Doctors  QUACKS behind viral COVID-19 misinformation video met with Vice President Pence

Suzanne Smalley Reporter, Yahoo News•July 29, 2020

A group of doctors who participated in an event on the steps of the Supreme Court — a viral video of which was taken down the next day by social media companies for spreading disinformation about the coronavirus — met with Vice President Mike Pence, according to Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, an influential far-right group that organized the event.

A video of Monday’s event went viral after Breitbart posted it, ultimately garnering tens of millions of views before being removed the next day by Facebook, Twitter and YouTube due to its many misleading claims about the coronavirus.

Some of the speakers, who were part of a group calling itself America’s Frontline Doctors, talked about the merits of hydroxychloroquine, which has not been proven effective at treating those infected with the coronavirus, and described masks, which studies have shown are effective at slowing transmission, as unnecessary.

Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin at a July 7 meeting with President Trump, students, teachers and administrators about how to reopen schools during the pandemic. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Martin, who also attended the event, said the meeting with the vice president on Tuesday had been in the works for weeks and was focused on hydroxychloroquine. The doctors arrived with a “very specific ask” for Food and Drug Administration emergency-use authorization for hydroxychloroquine, Martin told Yahoo News.

The FDA in mid-June withdrew its emergency-use authorization, citing safety concerns and the drug’s lack of proven effectiveness. President Trump and some of his allies, however, have continued to speak positively about it.

Pence, said Martin, promised he is “looking into it.” She said she has spoken twice with White House coronavirus task force leader Dr. Deborah Birx about hydroxychloroquine. “We just want a clarification that it is a safe medication,” Martin said.

Martin said she is reassessing what’s next for America’s Frontline Doctors. She organized the group after she started brainstorming with Dr. Simone Gold, a Beverly Hills, Calif.-based emergency room doctor and concierge physician, earlier this month. Martin said both women were eager to dispel the fear so many Americans are feeling during the pandemic.

Dr. Simone Gold speaking in front of the Supreme Court. (Twitter)

Gold and Martin have worked together since April, when they met after a conservative radio host read on air a letter Gold had written. Martin said Gold asked her to deliver to the White House a letter that Gold and several of the Frontline Doctors signed back in May, which Martin did. The letter, dated May 19, implores Trump to end the shutdown, which it calls a “mass casualty incident.”

After that letter, Martin said she and Gold conceived the idea for a summit. “I reached out to her and said, ‘Hey, I’m working on this effort and I’d like to talk to doctors,’ and we started emailing and talking, and as things have developed and she watched the virus, things have evolved,” Martin said. “It’s not like we set out and said, ‘Hey, we’re gonna create a group called America’s Frontline Doctors and we’re gonna have a summit in D.C.’ We planned the summit in about a week.”

Martin said the Tea Party Patriots Foundation is supporting America’s Frontline Doctors as part of its educational mission.

Monday’s video got a boost when the president retweeted it.

In an interview Tuesday with Yahoo News, Bob Hamilton, a Santa Monica, Calif., pediatrician who also appeared in the video, said he is almost solely focused on the issue of schools reopening and went out of his way to distance himself from the larger group, particularly Stella Immanuel, a Houston-based pediatrician. Immanuel is known for her unorthodox views on the merits of masks and hydroxychloroquine, and became something of an internet sensation, particularly after her unusual ideas about alien DNA became public.

Dr. Stella Immanuela, a pediatrician in Houston, Texas — claimed that she has cured and prevented COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malaria medication that was promoted by President Donald Trump for the coronavirus in May. The FDA pulled hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 in June.More

Referring to Immanuel as the “the gal from Cameroon,” Hamilton said he disagreed with her criticism of Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert. “I don’t really have those kinds of strong feelings, to be honest with you,” Hamilton told Yahoo News in an interview.

Hamilton said he had been unaware of the organization’s affiliation with the Tea Party Patriots until he arrived at the event.

Cover thumbnail photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

_____

Rudy Giuliani interviewed Dr. Stella Immanuel — doctor who previously preached about alien DNA — on his radio show calling her his 'hero'

Sarah Al-Arshani Business Insider•July 30, 2020

GIULIANI SHOW'S HE CAN COUNT'......TO THREE

Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor and current lawyer for U.S. President Donald Trump, speaks to members of the media during a White House Sports and Fitness Day at the South Lawn of the White House May 30, 2018 in Washington, DC.
Alex Wong/Getty Images

Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal attorney, called Dr. Stella Immanuel, the doctor seen in a viral video espousing misinformation about the coronavirus, his "hero" on his radio show on Wednesday.

Giuliani and Immanuel discussed the doctor's claim that hydroxychloroquine is a cure for COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus.

There is no known cure for COVID-19. A growing body of evidence has shown that hydroxychloroquine is not an effective coronavirus treatment.

Immanuel, who is also a minister, has made some unsubstantiated medical claims in the past, such as saying cysts are caused by having sex dreams about demons.

Giuliani also said he's personally helped get the medication for four of his friends because "it's hard to get hydroxychloroquine."


President Donald Trump's attorney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani called Dr. Stella Immanuel — a doctor seen in a viral video spreading coronavirus misinformation — his "hero" on his radio show on Wednesday.

"Well, you're my hero," Giuliani said after Immanuel paid him the same compliment. Giuliani went on to say that he'd been following the use of hydroxychloroquine and that he also believes that the medication is effective at treating COVID-19 in the "early stages" of the disease.

There is a mounting body of evidence showing that there is no benefit to hydroxychloroquine COVID-19, including a limited study conducted on its use before hospitalization.

The Food and Drug Administration revoked emergency authorization for its use in emergency settings last month.

Immanuel, a licensed pediatrician, and a minister in Texas, went viral for a speech she gave during a press conference that was broadcasted initially by the right-wing outlet Breitbart.

In the viral video, Immanuel can be seen on the steps of the Supreme Court at the "White Coat Summit," which was organized by the Tea Party Patriots — a right-wing group that backed the anti-lockdown protests earlier this year. It featured doctors part of a newly formed organization called America's Frontline Doctors.

During the press conference, Immanuel falsely claimed that hydroxychloroquine is a cure for coronavirus.

There is currently no known cure for COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus.

The video was taken down by platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, but it had already been viewed by millions — and shared by President Donald Trump, his son, Donald Trump Jr., and Madonna.

After the video went viral, The Daily Beast found that Immanuel has a history of making outlandish and unsubstantiated medical claims, including preaching that cysts and endometriosis are a result of people having dreams that they're having sex with demons and witches, and that alien DNA is used in our medicine.

"They are responsible for serious gynecological problems. We call them all kinds of names — endometriosis, we call them molar pregnancies, we call them fibroids, we call them cysts, but most of them are evil deposits from the spirit husband," Immanuel said of the medical issues in a 2013 sermon. "They are responsible for miscarriages, impotence — men that can't get it up."

On Giuliani's show, Immanuel doubled down on her views of hydroxychloroquine with support from Giuliani.

"So you're a real a doctor, you're not a laboratory creature?" Giuliani asked. 

Immanuel, who got her medical degree in Nigeria, told Giuliani she began using hydroxychloroquine as a treatment in West Africa where malaria was prevalent. The drug has been used to effectively treat malaria and lupus, but it has not proven effective against COVID-19.

Giuliani also said he's gotten the medication for four of his friends because "it's hard to get hydroxychloroquine."

Giuliani could not be reached for comment at the time of publication.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Trump can’t delay elections. So why is he suggesting it?
TO DISTRACT FROM THE NEWS OF THE DAY, THE FUNERAL OF JOHN LEWIS, WHICH HE DID NOT ATTEND
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/07/trump-did-not-attend-john-lewis-funeral.html

Mike Bebernes Editor, Yahoo News 360•July 31, 2020
“The 360” shows you diverse perspectives on the day’s top stories and debates.

New fallout after Trump floats delaying election

What’s happening

President Trump suggested Thursday that the upcoming presidential election may need to be delayed, citing unfounded claims that mail-in voting would lead to widespread voter fraud.

Simply put, the president has no power to change the date of the election. The Constitution gives Congress the right to “determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes.” A federal law passed in 1845 established Election Day as the first Tuesday in November, unless the first Tuesday falls on Nov. 1. Under those rules, this year’s presidential election is scheduled for Nov. 3.

A sympathetic Congress could move the election to a different date. But any change would have to be approved by the Democrat-led House of Representatives, who have widely denounced the idea. Many prominent Republicans in the Senate — including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — have reportedly said the election date is set in stone. Even in the highly unlikely scenario that Congress approves moving the election, Trump’s first presidential term would end on January 20 as ordered by the 20th Amendment.

Trump’s tweet came amid ongoing concerns from both sides of the aisle over how the coronavirus pandemic might derail the election. These fears have led to a push to increase the availability of mail-in voting. Although there are valid logistical concerns about instituting widespread vote-by-mail, there is no evidence it would make the election any less secure.

Why there’s debate

If there’s close to zero chance that the election actually gets moved, why would Trump pose the idea? The president’s campaign said his statement was “just raising a question” about the legitimate issues that mail-in voting raises.

Trump’s tweet was posted just minutes after the release of data showing that the U.S. economy had suffered its worst contraction in history during the second quarter of this year. Suggesting the election be delayed may have been a means of pushing that bad news off the front page, some argue.

Others say talk of postponing the election is part of a larger and more harmful campaign to lower the public’s confidence in the results if Trump loses to Joe Biden in November, as polls currently suggest is likely. The president’s critics say he has repeatedly sought to undermine the integrity of U.S. elections in hopes of tipping the scales in his favor. Repeatedly injecting skepticism into the voting process by attacking vote-by-mail may be an attempt to create space for him to reject a Biden victory and insist he be able to stay in office, some argue. There have also been accusations that the new head of the U.S. Postal Service, a Trump ally, is deliberately impeding mail service to create chaos on election day.

What’s next

While the debate over delaying the election appears dead on arrival, the issue of vote-by-mail is likely to be key all the way to November. Some Republicans have echoed Trump’s statements about voter fraud, despite ample evidence to refute those claims. The increased use of mail-in ballots is expected to lead to delays in tallying results, to the point where the final result may not be known until several days after Election Day.
Perspectives

Trump is setting the stage for an attempt to stay in office if he loses

“The suggestion was an alarming indication that Trump is considering ways to prolong his stay in office as the country reels from a deadly pandemic and the resulting economic crisis.” — Chris Megerian, Los Angeles Times

He wants his base to believe he was cheated if Biden wins

“If Trump loses the election in November and wants to argue that he was cheated and the voting was not legitimate, he can’t start on November 4. He needs to lay the groundwork ahead of time — for example, by repeatedly warning that the vote will be fraudulent and rigged, and by telling his supporters that he tried to postpone it but was denied by ‘Them.’” — David A. Graham, The Atlantic

There are legitimate reasons to question the security of mail-in ballots

“If we have mail-in balloting the way it's scheduled now, there is absolutely no way you will get an election result on election night, or even in the first few days. That means confusion and endless challenges. That is a mess.” — Stuart Varney, Fox News

Trump was trying to distract from dire economic news

“Trump, in all likelihood, knows that he lacks the legal authority to postpone the election. But in finally saying the quiet part out loud this morning, he could be hoping to distract from the grim news that the U.S. just suffered its biggest drop in GDP on record. Might as well throw some casual voter fraud lies into the mix.” — Inae Oh, Mother Jones

Trump knows he’s losing and is desperate for any way to tip the scales

“This isn’t about mail-in voting at all. This is about Trump’s struggling campaign and the poll numbers that show him losing to Biden. Truly, this is a sign of weakness. And Democrats will not hesitate to take advantage of it. Trump is playing directly into their hands.” — Kaylee McGhee, Washington Examiner

Trump is willing to undermine our democracy if it helps him win

“The threat posed by Trump’s musing about illegally delaying the election must be seen not in terms of the letter of the law but of Trump’s intent, of his situation and of his history. He is contemptuous of our democracy and cares only about himself. He is aided by others with similarly very narrow self-interest as their guiding imperative.” — David Rothkopf, USA Today

New Yahoo News/YouGov poll: Most Trump voters say they will not accept the 2020 results if Biden wins because of mail-in ballots

Andrew Romano West Coast Correspondent,Yahoo News•July 31, 2020
Trump denounces mail-in balloting for November election

Scroll back up to restore default view.



Most Americans now believe that President Trump will not accept the results of November’s election if he loses to Joe Biden, according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll — and an even larger majority of Trump voters say they too will refuse to accept a narrow loss if mail-in ballots contribute to Biden’s victory.

In the midst of a pandemic that has seen many states expand their mail-in balloting systems to limit dangerous crowding on Election Day, the issue of postal voting took center stage Thursday when Trump escalated his months-long campaign to delegitimize the practice and possibly the election itself.

“2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history,” the president tweeted, even though there is no evidence that mail-in voting would lead to widespread voter fraud and several states already conduct elections entirely by mail. “Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???”


The results of the latest Yahoo News/YouGov survey suggest that Trump’s efforts to sow doubt about the validity of mail-in voting may be starting to have their desired effect. Asked whether Trump would “accept the result” if he “loses in a close election” this November, 52 percent of Americans say no. Only 25 percent say yes.

Voters who support Trump, meanwhile, share their candidate’s unfounded suspicions about postal balloting, with a full 55 percent saying they would not “accept the result” if Biden wins “because of an advantage in mail-in votes.” Only 21 percent say they would accept a Biden victory under those circumstances.

The survey, it’s worth noting, was conducted July 28 to 30, just before Trump’s tweet about delaying the election. If anything, these gaps will likely widen in the wake of his incendiary suggestion.

Among Biden voters, a mere 26 percent say they would not accept the results if the tables were turned and Trump won because of mail-in votes. Forty-seven percent say they would accept the results.

It’s unclear what “not accepting” the result of a U.S. presidential election would look like in practice. But at a minimum it could involve large numbers of Americans viewing Biden as an illegitimate president — with Trump’s encouragement. The previous Yahoo News/YouGov poll found that 54 percent of Trump voters say they are “very worried” about “fraudulent postal voting,” while 57 percent of Biden voters say they are “not worried” at all.

Trump’s preemptive push to invalidate a Biden win reflects a sobering reality for the president: If the election were held today, he would almost certainly lose. Biden leads Trump by 9 percentage points among registered voters, 49 percent to 40 percent; 94 percent of these voters say there is no chance they will change their mind. In the race for Congress, Democrats lead Republicans by 10 percentage points, 49 percent to 39 percent.

With coronavirus menacing nearly every corner of the country and protests raging in Portland, Ore., and elsewhere, more than three-quarters of Americans (77 percent) say things currently are out of control. This does not redound to Trump’s benefit: The number of Americans who say the incumbent president “is the source of the chaos” (46 percent) is 20 points higher than the number who say he “will protect us from the chaos” (26 percent).

A protester screams at federal officers after they used tear gas and less-lethal weapons to disperse a protest against racial injustice and police brutality in front of the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse on Thursday in Portland, Ore. (Nathan Howard/Getty Images)More

The perception of Trump of a national leader who makes matters worse rather than better is pervasive — and no issue illustrates this more clearly than Portland.

The Yahoo News/YouGov poll shows signs of eroding support for the protests that have roiled the country since the May 25 killing of George Floyd. In early June, Americans were divided over whether the protesters should “stop protesting” (44 percent) or “keep protesting” (42 percent); today, 47 percent of Americans want them to stop, while only 36 percent want them to continue.

Black Lives Matter still receives a net favorable rating — 47 percent favorable versus 43 percent unfavorable — but it has contracted by 20 points since early June, when the split was 57 percent favorable to 33 percent unfavorable. Thirty-three percent of Americans now view the protests as “mostly violent acts,” up from 21 percent in early June. Fifty-seven percent say the protests “have gone too far.” And 59 percent say they are “very” or “somewhat” worried about “a breakdown of law and order in American cities.”

In recent weeks, Trump has repeatedly attempted to capitalize on these worries; more registered voters now believe, for instance, that the president sent federal agents to Portland “to bolster his ‘law and order’ reelection campaign” (49 percent) than believe he sent them to “keep anarchists from destroying federal buildings” (45 percent), his stated rationale.

The problem for Trump is that his show of force is not working, either practically or politically. Forty-five percent of Americans say it was not necessary for the administration to send federal agents to Portland; just 38 percent say it was necessary. Forty-eight percent say federal agents have increased tensions in Portland; just 14 percent say they have lessened tensions. Forty-two percent say local police are best suited to handle situations like Portland; just 33 percent would prefer federal agents. Forty-five percent say the administration should not send federal agents to deal with protests in other cities; just 36 percent would support sending federal agents elsewhere.

As a result, 44 percent say the country would become less safe if Trump wins reelection. Only 31 percent say the country would become safer. And more American people believe “bringing people together” will help get things under control (56 percent) than believe the same about “law and order” (44 percent).

Trump supporters wait for Lara Trump in Old Orchard Beach, Maine, on July 22 during a stop on the Women for Trump bus tour. (Derek Davis/Portland Press Herald via Getty Images)

Coronavirus is a similar story. Trump’s approval rating for handling the pandemic now stands at its lowest level yet: 37 percent. Disapproval (57 percent) is at a high point. Despite the president’s recent return to the podium for regular COVID-19 briefings, the public has largely concluded that his disengaged, denialist approach to the virus is insufficient: 51 percent of Americans say Trump is not doing enough about the pandemic, compared with only 31 percent who say he is doing the right amount. (Six percent say the president is doing too much.) Just a quarter of the country (26 percent) approves of Trump promoting the use of hydroxychloroquine on Twitter; a majority (54 percent) disapproves.

Asked who deserves more blame for the continuing spread of coronavirus in the U.S. — Trump or governors — a plurality (42 percent to 31 percent) blames Trump more. A majority blames Trump (51 percent) more than China (31 percent). Forty-nine percent of registered voters say the coronavirus situation would have been better if Biden were president; only 30 percent say it would have been worse. Going forward, a majority of voters (51 percent) say Biden would do a better job handling the pandemic than Trump (30 percent).

Polarization remains the defining force in U.S. politics, and Biden isn’t held in particularly high esteem. More Americans think the former vice president says what he wants people to hear (47 percent) than what he believes (34 percent), and fewer see him as honest and trustworthy (36 percent) than not (42 percent). Only 19 percent say Biden “cares a lot” about people like them.

Yet at the same time, 55 percent of Americans — a number that rises to 58 percent among registered voters — say “the only thing” Trump “cares about is himself.” Just 36 percent say the same about Biden. A wide majority of registered voters (56 percent) dislike Trump “somewhat” or “a lot.”

In easier times, voters may have put more stock in the one leadership quality a majority of them say Trump possesses: audacity (57 percent). But today, amid multiple crises, that turns out to be the leadership quality they value the least, with just 31 percent describing it as “very important” right now.

Instead, far more voters say taking responsibility (86 percent), competence (85 percent), honesty (84 percent) and empathy (64 percent) are very important. Trump trails Biden among registered voters in every category: by 12 points, 5 points, 11 points and 22 points, respectively.

____________

The Yahoo News survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 1,506 U.S. adult residents interviewed online between July 28-30, 2020. This sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, and education, as well as 2016 presidential vote, registration status, geographic region and news interest. Respondents were selected from YouGov’s opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S residents. The margin of error is approximately 3.3 percent.

_____

Nearly a third of Poland has declared 'LGBT-free zones.' The EU is denying funds to them.

Joshua Bote, USA TODAY•July 31, 2020


After nearly a third of Poland towns and municipalities declared "LGBT-free zones," the European Union has stepped in and denied funding to them.

Six towns in Poland that have adopted the homophobic policies have been denied funding, according to a statement from the EU's Commissioner for Equality.

"EU values and fundamental rights must be respected by Member States and state authorities," said Commissioner Helena Dalli in a tweet Tuesday.

They applied for grants as part of a "town twinning" proposal, which would connect two communities in separate nations for joint partnerships. Other applicants that didn't adopt "LGBT-free zone" policies were approved.

The news comes as sitting president Andrzej Duda won a re-election as part of the right-wing Law and Justice party. In his tenure, the nation has intensified its anti-LGBT sentiment after Duda signed a "family charter" that pledged to “ban the propagation of LGBT ideology in public institutions.” Further, he proposed an amendment that would prohibit same-sex couple adoptions.

Towns elsewhere in the EU, including France and the Netherlands, have reneged on "sister city" partnerships with Polish towns that have aligned themselves with "LGBT-free" ideologies.

Nearly a third of Poland's 38 million residents live in zones declared by local officials as "LGBT-free," which have no legal power but mirror a rising anti-LGBT tide in the country.

Poland's Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro called the rejection "unlawful," urging for a reversal from the EU Commission and arguing that the views of all citizens should be respected by the EU.

Poland joined the EU in 2004.

Contributing: The Associated Press. Follow Joshua Bote on Twitter: @joshua_bote.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: 'LGBT-free' Poland towns denied EU funding: 'Rights must be respected'

Did the CIA Torture an Undercover DEA Agent for a Mexican Drug Cartel?

Nick Schager, The Daily Beast•July 31, 2020

Courtesy of Amazon Studios

Narcos: Mexico’s first two seasons revolve around the 1985 murder of undercover DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena, who was abducted, tortured and slain by the Guadalajara Cartel he was investigating. Mining thrilling drama from reality, the Netflix series is a true story about bravery and villainy that’s overflowing with larger-than-life figures, be it the bold Camarena, the ruthless cartel kingpins Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo, Ernesto Fonseca Carrillo and Rafael Caro Quintero, or the resolute DEA agents intent on bringing to justice those responsible for their comrade’s killing—the latter group led by Walt Breslin, a take-no-prisoners American tasked with leading the retaliatory mission against the drug lords.

Unlike most of those featured in Netflix’s hit, Walt Breslin isn’t a real person but a composite character based largely on DEA agent Hector Berrellez, the supervisor of the inquiry into Camarena’s assassination. And in Amazon’s new The Last Narc, Berrellez tells his own harrowing tale of taking on Guadalajara’s kingpins—and in the process delivers revelations about the U.S. government’s own culpability in the death of one of their own.

Netflix Exposes Trump’s Shady Mob Ties in ‘Fear City: New York vs. The Mafia’

The Nazi Hunter Taking On Mark Zuckerberg

Directed by Tiller Russell, The Last Narc is a four-part docuseries (premiering July 31) about the vast conspiracy that fatally ensnared Camarena. In a dim, empty bar illuminated only by light streaming through a background doorway and window, the candid Berrellez recounts his own involvement in the War on Drugs. Brought up by a tarot card-reading mom (here seen plying her supernatural trade), and compelled to pursue a law-enforcement career after his brother became hooked on heroin at age 12, Berrellez is a bearded, weathered cowboy with a glint in his eyes that says he means business. Forthrightly reminiscing about pulling guns on suspects—and shooting down one dealer during an undercover bust gone awry—he instantly comes across as the real deal, and thus a fascinating tour guide into this sordid cartel milieu.

Berrellez’s career took off once he joined the DEA, and he was soon ordered to figure out who had done in Camarena. According to wife Geneva “Mika” Camarena and colleagues Mike Holm and Phil Jordan, Camarena was a daring and driven agent determined to take down the mighty Guadalajara Cartel, and he certainly put a dent in their empire when he discovered (and, with the help of pilot Alfredo Zavala, photographed from the sky) Rancho Búfalo, a sprawling marijuana plantation that was subsequently torched by Mexican soldiers, thereby costing the cartel billions. On its own, that blow was enough to put Camarena in Gallardo, Quintero and Carrillo’s crosshairs. But worse still, it indicated that he was closing in on them, even though they had virtually everyone on their payroll, from local cops and politicians to Miguel de la Madrid, the then-current president of Mexico, as well as his predecessor, Jose Lopez Portillo.

On February 7, 1985, the cartel struck, seizing Camarena as he left the office to meet Mika for lunch. At 881 Lope de Vega—a residence owned by Ruben Zuno Arce, a dealer and associate of Quintero—Camarena was horribly tortured, and kept alive (so he could suffer more) by doctor Humberto Álvarez Machaín. After 36 hours, he fell into a coma and was lethally bludgeoned with a piece of rebar by one of Quintero’s gunmen. He was then buried in Arce’s La Primavera forest (a de facto cartel graveyard), only to later be dug up so he could be “found” by authorities.

Berrellez’s knowledge of cartel culture and operations is extensive and compelling, as is his explanation of the investigative hurdles he faced while trying to take down his targets. His insights alone make The Last Narc an eye-opening non-fiction account of underworld mayhem. Russell’s series, however, also benefits from the input of three cartel henchmen—Jalisco State Police officers Jorge Godoy and Rene Lopez, and their boss Ramon Lira—who relay their experiences as bodyguards for Gallardo, Quintero and Carrillo, as well as their direct participation in Camarena’s kidnapping and murder, all before they switched sides and became informants for Berrellez. From describing that broad-daylight snatching of Camarena, to revealing how Carrillo and Quintero argued about how to deal with their prisoner (the former wanted him released; the latter wanted him offed), their commentary affords a window onto a clandestine world fueled by greed, mercilessness, substance abuse and a sense of invulnerability.

DEA agent Hector Berrellez in The Last Narc
Courtesy of Amazon Studios

Stunning first-person details abound in The Last Narc, provided by colorful characters led by Berrellez—a no-nonsense crime fighter who seems tailor-made for a big-screen action franchise, even in older age—and Godoy, who behaves in such a weird manner during his interview that it’s not clear if he’s drunk, mad, or some combination of the two. In a late scene, Godoy closes his eyes and brushes at his shoulders to dispel the spirits (of Camarena, and others) that haunt him. It’s a sight that’s all the more transfixing for being so weird, and it’s in keeping with the general gonzo nature of the proceedings, which (as in Narcos: Mexico) eventually implicate the CIA and DEA as complicit in Camarena’s execution. Led by Berrellez and others’ testimony, the series contends that Cuban-born CIA agent Felix Rodriguez partially conducted Camarena’s interrogation and torture, because the U.S. government feared that he had stumbled upon a much larger conspiracy—namely, that the CIA was in bed with the cartels, moving guns, drugs and cash through them in order to covertly fund Nicaragua’s anti-communist Contras.

That theory might not be new, but Berrellez’s discussion about his primary role in exposing the scheme—and the personal and professional ramifications he suffered as a result—lends it persuasive credence. The Last Narc thus transforms from a simple murder-mystery into a wide-ranging expose about the entangled relationship between the CIA, the Mexican government, the DFS (Mexico’s secret police, created by the CIA) and the cartels. In doing so, it renders Camarena a casualty of a war that was fundamentally unwinnable, since all interested parties had a stake in maintaining the status quo, regardless of the harm it caused the Mexican and American populations. Consequently, the lasting impression left by Russell’s series isn’t shock or outrage, but despair over a plague supported by a greedy many, and combated by a courageous few who, for their heroic efforts, received nothing but disgrace and death.

Read more at The Daily Beast.

'Perfect storm': Defund the police, COVID-19 lead to biggest police budget cuts in decade

Kevin Johnson and Kristine Phillips, USA TODAY•July 31, 2020


Protesters call for cities to defund police, but what does it mean?



Facing the dual forces of the coronavirus pandemic and the national movement to "defund the police," law enforcement agencies across the country are bracing for budget reductions not seen in more than a decade.

Nearly half of 258 agencies surveyed this month are reporting that funding has already been slashed or is expected to be reduced, according to a report slated for release this week by the Police Executive Research Forum, a non-partisan research organization.

Much of the funding is being pulled from equipment, hiring and training accounts, even as a number of cities also are tracking abrupt spikes in violent crime, the report concluded.

A protester hods a sign reading 'Defund Police' during a demonstration against police brutality and racial injustice on at the rock on the MSU campus on Friday, June 12, 2020, in East Lansing. About 50 people marched from the rock to the East Lansing Police Department were they sat on Abbot Road in protest.More

Few agencies, regardless of size, are being spared. Deep reductions have been ordered or proposed in Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, Baltimore County, Maryland, Tempe, Arizona, and Eureka, California.

Chuck Wexler, executive director of the D.C.-based think tank that authored the report, said police operations have not confronted such a threat since the financial crisis of 2008, when operations and force numbers were cut dramatically to account for the steep decline in available public funds.

COVID ECONOMY: State budgets hit hard as tax revenues plummet

"Unfortunately, the situation this time is only certain to get worse because of the pandemic's resurgence and the convergence of the defund police movement," Wexler said. "It's a combustible mixture for police departments, because reform is often achieved by hiring a next generation of officers and acquiring new technology that can assist their work. The unintended consequence of these times is that those reforms will now be held back."

But Scott Roberts, senior director for criminal justice campaigns for the civil rights advocacy group Color of Change, said law enforcement has been "the most out of touch" in recognizing a need for new policing policy.

"The lack of imagination in public safety has only led to continuing down the same path to investing in more law enforcement," Roberts said. "This call for defunding police is not just about taking money from policing, it's about making the investments we need to make in things like health care, including mental illness."


he first shock waves rippled through law enforcement this month when New York municipal officials slashed $1 billion from the largest police force in the country with an operating budget of about $6 billion. The cut effectively canceled a 1,200-person police recruiting class, curtailed overtime spending and shifted school safety deployments and homeless outreach away from the NYPD.

A Black Lives Matter protester is apprehended by NYPD officers on Brooklyn Bridge, Wednesday, July 15, 2020, in New York. Several New York City police officers were attacked and injured Wednesday on the Brooklyn Bridge during a protest sparked by the death of George Floyd. Police say at least four officers were hurt, including the department’s chief, and more than a dozen people were arrested.More

In Minneapolis, where the de-fund movement began following the May 25 death of George Floyd at the hands of police, the fate of the local force remains in doubt. Los Angeles has cut its police budget by $150 million, while Seattle has proposed a 50% reduction to a department that has struggled to contain protests that erupted following Floyd's death.

"There are a lot of pressures dragging down and threatening levels of public safety," Los Angeles Police Chief Michel Moore said. "It's really a perfect storm."

Did you recently attend a law-enforcement training academy? USA TODAY wants to talk. We want to learn about the videos and other materials presented during training. Email policetraining@usatoday.com if you have a tip or are willing to be interviewed.
'A recruiting, retention crisis'

Even smaller cities facing less pressure from the social justice movement have not been able to escape an unfolding financial crisis driven by the COVID-19 pandemic.

MAP: Which states and cities have changed police funding, policies

In Steamboat Springs, a ski-resort town in northwest Colorado largely supported by tourism-driven sales tax dollars, the police department is cutting its budget by 28% or nearly $1.5 million. It means that vacant positions will go unfilled and civilian employees are taking a 10% pay cut, Police Chief Cory Christensen said.

The police department’s training and recruiting budgets already have been zeroed out.

“At a time when we’re talking police reform and how to make police departments better, one of the strategies is having training. But not having funding for that, we will fall behind in making sure we’re up to par with best practices,” Christensen said, adding that the department has yet to meet state-mandated training hours.

Christensen was able to hire a few officers in the last three years, but the police force has barely kept pace with the town’s growing population – up from 3,000 to 13,000 in the last two decades. The police department now has 44 employees, a slight increase over the past 20 years.

At the same time, calls for service are up 23% from last year, the busiest year in Christensen's memory.

“I don’t know yet whether I’m going to have to lay off police officers," he said. "I don’t have enough police officers as it is to do emergency calls,” he said. “Our cuts are going to mean we’re going to plow the streets less, water the grass less. We’re going to police with less. It’s a challenge.”

In Eureka, a Northern California town of nearly 27,000 where sales taxes are also the primary source of revenue, the pandemic is responsible for doubling an already projected deficit for the next budget year, Police Chief Steve Watson said.

The police department is cutting its budget by 8%, or nearly $1.2 million. That means losing six positions through a combination of early retirement incentives, resignations and allowing vacant positions to go unfilled, Watson said. The agency currently has about 50 employees, a staffing level that already struggles to keep up with the workload.

“We are already in a recruiting and retention crisis that’s been going on for years. I can foresee it’s going to get far worse,” Watson said.
​'It could take years to recover'

Law enforcement has been at the center of financial and social justice crises in the past, but there is a reason why Wexler and his group believe this storm is different.

Comparing the think tank's 2020 survey – conducted just five months into the pandemic – with similar 2008 research –,a year into that recession – the group found that more police agencies planned cuts to training, hiring and technology acquisitions this year than during the last economic crisis.

"If we're just comparing to 2008, the cuts this time could be significantly deeper and it could take years to recover," Wexler said, adding that the social justice movement has yet to take full effect in some communities where local leaders are entirely reassessing public safety operations.

Regardless of the new pressures, Ed Davis, a former police commissioner in Boston who helped oversee the Boston Marathon bombing investigation, cautioned his former colleagues not to sacrifice training to balance a budget.

When forced to decide between training and deploying officers to local neighborhoods, Davis said chiefs often choose the latter.

“Then police don’t have the skills they need to do what needs to be done properly, and then something bad happens and everybody wonders why something bad happens,” Davis said.

Protesters gather during a Defund the Police rally at Meyer Park in Tempe on June 25, 2020.

Of the campaign to defund police, Davis called the movement "ill-advised."

“I understand that people are angry. We really have to deal with the kind of system that led to Officer Chauvin being on the police department,” Davis said, referring to former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, now charged with second-degree murder in George Floyd's death. "The problem is if you remove police from the street in large numbers, the very people that have been victimized by racial inequality are going to be the ones suffering the most.”

WHAT HAPPENED IN BALTIMORE: Police stopped noticing crime after Freddie Gray's death. A wave of killings followed.

'A sea change' in Los Angeles

For the first time in five years, and largely propelled by the recent budget cuts, the police force in Los Angeles will fall below 10,000 officers. Chief Moore said the department had struggled for years to keep its numbers up, and breaking the 10,000-officer mark had been a source of internal pride.

The $150 million moved from the police budget this year, however, will require accepting more than a smaller number. Moore calls it "a new normal."

"We're not just talking about holding on for a few months," Moore said. "There is no immediate exit door from the pandemic. It's likely to go on for some time. With the addition of the social justice movement, there is even more pressure to articulate a path forward that is thoughtful, understanding the challenge before us."

Los Angeles police chief Michel Moore, left, speaks as someone holds up a portrait of George Floyd during a vigil with members of professional associations and the interfaith community at Los Angeles Police Department headquarters, Friday, June 5, 2020, in Los Angeles.More

The challenge, Moore said, is "turning the crisis into an opportunity."

Adjusting to the new normal is forcing local leaders to reassess the police department's resource-draining obligation to respond to calls involving people who are mentally ill.

At least one-third of the department's calls for service, Moore said, involve people who are mentally ill or emotionally disturbed. Los Angeles is one of hundreds of police departments struggling to find more meaningful and efficient ways to respond to such calls.

The city also is considering shifting its response to local traffic collisions — about 70,000 last year — to another entity.

"Those calls can tie up officers for hours, and it usually results in reports written for the benefit of insurance companies," Moore said.

Another problem thrown into this year's complicated mix: homicides have been ticking up. There have been 169 murders so far this year, compared to 153 at same time last year in the city. The numbers have prompted Moore to reach out to federal authorities for assistance in gun violence investigations.

"You have to remember, this is a people business; this is not a factory where we make widgets," Moore said. "Where we can shift responsibilities, we will do that. This is a significant sea change for us."

In Seattle, Police Chief Carmen Best said a city council proposal for a 50% cut to the force lacks any plan for how or who would be left to respond to the 800,000 calls for service each year.

"I haven't seen a plan, and I have to deal with legitimate calls for service," Best said. "It's a detriment to public safety; it's reckless and dangerous."

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Defund the police, COVID-19 force deepest cop budget cuts in decade

The ultimate high ground: Russia and US try to set rules for space weapons

IMPERIALISM IN SPACE
THE RONALD REAGAN ERA SPACE WARS 

WET DREAM COMES TRUE

Fred Weir, Christian Science Monitor•July 29, 2020


Russian and U.S. negotiators met in Vienna this week to discuss a danger that has become increasingly urgent in recent years: how to curb the militarization of space.

Unless a new treaty, or at least a general understanding, is soon established, experts say, the future of human activity on “the final frontier” is going to look more like Star Wars than Star Trek.

There’s a lot to talk about. Last week the newly-minted U.S. Space Force accused Russia of deploying a “projectile weapon” in near-Earth orbit close to a U.S. spy satellite. Though nothing was destroyed, the United States has been complaining for over a year about Russia’s use of a maneuverable new breed of “inspector” satellites that can spy on U.S. satellites and might be employed as weapons.

The Russians, for their part, argue that the U.S. has developed elaborate Earth-based weaponry capable of attacking an adversary’s satellite network in war. Both sides clearly agree that it’s high time to sit down and at least begin a conversation about it.

“If this process of weaponizing space gets going, it can lead to a hugely expensive and destabilizing arms race,” says Vladimir Dvorkin, an expert with the Center for International Security at IMEMO, a major Russian research institution under the Russian Academy of Sciences. “Right now there are no laws against the deployment of conventional weapons in Earth orbit, either the kind that can hit other objects in space or the kind that can hit the Earth. We really need to sit down and come to an agreement.”
Satellite strategy

The only major international treaty that regulates the militarization of space, the Outer Space Treaty, was signed at the dawn of the space age in 1967. It bans the stationing of weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, but does nothing to limit the multitude of military and dual-purpose technologies that have since proliferated or are under active development. They include spy satellites, electronic warfare platforms, global positioning and targeting systems, missile interceptors, and laser weapons.

The U.S. accuses Russia of fielding a new type of vehicle, which is able to scoot around under its own power, spying on other satellites and potentially destroying them. Specifically, the discussion is about Kosmos 2543, which was launched from a larger Russian satellite, Kosmos 2542, in December 2019. The Russians insist that the new vehicle, which has snuggled up to both Russian and U.S. satellites since appearing, is just an “inspector” satellite whose job is basic reconnaissance. But earlier this month Kosmos 2543 itself disgorged a new object from its body that the U.S. Space Force judged to be some sort of projectile weapon which, firing under its own tiny engine power, could easily be used to destroy another satellite.

“This is further evidence of Russia’s continuing efforts to develop and test space-based systems,” said Gen. John Raymond, U.S. Space Force chief of space operations, in an official statement, “and consistent with the Kremlin’s published military doctrine to employ weapons that hold U.S. and allied space assets at risk.”

The Russians say it’s just a probe, intended to help the inspection work of the larger vehicle. But it’s a whole new situation, and it raises a host of questions, says Andrei Baklitsky, a security expert with MGIMO, the Moscow State Institute of International Relations.

“This issue is pretty fuzzy,” he says. “Once you have something in space that can maneuver with its own engine power, you effectively have a weapon. It doesn’t take much to knock out a satellite. But, of course, for it to be an actual war-fighting threat you would need to have an awful lot of them already positioned in Earth orbit, not just one.”

The Russian satellite-killer test – if it was that – was far from unprecedented. During the Cold War both the U.S. and the Soviet Union experimented with ways to destroy enemy space infrastructure, sometimes involving nuclear weapons. After signing the Outer Space Treaty, efforts switched to more targeted methods. In 1985, the U.S. successfully destroyed an American target satellite using an anti-satellite (ASAT) missile fired from a high-flying F-15 fighter. In 2008, the U.S. employed a sea-based Aegis missile defense weapon to shoot down a huge U.S. reconnaissance satellite with hazardous fuel compounds on board, in an operation billed as intended to ensure public safety but criticized for its military implications.

A year earlier China destroyed one of its own satellites using an ASAT missile, an operation that left large amounts of hazardous debris floating in orbit. India conducted a similar test last year.

The rise of Space Force

Russian analysts say that Moscow is deeply worried about the secretive U.S. military program in space, which now has an official face in the form of the U.S. Space Force, a new branch of the U.S. military. Among its missions is the operation of the mysterious X-37B, an unmanned version of the old Space Shuttle. The two ships in the U.S. squadron have already had five secret space flights, logging a total of nearly eight years in orbit. The Russians claim that the X-37B does much the same tasks that their Kosmos satellites do, including positioning maneuverable “inspector” satellites in Earth orbit.

The Space Force is reportedly due to reveal an official doctrine for fighting war in space in the next month, something that Russian analysts warn might lead inexorably into a new space arms race.

“Russia’s concern isn’t so much about any particular U.S. weapons or activity in space at present,” says Mr. Baklitsky. “But we do worry that now there is a permanent U.S. Space Force, and it is producing its own war-fighting doctrine, that we could have an unstoppable process. This renders any effort to find strategic stability on Earth much more complicated.”

At the same time, some Russian analysts fret about the collapse of U.S.-Russian space cooperation, whose heyday was in Cold War times, but which continued until recently in connection with the International Space Station. But Russia has declined to join NASA’s Artemis program, which plans to put people back on the moon by 2024. Recently the Russian space agency Roscosmos reacted angrily to President Donald Trump’s April order to allow mining on the moon, even in the absence of any international treaties to regulate it.

Russia has since announced that it will partner with China to build a research station on the moon, a move that will do little to resolve Earthly tensions.

“Whatever else happened, space cooperation was always a shining light, evidence that countries could cooperate for the common good,” says Andrei Ionin, an independent Russian expert. “Such projects always played a stabilizing role. But now it seems everyone will go their separate ways when it comes to exploring the moon. Every man for himself is hardly the way to improve international cooperation.”

Related stories

First Look Space Force becomes first new military service in 72 years

Military space race? Why some say now's the time for an upgraded treaty.

X-37B: US launches super-secret, orbiting, robotic plane

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Trump Maneuvers To Protect Robert E. Lee's Name In Secretly Recorded Phone Call

REINCARNATION OF NIXON,WALLACE,MANSON
Mary Papenfuss HuffPost July 30, 2020

President Donald Trump dismissed the “bullshit” of the effects of cancel culture as he negotiated with a senator to preserve the name of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee at military installations, according to a recording of a phone conversation given to The New York Times.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) put Trump on speakerphone at an Italian restaurant in Washington, D.C., as the men talked politics Wednesday night. The conversation was overheard and recorded by “someone in the room,” the Times reported Thursday.

“All right, my friend,” said Trump. “Are you doing good? We’re going to keep the name of Robert E. Lee?”

Inhofe responded on the tape: “Just trust me. I’ll make it happen.”

Trump piped up: “I had about 95,000 positive retweets on that. That’s a lot.”

Trump seemed to be referring to his tweet last week that Inhofe had promised he wouldn’t change the names of “Military Bases and Forts” and was “not a believer in ‘Cancel Culture’.”

I spoke to highly respected (Chairman) Senator @JimInhofe, who has informed me that he WILL NOT be changing the names of our great Military Bases and Forts, places from which we won two World Wars (and more!). Like me, Jim is not a believer in “Cancel Culture”.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 24, 2020

Trump has threatened to veto the Senate’s Defense Authorization Act that overwhelmingly passed last week and would change military base names that honor Confederates. The 86-14 vote margin could easily override a presidential veto. Trump’s conversation with Inhofe appeared to be a push to protect a veto.

The president seemingly veered into another complaint about so-called cancel culture, in which support for a person is withdrawn over offensive actions or statements. A “lot of people want to be able to go back to life — not this bullshit,” he added.

In the recording of his call with the senator, the president also discussed Inhofe’s sudden cancellation of a confirmation hearing for retired Gen. Anthony Tata, Trump’s pick for a top Pentagon policy post. The move followed deepening concerns from both Democrats and Republicans about Tata’s history of inflammatory tweets in which he called former President Barack Obama a “terrorist leader” and attacked Islam.

Earlier in the conversation, Inhofe, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, referred to holding up Tata’s confirmation.

Inhofe had said in a statement that Democrats and Republicans don’t yet “know enough” about Tata and hadn’t received required documentation.

On the recorded portion of the phone call, the men mentioned the possibility of someone “resigning” and being given another appointment.

Inhofe has not commented on the recording.

Tammy Duckworth Says She Won't Let President Trump 'Politicize Our Government'

Abigail Abrams,
Time•July 30, 2020



TIME100 Talks with U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth
https://news.yahoo.com/tammy-duckworth-says-she-wont-174912332.html

U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth said on Thursday that she views President Donald Trump sending federal agents to confront protesters in U.S. cities as an “abuse of power” and does not want federal forces intervening at demonstrations in her home state of Illinois.

“The abuse of power that we saw in Portland, that could happen anywhere should worry every single one of us,” she said during a TIME 100 Talks discussion. “It’s a continuation of the politicization of federal government that’s being carried out by President Trump.”

After the Trump Administration deployed federal law enforcement agents to Portland, Ore. to quell protests sparked by the police killing of George Floyd earlier this summer, the President said July 22 he was sending hundreds more federal agents to Chicago and other cities to deal with increasing gun violence.

Chicago has seen a large increase in shootings this year, but Mayor Lori Lightfoot and local officials in the other cities Trump has targeted say they do not want federal law enforcement agencies stepping in without their consent. On Wednesday, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown said that she had gotten the Trump Administration to agree to withdraw federal forces from Portland, following intense public backlash over the agents’ violent clashes with protesters.

“If they want to come to Chicago and work with local law enforcement and be supportive of our city, then they’re welcome,” Duckworth said on Thursday. “But I am not going to stand by. I am not going to stand by and let this president politicize our government, and to use our government against people who are peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights. Not on my watch.”


Duckworth has been a vocal critic of Trump throughout his presidency, and said that she has been disappointed with many aspects of how he and Republicans in Congress have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Illinois Democrat slammed the Senate Republicans’ latest coronavirus relief proposal for not providing more assistance to frontline workers, unemployed Americans and those with disabilities, and said the bill would instead “give a helping hand to large corporations” by providing them with a liability shield from coronavirus-related lawsuits.

While the Republican bill would provide $70 billion in K-12 education funding, two-thirds of that would be directed to schools that plan to physically re-open, which Duckworth said puts teachers and families in a bind because the Department of Education has not put out guidelines on how schools should do this safely. Duckworth has been trying to teach her own daughter at home during the pandemic, but said the experience has shown her that teachers need more support now than ever.



“You know, I have a PhD, and I’m a U.S. Senator, and I can fly helicopters—but I am not trained or equipped to teach a single five-year-old,” Duckworth said during the TIME 100 Talks interview. “God bless our teachers out there and they need all the support that they can get to do the very difficult job that they’re doing.”

This summer, Duckworth has also emerged as a top contender to be Joe Biden’s running mate. If chosen, she would be the first Asian American woman on a major party ticket, a historic potential that Duckworth said she takes seriously.

As she has received more attention in recent weeks, she has already confronted nativist smears from Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Trump’s presidential campaign questioning her patriotism. Carlson called Duckworth, who lost both legs while fighting in the Iraq war, a “coward” and said she was among those who “actually hate America,” because she said she was open to dialogue about the idea of removing statues of George Washington, the United States’ first president and a slave owner.
“It is very significant for me to be on a national stage for other Asian Americans, because we often are the forgotten minority in this country,” Duckworth said. “We’re seen as the other, as you saw with the attacks on me by Tucker Carlson. You know, it’s easy to talk about Asians as the other and that we’re not truly Americans, when we’re just as American as anyone else, and love this country as much as anyone else.”



While the Senator declined to say what characteristics she views as most important for a vice president in 2020, she said Biden would need “a whole team around him” to address the multiple crises the country is facing.

“I do recognize my place on the national stage, and I’m very proud to represent Asian Americans,” she said. ‘But I’m also very proud to represent people with disability and working moms and veterans, and you know all of the great diversity that makes this country truly, truly unique and powerful in the world.”

In heated hearing, lawmakers say tech 'emperors' hold too much power
David Ingram, NBC News•July 29, 2020




In heated hearing, lawmakers say tech 'emperors' hold too much power
Google came under fire for limiting other websites' traffic, Facebook faced questions about its purchase of Instagram and Amazon was accused of raising diaper prices as lawmakers held a rare congressional hearing Wednesday into whether tech executives have harmed the economy by operating monopolies.

Four major tech CEOs — the other was Apple's chief executive — testified for 5½ hours before a House antitrust subcommittee in a mostly virtual marathon hearing that examined their power in the marketplace.

Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline, D-R.I., said the CEOs had become "emperors" on the internet.


"Our founders would not bow before a king. Nor should we bow before the emperors of the online economy," Cicilline said. He said the companies have too much power, limiting innovation and choking consumer choice.


Cicilline focused his initial questions on Google, alleging that the search engine company had evolved over the years "from a turnstile for the rest of the web to a walled garden," keeping users on Google's pages rather than sending them elsewhere.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai pushed back, saying that there was vigorous competition among webpages and that users' needs come first. "We have always focused on providing users with the most relevant information," he said.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., raised questions about Facebook's purchase of Instagram in 2012. He quoted from emails ahead of the deal in which Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg worried that startups, including Instagram, could be "very disruptive."

The Federal Trade Commission cleared the acquisition, but Nadler said the decision looks wrong now. "It should never have been permitted to happen, and it cannot happen again," he said.

Zuckerberg said Instagram is popular now in large part because of Facebook. "It was not a guarantee that Instagram was going to succeed," he said.

A third CEO, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, faced questions about how his company uses sensitive data from third-party sellers. Bezos said Amazon was investigating a report by The Wall Street Journal this year that Amazon employees had used such data to develop competing products, despite a company policy against that.

"I can't guarantee you that that policy has never been violated," Bezos said in response to questions from Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash. "If we found that someone violated it, we would take action against them."

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., said she was concerned that Amazon had driven up the price of diapers online after buying its primary competitor in that market, Diapers.com, in 2010 and then shutting it down. She said that hurt consumers.

"How would they benefit by the fact that prices were driven up after you eliminated your main competitor?" she asked. Bezos responded that there are still many places to buy diapers.

Apple CEO Tim Cook faced questions about the power of the Apple App Store, saying the company treats all app developers the same.

The hearing before the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law covered an array of subjects, as up to 15 members had the chance to question the executives under oath.

The U.S. rivalry with China was another consistent theme, as lawmakers expressed concern that the tech companies could inadvertently be helping China. The executives, meanwhile, described their companies as bulwarks of American values. The tech industry is an "American success story," Zuckerberg said.

The hearing was an unusual collection of wealth and influence. Two of the four CEOs, Bezos and Zuckerberg, are among the wealthiest people in the world, with more than $265 billion in accumulated wealth between them, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

Their presence alone made the hearing likely to have been the biggest concentration of corporate wealth ever to appear before Congress.

The corporations they lead are among the world's most valuable and influential, touching the daily lives of billions of people and piling up huge profits even during a pandemic. Apple is valued at $1.6 trillion, Amazon at $1.5 trillion, Google's parent, Alphabet, at $1.04 trillion and Facebook at about $656 billion.

President Donald Trump said in a tweet that he was considering executive orders if Congress does not act.

"In Washington, it has been ALL TALK and NO ACTION for years, and the people of our Country are sick and tired of it!" he said.

Trump has tangled at times with Bezos, attacking him over negative coverage of him in The Washington Post, which Bezos owns. Amazon has blamed Trump's attacks for its failure to land a major government contract last year, and it is suing over the lost deal.

Trump has had somewhat warmer relationships with Zuckerberg, whom he has hosted for a White House dinner, and with Cook, whom he once called "Tim Apple." But Trump's Justice Department is also reported to be preparing an antitrust lawsuit against Google, Pichai's company.

"We're going to be watching the hearings today very closely," Trump said Wednesday. "But there's no question that what the big tech companies are doing is very bad."

Cicilline, who has been investigating the tech industry for more than a year, is preparing a report on possible anti-competitive practices. The report could serve as the basis for legislation.

Cicilline's report will "likely call for Congress to change antitrust laws to make it easier to sue dominant tech companies," Paul Gallant, an analyst with the investment bank Cowen, said in a note to clients this week. "If Democrats sweep in November, that bill has a reasonable chance of enactment" late next year, he said.

The country's major antitrust laws, including the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, were written more than a century ago. The Sherman Act, which led to a wave of trustbusting, was the first major U.S. law to restrict monopolies.

Cook of Apple told lawmakers that their scrutiny of the industry was reasonable and appropriate, but like the other executives, he said, "We make no concession on the facts." He said Apple had acted lawfully.

Republican lawmakers on the subcommittee said they were concerned about tech companies' censoring conservatives, although in many cases conservative media flourish on the services.

"Conservatives are consumers, too, and they need the protection of the antitrust laws," said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the ranking Republican on the subcommittee.

The four executives testified virtually because of the coronavirus pandemic, and some lawmakers also appeared virtually. Of the four, Bezos was the only one who had never testified previously before a congressional panel.

House Democrats find administration overspent for ventilators by as much as $500 million

DID JARED ARRANGE THEIR RESALE ABROAD FOR PROFIT
Heidi Przybyla,NBC News•July 31, 2020

WASHINGTON — Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, President Donald Trump has repeatedly touted his administration's supply of ventilators, a critical tool for treating patients with life-threatening respiratory symptoms.

But internal emails and documents obtained by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee suggest that the Trump administration failed to enforce an existing contract with a major medical manufacturer, delayed negotiations for more than a month and subsequently overpaid as much as $500 million for tens of thousands of the devices — a costly error at a time when officials from some of the biggest states were warning of shortages.


The communications between administration officials and Philips Respironics, a global medical equipment manufacturer that finalized a $643.5 million contract with the Trump administration in April, are included in a 40-page report shared with NBC News.

The information raises serious concerns about an estimated $3 billion in taxpayer dollars spent on ventilators from a number of suppliers, according to committee staff members who briefed NBC News.

Trump, facing criticism for a slow and inconsistent response to the pandemic, has repeatedly pointed to his administration's distribution of ventilators as a success story. He falsely claimed as early as April that the Obama administration had left no ventilators in the Strategic National Stockpile upon leaving office. In a speech April 29, Trump said that under his leadership, the U.S. had become "king of ventilators, thousands and thousands of ventilators."

Philips Respironics has one of the largest contracts with the federal government to produce ventilators, but documents in the report found that the administration paid it more per unit than any other U.S. purchaser.

According to the initial Obama-era contract to build the Strategic National Stockpile, Philips is under no obligation to deliver the bulk of the 10,000 ventilators it originally was contracted for until September 2022, the report notes, citing a statement given to ProPublica.

Even so, the Department of Health and Human Services has said it expects most of the 43,000 devices negotiated under a second contract to arrive by the end of this year.

The White House did not respond to inquiries from NBC News, nor did Philips.

"Democrats will stop at nothing in their endless quest to politicize this pandemic," said Matt Smith, a spokesman for Oversight Committee Republicans.

"After months of Democratic governors rushing to television cameras to beg for more ventilators, Congressional Democrats are now unhappy with the Administration’s successful efforts to quickly secure a robust supply from American manufacturers," Smith said. "Rather than provide credit for the more-than quadrupling of available ventilators in the national stockpile since March, they now seek to diminish President Trump’s success by throwing a tantrum over contracting terms. This is just the latest example of a Democratic Party more concerned with partisan politics than fighting COVID-19."

"These documents indicate that, before and during the pandemic, inept contract management and incompetent negotiating by the Trump Administration denied the country the ventilators it needed," the committee concluded in its report.

The money spent on overpayments, the report suggests, "could have been used for personal protective equipment and critical medical supplies that were in short supply across the country."

"The results of this investigation lead me to question how many other ways have the American people been unknowingly hurt by this administration's incompetence and ineptitude over the course of the pandemic and over the past three-and-a-half years," Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., said in an interview with NBC News.

The report says Philips secured a "financial windfall to which it clearly is not entitled" and recommends that to "remedy this apparent profiteering, the Trump Administration now should engage competent contracting officers at federal agencies to determine whether any of these funds can be clawed back."

In late January, with the pandemic moving through China and into Europe, Philips approached Trump administration officials to ask whether it should accelerate ventilator production under an existing contract, the report says.

But it wasn't until April 7, after demand for the devices had peaked and already started to ebb, that the Department of Health and Human Services signed a new contract with Philips to purchase 43,000 ventilators at $15,000 apiece. The administration never tried to negotiate that price, based on the documentation. By comparison, a purchaser in Missouri paid $9,327 for a single unit on April 30.

According to ProPublica, the contract the Obama administration negotiated with Philips in 2014 was for 10,000 similar ventilators at $3,280 apiece. After development was delayed, Obama officials gave Philips an extension until November 2019, which would have been in time to address the pandemic. The Trump administration never tried to build on that contract and continued to grant the company several extensions in negotiating a new one, the report found.

Download the NBC News app for full coverage and alerts about the coronavirus outbreak

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, who recently criticized the nation's top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as having "been wrong about everything," negotiated the new contract at almost five times the price the Obama administration paid. The devices Navarro purchased were "functionally identical" to the previous ones, according to Food and Drug Administration approvals in the report.

While Navarro served as chief negotiator, the deal was formalized by Adam Boehler, CEO of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, who is a former college roommate of Jared Kushner, Trump's senior adviser and son-in-law. Christopher Abbott, an aide to Navarro who graduated from college just last year, oversaw a majority of the communications between Philips and the White House.

A March 25 email from Philips Vice President Nick Padula to Abbott recommended that the administration purchase a model with "more clinician-friendly screens" than those purchased by the Obama administration.

Had Trump officials asked how the screen was different, the report said, they would have discovered that the screens "are identical to the screens on the less expensive" models, the report says.

In addition to what committee staff described as a "fleecing" of the federal government, the report documents a belabored federal response as the leaders of the hardest-hit states, including Govs. Andrew Cuomo of New York and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, were imploring the federal government to play a greater role in purchasing and distributing ventilators.

On March 24, with New York state then the center of the pandemic in the U.S., Cuomo openly pleaded with the federal government for thousands more ventilators than it had provided, saying it was "urgent." Trump rejected invoking the Defense Production Act to compel U.S. companies to produce enough equipment to meet demand, while Trump criticized Cuomo's response to the pandemic.