AOC on Manchin’s Build Back Better opposition: ‘We knew he would do this months ago’
John L. Dorman December 19, 2021
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York remains in her seat as Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia stands and applauds as President Donald Trump delivers his second State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress at the US Capitol on February 5, 2019.Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
AOC on Sunday said that Manchin turning on the Build Back Better bill was not a shock.
“People can be mad at Manchin all they want, but we knew he would do this months ago,” she tweeted.
The congresswoman voted against the bipartisan bill over concerns about the legislative process.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday expressed little shock at Senator Joe Manchin’s blockbuster announcement that he would decline to back President Joe Biden’s signature Build Back Better Act, pointing to legislative concerns that progressives have raised for months regarding the roughly $2 trillion social-spending bill.
After Manchin’s announcement, the two-term New York Democrat took to Twitter to reiterate her longstanding dissatisfaction with the way in which the bills have been handled on the House floor, continuing in her criticism of the decoupling of the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill from larger package.
“When a handful of us in the House warned this would happen if Dem leaders gave Manchin everything he wanted 1st by moving BIF before BBB instead of passing together, many ridiculed our position,” she tweeted. “Maybe they’ll believe us next time. Or maybe people will just keep calling us naïve.”
She continued: “Either way, we cannot accept no for an answer. Dem leadership – incl but not limited to the President himself and House Dem leadership – wrote a massive check on their credibility the night of the BIF vote in order to secure the votes they needed, *promising* passage of BBB to every member who brought up Manchin, they personally promised they had a solution & BBB would pass. It is simply not an option for Dem leaders to walk from BBB, voting rights, etc. They must find a way, just as they promised they would when we raised this inevitability.”
Months before the bipartisan bill passed the House and was signed into law, progressives called on Democratic leadership to place both bills on the floor for a vote at the same time, while moderates pushed for a vote on the bipartisan bill – without tying it to the larger bill.
Moderates eventually won out, with the bipartisan infrastructure bill passing the lower chamber. However, Ocasio-Cortez was among only six Democratic House lawmakers to oppose the bill, largely based on mistrust over the legislative process.
“Throughout this process, people would say that within our caucus, one of the issues that we have had is trust. And trust is not built in the big moments. Trust is built in the little moments. Trust is built-in process,” she said last month.
“We were ready to vote on Build Back Better this week. At the very last minute, there was a group of people saying, ‘All of sudden, we need a CBO score.’ You’re claiming that you don’t want to let Build Back Better proceed unless you can get certainty on the deficit … [and] demand that you have a deficit-increase bill at the same time? It doesn’t add up. It’s weird. Something weird was going on,” she added at the time, frustrated by the demands from moderates.
While the House eventually passed their version of the Build Back Better Act last month, Manchin’s position — if he stands firm — effectively tosses aside the legislation in the Senate. The bill would establish universal pre-K, renew monthly child tax credit payments to families for another year, and tackle climate change, among other provisions.
Ocasio-Cortez pointed to Democratic leaders to resolve the problem, arguing that the party cannot give up on their shared values.
“People can be mad at Manchin all they want, but we knew he would do this months ago,” she tweeted. “Where we need answers from are the leaders who promised a path on BBB if BIF passed: Biden & Dem leaders. *They* chose to move BIF alone instead of w/ BBB, not Manchin. So they need to fix it.”
Bill Schackner, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette December 17, 2021
Spring semester rule for students, staff comes as colleges brace for omicron-driven spike in cases
Carnegie Mellon University announced late Thursday that it will require COVID-19 booster shots for its thousands of students and employees for the spring semester and will provide additional information in the coming days.
The school joins a small but growing number of campuses nationally that have announced a booster requirement.
”Earlier today Carnegie Mellon issued a COVID-19 update regarding ongoing mitigation efforts as a new semester begins in 2022,” read a statement from the university just after 5 p.m. (Read it here).
“Carnegie Mellon will be requiring booster shots for all CMU community members and in January will provide further information on the timing of that requirement, how to enter that data into the university’s HealthConnect system and the exemption request processes,” it read. “This information is being shared now to enable everyone eligible to take advantage of scheduling their booster shots during the upcoming break.”
The move comes amid increasing concern nationally about the emerging omicron variant on top of the delta variant. On many campuses, finals are wrapping up this week, but some schools seeing a spike in cases have moved tests online, among them Cornell University. New York University and Fordham University have made similar announcements.
Another major campus in the city, the University of Pittsburgh, earlier this month began requiring that students and employees be vaccinated for the spring semester. The university has not altered its fall semester finals or event schedules and has not announced a booster shot requirement for the spring.
Said Pitt spokesman David Seldin:“The University’s Healthcare Advisory Group and COVID-19 Medical Response Office are carefully monitoring the rise in cases nationally and locally, as well as emerging data on the Omicron variant.”
He added:
“As reported in last week’s (Covid-19 Medical Response Office report), there was slight increase in case numbers on the Pittsburgh campus, but to date we’ve not seen anything that would cause us to change our plans for next term. We will continue to monitor the situation during Winter Recess and make adjustments if necessary consistent with public health and expert guidance.”
According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, in other states booster shots are being added as requirements at schools, a sampling of which include, American University, Amherst College, Bentley University, Boston College, Boston University, Bowdoin College, Brown University, Carleton College, Emerson College, Emory University, Georgetown University, George Washington University, Harvard University, Princeton University and Syracuse.
Earlier this month, indoor mask requirements were extended into the spring at several area campuses, including Penn State University and West Virginia University.
“West Virginia University’s spring 2022 semester will begin Monday, Jan. 10, with many of the current COVID-19 campus health and safety protocols remaining in place as health officials monitor the emerging omicron variant,” read a statement from WVU in part.
“With the identification of the omicron coronavirus variant and experts predicting the number of COVID-19 cases to rise over the winter months, Penn State’s indoor masking policy will remain in effect into the spring 2022 semester. University officials will continue to monitor the evolution of the pandemic and the spread of various coronavirus variants and will adjust Penn State’s masking policy when it is safe to do so,” Penn State said in its statement.
At Carnegie Mellon, a message Thursday to campus from Provost Jim Garrett, Dean of Students Gina Casalegno and Daryl Weinert, Vice President for Operations, noted that facial covering requirements will remain as spring semester begins on that campus, too.
They cited the importance that those on campus receive the vaccine.
’Vaccinations have proven to be safe and highly effective in reducing the severity of symptoms and risk of hospitalization, and preliminary indications are that boosters will prove to be an effective defense against severe symptoms with the Omicron variant as well,” they wrote.
Do you know what’s in your blood? New EPA docs show widespread risk from common chemicals
Kyle Bagenstose, USA TODAY December 16, 2021
1 / 2
Do you know what’s in your blood? New EPA docs show widespread risk from common chemicals
John Hickey, center, with his sons, Michael Hickey, right, and Jeff Hickey during a family vacation to the Badlands of South Dakota in 2012. It was a bucket list trip for John; his family booked it two weeks after learning he had stage 4 cancer. He died six months later.
After his father died in 2013 from a cancer that started in his kidney, Michael Hickey was troubled by more than his grief. John Hickey was 70, never smoked and rarely drank.
He did work a night shift at a Saint-Gobain textile plant in their hometown of Hoosick Falls, New York. The plant historically produced fabrics coated with a Teflon-like substance, similar to nonstick pans and other products. When a local schoolteacher also died from cancer shortly afterward, Hickey’s suspicions skyrocketed.
“We seemed to have a ton of this cancer, and I didn’t know what was going on,” he said.
An internet search for “Teflon and cancer” opened a Pandora’s box of studies linking PFOA, a chemical in Teflon, to kidney cancer. He took samples of tap water from his home, his father’s home and a few local businesses, then shipped them to a Canadian laboratory for testing.
Each came back showing extremely high levels of PFOA. The discovery led to intervention by all levels of government and a class action lawsuit by village residents against Saint-Gobain, prior owner Honeywell International, and 3M. The suit was settled this summer for $65 million, which will pay for loss in property values and medical monitoring for residents.
Now, scientists are warning that the dangers of PFOA and a sister chemical stretch far beyond contaminated communities like Hoosick Falls.
In fact, they threaten virtually every American.
John Hickey, center, with his sons, Michael Hickey, right, and Jeff Hickey during a family vacation to the Badlands of South Dakota in 2012. It was a bucket list trip for John; his family booked it two weeks after learning he had stage 4 cancer. He died six months later.
New documents released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency draw the startling conclusion that PFOA is a “likely carcinogen,” with essentially no safe level of exposure.
Startling because scientists have known for two decades that small amounts of PFOA and similar chemicals are in the blood of more than 98% of Americans. Startling because they affirm independent research that indicates the chemicals are measurably driving up rates of kidney cancer, weakening immune systems and possibly even causing tens of thousands of low-birthweight babies each year.
And startling because scientists say it means the EPA’s 5-year-old advisory for safe levels of the chemical in drinking water no longer appears adequate.
It could take years for the EPA to develop a new advisory. Even then, the agency will have to weigh the benefits of filtering out chemicals against the costs – which could stretch into the billions for water utilities across the country.
Yet in the meantime, Americans will continue to consume chemicals that could be harming them, said Scott Faber, senior vice president of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Environmental Working Group. Through tracking public records, the organization found that at least 1,700 water supplies across the country contain PFOA.
“Tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Americans are drinking a chemical that’s now even more strongly linked to cancer,” Faber said.
And experts warn there’s a much bigger picture. Drinking water is only one source of PFOA. Before PFOA and PFOS – a similar chemical also reviewed in the new EPA documents – were phased out of U.S. manufacturing in 2015, Americans were primarily exposed through common household products such as pots and pans, rain gear, carpets and food packaging. The virtually indestructible substances still remain in the environment and in animals consumed by humans, such as fish.
The widespread exposures add enough PFOA to the blood of an average American to be of concern, regardless of their drinking water, said Philippe Grandjean, a researcher at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Often, the chemicals’ harm may not be obvious, he said. For example, it may manifest itself as a child who can’t seem to stay out of the doctor’s office with another cold.
“We see that mothers are recording that more often their kids are sick if they have higher prenatal or postnatal exposure to PFOA,” Grandjean said. “This is already harming populations.”
And PFOA is only one of hundreds of chemicals within a wider class called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). While PFOA and PFOS have been phased out, replacement PFAS chemicals are now in circulation. Some researchers warn early analysis shows they may also cause some of the same toxic effects.
“It’s as bad as it sounds. I don’t think we can sugarcoat this,” Faber said. “PFAS are a public health emergency that touches many more Americans than have been touched by lead pipes or other really urgent health risks.”
Some companies that produced or used PFAS argue that the science isn’t settled.
Sean Lynch, a spokesperson for 3M, which along with DuPont has faced lawsuits over production of the chemicals across the U.S., told USA TODAY the company believes the “weight of evidence” from its own studies and other independent research “does not show these substances cause adverse health outcomes” in the general population.
The EPA told USA TODAY, however, that its new documents concluded the risks from the chemicals are real.
“The new data and analyses in EPA’s draft documents indicate that the toxicity values (for PFOA and PFOS) are much lower than previously understood – including near zero for certain health effects,” the agency said.
Researchers and regulators have known for decades about the potential for harm from chemicals like PFOS and PFOA, but concern was often focused on sites of heavy contamination like this tannery in Rockford, Michigan. New EPA documents conclude PFOA has essentially no level of exposure.
‘This is a bit overdue’
The discovery of PFAS in the blood of everyday Americans happened by chance more than half a century ago. It has taken a new generation of scientists to understand what it may be doing to our health.
While working as a researcher at the University of Rochester in the late 1960s, Donald Taves was interested in studying a relatively new development: the addition of fluoride to drinking water.
He took a sample of his own blood and ran it through a machine that can detect incredibly small amounts of chemicals. What he saw surprised him.
“I found this extra fluorine,” Taves said, and it was more than could be attributed to fluoridation of drinking water.
A colleague checked samples from more than 100 donors at five blood banks in New York and Texas and found the excess fluorine there, too.
“It seemed likely it was some sort of contaminant in the environment,” Taves said. “And that’s when I called 3M.”
Taves’ instincts were right, and his discovery kicked off a decadeslong reckoning. The PFAS chemicals companies such as 3M and DuPont were using in their consumer products were slipping into the blood of hundreds of millions of Americans.
Unlike fluoride found in drinking water, PFAS are synthetic and bind fluorine to carbon molecules, forming one of the strongest bonds in chemistry. That means the chemicals don’t degrade, accumulating in the environment and in human bodies.
Kyle Steenland, an epidemiologist at Emory University in Georgia, is one of the present-day researchers trying to find out what threat that poses.
In the 2000s, Steenland served on a panel of independent scientists that studied 70,000 people along the West Virginia-Ohio border who were exposed to high levels of PFOA from a local DuPont plant. After years of study, Steenland said in three separate studies that researchers found “consistent evidence of kidney cancer” – the same illness that befell John Hickey in Hoosick Falls.
In addition, Steenland and his colleagues found “probable links” between PFOA and diagnosed high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer and pregnancy-induced hypertension.
Scott Bartell, a researcher at the University of California, Irvine, began studying the levels at which PFOA might cause kidney cancer. What he found added to the concern. PFOA didn’t appear to be dangerous only at the levels found in highly exposed populations like in Hoosick Falls and West Virginia but also at levels permissible in drinking water everywhere.
In 2016, the EPA created an advisory level for the chemical in drinking water of no more than 70 parts per trillion (ppt). But Bartell’s calculations showed that somebody drinking the chemical at that amount for a decade faced a 16% higher risk of developing kidney cancer than someone drinking none.
Of even greater concern, Bartell said, the new EPA documents determine PFOA may be even more carcinogenic than his study found. “This is a bit overdue,” Bartell said of the findings in the documents EPA released in November. “It confirms things that many of us already thought were the case.”
The EPA’s findings are also significant to Tracey Woodruff, director of the Reproductive Health and the Environment program at the University of California, San Francisco.
Her research suggests that the average American woman has enough PFOA in her blood to account for about an ounce of lost birthweight in a baby.
On an individual basis, that may not sound like much. But for mothers whose babies are on the margin for clinically low birthweight – 5.5 pounds – it could be critical, Woodruff said. The risks also increase for those with additional PFOA in their blood. If the millions of women whose PFOA blood levels rank in the top half nationwide instead had only the average amount, as many as 40,000 fewer babies would be born at low birthweight each year, Woodruff’s research estimated.
Though that research was completed years ago, Woodruff echoed other researchers in saying the new EPA documents took a similar approach and have now reached similar conclusions.
“This review essentially confirms those findings,” Woodruff said.
Asked further about 3M’s reaction to the EPA’s new documents, Lynch pointed to earlier reviews by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and other government health agencies that did not definitively find a cause-and-effect relationship between PFAS and human health effects.
The company also pointed out that studies show the amount of PFOA and PFOS in the blood of the average American is declining.
Daniel Turner, a spokesperson for DuPont de Nemours, a corporate entity spun off from the original DuPont in 2019, said only that the company does not “make or use” PFOA or PFOS in its products and otherwise supports the EPA’s development of “science-based” regulations.
Saint-Gobain, the textile company in Hoosick Falls, said it never manufactured the chemicals, instead obtaining them from third-party vendors. In addition to the legal settlement made this summer, the company has paid for new filtration systems for public drinking water in Hoosick Falls, spokesperson Peter Clark said.
What’s next?
After a board of scientists peer-reviews the EPA’s new documents, the agency will need to determine a safe limit for the chemicals. The agency has set a goal for the fall of 2022, with regulation going into effect a year later.
The EPA also told USA TODAY it is moving “as quickly as possible” to update its health advisories in the interim.
The EPA could ultimately decide to set the safe limit at effectively zero, requiring drinking water utilities to filter out any detectable amount of the chemicals. Or it could decide that the costs of doing so outweigh the benefits. The agency will hold its first public hearing on that process at 12 p.m. Thursday.
While the Environmental Working Group and others advocate for strict regulation of the chemicals, the American Water Works Association, a nonprofit representing water utilities across the country, is urging a cautious approach to those calculations.
The lower EPA makes the limit, the more utilities will have to spend on new sources of water or installing and maintaining treatment systems, said Steve Via, director of federal relations for the group. With costs for a single system often reaching millions of dollars, the total could reach into the billions.
“It’s a huge number,” Via said, adding that money is needed to address other risks like lead pipes. “At the end of the day, you’ve got to ask yourself, ‘Is this the best way to manage risk?’”
Other action could emerge from the court system. Rob Bilott is an Ohio-based attorney who sued DuPont and created the science panel that studied PFOA’s health effects in West Virginia. (Bilott was played by Mark Ruffalo in the 2019 film about the case, “Dark Waters.”)
Now he has filed a nationwide class action lawsuit in federal court to require that 3M, DuPont and other companies that used the chemicals pay for studies to determine their health effects. If approved, it would represent any American with PFOA and at least one other PFAS in their blood.
“We shouldn’t have to spend decades fighting in court to have this threat recognized – and to hold those companies that caused this mess responsible,” Bilott said. “The science is there. The public health threat is real.”
Paul Gosar’s chief of staff tried to intercept a plane rumored to be full of fake votes for Biden: court docs
Tom Porter December 16, 2021
Chairwoman of the Arizona Republican Party Kelli Ward, Rep. Debbie Lesko, Rep. Andy Biggs, Rep. Paul Gosar, and Sen. Martha McSally greet US President Donald Trump on the tarmac after he arrived at the international airport in Yuma, Arizona, on August 18, 2020.BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images
Paul Gosar’s chief of staff went to great lengths to find evidence of voter fraud, court documents say.
In one notable incident, he tried to intercept a plane rumored to be stuffed with fake votes.
He failed. No evidence has emerged for this kind of elaborate voter fraud.
The chief of staff for Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona tried to catch a plane rumored to be full of fake votes, according to a recent court document.
The episode is one of the most outlandish in the fruitless search by allies of former president Donald Trump for proof that the 2020 election was stolen.
Gosar’s aide, Tom Van Flein, hunted for a plane from South Korea that conspiracy theorists identified as a source of what they thought would be election-changing levels of fraud, per documents cited by The New York Times on Thursday.
They found a Korean Air plane, but no proof of fraudulent ballots.
Gosar himself, a Republican and close ally of Trump, has long pushed conspiracy theories about a stolen election.
The incident with Van Flein was described in a Supreme Court lawsuit filed in March by voter Staci Burk challenging Arizona’s election result, which found Joe Biden had won the state.
The lawsuit’s documents said that Van Flein was among a group of people who traveled on November 7, 2020, to an airplane parking lot near Phoenix after rumors circulated that a plane filled with fake ballots had landed.
According to the documents, the expedition was prompted by a tip sent to independent journalist Ryan Hartwig that a plane from South Korea loaded with fake votes had landed in Sky Harbor Airport on Election Night, and was about to depart.
Van Flein is also mentioned as a participant in an account of the trip on Hartwig’s website.
Hartwig and Van Flein were accompanied by GOP congressional candidate Josh Barrett, activist Marko Triskovitts, and others on the expedition, according to the documents.
They recorded grainy video footage of the exterior of plane belonging to Korean Air, the national carrier of South Korea, which was then uploaded onto Hartwig’s website. The lawsuit said that a member of the group called the local sheriff urging him to investigate. No proof of fake ballots ever emerged.
Insider contacted Gosar’s office, and all of those named in the documents, for comment.
Gosar closely embraced Trump’s election-fraud conspiracy theories, and spent months hyping an audit of votes in Maricopa County.
The belief that votes were being shipped in from abroad was one of the many conspiracy theories pushed by Trump allies as they sought to undermine Biden’s win.
The audit in Maricopa was conducted by a firm run by a Trump supporter, Cyber Ninjas.
Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, reportedly pressed FBI officials to investigate the conspiracy theory that China had managed to hack voting machines using thermostats.
The election fraud “Big Lie” remains at the center of Trump’s speeches and public statements as he stirs rumors of another bid for the presidency in 2024, and continues to be eagerly promoted by his close allies in the GOP.
Congress makes it nearly impossible to investigate whether its aides are violating financial conflict-of-interest laws. We went and did it anyway.
Camila DeChalus,Warren Rojas,Kimberly Leonard December 15, 2021
Congress makes it hard to get records about staffers’ finances and conflicts of interest.Drew Angerer/Getty Images
To promptly access staffers’ financial records, you have to trek to the US Capitol.
We found many staffers violating the STOCK Act. Several refused to explain why.
The lack of transparency isn’t a bug, it’s a feature, legal experts say.
In August, three Insider political reporters endeavored to obtain public records about the personal finances of top congressional staffers.
These records aren’t supposed to be some state secret. They’re mandated by a law called the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act. In theory, any American should have reasonable access to them.
But they don’t.
This is a story about how Congress makes it nearly impossible to obtain and understand information designed to defend against conflicts of interest — and how over the last five months we went and did it anyway.
KIMBERLY LEONARD: Theoretically, you can call to obtain copies of congressional staffers’ personal financial disclosures. For Senate records, they’re $0.20 per page. But when we tried, our calls either went to voicemail or we were asked to fill out forms to retrieve these records — a process that could take weeks. To obtain these records without an indeterminate wait or great expense, or without playing phone tag with the Office of Public Records, you have to physically go to Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. This information is only readily accessible via computers located in windowless rooms in the House Cannon Building basement and the Senate Hart Building.
CAMILA DECHALUS: Some may wonder, why does that matter? Why did we spend countless hours looking at these records? Well, senior congressional staffers regularly have access to sensitive information that lawmakers are getting in closed-door meetings that is not available to the public.
WARREN ROJAS: They could also be taking advantage of these privileges and making certain well-timed stock investments, which could go against current regulations.
KIMBERLY: By law, congressional staffers whose salaries exceed a certain annual threshold — more than $132,552 in 2021 and $131,239 in 2020 — are required to disclose what stocks they bought and sold.
CAMILA: Back in August, we at Insider realized that the only way to find out whether senior congressional staffers were violating the law through late filings or potential conflicts of interests would be to manually check every single financial disclosure and reported stock trade. That meant spending endless hours on Capitol Hill scrolling through ever-changing financial records.
KIMBERLY: We spent countless hours on Capitol Hill, and we went back multiple times ahead of publishing our project, but in the end we did look at every filing from the start of 2020 to the end of August 2021.
CAMILA: That meant sifting through approximately 8,300 filings — more than 4,400 from high-ranking House staffers, and nearly 3,900 from high-ranking Senate staffers — click by mind-numbing click.
WARREN: What we learned wasn’t just that roughly 200 people had filed their disclosures late. The process taught us the extent to which elected officials and their staff were willing to go to obscure information they’re required to make publicly available. After talking to experts, we learned it was that way by design.
KIMBERLY: It took me half a day to figure out where in the sprawling US Capitol campus — there are numerous office buildings beyond the Capitol — the financial disclosures were located. I finally found the House records in the Cannon Office Building basement. (The Senate records are located elsewhere — more on that in a moment.)
Before I could begin searching the records, I had to type my name, address, and organization into the only computer that was working at the time.
I realized there wasn’t an easy way to search these records. You can’t just type in “Nancy Pelosi” or “Kevin McCarthy” and see the financial disclosures their senior staff submitted. The House documents don’t even say which member of Congress each person works for. If you look at a document, it will show only the state abbreviation and the district, or list the abbreviation for the committee. Try memorizing that for 435 people.
The other option for looking through the database is to select a year, such as 2021, to see all the filings reported so far. But there’s no way to limit the search to a more narrow time frame. So good luck checking the records every week hoping to spot new filings. You can’t. You must go through them all and pick up where you left off alphabetically.
It became immediately clear that getting a full picture of congressional staffers’ financial interests would be a task as tall as the Capitol dome. So I teamed up with Insider DC Bureau colleagues Camila DeChalus and Warren Rojas to get it done.
CAMILA: At first I thought it wasn’t going to be that difficult accessing information on what kind of stocks congressional staffers in the Senate were trading. Wow, I was wrong.
The first time I set out to access records on Senate staffers, I went to the Senate public-records office located in the Hart Senate Office Building on the second floor. In front of the office’s glass doors stands a tall American flag on the left side. Immediately when you enter the room you see on the right side three computers set up side by side. When I arrived I was greeted by a “be back in 15” sign on the door. The person running the office eventually came back, but these short breaks became routine. When the office-minder went on a break, I had to go on a break, too — they wouldn’t allow me to stay there alone. One hour’s worth of work to find information often turned into two or three hours’ worth of work because of the constant delays.
Only one Senate staffer was allowed to work in the office to limit in-person contact due to the pandemic. That made accessing these records more difficult.
WARREN: For a while there, the “out for a quick errand” sign on the Hart Building’s second floor became the bane of our existence.
I quickly learned that swinging by the Senate resource center within an hour on either side of noon was a fool’s errand because of the unpredictability of the staff’s lengthy lunch breaks. But popping by earlier proved equally frustrating.
Away sign outside the Office of Public Records in the Hart Senate Office Building.Waren Rojas/Insider
On more than one occasion I found myself waiting for the lone office staffer theoretically on duty that day to return from tending to their personal to-do list. Often they’d meander back double-fisting steaming java from Senate-staffer haven Cups & Company. One aide strolled in with freshly reclaimed dry cleaning over their shoulder.
The worst time suck was the day I showed up at 9:30 a.m. stupidly believing I’d knock out the pending research in a few minutes. The errand sign was already up, falsely promising me access within 10 minutes. When the bagel-toting staffer finally showed up 35 minutes later, I rushed to the first available terminal in the hopes of extracting what I needed before the first round of votes that morning.
Silly me.
The first computer failed to boot up properly. The staffer tinkered with it for a little bit before sliding over to the next terminal. That one wouldn’t even turn on. He made a call. He nodded knowingly before hanging up. And then the staffer asked if I could come back later. I said something about returning within the hour.
“Could you make it after 2 p.m.?” the staffer countered.
KIMBERLY: It was clear from our visits that most people did not even know that they could access these records and that they rarely did so. The logbook on the Senate side hadn’t been signed in months, so our day-after-day presence at these computers was definitely out of the ordinary.
Over on the House side, Congress’ lower chamber had its own problems. For weeks there was only one functioning computer terminal — literally the only one in the entire United States of America — available for viewing congressional staffers’ financial information. Camila, Warren, and I had to take turns using it.
Someone from congressional IT finally got a second computer working. But the system remained super complicated.
If someone trades stocks frequently, they generate reams of documents to comb through, and each must be separately downloaded. Some individual disclosures went on for 10 pages or more, so I had to scroll back and forth to see whether staffers had disclosed their trades late and which of their filings were the most tardy. I also had to compare the different amendments they filed to see whether some of the disclosures were actually late or whether an amendment was filed to fix a typo.
Some of the filings were handwritten and incredibly difficult to read. (This turned out to be true for some members of Congress as well.) Printing the filings for closer inspection might have helped somewhat, but the House charges $0.10 per printed page, while the Senate charges $0.20 a page.
House staffers’ disclosures are kept in this basement room on Capitol Hill.Camila DeChalus
‘They want to make it hard’ to find these records
KIMBERLY: The public’s right to access data about top congressional staffers’ personal finances was supposed to be significantly stronger. Under the original STOCK Act that Congress passed in 2012, senior congressional staffers’ financial disclosures were slated to be posted online, just like they are for members of Congress.
Craig Holman, a government-affairs lobbyist for the nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen, told me the law had also mandated that the disclosures be “searchable, sortable, and downloadable.”
Obviously, that’s not the system we have today. Not even close.
So how did it all get so off track? One year after the STOCK Act became law, Congress quietly and quickly passed another bill that amended it. President Barack Obama signed it into law. This amendment gutted language that would have made it easy to search congressional staffers’ financial records. That’s how they all ended up in specific databases that could be accessed only on the Hill.
Even the data on members of Congress — while posted publicly online and accessible to anyone with an internet connection — is clunky. For example, there’s no way to see how many members of Congress invest their money in a particular company, except to look at every member’s individual filings. (But you can soon do that using a database Insider has created!)
CAMILA: When we finally analyzed the congressional-staffer financial data we needed, we determined that dozens of staffers were weeks, months, or even years late in filing their mandatory disclosures. I followed up with the Legislative Resource Center about whether it keeps records for people who violate the STOCK Act’s deadlines and whether they paid statute-required late fees. But a clerk of the office said he could not comment on it because the information was “confidential.”
WARREN: Neither House nor Senate Ethics Committee staffers would speak on the record about their internal processes. They provided no official guidance on whom congressional staff with filing-related questions should ask to speak to at the committee — though the names of the lawyers and financial professionals who vet everything for eachchamber are posted online. And they offered no explanation about whether documentation exists that would verify claims of having hashed things out with ethics officials one way or the other.
The Senate Ethics team redirected every question to a dedicated phone line that evidently handles all incoming calls, while House Ethics stuck with the check-our-website mantra.
CAMILA: I spoke with James Thurber, an American University professor and congressional-studies expert, and he said the lack of transparency about congressional staffers’ financial records is “intentional.”
He told me that “they want to make it hard” to find these records.
KIMBERLY: I called up Walter Shaub, the former director of the executive-branch-focused US Office of Government Ethics who now leads the government-ethics initiative at the Project on Government Oversight. I told him what it was like for us to dig up the congressional data.
“This is absolutely shocking, which is not to say that it’s surprising,” he said. “But it’s shocking in that it’s truly appalling behavior by Congress trying to flout the spirit of its own laws.”
When people want financial documents from the executive branch, all they have to do is send an email asking for it, he told me.
He also noted that my colleagues and I were all in DC when we researched congressional staffers’ financial information. But that’s not true for everyone who wants to access such a wide array of information. A political researcher from Fairbanks, Alaska, for instance, would need to take at least two flights, pay for a hotel, and trek to Capitol Hill. It would be especially difficult on days when the congressional document repositories have limited hours, such as during recess — or when someone like Camila, Warren, or me is monopolizing the limited computer terminals.
Jason Briefel, the director of policy and outreach at the Senior Executives Association, a nonprofit, nonpartisan professional association representing career federal civil servants, told me that his organization supported amending the law in 2013 for personal safety and security reasons, particularly for those who work on national security issues or have to travel abroad for work.
“We don’t want privacy to be a cloak, but being able to track someone down at their house where you know what their assets are and how much they are worth — that is a lot to put out there,” he said.
Yet he also said he thought the law clearly could be improved. While he doesn’t think the information from senior staff should be posted online like it is for members of Congress, he said lawmakers should consider how to make it easier for journalists to access and sort through the records. He called the enforcement of the law “inadequate.”
The system, as designed, doesn’t allow reporters or the general public to independently verify whether congressional staffers and members of Congress are paying fines associated with violating the STOCK Act’s filing requirements. We are mostly left to rely only on the word and honor of congressional staffers and lawmakers who may have violated the STOCK Act.
CAMILA: Because we couldn’t confirm with other congressional committees and offices on which lawmakers and staffers violated the law and therefore had to pay the fines, we contacted congressional staffers and lawmakers themselves independently to confirm if they paid a $200 late fee.
KIMBERLY: While several people were transparent about what had happened and even provided us documentation, many others refused to explain why they had violated the STOCK Act, saying only that “the matter was resolved.” Some forwarded our inquiries to press representatives who gave similar canned answers.
Shaub lamented that “Congress has a terrible history of not even trying to live up to ethical requirements it sets for both itself and the executive branch.”
“The problem is that the executive branch has Congress watching over it, and Congress has nobody watching over it,” Shaub said. “So the old saying ‘It’s good to be king’ rings true in this case.”
Brian Williams Signs Off MSNBC With Stark Warning About America’s Future
By Isabel Van Brugen December 10, 2021
Longtime news anchor and MSNBC host Brian Williams has left the network after nearly three decades, signing off on the final episode of his popular nightly political talk program The 11th Hour with a stark warning about America’s future.
Williams, 62, first announced his plans to leave in November, saying “following much reflection,” he chose to step down upon the completion of his contract. He said in a memo to colleagues at the time that in his 28 years with NBC, he had covered eight Olympic Games and seven presidential elections.
“What a ride it’s been,” said Williams in a three-minute farewell speech on Thursday night, as he thanked his friends, family, co-workers and viewers.
“After 28 years of peacock logos on much of what I own, it is my choice now to jump without a net into the great unknown,” he said.
He concluded his final The 11th Hour broadcast by saying that his “biggest worry” is for future of the United States.
“The truth is, I’m not a liberal or a conservative, I’m an institutionalist,” Williams told his viewers. “I believe in this place and in my love of country I yield to no one, but the darkness on the edge of town has spread to the main roads and highways and neighborhoods, it’s now at the local bar and the bowling alley, at the school board and the grocery store, and it must be acknowledged and answered for.”
Williams continued by criticizing elected officials “who swore an oath to our Constitution” who he believes have “decided to join the mob and become something they are not, while hoping we somehow forget who they were.”
“They’ve decided to burn it all down with us inside—that should scare you to no end, as much as it scares an aging volunteer fireman,” he said.
The state of the nation is “unrecognizable to those who came before us and fought to protect it—which is what you [viewers] must do now,” Williams added.
He also took the opportunity to reflect on his time at the network, saying “it has been and remains a wonderful life.”
“Where else, how else, was a kid like me going to meet presidents and kings, and the occasional rock star?”
Williams’ The 11th Hour debuted at the height of the 2016 presidential election. Prior to that, he was the anchor of the NBC Nightly News program, but was suspended for six months in 2015 without pay after it was found he exaggerated a story about a helicopter ride in Iraq.
Williams, who hasn’t yet publicly talked about his future plans, suggested that it won’t be long before he returns to the industry.
“I will probably find it impossible to be silent and stay away from you and lights and cameras,” he said. “After I experiment with relaxation and find out what I’ve missed and what’s out there.”
“Every weeknight for decades now, I’ve said some version of the same thing: ‘Thank you for being here with us,'” Williams concluded. “Us, meaning the people who produce this broadcast for you. And you…Well, without you, there is no us.
“I’ll show myself out until we meet again. That is our broadcast for this Thursday night. Thank you for being here with us. And for all my colleagues at the networks of NBC News, goodnight.”
Three Myths About Renewable Energy and the Grid, Debunked
Yale Environment 360, Yale School of the Environment
Renewable energy skeptics argue that because of their variability, wind and solar cannot be the foundation of a dependable electricity grid. But the expansion of renewables and new methods of energy management and storage can lead to a grid that is reliable and clean.
By Amory B. Lovins, M.V. Ramana December 9, 2021
Wind turbines and solar panels in Bavaria, Germany. FRANK BIENEWALD / LIGHTROCKET VIA GETTY IMAGES
As wind and solar power have become dramatically cheaper, and their share of electricity generation grows, skeptics of these technologies are propagating several myths about renewable energy and the electrical grid. The myths boil down to this: Relying on renewable sources of energy will make the electricity supply undependable.
Last summer, some commentators argued that blackouts in California were due to the “intermittency” of renewable energy sources, when in fact the chief causes were a combination of an extreme heat wave probably induced by climate change, faulty planning, and the lack of flexible generation sources and sufficient electricity storage. During a brutal Texas cold snap last winter, Gov. Greg Abbott wrongly blamed wind and solar power for the state’s massive grid failure, which was vastly larger than California’s. In fact, renewables outperformed the grid operator’s forecast during 90 percent of the blackout, and in the rest, fell short by at most one-fifteenth as much as gas plants. Instead, other causes — such as inadequately weatherized power plants and natural gas shutting down because of frozen equipment — led to most of the state’s electricity shortages.
In Europe, the usual target is Germany, in part because of its Energiewende (energy transformation) policies shifting from fossil fuels and nuclear energy to efficient use and renewables. The newly elected German government plans to accelerate the former and complete the latter, but some critics have warned that Germany is running “up against the limits of renewables.”
In reality, it is entirely possible to sustain a reliable electricity system based on renewable energy sources plus a combination of other means, including improved methods of energy management and storage. A clearer understanding of how to dependably manage electricity supply is vital because climate threats require a rapid shift to renewable sources like solar and wind power. This transition has been sped by plummeting costs —Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates that solar and wind are the cheapest source for 91 percent of the world’s electricity — but is being held back by misinformation and myths.
Myth No. 1: A grid that increasingly relies on renewable energy is an unreliable grid.
Going by the cliché, “In God we trust; all others bring data,” it’s worth looking at the statistics on grid reliability in countries with high levels of renewables. The indicator most often used to describe grid reliability is the average power outage duration experienced by each customer in a year, a metric known by the tongue-tying name of “System Average Interruption Duration Index” (SAIDI). Based on this metric, Germany — where renewables supply nearly half of the country’s electricity — boasts a grid that is one of the most reliable in Europe and the world. In 2020, SAIDI was just 0.25 hours in Germany. Only Liechtenstein (0.08 hours), and Finland and Switzerland (0.2 hours), did better in Europe, where 2020 electricity generation was 38 percent renewable (ahead of the world’s 29 percent). Countries like France (0.35 hours) and Sweden (0.61 hours) — both far more reliant on nuclear power — did worse, for various reasons.
The United States, where renewable energy and nuclear power each provide roughly 20 percent of electricity, had five times Germany’s outage rate — 1.28 hours in 2020. Since 2006, Germany’s renewable share of electricity generation has nearly quadrupled, while its power outage rate was nearly halved. Similarly, the Texas grid became more stable as its wind capacity sextupled from 2007 to 2020. Today, Texas generates more wind power — about a fifth of its total electricity — than any other state in the U.S.
Myth No. 2: Countries like Germany must continue to rely on fossil fuels to stabilize the grid and back up variable wind and solar power.
Again, the official data say otherwise. Between 2010 — the year before the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan — and 2020, Germany’s generation from fossil fuels declined by 130.9 terawatt-hours and nuclear generation by 76.3 terawatt hours. These were more than offset by increased generation from renewables (149.5 terawatt hours) and energy savings that decreased consumption by 38 terawatt hours in 2019, before the pandemic cut economic activity, too. By 2020, Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions had declined by 42.3 percent below its 1990 levels, beating the target of 40 percent set in 2007. Emissions of carbon dioxide from just the power sector declined from 315 million tons in 2010 to 185 million tons in 2020.
So as the percentage of electricity generated by renewables in Germany steadily grew, its grid reliability improved, and its coal burning and greenhouse gas emissions substantially decreased.
In Japan, following the multiple reactor meltdowns at Fukushima, more than 40 nuclear reactors closed permanently or indefinitely without materially raising fossil-fueled generation or greenhouse gas emissions; electricity savings and renewable energy offset virtually the whole loss, despite policies that suppressed renewables.
Myth No. 3: Because solar and wind energy can be generated only when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, they cannot be the basis of a grid that has to provide electricity 24/7, year-round.
While variable output is a challenge, it is neither new nor especially hard to manage. No kind of power plant runs 24/7, 365 days a year, and operating a grid always involves managing variability of demand at all times. Even with no solar and wind power (which tend to work dependably at different times and seasons, making shortfalls less likely), all electricity supply varies.
Seasonal variations in water availability and, increasingly, drought reduce electricity output from hydroelectric dams. Nuclear plants must be shut down for refueling or maintenance, and big fossil and nuclear plants are typically out of action roughly 7 percent to 12 percent of the time, some much more. A coal plant’s fuel supply might be interrupted by the derailment of a train or failure of a bridge. A nuclear plant or fleet might unexpectedly have to be shut down for safety reasons, as was Japan’s biggest plant from 2007 to 2009. Every French nuclear plant was, on average, shut down for 96.2 days in 2019 due to “planned” or “forced unavailability.” That rose to 115.5 days in 2020, when French nuclear plants generated less than 65 percent of the electricity they theoretically could have produced. Comparing expected with actual performance, one might even say that nuclear power was France’s most intermittent 2020 source of electricity.
Climate- and weather-related factors have caused multiple nuclear plant interruptions, which have become seven times more frequent in the past decade. Even normally steady nuclear output can fail abruptly and lastingly, as in Japan after the Fukushima disaster, or in the northeastern U.S. after the 2003 regional blackout, which triggered abrupt shutdowns that caused nine reactors to produce almost no power for several days and take nearly two weeks to return to full output.
The Bungala Solar Farm in South Australia, where the grid has run almost exclusively on renewables for days on end. LINCOLN FOWLER / ALAMY STOCK PHOTO
Thus all sources of power will be unavailable sometime or other. Managing a grid has to deal with that reality, just as much as with fluctuating demand. The influx of larger amounts of renewable energy does not change that reality, even if the ways they deal with variability and uncertainty are changing. Modern grid operators emphasize diversity and flexibility rather than nominally steady but less flexible “baseload” generation sources. Diversified renewable portfolios don’t fail as massively, lastingly, or unpredictably as big thermal power stations.
ALSO ON YALE E360
In boost for renewables, grid-scale battery storage is on the rise. Read more.
The purpose of an electric grid is not just to transmit and distribute electricity as demand fluctuates, but also to back up non-functional plants with working plants: that is, to manage the intermittency of traditional fossil and nuclear plants. In the same way, but more easily and often at lower cost, the grid can rapidly back up wind and solar photovoltaics’ predictable variations with other renewables, of other kinds or in other places or both.This has become easier with today’s far more accurate forecasting of weather and wind speeds, thus allowing better prediction of the output of variable renewables. Local or onsite renewables are even more resilient because they largely or wholly bypass the grid, where nearly all power failures begin. And modern power electronics have reliably run the billion-watt South Australian grid on just sun and wind for days on end, with no coal, no hydro, no nuclear, and at most the 4.4-percent natural-gas generation currently required by the grid regulator.
Most discussions of renewables focus on batteries and other electric storage technologies to mitigate variability. This is not surprising because batteries are rapidly becoming cheaper and widely deployed. At the same time, new storage technologies with diverse attributes continue to emerge; the U.S. Department of Energy Global Energy Storage Database lists 30 kinds already deployed or under construction. Meanwhile, many other and less expensive carbon-free ways exist to deal with variable renewables besides giant batteries.
Many less expensive and carbon-free ways exist to deal with variable renewables besides giant batteries.
The first and foremost is energy efficiency, which reduces demand, especially during periods of peak use. Buildings that are more efficient need less heating or cooling and change their temperature more slowly, so they can coast longer on their own thermal capacity and thus sustain comfort with less energy, especially during peak-load periods.
A second option is demand flexibility or demand response, wherein utilities compensate electricity customers that lower their use when asked — often automatically and imperceptibly — helping balance supply and demand. One recent study found that the U.S. has 200 gigawatts of cost-effective load flexibility potential that could be realized by 2030 if effective demand response is actively pursued. Indeed, the biggest lesson from recent shortages in California might be the greater appreciation of the need for demand response. Following the challenges of the past two summers, the California Public Utilities Commission has instituted the Emergency Load Reduction Program to build on earlier demand response efforts.
Some evidence suggests an even larger potential: An hourly simulation of the 2050 Texas grid found that eight types of demand response could eliminate the steep ramp of early-evening power demand as solar output wanes and household loads spike. For example, currently available ice-storage technology freezes water using lower-cost electricity and cooler air, usually at night, and then uses the ice to cool buildings during hot days. This reduces electricity demand from air conditioning, and saves money, partly because storage capacity for heating or cooling is far cheaper than storing electricity to deliver them. Likewise, without changing driving patterns, many electric vehicles can be intelligently charged when electricity is more abundant, affordable, and renewable.
The top graph shows daily solar power output (yellow line) and demand from various household uses. The bottom graph shows how to align demand with supply, running devices in the middle of the day when solar output is highest. ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE
A third option for stabilizing the grid as renewable energy generation increases is diversity, both of geography and of technology — onshore wind, offshore wind, solar panels, solar thermal power, geothermal, hydropower, burning municipal or industrial or agricultural wastes. The idea is simple: If one of these sources, at one location, is not generating electricity at a given time, odds are that some others will be.
Finally, some forms of storage, such as electric vehicle batteries, are already economical today. Simulations show that ice-storage air conditioning in buildings, plus smart charging to and from the grid of electric cars, which are parked 96 percent of the time, could enable Texas in 2050 to use 100 percent renewable electricity without needing giant batteries.
To pick a much tougher case, the “dark doldrums” of European winters are often claimed to need many months of battery storage for an all-renewable electrical grid. Yet top German and Belgian grid operators find Europe would need only one to two weeks of renewably derived backup fuel, providing just 6 percent of winter output — not a huge challenge.
ALSO ON YALE E360
From homes to cars, it’s now time to electrify everything. Read more.
The bottom line is simple. Electrical grids can deal with much larger fractions of renewable energy at zero or modest cost, and this has been known for quite a while. Some European countries with little or no hydropower already get about half to three-fourths of their electricity from renewables with grid reliability better than in the U.S. It is time to get past the myths.
Amory B. Lovins is an adjunct professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, and co-founder and chairman emeritus of Rocky Mountain Institute. M. V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.
‘Top editors and reporters want to be accepted into the circles of the powerful – because such acceptance is psychologically seductive.’ Photograph: Sarah Silbiger/EPA
I’m often asked how I keep up with the news. Obviously, I avoid the unhinged rightwing outlets pushing misinformation, disinformation and poisonous lies.
But I’ve also grown wary of the mainstream media – not because it peddles “fake news” but because of three more subtle biases.
First, it often favors the status quo. Mainstream journalists wanting to appear serious about public policy rip into progressives for the costs of their proposals, but never ask self-styled “moderates” how they plan to cope with the costs of doing nothing or doing too little about the same problems.
A Green New Deal might be expensive but doing nothing about the climate crisis will almost certainly cost far more. Medicare for All will cost a lot, but the price of doing nothing about America’s cruel and dysfunctional healthcare system will soon be in the stratosphere.
Second, it fails to report critical public choices. Any day now, the Senate will approve giving $778bn to the military for this fiscal year. That’s billions more than the Pentagon sought. It’s four times the size of Biden’s Build Back Better bill, which comes to around $175bn a year. But where’s the reporting on the effects of this spending on the national debt, or on inflation, or whether it’s even necessary?
Third, it indulges in false equivalence, claiming that certain Republican and Democratic lawmakers are emerging as “troublemakers” within their parties or that extremists “on both sides” are “radicalizing each other”.
These reports equate Republican lawmakers who are actively promoting Donald Trump’s big lie that the 2020 election was stolen with Democratic lawmakers who are fighting to protect voting rights. These are not equivalent. Trump’s big lie is a direct challenge to American democracy.
In the looming fight over whether to preserve the Senate filibuster, the mainstream media gives equal weight to both sides’ claims of radicalism. But ask yourself which is more radical – abolishing the filibuster to save American democracy or destroying American democracy to save the filibuster?
The old labels “left” versus “right” are fast becoming outdated. Today, it’s democracy versus authoritarianism. Equating them is misleading and dangerous.
Why doesn’t the mainstream media see this? Not just because of its dependence on corporate money. I think the source of the bias is more subtle.
Top editors and reporters, usually based in New York and Washington, want to be accepted into the circles of the powerful – not only for sources of news but also because such acceptance is psychologically seductive. It confers a degree of success. But once accepted, they can’t help but begin to see the world through the eyes of the powerful.
I follow the mainstream media, but I don’t limit myself to it. And I don’t rely on it to educate the public about bold, progressive ideas that would make America and the world fairer and stronger.
Key revelations from the new book by Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows
Dylan Stableford and Caitlin Dickson December 7, 2021
Then-President Donald Trump was so weak during his bout with COVID-19 last fall that he couldn’t carry his briefcase on the walk from the White House to the helicopter that would airlift him to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, where he spent three days being treated for a blood oxygen level that was “dangerously low.”
That’s according to “The Chief’s Chief,” a new memoir by Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff, which was published on Tuesday.
Below are some of the key revelations from the book, which Trump wrote a cover blurb for but has since reportedly been fuming about.
Trump’s condition was far more grave than previously known
Then-President Donald Trump and White House chief of staff Mark Meadows arrive at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., Oct. 2, 2020. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP)
On Oct. 2, 2020 — the day Trump announced he had tested positive for the coronavirus — Meadows writes that the president’s blood oxygen level was about 86 percent, or roughly 10 points below what would be considered normal.
Trump was given supplemental oxygen as well as a monoclonal antibody therapy made by Regeneron, administered intravenously, that Meadows had arranged to be secretly delivered to the White House.
“We’d rigged the four-poster bed in the president’s room so that he could recline and take the drug while he was still alert and giving orders,” Meadows writes.
But Trump’s health had deteriorated so much that Dr. Sean Conley, the then White House doctor, felt the president needed to be hospitalized, and it was up to Meadows to convince him to go.
Meadows recalls that when he walked into Trump’s private residence, the president was sitting up in bed in a T-shirt with red streaks in his eyes.
“It was the first time I had seen him in anything other than a golf shirt or a suit jacket,” Meadows writes. “His hair was a mess from the hours he’d spent getting Regeneron in bed.”
Trump was initially resistant to the idea of going to the hospital, according to Meadows, but the chief of staff pleaded with him.
“It’s better that you walk out of here today under your own strength, your own power, than for me to have to carry you out on a gurney in two days,” Meadows recalls telling him.
Trump relented. But when he went to walk to the helicopter that would transport him to Walter Reed, he could not hold a briefcase, the weight of which was “too much for him,” according to Meadows.
“He looked at me, almost surprised he had to put it down. ‘I’m sorry,’ he said. ‘I — I just can’t carry that out there,’” Meadows writes.
Trump tested positive for COVID-19 three days before first debate
Trump during the first presidential debate against Joe Biden in Cleveland, Sept. 29, 2020. (Morry Gash/Pool/Getty Images)
Trump first tested positive for the coronavirus on Sept. 26, 2020, three days before his first debate with Joe Biden in Cleveland, and appeared to be symptomatic, according to Meadows. (Trump was tested again and received a negative result, according to Meadows.)
But Trump participated in the debate, and other events, despite allegedly knowing he had tested positive for the coronavirus.
“Nothing was going to stop him from going out there,” Meadows writes, adding: “We’ll probably never know whether President Trump was positive that evening.”
Last week, after the Guardian published an excerpt of Meadows’s book containing that revelation, Trump denied the claim.
“The story of me having COVID prior to, or during, the first debate is Fake News,” Trump said in a statement. “In fact, a test revealed that I did not have COVID prior to the debate.” He issued another statement on Monday repeating his denial.
Meadows says he was informed of Trump’s first positive test by Conley while the president was en route to a rally in Pennsylvania.
Meadows then relayed the news to Trump, who had called him from Air Force One.
“Oh s***, you’ve got to be f***ing kidding me,” Trump replied, according to Meadows.
The test, the former chief of staff writes, was conducted with “an old model kit.”
A second test — using the “Binax system” — was performed and came back negative, which, according to Meadows, Trump took as “full permission to press on as if nothing had happened.”
The next day, Sept. 27, Trump played golf in Virginia and appeared maskless alongside first lady Melania Trump at an event for Gold Star families. He would later suggest that he contracted the virus through his interactions with those families.
Trump was rushed to an underground bunker during George Floyd protests
Protesters face off with Secret Service officers outside the White House, May 29, 2020. (Eric Thayer/Reuters)
In the book, Meadows confirms reports that Trump did, in fact, retreat to an underground bunker at the White House on May 29, 2020, as a nighttime protest outside the executive mansion over the death of George Floyd intensified.
“He didn’t have a choice,” Meadows writes. “When the Secret Service asked President Trump to head downstairs to the White House bunkers, he complied. He knew he could go to the bunker with a few agents by his side, or he could go on their shoulders kicking and screaming. For everyone’s sake, the first option was better.”
The New York Times later reported that Secret Service agents rushed Trump to the underground bunker. (“To this day, I do not know how this information got out,” Meadows writes. “I have no doubt it was leaked by someone intent on hurting the president.”)
Trump denied the report, claiming he “went down during the day” for “an inspection.”
“It was a false report. I wasn’t down,” Trump said on Fox News Radio. “I was there for a tiny, little, short period of time.”
Meadows blames a ‘handful of fanatics’ for the Jan. 6 insurrection
A mob of Trump supporters clashes with police outside the Capitol, Jan. 6, 2021. (Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
Elsewhere in the book, Meadows seems to try to downplay the then president’s role in the events of Jan. 6, when hundreds of Trump supporters violently stormed the Capitol, injuring more than 140 police officers and delaying the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral win.
Though more than 700 people have been charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack, according to Meadows, “no one would [focus] on the actions of … those supporters of President Trump who came [to Washington on Jan. 6] without hate in their hearts or any bad intentions.” Instead, he writes, “they would laser in on the actions of a handful of fanatics across town.”
Meadows also disputes critics who have accused Trump of encouraging his supporters to engage in violence at a rally shortly before the riot unfolded. He writes that Trump’s speech on Jan. 6, when he told supporters to “fight like hell,” was “more subdued than usual,” and claims that the then president was “speaking metaphorically” when he said he would join the crowd in marching on the Capitol to “cheer on” Republicans objecting to the Electoral College results.
Trump “knew as well as anyone that we couldn’t organize a trip like that on such short notice,” Meadows says. Some of the rioters have said they decided to march on the Capitol in part because of Trump’s pledge to go with them.
The revelations about that day were of particular interest to members of the House Jan. 6 committee, which issued a subpoena to the former chief of staff in September seeking seeking documents and testimony regarding his role in Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and stop the certification of Biden’s win. Last week, the committee revealed that Meadows had agreed to cooperate with the panel and would soon appear for an initial deposition. But on Tuesday morning, a lawyer for Meadows told Fox News that he would no longer be engaging with the Jan. 6 probe, citing an inability to reach an understanding with lawmakers on whether certain pieces of information could be covered by executive privilege.
‘Don’t let them give up on me’: Heartbreaking last text anti-vaxxer bodybuilder, 42, sent to his twin sister as he was induced into coma shortly before Covid killed him
Father of one John Eyers, from Southport, Merseyside, died in July, aged 42
His twin sister Jenny McCann described him as a ‘staunch anti-vaxxer’
His last message was sent on July 11, more than two weeks before he died
Mr Eyers thought he would only have a ‘mild illness’ if he caught Covid-19
He died after suffering from infection and organ failure, leaving behind daughter
By Stephen Wynn – Davies December 7, 2021
A fit and healthy 42-year-old father with a love of rock climbing and bodybuilding sent a message to his twin sister saying ‘don’t let them give up on me’ shortly before he died after contracting coronavirus.
John Eyers, a construction expert from Southport, Merseyside, had been climbing the Welsh mountains and wild camping one month before his death in July, which came exactly four weeks after he tested positive.
His twin sister Jenny McCann from London said he was the ‘fittest, healthiest person I know’ and had thought he would only have a ‘mild illness’ if he contracted coronavirus, adding that he had a ‘belief in his own immortality’. Mrs McCann said that Mr Eyers had ‘no underlying health conditions’ but did also state that he had asthma. ‘Completely shattered and in disbelief’: Bob Saget’s widow Kelly Rizzo admits she’s struggling following his shocking death at 65 as friends including John Mayer and Full House stars John Stamos and Candace Bure arrive at her home to offer comfort, and other top stories from January 11, 2022.
Before going onto a ventilator in hospital, Mr Eyers told his consultant that he wished he had been vaccinated – and died in intensive care after suffering from an infection and organ failure, leaving behind a daughter aged 19.
Mr Eyers’ condition got progressively worse and, on the morning of July 27, his family was told he was dying.
He died later that day, moments before his family arrived at his bedside.
John Eyers, 42, had been climbing the Welsh mountains and wild camping one month before his death from Covid in July this year
Before going onto a ventilator in hospital, Mr Eyers told his consultant that he wished he had been vaccinated, his sister said
In May, his sister Jenny McCann had tweeted a selfie after getting her first jab, saying: ‘Full on tears after getting Covid jab’
Mrs McCann, of Pinner, North West London, who got her first vaccine jab on May 10, described her brother as a ‘staunch anti-vaxxer’. She added that the family had ‘all fallen out with him over his stance’.
The mother-of-two posted a series of tweets about Mr Eyers in August, a week after he died, saying: ‘My 42-year-old old twin brother died in ITU (intensive treatment unit) of Covid-19 last week. He died exactly four weeks after testing positive.
Matthew Keenan told friends that he ‘wished he had his jab’
A self-confessed vaccine sceptic who said ‘if he could turn back time he would’ after he was admitted to hospital last month with Covid-19 died with the virus aged 34.
Matthew Keenan told friends that he ‘wished he had his jab’ after he was hospitalised at Bradford Royal Infirmary and placed in an induced coma in a bid to save his life just two weeks ago.
Dr Leanne Cheyne, a respiratory consultant at the hospital, shared a photo of him in an oxygen mask and hooked up to a ventilator as he fought for his life.
Glenn Barratt told nurses that he wished he had been jabbed
A 51-year-old man who chose not to be jabbed died with Covid-19, with his final words to bedside nurses and doctors being: ‘I wish I had.’
Glenn Barratt, from Cleethorpes, Lincolnshire, is thought to have caught coronavirus while watching England v Croatia at a venue in June during Euro 2020.
All over 50s had been offered a jab by mid-April, but he chose not to have it and died in hospital after fighting the virus for weeks.
‘He was the fittest, healthiest person I know. He was climbing Welsh mountains and wild camping four weeks before his death. The only pre-existing health condition he had was the belief in his own immortality.
‘He thought if he contracted Covid-19 he would be OK. He thought he would have a mild illness. He didn’t want to put a vaccine on his body. His was pumped full of every drug in the hospital. They threw everything at him.
‘But eventually the bedfellow of Covid-19, infection and organ failure, claimed his life. Before he was ventilated he told his consultant that he wished he had been vaccinated. That he wished he had listened. His death is a tragedy.
‘It shouldn’t have happened. He leaves a mum and dad, a sister (me), and a 19-year-old daughter. My two children have lost their fun uncle. The Uncle who would always play with them.
‘The uncle that dressed up as Father Christmas on Christmas Day. My mum has lost her baby boy. My niece, her much loved and needed Dad.
‘This shouldn’t have happened. My mum wants people to know about John. For his story to save someone’s life. For pain and loss to drive people to get a vaccine.’
Back on May 10, Mrs McCann had tweeted a selfie of her with her vaccine card after getting her first jab, saying: ‘Full on tears after getting Covid jab. Really shows the collective weight we’ve all been carrying. So grateful to the NHS.’
Then on July 3, Mrs McCann wrote: ‘To all anti-vaxxers, my staunch, anti vaxxer, non-mask wearing, 42-year-old twin, is now in hospital with Covid and pneumonia. Rushed in an ambulance as struggled to breathe. Quite simply, if he’d had the vaccine, he wouldn’t be. Get the vaccine.’
Mr Eyers worked as a senior management and technical specification professional within the construction industry for chemical manufacturing company Kerakoll.
After his death, tributes poured in from friends, with Lisa Hames saying: ‘I am still in utter shock after hearing such heartbreaking news last week about my incredible friend, John Eyers.
‘I first met John when we studied together at Southport College, which then lead on to us working together and for over 25 years we have still remained great friends.
‘John most certainly was one in a million, a true gentleman and will be truly missed by so many. My thoughts are with all his family & his friends.’
Charlie Garforth added: ‘John Eyers was a great guy who I had a lot of time for. This is tragic for the family.
‘But also a wake up call because because it feels very close to home. He had a lifestyle and the health most of us wish for in our early 40s.’
Construction expert Mr Eyers was described by his sister Jenny McCann as the ‘fittest, healthiest person I know’42-year-old John Eyers seen adventuring.
Mr Eyers, of Southport, Merseyside, leaves behind his parents and a daughter aged 19 as well as his twin sister Jenny
Linda Rowney said: ‘John was a very dear colleague, and friend of mine. To say I am extremely upset it an understatement. Please get vaccinated, it might save your life.’
Katie Halton wrote: T’he perfect gentleman, charismatic, kind, a heart of gold, the greatest friend, and the best napkin rose maker around. John Eyers, loved by everyone. You will be so missed.’
And Mo Jabbar said: ‘So many adventures we will no longer see, but I am truly grateful for the ones we shared.
‘The camps, the climbs, and the life chats on the way up to the Hangar. The laughs, the last minute trips to the Lakes and the freezing cold days on a ridge.
‘We were the mountain men. John, you were one of a kind, a true gent. You will be sorely missed. My heart bleeds for your family. They and you will be forever in my prayers.’
Mrs McCann was also praised on social media for sharing her story, with Newcastle-based GP Dr Alison George saying: ‘That is absolutely heartbreaking Jenny.
‘I can only imagine the pain you must all feel right now. Those spreading and believing Covid disinformation need to know the cruel realities of what Covid can do. My thoughts are with you and your family.’
Mrs McCann replied: ‘Thanks Sara. Your lovely voice on the radio is a firm favourite/balm to our soul in our house, and don’t even get me started on Between the Covers. My brother would be over the moon to know that he has caught your eye.’
Mr Eyers took part in bodybuilding and had thought he would only have a ‘mild illness’ if he contracted coronavirus
Another Twitter user called Saurav said under Mrs McCann’s posts about her brother: ‘I can ratify this. I’m a marathoner and a power lifter, and I too had this belief that Covid can’t do anything to me.
‘The two days after I contracted were the worst days of my life. Luckily I immediately sought help, and we bought the symptoms under control by day four.’
Another Twitter user called Emma said: ‘As an A&E nurse this is something I am hearing a lot of lately. Unvaccinated younger adults ranging from 18-40 coming to hospital seriously unwell relying on oxygen therapy to help them survive. All with one thing in common. They all vow to take the vaccine once they recover.’
But among the condolences, Mrs McCann was targeted by anti-vaxxers. One refusenik said: ‘Sorry for your loss, but hard pass on getting the vax. Already had Covid so my antibodies work better… I’m sure there is an underlying condition he had that you are leaving out so you can push the vax.’
Another added: ‘Cute story. Not buying it. But I will tell you about my fully vaccinated coworker currently in ICU.’
And a third said: ‘She is been paid by the Government and NHS to say all this – do not listen, it’s fake.’
