alternet--2020-09-29--Postal Service patriots help lead the resistance

When Postmaster General Louis DeJoy came on the job this summer and ordered that postal carriers break their single most critical directive enshrined in their unofficial motto— '' Every piece , every day '' —the resistance took shape .
Mechanics slow-walked removal of sorting machines .
Supervisors made surreptitious trips to deliver mail left behind in distribution centers .
Carriers made sure prescription and checks and bills were n't left behind .
They used every available excuse for a late return to their buildings to cover for spending disallowed overtime to make sure their rounds were completed .
The Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dozen postal workers and union leaders from around the country about their quiet campaign to subvert DeJoy , and their awareness of exactly what was happening to them .
`` I ca n't see any postal worker not bending those rules '' from DeJoy , one worker in Philadelphia told the Post .
They could see what was happening , knowing that DeJoy was a Trump fundraiser .
A worker in Michigan watched as public mailboxes were removed mostly from racially diverse working-class neighborhoods .
That , said the postal worker—who is Black—reinforces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of like everything else .
It was n't built for us . ''
The same worker said that the common knowledge that DeJoy was a Trump donor and fundraiser made it feel as though the Postal Service had become an organ of the Republican Party .
`` Taken together , Trump 's repeated attacks on mail-in voting , his connection with DeJoy , and DeJoy 's operational changes look too conspicuous to be coincidental , the carrier said . ''
The Pennsylvania worker reiterated that , and added that the June primary there—in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall .
The worker said that `` we had a lot of issues .
There were people at the plant that were n't coming in or were sick .
We were seeing delays with that .
So now we 're looking at this [ general election ] and going , 'Oh , jeez , this is not going to be good . '
The stakes definitely feel higher , especially given what this election really means . ''
What it really means could be the very survival of the Postal Service , along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in New York who copped to slowing down the demolition of sorting machines told the Post : `` It 's disheartening to hear from my boss that he wants me to do something that could very potentially cripple the system . ''
He added : `` It 's disheartening to hear that people think we 're going to fail '' at handling election mail .
`` We handle this kind of volume all the time . ''
That 's where the sabotage by his bosses really has him angry .
`` But if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we get high volume around holiday season and the election , it will fail .
No question .
It will fail .
We should get the ballots out .
We really should , but all it would take is one person in a nice shiny suit to say , 'Leave those ballots , take the other mail . '
And everyone would say , 'Yes sir . '
'' Not everyone , clearly , but enough coworkers that he says : `` I got angry .
I 'm not happy at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'm literally trying to do my job , and they 're telling me that I ca n't . ''
Martin Ramirez , president of the APWU Local 170 in Toledo , says he sees a lot of `` dancing between the raindrops '' on the part of colleagues to do their jobs .
In his area , managers who are n't eligible for overtime will use their off hours to transport mail that arrived too late to be shipped on to the Detroit processing center , so that it does n't sit in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office does n't end up logging any overtime officially , even though the managers are still working extra time .
But the mail gets there .
Jennifer Lemke , the clerk craft director at Local 170 , says that clerks there at the distribution centers make it a point to scan all the incoming mail for the necessities—prescriptions , checks , bills—to pull them out and make sure they 're sent out with carriers even if the batch of mail they 're in gets delayed .
The workers have the law behind them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail delivery .
It is a federal law , a felony , to make a conscious effort to delay the mail .
It can result in five years in prison .
So the orders from DeJoy and his management team are seen as violating the spirit of that law and the Postal Service ethos .
Skirting the orders—particularly in this pandemic—is seen by many workers as their duty .
`` You look at the news and you get worried , '' the Philadelphia postal worker said .
`` Are we going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and covid response for this country ? ''
That 's leading to burn-out .
`` Having your own personal problems , too , it all adds up .
I think it 's really starting to get to people , both newer and seasoned veterans of the job . ''
`` It bothers me , because I like to do my job .
Some of us do this for 20 years , '' said a carrier in New Jersey .
`` You see kids grow up from babies and watch them get married .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they buy you a coffee .
They say , 'This is my mailman , he 's a great guy . '
Now they say , 'Where 's my mail ? '
''

When Postmaster General Louis DeJoy came on the job this summer and ordered that postal carriers break their single most critical directive enshrined in their unofficial motto—"Every piece, every day"—the resistance took shape. Mechanics slow-walked removal of sorting machines. Supervisors made surreptitious trips to deliver mail left behind in distribution centers. Carriers made sure prescription and checks and bills weren't left behind. They used every available excuse for a late return to their buildings to cover for spending disallowed overtime to make sure their rounds were completed.
The Washington Post talked to a more than a dozen postal workers and union leaders from around the country about their quiet campaign to subvert DeJoy, and their awareness of exactly what was happening to them. "I can't see any postal worker not bending those rules" from DeJoy, one worker in Philadelphia told the Post. They could see what was happening, knowing that DeJoy was a Trump fundraiser. A worker in Michigan watched as public mailboxes were removed mostly from racially diverse working-class neighborhoods. That, said the postal worker—who is Black—reinforces a message: "It's kind of like everything else. It wasn't built for us." The same worker said that the common knowledge that DeJoy was a Trump donor and fundraiser made it feel as though the Postal Service had become an organ of the Republican Party. "Taken together, Trump's repeated attacks on mail-in voting, his connection with DeJoy, and DeJoy's operational changes look too conspicuous to be coincidental, the carrier said."
The Pennsylvania worker reiterated that, and added that the June primary there—in the pandemic—gave a frightening window into this fall. The worker said that "we had a lot of issues. There were people at the plant that weren't coming in or were sick. We were seeing delays with that. So now we're looking at this [general election] and going, 'Oh, jeez, this is not going to be good.' The stakes definitely feel higher, especially given what this election really means." What it really means could be the very survival of the Postal Service, along with everything else good.
The mechanic in New York who copped to slowing down the demolition of sorting machines told the Post: "It's disheartening to hear from my boss that he wants me to do something that could very potentially cripple the system." He added: "It's disheartening to hear that people think we're going to fail" at handling election mail. "We handle this kind of volume all the time." That's where the sabotage by his bosses really has him angry. "But if they do these things with delivery times and we get high volume around holiday season and the election, it will fail. No question. It will fail. We should get the ballots out. We really should, but all it would take is one person in a nice shiny suit to say, 'Leave those ballots, take the other mail.' And everyone would say, 'Yes sir.'" Not everyone, clearly, but enough coworkers that he says: "I got angry. I'm not happy at all that I'm being politicized. I'm literally trying to do my job, and they're telling me that I can't."
Martin Ramirez, president of the APWU Local 170 in Toledo, says he sees a lot of "dancing between the raindrops" on the part of colleagues to do their jobs. In his area, managers who aren't eligible for overtime will use their off hours to transport mail that arrived too late to be shipped on to the Detroit processing center, so that it doesn't sit in Toledo overnight. That way the Toledo office doesn't end up logging any overtime officially, even though the managers are still working extra time. But the mail gets there. Jennifer Lemke, the clerk craft director at Local 170, says that clerks there at the distribution centers make it a point to scan all the incoming mail for the necessities—prescriptions, checks, bills—to pull them out and make sure they're sent out with carriers even if the batch of mail they're in gets delayed.
The workers have the law behind them when they resist direct orders to sabotage mail delivery. It is a federal law, a felony, to make a conscious effort to delay the mail. It can result in five years in prison. So the orders from DeJoy and his management team are seen as violating the spirit of that law and the Postal Service ethos. Skirting the orders—particularly in this pandemic—is seen by many workers as their duty. "You look at the news and you get worried," the Philadelphia postal worker said. "Are we going to be the end-all, be-all of election integrity and covid response for this country?" That's leading to burn-out. "Having your own personal problems, too, it all adds up. I think it's really starting to get to people, both newer and seasoned veterans of the job."
"It bothers me, because I like to do my job. Some of us do this for 20 years," said a carrier in New Jersey. "You see kids grow up from babies and watch them get married. They see you in Wawa, and they buy you a coffee. They say, 'This is my mailman, he's a great guy.' Now they say, 'Where's my mail?'"


alternet--2020-09-29--Brad Parscale facing investigation for ‘stealing’ $40 million from Trump campaign: report

Embattled former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale has been accused of `` stealing '' up to $ 40 million from @ @ @ @ @ and $ 10 million from the Republican National Committee .
The Daily Mail first reported @ @ @ @ @ pocketing the money .
According to the Daily Mail : Trump demoted Parscale as campaign @ @ @ @ @ his Florida lifestyle attracted media attention .
Daily Mail sources said Trump ordered a review @ @ @ @ @ after Parscale 's demotion .
RNC Rapid Response Director Steve Guest denied that Parscale is @ @ @ @ @ report is categorically false , '' Guest said in a statement .
`` There is @ @ @ @ @ Brad at the RNC . ''
Reports on Sunday revealed that Parscale was hospitalized after @ @ @ @ @ and allegedly threatening to commit suicide .

Embattled former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale has been accused of "stealing" up to $40 million from President Donald Trump's campaign and $10 million from the Republican National Committee.
The Daily Mailfirst reported that Parscale is suspected of pocketing the money.
According to the Daily Mail:
A Trump insider explained to DailyMail.com that Parscale went into a tailspin after he was demoted in July and replaced by his former number two, Bill Stepien, as he's worried about the 'gravy train' ending and keeping up with his lavish lifestyle.
Trump demoted Parscale as campaign manager earlier this year after his Florida lifestyle attracted media attention. Daily Mail sources said Trump ordered a review of RNC finances just days after Parscale's demotion.
RNC Rapid Response Director Steve Guest denied that Parscale is being investigated.
"This report is categorically false," Guest said in a statement. "There is no audit or investigation of Brad at the RNC."
Reports on Sunday revealed that Parscale was hospitalized after a tense standoff with police and allegedly threatening to commit suicide.


alternet--2020-09-29--Amy Coney Barrett tied to far-right religious cult that believes women must ‘submit’ to their husban

Amy Coney Barrett tied to far-right religious cult that believes women must ‘submit’ to their husbands

Now that President Donald Trump has nominated far-right Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the U.S. Supreme Court , her connection to the extremist quasi-Catholic cult People of Praise is once again coming under scrutiny .
Trump 's supporters are trying to paint criticism of Barrett as anti-Catholic , but in fact , People of Praise is controversial within Catholicism and is n't exclusively Catholic .
And the Associated Press is reporting on some of its disturbing practices .
People of Praise does not practice traditional Catholicism , but rather , has been greatly influenced by far-right fundamentalists and Pentecostal evangelicals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholics , evangelical Protestants have been participants as well .
Associated Press reporters Michael Biesecker and Michelle R. Smith explain , `` People of Praise is a religious community based in charismatic Catholicism , a movement that grew out of the influence of Pentecostalism — which emphasizes a personal relationship with Jesus and can include baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues .
The group organizes and meets outside the purview of a church and includes people from several Christian denominations , but its members are mostly Roman Catholic . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ People of Praise is the severely patriarchal belief system it promotes .
People of Praise used to refer to female members as `` handmaids . ''
Former People of Praise member Coral Anika Theill , who joined the group in 1979 and is now 65 , told the Associated Press that when she was a member , women were expected to live in `` total submission '' to their husbands .
Theill told AP , `` My husband at the time was very drawn to it because of the structure of the submission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about her experiences with People of Praise in her book , `` Bonsheá : Making Light of the Dark . ''
Biesecker and Smith note that in her book , Theill `` recounts that in People of Praise , every consequential personal decision — whether to take a new job , buy a particular model car or choose where to live — went through the hierarchy of male leadership .
Members of the group who worked outside the community had to turn over their paystubs to church leaders to confirm they were tithing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her husband accompanied her to gynecological appointments to make sure she was not obtaining birth control .
Adrian Reimers , another ex-member of People of Praise , wrote about the group in his 1997 book `` Not Reliable Guides . ''
According to Reimers — who now teaches at Notre Dame University — People of Praise believe that wives must `` submit in all things '' to their husbands .
Reimers wrote , `` A married woman is expected always to reflect the fact that she is under her husband 's authority .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ husband is 'head of the home ' or head of the family ; he is , in fact , her personal pastoral head .
Whatever she does requires at least his tacit approval .
He is responsible for her formation and growth in the Christian life . ''
Biesecker and Smith report that another ex-member of People of Praise , 56-year-old Lisa Williams , has described her experiences with the group in a blog called Exorcism and Pound Cake .
According to Williams , `` I remember my mother saying a wife could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it was his right and her duty .
Sex is not for pleasure .
It 's for as many babies as God chooses to give you ... .
Women had to be obedient .
They had to be subservient . ''
Trump considered nominating Barrett , a federal appellate judge , for the U.S. Supreme Court after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his resignation in 2018 .
The president ended up nominating Brett Kavanaugh instead , and he was confirmed to the High Court after a series of turbulent hearings in the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would keep Barrett in mind if any more seats on the Supreme Court became vacant while he was president .
And a seat became available when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died of cancer on Friday , September 18 .
Senate confirmation hearings for Barrett are set to begin on October 12 .

Now that President Donald Trump has nominated far-right Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the U.S. Supreme Court, her connection to the extremist quasi-Catholic cult People of Praise is once again coming under scrutiny. Trump's supporters are trying to paint criticism of Barrett as anti-Catholic, but in fact, People of Praise is controversial within Catholicism and isn't exclusively Catholic. And the Associated Press is reporting on some of its disturbing practices.
People of Praise does not practice traditional Catholicism, but rather, has been greatly influenced by far-right fundamentalists and Pentecostal evangelicals. While many of members have been Catholics, evangelical Protestants have been participants as well.
Associated Press reporters Michael Biesecker and Michelle R. Smith explain, "People of Praise is a religious community based in charismatic Catholicism, a movement that grew out of the influence of Pentecostalism — which emphasizes a personal relationship with Jesus and can include baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. The group organizes and meets outside the purview of a church and includes people from several Christian denominations, but its members are mostly Roman Catholic."
One of the most controversial aspects of People of Praise is the severely patriarchal belief system it promotes. People of Praise used to refer to female members as "handmaids."
Former People of Praise member Coral Anika Theill, who joined the group in 1979 and is now 65, told the Associated Press that when she was a member, women were expected to live in "total submission" to their husbands. Theill told AP, "My husband at the time was very drawn to it because of the structure of the submission of women."
Theill has written about her experiences with People of Praise in her book, "Bonsheá: Making Light of the Dark." Biesecker and Smith note that in her book, Theill "recounts that in People of Praise, every consequential personal decision — whether to take a new job, buy a particular model car or choose where to live — went through the hierarchy of male leadership. Members of the group who worked outside the community had to turn over their paystubs to church leaders to confirm they were tithing correctly."
According to Theill, her husband accompanied her to gynecological appointments to make sure she was not obtaining birth control.
Adrian Reimers, another ex-member of People of Praise, wrote about the group in his 1997 book "Not Reliable Guides." According to Reimers — who now teaches at Notre Dame University — People of Praise believe that wives must "submit in all things" to their husbands.
Reimers wrote, "A married woman is expected always to reflect the fact that she is under her husband's authority. This goes beyond an acknowledgment that the husband is 'head of the home' or head of the family; he is, in fact, her personal pastoral head. Whatever she does requires at least his tacit approval. He is responsible for her formation and growth in the Christian life."
Biesecker and Smith report that another ex-member of People of Praise, 56-year-old Lisa Williams, has described her experiences with the group in a blog called Exorcism and Pound Cake. According to Williams, "I remember my mother saying a wife could never deny sex to her husband, because it was his right and her duty. Sex is not for pleasure. It's for as many babies as God chooses to give you.... Women had to be obedient. They had to be subservient."
Trump considered nominating Barrett, a federal appellate judge, for the U.S. Supreme Court after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his resignation in 2018. The president ended up nominating Brett Kavanaugh instead, and he was confirmed to the High Court after a series of turbulent hearings in the Senate. But Trump's allies said he would keep Barrett in mind if any more seats on the Supreme Court became vacant while he was president. And a seat became available when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died of cancer on Friday, September 18.
Senate confirmation hearings for Barrett are set to begin on October 12.


alternet--2020-09-29--Is Fox News obsessed with 'hate'? Study finds network uses this word 5 times more than its rivals

Tucker Carlson is a big fan of the phrase 'they hate . '
Usually , he 's talking about Democrats .
` Fox News is up to five times more likely to use the word “ hate '' in its programming than its main competitors , according to our new study of how cable news channels use language .
Fox particularly uses the term when explaining opposition to Donald Trump .
His opponents are said to “ hate '' Trump , his values and his followers .
Our research , which ran from Jan. 1 to May 8 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment .
Then came the coronavirus .
As we sifted through hundreds of cable news transcripts over five months , we noticed consistent differences between the vocabulary used on Fox News and that of MSNBC .
While their news agendas were largely similar , the words they used to describe these newsworthy events diverged greatly .
For our study , we analyzed 1,088 program transcripts from the two ideologically branded channels – right-wing Fox and left-wing MSNBC – between 6 p.m. and 10:59 p.m. Because polarized media diets contribute to partisan conflict , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or resentment , such as “ dislike , '' “ despise , '' “ ca n't stand '' and “ hate . ''
We expected to find that both of the strongly ideological networks made use of such words , perhaps in different ways .
Instead , we found that Fox used antipathy words five times more often than MSNBC .
“ Hate '' really stood out : It appeared 647 times on Fox , compared to 118 on MSNBC .
Fox usually pairs certain words alongside “ hate . ''
The most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in , “ they hate . ''
Fox used this phrase 101 times between January and May .
MSNBC used it just five times .
To put these findings in historic context , we then used the GDELT Television database to search for occurrences of the phrase “ they hate '' on both networks going back to 2009 .
We included CNN for an additional comparison .
We found Fox 's usage of “ they hate '' has increased over time , with a clear spike around the polarizing 2016 Trump-Clinton election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' really took off when Trump 's presidency began .
Beginning in January 2017 , the mean usage of “ they hate '' on the network doubled .
So who is doing all this hating – and why – according to Fox News ?
Mainly , it 's Democrats , liberals , political elites and the media .
Though these groups do not actually have the same interests , ideology or job description , our analysis finds Fox lumps them together as the “ they '' in “ they hate . ''
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sean Hannity , Tucker Carlson and other Fox hosts most often name Trump .
Anchors also identify their audience – “ you , '' “ Christians '' and “ us '' – as the target of animosity .
Only 13 instances of “ they hate '' also cited a reason .
Examples included “ they ca n't accept the fact that he won '' or “ because we voted for [ Trump ] . ''
Citing liberal hate as a fact that needs no explanation serves to dismiss criticism of specific policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moral outrage directed at Trump as inherently irrational .
For loyal Fox viewers , these language patterns construct a coherent but potentially dangerous narrative about the world .
Our data show intensely partisan hosts like Hannity and Carlson are more likely than other Fox anchors to use “ they hate '' in this way .
Nevertheless , the phrase permeates Fox 's evening programming , uttered by hosts , interviewees and Republican sources , all painting Trump critics not as legitimate opponents but hateful enemies working in bad faith .
By repeatedly telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objects of the contempt of a powerful and hateful left-leaning “ elite , '' Fox has constructed two imagined communities .
On the one side : Trump along with good folks under siege .
On the other : nefarious Democrats , liberals , the left and mainstream media .
Research confirms that repeated exposure to polarized media messages can lead news consumers to form firm opinions and can foster what 's called an “ in-group '' identity .
The us-versus-them mentality , in turn , deepens feelings of antipathy toward the perceived “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports an increasing tendency , especially among Republicans , to view members of the other party as immoral and unpatriotic .
Pew also finds Republicans trust Fox News more than any other media outlet .
Americans ' divergent media sources – and specifically Fox 's “ hate '' -filled rhetoric – are n't solely to blame here .
Cable news is part of a larger picture of heightened polarization , intense partisanship and paralysis in Congress .
Leaning into intense partisanship has been good for Fox News , though .
In summer 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ network .
But using hate to explain the news is a dangerous business plan when shared crises demand Americans ' empathy , negotiation and compromise .
Fox 's talk of hate undermines democratic values like tolerance and reduces Americans ' trust of their fellow citizens .
This fraying of social ties helps explain America 's failures in managing the pandemic – and bodes badly for its handling of what seems likely to be a chaotic , divisive presidential election .
In pitting its viewers against the rest of the country , Fox News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very crises it covers .
Curd Knüpfer , Assistant Professor of Political Science , Freie Universität Berlin and Robert Mathew Entman , J.B. and M.C .
Shapiro Professor Emeritus of Media and Public Affairs , George Washington University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

Tucker Carlson is a big fan of the phrase 'they hate.' Usually, he's talking about Democrats.
Curd Knüpfer, Freie Universität Berlin and Robert Mathew Entman, George Washington University
`Fox News is up to five times more likely to use the word “hate" in its programming than its main competitors, according to our new study of how cable news channels use language.
Fox particularly uses the term when explaining opposition to Donald Trump. His opponents are said to “hate" Trump, his values and his followers.
Our research, which ran from Jan. 1 to May 8, 2020, initially explored news of Trump's impeachment. Then came the coronavirus. As we sifted through hundreds of cable news transcripts over five months, we noticed consistent differences between the vocabulary used on Fox News and that of MSNBC.
While their news agendas were largely similar, the words they used to describe these newsworthy events diverged greatly.
Fox and hate
For our study, we analyzed 1,088 program transcripts from the two ideologically branded channels – right-wing Fox and left-wing MSNBC – between 6 p.m. and 10:59 p.m.
Because polarized media diets contribute to partisan conflict, our quantitative analysis identified terms indicating antipathy or resentment, such as “dislike," “despise," “can't stand" and “hate."
We expected to find that both of the strongly ideological networks made use of such words, perhaps in different ways. Instead, we found that Fox used antipathy words five times more often than MSNBC. “Hate" really stood out: It appeared 647 times on Fox, compared to 118 on MSNBC.
Fox usually pairs certain words alongside “hate." The most notable was “they" – as in, “they hate." Fox used this phrase 101 times between January and May. MSNBC used it just five times.
To put these findings in historic context, we then used the GDELT Television database to search for occurrences of the phrase “they hate" on both networks going back to 2009. We included CNN for an additional comparison.
We found Fox's usage of “they hate" has increased over time, with a clear spike around the polarizing 2016 Trump-Clinton election. But Fox's use of “hate" really took off when Trump's presidency began. Beginning in January 2017, the mean usage of “they hate" on the network doubled.
'Us' versus 'them'
So who is doing all this hating – and why – according to Fox News?
Mainly, it's Democrats, liberals, political elites and the media. Though these groups do not actually have the same interests, ideology or job description, our analysis finds Fox lumps them together as the “they" in “they hate."
As for the object of all this hatred, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and other Fox hosts most often name Trump. Anchors also identify their audience – “you," “Christians" and “us" – as the target of animosity. Only 13 instances of “they hate" also cited a reason. Examples included “they can't accept the fact that he won" or “because we voted for [Trump]."
Citing liberal hate as a fact that needs no explanation serves to dismiss criticism of specific policies or events. It paints criticism or moral outrage directed at Trump as inherently irrational.
For loyal Fox viewers, these language patterns construct a coherent but potentially dangerous narrative about the world.
Our data show intensely partisan hosts like Hannity and Carlson are more likely than other Fox anchors to use “they hate" in this way. Nevertheless, the phrase permeates Fox's evening programming, uttered by hosts, interviewees and Republican sources, all painting Trump critics not as legitimate opponents but hateful enemies working in bad faith.
By repeatedly telling its viewers they are bound together as objects of the contempt of a powerful and hateful left-leaning “elite," Fox has constructed two imagined communities. On the one side: Trump along with good folks under siege. On the other: nefarious Democrats, liberals, the left and mainstream media.
Research confirms that repeated exposure to polarized media messages can lead news consumers to form firm opinions and can foster what's called an “in-group" identity. The us-versus-them mentality, in turn, deepens feelings of antipathy toward the perceived “out-group."
The Pew Research Center reports an increasing tendency, especially among Republicans, to view members of the other party as immoral and unpatriotic. Pew also finds Republicans trust Fox News more than any other media outlet.
Americans' divergent media sources – and specifically Fox's “hate"-filled rhetoric – aren't solely to blame here. Cable news is part of a larger picture of heightened polarization, intense partisanship and paralysis in Congress.
Sean Hannity portrays criticism of Donald Trump as hate-based.
YouTube/Fox News
Good business
Leaning into intense partisanship has been good for Fox News, though. In summer 2020 it was the country's most watched network. But using hate to explain the news is a dangerous business plan when shared crises demand Americans' empathy, negotiation and compromise.
Fox's talk of hate undermines democratic values like tolerance and reduces Americans' trust of their fellow citizens.
This fraying of social ties helps explain America's failures in managing the pandemic – and bodes badly for its handling of what seems likely to be a chaotic, divisive presidential election. In pitting its viewers against the rest of the country, Fox News works against potential solutions to the the very crises it covers.
Curd Knüpfer, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Freie Universität Berlin and Robert Mathew Entman, J.B. and M.C. Shapiro Professor Emeritus of Media and Public Affairs, George Washington University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-09-29--Tax revelations and corporate media won't defeat Trump — here's why

he big banner headline across the top of the New York Times homepage as Tuesday got underway— '' TRUMP 'S TAXES SHOW CHRONIC LOSSES AND YEARS OF TAX AVOIDANCE '' —might give the impression that Donald Trump is finally on the verge of political downfall .
Do n't believe it for a moment .
The same kind of mistaken belief has led many to put undeserved trust in a corporate-media system .
But the New York Times is n't going to save us .
Neither is the Washington Post , MSNBC , CNN or any of the other mass-media outlets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To a large extent , the corporate media—especially the TV networks that gave Trump billions of dollars ' worth of free airtime while raking in enormous ad revenues—made him president .
The advertising-and-ratings-bedazzled head of the CBS network , Leslie Moonves , uttered an infamously emblematic comment eight months before the 2016 election , in the midst of a campaign that Trump dominated with TV coverage : `` It may not be good for America , but it 's damn good for CBS . ''
Less well-known are other statements that Moonves also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference in February 2016 .
`` Man , who would have expected the ride we 're all having right now ? ''
And : `` The money 's rolling in and this is fun . ''
And : `` I 've never seen anything like this , and this is going to be a very good year for us .
Sorry .
It 's a terrible thing to say .
But , bring it on , Donald .
Keep going . ''
And : `` Donald 's place in this election is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , CNN president Jeff Zucker—who presided over the network 's `` all-Trump-all-the-time '' policy during the 2016 primaries—was privately offering guidance to candidate Trump .
Zucker had helped build the Trump myth years earlier when he was at NBC presiding over Trump 's `` Apprentice '' show , which turned out to be financially and politically crucial for his path to the White House .
Under the ongoing reign of the casino economy , the corporate house is set up to always win .
Now , after doing so much to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the big media organizations are largely disapproving .
While the right-wing zealots at places like Fox News and aligned talk-radio and online entities are determined to re-elect Trump , the majority of mainstream media outlets are down on him .
Yet the tenor of their coverage , including news of the latest polls , should not lull anyone into a false sense of security about Trump 's impending demise—a demise they 've predicted before .
Trump won in 2016 while the bubble inhabited by elite media was rarified and cut off from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyday people .
As a consummate demagogue , he knew how to stoke and pander to resentments against elites—resentments that mainstream media seemed clueless about .
The corporate media are part of a system that thrives on rampant income inequality , giving more and more power to the rich while doing more and more harm to people the less money they have .
Media elites are apt to do fine whether Trump wins or loses the election .
Four years ago , Trump played off the elitism of the establishment to ply his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ xenophobia and misogyny .
He has governed the same way he ran in 2016 , and he hopes to govern for the next four years the way he 's running in 2020—using the broadly and vaguely defined establishment as a foil for his poisonous , pseudo-populist messaging .
Amid the bombshell coverage of Trump 's tax records , it might be tempting to believe the tide has turned and will drown his election hopes .
But that 's wishful thinking .
It would take more than two hands to count the times during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preposterous and vile statements—or the emergence of incontrovertibly damning facts—provided ample reasons for his political fortunes to turn into toast .
Instead , he has continued to conduct a national master class in demagogy .
Trump would like nothing more than to play his victim card yet again while media give the impression that he 's headed for defeat—a combination that worked like a charm for him in 2016 .
It could easily happen again .
With voting now underway , healthy skepticism toward media spin is badly needed .
Four years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likelihood of a Trump presidency was remote .
On Election Day , the New York Times categorically pegged the chances of a Trump win at less than 10 percent .
Now , those who want to prevent another Trump victory should go all-out to show they wo n't be fooled again .

he big banner headline across the top of the New York Times homepage as Tuesday got underway—"TRUMP'S TAXES SHOW CHRONIC LOSSES AND YEARS OF TAX AVOIDANCE"—might give the impression that Donald Trump is finally on the verge of political downfall. Don't believe it for a moment.
The same kind of mistaken belief has led many to put undeserved trust in a corporate-media system. But the New York Times isn't going to save us. Neither is the Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN or any of the other mass-media outlets, "liberal" or otherwise.
To a large extent, the corporate media—especially the TV networks that gave Trump billions of dollars' worth of free airtime while raking in enormous ad revenues—made him president. The advertising-and-ratings-bedazzled head of the CBS network, Leslie Moonves, uttered an infamously emblematic comment eight months before the 2016 election, in the midst of a campaign that Trump dominated with TV coverage: "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS."
Less well-known are other statements that Moonves also made while speaking to a Morgan Stanley conference in February 2016. "Man, who would have expected the ride we're all having right now?" And: "The money's rolling in and this is fun." And: "I've never seen anything like this, and this is going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going." And: "Donald's place in this election is a good thing."
At the same time, CNN president Jeff Zucker—who presided over the network's "all-Trump-all-the-time" policy during the 2016 primaries—was privately offering guidance to candidate Trump. Zucker had helped build the Trump myth years earlier when he was at NBC presiding over Trump's "Apprentice" show, which turned out to be financially and politically crucial for his path to the White House.
Under the ongoing reign of the casino economy, the corporate house is set up to always win.
Now, after doing so much to help create a political Frankenstein, most of the big media organizations are largely disapproving. While the right-wing zealots at places like Fox News and aligned talk-radio and online entities are determined to re-elect Trump, the majority of mainstream media outlets are down on him. Yet the tenor of their coverage, including news of the latest polls, should not lull anyone into a false sense of security about Trump's impending demise—a demise they've predicted before.
Trump won in 2016 while the bubble inhabited by elite media was rarified and cut off from the everyday experiences, frustrations and anger of everyday people. As a consummate demagogue, he knew how to stoke and pander to resentments against elites—resentments that mainstream media seemed clueless about.
The corporate media are part of a system that thrives on rampant income inequality, giving more and more power to the rich while doing more and more harm to people the less money they have. Media elites are apt to do fine whether Trump wins or loses the election.
Four years ago, Trump played off the elitism of the establishment to ply his toxic political product laced with racism, xenophobia and misogyny. He has governed the same way he ran in 2016, and he hopes to govern for the next four years the way he's running in 2020—using the broadly and vaguely defined establishment as a foil for his poisonous, pseudo-populist messaging.
Amid the bombshell coverage of Trump's tax records, it might be tempting to believe the tide has turned and will drown his election hopes. But that's wishful thinking.
It would take more than two hands to count the times during the last several years when Trump's preposterous and vile statements—or the emergence of incontrovertibly damning facts—provided ample reasons for his political fortunes to turn into toast. Instead, he has continued to conduct a national master class in demagogy.
Trump would like nothing more than to play his victim card yet again while media give the impression that he's headed for defeat—a combination that worked like a charm for him in 2016. It could easily happen again. With voting now underway, healthy skepticism toward media spin is badly needed.
Four years ago, corporate media overwhelmingly insisted that the likelihood of a Trump presidency was remote. On Election Day, the New York Times categorically pegged the chances of a Trump win at less than 10 percent. Now, those who want to prevent another Trump victory should go all-out to show they won't be fooled again.


alternet--2020-09-29--Watch: Eric Trump clumsily claimed the LGBTQ community loves his father — it did not go well

In an awkward `` Fox & Friends '' interview Eric Trump claimed the LGBTQ community `` loves '' his father , but his clumsy claim left some thinking he had just come out on national television .
The Fox News morning crew read excerpts of a New York Times op-ed from a 50-year old Manhattan woman , Chris , who is `` gay , '' as Ainsley Earhardt said , but `` does n't want to give her last name . ''
The LGBTQ woman praised Trump because her investments have increased in value and the price of gas has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eric Trump tried to capitalize on the opportunity of the moment .
It did not go well .
`` Ainsley , that person 's there , I 'm telling you I see it every day .
The LGBT community they are incredible and you should see how they 've come out in full force for my father every single day .
I 'm part of that community and we love the man and thank you for protecting our neighborhoods and protecting our cities , '' Eric Trump said .
To some , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But apparently he was – very clumsily – quoting some unnamed , likely hypothetical LGBTQ person .
Take a look at some of the comments .

In an awkward "Fox & Friends" interview Eric Trump claimed the LGBTQ community "loves" his father, but his clumsy claim left some thinking he had just come out on national television.
The Fox News morning crew read excerpts of a New York Times op-ed from a 50-year old Manhattan woman, Chris, who is "gay," as Ainsley Earhardt said, but "doesn't want to give her last name." The LGBTQ woman praised Trump because her investments have increased in value and the price of gas has come down.
At the end, Eric Trump tried to capitalize on the opportunity of the moment.
It did not go well.
"Ainsley, that person's there, I'm telling you I see it every day. The LGBT community they are incredible and you should see how they've come out in full force for my father every single day. I'm part of that community and we love the man and thank you for protecting our neighborhoods and protecting our cities," Eric Trump said.
To some, it sounded like he had just come out.
But apparently he was – very clumsily – quoting some unnamed, likely hypothetical LGBTQ person.
Take a look at some of the comments.


alternet--2020-09-29--‘They’re all hustlers’: Trump mocks his religious supporters behind their backs

President Donald Trump is at the center of controversy following the release of a report detailing his alleged remarks about evangelical Christian leaders and supporters of the faith .
A report published by The Atlantic alleges that although Trump appeals to right-wing evangelicals leaders , megachurch leaders , and their Christian supporters , he has mocked many of them behind closed doors .
The article began with an excerpt from his former personal attorney , Michael Cohen 's memoir `` Disloyal '' where he recounted a 2015 meeting with Trump .
At the time , Trump had been reading a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The prominent pastor , whom Trump personally knew , had recently petitioned his congregation for a $ 60 million private jet .
Trump allegedly described the Dollar 's request as a `` scam '' and said the pastor was `` full of s*** . ''
On multiple other occasions , Trump also alluded to the same conclusion .
In fact , after one meeting with religious leaders who laid hands on him during a group prayer , Trump allegedly said , `` Can you believe that bulls**t ?
Can you believe people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his alleged antics behind closed doors , evangelical Christians are seen as devout supporters of Trump and twice as likely to describe the president as a `` religious man , '' according to Pew Research .
Trump has even presented himself as the president advocating in the best interest of faith-based leaders .
President Trump demands governors reopen churches , synagogues and mosques 'right now' However , former members of the Trump Organization previously argued otherwise often alluding to instances similar to Cohen 's recount .
`` To those who have known and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he might have a secret spiritual side is laughable . '
I always assumed he was an atheist , ' Barbara Res , a former executive at the Trump Organization , told me .
'He 's not a religious guy , ' A. J. Delgado , who worked on his 2016 campaign , told me .
`` Whenever I see a picture of him standing in a group of pastors , all of their hands on him , I see a thought bubble [ with ] the words 'What suckers , ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ niece , told me . ''
Despite the criticism , the White House has responded in Trump 's defense saying , `` people of faith know that President Trump is a champion for religious liberty and the sanctity of life , and he has taken strong actions to support them and protect their freedom to worship .
The president is also well known for joking and his terrific sense of humor , which he shares with people of all faiths . ''
Even if solid evidence were presented to evangelical Christians , Greg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ King University , who was pursued by Trump 's campaign in 2016 , insists they would not believe the allegations .
Thornbury said , `` I do n't think for a moment that they would believe he 's cynical about them . ''

President Donald Trump is at the center of controversy following the release of a report detailing his alleged remarks about evangelical Christian leaders and supporters of the faith.
A report published by The Atlantic alleges that although Trump appeals to right-wing evangelicals leaders, megachurch leaders, and their Christian supporters, he has mocked many of them behind closed doors.
The article began with an excerpt from his former personal attorney, Michael Cohen's memoir "Disloyal" where he recounted a 2015 meeting with Trump.
At the time, Trump had been reading a report about Atlanta megachurch pastor Creflo Dollar. The prominent pastor, whom Trump personally knew, had recently petitioned his congregation for a $60 million private jet. Trump allegedly described the Dollar's request as a "scam" and said the pastor was "full of s***."
"They're all hustlers," Trump surmised.
On multiple other occasions, Trump also alluded to the same conclusion. In fact, after one meeting with religious leaders who laid hands on him during a group prayer, Trump allegedly said, "Can you believe that bulls**t? Can you believe people believe that bulls**t?'"
Despite his alleged antics behind closed doors, evangelical Christians are seen as devout supporters of Trump and twice as likely to describe the president as a "religious man," according to Pew Research.
Trump has even presented himself as the president advocating in the best interest of faith-based leaders.
President Trump demands governors reopen churches, synagogues and mosques 'right now' www.youtube.com
However, former members of the Trump Organization previously argued otherwise often alluding to instances similar to Cohen's recount.
"To those who have known and worked with Trump closely, the notion that he might have a secret spiritual side is laughable. 'I always assumed he was an atheist,' Barbara Res, a former executive at the Trump Organization, told me. 'He's not a religious guy,' A. J. Delgado, who worked on his 2016 campaign, told me. "Whenever I see a picture of him standing in a group of pastors, all of their hands on him, I see a thought bubble [with] the words 'What suckers,'" Mary Trump, the president's niece, told me."
Despite the criticism, the White House has responded in Trump's defense saying, "people of faith know that President Trump is a champion for religious liberty and the sanctity of life, and he has taken strong actions to support them and protect their freedom to worship. The president is also well known for joking and his terrific sense of humor, which he shares with people of all faiths."
Even if solid evidence were presented to evangelical Christians, Greg Thornbury, former president at the evangelical King University, who was pursued by Trump's campaign in 2016, insists they would not believe the allegations.
Thornbury said, "I don't think for a moment that they would believe he's cynical about them."


alternet--2020-09-29--Ex-GOP governor and Bush cabinet secretary backs Biden for president: Trump 'is incapable' of leader

Ex-GOP governor and Bush cabinet secretary backs Biden for president: Trump 'is incapable' of leadership

Tom Ridge , former governor of Pennsylvania and former Homeland Security secretary for the Bush administration , penned an op-ed for the `` Philadelphia Inquirer '' where he announced his endorsement of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden .
Ridge , a lifelong Republican , weighed in on the importance of voting Trump out of the White House in November .
`` So much is at stake , '' Ridge wrote .
`` For me , voting is not just a privilege , but a responsibility .
And this year , I believe the responsible vote is for Joe Biden .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ A vote for the rule of law .
And a vote for honest and earnest leadership .
It 's time to put country over party .
It 's time to dismiss Donald Trump .
The former governor outlined Trump 's personal characteristics he believes are not strong leadership qualities for the presidency .
`` Donald Trump has proven over these last four years he is incapable of such leadership .
It is not within him , '' Ridge wrote .
According to Ridge , Trump `` lacks the empathy , integrity , intellect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sows division along political , racial , and religious lines .
And he routinely dismisses the opinions of experts who know far more about the subject at hand than he does -- intelligence , military , and public health . ''
Ridge touched on the sacrifices America has made to endure a Trump presidency .
He added , `` Our country has paid dearly in lives lost , social unrest , economic hardship , and our standing in the world . ''
On the opposite side of the spectrum , Ridge offered a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden 's years of experience , Ridge highlighted the qualities he finds admirable in Biden as he commended the presidential nominee for his previous work .
Ridge believes Biden `` has the experience and empathy necessary to help us navigate not only the pandemic but also other issues that have fractured our nation , including social injustice , income inequality , and immigration reform . ''

Tom Ridge, former governor of Pennsylvania and former Homeland Security secretary for the Bush administration, penned an op-ed for the "Philadelphia Inquirer" where he announced his endorsement of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
Ridge, a lifelong Republican, weighed in on the importance of voting Trump out of the White House in November.
"So much is at stake," Ridge wrote. "For me, voting is not just a privilege, but a responsibility. And this year, I believe the responsible vote is for Joe Biden. It's a vote for decency. A vote for the rule of law. And a vote for honest and earnest leadership. It's time to put country over party. It's time to dismiss Donald Trump.
The former governor outlined Trump's personal characteristics he believes are not strong leadership qualities for the presidency.
"Donald Trump has proven over these last four years he is incapable of such leadership. It is not within him," Ridge wrote.
According to Ridge, Trump "lacks the empathy, integrity, intellect, and maturity to lead. He sows division along political, racial, and religious lines. And he routinely dismisses the opinions of experts who know far more about the subject at hand than he does -- intelligence, military, and public health."
Ridge touched on the sacrifices America has made to endure a Trump presidency.
He added, "Our country has paid dearly in lives lost, social unrest, economic hardship, and our standing in the world."
On the opposite side of the spectrum, Ridge offered a comparison of Trump to Biden. Noting Biden's years of experience, Ridge highlighted the qualities he finds admirable in Biden as he commended the presidential nominee for his previous work.
Ridge believes Biden "has the experience and empathy necessary to help us navigate not only the pandemic but also other issues that have fractured our nation, including social injustice, income inequality, and immigration reform."


alternet--2020-09-29--Democrats won't win the battle against Trump's illegitimate Supreme Court pick--but they can win the

Democrats won't win the battle against Trump's illegitimate Supreme Court pick--but they can win the war

Boiling with outrage at Republican hypocrisy , agonized over the prospect of a 6-3 Republican-appointed Court , and encouraged by promising early polls , Democrats are revving themselves up for an all-out fight for the Supreme Court and egging on party leadership to do the same .
But as painful , agonizing , even repugnant as it may seem , the smartest and most strategic approach is to do the opposite .
Democrats have to engage as little as possible on the nomination .
In other words , the only way for Democrats to win is not to try .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult truth : despite the wishful thinking of some activists , Democrats are unlikely to actually delay the Senate confirmation vote past November 3 .
Numerous senior Senate staffers consulted for this article – and granted anonymity so that they could speak candidly given the tensions inside the party on this issue – confirmed that Democrats can at best be `` annoying '' in the coming weeks , but can not create sufficient holdups to run out the clock before the election .
Employing arcane tactics like quorum calls and adjournment votes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unanimous consent might move the calendar back by a matter of days or a week .
But this is not exactly `` shutting down the Senate , '' and hardly enough to prevent a pre-election confirmation .
Some may see value in employing those tactics anyway in order to keep the stakes of this fight center stage .
But the fight for Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's seat was lost , before she passed away , in the 2016 race for the Presidency and the 2018 race to control the Senate , elections that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fealty to democratic norms , the power .
The question now is whether Democrats can reclaim that power and win the larger fight .
Not for this one seat , but for the longer-term and ultimately far more critical goals of having a fair Judiciary , preventing another authoritarian figure like Trump from gaining the Presidency again , and putting the rules of American democracy back on the level , so that Democrats have a fair chance to attain the power that the people 's votes would otherwise confer .
These are battles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ require winning elections .
And a good way to win is to set the terms of what the race is about .
The Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu observed that `` those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him . ''
That is why President Trump and Republican strategists were so giddy at the prospect of a Supreme Court nomination fight : it gave them their best chance of dragging Democrats onto a field of battle of Republicans ' choosing , moving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were definitively losing to one that at least gives them a puncher 's chance .
As Politico bluntly summarized it , `` Trump allies [ were ] buoyed [ that ] the Supreme Court confirmation fight has taken focus away from the coronavirus outbreak six weeks before the election . ''
The coronavirus crisis – including the economic dislocation it has caused – and the attendant need for affordable health care coverage is a hands-down winning issue for Joe Biden and the Democrats .
It drives turnout from the Democratic `` base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failures on the issues that progressives rank as their top concern .
And it also moves the small segment of remaining swing voters : the sub-groups that lead Biden pollster John Anzalone has named as key drivers of Democrats ' improved position in 2020 – including seniors , independents , college-educated voters , and suburbanites .
One need not speculate about whether Democrats can win with this message .
They already are .
The focus on the nexus of Covid , economic pain , and protecting health coverage has given Joe Biden an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the swing states ( CNN polling guru Harry Enten called them `` the steadiest on record '' ) .
So why at the very end of the most important American political race in living memory would Democrats allow Republicans to control the issue terrain by getting dragged into a battle over the Supreme Court that they ca n't win ?
The case for engaging in this fight boils down to polls : some showing the Supreme Court as an important issue to Democrats , others showing voters more broadly aligned with Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as the general proposition that the winner of the election should choose the next Justice .
Some have also argued that if Senate Democrats do n't make a show of contesting the nomination , there will be a dampening effect on base voter enthusiasm .
But the polling case is superficial .
It is true that there are polls showing Democrats rating the Supreme Court more highly as a voting issue than Republicans even in the weeks before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg .
For instance , a Morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Supreme Court Is Becoming More Important for Democratic Voters . ''
But while the accompanying article showed that 57 percent of Democrats in their survey cited the court as a `` very important factor , '' that actually ranked only 10th on a list of important issues to Democrats .
The top three ?
Coronavirus , health care , and the economy .
It is also an almost-universal law of American politics : voters do not care about process .
Inside-the-beltway talking points about Senate precedent and rules seem murky at best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like silly political games ( this is why the staffs of Senators running for president are at such pains to get their candidates to stop talking about bills and hearings and amendments ) .
Trump 's best chance to pull off a come-from-behind win starts with clawing back voters who were previously with him but have drifted away .
He won in 2016 on his surprising , unforeseen strength with non-college-educated white voters .
Their support has eroded by fourteen points this year .
But this group also tends to break heavily his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is exactly why Republicans are so excited by the potential for a nomination fight : it draws the attention of the voters they need most onto the issues where they align best .
And it is not just the potential to sway these voters , but also to mobilize them , that has Republicans spoiling for this fight .
In the three biggest swing states that determined the election in 2016 , Trump has more headroom to grow than Biden because there are more non-college educated white non-voters who can be drawn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor Democrats .
Per NBC News , `` In Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin , where Trump 's combined margin of victory was just 77,444 votes , 4.9 million eligible noncollege whites did n't cast ballots in 2016 .
By contrast , only 1.6 million eligible nonwhites and 1 million eligible college-educated whites did n't vote . ''
Deciding not to take on a scorched-Earth approach to an illegitimate SCOTUS nomination does not mean Democrats have to meekly roll over .
It means acting strategically to win in the long term : first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then by asserting their power afterwards to make meaningful and enduring change .
To win the election , they should de-emphasize the Supreme Court nomination issue in itself , using it only as a pivot back to their winning message : Trump 's coronavirus failures and determination to take away your health care .
Smart Democrats across the party spectrum have recognized that this is the best approach .
Elizabeth Warren said that Democrats need to speak about the nomination in terms of `` what 's at stake in the lives of millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nick Gourevitch , one of the Democrats ' leading pollsters , tweeted : `` An effective message against Republicans : People are suffering , dying , and out of work .
And the GOP just does n't care .
They are doing absolutely nothing about it , instead dropping everything on a political power grab to rush a lifetime appointment through the Supreme Court . ''
Then , if Democrats manage to win unified control , they must then enact pro-democracy reforms as their very first order of business .
As I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could do to drive the enduring change that they want is to get rid of all of the systemic distortions , vote-suppression , and corruption that has built up under Republican control in recent years .
They already have the blueprints to do this .
Democrats made the first act of their new House majority the introduction of the For The People Act of 2019 , which would have put in critical structural improvements in three areas : campaign finance , ethics and , most importantly , voting rights .
It is sitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And just last week they introduced the Protecting Our Democracy Act , 153 pages of steps to wash away the abuses of the Trump administration .
There are also ready-to-go plans to clean up the Justice Department and the Federal judiciary .
Democrats can even make the pending lawsuit that could undo the Affordable Care Act under a 6-3 Republican Court majority moot with a simple bill ( if they win the election ) .
And what about fixing the government institutions themselves – the Senate and the Supreme Court ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of seats on the Supreme Court or federal appellate courts , enacting judicial term limits , and other measures are complicated ( I happen to favor all of these steps ) .
But none of these things are possible without first being in a position of power .
That means winning the election .
This prescription is surely frustrating to many .
It requires patience , discipline , and the ability to see the bigger picture .
But this is also the best way to turn that frustration into something productive , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and equality that would truly honor everything Ruth Bader Ginsburg stood for .

Boiling with outrage at Republican hypocrisy, agonized over the prospect of a 6-3 Republican-appointed Court, and encouraged by promising early polls, Democrats are revving themselves up for an all-out fight for the Supreme Court and egging on party leadership to do the same.
But as painful, agonizing, even repugnant as it may seem, the smartest and most strategic approach is to do the opposite. Democrats have to engage as little as possible on the nomination.
In other words, the only way for Democrats to win is not to try.
They need to start by confronting a difficult truth: despite the wishful thinking of some activists, Democrats are unlikely to actually delay the Senate confirmation vote past November 3. Numerous senior Senate staffers consulted for this article – and granted anonymity so that they could speak candidly given the tensions inside the party on this issue – confirmed that Democrats can at best be "annoying" in the coming weeks, but cannot create sufficient holdups to run out the clock before the election. Employing arcane tactics like quorum calls and adjournment votes, slowing the hearing process, or withholding unanimous consent might move the calendar back by a matter of days or a week. But this is not exactly "shutting down the Senate," and hardly enough to prevent a pre-election confirmation.
Some may see value in employing those tactics anyway in order to keep the stakes of this fight center stage. But the fight for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat was lost, before she passed away, in the 2016 race for the Presidency and the 2018 race to control the Senate, elections that gave Republicans, who have abandoned any fealty to democratic norms, the power.
The question now is whether Democrats can reclaim that power and win the larger fight. Not for this one seat, but for the longer-term and ultimately far more critical goals of having a fair Judiciary, preventing another authoritarian figure like Trump from gaining the Presidency again, and putting the rules of American democracy back on the level, so that Democrats have a fair chance to attain the power that the people's votes would otherwise confer.
These are battles that Democrats can win, but they require winning elections. And a good way to win is to set the terms of what the race is about. The Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu observed that "those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him." That is why President Trump and Republican strategists were so giddy at the prospect of a Supreme Court nomination fight: it gave them their best chance of dragging Democrats onto a field of battle of Republicans' choosing, moving from a set of issues on which they were definitively losing to one that at least gives them a puncher's chance. As Politicobluntly summarized it, "Trump allies [were] buoyed [that] the Supreme Court confirmation fight has taken focus away from the coronavirus outbreak six weeks before the election."
The coronavirus crisis – including the economic dislocation it has caused – and the attendant need for affordable health care coverage is a hands-down winning issue for Joe Biden and the Democrats. It drives turnout from the Democratic "base" by stoking anger at Trump's failures on the issues that progressives rank as their top concern. And it also moves the small segment of remaining swing voters: the sub-groups that lead Biden pollster John Anzalone has named as key drivers of Democrats' improved position in 2020 – including seniors, independents, college-educated voters, and suburbanites.
One need not speculate about whether Democrats can win with this message. They already are. The focus on the nexus of Covid, economic pain, and protecting health coverage has given Joe Biden an incredibly consistent polling lead both nationally and in the swing states (CNN polling guru Harry Enten called them "the steadiest on record").
So why at the very end of the most important American political race in living memory would Democrats allow Republicans to control the issue terrain by getting dragged into a battle over the Supreme Court that they can't win?
The case for engaging in this fight boils down to polls: some showing the Supreme Court as an important issue to Democrats, others showing voters more broadly aligned with Democrats on key Supreme Court issues like abortion as well as the general proposition that the winner of the election should choose the next Justice. Some have also argued that if Senate Democrats don't make a show of contesting the nomination, there will be a dampening effect on base voter enthusiasm.
But the polling case is superficial. It is true that there are polls showing Democrats rating the Supreme Court more highly as a voting issue than Republicans even in the weeks before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. For instance, a Morning Consult headline last month blared that "The Supreme Court Is Becoming More Important for Democratic Voters." But while the accompanying article showed that 57 percent of Democrats in their survey cited the court as a "very important factor," that actually ranked only 10th on a list of important issues to Democrats. The top three? Coronavirus, health care, and the economy.
It is also an almost-universal law of American politics: voters do not care about process. Inside-the-beltway talking points about Senate precedent and rules seem murky at best to them, and at worst seem like silly political games (this is why the staffs of Senators running for president are at such pains to get their candidates to stop talking about bills and hearings and amendments).
Trump's best chance to pull off a come-from-behind win starts with clawing back voters who were previously with him but have drifted away. He won in 2016 on his surprising, unforeseen strength with non-college-educated white voters. Their support has eroded by fourteen points this year. But this group also tends to break heavily his way on polarizing hot-button social issues. That is exactly why Republicans are so excited by the potential for a nomination fight: it draws the attention of the voters they need most onto the issues where they align best.
And it is not just the potential to sway these voters, but also to mobilize them, that has Republicans spoiling for this fight. In the three biggest swing states that determined the election in 2016, Trump has more headroom to grow than Biden because there are more non-college educated white non-voters who can be drawn off the sidelines than demographic groups that favor Democrats. Per NBC News, "In Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where Trump's combined margin of victory was just 77,444 votes, 4.9 million eligible noncollege whites didn't cast ballots in 2016. By contrast, only 1.6 million eligible nonwhites and 1 million eligible college-educated whites didn't vote."
Deciding not to take on a scorched-Earth approach to an illegitimate SCOTUS nomination does not mean Democrats have to meekly roll over. It means acting strategically to win in the long term: first by prevailing in the election, and then by asserting their power afterwards to make meaningful and enduring change.
To win the election, they should de-emphasize the Supreme Court nomination issue in itself, using it only as a pivot back to their winning message: Trump's coronavirus failures and determination to take away your health care. Smart Democrats across the party spectrum have recognized that this is the best approach. Elizabeth Warren said that Democrats need to speak about the nomination in terms of "what's at stake in the lives of millions and millions of families." And Nick Gourevitch, one of the Democrats' leading pollsters, tweeted: "An effective message against Republicans: People are suffering, dying, and out of work. And the GOP just doesn't care. They are doing absolutely nothing about it, instead dropping everything on a political power grab to rush a lifetime appointment through the Supreme Court."
Then, if Democrats manage to win unified control, they must then enact pro-democracy reforms as their very first order of business. As I have argued previously, the best thing Democrats could do to drive the enduring change that they want is to get rid of all of the systemic distortions, vote-suppression, and corruption that has built up under Republican control in recent years.
They already have the blueprints to do this. Democrats made the first act of their new House majority the introduction of the For The People Act of 2019, which would have put in critical structural improvements in three areas: campaign finance, ethics and, most importantly, voting rights. It is sitting on the shelf, ready to go. And just last week they introduced the Protecting Our Democracy Act, 153 pages of steps to wash away the abuses of the Trump administration. There are also ready-to-go plans to clean up the Justice Department and the Federal judiciary. Democrats can even make the pending lawsuit that could undo the Affordable Care Act under a 6-3 Republican Court majority moot with a simple bill (if they win the election).
And what about fixing the government institutions themselves – the Senate and the Supreme Court? The arguments around filibuster reform, expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court or federal appellate courts, enacting judicial term limits, and other measures are complicated (I happen to favor all of these steps). But none of these things are possible without first being in a position of power. That means winning the election.
This prescription is surely frustrating to many. It requires patience, discipline, and the ability to see the bigger picture. But this is also the best way to turn that frustration into something productive, to strike a lasting blow for democracy and equality that would truly honor everything Ruth Bader Ginsburg stood for.


alternet--2020-09-29--Michael Cohen drops hint on possible fraud Trump committed against the government

Appearing on CNN on Tuesday morning to talk about Donald Trump 's problems since the New York Times exposed his avoidance of paying taxes , the president 's former attorney , Michael Cohen , said there is plenty for investigators to look at if they 're looking for fraud .
He then dropped a tip on financial fraud that may have been committed by the president against the U.S. government .
Speaking with host Alisyn Camerota , Cohen detailed some of the president 's financial woes — saying he is likely headed to personal bankruptcy and even jail ( `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the massive amount of debt he is carrying — if he is not re-elected .
`` People think that just with the amount of debt that you 've just described there that there is obviously room for him to be compromised in various different ways , '' Camerota stated .
`` But let me just ask you specifically about some things that you may know about : that purchase of the old post office [ building ] in D.C that he bought , I guess , for $ 200 million , what do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , I think what you 're trying to refer to , if I 'm judging by the question , Donald Trump was successful in obtaining the old post office , because he had the best financials of everybody that had put in , '' Cohen remarked .
`` You had the biggest brands in the United States and abroad putting in their bids , '' he continued .
`` Donald Trump 's allegation , or I should say , his documentation demonstrated that he had the greatest financial portfolio with the highest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt-to-earnings ratio .
Well , the problem with that is he may have actually lied to the GSA , with which to obtain the old post office . ''
`` Do you know that he falsified it ? ''
the CNN host pressed .
`` No , but I think now that you have the tax returns and personal financial statements , I think you 're incumbent upon individuals to take a look at the application that was submitted to the GSA for not just that , but I think about Ferry Point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added .
`` It 's all predicated upon his net worth and his valuation on the Trump Organization . ''
`` That he may have inflated , you talked about this , he inflates it and deflates when convenient , '' Camerota clarified .

Appearing on CNN on Tuesday morning to talk about Donald Trump's problems since the New York Times exposed his avoidance of paying taxes, the president's former attorney, Michael Cohen, said there is plenty for investigators to look at if they're looking for fraud.
He then dropped a tip on financial fraud that may have been committed by the president against the U.S. government.
Speaking with host Alisyn Camerota, Cohen detailed some of the president's financial woes — saying he is likely headed to personal bankruptcy and even jail ("for a century") because of the massive amount of debt he is carrying — if he is not re-elected.
"People think that just with the amount of debt that you've just described there that there is obviously room for him to be compromised in various different ways," Camerota stated. "But let me just ask you specifically about some things that you may know about: that purchase of the old post office [building] in D.C that he bought, I guess, for $200 million, what do you know about that?"
"Well, I think what you're trying to refer to, if I'm judging by the question, Donald Trump was successful in obtaining the old post office, because he had the best financials of everybody that had put in," Cohen remarked.
"You had the biggest brands in the United States and abroad putting in their bids," he continued. "Donald Trump's allegation, or I should say, his documentation demonstrated that he had the greatest financial portfolio with the highest or I should say, the lowest debt-to-earnings ratio. Well, the problem with that is he may have actually lied to the GSA, with which to obtain the old post office."
"Do you know that he falsified it?" the CNN host pressed.
"No, but I think now that you have the tax returns and personal financial statements, I think you're incumbent upon individuals to take a look at the application that was submitted to the GSA for not just that, but I think about Ferry Point [golf course]," he added. "It's all predicated upon his net worth and his valuation on the Trump Organization."
"That he may have inflated, you talked about this, he inflates it and deflates when convenient," Camerota clarified.
Watch below:


alternet--2020-09-29--Grand juror in police murder of Breonna Taylor accuses Kentucky AG of hiding truth about case

As has been obvious from the beginning , the legal story of the police murder of Breonna Taylor has been badly misreported .
In almost every article or news story , journalists have used phrases like `` the grand jury failed to charge '' or `` the grand jury did not return '' —phrases that make it seem that the decision not to charge any of the three officers involved for Taylor 's death was a exactly that , a decision .
Those reports might seem to be well founded , based on the initial statements of Kentucky Attorney General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the members of that grand jury is asking a judge to set aside the usual rules that protect grand jury proceedings and release the transcripts of the proceedings .
And there are very good reasons to think that what Cameron called `` all the information '' did not include the option for the jurors to return any charges related to Breonna Taylor 's death .
The judge has already agreed with the juror , and the Associated Press is reporting that Cameron will comply with the order to release the transcript .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney for that juror is saying that , `` The full story and absolute truth of how this matter was handled from beginning to end is now an issue of great public interest and has become a large part of the discussion of public trust throughout the country . ''
That motion to the judge also accuses Cameron of using the grand jury `` as a shield to deflect accountability and responsibility for those decisions . ''
That full truth is likely to be related to something Cameron said in his initial statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the surprisingly brief grand jury results .
Though Cameron slips an `` and the grand jury agreed '' into the middle of this , the key statement here is his declaration that homicide charges `` are not applicable . ''
Cameron repeated that claim a few sentences later .
The grand jury does n't determine charges .
It does n't determine the evidence it gets to hear , which witnesses appear , or what questions they are asked .
It seems exceedingly clear that , at best , Cameron worked the grand jury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indiscriminate gunfire from the three plainclothes officers arriving in the middle of the night was `` justified . ''
But whether or not that question was ever put to the jury , it also seems clear that Cameron never offered them the chance to return any charge against Brett Hankison , Jonathan Mattingly , or Myles Cosgrove as it relates to Taylor .
As Cameron says straight out , he determined that he was `` barred from pursuing criminal charges '' in Taylor 's death .
That 's not a grand jury decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are also very good reasons to doubt the whole justification that Cameron , and Louisville police , have used from the very first day of this tragedy—the claim that Breonna Taylor 's boyfriend , Kenneth Walker , fired first , and shot one of the officers on the scene .
A ballistics report by the Kentucky State Police does not support those claims .
It was unable to identify Walker 's gun as the source of a bullet that struck Mattingly .
The Louisville police had previously claimed that the bullet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the officers carried a 9mm handgun , but one of Walker 's attorneys noted that police department records showed that Hankinson—the only officer charged for firing shots that went into another apartment—was issued a 9mm weapon .

As has been obvious from the beginning, the legal story of the police murder of Breonna Taylor has been badly misreported. In almost every article or news story, journalists have used phrases like "the grand jury failed to charge" or "the grand jury did not return"—phrases that make it seem that the decision not to charge any of the three officers involved for Taylor's death was a exactly that, a decision.
Those reports might seem to be well founded, based on the initial statements of Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron:
Grand jury proceedings are secret. And so I'm not going to get into the specifics of details about that proceeding. What I will say is that we presented all of the information and they ultimately made a determination about whether to charge. In this instance, they decided to indict Detective Hankinson.
But now, one of the members of that grand jury is asking a judge to set aside the usual rules that protect grand jury proceedings and release the transcripts of the proceedings. And there are very good reasons to think that what Cameron called "all the information" did not include the option for the jurors to return any charges related to Breonna Taylor's death. The judge has already agreed with the juror, and the Associated Press is reporting that Cameron will comply with the order to release the transcript.
As The Louisville Courier-Journal reports, an attorney for that juror is saying that, "The full story and absolute truth of how this matter was handled from beginning to end is now an issue of great public interest and has become a large part of the discussion of public trust throughout the country." That motion to the judge also accuses Cameron of using the grand jury "as a shield to deflect accountability and responsibility for those decisions."
That full truth is likely to be related to something Cameron said in his initial statement following Judge Annie O'Connell's announcement of the surprisingly brief grand jury results.
"While there are six possible homicide charges under Kentucky law, these charges are not applicable to the facts before us because our investigation show and the grand jury agreed that Mattingly and Cosgrove were justified in the return of deadly fire after having been fired upon by Kenneth Walker."
Though Cameron slips an "and the grand jury agreed" into the middle of this, the key statement here is his declaration that homicide charges "are not applicable." Cameron repeated that claim a few sentences later.
"Let me state that again. According to Kentucky law, the use of force by Mattingly and Cosgrave was justified to protect themselves. This justification bars us from pursuing criminal charges in Ms. Breonna Taylor's death."
The grand jury doesn't determine charges. It doesn't determine the evidence it gets to hear, which witnesses appear, or what questions they are asked. It seems exceedingly clear that, at best, Cameron worked the grand jury to get them to agree that the indiscriminate gunfire from the three plainclothes officers arriving in the middle of the night was "justified." But whether or not that question was ever put to the jury, it also seems clear that Cameron never offered them the chance to return any charge against Brett Hankison, Jonathan Mattingly, or Myles Cosgrove as it relates to Taylor. As Cameron says straight out, he determined that he was "barred from pursuing criminal charges" in Taylor's death. That's not a grand jury decision. That's a Daniel Cameron decision.
There are also very good reasons to doubt the whole justification that Cameron, and Louisville police, have used from the very first day of this tragedy—the claim that Breonna Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, fired first, and shot one of the officers on the scene. A ballistics report by the Kentucky State Police does not support those claims. It was unable to identify Walker's gun as the source of a bullet that struck Mattingly. The Louisville police had previously claimed that the bullet had to come from Walker because none of the officers carried a 9mm handgun, but one of Walker's attorneys noted that police department records showed that Hankinson—the only officer charged for firing shots that went into another apartment—was issued a 9mm weapon.


alternet--2020-09-29--Commerce secretary says 2020 census will end Oct. 5 despite court order

U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross is doubling down on the 2020 census deadline despite a federal judge 's court order ordering the count to continue through the end of October .
On Monday , the U.S. Census Bureau released a tweeted notice based on a directive from Ross .
According to the tweet , United States citizens ' ability to independently respond to the census questionnaire along with the door-knocking phase of the census process will conclude on October 5 .
`` The Secretary of Commerce has announced a target date of October 5 , 2020 to conclude 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' the U.S. Census Bureau tweeted .
The new deadline has raised concern for the American public .
Many have taken to Twitter with their reaction to Ross ' announcement while stressing the importance of the United States obtaining an accurate census count .
However , according to NBC News , it is not a direct violation of the judge 's ruling .
The injunction only suspended the Sept. 30 deadline for field operations , along with the Dec. 31 deadline the Census Bureau has to provide its documented figures which are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a process used to determine the number of congressional seats each state should receive .
Ross ' latest directive comes amid an ongoing battle over deadlines for the once-in-a-decade population count due to the coronavirus pandemic .
Souli Shanklin , a judge in Edwards County , Texas noted that the county 's self-respond rate was just over 18 % as he highlighted the importance and benefits of the population count .
`` Maybe people just do n't want to be counted , you know ?
It 's just like asking who you voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , you know – afraid to be attacked , or whatever , you know .
People want to be left alone , '' said Souli Shanklin , the Edwards County judge .
He continued , `` But you know , it affects our revenue off of it .
You know , our poverty level and everything else and the number of people that we have in the county .
But like we 're saying now , our absentee landowners far exceed our general population . ''

U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross is doubling down on the 2020 census deadline despite a federal judge's court order ordering the count to continue through the end of October.
On Monday, the U.S. Census Bureau released a tweeted notice based on a directive from Ross. According to the tweet, United States citizens' ability to independently respond to the census questionnaire along with the door-knocking phase of the census process will conclude on October 5.
"The Secretary of Commerce has announced a target date of October 5, 2020 to conclude 2020 Census self-response and field data collection operations," the U.S. Census Bureau tweeted.
The new deadline has raised concern for the American public. Many have taken to Twitter with their reaction to Ross' announcement while stressing the importance of the United States obtaining an accurate census count.
However, according to NBC News, it is not a direct violation of the judge's ruling.
The injunction only suspended the Sept. 30 deadline for field operations, along with the Dec. 31 deadline the Census Bureau has to provide its documented figures which are used for the purpose of apportionment — a process used to determine the number of congressional seats each state should receive.
Ross' latest directive comes amid an ongoing battle over deadlines for the once-in-a-decade population count due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Souli Shanklin, a judge in Edwards County, Texas noted that the county's self-respond rate was just over 18% as he highlighted the importance and benefits of the population count.
"Maybe people just don't want to be counted, you know? It's just like asking who you voted for. People don't want to say, you know – afraid to be attacked, or whatever, you know. People want to be left alone," said Souli Shanklin, the Edwards County judge.
He continued, "But you know, it affects our revenue off of it. You know, our poverty level and everything else and the number of people that we have in the county. But like we're saying now, our absentee landowners far exceed our general population."


alternet--2020-09-29--‘Can’t afford to lose’: Drudge Report takes on Trump

The Drudge Report , a staple of conservative power brokers and right wing political leaders for decades , slowly turned anti-Trump starting late last year , stunning GOP stalwarts .
Following The New York Times ' bombshell about the president paying just $ 750 in federal taxes in 2016 and 2017 , and no taxes for 15 out of 20 years , the Drudge Report on Monday just destroyed Trump .
The Drudge Report is essentially a link aggregator , rewriting headlines and combining links to create a very clear picture of what they want readers to see .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' LOST MORE MONEY THAN MADE ? ''
reads one headline from the top of Drudge , about the Times ' exposé .
`` FINANCED EXTRAVAGANT LIFESTYLE WITH USE OF BUSINESS EXPENSES… '' reads another .
'Can you believe how f*cking stupid the IRS is ? '
FLASHBACK : Ripped Obama 20.5 % Rate… Said poor should have to pay to 'be part of game'… WIRE : National Security Threat… Biden ad compares to what workers pay… Sells ' I paid more income taxes than Donald Trump ' stickers… HuffPost 's S.V .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few weeks ago if he regretted `` all the lying '' he 's done to Americans , noted earlier today Drudge called into question whether or not Trump even is a billionaire :

The Drudge Report, a staple of conservative power brokers and right wing political leaders for decades, slowly turned anti-Trump starting late last year, stunning GOP stalwarts.
Following The New York Times' bombshell about the president paying just $750 in federal taxes in 2016 and 2017, and no taxes for 15 out of 20 years, the Drudge Report on Monday just destroyed Trump.
The Drudge Report is essentially a link aggregator, rewriting headlines and combining links to create a very clear picture of what they want readers to see.
Here's how it looks right now:
"LOST MORE MONEY THAN MADE?" reads one headline from the top of Drudge, about the Times' exposé. "FINANCED EXTRAVAGANT LIFESTYLE WITH USE OF BUSINESS EXPENSES…" reads another.
'Can you believe how f*cking stupid the IRS is?'
FLASHBACK: Ripped Obama 20.5% Rate…
Said poor should have to pay to 'be part of game'…
WIRE: National Security Threat…
Biden ad compares to what workers pay…
Sells 'I paid more income taxes than Donald Trump' stickers…
HuffPost's S.V. Dáte, who famously asked President Trump a few weeks ago if he regretted "all the lying" he's done to Americans, noted earlier today Drudge called into question whether or not Trump even is a billionaire: