Mediaboss Marketing

The Trump administration is still refusing to cooperate with the presidential transition.As the days tick down to Inauguration Day, could these delays across the government put America's safety at risk?President-elect Joe Biden says there's "no excuse not to share the data and let us begin to plan." He's escalating his language, calling the Trump administration's stonewalling on the transition a threat to the country and the COVID-19 vaccine rollout."It's going to put us behind the eight ball by a matter of a month or more," Biden said. "And that's lives. How many will be lost as a consequence of that? I can't tell you."There's evidence Biden is right.The 9-11 Commission did find grave impacts to national security the last time a presidential transition was delayed by weeks.In "The 9-11 Commission Report," a nationwide bestseller when it came out in 2004, the bipartisan commission found the 36-day delay until George W. Bush was declared the winner "hampered the new administration in identifying, recruiting, clearing and obtaining Senate confirmation of key appointees."It found future transitions should minimize "as much as possible the disruption of national security policymaking during the change of administrations by accelerating the process for national security appointments.""I just think it's totally irresponsible," Biden said.Evaluating senator's claim on the vaccineSen. Rand Paul made an eye-opening claim about the forthcoming COVID-19 vaccine.On Tuesday, the Republican from Kentucky wrote, "naturally acquired COVID-19" immunity is more effect than either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines pending Food and Drug Administration approval.But our partners at FactCheck.org say that is misleading and too soon to know.Their finding: "it's not known how immunity from the two sources compares and the entire point of a vaccine is to offer immunity without the risk of getting sick."Virologist Angela Rasmussen told FactCheck.org, "It's just really ridiculous to try to use the way that efficacy is calculated in clinical trials for vaccines and apply that to epi data across the entire population."

The Trump administration is still refusing to cooperate with the presidential transition.

As the days tick down to Inauguration Day, could these delays across the government put America's safety at risk?

President-elect Joe Biden says there's "no excuse not to share the data and let us begin to plan."

He's escalating his language, calling the Trump administration's stonewalling on the transition a threat to the country and the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

"It's going to put us behind the eight ball by a matter of a month or more," Biden said. "And that's lives. How many will be lost as a consequence of that? I can't tell you."

There's evidence Biden is right.

The 9-11 Commission did find grave impacts to national security the last time a presidential transition was delayed by weeks.

In "The 9-11 Commission Report," a nationwide bestseller when it came out in 2004, the bipartisan commission found the 36-day delay until George W. Bush was declared the winner "hampered the new administration in identifying, recruiting, clearing and obtaining Senate confirmation of key appointees."

It found future transitions should minimize "as much as possible the disruption of national security policymaking during the change of administrations by accelerating the process for national security appointments."

"I just think it's totally irresponsible," Biden said.

Sen. Rand Paul made an eye-opening claim about the forthcoming COVID-19 vaccine.

On Tuesday, the Republican from Kentucky wrote, "naturally acquired COVID-19" immunity is more effect than either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines pending Food and Drug Administration approval.

But our partners at FactCheck.org say that is misleading and too soon to know.

Their finding: "it's not known how immunity from the two sources compares and the entire point of a vaccine is to offer immunity without the risk of getting sick."

Virologist Angela Rasmussen told FactCheck.org, "It's just really ridiculous to try to use the way that efficacy is calculated in clinical trials for vaccines and apply that to epi[demiologic] data across the entire population."

The rest is here:
Get the facts on President-elect Biden's claim about administration stonewalling jeopardizing lives - WXII The Triad

(Reuters) - Senator Rick Scott became the six member of the U.S. Congress to announce a positive coronavirus test just this week, as the illness rages across the United States. At least 21 Republican and 11 Democratic members of Congress have tested positive, or were presumed to have had COVID-19, this year.

Here is a look at lawmakers affected by the virus:

SENATOR RICK SCOTT

Scott, 67, had been quarantining after being exposed to the virus before he announced on Thursday that he had tested positive after several negative tests.

"I am feeling good and experiencing very mild symptoms," the Republican said in a statement, adding that he would be working from his home in Naples, Florida, until it was safe to return to Washington.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN NEWHOUSE

"I began to feel a little run-down yesterday, so I took a COVID-19 test," Newhouse, 65, a Republican from Washington, wrote Wednesday on Twitter.

"Last night, the results came back positive for the virus," he wrote. Newhouse said his symptoms were mild, and he was quarantining and working from home.

REPRESENTATIVE EARL PERLMUTTER

Perlmutter, a Democrat from Colorado, announced Tuesday he had tested positive for the coronavirus but was asymptomatic. He said he would isolate in his apartment in Washington, while voting remotely in the House of Representatives.

"As we enter the holiday season, I encourage everyone to continue to heed the warnings of no personal gatherings, social distancing and wearing a mask," Perlmutter, 67, said in a statement.

SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY

Grassley, 87, Republican chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said on Tuesday he had tested positive. "While I still feel fine, the test came back positive for the coronavirus," he said in a statement.

As the Senate's President Pro Tempore, Grassley, of Iowa, is third in line for the presidency, after the vice president and House speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE CHERI BUSTOS

Bustos, outgoing chairwoman of the Democrats' campaign arm in the House, said on Twitter Monday she had tested positive. "I am experiencing mild symptoms but still feel well," she said.

Bustos, 59, was self-isolating and had notified all individuals with whom she had had contact. She said she would work from home in Illinois until cleared by her physician.

Last week, Bustos said she would not seek a second term as chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee after House Democrats lost seats, but maintained their majority, in the Nov. 3 election.

REPRESENTATIVE TIM WALBERG

Walberg said on Monday he had tested positive for the coronavirus.

In a statement, the 69-year-old Michigan Republican said he had mild symptoms and was in good spirits. He said it has been more than a week since he attended a public event, was tracing his contacts and would work from home until he recovers.

REPRESENTATIVE DON YOUNG

The longest-serving Republican in Congress, Young, 87, said Nov. 12 he had been infected. He was admitted to the hospital over the weekend, but has been discharged and is working and recovering at home, Young wrote on Twitter on Monday.

"I want Alaskans to know that their Congressman is alive, feeling better, and on the road to recovery," Young - who had ridiculed coronavirus as the "beer virus" - said. "Very frankly, I had not felt this sick in a very long time, and I am grateful to everyone who has kept me in their thoughts and prayers."

This is a list of members of Congress who tested positive, or were presumed to be positive, before this month:

Representative Drew Ferguson, 45, a Georgia Republican.

Representative Bill Huizenga, 51, a Michigan Republican.

Representative Mike Bost, 59, a Republican from Illinois.

Representative Salud Carbajal, 56, a California Democrat.

Senator Ron Johnson, 65, Republican of Wisconsin.

Senator Mike Lee, 49, Republican of Utah.

Senator Thom Tillis, 60, Republican from North Carolina.

Representative Jahana Hayes, 47, a Connecticut Democrat.

Senator Bill Cassidy, 63, a Louisiana Republican.

Representative Rodney Davis, 50, Republican of Illinois.

Representative Dan Meuser, 45, a Pennsylvania Republican.

Representative Raul Grijalva, 72, an Arizona Democrat.

Representative Louie Gohmert, 67, Republican of Texas.

Representative Morgan Griffith, 62, a Virginia Republican.

Representative Tom Rice, 63, a South Carolina Republican.

Senator Tim Kaine, 62, a Virginia Democrat.

Senator Bob Casey, 60, a Pennsylvania Democrat.

Representative Neal Dunn, 67, a Florida Republican.

Representative Joe Cunningham, 38, a South Carolina Democrat.

Representative Mike Kelly, 72, a Pennsylvania Republican.

Senator Rand Paul, 57, a Kentucky Republican.

Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, 59, a Florida Republican.

Representative Ben McAdams, 45, a Utah Democrat.

Representative Nydia Velazquez, 67, a New York Democrat.

Representative Seth Moulton, 42, a Massachusetts Democrat.

(Compiled by Susan Cornwell and Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Jonathan Oatism Stephen Coates, Grant McCool and Dan Grebler)

Excerpt from:
Sen. Rick Scott 6th U.S. Congress member this week with positive coronavirus test - WTVB News

There's a parlor trick that libertarians who interact with Capitol Hill sometimes play among themselves, and it usually goes something like this:

Besides the usual suspectsusually understood to be Reps. Justin Amash (LMich.) and Thomas Massie (RKy.) and Sens. Rand Paul (RKy.) and Mike Lee (RUtah)are there any good ones left?

"Let me give you a name of somebody who's come to Congress and really surprised us," Massie told me two years ago. "Andy Biggs from Arizona. If you see two No's on a bill; it's 428 to 2, the two No's will be most often me and Justin Amash. If you see three, it's now Andy Biggs. He's doing it on a constitutional basis. He recognizes when the Republicans are voting for bigger government, and he doesn't fall for it."

Biggs, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, has a 100 percent rating from the limited-government outfit FreedomWorks. He's a reliable vote against federal spending increases, against warrantless surveillance, and in favor of bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. He recently became the first GOP member of Congress to support declaring a formal end to the Korean War.

So how is Biggs taking President-elect Joe Biden's victory? By calling Republicans who acknowledge it "Neville Chamberlain's" (sic) who keep "feeding the totalitarian monster, hoping to be eaten last." Such florid language was not an outlier. Here's the top of Biggs's post-election piece for Townhall:

The fierce beast of the Left, the omnivorous viper of the Democrats, has been let loose. Every tyrant needs quislings. Unfortunately, there are appeasers even among Republicans. The 'useful idiots' of the Left are being eaten already; the appeasers will be next.

Those who demand grace from Trump supporters as we watch the nation stolen from us, deny the peril from a ravenous beast that will consume our freedoms and chain the American people.

The passage of days, and the repeated disintegration of the president's conspiracy theories upon contact with the legal system, did nothing to dull Biggs's Trumpian fervor. "This election is a joke," he declared in a video with Rep. Paul Gosar (RAriz.). Watch:

"FACT CHECK: Reps. Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar still touting baseless election-fraud claims," went the Arizona Republic headline (and please do click on the links therein before pre-emptively waving that conclusion away).

In a Washington Times piece Monday, Biggs made the improbable assertion that, "The foundation for the future that Mr.Trumplaid appears to be so strong that the only way to defeat it is to lay waste to any vestige of Americanism and our institutions. And that includes resorting to cheating to try and disenfranchise more than 70 million voters."

Hyperbolic overselling of my-team Potency and their-team Evil is of course not uncommon in politics, even if it's a bit amusing coming from someone fond of using "Derangement Syndrome" as an insult. But Biggs's post-election performance can be read as a cautionary tale about the limits of what might be called "Libertarian Populism" within a Trumpified GOP.

Faced with a crude, big-government nationalist, some office-holding libertarian-leaners of a more temperate dispositionnamely, Amash and former Sen. Jeff Flakechose exit rather than continuing to lose arguments within and face voter hostility from without. Those who remainedMassie, Paul, Biggstend to derive visceral enjoyment from slinging the political bull and coloring outside the lines.

Paul and Massie are considerably more likely to ape Trump's language and selectively amplify his complaints about the Deep State, Fake News Media, and Swamp. And the House Freedom Caucusco-founded by Amash!has long since abandoned its original purpose as a check on executive power in favor of running Trump-protection, even to the distraction of holding the line on spending.

To the extent that there will be any libertarian values in a post-Trump GOP, they will be transmitted via Twitter-firehose from populists like Biggs: anti-war and anti-mask ("Seeing Fauci & Birx at the White House podium yet again brings back months of memories of their work to destroy American freedom and our society as we knew it," he tweeted this week), pro-border wall and pro-Section 230-rewrite.

The congressman's career arc in the age of Trump has drawn some negative reviews. "The descent of U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs into becoming just another partisan brawler has been painful, and disappointing, to watch," concluded Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb. "Biggs has the talent, and had the opportunity, to be more than that." More from Robb:

As president of the Arizona Senate, Biggs was themost influential state legislator since Burton Barr, the House majority leader for two decades, from 1966 to 1986.

In Congress, he became apublic thought leader for conservatives.His commentary was forceful and sometimes biting. But it had some intellectual depth and focused mostly on substantive policy issues. It was generally more ideological than partisan, serving as much to influence the Republican position as to skewer the Democrats.

But: "With the defeat of Trump in the presidential election, Biggs has gone around the bend."

Biggs, obviously, has a different interpretation: that Trumpism is just getting started, bay-bee. From his Washington Times column:

While the left-wing media apparatus is giddy because to them the election looks like a smackdown of Mr.Trump, they are missing the fact that the president has remodeled the Republican Party and built an infrastructure that can be quite enduring. In fact, it is ironic that the Trump Party is emerging as the most potent force in American politics. It overcame seemingly endless amounts of money for its opponents, a cacophony of hateful media coverage and censorship of its message, and ultimately, what appears to be systemic cheating.

I wish Biggs all the success in the world in persuading the GOP to be more anti-war, anti-surveillance, and anti-spending. And I hope those values are not discredited by their association with partisan conspiracy-mongering.

Continue reading here:
'This Election Is a Joke,' Insists Libertarian-Leaning Congressman Andy Biggs - Reason

By Clark Kauffman| Iowa Capitol Dispatch

Tyson Foods CEO announced Thursday he has hired former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to lead an independent investigation into a lawsuits claims that managers at one of the companys Iowa plants placed bets on the number of workers who would contract COVID-19.

The claims of a betting pool at the food giants Waterloo, Iowa, plant,first reported by Iowa Capital Dispatch, are just one set of allegations Tyson is facing in lawsuits across the country.

In Iowa alone, at least three coronavirus-related cases, involving a total of five plaintiffs, are pending in state and federal court. Other COVID-19 lawsuits, filed on behalf of dozens of workers, are pending in Texas courts.

In response to the latest allegations involving a betting pool among managers at the companys Waterloo plant, Tyson Foods president and chief executive officer, Dean Banks, said Thursday in a written statement:

We are extremely upset about the accusations involving some of the leadership at our Waterloo plant. Tyson Foods is a family company with 139,000 team members and these allegations do not represent who we are, or our core values and team behaviors. We expect every team member at Tyson Foods to operate with the utmost integrity and care in everything we do.

We have suspended, without pay, the individuals allegedly involved and have retained the law firm Covington & Burling LLP to conduct an independent investigation led by former Attorney General Eric Holder. If these claims are confirmed, well take all measures necessary to root out and remove this disturbing behavior from our company.

Our top priority is and remains the health and safety of our team members.

Marc Perrone, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International labor union, which represents many of the workers in the Waterloo plant, also issued a statement on Thursday:

Americas meatpacking workers are dying on the frontlines of this pandemic, putting themselves in harms way to ensure our families can put food on the table this Thanksgiving, Perrone said. This shocking report of supervisors allegedly taking bets on how many workers would get infected, pressuring sick workers to stay on the job, and failing to enforce basic safety standards, should outrage every American.

Perrone said the allegations are evidence that the Trump administration and Iowa Gov. Reynolds care more about industry profits than protecting Americas frontline workers … We are continuing to call on elected leaders to implement an enforceable national safety standard, increased access to PPE and COVID-19 testing, and rigorous proactive inspections.

More than 1,000 Tyson employees at the Waterloo plant a third of the facilitys workforce have contracted the virus since the beginning of the pandemic and at least five of the workers have died.

Nationally, at least 4,600 Tyson employees in 15 states have been infected with COVID-19, and at least 18 have died. According to theMidwest Center for Investigative Reporting, there have been at least 42,000 infections tied to meatpacking facilities in at least 470 plants in 40 states, and at least 215 deaths are associated with 51 plants in 27 states.

Tyson Foods hasseveral facilities in Missouri. In June, the company reported that 371 employees at its chicken processing plant in thefar southwestern corner of Missouri had tested positive for COVID-19.

The Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting has found 1,146 COVID-19 cases tied to meatpacking plants in Missouri, along with four deaths. However, they note that those numbers reflect what has been publicly reported; there might be more that have not been publicly identified.

In Texas, at least three lawsuits have been filed against Tyson one by a group of 12 employees at the companys plaint in Center, Texas, one by 41 employees of Tysons Amarillo plant, and one by the family of a deceased Tyson employee.

In one of the Texas cases, employees allege that Tyson Foods forced workers at one plant to continue to show up during the COVID-19 outbreak at a time when Gov. Greg Abbotts stay-at-home order was in effect. The lawsuit also alleges that the company did not give workers proper personal protective equipment and did not provide employees with workers compensation insurance.

The lawsuit claims that in lieu of workers comp, Tyson implemented its own Workplace Injury Settlement Program wherein Tyson had employees sign liability releases before they could claim any benefits for on-the-job injuries. In many cases, the lawsuit alleges, Tyson had employees sign away their right to sue, and then either denied the workers benefits or paid out very smalls sums of money.

A common element of the lawsuits is the allegation that Tyson had plenty of advance notice as to the impact the virus was likely to have on its workforce in Iowa and other states.

The plaintiffs note that Tyson Foods has extensive business interests in China, with one of the companys subsidiaries operating a facility in Hubei province. In January 2020, the companyformed a corporate coronavirus task forceafter observing the impact the virus had on its operations in China.

On Jan. 11, Chinese state media reported its first known death from COVID-19, and by February, Tyson had allegedly halted operations at some of its facilities in China and scaled back operations in others.

On March 8,three COVID-19 cases were reported in Iowa, and four days later Tyson Foods barred all non-essential visitors from entering Tyson offices and facilities and mandated that all non-critical employees at its corporate offices work remotely.

On April 6,Tyson temporarily suspended operationsat its Columbus Junction, Iowa, plant after more than two dozen employees tested positive for the virus. Despite that, employees of Packers Sanitation Services Incorporated allegedly moved back-and-forth between the Columbus Junction and Waterloo plants, working at both facilities without being quarantined and without being tested for COVID-19.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued general guidance on preparing workplaces for the virus was early as March 9. But it wasnt until April 26 that the agencies published additional guidelines that were specific to meat and poultry processing plants.

By that time, state lawmakers in Iowa had already filed an OSHA complaint against Tyson Foods in response to workers claiming they did not have sufficient personal protective equipment; social distancing measures were not being implemented or enforced; and nurses at the Waterloo Facility were unable to accurately conduct temperature checks.

On April 20, Iowas OSHA office inspected the Waterloo plant and later reported it hadfound no regulatory violations.The plant closed two days later and reopened in May with new safety measures in place.

The federal OSHA office, meanwhile, offered tosupport meatpackers in any litigationbrought by workers or their families due to workplace exposure to the virus, assuming the companies made a good faith effort to comply with voluntary mitigation guidelines.

Public Citizen, a nonprofit advocacy group, has argued that state and federal efforts to provide legal immunity to businesses that demonstrate an effort to comply with federal guidelines could cripple the ability for workers and tehri families to sue, even in cases of gross negligence. The organization notes that guidelines from the CDC are just that suggested guidelines, not mandatory regulations, which means that compliance is discretionary and businesses need to show only that they considered following the suggested measures.

Where regulatory standards give near-total discretion to businesses, as is the case with the CDC guidelines, a compliance defense amounts to immunity even when the entities do almost nothing, Public Citizen reported in inan August reporton mitigation compliance.

This was originally published on Missouri Independent.

Go here to read the rest:
Tyson hires former AG Eric Holder to investigate claims of betting on worker COVID infections - Columbia Daily Tribune

As President-Elect Joe Biden assembles a Cabinet, one of his most consequential decisions will be to choose the man or woman who will serve as the nations 85th attorney general. The eventual nominee will bear the heavy burden of restoring public confidence in the Department of Justice (DOJ), an institution whose most basic guiding norms have been upended, and whose dedicated but beleaguered career public servants have been subject to repeated attacks from the outgoing president and Attorney General Bill Barr.

Biden will choose from a pool of many qualified individuals. But, in our view, the key credentials of the next AG should be significant prosecutorial experience at the federal or state level and an abiding fidelity to the apolitical administration of justice, even if doing so results in outcomes that do not politically benefit the new administration. Such a choice would go a long way toward reassuring the public and rank-and-file DOJ attorneys and law enforcement agents that the incoming leadership understands that the Departments mission is to pursue impartial justice, guided by evidence and law, free from partisan considerations.

There may be no agency head more central to the effective functioning of American democracy than the attorney general. As the nations chief law enforcement officer, the AG must make real the constitutional promises of equal protection and due process under law. Once the AG emerges from the political process of presidential appointment and Senate confirmation, he or she must abstain completely from partisanship. The DOJs Justice Manual spells this out clearly: The rule of law depends upon the evenhanded administration of justice. The legal judgments of the Department of Justice must be impartial and insulated from political influence.

Every day the attorney general is confronted with decisions testing his or her commitment to this ideal. Robert Jackson, who held the position before his appointment to the Supreme Court, once observed:

The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations. Or the prosecutor may choose a more subtle course and simply have a citizens friends interviewed.

Any hint that political considerations influenced a prosecutorial decision undermines public confidence in the even-handed administration of justice.

Because the role of the attorney general is so sensitive, the positon should be filled by individuals who need no on-the-job training. Both of the Senate-confirmed attorneys general who served during the Obama administration Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch had served as career federal prosecutors for significant periods in their careers. Both came up through the ranks and understood what it means to work in the trenches. Both possessed the knowledge, skills, and experience needed to win the confidence of the thousands of career public servants who carry out the day-to-day work of the Department. And both understood their roles as stewards of the Departments core value of fair and impartial administration of justice free from partisan political considerations. [Full disclosure: Ronald Weich, one of the authors of this piece, led a team assisting Holder through the Senate confirmation process and co-author Edgar Chen was part of the DOJ Legislative Affairs team handling Lynchs confirmation.]

The core value of nonpartisan justice has been sorely tested in recent years. The outgoing attorney general argued recently that career prosecutors could not be entrusted with difficult decisions and that political control over law enforcement was necessary and desirable. Meanwhile, Trump himself famously lamented, Wheres my Roy Cohn? in seeking an attorney general whose first priority would be to serve as fixer and personal lawyer for the president. Paradoxically, Trump held a misguided admiration for the relationship between Holder and President Barack Obama, erroneously viewing it as one of personal fealty and believing that protection of the president was the principal criteria for leading the DOJ: I will say this: Holder Protected President Obama. Totally protected him. Holder protected the president. And I have great respect for that, Ill be honest. This statement revealed the presidents deeply flawed and sub-elementary grasp of concepts such as rule of law. Holder got the last word: I had a president I did not have to protect.

While Holder was indeed a trusted adviser to Obama, that role was separate from his duties as attorney general. Holder, who had come up through the Department as a career public corruption prosecutor and later served as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and deputy attorney general, took great pains to ensure that law enforcement decisions were strictly insulated from White House participation. In fact, there are several notable instances when Holder acted in a manner that did not favor Obamas or the Democratic Partys political interests.

Those events include:

In all these cases, decisions by the attorneys general (and we use the plural here to include Sessions correct recusal) were based on ethics rules; respect for the non-partisan, apolitical work of career investigators, prosecutors, and professional responsibility officials; and the willingness to buck political affinity in order to adhere to established principles, and in the case of the Stevens prosecution, overturning the decisions of career prosecutors only because clear and blatant ethics or judicial violations were unambiguously documented.

In recent days, career prosecutors have demonstrated their commitment to the apolitical administration of justice. When Attorney General Barr took theunprecedented step of authorizing federal prosecutorsto pursue substantial allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities prior to the certificationof elections, contrary to longstanding DOJ policy, the Director of the Departments Elections Crimes Branch resigned in protest and at least 16 career federal prosecutors assigned to monitor electionsoffered a public rebuke of Barrs action, arguing the need to avoid speculation that it was motivated by partisan political concerns. These career civil servants placed principle over partisanship, even at great risk to their livelihoods. Whomever Biden selects as AG must share their determination to do the right thing, even at the risk of offending the occupant of the White House.

The Department of Justice is the only federal agency named after an ideal. The next attorney general should remain true to that ideal and follow in the examples described above by previous attorneys general and career prosecutors who have risked their positions and indeed careers to do what is right, in order to preserve the constitutional principles upon which justice in this nation is predicated.

See the article here:
The Next Attorney General's Allegiance Must Be to the Rule of Law - Just Security