-elect Glenn Youngkin’s (R) proposed executive order related to critical race theory (CRT) in Virginia public schools strikes against the spirit of the Virginia Constitution.
In 1971, Virginia ratified its current constitution, which delivers explicit guidance on education policymaking. The constitution largely sought to ensure that the period of Massive Resistance — the period in which Virginia public schools closed to avoid desegregating — could not be repeated. As a result, the constitution’s drafters put primary education policymaking power in the Board of Education, a group of apolitical policymakers they viewed as capable of handling educational issues that could be emotionally charged, such as the race-based discussions spurred by desegregation.
The Virginia Constitution vests the board with broad constitutional power to regulate school curriculums, subject only to legislative approval. The constitution’s education article assigns curriculum-related duties to the board, General Assembly and local school boards — never explicitly mentioning the executive branch in relation to school curriculums. Instead, the constitution’s education article takes a technocratic approach for education policymaking: Experts are meant to put forward policy, which popularly elected Virginians in the legislature approve.
The education article dictates that Virginia’s governor appoint the technocrats carrying out the board’s efforts, subject to the legislature’s approval, but, due to staggered terms, “no more than three regular appointments shall be made in the same year.”
Supplementing the constitution’s text itself, the prominent leading drafter of the education article, Justice Lewis Powell, former president of the Richmond School Board, indicated his desire for the State Board of Education to have curricular control. Although he recognized the “magnitude” of the responsibilities of local school boards and feared threats to their independence, Powell thought curricular standard-setting should occur on a statewide level, in a manner “independen[t] from political and partisan pressures.” Powell stressed to the board in 1969, when promoting the constitution prior to its ratification, that the new constitution sought to “empower” the board with “increased authority and responsibility,” particularly regarding “the prescribing of curriculum standards [and] the selecting of textbooks and instructional aids” — elevating the “minimum standards [of] the marginal school divisions.”
Although the education article is largely silent on gubernatorial duties, the constitution provides the governor with certain powers that could contribute to curricular policy. The governor could contribute to such policy via an executive order. A governor has the power to issue executive orders based on his constitutional power to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Consequently, a governor could put forward an executive order calling on school districts to adopt certain curricular standards or supporting existing law. He could even call a commission to research certain topics in curricular development. However, the constitution and related statutes indicate that, unless an emergency dictates otherwise, curricular development for commonwealth schools should stem from the technocratic process in which the board makes proposals that the legislature approves — not an executive order.
Debates around critical race theory in Virginia public schools have seized national attention since parents crowded a school board meeting to protest the teaching of CRT in Loudoun County Public Schools in June. When Youngkin takes office on Jan. 15, he can respond to these debates while acting according to the spirit of the Virginia Constitution. If he wants to issue an executive order related to school curriculums, it should be designed to bring local views to the technocrats in the Board of Education. Using his executive power, he could, for example, create a Commission on Local Concerns in Curricular Development, which would be assigned an advisory role to the State Board of Education. Such a commission could include local school board members, parents and educators from each region of Virginia, providing equal representation to home-related and classroom-related concerns.
The governor could task this commission with creating a report detailing local concerns surrounding curricular changes related to race and gender, the topics most debated in relation to CRT curriculums in Virginia and across the nation in 2021. The commission could then present this report to the board. To indicate that the board fully considered local concerns, it could respond to the commission in its annual report.
Staying true to the Virginia Constitution’s technocratic intentions, the board should address via empirical research the positive or negative effects certain curricular decisions would have on students’ social-emotional development and ability to interact with children of varied backgrounds in the commonwealth. After all, the constitution’s drafters recognized the latter as key to Virginia’s long-term academic and economic success. | null | null | null | null | null |
Opinion: Maryland should lease out BWI to pay off its pension debt
A terminal entrance at Baltimore-Washington International Marshall Airport. (Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post)
By Christopher B. Summers
Christopher B. Summers is president and chief executive of the Maryland Public Policy Institute.
Maryland had $20 billion in pension debt at the end of 2020. This debt stems from unfunded pension benefit promises in both its teachers and regular state employees’ pension systems. Maryland, along with most other states, saw record-high investment returns for its pension plans last fiscal year, but even this 27 percent return won’t prevent rising pension costs for employees, retirees and taxpayers.
Maryland needs to find a way to pay down this debt.
One source of new funds state policymakers should explore is payments from a long-term lease of the state-owned Baltimore-Washington International Marshall Airport. A study from Reason Foundation transportation expert Robert Poole estimates the Baltimore airport could be worth between $1.6 billion and $2.3 billion via a long-term lease to private airport companies and investors. The airport has $642 million in debt, and, after paying off those bonds, the state could net $1.6 billion from a long-term lease of BWI.
Using these funds to pay down pension debt could reduce future pension costs for the state. Maryland is spending $1.8 billion a year in contributions to the pension plans, and $1.4 billion of this is going toward debt payments. Maryland could free up a portion of its budget each year by using the revenue generated from the airport lease to pay down part of this pension debt.
Leasing an airport involves a state or local government entering a long-term public-private partnership. The typical airport lease is 40 to 50 years. Most often, private companies provide the entire long-term lease payment up front, but they can also choose to issue a down payment and provide scheduled payments over time, as was the case with the lease of the Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The revenue generated could be used for other purposes, such as updating or maintaining existing infrastructure — often referred to as infrastructure asset recycling — or paying down other government debt.
Throughout the world, privately managed airports are becoming the norm. Many large and medium airports in Europe are either fully or partially privatized and are generating revenue for public use, something governments in the United States are missing out on.
These long-term leases can be a win-win for governments and airport customers if properly designed. Ensuring that there is a transparent leasing process, enough competition between companies bidding on the assets and that there is buy-in from airlines is key to designing successful lease agreements.
This idea is not entirely new to Maryland policymakers. In 2010, the state considered full privatization of the airport in an attempt to shore up debt. However, the plan fell through when then-Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) felt that the deal offered was not reflective of the true value of the airport. In addition, he believed that the private company needed to act as a job creator and bring value beyond just cutting costs.
Whether an airport lease must meet every one of those requirements is subjective, but experience in other countries demonstrates that it is possible to address these concerns within the details of a lease agreement.
However, given the size of Maryland’s pension debt relative to the potential value of the airport, the state would need to consider additional policy reforms to fully fund retiree benefits and prevent the growth of future unfunded liabilities. These reforms should include lowering investment return assumptions so they are more in line with market realities and creating a plan to fully pay off the pension plan’s debt within a realistic time frame.
If well executed, long-term airport leases can improve the quality of airport services and provide additional revenue for government bodies. Maryland should strongly consider leveraging BWI to help the state at least partially address its serious pension funding shortfalls. | null | null | null | null | null |
Opinion: ‘Red Wolves’ remains the best choice for the new name for the Washington Football Team
FedEx Field is home to the Washington Football Team, which announced it would unveil the organization's new mascot on Feb. 2. (Toni L. Sandys/The Washington Post)
By Ryan M. Darr
Ryan M. Darr is a postdoctoral research associate at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University.
The red wolf, native to the Southeastern United States, stands on the leading edge of the extinction crisis. Only a handful remain in the wild. Unsurprisingly, some conservationists are thrilled at the prospect of renaming the Washington Football Team for the red wolves, the nation’s most endangered mammal, even if the team teased on Tuesday that “Wolves” would not be the team’s name because of copyright issues.
The name, as a conservationist working with red wolves said, would bring recognition to the cause and improve the wolf’s chances of survival. In fact, the name can do even more.
One reason we are losing so many species is that we simply do not pay attention. Few of us know which species are endemic to our region and which among them are endangered. This lack of attention is a symptom of a deeper problem. In “Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants,” Robin Wall Kimmerer writes that the early European settlers lived in the land without belonging to it, as if they had one foot on the land and one still in the boat. Many of us continue to live as if the land belongs to us but we do not belong to it. How might we learn to belong to the land, to become, as Kimmerer puts it, truly native to a place?
Drawing from the Anishinaabe story of Nanabozho, Kimmerer begins with a simple suggestion: Get to know the nonhuman relatives with whom we share the land. The goal is not simply to accumulate knowledge. The goal is to learn who we are and who we can be, to form identities inextricably bound up with the land and its many nonhuman inhabitants. But we can’t do this individually. Identity is always formed in community. In most local American cultures, native plants and animals remain marginal. One prominent role for animals is as names for sports teams, yet teams are rarely named for local species (lions and tigers in Detroit?). While naming a sports team for an endangered local species is hardly a radical move, it could have a meaningful impact.
Sports teams play an important role in American culture, including in constructing local identities. Americans cheer wholeheartedly for local teams and invest an impressive amount of energy in their fandom. According to sports psychologists, being a sports fan is often part of one’s identity. Even those who do not follow sports can find themselves invested when local pride is at stake. Indeed, local communal identity often appears more firmly rooted in sports allegiances than in shared land, climate and wildlife. If sports teams reflected local wildlife, perhaps identity could be rooted in both at once.
To see how this might matter concretely, consider an example related to national identity. In the mid-20th century, the threat to the bald eagle energized the conservation movement. As the national bird of the United States, the bald eagle not only features in our iconography but is also part of who we are. The possible extinction of our national bird struck many as a personal and communal loss in a way that other extinctions did not. The effort to save it succeeded remarkably. The number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the lower 48 states, estimated at 487 nesting pairs in the 1960s, rose to nearly 10,000 in 2006, and the bird was removed from the Endangered Species List a year later. The threatened loss of a native species for which a local team is named might have a similar effect.
Some worry that retaining “red” in the name would not adequately eliminate the racist scourge of the former name. This concern should be taken seriously. But adopting the "Red Wolves" name might actually be an opportunity — clumsy and inadequate, to be sure — to honor the insights of Indigenous traditions that Kimmerer holds up. Renaming a football team after an endangered native (or once-native) species would be a tiny step in rethinking our relationship to the land, but it would be a step in the right direction.
I don’t mean to suggest that renaming sports teams is the solution to our extinction crisis — far from it. It will not do much for less charismatic species, like D.C.'s only officially endangered species, the Hay’s spring amphipod. But the names of teams in which we are invested — by which we identify ourselves — matter. The Washington Football Team has the opportunity not only to elevate the red wolf but also to make it part of a community’s identity. In doing so, it might energize efforts to reintroduce red wolves in Virginia. It might also become a model. One day, the Washington Red Wolves could face off against the Kansas City Whooping Cranes or the Tampa Bay Manatees. Red wolves, whooping cranes and manatees would be better for it. So would we. | null | null | null | null | null |
First let’s concede that the debate over the “terrorist” label is complicated. Experts note that under federal law, “domestic terrorism” applies to illegal life-threatening acts with the apparent goal of influencing government policy. That might or might not apply here. Still, defendants are not being tried for terrorism, and many haven’t yet been convicted of what they are charged for.
Pointing this out is not meant as whataboutism. This depiction of the left as an all-powerful monolithic enemy, as a full scale civilizational threat, is absolutely central to the right wing project as pursued by the likes of those great warriors.
As long as Cruz is calling the left “terrorists” in service of this broader ideological project, he’ll remain in Carlson’s good graces. But when Cruz starts applying this label to this alleged right wing attackers of police officers on Jan. 6, he must be disciplined severely, because he’s undermining that project. | null | null | null | null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.