alternet--2020-10-12--America needs to burn down the Republican court-packing program

Top Republicans are beginning to genuinely believe the Democratic Party is going to take the House , Senate and presidency in a rout in November 's elections .
That 's the subtext behind a new , coordinated spate of vapor-having over the thought that the next Democratic president might `` pack the courts , '' quote-unquote , filling new roles in the judiciary with qualified , non-arch-conservative jurors in an attempt to at least partially undo Republican efforts to stuff that judiciary with Brett Kavanaughs , Amy Coney Barretts , and anyone else willing to hew to deceased Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Founding Fathers `` meant '' whatever they are required to have `` meant '' to defend his vote for Whatever Conservatism Wants This Particular Day .
So we 're getting television appearances like this , in which Republican Sen. Ben Sasse finds it very , very upsetting that any party other than his own would engage in such alarming `` suicide bombing '' of gubbermint .
Or at least , that 's the plan .
The plan was probably not supposed to include Sen. Mitch McConnell , who may or may not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself as he plunges forward on getting one last Supreme Court seat filled , flat-out admitting to and laughing about his role sabotaging the nominations process during the Obama years in order to stuff the judiciary with ideological allies when Republicanism next captured the White House .
Tee-tee .
We have such fun , we do , on Fox News .
The Senate 's own Grim Reaper is underselling his role , if anything .
The Republican Party has worked steadily to `` pack '' the courts with arch-conservative ideologues for a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adopted , to use Ben Sasse 's script , a host of `` weirdly Orwellian '' faux-beliefs to do it .
By President Barack Obama 's second term Republicans allied themselves around the peculiar notion that merely nominating would-be judges to the courts amounted to `` court-packing '' —the theory being , in the Republican mind , that any Democratic president doing roughly anything the Constitution tasks them with doing is inherently illegitimate because it 's not a Republican doing it .
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley , who has been a snake for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in claiming any nomination whatsoever counted as `` packing . ''
He was joined by , of course , Sen. Mitch McConnell in his protestations , as well as many others .
It 's garbage .
It 's always garbage , every time , insincere and malevolent and gross .
It is the reason the party slid so easily into idolatry and fascism : The combination of weaponized dishonesty with the blunt dismissal of the legitimacy of opponents to govern , even if elected by the public to do so .
It 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes in office and count on Mitch McConnell and his party to immunize him from consequences .
When the rules are `` anything your side does counts as a crime , and anything my side does counts as patriotism , '' thuggery will inevitably follow .
The notion that Democrats were not allowed to fill any vacancies was not a McConnell invention .
It was the height of conservative intellectualism , or what was left of it , to assert the new ascendency of one-party rule .
After Scalia 's death and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , qualified or not , McConnell and likeminded party authoritarians vowed that they would hold the seat open for `` four years '' if necessary , that is if Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton won , and that for that matter the Supreme Court did n't need nine justices at all , so there .
And yes , the notion of indefinitely blocking Democratic judicial appointees , for as many years as necessary until Republicans could re-seize power , was supported by Republican senators from Ted Cruz to John McCain .
We 've been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left this point , in fact ; Republicans may have now slid into abject Dear Leaderism , but Trump 's stubby-fingered notion that him breaking previous norms and rules is Legitimate while Democratic moves are relentlessly cast as either outrageous or `` criminal '' is how conservatism has operated for two decades .
This is it .
This is why their base fell so readily into the authoritarian mantras : It was Mitch McConnell 's mantra long before Trump ever took up the chant .
The difference now is that Donald Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even a little grace , far more comfortable with the rhetoric of overt authoritarianism than pussyfooting around on the edges , and so the full implications are on display for all to see .
Long-held Republican ideologies are now being displayed in the nude , and it 's not a pretty sight .
The current extremely coordinated tag-team fainting couch routines are , in other words , bullshit .
We 've seen that the primary rule of Republicanism is that only rules that benefit Republicanism apply .
We 've seen , over and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ split into firewood when necessary , and whenever necessary .
The Republican `` president '' is making millions in cash from supplicants using his businesses as the bases from which they can ask—and get—government favors .
The Republican `` president '' is doing Not A Goddamn Thing to stifle a nationwide pandemic , in part because the Team of Elite Conservative Incompetents came to an early conclusion that the deaths would happen mostly in Democratic states .
McConnell has been declaring the Senate to have new rules whenever it suits him—but by God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be scandalous to press further .
It 's bullshit .
The party was willing to turn itself into an organized crime ring , if that is what it took to prop up embed often-unqualified archconservatives into roles throughout government .
It can bleat all it wants about efforts to undo the damage , but it remains insincere .
Presuming Democrats ever win elections again , and that Trump 's Republican allies resist the temptation to declare democracy in the United States dead and invalid rather than transfer power back to authorities who might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes to widespread , maudlin corruption , there will be a host of efforts required to patch the nation 's government back into something resembling working , non-crooked order .
It will require—require , flat-out—prosecutions of officials who broke U.S. laws .
It will require reestablishing neutrality of the judiciary , rather than abandoning it as permanent fixture of would-be authoritarian rule .
That may require expanding some courts .
It may require investigations of nominees who sailed through the McConnell-led system with covered-up records .
Fascism is not something that can simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ govern .
It is a wholly illegitimate form of government .
It can not coexist with democracy .
It must be purged .
When it comes down to repairing our systems , any judge willing to work with the absurdly crooked Donald Trump to further their own careers seems definitionally , to me , unqualified for their office , but impeaching the whole damn lot of them is not likely to be something our still-divided government could do .
Hosing down the Republican effort to corrupt the judiciary , however—turning the grand fortress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mess—is a decent compromise position .
It may literally be the most `` moderate '' possible response .

Top Republicans are beginning to genuinely believe the Democratic Party is going to take the House, Senate and presidency in a rout in November's elections. That's the subtext behind a new, coordinated spate of vapor-having over the thought that the next Democratic president might "pack the courts," quote-unquote, filling new roles in the judiciary with qualified, non-arch-conservative jurors in an attempt to at least partially undo Republican efforts to stuff that judiciary with Brett Kavanaughs, Amy Coney Barretts, and anyone else willing to hew to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's ideological belief that the Founding Fathers "meant" whatever they are required to have "meant" to defend his vote for Whatever Conservatism Wants This Particular Day.
So we're getting television appearances like this, in which Republican Sen. Ben Sasse finds it very, very upsetting that any party other than his own would engage in such alarming "suicide bombing" of gubbermint.
Or at least, that's the plan. The plan was probably not supposed to include Sen. Mitch McConnell, who may or may not be hiding a positive COVID-19 test result himself as he plunges forward on getting one last Supreme Court seat filled, flat-out admitting to and laughing about his role sabotaging the nominations process during the Obama years in order to stuff the judiciary with ideological allies when Republicanism next captured the White House.
Tee-tee. We have such fun, we do, on Fox News.
The Senate's own Grim Reaper is underselling his role, if anything. The Republican Party has worked steadily to "pack" the courts with arch-conservative ideologues for a lot longer than a few years, and adopted, to use Ben Sasse's script, a host of "weirdly Orwellian" faux-beliefs to do it. By President Barack Obama's second term Republicans allied themselves around the peculiar notion that merely nominating would-be judges to the courts amounted to "court-packing"—the theory being, in the Republican mind, that any Democratic president doing roughly anything the Constitution tasks them with doing is inherently illegitimate because it's not a Republican doing it.
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who has been a snake for his entire career, was very insistent in claiming any nomination whatsoever counted as "packing." He was joined by, of course, Sen. Mitch McConnell in his protestations, as well as many others.
It's garbage. It's always garbage, every time, insincere and malevolent and gross. It is the reason the party slid so easily into idolatry and fascism: The combination of weaponized dishonesty with the blunt dismissal of the legitimacy of opponents to govern, even if elected by the public to do so. It's also the reason Donald Trump can commit crimes in office and count on Mitch McConnell and his party to immunize him from consequences. When the rules are "anything your side does counts as a crime, and anything my side does counts as patriotism," thuggery will inevitably follow.
The notion that Democrats were not allowed to fill any vacancies was not a McConnell invention. It was the height of conservative intellectualism, or what was left of it, to assert the new ascendency of one-party rule.
After Scalia's death and the Republican refusal to confirm any Obama-nominated replacement, qualified or not, McConnell and likeminded party authoritarians vowed that they would hold the seat open for "four years" if necessary, that is if Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton won, and that for that matter the Supreme Court didn't need nine justices at all, so there. And yes, the notion of indefinitely blocking Democratic judicial appointees, for as many years as necessary until Republicans could re-seize power, was supported by Republican senators from Ted Cruz to John McCain.
We've been here before. We've never much left this point, in fact; Republicans may have now slid into abject Dear Leaderism, but Trump's stubby-fingered notion that him breaking previous norms and rules is Legitimate while Democratic moves are relentlessly cast as either outrageous or "criminal" is how conservatism has operated for two decades. This is it. This is why their base fell so readily into the authoritarian mantras: It was Mitch McConnell's mantra long before Trump ever took up the chant.
The difference now is that Donald Trump is too brickheaded to perform the routine with even a little grace, far more comfortable with the rhetoric of overt authoritarianism than pussyfooting around on the edges, and so the full implications are on display for all to see. Long-held Republican ideologies are now being displayed in the nude, and it's not a pretty sight.
The current extremely coordinated tag-team fainting couch routines are, in other words, bullshit. We've seen that the primary rule of Republicanism is that only rules that benefit Republicanism apply. We've seen, over and over, longstanding norms be toppled and split into firewood when necessary, and whenever necessary. The Republican "president" is making millions in cash from supplicants using his businesses as the bases from which they can ask—and get—government favors. The Republican "president" is doing Not A Goddamn Thing to stifle a nationwide pandemic, in part because the Team of Elite Conservative Incompetents came to an early conclusion that the deaths would happen mostly in Democratic states. McConnell has been declaring the Senate to have new rules whenever it suits him—but by God, if Democrats take over it would be scandalous to press further.
It's bullshit. The party was willing to turn itself into an organized crime ring, if that is what it took to prop up embed often-unqualified archconservatives into roles throughout government. It can bleat all it wants about efforts to undo the damage, but it remains insincere.
Presuming Democrats ever win elections again, and that Trump's Republican allies resist the temptation to declare democracy in the United States dead and invalid rather than transfer power back to authorities who might not look the other way when it comes to widespread, maudlin corruption, there will be a host of efforts required to patch the nation's government back into something resembling working, non-crooked order. It will require—require, flat-out—prosecutions of officials who broke U.S. laws. It will require reestablishing neutrality of the judiciary, rather than abandoning it as permanent fixture of would-be authoritarian rule.
That may require expanding some courts. It may require investigations of nominees who sailed through the McConnell-led system with covered-up records.
Fascism is not something that can simply be worked around, in trying to govern. It is a wholly illegitimate form of government. It cannot coexist with democracy. It must be purged. When it comes down to repairing our systems, any judge willing to work with the absurdly crooked Donald Trump to further their own careers seems definitionally, to me, unqualified for their office, but impeaching the whole damn lot of them is not likely to be something our still-divided government could do.
Hosing down the Republican effort to corrupt the judiciary, however—turning the grand fortress of conservative obstruction into a soggy cardboard mess—is a decent compromise position. It may literally be the most "moderate" possible response.


alternet--2020-10-12--What else is Amy Coney Barrett hiding?

What else is Amy Coney Barrett hiding?

On the eve of Judge Amy Coney Barrett 's first confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee , the panel 's Democrats on Sunday demanded the right-wing Supreme Court nominee release any additional information she has withheld from lawmakers after new reporting revealed that she failed to disclose a pair of talks to anti-abortion groups and other materials .
After CNN reported Friday that Barrett omitted from her initial Senate questionnaire two talks she gave to student anti-abortion organizations at Notre Dame University in 2013 , the judge submitted to the Judiciary Committee a supplement ( pdf ) disclosing both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also informed the committee that while serving as a law professor at the University of Notre Dame , she signed onto a 2013 paid advertisement criticizing Roe v. Wade .
Following Barrett 's belated disclosures—which did not include the content of the talks—all ten Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter ( pdf ) demanding to know what else the corporate-friendly judge is withholding as Republicans rush ahead with her confirmation process despite a coronavirus outbreak on Capitol Hill and widespread opposition to the nominee among legal experts and civil rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Judge Barrett supplemented her [ Senate Judiciary Questionnaire ] to include these talks only after they were identified by the press , '' the lawmakers wrote .
`` These new omissions raise more questions about the reliability of Judge Barrett 's SJQ and her candor before the Committee .
These new omissions also raise serious concerns about Judge Barrett 's rushed confirmation process and the hasty process of collecting materials responsive to the SJQ . ''
In a statement on Sunday , Christopher Kang , chief counsel at advocacy group Demand Justice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of dollars in spending from dark-money organizations— '' should not move forward without a full accounting of her past speeches and links to these groups that she has clearly sought to downplay or hide . ''
`` Amy Coney Barrett needs to come clean about her ties to far-right organizations and produce more information on the speeches she gave about Roe v. Wade , '' said Kang .
`` By repeatedly failing to disclose relevant information to the Senate , she has forfeited the benefit of the doubt . ''
Barrett 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scheduled to begin at 9:00am ET , is expected to be met with protests from outside advocacy groups as well as pushback from Senate Democrats , who are under pressure to do everything in their power to slow or prevent the right-wing judge 's confirmation to the high court .
`` If Senate leadership forces a nominee before the next Congress and president are installed , it would deprive the people of their voice and further destabilize a nation already gripped by crisis , '' said Ana Maria Archila , co-executive director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ join a march to the Hart Senate Office Building and demand entry into Barrett 's hearing Monday morning .
`` We 're mobilizing all those who believe in freedom , equality , and justice to engage in direct action to put pressure on both key Senate Republicans as well as Democrats to ensure that this confirmation is delayed , '' said Archila .
Adopting one of the tactics proposed in a memo circulating on Capitol Hill , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) said Sunday that `` Democrats will not supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee 's hearing on Thursday , when the panel is expected to begin voting to advance Barrett 's nomination to the full Senate .
Schumer 's move could complicate the voting process for the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee , given that four GOP members have been forced to quarantine after testing positive for the coronavirus or coming into contact with someone who did .
Under committee rules , nine members—including at least two from the minority party—must be present for a vote to take place .

On the eve of Judge Amy Coney Barrett's first confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the panel's Democrats on Sunday demanded the right-wing Supreme Court nominee release any additional information she has withheld from lawmakers after new reporting revealed that she failed to disclose a pair of talks to anti-abortion groups and other materials.
After CNNreported Friday that Barrett omitted from her initial Senate questionnaire two talks she gave to student anti-abortion organizations at Notre Dame University in 2013, the judge submitted to the Judiciary Committee a supplement (pdf) disclosing both a lecture and a seminar. Barrett also informed the committee that while serving as a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, she signed onto a 2013 paid advertisement criticizing Roe v. Wade.
Following Barrett's belated disclosures—which did not include the content of the talks—all ten Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter (pdf) demanding to know what else the corporate-friendly judge is withholding as Republicans rush ahead with her confirmation process despite a coronavirus outbreak on Capitol Hill and widespread opposition to the nominee among legal experts and civil rights groups.
"It is troubling that Judge Barrett supplemented her [Senate Judiciary Questionnaire] to include these talks only after they were identified by the press," the lawmakers wrote. "These new omissions raise more questions about the reliability of Judge Barrett's SJQ and her candor before the Committee. These new omissions also raise serious concerns about Judge Barrett's rushed confirmation process and the hasty process of collecting materials responsive to the SJQ."
In a statement on Sunday, Christopher Kang, chief counsel at advocacy group Demand Justice, said that Barrett nomination—fueled by tens of millions of dollars in spending from dark-money organizations—"should not move forward without a full accounting of her past speeches and links to these groups that she has clearly sought to downplay or hide."
"Amy Coney Barrett needs to come clean about her ties to far-right organizations and produce more information on the speeches she gave about Roe v. Wade," said Kang. "By repeatedly failing to disclose relevant information to the Senate, she has forfeited the benefit of the doubt."
Barrett's first Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Monday, scheduled to begin at 9:00am ET, is expected to be met with protests from outside advocacy groups as well as pushback from Senate Democrats, who are under pressure to do everything in their power to slow or prevent the right-wing judge's confirmation to the high court.
"If Senate leadership forces a nominee before the next Congress and president are installed, it would deprive the people of their voice and further destabilize a nation already gripped by crisis," said Ana Maria Archila, co-executive director of CPD Action, which is planning to join a march to the Hart Senate Office Building and demand entry into Barrett's hearing Monday morning.
"We're mobilizing all those who believe in freedom, equality, and justice to engage in direct action to put pressure on both key Senate Republicans as well as Democrats to ensure that this confirmation is delayed," said Archila.
Adopting one of the tactics proposed in a memo circulating on Capitol Hill, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Sunday that "Democrats will not supply the quorum" for the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on Thursday, when the panel is expected to begin voting to advance Barrett's nomination to the full Senate.
Schumer's move could complicate the voting process for the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee, given that four GOP members have been forced to quarantine after testing positive for the coronavirus or coming into contact with someone who did. Under committee rules, nine members—including at least two from the minority party—must be present for a vote to take place.


alternet--2020-10-12--Susan Collins wrote legislation that made millions for her husband's consulting firm

Sen. Susan Collins , R-Maine , who finds herself trailing Democratic challenger Sara Gideon in a hotly contested election battle with national implications , wrote contracting reforms as a member of the Senate Government Affairs Committee that appear to have directly benefited the lobbying and consulting firm of her future husband 's lobbying and consulting firm .
While that firm had some contracts that coincided with Collins ' tenure on the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee , it also landed a major $ 48 million contract with the U.S. Agency for International Development ( USAID ) in 2013 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from that committee .
Collins first met Thomas Daffron in 1974 when she was an intern in the office of Rep. William Cohen , who went on to serve three terms in the Senate .
( Cohen , a Republican , has endorsed Collins for re-election to the Senate — and Joe Biden for president . )
Daffron served as a consultant on Collins ' 1996 , 2002 and 2008 Senate campaigns , and ran her leadership PAC from 2003 until 2012 , when they married .
Collins signed over power of attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ townhouse in Washington , public records show .
From 2006 to 2016 , Daffron was chief operating officer at a K Street lobby shop called Jefferson Consulting , which also did some government contracting work .
The firm took in nearly $ 60 million in federal contracts during his time there , with a significant increase after he became COO .
For most of that time , from 2005 to 2012 , Collins either chaired or served as a senior GOP member of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee , whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had `` suggested [ Collins ] join the less desirable Government Affairs Committee , '' the Portland Press Herald reported in 2001 .
While on the committee , Collins wrote contractor reform designed to `` strengthen the procurement workforce , '' an area in which Jefferson Consulting specialized , securing tens of millions of dollars in government contracts related to acquisition services .
One such measure was a piece of contracting reform signed into law as part of the 2008 defense budget .
After the budget passed , Collins singled out acquisition language @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pleased that important reforms to the federal acquisition workforce were also included . ''
The association representing government contractors `` by and large '' supported Collins ' bill , calling it a `` serious effort to address the root causes of the government 's challenges with acquisition . ''
Between 2006 and 2016 , Daffron 's firm landed more than $ 76 million spread across dozens of federal contracts related to acquisition and procurement , according to searches on USAspending.gov .
In 2010 , Jefferson Consulting reported providing acquisitions services and support to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific provisions included with Collins ' 2007 contract reforms appear to have benefited Daffron 's firm directly , by adding new requirements for acquisition services that Jefferson specialized in .
For instance , one item imposed new requirements on chief acquisition officers at each federal agency , at a time when Jefferson Consulting held a $ 331,000 contract to providing services to the Department of Homeland Security 's Office of the Chief Procurement Officer .
( Collins ' committee had oversight of Homeland Security . )
Another provision required the Office of Federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prepare an `` acquisition workforce development strategic plan . ''
Daffron 's firm later reported helping the Federal Acquisition Institute with `` Strategic Assessments of Acquisition Operations/Acquisition Workforce Studies '' — as captured in April 2010 , the earliest available version of Jefferson Consulting 's website on the Internet Archive .
Collins also created a new `` acquisitions administrator '' charged with overseeing the acquisition workforce and developing a strategic plan for the acquisition workforce .
Jefferson claimed on its site that it had provided eight federal agencies with `` strategic assessments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Collins ' reform bill required USAID to revise its strategy to address acquisition problems in Afghanistan .
In 2013 , the year after Collins left the Senate Homeland Security committee , Jefferson Consulting secured a $ 49 million contract with USAID for procurement support services , according to government spending records .
Two years later , the firm announced it had landed a $ 33 million acquisition contract with USAID .
Neither Collins ' office nor Jefferson Consulting replied to Salon 's request for comment .

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who finds herself trailing Democratic challenger Sara Gideon in a hotly contested election battle with national implications, wrote contracting reforms as a member of the Senate Government Affairs Committee that appear to have directly benefited the lobbying and consulting firm of her future husband's lobbying and consulting firm.
While that firm had some contracts that coincided with Collins' tenure on the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, it also landed a major $48 million contract with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2013 — the year after Collins stepped away from that committee.
Collins first met Thomas Daffron in 1974 when she was an intern in the office of Rep. William Cohen, who went on to serve three terms in the Senate. (Cohen, a Republican, has endorsed Collins for re-election to the Senate — and Joe Biden for president.)
Daffron served as a consultant on Collins' 1996, 2002 and 2008 Senate campaigns, and ran her leadership PAC from 2003 until 2012, when they married. Collins signed over power of attorney when the couple bought a $705,000 townhouse in Washington, public records show.
From 2006 to 2016, Daffron was chief operating officer at a K Street lobby shop called Jefferson Consulting, which also did some government contracting work. The firm took in nearly $60 million in federal contracts during his time there, with a significant increase after he became COO.
For most of that time, from 2005 to 2012, Collins either chaired or served as a senior GOP member of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, whose portfolio includes government contracting oversight. Daffron had "suggested [Collins] join the less desirable Government Affairs Committee," the Portland Press Herald reported in 2001.
Tom Daffron, a 16-year Cohen staffer who worked with Collins, created her campaign advertising and suggested she join the less desirable Government Affairs Committee because of the opportunity for high-profile work. A shrewd choice, as she became the first freshman to lead the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations with a staff that enhanced her own. Daffron remains a close friend and one of the top advisers in her 'kitchen cabinet,' sources said.
While on the committee, Collins wrote contractor reform designed to "strengthen the procurement workforce," an area in which Jefferson Consulting specialized, securing tens of millions of dollars in government contracts related to acquisition services.
One such measure was a piece of contracting reform signed into law as part of the 2008 defense budget. After the budget passed, Collins singled out acquisition language, saying that she was "particularly pleased that important reforms to the federal acquisition workforce were also included."
The association representing government contractors "by and large" supported Collins' bill, calling it a "serious effort to address the root causes of the government's challenges with acquisition."
Between 2006 and 2016, Daffron's firm landed more than $76 million spread across dozens of federal contracts related to acquisition and procurement, according to searches on USAspending.gov. In 2010, Jefferson Consulting reported providing acquisitions services and support to nearly two dozen federal agencies.
Certain specific provisions included with Collins' 2007 contract reforms appear to have benefited Daffron's firm directly, by adding new requirements for acquisition services that Jefferson specialized in.
For instance, one item imposed new requirements on chief acquisition officers at each federal agency, at a time when Jefferson Consulting held a $331,000 contract to providing services to the Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Chief Procurement Officer. (Collins' committee had oversight of Homeland Security.)
Another provision required the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the Federal Acquisition Institute to prepare an "acquisition workforce development strategic plan." Daffron's firm later reported helping the Federal Acquisition Institute with "Strategic Assessments of Acquisition Operations/Acquisition Workforce Studies" — as captured in April 2010, the earliest available version of Jefferson Consulting's website on the Internet Archive.
Collins also created a new "acquisitions administrator" charged with overseeing the acquisition workforce and developing a strategic plan for the acquisition workforce. Jefferson claimed on its site that it had provided eight federal agencies with "strategic assessments of acquisition operations."
Finally, Collins' reform bill required USAID to revise its strategy to address acquisition problems in Afghanistan. In 2013, the year after Collins left the Senate Homeland Security committee, Jefferson Consulting secured a $49 million contract with USAID for procurement support services, according to government spending records. Two years later, the firm announced it had landed a $33 million acquisition contract with USAID.
Neither Collins' office nor Jefferson Consulting replied to Salon's request for comment.


alternet--2020-10-13--It's time to unpack the court

It's time to unpack the court

Donald Trump was bragging a week or so ago that Obama had `` left me 128 judges to fill '' as if Obama was just sloppy .
The actual number was 105 , but Obama did n't `` leave '' them ; he 'd appointed genuinely qualified people , many women and minorities , to fill every single one of those judicial slots , and Mitch McConnell simply blocked them in the senate for the last two years of the Obama presidency .
McConnell even blocked Obama 's appointment of a brilliant Black attorney , Myra Selby , to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seat open for Amy Coney Barrett , who now occupies that stolen seat in her first job as a federal judge .
McConnell also blocked Obama 's appointment of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court nearly a year before the election so rightwing hack Neil Gorsuch could get the seat instead , as soon as Donald Trump was sworn in .
As a result , Trump and McConnell have gotten over 200 federal judges and two Supreme Court Justices through the Senate , meaning over a quarter of all federal judges have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump and virtually 100 % of them have been straight and white , the overwhelming majority men .
This is court-packing on a scale that is nearly unprecedented , and refusing to even hold hearings on Judge Garland is totally unprecedented .
In 1863 , Abraham Lincoln wanted to get a solid vote on the court against slavery , so he and his Republican colleagues who controlled the Senate and the House increased the number of Supreme Court justices all the way up to 10 .
Two years later , when Lincoln was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Congress reduced the size of the Court specifically to deny Johnson an opportunity to appoint any justices .
After Johnson left office , Republican President Ulysses Grant oversaw Congress increasing the size of the Supreme Court back up to nine .
Similarly , after the brutal `` Revolution of 1800 '' election , President Thomas Jefferson increased the size of the Court so that he could put a new justice on it after former President John Adams , during the lame duck session , had packed the federal judiciary on his way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national crisis , changing the composition of the Court by changing the number of justices has been done repeatedly .
Court packing and unpacking have a long tradition in America .
Mitch McConnell has been packing the federal courts for six years now , and , as a result , the nation is calling out for rebalancing .
Biden and Harris need to stop avoiding the question and point out that six years of unprecedented partisan actions by Mitch McConnell have left our courts , particularly our Supreme Court , badly out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways to restore that balance , and all need to be examined , including blocking the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett and increasing the size of the Supreme Court .

Donald Trump was bragging a week or so ago that Obama had "left me 128 judges to fill" as if Obama was just sloppy. The actual number was 105, but Obama didn't "leave" them; he'd appointed genuinely qualified people, many women and minorities, to fill every single one of those judicial slots, and Mitch McConnell simply blocked them in the senate for the last two years of the Obama presidency.
McConnell even blocked Obama's appointment of a brilliant Black attorney, Myra Selby, to the Seventh Circuit Court just to keep the seat open for Amy Coney Barrett, who now occupies that stolen seat in her first job as a federal judge.
McConnell also blocked Obama's appointment of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court nearly a year before the election so rightwing hack Neil Gorsuch could get the seat instead, as soon as Donald Trump was sworn in.
As a result, Trump and McConnell have gotten over 200 federal judges and two Supreme Court Justices through the Senate, meaning over a quarter of all federal judges have been packed into our court system by Trump and virtually 100% of them have been straight and white, the overwhelming majority men.
This is court-packing on a scale that is nearly unprecedented, and refusing to even hold hearings on Judge Garland is totally unprecedented.
In 1863, Abraham Lincoln wanted to get a solid vote on the court against slavery, so he and his Republican colleagues who controlled the Senate and the House increased the number of Supreme Court justices all the way up to 10.
Two years later, when Lincoln was assassinated and slaveholder Andrew Johnson became president, Congress reduced the size of the Court specifically to deny Johnson an opportunity to appoint any justices.
After Johnson left office, Republican President Ulysses Grant oversaw Congress increasing the size of the Supreme Court back up to nine.
Similarly, after the brutal "Revolution of 1800" election, President Thomas Jefferson increased the size of the Court so that he could put a new justice on it after former President John Adams, during the lame duck session, had packed the federal judiciary on his way out of office.
During times of national crisis, changing the composition of the Court by changing the number of justices has been done repeatedly.
Court packing and unpacking have a long tradition in America.
Mitch McConnell has been packing the federal courts for six years now, and, as a result, the nation is calling out for rebalancing. Biden and Harris need to stop avoiding the question and point out that six years of unprecedented partisan actions by Mitch McConnell have left our courts, particularly our Supreme Court, badly out of balance.
There are a variety of ways to restore that balance, and all need to be examined, including blocking the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett and increasing the size of the Supreme Court.


alternet--2020-10-12--Dr. Fauci says the Trump campaign is 'harassing' him — and warns it could backfire

Dr. Anthony Fauci is raising his voice and raising the stakes in the battle begun by the Trump campaign against him , and now he 's hitting back hard .
The president 's campaign put out a video that takes remarks Fauci , the nation 's top infectious disease expert , made in support of the coronavirus task force .
But the Trump campaign re-cut those remarks to make them look like Fauci was praising and effectively endorsing President Donald Trump .
He was not .
`` By doing this against my will , they are in effect harassing me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` Since campaign ads are about getting votes , their harassment of me might have the opposite effect of turning some voters off . ''
Earlier Monday Fauci had told CNN , `` I think it 's really unfortunate and really disappointing that they did that , '' he said , referring to using him in an ad without his consent , `` it 's so clear that I 'm not a political person . ''
Told the Trump campaign might put out a second ad highlighting him , Dr. Fauci said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outrageous '' and might `` backfire . ''
Does that mean he might resign ?
`` Not in my wildest freakin dreams , '' he told The Beast , `` did I ever think about quitting . ''

Dr. Anthony Fauci is raising his voice and raising the stakes in the battle begun by the Trump campaign against him, and now he's hitting back hard.
The president's campaign put out a video that takes remarks Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, made in support of the coronavirus task force. But the Trump campaign re-cut those remarks to make them look like Fauci was praising and effectively endorsing President Donald Trump. He was not.
"By doing this against my will, they are in effect harassing me," Fauci told The Daily Beast. "Since campaign ads are about getting votes, their harassment of me might have the opposite effect of turning some voters off."
Earlier Monday Fauci had told CNN, "I think it's really unfortunate and really disappointing that they did that," he said, referring to using him in an ad without his consent, "it's so clear that I'm not a political person."
Told the Trump campaign might put out a second ad highlighting him, Dr. Fauci said if they did it would be "outrageous" and might "backfire."
Does that mean he might resign?
"Not a chance," Fauci said.
"Not in my wildest freakin dreams," he told The Beast, "did I ever think about quitting."


alternet--2020-10-12--'He's a con man': Trump brought out the worst in us when we needed the best

Jackie Anklam realized that Donald Trump was failing the American people when her father died of complications of COVID-19 in a Michigan hospital that ran short of personal protective equipment ( PPE ) for its workers .
What outrages her more is that , several months later , Trump not only refuses to learn from his early blunders but blithely flouts the safety measures critical to slowing the virus .
Instead of leading the nation to safety , Trump downplays the pandemic for personal political gain and divides Americans when they most need to pull together .
`` He does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this .
He does n't even care about giving it to someone , '' said Anklam , noting Trump refused to wear a mask and defied social distancing requirements while health experts warned that such reckless behavior contributed to the rising death toll .
After seeking treatment for his own infection , Anklam observed , Trump took a joyride outside Walter Reed National Military Medical Center , potentially exposing the Secret Service agents in his SUV to COVID-19 just so he could wave to supporters .
And after cutting short his hospital stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump still refused to wear a mask even though he risked infecting everyone who came into contact with him , including the photographer forced to snap his picture while he posed on a balcony .
`` The president is supposed to put the American people first .
He has done everything except that .
He has put every American at risk , '' said Anklam , president of United Steelworkers ( USW ) Local 9899 , who believes her father contracted pneumonia and died because of PPE shortages and infection-control problems in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 months after the pandemic hit the United States , hospitals and other health care facilities continue to struggle with chronic , drastic shortages of respirators , gloves , gowns and other safety equipment .
Trump never worked to repair broken supply chains .
He never used emergency powers that would have forced factories to retool and produce critical supplies .
And he failed to deliver a comprehensive plan for reinvigorating America 's manufacturing base and averting future shortages of essential goods .
Because Trump abandoned his duty , a coalition of organizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal lawsuit on October 8 demanding the government immediately harness the nation 's manufacturing capacity for production of PPE .
While the courts consider the case , more front-line workers will die needlessly .
Anklam represents hundreds of workers at Ascension St. Mary 's Hospital in Saginaw , Michigan , two miles from the facility where her father died .
After fighting to get more respirators and cleaning supplies earlier in the pandemic , her colleagues now need more gowns to care for growing numbers of COVID-19 patients .
While the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safely reopening schools , restaurants and other businesses , infection rates in 25 states , including Michigan , continue to soar .
`` They 're stressed .
They 're exhausted , '' Anklam said of her co-workers .
`` They just pray every day that they do n't get it . ''
But while health care workers put their lives on the line because of PPE shortages , the White House commandeers whatever equipment it needs .
Staff members wear `` full PPE '' while interacting with Trump and also have access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump never rolled out a comprehensive testing program for the rest of America , and surging infection rates now strain available resources .
Health care facilities and laboratories face severe shortages of the chemicals essential for analyzing patient samples .
That forces health care officials to limit the number of people who can be tested even as they desperately attempt to track and contain the virus .
And , as Anklam pointed out , the closing of community testing centers prompts some potentially contagious people to seek help in crowded emergency rooms .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use his influence with Senate Republicans to push through a stimulus bill that would deliver $ 75 billion for testing and contact tracing .
The bill , already approved by the Democratic-controlled House , also would extend federal unemployment benefits , health insurance and renters ' assistance to millions of workers thrown out of work because of the recession .
Among those needing help is Anklam 's brother , who lost his job at a bus company months ago .
His health care vanished along with his income , and he 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't know what to do next .
Although Trump 's own illness underscored the vulnerability of COVID-19 victims , including their need for affordable health care , he wo n't lift a finger to help Americans less fortunate than himself .
He told Senate Republicans to delay work on a stimulus package because he wanted them to focus on ramming through Judge Amy Coney Barrett 's confirmation to the Supreme Court instead .
Packing the court with corporate-friendly justices matters more to him than providing the assistance ordinary people need to survive .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pathetic ploy to shore up his sagging image before the November 3 election .
Just days before he revealed his own infection , Trump declared that the virus `` affects virtually nobody '' even though U.S. deaths already exceeded 200,000 .
Because of Trump 's duplicity , some Americans also underestimate the threat the virus poses .
Others emulate Trump 's cavalier refusal to wear masks or practice social distancing , putting their neighbors and communities at risk .
Despite the surging caseloads in Michigan , for example , Anklam frequently crosses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Although businesses post signs requiring face coverings , she said , the owners say nothing to scofflaws for fear of risking a confrontation .
If Trump were a real leader , Anklam said , he would demand strict compliance with safety guidelines while uniting Americans in a campaign to eradicate the virus and restore the economy .
`` But he 's a con man , '' Anklam said .
`` He 's been conning his whole life , and now , he 's conning the American people .
He only cares about himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president of the United Steelworkers Union ( USW ) .
This article was produced by the Independent Media Institute .

Jackie Anklam realized that Donald Trump was failing the American people when her father died of complications of COVID-19 in a Michigan hospital that ran short of personal protective equipment (PPE) for its workers.
What outrages her more is that, several months later, Trump not only refuses to learn from his early blunders but blithely flouts the safety measures critical to slowing the virus.
Instead of leading the nation to safety, Trump downplays the pandemic for personal political gain and divides Americans when they most need to pull together.
"He doesn't care about getting a grip on this. He doesn't even care about giving it to someone," said Anklam, noting Trump refused to wear a mask and defied social distancing requirements while health experts warned that such reckless behavior contributed to the rising death toll.
After seeking treatment for his own infection, Anklam observed, Trump took a joyride outside Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, potentially exposing the Secret Service agents in his SUV to COVID-19 just so he could wave to supporters. And after cutting short his hospital stay and returning to the White House, Trump still refused to wear a mask even though he risked infecting everyone who came into contact with him, including the photographer forced to snap his picture while he posed on a balcony.
"The president is supposed to put the American people first. He has done everything except that. He has put every American at risk," said Anklam, president of United Steelworkers (USW) Local 9899, who believes her father contracted pneumonia and died because of PPE shortages and infection-control problems in the hospital treating him for COVID-19.
Nearly 10 months after the pandemic hit the United States, hospitals and other health care facilities continue to struggle with chronic, drastic shortages of respirators, gloves, gowns and other safety equipment.
Trump never worked to repair broken supply chains. He never used emergency powers that would have forced factories to retool and produce critical supplies.
And he failed to deliver a comprehensive plan for reinvigorating America's manufacturing base and averting future shortages of essential goods.
Because Trump abandoned his duty, a coalition of organizations, including the USW, filed a federal lawsuit on October 8 demanding the government immediately harness the nation's manufacturing capacity for production of PPE. While the courts consider the case, more front-line workers will die needlessly.
Anklam represents hundreds of workers at Ascension St. Mary's Hospital in Saginaw, Michigan, two miles from the facility where her father died. After fighting to get more respirators and cleaning supplies earlier in the pandemic, her colleagues now need more gowns to care for growing numbers of COVID-19 patients.
While the Trump administration fails to implement scientifically sound plans for safely reopening schools, restaurants and other businesses, infection rates in 25 states, including Michigan, continue to soar.
"They're stressed. They're exhausted," Anklam said of her co-workers. "They just pray every day that they don't get it."
But while health care workers put their lives on the line because of PPE shortages, the White House commandeers whatever equipment it needs. Staff members wear "full PPE" while interacting with Trump and also have access to COVID-19 testing unavailable to many Americans.
Trump never rolled out a comprehensive testing program for the rest of America, and surging infection rates now strain available resources.
Health care facilities and laboratories face severe shortages of the chemicals essential for analyzing patient samples. That forces health care officials to limit the number of people who can be tested even as they desperately attempt to track and contain the virus.
And, as Anklam pointed out, the closing of community testing centers prompts some potentially contagious people to seek help in crowded emergency rooms.
Despite the urgent need, Trump refuses to use his influence with Senate Republicans to push through a stimulus bill that would deliver $75 billion for testing and contact tracing.
The bill, already approved by the Democratic-controlled House, also would extend federal unemployment benefits, health insurance and renters' assistance to millions of workers thrown out of work because of the recession.
Among those needing help is Anklam's brother, who lost his job at a bus company months ago. His health care vanished along with his income, and he's used up his savings. He doesn't know what to do next.
Although Trump's own illness underscored the vulnerability of COVID-19 victims, including their need for affordable health care, he won't lift a finger to help Americans less fortunate than himself.
He told Senate Republicans to delay work on a stimulus package because he wanted them to focus on ramming through Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to the Supreme Court instead. Packing the court with corporate-friendly justices matters more to him than providing the assistance ordinary people need to survive.
Trump continues to trivialize the virus in a pathetic ploy to shore up his sagging image before the November 3 election.
Just days before he revealed his own infection, Trump declared that the virus "affects virtually nobody" even though U.S. deaths already exceeded 200,000.
Because of Trump's duplicity, some Americans also underestimate the threat the virus poses. Others emulate Trump's cavalier refusal to wear masks or practice social distancing, putting their neighbors and communities at risk.
Despite the surging caseloads in Michigan, for example, Anklam frequently crosses paths with people ignoring safety measures. Although businesses post signs requiring face coverings, she said, the owners say nothing to scofflaws for fear of risking a confrontation.
If Trump were a real leader, Anklam said, he would demand strict compliance with safety guidelines while uniting Americans in a campaign to eradicate the virus and restore the economy.
"But he's a con man," Anklam said. "He's been conning his whole life, and now, he's conning the American people. He only cares about himself."
Tom Conway is the international president of the United Steelworkers Union (USW).
This article was produced by the Independent Media Institute.


alternet--2020-10-12--Election expert warns of a 'major red flag' in the Democrats' fight to take the Senate

A political expert is pointing to the latest New York Times/ Sienna poll that puts incumbent U.S .
Senator Gary Peters , Democrat of Michigan , just one point above his challenger , Republican John James , a West Point grad .
`` A major red flag for Democrats , '' tweets Daniel Nichanian , an expert on local elections and voting rights , who is the founder and editorial director of The Appeal : Political Report .
`` NYT/Siena has Senator Gary Peters leading GOP challenger John James by just 1 % ( 43/42 ) , even as Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Nichanian adds .
`` A loss for Dems here would be a major blow to their quest for a Senate majority , effectively requiring them to pick-up 5 GOP seats instead of 4 just to get to 50/50 , '' he says .
For reasons unknown , Sen. Peters is apparently facing fundraising issues , he says , despite many Democratic candidates raising huge troves of cash to fight Republicans this year .
`` Part of Mr. Peters 's weakness , '' The New York Times says , `` is that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden 's tallies among nonwhite voters , who disproportionately remain undecided .
It remains to be seen whether Mr. James , who is Black , will ultimately make significant inroads among these voters . ''
The Detroit Free Press last month called the Peters-James battle `` one of the nastier races '' this election cycle , blaming James for `` one of the more negative campaigns for statewide office in recent memory . ''
The paper calls Senator Peters `` one of the more productive and bipartisan senators in a Senate riven by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the living hell out of each other with negative ads , '' said Bernie Porn , pollster for EPIC-MRA of Lansing , who said there is an outside chance James could upset Peters if trends that have seen the incumbent 's lead in the polls shrink do n't change .
Peters ' fellow Senate Democrats have been trying to help .

A political expert is pointing to the latest New York Times/ Sienna poll that puts incumbent U.S. Senator Gary Peters, Democrat of Michigan, just one point above his challenger, Republican John James, a West Point grad.
"A major red flag for Democrats," tweets Daniel Nichanian, an expert on local elections and voting rights, who is the founder and editorial director of The Appeal: Political Report.
"NYT/Siena has Senator Gary Peters leading GOP challenger John James by just 1% (43/42), even as Biden leads 48/40 in the same sample," Nichanian adds.
"A loss for Dems here would be a major blow to their quest for a Senate majority, effectively requiring them to pick-up 5 GOP seats instead of 4 just to get to 50/50," he says.
For reasons unknown, Sen. Peters is apparently facing fundraising issues, he says, despite many Democratic candidates raising huge troves of cash to fight Republicans this year.
"Part of Mr. Peters's weakness," The New York Times says, "is that he has thus far failed to match Mr. Biden's tallies among nonwhite voters, who disproportionately remain undecided. It remains to be seen whether Mr. James, who is Black, will ultimately make significant inroads among these voters."
The Detroit Free Press last month called the Peters-James battle "one of the nastier races" this election cycle, blaming James for "one of the more negative campaigns for statewide office in recent memory."
The paper calls Senator Peters "one of the more productive and bipartisan senators in a Senate riven by partisanship."
"They're kicking the living hell out of each other with negative ads," said Bernie Porn, pollster for EPIC-MRA of Lansing, who said there is an outside chance James could upset Peters if trends that have seen the incumbent's lead in the polls shrink don't change.
Peters' fellow Senate Democrats have been trying to help.


alternet--2020-10-12--The Trump campaign's bizarre attempt to hold a 'Pride' event is actually just offensive

The Trump campaign knows it 's in trouble , as Joe Biden is beating the incumbent president by an average of more than ten points in the polls .
On Tuesday , the campaign will hold a `` pride '' event ( in the middle of October , despite the president refusing to honor LGBTQ pride month in June . )
But , as veteran journalist and SiriusXM host Michelangelo Signorile points out , the event does n't even mention LGBTQ people .
It does n't say `` gay , '' it says absolutely nothing to celebrate or even acknowledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word `` pride '' in rainbow colors .
`` They 've not announced this anywhere , lest the religious right find out , '' Signorile adds .
`` Meanwhile , they 're trying to put a woman on the Supreme Court who will destroy marriage equality . ''
The Trump campaign even has a `` Trump Pride '' page , falsely claiming `` President Donald J. Trump is the only President to openly support the LGBT community since his first day in office . ''
`` President Trump stands in solidarity with LGBT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initiatives that protect the wellbeing and prosperity of all gay , lesbian , bisexual , and transgender Americans . ''
`` TRUMP PRIDE is a diverse coalition dedicated to re-electing President Trump , the first President to begin his presidency in support of marriage equality .
Through his bold plan to end the HIV epidemic to his global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality in the 69 nations where it is illegal , President Trump has proven himself to be a strong advocate for the LGBT community both at home and abroad . ''
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign to decriminalize homosexuality '' admitted he had never heard of it .
`` I do n't know which report you 're talking about , '' he told reporters when asked .
The Trump campaign is , however , selling Trump LGBTQ -themed t-shirts ( photo . )

The Trump campaign knows it's in trouble, as Joe Biden is beating the incumbent president by an average of more than ten points in the polls. On Tuesday, the campaign will hold a "pride" event (in the middle of October, despite the president refusing to honor LGBTQ pride month in June.)
But, as veteran journalist and SiriusXM host Michelangelo Signorile points out, the event doesn't even mention LGBTQ people. It doesn't say "gay," it says absolutely nothing to celebrate or even acknowledge the LGBTQ community other than printing the word "pride" in rainbow colors.
He's calling it a "closeted event."
"They've not announced this anywhere, lest the religious right find out," Signorile adds. "Meanwhile, they're trying to put a woman on the Supreme Court who will destroy marriage equality."
The Trump campaign even has a "Trump Pride" page, falsely claiming "President Donald J. Trump is the only President to openly support the LGBT community since his first day in office."
That's false.
"President Trump stands in solidarity with LGBT citizens by supporting and enacting policies and initiatives that protect the wellbeing and prosperity of all gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans."
That's false.
"TRUMP PRIDE is a diverse coalition dedicated to re-electing President Trump, the first President to begin his presidency in support of marriage equality. Through his bold plan to end the HIV epidemic to his global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality in the 69 nations where it is illegal, President Trump has proven himself to be a strong advocate for the LGBT community both at home and abroad."
Trump, when asked about the "global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality" admitted he had never heard of it. "I don't know which report you're talking about," he told reporters when asked.
The Trump campaign is, however, selling Trump LGBTQ -themed t-shirts (photo.)


alternet--2020-10-12--Amy Coney Barrett is the least popular modern Supreme Court nominee

On Monday , Senate confirmation hearings began for Judge Amy Coney Barrett , President Donald Trump 's nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court .
Some Barrett critics , in Washington D.C. , staged a nonviolent sit-in to protest Barrett 's nomination , and 21 of them were arrested .
But those protesters are not alone in their opposition to Barrett 's nomination : according to polling data compiled by The Economist , Barrett is the least popular Supreme Court nominee of the last 27 years .
Only 42 percent of Americans support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 46 percent disapprove of the nomination .
With a net -4 points of support , she faces the most public opposition of any recent nominee .
That 's probably bad news for the Republican Party , which was facing strong headwinds going into the November election even without a controversial Supreme Court fight .
The Economist lists nine Supreme Court nominees , going back to Ginsburg in 1993 under President Bill Clinton .
The least popular of the nine , The Economist reports , is Barrett — and the second least popular is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 .
The third least popular , according to The Economist , is another Trump nominee : Justice Neil Gorsuch , who Trump nominated in 2017 to fill the seat once held by the late Justice Antonin Scalia .
The polling data that The Economist used for its list came not only from its own polling , but also , from polling by Gallup and CNN .
All of that polling showed that Trump 's three nominees have been the least popular .
The most popular of the nine , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Steven Breyer , another Clinton nominee , in second place and Chief Justice John Roberts ( who was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2005 ) in third place .
The fourth most popular , conservative Justice Samuel Alito , was nominated by Bush in 2006 , and the fifth most popular , Justice Sonia Sotomayor , was nominated by President Barack Obama in 2009 .
The six most popular was Justice Elena Kagan , another Obama nominee .
The list only takes into account nominees of the last four presidents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bush and Clinton .
Therefore , Justice Clarence Thomas , nominated by President George H.W .
Bush in 1991 , is not on the list .

On Monday, Senate confirmation hearings began for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump's nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court. Some Barrett critics, in Washington D.C., staged a nonviolent sit-in to protest Barrett's nomination, and 21 of them were arrested. But those protesters are not alone in their opposition to Barrett's nomination: according to polling data compiled by The Economist, Barrett is the least popular Supreme Court nominee of the last 27 years.
Only 42 percent of Americans support her appointment to the court, while 46 percent disapprove of the nomination. With a net -4 points of support, she faces the most public opposition of any recent nominee.
That's probably bad news for the Republican Party, which was facing strong headwinds going into the November election even without a controversial Supreme Court fight.
The Economist lists nine Supreme Court nominees, going back to Ginsburg in 1993 under President Bill Clinton. The least popular of the nine, The Economist reports, is Barrett — and the second least popular is Justice Brett Kavanuagh, nominated by Trump in 2018. The third least popular, according to The Economist, is another Trump nominee: Justice Neil Gorsuch, who Trump nominated in 2017 to fill the seat once held by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
The polling data that The Economist used for its list came not only from its own polling, but also, from polling by Gallup and CNN. All of that polling showed that Trump's three nominees have been the least popular.
The most popular of the nine, according to The Economist, is Ginsburg — with Justice Steven Breyer, another Clinton nominee, in second place and Chief Justice John Roberts (who was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2005) in third place. The fourth most popular, conservative Justice Samuel Alito, was nominated by Bush in 2006, and the fifth most popular, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, was nominated by President Barack Obama in 2009. The six most popular was Justice Elena Kagan, another Obama nominee.
The list only takes into account nominees of the last four presidents: Trump, Obama, George W. Bush and Clinton. Therefore, Justice Clarence Thomas, nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1991, is not on the list.


alternet--2020-10-12--This journalist explains why Trump's fundraising emails reveal his barely concealed desperation

For all the criticism that former Vice President Joe Biden received from the liberal/progressive wing of the Democratic Party during the presidential primary , he has had no problem with fundraising in recent months .
Biden has donors all over the political spectrum , from allies of Sen. Bernie Sanders to right-wing Never Trump conservatives .
President Donald Trump 's campaign is well-aware of all the money that Biden 's campaign has been bringing in , and a Washington Post op-ed by journalist Ben Adler describes some of the `` desperate '' extremes that Trump has been going to in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Trump 's campaign blew through a once-massive fundraising advantage , spending more than $ 800 million of its $ 1.1 billion haul before early September , '' Adler explains .
`` In August , the last month for which data is available , former Vice President Joe Biden outraised Trump by $ 155 million .
By late September , Biden had $ 141 million more in the bank than the president did .
Not coincidentally , Trump 's fundraising entreaties are becoming increasingly implausible and desperate . ''
Trump 's fundraising pitches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been `` alternating between flattery and abuse . ''
For example , one of the president 's fundraising e-mails read , `` I 've asked my team to pull the records of my BEST donors - our most loyal Patriots who I can always count on when I need them the most .
I 'm disappointed to say that when I asked for your file , they told me you showed up in the BOTTOM 1 % of all Trump Supporters . ''
Trump 's campaign , according to Adler , has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have never supported Trump — and they ca n't be in the `` bottom 1 % of all Trump supporters '' if they were never Trump supporters to begin with .
Another Trump `` fundraising gimmick , '' according to Adler , is trying to entice voters with an `` opportunity to win a free trip to meet the president . ''
One of the Trump campaign 's e-mails read , `` Why have n't you entered to win a chance to meet President Trump yet ?
The President saw the list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he noticed that your name was MISSING . '
'' Adler says of that e-mail , `` For an all-expenses paid vacation , all you needed to do was donate — except the fine print at the bottom said you could enter the competition without donating .
More important , perhaps , is that it 's possible the sweepstakes will never occur , and no one will win . ''
Certainly , Biden 's campaign has n't been shy about bombarding e-mail users with requests for donations .
But according to Adler , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shame supporters by berating them for being in the bottom 1 % of supporters .
T.J. Ducklo , a spokesperson for Biden 's campaign , told Adler , `` Donald Trump has years of practice swindling people out of money for businesses that he runs into the ground .
His campaign is no different , bombarding supporters with messages meant to shame and scam them out of every cent . ''
Adler stresses that Trump not only comes across as `` desperate '' in his demands for donations — he also comes across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writes , `` embody Trump 's lifelong habit — borrowed from his career in New York 's notoriously unscrupulous real estate world — of making unethical , comically dishonest pitches .
In a simpler time , Republican politicians and conservative talking heads made money by selling their audience to advertisers peddling investment advice , gold or unproven cures for erectile dysfunction .
Now , the huckster making dubious promises is the president himself . ''

For all the criticism that former Vice President Joe Biden received from the liberal/progressive wing of the Democratic Party during the presidential primary, he has had no problem with fundraising in recent months. Biden has donors all over the political spectrum, from allies of Sen. Bernie Sanders to right-wing Never Trump conservatives. President Donald Trump's campaign is well-aware of all the money that Biden's campaign has been bringing in, and a Washington Post op-ed by journalist Ben Adler describes some of the "desperate" extremes that Trump has been going to in the hope of increasing his fundraising.
"Trump's campaign blew through a once-massive fundraising advantage, spending more than $800 million of its $1.1 billion haul before early September," Adler explains. "In August, the last month for which data is available, former Vice President Joe Biden outraised Trump by $155 million. By late September, Biden had $141 million more in the bank than the president did. Not coincidentally, Trump's fundraising entreaties are becoming increasingly implausible and desperate."
Trump's fundraising pitches via e-mail, Adler notes, have been "alternating between flattery and abuse." For example, one of the president's fundraising e-mails read, "I've asked my team to pull the records of my BEST donors - our most loyal Patriots who I can always count on when I need them the most. I'm disappointed to say that when I asked for your file, they told me you showed up in the BOTTOM 1% of all Trump Supporters."
Trump's campaign, according to Adler, has been sending out that e-mail to some voters who have never supported Trump — and they can't be in the "bottom 1% of all Trump supporters" if they were never Trump supporters to begin with.
Another Trump "fundraising gimmick," according to Adler, is trying to entice voters with an "opportunity to win a free trip to meet the president." One of the Trump campaign's e-mails read, "Why haven't you entered to win a chance to meet President Trump yet? The President saw the list of Patriots who have already entered and he noticed that your name was MISSING.'"
Adler says of that e-mail, "For an all-expenses paid vacation, all you needed to do was donate — except the fine print at the bottom said you could enter the competition without donating. More important, perhaps, is that it's possible the sweepstakes will never occur, and no one will win."
Certainly, Biden's campaign hasn't been shy about bombarding e-mail users with requests for donations. But according to Adler, Biden's campaign wouldn't try to shame supporters by berating them for being in the bottom 1% of supporters.
T.J. Ducklo, a spokesperson for Biden's campaign, told Adler, "Donald Trump has years of practice swindling people out of money for businesses that he runs into the ground. His campaign is no different, bombarding supporters with messages meant to shame and scam them out of every cent."
Adler stresses that Trump not only comes across as "desperate" in his demands for donations — he also comes across as unpresidential. Such e-mails, Adler writes, "embody Trump's lifelong habit — borrowed from his career in New York's notoriously unscrupulous real estate world — of making unethical, comically dishonest pitches. In a simpler time, Republican politicians and conservative talking heads made money by selling their audience to advertisers peddling investment advice, gold or unproven cures for erectile dysfunction. Now, the huckster making dubious promises is the president himself."


alternet--2020-10-12--Sen. Whitehouse exposes the truth about the right wing attempt to use Amy Coney Barrett to destroy O

Sen. Whitehouse exposes the truth about the right wing attempt to use Amy Coney Barrett to destroy Obamacare

Calling the proceedings an `` unseemly charade , '' Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse used his time in the opening day of Amy Coney Barrett 's confirmation hearing to point a forceful finger at a key reason for the Republican rush to get Barrett on the Supreme Court : They want her there to strike down the Affordable Care Act ( ACA ) .
Whitehouse tightly linked the push to confirm Barrett with the longtime Republican push to kill the ACA—and he named names .
One name , anyway .
Sen. John Cornyn tore off his mask and glared angrily at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim that Republicans are n't rushing to get Barrett on the court by the Nov. 10 arguments in the latest attempt to strike down the ACA . ''
Trump has over and over said this is his reason , and now we 're in this mad rush to meet the November 10 argument deadline and colleagues pretend this is n't about the ACA , '' Whitehouse said , scoffing , `` Ha , right . ''
Then he moved on to connect Cornyn—despite his denial that the ACA is motivating Republicans here—with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions .
`` The district judge in Texas who struck down the ACA in the case now headed for the court is a former aide to the senator , who has become what the Texas Tribune calls the favorite for Texas Republicans seeking big judicial wins like torpedoing the ACA , '' Whitehouse said .
`` The senior senator from Texas introduced in committee the circuit court judge who wrote the decision on appeal striking down the ACA . ''
He continued , `` Sen. Cornyn has filed brief after brief arguing for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the failed Senate charge to repeal the ACA in 2017 .
He has said ' I 've introduced and cosponsored 27 bills to repeal or defund Obamacare and I 've voted to do so at every opportunity . '
'' So , yeah , Cornyn is looking to Barrett to strike down the ACA ASAP .
And he 's lying about it .
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse connects the scheme to take away the ACA directly to Sen. John Cornyn

Calling the proceedings an "unseemly charade," Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse used his time in the opening day of Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing to point a forceful finger at a key reason for the Republican rush to get Barrett on the Supreme Court: They want her there to strike down the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Whitehouse tightly linked the push to confirm Barrett with the longtime Republican push to kill the ACA—and he named names. One name, anyway. Sen. John Cornyn tore off his mask and glared angrily at Whitehouse as Whitehouse rebutted Cornyn's recent claim that Republicans aren't rushing to get Barrett on the court by the Nov. 10 arguments in the latest attempt to strike down the ACA."
Trump has over and over said this is his reason, and now we're in this mad rush to meet the November 10 argument deadline and colleagues pretend this isn't about the ACA," Whitehouse said, scoffing, "Ha, right."
Then he moved on to connect Cornyn—despite his denial that the ACA is motivating Republicans here—with the exact case that threatens health care for millions.
"The district judge in Texas who struck down the ACA in the case now headed for the court is a former aide to the senator, who has become what the Texas Tribune calls the favorite for Texas Republicans seeking big judicial wins like torpedoing the ACA," Whitehouse said. "The senior senator from Texas introduced in committee the circuit court judge who wrote the decision on appeal striking down the ACA."
He continued, "Sen. Cornyn has filed brief after brief arguing for striking down the ACA. He led the failed Senate charge to repeal the ACA in 2017. He has said 'I've introduced and cosponsored 27 bills to repeal or defund Obamacare and I've voted to do so at every opportunity.'"
So, yeah, Cornyn is looking to Barrett to strike down the ACA ASAP. And he's lying about it.


alternet--2020-10-12--Here's the truth behind the Republicans' big lie about 'court-packing'

Since shortly after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Republicans have said that they will confirm her replacement just days before or after the election , after blocking Merrick Garland for 8 months in 2016 , because they have the power to do so .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told Fox News , `` this Republican Senate was elected for a term that ends in January of next year .
The president was elected for a four year term that ends January 20th of next year .
There are no reduced constitutional prerogatives during either of our tenures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so for them it is self-evident that they will do it .
Norms , public opinion and the justifications they offered for not even giving Garland a hearing four years ago do n't enter into the picture .
But as soon as reporters started asking Joe Biden and Kamala Harris about whether they planned to expand the Supreme Court in response -- which has become 2020 's version of `` but her emails '' -- they immediately changed their tune , decrying the horrors of violating the unwritten norms of democratic governance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( poorly , as I wrote last week ) , Commentary 's Noah Rothman complained that not responding to the hypothetical was `` contemptuous and unacceptable , '' because adding justices would `` fundamentally alter [ ] the civic compact . ''
In response to the question , Biden offered a common refrain among Democrats .
`` Look , the only court packing is going on right now , '' he told reporters .
`` It 's going on with the Republicans packing the court now . ''
And this is true in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unprecedented blockade of Barack Obama 's nominees to the federal appellate courts , and then in 2016 , they kept an eight-seat Supreme Court until Donald Trump managed to win the Electoral College .
Before the election , some of them vowed to keep it that way throughout a Clinton presidency if she had won .
They then packed the lower court vacancies they 'd created with young judicial activists and installed Neil Gorsuch on the highest court .
It 's court-packing by another name .
But the hypocrisy runs even deeper .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ expanded the number of seats on the Courts , their co-partisans in state governments have done so repeatedly in recent years .
In 2016 , Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed a bill expanding his state 's supreme court by two members , shifting the balance of power from a 4-3 majority of Democratic appointees .
It was Republicans ' third attempt to do so over the previous ten years .
That same year , Arizona Governor Doug Ducey followed suit , even though he was elected with a conservative majority on the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that recommend judicial candidates for the Governor to choose from .
As in Georgia , Ducey 's expansion was the culmination of five years of efforts by Republicans in the state legislature .
According to Duke University legal scholar Marin Levy , three other states have moved to expand their highest courts without success over the past 13 years .
In two of the three , Republicans drove those efforts in response to specific rulings they did n't approve of -- the Florida GOP was incensed when their Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Iowa Republicans were outraged by a decision in favor of marriage equality .
Levy also noted that there have been five efforts to reduce the number of justices on state supreme courts over the past decade .
Four of them -- in Oklahoma , Montana , Washington and Pennsylvania -- were undertaken by Republicans , either as acts of retribution for rulings they disagreed with or to shift the balance of power on the bench , and one , which would not have tipped the ideological balance if it had been successful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Alabama legislature .
In the two states where Republicans did in fact expand their highest courts , they argued that they were merely doing so to deal with rising caseloads as their populations grew .
It 's worth noting , then , that when the number of justices on the United States Supreme Court was set at nine in 1869 , the country 's population was around one-tenth of what it is today .
There were nine lower court circuits at the time , with one Supreme Court justice overseeing each ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expansion is long past due .
So keep in mind that while Republicans are now preemptively warning that Democrats would `` destroy the Supreme Court '' by changing its number of seats , they have attempted to do the same thing eight times at the state level in the past 13 years -- and succeeded twice .
There are a number of good arguments for expanding the Court .
A critical one is that it might serve as a deterrent to a Republican Party that has adopted the view that it can do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to longstanding norms and assume that Democrats can be cowed into not following suit .

Since shortly after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Republicans have said that they will confirm her replacement just days before or after the election, after blocking Merrick Garland for 8 months in 2016, because they have the power to do so. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told Fox News, "this Republican Senate was elected for a term that ends in January of next year. The president was elected for a four year term that ends January 20th of next year. There are no reduced constitutional prerogatives during either of our tenures." The Constitution allows it, so for them it is self-evident that they will do it. Norms, public opinion and the justifications they offered for not even giving Garland a hearing four years ago don't enter into the picture.
But as soon as reporters started asking Joe Biden and Kamala Harris about whether they planned to expand the Supreme Court in response--which has become 2020's version of "but her emails"--they immediately changed their tune, decrying the horrors of violating the unwritten norms of democratic governance. When Biden parried a question about court-packing (poorly, as I wrote last week), Commentary'sNoah Rothman complained that not responding to the hypothetical was "contemptuous and unacceptable," because adding justices would "fundamentally alter[] the civic compact."
In response to the question, Biden offered a common refrain among Democrats. "Look, the only court packing is going on right now," he told reporters. "It's going on with the Republicans packing the court now." And this is true in a broad sense. Republicans mounted an unprecedented blockade of Barack Obama's nominees to the federal appellate courts, and then in 2016, they kept an eight-seat Supreme Court until Donald Trump managed to win the Electoral College. Before the election, some of them vowed to keep it that way throughout a Clinton presidency if she had won. They then packed the lower court vacancies they'd created with young judicial activists and installed Neil Gorsuch on the highest court. It's court-packing by another name.
But the hypocrisy runs even deeper. Because while Senate Republicans haven't actually expanded the number of seats on the Courts, their co-partisans in state governments have done so repeatedly in recent years.
In 2016, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed a bill expanding his state's supreme court by two members, shifting the balance of power from a 4-3 majority of Democratic appointees. It was Republicans' third attempt to do so over the previous ten years. That same year, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey followed suit, even though he was elected with a conservative majority on the court. He also gamed a state commission that recommend judicial candidates for the Governor to choose from. As in Georgia, Ducey's expansion was the culmination of five years of efforts by Republicans in the state legislature.
According to Duke University legal scholar Marin Levy, three other states have moved to expand their highest courts without success over the past 13 years. In two of the three, Republicans drove those efforts in response to specific rulings they didn't approve of--the Florida GOP was incensed when their Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that their school voucher program was unconstitutional, and Iowa Republicans were outraged by a decision in favor of marriage equality.
Levy also noted that there have been five efforts to reduce the number of justices on state supreme courts over the past decade. Four of them--in Oklahoma, Montana, Washington and Pennsylvania--were undertaken by Republicans, either as acts of retribution for rulings they disagreed with or to shift the balance of power on the bench, and one, which would not have tipped the ideological balance if it had been successful, was driven by a Democrat in the Alabama legislature.
In the two states where Republicans did in fact expand their highest courts, they argued that they were merely doing so to deal with rising caseloads as their populations grew. It's worth noting, then, that when the number of justices on the United States Supreme Court was set at nine in 1869, the country's population was around one-tenth of what it is today. There were nine lower court circuits at the time, with one Supreme Court justice overseeing each; today there are 13 circuits. An expansion is long past due.
So keep in mind that while Republicans are now preemptively warning that Democrats would "destroy the Supreme Court" by changing its number of seats, they have attempted to do the same thing eight times at the state level in the past 13 years--and succeeded twice.
There are a number of good arguments for expanding the Court. A critical one is that it might serve as a deterrent to a Republican Party that has adopted the view that it can do anything within its constitutional powers without regard to longstanding norms and assume that Democrats can be cowed into not following suit.


alternet--2020-10-12--Noam Chomsky details the key warning signs of Trump's authoritarianism before the election

Noam Chomsky laid out why he considers President Donald Trump a major threat to democracy during an interview with Truthout 's C.J .
Polychroniou published this week .
Although countless polls have found the president losing to former Vice President Joe Biden in this year 's presidential election , Trump has refused to acknowledge the possibility of his own loss .
Instead , he has insisted that Biden can only win if rampant voter fraud occurs , suggesting he may not accept the election results if the former vice president is victorious .
Chomsky , now 91 , has lived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Great Depression and World War II to Watergate to 9/11 .
And during the Truthout interview , the left-wing author stressed that he considers Trump the most authoritarian U.S. president of his lifetime — which is saying a lot when one considers that Republican Calvin Coolidge was still president when Chomsky was born in Philadelphia on December 7 , 1928 .
Chomsky is no fan of President Richard Nixon .
But he says , without hesitation , that Trump is much worse .
`` We may recall that Richard Nixon , not exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to suppose that victory in the 1960 election had been stolen from him by Democratic Party machinations , '' Chomsky told Polychroniou .
`` He did not challenge the results , placing the welfare of the country above personal ambition .
Al Gore did the same in 2020 .
The idea of Trump placing anything above his personal ambition — even caring about the welfare of the country — is too ludicrous to discuss . ''
Trump 's authoritarianism , according to Chomsky , was painfully evident during recent anti-racism protests in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` When Trump decided to terrorize Portland , Oregon , he did n't send the military , probably expecting that it would refuse to follow his orders , as had just happened in Washington , D.C .
He sent paramilitaries , the most fierce of them the tactical unit BORTAC of the Border Patrol , which is given virtually free rein with the 'damned of the earth ' as its targets . ''
To make matters worse , Chomsky added , Trump 's `` private army '' also includes well-armed militia groups , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warned , `` Those are the forces that may be upholding 'law and order ' if , in fact , the top military command decides to be 'complicit in a coup d'état . '
It seems unimaginable , but regrettably , not inconceivable . ''
The left-wing author added , `` Meanwhile , Trump and his Republican cohorts are working overtime to implement their strategy of undermining the election or discrediting it if it comes out the wrong way , setting the stage for a possible coup .
In preparation , an 'army @ @ @ @ @ @ @ descend on polls to intimidate the wrong voters . ''
Trump , Chomsky told Polychroniou , considers Biden 's supporters `` the wrong voters '' and will go to great lengths to bully them or have their votes thrown out .
Chomsky noted that a tide of nationalist authoritarianism is making its presence felt all around the world , from President Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India .
But according to Chomsky , the U.S. is worse off than Brazil from a checks-and-balances standpoint because at least Bolsonaro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court .
The author told Polychroniou : `` The U.S. has gone farther down the road toward autocracy ( than Brazil ) .
When inspectors general tasked with overseeing executive malfeasance followed the same course , the would-be dictator in the White House simply fired them .
He did so without a peep from the Republican Senate . ''

Noam Chomsky laid out why he considers President Donald Trump a major threat to democracy during an interview with Truthout's C.J. Polychroniou published this week.
Although countless polls have found the president losing to former Vice President Joe Biden in this year's presidential election, Trump has refused to acknowledge the possibility of his own loss. Instead, he has insisted that Biden can only win if rampant voter fraud occurs, suggesting he may not accept the election results if the former vice president is victorious.
Chomsky, now 91, has lived through many historic events — from the Great Depression and World War II to Watergate to 9/11. And during the Truthout interview, the left-wing author stressed that he considers Trump the most authoritarian U.S. president of his lifetime — which is saying a lot when one considers that Republican Calvin Coolidge was still president when Chomsky was born in Philadelphia on December 7, 1928.
Chomsky is no fan of President Richard Nixon. But he says, without hesitation, that Trump is much worse.
"We may recall that Richard Nixon, not exactly revered for his integrity, had some reason to suppose that victory in the 1960 election had been stolen from him by Democratic Party machinations," Chomsky told Polychroniou. "He did not challenge the results, placing the welfare of the country above personal ambition. Al Gore did the same in 2020. The idea of Trump placing anything above his personal ambition — even caring about the welfare of the country — is too ludicrous to discuss."
Trump's authoritarianism, according to Chomsky, was painfully evident during recent anti-racism protests in Portland, Oregon. Chomsky observed, "When Trump decided to terrorize Portland, Oregon, he didn't send the military, probably expecting that it would refuse to follow his orders, as had just happened in Washington, D.C. He sent paramilitaries, the most fierce of them the tactical unit BORTAC of the Border Patrol, which is given virtually free rein with the 'damned of the earth' as its targets."
To make matters worse, Chomsky added, Trump's "private army" also includes well-armed militia groups, domestic terrorists and white nationalists. Chomsky warned, "Those are the forces that may be upholding 'law and order' if, in fact, the top military command decides to be 'complicit in a coup d'état.' It seems unimaginable, but regrettably, not inconceivable."
The left-wing author added, "Meanwhile, Trump and his Republican cohorts are working overtime to implement their strategy of undermining the election or discrediting it if it comes out the wrong way, setting the stage for a possible coup. In preparation, an 'army for Trump' is being mobilized to descend on polls to intimidate the wrong voters."
Trump, Chomsky told Polychroniou, considers Biden's supporters "the wrong voters" and will go to great lengths to bully them or have their votes thrown out.
Chomsky noted that a tide of nationalist authoritarianism is making its presence felt all around the world, from President Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India. But according to Chomsky, the U.S. is worse off than Brazil from a checks-and-balances standpoint because at least Bolsonaro was "blocked" by the Brazilian Supreme Court.
The author told Polychroniou: "The U.S. has gone farther down the road toward autocracy (than Brazil). When inspectors general tasked with overseeing executive malfeasance followed the same course, the would-be dictator in the White House simply fired them. He did so without a peep from the Republican Senate."