thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-09--An Unprecedented 14 Million Children Are Going Hungry Due To The COVID Crisis

Mario Tama via Getty Images A boy wears a face mask as food is delivered to his family 's truck at a food bank distribution center in Van Nuys , California , in April .
At the time , organizers said they had distributed food for 1,500 families during the COVID-19 pandemic .
Nearly 14 million children in the United States went hungry in June , as the economic fallout from the pandemic continued to batter families .
That ’ s an increase of more than 10 million since 2018 , and nearly three times the number of children who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to an analysis of Census data released by the Hamilton Project on Thursday .
The food crisis shows no signs of abating , either , as COVID-19 cases continue to rise , the relief measures implemented by the federal government in March are set to run out in a few weeks , and it ’ s not clear whether children will go back to school , where many get fed .
“ If you ’ re not able to feed your children , it ’ s a pretty severe signal about your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial shocks , ” said Bauer .
Most of these families have run out of cushion to deal with the economic pain wrought by this pandemic .
The data relies on a survey conducted by the Census in June that asks households struggling to afford food whether , over a seven-day period , the children in their home are often or sometimes not getting enough to eat .
The numbers are even worse for Black families , 30 % of which are struggling to afford food right now .
The rate for Hispanic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to feed children is yet another way the coronavirus crisis is hitting people of color disproportionately harder .
The unemployment rate was 11.1 % in June — lower than in May but still historically high — and some believe that number doesn ’ t truly represent job conditions currently , as many businesses have been forced to close again to deal with the resurgence of the virus .
Relief checks cut in late March helped many Americans buy food and necessities , but given how quickly the neediest households spent that money , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now .
And at the end of the month the beefed up unemployment insurance passed through the CARES Act expires , too .
Even parents with jobs are struggling to pay for food .
Many relied on meals provided by their children ’ s school to help alleviate the cost of groceries ; in an ordinary year , children ’ s rates of food insecurity go up in the summer , Bauer said .
But the school backstop is gone .
Parents are struggling to buy more food with kids at home and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will go back to normal in September .
For example , the country ’ s largest school system , New York City , just announced that children will only be attending school in person one to three days a week .
Meanwhile , food generally has gotten more expensive .
The average cost of groceries has gone up by nearly 5 % — and as much as 10 % for some categories of food like meat , eggs and dairy — over the past year , according to federal data , because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eating because of the pandemic .
Demand for food in grocery stores went up and food suppliers weren ’ t prepared for the change .
The rise in food prices hit lower-income families harder , too : Not only did everything cost more , but it is more difficult to bargain-hunt when you want to reduce your exposure to a virus .
None of this is surprising .
As soon as schools shut down , activists and policymakers sounded the alarm .
The stimulus also provided for food vouchers for kids who typically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did expand SNAP , the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ( aka food stamps ) , as part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act it passed in March .
The Trump administration essentially prevented the expanded benefits from going to the neediest households , Bauer said .
The move stands in sharp contrast to actions taken at the federal level to expand food benefits during the Great Recession , which kept a lot of people from going hungry .
There are relatively simple policy solutions to the problem of kids going hungry .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , policymakers simply need to expand food stamp benefits through the fall and re-up the program that gives food vouchers to those who aren ’ t able to go back to school , said Bauer .
But so far , there ’ s been little attention on the issue .
Instead , the media spotlight has focused on relatively well-off middle class families who are struggling with their children being at home instead of at school .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Nearly 14 million children in the United States went hungry in June, as the economic fallout from the pandemic continued to batter families. That’s an increase of more than 10 million since 2018, and nearly three times the number of children who went hungry during the Great Recession, according to an analysis of Census data released by the Hamilton Project on Thursday.
The food crisis shows no signs of abating, either, as COVID-19 cases continue to rise, the relief measures implemented by the federal government in March are set to run out in a few weeks, and it’s not clear whether children will go back to school, where many get fed.
Advertisement
“It’s pretty bad and it’s not getting better,” said Lauren Bauer, an economic fellow at the Brookings Institution who conducted the research.
Typically, children are fed even in families that are really struggling; parents will go hungry in order to make sure their kids are eating.
“If you’re not able to feed your children, it’s a pretty severe signal about your household’s capability to deal with financial shocks,” said Bauer. Most of these families have run out of cushion to deal with the economic pain wrought by this pandemic.
A boy wears a face mask as food is delivered to his family's truck at a food bank distribution center in Van Nuys, California, in April. At the time, organizers said they had distributed food for 1,500 families during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mario Tama via Getty Images
Advertisement
The data relies on a survey conducted by the Census in June that asks households struggling to afford food whether, over a seven-day period, the children in their home are often or sometimes not getting enough to eat.
A stunning 16.9% of households said they were struggling to feed their children. Bauer then estimated how many children are living in those households, and examined their demographics.
The numbers are even worse for Black families, 30% of which are struggling to afford food right now. The rate for Hispanic households is 25%. The struggle to feed children is yet another way the coronavirus crisis is hitting people of color disproportionately harder.
Hamilton Project data on food insecurity HuffPost US
The unemployment rate was 11.1% in June — lower than in May but still historically high — and some believe that number doesn’t truly represent job conditions currently, as many businesses have been forced to close again to deal with the resurgence of the virus.
Advertisement
Relief checks cut in late March helped many Americans buy food and necessities, but given how quickly the neediest households spent that money, it’s likely long gone by now. And at the end of the month the beefed up unemployment insurance passed through the CARES Act expires, too.
Even parents with jobs are struggling to pay for food. Many relied on meals provided by their children’s school to help alleviate the cost of groceries; in an ordinary year, children’s rates of food insecurity go up in the summer, Bauer said.
But the school backstop is gone. Parents are struggling to buy more food with kids at home and it’s looking unlikely that things will go back to normal in September. For example, the country’s largest school system, New York City, just announced that children will only be attending school in person one to three days a week.
Meanwhile, food generally has gotten more expensive. The average cost of groceries has gone up by nearly 5% — and as much as 10% for some categories of food like meat, eggs and dairy — over the past year, according to federal data, because of massive shifts in how we’re eating because of the pandemic. Demand for food in grocery stores went up and food suppliers weren’t prepared for the change. The rise in food prices hit lower-income families harder, too: Not only did everything cost more, but it is more difficult to bargain-hunt when you want to reduce your exposure to a virus.
None of this is surprising. As soon as schools shut down, activists and policymakers sounded the alarm. The stimulus also provided for food vouchers for kids who typically got food at school. And Congress did expand SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (aka food stamps), as part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act it passed in March.
Advertisement
But the expansion didn’t really expand benefits for everyone. Because of a Trump administration decision, those already receiving the maximum amount of food assistance — $509 a month for a family of three — got nothing more.
That affected an estimated 5 million children.
The Trump administration essentially prevented the expanded benefits from going to the neediest households, Bauer said. The move stands in sharp contrast to actions taken at the federal level to expand food benefits during the Great Recession, which kept a lot of people from going hungry.
All of these benefits are set to run out soon, and Congress so far has shown little sign of doing anything.
There are relatively simple policy solutions to the problem of kids going hungry. Nothing new has to be cooked up, policymakers simply need to expand food stamp benefits through the fall and re-up the program that gives food vouchers to those who aren’t able to go back to school, said Bauer.
But so far, there’s been little attention on the issue. Instead, the media spotlight has focused on relatively well-off middle class families who are struggling with their children being at home instead of at school.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-09--Study Suggests Pregnant Women Can Pass The Coronavirus To Their Fetus

Researchers from Italy said Thursday that they studied 31 women with COVID-19 who delivered babies in March and April .
They found signs of the virus in several samples of umbilical cord blood , the placenta and , in one case , breast milk .
Women shouldn ’ t panic .
This doesn ’ t mean there ’ s a viable virus in those places and “ it ’ s too early to make guidelines ” or to change care , said the study leader , Dr. Claudio Fenizia , an immunology specialist at the University of Milan .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of women who are infected earlier in their pregnancies than these women , said Fenizia , who discussed the results at a medical conference being held online because of the pandemic .
A pregnant woman wearing a face mask and gloves holds her belly as she waits in line for groceries at a food pantry in Waltham , Mass .
A small study in Italy strengthens evidence that pregnant women infected with the coronavirus might be able to spread it to a fetus before birth .
Since the start of the pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occur .
HIV , Zika and some other viruses can infect a fetus this way .
Several early reports from China suggested the coronavirus might , too , although doctors suspect those women may have spread the virus to their babies during or after birth .
The new study involved women at three hospitals during the height of the outbreak in northern Italy .
The virus ’ s genetic material was found in one umbilical cord blood sample , two vaginal swabs and one breast milk sample .
Researchers also found specific , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in milk .
In one case , “ there ’ s strong evidence suggesting that the newborn was born already positive because we found the virus in the umblilical cord blood and in the placenta , ” Fenizia said .
In another case , a newborn had antibodies to the coronavirus that do not cross the placenta , so they did not come from the mother and were “ due to direct exposure of the fetus to the virus , ” Fenizia said .
In any case , the possibility of fetal infection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Only two of the newborns tested positive for the coronavirus at birth and neither became ill from it .
Dr. Ashley Roman , a pregnancy specialist at NYU Langone Health , said she and colleagues also detected viral particles on the fetal side of the placenta in several of the 11 cases they examined .
The new report adds evidence that in-womb transmission is possible , but it seems rare and to not cause serious problems in the infants , she said .
“ The most important thing that pregnant women need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ socially distance .
It ’ s important to wear a mask , wash their hands , ” Roman said .
“ Women don ’ t need to be cut off from society entirely , but they should be concerned about the impact of getting COVID on their own health during pregnancy.
” Dr. Anton Pozniak , a conference leader and virus expert at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London , said the implications of the Italian research “ have to be worked out.
” Children under age 3 rarely get seriously ill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspect that even if there was transmission to babies , it was not harmful , ” he said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A small study strengthens evidence that a pregnant woman infected with the coronavirus might be able to spread it to her fetus.
Researchers from Italy said Thursday that they studied 31 women with COVID-19 who delivered babies in March and April. They found signs of the virus in several samples of umbilical cord blood, the placenta and, in one case, breast milk.
Advertisement
Women shouldn’t panic. This doesn’t mean there’s a viable virus in those places and “it’s too early to make guidelines” or to change care, said the study leader, Dr. Claudio Fenizia, an immunology specialist at the University of Milan.
But it does merit more study, especially of women who are infected earlier in their pregnancies than these women, said Fenizia, who discussed the results at a medical conference being held online because of the pandemic.
A pregnant woman wearing a face mask and gloves holds her belly as she waits in line for groceries at a food pantry in Waltham, Mass. A small study in Italy strengthens evidence that pregnant women infected with the coronavirus might be able to spread it to a fetus before birth. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Since the start of the pandemic, doctors have wondered whether in-the-womb infection could occur. HIV, Zika and some other viruses can infect a fetus this way. Several early reports from China suggested the coronavirus might, too, although doctors suspect those women may have spread the virus to their babies during or after birth.
Advertisement
The new study involved women at three hospitals during the height of the outbreak in northern Italy. The virus’s genetic material was found in one umbilical cord blood sample, two vaginal swabs and one breast milk sample. Researchers also found specific, anti-coronavirus antibodies in umbilical cord blood and in milk.
In one case, “there’s strong evidence suggesting that the newborn was born already positive because we found the virus in the umblilical cord blood and in the placenta,” Fenizia said.
In another case, a newborn had antibodies to the coronavirus that do not cross the placenta, so they did not come from the mother and were “due to direct exposure of the fetus to the virus,” Fenizia said.
In any case, the possibility of fetal infection seems relatively rare, he said. Only two of the newborns tested positive for the coronavirus at birth and neither became ill from it.
Dr. Ashley Roman, a pregnancy specialist at NYU Langone Health, said she and colleagues also detected viral particles on the fetal side of the placenta in several of the 11 cases they examined. The new report adds evidence that in-womb transmission is possible, but it seems rare and to not cause serious problems in the infants, she said.
Advertisement
“The most important thing that pregnant women need to know is it’s important to socially distance. It’s important to wear a mask, wash their hands,” Roman said. “Women don’t need to be cut off from society entirely, but they should be concerned about the impact of getting COVID on their own health during pregnancy.”
Dr. Anton Pozniak, a conference leader and virus expert at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London, said the implications of the Italian research “have to be worked out.”
Children under age 3 rarely get seriously ill from coronavirus, and “I would suspect that even if there was transmission to babies, it was not harmful,” he said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-09--Mitch McConnell May Skip The GOP Convention

“ It ’ s a challenging situation and a number of my colleagues announced that they ’ re not going to attend , and we ’ ll have to wait and see how things look in late August to determine whether or not you can safely convene that many people , ” McConnell told the Cincinnati Enquirer on Thursday when asked whether he planned to go .
In recent weeks , McConnell , who is 78 , has become one of the GOP ’ s loudest cheerleaders for wearing a mask , even as President Donald Trump continues to not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the president will formally accept his party ’ s nomination for a second term , is slated to be held in the city of Jacksonville in late August .
The event was initially supposed to take place in Charlotte , North Carolina , but Republicans moved it after local officials refused to relax social distancing measures aimed at curbing the spread of the coronavirus .
Several Republican senators have already announced they will not attend the convention , citing health risks and prior commitments in their states .
“ I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m not going to go because of the virus situation , ” Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-Iowa ) , who is 86 , told reporters on Monday , per The Des Moines Register .
Other senators skipping the event include Susan Collins of Maine , Lisa Murkowski of Alaska , Lamar Alexander of Tennessee , Mitt Romney of Utah , and Pat Roberts of Kansas .
Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has said he is unsure about attending the convention .
The health risks could give additional Republican senators facing tough reelection fights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event and its association with a historically unpopular president .
Republicans are reportedly looking into moving the Jacksonville event to an outdoor stadium as COVID-19 cases and deaths keep rising in Florida , according to The Washington Post .
The Sunshine State has emerged as a new world epicenter for the disease , breaking daily records in infections and hospitalizations .
A health official in Tulsa , Oklahoma , said earlier this week that Trump ’ s bungled campaign rally in the city last month “ more than likely contributed ” to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Most of the attendees at the rally did not wear masks or socially distance .
“ In the past few days , we ’ ve seen almost 500 new cases , and we had several large events just over two weeks ago , so I guess we just connect the dots , ” Dr. Bruce Dart , director of the Tulsa City-County Health Department , told reporters on Wednesday .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) suggested he’s not certain about attending next month’s Republican National Convention in Florida due to the coronavirus.
“It’s a challenging situation and a number of my colleagues announced that they’re not going to attend, and we’ll have to wait and see how things look in late August to determine whether or not you can safely convene that many people,” McConnell told the Cincinnati Enquirer on Thursday when asked whether he planned to go.
Advertisement
In recent weeks, McConnell, who is 78, has become one of the GOP’s loudest cheerleaders for wearing a mask, even as President Donald Trump continues to not wear one.
The GOP convention, where the president will formally accept his party’s nomination for a second term, is slated to be held in the city of Jacksonville in late August. The event was initially supposed to take place in Charlotte, North Carolina, but Republicans moved it after local officials refused to relax social distancing measures aimed at curbing the spread of the coronavirus.
Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, talked today in Kentucky about his stance on whether he will attend the Republican convention in Jacksonville, Florida. @Enquirer pic.twitter.com/m9Onp0pvzQ — Chris Mayhew (@reportermayhew) July 9, 2020
Several Republican senators have already announced they will not attend the convention, citing health risks and prior commitments in their states.
Advertisement
“I’m not going to go. And I’m not going to go because of the virus situation,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who is 86, told reporters on Monday, per The Des Moines Register.
Other senators skipping the event include Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Roberts of Kansas. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has said he is unsure about attending the convention.
The health risks could give additional Republican senators facing tough reelection fights in November an excuse to skip the event and its association with a historically unpopular president.
Republicans are reportedly looking into moving the Jacksonville event to an outdoor stadium as COVID-19 cases and deaths keep rising in Florida, according to The Washington Post. The Sunshine State has emerged as a new world epicenter for the disease, breaking daily records in infections and hospitalizations.
A health official in Tulsa, Oklahoma, said earlier this week that Trump’s bungled campaign rally in the city last month “more than likely contributed” to a spike in coronavirus cases in the area. Most of the attendees at the rally did not wear masks or socially distance.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-09--Supreme Court Rules Eastern Oklahoma Land Is An Indian Reservation

In a 5-4 ruling , the justices declared that Congress never diminished or disestablished the land as a reservation .
Major crimes committed by a tribal member on their own reservation , in effect , must be prosecuted by the federal government in accordance with the Major Crimes Act .
This could open the door to numerous appeals by people prosecuted by the state of Oklahoma who should have been under tribal jurisdiction .
The opinion was also an acknowledgment by the nation ’ s highest court that the U.S. government has , time and time again , broken promises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s opinion means that at least for the matter of this land , the government must keep its commitment .
“ While there can be no question that Congress established a reservation for the Creek Nation , it ’ s equally clear that Congress has since broken more than a few of its promises to the Tribe , ” he wrote .
“ Not least , the land described in the parties ’ treaties , once undivided and held by the Tribe , is now fractured into pieces.
” The Muscogee ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seminole and Chickasaw Nations — which make up the Five Civilized Tribes — were hoping for a ruling that would uphold their sovereignty and the status of their lands as reservations , which currently make up around 19 million acres and nearly the entire eastern half of Oklahoma , including much of Tulsa .
As white colonizers moved West , they forced Indigenous people from their lands and onto reservations across the U.S .
Eventually , Native Americans were even forced off their original reservations as colonizers continued to settle and did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The debate over who has authority over the eastern part of Oklahoma is in line with that long-running conflict .
The court punted on the matter last year when it failed to come to a decision in Sharp v. Murphy , the case Gershengorn argued .
That case involved Patrick Murphy , a member of the Muscogee ( Creek ) Nation who is on death row for murder .
The court sought to establish whether land within the 1866 territorial boundaries of the Creek Nation in eastern Oklahoma , formerly known as Indian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indian reservation .
But the court failed to settle the case , with only eight justices participating in the deliberations .
Gorsuch recused himself because of his involvement in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals , which ruled on the matter previously .
The McGirt case gave the court another opportunity to consider tribal boundaries and sovereignty .
More than two decades ago , Jimcy McGirt was convicted in Oklahoma ’ s Wagoner County District Court of lewd molestation , first-degree rape and forcible sodomy .
He was sentenced to 500 years each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to life without parole for the forcible sodomy charge .
McGirt argued that as an enrolled member of the federally recognized Seminole and Muscogee ( Creek ) Nations , the state of Oklahoma could not prosecute him , according to the Major Crimes Act of 1885 .
That law states that the federal government alone has the authority to prosecute any major crime committed by an enrolled member of a tribe on their own reservation .
The oral arguments centered around whether the Creek Nation ever had a reservation and , if so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Federal Indian reservations are usually exempt from state jurisdiction since Native American tribes have the right to govern their own internal affairs .
The Constitution gives the federal government , not state governments , the authority to deal with tribes as governments .
“ The rediscovered reservations encompass the entire eastern half of the State—19 million acres that are home to 1.8 million people , only 10 % –15 % of whom are Indians , ” he wrote .
“ Across this vast area , the State ’ s ability to prosecute serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past convictions could well be thrown out .
On top of that , the Court has profoundly destabilized the overnance of eastern Oklahoma.
” “ The Nations and the State are committed to implementing a framework of shared jurisdiction that will preserve sovereign interests and rights to self-government while affirming jurisdictional understandings , procedures , laws , and regulations that support public safety , our economy , and private property rights , ” the statement read .
“ We will continue our work , confident that we can accomplish more together than any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the long term , outside of the criminal context , there may be some minor changes in civil law , the majority opinion points out assistance with homeland security , historical preservation , schools , highways , clinics , housing , and nutrition programs , as possible changes .
The Creek Nation will also have greater jurisdiction over child welfare cases involving tribal members , ” Tahdooahnippah said .
“ The short term implications of McGirt are largely confined to the criminal context in which the case arose .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
In a stunning blow to Oklahoma’s state government, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that much of eastern Oklahoma is located on an Indian reservation.
In a 5-4 ruling, the justices declared that Congress never diminished or disestablished the land as a reservation. Major crimes committed by a tribal member on their own reservation, in effect, must be prosecuted by the federal government in accordance with the Major Crimes Act. This could open the door to numerous appeals by people prosecuted by the state of Oklahoma who should have been under tribal jurisdiction.
Advertisement
The opinion was also an acknowledgment by the nation’s highest court that the U.S. government has, time and time again, broken promises to Indian tribes. The Supreme Court’s opinion means that at least for the matter of this land, the government must keep its commitment.
“Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.
“While there can be no question that Congress established a reservation for the Creek Nation, it’s equally clear that Congress has since broken more than a few of its promises to the Tribe,” he wrote. “Not least, the land described in the parties’ treaties, once undivided and held by the Tribe, is now fractured into pieces.”
The Muscogee (Creek), Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole and Chickasaw Nations — which make up the Five Civilized Tribes — were hoping for a ruling that would uphold their sovereignty and the status of their lands as reservations, which currently make up around 19 million acres and nearly the entire eastern half of Oklahoma, including much of Tulsa.
Advertisement
As white colonizers moved West, they forced Indigenous people from their lands and onto reservations across the U.S. Eventually, Native Americans were even forced off their original reservations as colonizers continued to settle and did not want to live among Indigenous people. The debate over who has authority over the eastern part of Oklahoma is in line with that long-running conflict.
“The Supreme Court reaffirmed today that when the United States makes promises, the courts will keep those promises,” Ian Heath Gershengorn, who argued a related case before the Supreme Court, said in a statement. “Congress persuaded the Creek Nation to walk the Trail of Tears with promises of a reservation — and the Court today correctly recognized that this reservation endures.”
The tribes and the state of Oklahoma have been waiting on a decision on the matter for years.
The court punted on the matter last year when it failed to come to a decision in Sharp v. Murphy, the case Gershengorn argued. That case involved Patrick Murphy, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation who is on death row for murder. The court sought to establish whether land within the 1866 territorial boundaries of the Creek Nation in eastern Oklahoma, formerly known as Indian Territory, could still be considered an Indian reservation. But the court failed to settle the case, with only eight justices participating in the deliberations. Gorsuch recused himself because of his involvement in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled on the matter previously.
The McGirt case gave the court another opportunity to consider tribal boundaries and sovereignty. More than two decades ago, Jimcy McGirt was convicted in Oklahoma’s Wagoner County District Court of lewd molestation, first-degree rape and forcible sodomy. He was sentenced to 500 years each for the rape and molestation counts and to life without parole for the forcible sodomy charge.
McGirt argued that as an enrolled member of the federally recognized Seminole and Muscogee (Creek) Nations, the state of Oklahoma could not prosecute him, according to the Major Crimes Act of 1885. That law states that the federal government alone has the authority to prosecute any major crime committed by an enrolled member of a tribe on their own reservation.
Advertisement
McGirt’s legal team argued that the Major Crimes Act of 1885 qualified McGirt for an appeal because the state government had no jurisdiction to prosecute him in the first place. Instead, his lawyers argued, McGirt should have been prosecuted in federal court.
Eventually, the case made its way to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on May 11 via teleconference due to the coronavirus pandemic.
“The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity. ... Congress has never withdrawn the promised reservation.” - Justice Neil Gorsuch
The oral arguments centered around whether the Creek Nation ever had a reservation and, if so, if it was ever disestablished. Federal Indian reservations are usually exempt from state jurisdiction since Native American tribes have the right to govern their own internal affairs. The Constitution gives the federal government, not state governments, the authority to deal with tribes as governments.
In both the Murphy and McGirt cases, petitioners argued that Congress never disestablished their tribal reservations or changed their boundaries and that those lands are still reservation land. That means that the men in question should be prosecuted by federal courts and not the state.
Advertisement
The state of Oklahoma, meanwhile, argued that those lands were “Dependent Indian communities” and not reservations. This would disqualify them from being considered a reservation and mean that the state had the authority to prosecute the men’s cases.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, sided with the state.
In the dissenting opinion, Roberts said the court’s ruling will have major consequences for the area’s residents, who are largely not part of any tribe, and state laws, including those pertaining to zoning, taxation, family and environmental law.
“The rediscovered reservations encompass the entire eastern half of the State—19 million acres that are home to 1.8 million people, only 10%–15% of whom are Indians,” he wrote. “Across this vast area, the State’s ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out. On top of that, the Court has profoundly destabilized the overnance of eastern Oklahoma.”
Roberts went on to argue that Congress did disestablish Indian territory by dismantling tribal governments, tribal courts and tribal sovereignty, as well as by making the tribal members U.S. citizens.
Advertisement
“In taking these transformative steps, Congress made no secret of its intentions. It created a commission tasked with extinguishing the Five Tribes’ territory and, in one report after another, explained that it was creating a homogenous population led by a common government,” he wrote.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) had a more direct statement of opposition to the opinion ― making clear that he viewed the decision as taking away land from Oklahoma, rather than an acknowledgment that it wasn’t Oklahoma’s to begin with.
“Neil Gorsuch & the four liberal Justices just gave away half of Oklahoma, literally,” Cruz tweeted. “Manhattan is next.”
But legal experts said the opinion, though important, would not wreak the kind of instant havoc detractors warned about.
In a joint statement, the State of Oklahoma, Muscogee (Creek), Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole Nations said they will work together to move forward after the Supreme Court’s decision.
Advertisement
“The Nations and the State are committed to implementing a framework of shared jurisdiction that will preserve sovereign interests and rights to self-government while affirming jurisdictional understandings, procedures, laws, and regulations that support public safety, our economy, and private property rights,” the statement read. “We will continue our work, confident that we can accomplish more together than any of us could alone.”
The decision could change how many things operate on tribal lands, but not instantaneously, according to Forrest Tahdooahnippah, a member of the Comanche Nation of Oklahoma and a lawyer who specializes in businesses in Native American country.
“In the long term, outside of the criminal context, there may be some minor changes in civil law, the majority opinion points out assistance with homeland security, historical preservation, schools, highways, clinics, housing, and nutrition programs, as possible changes. The Creek Nation will also have greater jurisdiction over child welfare cases involving tribal members,” Tahdooahnippah said. “The short term implications of McGirt are largely confined to the criminal context in which the case arose.”
He added that individuals convicted by the state may not want to challenge their convictions again. “Federal penalties may be harsher than the state penalties,” he said.
Lindsay Robertson, Chickasaw Nation Endowed Chair in Native American Law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law, said this advancement to sovereignty will not be a process that happens overnight that some have feared may overwhelm the court system.
Advertisement
“This is doable because everybody ― the tribes and the state ― has the same goals: law and order, preservation of peace, economic advancement and this sort of thing,” Robertson told HuffPost.
Robertson said the short-term implications will definitely include the court receiving many petitions for appeals.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-09--Former Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen Taken Into Custody

July 9 ( Reuters ) - Michael Cohen , U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s former personal attorney , was taken into custody on Thursday , according to a lawyer for Cohen .
Cohen , 53 , was taken to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn , according to his lawyer , Jeffrey Levine .
Cohen had been released from a federal prison in May due to concerns over possible exposure to the novel coronavirus .
He had completed about a year of a three-year sentence for his role in hush money payments to two women , as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Cohen was ordered to a federal courthouse in Manhattan to convert his furlough to home confinement , Levine said outside of the courthouse .
He said they were presented with an agreement that barred Cohen from having any contact with news media organizations and from posting on social media .
“ I ’ m never seen any language like this in my life , ” Levine said .
After objecting , Levine said that the U.S .
Marshals Service came with “ shackles ” and ordered him remanded to the jail in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the terms .
Thursday ’ s events come a week after Cohen was spotted at a sidewalk table at the French restaurant Le Bilboquet near his Park Avenue apartment in Manhattan , according to the New York Post newspaper .
Levine had told the newspaper that the dinner did not violate the terms of Cohen ’ s release from prison .
The two women who were paid hush money , pornographic film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougall , said they had sexual relationships with Trump .
The president has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cohen , who once said he would “ take a bullet ” for Trump , later turned on his former boss and cooperated with Democratic-led congressional inquiries .
Trump has called Cohen a “ rat.
” Cohen has called Trump a “ racist , ” a “ con man ” and “ a cheat.
” ( Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington , Delaware , and Noeleen Walder and Karen Freifeld in New York ; Editing by Franklin Paul , Daniel Wallis and Jonathan Oatis )

LOADING ERROR LOADING
July 9 (Reuters) - Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, was taken into custody on Thursday, according to a lawyer for Cohen.
Cohen, 53, was taken to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, according to his lawyer, Jeffrey Levine. Cohen had been released from a federal prison in May due to concerns over possible exposure to the novel coronavirus.
Advertisement
He had completed about a year of a three-year sentence for his role in hush money payments to two women, as well as for financial crimes and lying to Congress.
Cohen had been released from a federal prison in May due to concerns over possible exposure to the novel coronavirus. AP Photo/John Minchillo
Cohen was ordered to a federal courthouse in Manhattan to convert his furlough to home confinement, Levine said outside of the courthouse.
He said they were presented with an agreement that barred Cohen from having any contact with news media organizations and from posting on social media.
Advertisement
“I’m never seen any language like this in my life,” Levine said.
After objecting, Levine said that the U.S. Marshals Service came with “shackles” and ordered him remanded to the jail in Brooklyn because he failed to agree to the terms.
Thursday’s events come a week after Cohen was spotted at a sidewalk table at the French restaurant Le Bilboquet near his Park Avenue apartment in Manhattan, according to the New York Post newspaper.
Levine had told the newspaper that the dinner did not violate the terms of Cohen’s release from prison.
The two women who were paid hush money, pornographic film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougall, said they had sexual relationships with Trump. The president has denied having relationships with either woman.
Cohen had originally been eligible for release in November 2021.
Cohen, who once said he would “take a bullet” for Trump, later turned on his former boss and cooperated with Democratic-led congressional inquiries. Trump has called Cohen a “rat.” Cohen has called Trump a “racist,” a “con man” and “a cheat.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-09--Trump Lashes Out Over Supreme Court Rulings On His Financial Records

President Donald Trump lashed out angrily Thursday following two Supreme Court rulings regarding his financial records .
Trump offered no specific insight into the particulars of the cases , which were not decided in his favor , instead painting one broadly as “ a political prosecution.
” In a second tweet , he claimed without basis that “ Courts in the past have given ‘ broad deference ’ .
BUT NOT ME !
” The Supreme Court sends case back to Lower Court , arguments to continue .
This is all a political prosecution .
I won the Mueller Witch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York .
Not fair to this Presidency or Administration !
— Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) July 9 , 2020 The president then went quiet for roughly 10 minutes before erupting in a stream-of-consciousness rant featuring all his usual boogeymen .
The rant was Trump ’ s response to the court ’ s decisions in Trump v. Vance and Trump v. Mazars USA , LLP .
The court rejected his arguments that the president is immune from investigation and subpoena by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the records being subpoenaed ― which could reveal his tax returns and potential crimes including tax evasion , money laundering and executive branch disclosure violations ― are almost certain to remain hidden from the public until after the election .
While running for president , Trump repeatedly promised to release the documents voluntarily , something he has not done .
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh ― the two conservative justices Trump appointed this term ― ruled with the majority in both cases .
Trump ’ s sought to redirect attention from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corrupt previous Administration ” that “ GOT CAIGHT [ sic ] ” in “ the biggest political crime and scandal in U.S. history , ” echoing his previous baseless claims that President Barack Obama committed “ treason ” by spying on the Trump campaign .
Trump eventually used his tweets to dismiss the cases entirely .
He also deleted and re-posted the tweets later Thursday , with the spelling errors corrected .
A screenshot of the originals are below :

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump lashed out angrily Thursday following two Supreme Court rulings regarding his financial records.
Trump offered no specific insight into the particulars of the cases, which were not decided in his favor, instead painting one broadly as “a political prosecution.” In a second tweet, he claimed without basis that “Courts in the past have given ‘broad deference’. BUT NOT ME!”
Advertisement
The Supreme Court sends case back to Lower Court, arguments to continue. This is all a political prosecution. I won the Mueller Witch Hunt, and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2020
Courts in the past have given “broad deference”. BUT NOT ME! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2020
The president then went quiet for roughly 10 minutes before erupting in a stream-of-consciousness rant featuring all his usual boogeymen.
The rant was Trump’s response to the court’s decisions in Trump v. Vance and Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP. The court rejected his arguments that the president is immune from investigation and subpoena by both Congress and state grand juries.
Advertisement
But the records being subpoenaed ― which could reveal his tax returns and potential crimes including tax evasion, money laundering and executive branch disclosure violations ― are almost certain to remain hidden from the public until after the election. While running for president, Trump repeatedly promised to release the documents voluntarily, something he has not done.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh ― the two conservative justices Trump appointed this term ― ruled with the majority in both cases.
Trump’s sought to redirect attention from his current predicament onto “a totally corrupt previous Administration” that “GOT CAIGHT [sic]” in “the biggest political crime and scandal in U.S. history,” echoing his previous baseless claims that President Barack Obama committed “treason” by spying on the Trump campaign.
Trump eventually used his tweets to dismiss the cases entirely.
He also deleted and re-posted the tweets later Thursday, with the spelling errors corrected. A screenshot of the originals are below:
Donald Trump/Twitter
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-09--Supreme Court Sides Against Trump In Key Tax Case — Sort Of

The Supreme Court upheld a subpoena from Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance for President Donald Trump ’ s financial records , one of two major rulings that rejected Trump ’ s most strident legal defenses but that nonetheless could shield his records until after the election .
In a 7-2 decision , Justice Roberts wrote that the Constitution does not prevent a grand jury from issuing a subpoena for the private records of the president of the United States as part of a criminal investigation into their activities as a private citizen .
The decision means that Mazars USA LLP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must comply with the subpoena issued by the grand jury that Vance ’ s office empaneled , and must hand over the president ’ s financial records , including his tax returns .
However , Vance ’ s office is not likely to receive them anytime soon .
The high court ’ s ruling gave Trump an opening to raise “ further arguments as appropriate ” in lower courts against the documents ’ release , meaning the case will likely continue .
Soon after , the court released another 7-2 decision on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which looked at whether the House could obtain the president ’ s financial records .
The opinion , also written by Roberts , stated that while the House had the authority to obtain the records , the case should go back to lower courts to determine the matter under a narrower interpretation of Congress ’ power .
In the Vance case , the district attorney issued the subpoenas as part of his continued investigation into whether the Trump Organization falsified documents concealing Trump ’ s involvement in hush-money payments to two women who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ married president .
The investigation stems from Trump ’ s former fixer Michael Cohen ’ s admission that he broke campaign finance laws by making the hush-money payments .
The case hinged on whether the president of the United States is temporarily immune from discovery during a criminal investigation due to his constitutional position .
Trump ’ s lawyers argued that the president ’ s records could not be subpoenaed as part of a private investigation because doing so would enable partisan district attorneys to “ harass , distract , and interfere ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both conservative and liberal justices asked how President Trump ’ s argument for temporary presidential immunity from subpoenas was any different from President Clinton ’ s argument of presidential immunity from a civil deposition .
In 1997 , the court ruled in Clinton v. Jones that the president is not immune from civil litigation based on their actions prior to being sworn into office .
In that case , then-President Bill Clinton sought to quash a civil lawsuit brought by Paula Jones , who sought damages based on her allegations that the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governor of Arkansas .
Jones ’ lawyers sought a deposition from Clinton at the time .
Clinton claimed that he was immune from civil lawsuits due to his constitutional position .
The court ruled 9-0 that presidents are not temporarily immune from civil lawsuits unrelated to their actions as president , though they could argue that a particular lawsuit is “ unduly burdensome ” on a case-by-case basis .
During May 12 oral arguments conducted by teleconference , both conservative and liberal justices asked how Trump ’ s argument for temporary presidential immunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was any different from Clinton ’ s argument of presidential immunity from a civil deposition .
The president ’ s lawyer , Jay Sekulow , attempted to argue that the request for financial records is different than the question in Clinton v. Jones about whether the president could be deposed .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Supreme Court upheld a subpoena from Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance for President Donald Trump’s financial records, one of two major rulings that rejected Trump’s most strident legal defenses but that nonetheless could shield his records until after the election.
In a 7-2 decision, Justice Roberts wrote that the Constitution does not prevent a grand jury from issuing a subpoena for the private records of the president of the United States as part of a criminal investigation into their activities as a private citizen.
Advertisement
“In our judicial system, ‘the public has a right to every man’s evidence,’” Roberts wrote. “Since the earliest days of the Republic, ‘every man’ has included the President of the United States.”
Vance issued a statement calling the court’s ruling a “tremendous victory for our nation’s system of justice.”
The decision means that Mazars USA LLP, Trump’s accounting firm, must comply with the subpoena issued by the grand jury that Vance’s office empaneled, and must hand over the president’s financial records, including his tax returns. However, Vance’s office is not likely to receive them anytime soon. The high court’s ruling gave Trump an opening to raise “further arguments as appropriate” in lower courts against the documents’ release, meaning the case will likely continue.
Soon after, the court released another 7-2 decision on the case of Trump v. Mazars USA, which looked at whether the House could obtain the president’s financial records. The opinion, also written by Roberts, stated that while the House had the authority to obtain the records, the case should go back to lower courts to determine the matter under a narrower interpretation of Congress’ power.
Advertisement
Following the rulings, Trump rambled semi-coherently on Twitter.
In the Vance case, the district attorney issued the subpoenas as part of his continued investigation into whether the Trump Organization falsified documents concealing Trump’s involvement in hush-money payments to two women who allege they had sexual relationships with the married president. The investigation stems from Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen’s admission that he broke campaign finance laws by making the hush-money payments.
Roberts noted the court took the case as it was the first instance of a state court issuing a subpoena for a president’s records.
The case hinged on whether the president of the United States is temporarily immune from discovery during a criminal investigation due to his constitutional position. Trump’s lawyers argued that the president’s records could not be subpoenaed as part of a private investigation because doing so would enable partisan district attorneys to “harass, distract, and interfere” with his job.
In May, both conservative and liberal justices asked how President Trump’s argument for temporary presidential immunity from subpoenas was any different from President Clinton’s argument of presidential immunity from a civil deposition. AP Photo/Alex Brandon
Trump’s argument of “temporary presidential immunity” was complicated by prior Supreme Court precedent.
Advertisement
The court first upheld a subpoena directed at a sitting president in the 1807 United States v. Burr case, when former vice president Aaron Burr subpoenaed documents from President Thomas Jefferson while Burr faced prosecution for treason and fomenting war with Spain.
“In the two centuries since the Burr trial, successive Presidents have accepted Marshall’s ruling that the Chief Executive is subject to subpoena,” Roberts wrote in Thursday’s decision.
Then in the 1974 case United States v. Nixon, the court reaffirmed Marshall’s decision in Burr that the president is not immune from investigation or subpoena.
In 1997, the court ruled in Clinton v. Jones that the president is not immune from civil litigation based on their actions prior to being sworn into office. In that case, then-President Bill Clinton sought to quash a civil lawsuit brought by Paula Jones, who sought damages based on her allegations that the president sexually harassed her when he was the governor of Arkansas. Jones’ lawyers sought a deposition from Clinton at the time. Clinton claimed that he was immune from civil lawsuits due to his constitutional position.
The court ruled 9-0 that presidents are not temporarily immune from civil lawsuits unrelated to their actions as president, though they could argue that a particular lawsuit is “unduly burdensome” on a case-by-case basis.
Advertisement
During May 12 oral arguments conducted by teleconference, both conservative and liberal justices asked how Trump’s argument for temporary presidential immunity from subpoenas for his private financial records was any different from Clinton’s argument of presidential immunity from a civil deposition.
The president’s lawyer, Jay Sekulow, attempted to argue that the request for financial records is different than the question in Clinton v. Jones about whether the president could be deposed.
“How is this more burdensome, though, than what took place in Clinton v. Jones?” Justice Neil Gorsuch parried.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-09--Supreme Court Does Not Allow House To Immediately Obtain Trump Financial Records

The 7-2 opinion in Trump v. Mazars USA , written by Chief Justice John Roberts , states that Congress has the power to subpoena the president ’ s financial records .
However , the Supreme Court sent the case back to lower courts to reassess the matter with a new and narrower interpretation of Congress ’ power to subpoena the chief executive ’ s records .
Minutes earlier , the court ruled in a 7-2 decision against the president in the case of Trump v. Vance , allowing the Manhattan district attorney to obtain Trump ’ s tax returns .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the election .
Even before he took office in January 2017 , Trump ’ s election posed an unprecedented ethical problem .
He was a self-proclaimed billionaire with vast real estate holdings and investments in countries around the world .
He was the first president since Richard Nixon to refuse to disclose his tax returns to the public .
And he planned to maintain ownership of all of his business holdings with the fig leaf of separation being that his two adult sons would run the business while he sat in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 , three House committees issued subpoenas to Trump ’ s accounting firm , Mazars , and his lenders Deutsche Bank and Capital One as part of separate investigations into executive branch disclosure laws , international money laundering and the president ’ s potential undisclosed conflicts of interest .
Mazars , Deutsche Bank and Capital One all planned on complying with the subpoenas until Trump intervened in court to block them .
To do so , he made a sweeping argument that Congress is not allowed to investigate the president , even for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sworn into office .
The president ’ s lawyers made two arguments in their objection to the congressional subpoenas .
First , they claimed that Congress has no right to investigate the president at all outside of an impeachment inquiry and that the courts are not allowed to rule on disputes between the legislative and executive branches .
The second , and more relevant argument for the Supreme Court ’ s decision , was that Congress ’ subpoenas were issued solely for the purpose of embarrassing Trump and not for the investigatory reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a probe of international money laundering .
Congress can not investigate the executive branch without a “ legitimate legislative purpose , ” and that none was offered here , his lawyers argued .
Prior Supreme Court precedents dating back to the Teapot Dome Scandal and running through McCarthy era witch hunts do indeed state that Congress needs a “ legitimate legislative purpose ” to investigate .
However , those precedents also state that the courts will generally accept congressional claims about the purposes of its investigations without question .
The courts said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legitimate legislative purpose ” need not be based on whether it could write legislation related to the investigatory subject matter or not .
Trump ’ s most sweeping argument , that Congress can not investigate the president and the courts can not adjudicate any inter-branch dispute , was one “ that the Founders rejected at the inception of the Republic , ” Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled .
During Supreme Court arguments on May 12 , justices focused on the question of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ legitimate legislative purpose ” for issuing subpoenas was too broad .
Conservative justices prodded House counsel Douglas Letter for a “ limit ” on what Congress could subpoena from a president as part of a legitimate investigation .
Roberts asked whether there was a “ plausible example that you think is beyond any legislation that Congress would write.
” Letter did not have an example .
“ You were not able to give the chief justice even one example of a subpoena that would not be pertinent to some conceivable legislative purpose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alito said .
“ A limitless subpoena power could transform the established practice of the political branches and allow Congress to aggrandize itself at the President ’ s expense , ” the opinion reads .
“ These separation of powers concerns are unmistakably implicated by the subpoenas here , which represent not a run-of-the-mill legislative effort but rather a clash between rival branches of government over records of intense political interest for all involved .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that for now, Congress will not be able to get President Donald Trump’s financial records.
The 7-2 opinion in Trump v. Mazars USA, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, states that Congress has the power to subpoena the president’s financial records. However, the Supreme Court sent the case back to lower courts to reassess the matter with a new and narrower interpretation of Congress’ power to subpoena the chief executive’s records.
Advertisement
Minutes earlier, the court ruled in a 7-2 decision against the president in the case of Trump v. Vance, allowing the Manhattan district attorney to obtain Trump’s tax returns. It is unlikely to do so until after the election.
Following the rulings, Trump rambled semi-coherently on Twitter.
The Mazars case arose from investigations into Trump launched by multiple congressional committees after Democrats won control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections.
Even before he took office in January 2017, Trump’s election posed an unprecedented ethical problem. He was a self-proclaimed billionaire with vast real estate holdings and investments in countries around the world. He was the first president since Richard Nixon to refuse to disclose his tax returns to the public. And he planned to maintain ownership of all of his business holdings with the fig leaf of separation being that his two adult sons would run the business while he sat in the White House.
In the spring of 2019, three House committees issued subpoenas to Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars, and his lenders Deutsche Bank and Capital One as part of separate investigations into executive branch disclosure laws, international money laundering and the president’s potential undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Advertisement
Mazars, Deutsche Bank and Capital One all planned on complying with the subpoenas until Trump intervened in court to block them. To do so, he made a sweeping argument that Congress is not allowed to investigate the president, even for things that occurred before the president was sworn into office.
The president’s lawyers made two arguments in their objection to the congressional subpoenas. First, they claimed that Congress has no right to investigate the president at all outside of an impeachment inquiry and that the courts are not allowed to rule on disputes between the legislative and executive branches. The second, and more relevant argument for the Supreme Court’s decision, was that Congress’ subpoenas were issued solely for the purpose of embarrassing Trump and not for the investigatory reasons given ― the enforcement of disclosure laws and a probe of international money laundering. Congress cannot investigate the executive branch without a “legitimate legislative purpose,” and that none was offered here, his lawyers argued.
Prior Supreme Court precedents dating back to the Teapot Dome Scandal and running through McCarthy era witch hunts do indeed state that Congress needs a “legitimate legislative purpose” to investigate. However, those precedents also state that the courts will generally accept congressional claims about the purposes of its investigations without question. The courts said this was so because Congress’ “legitimate legislative purpose” need not be based on whether it could write legislation related to the investigatory subject matter or not.
Multiple district and appeals court decisions rejected Trump’s arguments while upholding existing court precedents related to Congress’ subpoena power.
Trump’s most sweeping argument, that Congress cannot investigate the president and the courts cannot adjudicate any inter-branch dispute, was one “that the Founders rejected at the inception of the Republic,” Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled.
Advertisement
During Supreme Court arguments on May 12, justices focused on the question of whether the existing interpretation of Congress’ “legitimate legislative purpose” for issuing subpoenas was too broad. Conservative justices prodded House counsel Douglas Letter for a “limit” on what Congress could subpoena from a president as part of a legitimate investigation.
Roberts asked whether there was a “plausible example that you think is beyond any legislation that Congress would write.” Letter did not have an example.
“You were not able to give the chief justice even one example of a subpoena that would not be pertinent to some conceivable legislative purpose, were you?” Justice Samuel Alito said.
“That’s correct, because this court has said Congress’ power to legislate is extremely broad,” Letter replied.
In his opinion, Roberts wrote that the “House’s approach would leave essentially no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the President’s personal records.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-09--Supreme Court Rules Against Trump On Financial Records, But Delays Win For Dems

President Donald Trump lost twice in court on Thursday when the Supreme Court rejected his sweeping arguments that the president is immune from investigation and subpoena by both Congress and state grand juries .
But in a loss for the public , the records being subpoenaed ― which could reveal his tax returns and potential crimes including tax evasion , money laundering and executive branch disclosure violations ― are almost certain to remain hidden until after the election .
The two blockbuster cases , Trump v. Vance and Trump v. Mazars USA , were total losses for Trump , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the President of the United States .
Trump ’ s lawyers had argued that the president has a total immunity from subpoenas for his personal records from either an empaneled grand jury or a congressional committee .
The court completely rejected these arguments in both cases by 7-2 margins in decisions written by Chief Justice John Roberts .
But it set different limits for Congress than for judicial proceedings like a grand jury while enabling Trump to hide his records from public scrutiny during what remains of his first term with continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , the court upheld the subpoena to Mazars USA LLP , Trump ’ s personal accounting firm , issued by a grand jury empaneled by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance .
The court affirmed prior precedent that “ the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need.
” While the court set no new standard for Vance ’ s subpoena , it ordered the case back to a district court , where the president ’ s lawyers could change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While the Vance case related to a state judicial proceeding , the Mazars case focused on a separation of powers dispute between two political branches of government .
It was the first time the court had “ considered a dispute over a congressional subpoena for the President ’ s records , ” Roberts noted in his decision .
For its first-ever consideration , the court found the arguments of both Trump and Congress wanting .
It rejected outright Trump ’ s argument that the president has an absolute immunity from investigation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its legislative power .
But it placed limits on congressional subpoena power when it seeks documents from the president and ordered the case back to lower courts to reassess based on the new limiting test created in Thursday ’ s decision .
“ A limitless subpoena power could transform the established practice of the political branches and allow Congress to aggrandize itself at the President ’ s expense , ” the opinion , written by Chief Justice John Roberts , reads .
“ These separation of powers concerns are unmistakably implicated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a run-of-the-mill legislative effort but rather a clash between rival branches of government over records of intense political interest for all involved.
” This was a hot topic when the court heard arguments on the case by teleconference on May 12 .
As Congress ’ subpoena power is linked to its constitutional authority to write legislation , the justices wanted to know if the House would offer up any limits on what legislation it could write , and , therefore , what records it could subpoena .
The test mandates that courts first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warrants the significant step of involving the President and his papers ” before they “ insist on a subpoena no broader than reasonably necessary to support Congress ’ s legislative objective.
” Courts should then be “ attentive to the nature of the evidence offered by Congress to establish that a subpoena advances a valid legislative purpose ” while also assessing “ the burdens imposed on the President by a subpoena.
” Finally , and most cryptically , “ Other considerations may be pertinent as well.
” This is the test that lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the three House committees that have subpoenaed Trump ’ s financial records may do so .
And it will also likely be applied in other high-profile lawsuits related to House subpoenas or legal requests for Trump administration testimony or financial documents .
The continued delay presented by the new legal test in adjudicating these disputes has displeased lawmakers who have sought Trump ’ s documents .
The House Ways and Means Committee sued for copies of the president ’ s taxes last year after the Trump administration refused to comply with a federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private tax information .
That case is still stuck at the lowest level of federal court , where a Trump-appointed judge has refused to rule on the merits until a higher court sorts out whether a House subpoena can force testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn .
Even before Thursday ’ s Supreme Court ruling , it seemed unlikely Democrats would get Trump ’ s tax returns before November , thanks partly to their own decision to wait until last July to take the administration to court .
Now Democrats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump ’ s taxes , may have to lay out their case according to the new John Roberts standard .
The Democrat-run House has engaged in a number of efforts to conduct oversight on Trump and his administration , but has been repeatedly stonewalled by the president , with the help of his GOP allies .
The House voted to impeach Trump earlier this year , but the Senate voted against removing him from office .
In a separate dissent , Justice Samuel Alito argued that Roberts ’ majority decision did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must meet when it subpoenas private records from the president .
He would have preferred it “ provide a description of the type of legislation being considered ” and “ spell out its constitutional authority to enact the type of legislation that it is contemplating.
” ( The House subpoenas in question made repeated reference to introduced legislation and passed in 2019 . )
While dissents from Thomas and Alito could be anticipated on these cases , the decision by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to side with the majority and against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointed both justices and has repeatedly called them “ my judges.
” His judges are in opposition to what Trump calls “ Obama judges.
” He appears to see judicial appointments entirely as a partisan exercise that is linked to personal loyalty , and clearly believes his judges owe him deference and favorable opinion .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump lost twice in court on Thursday when the Supreme Court rejected his sweeping arguments that the president is immune from investigation and subpoena by both Congress and state grand juries. But in a loss for the public, the records being subpoenaed ― which could reveal his tax returns and potential crimes including tax evasion, money laundering and executive branch disclosure violations ― are almost certain to remain hidden until after the election.
The two blockbuster cases, Trump v. Vance and Trump v. Mazars USA, were total losses for Trump, but a more mixed result for the Office of the President of the United States. Trump’s lawyers had argued that the president has a total immunity from subpoenas for his personal records from either an empaneled grand jury or a congressional committee. The court completely rejected these arguments in both cases by 7-2 margins in decisions written by Chief Justice John Roberts. But it set different limits for Congress than for judicial proceedings like a grand jury while enabling Trump to hide his records from public scrutiny during what remains of his first term with continued lower court battles.
Advertisement
In the Vance case, the court upheld the subpoena to Mazars USA LLP, Trump’s personal accounting firm, issued by a grand jury empaneled by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance. The court affirmed prior precedent that “the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need.” While the court set no new standard for Vance’s subpoena, it ordered the case back to a district court, where the president’s lawyers could change their now-defeated argument to prevent the disclosure.
While the Vance case related to a state judicial proceeding, the Mazars case focused on a separation of powers dispute between two political branches of government. It was the first time the court had “considered a dispute over a congressional subpoena for the President’s records,” Roberts noted in his decision. For its first-ever consideration, the court found the arguments of both Trump and Congress wanting.
It rejected outright Trump’s argument that the president has an absolute immunity from investigation. Congress can subpoena presidential records as part of its legislative power. But it placed limits on congressional subpoena power when it seeks documents from the president and ordered the case back to lower courts to reassess based on the new limiting test created in Thursday’s decision.
“A limitless subpoena power could transform the established practice of the political branches and allow Congress to aggrandize itself at the President’s expense,” the opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, reads. “These separation of powers concerns are unmistakably implicated by the subpoenas here, which represent not a run-of-the-mill legislative effort but rather a clash between rival branches of government over records of intense political interest for all involved.”
Advertisement
Trump immediately responded in a semi-coherent rant on Twitter by playing the victim. “Courts in the past have given “broad deference”. BUT NOT ME!” he wrote.
“The Supreme Court sends case back to Lower Court, arguments to continue. This is all a political prosecution,” Trump wrote in another tweet. “I won the Mueller Witch Hunt, and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration!”
The Supreme Court sends case back to Lower Court, arguments to continue. This is all a political prosecution. I won the Mueller Witch Hunt, and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2020
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement that the Mazars opinion was “not good news for President Trump.”
“The Court has reaffirmed the Congress’s authority to conduct oversight on behalf of the American people, as it asks for further information from the Congress,” Pelosi said in a statement. “Congress’s constitutional responsibility to uncover the truth continues, specifically related to the President’s Russia connection that he is hiding.”
Advertisement
But the ruling was neither a total win for Congress nor for public accountability.
While the court affirmed Congress’ subpoena power by rejecting Trump’s “presidential immunity” defense, it also rejected Congress’ argument that its subpoena power had no limits.
“The House’s approach fails to take adequate account of the significant separation of powers issues raised by congressional subpoenas for the President’s information,” Roberts wrote in the Mazars decision.
This was a hot topic when the court heard arguments on the case by teleconference on May 12. As Congress’ subpoena power is linked to its constitutional authority to write legislation, the justices wanted to know if the House would offer up any limits on what legislation it could write, and, therefore, what records it could subpoena.
Roberts asked Douglas Letter, counsel for the House of Representatives, for a “plausible example that you think is beyond any legislation that Congress would write.” Letter could not provide an example.
And so Roberts has now written a five-part limiting test for courts to use to determine whether a congressional subpoena for presidential documents is valid.
Advertisement
The test mandates that courts first consider “whether the asserted legislative purpose warrants the significant step of involving the President and his papers” before they “insist on a subpoena no broader than reasonably necessary to support Congress’s legislative objective.” Courts should then be “attentive to the nature of the evidence offered by Congress to establish that a subpoena advances a valid legislative purpose” while also assessing “the burdens imposed on the President by a subpoena.” Finally, and most cryptically, “Other considerations may be pertinent as well.”
This is the test that lower courts must now use to determine whether the three House committees that have subpoenaed Trump’s financial records may do so. And it will also likely be applied in other high-profile lawsuits related to House subpoenas or legal requests for Trump administration testimony or financial documents. The continued delay presented by the new legal test in adjudicating these disputes has displeased lawmakers who have sought Trump’s documents.
The Supreme Court had allowed Trump to “run out the clock” on the various lawsuits Democrats had filed to enforce their subpoenas, Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee said.
“The Supreme Court has failed the American people, but these decisions are not the end,” Pascrell said. “The lower courts should move full steam ahead and expeditiously authorize Congress’s oversight of Trump’s tax returns.”
While tax returns might be part of the Trump financial information sought through subpoenas to third-party financial institutions, Democrats have pursued Trump’s taxes more directly in a separate case.
Advertisement
The House Ways and Means Committee sued for copies of the president’s taxes last year after the Trump administration refused to comply with a federal law granting certain congressional committees access to private tax information. That case is still stuck at the lowest level of federal court, where a Trump-appointed judge has refused to rule on the merits until a higher court sorts out whether a House subpoena can force testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn.
Even before Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling, it seemed unlikely Democrats would get Trump’s tax returns before November, thanks partly to their own decision to wait until last July to take the administration to court. Now Democrats, who have maintained federal law entitles them to Trump’s taxes, may have to lay out their case according to the new John Roberts standard.
“While dissents from Thomas and Alito could be anticipated on these cases, the decision by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to side with the majority and against Trump stand out the most. Trump appointed both justices and has repeatedly called them 'my judges.'”
The Democrat-run House has engaged in a number of efforts to conduct oversight on Trump and his administration, but has been repeatedly stonewalled by the president, with the help of his GOP allies. The House voted to impeach Trump earlier this year, but the Senate voted against removing him from office.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissenting opinion in the Mazars case that he would have ruled that Congress may only subpoena private records from the president, “under the impeachment power.” The Trump administration notably refused to comply with congressional requests and subpoenas for documents and testimony as part of its impeachment inquiry.
Advertisement
In a separate dissent, Justice Samuel Alito argued that Roberts’ majority decision did not go far enough in its test Congress must meet when it subpoenas private records from the president. He would have preferred it “provide a description of the type of legislation being considered” and “spell out its constitutional authority to enact the type of legislation that it is contemplating.” (The House subpoenas in question made repeated reference to introduced legislation and passed in 2019.)
While dissents from Thomas and Alito could be anticipated on these cases, the decision by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to side with the majority and against Trump stand out the most. Trump appointed both justices and has repeatedly called them “my judges.” His judges are in opposition to what Trump calls “Obama judges.” He appears to see judicial appointments entirely as a partisan exercise that is linked to personal loyalty, and clearly believes his judges owe him deference and favorable opinion.
Trump’s allies have even made this argument explicitly about then-potential efforts by Congress to obtain the president’s financial records.
“[W]e’ll see whether or not the Kavanaugh fight was worth it,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said in 2018.
Trump’s judges did not come to his rescue. The president was left to shout into his favorite void, tweeting, “Courts in the past have given “broad deference”. BUT NOT ME!”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-09--Trolling Trump Isn’t The Same Thing As Beating Him

The Lincoln Project , a group of “ Never Trump ” Republicans who have now dedicated themselves to defeating the president in 2020 , makes the “ the best ads on television , ” according to Vermont ’ s former Democratic Gov .
Howard Dean .
They understand voters better than Democratic ad-makers , a Politico Magazine essay declares .
Need some metrics to back up this assessment ?
Just check Twitter , where their videos routinely rack up more than a million views and glowing reviews from Democratic partisans .
Democratic strategists and ad-makers view much of the group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skepticism and jaundice , noting many of its lines of attack were tested by the party in the past and found to be less effective at persuading undecided voters than messages focused on health care , the economy and how Trump ’ s decisions directly impact voters ’ lives .
They broadly view the group as more of a media phenomenon than as a truly useful ally in the war against Trump .
For one thing , for The Lincoln Project ’ s ads to be the best on television , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They barely are , and especially not in the markets that matter .
The group has spent just $ 2.4 million on television advertising , according to data from CMAG , with the biggest portion of that spending occurring in the utterly uncompetitive Washington , D.C. , media market .
On Thursday , it strangely booked advertising time in Massachusetts and New Jersey .
The group ’ s digital spending is more on target : About 40 % of its advertising on Facebook and Google has gone to the major swing states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Carolina , Arizona and Florida , according to a source tracking digital buys .
It still pales in comparison to what traditional Democratic super PACs are spending .
( Priorities USA , the largest Democratic super PAC , has already spent $ 20 million on television ads alone . )
So far , The Lincoln Project doesn ’ t actually appear interested in political persuasion .
Instead , it is , in its own words , dedicated to trolling the president .
It routinely airs its ads on the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make sure he sees them .
Before the president ’ s trip to South Dakota for July Fourth , it ran a spot on the network bashing Trump as a coward .
Another ad suggested the president ’ s campaign manager , Brad Parscale , was bilking him ― not exactly a top concern for undecided voters living through a pandemic .
Democrats were generally unwilling to go on record criticizing the group .
They acknowledged that throwing Trump even more off-kilter than usual can be helpful , and that generating news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Trump can create a permission structure for rank-and-file Republicans to break with the president .
“ They ’ re not going to go ad dollar for ad dollar in the Grand Rapids media market , but they are creating a national environment where it is easier for Republicans to have doubts against Trump , ” said Jesse Ferguson , a Democratic strategist .
“ They are literally creating a safe space for Republicans to express their concerns about the president.
” And if The Lincoln Project has proven excellent at anything , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Three of The Lincoln Project ’ s founders ― Rick Wilson , Steve Schmidt and John Weaver ― are or have been regular guests on cable news , and the group has been mentioned dozens of times on MSNBC and CNN since the beginning of June .
And the idea that members of the president ’ s own party are aiming brutal attacks his way thrills liberals , leading left-leaning news outlets ― including HuffPost ― to reward the group with headlines .
Democratic operatives ’ eye-rolling toward The Lincoln Project is part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and social media culture they see as rewarding Twitter dunks more than effectiveness .
While some ads may land with liberals who are eager to smash the retweet button , attacking Trump as irredeemably corrupt or a bumbling buffoon may make a swing voter who still believes Trump has handled the economy well defensive instead of angry at him .
“ Good political ad makers & managers are operatives who put aside what personally appeals to them or the Twitterverse & go with the message that moves voters , ” Anne Caprara , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chief of staff to Illinois Gov .
J.B. Prtizker , wrote on Twitter on Thursday night .
“ But while YOU may think that fancy new anti-Trump ad is so hard hitting & cathartic ( ‘ OMG THIS AD !
’ ) - the voter you need to persuade might find it offensive or off putting or just dumb.
” “ Just a reminder that lots of ‘ ads ’ on this website are way longer than the average watch time , ” Danielle Butterfield , the director of paid media at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Ad making in 2020 is much more about what you can do with 6 seconds vs what you can do with 60.
” The question of The Lincoln Project ’ s effectiveness is not a settled one .
The group ’ s virality is likely to soon turn into money , either from online donors giving $ 5 a pop or from major donors cutting massive checks .
And that money could be put to good use .
The people behind The Lincoln Project are professional political operatives , after all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling and focus groups necessary to craft potentially effective messages .
Next week , the group is due to file its first Federal Election Commission report in three months , which could provide broader hints at its plans for the fall .
Its first FEC report showed 90 % of the money the group raised going toward the consultants behind it .
While it ’ s not unusual for a PAC that is just launching to have high administrative costs , Trump and the Republican National Committee have latched on to those fees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scam PAC , shorthand for a group that raises a lot of money and spends almost none of it on actually persuading voters .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Lincoln Project, a group of “Never Trump” Republicans who have now dedicated themselves to defeating the president in 2020, makes “the best ads on television,” according to Democrat Howard Dean, Vermont’s former governor. They understand voters better than Democratic ad makers, a Politico Magazine essay declares. Need some metrics to back up this assessment? Just check Twitter, where their videos routinely rack up more than a million views and glowing reviews from Democratic partisans.
The Lincoln Project’s ads attack the president in direct and uncompromising terms, portraying him as a traitor to American national security for his friendships with authoritarian Russian leader Vladimir Putin, or as out-of-step with a tradition of American leadership.
Advertisement
But pundits praising the group’s ads may be making one of the defining errors of the Trump era, mistaking virality for effectiveness and popularity with committed partisans for persuasion.
Democratic strategists and ad-makers view much of the group’s output with a mix of skepticism and jaundice, noting many of its lines of attack were tested by the party in the past and found to be less effective at persuading undecided voters than messages focused on health care, the economy and how Trump’s decisions directly impact voters’ lives. They broadly view the group as more of a media phenomenon than as a truly useful ally in the war against Trump.
A spokesman for The Lincoln Project didn’t respond to a request for comment.
For one thing, for The Lincoln Project’s ads to be the best on television, they’d actually need to be on television. They barely are, and especially not in the markets that matter. The group has spent just $2.4 million on television advertising, according to data from CMAG, with the biggest portion of that spending occurring in the utterly uncompetitive Washington, D.C., media market. On Thursday, it strangely booked advertising time in Massachusetts and New Jersey.
Advertisement
The group’s digital spending is more on target: About 40% of its advertising on Facebook and Google has gone to the major swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Arizona and Florida, according to a source tracking digital buys. It still pales in comparison to what traditional Democratic super PACs are spending. (Priorities USA, the largest Democratic super PAC, has already spent $20 million on television ads alone.)
The “ad” cited in the first sentence of the Politico Magazine piece? It’s not an ad at all. It’s a 24-second video that never ran on television or on any digital platform.
So far, The Lincoln Project doesn’t actually appear interested in political persuasion. Instead, it is, in its own words, dedicated to trolling the president. It routinely airs its ads on the president’s preferred cable network, Fox News, to make sure he sees them. Before the president’s trip to South Dakota for July Fourth, it ran a spot on the network bashing Trump as a coward. Another ad suggested the president’s campaign manager, Brad Parscale, was bilking him ― not exactly a top concern for undecided voters living through a pandemic.
Democrats were generally unwilling to go on record criticizing the group. They acknowledged that throwing Trump even more off-kilter than usual can be helpful, and that generating news coverage around the idea of Republicans voting against Trump can create a permission structure for rank-and-file Republicans to break with the president.
Ads calling President Donald Trump a coward may go viral, but alienate swing voters. Win McNamee via Getty Images
Advertisement
“They’re not going to go ad dollar for ad dollar in the Grand Rapids media market, but they are creating a national environment where it is easier for Republicans to have doubts against Trump,” said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic strategist. “They are literally creating a safe space for Republicans to express their concerns about the president.”
Trump’s approval rating with GOP voters remains sky-high, and very few are expected to cross over and vote for Biden in November, in part because many Republicans uncomfortable with Trump have already left the party.
And if The Lincoln Project has proven excellent at anything, it’s generating news coverage. Three of The Lincoln Project’s founders ― Rick Wilson, Steve Schmidt and John Weaver ― are or have been regular guests on cable news, and the group has been mentioned dozens of times on MSNBC and CNN since the beginning of June. And the idea that members of the president’s own party are aiming brutal attacks his way thrills liberals, leading left-leaning news outlets ― including HuffPost ― to reward the group with headlines.
Democratic operatives’ eye-rolling toward The Lincoln Project is part of a broader frustration with a news and social media culture they see as rewarding Twitter dunks more than effectiveness. While some ads may land with liberals who are eager to smash the retweet button, attacking Trump as irredeemably corrupt or a bumbling buffoon may make a swing voter who still believes Trump has handled the economy well defensive instead of angry at him.
“Ad making in 2020 is much more about what you can do with 6 seconds vs what you can do with 60.” - Danielle Butterfield, Priorities USA
Advertisement
“Good political ad makers & managers are operatives who put aside what personally appeals to them or the Twitterverse & go with the message that moves voters,” Anne Caprara, a Democratic operative who now serves as the chief of staff to Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, wrote on Twitter on Thursday night. “But while YOU may think that fancy new anti-Trump ad is so hard hitting & cathartic (‘OMG THIS AD!’) - the voter you need to persuade might find it offensive or off putting or just dumb.”
And while political videos that are more than a minute long often go viral, they’re essentially impossible to run on television, or in any digital format a swing voter won’t simply skip over.
“Just a reminder that lots of ‘ads’ on this website are way longer than the average watch time,” Danielle Butterfield, the director of paid media at Priorities USA, wrote on Twitter. “Ad making in 2020 is much more about what you can do with 6 seconds vs what you can do with 60.”
The question of The Lincoln Project’s effectiveness is not a settled one. The group’s virality is likely to soon turn into money, either from online donors giving $5 a pop or from major donors cutting massive checks. And that money could be put to good use. The people behind The Lincoln Project are professional political operatives, after all, and they know how to conduct the polling and focus groups necessary to craft potentially effective messages.
Next week, the group is due to file its first Federal Election Commission report in three months, which could provide broader hints at its plans for the fall. Its first FEC report showed 90% of the money the group raised going toward the consultants behind it.
Advertisement
While it’s not unusual for a PAC that is just launching to have high administrative costs, Trump and the Republican National Committee have latched on to those fees to argue The Lincoln Project is a scam PAC, shorthand for a group that raises a lot of money and spends almost none of it on actually persuading voters.
The Club for Growth, a conservative group, picked up on this line of attack in its own ad on Fox News.
“After watching their careers go up in flames, they’ve set up a Democrat PAC, a get-rich-quick scheme pushing Joe Biden for president,” the ad’s narrators said of The Lincoln Project’s founders.
In other words, a political group purchased time on a cable news network to attack a group of political operatives who mostly appear on two different cable news networks. It’s unclear how the ad played in Wisconsin.