alternet--2020-10-15--Trump slammed for celebrating extrajudicial killing: ‘This is so beyond the pale’

Accounts of the death of Michael Reinoehl , the antifa activist who admitted to shooting far-right Patriot Prayer member Aaron J. Danielson at a protest in Portland , Oregon on August 29 , have varied .
One witness alleged that Reinoehl appeared to be unarmed when he was fatally shot by law enforcement officers on September 3 ; according to other accounts , police shot Reinoehl in self-defense .
But for President Donald Trump , it 's not a complex matter that needs to better understood .
For him , it 's a point of pride .
He openly celebrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greenville , North Carolina on Thursday , leading critics to denounce hime on social media .
Trump told the crowd , `` We sent in the U.S .
Marshals .
Took 15 minutes , and it was over .
We got him .
They knew who he was .
They did n't want to arrest him .
Fifteen minutes , that ended . ''
The `` they did n't want to arrest him '' claim was particularly disturbing from a due process standpoint .
Trump appeared to be saying that he did n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrested and received due process in the courts — he simply wanted him shot and killed .
However , some pointed out that , in the fuller context of Trump 's remarks , he was referring to local police who did n't want to arrest Reinoehl , rather than the Marshals .
Nevertheless , his comments were disturbingly ambiguous and called for clarification .
And regardless of the meaning of that particular claim , Trump was still celebrating the shooting death of someone who was still just a suspect in another case .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement whenever possible , and no one should celebrate them if they happen .
Not only does it deprive the person killed of their life and right to due process , but the killing also guarantees that justice ca n't be done in the case the suspect was wanted for .
Attorney Matthew Miller , who often discusses national security matters on MSNBC , addressed Trump 's comments and tweeted , `` This is so beyond the pale it really does require a response from senior leadership at DOJ .
The AG is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Director of the Marshals Service needs to issue a statement to his workforce that this is not what is expected and would not be tolerated . ''
Tensions were high in Portland on August 29 , when anti-racist protesters clashed with far-right counterdemonstrators and Trump supporters .
Reinoehl , after Danielson was fatally shot , said he acted in self-defense .
And Reinoehl was shot when police found him on September 3 .
A witness , Nate Dingus , said that Reinoehl appeared to be unarmed ; other accounts said that Reinoehl produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .

Accounts of the death of Michael Reinoehl, the antifa activist who admitted to shooting far-right Patriot Prayer member Aaron J. Danielson at a protest in Portland, Oregon on August 29, have varied. One witness alleged that Reinoehl appeared to be unarmed when he was fatally shot by law enforcement officers on September 3; according to other accounts, police shot Reinoehl in self-defense.
But for President Donald Trump, it's not a complex matter that needs to better understood. For him, it's a point of pride. He openly celebrated Reinoehl's killing during a speech in Greenville, North Carolina on Thursday, leading critics to denounce hime on social media.
Trump told the crowd, "We sent in the U.S. Marshals. Took 15 minutes, and it was over. We got him. They knew who he was. They didn't want to arrest him. Fifteen minutes, that ended."
The "they didn't want to arrest him" claim was particularly disturbing from a due process standpoint. Trump appeared to be saying that he didn't care whether or not Reinoehl was lawfully arrested and received due process in the courts — he simply wanted him shot and killed. However, some pointed out that, in the fuller context of Trump's remarks, he was referring to local police who didn't want to arrest Reinoehl, rather than the Marshals.
Nevertheless, his comments were disturbingly ambiguous and called for clarification. And regardless of the meaning of that particular claim, Trump was still celebrating the shooting death of someone who was still just a suspect in another case. Such deaths should be avoided by law enforcement whenever possible, and no one should celebrate them if they happen. Not only does it deprive the person killed of their life and right to due process, but the killing also guarantees that justice can't be done in the case the suspect was wanted for.
Attorney Matthew Miller, who often discusses national security matters on MSNBC, addressed Trump's comments and tweeted, "This is so beyond the pale it really does require a response from senior leadership at DOJ. The AG is obviously a lost cause, but the Director of the Marshals Service needs to issue a statement to his workforce that this is not what is expected and would not be tolerated."
Tensions were high in Portland on August 29, when anti-racist protesters clashed with far-right counterdemonstrators and Trump supporters. Reinoehl, after Danielson was fatally shot, said he acted in self-defense. And Reinoehl was shot when police found him on September 3. A witness, Nate Dingus, said that Reinoehl appeared to be unarmed; other accounts said that Reinoehl produced a firearm when police went to arrest him.
Watch the clip below:


alternet--2020-10-15--Steve Bannon pushes for Trump to claim an early election victory — but there's a huge hole in the pl

Steve Bannon pushes for Trump to claim an early election victory — but there's a huge hole in the plan

One of President Trump 's most loyal propagandists is predicting that Trump will claim victory on election night as soon as he is ahead among Election Day voters .
But that scenario is based on a misconception of how all ballots are counted and the early returns are compiled , according to election and legal experts .
`` At 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock… on November 3 , Donald J. Trump is going to walk into the Oval Office , and he may hit a tweet before he goes in there… and he 's going to sit there , having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pennsylvania and Florida , and he 's going to say , 'Hey , game 's over , ' '' said Stephen K. Bannon , Trump 's 2016 campaign CEO and former White House adviser , during a defiant speech on October 10 forum hosted by the Young Republican Federation of Virginia .
`` The elites are traumatized .
They do not want to go stand in line and vote .
That , ladies and gentlemen , is a game-changer , '' Bannon said .
`` It [ the decisive factor ] is what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote that can be certified .
That 's a vote that counts .
And right now , what they [ Trump critics ] do n't want to talk about , is Donald J. Trump leads on people who are actually going to show up and vote on November 3 , by 21 percent . ''
Bannon 's prediction that Trump would defy norms by asserting that he won before indisputable victory margins were reported was not just another sign that Trump would not heed the rules governing 2020 's election .
Bannon 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ propagandist 's mindset that drew on smears and distortions to fan partisan ill will .
But his prediction of how Trump could claim an early victory was based on a flawed premise , because no early returns on election night were only going to contain the in-person votes cast on Election Day .
`` The first reports are the county totals , '' said Chris Sautter , an attorney who has specialized in post-election challenges and recounts for decades .
`` You do n't get the breakdowns [ of votes cast in different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes , Election Day votes , and overseas votes ] until after election night .
It depends on the state . ''
Other election administration experts confirmed that the election night returns would be a mix of all of the earliest votes cast—from early in-person voting sites , from absentee ballots that had been returned and processed , and from in-person voting on Election Day .
( As of October 15 , more than 16 million absentee ballots had been returned or cast in early voting , the U.S .
Elections Project said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single credible journalist or analyst who would look at early returns in a close race with many ballots left to count and declare victory , '' said David Becker , the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research .
`` If counting of all ballots magically ended at midnight on election night , we would have had a President Gore , and Donald Trump would n't have won the presidency . ''
`` Most importantly , to do so would be to disenfranchise the millions of men and women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't arrive until after Election Day , '' Becker continued .
`` That said , many early in-person ballots and early-received mail ballots will be processed on election night , especially in states that allow early pre-processing of those ballots , such as Arizona , Florida , Georgia , North Carolina , and Ohio .
So , many votes may be reported out that night . ''
Sautter and Becker , a former U.S. Department of Justice ( DOJ ) Voting Section attorney , operate in a world where facts , laws and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jury-like proceedings to ascertain voter intent on contested ballots .
But the world of legal opinion is not the same as the sphere of public opinion , which is where Trump and Bannon shape narratives based on feelings , grievances and disinformation .
`` Trump 's strategy is to create chaos , uncertainty , '' Sautter said .
`` What Bannon is saying is if Trump is ahead on election night , I 'm sure he will declare victory .
Trump [ also ] may take some kind of legal action to try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't imagine that would be successful .
It would be like Florida in 2018 .
They [ Republicans ] filed a suit there and it got thrown out . ''
`` Distinguishing between these two things [ electoral facts and fantasies ] is really important , '' said Justin Levitt , who oversaw the DOJ 's voting rights enforcement in the Obama administration .
`` I think there will be lots of the latter .
I think there will be suits filed .
I think there will be people screaming .
I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What I have been saying of late is reminding people that a lawsuit without provable facts is just a tweet with a filing fee . ''
But back in rural Virginia , Bannon spun out a narrative to a rapt audience that was filled with innuendo , grievances , premonitions and assumptions that the vote would be stolen .
`` I do n't like loose talk about civil war , but I got to tell you , '' Bannon continued , `` when you hear what the Democrats are saying , what their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , their last presidential candidate , what did she say ?
Under no circumstances—no circumstances—is Joe Biden to concede… They 're going to keep counting until they get 270 Electoral [ College ] votes for Joe Biden , right ?
They are going to be voting by the pound and voting by the pallet . ''
Actually , Clinton urged Biden not to concede on election night when votes were being counted , which is not the same as never conceding .
Bannon 's deliberate exaggerations and accusations about manufacturing votes went deeper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bannon has long promoted a white-centric nationalism , notably as the former head of Breitbart News .
Now , flying in the face of both democracy and fact , he is asserting that in-person voting on Election Day is more American , and is more accurate , than voting beforehand via a mailed-out absentee ballot .
`` They ca n't beat Trump in the traditional way Americans have voted for 200 years , '' Bannon said .
`` You go into a booth , close the curtain .
Only two folks know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote for .
Write it down , bang , done .
You vote by mail—look , I vote by mail .
Sometimes , I 'm [ an ] absentee [ voter ] .
I understand it is a risk .
Multiple people are going to put their hand on your ballot .
And it may not end up being certifiable .
That 's the risk I took . ''
Rather than unpacking Bannon 's distortions and contradictions—for example , absentee ballots originated in the 19th century 's Civil War , and Trump votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big picture he painted .
Bannon relegated votes cast by millions of people , dominated by Biden supporters , into a second-class status .
And he disparaged people voting with an absentee ballot as weak and un-American , because they had fallen for media reports about the pandemic .
`` You chose not to go to a poll , '' Bannon said .
`` The reason you chose is your mass media apparatus , which has dominated this country , was irresponsible and caused mass hysteria on your voters .
That 's your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make your problem the nation 's problem .
And we will not back down one inch .
And I 'll tell you who is going to join us in that , a guy named Donald J .
Trump . ''
The driving force behind Bannon 's narrative , apart from a desire to keep Trump and the GOP in power , was polls and other voter data showing that more Trump supporters were planning to vote on Election Day and more Biden supporters were intending to vote with absentee ballots .
In recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans to voting early at in-person sites .
Bannon , nonetheless , built upon the lie that the pandemic was not a threat .
He exaggerated problems in the little-known process of vetting returned absentee ballots .
In that administrative process , a voter 's identity is first verified by officials who review how their ballot-return envelope has been filled out and signed .
Only then are ballots taken out and counted .
Bannon claimed that in New York City 's June 2020 presidential primary , 30 percent of absentee ballots in Brooklyn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Manhattan were disqualified because voters did not properly fill out envelopes or returned them too late .
( Those high rejection rates did not occur across both boroughs , but only in specific localized settings .
In 2018 , the national rejection rate for absentee ballots was 1.4 percent , federal data reported .
In Florida in 2019 , it was 1.2 percent .
In Wisconsin 's primary this past April , it was 1.8 percent .
Sloppy signatures , lines left empty and mistakes with filling out the envelope were the leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 've requested 1.5 million absentee ballots in Pennsylvania , '' Bannon said .
`` Ten to 20 percent will not be certifiable .
What that means is it [ is ] going to be a dogfight in those rooms [ in county offices where returned ballots are processed ] .
Remember , every ballot that can be certified should be certified .
And that ballot should count .
That 's a vote .
But you 've got a lot of things that you [ absentee voters ] have got to check off to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chose—not to go to a poll . ''
As of October 15 , Democrats requested 1.7 million ballots , Republicans requested 652,000 ballots , and other voters requested 290,000 ballots , the U.S .
Elections Project reported .
Democrats and voting rights groups have filed scores of lawsuits to ensure that voters who incorrectly fill out a ballot-return envelope , or whose ballot is postmarked in time but does not arrive at election offices until after Election Day , will still have their votes counted .
The Trump campaign and its allies similarly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own suits to limit voting and vote counting options .
Both parties are trying to shape the rules to their benefit , but some GOP suits are being filed for propaganda purposes and to undermine the results .
`` Some of the lawsuits are being filed to generate public conversation that is misinformation or misleading about the illegitimacy of the process , about the existence of widespread voter fraud .
These [ claims ] are not true , '' said Wendy Weiser , who directs the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` It 's the same challenge that exists outside the litigation context .
This has been part of the president 's M.O .
in the lead-up to this election . ''
There was no Democratic counterpoint to Trump 's assertions that the expansion of voting by mail in response to the pandemic was inherently fraud-ridden , which Bannon implied .
`` They just keep counting until they win , '' he said .
`` It 's got to be fought .
And where it 's got to be fought is folks like you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ room , no back [ ing ] down .
Every ballot has got to be certified .
If it 's by the rules , it 's good .
If it has any , a scintilla of not good , it 's not certifiable .
Sorry , not sorry , right ? ''
While Bannon predicted that Trump would declare victory based on partial results , and his campaign would fight to disqualify as many absentee ballots as possible , Bannon repeatedly said that it was the Democrats and their allies who were going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` We 're not going to allow this election to be stolen , either through some shenanigans in the courts or some shenanigans in mail-in ballots that nobody can actually process , '' he said .
`` That will not happen .
And the way to make sure that does not happen is , number one , set the predicate on November 3 [ by Trump declaring early that he won ] .
Once we set that predicate that Trump 's the winner on Election Day , that is mighty hard to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ] is not going to go quietly into that good night , trust me , '' Bannon continued .
`` He 's going to put up a big victory on… [ November 3 ] and he 's going to want his troops to back him up on it .
So , look , we have a long haul .
I do n't think this thing will be determined… until right before Inauguration Day… The Democrats have no intention of conceding . ''
Bannon 's narrative hinges on his belief—which may be shared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes from the other ballots that have been cast and counted by election night .
But that 's not how officials count and release early returns .
Moreover , those early returns will include a record number of voters who cast their absentee ballots early and who voted at early voting sites .
American elections do not have separate and unequal ballots .
`` We 've always counted ballots for days after Election Day , and we will do so once again , '' said Becker .
`` This is normal , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and put an artificial deadline on the process only reveals their ignorance . ''
Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth , a project of the Independent Media Institute .
He has reported for National Public Radio , Marketplace , and Christian Science Monitor Radio , as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon , AlterNet , the American Prospect , and many others .
This article was produced by Voting Booth , a project of the Independent Media Institute .

One of President Trump's most loyal propagandists is predicting that Trump will claim victory on election night as soon as he is ahead among Election Day voters. But that scenario is based on a misconception of how all ballots are counted and the early returns are compiled, according to election and legal experts.
"At 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock… on November 3, Donald J. Trump is going to walk into the Oval Office, and he may hit a tweet before he goes in there… and he's going to sit there, having won Ohio, and being up in Pennsylvania and Florida, and he's going to say, 'Hey, game's over,'" said Stephen K. Bannon, Trump's 2016 campaign CEO and former White House adviser, during a defiant speech on October 10 forum hosted by the Young Republican Federation of Virginia.
"The elites are traumatized. They do not want to go stand in line and vote. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a game-changer," Bannon said. "It [the decisive factor] is what electorate shows up to vote on a vote that can be certified. That's a vote that counts. And right now, what they [Trump critics] don't want to talk about, is Donald J. Trump leads on people who are actually going to show up and vote on November 3, by 21 percent."
Bannon's prediction that Trump would defy norms by asserting that he won before indisputable victory margins were reported was not just another sign that Trump would not heed the rules governing 2020's election. Bannon's fiery speech was a glimpse into a propagandist's mindset that drew on smears and distortions to fan partisan ill will. But his prediction of how Trump could claim an early victory was based on a flawed premise, because no early returns on election night were only going to contain the in-person votes cast on Election Day.
"The first reports are the county totals," said Chris Sautter, an attorney who has specialized in post-election challenges and recounts for decades. "You don't get the breakdowns [of votes cast in different categories such as early voting, mail-in votes, Election Day votes, and overseas votes] until after election night. It depends on the state."
Other election administration experts confirmed that the election night returns would be a mix of all of the earliest votes cast—from early in-person voting sites, from absentee ballots that had been returned and processed, and from in-person voting on Election Day. (As of October 15, more than 16 million absentee ballots had been returned or cast in early voting, the U.S. Elections Project said.)
"There's literally not a single credible journalist or analyst who would look at early returns in a close race with many ballots left to count and declare victory," said David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research. "If counting of all ballots magically ended at midnight on election night, we would have had a President Gore, and Donald Trump wouldn't have won the presidency."
"Most importantly, to do so would be to disenfranchise the millions of men and women in the military whose votes often don't arrive until after Election Day," Becker continued. "That said, many early in-person ballots and early-received mail ballots will be processed on election night, especially in states that allow early pre-processing of those ballots, such as Arizona, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio. So, many votes may be reported out that night."
Sautter and Becker, a former U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Voting Section attorney, operate in a world where facts, laws and election procedure dictate who wins elections—including post-election jury-like proceedings to ascertain voter intent on contested ballots. But the world of legal opinion is not the same as the sphere of public opinion, which is where Trump and Bannon shape narratives based on feelings, grievances and disinformation.
"Trump's strategy is to create chaos, uncertainty," Sautter said. "What Bannon is saying is if Trump is ahead on election night, I'm sure he will declare victory. Trump [also] may take some kind of legal action to try to stop the counting. I can't imagine that would be successful. It would be like Florida in 2018. They [Republicans] filed a suit there and it got thrown out."
"Distinguishing between these two things [electoral facts and fantasies] is really important," said Justin Levitt, who oversaw the DOJ's voting rights enforcement in the Obama administration. "I think there will be lots of the latter. I think there will be suits filed. I think there will be people screaming. I think there will be lots of tweets. What I have been saying of late is reminding people that a lawsuit without provable facts is just a tweet with a filing fee."
White Noise
But back in rural Virginia, Bannon spun out a narrative to a rapt audience that was filled with innuendo, grievances, premonitions and assumptions that the vote would be stolen.
"I don't like loose talk about civil war, but I got to tell you," Bannon continued, "when you hear what the Democrats are saying, what their rhetoric is. Remember, Hillary Clinton, their last presidential candidate, what did she say? Under no circumstances—no circumstances—is Joe Biden to concede… They're going to keep counting until they get 270 Electoral [College] votes for Joe Biden, right? They are going to be voting by the pound and voting by the pallet."
Actually, Clinton urged Biden not to concede on election night when votes were being counted, which is not the same as never conceding.
Bannon's deliberate exaggerations and accusations about manufacturing votes went deeper than GOP cliches about Democratic cheating. Bannon has long promoted a white-centric nationalism, notably as the former head of Breitbart News. Now, flying in the face of both democracy and fact, he is asserting that in-person voting on Election Day is more American, and is more accurate, than voting beforehand via a mailed-out absentee ballot.
"They can't beat Trump in the traditional way Americans have voted for 200 years," Bannon said. "You go into a booth, close the curtain. Only two folks know, you and God, know who you vote for. Write it down, bang, done. You vote by mail—look, I vote by mail. Sometimes, I'm [an] absentee [voter]. I understand it is a risk. Multiple people are going to put their hand on your ballot. And it may not end up being certifiable. That's the risk I took."
Rather than unpacking Bannon's distortions and contradictions—for example, absentee ballots originated in the 19th century's Civil War, and Trumpvotes by mail—it is important to grasp the big picture he painted. Bannon relegated votes cast by millions of people, dominated by Biden supporters, into a second-class status. And he disparaged people voting with an absentee ballot as weak and un-American, because they had fallen for media reports about the pandemic.
"You chose not to go to a poll," Bannon said. "The reason you chose is your mass media apparatus, which has dominated this country, was irresponsible and caused mass hysteria on your voters. That's your problem. You're not going to make your problem the nation's problem. And we will not back down one inch. And I'll tell you who is going to join us in that, a guy named Donald J. Trump."
The driving force behind Bannon's narrative, apart from a desire to keep Trump and the GOP in power, was polls and other voter data showing that more Trump supporters were planning to vote on Election Day and more Biden supporters were intending to vote with absentee ballots. In recent weeks, many Democrats have shifted their plans to voting early at in-person sites.
Bannon, nonetheless, built upon the lie that the pandemic was not a threat. He exaggerated problems in the little-known process of vetting returned absentee ballots. In that administrative process, a voter's identity is first verified by officials who review how their ballot-return envelope has been filled out and signed. Only then are ballots taken out and counted.
Bannon claimed that in New York City's June 2020 presidential primary, 30 percent of absentee ballots in Brooklyn and 20 percent of absentee ballots in Manhattan were disqualified because voters did not properly fill out envelopes or returned them too late. (Those high rejection rates did not occur across both boroughs, but only in specific localized settings. In 2018, the national rejection rate for absentee ballots was 1.4 percent, federal data reported. In Florida in 2019, it was 1.2 percent. In Wisconsin's primary this past April, it was 1.8 percent. Sloppy signatures, lines left empty and mistakes with filling out the envelope were the leading causes.)
"Right now… they've requested 1.5 million absentee ballots in Pennsylvania," Bannon said. "Ten to 20 percent will not be certifiable. What that means is it [is] going to be a dogfight in those rooms [in county offices where returned ballots are processed]. Remember, every ballot that can be certified should be certified. And that ballot should count. That's a vote. But you've got a lot of things that you [absentee voters] have got to check off to get to certification, because you chose—you chose—not to go to a poll."
As of October 15, Democrats requested 1.7 million ballots, Republicans requested 652,000 ballots, and other voters requested 290,000 ballots, the U.S. Elections Project reported.
Democrats and voting rights groups have filed scores of lawsuits to ensure that voters who incorrectly fill out a ballot-return envelope, or whose ballot is postmarked in time but does not arrive at election offices until after Election Day, will still have their votes counted. The Trump campaign and its allies similarly have intervened in those suits and filed their own suits to limit voting and vote counting options. Both parties are trying to shape the rules to their benefit, but some GOP suits are being filed for propaganda purposes and to undermine the results.
"Some of the lawsuits are being filed to generate public conversation that is misinformation or misleading about the illegitimacy of the process, about the existence of widespread voter fraud. These [claims] are not true," said Wendy Weiser, who directs the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. "It's the same challenge that exists outside the litigation context. This has been part of the president's M.O. in the lead-up to this election."
There was no Democratic counterpoint to Trump's assertions that the expansion of voting by mail in response to the pandemic was inherently fraud-ridden, which Bannon implied.
"They just keep counting until they win," he said. "It's got to be fought. And where it's got to be fought is folks like you, as election officials, in that room, no back[ing] down. Every ballot has got to be certified. If it's by the rules, it's good. If it has any, a scintilla of not good, it's not certifiable. Sorry, not sorry, right?"
While Bannon predicted that Trump would declare victory based on partial results, and his campaign would fight to disqualify as many absentee ballots as possible, Bannon repeatedly said that it was the Democrats and their allies who were going to cheat to steal the 2020 election.
"We're not going to allow this election to be stolen, either through some shenanigans in the courts or some shenanigans in mail-in ballots that nobody can actually process," he said. "That will not happen. And the way to make sure that does not happen is, number one, set the predicate on November 3 [by Trump declaring early that he won]. Once we set that predicate that Trump's the winner on Election Day, that is mighty hard to unwind."
"He's [Trump] is not going to go quietly into that good night, trust me," Bannon continued. "He's going to put up a big victory on… [November 3] and he's going to want his troops to back him up on it. So, look, we have a long haul. I don't think this thing will be determined… until right before Inauguration Day… The Democrats have no intention of conceding."
Bannon's narrative hinges on his belief—which may be shared by Trump—that officials will segregate Election Day votes from the other ballots that have been cast and counted by election night. But that's not how officials count and release early returns. Moreover, those early returns will include a record number of voters who cast their absentee ballots early and who voted at early voting sites.
American elections do not have separate and unequal ballots.
"We've always counted ballots for days after Election Day, and we will do so once again," said Becker. "This is normal, and anyone who seeks to change the rules and put an artificial deadline on the process only reveals their ignorance."
Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He has reported for National Public Radio, Marketplace, and Christian Science Monitor Radio, as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon, AlterNet, the American Prospect, and many others.
This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.


alternet--2020-10-15--Amy Coney Barrett gets skewered for dodging questions with very simple answers

During the Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett — the far-right social conservative President Donald Trump has nominated to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court — much of the criticism has focused on her views on abortion and the Affordable Care Act .
Barrett told senators that she did not consider the Roe v. Wade ruling of 1973 a `` superprecedent '' and was vague when asked about the ACA , also known as Obamacare .
But journalist Dana Milbank , this week in his Washington Post column , argues that Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential powers are even more disturbing .
`` Judge Amy Coney Barrett was n't inclined to opine on anything — not on whether in vitro fertilization is 'tantamount to manslaughter , ' not on whether she might support re-criminalizing homosexuality and certainly not on whether she 'd invalidate Obamacare or Roe v. Wade , '' Milbank explains .
`` But the most chilling moment of her Supreme Court confirmation testimony Tuesday came when she said she would 'need to hear arguments ' about whether President Trump can postpone the election . ''
Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic senators who questioned Barrett earlier this week , and she zeroed in on Trump 's egregious behavior .
The senator told Barrett , `` President Trump made claims of voter fraud and suggested he wanted to delay the upcoming election… .
Does the Constitution give the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances ?
Does federal law ? ''
According to Milbank , Barrett 's answer should have been a firm `` no . ''
Instead , Trump 's nominee responded , `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever came before me , I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process . ''
The Post columnist goes on to note that Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota , during the hearings , asked Barrett , `` Under federal law , is it illegal to intimidate voters at the poll ? ''
And Milbank points out that Title 18 , Chapter 29 , Section 594 of the U.S. Code calls for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , threatens , coerces , or attempts to intimidate , threaten , or coerce , any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote . ''
Barrett , however , told Klobuchar , `` I ca n't apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts . ''
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont asked Barrett if she would recuse herself from an election dispute in which Trump was claiming that `` Democrats have rigged the election '' — and according to Milbank , she `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be surprising if Barrett votes to strike down Obamacare and abortion rights , '' Milbank writes .
`` But is it too much to ask that a Supreme Court nominee would defend the Constitution and federal law from a president who disregards both ?
Apparently so . ''

During the Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett — the far-right social conservative President Donald Trump has nominated to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court — much of the criticism has focused on her views on abortion and the Affordable Care Act. Barrett told senators that she did not consider the Roev.Wade ruling of 1973 a "superprecedent" and was vague when asked about the ACA, also known as Obamacare. But journalist Dana Milbank, this week in his Washington Post column, argues that Barrett's answers to questions involving Trump's presidential powers are even more disturbing.
"Judge Amy Coney Barrett wasn't inclined to opine on anything — not on whether in vitro fertilization is 'tantamount to manslaughter,' not on whether she might support re-criminalizing homosexuality and certainly not on whether she'd invalidate Obamacare or Roe v. Wade," Milbank explains. "But the most chilling moment of her Supreme Court confirmation testimony Tuesday came when she said she would 'need to hear arguments' about whether President Trump can postpone the election."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California was among the Democratic senators who questioned Barrett earlier this week, and she zeroed in on Trump's egregious behavior. The senator told Barrett, "President Trump made claims of voter fraud and suggested he wanted to delay the upcoming election…. Does the Constitution give the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances? Does federal law?"
According to Milbank, Barrett's answer should have been a firm "no." Instead, Trump's nominee responded, "Well, senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process."
The Post columnist goes on to note that Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, during the hearings, asked Barrett, "Under federal law, is it illegal to intimidate voters at the poll?" And Milbank points out that Title 18, Chapter 29, Section 594 of the U.S. Code calls for a fine and/or imprisonment for "whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote."
Barrett, however, told Klobuchar, "I can't apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts."
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont asked Barrett if she would recuse herself from an election dispute in which Trump was claiming that "Democrats have rigged the election" — and according to Milbank, she "demurred."
"It wouldn't be surprising if Barrett votes to strike down Obamacare and abortion rights," Milbank writes. "But is it too much to ask that a Supreme Court nominee would defend the Constitution and federal law from a president who disregards both? Apparently so."


alternet--2020-10-15--Latest election stunt proves Uber and Lyft are their own worst enemies

Like so much about politics today , the debate around Uber and Lyft 's Proposition 22 in California has quickly become polarized .
Simplistic media narratives like `` Silicon Valley versus labor unions , '' or Uber 's self-serving argument that its drivers prefer flexibility over security , leave voters confused and torn .
But there is a more complex historical reality lurking beneath the headlines .
Yes , the future of work is changing , and the labor laws must adapt , as the CEOs of Uber and Lyft asserted recently in a joint op-ed .
Yet these companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as good-faith partners for their drivers , and for society in general .
I have personally witnessed these companies ' failings .
After my book Raw Deal : How the Uber Economy and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workers was published , I was asked to a meeting with high-level Uber representatives .
Previously , I had also been part of a meeting with Lyft leaders .
A central part of these discussions was my proposal calling for a `` portable safety net '' for their drivers , and for other types of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ net , each worker would have an Individual Security Account into which any business that hires that worker would contribute an amount pro-rated to the number of hours worked for that business .
Those funds then would be used by that worker to pay for her or his safety net needs , such as health care , Social Security , sick leave , and injured worker or unemployment compensation .
Instead of pitting flexibility against security , a portable safety net would allow not only flexible work , but also the economic security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A number of countries already do something like this , and former President Barack Obama endorsed my idea in his 2016 State of the Union address .
A statement of principles was signed by about 40 business , government , labor and NGO leaders—including the president and CEO of Lyft , John Zimmer and Logan Green—calling for a portable safety net as a foundation for the future of work in the 21st-century economy .
Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi has also called for enacting a portable safety net plan .
It seemed like this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But when legislative bills were introduced for a portable safety net in the states of Washington , New York and New Jersey , Uber and Lyft came to the bargaining table offering pocket change .
Rather than contributing 20 percent of a worker 's wage that is necessary to fund an adequate safety net , Uber and Lyft offered to contribute 2.5 percent .
And they wanted their contributions to be voluntary .
In all three states , the legislation died because these billion-dollar companies frittered away real opportunities .
When California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once again countered with a paltry portable benefits package .
With no serious negotiating partner on the other side , the California legislature overwhelmingly passed Assembly Bill 5 to reclassify drivers as employees rather than independent contractors .
Now it 's the law , but Uber and Lyft have refused to implement it .
This has resulted in multiple lawsuits and legal judgments against these renegade companies .
One study found that if their drivers had been classified as employees in the last five years , Uber and Lyft would have paid more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unemployment insurance fund .
Instead , California taxpayers have footed the bill for the significant wage and benefit gaps created by these companies and their crummy gig jobs .
These bitter losses prompted Uber and Lyft to join with DoorDash and Instacart to spend more than $ 184 million—the highest amount for a ballot proposition in California history—to try to pass Proposition 22 .
One ca n't help but wonder why these multibillion-dollar companies , who can dig deep into their piggy banks to spend on this ruinous ballot measure but not on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bargaining table offering pocket change .
Well , there 's more to this story .
It turns out that , despite how badly they underpay and mistreat their drivers , Uber and Lyft are still in huge financial trouble .
They have been losing billions of dollars every year , even as their stocks have collapsed .
Profit margins are inherently low in the taxi business , and their predatory business model massively subsidizes more than half the cost of each and every ride in their bid to boost market share and undercut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditional taxi companies and livery drivers have been pushed to the desperate edge of bankruptcy , and airport shuttle companies have been driven out of business .
Public transportation has also been damaged .
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic , public transit ridership in most major cities had declined , as commuters opted for half-priced Uber and Lyft rides over the mass ridership experience .
One of the most ambitious studies of ridesharing impacts , conducted by researchers at the University of California , Davis Institute of Transportation Studies , found that ridesharing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of trips made and miles driven in an automobile , as well as a pronounced reduction in the use of mass transit .
All of that contributes greatly to increases in traffic congestion and carbon emissions .
Certainly , for the small minority of people who use Uber and Lyft 's subsidized rides , most of them younger , college-educated , better-off Americans ( their use is `` double the rate of less-educated , lower-income '' people ) , this transportation option has been helpful .
But for the vast majority who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and who ride on the bus or drive personal vehicles , stuck in Uber-congested traffic , ride-hailing 's legacy has been decidedly negative .
In short , ride-hailing has been bad for most ride-hailing drivers , and bad for congestion and traffic flow , and bad for public transportation .
So what are these companies offering with Proposition 22 ?
Yet another miserly version of a portable safety net .
For example , the value of Proposition 22 's offered health benefit is about $ 1.20 an hour—but that 's well below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under state and federal laws ( which is more like $ 4 to $ 6 per hour , depending on the occupation ) .
And many drivers would not be able to afford their share of the health care premiums , which would range from 20 to 60 percent .
Prop 22 also will not likely offer higher wages because of a complex formula that will be used to determine `` minimum wage . ''
A study by the University of California , Berkeley Labor Center found that if Proposition 22 passes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 5.64 an hour once their considerable driving expenses are subtracted , which is not even half of California 's minimum wage of $ 12 per hour .
None of Prop 22 's offerings come close to what drivers will receive if voters reject it and drivers remain regular employees instead of independent contractors .
Even worse , Proposition 22 would lock in these serf-like conditions , since it will require an unprecedented 88 percent vote by the state legislature and the governor 's signature to change it .
Uber and Lyft are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the taxi business 10 years ago , breaking every law in the books , motivated by the Silicon Valley philosophy of `` move fast and break things . ''
Well , they broke it , and now they ca n't figure out how to fix it .
As California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has said , `` Any business model that relies on short-changing workers in order to make it probably should n't be anywhere , whether California or otherwise . ''
Ride-hailing has been popular and seemingly has potential , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profit by shifting all the risk onto their workers and hurting the environment .
The vote over Prop 22 is about making a stand for the type of jobs and businesses Californians want to see in their Golden State .
Steven Hill ( www.Steven-Hill.com ) is the author of Raw Deal : How the Uber Economy and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workers and Expand Social Security Now : How to Ensure Americans Get the Retirement They Deserve .
This article was produced by Economy for All , a project of the Independent @ @ @

by Steven Hill
Like so much about politics today, the debate around Uber and Lyft's Proposition 22 in California has quickly become polarized. Simplistic media narratives like "Silicon Valley versus labor unions," or Uber's self-serving argument that its drivers prefer flexibility over security, leave voters confused and torn.
But there is a more complex historical reality lurking beneath the headlines. Yes, the future of work is changing, and the labor laws must adapt, as the CEOs of Uber and Lyft asserted recently in a joint op-ed. Yet these companies have consistently missed numerous opportunities to act as good-faith partners for their drivers, and for society in general.
I have personally witnessed these companies' failings. After my book Raw Deal: How the Uber Economy and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workers was published, I was asked to a meeting with high-level Uber representatives. Previously, I had also been part of a meeting with Lyft leaders. A central part of these discussions was my proposal calling for a "portable safety net" for their drivers, and for other types of freelance workers.
With a portable safety net, each worker would have an Individual Security Account into which any business that hires that worker would contribute an amount pro-rated to the number of hours worked for that business. Those funds then would be used by that worker to pay for her or his safety net needs, such as health care, Social Security, sick leave, and injured worker or unemployment compensation. Instead of pitting flexibility against security, a portable safety net would allow not only flexible work, but also the economic security that workers and their families need.
A number of countries already do something like this, and former President Barack Obama endorsed my idea in his 2016 State of the Union address. A statement of principles was signed by about 40 business, government, labor and NGO leaders—including the president and CEO of Lyft, John Zimmer and Logan Green—calling for a portable safety net as a foundation for the future of work in the 21st-century economy. Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi has also called for enacting a portable safety net plan.
It seemed like this had the makings of a win-win solution. But when legislative bills were introduced for a portable safety net in the states of Washington, New York and New Jersey, Uber and Lyft came to the bargaining table offering pocket change. Rather than contributing 20 percent of a worker's wage that is necessary to fund an adequate safety net, Uber and Lyft offered to contribute 2.5 percent. And they wanted their contributions to be voluntary. In all three states, the legislation died because these billion-dollar companies frittered away real opportunities.
When California legislation was proposed, Uber and Lyft once again countered with a paltry portable benefits package. With no serious negotiating partner on the other side, the California legislature overwhelmingly passed Assembly Bill 5 to reclassify drivers as employees rather than independent contractors. Now it's the law, but Uber and Lyft have refused to implement it. This has resulted in multiple lawsuits and legal judgments against these renegade companies. One study found that if their drivers had been classified as employees in the last five years, Uber and Lyft would have paid more than $400 million into California's unemployment insurance fund. Instead, California taxpayers have footed the bill for the significant wage and benefit gaps created by these companies and their crummy gig jobs.
These bitter losses prompted Uber and Lyft to join with DoorDash and Instacart to spend more than $184 million—the highest amount for a ballot proposition in California history—to try to pass Proposition 22.
A Broken Business Model
One can't help but wonder why these multibillion-dollar companies, who can dig deep into their piggy banks to spend on this ruinous ballot measure but not on their drivers, consistently come to the bargaining table offering pocket change. Well, there's more to this story.
It turns out that, despite how badly they underpay and mistreat their drivers, Uber and Lyft are still in huge financial trouble. They have been losing billions of dollars every year, even as their stocks have collapsed. Profit margins are inherently low in the taxi business, and their predatory business model massively subsidizes more than half the cost of each and every ride in their bid to boost market share and undercut the competition. As a result, traditional taxi companies and livery drivers have been pushed to the desperate edge of bankruptcy, and airport shuttle companies have been driven out of business.
Public transportation has also been damaged. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, public transit ridership in most major cities had declined, as commuters opted for half-priced Uber and Lyft rides over the mass ridership experience. One of the most ambitious studies of ridesharing impacts, conducted by researchers at the University of California, Davis Institute of Transportation Studies, found that ridesharing results in a dramatic rise in the number of trips made and miles driven in an automobile, as well as a pronounced reduction in the use of mass transit. All of that contributes greatly to increases in traffic congestion and carbon emissions.
Certainly, for the small minority of people who use Uber and Lyft's subsidized rides, most of them younger, college-educated, better-off Americans (their use is "double the rate of less-educated, lower-income" people), this transportation option has been helpful. But for the vast majority who do not use these companies' services, and who ride on the bus or drive personal vehicles, stuck in Uber-congested traffic, ride-hailing's legacy has been decidedly negative. In short, ride-hailing has been bad for most ride-hailing drivers, and bad for congestion and traffic flow, and bad for public transportation.
So what are these companies offering with Proposition 22? Yet another miserly version of a portable safety net. For example, the value of Proposition 22's offered health benefit is about $1.20 an hour—but that's well below the value of benefits mandated for employees under state and federal laws (which is more like $4 to $6 per hour, depending on the occupation). And many drivers would not be able to afford their share of the health care premiums, which would range from 20 to 60 percent.
Prop 22 also will not likely offer higher wages because of a complex formula that will be used to determine "minimum wage." A study by the University of California, Berkeley Labor Center found that if Proposition 22 passes, many drivers could earn as little as $5.64 an hour once their considerable driving expenses are subtracted, which is not even half of California's minimum wage of $12 per hour.
None of Prop 22's offerings come close to what drivers will receive if voters reject it and drivers remain regular employees instead of independent contractors. Even worse, Proposition 22 would lock in these serf-like conditions, since it will require an unprecedented 88 percent vote by the state legislature and the governor's signature to change it.
Uber and Lyft are their own worst enemies. They entered the taxi business 10 years ago, breaking every law in the books, motivated by the Silicon Valley philosophy of "move fast and break things." Well, they broke it, and now they can't figure out how to fix it.
As California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has said, "Any business model that relies on short-changing workers in order to make it probably shouldn't be anywhere, whether California or otherwise." Ride-hailing has been popular and seemingly has potential, but the public must insist that these companies not profit by shifting all the risk onto their workers and hurting the environment. The vote over Prop 22 is about making a stand for the type of jobs and businesses Californians want to see in their Golden State.
Steven Hill (www.Steven-Hill.com) is the author of Raw Deal: How the Uber Economy and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workers and Expand Social Security Now: How to Ensure Americans Get the Retirement They Deserve.
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.


alternet--2020-10-15--US District Court judge burns 'well-trained bureaucrat' Bill Barr for his 'slavish obedience' to Tru

US District Court judge burns 'well-trained bureaucrat' Bill Barr for his 'slavish obedience' to Trump

A U.S. District Court Judge is voicing his concerns about U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr 's leadership at the Department of Justice — and warning that his `` slavish obedience '' to President Donald Trump is undermining the rule of law .
In an op-ed published for the San Diego Union-Tribune on Thursday , the Hon .
Philip Halpern confirmed his departure from the U.S. Department of Justice .
After 36 years serving under 19 different attorneys general and six different U.S. presidents , both Democrat and Republican , Halpern admitted that Barr has pushed him to his limit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ much-maligned `` summary '' of former special counsel Robert Mueller 's report was simply an `` honest mistake or a solitary misstep , '' he noted what he has witnessed over the past year suggests otherwise .
Describing Barr as a `` well-trained bureaucrat '' with no prosecutorial experience , Halpern alluded to the possibility that the attorney general 's actions are a deliberate attempt to cover up Trump 's misconduct .
He recalled multiple , highly publicized cases where Barr disregarded career prosecutors to aid the president 's cronies .
`` Over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward rule-of-law prosecutors became increasingly difficult to ignore , as did his slavish obedience to Donald Trump 's will in his selective meddling with the criminal justice system in the Paul Manafort , Michael Flynn and Roger Stone cases , '' Halpern wrote .
`` In each of these cases , Barr overruled career prosecutors in order to assist the president 's associates and/or friends , who potentially harbor incriminating information .
This career bureaucrat seems determined to turn our democracy into an autocracy . ''
From Barr 's support of Trump 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal officers to teargas protesters in Lafayette Park , to the president 's long list of court battles and investigations , Halpern lambasted Barr for his ongoing support of Trump .
He also went on to explain why he opted to stay in the Justice Department as long as he has .
According to Halpern , he was concerned about the integrity of the department .
`` I remained in government service this past year at least partly because I was concerned that the department would interfere with the Hunter prosecution in my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleagues without such a rationale appear to have started abandoning Barr 's ship .
Equally troubling , highly qualified lawyers appear to be unwilling to apply to be federal prosecutors while Barr remains at the helm , '' Halpern said .
`` He added , `` Yet , as I leave government service , I take great comfort in the fact that the career people who remain in the Department of Justice are firmly committed to the rule of law , and are some of the most dedicated , ethical and industrious individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like these , I take heart in knowing that they are all committed to preserving and rebuilding the Department of Justice that I was privileged to serve . ''

A U.S. District Court Judge is voicing his concerns about U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr's leadership at the Department of Justice — and warning that his "slavish obedience" to President Donald Trump is undermining the rule of law.
In an op-ed published for the San Diego Union-Tribune on Thursday, the Hon. Philip Halpern confirmed his departure from the U.S. Department of Justice. After 36 years serving under 19 different attorneys general and six different U.S. presidents, both Democrat and Republican, Halpern admitted that Barr has pushed him to his limit.
Halpern said while he hopes Barr's much-maligned "summary" of former special counsel Robert Mueller's report was simply an "honest mistake or a solitary misstep," he noted what he has witnessed over the past year suggests otherwise.
Describing Barr as a "well-trained bureaucrat" with no prosecutorial experience, Halpern alluded to the possibility that the attorney general's actions are a deliberate attempt to cover up Trump's misconduct. He recalled multiple, highly publicized cases where Barr disregarded career prosecutors to aid the president's cronies.
"Over the last year, Barr's resentment toward rule-of-law prosecutors became increasingly difficult to ignore, as did his slavish obedience to Donald Trump's will in his selective meddling with the criminal justice system in the Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and Roger Stone cases," Halpern wrote. "In each of these cases, Barr overruled career prosecutors in order to assist the president's associates and/or friends, who potentially harbor incriminating information. This career bureaucrat seems determined to turn our democracy into an autocracy."
From Barr's support of Trump's voter fraud conspiracies and decision to direct federal officers to teargas protesters in Lafayette Park, to the president's long list of court battles and investigations, Halpern lambasted Barr for his ongoing support of Trump.
He also went on to explain why he opted to stay in the Justice Department as long as he has. According to Halpern, he was concerned about the integrity of the department.
"I remained in government service this past year at least partly because I was concerned that the department would interfere with the Hunter prosecution in my absence. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues without such a rationale appear to have started abandoning Barr's ship. Equally troubling, highly qualified lawyers appear to be unwilling to apply to be federal prosecutors while Barr remains at the helm," Halpern said.
"He added, "Yet, as I leave government service, I take great comfort in the fact that the career people who remain in the Department of Justice are firmly committed to the rule of law, and are some of the most dedicated, ethical and industrious individuals we have in government. At times like these, I take heart in knowing that they are all committed to preserving and rebuilding the Department of Justice that I was privileged to serve."


alternet--2020-10-15--Lindsey Graham admits to Amy Klobuchar: ‘Y’all have a good chance of winning the White House’

Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) on Thursday asserted that Democrats `` have a good chance '' of defeating President Donald Trump in November .
During a hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett , Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) objected to the push to seat the Supreme Court nominee on the bench before the election .
`` I just do n't think you can separate this from the election that we are in , '' Klobuchar said .
`` I do n't come out of this with cries of defeat ?
You know why ?
Because it 's motivating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do it in the middle of an election so let 's all go out there and vote .
That 's what happening because this should not be Donald Trump 's judge . ''
Graham argued that he voted for two of President Barack Obama 's Supreme Court nominees , but the senator did not acknowledge that Judge Merrick Garland was never given a hearing .
`` She 's somebody that a Republican would pick , '' Graham said of Barrett .
`` Y'all have a good chance of winning the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , '' Klobuchar chimed in .
Watch the video below from CBS .
Lindsey Graham to Amy Klobuchar : ' Y'all have a good chance of winning the White House '

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Thursday asserted that Democrats "have a good chance" of defeating President Donald Trump in November.
During a hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) objected to the push to seat the Supreme Court nominee on the bench before the election.
"I just don't think you can separate this from the election that we are in," Klobuchar said. "I don't come out of this with cries of defeat? You know why? Because it's motivating more people to vote. You chose to do it in the middle of an election so let's all go out there and vote. That's what happening because this should not be Donald Trump's judge."
Graham argued that he voted for two of President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominees, but the senator did not acknowledge that Judge Merrick Garland was never given a hearing.
"She's somebody that a Republican would pick," Graham said of Barrett. "Y'all have a good chance of winning the White House."
"Thank you for acknowledging that," Klobuchar chimed in.
"Yeah, I think it's true," Graham remarked.
Watch the video below from CBS.


alternet--2020-10-15--Here are 4 ways Biden team's response to positive COVID test shows the breadth of Trumpworld's incom

Here are 4 ways Biden team's response to positive COVID test shows the breadth of Trumpworld's incompetence

The Democratic and Republican presidential campaigns ' response to the COVID-19 pandemic have differed vastly and their handling of internal outbreaks varies just as greatly .
On Thursday morning , Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden 's campaign announced that two staffers for vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) tested positive for coronavirus .
The campaign confirmed that Harris ' team has grounded all campaign travel despite her testing negative for latest COVID test and not being in close contact with the two infected staffers .
`` Regardless , out of an abundance of caution and in line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest levels of precaution , we are canceling Senator Harris 's travel through Sunday , October 18th , but she will keep a robust and aggressive schedule of virtual campaign activities to reach voters all across the country during this time , '' the statement read .
`` She will return to in-person campaigning on Monday , October 19th .
This is the sort of conduct we have continuously modeled in this campaign . ''
Biden 's campaign has been praised for its disclosures and upstanding transparency as many Twitter users have highlighted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in comparison to the Trump administration 's handling of the White House outbreak .
Here are a few glaring differences between the Biden campaign and the White House : Even after White House Senior Advisor Hope Hicks tested positive for coronavirus , the White House did not disclose the details .
It was n't until Bloomberg broke the story that the American public learned of her positive test .
The lack of transparency surrounding Hicks test only led to more questions when Trump tested positive less than two days later .
The White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refusal to share even basic details about the president 's health .
The White House has also failed to indicate when Trump 's last negative COVID test was .
When Trump was hospitalized , White House physician Sean Conley sparked a media firestorm when he offered a timeline of Trump 's COVID status that did not reflect the White House 's previous remarks .
Conley 's statements also raised speculation that Trump may have tested positive at an earlier date and may have traveled to campaign events in Minnesota and New Jersey with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While the Biden campaign has confirmed contact tracing efforts are already underway , the White House reportedly declined contact tracing assistance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) .
New York Times journalist Michael Shear also indicated that the White House made little to no effort to contact trace after the president tested positive despite more than 30 people connected to the White House and Rose Garden event also testing positive , according to CNN .
The White House 's blatant disregard for masks and Trump 's continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most stark differences between both presidential campaigns .
At all of Trump 's events , masks have been scarce and social distancing has been non-existent .
However , the Biden campaign still refuses to hold full in-person rallies out of an abundance of caution and consideration for the health of the American public .
As of Thursday , October 15 , there are more than

The Democratic and Republican presidential campaigns' response to the COVID-19 pandemic have differed vastly and their handling of internal outbreaks varies just as greatly.
On Thursday morning, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's campaign announced that two staffers for vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) tested positive for coronavirus. The campaign confirmed that Harris' team has grounded all campaign travel despite her testing negative for latest COVID test and not being in close contact with the two infected staffers.
"Regardless, out of an abundance of caution and in line with our campaign's commitment to the highest levels of precaution, we are canceling Senator Harris's travel through Sunday, October 18th, but she will keep a robust and aggressive schedule of virtual campaign activities to reach voters all across the country during this time," the statement read. "She will return to in-person campaigning on Monday, October 19th. This is the sort of conduct we have continuously modeled in this campaign."
Biden's campaign has been praised for its disclosures and upstanding transparency as many Twitter users have highlighted how it serves as a sharp contrast in comparison to the Trump administration's handling of the White House outbreak.
Here are a few glaring differences between the Biden campaign and the White House:
Transparency and Disclosure:
Even after White House Senior Advisor Hope Hicks tested positive for coronavirus, the White House did not disclose the details. It wasn't until Bloomberg broke the story that the American public learned of her positive test. The lack of transparency surrounding Hicks test only led to more questions when Trump tested positive less than two days later.
The White House has also faced scrutiny for its refusal to share even basic details about the president's health. The White House has also failed to indicate when Trump's last negative COVID test was.
Questionable Timelines:
When Trump was hospitalized, White House physician Sean Conley sparked a media firestorm when he offered a timeline of Trump's COVID status that did not reflect the White House's previous remarks. Conley's statements also raised speculation that Trump may have tested positive at an earlier date and may have traveled to campaign events in Minnesota and New Jersey with knowledge of Hicks' positive COVID status.
Contact Tracing:
While the Biden campaign has confirmed contact tracing efforts are already underway, the White House reportedly declined contact tracing assistance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). New York Times journalist Michael Shear also indicated that the White House made little to no effort to contact trace after the president tested positive despite more than 30 people connected to the White House and Rose Garden event also testing positive, according to CNN.
Disregard for Basic CDC Guidelines:
The White House's blatant disregard for masks and Trump's continued efforts to downplay the virus are likely the most stark differences between both presidential campaigns. At all of Trump's events, masks have been scarce and social distancing has been non-existent. However, the Biden campaign still refuses to hold full in-person rallies out of an abundance of caution and consideration for the health of the American public.
As of Thursday, October 15, there are more than


alternet--2020-10-15--Amy Coney Barrett ‘lied’ to Democratic senator over ties to anti-LGBTQ hate group: political scienti

Amy Coney Barrett ‘lied’ to Democratic senator over ties to anti-LGBTQ hate group: political scientist

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is being accused of lying to a top Democratic Senator in an apparent attempt to hide her ties to and awareness of an anti-LGBTQ hate group that advocates for the re-criminalization of homosexuality and sterilization of transgender people .
Judge Barrett has been paid by and given speeches to the Alliance Defending Freedom , a law firm that appears on the Southern Poverty Law Center 's list of anti-LGBTQ hate groups .
ADF advances its agenda by finding and litigating cases involving Christians who say they are being discriminated against for their faith by LGBTQ people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head of the Alliance Defending Freedom attended the announcement of Amy Coney Barrett 's # SCOTUS nomination in the Rose Garden , '' former US Senator Al Franken tweeted Wednesday .
He posted a devastating video ( below ) of him questioning Barrett in her 2017 judicial confirmation hearing .
The video then cuts to this week 's confirmation hearing , with Senator Pat Leahy ( D-VT ) asking her about the Alliance Defending Freedom .
`` Were you aware of ADF 's decades-long efforts to re-criminalize homosexuality ? ''
Leahy asked Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aware of those efforts , no , '' Barrett firmly responded .
Amy Coney Barrett Lying About Her Knowledge of the Alliance Defending Freedom ( ADF ) Franken adds , `` I questioned her about this in 2017 .
She spoke to them 5 times , took money from them , and is very , very , very aware of what they do . ''
Norman Orenstein , a top political scientist and a resident scholar at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute ( AEI ) , says Barrett `` lied .
@

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is being accused of lying to a top Democratic Senator in an apparent attempt to hide her ties to and awareness of an anti-LGBTQ hate group that advocates for the re-criminalization of homosexuality and sterilization of transgender people.
Judge Barrett has been paid by and given speeches to the Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that appears on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of anti-LGBTQ hate groups. ADF advances its agenda by finding and litigating cases involving Christians who say they are being discriminated against for their faith by LGBTQ people, often same-sex couples.
"The head of the Alliance Defending Freedom attended the announcement of Amy Coney Barrett's #SCOTUS nomination in the Rose Garden," former US Senator Al Franken tweeted Wednesday.
He posted a devastating video (below) of him questioning Barrett in her 2017 judicial confirmation hearing. The video then cuts to this week's confirmation hearing, with Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) asking her about the Alliance Defending Freedom.
"Were you aware of ADF's decades-long efforts to re-criminalize homosexuality?" Leahy asked Barrett on Tuesday.
"I am not aware of those efforts, no," Barrett firmly responded.
Amy Coney Barrett Lying About Her Knowledge of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) youtu.be
Franken adds, "I questioned her about this in 2017. She spoke to them 5 times, took money from them, and is very, very, very aware of what they do."
Norman Orenstein, a top political scientist and a resident scholar at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), says Barrett "lied."


alternet--2020-10-15--8 million forced into poverty since McConnell let relief expire: studies

The authors of two separate poverty studies out of three top universities said Thursday that their findings make the unmistakable case for more federal economic aid for families struggling to make ends meet during the coronavirus pandemic .
Seven months after Congress passed the CARES Act , which included expanded unemployment benefits and one-time direct payments of $ 1,200 for many adults and $ 500 per child , the package 's positive impact on poverty levels have already been reversed , according to a study by researchers at Columbia University 's Center on Poverty and Social Policy and one out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dame .
While the number of people living in poverty fell by about four million after the CARES Act was passed , the Columbia study found that eight million more Americans are now poor than were in May—signaling that the pandemic has plunged more people into poverty than before the crisis .
The University of Chicago and Notre Dame study found that six million people have fallen into poverty in the past three months .
Both reports found that the number of children living in poverty is rising , with 2.5 million more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporter Jeff Stein tweeted that the studies represent just one piece of bad news this week for families struggling with joblessness and the threat of Covid-19 , as an agreement between the White House and congressional Democrats and Republicans `` remains out of reach . ''
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) spoke with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Wednesday about a potential aid package , but the two sides came no closer to reaching a deal .
House Democrats want more direct aid for families while Republicans in the Senate proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with payroll assistance .
President Donald Trump has shown some support for a means-tested direct payment while the White House has objected to financing a nationwide coronavirus testing strategy as cases surpass 7.9 million .
As Common Dreams has reported , the CARES Act has been recognized as a significant piece of anti-poverty legislation , saving 12 million people from being pushed into poverty when it was passed in March .
The Columbia study found that in May , 18 million people were being kept out of poverty thanks to the direct payments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefits .
`` It was n't perfect , but hands down it 's the most successful thing we 've ever done in negating hardship , '' H. Luke Shaefer , a researcher at the University of Michigan , told the New York Times , which reported that millions of people—including undocumented immigrants and families who do n't have large enough incomes to file tax returns—were left out of the package .
A major shortcoming of the CARES Act , Columbia researcher Christopher Wimer told the Times , `` was its temporary nature .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lengths families are going to in order to stretch their dwindling incomes after facing layoffs and being forced to stay home from work to look after their children .
A woman in Michigan reported cutting back on her meals in order to keep her children fed , while a mother in California said her family has been eating only cold food like cereal for dinner to save on propane costs and that she attempted to undergo an invasive medical procedure to sell her eggs to a fertility clinic .
The numbers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerning , '' Bruce D. Meyer , co-author of the University of Chicago study , told the Times .
`` It 's really important that we reinstate some of the lost benefits . ''

The authors of two separate poverty studies out of three top universities said Thursday that their findings make the unmistakable case for more federal economic aid for families struggling to make ends meet during the coronavirus pandemic.
Seven months after Congress passed the CARES Act, which included expanded unemployment benefits and one-time direct payments of $1,200 for many adults and $500 per child, the package's positive impact on poverty levels have already been reversed, according to a study by researchers at Columbia University's Center on Poverty and Social Policy and one out of the University of Chicago and Notre Dame.
While the number of people living in poverty fell by about four million after the CARES Act was passed, the Columbia study found that eight million more Americans are now poor than were in May—signaling that the pandemic has plunged more people into poverty than before the crisis.
The University of Chicago and Notre Dame study found that six million people have fallen into poverty in the past three months. Both reports found that the number of children living in poverty is rising, with 2.5 million more poor children since May.
Washington Post reporter Jeff Stein tweeted that the studies represent just one piece of bad news this week for families struggling with joblessness and the threat of Covid-19, as an agreement between the White House and congressional Democrats and Republicans "remains out of reach."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) spoke with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Wednesday about a potential aid package, but the two sides came no closer to reaching a deal. House Democrats want more direct aid for families while Republicans in the Senate proposed a far more meager package last month with payroll assistance. President Donald Trump has shown some support for a means-tested direct payment while the White House has objected to financing a nationwide coronavirus testing strategy as cases surpass 7.9 million.
As Common Dreams has reported, the CARES Act has been recognized as a significant piece of anti-poverty legislation, saving 12 million people from being pushed into poverty when it was passed in March. The Columbia study found that in May, 18 million people were being kept out of poverty thanks to the direct payments and $600 per week enhanced unemployment benefits.
"It wasn't perfect, but hands down it's the most successful thing we've ever done in negating hardship," H. Luke Shaefer, a researcher at the University of Michigan, told the New York Times, which reported that millions of people—including undocumented immigrants and families who don't have large enough incomes to file tax returns—were left out of the package.
A major shortcoming of the CARES Act, Columbia researcher Christopher Wimer told the Times, "was its temporary nature."
The Times also detailed some of the lengths families are going to in order to stretch their dwindling incomes after facing layoffs and being forced to stay home from work to look after their children. A woman in Michigan reported cutting back on her meals in order to keep her children fed, while a mother in California said her family has been eating only cold food like cereal for dinner to save on propane costs and that she attempted to undergo an invasive medical procedure to sell her eggs to a fertility clinic.
The numbers and personal accounts of poverty "are very concerning," Bruce D. Meyer, co-author of the University of Chicago study, told the Times. "It's really important that we reinstate some of the lost benefits."


alternet--2020-10-15--‘Crusade for America’: James Carville hopes Trump’s ‘catastrophic defeat’ will end the country's dar

‘Crusade for America’: James Carville hopes Trump’s ‘catastrophic defeat’ will end the country's darkest hour

James Carville is not known for his contributions to right-wing websites .
But politics make strange bedfellows , and the veteran Democratic strategist finds some common ground with Never Trump Republicans in an October 15 article for the conservative website The Bulwark — arguing , in essence , that conservatives , liberals and centrists all have a mutual interest in removing President Donald Trump from office on Tuesday , November 3 .
`` Donald Trump 's authoritarian presence behind the Resolute Desk is amongst the gravest threats America has ever faced from within , '' the 75-year-old Carville stresses .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this threat . ''
Earlier this year — before former Vice President Joe Biden won the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination — Carville sounded pessimistic during his appearances on MSNBC .
Carville feared that Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont , if nominated , would be defeated by Trump in the general election .
But now , he is optimistic that Biden is headed for a landslide win .
And as Carville sees it , the United States ' `` darkest hour '' will end when Americans across the political spectrum reject Trump 's authoritarianism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constantly told that America is too divided , too hopelessly stricken by tribalism to come together anymore , '' Carville explains .
`` Well , I 'm here to proclaim that this received 'wisdom ' is just plain wrong .
If you were to run a cable wire through the heart of America right now , you would see an image of an exceedingly diverse coalition of people who challenge that assumption at its core .
You 'd see ( a ) suburban woman from a once-Republican stronghold in Maricopa County , Arizona @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a college student in Brooklyn , a Latina mom in Raleigh , a Black computer programmer in Houston — and yes , standing alongside even a former Trump voter in Wisconsin who has now changed his mind .
This coalition is exactly why an incumbent president is on the precipice of a catastrophic defeat . ''
According to Carville , `` This is more than a campaign .
This is a crusade for America . ''
Biden 's campaign is enjoying a wide range of support .
Everyone from staunch progressives like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York City to Never Trump conservatives such as Washington Post columnist George Will , former Ohio Gov .
John Kasich and Sen. John McCain 's widow , Cindy McCain , has been rooting for a Biden victory .
And Carville , in his Bulwark article , stresses that the importance of 2020 's presidential election goes way beyond the policy differences of Democrats and Republicans .
Americans all over the political spectrum , according to Carville , are determined to bring Trump 's presidency to an end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Carville writes , `` I will be 76 years old… .
I can say with certainty that in all my years , joining in this crusade to take America back from the brink of destruction is the greatest thing I have ever been a part of in my life .
This crusade is something noble . ''

James Carville is not known for his contributions to right-wing websites. But politics make strange bedfellows, and the veteran Democratic strategist finds some common ground with Never Trump Republicans in an October 15 article for the conservative website The Bulwark — arguing, in essence, that conservatives, liberals and centrists all have a mutual interest in removing President Donald Trump from office on Tuesday, November 3.
"Donald Trump's authoritarian presence behind the Resolute Desk is amongst the gravest threats America has ever faced from within," the 75-year-old Carville stresses. "And Americans have risen to meet this threat."
Earlier this year — before former Vice President Joe Biden won the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination — Carville sounded pessimistic during his appearances on MSNBC. Carville feared that Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, if nominated, would be defeated by Trump in the general election. But now, he is optimistic that Biden is headed for a landslide win. And as Carville sees it, the United States' "darkest hour" will end when Americans across the political spectrum reject Trump's authoritarianism on November 3.
"We are constantly told that America is too divided, too hopelessly stricken by tribalism to come together anymore," Carville explains. "Well, I'm here to proclaim that this received 'wisdom' is just plain wrong. If you were to run a cable wire through the heart of America right now, you would see an image of an exceedingly diverse coalition of people who challenge that assumption at its core. You'd see (a) suburban woman from a once-Republican stronghold in Maricopa County, Arizona standing alongside a retired grandfather in Florida, a college student in Brooklyn, a Latina mom in Raleigh, a Black computer programmer in Houston — and yes, standing alongside even a former Trump voter in Wisconsin who has now changed his mind. This coalition is exactly why an incumbent president is on the precipice of a catastrophic defeat."
According to Carville, "This is more than a campaign. This is a crusade for America."
Biden's campaign is enjoying a wide range of support. Everyone from staunch progressives like Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York City to Never Trump conservatives such as Washington Post columnist George Will, former Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Sen. John McCain's widow, Cindy McCain, has been rooting for a Biden victory. And Carville, in his Bulwark article, stresses that the importance of 2020's presidential election goes way beyond the policy differences of Democrats and Republicans. Americans all over the political spectrum, according to Carville, are determined to bring Trump's presidency to an end.
"In less than two weeks," Carville writes, "I will be 76 years old…. I can say with certainty that in all my years, joining in this crusade to take America back from the brink of destruction is the greatest thing I have ever been a part of in my life. This crusade is something noble."


alternet--2020-10-15--The GOP will try to destroy Biden's presidency — and they are laying the groundwork right now

The Republican Party may be facing an uphill battle to retain control of the Senate but , for the time being , they are already laying the groundwork to make Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden 's job quite difficult if he is elected in November .
Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent published an op-ed on Wednesday where he highlighted speculative details about Republican lawmakers ' latest strategies .
He recalled the recent heated exchange between CNN 's Wolfe Blitzer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) when the two discussed lawmakers ' ongoing impasse where stimulus negotiations are concerned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with just three short weeks until the general election , Republican lawmakers are still refusing to consider a sizable stimulus agreement with Democratic lawmakers and that might be a foreshadow of what is to come .
Sargent wrote , `` The short version : A Senate GOP strategist privately confided to Bloomberg that a key Republican goal right now is to lay the groundwork to revert hard to austerity , should Biden prevail , crippling the possibility of any serious stimulus efforts next year , even amid continued economic misery . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the speculation as it suggested Republicans are already setting the stage to maintain its hold of federal spending even if they lose control of the Senate : '' A GOP strategist who has been consulting with Senate campaigns said Republicans have been carefully laying the groundwork to restrain a Biden administration on federal spending and the budget deficit by talking up concerns about the price tag for another round of virus relief .
The thinking , the strategist said , is that it would be very hard politically to agree on spending trillions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embrace fiscal restraint . ''
Although Sargent acknowledged that the remarks did come an anonymous source , it also aligns with what is being speculated and all that has transpired in recent weeks .
The WaPo journalist noted that Republican lawmakers are apprehensive about another stimulus package because they are not certain even that will secure a second presidential term for Trump .
At this point , Republican lawmakers may be working to place Biden in a `` fiscal straitjacket '' to `` [ saddle ] him with the terrible politics of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report '' A big package now under a GOP president would make that harder to get away with .
That 's bad enough , but the evolving strategy here may be worse than this suggests , '' Sargent wrote .
`` The calculation is probably not just about avoiding the hypocrisy of spending big now and embracing austerity under a Democratic president . ''

The Republican Party may be facing an uphill battle to retain control of the Senate but, for the time being, they are already laying the groundwork to make Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's job quite difficult if he is elected in November.
Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent published an op-ed on Wednesday where he highlighted speculative details about Republican lawmakers' latest strategies. He recalled the recent heated exchange between CNN's Wolfe Blitzer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) when the two discussed lawmakers' ongoing impasse where stimulus negotiations are concerned.
He also noted that even now, with just three short weeks until the general election, Republican lawmakers are still refusing to consider a sizable stimulus agreement with Democratic lawmakers and that might be a foreshadow of what is to come.
Sargent wrote, "The short version: A Senate GOP strategist privately confided to Bloomberg that a key Republican goal right now is to lay the groundwork to revert hard to austerity, should Biden prevail, crippling the possibility of any serious stimulus efforts next year, even amid continued economic misery."
A new report published by Bloomberg detailed the speculation as it suggested Republicans are already setting the stage to maintain its hold of federal spending even if they lose control of the Senate:
"A GOP strategist who has been consulting with Senate campaigns said Republicans have been carefully laying the groundwork to restrain a Biden administration on federal spending and the budget deficit by talking up concerns about the price tag for another round of virus relief. The thinking, the strategist said, is that it would be very hard politically to agree on spending trillions more now and then in January suddenly embrace fiscal restraint."
Although Sargent acknowledged that the remarks did come an anonymous source, it also aligns with what is being speculated and all that has transpired in recent weeks. The WaPo journalist noted that Republican lawmakers are apprehensive about another stimulus package because they are not certain even that will secure a second presidential term for Trump.
At this point, Republican lawmakers may be working to place Biden in a "fiscal straitjacket" to "[saddle] him with the terrible politics of a grueling recovery," according to the report
"A big package now under a GOP president would make that harder to get away with. That's bad enough, but the evolving strategy here may be worse than this suggests," Sargent wrote. "The calculation is probably not just about avoiding the hypocrisy of spending big now and embracing austerity under a Democratic president."