Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Whoopi Goldberg explains to Meghan McCain why Trump’s Supreme Court nominee won’t get “Kavanaugh’ed”

“The View” co-hosts began their Tuesday show talking about the potential Supreme Court appointee and concerns that they have about Amy Coney Barrett talking about her job being about expanding the kingdom of God.

Meghan McCain ranted that Barrett was being attacked for her religion and for having seven children. It’s unclear where she’s hearing that Barrett is being attacked for that, as the Democratic nominee for president is also Catholic and speaks openly about his faith. He has had four children.

“My concern is when we lose the Senate, what happens when Democrats are in power and you have a Biden presidency and Democrats running the Senate?” McCain also said. “This may be worth it to Republicans. I’m one of those people that think it probably is. I don’t think there won’t be a payout on the other end. The Amy Coney Barrett and the rhetoric that is going on with her right now, when you start talking about Christian women like we’re all commanders wives in ‘The Handmaid’s Tale.’ You can radicalize people in the country. I’m very anxious what’s going to happen going forward when it looks like she’s going to be nominated.”

Sara Haines explained for the second time in two days that her concerns are about Barrett’s use of the law and how she puts her faith first in deciding a ruling instead of putting the law first.

In the second segment, Whoopi Goldberg issued a warning to McCain without directly mentioning her, by saying that people shouldn’t claim there are attacks on Barrett and her faith when she hasn’t seen them anywhere. The attacks on Barrett are about her own comments on how she uses her religion to making legal decisions.

She also explained that Barrett wouldn’t get “Kavanaugh’ed” as McCain alleged because Kavanaugh was an accused rapist. Presumably, no one would appoint another accused rapist to the Supreme Court.

“No one’s going to accuse her of anything,” said Goldberg. “I haven’t seen people going after her for her religion. That’s something we should not also spread because then it becomes a whole other conversation,” said Goldberg.

You can watch the clip below via YouTube

Bloomberg raises $16M to pay fines of 32,000 former felons in Florida so they can vote again: report

Earlier this year, Vice President Joe Biden and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg were rivals in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary; now, Bloomberg is one of Biden’s most generous donors and is fighting to help him win Florida in the general election — and that includes paying the fines of almost 32,000 Black and Latinx voters who have felony convictions.

Michael Scherer, in the Washington Post, explains that “Bloomberg and his team” have raised $16 million for “a program organized by the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition to pay the fines, fees and restitution costs for former prisoners who are already registered to vote in Florida but barred by law from participating in the election because of those outstanding debts.”

In Florida, many Democrats have argued that prohibiting people from voting because of those fines or fees is a form of voter suppression. But many Florida Republicans have disagreed — including Judge Barbara Lagoa, a far-right Cuban-American Republican who is being considered by President Donald Trump as a Supreme Court nominee following the death of Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18. Lagoa, Scherer notes, “cast a concurring opinion on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the state law requiring payment of debts.”

Bloomberg, who was a Republican during some of his time as mayor of New York City but is now a Democrat, believes that people who were incarcerated in the past shouldn’t be forbidden to vote because of fines — and Bloomberg, Scherer reports, saw that $16 million as a “more cost-effective way of adding votes to the Democratic column than investing money to persuade voters who already have the right to vote, a Bloomberg memo said.”

That memo read, “We have identified a significant vote share that requires a nominal investment. The data shows that in Florida, Black voters are a unique universe unlike any other voting bloc, where the Democratic support rate tends to be 90%-95%.”

However, the former New York mayor was already helping Biden in Florida before raising that $16 million and helping the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition. Bloomberg recently donated at least $100 million to helping Biden in Florida.

In 2018, Florida voters passed a statewide constitutional amendment that allowed convicted felons to vote in elections after they served their time — and the GOP-controlled Florida legislature, in response, passed a law saying that they cannot vote again if they have any unpaid fees or fines associated with their sentences. Democrats attacked the law as a blatant attempt at voter suppression.

Polls are showing the presidential race to be quite close in the Sunshine State. Biden has been ahead in many polls this month, although not by much. Recent polls have shown Trump trailing Biden in Florida by only 2% (CBS News/YouGov), 3% (Redfield & Wilton), 1% (Kaiser Foundation Foundation), 2% (Benenson/GS Strategy), 5% (Monmouth University) or 3% (CNBC/Change Research).

Republican Party spent hundreds of thousands to buy books by Sean Hannity, Donald Trump Jr.

The Republican National Committee spent hundreds of thousands of dollars last month on books by Donald Trump Jr. and Fox News personality Sean Hannity, federal records show.

The RNC’s August expenditure report filed with the Federal Election Commission shows that the committee spent $405,404 on “donor mementos” from book retailers Barnes & Noble, booksamillion.com and Porchlight Books.

The RNC promoted Hannity‘s book, titled “Live Free or Die,” in early August, offering signed “priority access” copies as an incentive for political donations of $75 or higher. Around the same time, the committee launched a similar promotion for Trump Jr.’s new book, “Liberal Privilege,” which it awarded to donors at the same price point.

Emails sent from an RNC address in late July suggested that the committee would make bulk pre-orders of the books, and it appears to have reported the first three on Aug. 5 — to Barnes & Noble, Booksamillion.com and Porchlight Books. A Porchlight representative confirmed that the campaign’s order in that amount came in before that, and was for copies of Hannity’s book. Spokespeople for Barnes & Noble and Books-a-Million did not reply to requests for comment.

The Porchlight representative said that an RNC bulk order of “Live Free or Die” later that month matched the RNC’s Aug. 19 report of $119,250, but said that the RNC had not made any bulk orders for “Liberal Privilege.”

Last November, the RNC shelled out nearly $100,000 for Trump Jr.’s first book, “Triggered,” boosting it to the top of bestseller lists.

Two days after the first “Triggered” fundraising email was sent last fall, an RNC spokesperson told the New York Times that “we haven’t made a large bulk purchase, but are ordering copies to keep up with demand. Each book is sold to an individual who supports the Republican Party.”

Despite the spokesperson’s use of sales terminology, FEC records show that the RNC classified the purchases as “donor mementos.” The recent purchases share that classification.

There are slight differences this time around. Trump Jr.’s first book was awarded to supporters who contributed at least $50. This time, the RNC hiked the price to a $75 donation, as with Hannity’s book.

Another difference: Trump Jr. published his first book with Center Street, an imprint of Hachette Books. His new book is self-published.

“While I was offered a generous book deal by my previous publishers, I turned it down and decided to self-publish,” Trump Jr. said last month, in a statement sent by the RNC to The Hill. “The RNC was able to raise almost a million dollars from their fundraising campaign with my first book, ‘Triggered.’ I look forward to helping them fundraise once again for the benefit of the Republican Party.”

By self-publishing, Trump Jr. eschews the distribution, marketing and publicity support afforded by a top publisher, but he could claim up to 70% in royalties, top campaign finance authority Brett Kappel told Salon.

“And he’s got the RNC taking care of some of that promotion up front,” Kappel said.

The RNC, of course, is also taking care of some of those purchases. But without comment from the other vendors or the RNC — which did not reply to Salon’s questions for this article — it’s not clear how exactly the committee split its $405,000 in bulk orders between Hannity and Trump Jr.

(“This is a political pamphlet, not a book,” Peter Osnos, founder of the nonfiction imprint PublicAffairs, told the New York Times about Trump Jr.’s new book. “It hasn’t been subjected to any measure of quality or accuracy.”).

It’s possible that the entire $405,000 itemized to book retailers were for Hannity’s book — which is now a No. 1 bestseller. As the New York Times reported last month, Trump Jr.’s distribution plan appeared to avoid traditional retailers almost entirely:

Unlike Mr. Hannity’s book, “Liberal Privilege” will not be in bookstores. A person with knowledge of the project said that it will be $29.99 on Mr. Trump’s website, where presales are being handled, and on Amazon, along with an e-book and an audiobook narrated by Kimberly Guilfoyle, a senior campaign adviser and Mr. Trump’s girlfriend. It’s unclear if any major retailers will carry the book, though managers at some traditional distribution channels said last week that they hadn’t heard anything about it. ReaderLink, a company that supplies books to more than 80,000 stores, including big-box chains like Walmart and Target, said it had no plans to distribute it.

In other words, it appears possible or likely that the RNC purchased books directly from Trump Jr., or intends to do so. “Liberal Privilege” did not go on sale until Aug. 30, and if the committee waited until September to buy the book in bulk, those purchases would not show up until it files its September report sometime next month, shortly before the election.

It’s also possible the RNC fulfilled part of its preorder promise through Amazon, which is selling Trump Jr.’s book. The committee’s August filings reveal an unusually large $126,423 expenditure to Amazon on Aug. 10, for “office supplies.”

Mitt Romney backs vote on Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, paving way to fill election year vacancy

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, on Tuesday announced that he would vote for President Donald Trump‘s nominee to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg‘s seat on the Supreme Court, even though ballots have already been cast in the 2020 election. The move makes it all but certain that the Republican-led Senate will vote on Trump’s pick before Inauguration Day.

Trump said in a tweet a few minutes before Romney’s announcement that he would announce his nominee this weekend. In a statement posted to Twitter, Romney cited his support of “the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent.”

“My decision regarding the choice of a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness,’ which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent,” Romney said. “The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own.”

“The Constitution gives the president the power to nominate and the Senate the authority to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees,” he added. “Accordingly, I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the president’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based on their qualifications.”

Two Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, had pushed back on a vote pending the results of the November election. With Romney’s announcement, the party’s 53-seat majority can now confidently move ahead with its election-year effort to shift the ideological balance of the court, perhaps for decades.

Democrats have cried foul over what they view as hypocrisy after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., blocked confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland, former President Barack Obama’s pick to replace conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. Trump filled that seat with Justice Neil Gorsuch in the first two months of his presidency.

Republicans claim that the two cases cannot be compared, and the issue is one of checks and balances. The Senate and presidency were controlled by opposite parties in 2016, whereas the same party controls both four years later.

But GOP leaders were not always so specific back in 2016.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” McConnell said at the time.

Speaking on the chamber floor in 2016, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said, “Why would we squelch the voice of the people? Why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh in on the makeup of the Supreme Court?” 

Asked by Fox News host Chris Wallace on Sunday whether he was selectively abandoning that reasoning, Cotton responded, “Chris, the Senate majority is performing our constitutional duty and fulfilling the mandate that the voters gave us.”

Republican Senators won praise from conservatives in January for holding their ground on impeachment, framing the argument as one for voters to decide. 

“The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate,” Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said at the time. “The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election.”

With six weeks to go before Election Day, the vast majority of those same senators appear willing to apply a different measurement to a similar constitutional power.

Speaking Monday on the chamber floor, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the GOP’s rationale “completely contradictory,” “unjustifiable” and a “preposterous” betrayal of his own standards that would “spell the end” of the Senate.

“Why not just come to the floor and say, ‘I’m going to do whatever is best for my political party, consistency be damned, reason be damned, democracy be damned,'” Schumer said. “They know there is no reason — no reason, no argument, no logic — to justify flipping your position 180 degrees and calling it some kind of principle. It is not. It utterly craven — an exercise in raw political power and nothing more.”

He continued, “If a Senate majority over the course of six years steals two Supreme Court seats using completely contradictory rationales, how could we expect to trust the other side again? How can we trust each other if when the stakes are highest, the other side will double-cross their own standards when it’s politically advantageous?”

“Tell me how this would not spell the end of this supposedly great deliberative body,” Schumer concluded, “because I don’t see how,”

CDC scandal gets worse: This is why Trump can’t be trusted with a coronavirus vaccine

September has featured one scandal after another stemming from Donald Trump’s belief that the best way to handle the coronavirus pandemic is to let a bunch of people get sick and die, and then deny that it’s happening. First, journalist Bob Woodward started to releasing recordings in which Trump said he “wanted to always play it down” and admitted he had deliberately lied to the public about how serious this virus really is. Then, in a town hall for ABC News, Trump confessed that his real strategy was to let the virus run loose to create herd immunity — or rather “herd mentality” which would be “herd developed,” to quote the president accurately — even though that would literally kill millions of Americans. Then the New York Times published a new exposé revealing that Trump officials had overruled medical researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, forcing the agency to publish misleading and dangerous information designed to discourage people who have been exposed to the virus from being tested. 

None of this, it’s critical to underline, is good for Trump’s re-election campaign. Polling shows that only 35% of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of the pandemic, which is the same percentage of Americans who would probably say they’d still love Trump if he nuked their hometowns. Polls also show that because of Trump’s malice and incompetence, 69% of Americans have little to no confidence in the safety or efficacy of a vaccine that he may announce. Only 9% of Americans say they have a great deal of confidence in Trump. Even his own supporters know he’s a liar and a fraud: They’ve entrusted him with the nuclear codes, but don’t trust him with a vaccine. 

Yet despite all this, Trump keeps on keeping on with his “let them die and lie about it” strategy. 

At a rally in Ohio Monday night, Trump leaned heavily into the “play it down” strategy, going on a rant about how young people “have a strong immune system” and the virus primarily “affects elderly people, elderly people with heart problems and other problems.”

“But it affects virtually nobody. It’s an amazing thing,” he continued, even though the “nobodies” he’s talking about — older people, people with health problems — are more likely to be Republican voters than Democrats, who skew younger. Trump himself is 74 years old, though he has probably deluded himself with all his “good genes” talk into believing he’s not in the high-risk category. 

Trump made these “nobody” comments as the death toll from the virus approached 200,000 Americans — a benchmark we passed on Tuesday morning — and the number of people infected surpassed 6.8 million. But the circle of “nobodies” is much larger than that, since basically everyone in the country is affected by this pandemic. Either someone they love has gotten the virus or lockdowns and the severe economic downturn have negatively impacted their lives. 

Trump’s efforts to weaponize the CDC haven’t slowed down either. Last Friday, a new guidance slipped onto the website that emphasized that coronavirus transmission is airborne and that indoor, crowded spaces such as fitness classes and choir practice are especially dangerous. On Monday, however, the guidance was removed and the CDC said it had been “posted in error.”

That is, of course, absolutely ridiculous. As Ben Guarino, Chris Mooney and Tim Elfrink at the Washington Post report, “Evidence that the virus floats in the air has mounted for months, with an increasingly loud chorus of aerosol biologists pointing to superspreading events in choirs, buses, bars and other poorly ventilated spaces.”

It’s possible, of course, that this is all a matter of bureaucratic mismanagement and that any moment now the CDC will post a guidance that reflects the scientific evidence that indoor airborne transmission is a serious threat. But it’s reasonable to be suspicious, especially as the guidance that was yanked down conflicts with Trump’s repeated insistence on returning Americans to a lifestyle that involves a great deal of close contact in indoor spaces such as offices, restaurants, churches, schools and — perhaps most importantly, in Trump’s eyes — political rallies

Considering that Trump’s pandemic mismanagement has destroyed any hope of a return to normal life anytime soon, all eyes have turned toward the possibility of a vaccine as the thing that will save us from this pandemic. While there’s reason to hope that a safe and effective vaccine will be ready for distribution in the coming months, there’s also reason to be worried that Trump is going to screw the entire thing up. 

Trump just keeps lying and lying about a vaccine, insisting that one is not only coming on a much quicker timeline than actual health experts believe, but even setting concrete deadlines, suggesting (of course) that a vaccine may be available before Election Day

It’s tempting to shrug off such antics, but as with all things, Trump’s relentless lying and meddling are only making a bad situation worse. The more this pathological liar talks about a miracle vaccine that’s right around the corner, the more the public appears to be skeptical about it, on the sound grounds that it’s bad news to trust a blowhard moron who posited that bleach injections might be a useful treatment for COVID-19

People probably shouldn’t be worried that Trump will try to force a dummy vaccine onto the market. He’s way too lazy to pull that off. What’s more likely is that he’ll find some thin pretext to host some reality TV-style October-surprise announcement of a vaccine that doesn’t actually exist yet, holding up an empty syringe and falsely claiming — as he has done for months — that the pandemic is finally over. 

The real problem isn’t so much a fake vaccine as the possibility that Trump will screw up the distribution of a real one, whenever such a thing exists. Past is predictor, after all, and in the past, meddling by Trump and his administration — especially his son-in-law, Jared Kushner — has actively efforts by government officials or medical experts to control the pandemic. Kushner shut down strategies to distribute protective equipment to people in need, embracing instead a “market” strategy that drove up prices and increased shortages. Trump himself has waged a war against the widespread testing necessary to slow down viral spread. 

Trump’s instincts will always lead him to lie and cheat, and his distrust of experts makes it impossible for him to get out of the way and let competent people do their jobs. Witness how he took over the coronavirus task force briefings, interfering with the ability of public health officials to share valuable information so that he could indulge his fantasy of being the star of the show and the preeminent authority on every topic. 

If Trump wins re-election (by fair means or foul), his compulsive need to interfere with everything and his paranoia about the “deep state” that’s out to get him will surely affect vaccine distribution, just as he and Kushner messed with distribution networks for protective equipment and testing

Also, the more Trump runs his mouth about a vaccine, the more people will distrust that a vaccine is trustworthy and safe, since everyone — including his own supporters — knows he will say anything if he thinks it benefits him. If people don’t trust a vaccine, they won’t get it, no matter how many experts vouch for its safety. 

The grim reality is that it won’t be enough to have a safe and effective vaccine. (Bearing in mind that we don’t quite know what “effective” will mean: Will it be more like the measles vaccine, which protects most people for their entire lives, or like the flu vaccine, which offers partial protection for a single season?) To bring an end to the pandemic and a return to something like normal life, the vaccine must be distributed widely and efficiently, and most people need to trust it enough to take it. With Trump in charge, there’s a good chance that all of that will go sideways. The only way to be certain that the coronavirus pandemic is brought to an end is for a real president to be in charge when a real vaccine is finally available. 

Graham tells Fox he reversed his Supreme Court position after Democrats “tried to destroy” Kavanaugh

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on Monday said the panel’s Republican majority would support President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee — even though he has yet to announce a nominee. 

Graham told Fox News host Sean Hannity that there was already enough support from Judiciary Republicans to advance Trump’s pick to a full vote in the Senate.

“We’ve got the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg’s replacement before the election,” he said. “We’re going to move forward in the committee. We’re going to report the nomination out of the committee to the floor of the United States Senate, so we can vote before the election. Now, that’s the constitutional process.”

Graham added that the pick “will be supported by every Republican in the Judiciary Committee,” including the vulnerable Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa.

“We’ve got the votes to confirm the judge — the justice on the floor of the Senate before the election,” he said, “and that’s what’s coming.”

President Donald Trump, who earlier revealed plans to announce his nominee by the weekend, has vowed to pick a woman. His short list reportedly includes 7th Circuit Appeals Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett, 11th Circuit Appeals Court Judge Barbara Logoa and 4th Circuit Appeals Court Judge Allison Jones Rushing.

Graham’s comments came after protesters stormed his Washington residence on Monday in protest of his push to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Graham was one of the leading Republicans who rejected considering former President Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland ahead of the 2016 election.

“I want you to use my words against me,” Graham said at the time. “If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, ‘Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.'”

Graham doubled down on his comment in 2018, vowing that “if an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

Graham told Hannity that he reversed his position because of the way Democrats treated Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was accused of sexual assault and lying during his confirmation hearing.

“It’s pretty obvious that if they want an outcome, they’ll just destroy anybody’s life to keep the seats open,” Graham said of Democrats. “They said they tried to destroy Brett Kavanaugh, so they could fill the seat. They were dumb enough to say that. I’ve seen this movie before. It’s not going to work. It didn’t work with Kavanaugh.”

Graham on Monday wrote in a letter to Democrats on the committee that “I am certain if the shoe were on the other foot, you would do the same.”

Graham’s push comes as he faces an unexpectedly close re-election race against Democrat Jaime Harrison, who called out the senator for his reversal.

“My grandpa always said that a man is only as good as his word,” he tweeted. “Senator Graham, you have proven your word is worthless.”

With Trump pushing for a confirmation vote before the election, Graham may be forced to remain in Washington in the critical weeks leading up to his election as a flood of outside money pours into ads calling out his walkback.

Graham’s turnaround on the Supreme Court was similar to his reversal on the issue of impeachment. Democrats during the trial played a video of Graham, a former Bill Clinton impeachment manager who supported Trump during his trial, arguing that a president did not have to commit a crime in order to be removed from office.

“It’s just when you’re using your office in a way that hurts people, you’ve committed a high crime,” he said during Clinton’s impeachment.

Ads in South Carolina have also focused on Graham’s remarks about Trump when the two faced off in the 2016 Republican primary. At the time, the senator said Trump was a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” who should be told to “go to hell.”

Graham won his last re-election by 15 points in the deep red state, but Harrison has been running about even in recent polls.

Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate. Though confirming a Trump nominee will likely fall across party lines, Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, have said they would oppose a confirmation before the election.

Graham’s change of heart has led to a flood of donations to Harrison, who reported raising $1 million on two consecutive days following Ginsburg’s death.

Pentagon funneled taxpayer funds intended for medical supplies to defense contractors: report

Instead of building up medical supplies to fight the coronavirus, the Pentagon funneled to defense contractors some of the $1 billion allocated by Congress.

Congress gave the Pentagon money to respond to the deadly pandemic as part of the Cares Act, but the Defense Department instead diverted the funding to fill in gaps in military supplies, reported the Washington Post.

“This is part and parcel of whether we have budget priorities that actually serve our public safety or whether we have a government that is captured by special interests,” said Mandy Smithberger, a defense watchdog at the Project on Government Oversight.

States still desperately need $6 billion to distribute vaccines by early next year, and many hospitals still don’t have enough N95 masks — which the Pentagon funding was intended to help.

Pentagon lawyers concluded the money could be used for defense production, which Congress later disputed, and doled out $183 million to Rolls-Royce and ArcelorMittal for shipbuilding, $80 million to a Kansas aircraft business hurting from the slowdown in air travel, and $2 million to a company that makes fabric for Army dress uniforms.

Some defense contractors were awarded Pentagon money even after getting bailouts through the Paycheck Protection Program.

Office of the Special Counsel investigating Betsy DeVos over Fox News appearance: report

Yet another top Trump administration official is being investigated for potentially violating federal law.

“The Office of the Special Counsel has started investigating Education Secretary Betsy DeVos for potentially violating the Hatch Act, after she slammed Joe Biden in a Fox News interview and her agency promoted it through official channels,” Politico reported Monday. “The head of investigative watchdog blog Checks and Balances Project Scott Peterson said in an interview that OSC Hatch Act attorney Eric Johnson told him he had been assigned to investigate the matter.”

Politico reported how Peterson recounted what Johnson told him.

“We’ll investigate matters in your complaint,” Johnson reportedly said. “The incident seems very well documented.” Johnson also told him that because of remote work prompted by the coronavirus pandemic, the timeline for the investigation is uncertain.

“DeVos would become one of the most high-profile Trump officials known to have been investigated for violating the Hatch Act. Depending on what OSC finds, she would be the second member of the Trump Cabinet to be found to have violated the law. At least 12 Trump senior officials have violated the Hatch Act, according to the OSC, the independent agency that probes possible violations. In most cases, the office decided that the violation was minor enough to merit only a warning letter. Only one case, that of former senior counselor Kellyanne Conway, was sent to President Donald Trump for action, and he didn’t act on it,” Politico reported.

Read the full report.

For RBG it was all principle, for Mitch McConnell it’s all power

People in public life tend to fall into one of two broad categories – those who are motivated by principle, and those motivated by power. 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday night at the age of 87, exemplified the first. 

When he nominated her in 1993, Bill Clinton called her “the Thurgood Marshall of gender-equality law,” comparing her advocacy and lower-court rulings in pursuit of equal rights for women with the work of the great jurist who advanced the cause of equal rights for Black people. Ginsburg persuaded the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection applied not only to racial discrimination but to sex discrimination as well.

For Ginsburg, principle was everything – not only equal rights, but also the integrity of democracy. Always concerned about the consequences of her actions for the system as a whole, she advised young people “to fight for the things you care about but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.”

Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, exemplifies the second category. He couldn’t care less about principle. He is motivated entirely by the pursuit of power.

McConnell refused to allow the Senate to vote on President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, in March, 2016 – almost a year before the end of Obama’s term of office – on the dubious grounds that the “vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” 

McConnell’s move was a pure power grab. No Senate leader had ever before asserted the right to block a vote on a president’s nominee to the Supreme Court. 

McConnell’s “principle” of waiting for a new president disappeared Friday evening, after Ginsburg’s death was announced.

Just weeks before one of the most consequential presidential elections in American history, when absentee voting has already begun in many states (and will start in McConnell’s own state of Kentucky in 25 days), McConnell announced: “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.” 

This is, after all, the same Mitch McConnell who, soon after Trump was elected, ended the age-old requirement that Supreme Court nominees receive 60 votes to end debate and allow for a confirmation vote, and then, days later, pushed through Trump’s first nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

Ginsburg and McConnell represent the opposite poles of public service today. The distinction doesn’t depend on whether someone is a jurist or legislator – I’ve known many lawmakers who cared more about principle than power, such as the late congressman John Lewis. It depends on values. 

Ginsburg refused to play power politics. As she passed her 80th birthday, near the start of Obama’s second term, she dismissed calls for her to retire in order to give Obama plenty of time to name her replacement, saying she planned to stay “as long as I can do the job full steam,” adding “There will be a president after this one, and I’m hopeful that that president will be a fine president.”

She hoped others would also live by principle, including McConnell and Trump. Just days before her death she said, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” 

Her wish will not be honored. 

If McConnell cannot muster the senate votes needed to confirm Trump’s nominee before the election, he’ll probably try to fill the vacancy in the lame-duck session after the election. He’s that shameless. 

Not even with Joe Biden president and control over both the House and Senate can Democrats do anything about this – except by playing power politics themselves: expanding the size of the court or restructuring it so justices on any given case are drawn from a pool of appellate judges.

The deeper question is which will prevail in public life: McConnell’s power politics or Ginsburg’s dedication to principle? 

The problem for America, as for many other democracies at this point in history, is this is not an even match. Those who fight for power will bend or break rules to give themselves every advantage. Those who fight for principle are at an inherent disadvantage because bending or breaking rules undermines the very ideals they seek to uphold. 

Over time, the unbridled pursuit of power wears down democratic institutions, erodes public trust, and breeds the sort of cynicism that invites despotism. 

The only bulwark is a public that holds power accountable – demanding stronger guardrails against its abuses and voting power-mongers out of office. 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg often referred to Justice Louis Brandeis’s famous quote, that “the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people.” Indeed.

How bad will it get if Trump wins a second term? Let me count the ways

It’s been 160 years, almost to the day, since the last time American voters faced an election with consequences as grievous as this one. The 2020 contest is a referendum on Donald Trump’s fascist idiocracy and the rise of a tyrannical Putin-style kleptocracy. Here. In our time. This harrowing assessment includes the rise of an ideological Stone Age for the Supreme Court and, with it, the reversal of myriad advances in human rights and social programs, including the elimination of health insurance for millions of Americans and the dissolution of more than 500,000 marriages.

The too-soon death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has torn an opening in the fabric of the court that millions of socially Paleolithic conservatives have been waiting for: They now see the real potential for a 6-3 advantage.

Had around 77,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin gone the other way back in 2016, President Hillary Clinton would likely have secured a 6-3 liberal leaning court, depending of course on control of the Senate. Sure, there are all kinds of “what ifs” in that scenario, but generally speaking, a Democratic president would have been in place to nominate as many as three new justices, and none of them would’ve been named Brett Kavanaugh or Neil Gorsuch.

Clinton was denied that opportunity for a variety of electoral reasons, among them the archaic turnkey known as the Electoral College, along with third-party votes in the three aforementioned swing states. Clinton’s defeat meant the oldest sitting justice on the bench, who happened to be liberal, would be forced to wait at least another four years to retire — four years fighting an endless hellfire of illnesses and injuries. Ginsburg did everything she could do to endure, but her body, hobbled by pancreatic cancer among other infirmities, had other plans.

So now we’re looking at the possibility — let’s make that a near-certainty — that Donald Trump will nominate a third justice to the Supreme Court. Donald Trump, the tyrant who ordered federal police to fire upon peaceful protesters in Lafayette Park, not to mention at Ali Velshi, an NBC News reporter in Minneapolis, who was shot with a rubber bullet; the tyrant who has confessed to downplaying the deadliest pandemic in 100 years; the fascist tyrant who believes U.S. soldiers are “suckers” and “losers”; the tyrant who was impeached for trying to cheat in the election and who’s currently trying to sabotage the Postal Service to cheat again; the tyrant who said, on tape no less, that he gets along better with other tyrants than with U.S. allies; and the tyrant who’s actively maneuvering to kill the Affordable Care Act and, with it, numerous consumer protections and health insurance plans for 20 million Americans.

He gets three nominations now. 

Turns out, elections matter. Voting matters.

The stakes for the 2020 election now involve whether Trump and Mitch McConnell will be able to successfully confirm a replacement for Ginsburg. If Trump loses and loses handily, it’s unlikely he’ll have the votes from his party in the Senate to confirm his nominee before the next Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3, 2021. If Trump wins, however, swing votes in the Republican caucus, like Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah could swing to Trump’s nominee. It’s also possible the congressional Democrats will engage in strategic obstructionism to run out the clock.

These are all possible avenues for snatching Ginsburg’s seat from Trump’s stubby fingers. But her seat isn’t the only Supreme Court vacancy on the ballot this year.

Justice Stephen Breyer, one of three remaining liberals on the court, turned 82 last month. He’s nearly five years older than Joe Biden and eight years older than Trump. So Breyer is to 2020 what Ginsburg was to 2016. (Ginsburg was 83 at the time of Trump’s shock victory.)

So, not only does this election matter in terms of saving Ginsburg’s seat — it may also mean saving Breyer’s seat, too. 

Overwhelmed yet? Just wait, there’s more. 

If the unthinkable happens and Trump manages to win a second term, while the balance in the Senate ends up being, let’s say, 50-50, handing every contentious and divisive matter to Mike Pence for tiebreakers, the consequences for the Supreme Court will go from horrendous to apocalyptic. 

It’s reasonable, if admittedly morbid, to assume that Breyer may retire or die within the next four-plus years. If that happens, Trump would get his fourth SCOTUS nominee, transforming a 6-3 court (assuming Mitch McConnell can jam through Trump’s nominee for Ginsburg’s seat) to a blindingly lopsided 7-2 court. 

Oh, and Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, who are both in their 70s, might be persuaded to retire during a second Trump term, potentially locking up those seats for conservatives 30 years or more into the future.

A hypothetical court with seven right-wing justices could strike down everything from Roe v. Wade to Brown v. Board of Education. Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision that legalized same-sex marriage, might be the first to fall, given its comparative modernity. Following the elimination of these landmark decisions (and many others), fetal personhood laws could go into full effect in red states, penalizing abortions as capital crimes; same-sex marriages in red states, meanwhile, would be dissolved; and a return to pre-Civil Rights Act segregation would begin to spread from one red-state school district to another. At-risk Americans living in blue states might be shielded from some of this, at least for a while, until the inevitable: a 7-2 court might ultimately affirm a slate of draconian federal laws blasted through Congress (depending on which party controls the Senate), including federal personhood laws and bans on everything related to LGBTQ rights. Adding insult to injury, Trump would skate through his second term with a court that would stand ready to strike down any attempt to hold him accountable for his crimes.

Progressives who choose to vote for third party candidates this year need to be aware that not only will an ossified conservative court vaporize the ACA, returning our health insurance system to its abusive and horrendous pre-2010 status, but it would steamroll anything resembling Medicare for All. No version of the Green New Deal, by the way, would survive legal challenges either. And since we’re talking about a relatively “young” Supreme Court, there would be no realistic chance of enacting similar initiatives for decades to come. As Abraham Lincoln once said, a compass that points us to true north doesn’t take into consideration all the swamps and deserts to be avoided along the way.

For these reasons and more, it’s not only important to vote, but it’s important to vote for a straight Democratic ticket — from the Biden-Harris ticket right on down the line. When I see pundits and celebrities on television or social media urging people to vote, I can’t help but think they’re only getting it half right. You have to vote, sure. But if you’re anywhere in the vicinity of normalcy and small-L liberalism, your vote has to be for Democrats. Votes for third parties are nothing more than votes against the only viable, relatively sane party in a binary political system. Not only do we have to vote against all Republicans to stop the hemorrhaging, we have to vote in overwhelming numbers, in order to give the winning candidates enough political capital to enact a roster of mandatory reforms to the system, such that nothing like this ever happens again.

This isn’t a game. This isn’t a time for contrarian protest votes. This is real life and we’re on the verge of a total collapse should this election go sideways. Everything we cherish as reality-based, fact-based Americans is on the ballot this year. All of it. Civil rights, voting rights, body sovereignty, the freedom to protest against the president, the freedom to marry who we love, our health and well-being — it’s all on the ballot this year. Choose wisely.

Democrats reveal huge fundraising hauls in Senate races after RBG’s death

Small donor contributions to Democratic Senate campaigns have skyrocketed after the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“From Alaska to Maine to the Carolinas, Democratic strategists working on Senate campaigns described a spontaneous outpouring of donations the likes of which they had never seen, allowing Democrats the financial freedom to broaden the map of pickup opportunities, or press their financial advantage in top battlegrounds already saturated with advertising,” The New York Times reported Monday.

“By Monday, Democratic contributors had given more than $150 million online through ActBlue, the leading site for processing digital donations. ActBlue broke one record after another — its biggest hour in 16 years, its busiest day, its busiest weekend — after Justice Ginsburg’s death. An estimated tens of millions of dollars went toward efforts to retake the Senate, where the acrimonious confirmation fight to replace Justice Ginsburg will occur,” the newspaper reported.

For control of the Senate, Democrats need to pick up at least three seats if they win the presidency, or four if Trump and Mike Pence are re-elected.

“At least 13 Democratic candidates raised more than $1.3 million each since Friday from a single fund-raising effort, which included Dr. Gross, a former orthopedic surgeon. And in a closely contested race in North Carolina that could tip the balance in the chamber, Cal Cunningham, the Democrat challenging Senator Thom Tillis, enjoyed a $6 million influx of cash. As impressive as Mr. Cunningham’s haul was, the Democratic candidates in Maine, Arizona, Kentucky and South Carolina are believed to have fared even better,” the newspaper explained.

“So far, Republicans have not reported any commensurate surge in donations, though they expect that will change once Mr. Trump names his nominee later this week,” the newspaper noted.

Disunited states: Could a second Civil War — and an end to the union — really happen?

On Sept. 11, Donald Trump proclaimed on Twitter that: “Pelosi and Schumer want Trillions of Dollars of BAILOUT money for Blue States that are doing badly, both economically and in terms of high crime, as a condition to making a deal on stimulus — But the USA is coming back strong!”

Trump was widely mocked in response for being too ignorant to understand that “blue states” are part of the United States.

People enjoy laughing at Donald Trump, perhaps because they think it will somehow save them from his wrath, cruelty and violence. It will not.

Trump’s statements about “Blue States” are just another obvious illustration of the fact that he is not really president of the United States of America. Through his behavior Trump has shown that he is actually the authoritarian Great Leader of his followers only.

Moreover, he has little or no respect, love, care or concern for them either — except as a means of keeping himself in office indefinitely so he can enrich himself, his family, and other close allies.

Trump is not merely indifferent towards those Americans in “blue states” and elsewhere who do not support his regime. He is actively hostile and violent towards them. He has sabotaged aid to the coastal states early in the coronavirus pandemic. He ignored California and Puerto Rico when they have faced natural disasters and environmental calamities. He has encouraged armed militias to stage threatening demonstrations in Democratic-governed states such as Michigan. He has unleashed federal police against protesters in Portland and elsewhere who oppose the regime. He has pursued an overall strategy of stochastic terrorism against Democrats, Black Lives Matter activists, anti-fascists and others he and his agents deem to be “enemies of the state.”

Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr have also suggested they may use the Insurrection Act to deploy the U.S. military against Americans who dare to protest if Trump somehow manages to steal the 2020 election. Barr has even speculated that Americans who protest the Trump regime should be charged with the little-used crime of sedition.

In total, Trump’s followers understand that they have been given full permission to engage in acts of violence against his and their “enemies.” This would mark one of the final steps in a campaign of Trump-inspired and commanded right-wing violence that began with the 2016 presidential campaign and is now reaching a crescendo as we head toward the 2020 election.

Operating under the banner of “gun rights,” hundreds of armed pro-Trump demonstrators gathered last Friday at the Michigan State Capitol. Michigan Live reports:

After two hours of speeches, approximately 1,000 demonstrators marched around the Capitol grounds to the Michigan Hall of Justice. Organizers warned those carrying firearms were not allowed to bring their guns into the Hall of Justice due to a Michigan Supreme Court administrative order.

Instead, the throng gathered on the Hall of Justice steps and chanted “U-S-A” and “Four more years” for President Donald Trump. At one point, about two dozen members of the Proud Boys, a “western chauvinist” group that was recently involved in physical scuffles during a march in Kalamazoo, started chanting “F— Antifa!”

For decades, if not longer, the American right has fantasized about a second Civil War. With Trump as president, a season of death and suffering from the coronavirus pandemic, and a climate of intense economic ruin as well as political and cultural division, the would-be secessionists may finally get their wish.

Richard Kreitner is a contributing writer to the Nation. His writing has also been featured in the New York Times, The Boston Globe, Slate, The New York Review of Books and The Baffler. His new book is “Break It Up: Secession, Division, and the Secret History of America’s Imperfect Union.”

In this conversation, Kreitner explains that he sees the Age of Trump is one of several moments in the country’s history where it almost collapsed into a state of civil war and widespread political violence. He says America needs a constitutional convention to address the problems in democracy and governance caused by such antiquated institutions as the Electoral College and the U.S. Senate.

At the end of this conversation, Kreitner offers a chilling and timely scenario for how the U.S. could descend into a second civil war that would finally tear red and blue states away from one another.

How are you feeling right now, with an election coming and increasing political violence by the right directed against liberals and progressives?

In the late Obama period it became more obvious to me that the United States is really not united and could quite easily come apart. Given what is now happening with Trump and his movement, I feel somewhat vindicated in that feeling. As a citizen, I feel extremely dismayed that my countrymen are so out to lunch, so far gone that they can’t even be bothered to wear a mask or take the most basic precautions for the sake of their fellow human beings — much less their fellow Americans. That is very disappointing. I probably won’t get over that fact until after the election, regardless of the outcome.

Talking about Trump and America is almost a kind of euphemism. It is one of the many ways that many people avoid talking about the real issue which is the possible dissolution of the United States. When people talk about the arrival of fascism in America, or Trump sending his stormtroopers to Democratic cities and possibly stealing an election, what are the remedies there? What are we talking about doing in response?

One option is violent revolution. But I doubt that would succeed. The other possible remedy is secession. I believe that we are going to hear many more people discussing that possibility in the near future.

What is the role of extreme political polarization — especially by Trumpists and other “conservatives” — in your narrative of America’s disunion?

What we are learning as a people in the Age of Trump is that what holds the United States and the constitutional order together is a matter of habit and practice. I would perhaps go so far as to say inertia. The United States has really not been able to agree on institutional arrangements that would make for a stable and unified nation.

This goes back to the Founding, where at the Constitutional Convention the framers split the difference between states’ rights and what we now call nationalism by making the House of Representatives represent the people and the Senate represent the states. It was called a “compromise,” but in many ways it was a surrender.

As an example, I think immediately of the 1790s, which was probably one of the most tumultuous and divisive periods in American history. We tend to think of the Constitution as this great, glorious document that created one nation inseparable, but the United States almost collapsed into civil war on multiple occasions.

The 1796 presidential election was absolutely vicious. The country was as divided as it has ever been. It was very much driven by a partisan press where you had different members of the cabinet subsidizing their own newspapers to fight each other.

The 1850s is another fascinating example. Yes, it was polarized, but as today, there was this large group of people on what we would now call the left who were saying, “We’re not polarized enough: There are Northerners who give too much to the South. It’s the forces of unfreedom. They compromise too much.” They called them “Northern men with Southern principles.” These were the radical abolitionists, and they were trying to push the country to come to some kind of reckoning with whether it was going to be a slave society or a free society.

These are the heroes of my book, the disunion abolitionists. There were voices saying the Union should break apart if it’s not going to stand for liberty. I believe that is the kind of moment America is at right now.

The United States never resolved the first civil war. The idea of a second civil war has been around literally since within months of the end of the first one. Too many Americans do not appreciate that fact. We think that the Confederates and the South were defeated. They were chastened. They came back. They loved America, but only if the Union was reconstructed on their terms. When it was, the Confederates, white Southerners, formed the Ku Klux Klan — which still exists today.

The threat of civil war has always lingered anytime white supremacy in America has come under threat. The forces of white supremacy tried it once. They want to try it again. They lost the civil war the first time. But as we know, they were not vanquished.

If you were called to testify at a 21st-century constitutional convention — which the right has been trying to convene for several decades as a way of forever enshrining its power — what would you suggest be changed?

We do need another constitutional convention, because I do not see another way out of the stalemate that we are in at present. As a country we need to get together and hash out fundamental questions about what kind of country we want and maybe some kind of bargain will be made.

Thomas Jefferson’s idea was to rip up the Constitution every 19 years and rewrite it. I would not go that far, but I certainly think that two and a half centuries is enough time.

As for my suggestions, I would abolish the Senate. That is most important. Getting rid of the Senate would make for a much more functional country given how much it exaggerates the power of small states. The Electoral College should also be eliminated.

I think we also need to expand the House of Representatives, because each representative now represents 30 times the number of constituents that they did when the United States Constitution was written.

What would blue states have to lose by leaving red states to survive on their own? And what would red states lose if the blue states said, “We’re out of here!”

Red states have a lot to lose. The federal cash payments overwhelmingly go from blue states to red states. What do blue states have to lose? The idea of an American union is very powerful culturally and politically. A crumbling United States is to everyone’s disadvantage.

It makes economic sense to be one country and it makes emotional sense to be one country. I have traveled very widely in the United States. I love America. Even Trump supporters are my own fellow Americans. I do not really want to break up with them, but I think it needs to be a viable option depending on what happens next. Moreover, how do we feel about the people with whom we agree and sympathize very deeply with in red states? They would probably suffer considerably if the United States were to break up.

If your book was optioned for a movie, or a think tank approached you to create a plausible scenario for how the United States could potentially break up or fall apart, what would it be?

What is happening right now would be my scenario. There is an out-of-control pandemic. There is a president in Donald Trump who is unbelievably ignorant, utterly incompetent, a liar and so many other horrible things.

There is an election that is existential, one of the most important in American history. There are many millions of guns in the United States and lots of discussions by the right wing about using them. The issues that led to the first civil war remain in many ways unresolved. There is a massive reckoning over the country’s own history that has been long postponed. Resolving such matters is rarely peaceful. There are also foreign adversaries and other forces who are interfering in the election. All the elements for the story are present right now in America.

Trump Supreme Court front-runner Amy Coney Barrett criticized Roe v. Wade, Obamacare decision

Democrats sounded the alarm about the potential Supreme Court nomination of federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett over her ties to the Federalist Society and criticism of Roe v. Wade.

Despite opposing former President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland 11 months ahead of the 2016 election, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has already announced that the upper chamber will vote on President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg despite her “fervent wish” to “not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

Trump vowed to choose a woman to replace Ginsburg, and Barrett has emerged as the apparent front-runner.

“I’m saving her for Ginsburg,” Trump said of Barrett when he tapped Brett Kavanaugh to replace former Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2018, according to Axios.

Barrett, 48, has been a cause of concern for Democrats since she her confirmation to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. The former clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia is considered to be a strict constructionist. Barrett criticized Roe v. Wade, though she acknowledged that the court would “probably” let the precedent stand.

“The fundamental element — that the woman has a right to choose abortion — will probably stand,” she said during a speech at Notre Dame, according to the student newspaper. “The controversy right now is about funding. It’s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded.”

But Barrett later said that the court was likely to chip away at some abortion protections in 2016.

“I think the question of whether people can get very late-term abortions — you know, how many restrictions can be put on clinics — I think that would change,” she said in 2016, according to The New York Times.

Democrats also raised concerns about Barrett’s strict Catholicism. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., angered some conservatives when she pressed Barrett on her religious beliefs during her 2017 confirmation.

“You have a long history of believing that your religious beliefs should prevail,” Feinstein said at the time. “The dogma lives loudly within you.”

“It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions — whether they arise from faith or anywhere else — on the law.” Barrett responded.

The New York Times reported that Barrett and her husband, who are parents to seven children, are members of an obscure group called People of Praise.

“Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a ‘head’ for men and a ‘handmaid’ for women,” the report read. “The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.”

According to The Times, the group describes itself as a “charismatic Christian community.” The “heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home and how to raise children.”

Craig Lent, one of the group’s leaders, told The Times that the group was neither “nefarious or controversial.”

“We don’t try to control people,” he said. “And there’s never any guarantee that the leader is always right. You have to discern and act in the Lord.”

Barrett is also a former member of the Federalist Society, the group which bankrolled Kavanaugh’s nomination and has been largely responsible for vetting conservative judges for Trump to appoint to federal courts.

If confirmed by the Senate, Barrett may possibly weigh in on the future of Obamacare after previously criticizing the Supreme Court’s decision which upheld the law.

“Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute,” she wrote in 2017.

The court is scheduled to hear arguments in a lawsuit challenging Obamacare one week following the election.

“Amy Coney Barrett meets Donald Trump’s two main litmus tests,” Nan Aron, the president of progressive advocacy group Alliance for Justice, told The New York Times. “She has made clear she would invalidate the A.C.A. and take health care away from millions of people and undermine a woman’s reproductive freedom.”

Though some associates and former classmates argued that Barrett was not ideological in her legal opinions, Politico described her frontrunner status as a potential “coup for Catholic culture warriors 25 years in the making and a high point in the right’s decades-long project of reshaping the judiciary.”

“She was kind of the Manchurian candidate,” one former colleague at Notre Dame Law School told the outlet. “She’s been groomed for this moment all the way along.”

Despite Barrett’s claim during her confirmation hearing that she would “never impose my own personal convictions upon the law,” Democrats have raised alarm over comments she made in 2012 about being a “different kind of lawyer.”

Barrett reportedly told students at Notre Dame that a “legal career is but a means to an end . . . and that end is building the Kingdom of God.”

Can Trump and McConnell get through the 4 steps to seat a Supreme Court justice in just 6 weeks?

United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Sept. 18, thrusting the acrimonious struggle for control of the Supreme Court into public view.

President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have already vowed to nominate and confirm a replacement for the 87-year-old justice and women’s rights icon.

This contradicts the justification the Republican-controlled Senate used when they refused to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s pick for the Court after the death of Antonin Scalia in February 2016.

Garland, a moderate judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, was nominated in March 2016, but McConnell balked on the basis that it was an election year.

“The American people are about to weigh in on who is going to be the president,” said McConnell in March 2016. “And that’s the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment.”

The 2020 presidential election was just 46 days away on the day of Bader Ginsburg’s death, but McConnell has apparently abandoned such considerations this time around. Trump tweeted on Sept. 19 that he would nominate a replacement “without delay.”

Since the 1990s, the Supreme Court has increasingly split 5-4 along ideological lines on many important cases, including decisions on voting rights, affirmative action, gay marriage, the Affordable Care Act, gerrymandering and gun rights.

Being able to replace a reliable liberal voice on the Court with a conservative justice would entrench a 6-3 tilt towards the right for years. There is bound to be vehement opposition from the Democrats.

However the politics play out, there is a process for Supreme Court nominations and confirmations. Here are the four steps:

Step 1: The presidential pick

The first thing to know is that the Constitution of the United States gives the power of nomination to the president.

Article II, section 2 provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint … judges of the Supreme Court.”

By law, so long as he is in the White House, President Trump can nominate whomever he wants to replace Justice Ginsburg. Appointment is really a three-step process: nomination (by the president), confirmation (by the Senate), and appointment (by the president again).

Things can get tricky somewhere between nomination and confirmation. But changes made in the Senate – in particular, the rule change in 2017 that allows a Supreme Court Justice to be confirmed with 51 votes, instead of 60 – are likely to smooth the way considerably.

Step 2: The Senate Judiciary Committee

Once the president has made a choice, the nomination is referred to the United States Senate.

Since the early 19th century, this has meant that the nomination will first be considered by a smaller group within the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee. The only exception was in 2016, when the Judiciary Committee refused to consider President Obama’s nomination of Judge Garland.

The Judiciary Committee currently has 22 members – 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats – and has a three-step process of its own.

First, it conducts an investigation into the nominee’s background. This process can take 30 to 45 days, but it’s easy to imagine it going a lot faster.

Second, the committee holds a public hearing, in which the nominee is questioned and may give testimony about everything from her judicial philosophy to her stand on abortion. This may give voters a chance to see the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, who also serves on the Judiciary Committee, display her prosecutorial skills during questioning of the nominee.

Finally, the committee will report its recommendation to the full Senate as either favorable, negative, or no recommendation.

The 10 Democratic members of the committee have already sent a letter to the chairman, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, calling on him to “state unequivocally and publicly that you will not consider any nominee to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat until after the next President is inaugurated.”

But that seems highly unlikely, given Graham’s new statements backtracking from his 2018 assertions that he would not want a confirmation vote on a Supreme Court appointment in a presidential election year.

“I want you to use my words against me,” said Graham at the time, “[if] a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”

Once the public hearings have concluded, if the Democrats want to buy time, they can delay the committee vote for a week. But after that, it’s on to the main floor of the Senate.

So let’s move on to the next stage, shall we?

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden and others question Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her 1993 Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Step 3: The full Senate

There are 100 senators in the United States Senate – two for each state. Currently, the Senate is majority Republican, with 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two Independents, who both caucus with the Democrats.

While the Senate has historically followed rules so arcane and incomprehensible that otherwise reasonable writers freely refer to them as “insane,” they can now be changed by a simple majority vote, which simplifies matters for the majority party considerably.

If the motion that the nomination be considered is made during a special “executive” session of the Senate, then the motion itself is debatable and can be blocked by filibuster – that movie-ready delay tactic in which which a senator recites Shakespeare, Dr. Seuss or recipes for fried oysters until everyone gives up and goes home.

But closing debate on the motion so that the Senate could move on to a vote no longer requires a supermajority of 60 votes, just a bare 51-Senator majority. So filibustering is likely to be about as effective as a paper hammer.

After that, the Democrats can insist on a minimum of 30 hours of debate, and then, they will be out of options to delay or stop a confirmation vote.

Step 4: The vote

The vote to confirm requires a simple majority of the senators present and voting. If the nominee is confirmed, the secretary of the Senate will transmit the confirmation vote to the president.

The president then will sign a commission appointing the person to the Supreme Court.

The timing

The real question is whether all of this can be accomplished before the election on Nov. 3, or if it will roll over into the lame-duck session of Congress after the election.

Either way it will be a first. The Senate has never filled a Supreme Court vacancy this close to a presidential election. The closest time in the past was when Chief Justice Charles Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court to run for president. And that was 150 days before the election.

This story incorporates material from an article originally published on Feb. 14, 2016.

Caren Morrison, Associate Professor of Law, Georgia State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Trump gives himself “A+” on COVID-19 response as U.S. death toll hits grim 200,000 milestone

As the U.S. Covid-19 death toll was all but certain to hit 200,000 on Monday with the virus still taking the lives of nearly 1,000 Americans each day, President Donald Trump told Fox News that he would give himself a perfect grade for his handling of a pandemic that has infected more than 6.8 million people across the country, permanentlyeliminated millions of jobs, and destroyed countless livelihoods.

“We’re rounding the corner, with or without a vaccine,” Trump claimed Monday morning, even as the virus continues to spread nationwide. “We’ve done a phenomenal job, not just a good job, a phenomenal job, other than public relations, but that’s because I have fake news.”

“On public relations I give myself a ‘D.’ On the job itself, we take an ‘A+,'” added the president, who in March said he would consider a coronavirus death toll of “between 100,000 and 200,000” an indication that his administration did “a very good job.”

Trump’s effusive self-praise came hours after hundreds of activists led by family members of Covid-19 victims marched from Central Park to Trump Tower in New York City Sunday night to mourn the lives lost to the pandemic and protest the White House’s failure to stop a preventable catastrophe.

“Trump and his cowardly enablers, they all have blood on their hands,” said Martin Quinn, an activist who lost his father to the coronavirus. “I don’t know how else to channel my pain but to pressure them and the rest of the country to do better.”

Watch:

Kyle Herrig, president of watchdog group Accountable.US, said in a statement marking the 200,000-death milestone that it was obvious from the beginning that “the Trump administration was mismanaging the nation’s pandemic response.”

“After President Trump’s admission that he purposefully downplayed the virus to the public, it’s clear that we have much more to learn about exactly how the government failed to protect the American people throughout this crisis,” said Herrig. “As Covid-19 continues to rage, the Trump administration must ensure that tests are widely accessible, and that relief reaches the families that need it most.”

The U.S. approached the horrific coronavirus milestone days after the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which resulted in a vacancy that the Trump reelection campaign is already attempting to exploit in an effort to steer the national conversation away from the White House’s handling of the pandemic with less than 45 days to go before November 3.

As The Daily Beast reported Monday, “Trump’s latest messaging reset comes at a time when GOP operatives and prominent party allies are thrilled to divert attention from other major issues that have threatened to doom Republicans this November: mainly, the president’s disastrous response to the coronavirus pandemic, and his equally hamfisted handling of widespread protests against racism in policing that have raged for months.”

Robert Jeffress, a Dallas megachurch pastor and an informal faith adviser to Trump, said Sunday that “this court vacancy could not have come at a more opportune time.”

“The coronavirus and the endless negative Trump books and allegations have become background noise between now and November 3,” added Jeffress.

The campaign of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, meanwhile, is seeking to prevent Trump from dodging accountability for his failed pandemic response by tying the “court vacancy to the health emergency gripping the country and the future of healthcare in America,” the New York Times reported Sunday.

“While confirmation fights have long centered on hot-button cultural divides such as guns and especially abortion, the Biden campaign, at least at the start, plans to chiefly focus on protecting the Affordable Care Act and its popular guarantee of coverage for people with pre-existing conditions,” according to the Times. “Biden will accuse the president, as he already has, of trying to eliminate protections for pre-existing conditions during a pandemic, aides said, with the stakes heightened by a Supreme Court now short one of the liberal justices who had previously voted to keep the law in place.”

Last week, as the U.S. coronavirus death toll approached 200,000, Biden tweeted, “It didn’t have to be this bad—but Donald Trump failed to do his job.”

$100 million lawsuit involving top Trump campaign strategist before possible Supreme Court pick

A Florida judge rumored to be on short list of nominees to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death is currently hearing a $100 million lawsuit from President Donald Trump‘s top campaign strategists.

Judge Barbara Lagoa was appointed to Florida’s 11th Circuit Court of Appeals less than one year ago by Trump. She is one of two Trump appointees on a three-judge panel which will decide whether the effort by the president’s senior campaign strategist Jason Miller to revive a $100 million defamation suit against Gizmodo may advance. 

Miller has sued the media conglomerate over a 2018 article in its now-defunct subsidiary website Splinter reporting that he drugged a woman with an abortion pill without her knowledge after learning she was pregnant.

Splinter reported that the allegation came in a court filing from A.J. Delgado, a former Trump 2016 campaign aide. Delgado has been engaged in a bitter custody dispute since 2017 with Miller, a married man who fathered her child while they worked on the campaign. Delgado claimed in a court filing that the alleged smoothie incident involved another woman, whose identity she did not publicly reveal.

Miller filed a $100 million defamation suit against Gizmodo Media and Katherine Krueger, the reporter for Splinter. He denies the allegations. 

A Miami-based federal district court judge tossed out the case a year ago, ruling that the report was a fair and accurate summary of a judicial proceeding — and therefore shielded from libel charges. Miller appealed that ruling, and the court heard opening arguments last month.

The appeal hangs on Miller’s argument that the “fair report privilege” should not apply, because the filing cited by Splinter was been under seal at the time of publication. However, Gizmodo claims that the document was available for at least a three-day window before Miller’s lawyers filed to seal it. Because the court did not automatically seal the document, Gizmodo says it had a fair claim for publication under New York law.

The two Trump-appointed judges on the panel — Lagoa and Andrew Brasher — “seemed friendlier to Miller’s case,” according to a Politico report on the initial hearing last month.

For a Supreme Court nominee, Lagoa’s judicial experience would be thin by historical standards. Lagoa has about nine months of experience on the federal bench, and she previously served for less than one year on Florida’s Supreme Court.

In addition to the Miller case, Lagoa is also currently ruling on a challenge to a Florida law requiring anyone with a serious criminal conviction to pay all fines and legal obligations before they can vote. Florida is a key swing state in the 2020 elections. 

In July, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote to Lagoa and Brasher, along with Trump appointee Robert Luck, asking them to recuse themselves from the case. The senators cited judicial ethics rules barring judges from ruling on cases if their impartiality can be “reasonably” questioned. Though Brasher recused himself, Lagoa and Luck did not.

Lagoa’s potential conflicts of interest in that case may go beyond her connection to Trump. During her short stint on Florida’s Supreme Court, the judge ruled to reverse a decision invalidating the felon voting law. She argued that the federal case is different from that state-level case, a difference that some see as a gray area when it comes to recusal.

The Trump campaign views Florida as a must-win on its path to electoral victory Nov. 3.

Lagoa, a Cuban-American from Florida, was also featured on Trump’s Sept. 10 list of potential nominees.

Financial affidavits from Miller’s child support case, reviewed and first reported by Salon, showed the Trump adviser has consistently argued for years that he is broke despite simultaneously reporting incomes anywhere between $20,000 and $67,000 a month. His August affidavit showed a $35,000 monthly income starting in June, when he joined the Trump campaign. However, the campaign has not disclosed any payments to Miller or other top staff members.

Delgado has publicly claimed that Miller may be financially “desperate” to overturn the initial ruling on his $100 million lawsuit.

“It’s Lagoa who decides it,” she tweeted. “So she was placed on this list and now has to rule in Miller’s favor.”

Federal judge Amy Coney Barrett has been reported to be the front-runner to replace Ginsburg. Trump said Monday that he intends to announce a decision by “either Friday or Saturday.”

Trump attacks Susan Collins on Fox News as she struggles in the polls against Democratic rival

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is in a tough fight for re-election, and it just got tougher.

Known for her relative independence historically, Collins’ once soaring popularity has plummeted in her home state as she has been tied ever-closer to President Donald Trump, who is not popular with Maine voters. Her standing in the state seems to have been especially hurt by her support for the extremely controversial Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his 2018 nomination to the Supreme Court.

The last thing she would have wanted to do in the run-up to her re-election is wade into another Supreme Court battle, but that’s where she finds herself. While the fight may help some Republican senators at risk in red states like Montana, it creates an impossible choice for Collins. If she supports the president’s nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she will almost certainly outrage the majority of her state that dislikes the president. But if she doesn’t support the nominee, then she risks alienating Trump supporters — who she desperately needs to have any chance of keeping her seat. A mealy-mouthed compromise position is likely to please no one.

She has already come out with such a position, saying she opposes the president nominating a new justice while also refusing to directly state that she would vote against any nominee. But Republicans plan to vet and vote on the new nominee before the election, so Collins’ half-a-loaf answer isn’t likely to stay fresh until Nov. 3.

And after her remarks were public, the president came after Collins directly.

“I think Susan Collins is very badly hurt by her statement yesterday,” Trump said Monday morning on Fox News. He said the same about Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who expressed a similar sentiment to Collins’, though the Alaska senator is not up for re-election. “I think that Susan Collins is going to be hurt very badly — her people aren’t going to take this. People are not going to take it.”

Trump’s comments are a major blow to Collins, exacerbating the already fraught dynamics of the issue for her.

And she already appears to be in trouble. Her Democratic opponent, Sara Gideon, has staked out a decent lead in several recent polls. One pollster had Gideon up by as much as 12 points ahead of Collins, though other polls assessed her lead as a more modest, but still formidable, 4 to 7 points.

The stress of the situation seems to be getting to Collins. CNN reporter Manu Raju said that he pressed the senator on her ambiguous statement about a potential nominee on Monday night, and she became “testy.”

“I put out a statement, did you even bother to read it?” she said.

“But Collins didn’t say if that [statement] means she would definitely vote no, and her office has not responded to questions about it,” Raju noted. “She wouldn’t answer either and walked onto a senators-only elevator.”

You can watch the clip below via Twitter

Trump campaign still appears to be hiding large-dollar payments to Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lara Trump

The Trump campaign appears to still be hiding large-dollar payments to some of its top staff from federal regulators, including campaign manager Bill Stepien, chief strategist Jason Miller and former Fox News host turned chief fundraiser Kimberly Guilfoyle, campaign filings show.

The campaign’s August report, which was filed Sunday with the Federal Election Commission, shows no payroll payments to a number of senior advisers, with gaps from July previously reported by Salon still open. 

While the campaign reports salary payments to chief of staff Stephanie Alexander and senior adviser Katrina Pierson — at the rate of $20,000 a month each — it does not appear to issue similar reports for Guilfoyle; COO Jeff DeWit; or senior advisers Bob Paduchik, Bill Shine and Lara Trump, filings show.

Further, the Trump campaign has still not disclosed any payments to senior adviser Jason Miller or new campaign manager, Bill Stepien, who took over Brad Parscale’s role in July, according to mandatory filings.

Parscale appears to have taken a $15,000 a month pay cut along with his demotion, or a drop from $47,747 to $32,747 from July to August, per federal records. However, that payment did not go straight to Parscale for official campaign work but rather to his firm Parscale Strategy for “strategy consulting.”

That same firm has reportedly funneled salary payments to Guilfoyle and Lara Trump, the significant others of the president’s eldest two sons. Those payments were said to be $15,000 a month, or the same amount cut from Parscale’s take. (Guilfoyle’s role floats in press reports from senior Trump campaign adviser to financial chair of Trump Victory, which is a joint fundraising arm of the Republican National Committee. It does not report salary payments to her, either.)

While the campaign did not report paying Stepien a salary, it did report a $300 payment to the new campaign manager on Aug. 18 for “strategy consulting.” Though the campaign does not appear to directly pay Miller, Salon reviewed court documents showing that the top strategist made as much as $35,000 a month from his campaign work. That would effectually be a $420,000 salary, or more than the presidency pays.

However, the Trump campaign does disclose payments to Jamestown Associates, a media company founded in New Jersey which specializes in campaign publicity. Miller was once a top Jamestown executive, and Stepien also has ties to the firm through former Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J. (Christie fired Stepien as his campaign manager in the wake of the “Bridgegate” scandal before going on to praise his elevation to the top slot in Trump’s operation this year.)

FEC filings show that the campaign has made several payments to Jamestown this year, ranging from approximately $7,500 to $45,500 through June. In July, those payments increased significantly, including a $78,394 payment on July 13 and a $133,800 payment on July 28.

Miller joined the campaign in June, and Stepien was promoted by the campaign on July 15. The campaign reports that the disbursements to Jamestown Associates were for “video production services.”

Jamestown Associates made several campaign ads ahead of the Republican National Convention last month, and the campaign’s August filings show five payments over the course of the month totaling about $210,000. One of those payments — for $28,180.73 — also shows up in the same amount as a campaign debt still owed at the end of the month.

“A debt and a payment to resolve that debt shouldn’t appear on the same report,” campaign finance expert Brett Kappel told Salon. “An unpaid invoice doesn’t become a reportable debt until it has gone unpaid for 60 days.”

“It may be an accounting error. They paid an invoice that was more than 60 days old,” Kappel continued. “If so, they should have just reported the payment and never reported it as a debt. It could also be a coincidence that they received two invoices for the same amount, but that seems unlikely given the services they provide. I have seen it happen, however, when a vendor provides the same service repeatedly for a fixed fee.”

Jamestown Associates has only billed the campaign for $28,180.73 on one occasion.

Nations who have recovered fastest quarantined the fastest. The ruling elites won’t allow that here

Every campaign pitch is at its root a narrative, a story line about the ebb and flow of our history that acts as the orientation for the vote that is upon us. The candidate whose story line captures the most people is the one that prevails in November.

For Trump’s base, the Make America Great Again cult, our nation achieved its zenith in the post–World War II era, when a white family could be supported by a single breadwinner. For them, Donald Trump was just on the verge of a restoration of those halcyon days when the Chinese unleashed the coronavirus and wrecked what he called the “greatest economy in history.” 

And now, as the pandemic body count passes 200,000, many MAGA voters believe the virus is “a hoax” and public health measures that aim to stop its spread are part of a deep state conspiracy to deprive Americans of their fundamental civil liberties while kneecapping Donald Trump, who was in the process of delivering that so-called greatest economy. 

So deeply held is this conviction these folks believe that letting their fellow Americans succumb to the virus is a reasonable trade off, because the more people that die and the faster the virus spreads, the quicker herd immunity will be conferred on a grateful nation who can resume in basking in Trump’s restoration of white male greatness.

The prevalence of this worldview, blue state or red, is most apparent when we see just what a high percentage of local police officers refuse to wear a mask, even though so many of their colleagues have died from the virus. Yet the large number of Americans who believe the coronavirus, or its concomitant public health restrictions, constitute some kind of conspiracy play right into the hands of a ruling elite that is funneling money from these very same Americans and — with their masks firmly fitted on their faces — are laughing all the way to the bank.

Your job or your life

So far, Trump has kept his base in line of working-class Americans by promoting the notion that we can’t fully recover economically unless we “downplay” the COVID death toll by resisting testing and disregarding the advice of public health experts to wear a mask. 

Yet there’s ample evidence that countries as diverse as Denmark and South Korea — indeed, the countries that managed to keep their COVID death toll down by taking proactive measures — were in turn able to limit economic fallout. In contrast, the United States has one of the world’s highest per capita COVID death rate, and saw our GDP crater and unemployment soar as the country proved itself incapable of enacting a true quarantine.

As Greg Jericho wrote recently in the Guardian, the debate over how best to counter the global economic downturn “has led some (mostly conservative) commentators to argue there is a necessary trade-off between higher economic growth and fewer deaths. It also led to a pretty morbid and generally ignorant discussion about how governments will have to decide how much each life is worth.”

Jericho continues. “And yet analysis of the performance of OECD nations, which make up the major advanced economies in the world, shows this thinking is completely wrong. What we find instead is a clear link between higher numbers of deaths from the virus and a weaker economy.”

That goes far in explaining the economic situation of the United States.

James Parrott, an economist with the New School’s Center for NYC Affairs sees the “economic well-being vs. public health tradeoff” as “a tortured libertarian construct,” writing, “government should protect people from harm, and that means contain the pandemic and insulate people from the economic harm that public health restrictions create.”

Parrott continues: “The challenge is to do the latter effectively to protect incomes, employment opportunities and economic well-being in general. Done successfully, it doesn’t matter if measured GDP declines temporarily, well-being is more important. Of course, that means government deficits will rise, but that’s manageable with the right tax policy. Not containing a pandemic is an abdication of government’s responsibility to provide for the general welfare, and hence, not a choice.” 

A pandemic decades in the making

For Richard D. Wolff, an emeritus professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, the United States’ failure to control the spread of the pandemic and the economic fallout that comes with it hearkens back several hundred years in Europe to the collapse of feudalism.

“In 14th century Europe, the black death pandemic began the end of feudalism because millions of serfs were too dead or too sick to produce the surpluses paid as rent to their feudal landlords,” writes Wolff. “That rent supported the entire political and cultural structures of European feudalism. They consequently crumbled and took the system down. Today, tens of millions of unemployed on top of all the dead and sick are likewise depriving our capitalist system of the surpluses, profits, etc. that support our political and cultural institutions. The disintegration of capitalism, especially where the death, sickness, and unemployment are worst (US) is furthest along.”

That historical analysis might seem a little overwrought, until you take a close look at just how stacked the American economy was against working people (modern-day serfs) even before the pandemic hit — and just how much worse it has gotten for us since we started dying from COVID.

It’s important to read the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of a national circumstance wherein life expectancy has been on the decline for three years in a row — the first time that has happened since World War I and the Spanish Flu pandemic.

Even as the rest of the world was seeing a rise in life expectancy, a reliable measure for national well-being, the United States was falling further and further behind even, while the country grew more stratified.

Bi-partisan neglect

The elites of both political parties ignored this fundamental erosion of America’s well-being. You could see what was happening in the rise of deaths of despair and a medical debt crisis. These individual trends were studied and analyzed, but no president and no Congress managed to see what their confluence would portend.

So vested in market capitalism, they saw the fall of the Soviet Union as history’s final imprimatur on America’s inherent superiority — even as it became increasingly stratified, corrupt, indebted and unequal.

In 2018, Smithsonian Magazine reported the United States had dropped 21 spots in the global life expectancy rankings. Closures of rural and urban hospitals, and a cruel for-profit health care system that rations health care based on one’s ability to pay, are largely to blame.

“Life expectancies across the globe are projected to rise by an average of 4.4 years over the next two decades, but a study recently published in The Lancet predicts the United States will linger far behind other high-income nations, reaching an average lifespan of just 79.8 years by 2040,” noted Smithsonian Magazine. “Comparatively, frontrunner Spain is forecast to boast an average lifespan of 85.8 years, while Japan sits at a close second with an expected lifespan of 85.7 years.”

As Nick Hanauer and David M. Rolf wrote recently in Time:

[T]he United States went into the COVID-19 pandemic wracked by preexisting conditions. A fraying public health infrastructure, inadequate medical supplies, an employer-based health insurance system perversely unsuited to the moment—these and other afflictions are surely contributing to the death toll. But in addressing the causes and consequences of this pandemic—and its cruelly uneven impact—the elephant in the room is extreme income inequality.

How big is this elephant? A staggering $50 trillion. That is how much the upward redistribution of income has cost American workers over the past several decades.

Hanauer and Rolf cite a report released by the Rand Institute that concluded if the “more equitable income distributions of the three decades following World War II (1945 through 1974) merely held steady, the aggregate annual income of Americans earning below the 90th percentile would have been $2.5 trillion higher in the year 2018 alone.”

They correctly observe that’s “equal to nearly 12 percent of GDP—enough to more than double median income—enough to pay every single working American in the bottom nine deciles an additional $1,144 a month. Every month. Every single year.”

A multi-generational heist

The Rand researchers estimate 40 years of this lopsided wealth inequality had grown to over $47 trillion from 1975 through 2018. “At a recent pace of about $2.5 trillion a year, that number we estimate crossed the $50 trillion mark by early 2020,” wrote Hanauer and Rolf. “That’s $50 trillion that would have gone into the paychecks of working Americans had inequality held constant — $50 trillion that would have built a far larger and more prosperous economy — $50 trillion that would have enabled the vast majority of Americans to enter this pandemic far more healthy, resilient, and financially secure.”

This lopsided result is a consequence of decades of a rigged tax system which penalized working families and rewarded wealth by slashing taxes on billionaires, while promoting ever bigger mergers and acquisitions. This encouraged the proliferation of monopolies so big they could pick the country where they wanted to park their profits beyond the grasp of tax collectors.

When the pandemic hit, America’s working-class families, particularly in communities of color, were still struggling to recover from the ground they lost as a consequence of the Wall Street–induced Great Recession.

They also disproportionately make up the ranks of the essential workforce who would have to just suck up the additional health risks to themselves and their families that comes with being an essential worker.

The pandemic profiteers

As Business Insider reported, as the nation saw tens of millions of Americans thrown out of work almost overnight, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ net worth rose “by an estimated $48 billion.” They note that “when you add up the numbers, billionaires in the United States have increased their total net worth $637 billion during the COVID-19 pandemic” thus far.

At the dawn of the pandemic, the Federal Reserve propped up Wall Street as the U.S. Treasury extended hundreds of billions of dollars in loans to the nation’s biggest corporations. In July, Trump and the GOP refused to extend the $600-a-week supplemental unemployment benefit for millions of struggling Americans, ostensibly to starve them back into the workforce.

In essence, what we have had is a diabolical repeat of how the powers that be handled the 2007-08 meltdown. But this time, the wolf at the door is a highly contagious and deadly virus.

“When the housing bubble burst in 2007, home prices fell 21% and roughly 3.1 million homes were foreclosed on in the United States,” recounts Business Insider. “The stock market plummeted by over 50%. And by the end of 2009, 8.8 million Americans had lost their jobs. And the effects lingered. From 2009 to 2012, the incomes of the bottom 99% grew by only 0.4%, but the income of the top 1% grew by a staggering 31.4% in the same time span.”

That takes us back to where we began. Economies that were able to quickly deal with the coronavirus — by closing businesses, enforcing quarantines, testing rapidly and for free, giving stipends to citizens to ensure they don’t need to go to work, and so on — bounced back far quicker. But in the past half-century, American ruling elites and corporations have become habituated to an American political system that bends over backwards to serve them, to ensure that nothing will stop the machinations that extract money and labor from the poor and working class and send it upward to them.

The result is a horrific catch-22 of the ruling class’s own making. The 200,000 dead (and counting) are just collateral damage.

Fauci staffer revealed to be coronavirus “truther” writing for right-wing website Red State: report

Despite the devastation the pandemic has inflicted domestically and across the globe, so-called “coronavirus truthers” continue to insist that the COVID-19 is exaggerated and isn’t nearly as severe as the media says. And according to the Daily Beast, a popular pseudonymous truther known as “streiff” is actually William Crews — a staffer for Dr. Anthony Fauci and a public relations official at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Crews, according to the Beast’s Lachlan Markey, has been promoting coronavirus conspiracy theories on the right-wing website Red State. In June, streiff wrote, “I think we’re at the point where it is safe to say that the entire Wuhan virus scare was nothing more or less than a massive fraud perpetrated upon the American people by ‘experts’ who were determined to fundamentally change the way the country lives and is organized and governed. If there were justice we’d send and (sic) few dozen of these fascists to the gallows and gibbet their tarred bodies in chains until they fall apart.”

Fauci is one of the leading immunologists in the world and has been a valuable source of information during the pandemic, but far-right conspiracy theorists have been claiming that he was added to the White House coronavirus task force to undermine the president. And Markey reports that streiff has slammed Fauci as an “attention-grubbing and media-whorin … mask nazi.”

According to Markey, the Beast has confirmed that Crews is RedState’s “streiff” by checking public records, social media posts and internal records of the National Institutes of Health.

Markey explains:

William B. Crews is, by day, a public affairs specialist for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. But for years, he has been writing for RedState under the pseudonym. And in that capacity, he has been contributing to the very same disinformation campaign that his superiors at the NIAID say is a major challenge to widespread efforts to control a pandemic that has claimed roughly 200,000 U.S. lives.

Markey also reports: “The Daily Beast could not definitively determine whether Crews was writing for RedState, or posting to his Twitter account, while on the clock at his government job. But the vast majority of his writing at the site this year has been published during the work week, often during normal business hours — raising questions about the ethical use of taxpayer resources.”

RBG’s death means Obamacare may be doomed — even if Trump doesn’t get another Supreme Court pick

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death may drastically affect the fate of a lawsuit seeking to strike down Obamacare — even if President Donald Trump fails to replace her with a more conservative justice.

Ginsburg’s death leaves the court with a 5-3 conservative majority as it prepares to hear California v. Texas a week after the presidential election in November. The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of red state attorneys general seeking to strike down the entire Obamacare law, including the Medicaid expansion and protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions.

Though congressional Republicans voted to repeal the law’s individual mandate penalty in 2017, they failed to repeal the law itself. The Department of Justice has backed the lawsuit, and a federal judge in Texas has already ruled the law unconstitutional without the mandate.

It is unclear whether President Donald Trump will be able to push through his nominee — and even less clear if that is possible by the time the court hears the Obamacare arguments. A 6-3 conservative majority would almost certainly doom the law, but it may not survive the court’s current makeup either.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts previously voted to uphold the law as a tax as part of a behind-the-scenes deal that allowed states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, according to a recent book. If Roberts had sided with the court’s four liberal justices while Ginsburg was still on the court, the ruling would have saved Obamacare. If the court now ties 4-4 on the decision, it would leave the lower court decision declaring the law invalid in place. But the case would likely work its way back through the process to determine whether it should be struck down in its entirety, according to Axios.

The lawsuit hinges on Robert’s conclusion that the individual mandate was a tax. Most legal scholars, including those that have challenged the law in the past, find the argument “unconvincing,” NPR reported.

“If courts invalidate an entire law merely because Congress eliminates or revises one part, as happened here, that may well inhibit necessary reform of federal legislation in the future by turning it into an ‘all or nothing’ proposition,” a bipartisan group of law professors said in a brief to the court.

Nevertheless, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor sided with Republicans in the lawsuit. Though the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with O’Connor, it sent the case back to determine whether the entire law actually needed to be struck down.

It is unclear whether the Supreme Court will still take up the case as scheduled. NBC News Justice Correspondent Pete Williams noted that the court “ended up deferring contentious issues or deciding cases without sweeping rulings” after Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016.

But Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who frequently argues cases before the Supreme Court, told the outlet that he believes the court will not delay key decisions while awaiting a ninth justice.

“I don’t think they’ll keep the landing gear down,” he said. “There may be some ties this time, but not on the big social issue cases.”

It is also possible that one of the court’s other conservative justices joins his liberal colleagues alongside Roberts. Brett Kavanaugh, for example, expressed skepticism about the Republicans’ lawsuit in 2018.

Trump plans to announce his nominee by this weekend, with hopes of the Senate confirming her by the election. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., immediately tied the push to rush through a new justice to the president’s campaign to repeal Obamacare.

“The president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because . . . Nov. 10 is when the arguments begin on the Affordable Care Act,” she told ABC News. “He doesn’t want to crush the virus. He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act.”

The law’s repeal would plunge the health care system into chaos. Tens of millions of Americans stand to lose coverage through the Medicaid expansion or the Obamacare marketplaces. Countless others would lose the protections for pre-existing conditions, which includes the coronavirus, NPR reported. Children under 26 years of age would no longer be eligible to stay on their parents’ insurance plans, and women would lose guaranteed access to birth control.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden called on the Senate to wait until the results of the election to decide whether he or Trump should nominate Ginsburg’s replacement. And he warned voters that health care was on the ballot this November.

“In the middle of the worst global health crisis in living memory, Donald Trump is before the Supreme Court trying to strip health care coverage away from tens of millions of families,” Biden said during a Sunday speech in Philadelphia, “to strip away the peace of mind of more than 100 million Americans with pre-existing conditions.”

The dangerous spectacle of racist violence viral videos: Who are those images for?

My execution might be televised. —Freddie Gibbs

It’s hard for many of us to unglue our eyes from phone screens these days. Hourly digesting everything from funny memes, fights, cooking tutorials, to sports highlights, and clips from our favorite movies. Social media is a pile of images, videos, and words that allows us to see what people are thinking and doing, and it keeps us updated with the world’s politics. And lately, dead Black bodies have been the main attraction to gain social media attention through retweets, shares, and comments. America does an excellent job at showing minorities their place in this country. It’s hard for me to not think about the dead Black bodies that I see on my social media timeline, even after I log off—like a video of George Floyd crying for his dead mother, while the racist killer cop Derek Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd’s neck for eight minutes, killing him and not breaking a sweat—the whole world saw it. Mike Brown’s lifeless body planking on a Ferguson Street for four hours, after being murdered by the killer cop Darren Wilson. Baltimore police dragged Freddie Gray’s limp body after beating him into a seven-day coma, where he later died—the whole world saw it. In a world where the terms “mental health,” and “self-care,” are more frequently mentioned on public platforms, I can’t help but to think how these viral videos are affecting Black people psychologically. What do safe spaces look like for us, when we get constant reminders of what our public execution could potentially look like?

Being Black in America is having to wake up every day knowing there’s a fixed image of you in the minds of the producers and consumers of racist ideas, and knowing that they can act on those images, and treat you accordingly. It doesn’t matter if you have a LLC, college degrees, or if you drive the latest BMW—if you are Black in America, your freedom is threatened just by existing. Racist cops can murder you, and not get convicted of any charges, and will still be labeled heroes by the American people. The killers with badges will still be able to go on vacations with their families, get discounts on coffee and sandwiches from their favorite restaurants, and still keep their jobs. Being Black and conscious of how racism works is to constantly be in rage. Outside of what you personally deal with, being Black in this country and constantly seeing public displays of racism can take a toll on you mentally.

I was walking down Charles Street in the Station North Art District in Baltimore, and as I passed the Amtrak train station, a huge electronic billboard caught my eye. The billboard read, “George Floyd,” with a scribbled heart over the top of it. My mood shifted, but I continued on my journey. A friend of mine put me on game to this app called Pattern and told me that it helps inspire consciousness and empathy through zodiac signs. I had recently downloaded the app, so I decided to check it out, with the hopes of getting lost in it, taking my mind off of the current state of the world. As soon as I opened it, there was a Black Lives Matter statement, addressing their support for victims of police brutality. I closed out my phone and stuffed it back in my pocket. I walked another block or so, pulled my phone out again, and attempted to listen to some music for a little therapy, and when I opened up Apple Music, there was a statement saying that they canceled their usual Beats 1 schedule and directed users to a single streaming station that celebrates what they call “the best in Black music.” I shut out my app, logged onto Twitter, and all I was saw were videos of George Floyd being executed. And Black Twitter was advocating for the reopening of Breonna Taylor’s case so that her death could be investigated, and with the hopes of her killers getting convicted of murder. Other tweets and videos of police brutality, racial injustices, and RIP posts for people who’ve died from gun violence also dominated. In minutes, my entire day was ruined, and it was all caused by the constant reminder of the price that we pay as Black people in this country.

Propaganda is one of America’s most useful tools when sending out messages to the masses. Public lynchings in the late 1800s and early 1900s were used as a method to maintain racial conformity by terrorizing and instilling fear in Black Americans. Black Americans during these times would be lynched for “criminal accusations,” which led to lynch mobs putting them to death without legal sanction, hanging them from trees, burning, dismembering the bodies, taking pieces of the bodies home for souvenirs. They took pictures, smiling in front of the hanging and burning Black bodies, and sold photos as souvenirs, too. They invited their friends and family; it was a tradition, a celebration for them. These murders could have easily been private affairs, but they were public for one reason only—to showcase what will happen to you, if you are Black and choose to challenge White supremacy in the slightest fashion, which could be something as simple as acknowledging the beauty in being Black.

Ida B. Wells, a Black woman journalist who was born into slavery, documented the horrifying practice of Black lynchings in the late 1890s. In 1892, three of Ida B. Wells’s close friends, Thomas Moss, Will Stewart, and Calvin McDowell, were charged with “maintaining a public nuisance” after protecting People’s Grocery in Memphis from an armed and racist White mob. In the middle of the night, a mob of seventy-five Whites seized the three friends from the jail, drove them away from the city, and beat and shot them to death. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back—and what sparked Ida B. Wells to challenge the White power structure, which she did by dedicating her life to bring awareness and to combat lynchings in the South. She documented the lynchings and White mob violence through pictures and collected statistics, which we know today as “data journalism.” Wells started a newspaper, Free Speech, that was attacked and burned by a White mob in May 1892. In 1893 and 1894, she traveled to England on a speaking tour, attending public meetings and forums to showcase what lynchings looked like in the American South. In 1894, she returned to America to continue her speaking tour. She published a book in 1895, “A Red Record: Tabulated Statistics and Alleged Causes of Lynchings in the United States.”

Anyone who takes it upon themselves to fight the White power structure in America is a courageous individual in my eyes. Ida B. Wells’s work was important, revolutionary, and a step forward in the right direction toward Black liberation. She brought awareness to the brutal and violent history of White mobs and lynchings in America, conditions that some people may not have ever known existed in the South if it weren’t for Wells. I understand the revolution in antilynching campaigns, and even the current campaigns that people have around antipolice brutality, and even gun violence in Black communities. However, for me, it’s depressing being forced to see pictures and videos of people who look just like me and my loved ones get tortured and murdered. I know firsthand what getting stomped out by cops feels like. I still hear the sounds of screams in my nightmares from mothers mourning their dead child. I don’t need to see videos of Black boys and girls getting murdered to know that Baltimore has roughly 300+ homicides a year—I live here, I walk the streets, I feel it. I don’t need to see bloody bodies on the concrete to believe that it’s going on, because I know. The Thanksgiving table shrinks in size. The slain don’t pull up to the cookouts anymore. Friends in your group photos start to vanish. They won’t be screaming congratulations when you’re due to walk across the stage on graduation. The numbers you have saved for them in your phone will never ping again. I believe that Ida B. Wells knew that she had to go abroad and speak the truth, because the people in the South were dealing with the lynchings, being threatened and murdered by the noose. Why would they need pictures if they could smell the strange fruit hanging from the trees?

Ida B. Wells’s plan to bring awareness to lynchings in the South was strategic and effective. I believe that sharing videos and images of trauma can be effective, but I believe there needs to be a more strategic approach, than just aimlessly sharing the images and videos on social media with no direction. I have noticed that when some people post traumatic videos, they’ll have some type of disclaimer or trigger warning, letting the viewer know that the content can be sensitive. Every Black experience in America isn’t the same. I know some Black people who have never lost a friend or family member to violence. I know some Black people that never had physical altercations with police, or even grew up loving cops. So their relationship to viral content of murders and police brutality might be different from that of someone who’s been directly affected.

Any activist or pillar of the community will tell you that you have to keep one foot in the revolution, and one foot out, and if not, it has the potential to drive you mad. Nowadays because we are stuck to our phones, and have unlimited access to breaking news globally, I believe that it’s harder to keep that one foot out of the revolution, when the harsh realities of racism are hunting you down—constantly being shoved in your face. During the years when there were no cell phones, if you wanted access to news, statistics, videos, and images of police violence, you had to actively seek it. Now because we have cell phones, the racist propaganda and the “support” of Black Lives Matter are in the palm of our hands.

Being Black in America and watching agents of the state torture and murder Black people every day, and being forced to watch because it is so ubiquitous, is a psychological media tactic to cause fear and terror and high ratings. When the media highlights White supremacist like Dylan Roof, who killed nine Black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, and was taken to Burger King hours after his arrest because he hadn’t eaten, it sends a message. George Zimmerman went free after shooting Trayvon Martin in Florida and later sold the gun he used to kill Trayvon at a gun show for $138,900. From the Black people being killed, to Whites not being held accountable for the killings, all of it is propaganda to maintain racial conformity and takes a continuous psychological toll.

According to the Equal Justice Initiative, of all lynchings committed after 1900, only 1 percent resulted in a lyncher being convicted of a criminal offense of any kind: “The vast majority of lynching participants were never punished, both because of the tacit approval of law enforcement, and because dozens if not hundreds often had a hand in the killing. Still, punishment was not unheard of—though most of the time, if white lynchers were tried or convicted, it was for arson, rioting, or some other much more minor offense.” Again, I believe that the public display of this trauma can work with a strategy and intent of teaching those who might be unaware, not just aimlessly sharing on the Internet. I believe that this is ideal and the safest approach. One of the most historic public displays of the Black male corpse happened in Chicago at Roberts Temple Church of God in Christ in 1955.

In the summer of 1955, Emmett Till, a fourteen-year-old boy from Chicago, had traveled to Mississippi to visit relatives. One day, Till stopped at Bryant’s Grocery and Meat Market, not knowing his trip would be a death sentence. Carolyn Bryant, the White woman who was behind the counter, claimed that Till wolf-whistled and said, “Bye Baby,” as he walked out of the store. Carolyn told her brother, J.W. Milam, and husband, Roy Bryant, what Till did, and days later after returning from a business trip, the two went to Till’s great-uncle’s house. They dragged Till out of the house, and they beat, shot, and murdered him. They wrapped barbed wire and tied a seventy-five-pound cotton gin fan to his neck, and dumped his lifeless body in the Tallahatchie River. The two White men were acquitted after the jury deliberated for less than an hour. Till’s face was beyond recognition when his bloated body was found. Law enforcement wanted to bury Till’s body hours after it was retrieved. Emmett Till’s mother, Mammie Till Bradley, was distraught by what those White men did to her son. She said, “Let the people see what they did to my boy,” and held an open casket funeral that had 100,000 visitors. Images of Till’s ravaged body were posted everywhere from Jet magazine, to other media outlets and news. His mother forced the public to reckon with the brutal reality of racism in this country and wanted the world to see what White supremacy can look like at its highest form. The image of Till’s body, the White men not getting arrested for killing him—even after admitting to the murder in an interview—and the nature of his death added steam to the Civil Rights movement—and publicized what was wrong with America.

While Carolyn Bryant was on her death bed, six decades later, she admitted that her claims of Emmett whistling at her and touching her were all a lie. There are countless others who have blood on their hands, without even getting them dirty, and the sad part is that we’ll never know how many Black lives they’ve destroyed.

It reminds us who this country is, what we’ve done, and what we have the capability to do. That’s why when people discuss the White woman, Amy Cooper, who called the police on the Black male, Christian Cooper, in Central Park on May 25, 2020, and explicitly stated that he is African American, I can’t help but think of the thousands of Black males who have been jailed, beaten, murdered, and lynched just because some white women didn’t want them in their space—some under the same exact accusations as with Emmett Till.

What Mamie Till did was courageous. She brought awareness to an issue that’s been on the forefront of Black American minds for the longest time. The sacrifice she made for the world was something that many people wouldn’t do. Think about the agony she faced her entire life. She knew what her baby looked liked before his demise, she saw him in the casket, she wouldn’t have been able to erase the image even if she wanted to. But not only that, she had to see it in the paper, magazines, and other places promoting the brutal history of America.

The Black male corpse, and the death of the Black male, are always used to make statements, and to show the world the injustices going on in America. Images of dead Black people have been and still are one of America’s methods of propaganda to promote racial conformity, and its harsh realities. They can be used as ammo, and as hype for racists to see, love, and crow over our deaths. But another harsh reality is that today, we who share those videos are doing the job of perpetuating the racial spectacle by constantly posting and sharing images of Black injustices, and a fine line develops between raising awareness and stoking that spectacle. It’s these images of police brutality that are finally exposing, for all Americans and the world at large, what is happening in our streets and homes. But again, the spectacle is lamentable.

Even when race isn’t involved, being in constant reminder and seeing public displays of death, tragedy, and even mourning can cause harm. Earlier this year we lost Kobe Bryant and his daughter Gianna in a helicopter crash. Kobe being one of the greatest and most popular basketball players to ever live, and his daughter being a basketball player, too, I’m pretty sure they had billions of people mourning their deaths. Many of those mourners took their feelings to Instagram, not fully understanding how this would harm Vanessa and Natalia Bryant, Kobe’s wife and younger daughter. During this time, the two made their Instagram pages private, and blocked the Kobe and Gianna fan pages, to keep others from reposting their pictures. “This makes it 10x harder to deal with our loss. We hope that people understand that although these fan pages have good intentions, they make moving forward harder since they are constant reminders,” wrote Natalia in her Instagram story. Vanessa made a similar statement: “I have unfortunately had to block fan pages because it’s been really hard to go online and constantly see pics of our beloved Gigi and Kobe under every single square of our explore pages. . . . We [love] you all but please understand that we had to do this for our own healing not because we don’t appreciate your [love].”

If it’s losing a loved one to a freak accident, or to police brutality or gun violence, seeing excessive images and videos of those tragedies has the ability to take a toll on anyone’s mental health.

People like myself don’t have the luxury to take ourselves out of “harmful” environments, because it’s where we make a living, eat, take care of our families, go to school, and repeat. We can’t hit the block button on real life. We can’t change the factory settings of our lives to “private,” when crooked cops disguised as public servants terrorize us daily.

I can’t help but question whether I am an accomplice as racist White Americans carry out their propaganda mission to instill fear, continue racial conformity, and keep us in check, by sharing the videos. Am I aiding in the propaganda of racists romanticizing Black death? Racist don’t have to go out and take pictures of burning and mutilated Black bodies, because we do it. They don’t have to hold celebrations and ceremonies around lynchings, because they can kick back in the comforts of their homes, eat casserole and popcorn, drink champagne, invite other racists friends and family over, and watch us die on their phone screens. Why should racists do the work, when we can do it for them? Remember, that they want us to feel like and be seen as victims, because again, lynchings could have easily been a private savagery ceremony for racist Whites, but they chose to make them public. The public slayings of Black men should not be the backbone of “moving in the right direction,” when it comes to race relations in this country.

Haven’t we had enough? Do we—one nation under God — need to see yet another and another public slaying of a Black man or woman to keep “moving in the right direction” when it comes to race relations? These spectacles should not be counted on to keep sparking our passions whenever there is a lull in interest and activism around racial issues. We as a nation don’t need to see any more shootings, any more knees on necks, any more murders. We’ve been immersed in these visuals. Our focus must remain steadfast and resolute on dialogue and action to ensure that the violence ends.

Manhattan DA suggests his office has grounds to probe Trump for tax fraud for first time: report

Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance announced Monday that his office has grounds to investigate President Donald Trump for tax fraud.

The New York Times reported that Vance’s office gave details about the investigation that it has been working on for the past two years. It’s the first time he revealed the specifics about any possible charges publicly.

Vance is the DA who subpoenaed Trump’s taxes last year, only to be blocked at every turn by Trump’s lawyers. But the Supreme Court, including one of Trump’s own appointees, ruled against his efforts to quash the subpoena. Vance requested eight years of Trump’s tax returns.

Trump’s lawyers alleged that it was all a political hitjob from Vance, but in the new filing, Vance explained that at no point had he directly accused the president, his businesses or Trump associates of any wrongdoing.

“However, prosecutors listed news reports and public testimony that alleged misconduct by Mr. Trump and his businesses,” said the Times. “The reports, prosecutors wrote, would justify a grand jury inquiry into a range of possible crimes, including tax and insurance fraud and falsification of business records. It was the first time the office had included tax fraud among the possible areas of investigation.”

“Even if the grand jury were testing the truth of public allegations alone, such reports, taken together, fully justify the scope of the grand jury subpoena at issue in this case,” the prosecutors said in the filing.

Read the full report at the New York Times.

Democracy, not consumption is “how we will amass power to challenge the corporate behemoth”

“The New Corporation: The Unfortunately Necessary Sequel,” is Joel Bakan and Jennifer Abbott’s essential follow-up to their 2003 documentary, “The Corporation.” That film, as this new one recaps, showed how large public corporations have become the dominant institutions of our time, and have even been deemed by law to have the same rights as a human being. 

In the original documentary, the filmmakers — Mark Achbar and Abbott directed; Bakan was a writer — provided a psychological profile of corporations. They demonstrated that businesses were pathologically self-interested. This new film, which had its World Premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, looks at how corporations have changed, in that they are now promoting greater social responsibility, but also how they have not — they create greater inequality, threaten the environment, and unduly influence the government. 

The emphasis here is twofold. First, the filmmakers present 10 rules out of the New Corporation’s playbooks, from using information to control people and exploiting an unequal advantage to breaking laws that get in their way. They feature observations and commentary from Robert Reich, Sandra Navidi, Wendy Brown, and Anand Giridharadas, among others, that provide context for how corporations are contributing to the breakdown of society. The second part of the film addresses democracy both in crisis and in action, with social movements like Occupy and Black Lives Matter working to create real change. 

The filmmakers spoke with Salon about the bad behavior of corporations and their forceful new documentary, which is sure to provoke righteous outrage. Bakan also authored the companion book, “The New Corporation: How ‘Good’ Corporations Are Bad for Democracy,” out Sept. 22.

Your new film shows that while corporations have done better in being more socially responsible, that this is, in fact, a myth. For all the money JPMorgan Chase Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon “invests” in Detroit, his company received a bailout from the 2008 financial crisis that obliterated the communities that he is “helping” now. Can you discuss this idea of corporate America reinventing themselves as saviors?

Joel Bakan: If you go back to when the first film came out, there were globalization protests and the wheels turned to the point that corporations became so large and multinational that they challenged the capacity of governments to regulate them. So, it was a tipping point where corporations shifted from being powerful actors to dominant actors. That’s what we captured in our first film. In 2004-2005, corporations got the message, and they got the sense that people were very concerned about their growing power, impunity, and negative footprint on the world, so they worried that the legitimacy of their growing power was in question. Their response was to come out with a public relations rebranding and say, “We may have been psychopaths and self-interested before, but we are better now. We are reformed now. We got the message and we are going to be a solution to the problem.” That was the remake, but despite the remake and the actions they took, the institution of the corporation remained the same, and nothing changed in the imperative to chase profit.   

There is also a case study presented in the film of the for-profit Bridge International Academies, which people like Bill Gates fund with $5 million that basically profit from the poor. You take corporations to task in the film for this insidious kind of privatization. Can you talk about this process, and what you discovered?

Jennifer Abbott: Part of the neoliberal agenda has been to promote privatization and this notion that government is the problem and inefficient, and that the private sector can do better in organizing things like the post office. The example of Bridge is a particularly creepy example partly because the people doing the privatizing seem to be so nice about it. But there is another dimension that Bridge is colonization, pure and simple. Silicon Valley corporations are going into Africa, exploiting the poor, and sucking out public funds from the government by creating for-profit schools that are detrimental to the children. They don’t have qualified teachers, which is how they make them profitable. They give teachers tablets that [instruct] them to, “walk two steps to blackboard, talk to the student one-on-one, etc.”

Bakan: Corporations are going into Africa because other systems are not working. So, it seems like a good thing, but the public systems don’t work because we have these companies providing education, so we don’t need to fund it much. A little privatization begets more privatization, which gives governments leeway to cut back on social services. 

Corporations control the wealth because they have tax havens and benefit from tax cuts. This has the — to use the Reaganomics term — trickle-down effect of giving the government less money, which causes social problems to grow. There are also environmental and health concerns that stem from this behavior. Can we shift power away from corporations or hold them more accountable?

Bakan: Of course we can. The corporation is a creation of the state and government. Corporations were created in the 19th century by legislative and judicial systems. They make profits that both the government and the state say shareholders are not liable for harms caused by the business. Corporations can disappear by stroke of a pen. How can we generate political will to contain, not end, corporations? It is an easy thing for the government to do — pass laws or reform laws. It’s really about political will. We spend the last third of the film asking how we instill a sense in citizens to have the power to do this. The corporation feels immovable, but it is purely a social and political construct. Our task is to make that point and then say to people what we really need to do this is to empower ourselves as democratic citizens and take control of this thing to live in a sustainable and just world. There is no technical impediment to that. It’s a matter of will. 

Another point your film makes is how corporations work to make data profitable. We’ve seen how technology has been exposed to show racial bias, but as someone in the film warns, “putting faith in a corporation only takes us further down the path that led us here.” How can we prevent society becoming a market and stop a behemoth like Amazon

Abbott: The crucial thing is outside power, so Amazon has outside power and undue influence and that’s a big problem. But the corporation is a construct of the state, so it is the responsibility of the state to rein in the outside power. It has to have the political will to do that. It has to cut its link to big corporations so it doesn’t feel it has to act on their behalf. It’s more complicated now because in the U.S. it is tough to differentiate who is working for the corporation and the government. We include a story about Ada Colau, an anti-eviction housing activist who was elected the first woman mayor of Barcelona. When she got into power, she had no one in her phone who has economic power in the city. The other thing that is essential to understanding big technology isn’t about privacy. But it’s more about control. What do they do with the data they collect is that they predict how we are going to live the rest of our lives. They customize products and services that control our behavior. We do not have full agency in that instance through our seduction of small comforts and conveniences we get from technology. 

There are also issues of corporate regulation that have failed to protect people — the Deepwater Horizon disaster, for example. Governments are tilting towards the corporation even as they “charm us to believe they are part of the solution.” Can you discuss this insidious practice?

Bakan: The Deepwater Horizon story is really interesting because it undermines the central point in the film. We get Lord John Brown, former head of BP, talking sincerely and convincingly about how much he cares about safety. And we believe he cares about safety. But he’s working in an institutional framework where the mandate of his company is about profits. He focuses on personal safety, but he neglects process safety and cuts process safety significantly. That leads to explosions and failed pipelines. Even though he was not at BP when Deepwater Horizon happened, the trajectory of the culture that happened is [his legacy]. There is a false notion that corporations can care in a genuine and important way about environment and [safety]. It’s a tragedy.

There was a recent news item about the Boeing 737 crashes and infrastructure that is so relevant. The committee released its report, and the former CEO of Boeing before the crashes thanked Trump for relaxing regulations. It’s a clear example of when governments relax regulations, tragedies occur. Given the context of the upcoming election, all of the CEOs and all corporations that say they are good now are lobbying Trump for more deregulation and more tax cuts. They love what Trump is doing from a business perspective. Even while they are saying they believe in racial justice, they leverage Trump to deregulate and privatize. They are talking good talk and even criticizing Trump, but they are lobbying further to dismantle any meaningful controls on corporations. 

The ramifications of these practices are inciting greater waves of hate, fail to make our lives better (as promised), and weaken whatever trust we have in the government. The answer, your film advances is to find the capacity to resist, get involved, and demand a new brand of democracy. How viable is this, really?

Abbott: We were trying to get away from the idea that we can affect change solely through consumption. Reinvigorating democracy and finding our place within engaged citizenship — that is how we will amass power to challenge the corporate behemoth. We were adamant to include the pandemic and the uprising after George Floyd‘s brutal murder. Activism is so important to include because its size. Challenge the system and questioning why public funds are allocated to police and military while hospital workers are using garbage bags as protection, or inequality is seen along racial lines. It was essential to include because there was this moment — even Angela Davis says, “I never thought I’d see this in my lifetime.” We are trying to change the world. It was an important moment to include because it provided a hopeful ending. 

One person who returns from the original film is Chris Barrett. You showcased him 17 years ago as a college student who was looking for corporate sponsorship. Now he has embraced Bernie Sanders and his Democratic Socialist message. Barrett even ran for office in New Jersey and became an elected official. You encourage people to get involved at the grassroots level to effect change and create a different future. Let’s end on a hopeful note: What other positive changes have you seen since the last film? 

Bakan: We try to show a few examples of a particular model of activism that seems to be gaining momentum, and that is for people to run for office and stay connected to social movements and for social movements on the left to do what the right did with the Tea Party — work at local, state, and national levels. Bernie said, “Go run for office,” and 7,000 young people joined this movement and ran for school boards and city council. We see a wave of young progressives in congress following Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. We see cities electing progressive mayors and city councils. We didn’t need to look far to find inspiring examples; what we needed to do was figure out what stories to tell because there are so many happening in small towns like Chris Barrett, or Chokwe Antar Lumumba in Jackson, Mississippi. It’s happening around the word. One trajectory moving forward is one that Mike White, one of the initiators of Occupy, says in the film is that social movements and large-D Democratic politics are coming together in a powerful way. I don’t think it’s a coincidence or anomaly that Bernie got the support he did twice. That an open Socialist twice was successful and a contender to be President of the United States — something is happening in the political arena and not just the marketplace. It’s in towns, school boards, and city councils. It’s a positive trajectory, and it won’t go away regardless of the election. Re-enlivening of local politics is a reaction to the Trump administration. People think it’s not working, but we can make headway in our cities, and communities, and municipalities. That’s what give me hope.