Chris Hedges's Blog, page 605

The Trouble With Nondisclosure Agreements

In a famous American folk tale, a naive young man suffers from a whopping case of buyer’s remorse after selling his soul to the devil. He is saved by a stirring speech from the great lawyer and orator Daniel Webster, which sways a stacked jury of spirits and frees him from Beelzebub’s clutches.

These days, a tsunami of lawsuits resulting from deals made with a host of demons has clogged our courts and prompted many judges to push for settlement agreements just to keep the system afloat. The public interest is best served, they reason, by getting civil disputes resolved without the enormous time and expense of lengthy trials.

But saving time and money doesn’t always serve the cause of justice. In this rush to judgment, the courts end up rewarding defendants—often corporations accused of everything from product safety violations to environmental disasters—while punishing many plaintiffs who have suffered extensive damages from those crimes, because these settlements are often structured in ways that enable the wrongdoer to keep doing wrong. With the system thus tilted to the rich and powerful, it’s doubtful that even Daniel Webster could rescue victims from the misdeeds of modern-day devils.

The problem isn’t the negotiated settlements. It’s the onerous caveats attached to them known as nondisclosure agreements (NDAs), or more commonly, gag orders. These orders prevent those who accept money in a settlement from disclosing anything negative about the defendants.

If this sounds familiar to you, that means you’re up on the latest Donald J. Trump scandals. To wit: Stormy Daniels, an adult film star, allegedly had an affair with Trump in 2006. When she started shopping the story around to magazines prior to the 2016 election, Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid her $130,000 to clam up about it. Daniels now wants to break the nondisclosure agreement, which includes hefty fines for violations. Trump denies the affair and any knowledge of the payment. He insists he didn’t reimburse his lawyer. If anything, the Trump-Daniels brouhaha has significance if, for instance, the payment to Daniels could be construed as an illegal, campaign-related expense. Many argue that the body politic has a right to know about the sins of the president, in order to judge his fitness for office. To me, those are minor considerations in evaluating the long-term impact of nondisclosure agreements.

And to be clear, I’m not advocating the elimination of gag orders. In some cases, they are appropriate and necessary. Legitimate trade secrets must be protected, and embarrassing information can be sealed if there are no public concerns. I even favor sealing divorce settlements, absent any showing of good cause why the information should be made public. Most divorces are private matters. Even heated disputes rarely involve things the public needs to know, and their disclosure could have a negative impact on the couple’s children.

But in many cases, nondisclosure agreements inhibit the public’s First Amendment right to speak out on matters of public concern and the right of civil litigants to gain access to information from prior settlements that are directly related to their cases. In addition, the payments of huge damages in these settlements would warn the public and deter the offender from repeating the crime.

But if no one can reveal details of the settlement publicly, how can such beneficial social goals be accomplished? The ability to conceal these details from the public and potential future litigants has prompted many corporations, cults and self-help groups to seek out possible aggrieved parties—sometimes even if they haven’t yet filed a lawsuit—and offer them princely sums of money in exchange for their signatures on nondisclosure agreements. If the potential litigants had come to the offender and demanded payment for their silence, it would be considered blackmail. But ironically, the courts have blessed wrongdoers that seek out and pay potential plaintiffs in order to prevent them from ever revealing details of a settlement, speaking to the media or otherwise aiding potential litigants. It also keeps critical documents and other evidence away from the prying eyes of other litigants.

Often, the organization seeking to conceal its wrongdoing settles with the plaintiffs that have the most information or the best lawyers, thus making it more difficult for other litigants to pursue legal redress. These agreements don’t prevent potential witnesses from being deposed or testifying—that would be obstruction of justice. Advocates of settlement agreements argue that this limits the damage created by these agreements. But it does make testimony more difficult to obtain. To properly prepare for a trial, lawyers must review critical documents and interview witnesses privately. NDAs restrict their ability to do either.

Depositions, for example, cost thousands of dollars each and are made more difficult with the defendants’ legal eagles present and badgering witnesses, threatening to sue if they don’t remain silent. Of course, you can skip all that, but what lawyer would risk interrogating a witness whose likely testimony is unknown? Without access to the details of previous settlements, the cost and risks of preparing these cases skyrockets for plaintiffs whose resources are usually dwarfed by those of their adversaries.

Many courts aggressively push for out-of-court settlements in order to relieve the crushing backlog of cases. It’s an understandable goal. But by doing so, they are in effect saying that clearing cases is more important than giving plaintiffs a fair shot at justice, informing the public about dangerous situations or deterring criminal organizations from continuing to commit crimes. The courts are actively participating in cover-ups of criminal/immoral activity and hindering the pursuit of justice.

I also believe that fears of increasing caseloads are unwarranted. Few defendants on the verge of settlement will toss that aside just because the courts won’t allow them to add a gag order. And if violators’ feet are held to the proverbial fire, it should result in fewer lawsuits long-term. Think of the money that would save. A more restricted use of gag orders would serve the public better in the long-run.

Consider the case of a self-help guru and former protege of Est’s Werner Erhard who reached a settlement with a number of women he pressured to have sex with him. The women signed NDAs that prevented them from warning other women in the group. Those who weren’t party to the settlement couldn’t access documents filed with the court. How can we, as a society, tolerate a legal system that allows a sexual predator to continue hurting women by covering up his improper actions? What in the name of Harvey Weinstein is going on here?

In another case, a psychologist seduced many of his female patients, transgressions that resulted in the loss of his license. He settled a lawsuit with the women but obtained a gag order that prevented anyone from disclosing the amount of the settlement. Years later, as the pastor and principal of a private school, he was once again charged with abuse—with adults and children. Had the details of the first settlement been made public, might that have prevented the later abuse?

Ironically, even the courts have used gag orders to cover up bad behavior. On April 10, California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye urged the Judicial Council to ban secret settlement agreements involving sexual harassment by judges. Apparently, the council doled out more than $600,000 of taxpayer money recently to investigate and settle three such complaints—and naturally, the settlements included nondisclosure agreements. “The public has a right to know how the judicial branch spends taxpayer funds,” the chief justice said. Alas, the chief justice is still falling short of justice, though could change that.

Here, secrecy isn’t the only issue. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay damages for the intentional misdeeds of public officials. Hear that, Congress? More importantly, it is time to stop secret settlements when they relate to public safety or other public concerns. There has been some progress made in this direction. Some courts use a weighing tool to determine whether public interest outweighs the right to privacy. A Florida statute prohibits the concealment of public hazards in settlement agreements. California does not permit nonfinancial confidentiality of motor vehicle problems in its lemon law settlements. A bill is pending that would allow greater disclosure of the details of settlements in sex crime cases.

We need more. You can’t buy silence or suppress documents when doing so would harm the public interest. No confidentiality agreement should be permitted that would make the devil smile.

Macron’s New Iran Deal May Be Pie in the Sky

Gilles Paris and Marc Semo at Le Monde report on President Emmanuel Macron’s state visit to President Trump in Washington and their discussions regarding the Iran deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA).

They say that Macron repeated his four points regarding Iran policy:

1. Maintain the 2015 Iran deal, which freezes the Iranian uranium enrichment program for ten years

2. but to add further measures to extend it beyond that date

3. arrive at a new accord regarding Iran’s ballistic missile program (not an issue addressed in the JCPOA)

4. to establish conditions for regional stability and contain the influence of the Islamic Republic

The last point, they say, refers to Macron’s hopes to bring the Syrian civil war to an end in cooperation with Russia and Turkey and then to reduce Iran’s influence in France’s former colony. They point out that piling on this issue to the nuclear one risks making any further negotiations with Tehran even more problematic.

The authors of the Le Monde article put their finger on the key issue in reopening negotiations. The original JCPOA negotiations between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany as an informal representative of the European Union, and Iran, carefully avoided complicating the talks by adding further concerns beyond nuclear enrichment.

At the time, there were voices, especially Rupert Murdoch and his Fox Cable “News,” who wanted to use the negotiations to address hostages, or Iran’s attitude to Israel’s occupation of Palestine, or any number of other concerns. John Kerry and his UNSC colleagues carefully declined to listen to those voices, because the nuclear issue was the important one in the negotiations, and adding other points would only make it even less likely to reach an accord.

It should be remembered that the JCPOA closed off all the plausible paths to an Iranian nuclear weapon (which all US and other intelligence agencies assess that Tehran had *not* decided to pursue).

1. Iran vastly reduced the number of centrifuges.

2. Iran destroyed its stockpile of uranium enriched to 19.5% for its medical reactor.

3. Iran accepted spot inspections of its nuclear facilities.

4. Iran discarded and cemented in its proposed heavy water reactor at Arak (light water reactors are much more difficult to use for acquiring fissile material, but with heavy water reactors it is easy.)

The sort of nuclear know-how Iran has gained cannot be destroyed short of invading and occupying the country and killing or permanently removing in some way all the concerned scientists, engineers, administrators, etc. What the JCPOA did was to extend the timeline whereby Iran could construct a bomb if it decided to from a few months to a year or more, and to establish trip wires that would alert the UNSC that Iran had made the decision to go nuclear.

Iran gave up 90% of its program, in order to lift international sanctions and get its economy back on an even keel.

In fact, Iran was taken advantage of, since the United States if anything increased economic sanctions after the deal was signed, and went around threatening European companies who considered investing in Iran. So Iran gave up its leverage and was greatly weakened and then it was stiffed.

This routine is similar to the one played on the Palestinians with Oslo, which required them to recognize Israel in return for a rump Palestinian state and Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian territories, but which saw the US and Israel pocket the PLO recognition and then proceed to screw the Palestinians over lethally.

Trump’s discontents with the program are all based on fake news. Part of the deal was that the US would release tens of billions of dollars belonging to Iran that it had sequestered in US banks as part of the boycott. It wasn’t $150 billion and the US did not “give” the money to Iran, it simply returned Iran’s own money to Tehran after having taken it hostage.

The deal deliberately did not discuss Iran’s ballistic missile program, which is much more primitive than that of India, Pakistan, Russia, Israel and other near neighbors, and into the warheads of which Iran has nothing to put.

As for Iran’s alliance with Syria, it is bilateral and difficult to see how it is any of France’s and America’s business. It certainly is not something Syria, Russia or Iran will give up. Nor is there a way for Macron and Trump to make them give it up. It is, like many of Macron’s ideas, not fully thought through and would be perceived in the region as arrogant. Trump is more complex, since he seems to want to acquiesce in Russian hegemony in Syria, which implies acquiescing in the Iranian presence that supports the al-Assad government that Russia is propping up. But Trump is capable of believing twelve self-contradictory things before breakfast.

For its part, Iran is not interested in renegotiating the JCPOA. President Hassan Rouhani said that there is no warrant for Trump and Macron, just the two of them, insisting on renegotiating a 7-sided agreement. “By what right?” He had earlier said that if the US pulls out, it will have no impact on Iran, since that country has extensive contingency plans. He did say, however, that there would be dire consequences for the US. He also ridiculed Trump as a clueless real estate developer who does not even understand the issues.

This slam is amusing since American elites always held that Shiite ayatollahs cannot run a country because they are ignorant of international affairs and economics.

Foreign Minister Javad Zarif pointed out that if the 2015 agreement is made to collapse by the US, Iran always has the option of starting back up its uranium enrichment program. Trump threatened Iran over these remarks, but then he has threatened North Korea as well, and nothing has happened.

Elizabeth Warren Calls Out ‘Disturbing Pattern’ of Fair Housing Changes

Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren sent letters Tuesday to federal banking regulators and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson, accusing them of rolling back anti-discrimination protections for people of color in the face of a wave of modern-day redlining.

“Over the past year, HUD has taken a number of steps that threaten to undermine existing fair housing laws and regulations,” she wrote, accusing the housing secretary of a “disturbing pattern of undermining and failing to enforce housing and lending laws.”

The letters were the latest salvo from the Massachusetts senator, who has taken up the issue of redlining in the wake of a February investigation from Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting, which found that in 61 metro areas across America, people of color were far more likely to be denied a home loan than their white counterparts, even when they made the same amount of money and wanted to take on the same size loan and buy in the same neighborhood.

Since taking office, Carson has delayed implementation of fair housing rules promulgated under President Barack Obama, nixed his department’s prosecution of major anti-discrimination cases and proposed removing the words “free from discrimination” from the agency’s mission.

“Housing discrimination remains a serious problem in the United States,” Warren said in her letter to the nation’s top bank regulator, Comptroller of the Currency Joseph Otting, citing Reveal’s report.

In her letter to Otting, she expressed concern that his office had “taken steps to undermine” the Community Reinvestment Act, “a law enacted to curb lending discrimination and to ensure that banks help meet the credit ‘needs of the communities in which they are chartered to do business.’ ”

Warren sent similar letters to Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell and Martin Gruenberg, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., expressing concern about a new Treasury Department report that proposed a plan to “modernize and improve” the act.

In her letters, she asked the banking regulators to detail any meetings with “lobbyists or representatives of the banking or financial services industry” that they’ve conducted while revising Community Reinvestment Act enforcement rules.

Warren’s effort is one of a number of attempts by congressional Democrats to push the Trump administration into taking a tougher stand against redlining in the wake of Reveal’s reporting. On March 29, Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania state Sen. Vincent Hughes wrote to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, demanding a Justice Department investigation.

“We are shocked by the revelations contained in the report,” they wrote. “These findings must be completely and fully investigated and if the claims are found to have merit, the appropriate and necessary steps should be taken to ensure that these practices cease.”

Two weeks later, the Justice Department had not responded to the letter. Department spokesman Devin O’Malley declined to comment or even acknowledge receipt of the request.

In the House, Democratic members of the Financial Services Committee have asked for hearings but have not gotten a response from the chairman, Republican Jeb Hensarling of Texas. In the meantime, they have entered Reveal’s story into the congressional record and grilled Powell and the Federal Reserve’s vice chairman for supervision, Randal Quarles.

Last Tuesday during Quarles’ semiannual testimony before Congress, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, Rep. Maxine Waters of California, cited another of Reveal’s findings, that 99 percent of banks had passed their Community Reinvestment Act tests with a satisfactory or outstanding grade.

“Would you agree that the CRA test was not vigorous enough?” she asked Quarles.

Quarles responded that the act has “ossified” and needs to “move off autopilot.”

Another member of the committee, Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, followed up, calling continued redlining “absolutely unacceptable” and asking Quarles whether he “had any specific things” in mind to improve enforcement.

Quarles said he did but would not share it with the committee because potential changes still were being discussed in closed-door meetings with other regulators.

This story was originally published by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting, a nonprofit news organization based in the San Francisco Bay Area. Learn more at revealnews.org and subscribe to the Reveal podcast, produced with PRX, at revealnews.org/podcast.

Bobby Bostic’s Injustice: A Cruel and Usual Story

Bobby Bostic won’t be eligible for parole until he’s 112. He’s more than 20 years into a 241-year sentence for crimes committed in 1995 when he was 16 years old. On Monday, April 23, the Supreme Court announced that it would not review his case. In March of this year, an amicus brief was filed with the Supreme Court on behalf of Bostic hoping to overturn the extreme sentence. The brief cited the 2010 Supreme Court ruling Graham vs. Florida which stated that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits a juvenile from serving a life sentence without parole if they did not commit a homicide.

That’s right. He didn’t kill anyone. He didn’t rape anyone either. Bostic and his 18-year-old friend Donald Hutson robbed six people. They then kidnapped one woman, robbed her and let her go. During the robbery, a gun was fired and grazed two people—no one was seriously injured. For reference, a 1995 Department of Justice report shows that the average sentence for homicide was 149 months, or almost 12.5 years. The average time served for homicide was 71 months, or almost 6 years. The average sentence for rape was 117 months, or 9.75 years. The average time served for rape was 65 months or almost 5.5 years. The average sentence for kidnapping was 104 months or just over 8.5 years. The average time served for kidnapping was 52 months, or almost 4.5 years. The average sentence for robbery was 95 months or almost 8 years. The average time served for robbery was 44 months or just over 3.5 years. In other words, compared to those who also committed crimes in 1995, Bostic will spend more time in prison than those convicted of rape and murder.

Donald Hutson, Bostic’s 18-year-old friend will be out in less than a decade. He opted for a plea deal. Bostic, however, decided to go to trial. He was found guilty and convicted on eight counts of armed criminal action, three counts of attempted robbery, two counts of assault, one count of kidnapping, and one count of possession of marijuana. Judge Evelyn Baker sentenced him saying, “You made your choice. You’re gonna have to live with your choice, and you’re gonna die with your choice because, Bobby Bostic, you will die in the Department of Corrections.” Incidentally, she may as well have been talking about his damning choice to go to trial as well as his choice to commit robbery.

The U.S. court system is backed up beyond belief. Plea bargaining relieves the courts by dealing out sentences once the defendant pleads guilty, avoiding the entire trial process. The Supreme Court ruled plea bargaining constitutional in 1970 and since then it’s become the overused cornerstone of a very lopsided and congested system. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, over 97 percent of convictions in the federal system, and 95 percent of convictions in the state systems arise from guilty pleas. Predominantly poor and black defendants are often coerced by legal counsels to skip the trial process and just accept a plea deal. Even if they’re innocent, many plead guilty—a concern noted in the Supreme Court’s ruling on plea bargaining. The trial path just isn’t worth it for many—for several reasons. Thanks in no small part to the War on Drugs, there aren’t enough trial times for those accused of a crime—but in the private prison industry, there’s always room for more bodies. The system therefore makes it less appealing to go the trial route because exercising your constitutional right only gums up the system more. Those who are innocent may fear that by just pleading guilty and accepting the plea deal, they’ll end up in prison for no reason. But the poor who can’t afford bail will still face months or even years in jail awaiting a trial whose outcome will be horribly skewed along race lines. And for most, that just doesn’t seem like a worthwhile risk to take. Furthermore, sentences handed down in trial proceedings are often times much more severe than those handed out in plea bargaining. Bostic and Hutson both committed the crimes together. Bostic was 16, Hutson was 18. And yet Bostic’s sentence is eight times longer than his friend’s.

Far from unusual, this case is one of many that suffer from what’s known as a “trial penalty.” Defendants who choose to go to trial risk arbitrary decisions like blocking certain evidence from admission as well as penalties that do not match the severity of their crimes. In 2013, Human Rights Watch released a studyshowing that, on average, the federal drug sentence for defendants who went to trial in 2012 was three times, or 10 years longer than for defendants who pleaded guilty.

Bostic’s story is cruel and usual. Yes, he is guilty. That’s not up for debate. What’s up for debate is whether a 16-year-old boy deserves to spend his entire life in prison for robbery. Even Evelyn Baker, the judge who sentenced Bostic now regrets her decision writing in an op-ed piece, “I see now that this kind of sentence is as benighted as it is unjust. But Missouri and a handful of other states still allow such sentences.”

And many officials stand by those sentences. Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to not review Bostic’s case, stating that the 2010 Supreme Court case didn’t apply to Bostic who “received multiple sentences, corresponding to the number and severity of his crimes, with an opportunity for parole in extreme old age.” For reference, Hawley is the same bigot who blames the women’s liberation movement for today’s exploitation of women, including sex trafficking. Hawley is currently running for State Senator. If he wins, he’ll join the ranks of dozens who take no issue with the current status of our “justice” system. He’ll be in the company of millionaires and billionaires who accept bribes from other millionaires and billionaires to keep the status quo going—to keep the prisons full and the promise of rehabilitation empty. He’ll sit amongst those who hold fundraising dinners where robber barons clink glasses, and murderers congratulate each other on F-35 contracts.

And while we may sit here and think that Hawley’s an asshole and weapons contractors are evil—if only because Star Wars also thinks so—the American psyche doesn’t mind locking up a poor black kid for life. Racism and capitalism have programmed us to not feel so shocked by stories like this one. As Matt Taibbi writes in his book “The Divide,” “We have a profound hatred of the weak and the poor, and a corresponding groveling terror before the rich and successful, and we’re building a bureaucracy to match those feelings.” In fact, it’s already built. And every day, it demolishes the lives of the poor and marginalized, while pedestaling those of the rich and well-connected. The fight for justice isn’t simply a fight to free and rehabilitate people like Bostic.

It’s not just about upholding a 200-year-old Constitution or using common sense to consider the sentencing of a kid. It’s about rewiring our minds—dissecting the root causes of our injustice system and how we’re going to fight and build together. It’s about building those alternatives to police and prisons. It’s about making the cruel and usual actually cruel and unusual. It’s about addressing the apathy we feel after we close this tab on our computer. It’s about questioning our comfort—our inaction in the face of heinous systemic crimes. Capitalism crushes empathy, collaboration and solidarity. So it is precisely these tools we will need to re-learn how to use in order to address all the ills that both capitalism and racism have wrought. If you find yourself reading about Bostic and thinking, “but he did commit a crime,” that’s a good place to start sharpening those tools.

Trump Urges VA Nominee to Keep Fighting

WASHINGTON — The Latest on Ronny Jackson, President Trump’s pick to be secretary of Veterans Affairs (all times local):

7:05 p.m.

A White House official says President Trump is urging his nominee for Veterans Affairs secretary, Dr. Ronny Jackson, to keep fighting to win confirmation.

The Oval Office meeting comes as Jackson’s nomination has been imperiled by allegations of inappropriate workplace behavior.

The official says Jackson is denying the allegations. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions.

The White House is defending Jackson, pointing to his record of service as physician to Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

__

6:35 p.m.

The White House is defending embattled Veterans Affairs nominee Ronny Jackson, pointing to his record of service as physician to Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

The White House is releasing hand-written reports from the two presidents praising Jackson’s leadership and medical care, and recommending him for promotion.

Obama wrote in one report, “Promote to Rear Admiral now.” Trump wrote last year that Jackson is “A GREAT DOCTOR + LEADER – ‘2 STAR MATERIAL.'”

The White House is also disputing allegations that Jackson improperly administered medication, saying the White House Medical Unit passed regular audits by the Controlled Substance Inventory Board.

The White House is also releasing a 2013 assessment from a Navy Medical Inspector General highlighting leadership improvements under Jackson’s tenure as the director of the unit.

__

5:45 p.m.

A top Senate Democrat says allegations against President Donald Trump’s pick to lead Veterans Affairs involve him being “repeatedly drunk” when he was a White House physician.

Sen. Jon Tester of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee is reviewing the allegations against Ronny Jackson, a White House doctor since 2006.

He tells NPR the committee was told that Jackson was “repeatedly drunk” while on travel with former President Barack Obama and that on overseas trips Jackson improperly handed out prescription drugs to help travelers sleep and wake up. Jackson is also accused of creating a “toxic work environment.”

Tester says if that’s true, such behavior while caring for “the most powerful man in the world” is “not acceptable.”

Tester says more than 20 current and retired military personnel made complaints.

__

5:20 p.m.

President Donald Trump’s pick to be Veterans Affairs secretary is giving no indication he will withdraw amid allegations of inappropriate workplace behavior.

Ronny Jackson, Trump’s White House doctor, says he was “disappointed” that Wednesday’s confirmation hearing had been postponed.

He spoke to reporters before meeting Tuesday afternoon with Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.

In video captured by MSNBC, Jackson says he looks forward to “answering everybody’s questions” when the hearing is rescheduled. Jackson denies there were any watchdog reports detailing allegations against him.

A watchdog report ordered in 2012 by Jackson and reviewed by The Associated Press found that he and a rival physician exhibited “unprofessional behaviors” as they engaged in a power struggle over the White House medical unit.

__

5:10 p.m.

The White House Medical Unit in 2012 — led by current Veterans Affairs nominee Ronny Jackson — was described by one staffer as the “worst command ever.”

An inspector general report from the time says most of the blame for the situation fell on Dr. Jeffrey Kuhlman, the physician to President Barack Obama.

But according to the report, Jackson admitted he had failed to shield the White House Medical Unit from the leadership drama between himself and the rival Navy Captain.

Jackson is quoted saying he was willing to do what was necessary to straighten out the command, even if it “meant finding a new position in Navy Medicine.”

Jackson was given Kuhlman’s post, in addition to running the medical unit, in 2013.

__

4:30 p.m.

A 2012 watchdog report ordered up by Veterans Affairs nominee Dr. Ronny Jackson found that both he and a rival physician exhibited “unprofessional behaviors” as they engaged in a power struggle over the White House medical unit.

The report suggested the White House consider replacing Jackson or Dr. Jeffrey Kuhlman —or both. Kuhlman was the physician to President Barack Obama at the time.

The six-page report was reviewed Tuesday by The Associated Press. The report by the Navy’s Medical Inspector General found a lack of trust in the leadership and low morale among staff members.

The report says staff members described the working environment as “being caught between parents going through a bitter divorce.”

__

1:35 p.m.

President Donald Trump says his nominee to lead Veterans Affairs, Dr. Ronny Jackson, will soon be “making a decision” about his future amid questions about the White House doctor and Navy rear admiral.

Trump says in a joint news conference with French President Emmanuel Macron that he will “stand behind” his VA nominee but it’s “totally his decision” on whether he should try to win confirmation in the Senate.

Jackson’s nomination was put on hold indefinitely after allegations surfaced regarding inappropriate behavior on the job and over-prescribing prescription drugs.

Trump is criticizing members of Congress who questioned Jackson’s lack of experience. He called Jackson one of the finest people he’s ever met.

___

10:55 a.m.

The leaders of a Senate panel say the confirmation hearing for Ronny Jackson, President Donald Trump’s pick to be Veterans Affairs secretary, is being postponed indefinitely.

Sen. Johnny Isakson, the Republican chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and Sen. Jon Tester, the top Democrat, cite “serious allegations” recently made against Jackson.

They say it is their duty to “thoroughly and carefully vet” his nomination. His hearing had been set for Wednesday.

The two lawmakers sent a letter to Trump Tuesday requesting additional information about Jackson, who has served as a White House physician since 2006. It seeks any communication between the Pentagon and the White House regarding “allegations or incidents” involving him.

Trump selected Jackson to head the VA last month after firing former Obama administration official David Shulkin.

___

10:15 a.m.

A Senate committee says it has delayed Wednesday’s confirmation hearing for Ronny Jackson, President Donald Trump’s pick to be secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Spokeswoman Amanda Maddox cites questions from lawmakers over allegations made about Jackson’s past behavior.

The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee was scheduled to hold Jackson’s hearing on Wednesday.

Trump selected Jackson to head the VA last month after firing former Obama administration official David Shulkin following an ethics scandal and mounting rebellion within the agency. But Jackson has since faced numerous questions from Republican and Democratic lawmakers about whether he has the experience to manage the massive department of 360,000 employees serving 9 million veterans.

___

9:20 a.m.

The White House is standing behind Ronny Jackson, President Donald Trump’s choice to be Veterans Affairs secretary amid growing questions about his qualifications.

Spokesman Hogan Gidley is praising Jackson, who is Trump’s White House doctor and a Navy rear admiral, for serving as a physician to three U.S. presidents, both Republican and Democrat. He says Jackson has a record of “strong decisive leadership” and is “exactly what’s needed at the VA.”

Senators have been discussing plans to delay Jackson’s confirmation hearing, saying more time may be needed to review whether Jackson can manage a massive agency of 360,000 employees serving 9 million veterans.

The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday.

___

1:46 a.m.

Senators are discussing plans to delay the confirmation hearing for President Donald Trump’s pick to be Veteran Affairs secretary over growing questions about the nominee’s ability to manage the government’s second-largest department.

The hearing for Ronny Jackson, Trump’s White House doctor, is scheduled for Wednesday.

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal says some Republicans have told him that they think the hearing should be postponed, which he says deserves consideration.

Blumenthal says he thinks there may well be a need for more time, in fairness to Jackson, so that he and the administration have an opportunity to answer these questions fully and fairly.

Blumenthal declined to discuss why more time might be needed.

White House and VA officials are also discussing a delay with key allies outside the administration.

A Portrait of Power at Barbara Bush’s Funeral, Sans The Donald

Sometimes a picture is worth a zillion words. The viral group photograph from former first lady Barbara Bush’s funeral speaks volumes about the state of our democracy, poignantly illustrating what we have lost and must at all costs regain.

George H.W. Bush is front and center in his wheelchair. Behind him, left to right, we see Laura and George W. Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack and Michelle Obama, and Melania Trump. It is an extraordinary portrait of power, continuity, legacy, civility and mutual respect—a remarkable tableau that is only made possible by President Trump’s absence. Imagine him in the picture, puffed-up and no doubt scowling, trying desperately to make himself the center of attention. It’s a good thing he decided to spend the weekend playing golf and writing angry tweets at Mar-a-Lago instead.

I can’t look at that photograph without pondering how destructive Trump has been—and how much work and goodwill it will take to put the pieces together again after he’s gone.

The elder Bush pursued conservative policies. Clinton was center-left. The younger Bush took the country back to the right. Obama pulled it to the left. These shifts seemed big and important at the time, but they pale in comparison to the disruption Trump has wrought.

Like virtually all of their predecessors, the four presidents in that picture tried to govern with a generosity of spirit. I disagreed vehemently with many of George W. Bush’s policies, including the war in Iraq and the brutal torture of suspected terrorists. I was sharply critical of his administration’s botched response to Hurricane Katrina. Yet Kanye West was wrong when he said “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” With no regard for political gain, Bush 43 launched a program to provide anti-HIV drugs to victims in southern Africa—an initiative estimated to have saved at least 11 million lives. I try to imagine Trump doing something like that, and I can’t.

I also can’t see Trump skillfully managing tectonic geopolitical change the way George H.W. Bush handled the fall of the Berlin Wall. Bush 41 knew that it was important to lay the groundwork so that Russia and its former satellites could prosper in the post-communist era. Trump’s foreign policy is based on “America first” selfishness and whether foreign leaders flatter him or not.

Clinton guided the nation through tremendous economic expansion, welfare reform and fiscal belt-tightening that ultimately resulted in a balanced budget. In doing so, he often angered his Democratic Party base. By contrast, Trump evidently cares about nothing but his base. Presented with reasonable compromises on issues such as immigration and health care, Trump preferred to leave problems unsolved rather than risk his loyal supporters’ anger.

Obama always sought compromise, though he did not always achieve it; he based the Affordable Care Act, after all, on Republican ideas that had first been implemented by Mitt Romney. Seeing Obama at a funeral was a reminder of his great eloquence, especially at moments of tragedy and loss. I was present when Obama delivered his indelible eulogy to the victims of the Charleston, South Carolina, church massacre. I saw the reaction when he broke into “Amazing Grace” and the auditorium erupted with shouts of “Amen!” I imagine Trump at that podium, and I weep.

Melania Trump was not out of place in that photograph; she looked elegant, as always, and paid her respects to Barbara Bush with grace. It is easy to see her as an eventual member of that exclusive club of former presidents and first ladies—as long as she leaves her husband at home to nurse his many grievances.

When Trump eventually leaves, we will have much to do—rebuild the State Department, put the Environmental Protection Agency back in the business of fighting climate change, shift tax policy to favor the middle class rather than the wealthy, cope with the trillion-dollar deficits that arise from irresponsible tax cuts, rebuild relationships with some of our closest allies … the list is long. But perhaps the biggest task will be re-establishing the sense of national honor and tradition that the funeral photograph represents.

An argument can be made that the Democratic Party and the pre-Trump Republican Party were too close, that there were only modest differences between their policies, that both had lost touch with the nation they sought to govern. But if that was the problem, Donald Trump was a disastrous solution.

Imagine him standing there in the picture, between his wife and Michelle Obama. The image just falls apart.

Bernie Sanders to Unveil Jobs Guarantee Plan

Sen. Bernie Sanders will release a plan for the U.S. government to guarantee a job paying at least $15 an hour, along with health care benefits, to every American worker “who wants or needs one,” The Washington Post reports.

According to The Post, Sanders’ plan would divide the country into 12 regional districts. State and local governments would then submit project proposals to these districts. They would review the proposals and forward the ones they approve (all would offer medical leave and retirement options) to the Department of Labor.

The plan would also task the current 2,500 job training centers and employment offices throughout the country with connecting workers with job training and employment.

The Post continues:

A representative from Sanders’s office said they had not yet done a cost estimate for the plan or decided how it would be funded, saying they were still crafting the proposal.

Sanders joins two other rumored 2020 Democratic presidential contenders who have expressed support for the idea of a jobs guarantee. The push reflects a leftward move in the party’s economic policy, away from President Barack Obama’s use of public-private partnerships or government incentives to reshape private markets and toward an unambiguous embrace of direct government intervention.

Job guarantee advocates say their plan would drive up wages by significantly increasing competition for workers, ensuring that corporations have to offer more generous salaries and benefits if they want to keep their employees from working for the government. Supporters say it also would reduce racial inequality, because black workers face unemployment at about twice the rates of white workers, as well as gender inequality, because many iterations of the plan call for the expansion of federal child-care work.

“The goal is to eliminate working poverty and involuntary unemployment altogether,” said Darrick Hamilton, an economist. “This is an opportunity for something transformative, beyond the tinkering we’ve been doing for the last 40 years, where all the productivity gains have gone to the elite of society.”

The plan for universal employment is expected to face an uphill battle in the Republican-majority Congress.

“It completely undercuts a lot of industries and companies,” said Brian Riedl of the conservative-leaning think tank Manhattan Institute. “There will be pressure to introduce a higher wage or certain benefits that the private sector doesn’t offer.”

Ernie Tedeschi, an economist who served in President Obama’s Treasury Department, said: “It would be extremely expensive, and I wonder if this is the best, most targeted use of the amount of money it would cost.”

Regardless, the midterm elections are fast approaching, and proposals like Sanders’ could give left-leaning candidates a viable issue to promote in their campaigns. Sanders, an independent, is up for re-election and has been vocal on social media about his views on health care and social security in recent months.

The idea for a guaranteed job can be traced to the New Deal era, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt pitched a “Second Bill of Rights” to Congress in 1944, including the “right to a useful and remunerative job.”

Earlier this month, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand tweeted that instead of tax cuts, the Republicans might have tried investing in an employment plan. Sen. Corey Booker also recently announced the proposed Federal Jobs Guarantee Development Act, which would function in a way similar to Sanders’ plan. Fifteen districts would be formed, each one guaranteeing workers jobs that pay at least $15 an hour.

“This is not a radical idea,” economist Hamilton said of the Sanders plan. “It was well-couched in the Democratic platform that existed during its heyday. I’m glad Democrats are trending back to their roots.”

Sell-Off in Industrial, Tech Stocks Sends Dow Down 400

NEW YORK — After a strong start, U.S. stocks abruptly sold off Tuesday after machinery maker Caterpillar said it doesn’t expect to top its first-quarter profit for the rest of the year. The Dow Jones industrial average plunged as much as 619 points as investors feared that rising oil prices and other costs will slow down growth in company profits.

Stocks climbed in early trading as companies like Caterpillar, appliance maker Whirlpool, and Fifth Third Bancorp posted strong quarterly results. Then Caterpillar executives told analysts on a conference call in the late morning that they don’t expect the company to report a larger per-share profit for the rest of 2018. Other industrial, technology and basic materials companies also took sharp losses.

The S&P 500 index sank 35.73 points, or 1.3 percent, to 2,634.56. The Dow Jones industrial average finished with a loss of 424.56 points, or 1.7 percent, to 24,024.13. The Nasdaq composite dropped 121.25 points, or 1.7 percent, to 7,007.35.

Small-company stocks held up better than the rest of the market. The Russell 2000 index declined 8.84 points, or 0.6 percent, to 1,553.28, about half as much as the S&P 500, which tracks large U.S. companies.

Caterpillar’s products are used in a wide variety of industries including construction, power generation, mining and oil and gas drilling. Meanwhile 3M, which makes Post-it notes and industrial coatings and ceramics, said the rising price of oil and other materials is affecting its business.

The companies’ statements came as interest rates kept rising, which makes it more expensive for companies to borrow money. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note rose to 3 percent for the first time in more than four years.

Stocks shot up at the end of 2017 and the start of 2018 as investors bet that the corporate tax overhaul would lead to bigger profits for American companies and greater economic growth. Gina Martin Adams, chief equity strategist for Bloomberg Intelligence, said it hasn’t happened yet.

“We’re not yet seeing a very strong recovery in the broader economic numbers that would suggest the impact of tax reform is more than just temporary,” she said. “The market is very impatient.”

Adams said the tax cuts may help stocks later on, but investors always want to see better and faster growth, and now they’re not sure where that improvement will come from.

The worries began to set in after construction and mining equipment maker Caterpillar said it doesn’t expect to top its first-quarter profit for the rest of this year. Industrial and basic materials companies and technology firms took some of the worst losses.

Wall Street had cheered Caterpillar’s results earlier in the day after the company had a strong first quarter and raised its forecasts for the year. But the stock gave up those gains and finished with a loss of 6.2 percent at $144.44.

3M shed 6.8 percent to $201.13. Chemical companies and other materials makers could also see their profits affected as oil prices and other expenses rise. DowDuPont shed 3.7 percent to $63.1. Elsewhere, aerospace company Boeing lost 2.9 percent to $329.06.

Bond prices slipped again Tuesday. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note rose to 2.99 percent from 2.98 percent. Earlier it peaked at 3 percent for the first time since January 2014.

Low interest rates have played an important role in the economic recovery of the last decade, and the yield on the 10-year note is a benchmark for many kinds of interest rates including mortgages. It’s been climbing because investors expect higher economic growth and inflation.

Since the global financial crisis in 2008-09, a combination of low inflation expectations and a bond-buying program by the Federal Reserve have helped keep bond yields low, but they have climbed this year as inflation expectations have picked up. The 10-year yield traded at 2.43 percent at the beginning of the year.

Alphabet slid 4.8 percent to $1,022.64 after the company said ad revenue climbed, but expenses also rose. Google’s parent company benefited from strong digital ad sales as well as an accounting change. Other big technology companies also fell, as Facebook dropped 3.7 percent to $159.69 and Microsoft skidded 2.3 percent to $93.12. Another market favorite, online retailer Amazon, shed 3.8 percent to $1,460.09.

The dollar edged up to 108.67 yen from 108.65 yen. The euro rose to $1.2237 from $1.2205.

Benchmark U.S. crude oil shed 1.4 percent to $67.70 a barrel in New York. Brent crude, used to price international oils, fell 1.1 percent to $73.86 per barrel in London.

Wholesale gasoline lost 1.4 percent to $2.09 a gallon. Heating oil dipped 0.6 percent to $2.13 a gallon. Natural gas rose 1.5 percent to $2.78 per 1,000 cubic feet.

Gold rose 0.7 percent to $1,333 an ounce. Silver climbed 0.7 percent to $16.70 an ounce. Copper rose 1 percent to $3.14 a pound.

Germany’s DAX lost 0.2 percent while the French CAC 40 added 0.1 percent and Britain’s FTSE 100 rose 0.4 percent. Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 rose 0.9 percent, helped by the weaker yen. The Kospi in South Korea lost 0.4 percent and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng added 1.4 percent.

Ireland Leads the EU in Household Pollution

Its image of lush green fields and skies unpolluted by the climate-changing greenhouse gases of heavy industry is well-known, but the reality of Ireland’s household pollution is a little different.

The latest research shows that carbon emissions from Irish homes are the highest in the 28-member European Union, mainly due to the large-scale use of coal, peat and oil.

A report by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI), a government-funded body which promotes moves towards renewable energy, says average emissions of CO2 per household in Ireland are the worst in the EU, well over 50% higher than the EU average.

“Between 2014 and 2016, CO2 emissions from the (household) sector increased by almost 7%, having fallen by almost a quarter between 2005 and 2014”, says the report.

Ireland was badly hit by the recession of 2008 but in recent years its economy has been growing strongly.

The SEAI study says a rise in disposable incomes in recent years, together with a fall in oil prices, has led to higher energy consumption.

Ireland’s population has grown substantially over the past 20 years, from around 3.8m to 4.8m. The report says that along with the rise in population, the number of households has also increased – to 1.7m in 2016, an almost 40% rise since the turn of the century.

Not only has the number of households been increasing; the SEAI says the size of the average house has also been growing – meaning there is a larger area to heat.

“In 2016 our homes accounted for roughly one quarter of Ireland’s total energy use, costing Irish householders €3.4bn”, says the study.

Lack of insulation

The SEAI calculates that total carbon emissions from the household sector are nearly 10m tonnes a year.

Jim Scheer, SEAI’s head of energy research, says that one of the big problems is the lack of insulation in a large number of older houses and that a great deal of energy-related upgrading work is required.

“A move away from our over-reliance on fossil fuels is essential, alongside a move toward more significant energy efficiency improvements in the home, whether it be a cottage, semi-detached or an apartment”, says Scheer.

Space heating, followed by the heating of water, accounts for most energy use in the average home in Ireland.

Short of information

The SEAI says the government has provided funds for the upgrade or retrofit of more than 375,000 households over the last 18 years, but householders are often ill-informed about both the cost savings and the wider environmental benefits of upgrading and insulating their properties.

Overall, Ireland – though it has little heavy industry and is still relatively under-populated by EU standards – has among the highest per capita carbon emissions in Europe.

This is mainly due to the country’s agricultural sector, with flatulence from the nearly 7m cattle in Ireland accounting for a large part of the emissions total.

At present the government is continuing to push ahead with plans for a substantial increase in cattle numbers, though this is likely to mean the country will fall well short of achieving EU carbon emission reduction targets.

Government critics point out that if these targets are not met, then Ireland will be liable to be fined millions of euros by the EU.

Wall Street Admits Curing Diseases Is Bad For Business

Goldman Sachs has outdone itself this time. That’s saying a lot for an investment firm that both helped cause and then exploited a global economic meltdown, increasing its own wealth and power while helping to boot millions of Americans out of their homes.

But now Goldman Sachs is openly saying in financial reports that curing people of terrible diseases is not good for business.

I wish this were a joke. It sounds like a joke. In fact, I’ll show you later that it used to be one of my favorite jokes. But first, the facts.

In a recent report, a Goldman analyst asked clients: “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” Salveen Richter wrote: “The potential to deliver ‘one-shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy. … However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies. … While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.”

Yes, a Goldman analyst has said outright that curing people will hurt their cash flow. And he said that in a note designed to steer clients away from investing in cures. Can “human progress” have a bottom? Because if so, this is the bottom of so-called human progress—down where the mud eels mate with the cephalopods. (Or at least that’s how I picture the bottom.)

This analyst note is one of the best outright examples I’ve ever seen of how brutal our market economy is. In the past, this truth would not have been spoken. It would’ve lived deep within a banker’s soul and nowhere else. It would’ve been viewed as too repulsive for the wealthy elite to say, “We don’t want to cure diseases because that will be bad for our wallet. We want people to suffer for as long as possible. Every suffering human enriches us a little bit more.”

We’re circling the drain in the toilet bowl, and as you know, the contents speed up as they near the end, the event horizon. We are beginning to see more and more how disgusting a profit-above-all-else economy really is. When Donald Trump bombed Syria, the stocks of weapons contractors shot up. That spike in stocks is a spike in the gravity of capitalism, pulling people toward death and destruction. Profit has power. And its power is exerted on the society as a whole.

Furthermore, there is no debate about this on your mainstream outlets. There is no discussion as to whether war profiteering is what we really want out of our society. None. You tell me: How many perfectly coiffed CNN or Fox News hosts stated: “Weapons contractors benefited from our bombing. Isn’t that revolting? Doesn’t that just make you gag in your soup? Doesn’t that mean we’ve created an upside-down system that rewards barbaric bullshit?”

You will not hear that discussion. You’re more likely to hear them discuss the best blind pingpong player to ever star in a short film about self-harm. Hard news topics do not see the light of day on our suffocated corporate airwaves.

And believe it or not, the Goldman note gets even worse. The analyst says, “In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients. …”

Decreases the number of carriers? Goldman Sachs … is in a financial partnership … with fucking infectious diseases.

Let that sink in. Sit with that and decide whether you want to keep your seat on spaceship earth. I’ll wait.

When I first read about this—after I stopped choking on my tongue—I realized it made more sense than I first thought. I’ve always felt Lloyd Blankfein had a striking resemblance to Hepatitis C. But it turns out he just works with Hepatitis C. They’re just really close friends and business partners. (But I heard Ebola is the godfather to his kids.)

Our aggressive strain of unfettered capitalism has blasted beyond satire in many ways. In one of my favorite Chris Rock specials, “Bigger & Blacker,” which I first saw when I was a teenager, he had a joke that blew my mind. He said something like, “They ain’t never gonna cure AIDS. They ain’t never gonna cure AIDS. There’s too much money in it. The money’s not in the cure. The money’s in the comeback! The money’s in the comeback.”

And I found that bit hilarious. I loved it. Because I thought it was a joke. Now, I see—it ain’t no joke. He’s goddamn right. They aren’t even trying to cure infectious diseases that make them piles of cash. Instead, the moneyed interests are complaining to their clients that they need to avoid curing these diseases. Because not only do they lose money on the patient who no longer needs meds, they also lose money because that patient won’t pass the disease onto others.

I swear these drug companies are roughly two weeks away from just going, “Hey, what if we send Bruce—that guy in the copy room—out to stab people in the back of the neck with infected needles? Is that over the line? Because that would increase our cash flow. And not only do we make money from the newly infected person, but they’re likely to pass it on to other people. How great is that?”

A profit-driven world creates a disgusting reality with a contorted value system. A world where oil companies view oil spills that destroy whole coastal communities as the price of doing business. In fact, they even declared it’s good for the local economy. A world where millions of animals abused for their entire lives is just the price of doing brunch. A world where massive hurricane destruction is a business opportunity rather than a tragedy. “Honey, check the weather report. Are there any 155-mile-per-hour business opportunities ripping through any Caribbean islands?”

And now corporations no longer fret over government interference—because they own the government. For them to worry about that would be like you worrying that your carpet might stop you from going out to a movie this evening. I think we’ve established what the carpet does. It lays there. Corporations now spew forth their true goals and motivations without much concern for the backlash. They can do things like use attack dogs on protesters at Standing Rock and not worry about the consequences. Who cares? The worst that could happen to them is they pay a fine—a “sorry we bit you with vicious man-eating dogs” fine.

We have a value systems disorder. A large percentage of our society now views this Goldman Sachs-style thinking as acceptable. It should be viewed as equally grotesque as beating someone over the head and then selling them bandages. Now imagine that’s your company’s business model. And you get investors to help you achieve it. Next to a glowing PowerPoint presentation you say, “You guys help me pay for the baseball bat. I’ll beat people over the head with that bat. My bat-swinging skills are well documented. I then sell the bloodied victims our top-shelf bandages. And with little effort on your part, you get a cut of the profits. It’s a rock-solid investment.”

That’s how we need to view what Goldman Sachs is saying in this analyst note.

The only way a system ends up at this point—with our values this far upside down—is with endless advertising in a profit-driven society. This is a system built on the exploitation of others for gain. There was no time when that was not true. And that’s why we need a revolution of the mind.

To check out Lee Camp’s weekly TV show, go here.