Atlantic hurricane season ends with records driven by climate change



U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Clearwater, Fla., conducts an overflight to survey the damage after Hurricane Laura near Orange, Texas, on August 27. 

File Photo by PO3 Paige Hause/U.S. Coast Guard | License Photo

Nov. 30 (UPI) -- Earlier this month, Iota became the 30th named storm in 2020, making this year's Atlantic hurricane season -- which ends today -- one for the record books.

According to a number of climate scientists, global warming set the stage for this year's surge of storms.
ADVERTISEMENT


In addition to testing the infrastructure and emergency response capabilities of coastal communities, the season's storms put stress on both hurricane forecasting models and storm-naming protocols.

"I didn't think I would live to see that, but it's happened. We've never gotten so far into the Greek alphabet," climatologist Michael Mann told UPI in an email.

RELATED Sentinel-6 to help NASA track climate change's effects on oceans

"In fact, people have asked me, what happens if we run out of Greek letters? That's not a question I ever thought I would be asked," said Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University.

Record-setting season

Each year, the Atlantic hurricane season officially begins on June 1, but for the sixth year in a row, a name-worthy storm system surfaced in May. Tropical Storm Arthur skirted the Southeast coast before heading back out to sea, dissipating without causing much damage.

RELATED Climate disasters rising at 'staggering' rate since 2000

On Nov. 13, weeks before the official end of hurricane season, a tropical depression in the southern Caribbean strengthened to become Tropical Storm Iota, the season's 30th named storm.

A few days later, Iota reached reached Category 5 intensity, though it dropped back to Category 4 before making landfall.

Iota killed a few dozen people and displaced hundreds in northern Colombia and Central America, and Honduras and Nicaragua were hit especially hard by the hurricane's high winds and torrential rains.

RELATED Ancient storms could help predict shifts in tropical cyclone hotspots


Between Arthur and Iota, 28 other storms -- 13 of them hurricanes -- earned official names. Twelve named storms made landfall in the United States, six were hurricanes and five hit the state of Louisiana -- all records.

The prolificacy exceeded even those who expected a big year for Atlantic storms, researchers say.

Rapid intensification

In the lead-up to the 2020 hurricane season, modelers predicted the Atlantic was ripe for storms -- hurricane forecasters suggested the season would produce as many as 25 storms.

But while efforts to understand human-caused climate change have helped scientists build more robust hurricane models, rising ocean temperatures have made short-term forecasting quite difficult.

"One of the real challenges in hurricane forecasting has been predicting rapid intensification, defined as a 35-mph or greater increase in wind speed over 24 hours," Mann said.

"It is something we've seen a lot of in recent years, and often catches us by surprise because the models don't do a good job predicting it. That's problematic because it gives us little advance warning of potentially catastrophic increases in intensity of landfalling storms," Mann said.

In total, 10 of the season's hurricanes underwent rapid intensification. Three storms -- Iota, Delta and Eta -- intensified by 100 mph in fewer than 36 hours, a phenomenon that researchers say has happened four times in more than a century and a half of record-keeping.

Rapid intensification has complicated forecasting efforts, but it's also helped highlight the influence of climate change on ocean storm patterns, researchers say.

Climate change

Hurricanes derive their power from the ocean's thermal energy. As a result of climate change, the oceans and atmosphere have an excess of thermal energy.

Scientists have long suspected that global warming was increasing the threat of extreme weather, including hurricanes.

Separating the signals of climate change from natural variability in a given year or individual weather event, however, has proven difficult, they say.

But according to Mann, the climate change signal "has now risen well out of the noise."

Reduced vertical wind shear set up by a La Nina -- a form of so-called natural variability -- left the Atlantic ripe for the formation of tropical depressions this year, but models suggest hurricanes continue to get bigger and more powerful as a result of rising air and water temperatures.

"We expect a roughly 7 percent increase in maximum windspeed of the strongest storms for each 1 degree Fahrenheit of warming," Mann said. "Since intensity increases as the 3rd power of the windspeed, that corresponds to a 23 percent increase in the destructive potential, a signal that's large enough to see."

Because warm air can hold more water, hurricanes are carrying more and more water, increasing their flooding potential.

"Over the years, climate models have improved and some simulations have shown that the number of intense storms has increased -- and are likely to continue increasing -- and that warmer sea surface temperatures have provided rainier storms," climate researcher Jhordanne Jones told UPI in an email.

Jones said scientists still don't know enough about hurricanes and their inner dynamics to determine how much climate change accounts for the size or behavior of any specific storm.

But when looking at the hurricane season as a whole, he said the influence of climate is more apparent.

"For example, we understand that the Gulf of Mexico and western Caribbean remained -- and is still currently -- warm throughout the year," said Jones, a graduate research assistant in the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University.

"This prolonged warmth is likely due to climate change as the eastern U.S. coast is expected to warm more than the rest of the Atlantic because the sea

U.N. chief gives bleak outlook on climate change: 'This is suicidal'

"Solidarity is humanity. Solidarity is survival. That is the lesson of 2020"


A polar bear wanders on thinning sea ice in the Arctic. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Wednesday, "Now is the time to transform humankind’s relationship with the natural world." File Photo by Norwegian Polar Institute/NASA | License Photo

Dec. 2 (UPI) -- United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Wednesday gave a dire assessment of humanity's fight against global warming, warning that the world's top priority must be protecting an Earth that's reacting with more "force and fury" than ever.

In an address at Columbia University in New York City, Guterres said the global climate has long been reacting to man-made changes, but emphasized there's still time to prevent a total biodiversity collapse led by warmer oceans and hotter deserts.

"Humanity is waging war on nature," he said. "This is suicidal.

"Nature always strikes back -- and it is already doing so with growing force and fury."

RELATED New Zealand declares a climate change emergency

Guterres' remarks begin a month of U.N.-led climate actions and came 10 days before its climate summit on Dec. 12, which is the fifth anniversary of the Paris Climate Accords. President-elect Joe Biden has vowed to rejoin the landmark agreement after President Donald Trump withdrew three years ago.

New Zealand on Wednesday became the 33rd country to declare a climate emergency, launching a plan to make its public sector carbon neutral by 2025.

Guterres said the costs of renewable energies are becoming more affordable and make more economic sense than ever before. He said 18 million green energy jobs stand to be created by the end of the 2020s.

He added that companies must adjust their business models for a green economy, and that means making carbon-free investments.

"Biodiversity is collapsing. One million species are at risk of extinction. Ecosystems are disappearing before our eyes. Deserts are spreading. Wetlands are being lost. Every year, we lose 10 million hectares of forests," he said.

"Oceans are overfished -- and choking with plastic waste. The carbon dioxide they absorb is acidifying the seas. Coral reefs are bleached and dying. Air and water pollution are killing 9 million people annually -- more than six times the current toll of the [coronavirus] pandemic."

United Nations News · CLIP - UN Secretary-General keynote speech on climate action

https://soundcloud.com/unradio/clip-un-secretary-general-keynote-speech-on-climate-action

Guterres said COVID-19 has slowed some of the climate progress intended for 2020, which must be readjusted for 2021. Some of that progress includes major climate-related international commitments.

"[This] is on track to be one of the three warmest years on record globally -- even with the cooling effect of this year's La Nina. The past decade was the hottest in human history. Ocean heat is at record levels. This year, more than 80% of the world's oceans experienced marine heatwaves," he added.

"Apocalyptic fires and floods, cyclones and hurricanes are increasingly the new normal. The North Atlantic hurricane season has seen 30 storms, more than double the long-term average and breaking the record for a full season. ... Last year such disasters cost the world $150 billion. COVID-19 lockdowns have temporarily reduced emissions and pollution, but carbon dioxide levels are still at record highs -- and rising."

Guterres said instead of looking to a return to "normal," the world should take advantage of the pandemic reset to create a more equitable and just world, which can permanently reduce its carbon footprint, stop the biodiversity crisis and embrace sustainable technologies.

If we don't, he said, we're living on borrowed time.

"This is a moment of truth for people and planet alike. COVID and climate have brought us to a threshold. We cannot go back to the old normal of inequality, injustice and heedless dominion over the Earth. Instead we must step towards a safer, more sustainable and equitable path.

"The door is open; the solutions are there. Now is the time to transform humankind's relationship with the natural world -- and with each other. And we must do so together.

"Solidarity is humanity. Solidarity is survival. That is the lesson of 2020. With the world in disunity and disarray trying to contain the pandemic, let's learn the lesson and change course for the pivotal period ahead."

THIRD WORLD USA

Nearly half of U.S. adults fear surprise bills, don't seek healthcare


Potential for surprise medical bills can discourage people from getting needed care, a new survey finds. Photo by Thomas Breher/Pixabay

Nov. 30 (UPI) -- Nearly half of adults in the United States report that concerns over unexpected medical bills keeps them from seeking care, according to a survey by the American Heart Association.

In addition, more than 40% of respondents indicated that if they received an unexpected medical bill for $1,000, they would not have the money to pay for it, the data showed.

Two-thirds of respondents with private health insurance also said they have received an unexpected medical bill, and of those, one in three was not able to pay it.

Perhaps as a result, more than 80% of survey respondents would like to see Congress pass legislation to end surprise medical billing, the American Heart Association said.

RELATED Job Losses and Medical Bills Drive PA Foreclosures

"Surprise medical bills are a major driver of financial anxiety and disruption for families nationwide that are already straining under the weight of an ongoing pandemic," said Mitchell S. V. Elkind, president of the AHA.

"For more than a year, Congress has been considering bipartisan legislation to ensure patients aren't stuck with financially devastating bills after seeking care [and] it is long past time for lawmakers to stop surprise medical bills," said Elkind, a professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University.

Patients may get surprise medical bills ranging from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars after unknowingly receiving care from a healthcare provider, hospital or medical transport company that is outside their insurer's coverage network, according to AHA.

RELATED Many fear strain of medical bills

There also have been reports of high costs for COVID-19 testing and treatment during the pandemic.

In June, U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., introduced legislation intended to protect the public from reductions in healthcare coverage during public health emergencies.

"Fear of high medical costs cannot be a barrier to treatment or care for patients, and that is especially true during a pandemic," Porter said in a press release at the time.

"Even in the middle of a public health emergency, we've seen major insurance companies continue to put their profits before the health of our communities," she said.

Working with the Harris Poll, AHA surveyed 2,045 adults 18 years old and older within the United States online between Oct. 12 and 14.

Among those surveyed, 1,318 said they previously received an unexpected medical bill and 977 had private insurance, the data showed.

Forty-nine percent of the respondents said worrying about an unexpected medical bill keeps them from seeking care, and 44% indicated they would be unable to pay an unexpected medical bill for $1,000.

Of those with private insurance, 68% reported that they have received an unexpected medical bill, the data showed.

Among those with private insurance who did not have money available, 23% said they have yet to pay the bill, according to the survey.

"A patient facing a medical emergency such as cardiac arrest or stroke should have to focus only on their immediate medical needs -- not on whether they'll be able to afford care not covered by insurance," said Nancy Brown, CEO of the American Heart Association.

"Americans want Congress to put an end to surprise medical bills, and they need lawmakers to act now," Brown said.

upi.com/7058413

THIRD WORLD USA

Unemployment Insurance, Health-Related Social Needs, Health Care Access, and Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Seth A. Berkowitz, MD, MPH¹; Sanjay Basu, MD, PhD²

Author Affiliations Article Information

JAMA Intern Med. Published online November 30, 2020. 

doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.7048

COVID-19 Resource Center

 Research Letter

November 30, 2020

More than 30 million jobs have been lost during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.¹ Unemployment insurance (UI) was temporarily expanded by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,² but further reform is under debate. Key CARES Act provisions were adding $600 weekly federal payments to state payments (Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation), longer benefit duration (Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation), and broadened eligibility for minimum-wage, self-employed, contract, and gig workers (Pandemic Unemployment Assistance).²

Unemployment insurance may have short-term health effects through at least 3 pathways,³ as benefit income can meet health-related social needs (eg, food and housing), cover health care access expenses (eg, insurance premiums, co-pays, transportation), and reduce stress, thereby improving mental health. We hypothesized that among those with pandemic-related income disruption, living in a household receiving UI benefits would be associated with lower health-related social needs, better health care access, and better mental health.

Methods

This cross-sectional study used data from the repeated cross-sectional Household Pulse Survey (https://www.census.gov/householdpulsedata) collected from June 11 to July 21, 2020 (response rate: 3.0%). We included working-age adults (born between 1955 and 2002, inclusive) who reported current household income disruption from pandemic-related job loss. The University of North Carolina Institutional Review Board exempted the study from review because it did not consider this human subjects research (Study No. 20-2657).

Receiving UI was defined as using UI benefits to meet spending needs in the last 7 days. Study outcomes were food insufficiency,⁴ missing last month’s housing payment, lack of confidence in affording next month’s food or housing, being uninsured, delaying health care, delaying non-COVID-19–related health care, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms.^5,6

We fit survey-weighted log-Poisson regression models to estimate adjusted relative risks, using generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures within individuals and robust variance estimation (analysis code: http://saberkowitz.web.unc.edu/statistical-code/household-pulse-unemployment-insurance-code/). The unit of analysis was the person-week (individuals could participate up to 3 times). Model covariates were age, gender, self-reported race/ethnicity, education level, 2019 annual household income, marital status, household size, state, and survey date. We multiply imputed missing data (see eMethods in the Supplement) and used the false discovery rate for type I error control. Analyses were conducted in SAS, version 9.4 (SAS Institute) and R, version 3.5.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Unadjusted analyses used t tests for continuous variables and χ² tests for categorical variables, with 2-tailed P values. Given multiple outcomes in this study, we used the false discovery rate approach to control for type I error. Therefore, we present regression results with both a nominal P value and a Q value, which can be interpreted as indicating the proportion of results with that Q value or lower that would be expected to be a false positive accounting for all the analyses conducted. Thus, a Q value less than .05 indicates that, accounting for multiple analyses, a given result is expected to be a false positive less than 5% of the time. We interpreted a Q value less than .05 to indicate statistical significance.

Results

A total of 68 911 included individuals, representing 34 million people in the US, provided 79 032 survey responses. The mean (SD) age was 39.5 (13.4) years, and 50.7% were women. There were 28 738 individuals, representing 12 million Americans (weighted percentage of sample: 36%), who reported household use of UI benefits in the past week (Table 1).

In adjusted analyses, being in a household that received, vs did not receive, UI benefits was associated with lower risk for unmet health-related social needs, delaying health care, and depressive and anxiety symptoms (Table 2). Being uninsured was not significantly different: relative risk, 0.97 (95% CI, 0.92-1.03).

Discussion

Being in a household that received UI was associated with fewer health-related social needs, less health care delay, and better mental health. However, many who reported pandemic-related job loss did not receive UI—particularly Hispanic individuals and those with less education.

Pandemic UI reforms, specifically more generous income replacement and broader eligibility, should guide future UI programs. Future research should examine whether UI's association with health outcomes varies by reason for job loss, race/ethnicity, prepandemic income, and number of children, and how UI benefits may intersect with other programs, such as stimulus payments and Medicaid expansion.

Important limitations include possible selection bias (owing to low survey response rate), though we used weighting for respondent representativeness and multiple imputation for missing data. Observed associations should not be considered causal given the repeated cross-section design and because UI recipients may be better off than nonrecipients in ways not accounted for (inflating the estimated benefit of UI) or those not receiving UI may have been excluded from the study after accepting underemployment (reducing estimated benefit). Also, both those who did and did not receive UI could receive other pandemic-related assistance—this may bias results to the null.

Unemployment insurance benefits may help mitigate economic disruption wrought by the pandemic. As UI reform develops, policy makers should recognize the important health benefits that UI may offer working-age people in the US.

Back to top

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: October 10, 2020.

Published Online: November 30, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.7048

Corresponding Author: Seth A. Berkowitz, MD, MPH, Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 5034 Old Clinic Bldg, CB 7110, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 (seth_berkowitz@med.unc.edu).

Author Contributions: Dr Berkowitz had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: All authors.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Berkowitz.

Drafting of the manuscript: Berkowitz.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Basu.

Statistical analysis: Berkowitz.

Supervision: Basu.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Berkowitz reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Aspen Institute outside the submitted work. Dr Basu reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and personal fees from PLOS Medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine, Collective Health, and HealthRight 360 outside the submitted work.

Funding/Support: Funding for Dr Berkowitz’s role in the study was provided by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (award No. K23DK109200).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Additional Information: The data are publicly available. Analysis code for replication is provided via the weblink in the main text.

References

1.

US Department of Labor. Unemployment insurance weekly claims. Accessed August 4, 2020. https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf

2.

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, S 3548, 116th Cong (2019-2020). Accessed August 4, 2020. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3548/text?q=product+actualizaci%C3%B3n

3.

Renahy  E, Mitchell  C, Molnar  A,  et al.  Connections between unemployment insurance, poverty and health: a systematic review.   Eur J Public Health. 2018;28(2):269-275. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckx235PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

4.

Alaimo  K, Briefel  RR, Frongillo  EA  Jr, Olson  CM.  Food insufficiency exists in the United States: results from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III).   Am J Public Health. 1998;88(3):419-426. doi:10.2105/AJPH.88.3.419PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

5.

Kroenke  K, Spitzer  RL, Williams  JBW.  The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener.   Med Care. 2003;41(11):1284-1292. doi:10.1097/01.MLR.0000093487.78664.3CPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

6.

Kroenke  K, Spitzer  RL, Williams  JBW, Monahan  PO, Löwe  B.  Anxiety disorders in primary care: prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection.   Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(5):317-325. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-146-5-200703060-00004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

THIRD WORLD USA
GAO report: Most states underpaying unemployment benefits, claims numbers inflated

Unemployed workers who came seeking information about their unemployment claim arrived only to find the California Employment Development Department office in Canoga Park, California, closed. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo


Nov. 30 (UPI) -- A government watchdog reported Monday that millions of Americans may be getting shortchanged on unemployment payments and that unemployment data may have been inflated by backlogs.

In the report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office released Monday, the nonpartisan auditing agency found that the majority of states have been paying claimants in the temporary Pandemic Unemployment Assistance Program the minimum benefit instead of the amount they are owed based on past earnings.

In 27 of the 41states average weekly PUA benefits paid were within 25% of the minimum benefit amount, including 10 within 10% of the minimum.

"This suggests that many individuals in these states are receiving the minimum benefit -- because the average is close to the minimum," the report stated.

In part due to these shortchanged payments, the report found that average regular unemployment benefits and weekly PUA benefits left many households lower than the $245 per week required to remain above the poverty line for a one-person household.

The report also found issues with accurately assessing how many people are receiving unemployment benefits.

Specifically, the GAO noted that the Department of Labor's weekly report on jobless claims does not accurately reflect the total number of people receiving unemployment claims.

The GAO noted that backlogs brought on by an increased number of claims amid the COVID-19 pandemic have caused numbers to appear inflated as each week of unemployment is counted as a separate claim during certification when a single person has claims processed for multiple weeks.

Further, other issues such as high levels of fraudulent claims as well as delays and denials for legitimate claims have skewed the numbers.

In response, the GAO recommended the Labor Department revise its weekly news releases to make clear that the numbers are not an accurate representation of how many Americans are claiming benefits and pursue other avenues to report the correct data.

Historians, watchdog sue Trump to prevent records from being destroyed


Historians on Tuesday sued the Trump administration over a White House policy of taking screen shots to preserve smartphone messages as presidential records, saying it is in violation of the Presidential Records Act. Photo by Shawn Thew/UPI | License Photo

Dec. 2 (UPI) -- A group of historians and a government accountability watchdog has sued the Trump administration to force it to preserve complete records amid the presidential transition, accusing White House policies of permitting the destruction of historically important documents.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday says current White House policies allowing officials to only take a screenshot of electronic messages sent or received through unofficial messaging smartphone services is in violation of the law as it permits the loss and destruction of presidential records as only a graphic is preserved while all digital links, attachments and metadata are lost.

Filed by the National Security Archive, the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, the American Historical Association and the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the lawsuit accuses this policy of violating the Presidential Records Act, which requires the president and his staff to document and preserve records of "the activities, deliberations, decisions and policies that reflect the performance of the president's constitutional, statutory or other official or ceremonial duties."

"The Presidential Records Act exists for a simple reason: to prevent presidents and their staff from destroying historically valuable records," CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said in a statement. "By deleting or preserving only parts of these records, the White House is destroying essential historical records."

The plaintiffs said this skirting by the White House of its record-keeping responsibility is part of a larger pattern by President Donald Trump and his staff that is becoming more concerning as he faces the end of his term in office and facing potential legal and financial exposure as a citizen.

"The actions of the president since losing the election -- unrestrained by truth and facts -- have heightened concerns that he will destroy records of his 'potential malfeasance and crimes,'" they said in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs offered as evidence Trump's practice of ripping up notes at the end of meetings, his deleting of tweets despite being warned against doing so by the National Archives and Records Administration and his alleged confiscation of notes from his interpreter following a July 2017 meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

CREW has previously called out Trump's daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner, who hold senior positions within his administration, for communicating through private email accounts and messaging applications in violation of the PRA.

President Trump, Kushner, the Executive Office of the President, David Ferriero as archivist of the United States and the National Archives and Records Administration are named as defendants.

The suit seeks to order the defendants to preserve "complete copies" of all presidential records while declaring the White House screen-shotting policy to be unlawful.

"With President Trump's term in office soon coming to an end, absent judicial intervention, this conduct will permanently deprive Plaintiffs and the public of records documenting a critical part of our nation's history," the lawsuits argues.

The White House responded to the suit in a statement, saying, "The Trump administration acts in accordance with statutory requirements."

The same coalition minus the American Historical Association filed a similar suit against the Trump administration that was dismissed early this year, with the court stating it "lacks authority to oversee the President's day-to-day compliance with the statutory provisions involved in the case."

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said in her February opinion that it wasn't an endorsement of the administration's actions.

"This opinion will not address, and should not be interpreted to endorse the challenged practices; nor does it include any finding that the Executive Office is in compliance with its obligations," she wrote.

 GRIFTER CHUTZPAH 

Trump demands refund for Wisconsin recount

BY DAVE CIESLEWICZ

DECEMBER 2, 2020

RSS

Expand

WALDEMARUS GETTY IMAGES/ISTOCKPHOTO

President Donald Trump has tweeted his demand for a refund of the $3 million his campaign spent on a recount of the vote in Dane and Milwaukee counties. 

“The PHONY recount in WI was a disgrace and a TOTAL ripoff!” the president tweeted shortly before 3 a.m. on Dec. 1. “I guess in WI you don’t get what you PAY for!!!”

In a later post Trump called on his supporters to stop buying milk and cheese until Wisconsin officials certified him as the winner despite any evidence of irregularities or voter fraud that would change President-Elect Joe Biden’s 20,000-vote margin in the state. 

In a candid interview later in the day on Fox News, Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, was more specific about the campaign’s complaints. 

“Quite frankly, we thought the $3 million Wisconsin was demanding for the recount was extortion,” said Giuliani. “I mean when you do the simple math, if you’re buying 21,000 votes that comes out to $142 a vote. Nobody ever paid that in New Jersey!

“And then what did we get for it? Biden picked up another 74 votes. It’s outrageous! At the very least Biden should have to pay $10,500 for those votes — which is what 74 votes apparently cost in Wisconsin at $142 a pop. It’s only fair.”

To make matters worse for the Trump camp, the $3 million was spent in Dane and Milwaukee counties, Democratic strongholds that were the only two counties in which Trump demanded a recount. “We pump all that money into local economies in Madison and Milwaukee and what thanks do we get?” said Giuliani. “They’re just going to waste it all on beer and weed and holiday contributions to Heifer International!”

Now that the results have been officially certified the action moves to the courts where Trump supporters are demanding that an estimated 238,000 legally cast ballots in Milwaukee and Dane counties be thrown out. 

Asked on Fox if that wasn’t just another waste of money with little or no chance of success, Giuliani admitted it was a long shot. “But at least the money will go to the lawyers,” he said. 

GRIFTER

If there's one type of person you don't want to trust, it's a grifter: someone who cheats others out of money. Grifters are also known as chiselers, defrauders, gougers, scammers, swindlers, and flim-flam men. Selling a bridge and starting a Ponzi scheme are things a grifter might do.

Chutzpah definitions

The definition of chutzpah is a Yiddish word that refers to shameless boldness or almost-arrogant courage.

When you go right up to the president of a company and tell him he needs to give you a job, this is an example of chutzpah.

Utter nerve; effrontery. 

Shameless audacity; impudence; brass.

(slang) Nearly arrogant courage; utter audacity, effrontery or impudence; supreme self-confidence; exaggerated self-opinion;

NOT ON FOX NEWS 

Judge Holds Portland in Contempt Over Violent Policing of Protests

December 1, 2020 KARINA BROWN COURTHOUSE NEWS 

Protesters mass in front of the Mark O. Hatfield federal courthouse Friday, in the 58th consecutive night of civil unrest over systemic racism and police brutality. (Courthouse News photo/Karina Brown)

PORTLAND, Ore. (CN) — Police in Portland, Oregon, shot peaceful protesters with rubber bullets and paintballs during demonstrations against police violence in violation of a court order barring that very thing, a federal judge ruled Monday night.

In the weeks following the May 30 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Portland’s streets were often filled with thousands of protesters calling for an end to police violence, especially against black people, who are more than three times as likely to be killed by police than white people, according to a nationwide study published in June by researchers at Harvard.

Portland’s ongoing protests against systemic racism and police brutality are often met by police in riot gear, who dispense thick plumes of tear gas and fire concussion grenades, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and projectiles filled with paint, shards of metal or pepper powder.

In early June, protesters and local civil rights group Don’t Shoot Portland sued the city claiming Portland police used chemical weapons like tear gas during the Covid-19 pandemic in order to suppress protests critical of violent policing. The case is separate from one pending against federal agents accused of targeting journalists at protests for assault and arrest. It is also distinct from a case accusing police of targeting protest medics.

Despite concerns that chemical weapons that attack the lungs pose a heightened risk during the pandemic, Portland Police Bureau lead trainer Zachary Domka testified in October that Portland police haven’t had training on the use of less such weapons in over a year.

In June, U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez ordered the city to use tear gas only in life-threatening situations. He soon extended the order to include police use of so-called “less lethal” impact munitions like rubber bullets and pepper balls that shoot capsules filled with burning powder. Hernandez barred police from using those weapons against “people engaged in passive resistance.”

But police violated the order almost immediately, Hernandez found in a ruling issued late Monday night.

Hernandez found “clear and convincing evidence” that Portland police had violated his restraining order in three incidents at a protest outside the building that houses the Portland Police Association — the city’s police union. At a demonstration four days after Hernandez issued his order,police shot multiple peaceful protesters with paintballs and rubber bullets, violent acts that Hernandez found to be in contempt of the federal court’s authority.

On the night of June 30, hundreds of protesters demonstrated at Peninsula Park in northeast Portland. Police didn’t intervene. But that changed when part of the crowd marched to the nearby police union headquarters. Within minutes of protesters’ arrival there, police declared an unlawful assembly, formed a line to shove protesters back and began firing rubber bullets and pepper spray into the crowd.

In three of the instances outlined by protesters’ attorneys, Hernandez found the city in contempt of his order. That included incidents where police fired over a dozen rounds at protesters holding a banner as they complied with police orders, shot rubber bullets at a protester on roller skates who fell when police tried to grab the banner, and later shot paintballs at a protester who ran toward an unidentified object lying between protesters. In none of the incidents were protesters “engaged in active aggression” or otherwise threatening police, Hernandez wrote.

Officer Brett Taylor testified at the October hearing that he fired 15 rounds at banner-holding protesters from his FN303 — a type of grenade launcher that he uses to shoot rubber bullets, paintballs and munitions containing pepper powder. Taylor said banners and signs can be used as weapons.

But after reviewing video of the incident and testimony from those involved, Hernandez found that Taylor was not firing his weapon in response to “active aggression,” as the order requires. On the contrary, Hernandez found protesters carrying the banner were complying with police orders to move east when Taylor fired.

“And — most importantly,” Hernandez wrote, “nothing suggested that the individual Officer Taylor targeted was engaged in ‘[a] threat or overt act of an assault, . . . which reasonably indicate[d] that an assault or injury to any person was about to happen, unless intervention occur[ed].’”

Hernandez found that “at most” the person holding the banner was “engaged in passive resistance” by refusing to let go when police grabbed it. Passive resistance is specifically protected in the judge’s restraining order.

Taylor violated the order a second time when he shot his FN303 launcher at the protester on roller skates. Taylor claimed in court testimony that he shot the skater in an effort to protect them from worse violence at the hands of police.

“I know that a pile of officers on top of an individual attempting arrest is far more dangerous than the injuries a FN303 poses,” Taylor testified.

But video evidence showed that police had shoved the skater to the ground and other protesters were simply helping the person get back up when Taylor shot them.

“Though undoubtedly a chaotic and difficult moment for an officer in his position, the evidence shows that Officer Taylor did not deploy his FN303 in response to active aggression or to prevent the use of a higher level of force,” Hernandez wrote.

And there was no evidence that the protester who later approached an unknown object on the ground between police and protesters planned to use that object as a weapon against police.

“It simply cannot be that any attempt by an individual to pick up an item off the ground at a protest constitutes a threat of assault to officers or others,” Hernandez wrote. “There was nothing in this moment to suggest that the protestor was grabbing an item with the intent to throw it at the police. The individual moved slowly and was struck by a munition before they even had the object in their hands.”

Hernandez rejected the city’s claim that the incidents were “merely technical” or “inadvertent” violations of his restraining order. He found the three violations warrant a finding of civil contempt.

They’re just a few of the many violent incidents attorney Franz Bruggemeier said constituted “months of ongoing and fairly brutal violations.” Attorneys described multiple times on June 30 where police shot or sprayed protesters with less lethal munitions not to prevent an assault, but as either a preemptive strike when a protester hadn’t shown they were about to assault police, or after a protester had acted — which attorneys said was tantamount to extrajudicial punishment.

But Hernandez found five such instances to be fair game under both his restraining order and the bureau’s own rules. And he noted that he “offers no opinion” on the numerous other types of police violence that night, writing that physical force, batons, smoke grenades and tear gas are not covered under his June 29 restraining order.

Hernandez will determine potential sanctions at a future hearing. Punishments for contempt can include further restrictions, fines or jail time.