James.galbraith

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
There should really be a big fat asterisk after the neighbor in Love thy Neighbor.

Today's News:

Republicans who told voters the truth about Trump are getting censured and condemned.

On President’s Day, many in Texas received an unexpected “gift” that was even less welcome than a day filled with discount mattress ads, as the state was plagued by a series of rolling blackouts. The outages came on a day when the southern U.S. is literally colder than Alaska. That, in turn, comes because climate change has destabilized the normally tightly constrained systems that spin cold air around the pole, and now that system wobbles like a spinning top in the last unsteady stages before collapse. This week, that wobble is tilted toward the central U.S., and folks in Siberia get to go around in shirtsleeves (briefly, before things wobble back in their direction).

But since it’s Texas, and this is 2021, Fox News and assorted guests have spent the last two days railing about how the problem is actually green power. In particular, they’re blaming Texas’ high use of wind energy and “frozen wind turbines” for the blackout. If only Texas relied more on burning more coal/oil/gas/wood/witches/liberals, then surely all would be well.

Only that’s not the problem. As Ars Technica pointed out on Monday, wind power in Texas is currently working at over 100% of its projected capacity. The real problem is that the Texas electrical grid is working exactly as designed, by people who created a system where the occasional failure is a virtue. Because the profits are better that way.

The story of Texas’ odd electrical grid goes back to World War II, when FDR’s rural electrification program was pushing out power grids everywhere. That’s when a group of Texas utilities created a system that touched most every part of the state, but barely brushed up against any non-Texan power systems. That was further codified in the 1970s, when the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) took charge and began tinkering with a formula that would “incentivize” electricity providers in Texas to keep up with demand.

What ERCOT created was a system where electrical prices can float based on momentary spikes in demand. Prices can soar to several dollars per kilowatt/hour when the grid is hard pressed, or literally be in negative territory when the demand fails to meet the base level of generation by the system. When consumers in Texas buy electricity, they don’t see these wild swings in their bills. That’s because individual consumers in Texas don’t really buy electricity. They buy a sort of “electricity insurance,” one in which providers contract to provide them power at a fixed or semi-fixed price. That price is, of course, designed to be well above the median cost of power on ERCOT’s self-contained electricity market. Electricity insurance, like medial insurance, creates another level at which there’s an opportunity for profit.

In more modern times, with trades moving just as fast as the electricity comes down the line, the size of the price spikes can be enormous. On Monday, the Houston Chronicle reported that electricity in Texas approached $9,000 per megawatt/hour.  At that rate, the average home in the United States would rack up a monthly bill of around $96,000. So … that’s quite high. If any of this—a purposely constrained statewide market, free floating prices subject to wild changes, and consumers left facing blackouts and unpredictable prices—rings a little bell at the back of your head, there’s also this: Enron got its start dabbling in these markets from its Houston, Texas, headquarters in the 1980s.

The reason people in Texas are currently experiencing the collapse of a badly overloaded system, leading to extended outages lasting for hours, is simply because that’s the way the system is designed to work. The incentive in Texas is to provide for exactly as much power as is needed, and not one hamster-wheel-driven watt more. Because in a system that never reached 100% of capacity, power would always be cheap. It’s fighting over the difference between 99.9% demand and 100.1% demand that drives the system and generates profits. 

So how did wind come into it? That’s also because of profits. Texas doesn’t have over 10,700 wind turbines generating power for its grid because rural Texans decided they liked the look, or because there was a sudden inspiration to “go green.” Texas has wind power because wind power is so insanely cheap. It’s so cheap that producing power from wind turbines is less than the cost of operating a coal-fired power plant. That’s not the cost of building the plant. Someone could build coal plants for free, hand them over to the utilities, and just running them would still cost more than going out and buying the wind turbines to replace them.

Texas has wind power, because in a market highly incentivized to find the cheapest solution, wind power came out on top. With the rapidly falling prices, solar is also starting to form a bigger part of the picture in Texas, but for the moment the other big player in that state is the same as it is in most states—natural gas.

The introduction of fracking led to a burst (pun intended) of gas on the market. Previously, more limited supplies of natural gas, and the speed with which producing fields played out, created a price for gas that swing through long oscillations, falling far below, then rising above, the price of its main competitor at the time, coal. But with fracking, gas was suddenly abundant and cheap. Building natural gas power plants is also relatively cheap. Unlike coal plants, which for a number of reasons work best when absolutely enormous (and carrying a price tag that’s, at least, several hundred million), natural gas power can start small and grow. The incremental nature of gas power, and the high efficiency of combined cycle production, saw gas displace coal across the nation with a rapidity that shocked most energy experts—and bankrupted coal producers.

What Texas has now is a system that’s composed of gas, wind, a lingering set of older coal plants, and a modest amount of nuclear. All of it just enough to provide power when Texas hits those hot summer days when every AC in Dallas goes to “high cool.”

So, what went wrong on Monday? It wasn’t “frozen turbines,” no matter what Fox News says. Again, wind is more than keeping up with its share of the projected load. Yes, there are certainly some turbines out—but with over 10,000 of the things, there are always some out. This also doesn’t seem like a great day to climb a 300’ tower to work on something in a high wind because … brrrr. But that’s not the issue.

Part of the issue comes down to that other item at the top of Texas’ power mix—natural gas. In cold weather, natural gas is in demand because it can be used directly for home heating. That’s driving up not just the price of gas, but also limiting its availability. That’s because the system of pipelines that carry the gas around is also built to match a certain level of demand. Pipelines are expensive. Companies don’t build them “just in case.” High prices and limited availability mean that Texas gas plants are underperforming.

It appears that coal plants are doing the same. It’s not clear exactly why that would be. (Though, as someone who spent 30+ years in the industry, I have some suspicions, starting with this: Did Texas utilities pay the extra fee that coal companies want to treat the coal with antifreeze so that it comes out of train cars more readily in extreme weather? I think not.)

But the biggest thing wrong with the electrical system in Texas is there’s simply not enough of it. The way the system was designed placed all the incentives at finding the ragged edge of consumption and staying there. As demand has increased, more capacity has been added, but only enough to keep things at that ragged edge. Because that’s the most profitable point for everyone in this pocket-market and insurance scheme. Make too much power, and you end up with stories like this one from 2015, where energy prices in Texas were negative for hours.

The ragged edge is usually found in the summertime, when the outside in Texas is 100 and every Texan wants the inside temperature to be 70. So the system is designed to overcome that 30 degree difference. Right now, people are trying to make their homes 70, and the temperature is 10. There’s just not enough power out there to make it so. Making it worse is that homes in Texas are generally designed around the idea of keeping heat out, rather than holding it in.

Put it all together, and Texas’ system simply buckled on Monday. Demand far exceeded supply, prices went through the roof, and the grid itself failed to a phenomenal degree as the big-boy equivalent of breakers tripped everywhere. If Texas had robust connections to power grids in other states, it might grab some juice from neighbors that were less battered by the cold wave. But it doesn’t. That was also part of ERCOT’s design.

So what will happen after this cold streak is past? Probably not much. Producers could add additional capacity—and if they do, that capacity will almost certainly come in the form of the wind power that’s still, by far, the cheapest. But don’t expect much. Because if they power too quickly, then there will be plenty of electricity next summer when those ACs go on. And where’s the profit in that?

Also, Fox will blame it on wind power, and continue to have expert guests like Rick Perry, who spent Monday complaining that America needs to rely more on “compact fusion reactors.” Maybe we could also get some dilithium crystals. I hear they’re good.

Meanwhile, wind power and Democratic presidents will be the things that help Texas out of this hole they’ve created for themselves.

Apple commentator Jason Snell writes: Why does this product still exist, and is there anywhere for it to go next? Gruber and Thompson [two other columnists] suggest that perhaps the way forward is to lean into an identity as a low-end gaming console. Maybe amp up the processor power, bundle a controller, and try to use Apple Arcade to emphasize that this is a box that is for more than watching video. The thing is, that's really been the story of the Apple TV for the last few years, and so far as I can tell, it's basically gone nowhere. Apple isn't Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft when it comes to gaming. Apple's track record with gaming products isn't solid, to say the least. It's hard for me to see this succeeding -- but it doesn't mean Apple won't try. The other possibility that I've come up with is to merge the Apple TV with some other technologies in order to make something more than just a simple TV streamer. Gaming can be a part of that, yes, but there needs to be more. Broader HomeKit support, perhaps with support for other wireless home standards, would help, as would a much more sophisticated set of home automations. And if Apple really wants to continue to play in the home-theater space, I've been saying for years that there's room for an Apple SoundBar, that could integrate the big sound of HomePod with the Apple TV software to create a solid music and video experience. Then there's the final possibility: No more Apple TV. Removing it simplifies Apple's product naming scheme (Apple TV is a hardware box, an app, and a streaming service, but not yet a dessert topping), and allows the company to focus on other things -- perhaps including other home-themed products that might be more up its alley. I don't think Apple is going to kill the Apple TV, even though I might recommend that it do so. If I had to predict a next step, I'd go with Gruber and Thompson: Apple TV Arcade, an updated, premium-priced box that will lean into games and other features that competing TV boxes don't offer. I'm not optimistic that it'll be successful, but it does seem like something Apple would try.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

(513): Of course he’s dumb. He’s got a 9 inch dick! There’s not enough blood in his body for a big dick and a big brain. It’s science.

diiiiiii*echoes forever*

Nevada Democrats moved Monday to end the use of caucuses in presidential nominating contests, part of a concerted effort to push the state to the front of the primary calendar.

The bill, which was introduced in the Assembly, would convert the nominating system in the state to a primary election instead of caucuses, a move former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid threw his support behind immediately following last year’s caucuses.

The jockeying over the primary calendar follows a turbulent Democratic primary last year, in which the caucus system and the order of nominating contests came under intense scrutiny. The Iowa caucuses ended in disarray after technological issues delayed the reporting results, and calculation errors resulted in the Associated Press never calling a winner of the contest.

Iowa and New Hampshire, the two states that have historically kicked off the primary calendar, also came under fire among Democrats for not being demographically representative of the country. The populations of both states are predominately white, unlike Nevada which is more diverse.

The new bill’s language would set the presidential primary for the Tuesday “immediately preceding the last Tuesday in January,” a bid to dislodge New Hampshire from its first-in-the-nation primary status.

Jason Frierson, the Nevada Assembly speaker, said in a prepared statement that the legislation “will lay the groundwork for Nevada to become the first state in the nation in the presidential nominating process.”

“Nevada’s diverse population and first-hand experience in issues relating to climate change, public lands, immigration, and health care provide a unique voice that deserves to be heard first,” he said.

New Hampshire would fiercely contest any effort by Nevada to hold its nominating contest first, however. New Hampshire state law requires that its primary take place at least seven days before a “similar election” in any other state, and the state’s secretary of state, Bill Gardner, has successfully maneuvered for decades to keep New Hampshire at the front of the line.

Nevada’s switch from caucuses to a primary has support from the state’s governor, Steve Sisolak, and other top state Democrats. Reid, in particular, has played a key behind-the-scenes role in trying to nudge Nevada to the front of the calendar, leaning on his relationship with President Joe Biden and his administration and arguing his state is more representative of the country.

William McCurdy, chair of the Nevada Democratic Party, said in a prepared statement on Monday that “expanding access to the presidential nominating process in Nevada is something NV Dems have worked on for many years,” calling the legislation to move to a primary “a critical next step.”

Families are boycotting the Publix Supermarkets chain weeks after The Wall Street Journal reported that an heiress to the chain had a hand in funding the rally former President Donald Trump used to incite the deadly Capitol attack. Julie Jenkins Fancelli, who the journal identified as "a prominent donor to the Trump campaign," paid $300,000 of the total $500,000 rally, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“It was the last straw,” copywriter and former longtime Publix shopper Wendy Mize told The Guardian. “Insurrection at the Capitol, images of the police officer with his head being crushed, individuals dressed as Vikings on the floor of the Senate … we’re not going to call this normal. [Publix] are a private company and it is their business how they want to contribute their money, but it’s also my right to decide where I want to spend my dollars.”

Publix, of course, isn't the only company supporting Trump. Oracle CEO Safra Catz and Oracle Co-founder Larry Ellison held a fundraiser for the former president last February. CEO Stephen Schwarzman of the investment management company Blackstone Group, and Charles Schwab of the financial investing company have been longtime “friends in finance” with Trump, NPR reported in August. While boycotting an investment company you never considered supporting anyway may not exactly make a statement, ending relationships with the grocer many families have supported for generations definitely does. The Publix chain released a statement on Jan. 30 that attempted to address the concerns of shoppers.

"Mrs. Fancelli is not an employee of Publix Super Markets, and is neither involved in our business operations, nor does she represent the company in any way," the supermarket chain said in the statement. "We cannot comment on Mrs. Fancelli's actions. The violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was a national tragedy. The deplorable actions that occurred that day do not represent the values, work or opinions of Publix Super Markets."

The problem is the statement fell exceedingly short of assuring shoppers their dollars wouldn’t end up supporting a white supremacist. It’s also worth noting that Publix’s coronavirus pandemic response has been embarrassingly irresponsible. The Florida-based company wouldn't allow employees to wear cloth masks or deli workers to wear masks at all through March, the Tampa Bay Times reported. One Publix employee told the newspaper she was asked during a job interview with a St. Petersburg store if she could work without gloves or masks. “I am over 50,” she told the Tampa Bay Times. “I have asthma. I’m high-risk. If I get it, I could potentially die. But I have to work. I have to make money.”

Gerardo Gutierrez, a Miami Beach Publix worker, died from COVID-19 on April 28 after he wasn't allowed to wear a mask even though a co-worker of his exhibited coronavirus symptoms, his family is arguing in a lawsuit against the grocery chain. A judge ruled on Feb. 5 that Publix must respond to the lawsuit, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. “Prohibiting masks on the basis of not wanting to scare customers served to mislead employees to believe that masks had nothing to do with their personal safety and well-being,” Gutierrez’s family counsel argued on Jan. 29. Attorneys said Publix “knew and/or had been warned that its mask prohibition would increase the risk of becoming infected with COVID-19 and/or spreading COVID-19 to others.”

Three days after Gutierrez’s death, Publix published a news release claiming: “It is a top priority of Publix to continue to serve the communities in which it operates in a way that protects the health and safety of its associates and customers.”

Craig Pittman, an author who has studied the grocer's rise to prominence, told The Guardian Publix was "very slow adapting to the pandemic … But the thing with Publix is it does lots of little things that people like, they make a big deal of the fact they’ll carry your groceries to the car and won’t accept the tip, they give free cookies to the kids in the bakery, if you ask for a sample they’ll give it to you no questions asked,” Pittman said. “So for a long time people have been willing to overlook some of the less savory aspects of the story, a number of sexual and racial discrimination lawsuits filed by employees, and this whole thing about them or their heirs donating to various politicians. “

Mize told The Guardian: “This time I just thought, ‘Enough. It’s not going to be business as normal.”   

RELATED: McConnell's insistence that companies literally get away with murder is causing people to go hungry

Please consider supporting my work on Patreon or on Ko-Fi so I can continue creating it.

Also, please sign up for my free editorial cartooning newsletter.

Police officers like those from the Phoenix Police Department are the very reason whole communities of color distrust cops and would sooner try to protect themselves than voluntarily call officers to their neighborhoods. Body camera footage ABC 15 obtained revealed barbaric recommendations from three police officers who didn't realize their body camera devices were recording. The officers called demonstrators protesting police violence at a Black Lives Matter rally on Oct. 17 “dickheads” and “asshole kids,” according to the news station. 

And when one of the cops questioned why responding officers didn't “stomp on them right away,” another said: "Gas em. I don’t give a s--t if we just gas them and let them run like crazy … (inaudible) the s--t out of them, who gives a s--t?”

At one point in the footage, officers complained about changes in police department practices and policies:

OFFICER 1: We actually want to do the job like we did 10, 15 years ago. But it’s never going to come back. If they ever came back and they said, ‘Guys, just f---ing kick some f---ing ass out there and reduce crime’ …

OFFICER 2: Yeah.

OFFICER 1: I’d say, ‘Okay.’

OFFICER 2: So you won’t be in f---ing handcuffs doing your job. Saying okay, let’s go watch some bodycam video to see just in case he struck somebody. I remember back when it was so much nicer.

OFFICER 1: I think this [body camera] has taken the job down the drain.

OFFICER 2: Yep.

OFFICER 1: If I had to pick just one thing, there’s others, but it’s this.

OFFICER 3: It’s taken away so much of our discretion to be cool with people with like little bags of dope and stuff and we would grind it into the ground and go, ‘Hey.’

OFFICER 2: Or the meth pipe?

OFFICER 3: Yeah, the pipe.

OFFICER 1: It feels like I’m listening to myself.

These officers represent the same department accused of awarding “challenge coins” for shooting a protester in the groin on Aug. 22, 2017. The coins allegedly contained the phrases: “GOOD NIGHT LEFT NUT” and “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN ONE NUT AT A TIME.” Police Chief Jeri Williams and City Manager Ed Zuercher condemned the coins in a joint statement on Feb. 6. “I not only expect more, but demand more from my officers,” Williams said, adding the coin language is being investigated as hate speech. Zuercher said in the statement: "We do not accept hate speech at the city of Phoenix. It is unacceptable and we must have an independent look at these disturbing allegations so we can take appropriate action.”

It’s hard to take the officials’ stand against hate speech seriously considering the Phoenix Police Department together with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office tried to build a criminal case that 18 demonstrators supporting the Black Lives Matter movement should be prosecuted as a street gang. Although prosecutors eventually dismissed the charges, their initial prosecutorial efforts relied on Arizona statutes that loosely classify a street gang based on self-proclamation, witness statements, electronic correspondence, paraphernalia, tattoos, and colors of clothing, ABC 15 reported. Because demonstrators were accused of shouting "all cops are bastards," prosecutors argued that was a self-proclamation and their choice of all-black attire met the clothing requirement, ABC 15 reported.

Amy Kaper, a graduate student accused of being a gang member, told the news station the only other protester she knew was her boyfriend, with whom she attended the rally. "It's scary," she said. “It feels like totalitarianism. It feels like we’re not allowed to speak out about our rights. And unless you’re on the side [police are] on, they’re going to arrest you and try to ruin your life.”

In response to an ABC 15 request for comment, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office responded with this statement:

On October 27, 2020, a Maricopa County Grand Jury issued indictments on fifteen individuals for incidents that occurred on October 17, 2020. The indictment is for several crimes, including conspiracy to commit assault, riot, and assisting a criminal street gang. The attached Grand Jury Indictment outlines all charges.

While some will attempt to describe these defendants as “protestors,” a grand jury found probable cause to *charge this group with crimes, including the planning of violence.

Ethical rules regarding trial publicity prohibit MCAO from trying this case in the media or saying anything that might influence a jury in these cases. Therefore, we cannot provide details about the evidence that was presented to the grand jury.

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office is responsible for felony criminal prosecution in Maricopa County. This office does not condone or support political prosecution of any kind and we encourage members of this community to lawfully exercise their first amendment rights regardless of the cause.

As County Attorney Adel has publicly stated numerous times, MCAO is committed to protecting the safety of everyone in this community, law enforcement and demonstrators alike. While we fully support the rights of everyone to exercise their first amendment rights, we will not allow violence to take over our streets.

*A charge in a crime is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

The district attorney's office later said in a statement on Twitter Friday that it is dismissing the case and "re-evaluating the evidence … MCAO remains committed to holding those who committed criminal acts in this event responsible,” the office tweeted.

Arizona State Rep. John Fillmore introduced house Bill 2725 last wee, which would limit gender options on Arizona state identification documents to male and female.

In defending his bill, Fillmore masked his bigotry in idiocy: “I don’t believe we, as a society, should have all of the different binaries identified. What’s going to happen when someday someone wakes up and they want to go to a far extreme and identify as a chicken or something, for crying out loud. Where do we draw the line?”

Insider reports: “Prior to his comments about people identifying as chickens, Fillmore said the ‘gender dysfunction thing’ allows ‘men to enter into the restrooms of the little girls and creates situations that I don’t think are beneficial to society and the nuclear family as a whole.'”

Here are Rep. John Fillmore’s full remarks from earlier this pm about his bill HB2537 that requires documents issued by AZ agencies to only have a person’s gender as male or female. What Fillmore said shook this parent of a non-binary child and other lawmakers on the panel #azleg https://t.co/qizZXBkQuh pic.twitter.com/tmCJ9uTJyJ

— Laura GomezRodriguez (@bylauragomezr) February 11, 2021

More than 480,000 Americans have died as a result of the novel coronavirus pandemic. Families are facing evictions, mounting debts, and students and teachers alike try to survive a shifting, exhausting academic year. What did the Mississippi state senate decide to use their precious legislative time on? Unfortunately, they followed in the footsteps of a growing number of other states pushing anti-trans legislation amid the pandemic. In Mississippi, the bill seeks to ban transgender athletes from women’s sports at both the public high school and college levels. 

Given its strong Republican-majority, it’s sadly not surprising that Senate Bill 2536 ultimately passed in a depressing 34-9 majority vote, as reported by the Associated Press. The bill, presented as a “fairness” act, states that people assigned male at birth would not be able to participate on teams for “females,” “women,” or “girls.” If disputed, according to the bill, sex would be established by a note from a physician upon which the medical professional would evaluate the person’s sex based on genetic makeup, internal and reproductive anatomy, and “endogenously produced” testosterone levels. So, even if someone receives gender-affirming care, changes their name, or updates their photo ID, they’re still closed out of sports. And that’s hugely unfair and discriminatory.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican state Sen. Angela Hill, claimed that she’s had “had numerous coaches across the state call me and believe that they feel there’s a need for a policy in Mississippi because they are beginning to have some concerns of having to deal with this.” She did not clarify how many openly transgender athletes are actually playing on teams or competing in the state, or on how many occasions this scenario has actually posed an issue for anyone.

Nevertheless, Mississippi’s bill is particularly concerning, as we know that the state’s governor, Republican Tate Reeves, tweeted about President Joe Biden’s trans-inclusive executive order on discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation back in February. Using common anti-trans rhetoric and hysteria building, Reeves tweeted his concern that allowing trans girls to compete on the girls' team would take away from cisgender athletes and create an unfair advantage.

After describing how hard his three daughters work and practice their respective sports, Reeves expressed his disappointment in Biden’s inclusive policy. As seen below, Reeves insisted on describing trans women as “biological males.”

In the following tweet, he used another anti-trans buzzword: “transgenderism.” He tweeted: “I don’t understand why politicians are pushing children into transgenderism in the first place. I certainly don’t understand why the President chose to make it a priority. And my heart breaks for the young women across America who will lose in this radical social experiment.”

Of course, politicians are not “pushing” people into being transgender. Nor are cisgender women losing anything by transgender women and girls having equal rights, protections, and opportunities. Reeves's daughters probably do work hard, and probably do deserve every chance to succeed and grow, just like any number of cisgender girls. And trans girls also deserve those chances. 

There’s also what we know about life for trans folks, both as youth and as adults. Transgender youth face higher rates of bullying and harassment, have a higher likelihood of leaving high school without a diploma, and are more likely to live with anxiety and depression than their cisgender peers. Transgender adults report disproportionately high rates of homelessness and employment and housing discrimination, among a terrifying rate of gender-based violence.

Sports, of course, do not solve systemic and structural inequality and violence. But sports do provide a safe community space where people can get a sense of belonging, pride, develop skills, and may serve as support or motivation to stay in school or pursue long-term dreams and goals. Basically: Sports and competitions can help transgender youth develop just as much as they can help cisgender youth. This should be obvious, but sadly, a lot of anti-trans rhetoric suggests that transgender folks are essentially trying to be sneaky when in reality, they’re simply trying to play on the right team: the one that matches their actual gender identity, whether or not archaic measures like genetic makeup match that. 

”If legislators would simply listen to medical experts and transgender athletes, they might know that transitioning for the sake of a competitive advantage is simply unrealistic,” Rob Hill, the Human Rights Campaign Mississippi state director, said in a press release as reported by CNN. “So is the idea that transgender athletes even gain a supposed advantage in the first place.”  

You can watch a clip from the Senate session below. You’ll note that in introducing the bill, Rep. Hill describes it as “pretty simple,” when in fact, it’s anything but.

The bill now advances to the Mississippi House of Representatives. 

Texas is being battered by a winter storm, causing rolling electrical blackouts while unplowed streets have people trapped at home without heat or water. At least 2.5 million people don’t have power in the state, several times the number that lost power during Hurricane Harvey, with record winter demand in the cold weather and turbines and other equipment freezing.

In response, President Biden has approved an emergency declaration, authorizing the Federal Emergency Management Agency “to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures,” with 75% federal funding.

Oh. So this is what it’s like to have a president who considers himself responsible for the whole country, not just the states that voted for him.

By contrast, Donald Trump repeatedly delayed disaster aid to parts of the country he didn’t think were sufficiently pro-Trump. After Hurricane Maria, in 2017, Trump repeatedly whined about disaster relief funding for Puerto Rico, assailed Congress for passing too much funding—when in fact it was inadequate—and only changed his tune as the election approached. When Puerto Rico was hit by an earthquake in early 2020, Trump again forced the island to wait for needed aid, while imposing harsh restrictions on how aid could be spent.

California, too, bore the brunt of Trump’s contempt for anyone outside of his own base. In October, 2020, he initially rejected a request for disaster assistance as California fought six major wildfires, before reversing course days later. That came after a 2019 threat to cut off disaster funding related to wildfires. And after a similar threat in 2018. And a January 2019 attempt to cut off aid to victims of the 2018 wildfires.

Puerto Rico waited years, and never got the relief it needed. California got its aid in more timely fashion, but under constant threat and abuse, with the ever-present fear that Trump would really follow through on his threats. Texas got its emergency declaration basically as soon as Gov. Greg Abbott requested it. Because, as Biden repeatedly said during his campaign and in his inauguration speech, he wants to be a “president for all Americans.” Even the ones who didn’t vote for him.

Of course, it’s not just Trump. Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn were right out with a letter echoing Abbott's request for aid—yet another reminder that both Cruz and Cornyn voted against relief funds for Hurricane Sandy in 2013.

Texans are being asked to conserve energy by not running major appliances where possible—put off that load of laundry for a few days, for instance—and by turning their heat all the way down to 68, a number that is an indictment of the culture, because seriously, 68 is ridiculously warm, put on a sweater and stop wasting energy.

That said, it’s important to understand that while this is weather that for many parts of the country would not be a particularly big deal, it’s truly a serious problem in an area that does not have the infrastructure to handle significant amounts of snow or very low temperatures. This is absolutely an emergency. It’s a good thing the United States now has a president who will respond appropriately, without threats and tantrums. It’s unfortunate Texas still has senators who won’t return the favor next time the state asking for assistance is one they find it convenient to level culture war attacks on.

Capitol rioter Jake Angeli, the so-called “Q Shaman,” was given organic food in prison, revealing a double standard for Muslim prisoners.

Rick, an African American and Muslim prisoner, was in a correctional facility in a Midwestern state when he tried to obtain a Quran for worship. His request to the officer in charge was denied. But when he was told the price for it, he was shocked — it was far more than he could afford, and, significantly, was two to three times more expensive than a Bible.

“I just couldn’t afford to buy the Quran, or anything else, for that matter,” he says, as he was denied a Quran multiple times.

Rick, whose last name is being withheld to protect his privacy, resorted to secretly borrowing a copy of the Quran from another inmate. When guards were passing by, he had to quickly make sure they did not see it.

“The discrimination is so real. All that matters is your background and the color of your skin,” he says.

The United States currently incarcerates more than 2 million people, who are predominantly Black and Latinx, with almost half a million of these people being held on pretrial bond known as bail. Unfortunately, Muslim prisoners in particular are largely left out of the conversation. Muslims are overrepresented in state prisons, making up 9 percent. The significant presence of Muslims in prison stands in stark contrast to Muslims’ share of the US population as a whole, which is just 1 percent.

Muslim prisoners face many of the same issues as other incarcerated people, including hindrances to basic necessities and hygiene such as toothpaste, deodorant, or female sanitary products. But they also face unique discriminatory practices, such as lack of fair access to religious material in prisons. This is despite federal laws that require equal access to religious materials. Unfortunately, discrimination in prisons has been a longstanding issue, with multiple lawsuits attempting to resolve this; nevertheless, Muslims continue to face difficulty.

Yet earlier this month, a federal judge affirmed that Jake Angeli, the Capitol rioter known as “Q Shaman,” should be granted his request for organic food while being held in a Washington, DC, jail, citing his religious beliefs. It is puzzling that Angeli’s accommodations were met, not only because the DC jail found no research to show that an organic diet was a tenet of Shamanism but also because it’s deeply hypocritical given the treatment of so many Muslim prisoners in this country who are denied, among other things, halal food. This demonstrates how so many white practitioners of faith are not just immune to discrimination, but are even awarded favors when it comes to treatment in prison.

Rami Nsour, founding director of the Tayba Foundation, a nonprofit that aims to provide services to those incarcerated, says that providing incarcerated Muslims with the basics necessary to practice their faith is extremely low priority for most prisons.

“If not all basic necessities of hygiene are not afforded to prisoners, and that is not high on the budget list, then religious material is also not going to be high,” said Nsour.

Nsour explains that federal prisons allot a certain amount of money to buy books for the chapel. That means that the cost of practicing one’s religion falls on inmates, who are forced to use money from their prison wages, which can be as low as 5 cents an hour. She explained that a Quran can run $20 in prison. “For some, that might be their whole monthly paycheck. This is for the people who don’t have family or friends on the outside who can purchase a book for them. That is one hurdle,” Nsour adds. In many prisons, Bibles are far more abundant.

Even those who are able to successfully obtain a Quran face issues. Nsour said that many prisoners reported to her their religious books were thrown away after search or destroyed. “In one case, an office stomped on the student’s copy of the Quran. The student retrieved the copy of the Quran from the garbage can and the officer’s boot print was still clearly on the Quran,” Nsour explains. “We had one Muslim incarcerated student who told us that 17 prisoners were using one copy of the Quran. Note that the average Muslim house in the US probably has about four copies per household member,” he adds.

According to Rick, even obtaining something simple as a prayer mat was looked down on and not provided. “When trying to pray, we are not allowed to. The guards think we are making some moves to be part of a gang, and they don’t let us pray,” Rick explains. He tells Vox how guards feel threatened with the growing number of people becoming Muslims and how the “technique” is scary to them. “It’s like we’re doing something abnormal for them to think we’re being Muslims,” he says. “The white-centric world just criminalizes us for who we are. Whether I’m wanting to pray alone or in congregation, it’s a no.”

Unfortunately, prayer is not the only thing Muslim prisoners are denied. Fasting and breaking the fast is also a struggle for many. Rick tells us how he has needed food but was not given the time or resources to start or break the fast in a timely fashion. During Ramadan, Muslims fast before sunrise until sunset; with the dates of the holiday changing each year, the time also shifts. “When I’m confined, the guards don’t even give me any food when I need to start my fast since sometimes it’s as early as 4 in the morning,” he explains.

Similarly, Aishah — who was incarcerated for three years in a prison on the East Coast — recounts multiple forms of religious discrimination when she was incarcerated. She tells Vox how women used to fast long days during Ramadan and at times were denied iftar, the breaking of the fast, simply because “the kitchen didn’t have food.” She says when a local mosque used to donate food, many Muslims were denied that food and told they had to pay for it. When it came to accessing Qurans, they were extremely limited in number and not readily available. Instead, a Bible was offered.

“It was clear that they were trying to make our lives more difficult because we were Muslim,” Aishah says. She also mentioned how churches used to donate food and that Christians readily accessed the food but Muslims were denied.

Even though federal laws are in place to protect individuals from religious discrimination, Muslim prisoners like Rick and Aishah are either charged more for resources or denied it altogether. Muslim Advocates, a group of lawyers based in Washington, DC, reports there are rampant cases where many Muslim prisoners are simply not listened to due to their religion.

“All too often, Americans who practice Islam or other faiths that are less common in this country face discrimination from those who are misinformed or bigoted,” says Matt Callahan, senior staff attorney for Muslim Advocates. “This problem is especially severe in prison, where Muslims are overrepresented and their power to stand up for their rights is weakest. Because of this power imbalance, it is critical that our courts and governments do everything in their power to protect the religious exercise of prisoners.”

But the discrimination goes beyond treatment behind bars. In particular, Black people are twice as likely to be held pretrial as white people. Muslims in pretrial incarceration face an increased risk of victimization, surveillance, and denial of religious freedom in the prison system due to Islamophobia. It also puts those who can’t afford bail at a disadvantage.

Maryam Kashani, one of the cofounders of Believers Bail Out, a community-led nonprofit that aims to bail out Muslims in pretrial incarceration and Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, explained that funding is required as a mechanism to penalize poverty and promote racism. “Even though the criminal legal system proclaims the principle of innocent until proven guilty the reality is that people who have not been convicted of any crime can be jailed indefinitely because they can’t afford bail,” she said. “As a result, those in pretrial incarceration can lose their jobs, their children, their homes, and even their lives.”

Kashani explained that she sees Believers Bail Out as a form of zakat, or a tax on wealth and one of the five pillars in Islam that is outlined in the Quran. It is to help the poor and the needy and for the freeing of enslaved people or captives. “It is in our capacity and our duty as Muslims to be a part of ending this unjust bail system that criminalizes poverty and is inherently racist in nature,” Kashani explains.

Though Rick is now out of prison, he reflects on the time he spent there and how much discrimination he faced. “It is as if I was committing a crime, to be both Muslim and Black,” he said.

Tasmiha Khan has written for the New York Times, National Geographic, and Vanity Fair, among others. Find her on Twitter to learn more.

Out Pennsylvania State Representative Brian Sims announced on Monday that he is running for lieutenant governor. Sims made the announcement in the wake of Lt. Governor John Fetterman’s announcement last week that he would be running for the U.S Senate.

Wrote Sims in a letter to supporters: “For the past 10 years, I’ve served in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, fighting for equity and against discrimination, to keep my promises to my communities, to Philadelphians, and to Pennsylvanians. But this last cycle, everything changed. The attacks on governance, on equality, and on the communities that I’m a part of, and those that I defend as an ally, ramped up to epic proportions. I put myself between those who were doing harm and those being harmed, and I hope I also inspired others to step up.”

“After 10 years in the State House, I am a different legislator — I’ve taken the lessons that my parents, retired Army Colonels, taught me: to take responsibility and commit to service, to push for fairness and courage, and I’ve reinforced them in my work as a legislator,” said Sims. “And now I’m ready to take those values from representing our state’s largest city to leading the Commonwealth and the 13 million people in Pennsylvania.”

“I’m sick of our state Democratic politics being pushed toward the middle to appease the gerrymandered Republican districts,” Sims added. “No more. We are the antidote to broken politics. My time in the legislature has taught me so much about how our state government works and confirmed how much it doesn’t work for too many people. These last 4 years have demanded a lot from a lot of us, and I’ve proven I won’t back down from challenges because there are Pennsylvanians who are worth struggling for. I want to bring visionary leadership based on lived experience and shared values to the office of Lieutenant Governor.”

Watch Sims’ campaign launch video:

By Cedric Voets  Published: February 14th, 2021 

ZERO chill

76,704,798.

One of the lessons of former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment proceedings is that convicting a president is virtually impossible.

The jury in Trump’s impeachment trial, the 100 men and women who make up the Senate, were not only witnesses to the violent insurrection Trump was charged with inciting but were also some of the primary victims of Trump’s alleged crime. The evidence presented at Trump’s trial suggests that he refused to help senators who were being pursued by rioters, including those whose chants suggested they could have quickly become a lynch mob.

And yet, in the end, only seven of the 17 Republicans necessary to convict Trump voted to do so.

There are very good reasons why a supermajority vote is required for such a conviction. A federal official who is impeached and convicted may be permanently disqualified from holding office. So if the threshold for conviction were too low, a vengeful political party could potentially impeach everyone in their rival party who has ever held federal office, and permanently strip them of their ability to hold office.

But it also means that a minority of Americans receive an outsize say in who should and should not be convicted.

This is the case because the Senate is structurally biased toward Republicans. Small red states like Wyoming receive the same number of senators as large blue states like California, even though California has 68 times as many people as Wyoming. Although the current Senate is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, the Democratic half represents nearly 42 million more people than the Republican half.

The Senate’s Republican bias becomes even more striking when you look at Trump’s second impeachment vote. The 57 senators who voted to convict Trump represent about 202 million people, while the 43 senators who voted to acquit represent only about 125 million. In total, the bloc of senators who voted to convict Trump represents 76,704,798 more people than the bloc that voted “not guilty.”

I derived these numbers by using 2019 population estimates from the United States Census Bureau. In each state where both senators voted the same way, I allocated the state’s entire population to either “guilty” or “not guilty.” In states with split delegations, I allocated half of the state’s population to each outcome. You can check my work using this spreadsheet.

For what it’s worth, these numbers suggest that Trump still would have been acquitted even if US senators were chosen in free and fair elections where every vote counts equally. While the bloc of senators who voted to convict represent over 200 million people, that’s a little less than 62 percent of the total population — or less than the two-thirds majority necessary to convict someone in an impeachment trial.

That fact, much like Trump’s second impeachment itself, is a monument to the near insurmountability of the 67-vote threshold applied to presidential impeachments.

All that said, the fact remains that seven senators of Trump’s own party broke with him on this important vote. That’s a historic occasion.

Until Trump’s first impeachment trial in 2020, no senator had ever voted to convict a president of the same party in all of American history — Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) was the only Republican who voted for conviction the first time around. Now seven Republicans have deemed Trump unfit for service.

But seven isn’t enough. The high threshold for a conviction also means that some guilty officials will escape sanction, even if their crimes are obvious. And even if those crimes targeted the Capitol itself.

While GameStop's surge has been heralded as a victory for underdogs, "Growing evidence casts doubt on the idea that the episode mostly benefited small-time investors..." reports the Washington Post. (Alternate URLs here and here "And, in at least some cases, novice investors lost their shirts." Giant mutual funds that own the largest stakes in GameStop saw the biggest gains in value. Hedge funds — some that have started using algorithms to track retail investors on social media sites — appear to have bought and sold millions of shares during the stock's most volatile period of trading, industry experts said... Instead of heralding a new wave of investor populism, the rise and fall of GameStop's stock may end up reinforcing what professional investors have known for a long time: Wall Street is very good at making money, and more often than not, smaller investors lose out to wealthy traders and giant institutions. The four largest asset managers in the world together own 39 percent of GameStop shares, according to regulatory filings. Those stakes, which are mostly held for years in passive index funds, have collectively gained roughly $1 billion in value since the beginning of this year. One hedge fund, Senvest Management, recently boasted to clients that it made more than $700 million from a bet it placed on GameStop in September, the Wall Street Journal reported last week... The sheer number of shares that changed hands during the stock's most manic trading period in late January suggests the episode was driven by more than just small, retail investors. Some hedge funds bought shares because they were forced to "cover" their short positions — a financial cost imposed on investors who bet a stock will go down before it goes up. Meanwhile, other hedge fund managers were probably taking calculated, short-term risks buying and selling as the stock price traded up, said Robert J. Shapiro, a policy fellow at Georgetown University and former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton. "You have hundreds of millions of shares being traded at prices of $200 to $300 a share," Shapiro said. "The Reddit crew cannot afford to play in this game in any significant way...." Hedge funds have started to build algorithms or hire outside firms that specialize in scanning conversations on Reddit and Twitter for clues about what retail traders are thinking... "The most innovative investment firms realized that tracking Reddit was important to portfolio management," said Justin Zhen, co-founder of Thinknum Alternative Data, a New York software firm with more than 300 clients who pay for data scraped from various sources across the Web... industry experts say the soaring stock price was almost certainly given a boost by the hidden hand of larger investors... Another possibility regulators are examining is whether employees of large Wall Street firms were actively using the Reddit forum to boost their portfolios. The Post also got this pithy summation from Andrew Hong, an analyst for a financial software company in Toronto. "There are some really smart people on [WallStreetBets], but for the most part, all this is just poor habitual gambling addicts versus rich habitual gambling addicts."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Alabama’s Senate Health Committee on Wednesday voted 11-2 to advance a bill that would make health treatment for transgender youth a felony.

The AP reports: “The bills introduced in the Alabama Senate and Alabama House of Representatives would prohibit the use of puberty-blocking drugs, hormonal therapy and surgery to treat transgender minors. Violators could face up to 10 years in prison.”

Yesterday GA lawmakers introduced HB 401 – a bill that would make it a felony to treat any trans young person with gender affirming care. Punishable with up to 10 years in prison. Devastating.

— Chase Strangio (@chasestrangio) February 11, 2021

AL.com reports that among the testimony senators heard was one father, a police sergeant of 27 years, who praised health officials that helped treat his 16-year-old transgender child.

Said the father, David Fuller: “They made us feel like we weren’t alone, that we were normal in an abnormal situation and they could help us. And they didn’t push anything on us. Just the opposite. They reeled us in at every step. They made sure it was baby steps. It’s been a five-year process now and they haven’t pushed anything on us. Just the opposite. And they are angels to me. And as a police officer, you’re asking me to someday put handcuffs on these people that are heroes in my life? … Please don’t ask me to do that.”

After Trump's acquittal, Democrats must accept the implications of ongoing GOP radicalization.

Sen. McConnell relied on a technicality to excuse his vote to acquit Trump.

On Saturday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made a strong case for convicting former President Donald Trump of inciting insurrection — less than half an hour after voting to acquit Trump of inciting insurrection.

Before taking the floor to speak, McConnell joined 42 other Republicans in voting to find Trump not guilty on the single article of impeachment approved by the House, thus heading off the former president’s conviction and possible disqualification from holding future elected office.

Then, he warned in no uncertain terms that Trump’s conduct on January 6 — when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol as Congress was meeting to certify President Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory — was a “disgraceful dereliction of duty.”

“There’s no question,” McConnell said, “that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day,” which left five people dead, US Capitol Police officers injured, and parts of the building damaged. “The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president.”

McConnell also criticized Trump’s “intemperate language” and embrace of wild conspiracy theories in the aftermath of his election defeat.

The mob’s belief that they were acting on Trump’s wishes “was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on Planet Earth,” McConnell said.

Those two points were, in shortest form, House impeachment managers’ arguments for convicting the president, prompting a number of jokes on Twitter about the seeming discrepancy between McConnell’s words and actions.

Despite his harsh condemnation of Trump, however, McConnell also said Saturday after Trump’s acquittal that the question of his conduct was “moot” because former presidents are “constitutionally not eligible for conviction.”

Earlier this week, McConnell, along with 43 Republican senators, also voted that a trial was unconstitutional — but there’s reason to believe that argument is more an excuse than a deeply held belief.

For one, legal scholars from across the ideological spectrum — including from the conservative Federalist Society — disagree, and said as much in a letter published last month.

“We differ from one another in our politics, and we also differ from one another on issues of constitutional interpretation,” the group wrote in January. “But despite our differences, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former officers, including presidents.”

And, as journalist Yamiche Alcindor pointed out on Twitter Saturday, McConnell, who until January 20 was Senate Majority Leader, was responsible for delaying the start of Trump’s impeachment trial until after he had left office.

McConnell concluded his remarks Saturday by arguing that “the Senate’s decision today does not condone anything that happened on or before that terrible day.”

But in a statement released after the Senate verdict Saturday, Trump sounded emboldened by his acquittal and attacked the impeachment as “yet another phase of the greatest witch hunt in the history of our Country.”

“Our historic, patriotic and beautiful movement to Make America Great Again has only just begun,” Trump said. “There has never been anything like it!”

“The times have found us,” Raskin said. “Is this America? What kind of America will this be?”

Ahead of the conclusion of former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial Saturday, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the lead House impeachment manager, made a powerful appeal to the Senate to convict the former president.

Throughout the trial, Raskin interspersed his case with personal testimony about how the insurrection affected him and his family — particularly given that it occurred shortly after the December death of his son, Thomas Raskin. And on Saturday, Raskin again invoked his family in a final, emotional plea to senators.

The manager spoke of the concern his daughter, Hannah Raskin, has had for the children of the insurrectionists — and argued that it was for those children that senators should vote to convict.

“Hannah saw through the legality of the situation, she saw through the politics of the situation, all the way to the humanity of the situation, the morality of the situation,” Raskin said. “As Tommy Raskin used to say, ‘It’s hard to be human.’”

He went on to say, “The children of the insurrectionists, even the violent and dangerous ones, they’re our children, too. They are Americans and we must take care of them and their future.”

The argument underscored the manager’s overarching point: That conviction was needed not just to ensure Trump could be blocked from running for office again, but to send a message to future presidents that attempts — like Trump’s — to overturn an election cannot and will not be tolerated.

And Raskin explicitly offered senators an opportunity to make such a statement — the manager also drew on a quote by Thomas Paine, who he said his son was named for, before ending his remarks:

None of us can escape the demands of history and destiny right now. Our reputations and our legacy will be inextricably intertwined with what we do here, and with how you exercise your oath to do impartial justice. Impartial justice. I know and trust you will do impartial justice, driven by meticulous attention to the overwhelming facts of the case and your love for our Constitution, which I know dwells in your heart. ‘The times have found us,’ said Tom Paine, the namesake of my son. The times have found us. Is this America? What kind of America will this be? It’s now literally in your hands. Godspeed to the Senate of the United States.

Ultimately, Raskin’s appeal didn’t sway enough votes for the Senate to convict Trump — just seven Republican senators joined every Democrat in voting to convict him, falling short of the necessary 67 votes needed for conviction. But the raw emotion of Raskin’s appeal to “impartial justice” and to his son’s memory was a heartbreaking moment in a trial where the verdict was widely, and accurately, believed to be predetermined from the beginning.

“This trial is personal indeed for every senator, and for every member of the House,” Raskin said Tuesday. “I hope this trial reminds America how personal democracy is, and how personal is the loss of democracy too.”

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, one of 10 House Republicans to support Donald Trump's impeachment for inciting the Capitol insurrection, pleaded with those close to the former president — and former vice president Mike Pence — to come forward and reveal what they know about Trump's conduct.

"To the patriots who were standing next to the former president as these conversations were happening, or even to the former Vice President: if you have something to add here, now would be the time," Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) wrote in a statement released late Friday, on the eve of what is expected to be the Senate's final vote in Trump's impeachment trial.

Herrera Beutler issued the statement amid a new wave of attention on a story she has been telling since last month: that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy relayed details of a phone call he had with Trump while the violent mob was ransacking the Capitol.

In Herrera Beutler's telling, McCarthy urged Trump to call off the mob, to which Trump initially responded that he couldn't because it was made up of left-wing extremists — a falsehood that has been debunked by federal investigators.

When McCarthy refuted Trump, the former president responded, "Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," according to Herrera-Beutler.

The comment is further evidence that supports the case the House has been mounting during the Senate trial — that Trump ignored his allies' pleas to call off the rioters and demand that they go home. Rather, he seemed more interested, they argue, in continuing to find ways to delay the certification of Joe Biden's victory as president that day.

Herrera Beutler's anecdote dovetails with the revelation from Sen. Tommy Tuberville that he directly informed Trump at around 2:15 p.m. on Jan. 6 that Pence had been evacuated from the Senate chamber just minutes earlier. At 2:24 p.m., Trump tweeted an attack on Pence, saying he lacked "courage" for refusing to unilaterally block Biden's victory.

It's unclear if Herrera Beutler's entreaties will have any impact just hours before the Senate is expected to conclude its trial and vote.

Late Friday, a Democratic senator cited the McCarthy and Tuberville revelations as a reason to potentially "suspend" the impeachment trial and seek testimony from both Republican lawmakers.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said House managers could also ask the "Secret Service to produce for review comms back to White House re VP Pence safety during siege. What did Trump know, and when did he know it?" No other Democratic senators have explicitly called for these steps so far.

The nine House Democrats prosecuting the case against Trump have yet to indicate if they want to call witnesses, though senators of both parties have anticipated that the trial will end without any additional testimony and quickly move to closing arguments and a vote.

Trump's attorneys have asserted that Trump was "horrified" by the violence at the Capitol and acted quickly to respond to it, claims that contradict recollections of numerous Trump allies and his own public statements on the day of the riots.

Herrera Beutler has been telling the McCarthy story since last month, including to her local paper, but it largely went unnoticed and wasn't mentioned in the House's impeachment case against Trump that concluded Thursday.

NEW YORK — Mayor Bill de Blasio called for a "full accounting of what happened" following the revelation that Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration stalled the release of data on Covid-19-related deaths in nursing homes.

Key context: Top Cuomo aide Melissa DeRosa told Democratic state legislators in a meeting Wednesday that the administration “froze” when they were asked to share the data on the number of nursing home residents who died of Covid-19, the New York Post reported.

Critics have blamed the high death rates on orders from the Cuomo administration in March, directing nursing homes to admit patients who tested positive for Covid-19.

De Blasio, a frequent critic of both the governor and the New York Post, called it a “really disturbing report” and added that it’s “very troubling.”

“We've gotta know more,” de Blasio said on WNYC's The Brian Lehrer show Friday morning. “We now need a full accounting of what happened. Think about seniors ... their lives were in the balance and their families just desperate to get them the help they needed. We need to know exactly what happened here. We need to make sure nothing like this ever happens again."

Impact: DeRosa said the administration refrained from releasing the data due to former President Donald Trump’s efforts to turn the tragedy “into a giant political football,” according to the Post.

In a statement issued early Friday morning, she said when the administration received the inquiry from the Department of Justice, they had to "temporarily set aside the Legislature’s request to deal with the federal request first." She also said the governor's office "informed the houses of this at the time" and insisted Cuomo officials were "comprehensive and transparent in our responses to the DOJ."

What’s next: Top Republicans have called for Cuomo to resign or be impeached. Democratic State Sen. Alessandra Biaggi and 13 other lawmakers said the governor’s emergency powers made sense during the early stages of the pandemic but should be curbed in light of the report.

“It is clear that the expanded emergency powers granted to the Governor are no longer appropriate,” the legislators wrote in a statement.

Democrats have grown increasingly critical of Cuomo, also a Democrat, after a recent report by state Attorney General Tish James saying his administration undercounted the number of deaths. In that report, James said the official tally of roughly 8,500 was off by as much as 50 percent.

President Joe Biden said Friday he was "anxious to see" how Republican senators will vote in former President Donald Trump's second impeachment trial, but that he had no plans to speak personally with the GOP lawmakers.

The remarks from Biden came Friday morning, just after he and first lady Jill Biden took an unannounced walk to the North Lawn of the White House, where the first lady's office had assembled a surprise Valentine's Day display overnight.

Asked about Trump's Senate trial, Biden said: "I'm just anxious to see what my Republican friends do, if they stand up."

Biden has commented only sparingly on the trial in recent days, repeatedly declining to say whether he believes his predecessor should be convicted of inciting an insurrection at the Capitol last month. His press secretary, Jen Psaki, has similarly avoided commenting on the trial at her daily press briefings.

Most recently, Biden told reporters Thursday that "some minds may be changed" after House impeachment managers showed senators previously unseen footage of the attack, which revealed how close the pro-Trump rioters came to congressional lawmakers and staff.

The House managers finished prosecuting their case against Trump on Thursday, and the former president's defense team is scheduled to begin its arguments Friday.

The United States constitutional system was not a winner.

Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial had something to disappoint practically everyone.

Democrats and Trump’s Republican critics were of course disappointed by the outcome — the former president was acquitted on the charge of “incitement of insurrection,” with 57 senators voting to convict and 43 voting to acquit. (Sixty-seven votes, a two-thirds majority, were required for conviction.)

Seven of 50 Republican senators voted to convict, which was more than expected. But the outcome is still a blow for anyone who hoped the US constitutional system would ensure consequences for a president who tried to disregard election results and maintain his hold on power.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell probably isn’t thrilled with how things went. He at least feinted toward trying to “purge” Trump from the party due to his actions on and before the storming of the Capitol on January 6. But the GOP senators he leads quickly made clear they were far more loyal to Trump than McConnell, and McConnell eventually announced that he, too, would acquit.

An added disappointment for Democrats was a confusing late turnabout Saturday, in which the House impeachment managers decided to ask for witness testimony but then swiftly dropped that request. The move fed doubts among the party’s base over just how serious their leaders were about pressing the case against Trump.

But overall, the closest thing to a winner is Trump himself. He proved yet again that the Republican Party remains unshakably loyal to him — even inciting a mob to attack the US Capitol can’t make them quit him. And by avoiding conviction, Trump retained his opportunity to try and pull off something similar again in 2024. That bodes ill for the stability of the US political system, but it’s good for Donald Trump personally.

Loser: The US constitutional system

For the first time in the history of the United States, a defeated president attempted to overturn the election’s outcome to keep himself in office.

Trump’s effort to try to steal the election was multifaceted. He spent months lying that there was massive voter fraud. He pressured state officials and state legislators not to certify President Joe Biden’s win. He filed dozens of frivolous lawsuits. He urged members of Congress and Vice President Mike Pence to throw out valid electoral votes on January 6. And, that same day, he encouraged supporters to gather in Washington and egged them on. The violence at the Capitol ensued.

It was stunning conduct that flew in the face of the US tradition of peaceful transition of power. And Congress did have an opportunity by which they could make Trump face a very real consequence for this: impeachment and prohibition from holding federal office again in the future (preventing him from running again in 2024). An impeachment of a US president has never ended with conviction, but surely, if one ever would, one would think that Trump’s conduct would merit it.

But instead, partisanship triumphed, Republicans mostly closed ranks around Trump, and the vote fell well short of the two-thirds threshold needed for conviction. The result is that Trump will face no consequences — from Congress, at least — for his effort to defy the will of the voters and stay in power. That has ominous implications for the political system’s future stability, and seems to invite Trump or someone similar to try something like it again.

Loser: Mitch McConnell

In recent years, allies of Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell have hyped the legend of “Cocaine Mitch.” Using a joking moniker bestowed by his critics (long story), this was an attempt to reshape the public’s perception of the bloodless, big-money-loving politician into something of a badass — a fighter who would take on his critics (mostly the libs) and win, again and again, heedless of what people say about him.

And for a brief moment, it appeared Cocaine Mitch might be moving to take out Trump.

“Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has told associates that he believes President Trump committed impeachable offenses and that he is pleased that Democrats are moving to impeach him, believing that it will make it easier to purge him from the party, according to people familiar with his thinking,” the New York Times reported on January 12.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

By all accounts, McConnell was appalled by Trump’s conduct and the chaos in his beloved Senate days earlier. (His wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, resigned from the Trump administration early in protest.) McConnell also may have blamed Trump’s post-election conduct for costing him his Senate majority, with Republicans’ twin defeats in Georgia. So, fresh off his reelection to a new six-year stint, McConnell had a chance to make a stand, to fight for the future of the GOP on his terms.

But he failed. Within weeks, it became clear that the vast majority of Republican senators would not vote to convict Trump. What’s more, some of them anonymously told CNN that if McConnell did break with Trump so openly, he would no longer be able to lead them.

McConnell backed down. He announced his decision to vote to acquit Trump Saturday morning, saying that though it was a “close call,” he concluded the Senate had no jurisdiction to try a former president. He did not address the fact that, while he was still majority leader in mid-January, he had an opportunity to start the trial while Trump was still in office — but said he wouldn’t reconvene the Senate to do so. So though McConnell allies talked a big game to political reporters beforehand, his own role in this saga ended in a humiliating surrender.

Losers: The House impeachment managers

For the most part, the House impeachment managers did a fantastic job making their case against Trump. In many hours of effective and often moving presentations, they expertly described the disturbing events that took place at the Capitol on January 6, tying them to Trump’s actions beforehand and his lack of action as the violence unfolded.

Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Joe Neguse (D-CO) stood out as particularly eloquent — and, since both are relatively new members of Congress, their prominence pointed toward how the House could function if talent rather than seniority mattered more often. Raskin had the added pressure of acting just after an immense personal tragedy. They are clearly rising stars in the Democratic Party, with much more ahead for them. And their arguments seem to have been persuasive to seven Republican senators — more than expected.

But they, too, ended the trial with a surrender.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Throughout the week, senators had expected that Trump’s trial would be ending quickly, without any witnesses being called. But all along, the trial rules provided an opportunity for the House impeachment managers to seek witness testimony.

And on Saturday morning, Raskin shocked Washington by announcing he’d do just that. Responding to a Friday night report from CNN, Raskin said he would like to subpoena Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA), one of 10 House GOP members who voted to impeach Trump. Herrera Beutler had said that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told her that Trump had spoken to him on the phone while the riot was taking place, and that when McCarthy urged him to tell his supporters to back down, Trump responded, “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.”

So in a last-minute move, Raskin proposed getting Herrera Beutler’s testimony. And the Senate swiftly voted on whether witnesses would be in order (though not yet which witnesses), and all Democrats and a handful of Republicans voted that they would be. Trump’s team was furious, and the Democratic base was overjoyed — it seemed the trial would continue, with witnesses making an even more damning case against the former president.

Then, though, the action moved behind the scenes, and a deal materialized. Raskin agreed to drop the witness demand. In exchange, Trump’s team acknowledged that if Herrera Beutler did testify, her testimony would match what she had said publicly, and allowed that public statement to be entered into the record.

Yet this deal achieved nothing of consequence. Unlike in a regular trial, it makes no difference whether a certain fact is in the record — senators can make up their minds based on whatever they want.

Now, the stakes of this dustup shouldn’t be exaggerated — Republican senators weren’t going to convict Trump no matter what. Still, it’s unclear why Raskin pushed forward if he was just going to quickly back down. All it ended up doing was raising the hopes of the Democratic base, and then dashing them, politically botching the end of what had been an overall strong performance.

Loser: The United States Senate

The Senate was charged with the weighty responsibility of judging whether the former president had in fact committed high crimes and misdemeanors while in office.

But it became clear on Saturday that senators’ top priority was, instead, getting out of town.

When Raskin introduced his proposal to call Herrera Beutler as a witness Saturday morning, senators were put on the spot. And in public, all 50 Democrats voted in favor of moving to consider witnesses. In private, though, they were evidently not so keen on the idea, as the swift deal reached by senators to avoid witnesses and end the trial Saturday shows. (CNN’s John King reports that Senate Democratic leaders pressured Raskin to back down.)

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Democratic leaders have long been skeptical about holding a lengthy impeachment trial. They’ve said it’s important to return to confirming President Biden’s nominees or passing legislation. Indeed, those things are important. But in theory, it’s totally possible to do both. And senators did not, in fact, wrap up the trial and return to those matters. They wrapped up the trial and began a preplanned vacation that will last until the week after next.

Again, in fairness to these Democratic senators, they are entirely right that the outcome was set in stone. Their Republican colleagues had made their preferences clear, and spending more time and calling more witnesses would not have changed that. But considering the seriousness of what happened on January 6, the Senate’s desire to dispense with the trial ASAP showed a galling lack of gravity on their part.

Loser: Donald Trump’s attorneys

Yes, Trump’s defense team got the outcome they wanted — they won a rigged game. But overall their blustering, dodging, and rambling performance wasn’t remotely impressive.

Attorney Bruce Castor kicked off the proceedings on Tuesday. Charged with addressing the constitutionality of an impeachment trial for a former president, Castor more or less riffed about whatever seemed to be on his mind, a performance so unimpressive it lost him the vote of Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) on the topic.

Further lowlights over the next few days included an overreliance on extremely long montage videos with absurdly dramatic music, lawyer David Schoen’s insistence that a Twitter user Trump retweeted who mentioned “bringing the Calvary” wasn’t a typo of “cavalry” but rather a biblical reference, and Michael van der Veen’s utter failure to answer basic factual questions about Trump’s conduct posed by wavering Republican senators. The former president did not send his best.

And yet ...

Winner: Donald Trump

He got acquitted. The trial ended exactly when he hoped it would, rather than stretching on into next week or beyond. He cemented the loyalty of the vast majority of Republican politicians to him yet again. And he has the opportunity to try to win back the presidency in 2024.

Some have argued, of course, that the impeachment trial has sunk Trump politically even though he was acquitted. “I don’t see how, after the American public sees the whole story laid out here ... I just don’t see how Donald Trump will be reelected to the presidency again,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who voted to convict him, said earlier this week.

Trump’s popularity has indeed declined a bit. But memories are short, and Trump remains quite popular among the Republican base — that is, after all, why he was acquitted. And if GOP voters disillusioned with Trump’s actions continue to leave the party, that will leave Trump superfans making up more of the party’s primary electorate.

Despite the pandemic and innumerable scandals, Trump came remarkably close to winning in 2020. We don’t know what the political situation will look like in 2024 — maybe Biden will be coasting to reelection in a reopened country with a strong economy. But it’s certainly not out of the question that not-yet-known crises and controversies could sink his popularity and make his reelection difficult.

For those worried about the threat Trump poses to the American democratic system, there was one clear way to protect against that threat — conviction in the Senate trial and a ban on his holding federal office in the future. But that didn’t happen, and now Trump will have time to lick his political wounds, and a chance to try it all over again if he so desires. What’s the worst that could happen?

A Georgia district attorney is investigating whether Graham violated state law in a call with an elections official.

In Georgia, a criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump’s post-election conduct is expanding to include close Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, according to a Friday report by the Washington Post.

The investigation, which was opened by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis earlier this month, will probe whether Trump — and now Graham — violated state law in the course of Trump’s attempt to overturn the election results in Georgia following the 2020 presidential election.

According to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Graham — a Republican from South Carolina — asked Raffensperger in November whether the secretary of state had the power to throw out all mail-in ballots in certain Georgia counties, a move that could potentially have tipped the state, and its 16 electoral votes, to Trump in the November election.

Raffensperger was reportedly “stunned” by Graham’s question and rejected the idea, which would have been beyond his power as secretary of state. After multiple recounts, President Joe Biden ultimately won Georgia by 11,779 votes, becoming the first Democratic presidential nominee to do so since Bill Clinton in 1992.

A spokesperson for Graham told the Post that Graham has done nothing wrong, and suggested that the investigation might be politically motivated.

“Sen. Graham was asking about how the signature verification process worked,” the spokesperson said. “He never asked the secretary of state to disqualify a ballot cast by anyone. The timing on this is also quite curious. It seems to be a less than transparent effort to marginalize anyone who helps President Trump.”

The Graham-Raffensperger conversation was first revealed by Raffensperger himself in a November interview with the Washington Post, and subsequent reporting by the Post also uncovered a conversation between Trump and Raffensperger in early January this year.

In that call, Trump explicitly asked Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to throw the election to him.

“I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have,” Trump told Raffensperger, who was joined on the call by his department’s general counsel, Ryan Germany, and Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs.

Trump also repeatedly denied that he had lost the Georgia election and raised a number of discredited conspiracy theories.

“They are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard,” Trump told Raffensperger, according to a transcript of the call. “And they are removing machinery, and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen, and you are letting it happen.”

It’s unclear exactly how much legal jeopardy Trump and Graham are facing, but a Wednesday letter by Willis indicates that her investigation will take a broad look at possible criminal violations involving the Georgia election, including “the solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office, and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration.”

Neither Trump nor Graham are mentioned by name in the letter, but Willis has signaled that prosecutors will look into actions by both men. According to the New York Times, the investigation will also encompass election fraud conspiracies spread by Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, as well as the ouster of Byung J. Pak, then the US Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia.

Pak was reportedly forced out of the job by the White House in early January for refusing to open an investigation into nonexistent election fraud.

According to Vox’s Ian Millhiser, it’s solicitation of election fraud that could prove the most worrisome for Trump. As he explained Wednesday:

[Georgia law] makes it a crime to solicit another person to commit a felony “with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony.”

So, to the extent that Trump tried to enlist Raffensperger, or anyone else, to tamper with the electoral results, he could face felony charges. Someone convicted of soliciting a felony in Georgia “shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years” (although the penalty can be higher if they solicit a crime punishable by life in prison or by death).

Additionally, Georgia law makes it a crime to engage in “criminal solicitation to commit election fraud.”

In an interview with the New York Times, Willis also highlighted the possibility that racketeering, which is most often used to deal with organized crime, could come into play.

“If you have various overt acts for an illegal purpose, I think you can — you may — get there,” she said of potential racketeering charges.

Trump is in legal trouble from all directions

As the Fulton County probe underscores, Trump and Graham may already have succeeded in landing themselves in hot water in Georgia. But Trump’s potential legal exposure extends far beyond that, and encompasses issues other than the 2020 election.

Specifically, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance are both conducting investigations into multiple Trump properties and possibly financial crimes committed by Trump and his company.

On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Vance’s investigation had expanded to include loans connected to four Trump buildings in New York: Trump Tower, 40 Wall Street, Trump International Hotel and Tower, and Trump Plaza.

That’s in addition to an existing probe from Vance’s office into possible insurance and bank fraud by the Trump Organization, according to the WSJ.

James, meanwhile, is looking into possible fraud connected to Trump’s Seven Springs estate in Westchester County, New York, as well as other properties. That investigation seeks to uncover whether Trump manipulated appraisals on the estate to secure a conservation tax break after plans to develop the land fell through, according to the New York Times.

At least one of Trump’s children, Eric Trump, has already been deposed in the case after his testimony was compelled by a judge last year.

As with Willis’s Georgia investigation, it’s unclear how much legal jeopardy the New York investigations could ultimately land Trump in — but now that he’s a private citizen again, he’s unquestionably more vulnerable to such action.

“In some of the investigations, the US Department of Justice even intervened, even though the matter was over Trump’s private actions,” WNYC’s Andrea Bernstein told NPR Friday. “But now Trump doesn’t have those extra tools. He’s just an ordinary citizen. So while he can and he is arguing that the investigations are politically motivated, he has to defend himself now like everyone else.”

After a confusing day, the United States Senate voted on Saturday afternoon 57 to 43 in favor of convicting Donald J. Trump in his second impeachment trial. Though this was, by far, the greatest bipartisan vote in favor of impeachment in the nation’s history, it still was not sufficient to reach the necessary two-thirds of the Senate necessary for conviction.

Among those Republicans voting with Democrats were Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, and Pat Toomey. 

With that vote, the court of impeachment is adjourned and Republicans have shrugged off their last flirtation with the idea of democracy. 

Senate Republicans acquitted Donald Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors twice. So make them pay: Donate $1 right now to each of the Democratic nominee funds targeting vulnerable Senate Republicans in 2022.

Donald Trump made his supporters angry, called them to Washington, D.C., on the day Mike Pence was presiding as Congress certified Trump’s election loss, whipped them up into a vicious mob, and sent them to the U.S. Capitol, enraged at Congress and at Pence. We’ve known that.

This week, thanks to the House impeachment managers, we’ve learned just how close the mob came to Pence—and thanks to Sen. Mike Lee’s bumbling outrage, we’ve learned that Trump knowingly targeted Pence with another tweet immediately after he was moved for his safety. The mob responded to Trump’s effort to aim it at Pence, with his tweet saying “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution” being read through a bullhorn by one of the insurrectionists.

Pence wasn’t rushed to safety alone, though. He was with his family, his security detail … and a military officer carrying the vice president's backup nuclear football. CNN reports that, according to an unnamed defense official, U.S. Strategic Command learned how close the football came to the mob when the impeachment managers played that new video showing Pence’s group rushing down a flight of stairs to a more secure location within the Capitol.

To be clear, the vice president’s nuclear football is a backup, and Trump’s football was secure at the White House, and the officer carrying Pence’s football never lost control of it, and there are a ton of safeguards built in to prevent an accidental nuclear strike. In the actual-nuclear-strike department, having it close to but not in the hands of the mob was not necessarily more dangerous than having it in the hands of Donald Trump for four years.

That said, there were other dangers, the Arms Control Association’s Kingston Reif told CNN: “The risk associated with the insurrectionists getting their hands on Pence's football wasn't that they could have initiated an unauthorized launch. But had they stolen the football and acquired its contents, which include pre-planned nuclear strike options, they could have shared the contents with the world.”

Trump’s malice was such that when he aimed that mob at Pence in his effort to overturn the election results and remain in the White House against the will of the voters, he not only tried to threaten the man who had obsequiously flattered him and done his bidding for four years, he threatened Pence’s family, his Secret Service detail, and both the nuclear football and the officer carrying it. Trump’s only thought was to try to stay in office or, failing that, radically undermine U.S. democracy and delegitimize the new president. He did not care who he put in danger to that end. It’s a lot for Republican senators to ignore. By doing so, they show us who they are.