alternet--2020-09-26--Pre-Election Day voting already shattering past election statistics as Americans take early action

The American public is showing a heightened interest in early voting practices ahead of the November election .
Over 28 million Americans have already requested ballots and an additional 43 million are automatically scheduled to be mailed to registered voters , according to a survey of election offices conducted by CNN .
The states surveyed include a total of 42 states in addition to Washington D.C. , were included in the survey .
The number of pre-Election Day ballots sent out this year have already surpassed the 50 million ballots sent out for the 2016 election which signals that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnout .
For this election , mail-in voting has become more of a preference due to the ongoing pandemic .
It has also been reported that Democratic voters are outpacing Republican voters ' mail-in ballot requests by more than 1.3 million .
Other reports have also suggested that the majority of the ballots already cast have been favorable for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden .
According to the Elect Project , more than 864,000 ballots have already been cast in multiple states across the United States and their statistics have indicated that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden .
This signals a sharp uptick in comparison to the 2016 election where only 9,000 voters had cast their ballots by the same time that year .
However , CNN poll results also indicate that President Donald Trump 's supporters will likely close the voting gap on Election Day .
According to the CNN poll , 57 % of Trump supporters in North Carolina and 83 % of those in Wisconsin plan to vote for the president on Election Day .
This week , Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose released a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been received by the state 's local boards of elections .
LaRose also noted that the pandemic is not the only reason why Ohioans are interested in absentee voting as he reiterated that the practice has been popular among the state 's voters for nearly 20 years .
`` One of the big reasons why Ohio is considered the national leader in absentee voting is because we 've been doing it this way for nearly two decades , '' LaRose said in a statement .
`` You get good at something when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be game-ready . ''
Voting has already begun in several states across the United States .
Election Day is set for November 3 .

The American public is showing a heightened interest in early voting practices ahead of the November election.
Over 28 million Americans have already requested ballots and an additional 43 million are automatically scheduled to be mailed to registered voters, according to a survey of election offices conducted by CNN. The states surveyed include a total of 42 states in addition to Washington D.C., were included in the survey.
The number of pre-Election Day ballots sent out this year have already surpassed the 50 million ballots sent out for the 2016 election which signals that there will likely be a collectively high voter turnout. For this election, mail-in voting has become more of a preference due to the ongoing pandemic.
It has also been reported that Democratic voters are outpacing Republican voters' mail-in ballot requests by more than 1.3 million.
Other reports have also suggested that the majority of the ballots already cast have been favorable for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
According to the Elect Project, more than 864,000 ballots have already been cast in multiple states across the United States and their statistics have indicated that the majority of those votes have gone to Biden.
This signals a sharp uptick in comparison to the 2016 election where only 9,000 voters had cast their ballots by the same time that year.
However, CNN poll results also indicate that President Donald Trump's supporters will likely close the voting gap on Election Day.
According to the CNN poll, 57% of Trump supporters in North Carolina and 83% of those in Wisconsin plan to vote for the president on Election Day.
This week, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose released a statement confirming approximately 1,784,000 absentee ballot applications had been received by the state's local boards of elections.
LaRose also noted that the pandemic is not the only reason why Ohioans are interested in absentee voting as he reiterated that the practice has been popular among the state's voters for nearly 20 years.
"One of the big reasons why Ohio is considered the national leader in absentee voting is because we've been doing it this way for nearly two decades," LaRose said in a statement. "You get good at something when you practice, and Ohio has proven to be game-ready."
Voting has already begun in several states across the United States. Election Day is set for November 3.


alternet--2020-09-26--Julian Assange: Press shows little interest in media ‘Trial of Century’

Labeled the media `` trial of the century , '' WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange 's extradition hearing is currently taking place in London—although you might not have heard if you 're relying solely on corporate media for news .
If extradited , Assange faces 175 years in a Colorado supermax prison , often described as a `` black site '' on US soil .
The United States government is asking Britain to send the Australian publisher to the US to face charges under the 1917 Espionage Act .
He is accused of aiding and encouraging Chelsea Manning to hack a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundreds of thousands of documents detailing American war crimes , particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq .
The extradition , widely viewed as politically motivated , has profound consequences for journalists worldwide , as the ruling could effectively criminalize the possession of leaked documents , which are an indispensable part of investigative reporting .
WikiLeaks has entered into partnership with five high-profile outlets around the world : the New York Times , Guardian ( UK ) , Le Monde ( France ) , Der Spiegel ( Germany ) and El País ( Spain ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little coverage of the hearing .
Since the hearing began on September 7 , the Times , for instance , has published only two bland news articles ( 9/7/20 , 9/16/20 ) —one of them purely about the technical difficulties in the courtroom—along with a short rehosted AP video ( 9/7/20 ) .
There have been no editorials and no commentary on what the case means for journalism .
The Times also appears to be distancing itself from Assange , with neither article noting that it was one of WikiLeaks ' five major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the CableGate scandal .
Guardian columnist Hadley Freeman ( 9/9/20 ) turned a reader 's question about `` liv [ ing ] in a time of so much insecurity '' into a bizarre rant against Julian Assange and his partner , Stella Moris .
The Guardian , whose headquarters are less than two miles from the Old Bailey courthouse where Assange 's hearing is being held , fared slightly better in terms of quantity , publishing eight articles since September 7 .
However , perhaps the most notable content came from columnist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked in an advice article : `` We live in a time of so much insecurity .
But is there anything we can expect from this increasingly ominous-looking winter with any certainty ? ''
she went on a bizarre tangential rant ridiculing the idea that Assange 's trial could possibly be `` politicized , '' also crassly brushing off the idea that his young children would never see their father again , and never answering anything like the question she was asked .
Holding people to account `` for a mess they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` is not 'weaponizing ' anything — it is just asking them to do their jobs properly . ''
She also claimed that believing Assange 's trial was politicized was as ridiculous as thinking antisemitism claims were cynically weaponized against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn , which , she meant to suggest , was a preposterous idea .
This was not an off-the-cuff remark transcribed and published , but a written piece that somehow made it past at least one editor .
Like the Times , the Guardian appeared to be hoping to let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worldwide brand off its partnership with WikiLeaks ; it was only mentioned in a forthright op-ed by former Brazilian president Lula da Silva ( 9/21/20 ) , an outlier piece .
The Guardian should be taking a particularly keen role in the affair , seeing that two of its journalists are alleged by WikiLeaks to have recklessly and knowingly disclosed the password to an encrypted file containing a quarter-million unredacted WikiLeaks documents , allowing anyone—including every security agency in the world—to see an unredacted iteration of the leak .
In 2018 , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief Paul Manafort had conducted a meeting with Assange and unnamed `` Russians '' at the Ecuadorian embassy ( FAIR.org , 12/3/18 ) .
And , as former employee Jonathan Cook noted , the newspaper is continually being cited by the prosecution inside the courtroom .
There were only two articles in the English or French versions of Le Monde ( 9/7/20 , 9/18/20 ) and only one in either of Der Spiegel 's English or German websites ( 9/7/20 ) , although the German paper did at least acknowledge its own partnership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the hearings in El País , in English or Spanish , though there was a piece ( 9/10/20 ) about the US government thwarting a Spanish investigation into the CIA spying on Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London—accompanied by a photo of a protester against his extradition .
The rest of corporate media showed as little interest in covering a defining moment in press freedom .
There was nothing at all from CNN .
CBS 's two articles ( 9/7/20 , 9/22/20 ) were copied and pasted from news agencies AP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entire sum of MSNBC 's coverage amounted to one unclear sentence in a mini news roundup article ( 9/18/20 ) .
Virtually every relevant human rights and press freedom organization is sounding the alarm about the incendiary precedent this case sets for the media .
The Columbia Journalism Review ( 4/18/19 ) , Human Rights Watch and the Electronic Frontier Foundation note that the government includes in its indictment regular journalistic procedures , such as protecting sources ' names and using encrypted files—meaning that this `` hacking '' charge could easily be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , founder of the Freedom of the Press Foundation , told the court this week that if the US prosecutes Assange , every journalist who has possessed a secret file can be criminalized .
Thus , it essentially gives a carte blanche to those in power to prosecute whomever they want , whenever they want , even foreigners living halfway around the world .
The United Nations has condemned his persecution , with Amnesty International describing the case as a `` full-scale assault on the right to freedom of expression . ''
Virtually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or leaked material ; they could all be in jeopardy under this new prosecutorial theory .
President Donald Trump has continually fanned the flames , demonizing the media as the `` enemy of the people . ''
Already 26 % of the country ( including 43 % of Republicans ) believe the president should have the power to shut down outlets engaging in `` bad behavior . ''
A successful Assange prosecution could be the legal spark for future anti-journalistic actions .
Yet the case has been met with indifference from the corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burning down , media are insisting it is just the Northern Lights .

Labeled the media "trial of the century," WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's extradition hearing is currently taking place in London—although you might not have heard if you're relying solely on corporate media for news. If extradited, Assange faces 175 years in a Colorado supermax prison, often described as a "black site" on US soil.
The United States government is asking Britain to send the Australian publisher to the US to face charges under the 1917 Espionage Act. He is accused of aiding and encouraging Chelsea Manning to hack a US government computer in order to publish hundreds of thousands of documents detailing American war crimes, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. The extradition, widely viewed as politically motivated, has profound consequences for journalists worldwide, as the ruling could effectively criminalize the possession of leaked documents, which are an indispensable part of investigative reporting.
WikiLeaks has entered into partnership with five high-profile outlets around the world: the New York Times, Guardian (UK), Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany) and El País (Spain). Yet those publications have provided relatively little coverage of the hearing.
Since the hearing began on September 7, the Times, for instance, has published only two bland news articles (9/7/20, 9/16/20)—one of them purely about the technical difficulties in the courtroom—along with a short rehosted AP video (9/7/20). There have been no editorials and no commentary on what the case means for journalism. The Times also appears to be distancing itself from Assange, with neither article noting that it was one of WikiLeaks' five major partners in leaking information that became known as the CableGate scandal.
Guardian columnist Hadley Freeman (9/9/20) turned a reader's question about "liv[ing] in a time of so much insecurity" into a bizarre rant against Julian Assange and his partner, Stella Moris.
The Guardian, whose headquarters are less than two miles from the Old Bailey courthouse where Assange's hearing is being held, fared slightly better in terms of quantity, publishing eight articles since September 7. However, perhaps the most notable content came from columnist Hadley Freedman (9/9/20).
When asked in an advice article: "We live in a time of so much insecurity. But is there anything we can expect from this increasingly ominous-looking winter with any certainty?" she went on a bizarre tangential rant ridiculing the idea that Assange's trial could possibly be "politicized," also crassly brushing off the idea that his young children would never see their father again, and never answering anything like the question she was asked. Holding people to account "for a mess they could have avoided," she notes, "is not 'weaponizing' anything — it is just asking them to do their jobs properly." She also claimed that believing Assange's trial was politicized was as ridiculous as thinking antisemitism claims were cynically weaponized against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, which, she meant to suggest, was a preposterous idea. This was not an off-the-cuff remark transcribed and published, but a written piece that somehow made it past at least one editor.
Like the Times, the Guardian appeared to be hoping to let people forget the fact it built its worldwide brand off its partnership with WikiLeaks; it was only mentioned in a forthright op-ed by former Brazilian president Lula da Silva (9/21/20), an outlier piece.
The Guardian should be taking a particularly keen role in the affair, seeing that two of its journalists are alleged by WikiLeaks to have recklessly and knowingly disclosed the password to an encrypted file containing a quarter-million unredacted WikiLeaks documents, allowing anyone—including every security agency in the world—to see an unredacted iteration of the leak. In 2018, the Guardian also falsely reported that Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort had conducted a meeting with Assange and unnamed "Russians" at the Ecuadorian embassy (FAIR.org, 12/3/18). And, as former employee Jonathan Cook noted, the newspaper is continually being cited by the prosecution inside the courtroom.
Der Speigel's headline (9/7/20) reads: "Maximum Sentence: 175 Years in Prison."
There were only two articles in the English or French versions of Le Monde (9/7/20, 9/18/20) and only one in either of Der Spiegel's English or German websites (9/7/20), although the German paper did at least acknowledge its own partnership with Assange. There was no coverage of the hearings in El País, in English or Spanish, though there was a piece (9/10/20) about the US government thwarting a Spanish investigation into the CIA spying on Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London—accompanied by a photo of a protester against his extradition.
The rest of corporate media showed as little interest in covering a defining moment in press freedom. There was nothing at all from CNN. CBS's two articles (9/7/20, 9/22/20) were copied and pasted from news agencies AP and AFP, respectively. Meanwhile, the entire sum of MSNBC's coverage amounted to one unclear sentence in a mini news roundup article (9/18/20).
Virtually every relevant human rights and press freedom organization is sounding the alarm about the incendiary precedent this case sets for the media. The Columbia Journalism Review (4/18/19), Human Rights Watch and the Electronic Frontier Foundation note that the government includes in its indictment regular journalistic procedures, such as protecting sources' names and using encrypted files—meaning that this "hacking" charge could easily be extended to other journalists. Trevor Timm, founder of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told the court this week that if the US prosecutes Assange, every journalist who has possessed a secret file can be criminalized. Thus, it essentially gives a carte blanche to those in power to prosecute whomever they want, whenever they want, even foreigners living halfway around the world.
The United Nations has condemned his persecution, with Amnesty International describing the case as a "full-scale assault on the right to freedom of expression." Virtually every story of national significance includes secret or leaked material; they could all be in jeopardy under this new prosecutorial theory.
President Donald Trump has continually fanned the flames, demonizing the media as the "enemy of the people." Already 26% of the country (including 43% of Republicans) believe the president should have the power to shut down outlets engaging in "bad behavior." A successful Assange prosecution could be the legal spark for future anti-journalistic actions.
Yet the case has been met with indifference from the corporate press. Even as their house is burning down, media are insisting it is just the Northern Lights.


alternet--2020-09-26--Did Donald Trump just blow his chance of winning Florida in November?

Usually when politicians float a bunch of names for a key plum pick -- say a selection for Vice President -- the smart thing is to give as many people as possible their 15 minutes of fame on the national stage .
Both parties do it all the time .
Even if you 're not selecting someone to a prestigious job they 're seeking , the consolation prize is that they 're given the gravitas and flattery that comes with having appeared to be a finalist .
But when Donald Trump floated a long list of potential Supreme Court nominees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- and then brought it down to about five finalists -- he may have made a terrible political mistake in raising the expectations of the Cuban-American community by tantalizing it by having dangled the name of Judge Barbara Lagoa .
Now that it appears Lagoa wo n't be his selection -- it 's widely reported that he 's going with the most reliably anti-choice and otherwise extremist Judge Amy Coney Barrett , he may have screwed the pooch in Florida .
Deflated Lagoa backers probably will keep their heads down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They wo n't want to give Democrats fodder , and certainly would n't welcome a negative touchdown of Trump 's Twitter tornado .
But here are some of the Tweets showing that Trump had raised expectations for Lagoa : Whether this hurts Trump in Florida ( and Arizona ) remains to be seen .

Usually when politicians float a bunch of names for a key plum pick--say a selection for Vice President--the smart thing is to give as many people as possible their 15 minutes of fame on the national stage.
Both parties do it all the time. Even if you're not selecting someone to a prestigious job they're seeking, the consolation prize is that they're given the gravitas and flattery that comes with having appeared to be a finalist.
But when Donald Trump floated a long list of potential Supreme Court nominees for the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg--and then brought it down to about five finalists--he may have made a terrible political mistake in raising the expectations of the Cuban-American community by tantalizing it by having dangled the name of Judge Barbara Lagoa.
Now that it appears Lagoa won't be his selection--it's widely reported that he's going with the most reliably anti-choice and otherwise extremist Judge Amy Coney Barrett, he may have screwed the pooch in Florida.
Deflated Lagoa backers probably will keep their heads down rather than criticize the choice of Barrett. They won't want to give Democrats fodder, and certainly wouldn't welcome a negative touchdown of Trump's Twitter tornado.
But here are some of the Tweets showing that Trump had raised expectations for Lagoa:
https://twitter.com/McClatchyDC/status/13088778472...
https://twitter.com/globalistreason/status/1309613...
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/130960833560...
https://twitter.com/GamebredFighter/status/1308203...
https://twitter.com/KellyAlspals/status/1309617134...
Whether this hurts Trump in Florida (and Arizona) remains to be seen.
But it ain't helping.


alternet--2020-09-25--Leading conservative lays out 3 possible ways to avoid a ‘calamity’ if Trump tries to steal the elec

Leading conservative lays out 3 possible ways to avoid a ‘calamity’ if Trump tries to steal the election

Warnings that President Donald Trump is willing to go to dangerous extremes to steal the 2020 presidential election have not only been coming from liberal and progressive outlets — they have also been coming from The Bulwark , a conservative website founded by journalists Bill Kristol and Charlie Sykes .
The Bulwark has become a go-to site for anti-Trump reporting and commentary from the right .
And Kristol , in an article published on September 24 , suggests some ways to possibly avoid a “ calamity ” in this year ’ s presidential election .
Kristol drew a great deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2000s , when he was a cheerleader for the U.S. invasion of Iraq .
But these days , Kristol often finds himself commiserating with liberal and progressive pundits on MSNBC and joining them in warning how much of a threat Trump poses to democratic norms in the United States .
And in 2020 , Kristol is urging fellow conservatives to vote for former Vice President Joe Biden .
In his September 24 piece , Kristol stresses that Trump ’ s efforts to steal the election must not be taking lightly .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The president is spreading disinformation about the vote ; he ’ s trying to suppress some votes ; he ’ s exploring ways to disrupt or distort the counting of the votes ; and he ’ s refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he nonetheless loses the vote .
What is to be done ?
” Kristol goes on to offer three suggestions .
The first is to “ ignore the voices of worldly complacency or pseudo-sophisticated reassurance.
” “ Everyone , sound the alarm , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the media , the voters , state and local election officials , elected officials at all levels of government , and the individuals who matter in the federal government on notice .
Suitably alarmed , they can act in appropriate ways to mitigate the danger .
That ’ s the first and most straightforward thing to be done.
” Kristol ’ s second recommendation is to “ get others who haven ’ t so far been in the camp of the alarmed to say now , out loud , that they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would be especially helpful coming from conservative Republicans .
“ One thinks especially of those who are Republicans , whose remarks can ’ t simply be written off as partisanship , ” Kristol notes .
“ So , I ’ d say to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney , to Jim Mattis and John Kelly and Dan Coats — the time has passed when speaking out against Trump was a tough question or a close call .
The danger is now near enough and real enough that duty surely compels it.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for “ those still in the Trump Administration who could play a role in averting a disaster ” to speak out .
“ I appeal to them to be ready , ” Kristol stresses .
“ Be prepared .
Coordinate privately with others you trust .
If you serve in the Trump Administration now , it could eventually fall upon you , whether you ’ re serving in DOJ or DOD or DNI or DHS — or even in the White House — to decide whether to cooperate with an illegal order or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s critics have argued that he is merely trying to get a reaction out of people when he refuses to commit to accepting the election results if Biden wins in November — that he just enjoys taunting his adversaries .
But Kristol warns that “ better safe than sorry ” is a healthy outlook to have where Trump is concerned .
“ When the stakes are so high , ” Kristol emphasizes , “ then even a small chance of calamity should be taken seriously .
”

Warnings that President Donald Trump is willing to go to dangerous extremes to steal the 2020 presidential election have not only been coming from liberal and progressive outlets — they have also been coming from The Bulwark, a conservative website founded by journalists Bill Kristol and Charlie Sykes. The Bulwark has become a go-to site for anti-Trump reporting and commentary from the right. And Kristol, in an article published on September 24, suggests some ways to possibly avoid a “calamity” in this year’s presidential election.
Kristol drew a great deal of criticism from the left during the 2000s, when he was a cheerleader for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But these days, Kristol often finds himself commiserating with liberal and progressive pundits on MSNBC and joining them in warning how much of a threat Trump poses to democratic norms in the United States. And in 2020, Kristol is urging fellow conservatives to vote for former Vice President Joe Biden.
In his September 24 piece, Kristol stresses that Trump’s efforts to steal the election must not be taking lightly.
“The election is approaching,” Kristol explains. “The president is spreading disinformation about the vote; he’s trying to suppress some votes; he’s exploring ways to disrupt or distort the counting of the votes; and he’s refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he nonetheless loses the vote. What is to be done?”
Kristol goes on to offer three suggestions. The first is to “ignore the voices of worldly complacency or pseudo-sophisticated reassurance.”
“Everyone, sound the alarm,” Kristol advises. “Put the country, the media, the voters, state and local election officials, elected officials at all levels of government, and the individuals who matter in the federal government on notice. Suitably alarmed, they can act in appropriate ways to mitigate the danger. That’s the first and most straightforward thing to be done.”
Kristol’s second recommendation is to “get others who haven’t so far been in the camp of the alarmed to say now, out loud, that they’re alarmed” — and he believes that would be especially helpful coming from conservative Republicans.
“One thinks especially of those who are Republicans, whose remarks can’t simply be written off as partisanship,” Kristol notes. “So, I’d say to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, to Jim Mattis and John Kelly and Dan Coats — the time has passed when speaking out against Trump was a tough question or a close call. The danger is now near enough and real enough that duty surely compels it.”
Kristol’s third suggestion is for “those still in the Trump Administration who could play a role in averting a disaster” to speak out.
“I appeal to them to be ready,” Kristol stresses. “Be prepared. Coordinate privately with others you trust. If you serve in the Trump Administration now, it could eventually fall upon you, whether you’re serving in DOJ or DOD or DNI or DHS — or even in the White House — to decide whether to cooperate with an illegal order or an anti-Constitutional scheme.”
Some of Trump’s critics have argued that he is merely trying to get a reaction out of people when he refuses to commit to accepting the election results if Biden wins in November — that he just enjoys taunting his adversaries. But Kristol warns that “better safe than sorry” is a healthy outlook to have where Trump is concerned.
“When the stakes are so high,” Kristol emphasizes, “then even a small chance of calamity should be taken seriously.”


alternet--2020-09-25--Philadelphia election official warns mail-in ballot technicality could invalidate 100,000 votes

A top Philadelphia election official is sounding the alarm bells that a technicality in a recent state Supreme Court ruling could lead to the invalidation of up to 100,000 mail-in ballots statewide , according to The Washington Post .
The warning is particularly worrisome for a battleground state that remains tight and that Donald Trump won by just 44,000 votes in 2016 .
The problem , according to Lisa Deeley , the Democratic chairwoman of Philadelphia ’ s election board , is the court 's ruling that ballots must be inserted in an extra `` secrecy envelope '' that goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots back .
Any ballot received without the secrecy envelope would not be counted , and the voters who sent them would have no recourse .
It 's what 's referred to as a `` naked ballot , '' and during the primary , officials were allowed to accept naked ballots due to the uptick in voters using absentee ballots for the first time based on pandemic concerns .
Deeley estimates the requirement could cause tens of thousands of votes in the Philadelphia area to be rejected , along with plenty more across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just so unfair that we ’ re disenfranchising people that have done everything right , ” Deeley told the Post .
“ They applied for the mail-in ballot , they got the mail-in ballot , they voted by the mail-in ballot , they put it in an envelope , returned to us on time — and all because of a technicality , their vote isn ’ t going to count.
” According to the Post , Pennsylvania is one of about 16 states that require a secrecy envelope , but some states decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the crush of mail ballots election officials expect to process .
Deeley is hoping state lawmakers will do the same , but Republicans , who control both the House and Senate chambers , are against making any moves to rectify the situation , according to the AP .
“ We believe this issue is settled for this election , ” a spokesman for House Speaker Bryan Cutler , R-Lancaster , said in a statement .
Naturally , that ’ s because Democratic voters are requesting mail-in ballots at a roughly three-to-one margin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see those voters disenfranchised .
That ’ s how democracy works in the view of Republicans .
Ultimately , this may come down to a massive voter education drive on the fly .

A top Philadelphia election official is sounding the alarm bells that a technicality in a recent state Supreme Court ruling could lead to the invalidation of up to 100,000 mail-in ballots statewide, according to The Washington Post.
The warning is particularly worrisome for a battleground state that remains tight and that Donald Trump won by just 44,000 votes in 2016.
The problem, according to Lisa Deeley, the Democratic chairwoman of Philadelphia’s election board, is the court's ruling that ballots must be inserted in an extra "secrecy envelope" that goes inside a larger envelope used to mail ballots back. Any ballot received without the secrecy envelope would not be counted, and the voters who sent them would have no recourse.
It's what's referred to as a "naked ballot," and during the primary, officials were allowed to accept naked ballots due to the uptick in voters using absentee ballots for the first time based on pandemic concerns.
Deeley estimates the requirement could cause tens of thousands of votes in the Philadelphia area to be rejected, along with plenty more across the state.
“It’s just so unfair that we’re disenfranchising people that have done everything right,” Deeley told the Post. “They applied for the mail-in ballot, they got the mail-in ballot, they voted by the mail-in ballot, they put it in an envelope, returned to us on time — and all because of a technicality, their vote isn’t going to count.”
According to the Post, Pennsylvania is one of about 16 states that require a secrecy envelope, but some states decided to waive the requirement this year due to the crush of mail ballots election officials expect to process.
Deeley is hoping state lawmakers will do the same, but Republicans, who control both the House and Senate chambers, are against making any moves to rectify the situation, according to the AP.
“We believe this issue is settled for this election,” a spokesman for House Speaker Bryan Cutler, R-Lancaster, said in a statement. Naturally, that’s because Democratic voters are requesting mail-in ballots at a roughly three-to-one margin, so Republicans are plenty happy to see those voters disenfranchised. That’s how democracy works in the view of Republicans.
Ultimately, this may come down to a massive voter education drive on the fly.


alternet--2020-09-25--Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the peril of America's aging elite

“ The graveyards are full of indispensable men , ” Charles de Gaulle is reputed to have said .
Despite the mordant wisdom most of us see in that statement , an alarming number of people refuse to follow his implicit advice .
Many of us , particularly in America , the land of rugged individualism , see ourselves as crucial in the grand scheme of things , and are reluctant to leave the stage .
That may explain the real insecurity behind the common belief in the immortality of the soul .
Admittedly , roughly two-thirds of the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see myself as experienced , reliable , professionally knowledgeable , and possessing good judgment : all the ingredients for an inflated sense of indispensability .
As retirement approached , I felt more than a twinge of regret .
In retrospect , it was merely the optical illusion of being too close to the subject to see it whole , in the way humans once believed the earth was flat .
This illusion is epidemic in our bustling city-states like New York , Los Angeles , and Washington , where the raw-material inputs are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ output is monuments to vanity as futile as Ozymandias ’ s decaying effigy .
In these towns , the inevitable first question in social gatherings is not who you are , what about your family , or a similar inquiry , but what do you do for a living ?
Busy people do not waste valuable networking time on the unimportant .
De mortuis nil nisi bonum : “ Speak no ill of the dead , ” according to the Romans .
The rote obsequies Republicans have been mouthing after the death of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the qualities of a Roman Senate faction observing formalities for the passing of a rival .
The pro forma eulogies cost them nothing , and camouflage their glee at the prospect of jamming a replacement through confirmation .
Remedies to address the deaths of 200,000 Americans from COVID-19 , and the prospect of thousands more dead by winter , will slip further toward the bottom of Republicans ’ legislative agenda .
We face the unsavory prospect that the nonstop stress Americans have endured from a deadly pandemic their government deliberately let rage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have failed to excite the concern of that same government , and a rash of extrajudicial killings , will be exacerbated by the perils-of-Pauline melodrama of a Supreme Court confirmation battle .
This is a probability , every detail of which the media will shrilly report , that may not finish torturing us until January 20 .
Are we to be spared nothing ?
We might have been spared some of it had Justice Ginsburg heeded de Gaulle ’ s advice rather than Dylan Thomas ’ s ill-natured plea to rage against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last controlled the Senate , she was already 80 .
Might not a graceful departure , followed by fitting accolades , have been the proper capstone for a distinguished career ?
Asking this question is not mere pique at an eminent public official leaving us in a crisis .
It exemplifies the failure of our political system .
Many observers have noted the antiquated features of our constitutional structure : the grossly disproportionate representation of state populations in the Senate ( a product of a compromise over slavery ) ; voting districts drawn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reminiscent of the rotten boroughs of 18th century England ; and the Rube Goldberg contraption of the Electoral College , an obsolete contrivance whose only other renowned practitioner was the Holy Roman Empire .
It is less often remarked that the people carrying out our public business are similarly antiquated .
The Congressional Research Service has noted that the average age of a U.S. senator in 2018 was 62 years , the oldest in the institution ’ s history .
In 1981 , the dawn of the Reagan revolution of gerontocracy , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
House members have aged similarly : in 1981 the average age was 49 , now it is 57 .
The incumbent president is 74 , challenged by a candidate of 77 ; the speaker of the House is 80 ; the majority and minority leaders of the Senate are 78 and 69 , respectively .
Economists attribute diverse causes to America ’ s growing economic inequality : outsourcing , automation , financialization , skills gaps , and conscious rigging by political forces .
Could that rigging , accompanied as it is by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and old , somehow connect to the age of our political elites ?
There is a similar disparity between young and old in government-provided benefits .
But , as a 2018 Pew Research paper states , old people paradoxically interpret their own good fortune thanks to government programs as a reason to dislike “ big government ” as an instrument that would profligately aid the young and minorities : It is difficult not to conclude that for at least several decades , the Silent and Baby Boom generations have sat atop the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that demands worshipping .
And this sacrifice of the young to the old has not played out in politics alone .
A 2019 report found that the average age of CEOs at the time of their hiring for Fortune 500 and S & P 500 companies was 58 in 2019 , just four years shy of being eligible for early Social Security benefits .
The American high-technology sector has come in for severe and deserved criticism , but the fact that it is one of the few truly innovative business sectors might show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge .
Kurt Andersen has argued that the political and economic rigging of American life that he sees has come with a hefty side-order of cultural stagnation .
It started in the 1970s , he says , as a regression to a simpler time , with nostalgia-soaked movies like American Graffiti and The Last Picture Show blazing the trail .
By the Reagan ascendancy , it was in full swing .
He notes that apart from high-tech devices , the “ look ” of American street scenes , of American life , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to what it was 40 years ago .
This explains the fact that most movies now are either the umpteenth sequel of a previous blockbuster of probable Star Wars vintage , or a live-action rehash of a cartoon , or some transparently juvenile and escapist theme that , somewhat discordantly , appeals to Baby Boomers .
After the dizzyingly rapid evolution of American popular music throughout the 20th century , the last few decades have seen near stasis .
Revivals of 1960s rock acts became popular in the 1990s .
Now they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Silents and Boomers who , unlike their children , can afford the concert tickets – as long as the acts sing exactly the same tunes , in exactly the same manner , as 50 years ago .
How long is Mick Jagger , age 77 , going to keep this up ?
The death in office of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , after she experienced years of serious health scares even while maintaining a Supreme Court seat , is a poignant symbol that America , once seen as the quintessential “ young country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the later Ottoman Empire .
“ Make America great again ” is a potent slogan precisely because it appeals to the futile yearning of the very demographics that vote in the highest percentages , the Silents and Boomers , for the myth of an impossible time-travel to the days when they were young .
It is an open question whether this ghost can be laid to rest in time for our country to survive .

“The graveyards are full of indispensable men,” Charles de Gaulle is reputed to have said. Despite the mordant wisdom most of us see in that statement, an alarming number of people refuse to follow his implicit advice. Many of us, particularly in America, the land of rugged individualism, see ourselves as crucial in the grand scheme of things, and are reluctant to leave the stage. That may explain the real insecurity behind the common belief in the immortality of the soul.
Admittedly, roughly two-thirds of the way through my career, I started to see myself as experienced, reliable, professionally knowledgeable, and possessing good judgment: all the ingredients for an inflated sense of indispensability. As retirement approached, I felt more than a twinge of regret. In retrospect, it was merely the optical illusion of being too close to the subject to see it whole, in the way humans once believed the earth was flat.
This illusion is epidemic in our bustling city-states like New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, where the raw-material inputs are ego and ambition, and a frequent output is monuments to vanity as futile as Ozymandias’s decaying effigy. In these towns, the inevitable first question in social gatherings is not who you are, what about your family, or a similar inquiry, but what do you do for a living? Busy people do not waste valuable networking time on the unimportant.
De mortuis nil nisi bonum: “Speak no ill of the dead,” according to the Romans. The rote obsequies Republicans have been mouthing after the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg promise all the qualities of a Roman Senate faction observing formalities for the passing of a rival. The pro forma eulogies cost them nothing, and camouflage their glee at the prospect of jamming a replacement through confirmation. Remedies to address the deaths of 200,000 Americans from COVID-19, and the prospect of thousands more dead by winter, will slip further toward the bottom of Republicans’ legislative agenda.
We face the unsavory prospect that the nonstop stress Americans have endured from a deadly pandemic their government deliberately let rage out of control, unprecedented wildfires that have failed to excite the concern of that same government, and a rash of extrajudicial killings, will be exacerbated by the perils-of-Pauline melodrama of a Supreme Court confirmation battle. This is a probability, every detail of which the media will shrilly report, that may not finish torturing us until January 20. Are we to be spared nothing?
We might have been spared some of it had Justice Ginsburg heeded de Gaulle’s advice rather than Dylan Thomas’s ill-natured plea to rage against the dying of the light. When Democrats last controlled the Senate, she was already 80. Might not a graceful departure, followed by fitting accolades, have been the proper capstone for a distinguished career?
Asking this question is not mere pique at an eminent public official leaving us in a crisis. It exemplifies the failure of our political system. Many observers have noted the antiquated features of our constitutional structure: the grossly disproportionate representation of state populations in the Senate (a product of a compromise over slavery); voting districts drawn by partisan state legislatures in a manner reminiscent of the rotten boroughs of 18th century England; and the Rube Goldberg contraption of the Electoral College, an obsolete contrivance whose only other renowned practitioner was the Holy Roman Empire.
It is less often remarked that the people carrying out our public business are similarly antiquated. The Congressional Research Service has noted that the average age of a U.S. senator in 2018 was 62 years, the oldest in the institution’s history. In 1981, the dawn of the Reagan revolution of gerontocracy, the average age of a senator was 53. House members have aged similarly: in 1981 the average age was 49, now it is 57. The incumbent president is 74, challenged by a candidate of 77; the speaker of the House is 80; the majority and minority leaders of the Senate are 78 and 69, respectively.
Economists attribute diverse causes to America’s growing economic inequality: outsourcing, automation, financialization, skills gaps, and conscious rigging by political forces. Could that rigging, accompanied as it is by the yawning disparity of wealth between young and old, somehow connect to the age of our political elites?
There is a similar disparity between young and old in government-provided benefits. But, as a 2018 Pew Research paper states, old people paradoxically interpret their own good fortune thanks to government programs as a reason to dislike “big government” as an instrument that would profligately aid the young and minorities:
In discussing the long-term political ramifications of the generation gap, political writer Ronald Brownstein has framed it as a divide between “the gray and the brown,” wherein older whites, including aging baby boomers, favor smaller government investment in social support programs except for those, such as Social Security, that directly affect them. For these older voters, big government is associated with higher taxes, which primarily benefit younger demographic groups whose needs they do not fully appreciate.
It is difficult not to conclude that for at least several decades, the Silent and Baby Boom generations have sat atop the rest of society like a monstrous stone idol that demands worshipping. And this sacrifice of the young to the old has not played out in politics alone.
A 2019 report found that the average age of CEOs at the time of their hiring for Fortune 500 and S&P 500 companies was 58 in 2019, just four years shy of being eligible for early Social Security benefits. The American high-technology sector has come in for severe and deserved criticism, but the fact that it is one of the few truly innovative business sectors might show the advantages of having younger people in charge.
Kurt Andersen has argued that the political and economic rigging of American life that he sees has come with a hefty side-order of cultural stagnation. It started in the 1970s, he says, as a regression to a simpler time, with nostalgia-soaked movies like American Graffiti and The Last Picture Show blazing the trail. By the Reagan ascendancy, it was in full swing. He notes that apart from high-tech devices, the “look” of American street scenes, of American life, of its cultural texture, is remarkably similar to what it was 40 years ago.
This explains the fact that most movies now are either the umpteenth sequel of a previous blockbuster of probable Star Wars vintage, or a live-action rehash of a cartoon, or some transparently juvenile and escapist theme that, somewhat discordantly, appeals to Baby Boomers.
After the dizzyingly rapid evolution of American popular music throughout the 20th century, the last few decades have seen near stasis. Revivals of 1960s rock acts became popular in the 1990s. Now they are ubiquitous, being in demand by nostalgia-besotted Silents and Boomers who, unlike their children, can afford the concert tickets – as long as the acts sing exactly the same tunes, in exactly the same manner, as 50 years ago. How long is Mick Jagger, age 77, going to keep this up?
The death in office of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, after she experienced years of serious health scares even while maintaining a Supreme Court seat, is a poignant symbol that America, once seen as the quintessential “young country,” is becoming as culturally static as the later Ottoman Empire. “Make America great again” is a potent slogan precisely because it appeals to the futile yearning of the very demographics that vote in the highest percentages, the Silents and Boomers, for the myth of an impossible time-travel to the days when they were young. It is an open question whether this ghost can be laid to rest in time for our country to survive.


alternet--2020-09-25--Trump is bulldozing democracy — and Democrats have no plan to stop him

Democrats in Congress have done little more than pay lip service to bipartisanship in the week since the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Even as the high court 's ideological balance is up for grabs for the third time in four years — and as the president of the United States refuses to commit to a peaceful transfer of power — prominent Senate Democrats have rushed to tamp down talk of retaliatory action .
This leaves little doubt that the opposition party is unequipped to handle the threat posed to democracy by Donald Trump and the Republicans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote on Barack Obama 's nomination of Merrick Garland four years ago , denying liberals their first court majority since the 1960s , has made clear they intend to ram through a new Supreme Court justice , most likely in the final week before Election Day .
By his own admission , Trump wants a new justice seated by then because he intends to use the federal judiciary to nullify enough absentee ballots to hand him a second term .
While officially attempting to assuage concern about Trump 's plans , prominent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to have the Supreme Court , not the voters , decide this election .
`` I promise you as a Republican , if the Supreme Court decides that Joe Biden wins , I will accept the result , '' Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina , chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee , .
`` The court will decide , and if Republicans lose , we 'll accept the result . ''
Graham wants to schedule confirmation hearings for Trump 's Supreme Court nominee for the week of Oct. 12 .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of the following week , and a vote on the Senate floor before Halloween , making it the fastest confirmation process in .
In addition to Trump 's pick potentially ruling on an election dispute , Republicans are eager to have another ultraconservative justice seated in time for a case on the Affordable Care Act , which the Supreme Court will hear only a week after Election Day .
The Democrats ' response to such threats this week can fairly be described as pitiful .
`` I think Democrats are gon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of honor that when someone gives their word , as Lindsey Graham did , that they ca n't just break it , '' Sen. Cory Booker , D-N.J. , said on Thursday , calling it `` folly '' to even discuss potential Democratic responses like expanding the Supreme Court .
`` This is a moment that I would say to any Republican of good conscience working in the administration , it is time for you to resign , '' Rep. Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , appealed .
To be clear , Democrats have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee — whom he plans to announce on Saturday — from eventually taking the bench .
The opposition party 's best bet is to slow down the process until after the election , and use the fight as a means to rally their voters to take control of all three branches of government , by defeating Trump and seizing a Senate majority .
The ultimate goal , which remains unlikely , would be to draw out the confirmation process until after Inauguration Day on Jan. 20 .
But simply opposing his nominee wo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not when Trump has made no secret of his plans to use the courts to his electoral advantage .
So far , Democrats have shown no real appetite for a fight .
`` We need to de-escalate , not escalate , '' Democratic nominee Joe Biden said during a speech in Philadelphia over the weekend .
Biden has expressed a reluctance to eliminate the Senate filibuster — which requires the consent of 60 members to advance most legislation to a floor vote — and is outright opposed to increasing the number of Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California , who would become the Judiciary Committee chair if Democrats take the Senate , has also expressed reluctance to change the rules in response to the GOP 's ruthless power play .
Sen. Michael Bennet , D-Colo. , even took to the Senate floor this week to seek forgiveness for former Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid 's decision to fight GOP obstructionism during the Obama era by eliminating the filibuster on judicial confirmations .
In a near-unanimous vote , the Senate approved a Trump-appointed federal judge recommended by the arch-conservative Federalist Society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a continuing resolution to keep the government open until Dec. 11 , giving away one of its major avenues of leverage .
It 's been a near-universal show of surrender from Democrats — even as their voters have sent more $ 200 million in donations to Democratic candidates and causes since Ginsburg 's passing .
If they want to rally and sustain public support , Democrats might want to fight as if they believed they could win .
Republicans lie , cheat and steal .
Democrats pretend to `` resist '' with weak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who long ago sold their supposed principles down the river .
Meanwhile , mainstream media responds with a outdated frame of evenhandedness , seeming to imply that issues like election integrity are even up for debate .
Fox News ' Chris Wallace , who will moderate the first presidential debate next week , has literally selected `` the integrity of the election '' as one of the debate topics .
This kind of false equivalency between Trump 's unfounded accusations of mail fraud and the Republicans ' longstanding history of voter suppression may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Appeals to get out and vote , which Nancy Pelosi presented this week as the last and most effective remedy , do n't take into account that Trump 's plan to steal the election will kick in after Americans have voted , but before all those votes have been counted .
Even if Democrats take back the Senate , they wo n't be allowed to govern in the face of relentless obstructionism and the stolen Supreme Court .
They have to know that .
Republicans have handed Democrats a legitimate rationale for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 or possibly 19 seats .
Those Democrats who are willing to engage the idea are the only ones who should be taken seriously during this moment , as odd a coalition as they might make .
`` When Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress , we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court , '' Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts , a call supported by House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York .
Even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer seemed receptive : `` Nothing is off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tries to fill Ginsburg 's seat , he said .
`` We have arrows in our quiver that I 'm not about to discuss right now , but the fact is , we have a big challenge in our country , '' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi added this week .

Democrats in Congress have done little more than pay lip service to bipartisanship in the week since the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Even as the high court's ideological balance is up for grabs for the third time in four years — and as the president of the United States refuses to commit to a peaceful transfer of power — prominent Senate Democrats have rushed to tamp down talk of retaliatory action. This leaves little doubt that the opposition party is unequipped to handle the threat posed to democracy by Donald Trump and the Republicans.
The same Senate Republican leadership who refused to vote on Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland four years ago, denying liberals their first court majority since the 1960s, has made clear they intend to ram through a new Supreme Court justice, most likely in the final week before Election Day. By his own admission , Trump wants a new justice seated by then because he intends to use the federal judiciary to nullify enough absentee ballots to hand him a second term.
While officially attempting to assuage concern about Trump's plans, prominent Republicans have essentially admitted that the plan is to have the Supreme Court, not the voters, decide this election. "I promise you as a Republican, if the Supreme Court decides that Joe Biden wins, I will accept the result," Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told the New York Times . "The court will decide, and if Republicans lose, we'll accept the result."
Graham reportedly wants to schedule confirmation hearings for Trump's Supreme Court nominee for the week of Oct. 12. That would mean a party-line committee vote near the end of the following week, and a vote on the Senate floor before Halloween, making it the fastest confirmation process in recent history . In addition to Trump's pick potentially ruling on an election dispute, Republicans are eager to have another ultraconservative justice seated in time for a case on the Affordable Care Act, which the Supreme Court will hear only a week after Election Day.
The Democrats' response to such threats this week can fairly be described as pitiful.
"I think Democrats are gonna continue to appeal to the sense of honor that when someone gives their word, as Lindsey Graham did, that they can't just break it," Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said on Thursday, calling it "folly" to even discuss potential Democratic responses like expanding the Supreme Court. "This is a moment that I would say to any Republican of good conscience working in the administration, it is time for you to resign," Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., appealed.
To be clear, Democrats have little hope of actually stopping Trump's nominee — whom he plans to announce on Saturday — from eventually taking the bench. The opposition party's best bet is to slow down the process until after the election, and use the fight as a means to rally their voters to take control of all three branches of government, by defeating Trump and seizing a Senate majority. The ultimate goal, which remains unlikely, would be to draw out the confirmation process until after Inauguration Day on Jan. 20. But simply opposing his nominee won't be even close to enough — not when Trump has made no secret of his plans to use the courts to his electoral advantage. So far, Democrats have shown no real appetite for a fight.
"We need to de-escalate, not escalate," Democratic nominee Joe Biden said during a speech in Philadelphia over the weekend. Biden has expressed a reluctance to eliminate the Senate filibuster — which requires the consent of 60 members to advance most legislation to a floor vote — and is outright opposed to increasing the number of Supreme Court justices. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who would become the Judiciary Committee chair if Democrats take the Senate, has also expressed reluctance to change the rules in response to the GOP's ruthless power play.
Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., even took to the Senate floor this week to seek forgiveness for former Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to fight GOP obstructionism during the Obama era by eliminating the filibuster on judicial confirmations. In a near-unanimous vote, the Senate approved a Trump-appointed federal judge recommended by the arch-conservative Federalist Society this week. The House then approved a continuing resolution to keep the government open until Dec. 11, giving away one of its major avenues of leverage.
It's been a near-universal show of surrender from Democrats — even as their voters have sent more $200 million in donations to Democratic candidates and causes since Ginsburg's passing. If they want to rally and sustain public support, Democrats might want to fight as if they believed they could win.
Republicans lie, cheat and steal. Democrats pretend to "resist" with weak appeals to the nonexistent conscience of Republicans who long ago sold their supposed principles down the river. Meanwhile, mainstream media responds with a outdated frame of evenhandedness, seeming to imply that issues like election integrity are even up for debate. Fox News' Chris Wallace, who will moderate the first presidential debate next week, has literally selected "the integrity of the election" as one of the debate topics. This kind of false equivalency between Trump's unfounded accusations of mail fraud and the Republicans' longstanding history of voter suppression may be all the authoritarians need to succeed.
Appeals to get out and vote, which Nancy Pelosi presented this week as the last and most effective remedy, don't take into account that Trump's plan to steal the election will kick in after Americans have voted, but before all those votes have been counted. Even if Democrats take back the Senate, they won't be allowed to govern in the face of relentless obstructionism and the stolen Supreme Court. They have to know that.
Republicans have handed Democrats a legitimate rationale for expanding the court — to 11 or 15 or possibly 19 seats. Those Democrats who are willing to engage the idea are the only ones who should be taken seriously during this moment, as odd a coalition as they might make.
"When Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court," Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts tweeted over the weekend , a call supported by House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York.
Even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer seemed receptive: "Nothing is off the table next year" if the GOP tries to fill Ginsburg's seat, he said. "We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now, but the fact is, we have a big challenge in our country," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi added this week.
Whether they boycott hearings, bring impeachment articles against Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, or use Senate rules to slow down normal business, Democrats have more than a few arrows in their quiver. But despite Pelosi's brave words, Democrats' actions this week suggest they have no real intention to pull them out to save our democracy.


alternet--2020-09-25--Journalist lost award for criticizing Trump -- despite administration claims to the contrary: offici

Journalist lost award for criticizing Trump -- despite administration claims to the contrary: officials

In January 2019 , Finnish journalist Jessikka Aro was notified by the U.S. State Department that she would be receiving its International Women of Courage Award .
But the offer was later rescinded after it came to light that Aro had been vehemently critical of President Donald Trump on social media .
The State Department and allies of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have denied that Aro ’ s anti-Trump posts had anything to do with that decision , but a new report by the State Department Inspector General ’ s Office says otherwise .
“ The report tracks how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remarks worried senior U.S. officials and prompted a decision to withdraw the honor to avoid a possible public relations debacle , ” journalist John Hudson reports in the Washington Post .
“ The report ’ s release is likely to worsen tensions between the ( State ) Department ’ s leadership and the inspector general ’ s office , which has undergone several shake-ups following the firing of Inspector General Steve Linick in the spring at the request of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
” Aro was certainly well-deserving of an International Women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became the target of death threats and cyberattacks after reporting extensively on Russian troll factories and their propaganda and disinformation efforts .
When the State Department withdrew its offer , its press office said that Aro had been “ incorrectly notified ” that she was being offered an International Women of Courage Award .
The State Department told Congress that Aro “ ultimately was not selected to receive the award due to the highly competitive selection of candidates.
” And it never acknowledged that Aro ’ s anti-Trump social media posts had anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports that the State ’ s Department ’ s “ inspector general ultimately found that the decision to give her the award was not a mistake and was included in a memo approved by Pompeo .
The report also noted that the decision to withdraw the award stemmed from the discovery of the social media posts , despite public claims otherwise.
” Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey is speaking out about the State Department watchdog ’ s report and is highly critical of Pompeo .
Judson quotes Menendez as saying , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courageous journalist willing to stand up to Kremlin propaganda .
Instead , his department sought to stifle dissent to avoid upsetting a president who , day after day , tries to take pages out of ( Russian President Vladimir ) Putin ’ s playbook .
The State Department owes Ms. Aro an apology .
”

In January 2019, Finnish journalist Jessikka Aro was notified by the U.S. State Department that she would be receiving its International Women of Courage Award. But the offer was later rescinded after it came to light that Aro had been vehemently critical of President Donald Trump on social media. The State Department and allies of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have denied that Aro’s anti-Trump posts had anything to do with that decision, but a new report by the State Department Inspector General’s Office says otherwise.
“The report tracks how the discovery of the journalist’s remarks worried senior U.S. officials and prompted a decision to withdraw the honor to avoid a possible public relations debacle,” journalist John Hudson reports in the Washington Post. “The report’s release is likely to worsen tensions between the (State) Department’s leadership and the inspector general’s office, which has undergone several shake-ups following the firing of Inspector General Steve Linick in the spring at the request of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.”
Aro was certainly well-deserving of an International Women of Courage Award. The Finnish journalist became the target of death threats and cyberattacks after reporting extensively on Russian troll factories and their propaganda and disinformation efforts.
When the State Department withdrew its offer, its press office said that Aro had been “incorrectly notified” that she was being offered an International Women of Courage Award. The State Department told Congress that Aro “ultimately was not selected to receive the award due to the highly competitive selection of candidates.” And it never acknowledged that Aro’s anti-Trump social media posts had anything to do with it.
But Hudson reports that the State’s Department’s “inspector general ultimately found that the decision to give her the award was not a mistake and was included in a memo approved by Pompeo. The report also noted that the decision to withdraw the award stemmed from the discovery of the social media posts, despite public claims otherwise.”
Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey is speaking out about the State Department watchdog’s report and is highly critical of Pompeo.
Judson quotes Menendez as saying, “Secretary Pompeo should have honored a courageous journalist willing to stand up to Kremlin propaganda. Instead, his department sought to stifle dissent to avoid upsetting a president who, day after day, tries to take pages out of (Russian President Vladimir) Putin’s playbook. The State Department owes Ms. Aro an apology.”


alternet--2020-09-25--Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse's Mom receives standing ovation at GOP event in Wisconsin

Highlights from a Republican women 's event in Waukesha , WI.
, have left many Twitter users appalled by the series of events that unfolded .
Bulwark host Charlie Sykes took to Twitter with a screenshot of a tweet from popular Conservative Michelle Malkin 's page .
She shared a photo from the event where she was photographed with Kenosha , WI .
shooter Kyle Rittenhouse 's mother , Wendy Rittenhouse .
The shooter 's mother reportedly delivered a speech that garnered a standing ovation from the crowd .
`` Shot .
Chaser , '' Sykes tweeted .
`` 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s event : Alt-right icon Michelle Malkin .
2 .
Standing ovation for mother of Kyle Rittenhouse , the 17-year-old who shot and killed two people in Kenosha . ''
Sykes went on to highlight the disturbing aspects of the event as he noted the audience 's support of Rittenhouse despite him shooting three people , killing two of those people .
It 's also important to note that Wendy Rittenhouse , is reportedly responsible for driving her son from Antioch , IL to Wisconsin .
He added , `` To be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Waukesha GOP in Wisconsin , the mother of the 17-year-old boy who took a rifle across state lines to Kenosha , and shot three people , killing two… Received a standing ovation .
Led by one of the right ’ s most notorious racists . ''
The Republican-led event comes weeks after a Christian-based website made headlines for its efforts to raise funds in support of Rittenhouse .
According to the crowdfunding site , more than 12,000 donors have raised over $ 518,000 for the teenager 's legal defense .
Despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest , illegally carrying a firearm , and reportedly calling a friend and admitting he shot someone in Kenosha , the Christian crowdfunding site argues that Rittenhouse 's actions were justified .
`` Kyle Rittenhouse just defended himself from a brutal attack by multiple members of the far-leftist group ANTIFA – the experience was undoubtedly a brutal one , as he was forced to take two lives to defend his own , '' the crowdfunding site reads .
Rittenhouse is facing charges of first-degree intentional homicide and first-degree reckless homicide in connection with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including the deaths of two of them .
He is currently being held at a juvenile correctional facility in Vernon Hills , Il .

Highlights from a Republican women's event in Waukesha, WI., have left many Twitter users appalled by the series of events that unfolded.
Bulwark host Charlie Sykes took to Twitter with a screenshot of a tweet from popular Conservative Michelle Malkin's page. She shared a photo from the event where she was photographed with Kenosha, WI. shooter Kyle Rittenhouse's mother, Wendy Rittenhouse. The shooter's mother reportedly delivered a speech that garnered a standing ovation from the crowd.
"Shot. Chaser," Sykes tweeted. "1. Featured speaker at Waukesha GOP women’s event: Alt-right icon Michelle Malkin. 2. Standing ovation for mother of Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old who shot and killed two people in Kenosha."
Sykes went on to highlight the disturbing aspects of the event as he noted the audience's support of Rittenhouse despite him shooting three people, killing two of those people. It's also important to note that Wendy Rittenhouse, is reportedly responsible for driving her son from Antioch, IL to Wisconsin.
He added, "To be clear about this. An event sponsored by the Waukesha GOP in Wisconsin, the mother of the 17-year-old boy who took a rifle across state lines to Kenosha, and shot three people, killing two… Received a standing ovation. Led by one of the right’s most notorious racists."
The Republican-led event comes weeks after a Christian-based website made headlines for its efforts to raise funds in support of Rittenhouse. According to the crowdfunding site, more than 12,000 donors have raised over $518,000 for the teenager's legal defense.
Despite Rittenhouse crossing state lines to attend the protest, illegally carrying a firearm, and reportedly calling a friend and admitting he shot someone in Kenosha, the Christian crowdfunding site argues that Rittenhouse's actions were justified.
"Kyle Rittenhouse just defended himself from a brutal attack by multiple members of the far-leftist group ANTIFA – the experience was undoubtedly a brutal one, as he was forced to take two lives to defend his own," the crowdfunding site reads.
Rittenhouse is facing charges of first-degree intentional homicide and first-degree reckless homicide in connection with the August 25 shootings of three protesters, including the deaths of two of them. He is currently being held at a juvenile correctional facility in Vernon Hills, Il.


alternet--2020-09-25--'This is how you normalize a madman': Scholars and press watchdogs urge corporate media to treat Tru

'This is how you normalize a madman': Scholars and press watchdogs urge corporate media to treat Trump like the authoritarian threat he is

Major news outlets failed the American people , critics say , when they chose to bury coverage of President Donald Trump 's Wednesday comment that he would not commit to a peaceful transition of power—a statement watchdogs say demanded above-the-fold , front-page headlines that simply did not materialize .
`` Newsroom leaders made a considered , intentional decision not to panic after Trump was elected , '' Dan Froomkin , editor of PressWatchers.org , wrote in a scathing rebuke of corporate media 's apparent nonchalant attitude towards the president 's rhetoric .
`` This was an epic , obvious mistake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was in some sense entirely predictable . ''
Froomkin continued , `` They should have gone on a war footing—and by that I do n't mean a partisan war against Trump , I mean a journalistic war against lies , ignorance , and intolerance . ''
Critics weighed in on the relative non-importance corporate news outlets assigned—in print and online—to Trump 's latest suggestion that he may not cede the office of the presidency should he lose in November : Some observers balked when Peter Baker , chief White House correspondent for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away the Times ' decision to bury the news by citing print publication deadlines .
One pointed to the late-evening news of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's death last week , which was an above-the-fold feature in the next day 's Times print edition .
Broadcast media also drew rebukes for its lack of emphasis on Trump 's veiled threat at the democratic process .
`` Wednesday 's network evening newscasts on ABC , CBS , and NBC were no better , '' Eric Boehlert , founder and editor of PressRun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them lead with Trump 's stunning proclamation , none of the broadcasts even reported on Trump 's comments .
This is how you normalize a madman .
( CNN and MSNBC did a much better job covering the transfer-of-power story . )
'' At PressWatchers.org , Froomkin explained how the dynamics in corporate newsrooms have led to complacency among journalists tasked with reporting on Trump 's presidency : One overarching problem is that our major newsrooms have simply gotten so corporate and even-keeled that our top editors value unflappability as a signal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I take this one a little personally , being a flappable person .
A top Washington Post editor once called me `` hysterical . ''
) Flappable people do n't rise through the ranks .
Corporate people do .
Journalism to me is about crusading for the truth .
But the notion that a serious , major news organization would pursue a crusade on behalf of its community is considered hippy shit by the people in charge these days .
So is consistently standing up to a lawless con man .
They 've @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barely squawk when Trump calls them the `` enemy of the people . ''
They have their algorithms , and they wo n't give them up no matter what .
They just continue to `` do the work . ''
So yeah , their news souls are dead .
There , I said it .
Lawmakers and progressive advocates called out the dangerous threat to democracy uttered by the commander-in-chief—and the corporate media for treating it like any other day in Trump 's scandal-laden presidency .
`` Great ( not ) to watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the republic as if it 's all just a regular press conference , '' longtime journalist Dan Gillmor tweeted Wednesday .
`` Historians will see Big Journalism 's business as usual in this emergency as one of the proximate causes of the American republic 's death . ''
Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) gave a speech Thursday denouncing Trump 's declared refusal to commit to a peaceful transition of power , saying : `` This is not just an election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden .
This is an election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win . ''
Sanders also outlined steps necessary to prepare the American public and lawmakers for chaos of election night and beyond , calling on the news media specifically to `` prepare the American people to understand there is no longer a single election day and that it is very possible that we may not know the results on November 3 . ''
Froomkin pointed out that corporate media 's opinion pages are more accurately depicting the real danger of Trump 's recent rhetoric than front-page headlines .
`` But as usual , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's going on , you have to go to the opinion writers—and the editorial cartoonists , '' he wrote , sharing a link to an op-ed by Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent .
`` What really matters here is that Trump is making an actual declaration of intent , '' Sargent wrote , `` not just to refuse to respect the outcome , but rather to try to cancel and override it , if he is able to get away with it . ''
`` Our democracy is at stake , '' Boehlert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steal an election , and the press should say so , every day until Election Day . ''

Major news outlets failed the American people, critics say, when they chose to bury coverage of President Donald Trump's Wednesday comment that he would not commit to a peaceful transition of power—a statement watchdogs say demanded above-the-fold, front-page headlines that simply did not materialize.
"Newsroom leaders made a considered, intentional decision not to panic after Trump was elected," Dan Froomkin, editor of PressWatchers.org, wrote in a scathing rebuke of corporate media's apparent nonchalant attitude towards the president's rhetoric. "This was an epic, obvious mistake, and everything that has happened since was in some sense entirely predictable."
Froomkin continued, "They should have gone on a war footing—and by that I don't mean a partisan war against Trump, I mean a journalistic war against lies, ignorance, and intolerance."
Critics weighed in on the relative non-importance corporate news outlets assigned—in print and online—to Trump's latest suggestion that he may not cede the office of the presidency should he lose in November:
Some observers balked when Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for the New York Times, attempted to explain away the Times' decision to bury the news by citing print publication deadlines. One pointed to the late-evening news of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death last week, which was an above-the-fold feature in the next day's Times print edition.
Broadcast media also drew rebukes for its lack of emphasis on Trump's veiled threat at the democratic process.
"Wednesday's network evening newscasts on ABC, CBS, and NBC were no better," Eric Boehlert, founder and editor of PressRun wrote. "Not only did none of them lead with Trump's stunning proclamation, none of the broadcasts even reported on Trump's comments. This is how you normalize a madman. (CNN and MSNBC did a much better job covering the transfer-of-power story.)"
At PressWatchers.org, Froomkin explained how the dynamics in corporate newsrooms have led to complacency among journalists tasked with reporting on Trump's presidency:
One overarching problem is that our major newsrooms have simply gotten so corporate and even-keeled that our top editors value unflappability as a signal virtue. (OK, I admit I take this one a little personally, being a flappable person. A top Washington Post editor once called me "hysterical.") Flappable people don't rise through the ranks. Corporate people do. Journalism to me is about crusading for the truth. But the notion that a serious, major news organization would pursue a crusade on behalf of its community is considered hippy shit by the people in charge these days. So is consistently standing up to a lawless con man. They've gotten used to printing lies. They barely squawk when Trump calls them the "enemy of the people." They have their algorithms, and they won't give them up no matter what. They just continue to "do the work." So yeah, their news souls are dead. There, I said it.
Lawmakers and progressive advocates called out the dangerous threat to democracy uttered by the commander-in-chief—and the corporate media for treating it like any other day in Trump's scandal-laden presidency.
"Great (not) to watch journalists reporting Trump's latest direct attacks on the republic as if it's all just a regular press conference," longtime journalist Dan Gillmor tweeted Wednesday. "Historians will see Big Journalism's business as usual in this emergency as one of the proximate causes of the American republic's death."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) gave a speech Thursday denouncing Trump's declared refusal to commit to a peaceful transition of power, saying: "This is not just an election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. This is an election between Donald Trump and democracy—and democracy must win."
Sanders also outlined steps necessary to prepare the American public and lawmakers for chaos of election night and beyond, calling on the news media specifically to "prepare the American people to understand there is no longer a single election day and that it is very possible that we may not know the results on November 3."
Froomkin pointed out that corporate media's opinion pages are more accurately depicting the real danger of Trump's recent rhetoric than front-page headlines.
"But as usual, to capture the real drama of what's going on, you have to go to the opinion writers—and the editorial cartoonists," he wrote, sharing a link to an op-ed by Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent.
"What really matters here is that Trump is making an actual declaration of intent," Sargent wrote, "not just to refuse to respect the outcome, but rather to try to cancel and override it, if he is able to get away with it."
Boehlert issued a more dire warning:
Trump isn't running for re-election in the sense he's hoping to accumulate more voter support than Biden. (His campaign keeps taking down ads in swing states.) Trump's running to maintain power. He's signaling that he'll refuse to give it up and will not accept his defeat as being legitimate. He's trying to steal an election. In reality, he doesn't care what the results are—he has no intention of abiding by the nation's will, and thinks he can count on the corrupt support of the GOP, the Department of Justice, and the United States Supreme Court to win his lawless battle in the days and weeks after the election.
"Our democracy is at stake," Boehlert concluded. "Trump is trying to steal an election, and the press should say so, every day until Election Day."


alternet--2020-09-25--'Reality might no longer be an option': Reporter details the 'cognitive dissonance' Trump defenders

'Reality might no longer be an option': Reporter details the 'cognitive dissonance' Trump defenders grapple with in support of the president

One of the most jarring aspects of watching Fox News or One America News Network is the mental gymnastics President Donald Trump ’ s supporters must perform in his defense .
Being a Trump supporter often means defending the indefensible .
Journalist Anne Applebaum describes those extremes in an article published in The Atlantic on September 25 , stressing that their defenses of the president require a total defiance of logic and reason .
Applebaum cites Trump loyalist William B .
Crews as one of the wildest examples .
Crews , Applebaum notes , was an employee of the National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is headed by expert immunologist Dr. Anthony Fauci .
Crews , the Daily Beast ’ s Lachlan Markey recently reported , was angry because Fauci ’ s messages on the coronavirus pandemic sometimes conflicted with what Trump had to say — and Crews responded by attacking Fauci on the Red State website using the pen name “ Streiff.
” As “ Streiff , ” Applebaum notes , Crews also defended Trump on everything from the Ukraine scandal to the George Floyd protests .
“ Nothing that ( Crews ) wrote was clever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Day after day , he produced boringly predictable pablum — the sort of average-vile stuff pumped out on Fox or Breitbart News all the time .
The only thing remarkable about this writing is that Crews was doing it while simultaneously being employed by a government body whose most important task is to fight exactly the kinds of conspiracy theories he was producing.
” Another example of a Trump supporter who has gone to insane lengths to defend the indefensible , according to Applebaum , is Michael Caputo , former Trump-appointed spokesman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Services .
Caputo , Applebaum observes , “ was caught meddling with scientific reports on the pandemic put out by the CDC , which , like Fauci ’ s agency , is part of HHS .
He then posted a Facebook video claiming that scientists at the CDC were plotting ‘ sedition ’ and worse.
” Applebaum quotes Caputo as saying , “ You understand that they ’ re going to have to kill me , and unfortunately , I think that ’ s where this is going .
There are hit squads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you carry guns , buy ammunition , ladies and gentlemen , because it ’ s going to be hard to get.
” The “ cases ” of Crews and Caputo , Applebaum writes , indicate “ that people whose jobs require them to provide ‘ alternative facts ’ on a regular basis might eventually break under the strain .
Maybe there is a price to be paid , in loss of mental clarity , for supporting the fantasy world needed to sustain this president.
” Trumpworld , Applebaum warns , has become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far-right QAnon cult are now welcome in the GOP .
“ In order to make sense of the world they can see all around them , ( QAnon ) have created an elaborate and obviously false explanation — that an omniscient Trump is fighting a cabal of deep-state Satanists and pedophiles , ” Applebaum observes .
“ No wonder Republicans , instead of shunning QAnon believers , are working to elect some of them to Congress in November .
They genuinely serve a function , helping Trump supporters navigate the gap between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they see on Fox and Facebook.
” Applebaum wraps up her piece by warning that if Trump wins a second term in November , his administration could become even more divorced from reality .
“ Voters can still choose to grapple with reality — to read real news , to seek accurate information , to use our daily experience as a guide before deciding what to believe —without fear , ” Applebaum stresses .
“ But for people like ‘ Streiff ’ — people who actually work in this administration , and people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second Trump Administration — reality might no longer be an option .
”

One of the most jarring aspects of watching Fox News or One America News Network is the mental gymnastics President Donald Trump’s supporters must perform in his defense. Being a Trump supporter often means defending the indefensible. Journalist Anne Applebaum describes those extremes in an article published in The Atlantic on September 25, stressing that their defenses of the president require a total defiance of logic and reason.
Applebaum cites Trump loyalist William B. Crews as one of the wildest examples. Crews, Applebaum notes, was an employee of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is headed by expert immunologist Dr. Anthony Fauci. Crews, the Daily Beast’s Lachlan Markey recently reported, was angry because Fauci’s messages on the coronavirus pandemic sometimes conflicted with what Trump had to say — and Crews responded by attacking Fauci on the Red State website using the pen name “Streiff.”
As “Streiff,” Applebaum notes, Crews also defended Trump on everything from the Ukraine scandal to the George Floyd protests.
“Nothing that (Crews) wrote was clever or surprising,” Applebaum explains. “Day after day, he produced boringly predictable pablum — the sort of average-vile stuff pumped out on Fox or Breitbart News all the time. The only thing remarkable about this writing is that Crews was doing it while simultaneously being employed by a government body whose most important task is to fight exactly the kinds of conspiracy theories he was producing.”
Another example of a Trump supporter who has gone to insane lengths to defend the indefensible, according to Applebaum, is Michael Caputo, former Trump-appointed spokesman at the Department of Health and Human Services. Caputo, Applebaum observes, “was caught meddling with scientific reports on the pandemic put out by the CDC, which, like Fauci’s agency, is part of HHS. He then posted a Facebook video claiming that scientists at the CDC were plotting ‘sedition’ and worse.”
Applebaum quotes Caputo as saying, “You understand that they’re going to have to kill me, and unfortunately, I think that’s where this is going. There are hit squads being trained all over this country. If you carry guns, buy ammunition, ladies and gentlemen, because it’s going to be hard to get.”
The “cases” of Crews and Caputo, Applebaum writes, indicate “that people whose jobs require them to provide ‘alternative facts’ on a regular basis might eventually break under the strain. Maybe there is a price to be paid, in loss of mental clarity, for supporting the fantasy world needed to sustain this president.”
Trumpworld, Applebaum warns, has become so unhinged that even supporters of the far-right QAnon cult are now welcome in the GOP.
“In order to make sense of the world they can see all around them, (QAnon) have created an elaborate and obviously false explanation — that an omniscient Trump is fighting a cabal of deep-state Satanists and pedophiles,” Applebaum observes. “No wonder Republicans, instead of shunning QAnon believers, are working to elect some of them to Congress in November. They genuinely serve a function, helping Trump supporters navigate the gap between the reality they live in and the fiction they see on Fox and Facebook.”
Applebaum wraps up her piece by warning that if Trump wins a second term in November, his administration could become even more divorced from reality.
“Voters can still choose to grapple with reality — to read real news, to seek accurate information, to use our daily experience as a guide before deciding what to believe —without fear,” Applebaum stresses. “But for people like ‘Streiff’ — people who actually work in this administration, and people who would choose to work in a second Trump Administration — reality might no longer be an option.”


alternet--2020-09-25--Legal experts are freaking out over Barr’s actions to help Trump win: ‘The attorney general is a thr

Legal experts are freaking out over Barr’s actions to help Trump win: ‘The attorney general is a threat’

Legal experts are increasingly alarmed by Attorney General William Barr ’ s efforts to help President Donald Trump win re-election .
The attorney general has joined the president in attacking voting integrity and civil rights demonstrators , and he has described his role in the election in explicitly religious terms that show Barr believes he represents “ moral discipline and virtue ” against “ individual rapacity , ” reported The Guardian .
“ His abuses have only escalated as we have gotten closer and closer to the election , and as the president has felt more and more politically vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington .
“ I can ’ t put it more plainly than this : The attorney general is a threat to American citizens having free and fair access to the vote , and is a threat to American having their votes counted.
” Barr has recently asked federal prosecutors to consider charging protesters with sedition and designated New York City , Portland and Seattle as “ anarchy ” zones , which helps Trump whip up hysteria about public safety .
“ I think this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political success of the president , and the president ’ s political agenda than any attorney general in history I can think of , ” said Neil Kinkopf , a Georgia State law professor who worked in the Office of Legal Counsel under Bill Clinton .
Kinkopf testified against Barr during his 2019 confirmation hearing , when he warned senators the deeply conservative Washington veteran believed in giving the chief executive “ breathtaking ” powers .
“ When I testified against him , I recognized how dangerous the unitary executive theory is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what I didn ’ t appreciate , and I don ’ t think anybody appreciated , was just how fully he would deploy that theory in advance not of rule-of law values , but in order to advance both the president ’ s political agenda , and I think more deeply for Barr , his own social and religious commitments.
” The attorney general has accused Black Lives Matter protesters of fomenting chaos as part of a socialist revolution , and he has described himself as a bulwark in a battle between good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sees himself clearly as fighting culture wars that are to him moral and religious , ” Kinkopf said , “ and those are deeper , I think , commitments for him than the commitment to federalism , and so to the extent that the balance of federal and state power gets in the way of achieving what he wants to achieve in the culture wars , he ’ s willing to cast that aside .
“ So if there weren ’ t a culture war angle on it , I think he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governments should be left to police their own communities , and the federal government should keep its nose out , ” Kinkopf added .
“ But because he sees something at stake in the current protests that jeopardizes what he feels as being the proper order of society , he ’ s not troubled about using federal power to pursue what he views as being the right results .
”

Legal experts are increasingly alarmed by Attorney General William Barr’s efforts to help President Donald Trump win re-election.
The attorney general has joined the president in attacking voting integrity and civil rights demonstrators, and he has described his role in the election in explicitly religious terms that show Barr believes he represents “moral discipline and virtue” against “individual rapacity,” reported The Guardian.
“His abuses have only escalated as we have gotten closer and closer to the election, and as the president has felt more and more politically vulnerable,” said Donald Sherman, deputy director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “I can’t put it more plainly than this: The attorney general is a threat to American citizens having free and fair access to the vote, and is a threat to American having their votes counted.”
Barr has recently asked federal prosecutors to consider charging protesters with sedition and designated New York City, Portland and Seattle as “anarchy” zones, which helps Trump whip up hysteria about public safety.
“I think this attorney general is demonstrably more committed to the political success of the president, and the president’s political agenda than any attorney general in history I can think of,” said Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who worked in the Office of Legal Counsel under Bill Clinton.
Kinkopf testified against Barr during his 2019 confirmation hearing, when he warned senators the deeply conservative Washington veteran believed in giving the chief executive “breathtaking” powers.
“When I testified against him, I recognized how dangerous the unitary executive theory is,” Kinkopf said. “But what I didn’t appreciate, and I don’t think anybody appreciated, was just how fully he would deploy that theory in advance not of rule-of law values, but in order to advance both the president’s political agenda, and I think more deeply for Barr, his own social and religious commitments.”
The attorney general has accused Black Lives Matter protesters of fomenting chaos as part of a socialist revolution, and he has described himself as a bulwark in a battle between good and evil.
“The attorney general sees himself clearly as fighting culture wars that are to him moral and religious,” Kinkopf said, “and those are deeper, I think, commitments for him than the commitment to federalism, and so to the extent that the balance of federal and state power gets in the way of achieving what he wants to achieve in the culture wars, he’s willing to cast that aside.
“So if there weren’t a culture war angle on it, I think he would take the position that states and local governments should be left to police their own communities, and the federal government should keep its nose out,” Kinkopf added. “But because he sees something at stake in the current protests that jeopardizes what he feels as being the proper order of society, he’s not troubled about using federal power to pursue what he views as being the right results.”