alternet--2020-09-27--Trump's top 10 tricks: Here's a useful guide to have on hand as the presidential debates get underwa

Trump's top 10 tricks: Here's a useful guide to have on hand as the presidential debates get underway

Ready for even more Trumpian disinformation ?
Cornered by a continuing pandemic , teetering economy and racial strife , President Houdini has been resorting to rhetorical tricks honed over a lifetime to escape political calamity .
One way to prepare for this Tuesday 's first debate and his Fall barrage is to reveal Trump 's `` magic '' beforehand so that viewers and voters can be their own BS Detector when he next tries to sliver away from lying about Covid-19 or his fascistic plans to overthrow the election .
This trick is based on seeing a black swan and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So when millions of Black Lives Matter protesters peacefully march against police brutality , Trump will cite one who years ago allegedly called cops `` pigs in a blanket , fry 'em like bacon '' to imply that all are looters and anarchists .
And when a Republican US Attorney in Pennsylvania this week told AG Barr that his office had found nine discarded Trump ballots ( later changed to seven ) , the White House immediately played it up to imply that this was organized mail-in ballot fraud ( though it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local administrative error , not a Democratic conspiracy ) .
The idea is to make the aberrational appear typical .
Would anyone judge Michael Jordan 's career based on a reel of three missed clutch shots rather than his career stats ?
Since it 's hard to enact legislation , why not instead just predict great or awful events since hard to prove the contrary .
Or to paraphrase Nike , `` Just Say It . ''
Hence `` next year [ the economy ] will be the best ever . ''
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` destroy the suburbs . ''
How ?
Presumably by prohibiting segregated public housing , stating that this time the 2018 `` caravan '' from Latin America might directly settle in White Plains , New York .
The 'tell ' here his frequent refrain , `` believe me ! ''
Humorist Larry Wilmore joked that Trump was indeed our Roosevelt since `` the only thing Trump has is fear itself . ''
Politico reported that a third of his first 2000 president tweets disparaged people , totaling a hard-to-believe 598 people by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ channeling the Italian philosopher and politician who said five centuries ago , `` it 's better to be feared than loved . ''
Like Machiavelli 's princes , Trump loves being feared .
And since a president 's bullying can do real reputational damage , this thuggish tactic often produces the desired effect of anticipatory obedience by those fearing massive retaliation .
That helps explain why 52 of 53 Senate Republicans during his Impeachment trial , faced with his open-and-shut political extortion of Ukraine , concluded that what happened did n't happen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ -- burying a disrupted premise in the form of a question in order to mislead listeners to a false conclusion .
`` What do you have to lose ?
`` , he would repeatedly ask Black audiences in the 2016 campaign ( now they know ) .
And `` why would '' Putin interfere in that election ?
( Duh . )
Trump repeatedly accuses others of his own misconduct in order to confuse `` low education voters '' ( his phrase ) .
Recall how he indignantly declared that Democrats are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to `` rig the election '' while Biden 's the one fomenting violence and Harris undermining science .
When Nancy Pelosi said that Trump was trying to `` Make America White Again , '' he accused her of racism because in Trumpland even talking about race is racism .
Trump reverses the scientific method : facts do n't lead to conclusions but rather conclusions lead to `` facts '' , which is otherwise known as confirmation bias .
This trick has a long history , from the 1920 Scopes Monkey trial and Lysenko-ism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Today 's version of Creationism is his river of obvious lies about Covid-19 , Climate , Crime and Race , as when a whistle-blower just charged that DHS ordered staff to underplay violence by white nationalists and Russian campaign interference .
In his acceptance screech this past August , for example , he bragged how his administration `` had created '' nine million new jobs , which sounds good until you realize that it followed three months where the economy lost 20 million jobs .
With vanishingly few positive accomplishments , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work of others while shunning any responsibility for his own wrongdoing .
He 's said or tweeted over 350 times a version of -- 'we have the greatest economy in our history . '
Which a ) is n't true since his six immediate predecessors all had better jobs and GDP numbers and b ) it was Obama who turned Bush 's Great Recession into seven years of steady growth , which Trump has merely coasted on , albeit at a slower pace .
This trick veered into parody when he claimed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his first year as president .
True ... although there had also been none for the prior seven years .
He abandoned this particular boast after Boeing 's 737 Max planes twice crashed because of failures by Boeing and the FAA .
Whenever criticized , he and his team search for some arguably equivalent offence in history to exonerate him .
Recall how he would cite Monica Lewinsky to wave off the few dozen women accusing him of sexual abuse and famously declare there were `` fine people '' on both sides of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maneuver can backfire .
After flailing Hunter Biden 's business work during the Obama-Biden administration , Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin was asked by CNN 's Jake Tapper about Trump 's sons traveling the world making deals at taxpayer expense .
Replied Mnuchin , `` I do n't want to get into those details . ''
The man exaggerates exaggerations .
Trump tries to explain away this repeated trick as `` bravado ... truthful hyperbole . ''
Actually -- see `` beautiful coal '' -- it 's untruthful hyperbole .
So he announced that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with North Korea if he had n't been elected in 2016 and he is the world 's leading expert on `` drones , nuclear weapons , technology , banks… [ plus another 30 specialized categories ] . ''
Speaking of Kim , listen carefully and you 'll hear Trump sound like the North Korean dictator who claimed to have shot five holes-in-one playing his first round of golf .
10 .
The Lyin ' King .
The problem is not merely that Trump , like all presidents , has at times lied , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always does .
His go-to response to any public criticism is `` fake news , '' even as he deploys what he deplores .
It 's hard to arrive at any other conclusion after Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler has documented ( so far ) 20,000+ lies or falsehoods from his mouth -- or 22 a day for the past year , including when he pretends that prosecuted aides were invariably minor figures to him ( Manafort ?
Cohen ?
Stone ?
Bannon ?
Flynn ? )
.
His lava of lies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Great , `` the first lie wins . ''
Off camera , Trump knows exactly what he 's doing .
After grossly puffing up his TV ratings , he then explained to Billy Bush , of Access Hollywood fame , `` Billy , look , you just tell them and they believe it .
That 's it .
They just do . ''
A different approach was taken by our 32d president .
FDR speech writer Robert Sherwood , in his book Roosevelt and Hopkins , wrote that `` the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States must not make mistakes .
After 1940 , Isador Lubkin , the Commissioner of Labor Statistics , was constantly available and incalculably invaluable to Roosevelt in checking every decimal point . ''
Now we 're about to find out whether , contrary to everything our parents told us , dishonesty is the best policy .
Or whether truth still matters .
For without truth there ca n't be trust and without trust civilization can fracture and collapse .

Ready for even more Trumpian disinformation?
Cornered by a continuing pandemic, teetering economy and racial strife, President Houdini has been resorting to rhetorical tricks honed over a lifetime to escape political calamity. One way to prepare for this Tuesday's first debate and his Fall barrage is to reveal Trump's "magic" beforehand so that viewers and voters can be their own BS Detector when he next tries to sliver away from lying about Covid-19 or his fascistic plans to overthrow the election.
1. Cherry-picking -- Black Swans.
This trick is based on seeing a black swan and then pretending all swans are black.
So when millions of Black Lives Matter protesters peacefully march against police brutality, Trump will cite one who years ago allegedly called cops "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" to imply that all are looters and anarchists. And when a Republican US Attorney in Pennsylvania this week told AG Barr that his office had found nine discarded Trump ballots (later changed to seven), the White House immediately played it up to imply that this was organized mail-in ballot fraud (though it was quickly shown to be an isolated, local administrative error, not a Democratic conspiracy).
The idea is to make the aberrational appear typical. Would anyone judge Michael Jordan's career based on a reel of three missed clutch shots rather than his career stats?
2. Adjectives and Assertions.
Since it's hard to enact legislation, why not instead just predict great or awful events since hard to prove the contrary. Or to paraphrase Nike, "Just Say It."
Hence "next year [the economy] will be the best ever." This summer Trump began declaring that Democrats would "destroy the suburbs." How? Presumably by prohibiting segregated public housing, stating that this time the 2018 "caravan" from Latin America might directly settle in White Plains, New York.
The 'tell' here his frequent refrain, "believe me!"
3. The Bully's Pulpit.
Humorist Larry Wilmore joked that Trump was indeed our Roosevelt since "the only thing Trump has is fear itself."
Politico reported that a third of his first 2000 president tweets disparaged people, totaling a hard-to-believe 598 people by the end of 2018. Here he's channeling the Italian philosopher and politician who said five centuries ago, "it's better to be feared than loved."
Like Machiavelli's princes, Trump loves being feared. And since a president's bullying can do real reputational damage, this thuggish tactic often produces the desired effect of anticipatory obedience by those fearing massive retaliation. That helps explain why 52 of 53 Senate Republicans during his Impeachment trial, faced with his open-and-shut political extortion of Ukraine, concluded that what happened didn't happen.
4. Rhetorical Questions.
This is a low-grade but popular sleight-of-hand -- burying a disrupted premise in the form of a question in order to mislead listeners to a false conclusion. "What do you have to lose?", he would repeatedly ask Black audiences in the 2016 campaign (now they know). And "why would" Putin interfere in that election? (Duh.)
5. Upside-downism.
Trump repeatedly accuses others of his own misconduct in order to confuse "low education voters" (his phrase). Recall how he indignantly declared that Democrats are the real "liars" who are trying to "rig the election" while Biden's the one fomenting violence and Harris undermining science. When Nancy Pelosi said that Trump was trying to "Make America White Again," he accused her of racism because in Trumpland even talking about race is racism.
6. Figures Don't Lie but Liars Figure.
Trump reverses the scientific method: facts don't lead to conclusions but rather conclusions lead to "facts", which is otherwise known as confirmation bias. This trick has a long history, from the 1920 Scopes Monkey trial and Lysenko-ism in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. Today's version of Creationism is his river of obvious lies about Covid-19, Climate, Crime and Race, as when a whistle-blower just charged that DHS ordered staff to underplay violence by white nationalists and Russian campaign interference.
In his acceptance screech this past August, for example, he bragged how his administration "had created" nine million new jobs, which sounds good until you realize that it followed three months where the economy lost 20 million jobs.
7. Rooster-Taking-Credit-for-the-Dawn.
With vanishingly few positive accomplishments, Trump will keep claiming credit for the good work of others while shunning any responsibility for his own wrongdoing.
He's said or tweeted over 350 times a version of -- 'we have the greatest economy in our history.' Which a) isn't true since his six immediate predecessors all had better jobs and GDP numbers and b) it was Obama who turned Bush's Great Recession into seven years of steady growth, which Trump has merely coasted on, albeit at a slower pace.
This trick veered into parody when he claimed that there were no passenger airline fatalities in his first year as president. True... although there had also been none for the prior seven years. He abandoned this particular boast after Boeing's 737 Max planes twice crashed because of failures by Boeing and the FAA.
8. Both-sidesism.
Whenever criticized, he and his team search for some arguably equivalent offence in history to exonerate him. Recall how he would cite Monica Lewinsky to wave off the few dozen women accusing him of sexual abuse and famously declare there were "fine people" on both sides of that Neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville.
This maneuver can backfire. After flailing Hunter Biden's business work during the Obama-Biden administration, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin was asked by CNN's Jake Tapper about Trump's sons traveling the world making deals at taxpayer expense. Replied Mnuchin, "I don't want to get into those details."
9. The Hyperbolic.
The man exaggerates exaggerations. Trump tries to explain away this repeated trick as "bravado...truthful hyperbole." Actually -- see "beautiful coal" -- it's untruthful hyperbole. So he announced that there would have been a nuclear war with North Korea if he hadn't been elected in 2016 and he is the world's leading expert on "drones, nuclear weapons, technology, banks…[plus another 30 specialized categories]."
Speaking of Kim, listen carefully and you'll hear Trump sound like the North Korean dictator who claimed to have shot five holes-in-one playing his first round of golf.
10. The Lyin' King. The problem is not merely that Trump, like all presidents, has at times lied, fibbed and cut-corners but that he nearly always does. His go-to response to any public criticism is "fake news," even as he deploys what he deplores.
It's hard to arrive at any other conclusion after Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler has documented (so far) 20,000+ lies or falsehoods from his mouth -- or 22 a day for the past year, including when he pretends that prosecuted aides were invariably minor figures to him (Manafort? Cohen? Stone? Bannon? Flynn?). His lava of lies and disinformation reflects a comment attributed to Katherine the Great, "the first lie wins."
Off camera, Trump knows exactly what he's doing. After grossly puffing up his TV ratings, he then explained to Billy Bush, of Access Hollywood fame, "Billy, look, you just tell them and they believe it. That's it. They just do."
A different approach was taken by our 32d president. FDR speech writer Robert Sherwood, in his book Roosevelt and Hopkins, wrote that "the New York Times can make mistakes but the President of the United States must not make mistakes. After 1940, Isador Lubkin, the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, was constantly available and incalculably invaluable to Roosevelt in checking every decimal point."
Now we're about to find out whether, contrary to everything our parents told us, dishonesty is the best policy. Or whether truth still matters. For without truth there can't be trust and without trust civilization can fracture and collapse.


alternet--2020-09-27--GOP-led legal inquest into Bloomberg helping Florida felons vote condemned as attempted voter suppre

GOP-led legal inquest into Bloomberg helping Florida felons vote condemned as attempted voter suppression

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody 's call for state and federal investigations into billionaire Michael Bloomberg 's effort to raise millions to pay off court fees to help Florida felons restore their voting rights was a `` gross abuse '' of power , `` voter suppression , '' `` a fearmongering tactic used before '' and based on a `` fundamental misconception '' of anti-corruption laws , according to experienced campaign lawyers and former federal election regulators .
`` It 's not just that an investigative process and grand jury proceedings would likely extend past Election Day , but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used before , '' said Jonathan Diaz , legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center in Washington , D.C. , founded by Trevor Potter , a Republican and ex-Federal Election Commission ( FEC ) chair .
`` There are countless examples of elected officials or law enforcement announcing 'bombshell ' investigations like this with no evidence of actual wrongdoing ( for example , recently in Texas and Georgia ) and indeed , no actual conclusions that any misconduct has taken place . ''
It 's `` outrageous and likely an extortionate threat designed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their constitutional right to vote , '' said Benedict Kuehne , the Miami attorney whose team recently won a settlement to save digital images of ballots if there 's a presidential election recount .
`` Not at all unexpected .
But still an abuse of power . ''
The fray is the latest development in one of the nation 's most important voting rights battles .
Two years ago , a majority of Floridians approved Amendment 4 , which restored voting rights for nearly 1.4 million former felons .
Florida 's Republican-led state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to court to impede the rights ' restoration , mainly by requiring former felons to pay off all court fees and fines before being eligible to register to vote .
As legal battles are continuing in the courts—where delays mean that these Floridians wo n't necessarily be eligible to vote this fall unless they pay fees that typically are between $ 500 and $ 5,000—many celebrities and philanthropists have been making donations to the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition ( FRRC ) , which led the Amendment 4 campaign , to help pay the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 million in the past year for that effort , the Miami Herald reported , noting that celebrities like NBA star LeBron James contributed .
To date , FRRC has helped about 4,000 people pay off their fines , NPR reported , noting that an estimated 775,000 former felons have unpaid fines .
But a September 22 Washington Post report that said Bloomberg had raised $ 16 million to help about 32,000 people clear those debts prompted Florida Gov .
Ron DeSantis to ask the state Attorney General Ashley Moody ( both are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-corruption investigations into Bloomberg 's effort .
Beyond the obvious election-year politics , the issue is what constitutes illegal vote-buying .
`` I sent a letter to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation into potential violations of election laws , '' Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody said via email .
`` And I have instructed the Statewide Prosecutor to work with law enforcement and any Statewide Grand Jury that the Governor may call . ''
On September 23 , Moody asked state and federal authorities to investigate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Washington Post , violated state and federal laws that make it illegal to give another person anything of value in exchange for their vote .
That Washington Post report quoted an unnamed Bloomberg adviser who said that paying the fines `` immediately activates tens of thousands of voters who are predisposed to vote for Joe Biden . ''
`` Governor DeSantis has asked that my office review recent allegations found in the enclosed September 22 , 2020 Washington Post article and relevant law , '' began Moody 's letter to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The letter cited a 2016 advisory opinion from Maria Matthews , Florida Division of Elections director , to a now-defunct political committee , saying that `` [ e ] ven otherwise innocuous offering of an incentive simply to vote could run afoul '' of corruption laws .
Moody concluded , `` it appears further investigation is warranted . ''
The preceding paragraph in that 2016 opinion , which was not cited in Moody 's cover letter but was found in attached documents , said that the Division of Elections had concluded in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not prohibit a person from giving an elector ' a gift certificate or other consideration if the consideration is not intended to buy or corruptly influence another 's vote . '
'' That advisory opinion identifies a tipping point—whether a gift is tied to an explicit vote .
Its ambiguity— '' [ it ] could run afoul '' —is the hinge upon which Florida Republicans have launched an investigation into Bloomberg , implying , but not concluding , that he has crossed a line into vote-buying .
That peg was all that right-wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On the other hand , the clearer prior precedents in Florida Department of State advisory opinions , and Florida and federal laws that absolve Bloomberg of any wrongdoing , are what has drawn extraordinarily strong denunciations of Moody 's actions by voting rights attorneys , former campaign finance regulators and Florida Democrats .
`` Let 's not forget that Florida has spent the last year telling federal courts that these legal debts are simply criminal penalties that have nothing to do with voting and are therefore not a poll tax—but as soon as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mayor Bloomberg shows up and offers to help pay them , Florida turns around and accuses him of illegally buying votes , '' said the Campaign Legal Center 's Diaz .
`` The state ca n't have it both ways : either it 's charging people to vote in violation of the Constitution and this is a poll tax , or it 's not , and Mayor Bloomberg has done nothing wrong by donating funds to help people become eligible [ voters ] . ''
Another former Federal Election Commissioner , Karl Sandstrom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said that Florida Attorney General Moody was misapplying legal standards by citing an ambiguous state agency opinion to launch a federal and state anti-corruption probe .
`` The Florida attorney general 's reading of the relevant statutes flies in [ the ] face of the rule of lenity which is [ a ] well-established principle of criminal statutory interpretation that requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in the manner that is most favorable to the defendant , '' he said .
`` Under her interpretation , a corporation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be guilty of a felony if the corporation expected that were likely to prefer one candidate over another . ''
`` This [ gambit ] raises voter suppression to a whole new level , '' said Chris Sautter , an election lawyer specializing in post-election recounts .
`` What next ?
Will they start prosecuting voter protection lawyers who advise voters on their rights to cast a ballot ? ''
Outside of Florida , other seasoned election lawyers said that Bloomberg 's effort was legal .
`` I 'm not a neutral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sandler , one of the Democratic Party 's top campaign lawyers .
`` But we do advise on this issue all the time , and there 's no doubt in my mind this is legal because payment of the fine is not tied to whether the person agrees or promises to commit to vote at all , let alone to vote for a particular party or candidate .
The relevant statutes—which go to corruptly influencing a person to vote a certain way—do not remotely apply .
The threats of prosecution for this are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] . ''
Inside Florida , Democrats made the same point .
Moody was wrong on the vote-buying law .
`` I think the fundamental misconception ( whether inadvertent or deliberate ) is that enabling people to cast a vote is the same thing as telling them , or demanding of them , to vote in a particular way for a particular candidate .
That is just not what is happening here , '' said Joseph Geller , a Democratic state legislator and veteran of Florida 's 2000 presidential recount .
`` These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but there is no insistence or requirement as to how they will exercise their discretion as to which candidates they will vote for . ''
Of course , it is impossible to separate the timing of Moody 's call for state and federal investigations from the 2020 election cycle .
Her action 's purpose was to deter voting by the roughly 32,000 former felons for whom Bloomberg was poised to clear the existing court fees .
`` Our thoughts are : yes , donors can pay off the fines and fees of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter is a blatant voter suppression tactic that has no basis in law , '' said Corey Goldstone , a Campaign Legal Center spokesman .
`` We 're treating it more like a press release than a serious legal filing .
None of these people have to vote , no one has been induced to take any particular action .
The donors who are contributing to the Florida Rights Restoration Council merely allows people to be eligible to vote—something that most people enjoy cost-free . ''

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody's call for state and federal investigations into billionaire Michael Bloomberg's effort to raise millions to pay off court fees to help Florida felons restore their voting rights was a "gross abuse" of power, "voter suppression," "a fearmongering tactic used before" and based on a "fundamental misconception" of anti-corruption laws, according to experienced campaign lawyers and former federal election regulators.
"It's not just that an investigative process and grand jury proceedings would likely extend past Election Day, but also that we've seen this fearmongering tactic used before," said Jonathan Diaz, legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center in Washington, D.C., founded by Trevor Potter, a Republican and ex-Federal Election Commission (FEC) chair. "There are countless examples of elected officials or law enforcement announcing 'bombshell' investigations like this with no evidence of actual wrongdoing (for example, recently in Texas and Georgia) and indeed, no actual conclusions that any misconduct has taken place."
It's "outrageous and likely an extortionate threat designed to suppress the vote and deny citizens their constitutional right to vote," said Benedict Kuehne, the Miami attorney whose team recently won a settlement to save digital images of ballots if there's a presidential election recount. "Not at all unexpected. But still an abuse of power."
The fray is the latest development in one of the nation's most important voting rights battles. Two years ago, a majority of Floridians approved Amendment 4, which restored voting rights for nearly 1.4 million former felons. Florida's Republican-led state government responded by passing laws and going to court to impede the rights' restoration, mainly by requiring former felons to pay off all court fees and fines before being eligible to register to vote.
As legal battles are continuing in the courts—where delays mean that these Floridians won't necessarily be eligible to vote this fall unless they pay fees that typically are between $500 and $5,000—many celebrities and philanthropists have been making donations to the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition (FRRC), which led the Amendment 4 campaign, to help pay the fees.
The FRRC raised about $6 million in the past year for that effort, the Miami Herald reported, noting that celebrities like NBA star LeBron James contributed. To date, FRRC has helped about 4,000 people pay off their fines, NPR reported, noting that an estimated 775,000 former felons have unpaid fines.
But a September 22 Washington Post report that said Bloomberg had raised $16 million to help about 32,000 people clear those debts prompted Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to ask the state Attorney General Ashley Moody (both are Republicans) to launch federal and state anti-corruption investigations into Bloomberg's effort.
Political Theater
Beyond the obvious election-year politics, the issue is what constitutes illegal vote-buying.
"I sent a letter to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation into potential violations of election laws," Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody said via email. "And I have instructed the Statewide Prosecutor to work with law enforcement and any Statewide Grand Jury that the Governor may call."
On September 23, Moody asked state and federal authorities to investigate whether Bloomberg's efforts, as reported in the Washington Post, violated state and federal laws that make it illegal to give another person anything of value in exchange for their vote. That Washington Post report quoted an unnamed Bloomberg adviser who said that paying the fines "immediately activates tens of thousands of voters who are predisposed to vote for Joe Biden."
"Governor DeSantis has asked that my office review recent allegations found in the enclosed September 22, 2020 Washington Post article and relevant law," began Moody's letter to the FBI and Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The letter cited a 2016 advisory opinion from Maria Matthews, Florida Division of Elections director, to a now-defunct political committee, saying that "[e]ven otherwise innocuous offering of an incentive simply to vote could run afoul" of corruption laws. Moody concluded, "it appears further investigation is warranted."
The preceding paragraph in that 2016 opinion, which was not cited in Moody's cover letter but was found in attached documents, said that the Division of Elections had concluded in the 1980s that Florida law "does not prohibit a person from giving an elector 'a gift certificate or other consideration if the consideration is not intended to buy or corruptly influence another's vote.'"
That advisory opinion identifies a tipping point—whether a gift is tied to an explicit vote. Its ambiguity—"[it] could run afoul"—is the hinge upon which Florida Republicans have launched an investigation into Bloomberg, implying, but not concluding, that he has crossed a line into vote-buying. That peg was all that right-wing media needed to start attacking Bloomberg.
On the other hand, the clearer prior precedents in Florida Department of State advisory opinions, and Florida and federal laws that absolve Bloomberg of any wrongdoing, are what has drawn extraordinarily strong denunciations of Moody's actions by voting rights attorneys, former campaign finance regulators and Florida Democrats.
"Let's not forget that Florida has spent the last year telling federal courts that these legal debts are simply criminal penalties that have nothing to do with voting and are therefore not a poll tax—but as soon as someone like [former New York] Mayor Bloomberg shows up and offers to help pay them, Florida turns around and accuses him of illegally buying votes," said the Campaign Legal Center's Diaz. "The state can't have it both ways: either it's charging people to vote in violation of the Constitution and this is a poll tax, or it's not, and Mayor Bloomberg has done nothing wrong by donating funds to help people become eligible [voters]."
Another former Federal Election Commissioner, Karl Sandstrom (appointed by President Bill Clinton), said that Florida Attorney General Moody was misapplying legal standards by citing an ambiguous state agency opinion to launch a federal and state anti-corruption probe.
"The Florida attorney general's reading of the relevant statutes flies in [the] face of the rule of lenity which is [a] well-established principle of criminal statutory interpretation that requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in the manner that is most favorable to the defendant," he said. "Under her interpretation, a corporation that gives employees time off to vote would be guilty of a felony if the corporation expected that were likely to prefer one candidate over another."
"This [gambit] raises voter suppression to a whole new level," said Chris Sautter, an election lawyer specializing in post-election recounts. "What next? Will they start prosecuting voter protection lawyers who advise voters on their rights to cast a ballot?"
Democrats and Florida Lawyers React
Outside of Florida, other seasoned election lawyers said that Bloomberg's effort was legal.
"I'm not a neutral expert on this," said Joseph Sandler, one of the Democratic Party's top campaign lawyers. "But we do advise on this issue all the time, and there's no doubt in my mind this is legal because payment of the fine is not tied to whether the person agrees or promises to commit to vote at all, let alone to vote for a particular party or candidate. The relevant statutes—which go to corruptly influencing a person to vote a certain way—do not remotely apply. The threats of prosecution for this are indeed a gross abuse [of power]."
Inside Florida, Democrats made the same point. Moody was wrong on the vote-buying law.
"I think the fundamental misconception (whether inadvertent or deliberate) is that enabling people to cast a vote is the same thing as telling them, or demanding of them, to vote in a particular way for a particular candidate. That is just not what is happening here," said Joseph Geller, a Democratic state legislator and veteran of Florida's 2000 presidential recount. "These potential voters are being freed to vote, but there is no insistence or requirement as to how they will exercise their discretion as to which candidates they will vote for."
Of course, it is impossible to separate the timing of Moody's call for state and federal investigations from the 2020 election cycle. Her action's purpose was to deter voting by the roughly 32,000 former felons for whom Bloomberg was poised to clear the existing court fees.
"Our thoughts are: yes, donors can pay off the fines and fees of Floridians. The Florida AG's outrageous letter is a blatant voter suppression tactic that has no basis in law," said Corey Goldstone, a Campaign Legal Center spokesman. "We're treating it more like a press release than a serious legal filing. None of these people have to vote, no one has been induced to take any particular action. The donors who are contributing to the Florida Rights Restoration Council merely allows people to be eligible to vote—something that most people enjoy cost-free."


alternet--2020-09-27--From Washington to Trump, all presidents have told lies — but only some have told them for the right

From Washington to Trump, all presidents have told lies — but only some have told them for the right reasons

Michael Cohen , in his recent book , has called President Trump a “ fraud , '' a “ bigot , '' a “ bully '' – and , most emphatically , a “ liar '' .
The Trump administration 's response to this book simply reverses the accusation , calling Cohen someone who attempts to “ profit off of lies '' .
Nonetheless , the media has often noted the frequency with which President Trump lies .
The Washington Post , for instance , maintains a running database of what it terms the President 's “ false or misleading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20,000 , or an average of 12 per day .
Media 's accounts of Trump 's lies would seem to indicate that most people are wholeheartedly opposed to lying – and , in particular , opposed to being lied to by presidents .
And yet a recent survey of presidential deception found that all American presidents – from Washington to Trump – have told lies , knowingly , in their public statements .
As a political philosopher , with a focus on how people try to reason together through political disagreement , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same .
History shows examples of presidents who have lied for a larger public purpose – and have been forgiven .
Why , though , are lies thought so wrongful in the first instance ?
Immanuel Kant , in the 18th century , provided one powerful account of the wrongness of lying .
For Kant , lying was wrong in much the same way that threats and coercion are wrong .
All of these override the autonomous will of another person , and treat that person as a mere tool .
For Kant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they could use reason to decide what to do .
When a gunman uses threats to coerce a person to do a particular act , he disrespects that person 's rational agency .
Lies are a similar disrespect to rational agency : One 's decision has been manipulated , so that the act is no longer one 's own .
Kant defended these conclusions without exception .
Kant regarded any lie as immoral – even one told to a murderer at the door .
Modern-day philosophers have often accepted Kant 's account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In his book “ Ethics for Adversaries , '' philosopher Arthur Applbaum explains why citizens might sometimes consent to being deceived , which might be useful in understanding presidential deception .
For example , a political leader who gives honest answers about a forthcoming military operation would likely imperil that operation – and most people would not want that .
The key , though , is that people might accept such deception , after the fact , because of what that deception made possible .
To take one example : The British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about its plans for invasion – which entailed lying even to British allies .
Applbaum argues that what might seem like simple deception might become justified , if those deceived could eventually consent – after the fact – to being so deceived .
History reveals examples of how presidents must sometimes lie , and how their lies might sometimes be morally defensible .
During the 1930s , President Franklin D. Roosevelt was convinced that Hitler 's expansionism in Europe was a threat to the liberal democratic project itself , but he faced an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a European war .
Roosevelt chose to insist publicly that he was opposed to any intervention – while doing everything he could to prepare for war and to covertly help the British cause .
As early as 1948 , historian Thomas Bailey noted that Roosevelt had made a calculated choice to both prepare for war and insist he was doing no such thing .
To be open about his view of Hitler would have led to his defeat in the 1940 election .
Prior to Roosevelt , Abraham Lincoln made similar calculations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Confederacy – described by Meg Mott , a professor of political theory , as being “ devious '' – may have been instrumental in preserving the United States as a single country .
“ Honest Abe '' Lincoln was willing to open peace negotiations with the Confederacy – knowing that much of his own party thought that only unconditional surrender by the South would settle the question of slavery .
At one point , Lincoln wrote a note to his own party asserting – falsely – that there were “ no peace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Confederacy .
A member of the Congress later noted that , in the absence of that note , the 13th Amendment – which ended the practice of chattel slavery – would not have been passed .
The problem , of course , is that a great many presidential lies can not be so easily linked to important purposes .
President Bill Clinton 's lies about his sexual activities were either simply self-serving or told to preserve his presidency .
Similarly , President Richard Nixon 's insistence that he knew nothing about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lie .
John Dean , Nixon 's legal counsel , confirmed years later that the president knew about , and approved of , the plan to rob the Democratic National Committee headquarters .
This scandal eventually ended Nixon 's presidency .
In both cases , these presidents faced a significant threat to their presidencies - and chose deception to save not the nation , but their own power .
It is likely that President Trump has lied more than previous presidents in public – and , perhaps more significantly , he has also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topics than his predecessors .
Soon after being elected he claimed , falsely , that his inaugural crowd was the largest ever .
More recently , he insisted that Hurricane Dorian was likely to affect the coast of Alabama – and he seems to have altered a map with a Sharpie to bolster his false claim .
The pattern of deception has continued , most recently with his acknowledgment that he deceived the public about the coronavirus – and then his insistence that he had done no such thing .
[ Deep knowledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conversation 's newsletter . ]
What is striking about these lies , in contrast to the lies of previous presidents , is that they have generally been told in the absence of a particular and acute threat to either the president 's power or to the preservation of the United States .
Presidents have lied for good reasons and for bad ones , but very few have chosen to lie without a particularly unusual threat to themselves or their nation .
If some presidential lies might be forgivable , it could be only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those lies bring about ; and President Trump 's lies seem unlikely to meet that test .
Michael Blake , Professor of Philosophy , Public Policy and Governance , University of Washington This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

Michael Blake, University of Washington
Michael Cohen, in his recent book, has called President Trump a “fraud," a “bigot," a “bully" – and, most emphatically, a “liar". The Trump administration's response to this book simply reverses the accusation, calling Cohen someone who attempts to “profit off of lies".
Nonetheless, the media has often noted the frequency with which President Trump lies. The Washington Post, for instance, maintains a running database of what it terms the President's “false or misleading claims" – which now number over 20,000, or an average of 12 per day.
Media's accounts of Trump's lies would seem to indicate that most people are wholeheartedly opposed to lying – and, in particular, opposed to being lied to by presidents. And yet a recent survey of presidential deception found that all American presidents – from Washington to Trump – have told lies, knowingly, in their public statements.
As a political philosopher, with a focus on how people try to reason together through political disagreement, I argue that not all lies are the same.
History shows examples of presidents who have lied for a larger public purpose – and have been forgiven.
The morality of deception
Why, though, are lies thought so wrongful in the first instance?
Immanuel Kant, in the 18th century, provided one powerful account of the wrongness of lying. For Kant, lying was wrong in much the same way that threats and coercion are wrong. All of these override the autonomous will of another person, and treat that person as a mere tool.
For Kant, human beings were morally special precisely because they could use reason to decide what to do. When a gunman uses threats to coerce a person to do a particular act, he disrespects that person's rational agency. Lies are a similar disrespect to rational agency: One's decision has been manipulated, so that the act is no longer one's own.
Kant defended these conclusions without exception. Kant regarded any lie as immoral – even one told to a murderer at the door.
Modern-day philosophers have often accepted Kant's account, while seeking exceptions from its rigidness. In his book “Ethics for Adversaries," philosopher Arthur Applbaumexplains why citizens might sometimes consent to being deceived, which might be useful in understanding presidential deception.
For example, a political leader who gives honest answers about a forthcoming military operation would likely imperil that operation – and most people would not want that. The key, though, is that people might accept such deception, after the fact, because of what that deception made possible.
To take one example: The British government sought to deceive the Nazi command about its plans for invasion – which entailed lying even to British allies. Applbaum argues that what might seem like simple deception might become justified, if those deceived could eventually consent – after the fact – to being so deceived.
Honorable lies?
History reveals examples of how presidents must sometimes lie, and how their lies might sometimes be morally defensible.
During the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was convinced that Hitler's expansionism in Europe was a threat to the liberal democratic project itself, but he faced an electorate without any will to intervene in a European war. Roosevelt chose to insist publicly that he was opposed to any intervention – while doing everything he could to prepare for war and to covertly help the British cause.
As early as 1948, historian Thomas Bailey noted that Roosevelt had made a calculated choice to both prepare for war and insist he was doing no such thing. To be open about his view of Hitler would have led to his defeat in the 1940 election.
Prior to Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln made similar calculations. Lincoln's lies regarding his negotiations with the Confederacy – described by Meg Mott, a professor of political theory, as being “devious" – may have been instrumental in preserving the United States as a single country.
“Honest Abe" Lincoln was willing to open peace negotiations with the Confederacy – knowing that much of his own party thought that only unconditional surrender by the South would settle the question of slavery. At one point, Lincoln wrote a note to his own party asserting – falsely – that there were “no peace commissioners" being sent to a conference with the Confederacy.
A member of the Congress later noted that, in the absence of that note, the 13th Amendment – which ended the practice of chattel slavery – would not have been passed.
Good lies and bad lies
The problem, of course, is that a great many presidential lies cannot be so easily linked to important purposes.
President Bill Clinton's lies about his sexual activities were either simply self-serving or told to preserve his presidency.
Similarly, President Richard Nixon's insistence that he knew nothing about the Watergate break-in was most likely a lie. John Dean, Nixon's legal counsel, confirmed years later that the president knew about, and approved of, the plan to rob the Democratic National Committee headquarters. This scandal eventually ended Nixon's presidency.
In both cases, these presidents faced a significant threat to their presidencies - and chose deception to save not the nation, but their own power.
President Trump and truth
It is likely that President Trump has lied more than previous presidents in public – and, perhaps more significantly, he has also apparently lied about a wider variety of topics than his predecessors.
Soon after being elected he claimed, falsely, that his inaugural crowd was the largest ever. More recently, he insisted that Hurricane Dorian was likely to affect the coast of Alabama – and he seems to have altered a map with a Sharpie to bolster his false claim. The pattern of deception has continued, most recently with his acknowledgment that he deceived the public about the coronavirus – and then his insistence that he had done no such thing.
[Deep knowledge, daily.Sign up for The Conversation's newsletter.]
What is striking about these lies, in contrast to the lies of previous presidents, is that they have generally been told in the absence of a particular and acute threat to either the president's power or to the preservation of the United States.
Presidents have lied for good reasons and for bad ones, but very few have chosen to lie without a particularly unusual threat to themselves or their nation. If some presidential lies might be forgivable, it could be only because of the good to the nation those lies bring about; and President Trump's lies seem unlikely to meet that test.
Michael Blake, Professor of Philosophy, Public Policy and Governance, University of Washington
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-09-27--Ralph Nader offers practical advice for casting informed votes

Here is some practical advice for casting informed votes to improve the livelihoods of all Americans where they live , work , and raise their children and also to lessen their anxiety , dread , and fear .
Democratic voters should demand that the Democratic Party candidates pledge to vote to ( 1 ) raise the long frozen , federal minimum wage of $ 7.25 to a living wage ; ( 2 ) support more efficient full Medicare for All ( with free choice of doctors and hospitals and no cruel , irritating networks ) ; ( 3 ) repeal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with additional loopholes for the rich , and huge corporate subsidies and giveaways ; and to use the money to upgrade and rebuild the job-rich public works sector as well as the infrastructure in every community in the country – both in the red and blue states ; ( 4 ) crack down , with law and order , on the corporate crimewave that bleeds consumers out of trillions of dollars a year ; ( 5 ) repeal anti-labor laws to facilitate empowering tens of millions of workers who want to join @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests ; and ( 6 ) accelerate the transition to a solar-based economy with better air , water , greater neighborhood self-reliance , and to reduce the devastating climate disruption from the burning of fossil fuels .
Democratic candidates will benefit by embracing such a covenant .
Moreover , candidates who repeat the planks of this covenant incessantly and authentically in political communications and grassroots mobilizations will be seen as caring for the people in their daily lives and struggles in all the states of our union .
This covenant can be contrasted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which failed to adopt a new platform for 2020 .
Instead , the Republican National Committee ( RNC ) said , `` The RNC enthusiastically supports President Trump and continues to reject the policy positions of the Obama-Biden Administration , as well as those espoused by the Democratic National Committee today… '' The RNC largely supports turning the government over to Big Business and further entrenching Wall Street rule over Main Street .
The contrast also illustrates the Republican Party 's callous indifference to the immediate desperate needs of millions of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House-passed six-month renewal of the much needed $ 600 a week Covid-19-driven assistance for families nationwide .
This and other crucial aid to states and localities is necessary to make schools safer and to provide protective equipment and other assistance to patients in hospitals and clinics , and to nursing home residents .
Monopolist Mitch is shafting his own state of Kentucky while hypocritically seeking the people 's votes for his re-election to extend his long and evil tenure in the Senate , and his more recent total toadying for Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( conservative columnist George Will 's words ) have failed to deliver on Trump 's phony 2016 campaign promises on health care , clean air and water , and creating millions of good-paying jobs .
And , with Mitch McConnell 's help , Trump has jeopardized public health , soiled the environment , and abandoned workers to global corporations .
Now a few words for voters inclined to support dictator Donald Trump .
You surely admit Trump did not deliver for you .
How long can you wait ?
Now , Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shoulder-to-shoulder and mostly without masks , listen to him scoff at the Covid-19 pandemic as he and they flaunt mask requirements in violation of state and local laws .
When asked about the safety of these events , Trump ignores public safety and says that he is on the stage and safely far away from the crowd .
At least dangerous Donald is not passing out little cups of bleach .
Donald Trump is the hyper-super spreader of the deadly Covid-19 virus and he is endangering the tens of thousands of people attending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this 'clear and present danger ' to public health and life .
Now , about the reasons you voted for devious Donald in 2016 other than the `` anybody but Hillary '' rationale .
Many Trump voters want anti-choice judges .
( You may not recall , for years , Trump was pro-choice . )
But the hundreds of federal judges nominated by Trump are also clenched-teeth corporatists , who rule for corporations when the conflicts involve the lives of workers , consumers , and the environment .
They are dyed-in-the-wool boosters of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you .
These extremist judges also support big foreign and domestic corporations getting lavish tax breaks and taxpayer subsidies .
Some people like Trump 's talk about `` de-regulation , '' getting big government off your back .
In reality , Trump is taking the federal cops off the backs of corporate crooks and de-funding the corporate crime police .
This year Trump brazenly said he is stopping or limiting enforcement of the laws designed to protect consumers from companies that sell you and your children hazardous products , pollute your air and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and fail to recall your defective cars/trucks .
Trump even announced in March that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) would suspend or postpone inspection of imports from abroad , including the bulk of the medicines that Trump still allows to be imported from China .
One would think some serious hoodwinking or just plain lying is going on here .
Well , you might say – at least Trump cut taxes .
Come-on , the vast benefits of his tax cuts went to the rich and big corporations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to fix your roads , bridges , mass transits , schools , clinics , and drinking water systems .
Egomaniac Trump does n't care about you ; for him , it 's about using the government to enrich himself and his family members and to bail out his failing hotels and golf courses .
Maybe you still like Trump because he says he is against immigrants `` invading '' our country .
Trump , however , had no problem illegally hiring undocumented workers for his golf course and his residences ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York ) , until he was exposed .
Trump has no concern for the exploited foreign workers in the meatpacking , poultry processing , and agribusiness companies owned by his campaign-contributing buddies .
Before you cast your ballot , let 's toast your informed self-respect as clear-minded voters who can see an immoral , law-breaking , greedy Trump regime full of plutocrats who could n't care less about America and the people they 've exploited .

Here is some practical advice for casting informed votes to improve the livelihoods of all Americans where they live, work, and raise their children and also to lessen their anxiety, dread, and fear.
Democratic voters should demand that the Democratic Party candidates pledge to vote to (1) raise the long frozen, federal minimum wage of $7.25 to a living wage; (2) support more efficient full Medicare for All (with free choice of doctors and hospitals and no cruel, irritating networks); (3) repeal Trump's two trillion dollar tax cut, with additional loopholes for the rich, and huge corporate subsidies and giveaways; and to use the money to upgrade and rebuild the job-rich public works sector as well as the infrastructure in every community in the country – both in the red and blue states; (4) crack down, with law and order, on the corporate crimewave that bleeds consumers out of trillions of dollars a year; (5) repeal anti-labor laws to facilitate empowering tens of millions of workers who want to join unions to defend their economic and safety interests; and (6) accelerate the transition to a solar-based economy with better air, water, greater neighborhood self-reliance, and to reduce the devastating climate disruption from the burning of fossil fuels.
Democratic candidates will benefit by embracing such a covenant. Moreover, candidates who repeat the planks of this covenant incessantly and authentically in political communications and grassroots mobilizations will be seen as caring for the people in their daily lives and struggles in all the states of our union.
This covenant can be contrasted with the offerings of the Republican Party, which failed to adopt a new platform for 2020. Instead, the Republican National Committee (RNC) said, "The RNC enthusiastically supports President Trump and continues to reject the policy positions of the Obama-Biden Administration, as well as those espoused by the Democratic National Committee today…" The RNC largely supports turning the government over to Big Business and further entrenching Wall Street rule over Main Street.
The contrast also illustrates the Republican Party's callous indifference to the immediate desperate needs of millions of Americans. Senate tyrant Mitch McConnell is blocking the House-passed six-month renewal of the much needed $600 a week Covid-19-driven assistance for families nationwide. This and other crucial aid to states and localities is necessary to make schools safer and to provide protective equipment and other assistance to patients in hospitals and clinics, and to nursing home residents.
Monopolist Mitch is shafting his own state of Kentucky while hypocritically seeking the people's votes for his re-election to extend his long and evil tenure in the Senate, and his more recent total toadying for Trump.
Trump and his "gangster regime" (conservative columnist George Will's words) have failed to deliver on Trump's phony 2016 campaign promises on health care, clean air and water, and creating millions of good-paying jobs. And, with Mitch McConnell's help, Trump has jeopardized public health, soiled the environment, and abandoned workers to global corporations.
Now a few words for voters inclined to support dictator Donald Trump. You surely admit Trump did not deliver for you. How long can you wait? Now, Trump is gathering large crowds of supporters who, shoulder-to-shoulder and mostly without masks, listen to him scoff at the Covid-19 pandemic as he and they flaunt mask requirements in violation of state and local laws. When asked about the safety of these events, Trump ignores public safety and says that he is on the stage and safely far away from the crowd. At least dangerous Donald is not passing out little cups of bleach.
Donald Trump is the hyper-super spreader of the deadly Covid-19 virus and he is endangering the tens of thousands of people attending his rallies. Ask your physician about this 'clear and present danger' to public health and life.
Now, about the reasons you voted for devious Donald in 2016 other than the "anybody but Hillary" rationale. Many Trump voters want anti-choice judges. (You may not recall, for years, Trump was pro-choice.) But the hundreds of federal judges nominated by Trump are also clenched-teeth corporatists, who rule for corporations when the conflicts involve the lives of workers, consumers, and the environment. They are dyed-in-the-wool boosters of expanding big business power and control over you. These extremist judges also support big foreign and domestic corporations getting lavish tax breaks and taxpayer subsidies.
Some people like Trump's talk about "de-regulation," getting big government off your back. In reality, Trump is taking the federal cops off the backs of corporate crooks and de-funding the corporate crime police. This year Trump brazenly said he is stopping or limiting enforcement of the laws designed to protect consumers from companies that sell you and your children hazardous products, pollute your air and water, defraud you in the marketplace, and fail to recall your defective cars/trucks.
Trump even announced in March that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would suspend or postpone inspection of imports from abroad, including the bulk of the medicines that Trump still allows to be imported from China. One would think some serious hoodwinking or just plain lying is going on here.
Well, you might say – at least Trump cut taxes. Come-on, the vast benefits of his tax cuts went to the rich and big corporations. All those bonanzas could have been used to fix your roads, bridges, mass transits, schools, clinics, and drinking water systems. Egomaniac Trump doesn't care about you; for him, it's about using the government to enrich himself and his family members and to bail out his failing hotels and golf courses.
Maybe you still like Trump because he says he is against immigrants "invading" our country. Trump, however, had no problem illegally hiring undocumented workers for his golf course and his residences (and earlier for his construction projects in New York), until he was exposed. Trump has no concern for the exploited foreign workers in the meatpacking, poultry processing, and agribusiness companies owned by his campaign-contributing buddies.
Before you cast your ballot, let's toast your informed self-respect as clear-minded voters who can see an immoral, law-breaking, greedy Trump regime full of plutocrats who couldn't care less about America and the people they've exploited.


alternet--2020-09-27--Lincoln Project co-founder exposes Trump’s greatest weakness — and it will haunt him at Tuesday’s de

Lincoln Project co-founder exposes Trump’s greatest weakness — and it will haunt him at Tuesday’s debate

In a candid interview for the Daily Beast 's `` New Abnormal '' podcast , Lincoln Project co-founder Mike Madrid stated that Donald Trump will flounder about on stage on Tuesday night when he debates Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden .
With both Madrid and podcast host Rick Wilson laughing uproariously at the idea that the president would be going through pre-debate prep , Madrid said the president 's greatest weakness — uncertainty — would be on full display on Tuesday .
Regarding Trump readying himself for the debate , Madrid said , `` Look , I 'm sure they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things by him and he wo n't pay attention . ''
`` Here 's what I think Trump 's biggest weakness is in the debates , '' He continued .
`` The fact that you 're not going to have a live audience is really going to destabilize him .
He does n't need a big one , he just needs a handful of people who will give some sort of group cackling or group response .
Without that , that is where Trump is at his worst . ''
`` Recall in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did these one-on-one interviews with journalists , '' he continued .
`` He has literally no gauge when he is not getting some sort of feedback from others over whether he is going off the rails or whether what he is saying is smart or stupid or coherent or whatever it is . ''
`` He literally needs the feedback and the larger the crowd , the more comfortable he is with his P.T .
Barnum persona , '' Madrid added .
`` Without that he 's going to be wandering around like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You can listen here :

In a candid interview for the Daily Beast's "New Abnormal" podcast, Lincoln Project co-founder Mike Madrid stated that Donald Trump will flounder about on stage on Tuesday night when he debates Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
With both Madrid and podcast host Rick Wilson laughing uproariously at the idea that the president would be going through pre-debate prep, Madrid said the president's greatest weakness — uncertainty — would be on full display on Tuesday.
Regarding Trump readying himself for the debate, Madrid said, "Look, I'm sure they'll schedule it, run a few things by him and he won't pay attention."
"Here's what I think Trump's biggest weakness is in the debates," He continued. "The fact that you're not going to have a live audience is really going to destabilize him. He doesn't need a big one, he just needs a handful of people who will give some sort of group cackling or group response. Without that, that is where Trump is at his worst."
"Recall in the past month or so when he did these one-on-one interviews with journalists," he continued. "He has literally no gauge when he is not getting some sort of feedback from others over whether he is going off the rails or whether what he is saying is smart or stupid or coherent or whatever it is."
"He literally needs the feedback and the larger the crowd, the more comfortable he is with his P.T. Barnum persona," Madrid added. "Without that he's going to be wandering around like a goat in the wilderness."
You can listen here:


alternet--2020-09-27--'Truly horrifying': Fury mounts over Trump nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to SCOTUS

President Donald Trump 's nomination Saturday of Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court sparked a chorus of outrage from Democrats and progressive groups who warned her confirmation could shift the court to one that would dismantle the Affordable Care Act and `` work to preserve the Trump agenda for decades to come . ''
' '' To maintain security , liberty and prosperity , we must preserve our priceless heritage of a nation of laws , '' Trump said during the Rose Garden announcement .
`` And there 's no one better to do that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remarks at the ceremony , 48-year-old Barrett praised her former mentor , the late right-wing Justice Antonin Scalia , saying that `` his judicial philosophy is mine too . ''
Republicans , who refused to hold hearings for President Barack Obama 's SCOTUS election year nominee Merrick Garland , have already set up a lightning fast timeline for a confirmation vote to replace the seat held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , reportedly as soon as Oct. 29 .
That 's despite new polling showing a majority of Americans want the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump 's nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett means yet another ultra-conservative jurist could be confirmed to a lifetime term on the court—and that is unacceptable . ''
—Sean Eldridge , Stand Up America Trump critics say the swift timeline and Barrett 's voting record mean issues including access to healthcare and ballots and reproductive and LGBTQ rights—as well as the outcome of the presidential election—are under immediate threat .
In an op-ed published Friday at the Washington Post , David Cole , national legal director of the ACLU and a professor at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Barrett is confirmed , `` the resulting shift [ to the Supreme Court ] will be tectonic . ''
The change would `` fundamentally alter the court 's ideological balance , giving it six conservatives and three liberals , '' wrote Cole , who pointed to major rulings in the past decade that were decided in narrow 5-4 rulings , including the United States v. Windsor marriage equality case .
The top court is already scheduled to begin hearing arguments in a case challenging the legality of Obamacare November 10 .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett means yet another ultra-conservative jurist could be confirmed to a lifetime term on the court—and that is unacceptable , '' Stand Up America founder and president Sean Eldridge said in a statement Saturday .
`` The American people see this rushed process for what it is , '' said Eldridge .
`` An attempt to cement a right-wing supermajority on the highest court in order to dismantle the Affordable Care Act in the middle of a pandemic and overturn Roe v .
Wade . ''
Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his presidential bids , also warned that millions more Americans could join the ranks of the uninsured if Barrett is confirmed .
`` President Trump and Senate Republicans have badly mismanaged a deadly pandemic for months .
Now , in the midst of an unprecedented public health crisis , they are willing to ram through a Supreme Court nominee—within days—who will vote to destroy the Affordable Care Act , kick millions of Americans off their healthcare , and eliminate protections for millions more who have preexisting conditions , '' said Sanders .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' he said .
According to advocacy group Indivisible , `` Barrett is a conservative 's dream to fill RBG 's seat . ''
In a Twitter thread following her formal nomination , the group highlighted parts of Barrett 's voting record to show why she is `` a truly horrifying pick '' : Writing at Intelligencer , Sarah Jones likened Barrett to Equal Rights Amendment foe Phyllis Schlafly to emphasize the Trump nominee 's far-reaching threats .
Jones wrote Saturday : In light of what 's at stake , Barrett 's critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans alike , to refuse to vote on a replacement for RBG 's seat until after the election .
Among that chorus are Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum , co-chairs of the Democratic Attorneys General Association .
`` The nomination of arch-conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett should alarm anyone who cares about the future of this country , '' said Healey and Rosenblum , warning that `` healthcare , marriage equality , the right to abortion , worker protections , access to the ballot box , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line .
`` To every member of the Senate : find your backbone , buck McConnell , and let the people vote first , '' they said .
People For the American Way president Ben Jealous directed his attention to Republican senators , asking in a statement : `` Will they follow Trump and Mitch McConnell over the cliff in ramming this disastrous nomination through ?
Or will they stand up for their constituents who want their healthcare protected and expanded during this pandemic , and the millions of Americans who could lose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It comes down to this , '' said Jealous .
`` Senators who ignore the will of the people so they can put another nail in the coffin of healthcare are putting another nail in the coffins of their own constituents .
Come November , voters will remember this betrayal . ''

President Donald Trump's nomination Saturday of Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court sparked a chorus of outrage from Democrats and progressive groups who warned her confirmation could shift the court to one that would dismantle the Affordable Care Act and "work to preserve the Trump agenda for decades to come."
'"To maintain security, liberty and prosperity, we must preserve our priceless heritage of a nation of laws," Trump said during the Rose Garden announcement. "And there's no one better to do that than Amy Coney Barrett.
In her remarks at the ceremony, 48-year-old Barrett praised her former mentor, the late right-wing Justice Antonin Scalia, saying that "his judicial philosophy is mine too."
Republicans, who refused to hold hearings for President Barack Obama's SCOTUS election year nominee Merrick Garland, have already set up a lightning fast timeline for a confirmation vote to replace the seat held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, reportedly as soon as Oct. 29. That's despite new pollingshowing a majority of Americans want the seat filled after Election Day.
"Trump's nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett means yet another ultra-conservative jurist could be confirmed to a lifetime term on the court—and that is unacceptable."
—Sean Eldridge, Stand Up America Trump critics say the swift timeline and Barrett's voting record mean issues including access to healthcare and ballots and reproductive and LGBTQ rights—as well as the outcome of the presidential election—are under immediate threat.
In an op-ed published Friday at the Washington Post, David Cole, national legal director of the ACLU and a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, wrote that if Barrett is confirmed, "the resulting shift [to the Supreme Court] will be tectonic."
The change would "fundamentally alter the court's ideological balance, giving it six conservatives and three liberals," wrote Cole, who pointed to major rulings in the past decade that were decided in narrow 5-4 rulings, including the United States v. Windsor marriage equality case.
The top court is already scheduled to begin hearing arguments in a case challenging the legality of Obamacare November 10.
"Trump's nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett means yet another ultra-conservative jurist could be confirmed to a lifetime term on the court—and that is unacceptable," Stand Up America founder and president Sean Eldridge said in a statement Saturday.
"The American people see this rushed process for what it is," said Eldridge. "An attempt to cement a right-wing supermajority on the highest court in order to dismantle the Affordable Care Act in the middle of a pandemic and overturn Roe v. Wade."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who made Medicare for All a pillar of his presidential bids, also warned that millions more Americans could join the ranks of the uninsured if Barrett is confirmed.
"President Trump and Senate Republicans have badly mismanaged a deadly pandemic for months. Now, in the midst of an unprecedented public health crisis, they are willing to ram through a Supreme Court nominee—within days—who will vote to destroy the Affordable Care Act, kick millions of Americans off their healthcare, and eliminate protections for millions more who have preexisting conditions," said Sanders.
"This is an absolute outrage," he said.
According to advocacy group Indivisible, "Barrett is a conservative's dream to fill RBG's seat." In a Twitter thread following her formal nomination, the group highlighted parts of Barrett's voting record to show why she is "a truly horrifying pick":
Writing at Intelligencer, Sarah Jones likened Barrett to Equal Rights Amendment foe Phyllis Schlafly to emphasize the Trump nominee's far-reaching threats. Jones wrote Saturday:
For all the power the right wing is about to hand her, though, Barrett has indeed chosen a self-limiting ideology, and not just because of her views on Roe. Conservative women aren't interested solely in abolishing abortion, or in limiting the scope of modern gender equality laws. Schlafly was an anti-communist who belonged to the John Birch Society before she ever campaigned against the ERA. Her anti-feminism comprised one strand of a comprehensively dangerous ideology. The women who serve the Trump administration aren't much different, and neither is Barrett. A Supreme Court justice with right-wing perspectives on labor, the environment, immigration, and criminal justice can harm women from all backgrounds in all aspects of their lives. That is the intention, and not the accidental byproduct, of constitutional originalism. As embraced by jurists like Barrett and her old boss, Antonin Scalia, originalism is its own dogma; the extension of a political theology committed to an older and more exclusionary version of America.
Barrett understands all that. She's exactly as intelligent as her advocates say, and she's made all her choices with a sound mind. Her reward is power. If she's confirmed by the Senate, she'll be able to finish what Schlafly once started. She could help lock in Trump for another four years. She'll be able to deal democracy and yes, the feminist movement the blows the Christian right has dreamed of landing for years.
In light of what's at stake, Barrett's critics are calling on senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, to refuse to vote on a replacement for RBG's seat until after the election.
Among that chorus are Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, co-chairs of the Democratic Attorneys General Association.
"The nomination of arch-conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett should alarm anyone who cares about the future of this country," said Healey and Rosenblum, warning that "healthcare, marriage equality, the right to abortion, worker protections, access to the ballot box, and so much more" is on the line.
"To every member of the Senate: find your backbone, buck McConnell, and let the people vote first," they said.
People For the American Way president Ben Jealous directed his attention to Republican senators, asking in a statement: "Will they follow Trump and Mitch McConnell over the cliff in ramming this disastrous nomination through? Or will they stand up for their constituents who want their healthcare protected and expanded during this pandemic, and the millions of Americans who could lose coverage for preexisting conditions?"
"It comes down to this," said Jealous. "Senators who ignore the will of the people so they can put another nail in the coffin of healthcare are putting another nail in the coffins of their own constituents. Come November, voters will remember this betrayal."


alternet--2020-09-27--Trump’s Supreme Court pick has a serious problem with the Constitution

Nomination of conservative Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court makes us think about the role of government in our lives and the Republican majority view of winning vs. fairness .
That her lifetime confirmation will change the direction of the Supreme Court for many years is a given , and , as it happens a sop toward Donald Trump 's re-election efforts .
But what is there to learn here ?
Here 's the good news about nominee Barrett : There will be no nonsense about a woman as the nominee , and minimal attention on her choices about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She will get the same black robe as the rest .
It finally is a choice that is about ideas and about visions of what we want as a nation – even if it comes as forced march by a Senate that has no time to deal with coronavirus aid .
Her professed allegiance to `` originalism '' in the law , the mostly conservative but often libertarian view that the original words of the Constitution and the law should suffice for modern challenges—a view she shares with the other recently named @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand to chart the Court 's future .
We can expect that originalism , for example , will become the substantial legal argument that will lead her to vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act , or Obamacare , over narrow interpretations of tax law , or to eliminate legal abortion as having been argued previously under the `` wrong '' section of the Constitution .
It 's not her particular brand of Catholicism that will drive her anti-abortion decision-making – though she is seriously anti-abortion as a person – but her insistence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead to the same place .
In her record as clerk , law professor and judge , there is evidence of far more – a tendency to view the Bill of Rights as anything but generous for life choices .
Mark Joseph Stern , who writes about law for Slate , noted that in reading through all of her written decisions , what comes across is not conservatism as much as a certain meanness about the fate of the individual against business , institutions and government .
Ruth Bader Ginsburg saw the Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generous guarantees of human dignity that must be read expansively to achieve their purpose .
By contrast , Barrett 's view of the law is fundamentally cruel .
During her three years on the 7thCircuit Court of Appeals , Barrett either has written or joined a remarkable number of opinions that harm unpopular and powerless individuals who rely on the judiciary to safeguard their rights .
`` Faced with two plausible readings of a law , fact , or precedent , Barrett always seems to choose the harsher , stingier interpretation .
Can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a disproportionately deleterious impact on older people ?
Barrett said no .
Should courts halt the deportation of an immigrant who faced torture at home ?
Barrett said no .
Should they protect refugees denied asylum on the basis of xenophobic prejudice ?
Barrett said no .
Should they shield prisoners from unjustified violence by correctional officers ?
Barrett said no .
Should minors be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without telling their parents if a judge has found that they 're mature enough to make the decision ?
Barrett said no .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion upon discovering a severe fetal abnormality ?
Barrett said no . ''
Per her record , If the case is about religion or guns , Barrett is for the individual ; if it is about abortion or gender , Barrett seems to forget about the individual .
Barrett has criticized Chief Justice John Roberts ' decisions to uphold narrowly Obamacare , presumably in part out of a belief that the Court is in no position to simply strip 20 million Americans of health care .
So , health care rather than abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee find for focus – because Barrett is on the record .
There is no Republican legislative remedy for this , and we will have yet more chaos in the midst of a pandemic – for the right to uphold a strict interpretation of Constitutional law .
From past decisions , it is clear that she will uphold the Trump steamroller to obliterate environmental regulations and to monitor labor grievances or regulate Wall Street .
With the votes already lined up , the idea of confirmation hearings seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chance for us to feel as if we know what we will be getting into .
My question for Barrett is this : We get the originalism idea , but how does that concept allow us to pick and choose its way about protection of the individual ?
I want to know how she matches the specifics of the law – and its legal precedents – with the realities we face in our country .
Do we believe in justice that advances individual rights ?
If so , why is religion a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why is legislation that enables government to decide what constitutes marriage OK , and individual rights to health treatments not OK ?
Why are Americans to be afforded the right to assault weapons but not clean air ?
What is the role of actions to balance centuries of racial unfairness ?
There is a certain sense that the approach is more important than a sense of `` justice . ''
These confirmation hearings always are a bit of a crapshoot since the judges wo n't really talk about their views .
But an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how they approach the job .
There will be attempts to ask about her affiliation with People of Praise , a religious group that until recently referred to its female leaders as `` handmaids '' ― evoking comparisons to Margaret Atwood 's dystopian novel `` The Handmaid 's Tale . ''
I hope they are set aside quickly – other than establishing that personal beliefs are no substitute for creating a legal precedent .
The Court is about to launch a revolution in exact opposition to the majority of its citizenry .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with that .

Nomination of conservative Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court makes us think about the role of government in our lives and the Republican majority view of winning vs. fairness.
That her lifetime confirmation will change the direction of the Supreme Court for many years is a given, and, as it happens a sop toward Donald Trump's re-election efforts.
But what is there to learn here?
Here's the good news about nominee Barrett: There will be no nonsense about a woman as the nominee, and minimal attention on her choices about religion, lifestyle and what she wears. She will get the same black robe as the rest.
It finally is a choice that is about ideas and about visions of what we want as a nation – even if it comes as forced march by a Senate that has no time to deal with coronavirus aid.
Her professed allegiance to "originalism" in the law, the mostly conservative but often libertarian view that the original words of the Constitution and the law should suffice for modern challenges—a view she shares with the other recently named justices — is something we need to understand to chart the Court's future.
We can expect that originalism, for example, will become the substantial legal argument that will lead her to vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, over narrow interpretations of tax law, or to eliminate legal abortion as having been argued previously under the "wrong" section of the Constitution. It's not her particular brand of Catholicism that will drive her anti-abortion decision-making – though she is seriously anti-abortion as a person – but her insistence on interpreting the Constitution literally that will lead to the same place.
Barrett's Record
In her record as clerk, law professor and judge, there is evidence of far more – a tendency to view the Bill of Rights as anything but generous for life choices. Mark Joseph Stern, who writes about law for Slate, noted that in reading through all of her written decisions, what comes across is not conservatism as much as a certain meanness about the fate of the individual against business, institutions and government.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg saw the Bill of Rights and civil rights acts as generous guarantees of human dignity that must be read expansively to achieve their purpose. By contrast, Barrett's view of the law is fundamentally cruel. During her three years on the 7thCircuit Court of Appeals, Barrett either has written or joined a remarkable number of opinions that harm unpopular and powerless individuals who rely on the judiciary to safeguard their rights.
"Faced with two plausible readings of a law, fact, or precedent, Barrett always seems to choose the harsher, stingier interpretation. Can job applicants sue employers whose policies have a disproportionately deleterious impact on older people? Barrett said no. Should courts halt the deportation of an immigrant who faced torture at home? Barrett said no. Should they protect refugees denied asylum on the basis of xenophobic prejudice? Barrett said no. Should they shield prisoners from unjustified violence by correctional officers? Barrett said no. Should minors be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without telling their parents if a judge has found that they're mature enough to make the decision? Barrett said no. Should women be permitted to obtain an abortion upon discovering a severe fetal abnormality? Barrett said no."
Per her record, If the case is about religion or guns, Barrett is for the individual; if it is about abortion or gender, Barrett seems to forget about the individual.
Barrett has criticized Chief Justice John Roberts' decisions to uphold narrowly Obamacare, presumably in part out of a belief that the Court is in no position to simply strip 20 million Americans of health care. So, health care rather than abortion undoubtedly will be the key question that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee find for focus – because Barrett is on the record. There is no Republican legislative remedy for this, and we will have yet more chaos in the midst of a pandemic – for the right to uphold a strict interpretation of Constitutional law.
From past decisions, it is clear that she will uphold the Trump steamroller to obliterate environmental regulations and to monitor labor grievances or regulate Wall Street.
Futile Confirmation Hearings?
With the votes already lined up, the idea of confirmation hearings seems almost futile. Nevertheless, it is a chance for us to feel as if we know what we will be getting into.
My question for Barrett is this: We get the originalism idea, but how does that concept allow us to pick and choose its way about protection of the individual?
I want to know how she matches the specifics of the law – and its legal precedents – with the realities we face in our country.
Do we believe in justice that advances individual rights? If so, why is religion a shield, and consumerist legislation not? Why is legislation that enables government to decide what constitutes marriage OK, and individual rights to health treatments not OK? Why are Americans to be afforded the right to assault weapons but not clean air? What is the role of actions to balance centuries of racial unfairness?
There is a certain sense that the approach is more important than a sense of "justice." These confirmation hearings always are a bit of a crapshoot since the judges won't really talk about their views. But an examination of their records should tell us about how they approach the job.
There will be attempts to ask about her affiliation with People of Praise, a religious group that until recently referred to its female leaders as "handmaids" ― evoking comparisons to Margaret Atwood's dystopian novel "The Handmaid's Tale." I hope they are set aside quickly – other than establishing that personal beliefs are no substitute for creating a legal precedent.
The Court is about to launch a revolution in exact opposition to the majority of its citizenry. We need to understand how we deal with that.


alternet--2020-09-27--Here's the Democrats' plan to make McConnell’s life as painful as possible: report

According to a report from Politico , Senate Democrats acknowledge that they do n't have the numbers to keep Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett off the court when the Senate takes up the vote — but that does n't mean they wo n't be using her controversial nomination to make Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell 's life a living hell as the election approaches .
With the Republican-controlled Senate poised to rush Barrett 's nomination through with a vote tentatively scheduled prior to the November 3rd election , Politico is reporting that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disrupt and obstruct Senate Republicans '' with an assortment on procedural maneuvers that will hinder McConnell 's efforts .
Calling her appointment a `` power grab , '' Sen. Doug Jones ( D-AL ) said , `` We know that the votes are not there [ to block the nominee ] , but you do what you can to call attention to it . ''
Sen. Tim Kaine ( D-VA ) agreed , saying , `` We ca n't do business as usual in a situation that 's so extraordinary where the Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee so they can kill the Affordable Care ActWe ca n't just say , oh , yeah , that 's normal .
Sorry . ''
According to the Politico report from Andrew Desiderio , `` The goal , senators and aides say , is to highlight what Democrats see as hypocrisy and a blatant abuse of power on the part of McConnell ( R-Ky. ) , who blocked President Barack Obama 's Supreme Court nominee in 2016 but is pressing forward with the goal of confirming President Donald Trump 's pick , Amy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' The report goes on to reveal that Schumer is expected to invoke the `` two-hour rule , '' which stops all committee business after the Senate has been in session for more than two hours .
The Democratic senator deployed it on Thursday and `` caught senators and aides by surprise , and it caused the cancellation of several important committee hearings — most notably , a closed Senate Intelligence Committee briefing with William Evanina , the nation 's top counterintelligence official , on the subject of election security . ''
Additionally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on other Senate business , with Politico reporting , `` The Senate can finish up its work on a bill or a nomination quickly with the agreement of all 100 senators .
But that rarely happens , and McConnell and Schumer often spend their days haggling over floor time to reach a consent agreement . ''
Schumer used that recently which led Sen. John Thune ( R-SD ) to complain , `` Right now I think they 're just trying to throw a wrench into anything we do .
Obviously it 's retribution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they just want to be difficult .
I do n't know why .
It does n't make sense to me either to bring everybody back next week when we could finish this today . ''
Other procedural tools in the Democrat 's favor is the ability to object to recessing which requires the consent of all 100 senators and using quorum calls as a weapon .
`` In order to conduct business , the Senate requires a quorum , or a majority of senators to be present .
Any one senator can move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a few Republicans are absent for any reason , Democrats could boycott the quorum call , effectively preventing the Senate from doing business , '' the report states before adding that if a senator `` disagrees with the presiding officer 's ruling , he or she can appeal it and trigger a roll-call vote , requiring senators to spend time voting on the objection .
Democrats could theoretically do several of these in a row , which could stall proceedings for hours , even days . ''
You can read more here @

According to a report from Politico, Senate Democrats acknowledge that they don't have the numbers to keep Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett off the court when the Senate takes up the vote — but that doesn't mean they won't be using her controversial nomination to make Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's life a living hell as the election approaches.
With the Republican-controlled Senate poised to rush Barrett's nomination through with a vote tentatively scheduled prior to the November 3rd election, Politico is reporting that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has his colleagues on-board to "disrupt and obstruct Senate Republicans" with an assortment on procedural maneuvers that will hinder McConnell's efforts.
Calling her appointment a "power grab," Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) said, "We know that the votes are not there [to block the nominee], but you do what you can to call attention to it."
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) agreed, saying, "We can't do business as usual in a situation that's so extraordinary where the Republicans are breaking their word to rush a nominee so they can kill the Affordable Care ActWe can't just say, oh, yeah, that's normal. Sorry."
According to the Politico report from Andrew Desiderio, "The goal, senators and aides say, is to highlight what Democrats see as hypocrisy and a blatant abuse of power on the part of McConnell (R-Ky.), who blocked President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee in 2016 but is pressing forward with the goal of confirming President Donald Trump's pick, Amy Coney Barrett, before Election Day."
The report goes on to reveal that Schumer is expected to invoke the "two-hour rule," which stops all committee business after the Senate has been in session for more than two hours.
The Democratic senator deployed it on Thursday and "caught senators and aides by surprise, and it caused the cancellation of several important committee hearings — most notably, a closed Senate Intelligence Committee briefing with William Evanina, the nation's top counterintelligence official, on the subject of election security."
Additionally, Senate Democrats can drag their feet on other Senate business, with Politico reporting, "The Senate can finish up its work on a bill or a nomination quickly with the agreement of all 100 senators. But that rarely happens, and McConnell and Schumer often spend their days haggling over floor time to reach a consent agreement."
Schumer used that recently which led Sen. John Thune (R-SD) to complain, "Right now I think they're just trying to throw a wrench into anything we do. Obviously it's retribution for the decision on the court and they just want to be difficult. I don't know why. It doesn't make sense to me either to bring everybody back next week when we could finish this today."
Other procedural tools in the Democrat's favor is the ability to object to recessing which requires the consent of all 100 senators and using quorum calls as a weapon.
"In order to conduct business, the Senate requires a quorum, or a majority of senators to be present. Any one senator can move to require a quorum call. If just a few Republicans are absent for any reason, Democrats could boycott the quorum call, effectively preventing the Senate from doing business," the report states before adding that if a senator "disagrees with the presiding officer's ruling, he or she can appeal it and trigger a roll-call vote, requiring senators to spend time voting on the objection. Democrats could theoretically do several of these in a row, which could stall proceedings for hours, even days."
You can read more here.