Donald Trump has delayed his trial on charges that he tried to overturn the 2020 election by claiming that he enjoys “presidential immunity” for everything he did while in office. The federal district judge hearing his case—Judge Tanya S. Chutkan— ruled against him. Today a three-judge federal appeals court ruled against him. The three judges were two appointed by Democratic presidents and one appointed by a Republican president.

It is a historic decision. It is a history lesson of the utmost importance.

I urge you to read it.

It is a stirring defense of democracy and the rule of law.

A few citations:

For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution…

We have balanced former President Trump’s asserted interests in executive immunity against the vital public interests that favor allowing this prosecution to proceed. We conclude that ‘Concerns of public policy, especially as illuminated by our history and the structure of our government’ compel the rejection of his claim of immunity in this case…

We also have considered his contention that he is entitled to categorical immunity from criminal liability for any assertedly ‘official’ action that he took as President—a contention that is unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution. Finally, we are unpersuaded by his argument that this prosecution is barred by ‘double jeopardy principles.’

The justices ruled that what Trump sought (immunity from prosecution) was an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government

We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count…

It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to “take Care that the laws be faithfully executed,” were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity…

The quadrennial Presidential election is a crucial check on executive power because a President who adopts unpopular policies or violates the law can be voted out of office.

We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power—the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.

Former President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President has no role—the counting and certifying of the Electoral College votes—thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of Congress …

At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, “not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.”

The judges pointed out that other presidents have recognized that they were not immune from prosecution after they left office. That’s why President Ford pardoned President Nixon and why President Clinton accepted a deal to pay a fine and surrender his law license when he left office.

They noted the irony that the President is sworn to Take Care that the laws are faithfully executed yet was appealing to be immune from those laws.

It’s a good read.

Two important public interest law firms issued a press release congratulating Governor Josh Shapiro for a major proposal to fund public schools. But at the same time, they chastised the Governor for his inexplicable support for vouchers, which will fund schools that discriminate and produce no academic improvement.

MEDIA ADVISORY* * *  

Law Centers Issue Joint Statement on Gov. Shapiro’s Historic Budget Proposal

In-Person and Zoom Media Availabilities Scheduled for Anniversary of Commonwealth Court Decision on Wednesday, Feb. 7


See below for the law centers’ statement and quotes from lawsuit petitioner superintendents. Attorneys are available today for further comment on the governor’s budget proposal upon request.

 

Tomorrow, Feb. 7, attorneys from the Public Interest Law Center and Education Law Center, who represented the petitioners in Pennsylvania’s school funding lawsuit, will be speaking at a noon event in the Capitol Rotunda commemorating the one-year anniversary of the court’s decision and available to answer questions from the media on Feb. 7 both in person in the Rotunda and later on Zoom.

Who:                    Attorneys from Education Law Center and Public Interest Law Center

When:                 Wednesday, Feb. 7Noon, with in-person media availability for Harrisburg media immediately following the event
2 pm, Zoom media availability

Where:                In person in Capitol Rotunda at noon
                             Register for the Zoom media availability at 2 pm

What:                  Attorneys from the Education Law Center and Public Interest Law Center will speak as part of the PA Schools Work coalition event in the Rotunda and then answer questions from the media.

 

Joint Statement from Education Law Center and Public Interest Law Center on Gov. Shapiro’s Historic Budget Proposal

 

We commend Gov. Shapiro for today’s historic commitment to address the needs of all Pennsylvania’s school children. Last year Gov. Shapiro promised to develop a plan to bring Pennsylvania’s school funding system into constitutional compliance. Building on the work of the Basic Education Funding Commission, he has kept that promise, and we applaud him for it. Today’s proposal includes every first-year recommendation proposed by the commission.

 

If fully implemented over the next seven years, the commission’s plan will mean thousands more teachers, counselors, librarians, and school nurses delivering what every child deserves: the opportunity to thrive. We look forward to legislation backing up that long-term plan, with annual targets so that school districts can plan, our leaders can be held accountable, and students can see the benefits.

 

There remains work ahead. The seven-year timeline proposed by the commission to implement the plan is too long, and it does not yet include funding for critical strategies like high-quality pre-kindergarten programs. But we recognize his proposal for what it is: a bold, historic first step towards a system that honors the limitless potential of our students and delivers the future our communities and our children deserve. We are ready to stand with the governor in advocating for its passage.

 

On the governor’s stated support for a school voucher program: Pennsylvania’s first obligation is to bring its public education system into constitutional compliance. Commonwealth Court’s decision is entirely focused on ensuring that our Commonwealth provides a comprehensive, effective, and contemporary public education to all Pennsylvania students. Funds spent on vouchers for private schools sanction discrimination against students, lead to worse outcomes by any measure, and don’t bring us a dollar closer to compliance with the court’s ruling.

 

One year after the governor and General Assembly were ordered to enact a plan to remedy the unconstitutional funding system, we have before us one—and only one—plan that answers the court’s command: the plan adopted by the Basic Education Funding Commission and affirmed today by the governor.  

 

Statements from superintendents of school district petitioners in the Pennsylvania school funding lawsuit

 

“Today Governor Shapiro demonstrated his belief in the children of the William Penn School District, and in the entire Commonwealth,” said Dr. Eric Becoats, superintendent of William Penn School District. “By including in his budget the full year-one recommendation from the Basic Education Funding Commission, we are on the path to provide resources for our children that have long been deferred. If carried out over seven years, this plan would be the end of our students living by the unacceptable slogan ‘do more with less.’ These funds will allow us to provide additional teachers and support services (counselors, social workers and health therapists) to the schools and students that most deserve them.”

 

“I applaud Governor Shapiro for taking real action for public schools in communities like mine by putting forward the first year of a transformative plan,” said Dr. Brian Waite, superintendent of Shenandoah Valley School District. “Facing enormous funding gaps, educators in Shenandoah Valley make impossible choices for our students every day, shifting insufficient resources to some students who need them at the expense of others. Now we have a real plan in Harrisburg to bridge those gaps, and to give us the chance to make choices based on maximizing our students’ amazing potential, not minimizing collateral damage.”

 

“Today’s budget proposal could be the start of transformational change for my students,” said Dr. David McAndrew, superintendent of Panther Valley School District. “It means more reading specialists, counselors, teachers and social workers, support that has been denied because of a lack of local wealth in our community. I hope that our leaders in Harrisburg can make this multi-year proposal a reality faster than seven years—our kids have unmet needs right now—but the Governor’s plan provides the meaningful opportunity that children in Panther Valley and across Pennsylvania deserve.”

The Houston Chronicle reports an acceleration in principal turnover since the state took over control of the Houston Independent School District and placed non-educator Mike Miles in charge. The principals of nearly 60 schools have resigned or been removed. A military man, Miles was “trained” by the Broad Superintendents Academy. He is imposing standardized curriculum and instruction across the schools he directly controls (called the “New Education System”).

Even the principal of an A-rated school lost his job.

The memos came in one after the other, a laundry list of grievances listing all the ways Federico Hernandez was supposedly failing as principal of Houston ISD’s Middle College High School.

A teacher used Post-It notes rather than index cards during a lesson, according to one complaint from Hernandez’s supervisor. Others allowed students to sit in the back of a classroom or kept a light off during class. Some implemented multiple response strategies, “but not correctly,” read the memo shared with the Houston Chronicle.

Even though the campus run on Houston Community College’s Felix Fraga campus boasts an A-rated academic performance, those were among the infractions that got Hernandez removed from his job less than two months into the school year.

He is one of at least 58 principals who left their schools, involuntarily or otherwise, in 2023 since Superintendent Mike Miles was appointed to his post by the Texas Education Agency on June 1, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis of HISD staffing records. After taking into account schools that share a principal, such as Jane Long Academy and Las Americas Newcomer School, or those that recorded multiple changes between June and December, such as Madison High School, the Chronicle confirmed there have been at least 61 leadership changes across 59 campuses…

Erica Harbatkin, an education policy expert at Florida State University who studies principal turnover, said it is not unusual for administrators to reassign principals in an attempt to shake up under-performing schools. They typically don’t do so during the school year, though, because principals need time to plan and coordinate their staff, and “coming in after the school year started… obviously undermines some of those strategies.”

Harbatkin said replacing a principal is one of the quickest ways to effect change at a school, for better or worse.

“The theory of action behind more contemporary school turnaround and improvement policy is that these schools are in this pattern of low performance, and they need something to get them out, some sort of big external shock … and one of the ways that happens is through replacing the principal,” Harbatkin said.

If not done carefully, however, principal turnover can lead to negative effects on student achievement, Harbatkin said. Her research found that principal turnover “is associated with lower test scores, school proficiency rates, and teacher retention.”

“When principals turn over teachers tend to turn over as well, and if that turnover is not well-planned, if there’s not good distributed leadership in the school or someone who can step into the role, that’s likely to make those negative effects even larger,” Harbatkin said.

No one explained the theory or rationale for removing a principal from a high-performing school. Maybe he failed to comply with an order…

Ebony Cumby, who served as principal at Askew Elementary in west Houston for 12 years, resigned within a week of Miles’ appointment after sitting through the first couple days of principal meetings.

“Throughout that period, there were things that I thought were exciting changes that needed to be made in the district, and there were other things that I could foresee being problematic, especially for a district as large as HISD,” Cumby said.

Cumby said she appreciated Miles’ attempts to “bring more consistency” to the district by standardizing the curriculum and other elements, but she was put off by what she described as “a cookie-cutter way of teaching” that she would be expected to enforce. After over two decades at HISD, she ended up leaving public education altogether for another industry.

“I noticed early on that there were things in place that, whether it was intentional or not, were going to take autonomy away from teachers and require them to conform to a certain way of doing things and really take away their creativity, which as a principal was a big deal to me,” Cumby said. “To kind of hear that its ‘our way or the highway’ did not sit well with me.”

It is a strange irony that Red State legislators believe passionately in testing and accountability for public schools, yet excuse voucher schools from those same measures. If public school students must be tested, why not students who receive vouchers to attend private and religious schools on the taxpayers’ dime? Why not use the same measuring stick for all students so the voucher schools can be held accountable?

Here is a report from Public Schools First NC:

North Carolina’s voucher program has been widely criticized for its lack of accountability. The Opportunity Scholarship and ESA+ programs come with little financial oversight, no curriculum or content standards requirements, no educational or credential requirements for teachers, and no publicly available student performance testing data.

Since 1992, NC students in grade 3-8 public schools take the North Carolina End-of-Grade (EOG) Tests designed to measure student performance on the goals, objectives, and grade-level competencies specified in the NC Standard Course of Study. Standards in NC are used at the state level to ensure all students will be taught the content deemed essential and necessary by the state to allow teachers and parents to assess student progress and readiness for the next grade level.

The 2023 Appropriations Act takes a small step toward addressing the gap between the abundant regulation and accountability measures in place for traditional public schools and the state’s laissez faire approach to private schools. After spending half a billion dollars since 2014 and adding hundreds of millions of dollars to the voucher program’s annual budget this year, legislators added a small testing provision that may enable taxpayers to get a glimpse into the academic performance of voucher recipients. Starting in 2024-25, public school students and voucher recipients in grades 3, 8, and 11 will be administered the same standardized test.

But instead of requiring the estimated 4,000 grade 3 and 8 voucher-receiving private school students to take NC’s EOG tests, the approximately 220,000 public school students in grades 3 and 8 will have to take a nationally standardized test that was not developed to measure NC Standard Course of Study in addition to taking the EOG.

The common test in 11th grade will be the ACT, which is already administered to public school students statewide. Currently, voucher-receiving private schools are required to take a test (selected by the school administrator) in 11th grade. Many private schools already administer an assessment of their choice, so there will be little change other than NOW the state is picking up the tab for the new tests.

The common test for grades 3 and 8 will be recommended by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. But the 2023 Appropriations Act (p. 193) specifies that it must be a nationally standardized test, which disqualifies the NC End-of-Grade (EOG) and End-of-Course (EOC) tests. Although they are standardized tests, the EOGs and EOCs are specifically designed to assess goals and objectives of the NC Standard Course of Study, not a broad swath of national standards. Because they are only administered to students in North Carolina, they aren’t “nationally” standardized.

The national tests, often called “off the shelf” tests, are designed to appeal to as many states and districts as possible, so they measure standards common across states rather than one specific state. As a result, they may not align well with the North Carolina Standard Course of Study.

The EOG and EOC test administrations are required by federal and state law, so there is no option to replace them with a test that doesn’t specifically measure the North Carolina Standard Course of Study. However, as a condition of receiving voucher funds, the General Assembly could require the 4,000 or so voucher-receiving students in grades 3 and 8 to take the EOG tests instead of adding another test for the 220,000 public school students in grades 3 and 8.

In addition to affecting the testing burden of far fewer students, administering the EOG to private school students would be much cheaper than purchasing an “off the shelf” national test for hundreds of thousands of public school students.

Should public school students have to take another standardized test to assure lawmakers that private school students are learning? Should taxpayers have to foot the bill for hundreds of thousands of new tests instead of paying next to nothing for a few thousand EOG tests that are already developed and administered in North Carolina?

The legislative short session starts in April. This testing provision may be changed if enough people encourage their legislators to address it. Contact your legislators.

Read our fact sheet for more information on student testing in North Carolina.

Thomas Mills, a blogger in North Carolina, describes the hoax of “vouchers for all” in his state. Vouchers began as a way to offer new opportunity to poor kids. But since the General Assembly removed income caps on voucher families, vouchers have become a subsidy for rich kids who never attended public schools. The Republicans who passed universal vouchers knowingly and cynically turned them into a subsidy for the wealthy, a reverse Robin Hood scheme.

Mills writes:

This week, the North Carolina Opportunity Scholarship Program, also known as the voucher scheme, began accepting applications. House Speaker Tim Moore tweeted, “The expanded NC Opportunity Scholarship Program is now open for applications! In fact, the website was so inundated that it crashed at 12:15 am, shortly after going live. Thanks to the NC General Assembly, ALL families of K-12 students are now eligible to apply.”

When Moore says “ALL families,” he’s referring to wealthy families since the legislature eliminated the income cap for the vouchers. The site crashed because North Carolina has so many people already in private schools who now are eligible for state subsidized education. Rich folks who send their children to private schools are about to get a windfall while poor schools are going to lose funding. It’s Robin Hood in reverse.

The whole program is a scam, the epitome of a bait-and-switch. Republicans pushed through their voucher program as a way to level the playing field, offering poor families a way to send their children to private schools when public schools weren’t working for them. Now, they’re saying that families that don’t send their children to public schools shouldn’t have to pay for them. They have dropped any pretense of helping struggling families and moved straight to subsidizing rich people. According to Republicans, rich people have no community obligations.

Let’s be clear. The name “Opportunity Scholarship” is pure propaganda. There are two types of scholarships, need-based and merit-based. Giving vouchers to rich people just because they decide not to send their kids to public schools is a tax break, not a scholarship. And it’s a tax break designed for wealthy people at the expense of poor people.

Republicans are working hard to damage public schools. They fundamentally don’t believe in the responsibility of the state to provide a sound, basic education. They have cut per pupil spending, let teacher pay lag, and reduced support staff in schools. They’ve tried to dictate curriculum to indoctrinate students in a conservative philosophy, all while claiming public schools are brainwashing our kids with left wing ideas. They’ve left us with demoralized teachers and overworked staff and our children are paying the price.

Now, the state Supreme Court is about to get into the act, too. Thirty years ago, a group of students from North Carolina’s poor counties sued the state, claiming that their school systems lacked the funding to provide the quality of education that the state constitution demands. They won their suit and, since that time, the courts have reviewed funding to ensure that poor counties got the money they deserve.

However, with a new court dominated by far-right Republicans, the decision may be overturned. Chief Justice Paul Newby and his band of conservatives justices have not been shy about throwing out precedent, giving new meaning to an activist court. They will decide if the most recent allocation determined by the court will be rescinded. The GOP legislature contends that the court has no business telling the lawmakers how to spend tax dollars.

If the Republicans win, they will have essentially reinterpreted the constitution. Article 9, Section 2 of the constitution reads, “The General Assembly shall provide by taxation and otherwise for a general and uniform system of free public schools, which shall be maintained at least nine months in every year, and wherein equal opportunities shall be provided for all students.” Traditionally, the court has interpreted the “uniform system” of “equal opportunities” to mean the quality of education should be as good in poor counties as it is in rich ones. The GOP would render the clause either aspirational or maybe just a suggestion, despite the word “shall.”

The assault on public education in North Carolina is unprecedented and radical. Republicans aren’t just making cuts around the edges. They are changing the way we view public schools and our collective responsibilities. They are shifting resources and increasing the burden of financial responsibility on the poor while reducing the funds from the rich, just like they did with our tax system.

Ironically, the people who suffer the most are the people who make up the GOP base. Rural counties will watch their tax dollars go to wealthy families in urban and suburban areas while their public schools will suffer from increasing lack of revenue. Of course, Republican donors will almost certainly benefit. As they say, partisanship is a helluva drug.

Gary Rubinstein has been following the ups and downs of New York’s highest scoring charter school chain: Success Academy. Every year, the grades 3-8 test scores at the chain are through the roof. But Gary noticed that the high school students at Success Academy do not take Advsnced a regents exams as they do at the New York City’s highest performing high schools.

Gary examines this question:

Success Academy is a charter network with about 40 schools in the New York City area. They are known for their high standardized 3-8 test scores. Though it has been proved that their test scores are somewhat inflated by their practices of shedding their low performing students over the year and also by, at some schools, focusing exclusively on test prep in the months leading up to the tests, they still have these test scores to show their funders and the various charter school cheerleaders.

In June there was an article on the website of something called Albany Strategic Advisors, some kind of consulting firm about how well middle school students at Success Academy performed on four of the New York State Regents exams: Algebra I, Living Environment, Global History, and English. The last sentence of the second to last paragraph explains that these results are important because “Taking the exams in middle school allows students to take more advanced college preparatory courses in high school.”

These ‘more advanced college preparatory courses in high school’ include 10 other courses that have Regents exams including Geometry, Algebra II, Chemistry, Physics, US History, and Spanish. The minimum requirements for getting what is called ‘a Regents diploma’ in New York is one math Regents, one science Regents, one Social Studies Regents, and the English Regents. But to get an ‘Advanced Regents diploma’ you need all three maths and all three sciences and one foreign language Regents. Most competitive high school have their students take these other Regents which are known to be fairly straight forward tests with very generous curves.

About 8 years ago I noticed that there were no Regents scores for any of the other 10 exams in the Success Academy high school. Then 6 years ago I found that some of their students actually were taking some of the more difficult Regents but they were doing very poorly on them. And now, 6 years later, I checked up on them again to find that in the three Success Academy high schools which enroll a total of about 1,100 students from grades 9 to 12, they again do not have any scores for any of the Regents that are typically taken at competitive schools.

So why does this matter?

Well, Success Academy has spent eighteen years carefully cultivating their image. They want families to think that they have the highest expectations and that families should trust them to educate their children because those higher expectations will lead to those students learning the most. And we all know about their 3-8 state tests in Math and ELA. But it is pretty ‘odd’ that their students don’t take the more difficult Regents. The most likely reason for this is that Success Academy only wants information public that makes them look good and avoids any action that could reveal public data that reveals that they do not live up to their reputation. So I believe that they don’t allow their students to take the Regents because they believe that the scores on those Regents won’t be as impressive as their 3-8 state test scores compared to other schools. If I am right then this is an example of Success Academy choosing to preserve their inflated reputation over giving their students the opportunity to challenge themselves on these competitive exams.

Please open the link to finish the article. Nobody does this kind of close review better than Gary Rubinstein.

During the outset of the pandemic, when Americans were frightened and confused about how to protect themselves from the deadly virus, President Trump held a news conference where he added his non-scientific opinion as to what people should do to avoid catching the highly contagious COVID. Trump believed in his deep knowledge of science because, he once said, he had an uncle who taught at MIT.

The New York Times reported that Trump’s suggestion about how to avoid COVID caused a large public response, as well as warnings from public health agencies:

WASHINGTON — In Maryland, so many callers flooded a health hotline with questions that the state’s Emergency Management Agency had to issue a warning that “under no circumstances” should any disinfectant be taken to treat the coronavirus. In Washington State, officials urged people not to consume laundry detergent capsules. Across the country on Friday, health professionals sounded the alarm.

Injecting bleach or highly concentrated rubbing alcohol “causes massive organ damage and the blood cells in the body to basically burst,” Dr. Diane P. Calello, the medical director of the New Jersey Poison Information and Education System, said in an interview. “It can definitely be a fatal event.”

Even the makers of Clorox and Lysol pleaded with Americans not to inject or ingest their products.

The frantic reaction was prompted by President Trump’s suggestion on Thursday at a White House briefing that an “injection inside” the human body with a disinfectant like bleach or isopropyl alcohol could help combat the virus.

“And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute,” Mr. Trump said after a presentation from William N. Bryan, an acting under secretary for science at the Department of Homeland Security, detailed the virus’s possible susceptibility to bleach and alcohol.

“One minute,” the president said. “And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.”

Dr. Deborah L. Birx, the White House’s coronavirus response coordinator, was sitting to the side in the White House briefing room, blinking hard and looking at the floor as he spoke. Later, Mr. Trump asked her if she knew about “the heat and the light” as a potential cure.

“Not as a treatment,” Dr. Birx said, adding, “I haven’t seen heat or light —” before the president cut her off.

Mr. Trump’s remarks caused an immediate uproar, and the White House spent much of Friday trying to walk them back. Also Friday, the Food and Drug Administration warned that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, two drugs that the president has repeatedly recommended in treating the coronavirus, can cause dangerous abnormalities in heart rhythm in coronavirus patients and has resulted in some deaths.

Later, Trump insisted he was being sarcastic, not serious.

After Trump’s press conference, reports to poison control centers spiked.

Time magazine reported on a bulletin from the American Association of Poison Control Centers, which held that reports of poisoning from ingesting bleach and other disinfectants rose after Trump’s remarks.

The Hill reported a sharp increase in calls to poison control centers after Trump made his remarks.

The Michigan Poison Center reported an increase in calls to poison centers in at least five states after Trump’s remarks. The makers of Clorox and Lysol issued statements urging the public not to ingest their products.

The Harvard Business Review published an article asserting that we can never know for sure how many people drank bleach and how many died, because so many people who answer survey questions don’t understand the question or the answer.

The NIH concluded that no one died of ingesting bleach because 100% of those surveyed gave answers to the questions that were silly, mischievous, or ignorant. The author of the Harvard Business Review article was a contributing author to the NIH study.

Politico posted a reminiscence of the day that Trump recommended ingesting bleach exactly one year later, when he was no longer in office.

One year ago today, President Donald Trump took to the White House briefing room and encouraged his top health officials to study the injection of bleach into the human body as a means of fighting Covid. It was a watershed moment, soon to become iconic in the annals of presidential briefings. It arguably changed the course of political history.

Some ex-Trump aides say they don’t even think about that day as the wildest they experienced — with the conceit that there were simply too many others. But for those there, it was instantly shocking, even by Trump standards. It quickly came to symbolize the chaotic essence of his presidency and his handling of the pandemic. Twelve months later, with the pandemic still lingering and a U.S. death toll nearing 570,000, it still does.

“For me, it was the craziest and most surreal moment I had ever witnessed in a presidential press conference,” said ABC’s chief Washington correspondent Jon Karl, who was the first reporter at the briefing to question Trump’s musings about bleach.

For weeks, Trump had been giving winding, stream-of-consciousness updates on the state of the Covid fight as it clearly worsened. So when he got up from the Oval Office to brief reporters gathered in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room on April 23, there was no expectation that the day’s proceedings would be any different than usual.

Privately, however, some of his aides were worried. The Covid task force had met earlier that day — as usual, without Trump — to discuss the most recent findings, including the effects of light and humidity on how the virus spreads. Trump was briefed by a small group of aides. But it was clear to some aides that he hadn’t processed all the details before he left to speak to the press.

“A few of us actually tried to stop it in the West Wing hallway,” said one former senior Trump White House official. “I actually argued that President Trump wouldn’t have the time to absorb it and understand it. But I lost, and it went how it did.”

Trump started his press conference that day by doing something he’d come to loathe: pushing basic public safety measures. He called for the “voluntary use of face coverings” and said of his administration, “continued diligence is an essential part of our strategy.”

Quickly, however, came a hint at how loose the guardrails were that day. Trump introduced Bill Bryan, head of science and technology at the Department of Homeland Security. “He’s going to be talking about how the virus reacts in sunlight,” the president said. “Wait ‘til you hear the numbers.”

As Bryan spoke, charts were displayed behind him about surface temperatures and virus half-lives. He preached, rather presciently, for people to “move activities outside” and then detailed ongoing studies involving disinfectants. “We tested bleach,” he said at one point. “I can tell you that bleach will kill the virus in five minutes.”

Standing off to the side, Trump clasped his hands in front of his stomach, nodded and looked out into the room of gathered reporters. When Bryan was done, he strode slowly back to the lectern.

“A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world,” Trump began, clearly thinking the question himself, “So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that, too. It sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.”

Dr. Deborah Birx, Trump’s former coronavirus response coordinator, sat silently off to the side as the president made these suggestions to her. Later, she would tell ABC, “I didn’t know how to handle that episode,” adding, “I still think about it every day.”

Inside the Biden campaign, aides were shocked as well. They were working remotely at that juncture, communicating largely over Signal. But the import of what had happened became quickly evident to them.

“Even for him,” said one former Biden campaign aide, “this was stratospherically insane and dangerous. It cemented the case we had been making about his derelict covid response.”

In short order, the infamous bleach press conference became a literal rallying cry for Trump’s opponents, with Biden supporters dotting their yards with “He Won’t Put Bleach In You” signs. For Trump, it was a scourge. He would go on to insist that he was merely being sarcastic — a claim at odds with the excited curiosity he had posing those questions to Birx. His former team concedes that real damage was done.

“People joked about it inside the White House like, ‘Are you drinking bleach and injecting sunlight?’ People were mocking it and saying, ‘Oh let me go stand out in the sun, and I’ll be safe from Covid,” said one former administration official. “It honestly hurt. It was a credibility issue. … It was hurting us even from an international standpoint, the credibility at the White House.”

That Trump was even at the lectern that day was head-scratching for many. For weeks, he and his team had downplayed the severity of the Covid crisis even as the president privately acknowledged to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward that it had the potential to be catastrophic. But as it became clearer that the public was not buying the rosy assessments, Trump had decided to take his fate into his own hands — assembling the press on a daily basis to spin his way through the crisis.

He loved it. The former administration official said Trump was elated with the free airtime he was getting on television day after day. “He was asking how much money that was worth,” the aide recalled. The coverage was so ubiquitous that, at one point, Fox News’ Bret Baier attended the briefing and peppered the president with questions because his own show was being routinely interrupted.

The bleach episode changed all that.

Aides immediately understood what a public health quagmire Trump’s remarks had created. White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany insisted he was being taken out of context.

“President Trump has repeatedly said that Americans should consult with medical doctors regarding coronavirus treatment, a point that he emphasized again during yesterday’s briefing,” McEnany said in a statement issued the next day. “Leave it to the media to irresponsibly take President Trump out of context and run with negative headlines.”

His aides realized that it was not a good strategy for him to present medical advice to the public, but Trump loved the attention.

Yesterday I posted a story from the Los Angeles Daily News about a new charter policy that barred charter schools from co-locating in certain public schools.

The headline in the Daily News story, I learned from a well-informed source in L.A., was premature and thus inaccurate.

My informant wrote:

Hi, the headline of the Daily News story was inaccurate. The policy was not adopted. It could not have been adopted because the meeting was a committee meeting, not a board meeting where action items are approved. The policy will be adopted — probably mostly as written — but it hasn’t been adopted yet.

Steve Ruis has been wondering how many people died of COVID because they followed Trump’s advice? Early on in the pandemic, as people’s fears were high, Trump suggested two treatments to ward off the deadly virus: injecting yourself with bleach or taking a drug called hydroxychloroquine, which usually prescribed for malaria, rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.

He found a recent scientific study that estimated the number of people who took hydroxychloroquine and died, in five countries. Were they following Trump’s advice? Very likely. How would they have learned about this drug if he had not touted it?

We don’t know yet how many people injected bleach.

Ruis notes that Trump got the best medical treatment when he had COVID. It did not include bleach or hydroxychloroquine.

Peter Greene writes about the latest nonsense proposed by legislators in Iowa. These proposals are a solution in search of a problem. Students, teachers, and schools have genuine needs, like decaying buildings, underpaid teachers, and overcrowded classrooms. None will be solved by hiring unlicensed chaplains or singing the National Anthem.

He writes:

Some Iowa legislators want to offer public school students both chaplains and a daily dose of the “Star Spangled Banner.”

Chaplains

House Bill 2073 authorizes school districts to hire school chaplains while stipulating that the district shall not require the chaplain “to have a license, endorsement, certification, authorization or statement of recognition issued by the board of educational examiners.”

Supporters argue that it would provide additional mental health supports for students, or provide a religious support for students who were not able to attend a private religious school. Opponents argue it’s a violation of church-state separation, and a misapplication of the idea of a chaplain.

A similar bill passed in Texas last year, and over 100 Texas chaplains urged school districts not to take advantage of it. The chaplains pointed out that professional chaplains have “specific education and expertise,” including, typically a graduate theological degree and support from an organization connected to their religious tradition. Professional chaplains may also acquire two years of religious leadership experience.

Besides the problems that come with letting just anyone declare themselves a chaplain, the Texas chaplains also saw problems with placing a chaplain in a school setting:

Because of our training and experience, we know that chaplains are not a replacement for school counselors or safety measures in our public schools, and we urge you to reject this flawed policy option: It is harmful to our public schools and the students and families they serve.

Iowans should be able to predict exactly what comes next, considering the noisy controversy over the December display at the capital by the Satanic Temple as a display of what happens when you open the door to religious expression by the government.

Sure enough. The Satanic Temple has expressed its excitement for the “opportunities [the bill] presents for the Satanic Temple to support services and programs to school children in our state.” While one of the bill’s authors seems to have suggested that she had Christian ministers in mind, the bill as written would allow for any religion to be represented, and by any person who feels like representing it.

The National Anthem

House Bill 587 is simple enough. To promote patriotism, the bill adds this paragraph to the subject areas to be taught in grades 1 through 12:

The social studies curriculum shall include instruction related to the words and music of the national anthem, the meaning and history of the national anthem, the object and principles of the government of the United States, the sacrifices made by the founders of the United States, the important contributions made by all who have served in the armed forces of the United States since the founding, and how to love, honor, and respect the national anthem.

To make this happen, schools are instructed to have all classroom teachers lead students in at least one verse of the anthem every day. On specially designated “patriotic occasions,” they are required to sing all four verses. The local board may also require all four verses before certain school activities.

Students or teachers “shall not compelled” to sing over their objections, but all are required “to show full respect to the national anthem” by standing at attention, if physically able, “and maintaining a respectful silence.”

Private schools, even those accepting taxpayer-funded vouchers, are exempt from the proposed law.

Please open the link to finish the article.