alternet--2020-11-01--How Donald Trump's insatiable hunger for more bilked the US government for $2.5 billion

That 's how much Trump charged the federal government for a glass of water in April of 2018 when he and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met at Trump 's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida .
According to the Washington Pos t , Trump 's company also charged the government `` $ 13,700 for guest rooms , $ 16,500 for food and wine and $ 6,000 for the roses and other floral arrangements , '' over the two days he held meetings with Abe at the resort .
But one day , Trump was scheduled to meet with Abe without aides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or cocktails or any other celebratory nonsense .
Just the two leaders , alone in a room , talking .
According to the Post , the bill for that day contained a line item reading , `` Bilateral meeting .
Water .
$ 3.00 each . ''
Donald Trump has been paid `` at least $ 2.5 million by the U.S. government , '' since taking office , according to official documents obtained by the Post .
Trump has made more than 280 visits to his own hotels and golf clubs over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covered costs for `` hotel rooms , ballrooms , cottages , rental houses , golf carts , votive candles , floating candles , candelabras , furniture moving , resort fees , decorative palm trees , strip steak , chocolate cake , breakfast buffets , $ 88 bottles of wine and $ 1,000 worth of liquor for White House aides . ''
according to the Post .
And water .
A total of six bucks for water , no charge being too small to make it onto a bill to the government for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the man who owns the Trump Organization and everything it comprises , including his resort in Palm Beach .
It 's apparently a good part of what the Trump base likes about him — his appetites , his pure , unadulterated , money-grubbing-right-down-to- $ 3-for-water greed .
Trump has wanted more his entire life .
He wants more money , of course .
He has spent a lifetime in pursuit of more money , and then some more , and more and more .
He borrowed so much money in pursuit of even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bankruptcy , several bankruptcies in fact .
Today , as president , he is said to be in debt for nearly $ 1 billion to banks and other lenders , a debt that will come due within the next few years , according to the New York Times and other reports .
Trump wants more fame , a drive that started off with mentions in gossip columns like the New York Post 's `` Page Six , '' during the years he was coming into his own as a builder in New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ columnists and plant items about himself , posing as a PR person , and then he would call the columnists the next day and comment on their mention of him in order to gain yet another column inch or two in the tabloids .
Some said he ran for president back in 2016 to `` burnish his brand , '' to achieve even more fame and use it to make even more money .
Since he became president , he has been relentless in his pursuit of attention , tweeting at all hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give him enough coverage , calling in to shows like `` Fox & Friends '' and `` Hannity '' both to reward them for the coverage they 've already given him , and to get more coverage .
He wants more women , from wife No .
1 , Ivana , when he was just starting out , to wife No .
2 , Marla Maples , after he jettisoned Ivana , and now wife No .
3 , Melania , who replaced No .
2 when he determined she had a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then there were all the women in between , in and among his marriages , the women he groped on airplanes and at bars and during parties , the women he ( allegedly ) raped in places like a Bergdorf 's dressing room or a hotel room or a bathroom during a party , the women whose mouths he forced his tongue down , the women he pushed up against walls and pressed himself against , the women whose bodies he commented on in offices or across rooms , the women whose skirts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tables , the women whose breasts he grabbed at tennis tournaments and beauty pageants , the women whose rear ends he grabbed in green rooms before television show tapings , the women he dragged behind curtains at New Year 's Eve parties and forcibly kissed and groped .
All of those women .
Trump wanted their bodies and their mouths and he took them without asking permission because he was Donald Trump , and he took what he wanted .
He wanted more golf , so he played more golf more frequently than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so much golf that he went around the world buying and building his own golf courses , and then he played them , because he owned them , and because he owned the golf carts , as president he could charge the government for his own Secret Service agents .
He could even charge the government for the hotel rooms the agents stayed in while they protected him .
He charged the government $ 17,000 a month for a cottage at his Bedminster , New Jersey , golf course , which the Secret @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just in case he had a mind to play a round of golf .
Trump wants more adulation , more love from the `` base , '' and when he feels he is n't getting enough , he tweets .
There are n't enough hours in the day for Donald Trump .
He was up at 3 a.m. this week , tweeting about the Supreme Court , the court to which he has appointed three arch-conservative justices , yelling at them for their recent decisions allowing mail-in votes to be counted after Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants more votes .
He 's been up at 3 a.m. tweeting before , taunting a Miss Universe contestant for a `` sex tape , '' taunting CNN as `` low rated , '' bragging about his debate performance , yelling at polls that show him losing .
And now Trump is making his final campaign swing through the `` battleground states , '' feeding the insatiable need of his base for more of himself .
`` Four more years '' has become `` 12 more years . ''
Somehow Trump is owed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they '' took two or three years away from him during the Russia investigation , because `` they '' spied on his 2016 campaign , because `` they '' do n't deserve to win .
The red-hat-wearing mobs of un-masked fans at his rallies want more of the America they think Trump is bringing back to them .
It 's an America that is more white , has more guns , has more churches , more of `` us , '' less of `` them . ''
That 's what they like about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same way he does .
That 's what opposition to affirmative action has always been .
They do n't want some of the college admissions , they want them all .
That 's what Shelby County v. Holder was about , that 's what voter IDs and all the restrictive rules about voting by mail are about .
They want all the votes .
For the Trump base , making America great again means making America ours again , but he 's going to make sure he puts it on their tab @ @ @ @ @ @ @ water and $ 546 for rooms and $ 50 for decorative palm trees for table decorations and $ 1,005.60 for 26 servings of Patron and Don Julio tequila , 22 Chopin vodkas , and six glasses of Woodford Reserve bourbon consumed by White House staffers at the Mar-a-Lago bar .
It 's going to cost us more than votes to get our country back .
We 're going to be paying for Trump 's insatiable greed long after he 's gone .
More than 228,000 of us have already paid with our lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — 98,500 new cases and more than 900 dead — a half million of us may perish by the time Trump walks out of the White House for the last time .

Remember this number: $3.
That's how much Trump charged the federal government for a glass of water in April of 2018 when he and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. According to the Washington Pos t, Trump's company also charged the government "$13,700 for guest rooms, $16,500 for food and wine and $6,000 for the roses and other floral arrangements," over the two days he held meetings with Abe at the resort. But one day, Trump was scheduled to meet with Abe without aides and advisers, with no meal service or cocktails or any other celebratory nonsense. Just the two leaders, alone in a room, talking. According to the Post, the bill for that day contained a line item reading, "Bilateral meeting. Water. $3.00 each."
Donald Trump has been paid "at least $2.5 million by the U.S. government," since taking office, according to official documents obtained by the Post. Trump has made more than 280 visits to his own hotels and golf clubs over the last four years, and the payments covered costs for "hotel rooms, ballrooms, cottages, rental houses, golf carts, votive candles, floating candles, candelabras, furniture moving, resort fees, decorative palm trees, strip steak, chocolate cake, breakfast buffets, $88 bottles of wine and $1,000 worth of liquor for White House aides." according to the Post.
And water. A total of six bucks for water, no charge being too small to make it onto a bill to the government for a payment going straight into the pocket of the man who owns the Trump Organization and everything it comprises, including his resort in Palm Beach.
It's apparently a good part of what the Trump base likes about him — his appetites, his pure, unadulterated, money-grubbing-right-down-to-$3-for-water greed. Trump has wanted more his entire life. He wants more money, of course. He has spent a lifetime in pursuit of more money, and then some more, and more and more. He borrowed so much money in pursuit of even more money that it drove him into bankruptcy, several bankruptcies in fact. Today, as president, he is said to be in debt for nearly $1 billion to banks and other lenders, a debt that will come due within the next few years, according to the New York Times and other reports.
Trump wants more fame, a drive that started off with mentions in gossip columns like the New York Post's "Page Six," during the years he was coming into his own as a builder in New York City. He used to call gossip columnists and plant items about himself, posing as a PR person, and then he would call the columnists the next day and comment on their mention of him in order to gain yet another column inch or two in the tabloids. Some said he ran for president back in 2016 to "burnish his brand," to achieve even more fame and use it to make even more money. Since he became president, he has been relentless in his pursuit of attention, tweeting at all hours, criticizing cable networks who don't give him enough coverage, calling in to shows like "Fox & Friends" and "Hannity" both to reward them for the coverage they've already given him, and to get more coverage.
He wants more women, from wife No. 1, Ivana, when he was just starting out, to wife No. 2, Marla Maples, after he jettisoned Ivana, and now wife No. 3, Melania, who replaced No. 2 when he determined she had a few too many miles on her. And then there were all the women in between, in and among his marriages, the women he groped on airplanes and at bars and during parties, the women he (allegedly) raped in places like a Bergdorf's dressing room or a hotel room or a bathroom during a party, the women whose mouths he forced his tongue down, the women he pushed up against walls and pressed himself against, the women whose bodies he commented on in offices or across rooms, the women whose skirts he put his hand up at restaurant tables, the women whose breasts he grabbed at tennis tournaments and beauty pageants, the women whose rear ends he grabbed in green rooms before television show tapings, the women he dragged behind curtains at New Year's Eve parties and forcibly kissed and groped. All of those women. Trump wanted their bodies and their mouths and he took them without asking permission because he was Donald Trump, and he took what he wanted.
He wanted more golf, so he played more golf more frequently than any president before him. He wanted so much golf that he went around the world buying and building his own golf courses, and then he played them, because he owned them, and because he owned the golf carts, as president he could charge the government for his own Secret Service agents. He could even charge the government for the hotel rooms the agents stayed in while they protected him. He charged the government $17,000 a month for a cottage at his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf course, which the Secret Service had to rent month after month just in case he had a mind to play a round of golf.
Trump wants more adulation, more love from the "base," and when he feels he isn't getting enough, he tweets. There aren't enough hours in the day for Donald Trump. He was up at 3 a.m. this week, tweeting about the Supreme Court, the court to which he has appointed three arch-conservative justices, yelling at them for their recent decisions allowing mail-in votes to be counted after Election Day, because of course, he wants more votes. He's been up at 3 a.m. tweeting before, taunting a Miss Universe contestant for a "sex tape," taunting CNN as "low rated," bragging about his debate performance, yelling at polls that show him losing.
And now Trump is making his final campaign swing through the "battleground states," feeding the insatiable need of his base for more of himself. "Four more years" has become "12 more years." Somehow Trump is owed more years of the presidency because "they" took two or three years away from him during the Russia investigation, because "they" spied on his 2016 campaign, because "they" don't deserve to win. The red-hat-wearing mobs of un-masked fans at his rallies want more of the America they think Trump is bringing back to them. It's an America that is more white, has more guns, has more churches, more of "us," less of "them."
That's what they like about him. They want it all, the same way he does. That's what opposition to affirmative action has always been. They don't want some of the college admissions, they want them all. That's what Shelby County v. Holder was about, that's what voter IDs and all the restrictive rules about voting by mail are about. They want all the votes.
For the Trump base, making America great again means making America ours again, but he's going to make sure he puts it on their tab, right there with $3 for water and $546 for rooms and $50 for decorative palm trees for table decorations and $1,005.60 for 26 servings of Patron and Don Julio tequila, 22 Chopin vodkas, and six glasses of Woodford Reserve bourbon consumed by White House staffers at the Mar-a-Lago bar. It's going to cost us more than votes to get our country back. We're going to be paying for Trump's insatiable greed long after he's gone. More than 228,000 of us have already paid with our lives. If the Friday totals keep up — 98,500 new cases and more than 900 dead — a half million of us may perish by the time Trump walks out of the White House for the last time.


alternet--2020-11-02--White House lashes out after Fauci criticized Trump administration's COVID response

As the novel coronavirus has continued to slam the nation , Dr. Anthony Fauci , leading infectious disease expert and member of the Coronavirus Task Force , has been put into difficult position after a difficult position .
As Daily Kos covered , Fauci recently had to clarify that a Trump reelection campaign ad not only used reportedly edited clips that were taken out of context , but according to Fauci , the campaign actually ran the ad without his authorization .
We also heard from host Jon Karl on ABC 's This Week in early October , who said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunday show lineup with Fauci , or anyone from the task force , and was n't able to , describing the situation on Twitter as a `` muzzle . ''
More recently , on Saturday evening , The Washington Post published a major interview with Fauci .
What about ?
The COVID-19 pandemic .
And a spokesperson for the White House is already slamming the nation 's leading infectious disease specialist .
Let 's break down some highlights below .
How is the U.S. looking when it comes to the next couple of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too good .
`` All the stars are aligned in the wrong place as you go into the fall and winter season , with people congregating at home indoors , '' Fauci told the outlet .
`` You could not possibly be positioned more poorly . ''
Fauci was direct in saying that Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden 's campaign `` is taking it seriously from a public health perspective . ''
According to Fauci , Trump 's campaign , on the other hand , is using the perspective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country . ''
Which is a polite way of putting it .
Fauci also discussed White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows ' recent appearance on CNN 's State of the Union with host Jake Tapper , also covered by Daily Kos , where Meadows admitted the administration is `` not going to control the pandemic . ''
About Meadows , Fauci told the Post , `` He is straightforward in telling you what 's on his mind .
I commend him for that . ''
Meanwhile , of course , Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , made head-scratching promises about vaccines , and held more rallies leading up to Election Day .
In a move that truly feels like Opposite Day , at the end of October , the White House essentially declared victory over the pandemic in a statement celebrating Trump 's accomplishments .
Speaking of things in the White House , if you think you 've seen a whole lot less of Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx , who is also on the task force , you 're probably right .
Both figures have seriously dimmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Dr. Scott Atlas—and Fauci expressed his thoughts on Atlas as well .
`` All of a sudden , they did n't like what the message was because it was n't what they wanted to do anymore , '' Fauci told the paper .
`` They needed to have a medical message that was essentially consistent with what they were saying . ''
In reference to Atlas , Fauci told the newspaper : `` I have real problems with that guy . ''
He continued that Atlas is `` a smart guy who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he does n't have any real insight or knowledge or experience in .
He keeps talking about things that when you dissect it out and parse it out , it does n't make any sense . ''
You might remember Atlas from late summer , when he made headlines for pushing what was essentially a herd immunity theory to handle the pandemic .
In a statement to the Post , White House spokesperson Judd Deere said it is `` unacceptable and breaking with all norms for Dr. Fauci , a senior member of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone who has praised President Trump 's actions throughout this pandemic , to choose three days before an election to play politics . ''
Fauci has been decidedly apolitical and has served under both Democrat and Republican administrations .
In fact , this apolitical norm for him is part of what made the unauthorized Trump reelection campaign ad featuring his words such a shock .
Deere continued in the statement : `` As a member of the Task Force , Dr. Fauci has a duty to express concerns or push for a change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done that , instead choosing to criticize the president in the media and make his political leanings known by praising the president 's opponent — exactly what the American people have come to expect from The Swamp . ''
If there 's one constant from the Trump administration , it 's The Swamp rhetoric .
You can check out the full interview with the Post here .

As the novel coronavirus has continued to slam the nation, Dr. Anthony Fauci, leading infectious disease expert and member of the Coronavirus Task Force, has been put into difficult position after a difficult position. As Daily Kos covered, Fauci recently had to clarify that a Trump reelection campaign ad not only used reportedly edited clips that were taken out of context, but according to Fauci, the campaign actually ran the ad without his authorization. We also heard from host Jon Karl on ABC's This Week in early October, who said he tried to get interviews for a Sunday show lineup with Fauci, or anyone from the task force, and wasn't able to, describing the situation on Twitter as a "muzzle."
More recently, on Saturday evening, The Washington Postpublished a major interview with Fauci. What about? The COVID-19 pandemic. And a spokesperson for the White House is already slamming the nation's leading infectious disease specialist. Let's break down some highlights below.
How is the U.S. looking when it comes to the next couple of months of the pandemic? Unfortunately—but unsurprisingly—not too good. "All the stars are aligned in the wrong place as you go into the fall and winter season, with people congregating at home indoors," Fauci told the outlet. "You could not possibly be positioned more poorly."
Fauci was direct in saying that Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden's campaign "is taking it seriously from a public health perspective." According to Fauci, Trump's campaign, on the other hand, is using the perspective of "the economy and reopening the country." Which is a polite way of putting it.
Fauci also discussed White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows' recent appearance on CNN's State of the Union with host Jake Tapper, also covered by Daily Kos, where Meadows admitted the administration is "not going to control the pandemic." About Meadows, Fauci told the Post, "He is straightforward in telling you what's on his mind. I commend him for that."
Meanwhile, of course, Trump has flouted state and local public health regulations, made head-scratching promises about vaccines, and held more rallies leading up to Election Day. In a move that truly feels like Opposite Day, at the end of October, the White House essentially declared victory over the pandemic in a statement celebrating Trump's accomplishments.
Speaking of things in the White House, if you think you've seen a whole lot less of Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx, who is also on the task force, you're probably right. Both figures have seriously dimmed their public spotlights. Who hasn't? Dr. Scott Atlas—and Fauci expressed his thoughts on Atlas as well.
"All of a sudden, they didn't like what the message was because it wasn't what they wanted to do anymore," Fauci told the paper. "They needed to have a medical message that was essentially consistent with what they were saying."
In reference to Atlas, Fauci told the newspaper: "I have real problems with that guy." He continued that Atlas is "a smart guy who's talking about things that I believe he doesn't have any real insight or knowledge or experience in. He keeps talking about things that when you dissect it out and parse it out, it doesn't make any sense." You might remember Atlas from late summer, when he made headlines for pushing what was essentially a herd immunity theory to handle the pandemic.
In a statement to the Post, White House spokesperson Judd Deere said it is "unacceptable and breaking with all norms for Dr. Fauci, a senior member of the President's Coronavirus Task Force and someone who has praised President Trump's actions throughout this pandemic, to choose three days before an election to play politics." Fauci has been decidedly apolitical and has served under both Democrat and Republican administrations. In fact, this apolitical norm for him is part of what made the unauthorized Trump reelection campaign ad featuring his words such a shock.
Deere continued in the statement: "As a member of the Task Force, Dr. Fauci has a duty to express concerns or push for a change in strategy, but he's not done that, instead choosing to criticize the president in the media and make his political leanings known by praising the president's opponent — exactly what the American people have come to expect from The Swamp."
If there's one constant from the Trump administration, it's The Swamp rhetoric. You can check out the full interview with the Posthere.


alternet--2020-11-02--Texas Supreme Court rejects GOP-led effort to throw out nearly 127,000 Harris County votes

Sign up for The Brief , our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news .
A legal cloud hanging over nearly 127,000 votes already cast in Harris County was at least temporarily lifted Sunday when the Texas Supreme Court rejected a request by several conservative Republican activists and candidates to preemptively throw out early balloting from drive-thru polling sites in the state 's most populous , and largely Democratic , county .
The all-Republican court denied the request without an order or opinion , as justices did last month in a similar lawsuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Republican plaintiffs , however , are pursuing a similar lawsuit in federal court , hoping to get the votes thrown out by arguing that drive-thru voting violates the U.S. constitution .
A hearing in that case is set for Monday morning in a Houston-based federal district court , one day before Election Day .
A rejection of the votes would constitute a monumental disenfranchisement of voters — drive-thru ballots account for about 10 % of all in-person ballots cast during early voting in Harris County .
After testing the approach during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Harris County , home to Houston , set up 10 drive-thru centers for the fall election to make early voting easier for people concerned about entering polling places during the pandemic .
Voters pull up in their cars and , after their registrations and identifications have been confirmed by poll workers , are handed an electronic tablet through their car windows to cast ballots .
In a last-minute filing to the Supreme Court , litigious conservative Steven Hotze and Harris County Republicans state Rep. Steve Toth , congressional candidate Wendell Champion and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the votes declared illegal .
They argued that the drive-thru program was an expansion of curbside voting and under state election law should only be available for voters with disabilities .
The same argument had been made in an unsuccessful previous legal challenge from Hotze and Hemphill — along with the Harris County Republican Party — filed at the state Supreme Court hours before early voting began .
Curbside voting , long available under Texas election law , requires workers at every polling place to deliver onsite curbside ballots to voters who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place without personal assistance or likelihood of injuring the voter 's health . ''
Posted signs at polling sites notify voters to ring a bell , call a number or honk to request curbside assistance .
The Harris County Clerk 's Office argued that its drive-thru locations are separate polling places , distinct from attached curbside spots , and therefore can be available to all voters .
The clerk 's filing with the Supreme Court in the earlier lawsuit also said the Texas secretary of state 's office had approved of drive-thru voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief election official , said in a court hearing last month in another lawsuit that drive-thru voting is “ a creative approach that is probably okay legally , '' according to court transcripts .
Plus , the county argued in a Friday filing that Texas ' election code , along with court rulings , have determined that even if the drive-thru locations are violations , votes cast there are still valid .
`` More than a century of Texas case law requires that votes be counted even if election official [ s ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filing said .
The challenge was the latest in a flurry of lawsuits on Texas voting procedures filed in recent months , with Democrats and voting rights groups pushing for expanded voting access in the pandemic and Republicans seeking to limit voting options .
In this case , the lawsuit filed Tuesday asked the state Supreme Court to close Harris County 's 10 new drive-thru polling places and not count votes that had been cast at them during early voting .
The court has recently ruled against other last-minute challenges on voting access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too late and that changes to voting procedure during an election would sow voter confusion .
Since the first Republican challenge to drive-thru voting was filed on Oct. 12 , the Texas secretary of state and Gov .
Greg Abbott had both ignored requests from reporters and Harris County officials to clarify their positions on whether the process was legal .
Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sent a letter to all local election officials claiming that most voters ca n't legally vote at drive-thru locations , fueling speculation that the all-Republican Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots already cast .
The court rejected the case the next week , with a lone dissent from Justice John Devine .
The new challenge by Republicans again asked the court to reject drive-thru voting as an illegal expansion of curbside voting , and went further by also asking the court to issue an order rejecting votes already cast .
“ Unless stopped , illegal votes will be cast and counted in direct violation of the Texas Election Code and the United States Constitution and result in the integrity of elections in Harris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the court said .
The county clerk 's office countered that the first challenge to drive-thru voting had already been denied , and the second filing came much too late .
`` Hotze filed a petition contesting drive thru locations on the third day of early voting which this Court already denied , '' the clerk 's Friday filing said .
`` He filed this second petition two and a half weeks into early voting , six days before Election Day , and after fifty percent of registered voters have already voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes are still in flux , however , as the federal courts now weigh the issue .
Hotze and the others asked the district court this week to toss the votes , arguing the county 's implementation of drive-thru voting violates the U.S. Constitution .
The campaign of Texas ' Democratic U.S. Senate candidate , MJ Hegar , along with national Democratic campaign groups have asked to intervene in the lawsuit — following a national trend in Republican-led fights against voting expansions during the tumultuous election .
Disclosure : The Texas secretary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Texas Tribune , a nonprofit , nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members , foundations and corporate sponsors .
Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune 's journalism .
Find a complete list of them here .

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
A legal cloud hanging over nearly 127,000votes already cast in Harris County was at least temporarilylifted Sunday when the Texas Supreme Court rejected a request by several conservative Republican activists and candidates to preemptively throw out early balloting from drive-thru polling sites in the state's most populous, and largely Democratic, county.
The all-Republican court denied the request without an order or opinion, as justices did last month in a similar lawsuit brought by some of the same plaintiffs.
The Republican plaintiffs, however, are pursuing a similar lawsuit in federal court, hoping to get the votes thrown out by arguing that drive-thru voting violates the U.S. constitution. A hearing in that case is set for Monday morning in a Houston-based federal district court, one day before Election Day. A rejection of the votes would constitute a monumental disenfranchisement of voters — drive-thru ballots account for about 10% of all in-person ballots cast during early voting in Harris County.
After testing the approach during the July primary runoff with little controversy, Harris County, home to Houston, set up 10 drive-thru centers for the fall election to make early voting easier for people concerned about entering polling places during the pandemic. Voters pull up in their cars and, after their registrations and identifications have been confirmed by poll workers, are handed an electronic tablet through their car windows to cast ballots.
In a last-minute filing to the Supreme Court, litigious conservative Steven Hotze and Harris County Republicans state Rep. Steve Toth, congressional candidate Wendell Champion and judicial candidate Sharon Hemphill sought to have the votes declared illegal. They argued that the drive-thru program was an expansion of curbside voting and under state election law should only be available for voters with disabilities. The same argument had been made in an unsuccessful previous legal challenge from Hotze and Hemphill — along with the Harris County Republican Party — filed at the state Supreme Court hours before early voting began.
Curbside voting, long available under Texas election law, requires workers at every polling place to deliver onsite curbside ballots to voters who are “physically unable to enter the polling place without personal assistance or likelihood of injuring the voter's health." Posted signs at polling sites notify voters to ring a bell, call a number or honk to request curbside assistance.
The Harris County Clerk's Office argued that its drive-thru locations are separate polling places, distinct from attached curbside spots, and therefore can be available to all voters. The clerk's filing with the Supreme Court in the earlier lawsuit also said the Texas secretary of state's office had approved of drive-thru voting. Keith Ingram, the state's chief election official, said in a court hearing last month in another lawsuit that drive-thru voting is “a creative approach that is probably okay legally," according to court transcripts.
Plus, the county argued in a Friday filing that Texas' election code, along with court rulings, have determined that even if the drive-thru locations are violations, votes cast there are still valid.
"More than a century of Texas case law requires that votes be counted even if election official[s] violate directory election laws," the filing said.
The challenge was the latest in a flurry of lawsuits on Texas voting procedures filed in recent months, with Democrats and voting rights groups pushing for expanded voting access in the pandemic and Republicans seeking to limit voting options. In this case, the lawsuit filed Tuesday asked the state Supreme Court to close Harris County's 10 new drive-thru polling places and not count votes that had been cast at them during early voting.
The court has recently ruled against other last-minute challenges on voting access by noting that the cases were filed too late and that changes to voting procedure during an election would sow voter confusion.
Since the first Republican challenge to drive-thru voting was filed on Oct. 12, the Texas secretary of state and Gov. Greg Abbott had both ignored requests from reporters and Harris County officials to clarify their positions on whether the process was legal. Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sent a letter to all local election officials claiming that most voters can't legally vote at drive-thru locations, fueling speculation that the all-Republican Supreme Court would use the case to invalidate ballots already cast. The court rejected the case the next week, with a lone dissent from Justice John Devine.
The new challenge by Republicans again asked the court to reject drive-thru voting as an illegal expansion of curbside voting, and went further by also asking the court to issue an order rejecting votes already cast.
“Unless stopped, illegal votes will be cast and counted in direct violation of the Texas Election Code and the United States Constitution and result in the integrity of elections in Harris County being compromised," the petition to the court said.
The county clerk's office countered that the first challenge to drive-thru voting had already been denied, and the second filing came much too late.
"Hotze filed a petition contesting drive thru locations on the third day of early voting which this Court already denied," the clerk's Friday filing said. "He filed this second petition two and a half weeks into early voting, six days before Election Day, and after fifty percent of registered voters have already voted."
The tens of thousands of votes are still in flux, however, as the federal courts now weigh the issue. Hotze and the others asked the district court this week to toss the votes, arguing the county's implementation of drive-thru voting violates the U.S. Constitution. The campaign of Texas' Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, MJ Hegar, along with national Democratic campaigngroups have asked to intervene in the lawsuit — following a national trend in Republican-led fights against voting expansions during the tumultuous election.
Disclosure: The Texas secretary of state has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.


alternet--2020-11-01--Cognitive neuroscientist explains the 'illusory truth effect' — and how you can defend yourself from

Cognitive neuroscientist explains the 'illusory truth effect' — and how you can defend yourself from election disinformation

This article is excerpted from : Gleb Tsipursky and Tim Ward , Pro Truth : A Pragmatic Plan to Put Truth Back Into Politics ( Changemakers Books , 2020 ) .
Whenever you hear something repeated , it feels more true when you hear it repeated .
In other words , repetition makes any statement seem more true .
So anything you hear will feel more true each time you hear it again .
Do you see what I did there ?
Each of the three sentences above conveyed the same message .
Yet each time you read the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true .
Cognitive neuroscientists like myself call this the `` illusory truth effect . ''
Go back and recall your experience reading the first sentence .
It probably felt strange and disconcerting , perhaps with a tone of outrage , as in `` I do n't believe things more if they 're repeated ! ''
Reading the second sentence did not inspire such a strong reaction .
Your reaction to the third sentence was tame by comparison .
Why ?
Because of a phenomenon called `` cognitive fluency , '' meaning how easily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerability to deception in all areas of life – including to fake news and misinformation – revolves around cognitive fluency in one way or another .
Unfortunately , such misinformation can swing major elections , such as the 2016 Presidential election .
Fortunately , we can take a number of steps to address misinformation and make our public discourse and political system more truthful , in the 2020 election and beyond .
Our brains are lazy .
The more effort it takes to process information , the more uncomfortable we feel about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
By contrast , the more we like certain data and are comfortable with it , the more we feel that it 's accurate .
This intuitive feeling in our gut is what we use to judge what 's true and false .
Yet no matter how often you heard that you should trust your gut and follow your intuition , that advice is wrong .
You should not trust your gut when evaluating information where you do n't have expert-level knowledge , at least when you do n't want to screw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ processes help us avoid the numerous errors we make when we follow our intuition .
And even experts can make serious errors when they do n't rely on such decision aids .
These mistakes happen due to mental errors that scholars call `` cognitive biases . ''
The illusory truth effect is one of these mental blindspots ; there are over 100 altogether .
These mental blindspots impact all areas of our life , from health and politics to relationships and even shopping .
The Danger of Cognitive Fluency and Illusory Truth We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , without outside intervention .
It 's especially difficult to protect ourselves against those who know how to manipulate us .
Unfortunately , the purveyors of misinformation excel at exploiting our cognitive biases to get us to buy into fake news .
Consider the illusory truth effect .
Our vulnerability to it stems from how our brain processes novel stimuli .
The first time we hear something new to us , it 's difficult to process mentally .
It has to integrate with our existing knowledge framework , and we have to build @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Doing so feels uncomfortable for our lazy brain , so the statement that we heard seems difficult to swallow to us .
Next time we hear that same thing , our mind does n't have to build new pathways .
It just has to go down the same ones it built earlier .
Granted , those pathways are little more than trails , newly laid down and barely used .
It 's hard to travel down that newly-established neural path , but much easier than when your brain had to lay down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the statement is somewhat easier to swallow .
Each repetition widens and deepens the trail .
Each time you hear the same thing , it feels more true , comfortable , and intuitive .
Does it work for information that seems very unlikely ?
Science says yes !
Researchers found that the illusory truth effect applies strongly to implausible as well as plausible statements .
What about if you know better ?
Surely prior knowledge prevents this illusory truth !
Unfortunately not : even if you know better , research shows you 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though less than those who do n't have prior knowledge .
Sadly , people who are predisposed to more elaborate and sophisticated thinking – likely you , if you 're reading the article – are more likely to fall for the illusory truth effect .
And guess what : more sophisticated thinkers are also likelier than less sophisticated ones to fall for the cognitive bias known as the bias blind spot , where you ignore your own cognitive biases .
So if you think that cognitive biases such as the illusory truth effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're likely deluding yourself .
That 's why the purveyors of misinformation rely on repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again .
They know that despite fact-checking , their repetition will sway people , even some of those who think they 're invulnerable .
In fact , believing that you 're invulnerable will make you more likely to fall for this and other cognitive biases , since you wo n't be taking the steps necessary to address them .
What are some other cognitive biases you need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any cognitive biases , you 've likely heard of the `` confirmation bias . ''
That refers to our tendency to look for and interpret information in ways that conform to our prior beliefs , intuitions , feelings , desires , and preferences , as opposed to the facts .
Again , cognitive fluency deserves blame .
It 's much easier to build neural pathways to information that we already possess , especially that around which we have strong emotions ; it 's much more difficult to break well-established neural pathways if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new information .
Consequently , we instead look for information that 's easy to accept , that which fits our prior beliefs .
In turn , we ignore and even actively reject information that does n't fit our beliefs .
Moreover , the more educated we are , the more likely we are to engage in such active rejection .
After all , our smarts give us more ways of arguing against new information that counters our beliefs .
That 's why research demonstrates that the more educated you are , the more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues that have religious or political value overtones , such as stem cell research , human evolution , and climate change .
Where might you be letting your smarts get in the way of the facts ?
Our minds like to interpret the world through stories , meaning explanatory narratives that link cause and effect in a clear and simple manner .
Such stories are a balm to our cognitive fluency , as our mind constantly looks for patterns that explain the world around us in an easy-to-process manner .
That leads to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we fall for convincing-sounding narratives regardless of the facts , especially if the story fits our predispositions and our emotions .
You ever wonder why politicians tell so many stories ?
What about the advertisements you see on TV or video advertisements on websites , which tell very quick visual stories ?
How about salespeople or fundraisers ?
Sure , sometimes they cite statistics and scientific reports , but they spend much , much more time telling stories : simple , clear , compelling narratives that seem to make sense and tug at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something that 's actually true : the world does n't make sense .
The world is not simple , clear , and compelling .
The world is complex , confusing , and contradictory .
Beware of simple stories !
Look for complex , confusing , and contradictory scientific reports and high-quality statistics : they 're much more likely to contain the truth than the easy-to-process stories .
Unfortunately , knowledge only weakly protects us from cognitive biases ; it 's important , but far from sufficient , as the study I cited earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What can we do ?
You can use decision aid strategies to address cognitive biases , not only to defend yourself from misinformation , but also overcome the tide of misinformation destroying our democracy .
One of the most effective strategies is to build up a habit of automatically considering alternative possibilities to any claim you hear , especially claims that feel comfortable to you .
Since our lazy brain 's default setting is to avoid questioning claims , which required hard thinking , it really helps to develop a mental practice of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspicious of repeated claims that favor your side 's positions without any additional evidence , which play on the illusory truth effect and the confirmation bias combined .
Make sure to fact-check them with reliable fact-checking organizations , rather than accepting them because it feels good and right to do so .
Another effective strategy involves cultivating a mental habit of questioning stories in particular .
Whenever you hear a story , the brain goes into a listening and accepting mode .
Remember that it 's very easy to cherry-pick stories to support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , look for thorough hard numbers , statistical evidence , and peer-reviewed research to support claims .
More broadly , you can make a personal commitment to the twelve truth-oriented behaviors of the Pro-Truth Pledge by signing the pledge at ProTruthPledge.org .
All of these behaviors stem from cognitive neuroscience and behavioral economics research in the field called debiasing , which refers to counterintuitive , uncomfortable , but effective strategies to protect yourself from cognitive biases .
Peer-reviewed research has shown that taking the Pro-Truth Pledge is effective for changing people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both in their own statements and in interactions with others .
These quick mental habits will address the most fundamentally flawed aspects of our mind 's tendency to accept misinformation .
Dr. Gleb Tsipursky is a cognitive neuroscientist and behavioral economist passionate about promoting truth , rational thinking , and wise decision-making .
A civic activist and philanthropist , he 's the volunteer President of the Board of the nonprofit Intentional Insights and co-founded the Pro-Truth Pledge .
Professionally , he serves as the CEO of the consulting , coaching , speaking , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He 's a best-selling author of a number of books , most notably Pro Truth : A Pragmatic Plan to Put Truth Back Into Politics ( Changemakers Books , 2020 ) , as well as the national bestsellers The Truth Seeker 's Handbook : A Science-Based Guide and Resilience : Adapt and Plan for the New Abnormal of the COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic .
He published over 550 articles and gave over 450 interviews for prominent venues such as Time , Scientific American , Psychology Today , The Conversation , Inc. Magazine , CNBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and elsewhere .
His expertise stems from his research background with over 15 years in academia , including 7 years as a professor at the Ohio State University , where he published dozens of peer-reviewed articles in academic journals such as Behavior and Social Issues and Journal of Social and Political Psychology .

This article is excerpted from: Gleb Tsipursky and Tim Ward, Pro Truth: A Pragmatic Plan to Put Truth Back Into Politics (Changemakers Books, 2020).
Whenever you hear something repeated, it feels more true when you hear it repeated. In other words, repetition makes any statement seem more true. So anything you hear will feel more true each time you hear it again.
Do you see what I did there? Each of the three sentences above conveyed the same message. Yet each time you read the next sentence, it felt more and more true. Cognitive neuroscientists like myself call this the "illusory truth effect."
Go back and recall your experience reading the first sentence. It probably felt strange and disconcerting, perhaps with a tone of outrage, as in "I don't believe things more if they're repeated!"
Reading the second sentence did not inspire such a strong reaction. Your reaction to the third sentence was tame by comparison.
Why? Because of a phenomenon called "cognitive fluency," meaning how easily we process information. Much of our vulnerability to deception in all areas of life – including to fake news and misinformation – revolves around cognitive fluency in one way or another.
Unfortunately, such misinformation can swing major elections, such as the 2016 Presidential election. Fortunately, we can take a number of steps to address misinformation and make our public discourse and political system more truthful, in the 2020 election and beyond.
The Lazy Brain
Our brains are lazy. The more effort it takes to process information, the more uncomfortable we feel about it and the more we dislike and distrust it.
By contrast, the more we like certain data and are comfortable with it, the more we feel that it's accurate. This intuitive feeling in our gut is what we use to judge what's true and false.
Yet no matter how often you heard that you should trust your gut and follow your intuition, that advice is wrong. You should not trust your gut when evaluating information where you don't have expert-level knowledge, at least when you don't want to screw up. Structured information gathering and decision-making processes help us avoid the numerous errors we make when we follow our intuition. And even experts can make serious errors when they don't rely on such decision aids.
These mistakes happen due to mental errors that scholars call "cognitive biases." The illusory truth effect is one of these mental blindspots; there are over 100 altogether. These mental blindspots impact all areas of our life, from health and politics to relationships and even shopping.
The Danger of Cognitive Fluency and Illusory Truth
We already make plenty of mistakes by ourselves, without outside intervention. It's especially difficult to protect ourselves against those who know how to manipulate us. Unfortunately, the purveyors of misinformation excel at exploiting our cognitive biases to get us to buy into fake news.
Consider the illusory truth effect. Our vulnerability to it stems from how our brain processes novel stimuli. The first time we hear something new to us, it's difficult to process mentally. It has to integrate with our existing knowledge framework, and we have to build new neural pathways to make that happen. Doing so feels uncomfortable for our lazy brain, so the statement that we heard seems difficult to swallow to us.
Next time we hear that same thing, our mind doesn't have to build new pathways. It just has to go down the same ones it built earlier. Granted, those pathways are little more than trails, newly laid down and barely used. It's hard to travel down that newly-established neural path, but much easier than when your brain had to lay down that trail. As a result, the statement is somewhat easier to swallow.
Each repetition widens and deepens the trail. Each time you hear the same thing, it feels more true, comfortable, and intuitive.
Does it work for information that seems very unlikely? Science says yes! Researchers found that the illusory truth effect applies strongly to implausible as well as plausible statements.
What about if you know better? Surely prior knowledge prevents this illusory truth! Unfortunately not: even if you know better, research shows you're still vulnerable to this cognitive bias, though less than those who don't have prior knowledge.
Sadly, people who are predisposed to more elaborate and sophisticated thinking – likely you, if you're reading the article – are more likely to fall for the illusory truth effect. And guess what: more sophisticated thinkers are also likelier than less sophisticated ones to fall for the cognitive bias known as the bias blind spot, where you ignore your own cognitive biases. So if you think that cognitive biases such as the illusory truth effect don't apply to you, you're likely deluding yourself.
That's why the purveyors of misinformation rely on repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again. They know that despite fact-checking, their repetition will sway people, even some of those who think they're invulnerable. In fact, believing that you're invulnerable will make you more likely to fall for this and other cognitive biases, since you won't be taking the steps necessary to address them.
Other Important Cognitive Biases
What are some other cognitive biases you need to beware? If you've heard of any cognitive biases, you've likely heard of the "confirmation bias." That refers to our tendency to look for and interpret information in ways that conform to our prior beliefs, intuitions, feelings, desires, and preferences, as opposed to the facts.
Again, cognitive fluency deserves blame. It's much easier to build neural pathways to information that we already possess, especially that around which we have strong emotions; it's much more difficult to break well-established neural pathways if we need to change our mind based on new information. Consequently, we instead look for information that's easy to accept, that which fits our prior beliefs. In turn, we ignore and even actively reject information that doesn't fit our beliefs.
Moreover, the more educated we are, the more likely we are to engage in such active rejection. After all, our smarts give us more ways of arguing against new information that counters our beliefs. That's why research demonstrates that the more educated you are, the more polarized your beliefs will be around scientific issues that have religious or political value overtones, such as stem cell research, human evolution, and climate change. Where might you be letting your smarts get in the way of the facts?
Our minds like to interpret the world through stories, meaning explanatory narratives that link cause and effect in a clear and simple manner. Such stories are a balm to our cognitive fluency, as our mind constantly looks for patterns that explain the world around us in an easy-to-process manner. That leads to the "narrative fallacy," where we fall for convincing-sounding narratives regardless of the facts, especially if the story fits our predispositions and our emotions.
You ever wonder why politicians tell so many stories? What about the advertisements you see on TV or video advertisements on websites, which tell very quick visual stories? How about salespeople or fundraisers? Sure, sometimes they cite statistics and scientific reports, but they spend much, much more time telling stories: simple, clear, compelling narratives that seem to make sense and tug at our heartstrings.
Now, here's something that's actually true: the world doesn't make sense. The world is not simple, clear, and compelling. The world is complex, confusing, and contradictory. Beware of simple stories! Look for complex, confusing, and contradictory scientific reports and high-quality statistics: they're much more likely to contain the truth than the easy-to-process stories.
Fixing Our Brains
Unfortunately, knowledge only weakly protects us from cognitive biases; it's important, but far from sufficient, as the study I cited earlier on the illusory truth effect reveals.
What can we do? You can use decision aid strategies to address cognitive biases, not only to defend yourself from misinformation, but also overcome the tide of misinformation destroying our democracy.
One of the most effective strategies is to build up a habit of automatically considering alternative possibilities to any claim you hear, especially claims that feel comfortable to you. Since our lazy brain's default setting is to avoid questioning claims, which required hard thinking, it really helps to develop a mental practice of going against this default.
Be especially suspicious of repeated claims that favor your side's positions without any additional evidence, which play on the illusory truth effect and the confirmation bias combined. Make sure to fact-check them with reliable fact-checking organizations, rather than accepting them because it feels good and right to do so.
Another effective strategy involves cultivating a mental habit of questioning stories in particular. Whenever you hear a story, the brain goes into a listening and accepting mode. Remember that it's very easy to cherry-pick stories to support whatever position the narrator wants to advance. Instead, look for thorough hard numbers, statistical evidence, and peer-reviewed research to support claims.
More broadly, you can make a personal commitment to the twelve truth-oriented behaviors of the Pro-Truth Pledge by signing the pledge at ProTruthPledge.org. All of these behaviors stem from cognitive neuroscience and behavioral economics research in the field called debiasing, which refers to counterintuitive, uncomfortable, but effective strategies to protect yourself from cognitive biases. Peer-reviewed research has shown that taking the Pro-Truth Pledge is effective for changing people's behavior to be more truthful, both in their own statements and in interactions with others.
These quick mental habits will address the most fundamentally flawed aspects of our mind's tendency to accept misinformation.
Dr. Gleb Tsipursky is a cognitive neuroscientist and behavioral economist passionate about promoting truth, rational thinking, and wise decision-making. A civic activist and philanthropist, he's the volunteer President of the Board of the nonprofit Intentional Insights and co-founded the Pro-Truth Pledge. Professionally, he serves as the CEO of the consulting, coaching, speaking, and training firm Disaster Avoidance Experts. He's a best-selling author of a number of books, most notably Pro Truth: A Pragmatic Plan to Put Truth Back Into Politics (Changemakers Books, 2020), as well as the national bestsellers The Truth Seeker's Handbook: A Science-Based Guide and Resilience: Adapt and Plan for the New Abnormal of the COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic. He published over 550 articles and gave over 450 interviews for prominent venues such as Time,Scientific American, Psychology Today, The Conversation, Inc. Magazine, CNBC, CBS News, NPR, Newsweek, and elsewhere. His expertise stems from his research background with over 15 years in academia, including 7 years as a professor at the Ohio State University, where he published dozens of peer-reviewed articles in academic journals such as Behavior and Social Issues and Journal of Social and Political Psychology.


alternet--2020-11-01--Another White House super-spreader event: Trump to 'celebrate' Election Night with 'roughly 400 peop

Another White House super-spreader event: Trump to 'celebrate' Election Night with 'roughly 400 people' in East Room party

President Donald Trump will be celebrating Election Day evening with hundreds of supporters invited to a party at the White @ @ @ @ @ yet another display of erasing the line between politics and governing , and ignoring CDC @ @ @ @ @ masks .
The New York Times 's Maggie Haberman on Sunday reports Trump `` aides @ @ @ @ @ people . ''
The President had planned to watch the results from his Trump Hotel @ @ @ @ @ , but Washington , D.C. laws prohibit gatherings of more than 50 people during the @ @ @ @ @ this week found 18 of Trump 's recent rallies are directly responsible for 700 coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ cases .

President Donald Trump will be celebrating Election Day evening with hundreds of supporters invited to a party at the White House East Room, in yet another display of erasing the line between politics and governing, and ignoring CDC coronavirus guidance on gatherings and masks.
The New York Times's Maggie Haberman on Sunday reports Trump "aides are discussing inviting roughly 400 people."
The President had planned to watch the results from his Trump Hotel at the Old Post Office, but Washington, D.C. laws prohibit gatherings of more than 50 people during the COVID-19 pandemic.
A study this week found 18 of Trump's recent rallies are directly responsible for 700 coronavirus deaths and 30,000 new COVID-19 cases.


alternet--2020-11-01--Susan Collins backed down from a fight with private equity. Now they’re underwriting her reelection

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
In late November 2017 , Senate Republicans were racing to secure the votes for their sweeping tax overhaul .
With no Democrats supporting the bill and even some Republicans wavering , Sen. Susan Collins , the Maine Republican , found herself with enormous leverage .
The day before the vote , she offered an amendment to make the legislation , which lavished tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy , more equitable .
It expanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more affordable .
To pay for it , she took aim at a tax break cherished by the private equity industry .
Then Collins backed down .
The day after she introduced it , as the Senate voted on the bill , a Republican Senate aide told a Treasury Department official that Collins was “ no longer offering her amendment , '' according to emails obtained by ProPublica through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit .
Her retreat was a significant victory for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell .
Collins put aside her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which passed 51-49 .
Her turnabout has been one of the mysteries surrounding the $ 1.5 trillion tax bill , which slashed the corporate rate .
The new emails and interviews shed light on how quickly Collins climbed down from her amendment proposal and how the industry maneuvered to preserve the break in the new law , which remains President Donald Trump 's most important legislative achievement .
Nearly three years later , Collins is facing a tough reelection battle and the private equity industry has become her most reliable source of donations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a million dollars in campaign contributions from the private equity industry this cycle , more than any other senator , according to the Center for Responsive Politics , which tracks political donations .
What 's more , Steve Schwarzman , the billionaire chairman and chief executive of the private equity giant Blackstone , has given $ 2 million to a super PAC backing her .
( Schwarzman , a major Republican donor , has also given $ 20 million to a super PAC supporting Collins and other Republican Senate candidates . )
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schwarzman alone tens of millions of dollars in taxes , according to tax experts .
Annie Clark , a Collins campaign spokeswoman , said Collins secured other significant changes to the bill .
The amendment cutting carried interest stood no chance because it would 've required 60 votes to pass if the Senate had voted on it , she said .
“ Given the opposition to the amendment at the time — not only from Republicans , but from Democrats as well — it would certainly have failed , '' Clark said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a statement , “ Steve has long supported Senator Collins because of her independence , hard work and integrity .
He does not closely follow all of her specific policy positions . ''
The carried interest loophole , as its critics , including Collins , have called it , has long been the target of reform efforts .
The tax break is especially lucrative for the private equity industry , which invests in non-public businesses .
A major way that executives at private equity firms like Blackstone make money is by taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they invest in are sold .
The debate over carried interest centers on how this money should be taxed : as an investment return for private equity executives or a bonus that the firm 's clients pay for good performance .
Today , it 's treated like an investment and taxed at a lower capital gains rate .
If it were counted as a bonus , it would be taxed like part of the executives ' salaries , at the higher ordinary income tax rate .
That discount — currently around 20 percentage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owe to the government quickly adds up to tens of billions of dollars .
When Trump became president and Republicans started pursuing an overhaul of the tax code , private equity had reason to be worried .
The party had a long wish list of tax cuts but a limited number of ways to pay for them without increasing the deficit by more than Senate rules allowed , $ 1.5 trillion over 10 years .
Eliminating carried interest , as Trump had proposed , was one of them .
And the tax break @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama administration made an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to raise the carried interest tax rate , an effort that Schwarzman famously compared to the Nazis invading Poland .
( He later apologized for the analogy . )
Trump himself repeatedly complained about carried interest during his presidential campaign .
“ These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky , '' he said in 2015 .
“ They are paper-pushers .
They make a fortune .
They pay no tax .
It 's ridiculous , OK ? ''
To blunt the effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry 's Washington trade group , proposed a concession it hoped would mollify lawmakers who might consider killing the loophole .
AIC pitched House Republicans on modestly extending the amount of time that hedge funds , private equity firms and others must hold onto investments to qualify for the tax break , according to three people familiar with the matter .
That 's exactly what happened .
Rep. Kevin Brady , R-Texas , the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee , proposed tweaking carried interest rather than eliminating it .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to three years — a change that tax experts say does little to close the loophole .
“ It 's laughable .
Almost nobody will end up paying any additional tax .
Tax planners have a million ways to Sunday to try to avoid it , some more legitimate than others , and the IRS is notoriously inept at auditing these types of issues , '' said Gregg Polsky , a former corporate tax lawyer who is now a professor at University of Georgia law school .
But the loophole still faced a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a senator who might come after carried interest , according to two people familiar with the matter , and on Nov. 30 , Collins spoke on the Senate floor to pitch a handful of amendments to the bill .
One priority , she said , was to alleviate the burden on poor families of the costs of care for children or elderly relatives .
And to raise money for this new government subsidy , she would roll back Wall Street 's carried interest tax break .
“ These are the lowest income families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for child care or care for a dependent , elderly parent or grandparent or other relative ; yet virtually none of them qualify for the credit , '' Collins said .
“ To pay for making the child and adult dependent care credit refundable , my amendment would close the carried interest loophole , a tax reform that the president has endorsed . ''
Collins ' staff had reached out to academics who specialize in the arcane details of carried interest to help them craft the legislative language , according to one Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the holding period from three years , as Brady has proposed , to eight — which , experts say , would have significantly eroded the tax break 's value .
As the Senate was moving toward passing the bill the day after Collins pitched her amendment , Drew Maloney , the Treasury Department 's assistant secretary for legislative affairs , emailed the chief of staff to Sen .
Rob Portman , R-Ohio , asking what had “ happened with carried interest . ''
“ Collins no longer offering her amendment , '' replied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Isakowitz .
Collins “ [ c ] ame up with a different pay for to fund her medical expense deduction so she is n't offering it any more , '' Isakowitz continued .
It 's unclear exactly what Isakowitz meant ; he appears to have conflated Collins ' amendment to expand the child and dependent tax credit — for which closing the carried interest loophole was a “ pay for , '' Washington jargon for a revenue-generating measure that offsets a tax cut — with another amendment she proposed retaining a tax deduction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threshold necessary to claim it .
Maloney declined to comment .
So did Isakowitz , who now runs Google 's Washington office .
It 's not clear exactly why Collins dropped her last-minute , long-shot attempt to kill carried interest .
Three other amendments that Collins introduced on the same day made it into the bill , including an expansion of the medical expense tax deduction and preserving taxpayers ' ability to deduct up to $ 10,000 in state and local income taxes from their federal tax returns .
Clark , Collins ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support closing the carried interest loophole to pay for an expansion of the child and dependent care tax credit , but the lack of support for it at the time meant the amendment “ had absolutely no chance '' of making it into the bill .
“ Any claim that Senator Collins did n't pursue this amendment because of any lobbying effort is completely false , '' she said .
“ Anyone who knows her knows that she always does what she thinks is right .
Any insinuation to the contrary is false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
Maloney , who , internal Treasury emails show , kept close tabs on the carried interest issue throughout 2017 , left the administration six months after the tax overhaul passed to take a job running the American Investment Council , the private equity trade group .
He later hired Brad Bailey , another top Treasury Department official , to work as one of the trade group 's lobbyists .
Another Treasury Department official , Jared Sawyer , has lobbied for AIC since leaving the administration to take a job at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin , who was deeply involved in the tax overhaul , left government last year to become a government relations executive at Blackstone .
While Collins ' Democratic opponent , Sara Gideon , has outraised Collins ' campaign , Wall Street billionaires have stepped up to boost the pro-Collins 1820 PAC , which can accept unlimited donations and has spentheavily on TV and other ads .
Schwarzman is the group 's single-largest donor .
Behind him is Ken Griffin of Chicago hedge fund giant Citadel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million .
Citadel 's lobbying disclosures show the firm lobbied Congress on the carried interest issue in 2017 , as well as the broader tax bill .
A Citadel spokesman pointed to Griffin 's comments several years ago on carried interest .
“ Almost all the income that we generate is short term in nature , '' Griffin said in 2013 .
“ So my tax rate is pretty much the highest federal marginal rate .
So I do n't have a lot of skin in the game on this issue from my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest in this as a matter of principle . ''
Griffin then said he believed the current favorable tax treatment of carried interest should be maintained .
Gideon has no similar outside group supporting her and her campaign has received $ 242,000 in donations from people who work in private equity , according to the Center for Responsive Politics .
A narrow favorite in the race , Gideon has attacked Collins for her support of the tax overhaul .
In December 2017 , when it became clear that , despite the president 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaningfully address carried interest , Axios ' Mike Allen asked Gary Cohn , the director of Trump 's National Economic Council , what he would change about the bill if he could change one thing .
“ We would 've cut carried interest , '' he replied .
“ We hit opposition in that big white building with the dome at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue every time we tried . ''
When Allen pressed Cohn to explain what had happened , he alluded to the power that hedge funds , private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Look , the reality of this town is that constituency has a very large presence in the House and the Senate , and they have really strong relationships on both sides of the aisle , '' he said .
Now the industry is preparing to fight the same battle again .
Joe Biden has proposed raising capital gains taxes for those who make at least $ 1 million a year to equal the income tax rate , effectively eliminating the carried interest loophole for the richest Americans .
Biden 's plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have dented his support from private equity .
Jon Gray , Blackstone 's president , hosted a fundraiser for Biden in July and introduced him at another one earlier this year .
Tony James , another top Blackstone executive , hosted one in June .
( Gray and James have also given a combined $ 2.25 million to the Senate Majority PAC , which supports Democratic Senate candidates including Gideon . )
And Alex Katz , a former aide to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer who now works in government relations for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's transition effort .
The Biden campaign declined to comment .

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
In late November 2017, Senate Republicans were racing to secure the votes for their sweeping tax overhaul. With no Democrats supporting the bill and even some Republicans wavering, Sen. Susan Collins, the Maine Republican, found herself with enormous leverage.
The day before the vote, she offered an amendment to make the legislation, which lavished tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy, more equitable. It expanded a tax credit to make child care more affordable. To pay for it, she took aim at a tax break cherished by the private equity industry.
Then Collins backed down. The day after she introduced it, as the Senate voted on the bill, a Republican Senate aide told a Treasury Department official that Collins was “no longer offering her amendment," according to emails obtained by ProPublica through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Her retreat was a significant victory for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Collins put aside her opposition and voted for the bill, which passed 51-49.
Her turnabout has been one of the mysteries surrounding the $1.5 trillion tax bill, which slashed the corporate rate. The new emails and interviews shed light on how quickly Collins climbed down from her amendment proposal and how the industry maneuvered to preserve the break in the new law, which remains President Donald Trump's most important legislative achievement.
Nearly three years later, Collins is facing a tough reelection battle and the private equity industry has become her most reliable source of donations. She has gotten more than half a million dollars in campaign contributions from the private equity industry this cycle, more than any other senator, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political donations.
What's more, Steve Schwarzman, the billionaire chairman and chief executive of the private equity giant Blackstone, has given $2 million to a super PAC backing her. (Schwarzman, a major Republican donor, has also given $20 million to a super PAC supporting Collins and other Republican Senate candidates.) The failure of Collins' amendment likely saved Schwarzman alone tens of millions of dollars in taxes, according to tax experts.
Annie Clark, a Collins campaign spokeswoman, said Collins secured other significant changes to the bill. The amendment cutting carried interest stood no chance because it would've required 60 votes to pass if the Senate had voted on it, she said.
“Given the opposition to the amendment at the time — not only from Republicans, but from Democrats as well — it would certainly have failed," Clark said in a statement.
A Schwarzman spokeswoman said in a statement, “Steve has long supported Senator Collins because of her independence, hard work and integrity. He does not closely follow all of her specific policy positions."
The carried interest loophole, as its critics, including Collins, have called it, has long been the target of reform efforts.
The tax break is especially lucrative for the private equity industry, which invests in non-public businesses. A major way that executives at private equity firms like Blackstone make money is by taking a share of profits when the companies they invest in are sold.
The debate over carried interest centers on how this money should be taxed: as an investment return for private equity executives or a bonus that the firm's clients pay for good performance. Today, it's treated like an investment and taxed at a lower capital gains rate. If it were counted as a bonus, it would be taxed like part of the executives' salaries, at the higher ordinary income tax rate. That discount — currently around 20 percentage points — in what Wall Street executives owe to the government quickly adds up to tens of billions of dollars.
When Trump became president and Republicans started pursuing an overhaul of the tax code, private equity had reason to be worried. The party had a long wish list of tax cuts but a limited number of ways to pay for them without increasing the deficit by more than Senate rules allowed, $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Eliminating carried interest, as Trump had proposed, was one of them.
And the tax break had faced years of opposition. The Obama administration made an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to raise the carried interest tax rate, an effort that Schwarzman famously compared to the Nazis invading Poland. (He later apologized for the analogy.)
Trump himself repeatedly complained about carried interest during his presidential campaign. “These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky," he said in 2015. “They are paper-pushers. They make a fortune. They pay no tax. It's ridiculous, OK?"
To blunt the effort, the American Investment Council, the industry's Washington trade group, proposed a concession it hoped would mollify lawmakers who might consider killing the loophole. AIC pitched House Republicans on modestly extending the amount of time that hedge funds, private equity firms and others must hold onto investments to qualify for the tax break, according to three people familiar with the matter.
That's exactly what happened. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, proposed tweaking carried interest rather than eliminating it. The holding period would change from one year to three years — a change that tax experts say does little to close the loophole.
“It's laughable. Almost nobody will end up paying any additional tax. Tax planners have a million ways to Sunday to try to avoid it, some more legitimate than others, and the IRS is notoriously inept at auditing these types of issues," said Gregg Polsky, a former corporate tax lawyer who is now a professor at University of Georgia law school.
But the loophole still faced a threat. AIC had identified Collins as a senator who might come after carried interest, according to two people familiar with the matter, and on Nov. 30, Collins spoke on the Senate floor to pitch a handful of amendments to the bill.
One priority, she said, was to alleviate the burden on poor families of the costs of care for children or elderly relatives. And to raise money for this new government subsidy, she would roll back Wall Street's carried interest tax break.
“These are the lowest income families who need help the most in paying for child care or care for a dependent, elderly parent or grandparent or other relative; yet virtually none of them qualify for the credit," Collins said. “To pay for making the child and adult dependent care credit refundable, my amendment would close the carried interest loophole, a tax reform that the president has endorsed."
Collins' staff had reached out to academics who specialize in the arcane details of carried interest to help them craft the legislative language, according to one Senate tax aide. She settled on upping the holding period from three years, as Brady has proposed, to eight — which, experts say, would have significantly eroded the tax break's value.
As the Senate was moving toward passing the bill the day after Collins pitched her amendment, Drew Maloney, the Treasury Department's assistant secretary for legislative affairs, emailed the chief of staff to Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, asking what had “happened with carried interest."
“Collins no longer offering her amendment," replied Portman's chief of staff, Mark Isakowitz.
Collins “[c]ame up with a different pay for to fund her medical expense deduction so she isn't offering it any more," Isakowitz continued.
It's unclear exactly what Isakowitz meant; he appears to have conflated Collins' amendment to expand the child and dependent tax credit — for which closing the carried interest loophole was a “pay for," Washington jargon for a revenue-generating measure that offsets a tax cut — with another amendment she proposed retaining a tax deduction for medical expenses and lowering the income threshold necessary to claim it.
Maloney declined to comment. So did Isakowitz, who now runs Google's Washington office.
It's not clear exactly why Collins dropped her last-minute, long-shot attempt to kill carried interest. Three other amendments that Collins introduced on the same day made it into the bill, including an expansion of the medical expense tax deduction and preserving taxpayers' ability to deduct up to $10,000 in state and local income taxes from their federal tax returns.
Clark, Collins' spokeswoman, said the senator continues to support closing the carried interest loophole to pay for an expansion of the child and dependent care tax credit, but the lack of support for it at the time meant the amendment “had absolutely no chance" of making it into the bill.
“Any claim that Senator Collins didn't pursue this amendment because of any lobbying effort is completely false," she said. “Anyone who knows her knows that she always does what she thinks is right. Any insinuation to the contrary is false — and an insult to her integrity."
Maloney, who, internal Treasury emails show, kept close tabs on the carried interest issue throughout 2017, left the administration six months after the tax overhaul passed to take a job running the American Investment Council, the private equity trade group. He later hired Brad Bailey, another top Treasury Department official, to work as one of the trade group's lobbyists.
Another Treasury Department official, Jared Sawyer, has lobbied for AIC since leaving the administration to take a job at a lobbying firm. And Eli Miller, the chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, who was deeply involved in the tax overhaul, left government last year to become a government relations executive at Blackstone.
While Collins' Democratic opponent, Sara Gideon, has outraised Collins' campaign, Wall Street billionaires have stepped up to boost the pro-Collins 1820 PAC, which can accept unlimited donations and has spentheavily on TV and other ads. Schwarzman is the group's single-largest donor. Behind him is Ken Griffin of Chicago hedge fund giant Citadel, who has chipped in $1.5 million.
Citadel's lobbying disclosures show the firm lobbied Congress on the carried interest issue in 2017, as well as the broader tax bill. A Citadel spokesman pointed to Griffin's comments several years ago on carried interest.
“Almost all the income that we generate is short term in nature," Griffin said in 2013. “So my tax rate is pretty much the highest federal marginal rate. So I don't have a lot of skin in the game on this issue from my personal vantage point but I have an interest in this as a matter of principle."
Griffin then said he believed the current favorable tax treatment of carried interest should be maintained.
Gideon has no similar outside group supporting her and her campaign has received $242,000 in donations from people who work in private equity, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. A narrow favorite in the race, Gideon has attacked Collins for her support of the tax overhaul.
In December 2017, when it became clear that, despite the president's promises, the tax bill would not meaningfully address carried interest, Axios' Mike Allen asked Gary Cohn, the director of Trump's National Economic Council, what he would change about the bill if he could change one thing.
“We would've cut carried interest," he replied. “We hit opposition in that big white building with the dome at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue every time we tried."
When Allen pressed Cohn to explain what had happened, he alluded to the power that hedge funds, private equity and venture capital wield in Washington. “Look, the reality of this town is that constituency has a very large presence in the House and the Senate, and they have really strong relationships on both sides of the aisle," he said.
Now the industry is preparing to fight the same battle again. Joe Biden has proposed raising capital gains taxes for those who make at least $1 million a year to equal the income tax rate, effectively eliminating the carried interest loophole for the richest Americans.
Biden's plan to kill carried interest does not appear to have dented his support from private equity.
Jon Gray, Blackstone's president, hosted a fundraiser for Biden in July and introduced him at another one earlier this year. Tony James, another top Blackstone executive, hosted one in June. (Gray and James have also given a combined $2.25 million to the Senate Majority PAC, which supports Democratic Senate candidates including Gideon.) And Alex Katz, a former aide to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer who now works in government relations for Blackstone, is raising money for Biden's transition effort.
The Biden campaign declined to comment.