• The latest summaries in reverse chronological order.
• To see the earlier reviews, please click on Summaries Database in the Menu the left.

During the course of the COVID epidemic as the vaccine developed and treatments dramatically improved serious illness incidence and deaths diminished and we started seeing symptoms that persisted long after it appeared the infection was over. As it seemed the primary cause of death was encephalitis, it seemed likely COVID infected the brain, or caused a reaction in the brain that caused such lingering symptoms. MRI's showed brain inflammation which supported this. There were several such reported lingering symptoms including fatigue, "brain fog" (difficulty to think clearly or concentrate), dizziness and others. It was necessary to standardize the evaluations in this situation to enable it to be diagnosed and studied. It was initially estimated that 16% of COVID patients developed Long COVID, and that in about half the cases it still persists. Data then showed it as primarily a disease of middle age, age 35 to 49, but also relatively common age 50 to 64. In the 64 plus group this should be read with caution since it's a diagnosis of exclusion, and there are other causes of cognitive dysfunction here that confound such data. During the course of the epidemic, though treatment and prevention improved, the proportion of cases that developed Long COVID remained the same. In terms of total cases Long COVID is significantly more prevalent than all other causes of cognitive dysfunction such as Alzheimer's, Epilepsy, Parkinson's, ALS, etc. Since it was first reported it now appears the incidence of Long COVID in infected children is similar to those of adults.

A post COVID recovery program evaluation was begun at Rutgers. In this selected group about ? reported their memories were worse after COVID infection. Most of these had objective cognitive abnormalities on simple testing, not associated with depression. There were also MRI changes suggestive of Encephalitis. More detailed assessment of these cases did not suggest Alzheimer's.

Dr. Wu studied cells and DNA genes in the CSF of Long COVID patients and identified particular patterns that were present in Long COVID and not other CNS conditions. These findings strongly suggested continued brain infection rather than recovery associated inflammation. The findings were not typical of other conditions such as Alzheimer's, and certainly not of depression or other explanations other than infection. So far we don't have long term follow up, but those with pre-existing brain conditions or who are immune compromised who develop Long COVID are less likely to recover in two years of observation. Based on this work by Dr. Wu, a test was developed to help identify Long COVID. This test requires a lab capable of identifying material identified by Dr. Wu, which is not available in medical testing labs.

Comparing recovery to continued symptoms, shows that recovery is associated with activation of a second immunological line of defense - certain types of T cells, triggered by the first line - or macrophages. Those who do not recover seem to lack such triggering communication and T cell activation.

Since Long COVID seems to be associated with continued infection there is a possibility of a treatment for this. There is a potential drug, but it missed the Emergency Authorization period and needs full FDA testing for approval, and the company went bankrupt - the drug is now in limbo. Dr. Wu plans to arrange for a way to pursue this.

Patients with Alzheimer's have some changes similar to Long COVID. It's possible there is overlap (both conditions occurring simultaneously). Another open question is whether Long COVID increases the possibility of future dementia risk.

©2025 Randy Krakauer

Our speaker on June 5 was Ross Baker, Distinguished Professor (Emeritus), Political Science Department at Rutgers. He discussed the Founders of the USA, including the Federalists Washington, Hamilton and Madison. They wrote and supported the Federalist Papers, which urged the adoption of the Constitution. They were opposed by the anti-Federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson, who argued that a robust central government would grow at the expense of the states. Both sides agreed that "civic virtue" was essential and that it was necessary to have a virtuous people in order to have a virtuous government. The anti-Federalists, however, were concerned that the separation of powers and checks and balances would not be sufficiently robust to resist tyrants. They believed that once liberty was secured, the temptations of private life and the withdrawal from public life would take precedence over good citizenship. Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, wanted to enlarge the power of the new federal government with a vigorous presidency. Madison then formed an alliance with Jefferson to thwart Hamilton's design.

In 1830, French diplomat and political philosopher, Alexis de Tocqueville, came to the USA. He worried about maintaining the engagement of citizens in the destiny of the country. He felt, nonetheless, that Americans were willing to sacrifice a portion of their time and property for the greater welfare of the State. He believed in the civic integrity of America. Ironically, de Tocqueville arrived here during the presidency of our 7th president, Andrew Jackson. None of the first 6 presidencies was tarnished by public corruption. It was Jackson who developed the "Spoils System", as in "To the victor go the spoils." He took federal jobs out of the hands of the well-educated and delivered them to the hands of Democratic politicians, who doled them out solely on the basis of party loyalty. Public office was no longer a public trust.

An earlier decision by the Supreme Court, known as The Dartmouth College Case, prevented the State of New Hampshire from invalidating Dartmouth's charter granted by King George III. New Hampshire wanted to make Dartmouth a state college. The Court held that the college was protected from governmental interference. As a result there was "a torrent" of newly formed corporations to shield entities from governmental meddling.

After the Civil War, governmental corruption converged with shady corporations. There was no "civic virtue", as envisioned by our founders. There was a decline of civic rectitude and a rise of unprincipled politicians. Among the historical examples furnished by Professor Baker, was the collusion by the Internal Revenue Service. They took payoffs from the entities which they taxed. The Federal Government sold public offices to the highest bidders. This was the logical outgrowth of President Jackson's "Spoils System."

In 1881, President Garfield was assassinated, after he had signed a statute known as the Civil Service Act, which required merit, passing tests and other qualification for Federal jobs. The assassin was a disgruntled office seeker, who had been denied a government appointment. The rise of progressive parties and Teddy Roosevelt's antitrust campaign caused corporations to retreat from their close relations with the public sector. By the 1920's, however, the corruptors were back in business. Professor Baker took us from the Teapot Dome Scandal in 1921-1923, dealing with oil leases in Wyoming, through the current administration. Influence peddling involved the use of one's official position to induce governmental actions in return for "gratuities". By the 1950's and 1960s, campaign finance was a major part of the moral slippage in American politics.

Arguably, the Supreme Court made things worse. It ruled that political campaign contributions were a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. That case led to Citizens United and another case allowing an individual to make unlimited contributions to political candidates. After giving examples of corruption under Clinton and George W. Bush, Professor Baker said that we are now in an ethical free-fall zone. President Trump "seems to be feathering his own nest." Reference was made to the $400 million airplane given by the Sultan of Qatar to Trump, which eventually will repose in the Trump library. While some of us fear that we are headed toward dictatorship under Trump, that is not Professor Baker's fear. Madison's checks and balances and separation of powers will avert a dictatorship. The professor's greater concern is that 8 years of a Trump administration will witness the complete extinction of civic virtue. We will be left with a morally degraded citizenry, inured to corruption, oblivious to conflicts of interest, nepotism and self-dealing, beguiled by pompous displays, accepting specious reasoning, tolerant of falsehoods and morally distant from public spirit without which no government of free people can survive.

©2025 Bert Busch

Dr. Noah Goldman is a Gynecologic Oncologist and the director of the Princeton Cancer Center currently in development. He spoke on gynecologic cancer and the new cancer center.

He began with a review of GYN cancer, accounting for about 15% of all cancers. He discussed Cervical Cancer, Ovarian Cancer, Uterine Cancer, and Vulval and Vaginal Cancers. He discussed the conditions themselves, risk factors, their prevalence and symptoms, their treatments, current informative statistics and important recent advances. For details - the lecture itself is available on line.

He described new forms of effective immunotherapy including CAR T-cells, currently provided through the Abramson Cancer Center in Philadelphia that should be available in Princeton in the next 2-3 years.

Programs in Princeton that he described include the Geriatric Oncology Program which impacts personalized patient care for the older population in particular, minimally invasive surgery that has simplified and shortened recovery, improvements in surgery preparation and processing which have improved patient comfort, enhanced recovery techniques, reconstructive and fertility preserving surgery and other techniques (such as egg freezing).

He described the facilities, personnel and plans for Oncology at Princeton Medical Center, including a close relationship with the University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center for sharing of programs and patients needing services not currently available at Princeton.

All patients have an individual case manager contact to provide advice, support, and access to appropriate professionals and services including psychological professionals via visit and/or telehealth - made possible by a generous grant. There are also support services for patients and family and survivor support services by social workers, psychologists and others.

The population of central New Jersey is getting older, and has a higher cancer rate than the rest of the state. The purpose of the new Princeton Cancer Center is to bring state of the art cancer expertise and treatment to our region to obviate the need to travel to receive such treatment, including travel for urgent treatment-related issues. Dr. Goldman is recruiting additional oncologists with expertise and experience to provide the latest in diagnosis, treatment, and research. The center will include a cafe, a meditation area, valet parking - all elements of the best possible “cancer journey” experience.

The building will include space for all elements of this journey, including all the subspecialties - medical and surgical. Some specialized procedures - such as bone marrow transplants - will remain in Philadelphia due to procedure volume requirements.

There is already a large, well-respected Palliative Medicine group - both inpatient and outpatient - with experience to do this as outpatient whenever possible.

Integrative medicine capabilities that help patients will be available such as wig fitting (and hair cutting), prosthesis fitting, aromatherapy, etc., all under one roof.

The buildings will include the cancer center building, and a radiology center with separate entrances. The radiology center will include a breast imaging center. The new parking garage is almost complete now. The cancer center building will be ready in May of 2028.

The work of the center will be coordinated with the Abramson Cancer Center in Philadelphia for joint management or occasional transfer, for the few patients who require this.

©2025 Randy Krakauer

On May 1, 2025, our speaker was Ambassador Adela Raz. She is the last ambassador from the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to the United States as well as having been the first female ambassador and permanent representative of Afghanistan to the United Nations. She had been her country's deputy foreign minister was the vice president of the 75th session of the General Assembly and was also appointed by the president of the UN's General Assembly to serve as the coordinator for COVID-19 related activities.

Afghanistan has a long history and rich culture but has faced many years of conflict and political problems. These issues have vastly affected the lives of its people, especially women and girls. Under the Taliban's rule, women and girls have faced many restrictions, such as not being allowed to go to school or work and having to follow strict dress codes.

Afghan women continue to show strength and determination despite these difficulties by fighting for their rights and finding ways to help their communities. The international community has been important in helping Afghan women and girls by creating programs to improve their education, healthcare, and job opportunities. However, security challenges and political uncertainty remain persistent.

Hence, the international community needs to continue supporting Afghan women and girls to ensure their rights are protected and that they can fully participate in the social, economic, and political affairs of their country. Her talk addressed five questions about why democracy failed in Afghanistan, and what went wrong.

• What does it take for Democracy to take Hold after decades of conflict
• Is it possible to build Democracy from the outside? If so, How? If not, Why not?
• When is promoting women's rights seen as empowerment, and when does it risk being seen as an imposition?
• What is most important for Democracy -- strong institutions or strong citizen engagement?
• Can a Democracy survive without trust? Why and Why Not?

Recently Adela Raz wrote an essay "Why Democracy Failed in Afghanistan," one of the 11 essays published in the book Democracy: eleven writers and leaders on what it is--and why it matters; all 11 essayists are women. The essays were written just before 2024, the year when there were elections in so many countries worldwide.

Please check the recording of Amb. Adela Raz's on our website for more information about the book and to hear the full talk and Q&A.

She offered insight on many issues about the challenges they faced trying to build a democracy in-between the Taliban regimes as well as ideas on how to improve things if they get another chance. She also provided a wide variety of insights on Afghanistan and particularly her experiences both growing up and professionally.

©2025 Jim Thursby

Marna Seltzer began with some history. She grew up in Princeton, attended Princeton, and though she planned to become a professional musician she found her best talent and opportunity as director of Princeton University Concerts, in the ability to reach out to people and the community through the power of music, expanding the opportunity to use music to be life changing for people.

She opened by playing a recording of Hayden's first string quartet to demonstrate how music can express feeling and can pierce the heart directly.

She described some history of Princeton University Concerts starting in 1894, and how it engendered wide community support. The organization has a long history, including the introduction of new artists who later became famous. She described their events as "a big hug."

Some discussion of chamber music followed. She sees this as music with particular intimacy and closeness. There is no conductor - the musicians are in direct contact with the people.

Today PUC continues with what she describes as intimate contact. Quartets continue, but PUC also presents concerts, parts of opera and other forms with nationally recognized programming. The focus is on communal experience.

PUC has 29 events this season. Some special features include music and healing, music and meditation, and others. There are also opportunities to join performers on stage for more intimate connections. There are concerts for children and parents. A goal is integration into the Princeton community. They also make concerts accessible to the disadvantaged, including special pricing for those on various forms of assistance.

The next speaker was Dasha Koltrenick. Her work includes bringing more students into the fold. Programs include the "Breathe in Music" music meditation series. She played an example, showing music, bells, and meditation. Participants conclude by sharing the experience with each other. Some programs also relate to current events.

The next speaker was Alexis Barnigan, events coordinator. She described community engagement initiatives, and deepening the impact of programs. An example she described is the National Bone Marrow Registry drive. There are also events designed to support impacted communities. Another example - music and dance programs (with the audience on the stage), Dance for Parkinsons, music for singles and music for LGBTQ.

She invited those who have not experienced PUC to do so this season.

©2025 Randy Krakauer

Our speaker on April 3 was Allan Westreich, Ph.D., DNA Doe Project. His topic was "To Catch a Serial Killer: A Visual Introduction to Investigative Genetic Genealogy", or IGG. This is a tool which we can actually use to track down serial killers. While the main use is to identify perpetrators of violent crimes, IGG can also help to identify otherwise unknown human remains of John and Jane Does. More than 1,000 actual cases have been resolved.

IGG is useful when you have a crime scene where there is some DNA. Law enforcement keeps a big data base of people convicted of violent crimes. When they get DNA at a crime scene, they try to determine if they can find a "match." But what happens if the subject, a potential suspect, is a first offender or someone who has not yet been caught? Their DNA is not yet in the data base. Unless you have a direct hit, you are not really going anywhere with your DNA. For other subjects, DNA can help you look for their cousins and piece together a family tree for a solid lead.

As a sleuth, your first objective would be to build a family tree up through older generations and then build it down to zero in on the suspect. Then you figure out how much DNA the subject shares with a relative in order to make a connection. Dr. Westreich referred to Ancestry.com and 23andMe, but he relied more on FT, (as in Family Tree,) DNA, and GEDMatch. From these sources, you would try to get a list of family matches, which includes names and how much DNA the subject shares with them. You would then try to make the connection from the top to the bottom of the tree.

What about chromosomes? There are 23 pairs of chromosomes in the nucleus of each of our cells. One chromosome is used to determine males and females and the other 22 are used in IGG. Each child inherits 50% of their DNA from each parent, about 25% from each grandparent, and about 12.5% from each great-grandparent. In other words, the closer we are related to people, the more DNA we share. Next we learned about centiMorgans (cMs), a unit of measurement of DNA. The higher the number of cMs, the closer you come to a match. When you get a match, you look for a name and how much DNA the subject shares with the match.

Dr. Westreich discussed a study based, in part, on an actual case. A serial killer was at large in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, in Long Island, where 11 sets of human remains were found. Detective work established that all the deaths had been caused by murders, which had taken place between 1993 and 2010. The subject appeared to have been between 20 and 40 years old. Their date of birth was believed to be between 1953 and 1973. The subject was described by an eye witness as "a giant man". The ethnicity was unknown. We understood that Law Enforcement had DNA from the crime scene.

Our speaker then analyzed clues of ethnicity. Matches showed 28% West Slavic, 58% Central Europe, and 14% Irish. Dr. Westreich compared those percentages with the percentages of chromosomes and DNA from the family tree. He next identified the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) between the match and the subject. He looked for people who shared the most centiMorgans of DNA with the subject. By moving down from two clusters of family trees he found what he called the union couple. He identified the possible subject as their child, Rex Heuermann, the subject who became the suspect.

We thought that we had come a long way from reading Perry Mason mysteries. Just when we were learning how to use the latest techniques to catch a real serial killer, Dr. Westreich warned us of Caveats of the Case Study. While it was based on the Long Island Serial Killer, it was partially simulated for educational purposes. IGG was not used to move Heuermann from subject to suspect. Initially there was no DNA related to the 22 pairs of chromosomes located at the crime scene. While Dr. Westreich used the actual family tree of the suspect, the evidence was based on old-fashioned detective work, including a car traced to Heuermann, burner cell phones linked to 3 victims, a match of hair linked to Heuermann's, and a discarded pizza box. Heuermann has been indicted for 7 murders and awaits trial this year. When the trial starts, we can brag to our friends that we have inside information concerning the evidence.

©2025 Bert Busch

Professor Matto teaches civic engagement, which has tremendous implications for democracy and for higher education. She transported us to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia. As Ben Franklin emerged from the Convention Hall, people asked "What did we create, a republic or a monarchy?" Legend has it that his response was "A republic, if you can keep it." She then said with a smile, "There's a good chance this didn't happen." But, she continued, the American version of democracy, a constitutional republic, is fragile. The power to keep it is within the power of the people. How do we pass on democracy to the next generation?

Prior to the November 2024 election, the Siena/New York Times poll showed that 76% said American democracy is under threat. An Eagleton poll showed that 47% were very worried about the future of democracy and 39% were somewhat worried. 59% said that political violence is a major problem in the US and 28% said it is at least a minor problem.

The concern of a peaceful transfer of power was not unique to 2024. In a 2017 study the Rs were twice as likely as the Ds to hold that when the country is facing very difficult times, it is justifiable for the President to close Congress and govern without Congress. Professor Matto then asked "What are we seeing in American politics in the last 2 or 3 months?" She quoted a professor at The Brookings Institution, who said that "the scope and the brazenness with which our administration has acted is the shocking part." Creating a perfect segue between the huge shift in the political reality and her teaching position, she quoted John Dewey (1859-1952), who said "Democracy needs to be born anew in every generation and education is the midwife."

How do we prepare students to be democratic (with a small "d") citizens? She presented 3 strands to fostering democratic citizenship: Knowledge; Skills; and Disposition. Students have to understand the structure of government, checks and balances, and the separation of powers. She then narrowed her focus with a series of questions. What does it mean to have a federal system? What is the Constitution? Who serves in office? Who represents us in Congress? The state legislatures? The city councils? How does a bill become a law? Do you know how to register to vote or how to update your registration? Because we have a federal system of government, every state has its own system of elections, such as when you have to register. At Eagleton, the professors try to teach what's normal and what is not; what's legal and what is not; and what's constitutional and what is not. Her students learn that the President has the power to issue executive orders, but there's also a Constitution. There are checks or limits on these orders. The Constitution provides that only Congress can appropriate money. Eagleton teaches the students the skills they need to become democratic citizens.

Professor Matto then quoted Harvard professor and author, Steven Levitsky, who wrote How Democracies Die. The book addresses timely issues. When do you know that you're still in a democracy? When are you moving over to something closer to a competitive authoritarian system? She warned us that what we currently see daily represents a threat to higher education. Professor Levitsky recently wrote that our ability to conduct research, teach and speak freely is under threat. Professor Matto told us that we may be living in an existential moment for higher education. Colleges and universities are a key part of the fabric of American society. What university teachers do is critical for the US economy, technology, public health and scientific advancement generally. We have to keep democracy going and higher education plays an important role. We face a tremendous challenge right now.

The Q and A session hardly gave us any comfort. Professor Matto lamented every moment the Constitution is ignored and every moment the power of the Courts is ignored. She worried about the call to impeach judges or label judges as partisan because you disagree with the decision. She agreed that all of these and other actions are indicators of a constitutional crisis. The students at Eagleton appear to be receiving excellent training to do their part to preserve democracy.

To see the slides accompanying Prof Matto's talk, please click here.

©2025 Bert Busch

Sam Daley-Harris, the speaker at our most recent 55 Plus meeting, describes himself as "Activist, Author and Founder of RESULTS & Civic Courage". His topic was "Learning to Make a Difference Between Elections." He is the author of Reclaiming Our Democracy: Every Citizen's Guide to Transformational Advocacy For Daley-Harris, transformational advocacy—the focus of his presentation—involves ordinary citizens awakening to their purpose in life, recognizing and embracing their power to advocate for the "Why?" that drives them. He cited an astronaut's declaration that "We are not passengers on Spaceship Earth—we're the crew! " Our speaker is convinced that once we shed cynicism and passive acceptance, and are transformed by the knowledge that we can make a difference, all becomes possible.

The story of his own lived experience was clearly meant to be aspirational for the 55 Plus audience members. Hearing a presentation on ending world hunger, he was converted from passivity to the realization that this was a mission he could joyfully accept.

RESULTS launched in 1980 when founder Sam Daley-Harris and a circle of concerned citizens decided the U.S. government must do more to end poverty. Forty years later, there has been a 66% decrease in global child deaths. He also founded Civic Courage, which champions the creation of citizen groups committed to respectful dialog across the aisle to solve our nation's and world's greatest challenges. Our speaker is convinced that through his work, he stands for "humanity's purpose on earth." Paraphrasing George Bernard Shaw, he sees his life as belonging to the whole community, "a splendid torch" to pass on to future generations. Would that we all could feel that sense of inspiring achievement!

Guess we need to meet with our members of Congress and convince them to grow spines, which may be even harder than reducing world hunger dramatically.

©2025 Marcia Midler

Agnieszka Markiewicz, a leader of the American Jewish Committee, began by providing background information on her organization and its core mission. The AJC is a global advocacy organization founded in 1907 in response to the situation of the Jews in Europe. The group's assumption was that Jews are safer in a world where democracy is thriving, and established ties for the region to join NATO when it wasn't popular. She reminded us that Putin regards the dismantling of the USSR as THE catastrophe of the 20th century, and acts as if it still exists and is united. Recapping prior Russian attack history, Markiewicz cited the takeover of Georgian cities in 2008, and the 2024 annexation of Crimea, when the West advised Kiev not to react, and imposed no sanctions. Then, of course, came the full scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022. Putin portrayed it as a "special military operation" to liberate Ukraine from supposed Nazi leaders like the Jewish Nazi Zelensky.

Markiewicz wondered why the United States supported Ukraine, but not enough to achieve victory. In her view, it was her native Poland which "passed the exam," opening their homes to millions, so that no refugee camps were needed. Poland transports Ukrainian products, and the presence of Ukrainians in her country remains "extraordinary," with housed refugee children attending school and their parents accepted warmly. In Ukraine, any pro-Russian sympathies are gone, since the Bucha war crimes and murders. In Warsaw, population is up by 20%. Six and half million Ukrainians have left, adding to earlier immigration woes for the beleaguered country. Sixty thousand Ukrainians have gone missing, with 20,000 children taken and put up for adoption by Russian couples.

Though Ukraine has been able to open some seaports, there is a growing fatigue, as well as a destructive impact on the Ukrainian economy. Ukrainian attacks from within Russia have had a mostly psychological effect, buoying up the attackers, and unsettling the Russians, but not influencing the course of the war. The population under constant attack is very tired after 3 years of war, but doesn't want to abandon their sovereignty or cede land to the Russians. Trump is questioning Zelensky's legitimacy and calling Ukraine the aggressor, both untrue. Our speaker concluded by citing Russian defeat as crucial to avoid destabilizing the world order, as is American commitment to the defense of democracy. Regarding European support, she added that she hopes it isn't too little too late. As for the hope of a Russian revolt, hardly likely, especially after Navalny's death in Russian custody. A proud Polish Jew, Markiewicz has long been involved in efforts to maintain Jewish heritage and community in Poland.

©2025 Marcia Midler

Bruce Fein, our Feb. 6 speaker, is a principal in The Lichfield Group, a government affairs and public relations firm based in Washington, D.C. He is a specialist in constitutional law. The topic of his presentation was: "Has the Constitution Been Taken Off Life Support?" Fein wasted no time in declaring our Constitution indeed in flames, adding that U.S. citizens were the last guard rail which must be awakened. He recalled the "Saturday Night Massacre" of 1973, when President Nixon's overreaching attempt to have Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox fired led to Nixon being forced from office. The difference then was political and civic engagement by outraged Americans who refused to let that constitutional breach stand.

Our speaker deemed today's Congress as "craven," and Trump's flurry of unconstitutional executive orders the "earmark of dictatorship." He declared the attempt to negate birthright citizenship, added to the Constitution in 1868 with the 14th Amendment, as "preposterous," and "flagrantly unconstitutional." Congress's power of the purse has been a constraint on dictatorship. For Trump to paint the Impoundment Control Act of 1975 as unconstitutional is "farcical." It was put in place to prevent Presidents from citing Congressionally funded spending they disliked as unconstitutional. Fein reminded us that Congress finally ended the Vietnam War by denying money for combat action, exercising its power of the purse.

Our speaker described President Trump as having contempt for the rule of law, and no regard for the separation of powers put in place by the country's founders. He is refusing to enforce laws on the books, like the 1978 Inspector General Act he tossed aside by his mass firing of IGs. Trump has cited Article 2 of the Constitution as giving him the right to do "anything I want," a misinterpretation wrongly certified by the Supreme Court in a decision Fein declared "catastrophic." Fein is a passionate believer in the rule of law enshrined in the Constitution, decrying the "xenophobic attacks on immigrants" as a derogation of our obligation as a country of immigrants. It was a powerful talk that pulled no punches.

©2025 Marcia Midler

At our last meeting, 55 Plus members heard a fascinating presentation by author and journalist Daniel Schulman. It was based on his recent book The Money Kings: Jewish Immigrants Who Transformed Wall Street and Shaped Modern America. Though Gilded Age pundits called all Wall Street powerhouses money kings, Schulman confessed his original reluctance to so title a book that possibly could foster anti-Semitism. Realizing that he'd have used the term for Jay Gould or J.P. Morgan, and since the broader story dealt with American financial, demographic and philanthropic history, he persevered. Along with writing, it took him ten years of interviewing descendants of his subjects, reviewing oral histories, reading correspondence, traveling to Berlin, London, and visiting collections all over the country.

Many in the book started as peddlers, with one descendant commenting that peddling was like the "Harvard Business School for poor Jewish boys." They subsequently formed investment banks like Kuhn Loeb, Lehman Brothers, J and W Seligman & Co., and Goldman-Sachs. These would help to transform the United States from a debtor nation into a financial superpower, capitalizing American industry and underwriting companies, like General Motors, Macy's, and Sears. Before long, some were cutting deals with the likes of J. P. Morgan, E. H. Harriman, and Jay Gould. There was no central bank before men like Paul Warburg, Edwin Seligman, Henry Goldman and Philip Lehman formed the Federal Reserve, and initiated a progressive income tax. They reformed an unreliable currency system, pioneered Initial Public Offerings (IPOs), and tried to push allies to reduce German reparations after WW I.

Schulman brought up slides of Salem Fields, the Bronx/Queens Cemetery of Congregation Temple Emanuel in Manhattan, showing the august mausoleums with names like Schiff, Guggenheim, Lehman, Goldman and Sachs. The magnificent tomb of Jacob Schiff looked as if it belonged on Mount Olympus, as our speaker noted. Indeed, Schiff is clearly for Schulman the book's towering figure, and not simply as a "colossus of finance." He was also the undisputed leader of the Jewish community between 1880 and 1920, shaping an unparalleled philanthropic and immigration support legacy. On the day of his funeral, thousands of grateful immigrants, many whose welcome to America he facilitated, emptied the lower East Side to honor him.

In addition to providing major philanthropic help, Schiff and the Jewish community he led paved the way for the Americanization of the immigrants coming in. They started the 92nd St. Y, the YWHA, the Henry St. Settlement, and the Joint Distribution Committee. When there were complaints of Jewish crime on the lower East Side, they hired detectives and partnered with the NYPD to root out that criminal element. Jacob Schiff was a man who bridged two worlds, the posh world of the German-Jewish elite, and the world of poor immigrants whose settling in America he both promoted and aided. I wonder how many of us owe our life in this country to Schiff and the immigrants who paved the way.

©2025 Marcia Midler

Our speaker on January 9 was Dr. Dennis Ross, Diplomat and Author. His topic was "Middle East Diplomacy: Past, Present and Future Potential?" Since October 7, 2023, the war in the Middle East surprised most observers. Few believed that Israel would destroy Hamas' military, decapitate and destroy Hezbollah and its missiles, and undermine Hezbollah's control of Lebanon's Parliament. As a result, for the first time since October, 2022, Lebanon's Parliament was able to elect a President. In a matter of days, the rebel Syrian group HTS was able to overthrow the Assad regime, which had been in power for more than 54 years. On October 26, 2024, Iran lost 90% of its missiles when it attacked Israel. Israel took out Iran's air defenses. All of these developments were a colossal defeat for Iran, which had used Syria and Lebanon as a land bridge. The "Ring of Fire" surrounding Israel unexpectedly collapsed. Iran is now more vulnerable than ever.

Iran's economy is weak, its currency has suffered an extreme devaluation, and there is a profound electricity shortage, but the country has enough enriched uranium to produce nuclear weapons by 2026. Even if a ceasefire is reached in Gaza, and Israeli hostages are released, Netanyahu's government has no strategy for what comes next. Because of the sudden change in the balance of power in the region, Trump has a lot of leverage. He faces two strategic imperatives: 1) Because of Iran's nuclear potential in 2026, the war in Gaza must end this year; and 2) Trump and Israel must find a way to deal with Iran's nuclear program. Dr. Ross stressed the duality between Iran's weaknesses and potential nuclear strength, the need to get the Saudis to normalize relations with Israel, the Palestinian dimension, and what happens if the Israelis pull out of Gaza in exchange for the release of hostages.

Israel cannot just pull out of Gaza. Dr. Ross proposed the following: 1) The Palestinian Authority ("PA"), corrupt as it is, would invite the UAE, Morocco, Egypt and possibly Bahrain to "assist" the Palestinians by being responsible for the transitional administration and demilitarization of Gaza; 2) The Saudis would have to approve all terms; 3) Trump would tell Bibi what has to be done; 4) In spite of Bibi's present Cabinet, 2 members of which refuse to get out of Gaza even if the hostages are returned, Bibi will find it hard to say "No." Trump wants to expand the Abraham Accords, which were signed in the last year of Trump's first term, normalizing relations between Israel and the UAE, Morocco, Bahrain, and Sudan. This would lead to permanent demilitarization in return for reconstruction.

Trump wants to make a major deal with Iran. Dr. Ross said that for a deal to be acceptable, the Iranian nuclear enrichment capability would have to be reduced. While Iran may want to "talk," they may really want to stretch out the talks to 2026, when they hope to have nuclear power. Dr. Ross would like Trump to tell Iran "You have spent a half a trillion dollars to create a nuclear infrastructure. We will take it all out if there's no deal." The US would have to lift sanctions and help Iran economically. The Saudis state that this is part of normalization. Dr. Ross notes that Trump has made no secret of his wanting the Nobel Peace Prize.

What about a Palestinian state? US policy must be based on a premise of co-existence, not resistance. There could no independent militias and no alignment with Iran or rejectionists. So long as the two far-right members remain in the Israeli Cabinet, there will not be a 2-state solution. These two want to drive out the Palestinians, not give them the vote. Dr. Ross is in favor of 2 states, but he sees the problem as 2 national movements competing for the same space. You cannot have one state with a whole class of people who are denied a set of rights. Bibi's coalition will not be able to make a deal with the Saudis and they won't agree to leave Gaza. Bibi will have to make a choice. Trump can probably force that choice. If Bibi agrees to meet all of the conditions of a peaceful resolution, Dr. Ross estimates that the cost to rebuild Gaza would be $10 Billion. The money would come from the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and maybe Kuwait. There would have to be a monitoring system and a clear organization.

Dr. Ross made an excellent presentation.

©2025 Bert Busch

The speaker is a professor of computer science and the director of the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University He received technical degrees from the Indian institute of Technology in 2004 and his PhD in computer science from the University of Texas at Austin in 2009. He has been affiliated with Princeton University since September 2012 and currently is a professor. The speaker is a co-author of the book AI Snake Oil: What Artificial Intelligence Can Do, What It Can't, and How to Tell the Difference and the newsletter of the same name. He previously co-authored two widely used computer science textbooks: Bitcoin and Crypto currency Technologies and Fairness in Machine Learning. Narayanan was one of TIME magazine's inaugural list of 100 most influential people in AI. He is a recipient of the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers.

AI is everywhere - and few things are surrounded by so much hype, misinformation, and misunderstanding. This talk was designed to give an essential understanding of how AI works and why it often doesn't, where it might be useful or harmful, and when you should suspect that companies are using AI hype to sell AI snake oil - products that don't work, and probably never will.

The following is a description of AI Snake Oil: What Artificial Intelligence Can Do, What It Can't, and How to Tell the Difference, the book written by the speaker: Confused about AI and worried about what it means for your future and the future of the world? You're not alone. AI is everywhere-and few things are surrounded by so much hype, misinformation, and misunderstanding. In AI Snake Oil, computer scientists Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor cut through the confusion to give you an essential understanding of how AI works, why it often doesn't, where it might be useful or harmful, and when you should suspect that companies are using AI hype to sell AI snake oil-products that don't work, and probably never will.

To a great extent the lecture follows the book.

The first part the deals with existing AI products which attempt to act as a guidance for future results in certain situations. The speaker has a problem with these types of products. He cites products predicting future viability of candidates for employment and whether prisoners seeking bail releasees are likely to commit crimes after release. All of these predictive result products simply do not work. AI, however, has a place to interpret data and test results. He points to programs used in radiology interpreting images. He also states that many of these programs may have a racial bias.

Finally, there are programs which predict that a person may develop a medical condition, like cancer, in the future. These have utility as they enable the person to seek medical treatment to prevent the condition predicted.

The second part of the talk related to generative AI. The focus was On ChatGPT. All these generative AI products are based upon a deep neuron network compromising a collection of nodes in computer setting. The possibility was recognized as early as 1943.Computer technology did not exist for implementation until approximately 2017 upon, among other things, the development of graphic processing units.

This type of AI may be used to generate images, music, videos, code, texts and many items. Indeed, this product may be used to prepare drafts of documents. Preparation of documents, however, must be checked for accuracy. An example given was the preparation of a brief which included citations to cases which were entirely made up.

The speaker stated he used this product to write code. This product may be used to answer questions, but a lot of inaccurate information may be generated, particularly if the inquiry does not formulate the question properly.

There also is a translation feature which may be helpful if traveling abroad.

There have been additional problems and abuses including, among other things:

• Taking a picture of a women and generating a false nude picture (after this happened to Taylor Swift - actions were taken to enforce criminal liability)
• Reports have been generated incorrectly attributed to the wrong person

©2025 Michael DiGiovanna

Princeton Professor Allen Guelzo has written three books on Lincoln. At our last meeting, he enhanced our historical perspective on just how much Lincoln has to teach us, given the striking parallels between his time and our own. After all, loss of confidence in, and rejection of, constitutional decision making through elections ultimately led Southern states to secede from the Union and form a competing Confederacy. The partisan rage and outbreaks of violence in the 1850s, and challenges about democracy then, have striking parallels in the anxieties, angers and fears of many today about the need to save our democracy.

In earlier fraught times, Lincoln preserved our democracy. Had he not prevailed, as Dr. Guelzo noted, our country would have survived as fragmented states, like the Balkans, irrelevant to world history. Before getting back to Lincoln and his fervent belief in the bedrock characteristics of democracy, our speaker led us through democratic highs and lows more recently. The 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall and the 1991 collapse of the USSR were followed by international religious terrorism, an economic collapse, an authoritarian regime in Russia and total despotism in China. According to Freedom House, only 20 countries in the world now can be considered free. Lincoln had pondered whether discontented individuals could be allowed to put an end to free government, and resolved that they could not. Because he kept the American experiment on its democratic course, we turn to him as a reassuring inspiration. Guelzo pointed out that Lincoln's only definition of democracy was this one: "As I would not be a slave, so would I not be a master." For him, that was the political Golden Rule, with the essence of democracy lying in the consent of the governed. That consent was expressed through sovereign authority of the people, majority rules, elections, and above all, reverence for law, as the "political religion of the nation." Lincoln believed that the rule of reason was epitomized in the rule of law, which was rooted in Enlightenment values. (Guelzo added that war pressures sometimes led him to deviate from that principle.)

Dr. Guelzo noted that the needed characteristics of democratic leadership were those possessed by Lincoln: resilience, humility, humor, and patience. In the Q&A, he mentioned that the entire White House staff consisted of six people. One was a 24-year-old Brown graduate who described Lincoln as "so in control of all aspects of the war, like a backwoods Jupiter throwing thunder bolts." After two years, he added that there was "no one so good and kind as he. I believe that God has put him in this place." What an unsolicited testimonial to our national hero.

©2024 Marcia Midler

The subject of Prof. McCarty's talk was his observations concerning the 2024 presidential election which he gave approximately 16 days after the election. He pointed out details concerning the electorate would not be available until next spring. Nevertheless, he shared a number of observations concerning the election. Set forth below is are several of his observations:

• He noted that predictions were that there would be a close race. Indeed, it was a close race. Trump won the popular but by one of the smallest margins in election history. He won by approximately a margin of 2%. This could hardly constitute a mandate.
• He also noted that this a low turnout vote which should have benefitted the democrats but did not.
• Inflation and the democratic liberal positions contributed to a democratic defeat.
• Throughout the world incumbent parties lost a significant number of seats in parliaments.
• There has been a shift in voting patterns of African American and Latinos. This did not have an impact in 2024. Its impact in the future is open.,
• The margins in Congress are small for Republicans which in the house may increase as a result of traditional anticipated loss in the midterm elections. The margins in the Senate are subject to votes of Republican senators which vote independently.
• While abortion rights amendments were generally successful, initiatives for election reform were generally defeated.

©2024 Michael DiGiovanna

As a former U.S. Ambassador and scholar, Hutchings lamented the fact that the art of diplomacy has long been neglected, and its study almost non-existent until recently. He fears that our people have been at times overmatched by better trained diplomats from countries with more meritocratic backgrounds. Though there are fine career diplomats in our ranks, there are too many political, patronage appointments. Hutchings feels that reform and modernization are needed, and more value placed on diplomacy. At the moment, the State Department is overly bureaucratic, with too many levels. Currently, there are six weeks orientation for the newly appointed American diplomat, by far the shortest preparation compared with other nations.

Hutchings spoke both of failures and successes in past American diplomatic efforts. One epic failure was the aftermath of our invasion into Iraq in 2003, when we knew in advance that the subsequent occupation would be far from optimum. We had wanted an international occupation, which didn't happen. Secretary of State Powell read about the decision to disarm the Iraqi troops in the paper, after the fact-a wholly preventable fiasco, in Hutching's view. Among successes, there was the Camp David accord between Egypt and Israel, as well as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact, both still in place roughly fifty years later. Our speaker wrote a book about the end of the Cold War, and had high praise for President Bush I's task competence, mastery of government and emotional intelligence. NATO was key, as was a strategic overview, an understanding of motivations, and empathy for both allies and adversaries. The strategy for helping Germany achieve unification after the collapse of the Berlin Wall was of prime importance. James Baker was Secretary of State, trusted to be speaking for Bush, and he stiffened German leader Kohl's spine with Gorbachev. The Allies' message was to leave Germany to the Germans, and they were able to convince Gorbachev to agree to unified German entry into NATO. Hutching's tips for successful diplomacy included: strategic preparation, ongoing process, and going for compromise and what's achievable, not for the elusive total victory.

©2024 Marcia Midler

Steve Kornacki interpreted what current polling showed and how the numbers compared with polls taken in 2016 and 2020. He then identified what he characterized as "variables." Current polling indicated a closer race than at this time in 2016 and 2020. In 2016, national polling showed Hillary led Trump by 5 points, and in 2020 Biden led him by 8 points. National polling averages as of October 22 had Kamala Harris ahead of Trump by 2 points. More critically, in the seven swing states, the current margin was no more than 2 points for either candidate. In 2020, the polls were way off in the Northern swing states, especially in WI, but also in PA and MI. The polls in 2016 and 2020 under-estimated Trump's support and over-predicted Biden's support. The pollsters missed white voters, especially men, without a 4-year college degree. If the 2024 pollsters have also missed that "variable", Trump is in fantastic shape. Steve said that the polling looks different this time.

But wait, said Steve, what if the polling was under-stating the strength of Harris's female voters? Maybe the gender gap on the female side is even bigger than polling currently indicated. Now that Roe v. Wade has been reversed, the turn-out level among women may not have been captured, especially younger women for Harris, and those in the suburbs.

Trump's support this time is more racially diverse, particularly among Latino voters. In an NBC poll in early October, Harris had a 14 point lead over Trump in Latino voters, but in 2020, Biden had a 30 point lead. If polling is accurate now, it's very significant in heavily Latino states such as AZ and NV. Among Latino women, Harris has run up a big margin. Polls showed that young Latino men, and, to a lesser extent, young Black men, are moving toward Trump. Steve questioned these trends, since these men may not have voted in 2020 or 2022, and they are not politically engaged. If they don't show up, Harris's numbers may have been under-estimated. Another variable includes people who did not vote in 2020 or 2022, but who think they'll vote in 2024. Trump has a 22 point advantage for this group.

Barring an electoral surprise outside of the 7 swing states, the simplest path to Harris winning the necessary 270 electoral votes would be a sweep of PA, MI, and WI. In all of the swing states, the metropolitan areas surrounding the cities are heavily for the D's while the rural areas generally favor the R's. Steve then zeroed in on the 4 "Sunbelt states" - NC, GA, NV, and AZ. Harris is trying to pick up Black votes in eastern NC. While Trump has expanded many blue collar votes in NC, he has lost significant ground in the huge white suburbs outside Atlanta. Trump is gaining votes in AZ and rural GA. We should not draw conclusions from increased early voting. Are these voters simply part of a "zero sum game", people who won't vote later, or are they additional voters? NV may be an exception to Steve's feeling that early voting is too new to be an indicator.

How does polling work. One of the big issues is to get people to pick up the phone. The law requires that real people, not robots, must place the calls. A pollster told Steve that 15 years ago he normally spoke with 10 people in a 4-hour shift. Now the usual number of people is 1. 2 would be a good night.

How about endorsements from disaffected R's, such as Liz Cheney? While endorsements don't usually matter, there still is a "variable" - have the D's already gotten all of the disaffected R's? Another "variable" which could play in Harris's favor may be the women who were younger than 18 in 2020. Also, the blue collar and white collar divide may not be as great with women. Steve seemed to feel, however, that Trump's gender gap with men favoring him more than makes up for additional women voting for Harris.

Pollsters find that the wars in the Middle East are not driving issues for voters, but Michigan, with more than 200,000 Arab-Americans, may be an exception. The Russia-Ukraine war is apparently irrelevant. While Steve was reluctant to predict who would win the presidential race, he found it hard to see the D's taking the Senate. The D's may lose seats in MT and OH and will definitely lose one in WV. The House is a different story. NY is expected to vote for Harris and NY D's may flip some House seats. Assuming that Harris also carries CA, Steve saw a possibility of the D 's flipping additional House seats there and taking the House. That possibility, however, is not as likely as the R's taking the Senate.

We all know the only poll that counts: wait until all of the votes have been tabulated.

©2024 Bert Bush

The speaker at our last meeting was Gina Kolata, Medical Reporter on the Health and Science Desk at the New York Times. I suspect that many Times readers in the audience, having encountered her by-line for years, were quite pleased to hear Ms. Kolata speak on the intriguing subject of "Beethoven's Hair." Many adoring friends and fans of the dying and then deceased composer, permitted in for a visit and later a viewing, had left with locks of hair as treasured mementos. Hundreds of years later, enough authenticated and analyzed locks were available, providing scientists the opportunity to determine whether perhaps the mystery behind Beethoven's tragic deafness lay in his hair.

Because he knew that his condition would be perceived as a terrible handicap for a composer, Beethoven tried desperately to conceal the situation. Per our speaker, only when his ninth symphony was first performed, and the cheering audience went wild upon hearing the kettledrums, was the secret revealed. Conducting with his back to the audience, he gave no reaction to the tumult. Only when a colleague had turned him around could Beethoven take in through sight what he had failed to hear. He had begun losing his hearing when only 26, couldn't hear a flute at 32, and eventually could only answer questions using pen and paper. At one point, he was taking 75 different medications, to no avail. Beethoven's misery was such that only the creative impulse restrained him from ending his life. As he put it, "it seems unthinkable to leave the world until I had brought forth all that I feel lies within me."

Evidently, through the years a cottage industry sprang up, as the composer's admirers obsessed over what might have caused his condition. In 2003, a Beethoven scholar named Will Meredith wrote a book entitled "Beethoven's Hair," in which he published the results of sequencing his subject's genome and probing for answers. He and his team analyzed the hair samples for lead, opiates and mercury. Meredith believes that Beethoven's death at 56 may well have been caused by severe lead poisoning, which could have resulted from drinking cheap wine sweetened and preserved with lead acetate. Wine was fermented in kettles soldered with lead, which leached out as the wine aged. Evidently, the great one often drank an entire bottle in a single day. In his last days, friends gave him wine by the spoonful, to comfort him. Reacting to a friend who had just come to visit with 12 bottles of wine, the dying Beethoven uttered his last words: "Pity, pity--too late!"

Kevin Brown, an Australian businessman who owned three locks of the composer's hair, wanted to honor Beethoven's 1802 request that when he died, doctors might figure out why he had been so ill. The Mayo Clinic found that one lock had 258 micrograms of lead, and another had 380. (A normal level is less than 4 micrograms of lead per gram.) Scientists now believe that there was enough lead in his system to explain his deafness, and that his gastrointestinal problems are consistent with lead poisoning.

©2024 Marcia Midler

Prof. Pearlstein analyzed the attempts of Trump's lawyers to undo the results of the 2020 election. They filed dozens of lawsuits and asked the Attorney General and Acting Attorney General to announce that the DOJ had found evidence of election fraud and evidence of corruption. They circulated increasingly urgent directives within the Trump Administration for Senior DOJ officials to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate further. They attempted to seize voting machines. They urged DOJ officials to send public letters to State legislators, urging them to convene special sessions to address non-existent fraud. They threatened to remove lawyers from the DOJ who balked at the President's demands. Trump said "Just say the election is corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Congress."

To succeed, Trump needed his hand-picked lawyers and the judges he had appointed to lie. Most refused. In all of the lawsuits, the courts refused to change the outcome of the election. Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and other lawyers in the AG's office refused to put the DOJ imprimatur behind claims of fraud for which there was no proof. They would not sign a letter urging GA legislators to convene a special session to address findings that could change the election. Honest judges and lawyers served as an indispensable bulwark against what was an historically unprecedented authoritarian threat to democracy. Trump had sought to preserve his hold on power by attempting to manipulate the election and hijack institutions designed to function as independent checks on executive power. Trump failed, thanks to the deeply ingrained habits of key members of the legal profession. These lawyers and judges were trained in rules of procedure, methods of logical reasoning, duties of candor and truth, and their commitment to uphold the rule of law. The attack on democracy did not require the use of armed police or military intervention. The legal profession was a guardrail of our democracy. DOJ lawyers Jeffrey Rosen and others were laying their DOJ jobs on the line by refusing to lie.

At the same time, other prominent lawyers were working in the absence of supporting facts or law to get the President what he wanted. Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark was instrumental in drafting the false letter that would have urged the GA legislators to return to special session. Clark was ready to serve as Acting AG when Rosen and his colleagues refused to sign it. John Eastman, Campaign Counsel to Trump and Professor-Dean of the Chapman School of Law, likewise championed the GA scheme and the legal arguments which he knew were wrong. Had they prevailed, Clark and Eastman would have empowered Vice President Mike Pence to block or delay certification of the Electoral College during the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021.

Trump emulated Hungarian President Viktor Orban, who successfully leveraged methods to consolidate partisan power, turning the once democratic Hungarian government into a regime today that lacks elections and an independent judiciary. As Professor Pearlstein noted, the difference between the US and Hungary is the luck in having Rosen in the key position rather than Clark.

Our speaker stressed the need to keep the practices of law and politics at least relatively distinct. Rule 1 includes law as a force for stability, based on the concept of "stare decisis," or precedent. Historically, "stare decisis" meant that prior decisions by judges should stand, unless there was an exceedingly good reason for them to change. This was central to the rule of law. It helps ensure that decisions are founded in the law rather than the proclivities of individuals. Rule 2 is a norm of modesty. Law is an interpretation of text informed by the views of the interpreter. It is, however, partly limited by professional methods, procedural rules, principles of logic, legislative history, authority from precedent, and original intent. Rule 3 is that law is fact-and evidence-based.

The current SCOTUS majority relies on originalism, the meaning of words when the Constitution was ratified, as a method of interpretation. Some conservatives argue that originalism is the only guide for judgment. They conclude that "stare decisis" (i.e. precedent) is not reliable or binding and not consistent with the Constitution. That view is now ascendant with the SCOTUS majority. In 2022, the 6 Republican justices overruled Roe v. Wade on the grounds that it was wrongly decided. Lawyers refer to lower courts as red state and blue state. We are losing distinctions between law and politics. There is declining public belief in the value or plausibility of judicial impartiality.

The takeaway? Thankfully, Jeffrey Rosen, and not Jeffrey Clark, was the Acting Attorney General after Bill Barr resigned in December, 2020.

©2024 Bert Busch