crooksandliars--2020-09-14--Biden Team Puts Together 'Major' Special Litigation Unit To Protect The Election

This has been in the works for months .
The Biden campaign has put together a `` major new legal operation '' that includes two former solicitor generals and hundreds of lawyers in the largest election protection program we 've seen .
Biden officials say they will protect the integrity of an election that 's under attack by Trump .
Via the New York Times : The new operation will be overseen by Dana Remus , who has served as Mr. Biden ’ s general counsel on the 2020 campaign , and Bob Bauer , a former White House counsel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden campaign full-time over the summer as a senior adviser .
Inside the campaign , they are creating a “ special litigation ” unit , which will be led by Donald B. Verrilli Jr. and Walter Dellinger , two former solicitors general , who are joining the campaign .
Hundreds of lawyers will be involved , including a team at the Democratic law firm Perkins Coie , led by Marc Elias , which will focus on the state-by-state fight over vote casting and counting rules .
And Eric H. Holder Jr. , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , will serve as something of a liaison between the campaign and the many independent groups involved in the legal fight over the election , which is already raging in the courts .
“ We can and will hold a free and fair election this fall and be able to trust the results , ” Ms. Remus said in an interview .
Mr. Bauer , who was general counsel on both of Barack Obama ’ s presidential campaigns , said the operation would be “ far more sophisticated and resourced ” than those @ @ @ @

This has been in the works for months. The Biden campaign has put together a "major new legal operation" that includes two former solicitor generals and hundreds of lawyers in the largest election protection program we've seen. Biden officials say they will protect the integrity of an election that's under attack by Trump. Via the New York Times:
The new operation will be overseen by Dana Remus, who has served as Mr. Biden’s general counsel on the 2020 campaign, and Bob Bauer, a former White House counsel during the Obama administration who joined the Biden campaign full-time over the summer as a senior adviser.
Inside the campaign, they are creating a “special litigation” unit, which will be led by Donald B. Verrilli Jr. and Walter Dellinger, two former solicitors general, who are joining the campaign. Hundreds of lawyers will be involved, including a team at the Democratic law firm Perkins Coie, led by Marc Elias, which will focus on the state-by-state fight over vote casting and counting rules. And Eric H. Holder Jr., the former attorney general in the Obama administration, will serve as something of a liaison between the campaign and the many independent groups involved in the legal fight over the election, which is already raging in the courts.
“We can and will hold a free and fair election this fall and be able to trust the results,” Ms. Remus said in an interview.
Mr. Bauer, who was general counsel on both of Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns, said the operation would be “far more sophisticated and resourced” than those during past campaigns.


crooksandliars--2020-09-15--Democrats Are 'Nervous' — Which Is Good

Democrats Are 'Nervous' — Which Is Good

The headlines over the last seven days have been terrible for the president .
It was reported first that he said dead Americans Marines were “ losers ” and that volunteers for military service were “ suckers.
” Last came Bob Woodward ’ s bombshell .
Turns out Donald Trump knew the new coronavirus was deadlier than the flu .
Turns out he consciously chose to minimize its anticipated impact as early as February .
His abject dereliction of duty produced a death toll 66 times that of the Sept. 11 , 2001 , attacks .
That ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppose we ’ re due for a change of pace from members of the Washington press corps .
If they ’ re going to spend time and energy producing bad headlines for the president , journalistic “ balance ” demands they produce at least one bad headline for Joe Biden—even if they must look under rocks and bushes to find it .
NBC News ’ Sahil Kapur and Jonathan Allen , right on cue , made it happen with “ Democrats are nervous about Trump 's persisting edge over Biden on the economy.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Allen are wrong .
They are quite right in reporting that polls suggest “ Americans in battleground states still trust Trump over Biden on the economy , which often tops the list of decisive issues for voters.
” I ’ m not here to quibble with their interpretation of the data .
I ’ m not here to say the economy is an increasingly unreliable metric of voter behavior .
The only points I want to make are simple ones .
First , Democrats , especially liberal Democrats , are always nervous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s swing-state resilience , but because they ’ re liberals .
Second , and more importantly , Democrats should be nervous .
The stakes can ’ t be higher .
Defeat will surely mean the advance of the GOP ’ s politics of annihilation .
Liberals doubt themselves habitually in ways experienced rarely by Republicans , especially the White House ’ s current occupant .
Trump believes he ’ s always right about what ’ s going to work for him politically , and after every instance in which he expresses superlative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown to be wrong .
( When I say “ every instance , ” I mean every single one .
Being impervious to shame means being impervious to humiliation wrought by troglodyte political judgment . )
Liberals just don ’ t work that way .
Doubt is part of the mindset that makes them liberal .
This is important to point out as it pertains to journalistic “ balance.
” Worried Democrats will always appear newsworthy compared to Republicans who are never worried , even if they should be .
Having doubts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the alternative .
Here , I ’ m thinking of an essay written by Boston College political scientist Alan Wolfe .
Published 16 years ago , it examines movements within the Republican Party at the time .
It finds elements of thinking originated by fascist philosopher Carl Schmitt .
In the process , Wolfe outlines the philosophical underpinnings that distinguish liberals from “ conservatives ” ( his word ) .
I think of the differences while reading news treating Republicans and Democrats as if they were two sides of the same coin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the ways they position themselves in the world .
One has grave reservations about the moral use of political power .
The other has none at all .
Wolfe writes that the most important lesson Schmitt teaches is that the differences between liberals and conservatives are not restricted to policy but include the very “ meaning of politics itself.
” Residues of Schmitt 's German version of conservatism , he said , “ which shared so much with Nazism , ” can be “ detected in the ways in which conservatives today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2004 , he went on to say : Liberals think of politics as a means ; conservatives as an end .
Politics , for liberals , stops at the water ’ s edge ; for conservatives , politics never stops .
Liberals think of conservatives as potential future allies ; conservatives treat liberals as unworthy of recognition .
Liberals believe that policies ought to be judged against an independent ideal such as human welfare or the greatest good for the greatest number ; conservatives evaluate policies by whether they advance their conservative causes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; conservatives are bent on inflaming them .
Liberals think there is a third way between liberalism and conservatism ; conservatives believe that anyone who is not a conservative is a liberal .
Liberals want to put boundaries on the political by claiming that individuals have certain rights that no government can take away ; conservatives argue that in cases of emergency … the reach and capacity of the state can not be challenged .
When journalists equate the unequal , they not only obscure what ’ s bad about the Republicans—making them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might in fact be overconfident and weak—they obscure what ’ s good about the Democrats , and in turn , veil the authoritarian creep over an American liberal tradition for which there ’ s always something more important than winning , whether that ’ s “ procedural integrity , historical precedent , or consequences for future generations , ” Wolfe said .
Democrats doubt themselves when it comes to attaining power .
Once they have it , they doubt again .
Republished with permission from The Editorial Board .
Subscribe here .

The headlines over the last seven days have been terrible for the president. It was reported first that he said dead Americans Marines were “losers” and that volunteers for military service were “suckers.” Last came Bob Woodward’s bombshell. Turns out Donald Trump knew the new coronavirus was deadlier than the flu. Turns out he consciously chose to minimize its anticipated impact as early as February. His abject dereliction of duty produced a death toll 66 times that of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
That’s a lot of bad press, so I suppose we’re due for a change of pace from members of the Washington press corps. If they’re going to spend time and energy producing bad headlines for the president, journalistic “balance” demands they produce at least one bad headline for Joe Biden—even if they must look under rocks and bushes to find it. NBC News’ Sahil Kapur and Jonathan Allen, right on cue, made it happen with “Democrats are nervous about Trump's persisting edge over Biden on the economy.”
This is not to say Kapur and Allen are wrong. They are quite right in reporting that polls suggest “Americans in battleground states still trust Trump over Biden on the economy, which often tops the list of decisive issues for voters.” I’m not here to quibble with their interpretation of the data. I’m not here to say the economy is an increasingly unreliable metric of voter behavior. The only points I want to make are simple ones. First, Democrats, especially liberal Democrats, are always nervous, not because of polling or Trump’s swing-state resilience, but because they’re liberals. Second, and more importantly, Democrats should be nervous. The stakes can’t be higher. Defeat will surely mean the advance of the GOP’s politics of annihilation.
Liberals doubt themselves habitually in ways experienced rarely by Republicans, especially the White House’s current occupant. Trump believes he’s always right about what’s going to work for him politically, and after every instance in which he expresses superlative confidence in himself, he’s shown to be wrong. (When I say “every instance,” I mean every single one. Being impervious to shame means being impervious to humiliation wrought by troglodyte political judgment.) Liberals just don’t work that way. Doubt is part of the mindset that makes them liberal. This is important to point out as it pertains to journalistic “balance.” Worried Democrats will always appear newsworthy compared to Republicans who are never worried, even if they should be.
Having doubts, moreover, is a good thing compared to the alternative. Here, I’m thinking of an essay written by Boston College political scientist Alan Wolfe. Published 16 years ago, it examines movements within the Republican Party at the time. It finds elements of thinking originated by fascist philosopher Carl Schmitt. In the process, Wolfe outlines the philosophical underpinnings that distinguish liberals from “conservatives” (his word). I think of the differences while reading news treating Republicans and Democrats as if they were two sides of the same coin. The parties are different and dialectical in the ways they position themselves in the world. One has grave reservations about the moral use of political power. The other has none at all.
Wolfe writes that the most important lesson Schmitt teaches is that the differences between liberals and conservatives are not restricted to policy but include the very “meaning of politics itself.” Residues of Schmitt's German version of conservatism, he said, “which shared so much with Nazism,” can be “detected in the ways in which conservatives today fight for their objectives.” Writing in 2004, he went on to say:
Liberals think of politics as a means; conservatives as an end. Politics, for liberals, stops at the water’s edge; for conservatives, politics never stops. Liberals think of conservatives as potential future allies; conservatives treat liberals as unworthy of recognition. Liberals believe that policies ought to be judged against an independent ideal such as human welfare or the greatest good for the greatest number; conservatives evaluate policies by whether they advance their conservative causes. Liberals instinctively want to dampen passions; conservatives are bent on inflaming them. Liberals think there is a third way between liberalism and conservatism; conservatives believe that anyone who is not a conservative is a liberal. Liberals want to put boundaries on the political by claiming that individuals have certain rights that no government can take away; conservatives argue that in cases of emergency … the reach and capacity of the state cannot be challenged.
When journalists equate the unequal, they not only obscure what’s bad about the Republicans—making them seem confident and strong, when they might in fact be overconfident and weak—they obscure what’s good about the Democrats, and in turn, veil the authoritarian creep over an American liberal tradition for which there’s always something more important than winning, whether that’s “procedural integrity, historical precedent, or consequences for future generations,” Wolfe said. Democrats doubt themselves when it comes to attaining power. Once they have it, they doubt again.
That’s good. That’s worth voting for.
Republished with permission from The Editorial Board. Subscribe here.


crooksandliars--2020-09-17--Meatpacking Industry Drafted The Executive Order To Keep Plants Open

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
In late April , as COVID-19 raced through meatpacking plants sickening and killing workers , President Donald Trump issued a controversial executive order aimed at keeping the plants open to supply food to American consumers .
It was a relief for the nation ’ s meatpackers who were being urged , or ordered , to suspend production by local health officials worried about the spread of the coronavirus .
But emails obtained by ProPublica show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hand in its own White House rescue : Just a week before the order was issued , the meat industry ’ s trade group drafted an executive order that bears striking similarities to the one the president signed .
The draft that Julie Anna Potts , the president of the North American Meat Institute , sent to top officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture was written using the framework of an official executive order and stressed the importance of the food supply chain and how outbreaks had reduced production — themes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order .
It invoked the president ’ s powers under a Korean War-era law known as the Defense Production Act and proposed that the president make a simple and straightforward proclamation : “ I hereby order that critical infrastructure food companies continue their operations to the fullest extent possible.
” What happened next within the USDA and White House isn ’ t clear from the records .
The USDA declined to answer questions , and the White House did not respond to requests for comment .
But while the final wording wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emphasized the points the industry had proposed and furthered the same goal , directing the agriculture secretary to take action “ to ensure that meat and poultry processors continue operations.
” The order provided a lifeline for meatpacking companies stressed by dozens of plant closures , severe staffing shortages and supply chain disruptions that would cause fast food restaurants to run out of hamburgers and grocery stores to ration meat purchases .
But it has also generated significant criticism from labor unions and Democratic senators who said it prioritized the bottom line of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health of their workers .
The executive order effectively provided a justification , sanctioned by the White House , for meat companies to continue operations even as tens of thousands of the industry ’ s workers contracted the disease .
“ It certainly gives rise to at least the appearance of favoritism that the executive order was done not because the White House thought it was the right thing to do but because they were getting pressure from outside groups that wanted it done , ” said Stephen Vladeck , a constitutional law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Austin .
In a statement , Potts said that the meat institute had been working as a liaison between the government and industry on many issues related to COVID-19 .
“ Trade associations of all types routinely suggest legislative language , comment on proposed rules , and other provisions that are shared with the government , ” she said .
The documents obtained by ProPublica offer a rare look at the process of drafting an executive order and a glimpse into the meat industry ’ s influence and access to the highest levels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been crucial for the industry , which had dismissed years of warnings from the federal government to plan for a pandemic , sowing chaos in rural communities as they battled local health departments over outbreaks in their plants .
The draft executive order was one of hundreds of emails between the companies , industry groups and top officials at the USDA since March .
Together , they show that throughout the coronavirus crisis , the meatpacking industry has repeatedly turned to the agency for help beating back local public health orders and loosening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While special interest groups often submit draft legislation and regulations to policymakers , legal experts said executive orders are less common and aren ’ t subject to the same public scrutiny .
In interviews , former White House lawyers from Democratic and Republican administrations said that there is great latitude in how executive orders are generated and it wasn ’ t unusual for private interest groups of all types to promote their causes by pushing for an executive order .
It is also reasonable for the White House to seek input from outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would typically be an effort to consult a range of parties who might be affected by it before the order received legal scrutiny , they said .
The quick seven-day turnaround , even amid an emergency like COVID-19 , is notable , some said .
“ All policy is shaped by people who have a stake in it , ” said Rakesh Kilaru , associate counsel and special assistant to President Barack Obama from 2015 to 2017 .
“ But I can ’ t think of something that was so direct between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Jonathan Adler , a constitutional and administrative law professor at Case Western Reserve University , said there ’ s nothing “ inherently inappropriate ” about the industry helping to draft the order .
“ The concern is that , in a case like this , if the executive order is slanted to a particular interest rather than the public at large , ” he said .
The United Food and Commercial Workers union , which represents workers responsible for the majority of U.S. beef and pork production , said no one from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its input before the executive order was issued .
Mark Lauritsen , the UFCW ’ s director of food processing , packing and manufacturing , said he believes the Meat Institute “ along with some of the other bigger players in the industry pulled every lever they could.
” The order has been effective as a political tool because it is widely perceived to have far more legal force than it actually does .
From a legal standpoint , the executive order gave Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue additional power to issue his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something he hasn ’ t done .
But many state and local health officials view the order as superseding their authority or decided to back off in the face of political pressure from the Trump administration .
Within a week of the executive order , the USDA was working with companies and local health authorities to reopen shuttered plants .
With workers back on the line , operations ramped up again .
Pork production , for example , had fallen by more than half by the end of April , causing steep financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meatpacking plants were nearly back to capacity .
Since the order , however , COVID-19 infections among meatpacking workers have multiplied .
To date , there have been more than 43,000 cases and at least 195 deaths among meatpacking employees , according to data compiled by ProPublica from public health agencies and news reports .
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that almost from the start of the crisis , the meatpacking industry and the USDA were largely focused on how to keep workers on the line .
In March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stem the spread of COVID-19 with shelter-in-place orders , coming up with their own varied lists of essential industries .
Companies were sometimes faced with unclear and conflicting directives .
This was especially true in meatpacking , a highly consolidated industry where a handful of companies run multiple operations across the country with hundreds of employees working side by side .
To seek clarity , 60 food and agricultural trade groups sent a letter on March 18 to federal , state and local officials asking for exemptions from curfews and public gathering bans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Copies of the letter were sent to the White House and members of Congress , and Tyson Foods circulated it among several governors .
The next day , the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance and noted Trump ’ s previous comments that “ if you work in a critical infrastructure industry , as defined by the Department of Homeland Security , such as healthcare services and pharmaceutical and food supply , you have a special responsibility to maintain your normal work schedule.
” But the meatpacking companies soon found themselves facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of workers who debone chickens or carve up pork elbow-to-elbow with their co-workers were falling ill from the virus .
Some feared coming to work while others walked out of plants to protest the lack of infection control measures .
With plant slowdowns came a backlog of pigs , cows and chickens waiting for slaughter .
Millions of animals had to be euthanized .
As some plants partially suspended operations or contemplated closing because of staffing shortages , Potts of the Meat Institute arranged an April 3 call between Perdue and top executives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foods , Hormel , JBS , Seaboard and Cargill .
Before the call , Potts emailed the USDA ’ s undersecretary for food safety , Mindy Brashears , with a list of discussion topics , including clear messaging that employees who failed to show up for work because they were scared would not qualify for unemployment benefits .
“ I want to re-emphasize that the slowdowns and shutdowns you heard described today are significant and getting worse each day , ” Potts wrote in a follow-up email .
“ Hearing a strong and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President like that delivered by the Governor of Nebraska yesterday is vital : being afraid of COVID-19 is not a reason to quit your job and you are not eligible for unemployment compensation if you do.
” Two days later , the Labor Department , which had been hearing similar complaints from across the business community , issued guidance clarifying that workers who quit to avoid contracting the disease wouldn ’ t receive jobless benefits .
As outbreaks overwhelmed hospitals in April , pressure from local public officials grew , leading to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s largest slaughterhouses .
The threat of closure led the meatpacking industry to ramp up its efforts to seek intervention not only from the USDA but from other government officials as well .
Emails obtained by ProPublica show that as state and local health officials sought to order JBS to shut down its Greeley , Colorado , plant , the company appealed to Gov .
Jared Polis and then to Vice President Mike Pence .
State health director Jill Hunsaker Ryan told the head of the county Health Department that she had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
“ JBS was in touch with the VP who had Director Redfield call me , ” she wrote in an email , first reported by The Denver Post .
“ They want us to use CDC ’ s critical infrastructure guidance , ( sending asymptomatic people back to work even if we suspect exposure but they have no symptoms ) even with the outbreak at present level.
” JBS said that it reached out to Pence because it was “ receiving guidance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CDC guidance , ” but that it ultimately agreed to shut down the plant to “ stop any potential chain of infection.
” Tyson and National Beef made similar appeals to the Kansas Department of Agriculture when the state Health Department wanted workers to stay off the line for two weeks if they had come in contact with a positive COVID-19 case , public records first reported by The Kansas City Star and The Wichita Eagle show .
The state ’ s secretary of agriculture coordinated with meat companies and the director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who then agreed to follow the less-strict CDC guidance .
Despite these varied efforts to keep plants open , absenteeism and public health orders continued to cripple production lines .
Government experts had long predicted a pandemic would cause food shortages .
And those worst-case scenarios were now playing out .
The major meat and agriculture trade groups , including the American Farm Bureau Federation , the National Cattlemen ’ s Beef Association and the Meat Institute , wanted the White House to get directly involved in preventing plant closures .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they detailed the disruptions caused by plant closures and the inconsistency of health and safety actions from state to state — a point later echoed in the executive order .
“ To ensure livestock producers , poultry growers , and all food processors and their workers can continue to feed the nation , ” they wrote , “ we respectfully request you emphasize the importance of allowing critical infrastructure food companies to responsibly and safely continue their operations to the fullest extent possible without undue disruption.
” For emphasis , Potts of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Stephen Censky , the USDA ’ s deputy secretary , who led the American Soybean Association before joining the Trump administration .
She attached the letter to Trump and added , “ The situation is continuing to get worse and worse at the local level ( it ’ s hard to overstate how dire it is ) and I want to explore with you what might be possible as a tool to help.
” Early the next morning , Potts had a call with top officials from the USDA , and shortly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an email , writing : “ Attached is a draft EO for consideration.
” The records don ’ t include a reply , and White House and internal deliberative agency conversations are exempt from public records laws , making it difficult to verify how much or little influence the meat industry ’ s draft had on the final executive order .
But over the next week , the drumbeat for action on behalf of the food and agriculture sector continued .
Governors from the poultry producing states of Delaware , Maryland and Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of one federal agency to lead on COVID-19 and poultry workers , access to protective equipment and financial relief for farmers and companies .
Industry representatives convened a call with the USDA , the Food and Drug Administration and DHS about the impending disaster facing farmers , who would need to mass euthanize their animals if plants remained shuttered .
In that conversation , utilizing the Defense Production Act was discussed , according to an industry representative on the call .
Tyson took out a full-page ad in major newspapers to warn that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even on the day the executive order was issued , there was still a flurry of activity to get the White House to help the meat industry .
That afternoon , records show , the director of the Washington office for North Carolina Gov .
Roy Cooper forwarded a letter from pork producers to his counterparts in Michigan , Illinois , Minnesota , Colorado and Pennsylvania to ask their opinion on it and whether their governors were going to sign on .
The draft letter , addressed to Pence , asks for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to assist in “ the humane euthanasia of animals , ” to indemnify farmers and pork producers and to “ utilize every authority available to keep plants open.
” A representative from Michigan said her state would pass , noting the lack of worker protection language in the letter , while an aide to Pennsylvania ’ s governor cited the need for “ advocacy on behalf of all sectors.
” On April 28 , a week after Potts sent the suggested language for an executive order , Trump issued the “ Executive Order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Respect to Food Supply Chain Resources During the National Emergency Caused by the Outbreak of COVID-19.
” Trump ’ s final order reflects what the meat industry had been requesting for weeks as the pandemic had unfolded : “ It is important that processors of beef , pork , and poultry ( ‘ meat and poultry ’ ) in the food supply chain continue operating and fulfilling orders to ensure a continued supply of protein for Americans.
” It also notes that “ recent actions in some States have led to the complete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that such closures “ threaten the continued functioning of the national meat and poultry supply chain , undermining critical infrastructure during the national emergency.
” The order invokes the Defense Production Act and orders the agriculture secretary to “ take all appropriate action under that section to ensure that meat and poultry processors continue operations consistent with the guidance for their operations jointly issued by the CDC ” and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration .
It had immediate effect .
In June , the Bear River Health Department in northern Utah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tested positive for COVID-19 , told the press it couldn ’ t shut the plant down because of the executive order .
In Virginia , state health officials had initially recommended that poultry companies close their plants for two weeks , “ allowing deep cleaning and allowing symptomatic and asymptomatic infected workers to run their course of disease and recover , ” records obtained under a separate public records request show .
But the state backed off “ to maintain the critical food production infrastructure.
” Meanwhile , meat companies and their trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ USDA when public health officials tried to take action .
The day after the executive order was announced , the National Chicken Council wrote to the USDA with complaints that the county Health Department in Chattanooga , Tennessee , was requiring testing of all employees at poultry plants in the area .
This would have the effect of closing down the plants , the trade group warned , because they were already short-staffed and testing could cause fear among the remaining workers .
Weeks later , the Chicken Council wrote that local officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notices because they believed the plants were “ operating with an imminent health hazard.
” “ We want to push back on 100 % testing and would like your assistance , ” the trade group wrote .
Smithfield also went to the USDA for help dealing with a local public Health Department in Kane County , Illinois , which had closed the plant days before Trump ’ s executive order was issued .
“ The Kane County Illinois health department continues to be a challenge regarding our St. Charles processing facility , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president of government affairs , wrote to Brashears , the USDA ’ s undersecretary for food safety .
“ I really did not want to have to get you involved but it has now come to the point where we need you to referee.
” Asked why it had gone to the USDA to intervene , Keira Lombardo , Smithfield ’ s executive vice president for corporate affairs , said : “ We are a leading American agriculture company .
Considering that fact , why wouldn ’ t we engage with the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic ?
” Two days after Skahill ’ s plea for help , Smithfield continued to press the issue .
Amy McClure , Smithfield ’ s associate general counsel , wrote to Brashears again , this time citing a central tenet of the executive order .
“ To reiterate our conversation , our St. Charles plant in Kane County , Illinois is in an urgent situation , ” McClure wrote .
“ We need to reopen to prevent further disruption in the nation ’ s food supply.
” Six hours later , Brashears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grateful email from Skahill .
“ Thank you for your support today with the Smithfield St. Charles Kane County issue , ” he wrote .
“ I think we have a resolution that will allow us to process next week and put protein on America ’ s table .
”

[Above: NBC News affiliate covers Trump's executive order, April 2020 -- eds]
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
In late April, as COVID-19 raced through meatpacking plants sickening and killing workers, President Donald Trump issued a controversial executive order aimed at keeping the plants open to supply food to American consumers.
It was a relief for the nation’s meatpackers who were being urged, or ordered, to suspend production by local health officials worried about the spread of the coronavirus.
But emails obtained by ProPublica show that the meat industry may have had a hand in its own White House rescue: Just a week before the order was issued, the meat industry’s trade group drafted an executive order that bears striking similarities to the one the president signed.
The draft that Julie Anna Potts, the president of the North American Meat Institute, sent to top officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture was written using the framework of an official executive order and stressed the importance of the food supply chain and how outbreaks had reduced production — themes later addressed in the president’s order.
It invoked the president’s powers under a Korean War-era law known as the Defense Production Act and proposed that the president make a simple and straightforward proclamation: “I hereby order that critical infrastructure food companies continue their operations to the fullest extent possible.”
What happened next within the USDA and White House isn’t clear from the records. The USDA declined to answer questions, and the White House did not respond to requests for comment. But while the final wording wasn’t verbatim, Trump’s order emphasized the points the industry had proposed and furthered the same goal, directing the agriculture secretary to take action “to ensure that meat and poultry processors continue operations.”
The order provided a lifeline for meatpacking companies stressed by dozens of plant closures, severe staffing shortages and supply chain disruptions that would cause fast food restaurants to run out of hamburgers and grocery stores to ration meat purchases.
But it has also generated significant criticism from labor unions and Democratic senators who said it prioritized the bottom line of the nation’s meatpackers over the health of their workers.
The executive order effectively provided a justification, sanctioned by the White House, for meat companies to continue operations even as tens of thousands of the industry’s workers contracted the disease.
“It certainly gives rise to at least the appearance of favoritism that the executive order was done not because the White House thought it was the right thing to do but because they were getting pressure from outside groups that wanted it done,” said Stephen Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas at Austin.
In a statement, Potts said that the meat institute had been working as a liaison between the government and industry on many issues related to COVID-19. “Trade associations of all types routinely suggest legislative language, comment on proposed rules, and other provisions that are shared with the government,” she said.
The documents obtained by ProPublica offer a rare look at the process of drafting an executive order and a glimpse into the meat industry’s influence and access to the highest levels of government. Such political support has been crucial for the industry, which had dismissed years of warnings from the federal government to plan for a pandemic, sowing chaos in rural communities as they battled local health departments over outbreaks in their plants.
The draft executive order was one of hundreds of emails between the companies, industry groups and top officials at the USDA since March. Together, they show that throughout the coronavirus crisis, the meatpacking industry has repeatedly turned to the agency for help beating back local public health orders and loosening regulations to keep processing lines running.
While special interest groups often submit draft legislation and regulations to policymakers, legal experts said executive orders are less common and aren’t subject to the same public scrutiny.
In interviews, former White House lawyers from Democratic and Republican administrations said that there is great latitude in how executive orders are generated and it wasn’t unusual for private interest groups of all types to promote their causes by pushing for an executive order. It is also reasonable for the White House to seek input from outside entities during the process. But there would typically be an effort to consult a range of parties who might be affected by it before the order received legal scrutiny, they said. The quick seven-day turnaround, even amid an emergency like COVID-19, is notable, some said.
“All policy is shaped by people who have a stake in it,” said Rakesh Kilaru, associate counsel and special assistant to President Barack Obama from 2015 to 2017. “But I can’t think of something that was so direct between the stakeholder asking for action and getting it.”
Jonathan Adler, a constitutional and administrative law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said there’s nothing “inherently inappropriate” about the industry helping to draft the order. “The concern is that, in a case like this, if the executive order is slanted to a particular interest rather than the public at large,” he said.
The United Food and Commercial Workers union, which represents workers responsible for the majority of U.S. beef and pork production, said no one from the White House or the USDA sought its input before the executive order was issued.
Mark Lauritsen, the UFCW’s director of food processing, packing and manufacturing, said he believes the Meat Institute “along with some of the other bigger players in the industry pulled every lever they could.”
The order has been effective as a political tool because it is widely perceived to have far more legal force than it actually does. From a legal standpoint, the executive order gave Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue additional power to issue his own orders related to the food supply — something he hasn’t done.
But many state and local health officials view the order as superseding their authority or decided to back off in the face of political pressure from the Trump administration. Within a week of the executive order, the USDA was working with companies and local health authorities to reopen shuttered plants. With workers back on the line, operations ramped up again. Pork production, for example, had fallen by more than half by the end of April, causing steep financial losses. But by early June, meatpacking plants were nearly back to capacity.
Since the order, however, COVID-19 infections among meatpacking workers have multiplied. To date, there have been more than 43,000 cases and at least 195 deaths among meatpacking employees, according to data compiled by ProPublica from public health agencies and news reports.
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that almost from the start of the crisis, the meatpacking industry and the USDA were largely focused on how to keep workers on the line.
In March, governors across the country tried to stem the spread of COVID-19 with shelter-in-place orders, coming up with their own varied lists of essential industries. Companies were sometimes faced with unclear and conflicting directives. This was especially true in meatpacking, a highly consolidated industry where a handful of companies run multiple operations across the country with hundreds of employees working side by side.
To seek clarity, 60 food and agricultural trade groups sent a letter on March 18 to federal, state and local officials asking for exemptions from curfews and public gathering bans so they could keep their businesses running. Copies of the letter were sent to the White House and members of Congress, and Tyson Foods circulated it among several governors.
The next day, the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance and noted Trump’s previous comments that “if you work in a critical infrastructure industry, as defined by the Department of Homeland Security, such as healthcare services and pharmaceutical and food supply, you have a special responsibility to maintain your normal work schedule.”
But the meatpacking companies soon found themselves facing another hurdle. By April, waves of workers who debone chickens or carve up pork elbow-to-elbow with their co-workers were falling ill from the virus. Some feared coming to work while others walked out of plants to protest the lack of infection control measures.
With plant slowdowns came a backlog of pigs, cows and chickens waiting for slaughter. Millions of animals had to be euthanized.
As some plants partially suspended operations or contemplated closing because of staffing shortages, Potts of the Meat Institute arranged an April 3 call between Perdue and top executives of major meatpacking firms Tyson, Smithfield Foods, Hormel, JBS, Seaboard and Cargill. Before the call, Potts emailed the USDA’s undersecretary for food safety, Mindy Brashears, with a list of discussion topics, including clear messaging that employees who failed to show up for work because they were scared would not qualify for unemployment benefits.
“I want to re-emphasize that the slowdowns and shutdowns you heard described today are significant and getting worse each day,” Potts wrote in a follow-up email. “Hearing a strong and consistent message from the President or Vice President like that delivered by the Governor of Nebraska yesterday is vital: being afraid of COVID-19 is not a reason to quit your job and you are not eligible for unemployment compensation if you do.”
Two days later, the Labor Department, which had been hearing similar complaints from across the business community, issued guidance clarifying that workers who quit to avoid contracting the disease wouldn’t receive jobless benefits.
As outbreaks overwhelmed hospitals in April, pressure from local public officials grew, leading to the rapid-fire closures of some of the nation’s largest slaughterhouses.
The threat of closure led the meatpacking industry to ramp up its efforts to seek intervention not only from the USDA but from other government officials as well. Emails obtained by ProPublica show that as state and local health officials sought to order JBS to shut down its Greeley, Colorado, plant, the company appealed to Gov. Jared Polis and then to Vice President Mike Pence.
State health director Jill Hunsaker Ryan told the head of the county Health Department that she had received a call from Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“JBS was in touch with the VP who had Director Redfield call me,” she wrote in an email, first reported by The Denver Post. “They want us to use CDC’s critical infrastructure guidance, (sending asymptomatic people back to work even if we suspect exposure but they have no symptoms) even with the outbreak at present level.”
JBS said that it reached out to Pence because it was “receiving guidance from local authorities that conflicted with federal CDC guidance,” but that it ultimately agreed to shut down the plant to “stop any potential chain of infection.”
Tyson and National Beef made similar appeals to the Kansas Department of Agriculture when the state Health Department wanted workers to stay off the line for two weeks if they had come in contact with a positive COVID-19 case, public records first reported by The Kansas City Star and The Wichita Eagle show. The state’s secretary of agriculture coordinated with meat companies and the director of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, who then agreed to follow the less-strict CDC guidance.
Despite these varied efforts to keep plants open, absenteeism and public health orders continued to cripple production lines. Government experts had long predicted a pandemic would cause food shortages. And those worst-case scenarios were now playing out.
The major meat and agriculture trade groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Meat Institute, wanted the White House to get directly involved in preventing plant closures.
In an April 17 letter to Trump, they detailed the disruptions caused by plant closures and the inconsistency of health and safety actions from state to state — a point later echoed in the executive order.
“To ensure livestock producers, poultry growers, and all food processors and their workers can continue to feed the nation,” they wrote, “we respectfully request you emphasize the importance of allowing critical infrastructure food companies to responsibly and safely continue their operations to the fullest extent possible without undue disruption.”
For emphasis, Potts of the Meat Institute followed up with an email to Stephen Censky, the USDA’s deputy secretary, who led the American Soybean Association before joining the Trump administration. She attached the letter to Trump and added, “The situation is continuing to get worse and worse at the local level (it’s hard to overstate how dire it is) and I want to explore with you what might be possible as a tool to help.”
Early the next morning, Potts had a call with top officials from the USDA, and shortly after 9 a.m., she sent them an email, writing: “Attached is a draft EO for consideration.”
The records don’t include a reply, and White House and internal deliberative agency conversations are exempt from public records laws, making it difficult to verify how much or little influence the meat industry’s draft had on the final executive order.
But over the next week, the drumbeat for action on behalf of the food and agriculture sector continued. Governors from the poultry producing states of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia wrote to Trump asking for the designation of one federal agency to lead on COVID-19 and poultry workers, access to protective equipment and financial relief for farmers and companies. Industry representatives convened a call with the USDA, the Food and Drug Administration and DHS about the impending disaster facing farmers, who would need to mass euthanize their animals if plants remained shuttered. In that conversation, utilizing the Defense Production Act was discussed, according to an industry representative on the call. Tyson took out a full-page ad in major newspapers to warn that the food supply chain was breaking.
Even on the day the executive order was issued, there was still a flurry of activity to get the White House to help the meat industry. That afternoon, records show, the director of the Washington office for North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper forwarded a letter from pork producers to his counterparts in Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Colorado and Pennsylvania to ask their opinion on it and whether their governors were going to sign on.
The draft letter, addressed to Pence, asks for his help in invoking the Defense Production Act to assist in “the humane euthanasia of animals,” to indemnify farmers and pork producers and to “utilize every authority available to keep plants open.”
A representative from Michigan said her state would pass, noting the lack of worker protection language in the letter, while an aide to Pennsylvania’s governor cited the need for “advocacy on behalf of all sectors.”
On April 28, a week after Potts sent the suggested language for an executive order, Trump issued the “Executive Order on Delegating Authority Under the DPA with Respect to Food Supply Chain Resources During the National Emergency Caused by the Outbreak of COVID-19.”
Trump’s final order reflects what the meat industry had been requesting for weeks as the pandemic had unfolded: “It is important that processors of beef, pork, and poultry (‘meat and poultry’) in the food supply chain continue operating and fulfilling orders to ensure a continued supply of protein for Americans.”
It also notes that “recent actions in some States have led to the complete closure of some large processing facilities” and that such closures “threaten the continued functioning of the national meat and poultry supply chain, undermining critical infrastructure during the national emergency.”
The order invokes the Defense Production Act and orders the agriculture secretary to “take all appropriate action under that section to ensure that meat and poultry processors continue operations consistent with the guidance for their operations jointly issued by the CDC” and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
It had immediate effect.
In June, the Bear River Health Department in northern Utah, where nearly 400 JBS workers have tested positive for COVID-19, told the press it couldn’t shut the plant down because of the executive order.
In Virginia, state health officials had initially recommended that poultry companies close their plants for two weeks, “allowing deep cleaning and allowing symptomatic and asymptomatic infected workers to run their course of disease and recover,” records obtained under a separate public records request show. But the state backed off “to maintain the critical food production infrastructure.”
Meanwhile, meat companies and their trade groups continued to seek help from the USDA when public health officials tried to take action.
The day after the executive order was announced, the National Chicken Council wrote to the USDA with complaints that the county Health Department in Chattanooga, Tennessee, was requiring testing of all employees at poultry plants in the area. This would have the effect of closing down the plants, the trade group warned, because they were already short-staffed and testing could cause fear among the remaining workers.
Weeks later, the Chicken Council wrote that local officials were threatening plant closures and issuing public notices because they believed the plants were “operating with an imminent health hazard.”
“We want to push back on 100% testing and would like your assistance,” the trade group wrote.
The Chicken Council didn’t return calls or emails seeking comment.
Smithfield also went to the USDA for help dealing with a local public Health Department in Kane County, Illinois, which had closed the plant days before Trump’s executive order was issued. “The Kane County Illinois health department continues to be a challenge regarding our St. Charles processing facility,” Michael Skahill, Smithfield’s vice president of government affairs, wrote to Brashears, the USDA’s undersecretary for food safety. “I really did not want to have to get you involved but it has now come to the point where we need you to referee.”
Asked why it had gone to the USDA to intervene, Keira Lombardo, Smithfield’s executive vice president for corporate affairs, said: “We are a leading American agriculture company. Considering that fact, why wouldn’t we engage with the United States Department of Agriculture amid an unprecedented pandemic?”
Two days after Skahill’s plea for help, Smithfield continued to press the issue. Amy McClure, Smithfield’s associate general counsel, wrote to Brashears again, this time citing a central tenet of the executive order. “To reiterate our conversation, our St. Charles plant in Kane County, Illinois is in an urgent situation,” McClure wrote. “We need to reopen to prevent further disruption in the nation’s food supply.”
Six hours later, Brashears and her chief of staff received a grateful email from Skahill. “Thank you for your support today with the Smithfield St. Charles Kane County issue,” he wrote. “I think we have a resolution that will allow us to process next week and put protein on America’s table.”


crooksandliars--2020-09-17--HUGE: Top Pence And COVID Task Force Staffer Olivia Troye Comes Out Against Trump

A former White House staffer who worked directly for Mike Pence as a Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor and served as Vice President Pence 's lead staff member on the COVID-19 response team came out with an absolutely blistering video against Donald Trump .
In the video she shares some of what she saw while working in the White House , the central narrative being that Donald Trump does not care about anyone but himself and his re-election .
`` When we were in a task force meeting , the President said `` maybe this COVID thing is a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hands with people , I do n't have to shake hands with these disgusting people . ''
Those disgusting people are the same people that he claims to care about .
These are the people still going to his rallies today , who have complete faith in who he is . ''
To be clear , this was not some low level coffee staffer .
She was often pictured in meetings with Pence and Trump .
The White House , as expected , dismissed Troye as a `` disgruntled former employee '' and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House , saying : “ Ms .
Troye is a former detailee and a career Department of Homeland Security staff member , who is disgruntled that her detail was cut short because she was no longer capable of keeping up with her day-to-day duties . ''
Troye describes herself in the video as a lifelong Republican .
Now 's she 's a Republican voting for Joe Biden .

A former White House staffer who worked directly for Mike Pence as a Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor and served as Vice President Pence's lead staff member on the COVID-19 response team came out with an absolutely blistering video against Donald Trump.
In the video she shares some of what she saw while working in the White House, the central narrative being that Donald Trump does not care about anyone but himself and his re-election.
"When we were in a task force meeting, the President said "maybe this COVID thing is a good thing,
I don't like shaking hands with people, I don't have to shake hands with these disgusting people." Those disgusting people are the same people that he claims to care about. These are the people still going to his rallies today, who have complete faith in who he is."
To be clear, this was not some low level coffee staffer. She was often pictured in meetings with Pence and Trump. The White House, as expected, dismissed Troye as a "disgruntled former employee" and they attempted to downplay her role at the White House, saying:
“Ms. Troye is a former detailee and a career Department of Homeland Security staff member, who is disgruntled that her detail was cut short because she was no longer capable of keeping up with her day-to-day duties."
Troye describes herself in the video as a lifelong Republican. Now's she's a Republican voting for Joe Biden.


crooksandliars--2020-09-17--'Parks And Rec' Reunion Tonight For Wisconsin Dems

The “ Parks and Recreation ” cast is reuniting online to help Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in Wisconsin .
The virtual event will raise money for the Wisconsin Democratic Party and includes Amy Poehler , Adam Scott , Nick Offerman , Aubrey Plaza , Retta , and some surprise guests !
The event is titled “ A Parks and Rec Town Hall ” and will feature a Q & A with the cast members .
You have to donate at least $ 1 to be part of tonight ’ s virtual event , starting at 8 p.m. CT followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CT .
According to the event ’ s website : Celebrities Help Raise Money in the Swing States The cast of Parks and Recreation is beloved by millions of fans , and this is the second time the cast has reunited online for a good cause .
A virtual reunion during the coronavirus lockdown raised $ 2.8 million for Feeding America ’ s COVID-19 Response Fund .
Another celebrity fundraiser for the Wisconsin Democratic Party raised $ 4.25 million .
Almost all the original actors from The Princess Bride reunited this week for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with over 110,000 people tuning in for the virtual event .
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel , it was the first time in more than three decades that the cast got together .
The overwhelming interest in the classic film made the fundraiser a huge hit .

The “Parks and Recreation” cast is reuniting online to help Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in Wisconsin. The virtual event will raise money for the Wisconsin Democratic Party and includes Amy Poehler, Adam Scott, Nick Offerman, Aubrey Plaza, Retta, and some surprise guests!
The event is titled “A Parks and Rec Town Hall” and will feature a Q&A with the cast members. You have to donate at least $1 to be part of tonight’s virtual event, starting at 8 p.m. CT followed by Q&A at 8:30 p.m. CT. According to the event’s website:
“Anything you donate will be used to ensure that Trump loses Wisconsin, thereby the White House.”
Celebrities Help Raise Money in the Swing States
The cast of Parks and Recreation is beloved by millions of fans, and this is the second time the cast has reunited online for a good cause. A virtual reunion during the coronavirus lockdown raised $2.8 million for
Feeding America’s COVID-19 Response Fund.
Another celebrity fundraiser for the Wisconsin Democratic Party raised $4.25 million. Almost all the original actors from The Princess Bride reunited this week for a table read to benefit Wisconsin Democrats, with over 110,000 people tuning in for the virtual event. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, it was the first time in more than three decades that the cast got together. The overwhelming interest in the classic film made the fundraiser a huge hit.


crooksandliars--2020-09-17--Warning Signs: Don’t Panic, But Plenty To Be Nervous About

We are entering the scary time of the election season , and there are more reasons to worry than the normal tightening of the polling in the battleground states .
Note : this column has recommendations for two groups .
The first is the Biden campaign , because I think there needs to be some course correction .
The second is the progressive movement , because we lefties are definitely going to need to help save the day .
I want to start by saying that there are plenty of reasons to feel optimistic , and plenty of good things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Build Back Better policy work has been solid , and the messaging around it has been effective , a nice blend of mainstream Democratic language combined with a good dose of progressive populism .
Many of their TV ads have been moving and well done about the kind of man Joe Biden is and how much empathy he has for the American people .
And since picking Kamala Harris as his VP nominee , the use of her in their ads has been great .
Another thing I watch closely is what a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose friend-to-friend reach I increasingly believe has become the single most effective way in a pandemic for a campaign to win over and turn out votes , and I think the Biden campaign ’ s organic social media work has been light years ahead of the Hillary campaign ’ s .
In 2016 , we lost the election in great part because the Trump campaign , helped by its Russian friends , killed us on organic social media while Hillary ’ s team was barely functional there .
This year , the Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well be better than Team Trump .
The campaign ’ s fundraising has been great , and the polling remains solid .
Their field operation seems good to me , and their legal prep for all the big challenges ahead both pre- and post- election has been impressive .
If I were feeling confident , I would end a stretch of good news like that by saying “ but we can ’ t take anything for granted , we are still going to work our hearts out… ” But I am feeling a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at any time in the cycle so far , so I am sounding the alarm bells .
If I am a little critical of my friends in the Biden campaign , deep apologies .
I do hate to be , but having seen from my perch at the DNC last time the mistakes Team Hillary made , I am deathly afraid of making some of the same mistakes this time .
Here ’ s what ’ s given me trouble sleeping at night lately : 1 .
First and foremost , the enthusiasm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hoping that the much discussed enthusiasm gap between Trump voters and Biden voters was going to be washed away by Democratic voters ’ intense antipathy toward Trump , the kind of antipathy that drove extraordinary levels of Democratic turnout in the 2018 election .
Maybe that will still come to pass , I hope and pray ( and I ’ m an agnostic , so the praying thing is a true sign of how freaked I am ) .
But right now pro-Republican demographic groups are registering to vote at far higher numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually favor Democrats -- and this is true even in non-battleground states where there isn ’ t much money being spent on voter registration , which is one more sign of a general enthusiasm gap .
In addition , the first numbers out on vote-by-mail requests , which pollsters said would probably favor Democrats by 30 % , are only favoring us by 12 % .
That is a bad sign , since all of our messaging right now is about requesting your ballot early to make sure it gets counted .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretty clear as well : young people ( especially young progressives which is a very high percentage of them ) and people of color , especially Latinos and Latinas , are just less passionate about this election than the Trump people .
Given the barriers to voting the Republicans are putting in people ’ s way at every turn , that lack of enthusiasm is a big deal .
2 .
The concern re Latinos and Latinas .
In spite of the over-the-top racism which Trump has shown toward Latinos and Latinas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this demographic on enthusiasm , we also have a lot of persuasion to do : Biden is running behind Hillary among Latino/a voters .
The campaign has received lots of criticism from Latino and Latina leaders about the weak outreach to this constituency , and there is no need for me to go into it more here , other than to say it ’ s a big deal .
The conventional wisdom is that Florida , Arizona , Nevada , and Colorado are the only battleground states where this vote matters ( with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strongly ) , but the Latino population is now above or close to double digits in Iowa , Georgia , and North Carolina .
And the Latino population is growing everywhere : it is now at 5 % or more even in those Rust Belt states like Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin .
Texas , with 5.6 million eligible Latino voters , has truly become a state where it is possible for Democrats to win , which is important not only because the presidential race there has remained very close , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race , several House races , and the state legislature is in play .
We have to do better with Latinos and Latinas than we have been doing .
Fortunately , there are pieces of good news here .
One is that the Biden campaign finally is starting to move on this concern , and they have the ability between now and Election Day to make major strides .
Secondly , Chuck Rocha , who was the genius behind Bernie Sanders ’ strong performance with Latino voters in the primary , has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this community .
For those of you looking for someplace to invest money , Nuestro PAC would be a great place to start .
3 .
The health care polling .
Between the pandemic , the millions of people laid off and therefore who ’ ve lost their health insurance , and the ongoing crisis of rapidly mounting health care costs , health care is the number one issue in 2020 , both in terms of raw numbers and in terms of the powerful emotional saliency of the issue .
And normally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In this case , however , there is something very nerve-wracking going on according to the polling .
We should be wiping the floor against Trump on health care .
We completely dominated the Republicans in 2018 on health care , essentially winning the election on that issue .
And given how badly Trump has handled the pandemic , getting the blame that he so thoroughly deserves from most voters ( 2/3 of voters in multiple polls disapprove of his handling of Covid , and don ’ t trust what he says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be winning on a wide range of health care issues by 20+ points .
But Biden is way underperforming here .
The only health issue we are ahead by 20 points on is reproductive health care .
We are only up 14 on the Democrats ’ signature issue for the last four years -- pre-existing conditions -- and we are only up 12 on making sure everyone has access to care .
This after four years of Trump doing everything in his power to repeal the ACA .
We are only up 6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump ’ s lack of credibility on the issue , we are barely above the margin of error , 5 points , on who will do a better job of developing and distributing the vaccine .
And we are actually losing by 4 on lowering drug prices .
My eyes popped out of my skull when I saw those numbers .
They are really bad news for us .
Trump is spending a lot of time lying about how he will lower drug prices and make health care better , and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this , he is gaining ground fast on this absolutely critical issue .
Generic promises , mentioned only occasionally on the campaign trail , about preserving and improving the ACA are not enough .
Our ads need to make 100 % clear that Biden is going to fight for lower drug prices and lower out-of-pocket costs , that he will make health care more available to all those who have lost their jobs in the last six months .
This should be our best issue , we need to win it big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign is seeing the need and responding : they are out with two powerful new ads about health care today , here and here .
It is such a relief to see these after a long spell where instead of having powerful ads like these solely focused on health care , there have been hardly any ads that did more than spend a moment on health care .
More of these , please .
4 .
The economic polling .
Polls are consistently indicating that in spite of Trump presiding over the biggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters still trust him at least as much or probably a little more than Biden on the economy .
Again , the reason is clear : Trump talks constantly about the economy on the campaign trail , while the Biden message has not talked enough about it .
This is the best ad of the campaign so far from the Biden team , an ad they ran in Ohio .
They need to do more of it : talk about Biden ’ s commitment to building a better economy for working- and middle-class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they need to talk more about the issues they ’ ve committed to in the Build Back Better plan : creating millions of jobs in solar and wind energy , rebuilding our country ’ s infrastructure , helping working families with child care , revitalizing the rural economy , having the government buy American made products , and raising the minimum wage to $ 15 an hour .
These are popular issues , and voters need to hear that Biden is focused like that proverbial laser beam on making this economy work for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hesitant about populism .
According to the pollsters at Democracy Corps , who over the last 20 years have consistently been among the most accurate pollsters in the country , here is the language that does more to consolidate and expand the Biden lead than any other language they tested : Both parties failed to address the cycle of wealth and power that has rigged the economy for the benefit of those at the top and determined the working class .
Both parties left the system rigged .
Trump is not the cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the symptom of a rigged system that was already dividing us .
We must come together and reform the system that got us here in the first place by uniting people of all races , genders , and classes , and band together now to unrig this corrupt system .
Hillary ’ s campaign four years ago , obsessed by Republican women in the suburbs , failed to have a closing message that was more populist about the economy .
She kept the message focused on what a terrible guy Donald Trump was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden campaign does not make the same mistake .
They have invested a huge amount in trying to make gains among Republican voters , and I am fine with that -- we need every voter we can get .
But having made the gains we can with that group of voters , we need to close on a more populist note that will appeal to the working-class swing voters that turned so heavily against us last time , and on firing up and turning out all those base voters who did turn out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populism does both things .
The future of America and the climate is at stake : the progressive movement needs to deliver .
I don ’ t know whether the Biden campaign will move in the more populist direction I am suggesting .
They are clearly starting to respond to the concerns about Latinos/Latinas and health care , which I am thrilled to see .
But whatever they end up doing , the progressive movement has to stay focused on saving our future .
We are the ones who are most in touch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ color whose turnout we so desperately need .
We are the ones who can highlight the critical economic and health care issues that need to be delivered to voters .
We are the ones who can get voters registered and get them turned out .
We have to stand and deliver .
We in the progressive movement can get our voters out ; we can fire up our people and close the enthusiasm gap .
If we do , we will win this election , whatever crazy distractions Trump does in the final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign .
It is up to progressives to save the world .
Let ’ s win in this decisive moment .

We are entering the scary time of the election season, and there are more reasons to worry than the normal tightening of the polling in the battleground states.
Note: this column has recommendations for two groups. The first is the Biden campaign, because I think there needs to be some course correction. The second is the progressive movement, because we lefties are definitely going to need to help save the day.
I want to start by saying that there are plenty of reasons to feel optimistic, and plenty of good things the Biden campaign is doing. The Build Back Better policy work has been solid, and the messaging around it has been effective, a nice blend of mainstream Democratic language combined with a good dose of progressive populism. Many of their TV ads have been moving and well done about the kind of man Joe Biden is and how much empathy he has for the American people. And since picking Kamala Harris as his VP nominee, the use of her in their ads has been great.
Another thing I watch closely is what a campaign does on organic social media, whose friend-to-friend reach I increasingly believe has become the single most effective way in a pandemic for a campaign to win over and turn out votes, and I think the Biden campaign’s organic social media work has been light years ahead of the Hillary campaign’s. In 2016, we lost the election in great part because the Trump campaign, helped by its Russian friends, killed us on organic social media while Hillary’s team was barely functional there. This year, the Biden campaign's organic reach and strategy may well be better than Team Trump.
The campaign’s fundraising has been great, and the polling remains solid. Their field operation seems good to me, and their legal prep for all the big challenges ahead both pre- and post- election has been impressive.
If I were feeling confident, I would end a stretch of good news like that by saying “but we can’t take anything for granted, we are still going to work our hearts out…” But I am feeling a lot less confident at this moment than at any time in the cycle so far, so I am sounding the alarm bells. If I am a little critical of my friends in the Biden campaign, deep apologies. I do hate to be, but having seen from my perch at the DNC last time the mistakes Team Hillary made, I am deathly afraid of making some of the same mistakes this time.
Here’s what’s given me trouble sleeping at night lately:
1. First and foremost, the enthusiasm gap is real. I had been hoping that the much discussed enthusiasm gap between Trump voters and Biden voters was going to be washed away by Democratic voters’ intense antipathy toward Trump, the kind of antipathy that drove extraordinary levels of Democratic turnout in the 2018 election. Maybe that will still come to pass, I hope and pray (and I’m an agnostic, so the praying thing is a true sign of how freaked I am). But right now pro-Republican demographic groups are registering to vote at far higher numbers than the youth and people-of-color groups that usually favor Democrats -- and this is true even in non-battleground states where there isn’t much money being spent on voter registration, which is one more sign of a general enthusiasm gap.
In addition, the first numbers out on vote-by-mail requests, which pollsters said would probably favor Democrats by 30%, are only favoring us by 12%. That is a bad sign, since all of our messaging right now is about requesting your ballot early to make sure it gets counted.
The polling I’m seeing has been pretty clear as well: young people (especially young progressives which is a very high percentage of them) and people of color, especially Latinos and Latinas, are just less passionate about this election than the Trump people. Given the barriers to voting the Republicans are putting in people’s way at every turn, that lack of enthusiasm is a big deal.
2. The concern re Latinos and Latinas. In spite of the over-the-top racism which Trump has shown toward Latinos and Latinas, we are not only fighting uphill with this demographic on enthusiasm, we also have a lot of persuasion to do: Biden is running behind Hillary among Latino/a voters.
The campaign has received lots of criticism from Latino and Latina leaders about the weak outreach to this constituency, and there is no need for me to go into it more here, other than to say it’s a big deal. The conventional wisdom is that Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado are the only battleground states where this vote matters (with NV and CO leaning our way pretty strongly), but the Latino population is now above or close to double digits in Iowa, Georgia, and North Carolina. And the Latino population is growing everywhere: it is now at 5% or more even in those Rust Belt states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Texas, with 5.6 million eligible Latino voters, has truly become a state where it is possible for Democrats to win, which is important not only because the presidential race there has remained very close, but because there’s a competitive Senate race, several House races, and the state legislature is in play.
We have to do better with Latinos and Latinas than we have been doing. Fortunately, there are pieces of good news here. One is that the Biden campaign finally is starting to move on this concern, and they have the ability between now and Election Day to make major strides. Secondly, Chuck Rocha, who was the genius behind Bernie Sanders’ strong performance with Latino voters in the primary, has a super PAC that is doing incredible work in this community. For those of you looking for someplace to invest money, Nuestro PAC would be a great place to start.
3. The health care polling. Between the pandemic, the millions of people laid off and therefore who’ve lost their health insurance, and the ongoing crisis of rapidly mounting health care costs, health care is the number one issue in 2020, both in terms of raw numbers and in terms of the powerful emotional saliency of the issue. And normally this would be great news for Democrats. In this case, however, there is something very nerve-wracking going on according to the polling.
We should be wiping the floor against Trump on health care. We completely dominated the Republicans in 2018 on health care, essentially winning the election on that issue. And given how badly Trump has handled the pandemic, getting the blame that he so thoroughly deserves from most voters (2/3 of voters in multiple polls disapprove of his handling of Covid, and don’t trust what he says on the issue), we should be winning on a wide range of health care issues by 20+ points. But Biden is way underperforming here.
The only health issue we are ahead by 20 points on is reproductive health care. We are only up 14 on the Democrats’ signature issue for the last four years -- pre-existing conditions -- and we are only up 12 on making sure everyone has access to care. This after four years of Trump doing everything in his power to repeal the ACA. We are only up 6 on lowering health costs. In spite of Trump’s lack of credibility on the issue, we are barely above the margin of error, 5 points, on who will do a better job of developing and distributing the vaccine. And we are actually losing by 4 on lowering drug prices.
My eyes popped out of my skull when I saw those numbers. They are really bad news for us. Trump is spending a lot of time lying about how he will lower drug prices and make health care better, and in the absence of much messaging from Biden on this, he is gaining ground fast on this absolutely critical issue. Generic promises, mentioned only occasionally on the campaign trail, about preserving and improving the ACA are not enough. Our ads need to make 100% clear that Biden is going to fight for lower drug prices and lower out-of-pocket costs, that he will make health care more available to all those who have lost their jobs in the last six months. This should be our best issue, we need to win it big.
The great news is that the campaign is seeing the need and responding: they are out with two powerful new ads about health care today, here and here. It is such a relief to see these after a long spell where instead of having powerful ads like these solely focused on health care, there have been hardly any ads that did more than spend a moment on health care. More of these, please.
4. The economic polling. Polls are consistently indicating that in spite of Trump presiding over the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression, voters still trust him at least as much or probably a little more than Biden on the economy. Again, the reason is clear: Trump talks constantly about the economy on the campaign trail, while the Biden message has not talked enough about it.
This is the best ad of the campaign so far from the Biden team, an ad they ran in Ohio. They need to do more of it: talk about Biden’s commitment to building a better economy for working- and middle-class voters. And in their messaging, they need to talk more about the issues they’ve committed to in the Build Back Better plan: creating millions of jobs in solar and wind energy, rebuilding our country’s infrastructure, helping working families with child care, revitalizing the rural economy, having the government buy American made products, and raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. These are popular issues, and voters need to hear that Biden is focused like that proverbial laser beam on making this economy work for American working families.
5. Being hesitant about populism. According to the pollsters at Democracy Corps, who over the last 20 years have consistently been among the most accurate pollsters in the country, here is the language that does more to consolidate and expand the Biden lead than any other language they tested:
Both parties failed to address the cycle of wealth and power that has rigged the economy for the benefit of those at the top and determined the working class. Both parties left the system rigged. Trump is not the cause of our divided nation. He is the symptom of a rigged system that was already dividing us. We must come together and reform the system that got us here in the first place by uniting people of all races, genders, and classes, and band together now to unrig this corrupt system.
Hillary’s campaign four years ago, obsessed by Republican women in the suburbs, failed to have a closing message that was more populist about the economy. She kept the message focused on what a terrible guy Donald Trump was.
I am hoping against hope the Biden campaign does not make the same mistake. They have invested a huge amount in trying to make gains among Republican voters, and I am fine with that -- we need every voter we can get. But having made the gains we can with that group of voters, we need to close on a more populist note that will appeal to the working-class swing voters that turned so heavily against us last time, and on firing up and turning out all those base voters who did turn out in 2016. A good dose of populism does both things.
The future of America and the climate is at stake: the progressive movement needs to deliver.
I don’t know whether the Biden campaign will move in the more populist direction I am suggesting. They are clearly starting to respond to the concerns about Latinos/Latinas and health care, which I am thrilled to see. But whatever they end up doing, the progressive movement has to stay focused on saving our future. We are the ones who are most in touch with the young people and people of color whose turnout we so desperately need. We are the ones who can highlight the critical economic and health care issues that need to be delivered to voters. We are the ones who can get voters registered and get them turned out. We have to stand and deliver.
We in the progressive movement can get our voters out; we can fire up our people and close the enthusiasm gap. If we do, we will win this election, whatever crazy distractions Trump does in the final weeks, whatever happens with the Biden campaign. It is up to progressives to save the world. Let’s win in this decisive moment.


crooksandliars--2020-09-17--'Tired Of Being Quiet': Another Woman Comes Forward To Accuse Donald Trump Of Sexual Assault

Adding to the long list of women who have accused President Donald Trump of sexual assault , Amy Dorris on Thursday alleged that Trump forced his tongue down her throat and groped her at the U.S. Open tennis tournament in New York on September 5 , 1997 .
In an interview with the Guardian , Dorris accused Trump of assaulting her outside the bathroom in his VIP box at Arthur Ashe Stadium .
`` Initially I thought that he was waiting to go to the bathroom , but that was n't the case , unfortunately , '' Dorris said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ her after she told him no and that he carelessly continued despite her pleas for him to stop .
`` He just shoved his tongue down my throat and I was pushing him off , '' Dorris told the Guardian .
`` And then that 's when his grip became tighter and his hands were very gropey and all over my butt , my breasts , my back , everything . ''
`` I was pushing his tongue out of my mouth with my teeth , '' she said .
`` It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' `` I could n't get him to let go , '' Dorris added , saying that she felt `` trapped '' and likening Trump 's inescapable grip to `` suction cups on an octopus . ''
The former model and actress , who was 24 at the time of the alleged assault , described feeling `` sick '' and `` violated '' as a result of the encounter with Trump , who was then 51 and married to Marla Maples .
Dorris provided the Guardian with evidence to bolster her account of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shared were also corroborated by numerous individuals with whom she spoke immediately after the event as well as several people she has told in the intervening years , according to the newspaper .
Now 48 , Dorris said that she had considered coming forward in 2016 when over a dozen women accused Trump , who was the Republican candidate for president at the time , of sexual misconduct .
Dorris decided against speaking publicly four years ago due to concerns about the potentially negative impacts on her family .
Trump has denied the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggested to the Guardian that Dorris 's claims might be politically motivated given the timing .
But Dorris , who first spoke with the Guardian in confidence 15 months ago , provided another explanation for why she recently chose to take the step of going public .
Now that her twin girls `` are about to turn 13 years old , '' Dorris said : `` I want them to know that you do n't let anybody do anything to you that you do n't want .
And I 'd rather be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see that I did n't stay quiet , that I stood up to somebody who did something that was unacceptable . ''
`` When you invade someone 's space , it does n't matter if you were raped , it 's sexual assault , and it 's not okay , '' she told the Guardian .
`` You do n't touch someone unless they want to be touched .
And I did nothing to encourage him to touch me . ''
`` I 'm sick of him getting away with this ...
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said .
`` And I want people to know that this is the man , this is our president .
This is the kind of thing he does and it 's unacceptable , '' she said .

Adding to the long list of women who have accused President Donald Trump of sexual assault, Amy Dorris on Thursday alleged that Trump forced his tongue down her throat and groped her at the U.S. Open tennis tournament in New York on September 5, 1997.
In an interview with the Guardian, Dorris accused Trump of assaulting her outside the bathroom in his VIP box at Arthur Ashe Stadium.
"Initially I thought that he was waiting to go to the bathroom, but that wasn't the case, unfortunately," Dorris said. She alleged that Trump forced himself on her after she told him no and that he carelessly continued despite her pleas for him to stop.
"He just shoved his tongue down my throat and I was pushing him off," Dorris told the Guardian. "And then that's when his grip became tighter and his hands were very gropey and all over my butt, my breasts, my back, everything."
"I was pushing his tongue out of my mouth with my teeth," she said. "It was pretty traumatic and jarring and shocking."
"I couldn't get him to let go," Dorris added, saying that she felt "trapped" and likening Trump's inescapable grip to "suction cups on an octopus."
The former model and actress, who was 24 at the time of the alleged assault, described feeling "sick" and "violated" as a result of the encounter with Trump, who was then 51 and married to Marla Maples.
Dorris provided the Guardian with evidence to bolster her account of the alleged incident. The details she shared were also corroborated by numerous individuals with whom she spoke immediately after the event as well as several people she has told in the intervening years, according to the newspaper.
Now 48, Dorris said that she had considered coming forward in 2016 when over a dozen women accused Trump, who was the Republican candidate for president at the time, of sexual misconduct.
Dorris decided against speaking publicly four years ago due to concerns about the potentially negative impacts on her family.
Trump has denied the allegations by Dorris, and his lawyers suggested to the Guardian that Dorris's claims might be politically motivated given the timing.
But Dorris, who first spoke with the Guardian in confidence 15 months ago, provided another explanation for why she recently chose to take the step of going public.
Now that her twin girls "are about to turn 13 years old," Dorris said: "I want them to know that you don't let anybody do anything to you that you don't want. And I'd rather be a role model. I want them to see that I didn't stay quiet, that I stood up to somebody who did something that was unacceptable."
"When you invade someone's space, it doesn't matter if you were raped, it's sexual assault, and it's not okay," she told the Guardian. "You don't touch someone unless they want to be touched. And I did nothing to encourage him to touch me."
"I'm sick of him getting away with this... I'm tired of being quiet," she said. "And I want people to know that this is the man, this is our president. This is the kind of thing he does and it's unacceptable," she said.
Republished from Common Dreams (Kenny Stancil, staff writer) under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.


crooksandliars--2020-09-17--FBI Director: Russians Interfering Again, This Time Against Biden

During today 's House Homeland Security Hearing on National Security Threats , FBI Director Christopher Wray said under oath that foreign election interference during the 2020 Presidential election is to denigrate Joe Biden 's chances of winning the 2020 election .
Meanwhile , another Trump official , acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf , refused to appear and testify to the committee this morning .
Why is Chad Wolf refusing to testify ?
Anyway , the FBI Director did show up , and he had very precise words to explain where all the outside interference is coming from in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Director Wray said , `` We have seen very active , very active efforts by the Russians to influence our election in 2020 . ''
The efforts include `` social media , use of proxies , state media , online journals etc.
, in an effort to both sow divisiveness and discord , '' he said .
`` And I think the intelligence community has assessed this publicly to primarily to denigrate Vice President Biden and what the Russians see as kind of an anti-Russian establishment .
That 's essentially what were seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the record .
That 's about as clear as the FBI Director can make it .
That still has n't stopped Rudy Giuliani from coordinating with a known Russian agent - Andriy Derkach .
to spread Russian disinformation to the Congress and the American people in an effort to reelect Trump .
Even though US intelligence has known Derkach is a spy , Giuliani 's response was that he was `` unaware '' that Derkach was indeed a Russian spy ?
Is laughable .
The Russians and Trump are also being aided in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Wisconsin .
The Daily Beast reports : U.S. Intel Repeatedly Warned About Rudy ’ s ‘ Russian Agent ’ Pal

During today's House Homeland Security Hearing on National Security Threats, FBI Director Christopher Wray said under oath that foreign election interference during the 2020 Presidential election is to denigrate Joe Biden's chances of winning the 2020 election.
Meanwhile, another Trump official, acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf, refused to appear and testify to the committee this morning.
Why is Chad Wolf refusing to testify?
Illegally appointed Acting DHS Commissioner Chad Wolf has apparently also broken the law. He must be held accountable.https://t.co/iJt9xlfC2L — Citizens for Ethics (@CREWcrew) September 10, 2020
Anyway, the FBI Director did show up, and he had very precise words to explain where all the outside interference is coming from in our upcoming election and for what purpose.
Director Wray said, "We have seen very active, very active efforts by the Russians to influence our election in 2020."
The efforts include "social media, use of proxies, state media, online journals etc., in an effort to both sow divisiveness and discord," he said.
"And I think the intelligence community has assessed this publicly to primarily to denigrate Vice President Biden and what the Russians see as kind of an anti-Russian establishment. That's essentially what were seeing in 2020," Wray stated for the record.
That's about as clear as the FBI Director can make it.
That still hasn't stopped Rudy Giuliani from coordinating with a known Russian agent - Andriy Derkach. to spread Russian disinformation to the Congress and the American people in an effort to reelect Trump.
Even though US intelligence has known Derkach is a spy, Giuliani's response was that he was "unaware" that Derkach was indeed a Russian spy? Is laughable.
So, MAD KING DONALD’S lawyer Rudy Giuiliani claims he was unaware that his Ukraine contact was a Russian Agent! Rudy wasn’t exactly in Never-Never-Land on MAD KING DONALD’S orders to muddy Joe Biden at the time. America’s Mayor needs a rest-cure, and better friends! — Norman De Sola (@de_solamM) September 14, 2020
The Russians and Trump are also being aided in their disinformation campaign by Sen. Ron Johnson from Wisconsin.
@SenRonJohnson you are working for Russia pushing lies about Biden from a known Russian spy. Your trip to Moscow 2 yrs ago has really paid off. Poor Wisconsin voters have a Russian asset for Senator. — Nancy Griffith (@nancy_nagr0626) September 17, 2020
The Daily Beast reports: U.S. Intel Repeatedly Warned About Rudy’s ‘Russian Agent’ Pal