Saturday, February 13, 2021

Trump’s Taste for Blood

 

Trump’s Taste for Blood

If Republicans won’t convict, bring on the handcuffs.

 

By Maureen Dowd

Opinion Columnist

  • Feb. 12, 2021

WASHINGTON — Every scene in “Lawrence of Arabia” is perfect, but there’s one I find especially haunting.

Peter O’Toole’s Lawrence returns to Cairo after successfully leading the Arabs in battle against the Ottoman Empire and tells a military superior that he does not want to go back. Slumping in his Bedouin robes, looking pained, he recalls that he executed an Arab with his pistol.

There was something about it he didn’t like, he says.

The irritated general tries to brush it off, assuming the erudite Lawrence is upset at killing a man.

“No, something else,” Lawrence explains. “I enjoyed it.”

The first time I realized that Donald Trump took pleasure in violence was back in March 2016. In an interview, I asked him about the brutish rhetoric and violence at his rallies and the way he goaded supporters to hate on journalists and rough up protesters. Even then Mitch McConnell was urging Trump to ratchet down the ferocity.

I told Trump that I had not seen this side of him before and that he was going down a very dark path. With his denigrating mockery of rivals and critics, he had already taken politics to a vulgar place, and now it was getting more dangerous.

Shouldn’t parents be able to bring children to rallies without worrying about obscenities, sucker punches, brawls and bullying, I wondered?

He brushed off the questions and blithely assessed the savage mood at his rallies: “Frankly, it adds a little excitement.”

A couple weeks later, I pressed him again on his belligerence and divisiveness, and, with utter candor, he explained why he was turning up the heat.

“I guess because of the fact that I immediately went to No. 1 and I said, why don’t I just keep the same thing going?” he said. “I’ve come this far in life. I’ve had great success. I’ve done it my way.” He added, “You know, there are a lot of people who say, ‘Don’t change.’”

Dear reader, he didn’t change.

And everything bloodcurdling that happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6 flowed from his bloodthirsty behavior. He had always been cruel and selfish, blowing things up and reveling in the chaos, gloating in the wreckage. But it was only during his campaign that he realized he had a nasty mob at his disposal. He had moved into a world that allowed him to exercise his malice in an extraordinary way, and he loved it.

He became his own Lee Atwater, doing the dirty stuff right out in the open. He embraced the worst part of his party, the most racist, violent cohort.

The faux-macho, Gotti-esque air of menace he cultivated as a real estate dealer, the Clint Eastwood squint, just seemed like performance art; mostly he was around New York, acting genial at parties and courting the press. He would say stuff sometimes; after Sacha Baron Cohen pulled a prank on Ryan Seacrest at the Oscars, Trump said that Seacrest’s security guard should have “pummeled” and “punched” Baron Cohen “in the face so many times” that he’d end up in the hospital.

But once Trump got into politics, he realized, with growing intoxication, that the more incendiary he was, the more his fans would cheer. He found that he could really play with the emotions of the crowd, and that turned him on. Now he had the chance to command a mob, so his words could be linked to their actions.

Trump never cared about law and order or the cops. He was thrilled that he could unleash his mob on the Capitol and its guardians, with rioters smearing blood and feces and yelling Trump’s words and going after his targets — Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence.

It was Manson family-chilling to watch the House impeachment managers’ video with a rioter hunting for the House speaker, calling out: “Where are you, Nancy? We’re looking for you, Na-a-ncy. Oh, Na-a-ncy.”

It was like watching his vicious Twitter feed come alive. Others were chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” even as a gallows, complete with noose, was erected on the lawn. Watching those shivery videos, it hit home how Pelosi and Pence could have been killed and the melee could have turned into a far worse blood bath.

Trump not caring about the fate of his vice president was the inevitable sick end of the pairing of the Sociopath and the Sycophant.

As The Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey wrote in a tweet Friday, recapping his reporting with Ashley Parker: “Pence’s team does not agree with the Trump lawyer’s assessment that Trump was concerned about Pence’s safety. Trump didn’t call him that day — or for five days after that. No one else on Trump’s team called as Pence was evacuated to one room & another, with screaming mob nearby.”

Trump’s whole defense in the impeachment trial was like a low-budget movie trailer, cornier than the new Louise Linton flick. It was just another Trump flimflam reality TV show, meant to prove how he was wronged, not how he wronged the country.

Trump’s lawyers showed a video of myriad Democrats using the word “fight,” as though that was the equivalent of what Trump did.

If he’d had better lawyers and a real strategy in the effort to purloin the election, or if a few brave Republicans like Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, had not stood up to him, he might have succeeded.

Certainly, opportunism has always run rampant in Congress. But most Republicans, who continue to tremble before Trump even though he devoured and destroyed their party, turning its traditional values upside down, are plumbing new cowardly depths. They are mini-Trumps, making decisions solely on self-interest.

CNN reported Friday night that Kevin McCarthy called Trump during the riot, telling him the mob was breaking his windows to get in. The then-president told him: “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.” The conversation ended in a shouting match. Yet McCarthy still voted against impeaching the president.

These dreadful Republicans are all Falstaffs, trampling the concept of honor, blowing it off as a mere airy-fairy word, not worth sacrificing anything for, not worth defending your country for. “Honor is a mere scutcheon,” Falstaff scoffed.

McConnell and the other craven Republicans realize now that they should not have played along with Trump as long as they did, while he undermined the election. But they still refuse to hold him accountable because he controls their voters.

The Democrats put on an excellent case, and they were right to impeach Trump. But if the Republicans won’t convict him, then bring on the criminal charges. Republicans say that’s how it should be done when someone is out of office, so let’s hope someone follows through on their suggestion.

A few days ago, prosecutors in Georgia opened an investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the election there. Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance could drag Trump into court on tax and fraud charges. Karl Racine, the attorney general for D.C., has said that Trump could be charged for his role in inciting the riot.

Maybe a man who gloated as his crowds screamed “Lock her up!” will find that jurors reach a similar conclusion about him.

 

Friday, February 12, 2021

On a bed of lies and rage, Trump’s defense rests

 

Opinion: On a bed of lies and rage, Trump’s defense rests

 

 

Opinion by 

Dana Milbank

Columnist

Feb. 12, 2021 at 7:42 p.m. CST

 

If adjectives and adverbs were alibis, former president Donald Trump would be acquitted unanimously.

If hyperbole were exculpatory, he never would have been impeached in the first place.

But, alas, for the former president, his lawyers had little to work with — few facts, scant evidence and unhelpful precedents — to defend Trump against the well-documented case that he conceived, incited and encouraged the deadly insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6. The defense ran out of steam after consuming just 2 hours and 40 minutes of their allotted 16 hours.

 

Yet, even in that brief period, they misstated legal precedents. They invented facts. They rewrote history. Trump lawyer Bruce Castor, panned for his rambling opening argument Wednesday, closed the argument Friday by confusing Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger with Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger.

 

But Michael van der Veen, the personal-injury lawyer Trump hired as part of his defense team for the Senate impeachment trial, did have one thing in abundance: words. The best words. Towering, hyperbolic words. Leading off Trump’s defense on Friday, he seemed to believe that if he piled up enough of them, the prosecution’s case would collapse under an avalanche of tangled, angry verbiage.

 

“Unjust and blatantly unconstitutional act of political vengeance.”

 

“Appalling abuse of the Constitution.”

 

“Politically motivated witch hunt.”

 

“A preposterous and monstrous lie.”

 

“Patently absurd . . . the ludicrousness . . . sham. . . . Preposterously wrong . . . shameful . . . constitutional cancel culture!”

 

And this: “No thinking person could seriously believe that the president’s Jan. 6 speech on the Ellipse was in any way an incitement to violence or insurrection.”

 

No thinking person!

By contrast, van der Veen apparently can hold complex thoughts in his head. A year ago, he sued Trump, saying the president’s claims that mail-in voting is “ripe with fraud” were supported by “no evidence.” Now, he’s defending Trump on the basis of, well, no evidence.

 

Van der Veen claimed that a 1960s legal precedent involving civil rights leader Julian Bond was about “the exact type of political speech which Mr. Trump engaged in.” Bond’s speech involved opposing the war in Vietnam, not fomenting deadly violence.

Van der Veen informed the Senate that “one of the first people arrested” in the Capitol attack “was a leader of antifa.” This appears to be something Rudy Giuliani fabricated out of whole cloth.

 

Van der Veen reinvented history for the senators, telling them that “the clearing of Lafayette Square” last summer, done for Trump’s famous photo-op with a Bible, actually happened because, in van der Veen’s fanciful vision, racial-justice protesters had “pierced a security wall.”

 

Another Trump lawyer, David Schoen, took it from there. He announced, dramatically, that he had “reason to believe the House managers manipulated evidence.” His support for this heavy charge? One graphic wrote the year as 2020 instead of 2021, and one highlighted tweet should not have had a “blue checkmark.”

 

Schoen also undertook a tangential effort to cast Trump’s infamous words after the 2017 Charlottesville neo-Nazi rally (“very fine people on both sides”) in a more favorable light.

 

Their arguments were classics of the Trumpian form. The “no puppet, you’re the puppet” trope: They argued that Trump’s opponents — those who protested police brutality last summer — were really the violent ones. The “least racist person in the world” trope: They argued that Trump had been a longtime champion of nonviolence.

 

Presenting the prosecution case, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the lead impeachment manager, cited Voltaire and Thomas Paine. By contrast, Trump’s lawyers repeatedly played videos, set to ominous music, of Democrats (particularly non-White or non-Christian ones) using violent rhetoric, such as the word “fight.” They neglected to point out that several of the clips were of Democrats calling for a “fight” against things such as covid-19, not the election results.

 

In van der Veen’s telling, Trump’s attempt to overturn the election results, including his demand that Raffensperger (not Roethlisberger) “find” him more votes, was all above board: “His entire challenge to the election results was squarely focused on how the proper civic process could address any concerns to the established legal and constitutional system.”

 

Nothing says “proper civic process” like “Stop the steal!”

 

Van der Veen’s adjectival avalanche continued.

 

“Hyperpolitical hatred.”

 

“Total intellectual dishonesty.”

 

“Double hearsay.”

 

“Rank speculation.”

 

“Doctoring the evidence.”

 

As the personal-injury lawyer paused to replenish his stockpile of vituperation, Castor came in to tell the senators not to believe their lying eyes.

 

“Clearly,” he said, “there was no insurrection.”

 

And when all was said and done, Trump’s lawyers still refused to acknowledge that their client lost. Asked whether Trump was “perpetrating a big lie when he repeatedly claimed that the election was stolen from him,” van der Veen shot back angrily: “It’s irrelevant.”

 

On that bed of rage, insults and lies rests Trump’s defense.

 

A Huge Potential for Chaos”: How the COVID-19 Vaccine Rollout Was Hobbled by Turf Wars and Magical Thinking

 

“A Huge Potential for Chaos”: How the COVID-19 Vaccine Rollout Was Hobbled by Turf Wars and Magical Thinking

Inside the Trump administration, sensible ideas for how to manage a massive, unprecedented distribution of vaccinations were no match for bureaucratic knife fighting, gung ho hubris, and a knee-jerk aversion to strong federal action.

BY KATHERINE EBAN

FEBRUARY 5, 2021

One Pandemic, Two Task Forces

On January 5, 2021, the day before an angry mob invaded the U.S. Capitol and called for him to be hanged for disloyalty to the president, Vice President Mike Pence convened his long-suffering COVID-19 task force at the White House to address a vaccine rollout that had devolved into chaos. On the agenda was a long list of concerns, from expanding eligibility for the shots to releasing second doses, which until then had been held back.

Among those in attendance were the task force’s coordinator, Dr. Deborah Birx, and the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Robert Redfield. But the person most responsible for the rollout, the secretary of health and human services, Alex Azar, was missing. Azar, along with the secretary of defense, was in charge of Operation Warp Speed, the federal government’s vaccine development and rollout program. So where was he?

Sixty miles away, it turned out, inside a secure situation room at Camp David. There, Azar and a small group of top aides and military members of Operation Warp Speed were busy conducting their own analysis of the rollout’s problems. At least one blindsided White House task force member was “shocked” upon learning of the separate meeting.

The bureaucratic brinkmanship of the dueling meetings would be laughable if the stakes weren’t so high. Three weeks after the first vaccines rolled out of warehouses, the distribution effort was failing to live up to the Trump administration’s extravagant promises. Too few people were getting the shots, and states were ending each day with unadministered doses that had to be discarded, owing to the onerous refrigeration requirements.

The Camp David group determined that the states were adhering too religiously to the CDC’s guidelines for who was eligible to be vaccinated first, according to one person present. The solution the group arrived at was to tap pharmacy chains to order and administer the vaccine. As part of this effort, the military performed a “geospatial analysis” to identify the 19,000 pharmacies that were the closest to population centers.

Weeks later President Joe Biden’s incoming administration began phone calls with those pharmacies and discovered that they had little understanding of how patients would flow through their systems. “They were begging us for answers,” said one member of Biden’s White House COVID-19 team. “There was a concept to use pharmacies. There wasn’t any plan to exercise against that concept.” That revelation, among others, led Biden to declare former president Donald Trump’s vaccine rollout plan a “dismal failure.” Administration officials vowed to start from scratch in redesigning it.

As officials from the Trump and Biden administrations point fingers, a Vanity Fair investigation, encompassing interviews with more than 20 people with knowledge of Operation Warp Speed’s activities and a review of dozens of internal emails and documents, indicates that the rollout was plagued by turf wars and infighting, Trumpian overpromises, a culture clash between military and public health officials, and a blinkered military focus on delivering vaccines to states instead of vaccinations to individual citizens. The failure to plan for the “last mile” has left Americans desperately navigating a chaotic online wilderness to score elusive vaccination slots in a maddeningly uneven rollout that changes from hour to hour and county to county.

“They had a theory of the case. They had press releases,” as the Biden team member put it. “They did not have a plan to deliver 600 million shots in record time.”

Paul Mango called that characterization a “bunch of bullshit.” Mango, the former HHS deputy chief of staff for policy under Azar, played a central role in coordinating Operation Warp Speed. He also defended the program’s handling of the pharmacies. “We reviewed their business plans. We visited their CEOs.”

But Mango also embodies the laissez-faire ideology that infused the vaccination effort, just as it had the Trump administration’s decision to scrap a proposed national testing plan. “We’ve inoculated more citizens than any country in the world,” Mango told Vanity Fair. “For the Biden team to say, ‘We have to start from scratch,’ their task should be to avoid creating a mess with their authoritarian impulses.”

Unlike many of the career health officials they worked with or oversaw, some political appointees within Operation Warp Speed held an ideological belief that the federal government should limit its role to empowering the private sector, handing off responsibility for actual vaccinations to the states. The program’s mantra—“federally assisted, state managed, locally executed”—was adhered to so slavishly that urgent requests for direct federal assistance to states for vaccinations, from increased funding to additional manpower, were rebuffed, Vanity Fair has learned.

General Gustave Perna, who headed Operation Warp Speed’s logistics, prioritized two key metrics for success, say two people involved in the program: to ship out vaccines within 24 hours of the Food and Drug Administration authorization and to develop a regular cadence for vaccine deliveries to the states. But his definition of mission accomplished didn’t seem to involve actually getting people vaccinated. In one tense meeting between Perna and the CDC, Perna’s staff had to explain to the four-star general that the CDC defined success by two entirely different metrics: the uptake of the vaccine and the elimination of the pandemic, said someone present at the meeting.

Perna retained laser-like focus on what was called the N-hour sequence: the plan to move out the vaccine within 24 hours of its being authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. Perna “talked about how it would look” on TV, said one CDC official. “He really thought that would be the most important thing to build vaccine confidence.” The emphasis on the N-hour sequence led to days of phone calls and tabletop exercises. “It took up tons of staff time,” said the CDC official.

General Perna declined to be interviewed, but an HHS official said, “General Perna and OWS leaders contend that the unparalleled expertise of the health care community and scientists, military planning and logistics capability, American industrial ingenuity, and academic innovation enabled success and strengthened every step” of what continues to be a “complex, unprecedented, and herculean operation.”

Inside the CDC the prevailing wisdom on vaccine administration, built from hard-earned experience, was to underpromise, given everything that could go wrong, and then hopefully over-deliver. Redfield urged the White House and Secretary Azar to promise a more modest and achievable vaccination goal of 4 million doses by year-end, Vanity Fair has learned. He was rebuked by both Azar and Trump himself, who claimed to have better information and told him he didn’t know what he was talking about, said someone familiar with the exchanges. The number they insisted on was 100 million. In the end Redfield’s instincts proved accurate. By January 2, U.S. states had administered 4.2 million doses.

Azar declined to be interviewed for this story, but a former senior administration official said he never heard any point of difference between Redfield’s numbers and Azar’s, and that Azar was “meticulous” about getting accurate numbers from Operation Warp Speed planners and conveying them to the public.

By almost all accounts the Warp Speed program succeeded phenomenally in its central goal: to fund and support the development of COVID-19 vaccines, a process that usually takes years but was accomplished within 10 months of the pandemic’s onset. The program’s officials held weekly phone calls with state governors and sent out strike teams to states that were struggling with their rollout planning. But Operation Warp Speed’s failure to prioritize the administration of vaccines became a growing topic of concern at White House task force meetings, said several people familiar with the discussions.

Based on past experience, public health officials expected distribution planning to take up a significant amount of their time. But officials at the CDC said they were restricted from discussing distribution plans with the states until very late in the game, and were told by Operation Warp Speed officials that any operational details were “close hold.” And from the program’s formal launch on May 15 to the start of the vaccine rollout seven months later, just one of the roughly dozen Operation Warp Speed board meetings addressed distribution, according to two participants.

In response, a former senior administration official said, “The only role that the board played was to get barriers out of the way for the scientists and logisticians, to make sure they get what they need to be successful.”

To Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, the insistence on offloading responsibility to the states looks less like a reasoned plan than a deliberate evasion tactic. “It’s very clear that the feds really didn’t know or care whether states were going to be able to do this or not. If states can’t do it, we can always blame them. And that has been the strategy from the very beginning.”

In retrospect the FedEx trucks rolling to the rescue out of vaccine warehouses, duly captured by news cameras in accordance with General Perna’s wishes, call to mind U.S. tanks rolling into Baghdad in 2003—a declaration of victory, followed by mayhem.

All of the Credit, None of the Blame

In late April, HHS Secretary Alex Azar had a telling encounter in the West Wing with President Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows. The two men had just left a COVID task force meeting in which the fledgling Operation Warp Speed program was discussed, and Azar was feeling bullish.

“This vaccine program is the way we need to do it,” he said.

Meadows, who had seen his share of reputations rise and fall in Trump’s orbit, wasn’t so sure. “You’re not going to get the credit for this, and you’re going to get the blame,” he told Azar, according to a former senior administration official. Azar responded, “I am completely fine with that.” To which Meadows, wearing a frown, said, “This may not be a good gamble on your part.” (Meadows did not respond to a request for comment.)

As it happened, according to several people who worked on the vaccine rollout, Azar’s gamble was that he could achieve the opposite effect: all of the credit, with none of the blame.

A lawyer by training, who had previously served at Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush, Azar was feared by subordinates as a formidable bureaucratic infighter. He surrounded himself with loyalists and was skilled at leaving paper trails against those who crossed him, according to a former HHS official, who described his leadership style as “ultra paranoid.”

A former senior administration official said of Azar, “It wasn’t about getting the credit. It was: Americans are dying every day. That was his guiding light.” Regarding his leadership, the official added, “He built a very strong team. That’s what any good executive would do.”

On January 29, Azar was put in charge of the White House COVID-19 task force, but within a month, control was turned over to Vice President Pence. The memory of that reversal shaped Operation Warp Speed, as Azar worked to design a program that could not be wrested from his grasp, said several people involved in the program.

As the secretive $15 billion program rumbled to life, with a central goal of developing a COVID-19 vaccine in record time, Azar moved swiftly to consolidate control, holding meetings that excluded the leaders of the agencies under the Health and Human Services umbrella, from the CDC to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “He owned Warp Speed. He shoved everyone out of this,” said one former senior HHS official, adding, “He was the one who said [the states] didn’t need money to do this.”

Operation Warp Speed was supposed to be jointly run between the Defense Department and HHS, with an advisory board that included the CDC director, Dr. Redfield, and Dr. Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the White House COVID-19 task force. But most major decisions were made without any input from the board, said several program participants. “It’s part of the positioning the secretary has prioritized,” said one participant, “to get the credit for it, and anything else that goes wrong he can Teflon it off.”

“Rapidly Mashing Together Two Cultures”

Azar exhibited a tendency to side with the program’s military members against health officials from his own agencies. As military officials flooded into the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, where HHS is headquartered, the offices there began to look “like an armed camp,” said one Trump administration official who worked on the program. Top officials traded copies of a book called Freedom’s Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II, which celebrated collaborations between the Pentagon and private companies.

At an early meeting Perna directed the participants—drawn from different backgrounds and from different agencies—to look at their government badges, which bore different logos. “We’re now one team,” he said, according to a meeting attendee, who added, “The CDC never bought into it.”

In a May 27 email to Operation Warp Speed officials, Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, acknowledged the tensions between military and public health officials: “Part of the struggle here is rapidly mashing together two cultures. I am hoping that a joint work plan will go a long way to setting up swim lanes, timelines and deliverables.”

But the culture clash wasn’t so easily resolved, in part because it stemmed from a fundamental disagreement over the core mission. Were they trying to deliver vaccines to states or inject them into arms?

To officials at the CDC, creating a credible last-mile plan was an obvious imperative. Such a plan would have given the states detailed instructions on how to reach eligible vaccine recipients, how to formulate and deploy effective messaging, and how to enlist and assemble a force of vaccinators. It would be up to each state to tweak those instructions based on individual circumstances, but a clear blueprint needed to be in place, along with ample financial support.

More than a month before Operation Warp Speed was formally announced, CDC officials worked through Easter weekend to assemble a preliminary last-mile plan. But it soon became clear that their belief in its importance was not shared by Azar and his Pentagon allies. Dr. Messonnier, who had previously incurred the president’s wrath in late February when she warned Americans at a press conference that the COVID-19 virus would soon disrupt everyday life, was again sounding the alarm. She “warned and warned and warned” about the difficulties of forming a credible rollout strategy, said Dr. Rick Bright, then the head of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the government’s central incubator of new therapeutics. Others heard from Dr. Messonnier that the CDC was getting little support and being kept out of discussions and meetings.

To the political appointees and their Pentagon allies, these complaints from career officials sounded like unimaginative bellyaching. The CDC “strongly preferred public sector input over private,” said Paul Mango. As one Operation Warp Speed team member told him, “This is their Super Bowl. They’re not acting like it.”

 

In May, Dr. Redfield asked Operation Warp Speed officials for $5.35 billion for states to build their last-mile capacity. It wouldn’t be his last request. He asked again repeatedly through September, each time running up against the same obstacle: Secretary Azar’s office didn’t think that the states needed the money.

On June 5, a CDC team traveled from its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, to Washington, D.C., to brief Operation Warp Speed officials on their view of the essential components of a successful vaccination plan. What they heard back was dismaying. “They told [us] their task was to pick up the vaccine and put it in the trucks and drive it to state health departments and drop it off,” said one of the CDC team members.

When Dr. Birx asked the officials leading Operation Warp Speed more granular questions about the distribution and administration of vaccinations, she was rebuked, said someone familiar with the exchanges. “If you’re questioning my judgment, maybe you should do this,” one told her.

“A Vaccine World and a Vaccination World”

By June, concern was growing in the larger vaccination community that no credible plan to distribute vaccinations had been established. On June 27, Dr. Bruce Gellin, the president of global immunization for the Sabin Vaccine Institute, urgently emailed Paul Mango, requesting a meeting with Secretary Azar. “My mantra when I ran the National Vaccine Program Office was that there was a vaccine world and a vaccination world—and there wasn’t an arrow that connected the two,” he wrote. “From what I can tell, OWS is mostly focused on the vaccine part but has little insight into our national immunization program. I worry that there is a huge potential for chaos if, as it seems, the wheel is going to be reinvented on the fly.”

Before long Gellin scored an invitation. On July 15, he was invited to join a vaccine consultation panel that HHS established to presumably get expert input and loop in key experts who could help disseminate critical information. “Producing a vaccine is one piece of the task—but another equally critical component is ensuring public understanding, acceptance, and participation in any eventual vaccine campaign,” the invitation stated.

But Gellin soon came to believe that the panel’s principal function was to create a facade of “famous people” in the vaccine world, who would serve as “external validators” for any Operation Warp Speed vaccine. In biweekly Zoom calls that allowed for limited discussion, the group was briefed by various Warp Speed officials. “It was a seminar series,” said Gellin.

As states began work on their individual rollout plans, military officials headed down to CDC headquarters in Atlanta and took over a conference room. They brought their mission-driven culture with them, erecting a poster outside the conference room that read, “Winning Matters,” and touted “300 Million Doses of Vaccine January 2021.” The expectations were “unrealistic,” said one CDC official. “We counseled Perna that we should be planning a much slower rollout. These vaccines are complicated. It’s intimidating. States were likely going to want to start slow.”

But the warning fell on deaf ears. On October 8, at a discussion sponsored by Goldman Sachs, Azar dangled the idea that it was possible to have 100 million doses of the vaccine by year-end, a number that the White House supported. Said one former HHS official of Azar: “He just lies. The biggest lie is that he had it under control. He oversold it.”

A former senior administration official said that Azar’s projections related to doses produced, not administered, adding, “Whatever he said had been vetted by the Warp Speed team because he strived for transparency and accuracy.”

As late as December, shortly before the Pfizer vaccine was authorized by the FDA on an emergency basis, one participant recalled an Operation Warp Speed planning meeting where the distribution plan was outlined. “They showed how the vaccines were going to leave the warehouse, have a military escort. We’re going to add vaccines, kits, gloves. Then we’ll ship it wherever the states tell us,” said the former HHS official. “That’s where the presentation ended. You can’t say, ‘My job ends here.’ When you’re running an operation this large, you want to get shots in arms.”

Paul Mango defended the planning, saying that it was “all based on the fundamental belief that local leaders are best positioned to execute. It guided our whole process. We’re going to provide you the vaccine for free, all the accoutrements; we are going to distribute to precisely the place you want it; and all you need to do is tell us where.”

But by mid-December, as vaccines landed in hospitals and storage depots, the majority of states faced an almost immediate tangle of problems: too few vaccinators; in some cases, too few interested patients; threadbare public health departments, depleted by months of pandemic crisis; I.T. systems that were crashing in real time. Though several states—notably West Virginia and Connecticut—pulled off efficient and well-organized rollouts, they were the exceptions.

The Biden administration has moved swiftly to get more shots into arms. This week it announced that the Federal Emergency Management Agency would provide $1.7 billion and 600 workers to 27 states and territories, support the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to help with vaccinations, and build new community vaccination centers that would be substantially staffed and funded by the Department of Defense.

Meanwhile, Dr. Redfield, who departed as CDC director on January 20 and returned home to Maryland, still has not been able to get a vaccination appointment for himself or his wife, who, like him, is 69 years old. He chose not to jump the line when the vaccine was offered to him as part of his federal job. “We’ve tried,” he told Vanity Fair. “Maryland is in the second week of 65 and over, [and there is] nothing available to sign up for.”

With more than a thousand Americans dying each day from COVID-19, the frozen sign-ups and stuttering rollout have life-and-death consequences. “When you have a policy where only a few states can succeed,” said Dr. Jha, “the problem is not that you have 47 failing states. It’s that you have a failing federal government.”

 

What’s at Stake in Trump’s Second Impeachment Trial

 

What’s at Stake in Trump’s Second Impeachment Trial

The Republican Party isn’t ready to walk away from the former President, but the senators know how close the country came to catastrophe.

 

By Amy Davidson Sorkin

February 7, 2021

As President, Donald Trump often seemed surprised to discover what was and was not constitutional. His lawyers now seem intent on perpetuating that confusion at his impeachment trial. Last week, one of them, David Schoen, said in an interview with Fox News that “fair-minded people” don’t support using impeachment to “bar someone from running for office again”—even though that is one of the two punishments for conviction that the Constitution specifies. Schoen also issued a challenge: if there is an attempt to call witnesses in the trial, “you also should be able to call, then, many of the senators as witnesses, because of the awful bias and prejudgment they’ve shown.”

It wasn’t clear which senators Schoen had in mind—Mitt Romney, the Utah Republican, who, in the midst of the assault on the Capitol, on January 6th, said that Trump had caused “this insurrection”? The Senate’s rules allow its members to be impeachment witnesses (and to have a say in what witnesses to call), and any number of them might offer vivid descriptions of the violence, which Trump is accused of inciting. But such accounts can hardly be what Schoen is after. As he said on Fox, he didn’t think that, at the trial, the House managers should show videos documenting how Trump’s followers, after the President told them at a rally earlier that day to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell,” did just that. “Why does the country need that now?” Schoen asked. His goal, it seemed, was to put the senators on trial instead.

The House managers weren’t deterred. Three days after Schoen’s interview, Representative Jamie Raskin, of Maryland, the lead manager, sent a letter to Trump inviting him to testify. Why not? A hostile witness can be helpful. (His lawyers called the letter a “public relations stunt.”) Trump would find a trial, where he is subject to cross-examination, to be a very different experience than Twitter. His no doubt outrageous claims would make the stakes plain, perhaps even to Republicans. As Raskin noted, Trump and his defenders continue to dispute even the basic facts of the events surrounding the attack on the Capitol. In a fourteen-page pretrial brief that Schoen and his co-counsel, Bruce Castor, filed last week, they deny that Trump’s imprecations to the crowd were anything but a general statement about election security, or that he asked the Georgia secretary of state to “find” enough votes to give him the state—although that exchange, an apparent election-law violation, is on tape. Trump, as depicted in the brief, is a peace-loving, free-speech martyr.

Trump brought in Schoen and Castor just a week before the trial’s opening, after parting ways with his previous team. The new lawyers have said that their defense wouldn’t focus on Trump’s lies about the election being stolen from him, but those falsehoods are given respectful treatment in their brief. Schoen has spoken of representing “reputed mobster figures,” and had been in discussions with Jeffrey Epstein, the sexual abuser, before he killed himself in jail. (Schoen says he was murdered.) Castor, a former district attorney in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, declined to prosecute Bill Cosby for sexual assault, and later sued one of Cosby’s victims for defamation. (The case was dismissed.) Perhaps the attorneys’ experiences have prepared them to juggle improbable excuses for Trump’s behavior.

In their brief, they write that, since Trump is no longer President, the impeachment trial is “a legal nullity.” In fact, there is strong support for post-Presidential proceedings in constitutional history and in precedent; otherwise, there would be no real penalty for a late-in-the-term coup attempt. (What’s more, Trump was President on the day he was impeached; only the trial is occurring in his post-Presidency.) The Constitution also gives the Senate great latitude in running a trial. But the nullity argument, as flimsy as it is, has come to be seen as a safe harbor by Republicans who want to forget that January 6th ever happened. Senator Rand Paul earlier sought a dismissal of the case on that ground, and, in a procedural vote, only five Republicans joined Democrats to kill his motion. At least seventeen Republican votes are needed to convict Trump. Those numbers show how crucial it is that the House managers present a forceful case: Trump’s party is not ready to walk away from him.

One of the topsy-turvy arguments that Trump’s defenders, including Senator Lindsey Graham, are making is that the evidence that some people in the mob arrived in Washington already intent on engaging in violence exonerates the President. How, they ask, could he possibly have incited them, if they’d already decided to try to lynch Nancy Pelosi and others? One answer lies in the House managers’ seventy-seven-page pretrial brief, which charges Trump with “a course of conduct aimed at subverting and obstructing the election results” in the weeks leading up to the rally.

The managers cite a December 19th tweet from Trump calling on his supporters to come to Washington—“be there, will be wild”—and his telling a crowd in Georgia on January 4th that it was imperative to “fight” to hold the White House. He made it clear that the task at hand was to intimidate Vice-President Mike Pence, whom Trump had directed, both publicly and, reportedly, in meetings behind closed doors, to throw out electoral votes, in violation of the Constitution. (Even after the mob had breached the Capitol, and began searching for the Vice-President, Trump tweeted, “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.”) Pence would be a good witness. So would aides who reportedly pleaded with Trump to take quick action to protect the Capitol, and found him uninterested. The managers, in their brief, call his failure to act a “dereliction of duty.” In many instances, Trump was invoking the power he had as President. It is not the case then that, as Castor argued last week, we are going through an impeachment trial “just because somebody gave a speech and people got excited.”

It is true that senators will be judged by what they do and say at the trial. The House managers wrote that Trump was “singularly responsible” for unleashing a violent attack on a joint session of Congress, with the aim of disrupting the transfer of power. The senators, under the Constitution, now have a singular responsibility to render a verdict on Trump’s actions and, by extension, on whether an attempt to overturn an election can be brushed aside. Senators saw how close the country came to catastrophe because of Trump. And they should know what their job is now. ♦

Published in the print edition of the February 15 & 22, 2021, issue, with the headline “Senate Rules.”

 

Amy Davidson Sorkin has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 2014. She has been at the magazine since 1995, and, as a senior editor for many years, focussed on national security, international reporting, and features.

 

Total Pageviews

GOOGLE ANALYTICS

Blog Archive